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

Your point underscores the prevailing myth of this entire discussion. Silly people seem to think that the government ought to regulate their emotions.”HM

But, Rrhain, the opinion of the vast majority is that "gay marriage" is not the same thing as marriage between a man and a woman. How could it be? The parts don't fit together. Please be specific about the law you are quoting. Ooooohhhhh, this is getting tedious! Gay people have EXACTLY the same rights as I do. Please explain to me why they don't. No, I never said anything of the sort. I don't care who gets married, so long as the law stays out of it. What affects me is that I, via the law, have to be a party to it. I'm not objecting to civil unions between gays. But I object to anything that conflates government with religion, as is prohibited by the First Amendment. I believe you are under the right impression. Well, I'm an atheist, and I've been married three times. I'd say atheists would do well by staying out of churches.”HM

Is this a word puzzle? No, you said "Deja ve.” Don't you have a spell checker? Your literary penetration is less effective than a mosquito's. I'd work on those similes if I were you. I wouldn't think of screwing up your spell checker. We haven't even been properly introduced.”HM

So if this is how you two really feel, then why do you give a flying fuck if homosexuals are allowed to marry one another?

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.

Seriously though, quit being a prick. You know damned well what right you have that they do not. Why do you play these childish game, Catholic Scientist? Then why DOMA? If they were already prevented from marrying, and if marriage was already defined as between one man and one women...why DOMA?
Was it perhaps because it was feared that gays did indeed have the right to marry...so a bunch of homophobic bigots decided to amend State Constitutions and/or write Federal Legislature making sure that two individuals of the same sex could not get married? What you supplied was some info regarding DOMA where they (the Conservative, homophobic Legislatures) mentioned that their definition was based primarily on a single case from 1974 where a lower court decided that banning members of the same sex from marrying was not a violation of their rights. How nice that they ignored other case studies that concluded the complete opposite (Andersen v. Sims; Castle v. Washington, just name a couple).And for the Legislature to simply claim that it was "implied" that marriage has been between one man and one women does not make it so, Catholic Scientist. Hell, I could state basically any fucking thing I wanted to in a proposed Bill and get it passed if enough asshole agreed with it.You know, it may very well have been "assumed" that marriage was between one man and one women, but that does not mean it was ever implied. There's a difference there.But none of that matters. We can only hope that eventually, DOMA will make its way to the SCOTUS and let them decide. I cannot see how any Justice could not see the DOMA violates the Constitution. That case was one looking at bigamy and polygamy and how it affects voter registration, not homosexual marriage...so I'm not really sure that it legally qualifies as the definition of "marriage" prior to DOMA. Besides, times change Catholic Scientist...or are you suggesting that we should still allow slavery and prevent inter-race marriages?And it also states "...in the holy estate of matrimony", so if we follow your argument, anyone not married in a religious ceremony (or some sort of "Holy" service), by your stupid logic would not actually be married. You wanna run with that horse, Catholic Scientist? Seriously, if you're gonna make the claim that this case defines marriage as between one man and one women, you also have to claim that it further states that the marriage needs to be in "Holy" matrimony. Wow, a lot of U.S. Citizens are gonna be in a shit load of trouble.

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.

