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

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.

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.

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.

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.

From Message 165Ummm, California threw out a state ban on homo-marriages, not DOMA. And DOMA is not a ban on homo-marriages. And DOMA does not deny any right to anyone, it defines marriage and says that states don’t have to recognize homo-marriages. We’ll have to agree to disagree here.Reminds me of that phrase: A liberal is someone who will interpret the Constitution, a conservative is someone who will quote it.I think the intentions are important. Its pedantic otherwise. DOMA doesn’t violate the equal protection clause.

---

From Message 166Now you’re just being disingenuous, why did you leave off the last part?:

quote:

---

I’ve seen replies before that there won’t be any changes at all so I was trying to be preemptive

---

It wasn’t a bad argument as a preemptive against the claim that allowing gay marriage won’t change anything.You’re vision is so clouded by your bigotry that you cannot take an argument at face value and instead have to misrepresent them so that you can vilify your opponent.

But the tradition doesn’t violate the Constitution. Everyone still has equal protection because everyone can get married. I’m starting to enter conjecture now, but I’m betting that bans on marriages between blacks and whites had more to do with other reasons than race. I mean, black people weren’t even citizens so could a citizen even marry a non-citizen? And it wasn’t a ban on interracial marriages explicitly, it was a ban on white/black marriages. What about a brown or yellow marrying a black? Those weren’t explicitly banned.If it was based mostly on race, then it would say that people can only marry people of the same race. But it was written as whites couldn’t marry blacks, which covers a lot more than just race.There’s also the problem of mixed races marrying so that clearly isn’t a good way to define marriage. What does “jumped the shark” mean? Meh, I just looked it up. I was honestly asking a question. Don't you think we should allow close realtion gay marriages as well?Its not the typical red herring. I realize that there are already laws against close relation marriages, but I thought that you could marry a first cousin. I don’t know. But the reasons for those laws, as you wrote too are: “> 90% of such relationships involve abuse of some sort, and any children run a significantly higher risk of birth defects”. But those really don’t apply to me and my brother so I don’t see why we shouldn’t be able to.We love each other and want to get married so under the 14th amendment it is unconstitutional for us to not be allowed to get married, right? Its not suppose to be an argument for why gay marriage should be banned. It was a reason for taking the time to make sure we don’t fuck anything up before we start changing definition all willy-nilly.

California had a ban on gay marriages. They ruled that the ban was unconstitutional. No. Sure. I think this is the best way to do it, state by state. California can be the guinea pig, so to speak. If all's well, then other states shouldn't have a problem allowing them to if they want to. 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.And I don't think we should force states to allow gay marriages if they don't want to. Unless it is, as a matter of fact, unconstitutional. Then we have to.

No. DOMA doesn’t violate the constitution. All it does is define the word marriage and prevent states from being forced to recognize gay marriages. Wrong again. Bans would be unconstitutional. DOMA does not legitimize bans. That’s the thing though. If, without a definition of marriage, gay marriage were legit, then there wouldn’t be a problem in the first place. But they’re not, so there is. But DOMA doesn’t enable bans. Your premise is false. What laws perpetuate those inequities and how does DOMA enable them? Well like I said, it was preemptive. But this isn’t the first time this topic has come up here. Typically, when someone disagrees with the liberals, they pile on and start the name calling. (lol, every heard the phrase: A bigot is someone who disagrees with a liberal) I figured someone would through out the same argument that I’ve seen before on this topic that allowing gay marriage wouldn’t change anything. They usually say something like: name one thing that will change because of gay marriage. I chose something very unimportant on purpose as a rub.

DOMA doesn’t exclude anyone from having a marriage, it defines marriage. Gay marriage isn’t even a marriage, by definition (at least according to DOMA). But it doesn’t remove any rights. It prevents non-marriages from being marriages. Not giving someone an orange is not the same as taking an apple from them. Outside of an explicit ban on gay marriages, states that simply do not recognize gay marriages as marriages are not violating the FFC clause, they are just adhering to the definition of marriage. An explicit ban seems to go against the clause, but maintaining the definition does not because it is the same definition for everybody. Everyone has to use the same definition of marriage, so the definition not including some things that some people wish it included does discriminate against anyone in particular. They just want to include something that it doesn’t. It’s not discrimination because all four people have access to the “Community Property” benefit as long as they fulfill the requirement of being married as set by the state. Everyone must abide by the same requirements. That marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman doesn’t discriminate against anyone in particular, it just constrains what can be considered a marriage.I don’t think the federal government should force a state to change what they have set up as being a marriage.If couple A doesn’t like Arizona’s laws then they shouldn’t move there. And you took the bait, hook, line and sinker in an excellent display of your bigotry towards opposing opinions. You’d rather put words in my mouth and call me names than take my argument at face value.

No, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman because that's the definition used when it was written. Well I'm not a homophobe so.... Fuck you asshole. It doesn't matter if their gay or not. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The apple is marriage as defined. The orange is gay marriage. Granny claimed that DOMA removed the right to marriage from gays (took the apple). But it didn't. It does not, however, give them gay marriages (giving them an orange). Not giving them the orange is not the same as removing an apple. Yes. You are intolerant of my opinion.When you write things like:

quote:

---

what a completely fucked up, shitty, petty, stupid, condescending, asshole thing to use as an excuse simply because you're a homophobe.

---

you are displaying your bigotry. But gay marriage is not a fundamental right and they are not being denied it because of their sexual orientation (two straight men can marry each other either). They are being denied gay marriage because what they want to be considered a marriage is not a marrage by definition.

Actually, I said that the definition is defined by how the word was used. Where have I said that I don't want them to have the same rights?Also, everyone does have the right to get married. Marriage already had a definition before gays wanted in on it. They want something that doesn't fit within the definition. So we either need to change the definition or provide a new word.

quote:

---

Intolerance:
1. lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc
Intolerance Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

---

Unwillingness to respect contrary opinion, hmmmm.You've been drinking too much Kool-Aid. Face it, you're an intolerant bigot. Marriage already had a definition before the issue came up so it wasn't defined in order to deny marriage to gays.

No, marriage was implicitly defined as between a man and woman before DOMA. The lack of an explicit definition was the reason for DOMA. It explicitly defined marriage to match the implicit definition.The reason was not to exclude homosexuals from marriage. DOMA’s definition is what the definition was before it existed. Your premise that marriage was not considered to be between a man and a woman before DOMA is false. No, DOMA was introduced to provide an explicit definition due to the ambiguity cause by an implicit definition. What was shot down was a different variety. The RIA explicitly forbid marriages between whites and blacks. DOMA does not explicitly forbid marriage between gays so it doesn’t violate the FFCC. I think that explicit bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional but failures to recognize them are not.
If the SCOTUS deems DOMA unconstitutional, then I won’t support it (DOMA) anymore. Well if you’re going to be pedantic about it, I didn’t actually say that you did call me names.

People typically respond to this by saying that you have the right to marry the one that you love while gays don't.But in the eyes of the law, a marriage is simply a social contract and it doesn't have anything to do with love. So, you don't really have the RIGHT to marry the one you love in the first place.