Same Sex Marriage

joyboytoy79

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
3,686
Media
32
Likes
61
Points
193
Location
Washington, D.C. (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Right, I agree that is no longer the governmental interest in marriage. It doesn't guarantee any of those things anymore. But that doesn't change the fact that those reasons were the governments primary interest in recognizing marriage to begin with.

But the fact still remains, sure you have the right to get married. But you don't have the right to government recognition or benefits.

So, what you're saying is that Heterosexuals are a privileged class?
 

joyboytoy79

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
3,686
Media
32
Likes
61
Points
193
Location
Washington, D.C. (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
You're splitting hairs. But in any case - once married, what must opposite sex couples do to maintain the privilege of marriage? Under what circumstances may that privilege be removed?

Because, you see, legal privileges come with rules and regulations, and when you don't follow those rules and regulations the privilege is removed. I've known of many people with suspended drivers licenses, but I've never heard of anyone with a suspended marriage license. This would indicate to me, that marriage is not a privilege.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
You're splitting hairs. But in any case - once married, what must opposite sex couples do to maintain the privilege of marriage? Under what circumstances may that privilege be removed?

Because, you see, legal privileges come with rules and regulations, and when you don't follow those rules and regulations the privilege is removed. I've known of many people with suspended drivers licenses, but I've never heard of anyone with a suspended marriage license. This would indicate to me, that marriage is not a privilege.

There are tons of requirements that you need to meet before getting a marriage license. That is why it is a privilege. You have a right from birth. A privilege is given to you.

And in some states the act of sexual intercourse is still required to complete the marriage contract.

And it isn't splitting hairs. There is no requirement as to someones sexual preference when applying for a marriage license.
 

ialooking

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Posts
64
Media
24
Likes
26
Points
43
Location
iowa
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
the issue was never given to the voters of my state. 70% want it repealed & we are only a few votes from that. When gay marriage is defeated in california by letting people decide, that alone says a lot.
Also the judges who passed the "law" were thrown out in the next election.
It is NOT the federal governments right to decide. It is a states electorate who should decide not a panel of judges or the fed govt.
 

TurkeyWithaSunburn

Legendary Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
3,589
Media
25
Likes
1,225
Points
608
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
the issue was never given to the voters of my state. 70% want it repealed & we are only a few votes from that. When gay marriage is defeated in california by letting people decide, that alone says a lot.
Also the judges who passed the "law" were thrown out in the next election.
It is NOT the federal governments right to decide. It is a states electorate who should decide not a panel of judges or the fed govt.

Judges don't pass "laws", wrong branch of government.
 

zephyr808

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
630
Media
5
Likes
378
Points
308
Location
United States
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Thought this was very interesting, what the Supreme Court said in the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia re. the subject of interracial marriage bans:

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

(lifted this from a very interesting wikipedia article)

I see a few things when I read this, first and foremost the lead sentence where it says that marriage is a right. Secondly, it is very easy for me to substitute gays for blacks in this statement and wonder why the same equal protection under the law doesn't apply to gay people. Many people have different claims or arguments as to why gay marriage should or should not be legal, but the 14th amendment's equal protection clause says that states have to provide equal protections under the law to all their residents. A couple cannot be arrested in their home just for living together and being of different races; the state law was wrong because it violated the couple's right to choose each other as partners. The existing state laws at the time were based on the segregation of the past, and as that segregation became less representative of the society as a whole (although it never went away), the application of the law had to change. I just don't see a compelling reason for continuing opposition to gay marriage under these precedents. And some future Supreme Court may very well issue a ruling stating that all these "one man-one woman" laws are as unconstitutional as the remaining Southern interracial bans were in 1967. Unless it's President Santorum, in which case all bets are off.

