Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban

yeah... when it was written. Like, when the laws where written the definition for marriage that they understood was between a man and a woman. I did have a grammatical error there. It should have said "because that was the definition used when it was written. According to current law, no.But they still have the same rights as me. I cannot marry a man either.What right do I have that they don't? The reason DOMA was needed is because there wasn't a legally binding government dictated definition of marriage. People understood the word to mean husband and wife so it went unstated, but as things changed the definition needed to be explicit and goverment dictated. Thus DOMA. To be a bigot is to be intolerant of another's opinions. To be intolerant is to be unwilling to respect another's opinions. When you called my opinion 'fucked up, shitty, petty, stupid, and condescending', you were being unwilling to respect my opinion. Ergo, you're a bigot.

Well its the truth. If you want to deny the truth, then so be it. What about the people who actually passed the law:From Congress of the United States
House of Representatives

​

SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS

​

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT
AS INTRODUCED ON MAY 7, 1996

quote:

---

The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make
explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years;
that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and
wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex. The DOMA
definition of marriage is derived most immediately from a Washington
state case from 1974, Singer v. Hara, which is included in the 1990
edition of Black's Law Dictionary. More than a century ago, the U.S.
Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in
the holy estate of matrimony." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45
(1985).

---

So now what kind of bullshit are you going to make up?

Seriously, though.What right do I have that they don't? What changed was people wanting to get gay marriages.DOMA can't deny them the right to it if they don't have the right in the first place. And DOMA doesn't explicitly deny them the ability to get gay marriages either. I haven't done anything to prevent anything. You really didn't have anything to begin with....But I would like a reply to Message 222 where I substantiated my claim that marriage was defined before DOMA.

quote:

---

For, certainly, no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the co-ordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony

---

That's a quote from the Supreme Court in Murphy v. Ramsey in 1885.I guess it wasn't as implicit as I thought.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

The law needs to regulate marriage because it is a legal social contract and also there are over 1000 laws that mention the word marriage. We need laws to regulate contracts. They want health insurance through their 'spouse'.

Jaderis,Fisrt off, fuck you for the personally attacks. Things like this: are a violation of Rule 10:

quote:

---

Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person.

---

And I don’t think we’re ever going to see eye-to-eye on anything. You’re just too different and when I see things like: then I think there really isn’t any point to me replying to you. And that you would rather just label me a bigot than listen to what I’m saying and try to understand me, makes you a bigot as well. So welcome to the club you intolerant bigot.But I will answer your questions . More claims to the health insurance company that I use driving up the cost of my insurance. I wouldn’t move to WA then. There’s plenty of laws that I don’t like. I just obey them anyways. Because the definition needed to be explicit. See Message 222 and Message 226That was a response to the request:

quote:

---

Give a specific law that would be significantly changed in its function by allowing gay marriage.

---

Don’t quote mine. BMX is Bicycle Moto-Cross. I haven’t ridden a bicycle since I turned 16.

---

I’ve already explained how arguments against same sex marriage are not the same as those against same race marriages and how DOMA is not unconstitutional. I’m not gonna rewrite them just for you. You can reply to the messages where I first wrote them. You could try to change the laws that are preventing you from providing that security or you can try to change the definition of marriage or you can introduce a new term for same sex marriage and set it up so it provides that security.And one way you can get more dignity is by being more tolerant and less bigoted. I think you said it best:

ZOMG1 That was my birthday

Marriage, in the eyes of the law, has nothing to do with sexual attraction or love. It is just a social contract. And it does have some restrictions. None of us have the RIGHT to marry someone we're attracted to. That doesn't have anything to do with it.

Message 174

quote:

---

I really don't care either way if gay people get married or not. I just don't think we should "turn on the lightswitch" on a federal level that redefines marriage to be between any two people.

---

Another thing I don't like is drawing up lines and creating new groups of people and then finding some way that they are discriminated against so that laws can be made more liberal.Its those small nudges to the left over and over again that are eventually going to push us over the edge.

They have every right that I have. I can't marry someone of the same sex either. This talk of them being denied rights is bullshit.If its so obvious, why not state it? Know that marring someone you love or want to fuck has nothing to do with the law. The law sees marriage as a social contract, with limitations. Because some states were going to marry gays anyways, even though it wasn't legit. They passed it to defend the definition of marriage, hence the name, not to go on the offensive against gay people. You're childish. I quoted the people who actually passed the law explaining why they passed it and it wasn't anything like that. So quit spitting out this bullshit. Yes, it was assumed to be that way. It was also implied in the case I quoted.You asked me for the reason why they passed DOMA. I quoted the people who passed it saying why.You asked for where the definition of marriage was implied before DOMA. I provided a Supreme Court case with such an implication.Your opinions on the truth of the matter does not match reality, but you are going to maintain your false opinions anyways I think you're more bigoted than I am.... and I'll even admit to being a little bigoted.

