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

What? I've propose a level playing field for gays and striaghts regarding civil unions. If gays can't handle it then they're ones who need to explain why they are disadvantaged by taking the word "marriage" out of the law. What you and others are saying is that straight "marriage" somehow harms gays.”HM

And you're not bigoted against those who want to preserve "marriage" for couples of opposite sexes? Maybe you'd like to preserve the Hershey Highway for gay couples only? Please tell me how you decide who is a bigot and who isn't. Far as I can tell all we have that separates us is opinionation. There is no moral authority on this issue that can settle the matter conclusively. All we have is oponionation, the kind we use to decise how to vote. Got a better arrangement?”HMEdited by Hoot Mon, : common edit

What ignoring of the central point. Go back and read what the State is trying to achieve and how it sets about achieving it. The reason for it doing as it does is because it is not extinction-minded but survival-of-the-fittest minded.It is not a human right to receive the benefit of incentives for which you do not qualify.

Excuse me? How does simply applying the law equally to all parties and no longer considering gender micromanaging?! It seems to me the practice of restricting marriage by gender is the option that increases the red tape, iano.But it's irrelevant: the Constitution of the US guarantees equal treatment under the law. This is non-negotiable. It means there are two options: either remove marriage as a legal concern and make it an entirely private matter withotu state recognition, or give homosexuals the right to marry each other. There are no other options that satisfy the Constitution. Since the former is almost universally opposed, carries a huge set of legal consequences for laws that refer specifically to marriage (like the tax code), and generally is cutting off your nose to spite your face, it's unlikely in the extreme. Gay marriage then becomes the wiser option. You don't know the US very well then, iano. Marriage here has nothing whatsoever to do with children inherantly. There is no requirement or even encouragement in the marriage contract for having children.Once again, this retarded argument carries no weight in a legal system where people who don't want children, sterile couples, couples past senility/menopause, convicted felons, child molesters, murderers, rapists, and all manner of others are allowed to be married. Obviously a "household that encourages childbearing" has nothing to do with marriage in the United States.Aside from that, gay couples even now have children - they simply use artificial insemination or adoption or other methods to form their family unit, and it has been solidly shown that children raised by gay couples are exactly the same as children raised by straight couples.The "think of the children" argument is contradicted by facts, iano.But I can' stress this enough: The Constitution of teh United Statres guarantees equal treatment under the law. This is exactly the same fight we went through regarding interracial marriage, which was illegal in most (all?) states until the case of Loving v. Virginia. Feel free to look it up - the reasons gay marriage must be legalized are the exact same reasons that interracial marriage had to be legalized. It has nothing to do with children, nothing to do with "family units," nothing to do with whether bigots like Hoot get all squicked out when they see two men (or a white woman and black man) kissing, and everything to do with equal treatment under the law.

At the time, 90% of the population of the great state of California voted to have interracial marriage banned. It was the Cali surpreme court at the time that overturned the "will of the people" and announced the interracial marriage ban as unconstitutional.I just find it funny that some people at the time also used the "think of the children" argument like iano against interracial marriage. At the time, children of mix races were treated worse than even black children. Orphaned children of mix races were labeled unadoptable. And because of this, people argued that we shouldn't allow interracial couples to marry and have children so to save their children from a lifetime of pain. Of course this was just a bullshit excuse to mask their bigotry.Iano's "think of the children" argument is also a bullshit excuse for his bigotry.

---

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

First off: I answered the question, I was honest. Any retort? Or are you going to agree that some people don't hold your devisive bigotted views?Secondly: I advocate equality between a gay couple and a straight couple.You stipulate there should be no equality because.....?So, equality vs bigotry.

To compare the opposition to “gay marriage” to racial bigotry is to compare Bugs Bunny to Humphrey Bogart. There is nothing bigoted about opposing the legalization of “gay marriage,” and those who say there is are making cartoon characters out of themselves. Get real! There is NOTHING mentioned in the U.S. Constitution about gay people and their equal rights to get married. Gay people already have all the rights that I have. They are free to choose, just like me. There is no issue here that matters enough to bother the law with it. But bigots like you have turned it into a comic strip.”HMEdited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The issue is what the State "desires" and what it wants to "encourage".