I've enjoyed reading the posts in this thread and participating in the discussion. I think some folks say it differently (gymfresh does so very eloquently) but I still don't buy all the excuses as to why two men or two women in a committed relationship cannot marry their partner. Not brothers and sisters, not three people, not Fluffy or Fido, not 900 other substitutes or twisted comparisons to try and blur the subject, but partners. The gay people who will marry each other first are the ones who have known each other for years and built a life around one another. How is it in the best interest of anyone to make it as difficult for these couples as possible to live together? Why deny these couples the same benefits straight couples receive? Those benefits are granted by the government, which makes government the authority on marriages, not the church. Churches will always play a role in most marriages, as they traditionally have, but there is no religious requirement to marriage as it exists today in the US. Straight couples can marry for any reason they choose and it doesn't have to be in a church. Basically, for me, that makes me want to tell every fundamentalist Christian who is all upset over gay marriage that if you aren't invited to the wedding, mind your own damn business. I'm with the previous posters who mentioned the separation of church and state, we really need to be vigilant about that.
 

ialooking

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Posts
64
Media
24
Likes
26
Points
43
Location
iowa
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
I beg to differ..the decision was sent to the Iowa supreme court n they are in fact the one's who ruled it "lawful", against the will of the people. The govenor then signed it right away, against the will of the people. He lost his job too along with the judges.
 

B_bxmuscle

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Posts
273
Media
0
Likes
19
Points
53
Location
NYC
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
It's no surprise to me that ssm was put on the political map back in the 1980s by Andrew Sullivan, the British born "gay" conservative and racist, when he was writer, then editor of The New Republic (his staff all threatened to quit back in 1994 when he wanted to through the magazine behind a the neo-racism of "The Bell Curve" published that year, a fact generally forgotten about that a-hole).

Outright opposition to homosexual marriage cannot really be separated from homophobia, but it's important to recognize that it's the agenda of a white upper-middle class and professional self-identified "gay" constituency that seized control of the movements the early "gay" rights movement in the 1970s. This class moved to separate it from the New Left currents which originally inspired and defined the post-Stonewall era. Their agenda was and is to make homo-eroticism "respectable" in the eyes of "mainstream society" as part of their quest to consolidate their positions and privileges as part the establishment. As such they represent a particular faction of the "progressive" professional bourgeoisie and its interests.

They want to marry, I say fine. But don't confuse this class agenda for some sort of liberation.
 
Last edited:

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Thought this was very interesting, what the Supreme Court said in the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia re. the subject of interracial marriage bans:

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

(lifted this from a very interesting wikipedia article)

I see a few things when I read this, first and foremost the lead sentence where it says that marriage is a right. Secondly, it is very easy for me to substitute gays for blacks in this statement and wonder why the same equal protection under the law doesn't apply to gay people. Many people have different claims or arguments as to why gay marriage should or should not be legal, but the 14th amendment's equal protection clause says that states have to provide equal protections under the law to all their residents. A couple cannot be arrested in their home just for living together and being of different races; the state law was wrong because it violated the couple's right to choose each other as partners. The existing state laws at the time were based on the segregation of the past, and as that segregation became less representative of the society as a whole (although it never went away), the application of the law had to change. I just don't see a compelling reason for continuing opposition to gay marriage under these precedents. And some future Supreme Court may very well issue a ruling stating that all these "one man-one woman" laws are as unconstitutional as the remaining Southern interracial bans were in 1967. Unless it's President Santorum, in which case all bets are off.

I've enjoyed reading the posts in this thread and participating in the discussion. I think some folks say it differently (gymfresh does so very eloquently) but I still don't buy all the excuses as to why two men or two women in a committed relationship cannot marry their partner. Not brothers and sisters, not three people, not Fluffy or Fido, not 900 other substitutes or twisted comparisons to try and blur the subject, but partners. The gay people who will marry each other first are the ones who have known each other for years and built a life around one another. How is it in the best interest of anyone to make it as difficult for these couples as possible to live together? Why deny these couples the same benefits straight couples receive? Those benefits are granted by the government, which makes government the authority on marriages, not the church. Churches will always play a role in most marriages, as they traditionally have, but there is no religious requirement to marriage as it exists today in the US. Straight couples can marry for any reason they choose and it doesn't have to be in a church. Basically, for me, that makes me want to tell every fundamentalist Christian who is all upset over gay marriage that if you aren't invited to the wedding, mind your own damn business. I'm with the previous posters who mentioned the separation of church and state, we really need to be vigilant about that.

