This May Be A Very Important Day For Gay Rights

Originally posted by drock905
When society starts to evolve it never goes back. It's always moving forward and becoming more inclusive . Legalized Gay marriage is inevitable, all the people trying to fight against are on the wrong side of history, you will look like fools and your children and grandchildren will be ashamed of you.

maybe you should read some history books. you will find that same sex marriages happened in many societies.
so stop harping about evolution, you don't know what the word means.

can someone plz explain me how the law that states that "marriage is an union between a man and woman" discriminates against gay people?
thanx.

Originally posted by supertrot
Fox

The Supreme Court could actually legalize same sex marriages nation wide with their ruling today. About time, in my opinion. This should not even be a government matter.

I find it strange that this has been kept so quiet until now. It also seems strange that Hillary just popped, out of the blu, with a statement supporting gay marriage a few weeks ago. This may be the day.

edit on 26-3-2013 by supertrot because: (no reason given)

Except they aren't ruling today nor are they ruling on the legalization of gay-marriage. They are more likely to toss this back to the lower-courts since it is a State amendment issue and the State decided not to defend it.

You did make one salient point though, it shouldn't be a government matter; but it begs the question. If it shouldn't be a government matter, why do you want the Government to tell you it is okay?

It also hasn't been kept quiet if you actually pay attention to it. Maybe not day-in-day-out coverage of it, but it has been on the horizon since Prop 8 was first challenged nearly the second it passed in California.

Originally posted by therationalist
can someone plz explain me how the law that states that "marriage is an union between a man and woman" discriminates against gay people?
thanx.

Prima facie, it doesn't It merely states that marriages are between a man and a woman. It does however limit Federal benefits to states that recognize marriage as something other than the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does.

reply to post by therationalist


It would be more prudent to ask why it doesn't. If the church and state were separated, as promised by our constitution, this should be a no brainer. If two consenting adults want to marry, they should be granted that right. Same sex couples should also be granted adoption rights as well. For some reason, many people think that homosexuals are perverse and dangerous people. There is a gross misconception that same sex couples pose a risk to children; this is complete bull. I know several same sex couples who are providing very healthy environments for their children.

We can look back through history and see that homosexuality has been observed for thousands of years. Many animals even display homosexual tendencies. It is a perfectly normal thing. Even in the Catholic Church, homosexuality dates back thousands of years. Many priests, as experts in religion and spirituality, engage in sodomy with young men. The church does not kick these priests out. If the Catholic church actually believed that homosexuality condemns ones immortal soul to hell, these people would be excommunicated.

Originally posted by supertrot
If two consenting adults want to marry, they should be granted that right.

The Right to marry is not denied, it is the benefits that are; along with State recognition of said union. That is a very large difference. Not one state in this Union denies two consenting adults to enter into a relationship because of their non-difference of sex.

Same sex couples should also be granted adoption rights as well.

Only Florida has such a restriction; all other states have recognized the ability. The only caveat is some states do not allow non-married couples to adopt; which is applied equally between hetero and homosexual couples. There are a few states that explicitly recognize joint adoption regardless of sexual orientation.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I said that it should not be a government matter because our constitution already grants us equal rights. Equal rights should mean equal rights..period. It is time to accept that homosexuals are a part of our society and always will be. A person cannot help who they fall in love with. Why should they even care who you choose as a marriage partner? If we force these people to live on the fringes of our society and create a separate set of guidelines for them (such as civil unions), they are not getting equal rights. Like one other poster stated; this is the equivalent of sending the blacks to the back of the bus. That is not fair and equal treatment, even if they do only account for 4% of our population.

Originally posted by supertrot
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

I said that it should not be a government matter because our constitution already grants us equal rights. Equal rights should mean equal rights..period. It is time to accept that homosexuals are a part of our society and always will be. A person cannot help who they fall in love with. Why should they even care who you choose as a marriage partner? If we force these people to live on the fringes of our society and create a separate set of guidelines for them (such as civil unions), they are not getting equal rights. Like one other poster stated; this is the equivalent of sending the blacks to the back of the bus. That is not fair and equal treatment, even if they do only account for 4% of our population.

Don't take my questioning so harshly. Government does not grant us any Rights. The Rights held are because we, as individuals and society, hold them to be such. How are they living on the "fringes of society"? Does any state bar them from engaging in such relationships? As far as I see, the consenting adults can be in any relationship they wish, with whomever they wish.

What is at hand and is getting lost not only in the oral arguments but in the public argument is that such relationships are denied Federal benefits that same-sex couples enjoy. I agree that the State and by extension, the Federal Government, should not deny one group benefits while recognizing another for a similar situation.

