Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

Originally posted by dbates
I just think that the only vested interest that the government has in marriage is for the protection and financial stability of children.

Bingo.

Originally posted by dbates
The government isn't interested in anyone getting married, heterosexual or homosexual. What the government is interested in is the poverty and crime rates.

Correct.

Originally posted by dbates
My position is that the state has no vested interested in promoting these types of unions.

I agree that the state has no vested interest. They have no vested interest in promoting marriages of old people, infertile people, asexual people or people who are childless by choice, either, yet they grant them licenses to marry just the same. They do not discriminate based on intent or ability to breed. Your argument falls flat right there.

One other point of discontent many people have is that "marriage" is a pre-defined word with an existing meaning.

What is that meaning? Is it one of these?

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

M/W

Or do you have a different definition you're referring to?

Plus I don't want to flood the topic with just my discussion and ideas. I think I've already made those well know and I'm curious what others think about the issue as well. Plus people probably get tired of me yammering away anyhow.

You're one of the FEW people on "the other side" of this issue that I can discuss this with rationally. I really am genuinely interested in your views because I don't understand MUCH of the opposition people have to marriage equality.

Yes, some adult unions are preferable to others from the state's point of view.

That may be true, but unless they discriminate against ALL who cannot bear children, your argument doesn't hold water. If only breeders were permitted to marry, you'd have a great case.

Thanks for your answers.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Annee
There IS currently LEGAL Government Marriage - - that affords certain privileges/rights not available elsewhere.

To deny gays the right of LEGAL Government Marriage and the privileges/rights it affords is unconstitutional.

That is the subject of this thread.

The "subject of this thread" is a lie.

The criteria for what marraiges will be legally recognized doesn't include sexual orientation.

What is your interpretation of the subject of this thread?

Originally posted by SevenBeans
The state discriminates all the time but it's generally based on circumstances rather than individual traits.

Give me an example.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The legalities of marraige can be removed, altered or added to at any time therefore they are not rights.

MARRIAGE itself is the right. I don't know what these "legalities of marriage" are. What are you talking about? Examples, please.

Originally posted by SevenBeans
Are you suggesting that the legalities which the government imposes upon married people have not changed at all since I got married 20 years ago? Are you suggesting that I agreed to conditions that weren't even proposed until years and years after I got married?

I don't even understand this question, mush less have the ability to answer it. What legalities does the government impose on married people and what has changed and how did that affect your marriage contract? Examples, please.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I agree that the state has no vested interest. They have no vested interest in promoting marriages of old people, infertile people, asexual people or people who are childless by choice, either, yet they grant them licenses to marry just the same. They do not discriminate based on intent or ability to breed. Your argument falls flat right there.

They treat the kinds of relationships prone to producing offspring differently than those kinds of relationships that aren't.

It's a circumstance they're treating differntly, not an individual.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That may be true, but unless they discriminate against ALL who cannot bear children, your argument doesn't hold water. If only breeders were permitted to marry, you'd have a great case.

The government has no obligation to test everyone's fertility before they recognize a marraige, it would obviously be impractical and an invasion of privacy besides.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
MARRIAGE itself is the right. I don't know what these "legalities of marriage" are. What are you talking about? Examples, please.

You can have whatever kind of "marraige ceremony" you want, it's government recognition (IE. the extension of legalities to that relationship) that is the issue. The government can remove those, alter them, add to them... therefore they are not rights, government recognition of your marraige is not a right.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't even understand this question, mush less have the ability to answer it. What legalities does the government impose on married people and what has changed and how did that affect your marriage contract? Examples, please.

Lots of the legal conditions, obligations etc. etc. that are applied to my relationship have changed since I was married. Just one example is the advent of no-fault divorce but there are many. To say that "I agreed" to these terms by signing a contract is absurd.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Give me an example.

They treat custodial parents differently than non-custodial parents.

They treat someone who is bankrupt differently than someone who isn't.

They treat you differently when your healthy than when you're disabled.

I could go on and on.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Give me an example.

They treat custodial parents differently than non-custodial parents.

They treat someone who is bankrupt differently than someone who isn't.

They treat you differently when your healthy than when you're disabled.

I could go on and on.

And yet they allow all of those groups to marry, assuming they marry the opposite sex.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What is that meaning? Is it one of these?

