Breaking. Prop 8.... struck down.

[g5000]

This isn't slavery, this isn't gays being forced into ghettos, this isn't gays being forced to ride in the back of the bus.

This is gays being denied equal protection of the law. Just because your intolerance manifests itself with a different mask, that simple straightforward fact does not change.

 

[Dr Grump]

and the primary reason marriage isn't now inclusive to gay couples, is due to bigotry and intolerance. We're not talking about some simple issue of morality here. This isn't slavery, this isn't gays being forced into ghettos, this isn't gays being forced to ride in the back of the bus.

Your last two sentences contradict your first (which ends with the bolded part

 

[Qball]

This isn't slavery, this isn't gays being forced into ghettos, this isn't gays being forced to ride in the back of the bus.

This is gays being denied equal protection of the law. Just because your intolerance manifests itself with a different mask, that simple straightforward fact does not change.

How are they being denied equal protection of the law? What are, say, straight people protected from that gay people aren't being protected from, just because they're gay?

and the primary reason marriage isn't now inclusive to gay couples, is due to bigotry and intolerance. We're not talking about some simple issue of morality here. This isn't slavery, this isn't gays being forced into ghettos, this isn't gays being forced to ride in the back of the bus.

Your last two sentences contradict your first (which ends with the bolded part

Did you intentionally take my statement out of context?

 

[g5000]

This isn't slavery, this isn't gays being forced into ghettos, this isn't gays being forced to ride in the back of the bus.

This is gays being denied equal protection of the law. Just because your intolerance manifests itself with a different mask, that simple straightforward fact does not change.

How are they being denied equal protection of the law? What are, say, straight people protected from that gay people aren't being protected from, just because they're gay?

Marriage for some people is protected by the law. It is not protected for gay people, simply because they are gay.

Are you really unaware of this? What topic do you think you are in?

 

[g5000]

For the profoundly ignorant who have been living in a cave: Legal Rights And Benefits of Marriage Laws, Info, & Legal Help | Library | MyFamilyLaw.com

More information at: http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/

The list is long, which is why I abbreviate them as "cash and prizes".

 

[Gadawg73]

Ehhhh.. wrong answer.. I do not want government to define marriage... I want individuals with the freedom to accept this couple or that couple as married or whatever all on their own... and only have government recognize family units for the purposes of taxation, legal contracts, legal power of attorney, inheritance, etc...

If a gay wants to go to this church or that institution or whatever else and wants to be deemed as marriage in whatever person's eyes.. so be it... but you do not force others to give up their freedom to see you differently because of your choice....

Again.. this whole movement is about forced recognition and acceptance... plain and simple....

Whether I recognize your union or Joe Schmoe accepts it or Jane Doe hates it or whatever should have nothing to do with law or government

What BS Dave.
"do not want force others to give up their freedom to see you differently because of your choice"
Gay marriage does that? Forces you to see someone differently because of their choice to marry?
That is beyond absurd. How does that force you to do a damn thing Dave.
Allowing gay marriage will force you to see someone else differently? LOL
Even if it did Dave, what harm is that and how was it forced on you and HOW THE HELL WOULD YOU KNOW ANYWAY?
Do you hang out at the Probate Court and record all marriages?
You would not even know that gays were getting married Dave. How is that any of your damn business anyway?

It becomes someone else's business when laws demand that everyone recognize that marriage as legal. Take that away, and 95% of all objections disappear also.

Who would force you to recognize anything?
How does legal straight marriages being legal affect your life?

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know.........since they've already repealed DADT, and the military has openly serving gay members, the marriage issue is just around the corner...........because marriage in the military means that you can draw BAQ and VHA, as well as have access to other services like ombudsman.

I give it around 5 years (or less) before gay marriage is allowed under our laws.

 

[Qball]

This is gays being denied equal protection of the law. Just because your intolerance manifests itself with a different mask, that simple straightforward fact does not change.

How are they being denied equal protection of the law? What are, say, straight people protected from that gay people aren't being protected from, just because they're gay?

