Challenge of same-sex marriage ban begins in Calif.

reply to post by ll__raine__ll


Exactly, we're playing a word game, right now they can have a civil union, with any ceremony they choose. The lawyers on both sides are getting rich over a noun.

[edit on 11-1-2010 by adifferentbreed]

Originally posted by ll__raine__ll
reply to post by adifferentbreed

 

thanks for your answer.

for the first time in history i may be changing views on one of my very passionately held positions.

let me get it right though ... gay couples are allowed to marry in california. it's just not legally called "marriage". (what is it called btw?) and gay couples who marry are afforded all the rights of traditionally married couples?

The rights aren't the same...don't be fooled by clever wording.

~Keeper

Originally posted by WTFover
A friend and I were discussing this very thing today. With the voter turnout at over 79% and the Proposition passing with over 52% of the vote, I'd say the people have spoken. Personally, I couldn't care less about same sex marriage. But, as I've heard so many times about the Obama victory, "The voters have decided. Get over it".

I think, with the volatility of the current political arena, it would be a very bad idea for the court to overturn the will of the people.

Ruling by popular vote is exactly the opposite of the purpose of the court. The court's purpose is to uphold the Constitution and protect the minority from the will of the majority. If they should just follow polls and popular votes, then our court system would become another victim of the 24 hour propaganda machine and the person with the deepest pockets.

Are you suggesting that the courts should start living in fear of what they decide? Do you really think the moral majority will rebel against the judicial system if gays are allowed to marry? For some reason, I think not.

Hopefully the courts will do the right thing and rule in the favor of equality.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


You bet it should be challenged, the people who voted are coming from a religious perspective which has no place in voting.

reply to post by Aquarius1


And why does religion not have a place in voting? If something is morally wrong to someone, should they not be allowed a vote?

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Exactly what rights aren't the same? As I understand it, the civil union covers the same entitlements a heterosexual marriage does.

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by Aquarius1

 

And why does religion not have a place in voting? If something is morally wrong to someone, should they not be allowed a vote?

Sure they do, however, their "morals" are preventing a whole class of people from receiving the same legal rights that they enjoy.

See the problem?

~Keeper

reply to post by adifferentbreed

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.


But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?

No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.


1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.


2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.


3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.

Source

Number of Legal Benefits:
Marriage: Over 1,049 federal and state level benefits (see list)
Civil Unions: Over 300 state level benefits. *No federal protection (see benefit example)
Tax Relief:
Marriage: Couples can file both federal and state tax returns jointly.
Civil Unions: Couples can only file jointly in the state of civil registration.
Medical Decisions:
Marriage: Partners can make emergency medical decisions.
Civil Unions: Partners can only make medical decisions in the registered state. Partners may not be able to make decisions out of state.
Gifts:
Marriage: Partners can transfer gifts to each other without tax penalty.
Civil Unions: Partners do not pay state taxes, but are required to report federal taxes.
Death Benefits:
Marriage: In the case of a partner's death, the spouse receives any earned Social Security or veteran benefits.
Civil Unions: Partners do not receive Social Security or any other government benefits in case of death. In the case of the death of former Congressman Gerry Studds, his partner of 15 years was denied the government pension that would have gone to a legally recognized spouse.
Child/Spousal Support:
Marriage: In case of divorce, individuals may have a legally-binding financial obligation to spouses and children.
Civil Unions: In the case of dissolution , no such spousal or child benefits are guaranteed or required out of state.

Source

The list goes on..

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower


so do the rights afforded to each make any significant difference?

because right now it's sounding like a battle over one word "marriage", and not really a battle over fundamental human rights.

and it's kind of sounding like the gay community might be getting bent out of shape over nothing that really matters. a word.

i have absolutely no respect at all for religion in any shape or form. i think it's all a crock and i think a lot of other things about it too that are way off topic ...

BUT - if this battle is just over the word "marriage" ... then the gay community needs to compromise. let the religos keep their "marriage" word. make up a new word for your legal union, hell, does it really matter what you call it as long as it means the same thing?

reply to post by Avenginggecko

The clause "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." is now officially part of the California state constitution (as of November 5, 2008).

www.whatisprop8.com...

ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California.

www.leginfo.ca.gov...

This is a Constitutional Amendment, instituted by the voters of California. It cannot be an "unconstitutional law", it is a part of the Constitution.

reply to post by ll__raine__ll


If you read my above post you will see that it does matter fundementally when it comes to the legal rights afforded.

As for the word, I agree with you, there's no need to call in marriage.

~Keeper

Another thread about Gay Marriage.

It does not matter your sexuality, marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. That's how it has been for thousands of years.

If you want to call it Civil Union or Garriage so be it...

Two people of the same sex have every right to love each other and be together. But they do not have the right to change the definition of a word and the values it represents.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Another thread about Gay Marriage.

It does not matter your sexuality, marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. That's how it has been for thousands of years.

If you want to call it Civil Union or Garriage so be it...

Two people of the same sex have every right to love each other and be together. But they do not have the right to change the definition of a word and the values it represents.

If marriage had not changed it's meaning than black people would not be able to get married...

And I am sorry but I find it really hard to value the word marriage when half of them end up in divorce don't you think?

And besides, there is no need to change the definition of marriage, just call it a civil union and make the rights equal. It's just a change of wording.

~Keeper

reply to post by Dark Ghost


words and their meanings get changed all the time.

eg: gay (pardon the pun, lol)

when i was little gay meant happy. now it pertains to those in a homosexual relationship and it's commonly accepted as thus.

Marriage is like a Chessboard:

You can change colours but not the roles of each piece...

Would the game still be called Chess if the Queen was replaced with another King?


[edit on 11/1/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Marriage is like a Chessboard:

You can change colours but not the roles of each piece...

Would the game still be called Chess if the Queen was replaced with another King?


[edit on 11/1/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Yes??

That's a horrible example btw lol.

But I understand what you are saying, and I get it. But like I said, there's no need to call it marriage if the other "word" meaning "marriage" entitles couples to the same rights. As it stands Civil Unions do not provide that.

BTW in the dictionnary under Redundant, it says see Redundancy.

~Keeper

[edit on 1/11/2010 by tothetenthpower]

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Yes??

That's a horrible example btw lol.

But I understand what you are saying, and I get it. But like I said, there's no need to call it marriage if the other "word" meaning "marriage" entitles couples to the same rights. As it stands Civil Unions do not provide that.

BTW in the dictionnary under Redundant, it says see Redundancy.

~Keeper

[edit on 1/11/2010 by tothetenthpower]

So you don't think anyone will be upset that I and a few of my friends want to remove the Queen piece and change it with, let's say with a Bishop?

Sure, as long as we play amongst ourselves it's all good - right? But what happens when we want the International Chess Authority to state that the game can be played officially using these new rules? Don't you think people would be against it?

My point: Chess is an optional game that nobody is forced to play. If you want to play, do it within the rules or find a different game that you will enjoy.

Just change the noun and definition. Give them the same "benefits and privileges" that come with Marriage, just don't call it Marriage or say they are the same!

[edit on 11/1/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

Just change the noun and definition. Give them the same "benefits and privileges" that come with Marriage, just don't call it Marriage or say they are the same!

[edit on 11/1/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Then why not just take the state out of the marriage business altogether? Let's all havev "Civil Unions" for the legal benefits and choose our own social/religious organization in which to get "married" if we so desire?

Originally posted by americandingbat
Then why not just take the state out of the marriage business altogether? Let's all havev "Civil Unions" for the legal benefits and choose our own social/religious organization in which to get "married" if we so desire?

Good idea, but a few thousand years too late. If you try to change the main elements behind something that has been established for a long period of time, you will find opposition. But that is a good idea.

i don't understand why they just don't let it be and allow it, seems like californias after a lot of media attention right now, for gods sake theres even adverts on my tele with arnie saying " california when can you start" i mean they are having earthquakes etc why would we want to move there??. whats all this when can you start business all about lol