OK...let's try to take this a bit more slowly. It's not the "right" to get married we're necessarily talking about. It's the "rights" that come "with" getting married. But you fucking know this already. And instead of admitting what we both know to be true, you'd rather just act like an ass. So look, just drop this line of defense...because we both know it's stupid.But I'll play this game with you. We will ignore, for the time being, the whole aspect of love and spending the rest of your life with the one you do love, as opposed to marrying someone because they're the only one the Law allows you to marry.This social contract called marriage has numerous benefits to it. Your spouse is awarded certain rights that a non-spouse does not get. Health coverage is just one of many. Others include hospital visitations, inheritances, and important medical decisions. However, if you have no spouse, basically, your closest living relative may be awarded some of these rights...and this non-spousal relative may do things against the wishes of the "affected" individual despite this individual having a "partner" with whom they have shared a life for decades. The partner may be kicked out of their home. This partner may not be given items that a married spouse would be given without hesitation. The relative may make medical decisions that directly contradict what the two partners wanted. And all this occurs because homophobic bigots like yourself have a problem with two men or two women getting married to each other.So you see, Catholic Scientist, you are wrong. Homosexuals are indeed denied rights awarded to to those who get to marry whom the chose. It's quite simple really.The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states:
"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (bold mine)Does this help you see how homosexuals are being treated differently under the law? And some of those limitations are recent events designed solely to prevent homosexuals from marrying. Hence the problem...and hence the Constitutional violation. Bwa ha ha ha ha! Good One...Gads you're funny. Ha...another good one. Let's see...a bunch of homophobic Republicans passed a law but didn't come right out and say that they did it because they're homophobic Republicans, so therefore we can all safely conclude that they are not...cuz...well...you know...golly gee...they said they weren't. Spare me, Catholic Scientist.I mean, on the one side, you claim that DOMA was not passed to deny homosexuals the right to marry someone of the same sex, and then on the other side you say that DOMA prevents members of the same sex from getting married. It would be rather funny if it didn't totally screw (pun intended) so many American citizens out of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights to "Life, Liberty and Property" as well as "equal protection" under the law. To be honest, I again have a headache and really don't feel like going back and trying to find where this was implied and not just assumed. Was it the 1885 Bigamy case? The one that had absolutely nothing to do with defining marriage? I mean, for fucks sake, Catholic Scientist...it was from 1885. A lot has happened since then. Lots of definitions have changed. Can you find a more recent case? I supplied two that completely disagree with your premise. Yes...you supplied a single Supreme Court case that dealt with Bigamy, polygamy and how those affect voter registration and in that opinion, they used the sentence you supplied. So what, this is not 1885.And what about the whole "holy matrimony" aspect of your quote? Do you not agree that any marriage not preformed via some sort of religious service would, according to the definition you supplied, now have to be considered as null and void...as having never taken place...that the two people can no longer considered as legally married. Your Supreme Court case apparently does not apply as "simply" as you seem to think it does. Or are you going to only selectively interpret the meaning of the Opinion? Yeah...boy...you sure got me here with this one. I'm so completely full of crap. You're practically a God and pretty much have it down pat...well...except for that whole "Constitution" and that pesky, annoying, "14th Amendment" thing. But other than that...wow...you knocked it right out of the park...oh...and well... except for that whole "why DOMA was passed" thing. You know...how you stated it wasn't written to prevent two guys from getting married, but yet it was written to prevent two guys from getting married. But other than those two things...wow...watch out...you nailed it buddy...nailed it! Blah, blah, blah. Let's see...since I'm the one fighting for equal treatment of homosexuals and you're the one all freaked out about two guys getting married, I'll sleep just fine tonight knowing who is and who is not acting like a true bigot.Edited by FliesOnly, : To fix a couple of typos

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.

I certainly do agree with you (and I'm a liberal on most other matters). Reminds me of that old '60s bumper sticker: "NUKE THE GAY WHALES FOR JESUS!"”HM

I'm always interested in why things change - words, history, etc. More interesting however is who is making these changes and if there is some underlying influence. It's really stupid for a jurist to be able to change a legal definition in one state. Now marriage will have a different meaning depending on which state you are in. Luckily for the time being I don't have worry about the problem.Dad had a saying that people often argue about what they are arguing about. To quote a President "what is is". Dad had a simple insight that amazed people.

