Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
People asking to recognize same-sex marriages are asking for equality, they are asking for their constitutional right to engage in a contractual relationship with their significant other that will grant them benefits that they couldn't otherwise have, and they are asking to be treated as something other than a second-class citizen in this regard.

1. The legalities of marraige are not a "contractual relationship with your significant other" they are just conditions that the government imposes upon your relationship whether you like them or not.

2. Different does not equal "second-class" (and they are not treating a citizen differently, they are treating one type of relationship different than another kind of relationship - big difference).

3. Why is it all I ever hear about is the "benefits of (a recognized) marraige?" You people have no clue what you're asking for.

This thread is NOT about what marriage is - what government marriage is - - what you think it is.

This thread is NOT about how you think the government controls your marriage.

If that is what you want to discuss - - start your own thread.

reply to post by SevenBeans

Because the Supreme court of the United States of America has already broached the subject of incest and found such to be unconstitutional and not with in the perview or protection of the law.

The topic of this thread is:

Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware said former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker did not have to divulge whether he wanted to marry his own gay partner before he declared last year that voter-approved Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.

---------------------------------------------------------------

LEGAL marriage is about the rights (same rights) afforded straight couples who legally marry.

This is not about being homosexual. It is about Equal Rights.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Because the Supreme court of the United States of America has already broached the subject of incest and found such to be unconstitutional and not with in the perview or protection of the law.

Why do you assume they would be having sex?

Originally posted by Annee
The topic of this thread is:
---------------------------------------------------------------

LEGAL marriage is about the rights (same rights) afforded straight couples who legally marry.

This is not about being homosexual. It is about Equal Rights.

-------------------------------------------------------------

The legalities of marraige can be removed, added to, altered etc. etc. etc. so they are not rights... but I guess we can't talk about that...

Seriously Annee I don't like to be mean, but the thread hasn't gone off topic it's just gone over your head.

Sorry.

Honestly, who gives a stuff what gays do? They can get licensed to marry or stand on their heads and sing bah bah black sheep at the moon for all I care.

reply to post by SevenBeans

I was merely answering your question and point concerning incest. The very nature of the word and relationship would be that 2 people, such as a brother and sister, or brother and brother, who would want to be married, would indeed, to make such legal, in accordance to some of the laws on the books, would have to consumate the marriage, (They have to have sex.) This would all depend on where you live and if it is never consumated, then the question of divorce would get very sticky as it would boil down to who did not perform in the marital bed, that applies everywhere.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
I was merely answering your question and point concerning incest. The very nature of the word and relationship would be that 2 people, such as a brother and sister, or brother and brother, who would want to be married, would indeed, to make such legal, in accordance to some of the laws on the books, would have to consumate the marriage, (They have to have sex.)

Remember the idea I'm replying to is that any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry and have that marraige legally recognized. Now you want to exlude people who don't have sex with each other? Why?

Originally posted by sdcigarpigReality is that you are being obtuse, as you are not wanting to accept the definition of what and how I would view a marriage in todays society.

It isn't a matter of how your or I want to view marriage, it's about the reality of how marriage actually operates, which I expounded upon and provided evidence for on several occasions. I am accepting the reality that marriage is a legally binding contract as well as a social contract. You are ignoring that and you are ignoring the facts and the evidence that I provided.

I'm not sure how you would like marriage to be viewed, but I'd like marriage to be about the love between consenting adults.

Originally posted by sdcigarpigYou asked, I told you how I viewed it.

I respect your view. But that isn't how marriage operates, at least not legally. So both you and I can view marriage in whichever way we'd like to, but the reality surrounding marriage is different.

Originally posted by sdcigarpigI view such as a social contract, yet you are persisting in trying to convience me that I am wrong

Because you aren't entirely right. Marriage is both a social contract as well as a legally binding contract, a legally binding obligation. I gotta admit, I'm trying my damnedest to convince you that you're wrong. I even provided an abundance of evidence that showed you how you were wrong. So somehow if evidence and fact doesn't work, then I doubt you can be convinced otherwise.

Originally posted by sdcigarpignd failing to do such in the process.

No, I've already provided a wealth of information and evidence that backed up my claim. You haven't proved anything other than your personal interpretation on what a social contract is and what marriage is. But evidence usually trumps personal interpretation and belief when it comes to debating something.

I'm still open to evidence of the contrary. You can dispute the evidence I provided at any time with evidence that points to the contrary.

