Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I actually have a problem with it. But it's clearly needed. If gays don't receive equal treatment under the law (which they don't), then we must do something to rectify that.

Except they do recieve equal treatment... maybe if you all keep repeating it over and over again it will become true...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


BH I wasn't talking to you as I said the thread, not a person.
If this is about equal rights then it has to be for all peoples and their beliefs, anything else is dishonest.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Who are you talking to? I want equal rights for all people. Any two consenting adults should be afforded equal access to enter into legal contracts, including marriage.

Marraige is not a contract.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That phrase means nothing. No one is asking for "special rights", whatever that is.

Hate crimes legislation is special "enhanced protection" (in the form of harsher punishments) under the law. Example, why should the punishment for violence based on sexual orientation carry a greater punishment than violence based upon someone's politcal affiliation, veteran status, wealth etc. etc. etc. (?).

As for marraige, there is no "right" to have the government recognize your marraige. If you insist on calling it a right though, the right to have your "marraige" to a same gender person recognized by the government would be a new right, not a broadening of an existing right.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No one is claiming that everyone is 'equal'. We are saying that ALL people should have equal protection under the LAW, as the Constitution says.

It's perfectly constitutional for the government to treat different circumstances, differently, and they do it all the time.

It isn't "discrimination" that the government doesn't extend the legalities of a corporation to my business. My business is a different circumstance than a corporation (just like a same gender couple is a fundamentally different circumstance than an opposite gender couple).

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I actually have a problem with it. But it's clearly needed. If gays don't receive equal treatment under the law (which they don't), then we must do something to rectify that.

Except they do recieve equal treatment... maybe if you all keep repeating it over and over again it will become true...

No, we don't.

What qualifies you to truly know? Are you gay?

Originally posted by Garfee
No, we don't.

What qualifies you to truly know? Are you gay?

edit on 16-6-2011 by Garfee because: 100th typo of the day

Oh brother...

Give me one example of a right that I have that a gay person doesn't... give me one example of a law that says some people can do this and others cannot, based upon their sexual orientation.

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
If this is about equal rights then it has to be for all peoples and their beliefs, anything else is dishonest.

I don't know what you're getting at. Anyone who is legally eligible and willing to enter into a contract should be allowed to marry. Who is that excluding?

Originally posted by SevenBeans
Marraige is not a contract.

Yes, legally it is.
Legal Definition of Marriage

MARRIAGE

A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage.

To make a valid marriage, the parties must be willing to contract, able to contract, and have actually contracted.They must be willing to contract. Those persons, therefore, who have no legal capacity in point of intellect, to make a contract, cannot legally marry, as idiots, lunatics, and infants; males under the age of fourteen, and females under the age of twelve; and when minors over those ages marry, they must have the consent of their parents or guardians.

Originally posted by SevenBeans
Hate crimes legislation is special "enhanced protection" (in the form of harsher punishments) under the law. Example, why should the punishment for violence based on sexual orientation carry a greater punishment than violence based upon someone's politcal affiliation, veteran status, wealth etc. etc. etc. (?).

I don't agree with hate crime legislation either. So, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Originally posted by SevenBeans
Give me one example of a right that I have that a gay person doesn't... give me one example of a law that says some people can do this and others cannot, based upon their sexual orientation.

Marry the consenting adult of your choice. Most state laws prohibit gay people marrying the consenting adult of their choice.

It's explained here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Yes, legally it is.

No it isn't, I never agreed to the legalities of marraige and they can be changed at any time without my permission.

Sure, you can call it a contract and many people do, but in fact it's the government imposing conditions upon your relationship (whether you agree to those conditions or not).

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Marry the consenting adult of your choice. Most state laws prohibit gay people marrying the consenting adult of their choice.

Marraiges to someone of the same gender are not recognized by the state, this applies to everyone regardless of which gender turns you on.

There is no right to have the government recognize a marraige "to the consenting adult of your choice."

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Garfee
No, we don't.

What qualifies you to truly know? Are you gay?

edit on 16-6-2011 by Garfee because: 100th typo of the day

Oh brother...

Give me one example of a right that I have that a gay person doesn't... give me one example of a law that says some people can do this and others cannot, based upon their sexual orientation.

Base it on discrimination rather than sexual orientation. Consider that you are a minority, hurting no one and someone that really doesn't know what they're talking about is telling you that you are unable to be legally partnered with the one you love. Served up an argument you know to be untrue because you have lived through this particular discrimination. Frustrated because it's so difficult to explain to someone not of the same sexual persuasion.

