Gay Marriage

This sounds like you think that gays are not being treated equally? Is that the case?

How so?Because they don't have health insurance? They can buy that like any other unmarried person, without employer provided healthcare, has to do.But the rise in cost would also be contributed by straight people who marry others of the same sex for the insurance benefits.

While I think it's b.s. to be censored and suspended for an opinion, especially an opinion that was intentionally misrepresented by liars who willfully continue to choose to misinterpret me, whilst others blatantly use ad hominem against me without the least bit of reprisal, I made a promise a while back.I forgot that promise, and I overstepped my own boundaries. My apologies.Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : Edit to add

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

As one of the liars I'd just like to say that the statement " If we allow x, we must allow y as well." does imply that there is some equivocation between the two. Why else must we allow y if it is not because it shares some properties with x. That's just what "equivocating" means in this part of the woods. Your refusal to recognize that you are equivocating with out substantiating, knowingly or not, has been ongoing.AbE: So as not to get myself into trouble; this is not a statement implying onifre is anything less than as honest as the day is long, but that only the most competent among us does not read his handle as "on fire".Edited by lyx2no, : After thoughts.

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.

The California Supreme Court found that their consitution and definition of marriage means that everyone has the right to enter marriage with a consenting adult of their choice. That means that people have the right to have polygamous marriages and marriages of incest as well as gay marriages, according to their constitution.So, California must legalize both polygamy and incest marrages or they are violating the rights of the people who want to enter those mariages. If you don't support the legalization of polygamy and incest marriages in California then you are a fucking phobic bigot for denying these people their rights.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : 3rd typo today >.<

except that they kept the definition as between TWO consenting adults. That excludes polygamy. Also the standard definition of marriage as between man and woman does not exclude incestual relationships. Brother and sister who wish to marry would still fall under your standard definition.

It doesn't explicitly say TWO...

quote:

---

As these and many other California decisions make clear, the right to marry represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one’s choice, and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual.

---

with the person... hmmm. Does that have to mean only one?

Person is singular, persons is plural. So it would seem that the wording implies that the "legally recognized family" is refering to only one individual.

I guess if you want to make a semantic argument....But "the person" doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be only one person.And coupled with these from the decision:

quote:

---

Although our state Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to a “right to marry,” past California cases establish beyond question that the right to marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the California Constitution. (See, e.g., Conservatorship of Valerie N. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 143, 161 (Valerie N.) . . . These rights are aspects of the right of privacy which . . . is express in section 1 of article I of the California Constitution which includes among the inalienable rights possessed by all persons in this state, that of ”privacy’ ”; Williams v. Garcetti (1993) 5 Cal.4th 561, 577 he concept of personal liberties and fundamental human rights entitled to protection against overbroad intrusion or regulation by government . . . extends to . . . such basic civil liberties and rights not explicitly listed in the Constitution [as] the right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” ’ ”

---

quote:

---

the state constitutional right to marry, while presumably still embodied as a component of the liberty protected by the state due process clause,30 now also clearly falls within the reach of the constitutional protection afforded to an individual’s interest in personal autonomy by California’s explicit state constitutional privacy clause. (See, e.g., Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 34 [the interest in personal autonomy protected by the state constitutional privacy clause includes “the freedom to pursue consensual familial relationships”]; Valerie N., supra, 40 Cal.3d 143, 161.)

---

quotes from the California decision on same-sex marriage.So it seems that California's constitution does grant people the right to polygamy.So is everyone going to start fighting for the polygamists now?

I certainly wouldn't mind if they did. I love polygamy. However I don't see in there where they are supporting the right to marry multiple parteners. Person is singular no matter how you look at it. And

quote:

---

right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the California Constitution.

---

is simply stating that it is a right extended to all citizens of California.

If they had said "a person" instead of "the person", then you'd definately be wrong because you could marry a person, and then go marry another person. When it says the person, it seems to imply only one, but that isn't the case by neccesity. Also, this quote is not determining the law. They could have simply mis-spoke. The context of the decision was in regards to single partner marriages so polygamy could have simply been overlooked. It could easily be fixed by changing it to "the person(s)". That's not the applicable part...Let me clean it up a bit...:

quote:

---

Although our state Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to a “right to marry,” past California cases establish beyond question that the right to marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the California Constitution. These rights are aspects of the right of privacy which includes among the inalienable rights possessed by all persons in this state, that of ”privacy’. The concept of personal liberties and fundamental human rights entitled to protection against overbroad intrusion or regulation by government extends to such basic civil liberties and rights not explicitly listed in the Constitution as the right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children".

​

and

​

the state constitutional right to marry now also clearly falls within the reach of the constitutional protection afforded to an individual’s interest in personal autonomy by California’s explicit state constitutional privacy clause. The interest in personal autonomy protected by the state constitutional privacy clause includes “the freedom to pursue consensual familial relationships”.

---

So even if the semantic argument of the definition of marriage doesn't grant polygamists the right to marry, their right to privacy and personal autonomy does. I think its both, but whatever.

Lyx2no,In keeping with the promise, I obviously can't discuss that with you.

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

I greatly doubt that the 1000+ federal laws that refer to marriage all have within them the definition that marriage is between one man and one woman. Could you provide some examples of said laws with excerpts from the text that validate your claim?

None of the laws have the definition of marriage within them. The definition of marriage had been implicit until DOMA.

Implicit means very little in a court of law, especially when someone's civil rights are being trod upon by that implicit meaning.Then those federal laws would not have to be altered to accomodate the inclusion of same sex couples in the state of matrimony?Then what did you mean by you said in message 400?

quote:

---

Also, the argument that "marriage" as defined in 1000+ federal laws is defined as between one man and one woman, and for the reason of maintaining that definition to keep the laws themselves from being effectively altered, that marriage be kept as between one man and one woman is still sound.

---

It seemed like what you were saying is that keeping marriage as between one man and one woman prevents us from changing those laws.
What did you mean by "effective altered" then? Did you mean that those laws would have to apply to same sex couples if we changed the legal definition marriage back to being a contract between persons of unspecified gender?
Er...I believe that is exactly what the gay partners want...the same rights as heterosexual married couples have.If we legally define marriage as between one man and one woman, we still have the gay partnerships to deal with. You have said that you support civil unions. In order to give the gay partnerships the same rights as married couples, one of two things would need to happen.
1. 1000+ new laws, that exactly mirror the 1000+ laws regarding married couples, would have to be legislated. OR
2. The current 1000+ laws would have to be changed to include couples involved in a civil union.Seems like a lot of trouble, especially since issuing marriage contracts to consenting adults regardless of gender doesn't even require legislation...merely an executive or judicial order to stop discriminating due to sexual orientation.Well, I guess DOMA would have to be recinded. Also, all those recent state laws explicitly defining marriage.