Ca Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[Yurt]

Judge to people. Vote if ya want to. It don't matter. Election don't matter.

come on willow....are you saying that if prop 8 made slavery of blacks constitutional again, and it was overturned...you would feel the same way?

Nope, that's not what I"m saying. GEt real Yurt, What are the chances someone would put slavery up for a vote? They did however allow the citizens of California to vote not once but twice on this issue> They voted no. Now my understanding is that a "civil union" would cover everything the gay and lesbian community says it wants. Why does it have to be "marriage" which traditionally is a religious ceremony. Go to the court house and get hitched. Marriage is a religious ceremony between a man and a woman. Why isn't "civil unions" adequate in lieu of marriage?

i am real willow...i wouldn't have thought in today's day and age people would want to deny someone equal opportunity to marry....but lo and behold they do....hence, other discrimination might also be in the works

civil unions are not equal or the same as marriage....that is factual...feds don't recognize them and other states don't have to...marriage is equal and is no longer a solely religious ceremony....might take your own advice and get real willow...religion has been out of marriage for a long time, people get married by elvis in vegas

 

[Valerie]

Intra-gender marriage would be a special right, since gays currently have, and have always had, the same rights straights have to marry a person of the opposite sex.

Under that logic inter-racial marriage was also a special right.

No. One can't choose their skin color or their race or their gender. One man-one woman excludes no one, singles out no one.

Excludes women who have women for life partners and men who have men for life partners. DO you think the government should tell you who to live with if you want equal benefits of the law ?

 

[The Infidel]

I gotta say. If I were black, that argument would insult me no end.

why?

Because it compares being a homosexual to enslavement. That's a long damn walk.

Then you had better tell all the liberal idiot gays to stop comparing it to the civil rights movement of the 60's... The gays do it all the time.

 

[jillian]

Judge to people. Vote if ya want to. It don't matter. Election don't matter.

sp the people are the ones who decide what constitutional rights others have?

in other words 'courts? we don't need no stinking courts!;

 

[The Infidel]

Because the law calls it marriage and not civil unions, willow.

Sky, THE LAW defines marriage as "between a man and a woman." My question is if "civil unions" give you all the rights and privileges you seek why not agree to "civil unions" Nothing then to stop you from a "religious" or "spiritual" ceremony seperate from the union.

Yep.... what is wrong with civil union?

 

[Father Time]

It's been around for centuries as a union between a man and a woman. gays have been around for centuries, too. Suddenly they can't be happy unless they marry other gays?

I might just as easily ask why homosexuals suddenly feel they need special rights, but it doesn't matter. The question before the court will be the constitutionality of Prop 8. Kagan will not vote as Stevens would have. Or at least isn't expected to. We'll see.

how is it special rights to allow same genders to marry? they are the same rights YOU have to marry someone of a different gender....the need to exclude marriage based on gender is unconstitutional as scotus has declared that anti sodomy laws etc....are unconstitutional

you are actually advocating for special rights, that is, the special right to marry someone of your choosing, but you are notwilling to share that right with someone who chooses to marry someone of their own gender.

I will tell you how.... I cant marry someone of my gender either! (Im a heterosexual) How does that equate that I want special rights?
I am sick and tired of activists judges deciding to just nullify the will of the people by overturning their votes.

Dude the will of the people can and has been ruled unconstitutional for a while.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't most people support a ban on flag-burning when it was ruled unconstitutional?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Because the law calls it marriage and not civil unions, willow.

Sky, THE LAW defines marriage as "between a man and a woman." My question is if "civil unions" give you all the rights and privileges you seek why not agree to "civil unions" Nothing then to stop you from a "religious" or "spiritual" ceremony seperate from the union.

Civil unions do not give all the same rights and priveleges of marriage. Civil unions are 'marriage light'.

What are some of the differences between Civil Unions and Gay Marriage?

Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships. If someone has a Domestic Partnership, that union is not recognized by some states and not others. Some states have even ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in other states, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.

Immigration:

A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.

Taxes:

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.

Benefits:

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

 

[The Infidel]

Judge to people. Vote if ya want to. It don't matter. Election don't matter.

sp the people are the ones who decide what constitutional rights others have?

in other words 'courts? we don't need no stinking courts!;

No


THE CONSTITUTION DOES!!!!

