Cali voters: YES on 8!!!

[Rasputin]

JSC,

What rights are gays missing out on because they can't legally marry? And don't tell me healthcare. There are plenty of people without healthcare. And there are many ways to get healthcare. As for inheritance, can't an individual just (legally) will his possessions to whomever he wants? So tell me besides what I've mentioned, what other rights are gays missing out on?

According to the federal government's Government Accountability Office (GAO), more than 1,138 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage by the federal government; areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

And which ones do civil unions not cover? Again, if they could demonstrate any substantive discrimination they would be in Federal court, not arguing procedural matters in state court.

[huh?]

A few points.

I've seen the "slippery slope" arguement. It is an intellectual excuse. It doesn't equate to precedence, sorry it just doen't.

As to what rights are being denied, I'll refer back to my earlier post as to what is required to legally check married on a federal tax return. I'm thinking it takes a state issued marriage license. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

It seems to me that to deny two consenting adults a single priviledge based upon their gender, is clearly a violation of the United States constitution's equal protection clause.

I would think that you either have to strip away any and all "priveldges" granted by vitue of being married, or grant them to people regardless of their gender.

I understand that the majority of Americans may think it's "icky", but I don't necessarily think that means it's legal.

Honestly, the only arguement I can see to the equal protection clause is that homosexuals are not prohibited from marrying someone of the opposite sex. Which would seem to take the "religious" aspect out of the arguement.

[Rasputin]

A few points.

1I've seen the "slippery slope" arguement. It is an intellectual excuse. It doesn't equate to precedence, sorry it just doen't.

2As to what rights are being denied, I'll refer back to my earlier post as to what is required to legally check married on a federal tax return. I'm thinking it takes a state issued marriage license. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

3It seems to me that to deny two consenting adults a single priviledge based upon their gender, is clearly a violation of the United States constitution's equal protection clause.

4I would think that you either have to strip away any and all "priveldges" granted by vitue of being married, or grant them to people regardless of their gender.

5I understand that the majority of Americans may think it's "icky", but I don't necessarily think that means it's legal.

6Honestly, the only arguement I can see to the equal protection clause is that homosexuals are not prohibited from marrying someone of the opposite sex. Which would seem to take the "religious" aspect out of the arguement.

1) Slippery slope? I'm all for it. If you force states to pretend perverts are 'married', then you forfeit any right for the goverment to outlaw marriage due to religious bigotry. If Reynolds v. US is overturned, it removes the idiotic precedent of 'seperation of church and state' which that decision created.

2) If the Fed doesn't recognize civil unions for tax purposes, that is the Feds problem. Sue them, not Kali.

3) You are wrong. We don't let minors marry without consent, or relatives marry. As you said, it is a priviledge, not a right. States can make rational discriminations in these cases. And just because you don't like the reason, doesn't make it any less rational or reasonable.

4) There is no gender discrimination here. Lesbian marriages are just as invalid as Olberman and Matthews would be.

5) There is a difference between 'icky' and pathological.

6) You got one right.

[Diego in Seattle]

A few points.

1I've seen the "slippery slope" arguement. It is an intellectual excuse. It doesn't equate to precedence, sorry it just doen't.

2As to what rights are being denied, I'll refer back to my earlier post as to what is required to legally check married on a federal tax return. I'm thinking it takes a state issued marriage license. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

3It seems to me that to deny two consenting adults a single priviledge based upon their gender, is clearly a violation of the United States constitution's equal protection clause.

4I would think that you either have to strip away any and all "priveldges" granted by vitue of being married, or grant them to people regardless of their gender.

5I understand that the majority of Americans may think it's "icky", but I don't necessarily think that means it's legal.

6Honestly, the only arguement I can see to the equal protection clause is that homosexuals are not prohibited from marrying someone of the opposite sex. Which would seem to take the "religious" aspect out of the arguement.

3) You are wrong. We don't let minors marry without consent, or relatives marry. As you said, it is a priviledge, not a right. States can make rational discriminations in these cases. And just because you don't like the reason, doesn't make it any less rational or reasonable.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons ... endment14/

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Once again facts kick diobolds' ass.

[Rasputin]

A few points.

1I've seen the "slippery slope" arguement. It is an intellectual excuse. It doesn't equate to precedence, sorry it just doen't.