Marriage for some people is protected by the law. It is not protected for gay people, simply because they are gay.

Are you really unaware of this?

Marriage for some people "protected" by the law? Say what? That's not what equal protection means, nor is it actually true. Equal protection 1) refers to laws that exist, 2) does not pertain to civil laws like the legal definition of marriage, and 3) essentially has nothing to do with protecting you from anything.

If the law is defined as man and woman, exactly how gays not included? If you try and receive a marriage license, is there a questionnaire in which they inquire about your sexual orientation? The law doesn't have to "protect" gay people on the basis of their choosing. It can still include them (in this case, because they still qualify as men and women).

 

[g5000]

Ehhhh.. wrong answer.. I do not want government to define marriage...

Too late. It already does. It has for a very, very long time.

I want individuals with the freedom to accept this couple or that couple as married or whatever all on their own... and only have government recognize family units for the purposes of taxation, legal contracts, legal power of attorney, inheritance, etc...

And that is all gays want! Equality under the law!

 

[Gadawg73]

Homosexuals still have "the right" to get married to each other by any church willing to perform the marriage. This "ban" doesn't change that in the slightest.

I don't believe that is true. In most states, if not all, you need a marriage license to get married, which is another encroachment of government that needs to be gotten rid of. We shouldn't need government permission to be married.

No it's not you crazy radical.

Just stop and think for a moment what are the modern implications of a marriage.

Think immigration. Think fraud.

What would happen if anyone could marry anyone with no government oversite?

How would immigration process all those "new citizens?"

That's just ONE aspect.

Snap out of your radical, make-believe, non-realistic, nonsensical, libertarian bubble!!

What government oversight is there now other than EXISTING criminal statutes if you want to get married?
How does allowing gay folk change those existing statutes?
They do not exempt gay folk if they get married as it is now.
Specifics please sir.

 

[g5000]

I think the stupidity of your logic is summed up here:

If the law is defined as man and woman, exactly how gays not included?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'll say two things:

1. This ruling is yet another example of right-wing "lies" and "fear-mongering" come to pass. The reason many people opposed to gay marriage also oppose civil unions is because they figured it wouldn't be seen as a compromise, it would be used to push the gay marriage agenda. Bullshit, they argued. Well, the narrow ruling argued that very premise. They said it was unconstitutional for a state to allow civil unions but withhold the title "marriage", and of course gay marriage supporters rejoice. But as I've said before, it's not fear-mongering if it's also the truth, and it's not a lie just because it hasn't happened yet.

I've read the ruling and that was not the basis of the ruling. The basis of the ruling was that same-sex couples had a right to Civil Marriage in California prior to the enactment of Prop 8 and that there was no rational reason for the government (i.e. the initiative process acting to create law) to revoke a right already held by a group. The reason was that all rights and responsibilities associated under California law existed under Civil Unions (which would be the status of same-sex couples if Prop 8 was to pass) so that all the arguments made by proponents were false - the only reason to pass Prop 8 was established as removing equal treatment under the law by calling the legal relationships the same thing.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2012/02/07/1016696com.pdf

2. The primary thing everyone needs to understand is that we don't define marriage as the union of a man and woman just because of hatred of gay people. There's nothing wrong with having a debate over gay marriage, and both sides making their case, and occasionally one side winning and one side losing. But it's wrong to just conclude, without any evidence, that the primary motivation for not wanting to alter marriage, and the primary reason marriage isn't now inclusive to gay couples, is due to bigotry and intolerance.

I don't tend to get into the "bigotry", "hate" and "intolerance" arguments.

We're not talking about some simple issue of morality here. This isn't slavery, this isn't gays being forced into ghettos, this isn't gays being forced to ride in the back of the bus.

Correct, we are a country founded on the ideals of liberty and freedom, we teach our children the Pledge of Allegiance which ends with "Liberty and Justice for All".

We are a country where morally speaking the ideals should exist that the government should not discriminate against it's citizens based on gender without a compelling government reason. The principle that people in like situated situations should be treated the same without discrimination simply because one segment of a population finds another segment "abominations", "icky", or just because they live their lives differently.