I wholly disagree that this is equivalent to "sending blacks to the back of the bus" though. Gay couples are not denied their free-association or their relationship. They are denied a label and benefits bestowed by Government in the form of survivor-ship and tax related issues. To those issue, I agree that the Government has no business in dictating or discriminating against what constitutes as a legally bound partnership/relationship.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Sorry, I did not intent to come across as harsh. I feel that if we set up a separate set of rules for any group, we are discriminating against that group. Consider the following statistic from 1995--outdated, but proves my point. Roughly 0.6% of American citizens were wheelchair bound in 1995 (link); however, In order to do business in the United States, one must provide for wheel chair accessibility. If we create laws to protect less than 1% of the population, why would we deny 4% of the population these rights.

reply to post by supertrot


Good question but it leads to the following: Should Government have the power to compel private enterprise to accommodate for that small percentage? Which leads us to the issue of marriage. Should the government have the power to compel citizens to accept what it wants?

No one is denied the enjoyment of being in a relationship in regards to same-sex couples. They are however, denied benefits (as are polygamist) enjoyed by same-sex couples. In this aspect, I wholly agree that the State either needs to step out of the business of "sanctifying and recognizing" the partnerships of consenting adults or provide equal access.

The ideal for me is that no person or couple should have to ask the State permission to be recognized as a legal entity for various reasons such as tax benefits, survivorship, etc.

Originally posted by david99118

Originally posted by kthxbai

Originally posted by Kali74
It's not a States Rights issue, it's a Human Rights issue.

Absolutely, positively the most accurate, succinct statement I have seen

since when is the LEGAL CONTRACT know as marriage a right? the whole idea of "rights" has really screwed things up. pretty soon people will start saying they have the right to kill random people or to molest children. hell we might as well stop prosecuting the catholic priests and the recent "supposed" mass shooting suspects. they all of course have the "RIGHT" to do as they please!

No, those acts are illegal for ALL people. You're only wanting marriage to be illegal for people you don't agree with.

An illegal act is illegal for everyone, not based on color, creed, gender or anything else. It's illegal period. Marriage, however, is NOT illegal, it's a legal agreement and is open to all people who are of the age to consent and aren't already in a legal agreement with someone else. Children can't get married, they can't give consent. Animals can't get married, they can't give consent. You can't be married to more than one person because it's a singular agreement. There is absolutely no reason to withhold that from two people of the same gender. It breaks no laws, it produces no illegal acts.

The only reason to oppose it is bigotry, plain and simple. It affects you in NO way if you are not wanting to marry someone of the same gender. It affects your marriage in NO way. You aren't required to divorce and remarry someone of the same gender. It doesn't make your marriage illegal. There is zero effect on you and there is no good reason to prohibit it.

reply to post by BenReclused


But the arguments that 'traditional marriage' proponents give is that marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation.

Originally posted by kthxbai
Marriage, however, is NOT illegal, it's a legal agreement and is open to all people who are of the age to consent and aren't already in a legal agreement with someone else. Children can't get married, they can't give consent. Animals can't get married, they can't give consent. You can't be married to more than one person because it's a singular agreement. There is absolutely no reason to withhold that from two people of the same gender. It breaks no laws, it produces no illegal acts.

Why is it a "singular agreement"? Why should same-sex couples enjoy the benefit of recognition, while polygamist should continue to be denied? So long as it is consenting adults and it is how they operate, they too should receive the same ardent support as does same-sex couples are seeking.

Partnerships are not always singular.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

I wholly disagree that this is equivalent to "sending blacks to the back of the bus" though. Gay couples are not denied their free-association or their relationship.

Once upon a time I'm sure someone made the logical argument that seating designation on a bus was not a right, that black people could still ride the bus or that women didn't need the right to vote because their husbands could.

As recounted by Ms. Langbehn, the details of the Miami episode are harrowing. It began in February 2007, when the family — including three children, then ages 9, 11 and 13 — traveled there for a cruise. After boarding the ship, Ms. Pond collapsed while taking pictures of the children playing basketball.

The children managed to help her back to the family’s room. Fortunately, the ship was still docked, and an ambulance took Ms. Pond to the Ryder Trauma Center at Jackson Memorial. Ms. Langbehn and the children followed in a taxi, arriving around 3:30 p.m.

Ms. Langbehn says that a hospital social worker informed her that she was in an “antigay city and state” and that she would need a health care proxy to get information. (The worker denies having made the statement, Mr. Alonso said.) As the social worker turned to leave, Ms. Langbehn stopped him. “I said: ‘Wait a minute. I have those health care proxies,’ ” she said. She called a friend to fax the papers.