2As to what rights are being denied, I'll refer back to my earlier post as to what is required to legally check married on a federal tax return. I'm thinking it takes a state issued marriage license. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

3It seems to me that to deny two consenting adults a single priviledge based upon their gender, is clearly a violation of the United States constitution's equal protection clause.

4I would think that you either have to strip away any and all "priveldges" granted by vitue of being married, or grant them to people regardless of their gender.

5I understand that the majority of Americans may think it's "icky", but I don't necessarily think that means it's legal.

6Honestly, the only arguement I can see to the equal protection clause is that homosexuals are not prohibited from marrying someone of the opposite sex. Which would seem to take the "religious" aspect out of the arguement.

3) You are wrong. We don't let minors marry without consent, or relatives marry. As you said, it is a priviledge, not a right. States can make rational discriminations in these cases. And just because you don't like the reason, doesn't make it any less rational or reasonable.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons ... endment14/

Just because you fon't understand the clause or case law doesn't make it relevant.


Slaughter-house cases

[Terry in Crapchester]

In California they are treated equally, the civil unions entitle them to everything a married couple is entitled to.

Health insurance benefits? The right to file a joint income tax return? Inheritance rights from the estate of a deceased loved one? The right to make medical decisions for a loved one who is incapacitated?

Marriage isnt the property of the Government, it was the churches that came up with the idea of a wedding/marriage and it is up to them to decide who gets one. Even straight couples that were not married in a church before the spaghetti monster should be labeled as being in a civil union instead of a marriage. If you invented something that everyone wanted, would it be right for the government to force you to give it to everyone?

You're not very bright, are you?

The churches that predominate in the U.S. most certainly did not invent marriage. Marriage as an institution has existed long before any of those churches came into being. Without researching the history of marriage, my best educated guess would be that society invented marriage as a means to: (a) regulate procreation; and (b) eliminate any demand for more violent combat among males for mating privileges, as are common among other animal species. Ancient societies had religious ideas which varied dramatically from one another, yet all of them came up with an institution of marriage which did not vary all that significantly from one society to the next. Government exists, essentially, to promote the interests of society, so why shouldn't government have a hand in the regulation of marriage?

And if the states have no business in the regulation of marriage, why, then, are there laws relative to divorce, annulment, separation, etc. that are promulgated by . . .


































Wait for it . . .


































The states?

There are two components to marriage in our contemporary society: a religious component, regulated by the churches, which, as you yourself admitted, is optional; and a civil component, which is not optional. No one is suggesting that any church should be forced to perform or even recognize a marriage to which it is opposed on moral grounds. That would be unconstitutional, imho. All gay marriage advocates are asking for is extension of the civil component of marriage, as well as its benefits, to gay couples. Nothing more.

[Rasputin]

All gay marriage advocates are asking for is extension of the civil component of marriage, as well as its benefits, to gay couples. Nothing more.

Wrong. They already have that with civil unions. And any benefits that have been overlooked can be addressed by the legislature without flouting the will of the elecorate by inventing 'gay marriage'. What sexual deviant activists are demanding is society giving sanction to their pathology by declaring it just as valid as marriage. No society has ever done that. And neither will ours. Because it isn't.

[Rasputin]

If civil unions and marriges would be identical in everything but the name, then how would a civil union not be as valid as a marriage?

As far as legal protections, they are or should be. But legal protections aren't what the pervert community is fighting for, rather it is forcing society to validate their pathology.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Inheritance rights from the estate of a deceased loved one?

That doesn't have shit to do with fag marriage and has never even been an issue. You can will your property to anyfuckingbody you want to.

Until the family members show up and challenge it. And are successful more often than you think.

Why even bring it up?

If your education extended beyond a GED, you wouldn't be asking that question.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Until the family members show up and challenge it. And are successful more often than you think.

Got news for you, dicklick. Any will can be challenged.

Did I ever dispute that?

Of course, under the status quo, if a gay person dies and leaves his property to his lover and has family members surviving, a challenge to the will is all but guaranteed. And without the benefit of marriage available to gay people, judges generally are more receptive to claims of undue influence.

Try challenging your brother's will if it leaves everything to his wife, on grounds of undue influence. You'll get laughed out of court, in all likelihood.

Now try challenging the will of your gay brother that left everything to his lover, on grounds of undue influence. A much different story.