---

I see. So in your world, we're all just a bunch of lab rats, running through our lives, being manipulated by the state to achieve what the state thinks is the best outcome.How revolting.Of course, your bizarre conception of the country as being some kind of marionette show with Uncle Sam pulling our strings suffers from the same flaw as every other claim that gay marriage will harm/destroy/affect heterosexual marriage in any way.How will allowing gay marriage change what the state is trying to encourage? All the same laws will still be in place, eliciting the same Pavlovian responses in people that you seem to think that they will. It won't change any of that at all. It will just mean that a few more people will be allowed to be in those kinds of relationships as well.

quote:

---

One could argue long and hard about the relative merits of gay parenting vs. traditional parenting. Each side would attempt to introduce data to support each others case. Whatever the case, the State is entitled to arrive at a view as to what is ideal. And if that view is that male/female parenting is the ideal to be sought after (faults and failures notwithstanding) it is entitled to take steps to promote and encourage what it considers to be in the best interests of the state.

---

Even assuming that your fantastic idea has any germ of truth behind it, as I mentioned upthread, the question as far as childraising is concerned isn't which is better, gay or hetero parents. As you yourself acknowledge, gay couples are going to raise children. Instead, the question is, which is better for children, married gay parents or non-marriage gay parents.The American Academy of Pediatrics says married in this report.

quote:

---

Gay and lesbian people have been raising children for many years and will continue to do so in the future; the issue is whether these children will be raised by parents who have the rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage. Same-gender couples are denied the right to civil marriage in every state except Massachusetts and the right to civil union except in Connecticut and Vermont. The federal government and other state governments do not recognize those civil marriages and civil unions.

​

There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.

---

What's more, you are demonstrably wrong in your assumption that gay couples cannot introduce new lab rats into the maze, ummm, I mean produce children. Take the example of Melissa Etheridge. She has been in two different relationships which have so far produced four children.

quote:

---

Lastly and to reject the claim of unmarried mixed sex unions claiming the same benefits as married couples there is the quid pro quo of marriage itself. All other things considered, the relationship which is prepared to make a solemn and public declaration of commitment and which is prepared to cast its individual worldly goods into the collective marriage pot is one which is more likely to result in a stable platform for child procreating and rearing than one which is not so constituted. If that is what the state is after then that is what the state is entitled to pursue.

---

Please explain how allowing gay marriage would undermine this goal.I'm 100% sincere. I don't understand. I don't see it. Are you worried that people will leave hetero marriages in droves and flock to those newfangled gay marriages?What are you worried about? What difference will it make?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Mmmm hmmmm.

quote:

---

From the Loving v. Virginia decision:

​

The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

---

Now, let's change just a couple of words:

quote:

---

The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious gender discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of any gender resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

---

It's the same goddamned argument, Hoot."It's an abomination before god!""It makes me feel icky!""It's not the traditional definition of marriage!""The majority opposes it!""Think of the children!""They're forcing their views on us!""They're still free to marry someone of the (same race/opposite gender) just like everyone else!"They're all the same goddamned bigoted arguments, Hoot. Every last one.It's exactly the same. Bigots rarely see themselves as bigots. There's nothing in the Constitution about marriage at all. There is, however, a very important part that guarantees equal treatment under the law for all citizens. Once again: the same arguments for and against interracial marriage apply to homosexual marriage. There is no difference whatsoever. "They're free to marry someone of the (oppostite gender/same race) just like me!"See? It's the same bigoted argument as was used against interracial marriage. For some reason it's bigots like you who refuse to let people make their own decisions - you want to deny them the right to make a very important decision, and you have no rational or legal argument of any value.You're the comical one, Hoot. You can't even rationally support an argument beyond "Oh yeah? Well you're a bigot too! NYA NYA!!!"

But we already have that. There is nothing I can do legally that a gay person can't. And don't give me the "Gays can't marry who they love" argument. If I loved two women and can only marry one a a time. Am I hollering for relief from such preposterous bigotry? Come on! We already are exactly equal under the law.”Hm

Once again, Hoot, you are using exactly the same argument that was used against interracial marriage."Them blacks can marry just like anybody else. They just have to marry the same race, is all, just like everybody else.""Them homos can marry just like everybody else. They just have to marry the opposite sex, is all, just like everybody else."Restricting the marriage contract by gender is sexist in exactly the same way that restricting the marriage contract by race was racist.Are you still not following here? Are you that dense?Let's make it really obvious. Explain specifically in detail how interracial marriage and gay marriage are different. Why does the 14th Amendment force interracial marriage to be legal, but not force homosexual marriage to be legal? What is the legal difference between discrimination by race and discrimination by gender?We are not equal under the law, just as interracial couples were not equal under the law until Loving v. Virginia.