Originally posted by sdcigarpigYour original premis, had no merit, or basis, failing to provide proof, even when I took the time to show, with legal backing where such had already been decided as unconstitutional in a legal grounds, primarily incest and polygamy.

At this point, we just see things differently. I've provided proof on several occasions. But I think we're beyond the point of coming to an understanding.

If marriage is supposed to be about equality, and if same-sex marriage being illegal is unconstitutional, then by that definition and that association alone, the Constitution dictates that incestuous marriages between consenting adults and polygamy between consenting adults is automatically deemed constitutional.

You cannot selectively grant constitutional rights to one group of consenting adults without granting those same rights to another group of consenting adults. That isn't how the constitution works. Constitutional rights are granted to EVERY competent, consenting adult human being. How do you not see this? I literally cannot explain it in more simplistic terms.

If gay marriage being illegal is unconstitutional, then polygamy and incestuous marriage is unconstitutional as well. All of those apply to the same logic and constitutional statutes.

Originally posted by sdcigarpigMarriage is a social contract

It is also a legally binding contract as I have already proven. Prove the point contrary to my evidence.

Originally posted by sdcigarpigthat has some aspects of a legal contract for both spoken and unspoken terms.

No, it doesn't just have some aspects of a legal contract, it shares ALL of the aspects of a legal contract, both spoken and unspoken, as well as legal. I've proven this already. Would you like me to prove it again?

Originally posted by sdcigarpigIf there is a legal contract that has unspoken terms, then by all means please provide proof of such.

Loans, car leases, cell phone contracts, anything that has a terms and conditions that are acknowledged and are enforced by law are a contract. What unspoken terms does marriages even have?

Originally posted by sdcigarpigGovernment is a social contract

The relationship between the people and the government is the social contract. The people put power and authority into the government to oversee the legal contracts, IE marriage.

Originally posted by sdcigarpigwhere politicians are put into office

Where they typically have to sign legal contracts, documents, etc in order to serve in any official capacity.

Originally posted by sdcigarpigyet the terms of their employement is vague with unspoke terms and expectations put on them, that every one knows.

No, their terms are very public and spoken. Public servants are meant to serve the public. Simple as that. Public servants like politicians have set terms in which they serve and in which they cannot legally over-serve. Those conditions are not vague nor are they unspoken. They are legal and binding and overseen by the government.

Expectations are completely separate to what a public servant is supposed to do in their legal capacity. Obama was expected to be Jesus Christ himself, but no where in his legal presidential obligations was he supposed to reach any of our expectations. And for the most part he didn't reach the expectations placed upon his light shoulders. So your point is bunk.

Originally posted by sdcigarpigBut we ultimately have digressed, from the original topic about how the original ruling set out in the Prop 8 case had been confirmed and how every one was upset cause the original judge, is gay and has a long term partner.

I'm glad the judge did what he did. Making gay marriage illegal is unconstitutional. I felt that the judge understood this and judged accordingly. Whether he's gay, straight, cycloptic, or hunchbacked is irrelevant. He decreed that making gay marriage illegal was unconstitutional, which it is, and he made it fit more in line with what the constitution says about equality. It is a step in the right direction, IMO.

Originally posted by sdcigarpigHis ruling was fair and concise as was the opinion he wrote.

As his ruling should also reflect in cases of incestuous marriages and polygamy when it comes to consenting, competent adults. His ruling is fair, because he understood that it was unequal and unconstitutional not to allow same-sex partners to wed. Just like it is unequal and unconstitutional not to allow the same between other groups of consenting adults.

If you allow one and not the other then it's no better than traditional marriage. And if that's the case, why even bother allowing same-sex couples to marry if a person is just going to completely ignore the bit about unconstitutionality and equality.

Do you understand the logic behind the decision and the argument?

Originally posted by sdcigarpigBottom line is that the denial of gay marriage is unconstitutional

We might be back on track now. Why is the denial of gay marriage unconstitutional. What makes same-sex marriage being illegal unconstitutional?

Originally posted by sdcigarpigand this is ultimately uncharted territory judicially

But constitutionally, which is what this nation was founded upon, it's right on track. According to the Constitution people are to be treated equally. So someone's opinion or belief isn't really relevant in the eyes of the Constitution, since the Constitution grants rights to ALL or to NONE. Not the in-betweens and selectives. That isn't how the Constitution works.

Originally posted by sdcigarpigas there is no other precident on the books in the US to determine the validity of such.