The medical chart shows that the documents arrived around 4:15 p.m., but nobody immediately spoke to Ms. Langbehn about Ms. Pond’s condition. During her eight-hour stay in the trauma unit waiting room, Ms. Langbehn says, she had two brief encounters with doctors. Around 5:20 a doctor sought her consent for a “brain monitor” but offered no update about the patient’s condition. Around 6:20, two doctors told her there was no hope for a recovery.

Despite repeated requests to see her partner, Ms. Langbehn says she was given just one five-minute visit, when a priest administered last rites. She says she continued to plead with a hospital worker that the children be allowed to see their mother, even showing the children’s birth certificates.

“I said to the receptionist, ‘Look, they’re her kids,’ ” Ms. Langbehn said. (Mr. Alonso, the hospital spokesman, says that except in special circumstances, children under 14 are not allowed to visit in the trauma unit.)

Ms. Langbehn says she was repeatedly told to keep waiting. Then, at 11:30 p.m., Ms. Pond’s sister arrived at the unit. According to the lawsuit, the hospital workers immediately told her that Ms. Pond had been moved an hour earlier to the intensive care unit and provided her room number.

At midnight, Ms. Langbehn says, her exhausted children were finally able to visit their unconscious mother. Ms. Pond was declared brain-dead at 10:45 that morning, and her heart, kidneys and liver were donated to four patients.

NY Times

How about the freedom to associate with your partner in a hospital when they're dying? That's why this isn't a States issue. This wouldn't have happened in Massachusetts but very obviously did in Florida. If I'm in a gay relationship and legally married in MA can I never vacation in FLA just in case myself or partner end up in a life threatening situation? Equal protection under the Law, is very much a civil rights issue and the legal protections granted through heterosexual marriages do very much make marriage, a Right... something the Constitution promises we all have access to.

reply to post by supertrot


I figure most people reading ATS have studied philosophy, religion, the mystery schools, the secret societies, etc.

So how could you think homosexual marriage is good for the human race?

My mind is officially blown. I can't understand how anybody would imagine that ''marriage'' was something other than a sacred ceremony honoring procreative power. The word is not a generic term like ''automobile''. My two-door convertible is an automobile. My neighbor's SUV is an automobile. I see automobiles everyday in the form of sedans, trucks, sports cars, two-door, four-door, extended cab, electric, gas, diesel, hybrid, etc. The word ''automobile'' covers them all. On the other hand, ''marriage'' is a word used to describe the bonding of a man and a woman. Period. It is not something that any two people do. You don't get married because you live next to each other, or you enjoy playing chess, or you are best friends or co-workers. You don't get your whole neighborhood together and get married. You don't marry your father. You don't marry your cat or dog. You don't marry an infant, a goldfish, three women and five men, a tree, a rock, a mathematical equation, a wristwatch or a golf club. You don't marry for tax breaks or practical jokes. What has happened to intelligence and values?!!

Originally posted by Kali74
Once upon a time I'm sure someone made the logical argument that seating designation on a bus was not a right, that black people could still ride the bus or that women didn't need the right to vote because their husbands could.

Well to be fairly honest, there is no Federal "right" to vote; that is a state issue...I digress. In the context of some of the privileges experienced by married couples and denied by gay couples; I agree with what you stated. I have no qualms and have expressed that in terms of recognition by the State, their legal bonding should be no different. My main points are as follows:

A: Don't seek the label for label sake -- As Ted Olsen did in his oral arguments.
B: Gay people are free to get married; that isn't in question. What is in question is the Governmental recognition of that contract.
C: People have lost sight and have adhered themselves to the above two points while neglecting to fight the real issue. That is, as you have said above, privileges experienced by married couples.

How about the freedom to associate with your partner in a hospital when they're dying? That's why this isn't a States issue.

Already pointed out that is the more prominent Right that should be focused on; maybe not this thread though. But this isn't what is being argued and in my opinion, a grave mistake. Instead, consul has focused on the 14th Amendment (the catch all in SCOTUS cases because of the vagueness of it)

Equal protection under the Law, is very much a civil rights issue and the legal protections granted through heterosexual marriages do very much make marriage, a Right... something the Constitution promises we all have access to.

It doesn't make it a right. It makes it access to legal benefits, to which I agree, should be afforded.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I know you're not stating that gay people should be denied access to the same legal benefits, I didn't mean to imply that you were, apologies. However it is the 14th Amendment that primarily applies here... equal protection under the law. Of course an argument (I made a whole thread about this) can be made that no marriage be given any kind of legal status, recognition or privilege, but that isn't going to happen. Therefore we MUST recognize the 14th here and grant the same access to that legal status, recognition and privilege to same sex couples.