You are correct, people do have the right to get married. But I say again, they do not have the right to receive any benefits from the government.

There are no laws that ban same-sex couples from getting married. Not a single one. There are laws that say for a married couple to receive benefits from the government they must be of the opposite sex. They are two completely separate things.
 

houtx48

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Posts
6,900
Media
0
Likes
308
Points
208
Gender
Male
There are tons of requirements that you need to meet before getting a marriage license. That is why it is a privilege. You have a right from birth. A privilege is given to you.

And in some states the act of sexual intercourse is still required to complete the marriage contract.

And it isn't splitting hairs. There is no requirement as to someones sexual preference when applying for a marriage license.
Looks like Frothy M. Santorum has joined a big dick website.
 
M

Mr Ed in Mass

Guest
Sure,If it ends in divorce,why shouldn't they have the opportunity to lose half of what they worked for their whole life.just like straight couples.:biggrin1:
 

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
154
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
There are no laws that ban same-sex couples from getting married. Not a single one. There are laws that say for a married couple to receive benefits from the government they must be of the opposite sex. They are two completely separate things.

Absolutely incorrect. There are laws all across the country that stipulate that in order to get a marriage license issued the applicants must be male and female -- regardless of how many, or even any, benefits or recognition are granted by the government. Suppose marriage went nowhere... you apply, it's approved, a justice of the peace marries you, and beyond that the government recognizes nothing. This is still limited only to opposite-sex couples in 44 states.


I beg to differ..the decision was sent to the Iowa supreme court n they are in fact the one's who ruled it "lawful", against the will of the people. The govenor then signed it right away, against the will of the people. He lost his job too along with the judges.

Oh for god's sake, the Iowa Supreme Court did nothing but read the state constitution right back to the citizens the way it was written. Your problem isn't with the judges, it's with the constitution, which dictated equal treatment of all citizens and did not ban same-sex marriage. And in any event, when the US Supreme Court eventually rules that marriage is a fundamental right of Americans regardless of sexual orientation, all those bans will be invalidated, just as miscegenation laws were. Or are you still upset over that "voters' right" being taken away from you?

The "will" of the people here is no more relevant to this fundamental right than it is to the right of left-handed people to marry, or blacks to marry whites. You don't get to vote on civil rights. We live in a constitutional democracy (one where the federal constitution trumps state constitutions), not a popular democracy.


it isn't splitting hairs. There is no requirement as to someones sexual preference when applying for a marriage license.

A false argument. Your idea no doubt is that the clerk doesn't care what you do in your bedroom, only that the two parties seeking a license are male and female. The real question is, how does it help me achieve the fulfillment of my "right" to choose a life partner and marry when the choice is so severely limited as to be useless? Conservatives look at it exclusively from their perspective: "Hell, I don't want any new right to marry another man! I like the law just as it is! Suits me fine!" Well, the law isn't about you, or me, or any individual. It's about being fair to all citizens as long as government has decided it's in the marriage business. And like it or not, the government needs to be responsive to its gay and lesbian constituents as well as its straight constituents. The point of civil marriage is to allow you to form a recognized partnership with your mirror image, your alter ego -- someone with the same capacity to enter into the relationship (thus, no minors or dogs or fire hydrants). As there's only one of you, there's only one of them. And only you can determine from the pool of available life partners which one is going to fulfill your right to and needs/objective in forming a couple. It is cruel and disingenuous to tell me, a gay man, that my most intimate life choice is limited to the pool of females. It's no different than telling straight men that, unfortunately, women are off-limits as far as licenses go and your only marriage option is to another male. As long as government confers and recognizes "marriage", limiting my life partner options to only half of the available population is dictating to me what my fundamental orientation should be.


I still don't buy all the excuses as to why two men or two women in a committed relationship cannot marry their partner. Not brothers and sisters, not three people, not Fluffy or Fido, not 900 other substitutes or twisted comparisons to try and blur the subject, but partners. The gay people who will marry each other first are the ones who have known each other for years and built a life around one another. How is it in the best interest of anyone to make it as difficult for these couples as possible to live together?

