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

But I’m the one of the ones here calling for civil unions between gays to protect their legal rights. I’m out to change the law for them. I’m out to give them everything they want . everything except legalized “marriage.” And I ask a simple question: Why should the law officiate in marriages anyway? The business of the law is sanctioning civil unions, not serving as ersatz churches. I would prefer to leave the churches in charge of marriages, as it should be. I don’t care what the churches do, so long a they don’t sacrifice farm animals, because I don’t have anything to do with churches. But I do care what the laws do; I have a lot to do with them, and they have a lot to do with me.There is nothing bigoted about believing that the word “marriage” should apply only to unions of members of opposite sexes. Is it bigoted to give baby girls pink booties and baby boys blue ones? Maybe was should have a law that says you can’t discriminate between the sexes that way, because maybe that little baby boy would prefer a pink booty over a blue one.By pushing “gay marriage,” the gays are doing the equivalent of pushing for ant-booty-color discrimination laws, because the current laws encourage heterosexuality, which means it discourages homosexuality. Why don't they make a case over that, too?It’ silly. If they already have the same rights as I do, which they do, then how are they being discriminated against? You want society to bend for them as if they had been enslaved for inheriting racial characteristics. And you want to make it seem as if homosexuality and race are on the same page for comparative purposes where suffering is concerned. Furthermore, you want to call people bigots for disagreeing with your position on this issue.I will be more likely to agree with you, bluescat48, when you can show me how a person becomes homosexual in the same way a person becomes black.”HM

So, if a gay couple got married in a Universalist church you'd be cool with that and call it a marriage?

---

KindlyA mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

Who gets to the woman when interpreting divorce law ought to be an interesting question and one rife with financial implications in some states?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I would be cool with that if I didn't have to be part of it. By keeping the word "marriage" in the law makes me part of it. But if marriage were to become the exclusive business of religious enterprises or whatever then I don't care what they do in their sacred halls (up to a point, of course).You can have a star named after your sweetheart or your mother if you like in the "International Star Registry." You even get a fancy certificate. If people want to do that it doesn't bother me, just so long as don't have to have to be part of it.The only alternative to taking "marriage" out of the law is to add another word to the law for civilly united homosexuals: "garriage." I'm sorry, but the word "marriage" is already taken by the heterosexuals to describe their unique civil unions.”HM

Hoot Mon, you have a serious flaw in your argument. Here is the big indicator:

quote:

---

you are wrongly conflating two different things: race and sexual orientation. And, by doing so, you are asserting that both have genetic roots, or at least roots in heritable characteristics.

---

You see, Hoot Mon, it doesn't matter where sexual orientation comes from. And while we know that it cannot be changed, it doesn't matter if it could. What you have yet to explain is why you are so obsessed with the sex lives of other people. How does it affect you if the people next door get married? Will your income tax go up? Will your children be taken away? Will you be forced to grant them an easement?Thus, you are incorrectly separating sexual orientation from equivalent things such as race and religion. We don't countenance discrimination based upon who you fundamentally are whether you are born that way or you choose it.

quote:

---

But you COULD choose your sexual orientation, and many do.

---

Well, no, you couldn't and nobody does. You, yourself, admitted that you didn't choose yours and if you didn't, what makes you think anybody else does? Despite numerous attempts by "reparative therapists" to do so, there has yet to be a successful conversion. In fact, "reparative therapy" groups specifically avoid claiming that there will be any change in sexual orientation and even more telling, don't keep records of the outcome of their torture...er..."therapy." Don't you find it interesting that the founders of Exodus (the premier "reparative therapy" organization) fell in love with each other and quit the group? Isn't it interesting that all of their poster boys for the "ex-gay" movement have been found in gay bars after their "success"? Do you truly not remember Paulk? In fact, those who go through "reparative therapy" are more likely to be clinically depressed and attempt suicide.But even so, it is irrelevant. We don't discriminate on the basis of religion, either, which is clearly an indoctrinated and chosen trait. To pretend that there is something about sexual orientation that makes it uniquely worthy of torturing other people that race or religion does not is disingenuous in the extreme.I call upon you and others contributing to this discussion who believe that race and sexual orientation can not be compared to re-examine your assertions. For you to deny the struggle of minority sexualities in this country, especially ones who are literally sent to torture chambers to this very day in this very country, with the "whimsy" of whites who assert the "white man's burden" is a public embarrassment for you. By doing so, you reveal yourself as an ignorant bigot.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

But I’m the one of the ones here calling for civil unions between gays to protect their legal rights.

