Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

reply to post by Annee


If the issue is benefits, why all the discord?
Why don't they make it so people can just list their beneficiary? Rephrased, wouldn't it be less controversy if everyone was permitted to assign the person they choose to receive the benefits just like on a life insurance policy?
It would seem to me that it would be easier to just do that. If I am missing something let me know k.

Originally posted by OldSchoolMom
reply to post by Annee

 

If the issue is benefits, why all the discord?
Why don't they make it so people can just list their beneficiary? Rephrased, wouldn't it be less controversy if everyone was permitted to assign the person they choose to receive the benefits just like on a life insurance policy?
It would seem to me that it would be easier to just do that. If I am missing something let me know k.

EQUAL as what stands TODAY! NOW - - RIGHT NOW!

If changes are to be made - - - then make them after everyone is EQUAL.

reply to post by Annee

If changes are to be made - - - then make them after everyone is EQUAL.

well that's easy enough.
just remove the "benefits" state recognized marriages currently receive, then everyone is equal.
mixed-gender, same-gender, single parents should have access to the same benefits.
they all maintain families and state-sponsored, special treatment/privilege for one group OVER another is discriminatory.

Originally posted by Honor93
well that's easy enough.

just remove the "benefits" state recognized marriages currently receive,

Completely different subject.

Not going to discuss it.

reply to post by Annee

fine, but if you aren't arguning/fighting for equality for everyone, what are you fighting for ??
single parents shouldn't be without any more than the next "family" structure.
since you don't want to discuss it, what is it you really want ?

Originally posted by OldSchoolMom
reply to post by Annee

 

If the issue is benefits, why all the discord?
Why don't they make it so people can just list their beneficiary? Rephrased, wouldn't it be less controversy if everyone was permitted to assign the person they choose to receive the benefits just like on a life insurance policy?
It would seem to me that it would be easier to just do that. If I am missing something let me know k.

The issue at hand goes far beyond just the assignment of "beneficiaries".


Ignoring, for the moment, that there is a basic concern for the constitutionality of denying a certain, specific group of citizens Equal Protection Under the Law (which was the basis of the Judge's decision, and which Should worry Christians, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, people with red hair, basically Any group of people who could be "singled out" as a group) simply because a majority of the voting populace thinks they should be denied said right; the problem is the very pervasiveness of the term "Married" throughout the law, both at the Federal and State levels.

The sheer cost of of going through every law, code regulation, contract, etc, that grants certain rights, priviledges, and/or advantages to those who are considered "Married" (as opposed to those who are not, actually "married", but "something" else), at both the Federal level and in every State, County, and city regulation, to insure fair and equal application of "rights" under a Domestic partnership, or Civil Union, would be staggering.


Just look what was needed to spell out a mere inkling of the problem!


From a cost and efficiency stand-point, alone, it make far more sense to simply allow same-sex couples to be "married" under the Law (whether that marriage is recognized by any dissenting "religion" or not would be up to the practictioners of said religion; per Church/State separation), and for that marriage to be universally recognized and ackowledged by the government at all levels, as heterosexual marriages are currently.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Annee

 

fine, but if you aren't arguning/fighting for equality for everyone, what are you fighting for ??
single parents shouldn't be without any more than the next "family" structure.
since you don't want to discuss it, what is it you really want ?

Here's the thread title: Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

Self explanatory.

reply to post by Annee


People just need to let it be, dont claim to not be a homphobic vermin when your against same sex marriage, when its legal in Australia we will be fighting to make sure it stays, 62% want gay marriage even christians, these vermin against same sex marriage dont realise that it has massive negative social, mental, emotional impact on same sex couples and also leads to repression of LGBTIP people, im so sick of these heartless fools protesting against it and i laugh when their own child is gay lesbian bi transgender or intersexed or pansexual, but i also feel sorry for the child having such horrible homophobic parrents, the ones who change their views and back saemsex marriage are the ones i also admire, because like a man who lived the life of a gay man for a year, he was once homophobic and is now a open excepting straight man, if only all these biggotted homophobes would do the same, get bashed, raped, have your self or your child commit suicide or be murdered, and then see how it feels when people make you feel like you are scum and dont belong or are not better then them because they can marry and you cant! oh and for those who say children need a mother and father, grow up, what about widowed parrents of war victims, disease victims, single sperm doner recipients, seriousley, my same sex partner and i are raising a child and shes 6 months advanced her age and there is no father, so get over it and stop using the same old pathetic arguement against equality because you just look foolish and desperate.

reply to post by Annee

don't be coy
i quoted your commentary ...

If changes are to be made - - - then make them after everyone is EQUAL

now, if you are off-topic then retract the above nonsense, otherwise, at least try to explain it.
how can everyone be EQUAL if preference/privilege is offered to any particular group ??