There is nowhere in it that says gays can marry.

 

[LuckyDan]

Under that logic inter-racial marriage was also a special right.

No. One can't choose their skin color or their race or their gender. One man-one woman excludes no one, singles out no one.

Yes! Before that every race had the right to marry someone of the same race. Marrying someone of a different race would've been special rights using your logic.

Nuh uh. It would have been applying the law to all races equally.

Gotcha! Let's see you wriggle out of that one, old man. heh heh.

I gotta go fix my mower.

 

[jillian]

why?

Because it compares being a homosexual to enslavement. That's a long damn walk.

Then you had better tell all the liberal idiot gays to stop comparing it to the civil rights movement of the 60's... The gays do it all the time.

'liberal idiot gays'?

really?

these folk might disagree with you...

Log Cabin Republicans - Home

but maybe the rightwingnut homophobes can't understand that.

 

[Oddball]

Yes! Before that every race had the right to marry someone of the same race. Marrying someone of a different race would've been special rights using your logic.

ALL licensed statutory marriages are a "special right".

Time to start questioning the premise.

 

[The Infidel]

Dude the will of the people can and has been ruled unconstitutional for a while.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't most people support a ban on flag-burning when it was ruled unconstitutional?

I was against that too.... if someone wants to burn a flag, I say let them! (just wish they would wrap themselves in it 1st though) It called freedom of speech!

I dont recall the right for two gays to get married

 

[jillian]

Dude the will of the people can and has been ruled unconstitutional for a while.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't most people support a ban on flag-burning when it was ruled unconstitutional?

I was against that too.... if someone wants to burn a flag, I say let them! (just wish they would wrap themselves in it 1st though) It called freedom of speech!

I dont recall the right for two gays to get married

Then you need to go read Loving v Virginia which made it very clear that marriage is a fundamental right... which means any intrusion on that right needs to meet more of a standard than 'ewww... i don't like gays'.

 

[WillowTree]

Judge to people. Vote if ya want to. It don't matter. Election don't matter.

sp the people are the ones who decide what constitutional rights others have?

in other words 'courts? we don't need no stinking courts!;

Again, why hold an expensive election and persuade millions to cast a vote only to have ONE person tell them they're all wet? Why not save the people the expense and the agony and just ask the ninth circuit to begin with?

 

[The Infidel]

'liberal idiot gays'?

really?

these folk might disagree with you...

Log Cabin Republicans - Home

but maybe the rightwingnut homophobes can't understand that.

Yes I said 'liberal idiot gays'

I didnt say all gays are liberal and I didnt say all gays are idiots.

BTW... I dont care what the log cabin Repubs say. If they are wrong.... they are wrong...period.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Judge to people. Vote if ya want to. It don't matter. Election don't matter.

sp the people are the ones who decide what constitutional rights others have?

in other words 'courts? we don't need no stinking courts!;

Again, why hold an expensive election and persuade millions to cast a vote only to have ONE person tell them they're all wet? Why not save the people the expense and the agony and just ask the ninth circuit to begin with?

Why don't you ask the LDS and RCC churches that?

 

[Oddball]

Dude the will of the people can and has been ruled unconstitutional for a while.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't most people support a ban on flag-burning when it was ruled unconstitutional?

There's a federally guaranteed right to free speech, which includes the right to burn a piece of cloth.

Marriage licensing is a state issue and jurisdiction.

 

[WillowTree]

Who's for marrying your cousin, brother, sister? How can you deny this fundamental right?

 

[WillowTree]

sp the people are the ones who decide what constitutional rights others have?

in other words 'courts? we don't need no stinking courts!;

Again, why hold an expensive election and persuade millions to cast a vote only to have ONE person tell them they're all wet? Why not save the people the expense and the agony and just ask the ninth circuit to begin with?

Why don't you ask the LDS and RCC churches that?

The who? Churches made up the overwhelming majority of voters in CA?? Oh rally?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Again, why hold an expensive election and persuade millions to cast a vote only to have ONE person tell them they're all wet? Why not save the people the expense and the agony and just ask the ninth circuit to begin with?

Why don't you ask the LDS and RCC churches that?

The who? Churches made up the overwhelming majority of voters in CA?? Oh rally?

Haven't studied the issue much have you?