I think the first definition was fairly accurate. Marriage is a highly specified contract. It would be the state of being united with a person of the opposite sex in a life-long contract. If a male walked up to a complete stranger and said I'm getting married, the response would be "what's her name?" (Is she hot?, does she have a sister? ). Extra information must be supplied if you were implying that you were to have a union with another male. That's because this term has a well-understood precise meaning.

The recognition by law is honestly only needed during arbitration if people decide to not honor the contract. More important is the recognition by family and friends of the contract. That's where the real importance comes into play. Even before a wedding couples often have a wedding shower where friends and family invest in the relationship to help make things stable.

If only breeders were permitted to marry, you'd have a great case.

My grandfather remarried after my grandmother died. Personally I thought it was silly but we all humored him. The only reason I can see this as being any interest to the state is that it helps to enforce marriage (As defined above) as a social norm. Plus it's really rude to ask women if they think they're too old to have children or if they've had a hysterectomy. People also get re-married without having additional children so being this picky would require proof they had children from previous marriages or partners. It's better to assume they can have or have children than to add layers of bureaucratic fumbling. Plus we want to enforce the social norm of marriage. Think of all the people that normally attend weddings. (Even secondary ones) That's all advertising for marriage as a social norm for those attending.

Thanks for your answers.

No, you're too kind and yes I do actually consider your opinions even if I don't indicate that.

Originally posted by SevenBeans
They treat the kinds of relationships prone to producing offspring differently than those kinds of relationships that aren't.

No they don't. They didn't treat me ANY differently, even though my husband and I could not produce offspring. We were neither prone to nor able to produce offspring, yet we were treated no differently than breeders.

The government has no obligation to test everyone's fertility before they recognize a marraige, it would obviously be impractical and an invasion of privacy besides.

Exactly! They have no obligation and no business testing or refusing people because of their intent or ability to breed. That completely ruins the argument.

Originally posted by SevenBeans
You can have whatever kind of "marraige ceremony" you want, it's government recognition (IE. the extension of legalities to that relationship) that is the issue. The government can remove those, alter them, add to them... therefore they are not rights, government recognition of your marraige is not a right.

So, you don't have any examples of these "legalities that can change". That's what I thought. If you can't explain what you mean by "the legalities of marriage that can change", etc., then I can't respond to it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Just one example is the advent of no-fault divorce but there are many.

That's DIVORCE law, not marriage law. There is nothing in your marriage contract about divorce.

Still no examples. If there are plenty, list about 5 about MARRIAGE so I can know WTH you're talking about. Because I don't. The only one of these many legalities of marriage you speak of - is actually a legality of divorce...

Originally posted by SevenBeans
They treat custodial parents differently than non-custodial parents.

They treat someone who is bankrupt differently than someone who isn't.
They treat you differently when your healthy than when you're disabled.
I could go on and on.

No they don't. Both custodial and non-custodial parents can marry, vote, speak freely, practice their chosen religion, bear arms, drive and own homes.

Both bankrupt and debt-free people have the rights to petition the government, be secure in their persons, travel freely, to work for a living, to marry.

Healthy AND disabled people have the right to trial, to marry, to express themselves, to be represented in government, to have children, etc.

Of course people are treated differently, but they are not denied RIGHTS.

Will the world end if homosexuals are allowed to marry? I doubt one thing will be any different. Even from a religious point of view it's of no importance what label people apply to their actions. I think the harm comes in that it is watering down the importance or significance of the meaning of marriage.

I have a bit of a personal pet-peeve when it comes to the clarity of word meanings. Every one that dislikes Jews is not a Nazi or Hitler. That waters down the true evil of what that man did. As if he were no worse than people that throw rocks at synagogues. Every case of a man hooking up with a teenage girl is not pedophilia because now we're saying that a man liking a 5 year old is no worse or equal to a man liking a 15 year old girl.

Personally I think it clouds the importance of marriage and masks the important issues I've highlighted. If I wanted to talk about the high crime rate in black neighborhoods and the link to absent fathers in those communities someone will infuse that a lesbian couples successfully raise children with a low crime rate. Even though that may be true it's a diversion away from the actual issue. There's nothing wrong with having categories. This is marriage, that is... (Insert name here) If the homosexual community pushed for equal recognition with a different name I think they would get less flak. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." It's as if they want the name and only that name to be applied. The experience of equality doesn't seem to be enough.