Marriage wasn't defined as being between two people of the same race before Loving v. Virginia. Marriage, currently, is defined as being between a man and a woman.That definition would have to be changed. That definition is assumed in over a thousand laws that mention the word marriage in them. We do not know all the ramifications of a simple change to the definition. To simply change it, willy-nilly, is irresponsible and potentially dangerous.For example, the Nevada Marriage License requires information for the bride and the groom. That form would be obsolete and need to be changed/replaced if gay marriage was allowed in Nevada. Now, that isn't a big deal, really, but it is one consequence of allowing gay marriage. With thousands of laws mentioning the word marriage, I think we should make sure everything is going to work out fine before we just "flip the switch" and allow gay marriage.I think a better way to do it would be to just use civil unions and add them to the laws as needed.

Are you suggesting that if a defining characteristic of a person is a matter of their choosing, then it is ok to enact prejudicial policies against that person?Does that mean I can turn down a potential tenant because he is a Buddhist, or a Muslim? Can I also turn him down if he works as a lawyer or a plumber?I didn't know I had that kind of freedom as a landlord. In fact, I was under the impression that this was kind of frowned upon by the State.

Incorrect. Loving v. Virgina was the result of a specific ban on interracial marriages, exactly like the California ban on same-sex marriages.

quote:

---

the Racial Integrity Act, a state law banning marriages between any white person and any non-white person.

---

quote:

---

The Racial Integrity Act required that a racial description of every person be recorded at birth, and felonized marriage between "white persons" and non-white persons. The law was the most famous ban on miscegenation (anti-miscegenation law) in the United States, and was overturned by the United States Supreme Court in 1967, in Loving v. Virginia.

---

Both from Wikipedia. While the marriage contract may not have technically included a racial component, the law did define marriage along racial lines.The fact remains that the arguments both for and against same-gender marriage are identical to those used in interracial marriage cases. Be specific. Give a specific law that would be significantly changed in its function by allowing gay marriage.This is also not an "whimsical" change, CS. This is a change necessitated by the Constitution of the United States. All other laws are secondary to the Constitution. Oh no! A form would need to be changed! Think of teh cost of a word processor! We might need to make new copies! Heaven forbid!Note that the repeal (and initial passage) of the Racial Integrity Act also necessitated new forms be drawn up because of the "racial information" required by the law. Those laws that mention marriage are the reason gays want to be married in the first place. You know, the laws that define inheritance when one partner dies, or that grant the right to be at their partner's bedside without interferance from the family in case of incapacitation, or tax status, etc. How do any of those laws stop functioning in a meaningful way by allowing two men or two women to be married?Again, demonstrate a single law that would be meaningfully changed in its function by allowing two parties of the same gender to marry. Right, so gay marriage can work as long as we call them "butt buddies."Adding a different word is discrimination, CS. It doesn't solve the problem at all. Equal treatment is guaranteed under the law, and what you're proposing does not satisfy that guarantee.There are two options: Remove marriage from the law entirely and replace every instance of the word "marriage" with "civil union," allow any two consenting adults to enter into a "civil union" regardless of gender or race, and let the word "marriage" be used however individuals want it to be used in a non-legalized, non-state-recognized fashion; or allow gays to be married by removing any laws or definitions that forbid same-gender marriage.The first will never be supported by enough of the citizenry to happen, and is unnecessarily complex. The second is what happened in Loving v. Virginia, and what should happen now, as California and Massachusetts have both done.

Could you point out what federal statute provides this definition? DOMA? Has that definition been provided in any other statute?Do these thousands of laws state that the gender of the parties involved has any effect on the law's enactment? Couldn't the redefinition of marriage effectively change the other laws since they only refer to "marriage", and "spouse"? The only place in the license that mentions gender is...

quote:

---

When you sign this application, you are stating under penalty of perjury that the information you have provided is true and correct, that you are currently an unmarried male and unmarried female, and that there is no legal objection to the marriage.

---

There is nothing that says the woman cannot put her name in the groom's part of the form.Adding "civil unions" to the mix for gay couples would require as much effort as just redefining marriage. Any gender specific laws would have to be changed in order to apply to civil unions, just like it would if marriage were redefined.