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

That is pretty rich, considering that I pointed out to you in Message 135 that your argument contradicts itself, but you just ignored that in your reply, as though it never happened. This is typical of your MO, where you only reply to the bits that you think support your case, ignoring refutations. Just to recap; You have clearly contradicted your own argument. That is missing the point. What, you mean this nonsense, from Message 132? Even if we accept your shaky premise that the state itself has "desires" which must be fulfilled, you have not demonstrated that maintaining or increasing that population are the "desires" in question.Have you heard of a thing called "over-population"? We are faced with a greater mass of humanity than at any previous point in history. The world population is 6.6 billion, and is projected to rise to 9 billion by 2050. Given that resources are already stretched, this is not a good thing.The result of all this is that most governments are trying to bring their populations down. We should be actively encouraging people to decrease the chances of their procreating in any way possible; persuading them to marry someone of the same sex seems like it would go some small way toward achieving this. It certainly puts your ridiculous "extinction" claim into perspective. A pointless tautology. People are not entitled to things they're not entitled to. Wow, that's a really deep insight iano.The problem is that you have not demonstrated that marriage exists for the purpose of raising children. I am happy to agree that procreation is part of its purpose, but unless you insist that this one aspect is the supreme element of marriage and you prove that the rewards the state provides for married couples are solely aimed at the procreation aspect, your argument falls apart.Unless you are proposing that infertile people should be denied marriage benefits as well as gays, then you are proposing that one group of citizens is arbitrarily treated worse than the rest and that is clearly unconstitutional in the US and illegal in the EU.

---

Mutate and Survive

What the hell kind of bullshit argument is this?

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

Bloody hell, CS. I have gone back and read that several times, just to make sure that I'm not hallucinating and you really did post an argument that bad.People have to be discriminated against by their own state so that we don't have to change a form? That is the clearest example of someone clutching at straws that I have ever seen.

---

Mutate and Survive

Here are a couple interesting youtube clips of Obama and Keyes on this issue. Watch it and you will see how it connects to your statement I quoted.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

I was unaware of the Racial Integrity Act.I think that a ban on gay marriage is uncalled for. But the way marriage currently is, two men cannot marry. I don’t think that it is a right for two men to marry each other. They still have the right to marriage, but it must be within the bounds of marriage. I just don’t want to change marriage one day because we don’t know what the ramifications will be.If states want to do it individually, then that is up to them. They’ll have to do the redefining themselves. You can’t identify race like you can gender. Having marriage defined by race has nothing to base the definition on. Its really not the same thing at all. Some states require marriages to be consummated to be valid. The point was that there are some things that are going to have to change if gay marriage is allowed. I’ve seen replies before that there won’t be any changes at all so I was trying to be preemptive Health Insurance policies would have to change too if any two people can be married. But there is already equal treatment in that anyone can get marriage. The problem is with what marriage has been assumed to be (husband and wife) and how that is going to have to change. Not really. Everybody can get married and everybody can get a civil union. They are just different things.

I never said that, bigot.

Obviously. Why? Give a legal argument for restricting marriage by gender. "I don't think it's right" is an opinion, and has no basis unless you can support it with a legal argument.Of course, you're "Who knows what will happen" argument is also bullshit. What will happen is that a segment of society will be treated equally under the law, as guaranteed in the Constitution. If we have to change a few forms, so be it. Generally, marriage is state-defined. As far as I know, the federal government requires that marriages in one state be recognized in other stated, and recognizes marriage for tax purposes, but that's about it. DOMA is the only federal marriage law...and its Constitutionality is exactly what we're calling into question. You say that becasue you aren't racist. You most certainly can identify race exactly the same way as you can identify gender - they're both genetic and are for the most part easily observable visually.But here's the situation:"Marriage is defined as between two individuals, except that no white person may marry a non-white person."="Marriage is defined as between two individuals, except that no person may marry anyone of the same gender."Both of these constitute what was traditionally defined as marriage. Of course, traditional marriage has changed many times over the years. The legalization of interracial marriage was a huge redefinition in "traditional" marriage at the time.The question is "does the traditional definition of marriage as it exists today meet the requirements for equal treatment under the law as set down in the Constitution?" If the answer is "no," as it was in the Loving v. Virginia decision, then the definition must be changed. That's the whole purpose behind the courts. ...this may startle you, CS, but homosexuals are perfectly capable of having sex. They might put different bits and pieces into different orifices, but we took care of that when we struck down the sodomy laws (for the same reasons, I might add).So again, what changes? What law is functionally changed by having two men or two women marry? Does gender somehow prevent tax status from being applied? You've made an assertion, and have so far been unable to support it beyond "they can't do it missionary style!" or "we'd have to rewrite some documents! TOTAL CHAOS!" The changes I'm aware of are the entire point. They're the changes that actually grant equal treatment under the law to homosexual couples. So you tell me a specific law that is functionally changed by the gender of the members of a contract. Provide an example of a law that will be significantly modified in its functionality, as opposed to simply applying to two people of the same gender instead of two people from different genders. If you cannot do this, your suggestion that gay marriage is somehow "reckless" is completely invalid. No, they don't. "Spouse" still works just fine. If a married couple are covered by health insurance, what is the functional difference in the gender of that married couple? Is there something fundamentally different regarding healthcare coverage if you have a man and a woman or two men or two women?You're saying "it's different," but you aren't providing any reason that it's different. Provide the reason or concede. "But there is already equal treatment in that anyone can get married. The problem is with what marriage has always been assumed to be (members of the same race) and how that is going to have to change."There is no difference here, CS. Your argument was used in Loving v. Virginia, and it was wrong then just as it is now.