[SoCalTrjn]

The California Domestic Partners Act (DPA) covers all of the differences between civil unions and marriages. There are no significant differences between married couples and domestic partners in California except for filing joint federal income taxes and as far as federal income taxes are concerned, California law cannot override that.
Marriage, by whatever name is an institution that has existed since pre-history. It has always been a civil matter, primarily, with religion as a secondary issue, often absent. It has always been a binding relationship between man and woman, male and female and has never referred to homosexual ties.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Marriage, by whatever name is an institution that has existed since pre-history. It has always been a civil matter, primarily, with religion as a secondary issue, often absent.

Then why have you been saying that the churches "invented" marriage?

It has always been a binding relationship between man and woman, male and female and has never referred to homosexual ties.

Debatable.

Certainly, it hasn't always been limited to a relationship between one man and one woman.

[SoCalTrjn]

Im an atheist married to a thumper, just using her reasoning on why we voted yes.

[Rasputin]

The California Domestic Partners Act (DPA) covers all of the differences between civil unions and marriages. There are no significant differences between married couples and domestic partners in California except for filing joint federal income taxes and as far as federal income taxes are concerned, California law cannot override that.

Of course you aren't going to comment on the part of the post dealing with what you've been bitching about.

[SoCalTrjn]

mvscal, the same "weakness" could have been said of inter-racial marriages in 1960, society did not recognize inter-racial marriages, and in fact made them a crime.

The point being, merely because things have been done a certain way in history does not make that practice constitutional.

First things first. Let's get to the point where under federal and state law, marriages and civil unions are identical except for the name. Until that happens, the gays have a legitimate gripe.

In the state of California they are, so its just a bunch of Marys arguing about the term "Marry". They're trying to force people to accept them instead of tolerate them which comes down to them not being happy being tolerated when for years they have been squealing about tolerance.

[Rasputin]

mvscal, the same "weakness" could have been said of inter-racial marriages in 1960, society did not recognize inter-racial marriages, and in fact made them a crime.

The point being, merely because things have been done a certain way in history does not make that practice constitutional.

First things first. Let's get to the point where under federal and state law, marriages and civil unions are identical except for the name. Until that happens, the gays have a legitimate gripe.

Again, there have been societies which proscribed 'inter-racial' marriages, and those that found them acceptable.

Name one society that ever recognized 'gay marriage'.

Just one.

As far as the difference between CUs and marriage, if the only difference is filing federal tax returns, That's for Congress to fix. If it makes you feel better I'll lob Feinstien a call and tell her to get cracking on that. I'm not talking to that Boxer bitch tough.

[Rasputin]

They're trying to force people to accept them instead of tolerate them which comes down to them not being happy being tolerated when for years they have been squealing about tolerance.

Epic take. Whoever you got that from is genius.

[RJ]

The context was historical not legal. I know you intend to leave no cock unsucked in your tireless quest to make sure faggots can play house together, but do try to keep up.

[smackaholic]

Just wanted to rack mvscal for ripping both sides in this thread.

Gotta admire that kind of consistency. No matter if he's with you or against you, he's going to pretty much tell you to go fukk yourself.

[Rasputin]

The only part about this I care about is the judiciary creating 'rights' to negate the wishes of thew electorate. As far as I'm concerned, sexual deviants are similar to racial supremacists. As long as they don't break any laws, march on my street or try to get in my face, I don't give a fuck what they feel, think or do.

[Rasputin]

sexual deviants

Even though you are heterosexual, it is likely that you are considered a sexual deviant in the eyes of the law.

So what? It was being used as an (accurate) descriptive term, not a legal one.

BTW, I'm pretty sure the only sexual activity that is considered deviant by most in Kali is monogomy.

Or celibacy. Those folks are just sick.

[RJ]

As it should be. Fuck 'em.

[Mikey]

Fuck 'em.

Obviously your (not so) latent obsession.

[smackaholic]

whar are those stains on the wall behind the faggot fountain?

[SoCalTrjn]

sexual deviants

Even though you are heterosexual, it is likely that you are considered a sexual deviant in the eyes of the law.

So what? It was being used as an (accurate) descriptive term, not a legal one.

BTW, I'm pretty sure the only sexual activity that is considered deviant by most in Kali is monogomy.

Or celibacy. Those folks are just sick.

Sodomy is actually illegal in California