CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Let me put this another way Imran. You have the right to pursue happiness. You have the right to pursue marriage. You have the right to pursue a family. But you do not have the right to a marriage and a family.

Does this make sense? This is why it is called the pursuit of happiness. You do not have a right to happiness, merely to pursue.

First, The Declaration of Independance has no binding effect on American law. Even if you refer to the text of the 14th as Zkribbler does, there is no "right to persue happiness". Substantive due process has clarified and deliniated rights (ie, privacy) and the right to marry was one of the earlier ones. Even if you want to make it a right to persue marriage, then you should have that right with which ever gender you choose... its the only equal way.

And if you think marriage = happiness then you have much to learn.

[Asher]

Meanwhile, people with nothing better to do plot their "marketing" on how to manipulate the public to deny equal rights to a minority group under the guise of...you guessed it...protecting America from "activist judges".

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/BA3G10N42P.DTL

This simply infuriates me. Why the **** do they care so much. Why must they make my life difficult because they disapprove?

Religion is such a scam. They make more people's lives miserable than they improve it. Whether it's keeping unhappy people together, repressing the self, or simply campaigning to legislate their values on people who don't share them...

[snoopy369]

One more try before I give up on Ben for life...

Ben, Marriage (in a legal, not religious sense) is an act of the state, plain and simple. The state chooses to recognize your marriage in law. This goes back to the beginning of 'marriage' law - where it was, for a long time, simply the state 'recognizing' you as married (common law marriage, being the only marriage for centuries). Marriage, in the legal sense, is merely an agent of the state recording an actual fact (the marriage), and providing you with a legal document certifying it so that you may prove it to any others who may wish evidence.

The state is not permitted to discriminate based on sexual preference in actions that it takes.

Therefore, the state may not choose to recognize hetero marriages and not homosexual marriages.

Kapish?

[Agathon]

Here's a question. Should the law prevent people marrying their own siblings (of whatever gender)?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I would be intrigued in anyone who supported gay rights, who also was against the population control movement, I've not seen anyone who was for one and against the other.

Unless of course by "population control movement" you mean allowing people to use birth control if they so desire.

They actually are very similar rights. Freedom to marry (or not), freedom to have kids (or not).

That is the analogy you are making. You are arguing that the right to marry is as fundamental a human right as that of voting. I think there are some significant differences, which are reflected in the fact that it isn't an individual right, and that it requires the consent of another person to exercise. In what way is such a right inalienable if it cannot be exercised without the consent of another person?

Voting is not a fundamental human right. It's a legal right granted by government. Same with marriage. The nature of the vote or marriage can be specified by various qualifiers. The analogy you're trying to draw is that gays shouldn't be allowed to vote for gays. Only heteros (of the opposite sex) can vote for gays. Anyone can vote for heteros. That's the absurdity of your argument.

I know you'll try to say voting is an individual right, but it's not. Not anymore than marriage is at least. Both require parties other than yourself to have any meaning whatsoever. Voting when you are the only one involved is meaningless. As is a marriage where you are the only one involved. Both are absurd possibilities (in hypothetical legal systems). So either you are saying voting is not an individual right, or marriage is. I really don't care which, since your inane use of the term is completely beside the point.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Agathon
Here's a question. Should the law prevent people marrying their own siblings (of whatever gender)?

Depends on how hot your sister is...

[Nugog]

Is this about being able to use the term "married" as a gay couple, or having the same gay couple's relationship legally recognised and protected under law as a hetero's "marriage" would be?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Aeson

Depends on how hot your sister is...

I don't have one.

The point is that tales of genetic defects due to incest are often exaggerated, and there seems no reason, if we are going to free up marriage laws, to prevent people marrying whomever they want to, or even from marrying multiple spouses (I cannot see how a liberal society can allow gay marriage and not allow plural marriage – feminists complain, but they don't understand that plural marriage actually benefits women more than men).

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Nugog
Is this about being able to use the term "married" as a gay couple, or having the same gay couple's relationship legally recognised and protected under law as a hetero's "marriage" would be?

Anyone can use the term "married" however they want in our country. (Unless shouting "gay marriage" in a theater is the new "fire"... or threatening to "gay marry" the president?)

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Agathon
I don't have one.

Then I don't think you should legally be able to marry her. Sorry.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon


I don't have one.

The point is that tales of genetic defects due to incest are often exaggerated, and there seems no reason, if we are going to free up marriage laws, to prevent people marrying whomever they want to, or even from marrying multiple spouses (I cannot see how a liberal society can allow gay marriage and not allow plural marriage – feminists complain, but they don't understand that plural marriage actually benefits women more than men).

We got ourselves a Ben-Agathon tagteam duo of stupendous stupidity. This thread has LEGENDARY written all over it.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Aeson
Anyone can use the term "married" however they want in our country.

So- in all seriousness.

New Zealand has what is called a civil union.

A civil union is legally exactly like a marriage - except it does not take place in a church.

Civil unions can, and do, take place between couples of any orientation.

In fact many hetero couples choose to have a civil union rather than a "marriage" as it does not involve the church.

It also nicely seperates church from government in a fairly key area.

[Ben Kenobi]

Meanwhile, people with nothing better to do plot their "marketing" on how to manipulate the public to deny equal rights to a minority group under the guise of...you guessed it...protecting America from "activist judges".

That's exactly what is going on here.

What would you think if a judge ruled 4-3 to strip all this away?

Why are you bothered by the truth, this is judicial activism at it's finest. You've got a state that opposes it, and one judge overrules everything. You've got an amendment which will pass in November.

This simply infuriates me. Why the **** do they care so much. Why must they make my life difficult because they disapprove?

You really think they care about your life asher? If you had an open mind you might understand things more. It's nothing to do with you personally.

Religion is such a scam. They make more people's lives miserable than they improve it. Whether it's keeping unhappy people together, repressing the self, or simply campaigning to legislate their values on people who
don't share them...

I suspect there would be many who disagree with you. I don't know how I can show you but the reason why people follow a religion is not to make other people's lives miserable but because they feel it is the truth. It comforts them and gives them the support and community. It gives them meaning in their lives and a purpose.

Until you understand that it will all be a mystery to you and you will think Christians are all out to get you and miserable. It has nothing to do with you personally. Everything to do with what they believe is right.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Nugog
So- in all seriousness.

It's about discrimination.

Technically, a marriage license is essentially a "civil union", and people choose whatever religious ceremony (or lack thereof) that suits them to add onto it. Just in our case, the gov uses the term "marriage" to describe it, which gets some people's panties in a bunch if gov uses the term in regards to homosexuals. That group generally would accept "civil union" for homosexuals, since we all know how awesome "seperate but equal" is.

Other people fast track the panties bunching up because they have a perpetual homophobic wedgie and just don't want homosexuals to have the same rights as heterosexuals. You could call it "two gays who like each other" and they'd still want fire and brimstone served (vengefully) at the reception.

[Ben Kenobi]

Voting is not a fundamental human right. It's a legal right granted by government. Same with marriage. The nature of the vote or marriage can be specified by various qualifiers. The analogy you're trying to draw is that gays shouldn't be allowed to vote for gays. Only heteros (of the opposite sex) can vote for gays. Anyone can vote for heteros. That's the absurdity of your argument.

Oh, this is very true. Voting is not a fundamental freedom, (as is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). However it is an individual right in that it is apportioned per person. You own the right yourself. Marriage is different from both of these in that it cannot be possessed by a sole individual.