Cultured pearls. What do you think of when you hear that? They're not inferior to natural pearls but initially the pearl industry frowned on them and labeled them "cultured pearls" to indicate a difference from natural pearls. These pearl farmers embraced the name and cultured pearls became a term that people respected and yet it left a division and distinction between those and naturally occurring pearls. I think the same thing could happen with "gay marriage" if they didn't insist on having the exact same name. Homosexual unions and heterosexual unions are obviously different, why pretend they are not. Putting pens in a box labeled "pencils" just rubs people the wrong way even though both are used for writing.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No they don't. They didn't treat me ANY differently, even though my husband and I could not produce offspring. We were neither prone to nor able to produce offspring, yet we were treated no differently than breeders.

That's because they didn't know (because it would be absurdly impractical and an invasion of privacy to check everyone's fertility, thereefore they cannot use such a criteria even if they happened to know).

Your relationship is the type that is prone to producing offspring though (a man and woman in a comitted romantic relationship).

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Exactly! They have no obligation and no business testing or refusing people because of their intent or ability to breed. That completely ruins the argument.

It doesn't ruin the argument at all.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, you don't have any examples of these "legalities that can change". That's what I thought. If you can't explain what you mean by "the legalities of marriage that can change", etc., then I can't respond to it.

Um, I gave you an example, there are many. The government can change inheritance laws for example in relation to a spouse. They can change privacy regulations when it relates to a spouse. They can change insurance related laws that are only applied to recognized marraiges etc. etc. etc.

I could go on and on.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's DIVORCE law, not marriage law. There is nothing in your marriage contract about divorce.

Where is this "marraige contract?" Once again, have you even looked at the form you fill out and sign when you ask for a marraige licence? This "marraige contract" that you've dreamed up doesn't exist.

Divorce law only applies to people who have been in a legally recognized marraige...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No they don't. Both custodial and non-custodial parents can marry, vote, speak freely, practice their chosen religion, bear arms, drive and own homes.

You are just being intentionally dense now.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Of course people are treated differently, but they are not denied RIGHTS.

There IS NO RIGHT to have the government recognize your marraige.

There IS NO RIGHT to file taxes jointly with your legally recognized spouse (because the government can take it away) etc. etc. etc.

Originally posted by dbates
I think the first definition was fairly accurate.

OK. So do I. I think the second one is accurate, too. That doesn't prove that there is ONE definition of the word. There are many. Each couple defines their marriage.

Marriage is a highly specified contract. It would be the state of being united with a person of the opposite sex in a life-long contract.

For some states and for some individuals, that would apply. For others, that restriction doesn't apply. NH Marriage Law. It's certainly not in MY definition of marriage.

If a male walked up to a complete stranger and said I'm getting married, the response would be "what's her name?"

More likely, the response would be "Congratulations"! But assumptions and personal attitudes and ideas about marriage are really irrelevant. As I said, if you're against marriage for some people, that's fine. But the state is obligated NOT to discriminate. And some states are finally recognizing that.

My grandfather remarried after my grandmother died. Personally I thought it was silly but we all humored him.

Ugh! My father remarried after my mother died and we HONORED him. It just goes to show how very DIFFERENTLY individuals can view the idea of marriage.

It's clear that you and I have VERY different ideas as to what marriage means TO US. But the state ascribes to neither. The state does not consider whether or not a couple can bear children. If I am wrong, please show me a state's marriage law that permits ONLY breeders to be married and I will recant. Otherwise, this is all just personal and individual opinion. And that's fine, it's just not relevant to the LEGAL state of marriage.

I believe all consenting adults should be permitted to marry. You don't.
I don't think kids are a reason for marriage. You do.
I am not interested in enforcing social norms. You are.

These are just personal opinions, not legal rulings.

I do actually consider your opinions even if I don't indicate that.

And I, yours. We just disagree. That's cool.

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Another intellectually bankrupt thread continues. If you don't want equal rights (including marriage) for all types of relationships, you're not exactly being honest here. It's about special rights, nothing else......in a society, not everyone can, nor should be equal, it's a fact of life.....to say otherwise is nothing less than intellectual dishonesty.

What you said isn't entirely true. It wouldn't be equal rights for all types of relationships, that would be dangerous. It is equal rights for all types of relationships between consenting, competent adults. Nothing more, nothing less. So no, it really isn't about special rights. Such a thing doesn't really exist. It's about equal rights between a responsible group of adults. It's only a bit less restrictive to how marriage already operates.

Actually, traditional marriage is a special right given to heterosexual couples. So in that sense, the concept of same-sex marriage works in reverse to what you're claiming. Traditional marriage is about special rights, allowing same-sex marriage would be about equal rights.