The Constitution is the validity that such should exist. Just like the logic and argument goes that the Constitution is the validity that gay marriage should be legalized. The Constitution says that gay marriage is valid, just like polygamy and incestuous marriages between competent, consenting adults is valid and should be legal. Do you understand that?

Originally posted by SevenBeansI already have.

No you haven't. Proof requires evidence. All you've done is taken something and explain it in a vague sense so that it fits your own personal interpretation. That is not evidence.

Originally posted by SevenBeansFirst, the government can impose the legalities of marraige onto couples who never even got married if they "fit the bill."

I don't even know what that means. But please show me where the government can marry people off who aren't married or don't want to be married off.

Originally posted by SevenBeansSecond, it's self evident that I never signed a contract agreeing to conditions that weren't even thought of until years and years after I got married.

That's how evolution and change works. There was a time before legal contracts in the US functioned the way they did. There was a time before people used legal currency and instead bartered. Time's change. But, you don't have to remain in a marriage if you don't want to. You can sign another legal document divorcing yourself from your spouse. And along with it, you won't receive any of the benefits that go along with marriage.

But as it stands in the US marriage has become a legal institution that is comparable in every facet to a legal contract. I've proven this. Now it's your turn to put forth evidence to the contrary. If you'd like, I can re-post the evidence that proves marriage is a contract.

Originally posted by SevenBeansHave you ever signed a contract whose terms can completely change the next day w/o your consent?

No, but the fact that is happens is unfortunate. But that doesn't somehow avert attention away from the fact that marriage, as it exists today in the US, functions precisely like a legal contract, which is what I've been debating. Can you prove to me that modern day marriage in the US doesn't function like a legal contract? I've already proven that it does.

I'll wait for your evidence.

Originally posted by SevenBeansThat is a very strange sort of contract.

No it isn't. Marriage fits the same guidelines as every other contract. And unless that aspect changes, marriage essentially is a legal contract. Again, I can provide evidence to back up my claim if you'd like.

Originally posted by SevenBeansThe legal conditions imposed upon my marraige can be changed

The legal conditions imposed upon any contract can be changed as well. What's your point? That things change? Well no duh, that's why these things are taken to court on a regular basis.

Originally posted by SevenBeanstherefore calling it a "contract" (and saying that I agreed to all of the legalities imposed upon my relationship, even the ones that were imposed long after I got married) is completely and utterly absurd.

Prove that it's absurd. Modern day marriages require all of the following in order for it to be recognized:

the marriage must be entered in the marriage register and signed by both parties, two witnesses, the person who conducted the ceremony and, if that person is not authorised to register marriages, the person who is registering the marriage.

How is that NOT a contract? Seriously, dispute that. Because regardless of what you think, that IS how modern day marriages are conducted in the US and the UK. There is nothing in the above quote that forcibly required a person to sign anything or to marry their partner.

If you don't want the government to intrude upon your personal relationship, simply don't get married. Or get a divorce or an annulment. Those are perfect avenues for you to avoid the contractual union that is marriage, or to get out of it.

Originally posted by SevenBeansThose legal conditions were imposed upon them whether they liked them or not.

Despite what you may think, some contracts function like that. Like signing a lease for a car, or taking out a loan. Those are legal contracts.

Originally posted by SevenBeansSame goes for the legalities that the government imposes on married people.

Correct. Which would make them contracts.

Originally posted by SevenBeansThese things can change, new ones can be imposed, old ones removed etc. etc. etc.

That's typically how contracts work. But it will be taken to court first before it can be changed.

Originally posted by SevenBeansIt isn't like a contract where two parties sit down and agree to the terms of an agreement

Those are contracts all the same. You're still incorrect, too. Have you ever heard of a prenuptial agreement? Both parties about to get married will agree to satisfying terms that benefit their respective side. If you don't agree to them, you don't have to get married. You don't have to enter into that type of legally recognized contract. No one is forcing anyone to enter into these terms if they aren't agreed upon.

Don't get married, problem solved.

Originally posted by SevenBeansthe government says "this is how it will be" and it doesn't matter if you don't like it.

Incorrect. If the two people do not like the terms, they do not have to sign the contract. Not every type of legal contract and document is agreeable to everyone. Refer to my examples of a car lease or a loan. But people still enter into contracts like that. But... the kicker is, they don't have to. They don't have to sign anything if they don't want to. They don't have to sign the contract.