When I was a kid, maybe 10 years old, I had the notion that every adult should be able to choose one husband and one wife. You didn't have to have both, or either, but marriage would be limited to one of each. Obviously, your spouse could also have one of each -- so your wife would never have any husband but you, of course. She might have no other partner, or she could have a wife. Who in turn may or may not have a husband. It would address gay, straight and bisexual orientations. It might make for interesting communal parenting and families, as well as allow for traditional two-parent families and couples (and obviously singles, too); and hopefully open people's eyes and minds to new ways of relating to each other.

As an adult I came to understand that marriage was about finding that one counterpart to yourself who completes the couple, without causing any distraction of your attention, devotion or support. Just your two eyes looking into their two eyes. Yet as I get older, I wonder whether this is optimal or even practical. People fear more options, but should they? Especially if the government part of the equation gradually diminishes, as perhaps it should.
 

monel

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Posts
1,638
Media
0
Likes
48
Points
183
Gender
Male
You are correct, people do have the right to get married. But I say again, they do not have the right to receive any benefits from the government.

There are no laws that ban same-sex couples from getting married. Not a single one. There are laws that say for a married couple to receive benefits from the government they must be of the opposite sex. They are two completely separate things.

You don't have a full understanding of the law. It may be true that the governmentdoes not have an obligation to provide benefits to married couples but if it chooses to do so it cannot then deny those benefits to certain classes of people. For example the government couldn't deny benefits to one racial class of married couples and then argue that it didn't have to give the benefits to anyone. Once the government chooses to provide such benefits it must do so without discrimination. That is the current argument for same sex marriage. By denying marriage to gay couples the government is also denying them the benefits it gives to others purely based on sexual orientation.
 

itsthepopei

Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Posts
486
Media
9
Likes
1,201
Points
273
Location
Atlanta
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Seeing as there is a growing evidence that homosexuality has embryological and genetic roots, having it as a root cause for legislative bias is illegal. Another thing to point out is the idea that rights should be conferred based on whether or not the majority agrees that they should be conferred could be used to overturn interracial marriage in Alabama.
 

monel

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Posts
1,638
Media
0
Likes
48
Points
183
Gender
Male
Seeing as there is a growing evidence that homosexuality has embryological and genetic roots, having it as a root cause for legislative bias is illegal. Another thing to point out is the idea that rights should be conferred based on whether or not the majority agrees that they should be conferred could be used to overturn interracial marriage in Alabama.

Maybe not illegal yet buy getting there. Some states do prohibit some discrimination based on sexual orientation others do not. As yet it is only a quasi protected class. Soon, I believe it will be afforded equal protections as other protected classes and then the debate against same sex marriage will end.
 

itsthepopei

Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Posts
486
Media
9
Likes
1,201
Points
273
Location
Atlanta
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
the issue was never given to the voters of my state. 70% want it repealed & we are only a few votes from that. When gay marriage is defeated in california by letting people decide, that alone says a lot.
Also the judges who passed the "law" were thrown out in the next election.
It is NOT the federal governments right to decide. It is a states electorate who should decide not a panel of judges or the fed govt.

Judges don't pass laws they determine the legality of laws thus providing a firewall for the public from power-grabs and legislative abuses.
So civil rights are now to be put up to public vote. Many in the south didn't want the civil rights act, and infact it had to be pushed down in a very to heavy way by your logic(or lack there of) that was wrong and the rights of the minority should have been gifted to them by the majority when the majority felt it was acceptable.

i thought the whole states rights argument against human rights was settled by that 19th century war. Apparently some people just don't learn.
 

ialooking

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Posts
64
Media
24
Likes
26
Points
43
Location
iowa
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
After realising the flaw in Iowas constituion many southern states put gay marriage on the ballot. How many passed it? Of that I aware of...none.
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,851
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
After realising the flaw in Iowas constituion many southern states put gay marriage on the ballot. How many passed it? Of that I aware of...none.
So it appears that you approve of the people voting on the rights of others. Here's a hypothetical...since Caucasians are soon to be the minority in this country how would you feel if measures were put forward that would take away some of your rights? Would you still be in favor of majority rule?
The rights of ANY group should never be put up to a vote.