To date no one has really provided a compelling government reason why law abiding, tax paying, infertile, US Citizen, consenting, adults in a different-sex couple should be treated differently then law abiding, tax paying, infertile, US Citizen, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple.



>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

Ehhhh.. wrong answer.. I do not want government to define marriage...

Too late. It already does. It has for a very, very long time.

I want individuals with the freedom to accept this couple or that couple as married or whatever all on their own... and only have government recognize family units for the purposes of taxation, legal contracts, legal power of attorney, inheritance, etc...

And that is all gays want! Equality under the law!

g, Dave strikes me as no bigot or gay hater. Far from it.
He is one that will have a different opinion down the road. Give him time.

 

[g5000]

These are the laws of which gay marriages are currently not given full protection:
Legal Rights And Benefits of Marriage Laws, Info, & Legal Help | Library | MyFamilyLaw.com

Marriage Law - FindLaw

 

[WorldWatcher]

How are they being denied equal protection of the law? What are, say, straight people protected from that gay people aren't being protected from, just because they're gay?

None of the Civil Marriage laws are written in terms of sexual orientation, the discrimination is written in terms of gender.


>>>>

 

[g5000]

Ehhhh.. wrong answer.. I do not want government to define marriage...

Too late. It already does. It has for a very, very long time.

I want individuals with the freedom to accept this couple or that couple as married or whatever all on their own... and only have government recognize family units for the purposes of taxation, legal contracts, legal power of attorney, inheritance, etc...

And that is all gays want! Equality under the law!

g, Dave strikes me as no bigot or gay hater. Far from it.
He is one that will have a different opinion down the road. Give him time.

I believe a great number of people who are currently opposed to gay marriage will come to their senses. I, myself, voted against gay marriage in my state years ago. A vote I deeply regret today.

 

[Qball]

I think the stupidity of your logic is summed up here:

If the law is defined as man and woman, exactly how gays not included?

Usually people give terse answers like this when they've discovered they're wrong. Proposition 8 says, "only marriage between a man and woman shall be valid or recognized in the state of California". Notice it doesn't say anything about gay or straight. Meaning, gays aren't being denied anything...other than the "right" to get their way, which isn't a right at all.

 

[g5000]

How are they being denied equal protection of the law? What are, say, straight people protected from that gay people aren't being protected from, just because they're gay?

None of the Civil Marriage laws are written in terms of sexual orientation, the discrimination is written in terms of gender.


>>>>

That's very good. I never thought of it that way before.

It is kind of like sodomy laws in that respect. Sexual orientation is not specified, but you know who it is aimed at.

 

[WorldWatcher]

How are they being denied equal protection of the law? What are, say, straight people protected from that gay people aren't being protected from, just because they're gay?

Marriage for some people is protected by the law. It is not protected for gay people, simply because they are gay.

Are you really unaware of this?

Marriage for some people "protected" by the law? Say what? That's not what equal protection means, nor is it actually true. Equal protection 1) refers to laws that exist, 2) does not pertain to civil laws like the legal definition of marriage, and 3) essentially has nothing to do with protecting you from anything.

So the SCOTUS err'd when they ruled a violation of Equal Protection in the Loving v. Virginia case.

If the law is defined as man and woman, exactly how gays not included? If you try and receive a marriage license, is there a questionnaire in which they inquire about your sexual orientation? The law doesn't have to "protect" gay people on the basis of their choosing. It can still include them (in this case, because they still qualify as men and women).

Exactly, the technical law is written to discriminate couples based on gender.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

How are they being denied equal protection of the law? What are, say, straight people protected from that gay people aren't being protected from, just because they're gay?

None of the Civil Marriage laws are written in terms of sexual orientation, the discrimination is written in terms of gender.


>>>>

That's very good. I never thought of it that way before.

It is kind of like sodomy laws in that respect. Sexual orientation is not specified, but you know who it is aimed at.

Of course we know why they were written that way.


>>>>