Originally posted by SevenBeansOf course that's a legal contract. Both parties sat down and agreed to the terms, neither party can generally change those terms, add to them, them etc. etc. etc.

Same applies to modern day marriage. In marriage both parties sit down and agree to the terms, neither party can generally change those terms, add to them, etc, etc UNLESS they take it to court. But the fact of the matter remains that the contract was signed. The terms WERE agreed upon.

If the terms are not to the liking of the people signing, they do not have to sign.

Originally posted by SevenBeansunless there is a specific provision allowing them to do so in the contract.

So put those provisions in the prenuptial agreement. Problem solved.

Originally posted by SevenBeansThe legalities of marraige are imposed whether the marrying couple agrees with them or not

You already agreed that taking out a loan involved signing a contract. Well I got news for you, people don't always agree to the interest rates or terms and conditions imposed upon them by the loan company, car insurance company, car dealership, or the bank. Yet the legalities are still imposed upon the person taking out a loan or lease whether the person agrees to them or not.

So if the person doesn't agree, they don't have to sign the loan papers. And if the person doesn't agree to the marriage, the person doesn't have to sign the marriage certificate, the prenuptial agreement, etc, etc. The choice is in the signing of the contract. It's as simple as that.

Originally posted by SevenBeansand they can be changed, added to, deleted from etc. etc. etc. the next day or long after the fact.

No they can't. Not without being taken to court first. Laws can't just magically be changed on the whims of some official. It requires some type of legal procedure. So you're exaggerating by a very large margin.

Originally posted by SevenBeans
How niave...

Yes, I agree, you are being very naive and seemingly intentionally ignorant.

Originally posted by SevenBeansOnce the government "recognizes your marraige" (and they don't need your permission or signature) they can impose all sorts of crazy legal obligations.

Can you elaborate on that and provide a source or something that I can read more in depth? Because it sounds like you're exaggerating. People aren't typically forced into marriage unless very finite conditions are met. For example, the government cannot just randomly marry me off to a person from a nearby neighborhood without my consent.

Originally posted by SevenBeansIf you don't like them than it's just too bad.

No, see, if you don't like them, you don't have to get married. Or you can get a divorce.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Annee
The topic of this thread is:
---------------------------------------------------------------

LEGAL marriage is about the rights (same rights) afforded straight couples who legally marry.

This is not about being homosexual. It is about Equal Rights.

-------------------------------------------------------------

The legalities of marraige can be removed, added to, altered etc. etc. etc. so they are not rights... but I guess we can't talk about that...

Seriously Annee I don't like to be mean, but the thread hasn't gone off topic it's just gone over your head.

Sorry.

If the government changed the rules so it said you had to adopt a Purple People Eater in order to get married.

I don't care.

Start your own thread if that is the subject you want to discuss.

It is NOT the subject of this thread.

Originally posted by Annee
The topic of this thread is:

Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware said former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker did not have to divulge whether he wanted to marry his own gay partner before he declared last year that voter-approved Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.

---------------------------------------------------------------

LEGAL marriage is about the rights (same rights) afforded straight couples who legally marry.

This is not about being homosexual. It is about Equal Rights.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Uh...yes, I would like to apply for a license to discuss the "legality" of marriage please. While you're at it, could I get a license for Equal Rights as well?

Without any license to discuss "legal" marriages, would I be criminal for pointing out that something "legal" must be lawful. It is highly doubtful that licensing schemes for the purpose of marriage is lawful. People have the right to marry without obtaining any permission from the state to do so. Unless, of course, they don't have an Equal Rights license, then I guess they should be damn happy the state allows them to even exist.

Originally posted by SevenBeans1. The legalities of marraige are not a "contractual relationship with your significant other"

When you have to sign a document (marriage certificate), when you have to agree upon set terms (prenuptial agreement), when you have consequences that are met before you can get out of the contract (divorce papers), that effectively becomes a "contractual relationship with your significant other."

Originally posted by SevenBeansthey are just conditions that the government imposes upon your relationship whether you like them or not.

No, because you don't have to get married. Also, if you don't get married, you or your partner cannot gain the benefits from marriage. Just like someone who doesn't sign a cell phone plan agreement cannot gain the benefits from having a cell phone and a cell phone plan.

Originally posted by SevenBeans2. Different does not equal "second-class"

Yes it does, particularly when there is discrimination involved that functions as the prime reason for denying someone something. That is being treated as second class.