---

But a "civil union" doesn't protect legal rights. Instead, it discriminates. We've already been down this road and found it constitutionally incoherent: There is no such thing as "separate but equal." By treating it differently, you necessarily insist that it is different, inviting later legislation that will codify that difference.Notice that despite the attempts by the various states to create a "separate but equal" contract of "civil union," not one of them provides complete equality.The only way to ensure equality is to have a single contract.

quote:

---

I’m out to give them everything they want . everything except legalized “marriage.”

---

And that's what makes you a bigot: You don't want to give them anything because the only thing that is the equivalent of "marriage" is an actual marriage called "marriage" and using the same "marriage" contract as every other couple. Instead, you want to provide a separate and necessarily lesser contract, enshrining in the legal code second-class status.

quote:

---

And I ask a simple question: Why should the law officiate in marriages anyway?

---

Because it's a civil contract. Marriage establishes next-of-kin relationship. That is an inherent government act. Many of the legal effects of marriage can be established in other ways (power of attorney, wills, property agreements, etc.), but the marriage contract includes legal relationships that are not provided by any contract no matter what the name. Too, the legal cost of establishing all of the other contracts is massive and prohibitive compared to the cost of establishing a marriage contract.

quote:

---

The business of the law is sanctioning civil unions, not serving as ersatz churches.

---

Huh? Marriage is a civil contract. No religion involved. What's your problem? You claim to be an atheist and also to have been married three times. Are you saying that you never had these marriages certified by the state? Then why are you calling them "marriages"?

quote:

---

I would prefer to leave the churches in charge of marriages, as it should be.

---

And since marriage is a civil contract with no religion involved, one wonders why you keep harping about this.

quote:

---

But I do care what the laws do; I have a lot to do with them, and they have a lot to do with me.

---

And how would your life change if the neighbors got married? How would the long arm of the law come down on you? You say it has something to do with you, so it is time for you to be specific. Would the neighbors getting married increase your income tax? Would it cause you to lose your job? Would the government exert emminent domain upon your property?

quote:

---

There is nothing bigoted about believing that the word “marriage” should apply only to unions of members of opposite sexes.

---

There is everything bigoted about it as it declares gays to be second-class citizens, unworthy of equal protection and full rights across all areas of society.

quote:

---

Is it bigoted to give baby girls pink booties and baby boys blue ones?

---

"Give" them? Not necessarily. Prevent girls from wearing blue booties? Yes.

quote:

---

the current laws encourage heterosexuality, which means it discourages homosexuality. Why don't they make a case over that, too?

---

That already happened. Lawrence v. Texas. Laws that discriminate against gays specifically because of their sexuality are inherently unconstitutional because the law has no place in discouraging homosexuality.

quote:

---

If they already have the same rights as I do, which they do, then how are they being discriminated against?

---

Because they don't have the same rights as you.Gays don't have the right to get married.
Gays don't have the right to be secure in their households and not be evicted for being gay.
Gays don't have the right to be secure in their jobs and not be fired for being gay.
Gays don't have the right to be secure in their parenthood and not have their children taken away because the parents are gay.
Gays don't have the right to serve in the military.
Gays don't have the right not to be tortured because they are gay.

quote:

---

You want society to bend for them as if they had been enslaved for inheriting racial characteristics.

---

They have. Why do you think the word "faggot" came to be used for gay men? Because a "faggot" was the bundle of sticks you used to start a fire and gay men were the ones you burned on the fire. When we liberated the concentration camps in Europe, there was no freedom for the gays: They were sent to prison because it was still illegal to be gay.It's been illegal to lynch someone for being black for decades in this country.It is still legal to torture gays, though.

quote:

---

And you want to make it seem as if homosexuality and race are on the same page for comparative purposes where suffering is concerned.

---

That's because they are.

quote:

---

Furthermore, you want to call people bigots for disagreeing with your position on this issue.

---

That's because they are.Now, you have the freedom to be a bigot. What you don't have the right to do is force that bigotry into the law. If you don't like gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex and you'll never have to deal with it.How does the neighbor's marriage affect you? Will you be required to sell your car? Will you be demoted at work? Will you be deported?Be specific.

quote:

---

I will be more likely to agree with you, bluescat48, when you can show me how a person becomes homosexual in the same way a person becomes black.

