Washington to Legalize Gay Marriage

[a.kitman]

okey, assume a universe where two guys could give birth to a healty baby. what would be your objection to gay marriage HC?

[giblets]

Personally, I'm not opposed to gay marriage (it is an issue I care very little about), but I am opposed to courts trying to legislate. I have no problem with states passing laws to recognize it. I suspect Jon's position is similar to my own.

I do think that allowing gay marriage and banning polygamy is hypocritical, however. I am uncomfortable with polygamy, which leads to me being somewhat ambivalent about gay marriage. Ultimately though I just don't care enough about it to pick a side.

Yes, we already know you're a privileged ***** who doesn't care if some members of society are denied equal status for no reason other than the bigotry and prejudice of a large number of people.

[Asher]

Also, I have a problem with an attitude where Asher should wait for laws to change before being treated as a normal human being by government and society when it has been the courts that have allowed LGBTetc people to put their needs at the front of the public agenda, and their needs are simply to be treated with dignity, respect, and equality.

Well said.

[Hauldren Collider]

Yes, we already know you're a privileged ***** who doesn't care if some members of society are denied equal status for no reason other than the bigotry and prejudice of a large number of people.

I should be more clear. I'm completely in favor of civil unions, I just don't give a **** whether we call it "marriage" or not. It's just a name. If you're going to tell me that being forced to have a "civil union" instead of a "marriage" constitutes some sort of gross violation of human rights, you're not going to elicit anything other than laughter from me.

Further, I don't see the civil union thing is a civil right, simply a useful legal means of determining who owns what when/if a couple decides to split up. Basically, provide for divorce.

While KH is considering getting a divorce for nothing other than tax purposes because he doesn't care about the piece of paper, people like MrFun insist that the ability to have the government recognize that two random individuals are in love is as critical as free speech. I'm not particularly impressed by this assertion.

[MrFun]

You are forcing people (society) to recognize your marriage.

You are forcing people (society) to not say 'Aeson has just consumed the wacky OrangeSoda, remember Ben? Better kick him out of the community'.

Whether the community/society is recognizing marriage, or seeing that you get necessary medical care, or saying that you are safe to consume OrangeSoda if you think you are safe to, doesn't change the fact that it is the community/society.

People always have the right to say 'screw you society, I am doing things my way'. Whether it be for a home, consumption, or relationships.

JM

Fvck the federal government for having abolished slavery in 19th century, forcing slave owners to recognize blacks' right to freedom.

[Aeson]

You are forcing people (society) to recognize your marriage.

A proper comparison would be:

Forcing government to recognize marriage contracts between two gays.
Forcing government to recognize home ownership/rental agreements/leases by gays.

The absurdity of your comparison can be shown by creating an actual analog to the issue you raised:

Forcing government to provide housing for everyone
Forcing government to provide a gay partner for everyone

[DaShi]

I should be more clear. I'm completely in favor of civil unions, I just don't give a **** whether we call it "marriage" or not. It's just a name. If you're going to tell me that being forced to have a "civil union" instead of a "marriage" constitutes some sort of gross violation of human rights, you're not going to elicit anything other than laughter from me.

Further, I don't see the civil union thing is a civil right, simply a useful legal means of determining who owns what when/if a couple decides to split up. Basically, provide for divorce.

While KH is considering getting a divorce for nothing other than tax purposes because he doesn't care about the piece of paper, people like MrFun insist that the ability to have the government recognize that two random individuals are in love is as critical as free speech. I'm not particularly impressed by this assertion.

Needs another edit. It still doesn't make sense.

[Elok]

They did have gay people 200 years ago. You cant use the "new thing" reasoning.

JM

1. It's not "new thing" reasoning, it's "there's lots of stuff the FF didn't anticipate for various reasons" reasoning. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are a short rulebook and a list of general principles, not the Hitchhiker's Guide to Democracy.
2. IIUC, the idea of homosexuality as a non-chosen identity, rather than something some odd gentlemen chose to do now and again, isn't really that old anyway. Certainly there was no gay rights movement back then. If nobody even dreamed of asking for gay marriage, what does it mean that they didn't anticipate it?
3. Our weird relationship with the FF and their legacy could be the subject of eight threads, but it's not like they were some monolithic group who all thought alike anyway. Ben Franklin and Patrick Henry would no doubt have somewhat different opinions on the matter.

[notyoueither]

I should be more clear. I'm completely in favor of civil unions, I just don't give a **** whether we call it "marriage" or not. It's just a name. If you're going to tell me that being forced to have a "civil union" instead of a "marriage" constitutes some sort of gross violation of human rights, you're not going to elicit anything other than laughter from me.

Further, I don't see the civil union thing is a civil right, simply a useful legal means of determining who owns what when/if a couple decides to split up. Basically, provide for divorce.

While KH is considering getting a divorce for nothing other than tax purposes because he doesn't care about the piece of paper, people like MrFun insist that the ability to have the government recognize that two random individuals are in love is as critical as free speech. I'm not particularly impressed by this assertion.

How does the desire by some religious denominations to perform marriages for same-sex couples factor into your thinking?

[Hauldren Collider]

Why do they need statute to do that? No one is stopping them from declaring people married.

[notyoueither]

I have read that some states require a license for there to be any ceremony.

[Hauldren Collider]

Well, I would object to that on first amendment grounds.

[Jon Miller]

uhm i thought you were against gay marriage? have i misunderstood you that badly?

''

I am pro it.

I think it is a lot stronger passed as a law than a decision by the courts, which relies upon there being more justices pro than against. Which can change. Because it is not 'self evident'.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Fvck the federal government for having abolished slavery in 19th century, forcing slave owners to recognize blacks' right to freedom.

This was decided purely by the courts?

JM

[Hauldren Collider]

I seem to recall it being decided by military force.