Originally posted by XXX777
reply to post by supertrot

 

I figure most people reading ATS have studied philosophy, religion, the mystery schools, the secret societies, etc.

So how could you think homosexual marriage is good for the human race?

My mind is officially blown. I can't understand how anybody would imagine that ''marriage'' was something other than a sacred ceremony honoring procreative power. The word is not a generic term like ''automobile''. My two-door convertible is an automobile. My neighbor's SUV is an automobile. I see automobiles everyday in the form of sedans, trucks, sports cars, two-door, four-door, extended cab, electric, gas, diesel, hybrid, etc. The word ''automobile'' covers them all. On the other hand, ''marriage'' is a word used to describe the bonding of a man and a woman. Period. It is not something that any two people do. You don't get married because you live next to each other, or you enjoy playing chess, or you are best friends or co-workers. You don't get your whole neighborhood together and get married. You don't marry your father. You don't marry your cat or dog. You don't marry an infant, a goldfish, three women and five men, a tree, a rock, a mathematical equation, a wristwatch or a golf club. You don't marry for tax breaks or practical jokes. What has happened to intelligence and values?!!

Not all marriages involve procreation. If that were true, why not make it a requirement to procreate before getting a marriage license? That would ban marriage licenses for sterile people, senior citizens, and those who aren't interested in having children. Believe it or not, there are people who get married, who don't even love each other -- but that's not a requirement to get a marriage license. There are people who get married for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with procreation: money, power, prestige, to relieve loneliness, state benefits, etc.

Originally posted by jimmiec
Because it destroys the sanctity of marriage for those who believe in it. All for 4% of the population. It will also creates yet another great divide in America just like Roe vs Wade did. We don't need more division. The people have voted on it and said no. Go after Civil Unions. Why destroy the sanctity of marriage when you can get the same result with civil unions? Why must "marriage" enter into the equation when they obviously don't believe in God/Bible anyway? This is just more destruction heaped onto society for no reason.

The sanctity of marriage!?? Are you kidding me?

We live in a world where divorce is more common than marriage. Where is the "sanctity"? There are people on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th marriage. Where is the sanctity?

Throughout the world, people have married a goat, a corpse, a video game character, a pillow, a dog, a mannequin, a pineapple. Since I am tired of hunting down sources, feel free to look up the man in China who married himself (which he later divorced his self as well), the man in London who married his own daughter, the women in the USA who married a roller coaster, the women in India who married a Cobra, the women in Israel who married a Dolphin, or the women in France who married the Eiffel Tower... and the list goes on and on and on.

So you are going to really tell me it is ok for a women here in the USA to marry a roller coaster, but if that roller coaster is a lesbian female that's where we draw the line?

Please tell me more about the "sanctity of marriage". I can't wait to hear more of this tired, lame, and flat out stupid argument.

Originally posted by andy06shake
Why do "They" feel the need to turn our world into what amounts to Sodom and Gomorrah all over again?

Why cant people just do what they do to each other in the privacy of their own homes without feeling the need to scream their sexual preferences from the roof tops?

Your queer, we here, and so do my kids!

There in lies the problem im afraid!

The planet is not a gay pride march, stop screwing with the sensibilities of society!

PLEASE!

edit on 26-3-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)

I actually laughed out loud and spewed over my keyboard.

Sodom and Gomorrah?
In the minds of people like you homosexual people are like animals that will have sex in the Supermarket if you let them. Hahaha.

I can only give you my own experience of homeosexuals, which I have not only in my family but also as friends.
These are the facts:
- All gay couples I know have been together for more than 10 years.
- They all work in very professional jobs [Police, Doctor, Directors etc]
- They went through hard times coming to terms with their homosexuality [not a chosen lifestyle]
- None of them has sex in public or looks extremely gay

Whilst many of our heterosexual friends:
- Most couples we met years ago are now divorced, putting their kids through hell
- Have menial jobs or none
- Some of them are very promiscuous [always talk about sex etc] and some we know have been to sex-parties [orgies]
- You should see them going out, sexy dancing, completely blotted and flirting

Now if I would use your "logic", the Sodom and Gomorrah is already here, helped along by heterosexuals. Therefore we must stop heteros from marrying and stop any rights to their 'chosen' lifestyle [after all, they could choose to be gay right?]

Walks away, shaking her head, still smiling at the naivite of some people.