---

Why does it matter? You claim to be an atheist. By your logic, you would have no problem with the theists in this country passing a law forcing you to pay a disbelief tax since your philosophical stance isn't genetic.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

randman writes:

quote:

---

Who gets to the woman when interpreting divorce law ought to be an interesting question and one rife with financial implications in some states?

---

Huh? Divorce laws aren't based on the sex of the people involved. They haven't been for years.Hint: When two men are a couple, neither one is "the woman." When two women are a couple, neither one is "the man."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

I would be cool with that if I didn't have to be part of it.

---

Please explain how you are a part of the neighbor's marriage. When they got married, were you forced to engage in any legally enforced action with regard to them? Were your children taken away? Were you forced to sell your car? Was your passport revoked?Be specific.

quote:

---

By keeping the word "marriage" in the law makes me part of it.

---

How? How does someone else's marriage involve you? Do you make a habit of crashing weddings?

quote:

---

But if marriage were to become the exclusive business of religious enterprises or whatever then I don't care what they do in their sacred halls (up to a point, of course).

---

But marriage is a civil contract. No religion involved. Why do you seek to deny equal treatment under the law to citizens?

quote:

---

The only alternative to taking "marriage" out of the law is to add another word to the law for civilly united homosexuals: "garriage."

---

Incorrect. The only alternative is for you to come up with some term for your "special friendship" that has no legal meaning. Instead, everybody else will use the word "marriage" for the legal contract not only because it is the only constitutional option, but also because everybody knows what "marriage" means and there isn't a single person who would be confused by the use of the term "marriage" as applied to people of the same sex.You're the one trying to say that your "special friendship" is something different than a marriage. Therefore, the onus is upon you to come up with a new term.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

It’s absolutely laughable, Rrhain. You may as well be calling for unisex (both sexes) public rest rooms, using the argument that separate-but-equal is unfair sexual discrimination. Maybe I would like to sit there and listen to a women tinkle. What harm is there in doing that? We’d have our own private stalls. I wouldn’t even reach under the divider and tap on her shoe. She could listen to me tinkle, too, if she had a mind to. We’d both be free to listen to anybody tinkle and nobody would be harmed by it. Who'd be the victim in that? So we need a special law to protect the rights of tinkle listeners. They’re good people, too, you know. And anybody who says they’re wrong for being who they are is a big fat bigot!Rrhain, you and others here are advancing an argument that is purely opinion and nothing more. There is no inherently moral right or legal entitlement that empowers homosexuals, tinkle listeners, chicken abusers, voodoo cursers, or any group that wants special treatment under the law. I’m afraid all that is only a matter of opinion and choice, not a matter of morality or heritability. And I say “special” because every homosexual, tinkle listener, chicken abuser, or voodoo curser has EXACTLY the same rights I do.You have not yet explained why “gay marriage” is worthy of special accommodation under the law. I have said that if gays want to get “married” (or “garried”) in a church I have no objection. Because I don’t have to join that church if I don’t want to. But if I have to sanction “gay marriage” because the laws require me to sanction it”because I am necessarily part of any law in a country whose laws are made ”of the people, by the people, and for the people””then I say bullshit. The next special group coming down the pike will want their special rights, too.Here’s the bottom line, Rrhain. Let the homosexuals have their civil unions so that they can no longer claim to be legally disadvantaged. I have to be a part of that, though, because I am necessarily part of any law in a country whose laws are made ”of the people, by the people, and for the people." But, being a noble person, I will move over to accommodate them, and I’ll do it gladly, IF THE LAW GETS OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF "MARRIAGE."I don’t object to civil partnerships. Old ladies legally leave their fortunes to their cats. I’m OK with that. But I’m not OK with an old lady “marrying” her cat in a legal ceremony at the county courthouse. Let them go down to the Tuna Fish of Life Mission for that if they need to.”HMEdited by Hoot Mon, : same-sex ”> unisex

Hi Hoot.I think you have it backwards. If there were same-sex public rest rooms that would be an example of separate but equal, just as having colored restrooms and drinking fountains was separate but equal, and, most importantly, unconstitutional. Opinion is a claim that is not supported by premises. Rrhain and others have done nothing but provide arguments in favor of equality and equal protection under the law. As has been said repeatedly, the 14th amendment warrants equal protection under the law: equal, not special. Again, as has been said by Rrhain and others, whether it is by choice or not is completely irrelevant. The law does not discriminate against followers of any religion, which is by choice, or against members of any racial group, which is heritable, and not by choice. Again, as said before, civil unions are the very definition of being disadvantaged. Separate and equal are negatives. Something cannot be separate and in the same breath be called equal, just as something cannot be called round and in the same breath be called not round.