So when Granny says that gays have the right to marry, and I reply with how they don't. Then you reply to that talking about denying them rights. How can I know that you're talking about different rights than the ones we were talking about if you don't say so?So, no, I didn't fucking know that already, ass. They aren't being denied those rights in the sense that the State explicitly says that they cannot have them. They just don't qualify for them as a consequence of the laws. I guess if you want to call that a denial, you can, but I see a difference.The 14th amendment says that a State cannot have a law that deny's priviledges to its citizens. There isn't a law that deny's gays priviledges. They lack those priviledges as a consequence of those laws being for married people and marriage being defined as between man and woman. In a sense, the law is blind to gay people altogether. Also, gay people can get married and have all those rights, they just have to follow the restrictions on marriage, so they aren't even being denied the rights. They just don't get them in the exact way that they want themSo yeah, it sucks for gay people that they don't have those benefits and it'd be nice if they got those benefits. But its wrong to claim that it is unconstitutional according to the 14th and that they must have those benefits.I'm not going to agree with people that create a sub-group of citizens that the law fails to recognize, and claim that they are being unconstitutionally denied rights so therefore we must change the definition of marriage to grant them those rights.If there's a problem with hospital visitation laws, then fix those. THe same with inheritance and other things. Simply changing the definition of marriage, while being the most obvious and immediate fix, is not the best way to go about it. We'd be changing too much stuff to forsee the consequences and potential exploitations. The libs just don't care about the consequences of their actions as long as the end justifies the means. I can understand fighting for everyone to have the same rights, but I don't like opening up all our laws to exploitation by using the loosest interpretation of the constitution.Its shitty how the libs twist the constitution to fulfill their agenda. You know the 14th was written for slaves. I wonder what the writers would say if they knew that it was being used to argue that gays have a right to be married. Now those guys were some homophobic bigots. It makes me wonder why you want to try to use their words so literally in the first place, even though in your attempts at a literal reading, you completely remove the context, and distort the meaning to fit in with what ou're trying to argue. (That's the proverbial you, not you individually Fliesonly.) If you respect the writer's so much to use their words literally, then you should respect their original intentions. If you think their intentions were wrong, then why use their words so literally. The gay partner doesn't count as a spouse. That's why all that occurs, not because of homophobic bigots.I've got more to say, but I've run out of time.

A bigot is someone who is unwilling to respect another person's opinion.You clearly have disrespected, and have been unwilling to respect, both my and HM's opinions.Ergo, you're a bigot. Bigot:a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. Intolerant:1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Me: "Gee, it looks like marriage's definition doesn't include gays and there might be a problem simply changing that definition."You: "What a fucking retarded piece of shit nonsense opinion you have you fucking bigot! You're afraid of and hate gay people and want to deny them rights and you don't know anything about the constitution!"That is bigotry.... an unwillingness to respect my opinion. You respect that I have an opinion!? WTFYou're a bigot because you disrespect my opinion and are unwilling to tolerate it. You'd would rather place me in a group and hate on me than listen to me as an individual and try to understand me. That's how the KKK treats black people. How can a viewpoint deny someone rights? I haven't done a single thing to deny them rights. Arguing on an anonymous internet discuss board!? Give me a break

I haven't tried to deny them Constitutional rights in two ways...First, I haven't done anything to deny them rights
Second, they don't have a Constitutional right for what I am supposedly denying them in the first place. Really? Then you guys are saying that gays are the same basic thing as black people.What a stupid thread this is.

No, I haven't voted for any laws that limit marriage. I think that DOMA defines marriage correctly, but I not as sure about the powers reserved to the state part. I do not support the right of right of homos to marry. That isn't active denial of a right though.I'm not doing anything to deny homos rights. Nope.I'm saying that they don't have a Constitutional right to marriage within the same sex. The aren't excuded from anything that the 9th and 14th refer too. Marriage has limitations that apply to everyone. In a similiar way, NJ and HM's comparisons don't say that gays and gravity, or trees or whatever, are basically the same thing. I was wondering the same thing about you.