quote:

---

Discrimination:

​

2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

---

You are making a distinction between the functionally identical terms "marriage" and "civil union" based not on the merits or properties of either, but rather based on the gender of the parties entering into each contract.That's the fucking definition of discrimination, CS. Once again, your arguments were used almost verbatim in Loving v. Virginia. Those arguments were wrong then, exactly as they are wrong now.

So do I, in terms of civil unions. If you still have a problem over that then you qualify for the B word. I'm more equal and fair than you are, because you are demanding special exemptions and I am happy the way things are.Hey, I'm in love with the woman next door, but her bigoted husband says I can't marry her. He's a big bigot, too, and he'd like to break my knees. Oh, but I loooooove her! It's just not fair! Let's change the law.”HM

Apples and river rocks. This is just like comparing "gay marriage" to abolition of the slaves. If gays can have their civil unions sanctioned by law, just like I can, then what more do want? Affirmative actions programs for homosexuals?Can you picture Barney Franks introducing the Hershey Highway bill in Congress?”HM

Interesting. I've not come across Keyes before. He certainly put on a better showing than Obama, who just looked hesitant and flustered in the first clip. The second clip wouldn't play.Keyes' point about marriage being "in principle" between a man and a woman goes right to the heart of this issue. Why must it be so? Where does it say that Keyes' definition of marriage is the only relevant one?I choose to define a marriage as being "in principle" between two people, regardless of sex. Who's to say my definition is the only relevant one?As I understand it, US law does not define a marriage as being between a man and a women, so this whole line of rhetoric is irrelevant.

---

Mutate and Survive

The 1000+ laws that mention the word marriage were written under the presumption that those marriages would be between one man and one woman. I don’t know all the laws and ramifications of undermining those laws with a simple definition change of the word marriage. This isn’t an argument for restricting marriage by gender, that is the default. This is a reason for not simply changing the definition without considering the ramifications at all. Not exactly. Marriage has always been between one man and one woman, even before DOMA. DOMA was a response to the challenge to that definition. Before the Racial Integrity Act, marriage was not defined as being between the same race. The RIA is different from DOMA in that it was redefining marriage, itself, but DOMA is maintaining the definition. They are not easily observable visually and genders can’t “blend” like races can. I’m not convinced that marriage defined by race has something to base the definition on. But marriage wasn’t defined as being between the same race before the RIA like it is defined as being between one man and one woman even before DOMA. DOMA had to be written because the law didn’t explicitly define marriage and the definition needed to be stated. So now you’ve redefined consummation. The consummation one still stands. I have a question: After allowing gay marriage, will I be allowed to marry men that I am related to? Can I marry my brother or my cousin? Because it would be helpful to get my cousin on my insurance plan at work as he has none. Is that going to be legal? I honestly don’t know. I don’t know all of the 1000+ laws that mention marriage. I’m assuming that some of them didn’t take into account that it might be two men instead of one man and one woman and that that failure of accounting could lead to these things your asking me to predict. I don’t know for sure either way, that’s why I think it should be taken into account before we simply change the definition. To not would be irresponsible, IMHO.

Now, now CS, don't get your knickers in a twist.Laws such as the gay marriage ban are, in my view, state discrimination.You have repeatedly made it clear that you are against gay marriage, so why else would you bring up Nevada's terrifying stationary traumas if not to introduce an element of doubt over the feasibility of gay marriages. I somewhat doubt that you brought it up to help ease gay marriage laws through the inevitable red tape worries.Call me a bigot if it makes you feel better, but I am not the one bringing up trivial nonsense as if it were more important than peoples freedoms.

---

Mutate and Survive

DOMA does.

quote:

---

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

---

Because when laws were written that include the word marriage, that is what they were referring too. It was understood but not explicitly stated until DOMA. You can choose to define a word however you want, but when it comes to laws, words have to have precise definitions. The definitions should be stated, but they fucked that up with marriage laws. I wonder why it was overlooked? Prolly because nobody thought that it would be an issue.

Read the thread, I explained why I brought it up. Your a bigot because you'd rather vilify your opponent than understand them.You'd rather put words in their mouth than listen to what they are saying.

Yes DOMA does exactly what you say it does. And that is why it is being decried as unconstitutional. That is why California just threw it out. If it specifically denies a right to some citizens and not others, it is in pretty clear violation of the constitution. That's the thing about law. It doesn't matter what they were intending, as much as what they actually said. Even if we take the original intent of these laws as being the way you say it was, that will only succeed in making earlier laws violate equal protection under the law and thus the constitution, just like DOMA. Times change. If the only thing defining marriage as being between a man and a woman is a piece of legislation that violates the constitution, sooner or later, those previous laws, with their lack of definition, are going to be back in play.

---

Mutate and Survive