Thank you, Infixion, for your astute correction. I changed it (same-sex ”> unisex). A legal opinion is supported by premises. A scientific opinion is supported by premises. A religious opinion is support by premises. Are there not differing opinions on the legality of Christmas trees in public schools? Yes, Christians have provided arguments on that issue, too, but none of them was anything more than an opinion. And none of mine was either. Then everything is fine and dandy. Since homosexuals have the same rights I do they are already equal to me under the law. You'll say that homosexuals are not equal because they can't have "same-sex marriages." Well, I can't have a legally sanctioned polygamous marriage either, even if I wanted one. So why aren't you out there banging the gong for legalized polygamy? The law discriminates against polygamists. Why are you forgetting about them? They might want to call you a bigot. And maybe something should NOT be called "marriage" if it is supposed to legally unite two or more members of the same sex in a civil union. Why can't "marriage" be reserved for heterosexuals? Why do homosexuals feel the need to horn in on that? Heterosexuals are called "straight" and homosexuals are called "gay." You have no problem with that, do you? Then why not "marriage" for straights and "garraige" for gays?Prediction: The next big gay issue will be same-sex polygamy.”HM

Do you even bother to fucking read anything that people post? Go back and look at the numerous postings that inform you about the legal ramifications of denying gays the right to marry the person they love. Hint...it's not necessarily about the "love"...it's about the benefits that spouses are awarded as a result of the civil union called "marriage". Read...Hoot Mon...read.And try reading for context. If you do these two things, you'll find that we have repeatedly addressed this stupid argument (as put forth by you and Catholic Scientist). And please note that we have addressed it, not with our "opinions"...but rather with the legal, and Unconstitutional ramifications of deny homosexuals the right to marry someone of the same sex. Yeah...and then after that them uppity Negros are gonna wanna move into my neighborhood...and maybe even begin to think that they deserve a vote. Stupid Negros...why can't they just stay with their own "kind"?And I find it disturbing to know that you're paranoid about shit that hasn't even happened yet.

I'm reading. I'm reading. And I'm reading that the law has something to do with letting people marry who they "love." Does the law do that? I don't think the law has anything to do, or should having anything to do, with letting people marrying who they love. Are you prepared to legalize the definition of "love"? Jerry Lee Lewis loved his fifteen-year-old cousin, and married her, too. According to you that was OK.Get fucking real! And if I were one of "them uppity Negros" I'd be furious as hell about your ridiculous comparison of my historical plight with that of the gays.”HM

A recent post in response to the "all homosexuals have the same rights I do already" is in Message 306. I didn't forget about them. In fact, others have already responded to this. In Message 74 you brought up polygamy, and Sub responded to you in Message 84. Why can't the front of the bus be reserved for whites? It's a question of rights, and the lack thereof. This has been hashed out in previous posts.Look, I'm a fool, and the farthest thing from an expert on the topic, but even I can understand the crux of the issue of homosexuals being denied rights that come with marriage. And with this, I'll excuse myself from this thread. Edited by Infixion, : GrammarEdited by Infixion, : No reason given.

Read the next fucking sentence from my post and tell me what it says. Here, I'll even provide it for you: Christ Hoot Mon, apparently you are not reading.I mean, are you purposely being stupid? Yeah...cuz we all know that the Constitution applies only to non-homosexuals. Get it, Hoot Mon..it's a not a comparison of the plight of African Americans to homosexuals...it's about equal protection under the law, as per the 14th Amendment to our Constitution.So let me make this suggestion to you again. Go back and read all the post that address this stupid issue (comparing Blacks to homosexuals), as well as your stupid "but I can't marry someone of the same sex either" argument.Seriously, Hoot Mon, you should give reading a try, it's a pretty neat thing.