I say, good. let California keep the gay marriage. In fact, send all the gays to California so they can all get married. We all know California is going to fall into the ocean one day, perhaps all the gays running to Ca to get married will help it happen just that much faster.. Opps.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Annee

 

don't be coy

i quoted your commentary ...

If changes are to be made - - - then make them after everyone is EQUAL

now, if you are off-topic then retract the above nonsense, otherwise, at least try to explain it.
how can everyone be EQUAL if preference/privilege is offered to any particular group ??

I am not the one who kept trying to take this thread off topic.

Which is why I abandoned the thread.

reply to post by Bhadhidar

The issue at hand goes far beyond just the assignment of "beneficiaries".

Ok, beyond benefits... I am trying to understand the value I guess in what is being called "a right" in this circumstance.

I ask this because I was having a great relationship. We lived together two years and we were in love, not a doubt. But, I had no intentions of getting married, I just was of the attitude that I was in it until it wasn't fun anymore so locking in under contract seemed to be more of a suckers game imo.

Why would I enter into a contract when everything was great? That was my opinion at the time. So then, I get pregnant...everyone tried to convince me to get married. I didn't understand this, we were happy and now going to have a baby what was the purpose of going into contract with the state?

I didn't understand why it was important to involve the state in my relationship (still don't). So, I refused. When I was in my 8th month I found out from the hospital that the state will not allow me to give our child the fathers name unless we were married. What a rip! So the state will prevent us from naming our child properly if we don't marry? total crap, I was mad and wasn't even going to give in but it meant everything to my bf that his son have his name. So I gave in.

I tell you this because I didn't see it as "a right" but a burden. We had to go get blood work to prove we were disease free, then commit to a contract that the state makes the rules.

Oh, Oh AND when the relationship turned into well... that song by meatloaf explained it best "praying for the end of time". You get me?

This "right" was just an obstacle and a pain to get out of.
I went through it, under that "right" he wasn't easy to get rid of.
Without that "right" I could have just moved and it would have been the end of it, easy smeezy.

Ignoring, for the moment, that there is a basic concern for the constitutionality of denying a certain, specific group of citizens Equal Protection Under the Law (which was the basis of the Judge's decision, and which Should worry Christians, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, people with red hair, basically Any group of people who could be "singled out" as a group) simply because a majority of the voting populace thinks they should be denied said right; the problem is the very pervasiveness of the term "Married" throughout the law, both at the Federal and State levels.

So I guess I just don't understand how this is even really a "right", it seems like some sort of trick to get more couples in contract with the state OR maybe take some benefits away from married people. I am just guessing but, as I said... I don't see any real value in this as a "right".

It seems to me it is like everyone has a "right" to get a root canal you don't need. You follow me? Or everyone has a "right" to give the state your x-mas bonus check.

The sheer cost of of going through every law, code regulation, contract, etc, that grants certain rights, priviledges, and/or advantages to those who are considered "Married" (as opposed to those who are not, actually "married", but "something" else), at both the Federal level and in every State, County, and city regulation, to insure fair and equal application of "rights" under a Domestic partnership, or Civil Union, would be staggering. Just look what was needed to spell out a mere inkling of the problem!

Yeah wow...I was married a long time and I didn't see any benefits in it, just headaches...I might benefit if he dies but, who cares I already replaced the bum with a younger and better model...but, I am not even going to take advantage of this "right" that everyone is fighting for.

From a cost and efficiency stand-point, alone, it make far more sense to simply allow same-sex couples to be "married" under the Law (whether that marriage is recognized by any dissenting "religion" or not would be up to the practictioners of said religion; per Church/State separation), and for that marriage to be universally recognized and ackowledged by the government at all levels, as heterosexual marriages are currently.

I agree, I don't see the value in involving the state but no one should be prevented from doing so if they desire.
Thanks for taking the time to share the circumstances with me... I feel a little bad that I find it funny...but I agree, everyone has a right to be fooked equally by the state. (sorry couldn't resist).

Originally posted by OldSchoolMom

I agree, I don't see the value in involving the state but no one should be prevented from doing so if they desire.

And there is the entire point.

Equal Right of Choice.

I think people tend to over-complicate this debate. It's actually, at least in my mind, quite simple.

There are literally more than one thousand rights and privileges currently extended by the government to heterosexual married couples upon getting a marriage license. Currently those rights are not all extended by the government to homosexual married couples.

Sure, people can argue until they're blue in the face about whether the state should be involved in people's marriages in the first place, but since they already are, it is unconstitutional to single out a specific class of people for denial of the rights and privileges others are extended by the government as a matter of course. And that's what this ruling acknowledges.

It's really that simple in my opinion. Peace.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Annee

 

don't be coy

i quoted your commentary ...

If changes are to be made - - - then make them after everyone is EQUAL

now, if you are off-topic then retract the above nonsense, otherwise, at least try to explain it.
how can everyone be EQUAL if preference/privilege is offered to any particular group ??

I am not the one who kept trying to take this thread off topic.