Originally posted by SevenBeans(and they are not treating a citizen differently

Yes they are, based upon sexual orientation. A gay person cannot marry his or her same-sex partner. When a straight person can marry their partner of the opposite sex. That is treating a citizen differently.

Originally posted by SevenBeansthey are treating one type of relationship different than another kind of relationship

Based upon discrimination that exists because of a difference.

Originally posted by SevenBeansbig difference

Not as big as you're making it appear to be. You're one-legged, you don't deserve to get married to your one-legged partner. Now please reasonably tell me why a one-legged person can't marry the one-legged partner that he/she loves?

Originally posted by SevenBeans3. Why is it all I ever hear about is the "benefits of (a recognized) marraige?"

Because in the US marriage has better benefits to civil unions and not being married. Would you like me to post what these benefits are for you?

Originally posted by SevenBeansYou people have no clue what you're asking for.

I'm asking for gay marriage to be legalized.

But if you don't believe that, then please, tell me what I'm asking for. You're making it seem like you know better than I do.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Uh...yes, I would like to apply for a license to discuss the "legality" of marriage please. While you're at it, could I get a license for Equal Rights as well?

Without any license to discuss "legal" marriages, would I be criminal for pointing out that something "legal" must be lawful. It is highly doubtful that licensing schemes for the purpose of marriage is lawful. People have the right to marry without obtaining any permission from the state to do so. Unless, of course, they don't have an Equal Rights license, then I guess they should be damn happy the state allows them to even exist.

The thread is about the Right to a Legal Government Marriage - - and the benefits it affords. Pertaining to Prop8 and decisions made in that case.

The thread is NOT about anything else.

reply to post by Annee

The thread is about the Right to a Legal Government Marriage - - and the benefits it affords. Pertaining to Prop8 and decisions made in that case.

Licensing schemes grant privileges, not rights. If you cannot understand that, then your claims that you want Equal Rights are hopeless and will remain so as long as people believe they need permission to do what is otherwise a right to do.

There is no such thing as a "Right to a Legal Government Marriage". There is however a right to marriage. I get that you don't like that, but reality can be a real pain sometimes.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


But the Constitution grants certain rights to everyone, particularly competent, consenting adults. So the fact that some people cannot obtain a license based upon certain differences becomes a discriminatory practice, which goes against what the Constitution says about equal rights.

Two same-sex partners cannot receive a license to get married because of the fact they are of the same gender. Based upon that difference, they are discriminated against receiving the marriage license that the two of them want. That is what the substance of this thread is about.

The level of ignorance and intolerance here amazes me.
You guys are all perfect examples of why WWII and the holocaust happened.
It all makes perfect sense now.

reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist

But the Constitution grants certain rights to everyone, particularly competent, consenting adults.

Outside of the ill conceived Fourteenth Amendment, the Constitution does not grant any rights to people, and most assuredly does not specify "competent, consenting adults" are more "particularly" deserving of these rights.

It really doesn't take careful analysis of the Constitution for the United States of America to understand that rights are not being granted and that the Bill of Rights functions as a prohibition on government. The Ninth Amendment in particular makes clear that the right enumerated shall not be construed to deny or disparage any other rights retained by the people. It is so remarkably clear in its language it is unfathomable how people have allowed themselves to come to believe that government has given them rights. All of which is moot, given that it is the states who issue marriage licenses, not the federal government.

Even so, all State Constitutions come with a Declaration of Rights, or their own Bill of Rights, all of which have a section in that Article that echoes the Ninth Amendment.

Two same-sex partners cannot receive a license to get married because of the fact they are of the same gender. Based upon that difference, they are discriminated against receiving the marriage license that the two of them want. That is what the substance of this thread is about.

The red herring that is known as "same sex marriage" is tragic in that the gay community had a perfect opportunity to point out that no government authority had the right to license their marriages, and to ask America why heterosexuals have been so willing to go along with licensing schemes that impose unlawful authority on marriage.

Instead, the gay community has lined up to the alter of sacrifice and demanded they be given the same privilege of subjugation as heterosexuals have been given.

No person, straight or gay, need be licensed by the state in order to enter into a contractual relationship known as marriage. Every person, and even Klingons and Wookies have the absolute right to marry and do not need a license in order to marry.

If you want a license, you want a privilege, and privileges are not rights. But, what the hell, right? Who really cares about rights anyway? Privileges are way cooler, no?

I can't believe this is debated and I haven't even asked, why don't you want me to marry my partner? Rather than trying to get you to understand me, help me to understand you.