Or try this: If you are straight, you will know that your sexuality is inherant and innate. There is a law that says you can not be married or legally partnered to the opposite sex. But are attracted to them! You always have been. It's your nature. But the law says you can only marry or legally be coupled with someone of your own sex.

I'm only asking you to try and understand. Not to like me, approve of me or even care in the slightest. Just to try and understand.

Originally posted by Garfee
If you are straight, you will know that your sexuality is inherant and innate. There is a law that says you can not be married or legally partnered to the opposite sex. But are attracted to them! You always have been. It's your nature. But the law says you can only marry or legally be coupled with someone of your own sex.

So you're asking me how I would feel if the government got it's nose out of my personal relationships?

I'd be ecstatic.

Having said that, there is a reason that the government only intrudes on certain types of relationships (the types prone to producing offspring).

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Garfee
If you are straight, you will know that your sexuality is inherant and innate. There is a law that says you can not be married or legally partnered to the opposite sex. But are attracted to them! You always have been. It's your nature. But the law says you can only marry or legally be coupled with someone of your own sex.

So you're asking me how I would feel if the government got it's nose out of my personal relationships?

I'd be ecstatic.


Having said that, there is a reason that the government only intrudes on certain types of relationships (the types prone to producing offspring).

So would I. But they're not going to.

What's that reason? The ability to reproduce? That has nothing to do with legally recognising a relationship.

Originally posted by Garfee
So would I. But they're not going to.

But when you ask them to "recognize same gender marraiges" you are asking them to intrude.

Originally posted by Garfee
What's that reason? The ability to reproduce? That has nothing to do with legally recognising a relationship.

I've already said a hundred times... they apply these legalities/obligations to the types of relationships that are prone to producing offspring (two guys doesn't fit the bill). They don't want children to be left destitute in the case of divorce or the death of one parent.

They don't wait to address the concern until kids are actually born, because that could still leave a pregnant wife destitute with a kid to raise.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Garfee
So would I. But they're not going to.

But when you ask them to "recognize same gender marraiges" you are asking them to intrude.

edit on 16-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

In my country, the government demands that I advise them if I am in a same-sex relationship for tax purposes or social security. It's the law. And yet it is the same legal status as if I were a 16 year old dating someone casually.

If they're going to intrude, at least allow my relationship to be recognised for what it is, equally with others whether it be defacto, civil union, marriage, whatever.

And when the time comes, it would be nice to state officially that this is the person I love and wish to share my life with.

Originally posted by Garfee
In my country, the government demands that I advise them if I am in a same-sex relationship for tax purposes or social security. It's the law. And yet it is the same legal status as if I were a 16 year old dating someone casually.

So you want them to intrude much more?

Originally posted by Garfee
If they're going to intrude, at least allow my relationship to be recognised for what it is, equally with others whether it be defacto, civil union, marriage, whatever.

Recognizing that same gender and opposite gender relationships have a fundamental difference isn't saying that one is better than the other etc. etc. etc. They are just different circumstances.

Originally posted by Garfee
And when the time comes, it would be nice to state officially that this is the person I love and wish to share my life with.

State it all you want... government recognition of a marraige isn't some kind of "badge of approval" it simply means the government is going to impose itself onto your relationship.

State it all you want... government recognition of a marraige isn't some kind of "badge of approval" it simply means the government is going to impose itself onto your relationship.

I'll assume that you don't ever wish to be married or officially partnered and aren't already.

I'd like the option.

Originally posted by Garfee
I'll assume that you don't ever wish to be married or officially partnered and aren't already.

I'd like the option.

I am and I had no choice in the matter.

I didn't agree to all the legalities of marraige, I took part in a religious ceremony and then the government IMPOSED these legalities upon my relationship (and they can change them tomorrow).

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Garfee
I'll assume that you don't ever wish to be married or officially partnered and aren't already.

I'd like the option.

I am and I had no choice in the matter.

I didn't agree to all the legalities of marraige, the government IMPOSED them, and they can change them tomorrow.

Of course you had a choice. If you didn't want your government to impose their rules over certai aspects of your relationship you didn't have to marry. If you want, you can divorce and be happy in an unrecognised partnership where you and your partner have no legal rights to eachothers estates and arent considered next-of-kin.

That is fundementally what you are suggesting I should do.

You can have a consecrated, religious ceremony, without having to apply for a marriage license. But you had the option to do so, and took it.

Double post