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

Just poppin in for a second. Well, that's nothing special from CS. He was against gay marriage in another long ago thread because he felt that his future marriage to a woman might be cheapened by the fact that he might want to "marry" his BMX buddy in order to give him benefits. He comes up with all sorts of excuses to be a bigot, which is unfortunate because he is usually a pretty rational guy. The idea of queers having equal rights apparently brings out the stupid in a lot of otherwise intelligent people.

---

"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

I really should just stay in lurk and learn mode, but these threads bring me out again and again. Ramifications? Please, do inform us of the possible ramifications of two men (or women!) marrying. Even if you "don't know" just give us a hint of what is going through your mind when you think about this. The problem with that is that I can get legally married in Massachusetts (and CA - just in time for my birthday!) but if I want to move, my marriage does not move with me. In cases like this, "states rights" arguments (which BTW used to be and are still code words for bigots to trample on the Constitution) have to cede authority to the US Constitution. Just like the "majority rules" arguments. The Constitution is in place for a reason. How would you like it if you got married in NY and then decided to move to WA and all of a sudden you weren't married anymore? Talk about a mountain of paperwork (since you are so concerned about that). Sure it is. Let me introduce you to my friend Alex (virtually, of course). You can usually automatically assign gender with one look (or even a glance), but not always. Sure, she used to be a long haired, beautiful "girl," but she now considers herself male and even without the testosterone or the surgery it is hard to tell.It's also irrelevant. Identification of race was really not that hard. Especially under the "racial integrity" laws that were passed where your race was assigned at birth and had to be proven in order to get married.The arguments against gay marriage are the same as those against inter-racial marriage. Deal with it. For fucks sake! It's not just about "health insurance policies."That is definitely a benefit, but I want to make sure that the woman that I spend my life with is able to visit me in the hospital if I ever get sick in Mudlick, Kentucky (real town, BTW...had a girlfriend from there). I had to have my stepfather and grandfather speak up for me to get in to see my mother in Alabama when she went into a diabetic coma at 45 because she looked about 30 and they were suspicious when I said I was her daughter. I was furious! I flew in from South Florida and I had to wait to see my own fucking mother because they thought I might not have been her relative! That was heartbreaking enough. I can't imagine the pain that people have to go through when they are refused entrance to see their "life partners" (please excuse me while I gag on that term). Or when their zealous parents/exes/children! can trump their decisions because they don't have any kind of "documentation" to prove their relationship.Fuck health insurance and fuck you. That is the least of our worries.

---

"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

Well, apparently a lot of them weren't because states and even the federal gov't has been scrambling to define marriage in the last decade. Why waste time passing a law that defines marriage if it was so accepted before? Could it be bigotry? No. That's way too strong a term, right? You're the one who is so concerned about paperwork and wasted dollars, so how come you didn't speak out against the wasted tax dollars spent when the "one man one woman" marriage laws were passed? The same amount of time and money could have been spent to assure that people actually have civil rights in a country that prides itself on being the "light and beacon of freedom to the world." (paraphrase btw). Or do you have the "as long as I got mine" attitude? Says who? The question is asked every time this comes up, but no one seems to give a coherent answer. Since when has marriage been considered between one man and one woman only? Where did that idea come from? And why the fierce devotion to it?DOMA is unconstitutional. It is an unconstitutional response to freaked out, small minded bigots. It needs to be repealed. Bullshit. It "needed" to be stated because small minded people needed a lift and they voted in order to keep their irrational fear at bay for an election cycle, never once considering that their new law was unconstitutional...you know that document that is the basis for the country that they purport to love with their flag decals and pledges and lapel pins.Fucking hypocrites. Well, since consummation "traditionally" required proof of a blood stain or a baby 9 months later, then, yes, the definition has been redefined. It's all "he said, she said" or now it's "he said, he said" or "she said, she said."How is this proven, exactly and how does this affect marriage, in this day and age? Um, no. gay marriage has nothing to do with incestuous marriage, although that would be a great new topic.I am of the opinion that family structures should grow with the changing times and that includes getting a sibling or cousin or parent that you live with and support (or who supports you) on your health insurance. Of course, my brother can visit me in the hospital any time he wants and without a legal marriage he could probably take my kids away from my partner (although he wouldn't) if I was to take sick or die. But I (and he) still advocate for alternative family support systems in whatever form they take. This includes friends, adult children, parents on their children's insurance, etc. I guess that comes from a family of step-, half-, sorta kinda in the family by default/circumstance. Family is what you make it and who you love/who loves you. Fuck tradition. If I was stuck with tradition then I would have about 100+ people fighting against each other, but instead they love each other and it is great. No holiday meltdowns for me or mine. I love my "non-traditional" family.But this has nothing to do with marriage benefits. Except in your small mind where we are only fighting for insurance benefits and tax breaks. You and your BMX buddy can blow me. Hmmm...maybe then you or he could get benefits...after all, I am a woman. We could meet in Vegas. Really easy, you know. The failure to predict an accounting error pales in comparison to the unconstitutionality of the situation. It's already been pointed out to you that forms had to be changed after Loving and that not much else will have to be changed, except people's minds.We are not even asking that we be married by your churches. Just that we be recognized by the state so that we can provide security for our spouses and children. And maybe just a little bit of dignity.

---

"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

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