CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[Ben Kenobi]

Important governmental interest to give those benefits to married people and not simply dating people.

Why, Imran? This ruling is saying right here that in depriving marriage benefits, you are depriving someone of the equal protection of the law. It shouldn't matter, since Equal protection trumps these other benefits.

Mostly to promote marriages for the stability of families.

Then this bill falls for the same reason. Imran, you are citing my own arguments back to me, if the state has a general interest in the provisions of marriage, then yes, they can preserve the difference.

Otherwise it has to be given to everyone regardless of marital status.

I'm not sure how the same rights would apply to widowed people though. They'd have the right to extend their medical insurance to their dead spouse?

No, they would have the right to extend their medical benefits to whomever they choose. Same as with single people. I could designate anyone I chose to have the same rights.

You can't argue that you have to extend these benefits through the equal protection clause and also argue that it is right to deprive others. The equal protection clause doesn't work that way.

[Krill]

Important person, decided to do the right thing at the right time. Good man

[Ben Kenobi]

They all have the choice to marry, Ben.

As do you.

In Loving black people weren't allowed to marry white people. There is nothing in the law that prevents gay people from marrying straight people if that is what they choose.

You are choosing to deprive yourself of the benefit, much as those who choose to be confirmed bachelors.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


As do you.

I do because I live in Canada, yes.

I cannot marry my partner in the US.

As I've said before, I'm actually engaged...you can't tell me I'm choosing not to benefit...

You, on the other hand, are a hopeless bachelor.

I'm not even going to mention that between the two of us -- a gay guy and an uber-Christian anti-gay marriage activist -- I'm the one in a long-term, loving, stable relationship and you're not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why, Imran? This ruling is saying right here that in depriving marriage benefits, you are depriving someone of the equal protection of the law. It shouldn't matter, since Equal protection trumps these other benefits.

I'm thinking you need to get more familiar with American jurisprudence. No right is absolute. Not even the 1st Amendment.

You probably need to read the ruling too. I'm positive they went through the government's arguments for why there was a governmental reason to prevent gays from getting the same marriage rights (and why equal protection shouldn't apply). This argument was rejected by the court.

Then this bill falls for the same reason. Imran, you are citing my own arguments back to me, if the state has a general interest in the provisions of marriage, then yes, they can preserve the difference.

Why does it fail? How does excluding gays from marrying promote stability of families? If anything it does the opposite, by having unmarried gay couples, which is less stable than married ones.

they would have the right to extend their medical benefits to whomever they choose

Medical insurance is usually done by private means. Equal protection applies to the government's treatment of individuals.

You can't argue that you have to extend these benefits through the equal protection clause and also argue that it is right to deprive others. The equal protection clause doesn't work that way.

Yes, you can. And yes, it does. As long as the promotion of marriage by the state has some sort of compelling governmental reason, than these benefits can be restricted to marriage.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
We've established Ben isn't sane.

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

Just because someone respectfully disagrees with you doesn't give you the right to call him names.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Whoa, whoa, whoa!

Just because someone respectfully disagrees with you doesn't give you the right to call him names.

It's not a name. Ben is certifiable.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ideally there wouldn't be any legal benefits of marriage that weren't available through other means. Or rather, just get the state out of the marriage business altogether. Have legal methods for child custody, visitation rights, joint property, ect, open to any consenting parties to enter into.

That I am saying is a consequence of this ruling. If depriving someone of these benefits violates the equal protection clause, then they should be available to everyone.

[Fake Boris]

That's ridiculous Ben.

There's equality and then there's equality.

[snoopy369]

... so you agree with the ruling?

[Arrian]

As do you.

In Loving black people weren't allowed to marry white people. There is nothing in the law that prevents gay people from marrying straight people if that is what they choose.

You are choosing to deprive yourself of the benefit, much as those who choose to be confirmed bachelors.

This is just so cute every time you do this. It's really like putting a huge sign saying "I'm an idiot!" around your neck and proudly parading around.

-Arrian

[Zkribbler]

Medical insurance is usually done by private means. Equal protection applies to the government's treatment of individuals.

Many polices cover domestic partners. Insurance companies likes having as many customers as possible.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why does it fail? How does excluding gays from marrying promote stability of families? If anything it does the opposite, by having unmarried gay couples, which is less stable than married ones.

Two assumptions here.

1. Increasing benefits for alternatives to marriage will not decrease the number who will choose marriage.

We've seen this over and over again. If you elevate common law marriage to the same, or nearly the same benefit, then it lowers the number who will choose marriage. This will have the exact same effect.

2. The only benefit that the state derives from marriage is 'stability'.

This is also false. Children are most likely to be born, and children are better off when raised in a two parent home, mother and father. Therefore, the state has cause to restrict marriage to just a man and a woman, in order to protect the benefits associated in childbirth and rearing.

Medical insurance is usually done by private means. Equal protection applies to the government's treatment of individuals.

Spousal benefits, taxation etc should be allowed to be distributed through whomever the person names in that position.

Yes, you can. And yes, it does. As long as the promotion of marriage by the state has some sort of compelling governmental reason, than these benefits can be restricted to marriage.

Then the law again falls afoul of the same arguments I am making that the state derives an intrinsic benefit from the marriage of a man and a woman, that they do not derive otherwise.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So I have the right now to demand someone marries me?

Could you elaborate on this please? Do you think the state of California is going to force specific churches to perform marriage ceremonies against their will?

[Ben Kenobi]

This is just so cute every time you do this. It's really like putting a huge sign saying "I'm an idiot!" around your neck and proudly parading around.

Well, you can't argue with the truth. As the law stands, Asher can get married to a woman in the states if he chooses to do so.

They don't scan and check to make sure he isn't gay before he gets married.

What am I supposed to say? That the law bars him from marrying a woman?