And here you thought this thread was intellectually bankrupt! We've still got some good stuff for you to try and dispute yet.

It's all word play, either everyone, no matter what be allowed, or it's not equal. Just another fallacy foisted on us by certain special people wanting special rights.

Originally posted by dbates
I doubt one thing will be any different.
...
I think the harm comes in that it is watering down the importance or significance of the meaning of marriage.

Which is true? Will the importance or significance of marriage be watered down?
Or will not one thing be different?

And is there ANY law that would water down or change the significance of your marriage? No? Me, neither. Even Britney's Vegas marriage or Anna Nicole Smith's or Elizabeth Taylor's repeated marriages did not water down the meaning or significance of marriage to me. Did they for you?

Come on. That's not a good argument.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

Separate but equal...

Homosexual unions and heterosexual unions are obviously different, why pretend they are not.

They are not different. That is the crux of our disagreement.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No they don't. Both custodial and non-custodial parents can marry, vote, speak freely, practice their chosen religion, bear arms, drive and own homes.

Both bankrupt and debt-free people have the rights to petition the government, be secure in their persons, travel freely, to work for a living, to marry.

Healthy AND disabled people have the right to trial, to marry, to express themselves, to be represented in government, to have children, etc.

Those are ACTUAL rights, having the government recognize your marraige isn't a right.

Originally posted by SevenBeans
Those are ACTUAL rights, having the government recognize your marraige isn't a right.

The government doesn't have to recognize my marriage unless it is a LEGAL marriage. If I am legally married, the government must recognize it. And we are talking about LEGAL marriage.

Besides, the right to marry was included in ALL my examples. You said my examples were actual rights. Are you just not reading? Or are we still not communicating clearly?

For example, you keep mentioning a 'right to have the government recognize a marriage'. What does that mean? Are you talking about a legal marriage? Is it the same as the right to marry? The way you say some things is very confusing to me.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The government doesn't have to recognize my marriage unless it is a LEGAL marriage. If I am legally married, the government must recognize it. And we are talking about LEGAL marriage.

What on earth are you talking about?

We have the right to take part in a ceremony known as marraige.

The government can choose to recognize that marraige (IE. extend legalities/conditions onto the relationship, remove those conditions, alter them, add them etc. etc.) or they can choose not to.

That recognition and those conditions etc. etc. etc. are not rights... they can be taken away.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Besides, the right to marry was included in ALL my examples. You said my examples were actual rights. Are you just not reading? Or are we still not communicating clearly?

We have the right to take part in the religious ceremony known as marraige, or to take part in any sort of commitment ceremony etc. etc. etc. that we want.

The government doesn't have to recognize it. There is no such right.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
For example, you keep mentioning a 'right to have the government recognize a marriage'. What does that mean? Are you talking about a legal marriage? Is it the same as the right to marry? The way you say some things is very confusing to me.

It's very simple.

You can have whatever sort of "marraige ceremony" that you want. That is your right and in many cases it's an expression of one's religious beliefs.

The government does not have to recognize it (IE. apply laws, conditions, obligations etc. etc. to that relationship).

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
They are not different. That is the crux of our disagreement.

Come on. I can't even get that they're biologically different out of you?

Originally posted by SevenBeans
We have the right to take part in a ceremony known as marraige.

The ceremony is a wedding, not a marriage. We are talking here about marriage - LEGAL marriage. The state-sanctioned institution of Marriage. The contract of legal marriage. Not what the preacher says or does. That is irrelevant to legal marriage.

The government can choose to recognize that marraige (IE. extend legalities/conditions onto the relationship, remove those conditions, alter them, add them etc. etc.) or they can choose not to.

If it's a marriage (remember, we're talking about LEGAL marriage), the government cannot choose not to 'recognize' it. If it is a LEGAL marriage, they have already recognized it.

The government LICENSES the marriage. The people request a license from the government (just like you did) and then they 'recognize' it.

We have the right to take part in the religious ceremony known as marraige, or to take part in any sort of commitment ceremony etc. etc. etc. that we want.

Call the ceremony whatever you want, but if you get married legally, the government must recognize it.

What you're saying is that I can go to the woods and have a ceremony without a license or go to a church and have a wedding without a license and the government doesn't have to recognize it. That is true. But once again, that is not LEGAL marriage. If you have a license, it is legal marriage and the government must recognize it.

That has nothing to do with the thread.