Which is why I abandoned the thread.

i am not trying to derail an 18month old thread that you started.
i've followed along and agree with the court's decision but still would like an explanation to your comment quoted.
if that's off-topic, perhaps you shouldn't have said it in the first place ?
[psssst, i only posted 3 replies to this thread, how is it that you refuse to respond to the only question i asked ?] rude much ??

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Annee

 

don't be coy

i quoted your commentary ...

If changes are to be made - - - then make them after everyone is EQUAL

now, if you are off-topic then retract the above nonsense, otherwise, at least try to explain it.
how can everyone be EQUAL if preference/privilege is offered to any particular group ??

I am not the one who kept trying to take this thread off topic.

Which is why I abandoned the thread.

i am not trying to derail an 18month old thread

that you started.
i've followed along and agree with the court's decision but still would like an explanation to your comment quoted.
if that's off-topic, perhaps you shouldn't have said it in the first place ?
[psssst, i only posted 3 replies to this thread, how is it that you refuse to respond to the only question i asked ?] rude much ??

OK. Poster Jean Paul Zodeaux (who has since been banned) tried to hi-jack this thread and make it about eliminating government marriage.

Fine - but that is not the subject of this thread. He wouldn't stop or leave or go make his own thread.

"If changes are to be made - - - then make them after everyone is EQUAL" - - - means that gays should be allowed to have the same rights as heteros - - - exactly as they are Today - - Right Now. That would be Equal.

If anyone wants to work on reform and doing away with Legal marriage - - - it should not be done after everyone has the same Equal rights as they stand Today.

reply to post by Annee

And there is the entire point. Equal Right of Choice.

Well you actually missed the point I was making but, ha... that's ok. Cheers

Originally posted by OldSchoolMom
reply to post by Annee

 

And there is the entire point. Equal Right of Choice.

Well you actually missed the point I was making but, ha... that's ok. Cheers

NO - - but you made mine

reply to post by Annee

i'm not JPZ and what does its banning have to do with YOUR statement ??

i am not discussing the opinion of any poster except you atm.
why are you deflecting and antagonizing rather answering the question ??

fyi, i don't create threads as i don't have the time to maintain them.
does that mean i cannot participate in yours ??

look, i am merely trying to understand (for about 30yrs now) what equality has to do with an argument/legal battle about extending/expanding preferential treatment ??
yet, you said it and i asked you to explain, how is that a derail ??

i am not against "marriage for all", i am not against the premise of the legal challenge, however, i am confused as to how any aspect of equality under the law relates to preferential treatment.
care to explain ??

and to be totally honest, i am baffled how such a battle FOR preferential treatment would be referred to as a win for equality
do you understand what i'm saying here ??

"If changes are to be made - - - then make them after everyone is EQUAL" - - - means that gays should be allowed to have the same rights as heteros - - - exactly as they are Today - - Right Now. That would be Equal.

yes, i comprehended it the first time i read it, that's why i asked the question.

so, let's break it down ... "If changes are to be made" ... state by state, they already are.
"then make them after everyone is EQUAL" ... well clearly, that's not happening (see above)

so, does this mean that you support preferential treatment, just not for everyone??
i really didn't think the concept was that difficult to understand.

you said (it) [your statement] ...

means that gays should be allowed to have the same rights as heteros

ok, why stop there ?? shouldn't it mean all ppl are equal under the law, period ??
why the specific breakdown ??

i want to understand why preferntial treatment under the law is ok with anyone at this point.
i thought issues of discrmination were long settled law.
[/sarcasm]

please know that i am not picking at you in any manner.
i am trying to understand why the real battle for equality is being subverted in favor of extended preferential treatment.
[yes, i know that isn't the topic either, but you brought it up so i asked, ok ?]

and to this, i have to say, HUH ??

If anyone wants to work on reform and doing away with Legal marriage - - - it should not be done after everyone has the same Equal rights as they stand Today.

marriage, as a specific issue, doesn't concern me as much as equality for all under the law.

as for marriage, i think it should stand as an independent religious activity and out of the state, but that's my opinion.
those who are welcomed and married via their church should be recognized everywhere
(under the protections of the 1st Amendment)
but, preferential treatment for ANY group is still preferential treatment.
and personally, i was hoping this movement was to get beyond preferential treatment for anyone.

and with regards to your comment, please explain how this makes EVERYONE equal under the law, without a qualifier (marriage) ??

*** please note, i've been married and don't intend on doing it again. i am still a family provider, a grandparent and am offended that i don't qualify for any preferential treatment simply because i don't WANT to be married. what's up with that ????

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Annee

 

i'm not JPZ and what does its banning have to do with YOUR statement ??

You wanted a straight forward answer - - I gave it to you.

You don't like it - - I don't care. If you can't figure out why JPZ was part of the answer - - not my problem.

You want to be civil - - I'll answer your questions. Otherwise - - forget it.