I apologize for the rule violation. However, it is true that you did once argue that you were against gay marriage because you might be tempted to marry your motorbike buddy (sorry about the BMX...i was going from memory) and that you felt that would cheapen your future marriage to a woman. My attack stance was unnecessary and I am sorry. You assume that I do not understand your position. Why is that? I do understand exactly what you are saying and I simply (but vehemently) disagree with it.Oh and by the way, if you want to believe that refusal to accept intolerance is bigotry, then go right ahead. But that doesn't make it so. I'm not even going to bother with this one It's as easy as not moving, huh? Wow, I didn't know that.As for obeying laws, I agree that most laws should be obeyed, but are you really arguing that people shouldn't work to change unjust laws? I sure hope not.Besides that, you seem to be missing the point of the full faith and credit clause which guarantees that contracts honored in one state will be honored in all states. That is why DOMA is unconstitutional. Because it violates full faith and credit. Even if you take into account the public policy exceptions because it also violates the 14th amendment. And why was that necessary if not to be a vehicle to allow states to deny equal rights to some of their citizens? I wasn't. I was directly responding to the issue of redefining consummation. My argument was that the definition has already radically changed due to the fact that it is not as readily apparent as it traditionally was and has pretty much fallen into the "he said/she said" category.And I will add that any reasonable judge will be able to extend the word "consummation" to gay and lesbian couples if that ever becomes an issue.I will also add that most states do not have a consummation requirement or even use the fact of non-consummation as grounds for divorce or annullment. And those that do usually define it as "sexual relations" or "sexual intercourse" which is further legally defined in many states as including oral and anal sex. (feel free to look up each state's laws for yourself hereSo, you are talking about a handful of states that might have to either add oral and anal sex to their definitions of intercourse (which many states already do) and/or change the phrase "husband and wife" to "spouses" or whatever.Not such a significant change in function after all. I would do that if my argument would differ based on those previous posts. You have stated your opinion about why you don't think that the arguments are the same and why you think DOMA is not unconstitutional. I read them and I disagree and have stated why previously. I don't need you to spell it out again for me, thank you. Um...what do you think we've all been on about this whole time? Sorry, but I refuse to accept bigotry and hatred. That does not make me a bigot. Try again.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

Not in all states, but in many. And at the federal level, too, due to DOMA which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages as marriages. Thanks for that. And I do. How is not allowing someone to have a right not a denial of that right? You say: And those laws that disqualify gays from getting married effectively deny them due process and equal protection under the law.And even if they weren't a violation of these things (plus full faith and redit) the rights that are unenumerated in the Constitution are ours unless the state can show that there is a compelling state interest in denying them. The onus is on the state, not us. Yeah, cuz we're just making up some special category that doesn't really get discriminated against. Again, it is up to the state to show that we don't deserve those rights. If they cannot find a compelling state interest to do so, then the rights are ours no matter if the group is "created" or not. You have yet to enlighten us on what those consequences might be.Compelling state interest =/= some bad shit might happen but I don't know what it is.Oh and LOL at "libs" not thinking things through (*cough*Iraq*cough*) No, its shitty how conservatives think that the Constitution is a dead document (or even completely irrelevant, like our dear leader). That it cannot see that the writers left a lot of room open for rights to be procured by the people that they did not or could not have forseen. Much of the language was intentionally vague as to allow for the inevitable future societal changes. They were not stupid enough to think that this country would remain culturally static, even if they would not have personally agreed with the changes that have occurred and will continue to occur. Most of them probably would not have agreed with the abolition of slavery or women's suffrage or the civil rights movement or many of the other huge (and not so huge) social changes that have occurred since the inception of this country. Should we not have done any of those things either because they would not have approved? Um, I would say no.As for the 14th Amendment, yes the impetus for the passage of this amendment was to confer full citizenship to the former slaves, but it was also intended to make sure that the states followed the same due process and equal protection as the federal government. The (unintended, but not, therefore, invalid) consequence is that the laws on the books in those states which deny gays the right to marry are now unconstitutional and they must prove a compelling state interest to deny us those rights if they wish to keep them on the books. Or, at least, that is how it is supposed to work. Because the amendment is worded in such a way that it guarantees due process and equal protection under the law to all citizens. Their "intentions" as to how that those words are interpreted are now irrelevant since they left it open to all citizens.You're gonna have to redefine the meaning of citizen in order to get around that one. Have fun with that! And the reason why the gay partner doesn't count as a spouse is because homophobic bigots have passed laws denying us the right to be each other's spouses. See how that works?

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

A marriage traditionally is a union of a man and woman. This union is suppose to be one of the highest commitment - though better or worse until death do us part.I'm really offended that gay people have not respecting the rights of the general community who this commitment applies. The majority of the community is not gay. If the general community decides that a marriage is a life commitment between a man and a woman whats it to gays. Why don't they don't create a name for their union.Please bigots don't be too offense against me because I didn't take their side. Please provide reasons if you are to disagree or make yourself a bigot. Being a minority does not justify disrespect.

Wow! I can't figure out if you're being serious, or attempting some sort of satirical post. I'm hoping for the latter, but leaning towards the former.