Same Sex Marriage

[Remington]

What's your stance on that? Any thought?

Fine with it.

I have no idea why people would be against it.

 

[B_Jingoist]

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.

No. Absolutely Correct. If a church will perform a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple they will indeed be married. The United States government doesn't decide who can or cannot get married. They only decide who can or cannot get a marriage license. A marriage license doesn't determine if a couple is married. It only determines that that a couple can receive benefits from the United States government.

It is sad that people need the government to affirm their lives. Maybe that is why we have the problems we do....

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.

Except they aren't. There is nothing that says same-sex couples are illegal. There is nothing that stops you from living together. There is nothing stopping you from signing paperwork they gives you all the same legal privileges a married couple would get. The only thing you cannot get is a marriage licence and the benefits associated with it.

As I said before, it is SAD that you need the Federal Government to affirm your relationship.

 

[Industrialsize]

That is the thing. Someones sexual preference isn't a class.

I use sexual preference not sexual orientation because it is more accurate. I view someones preference for the same sex in the same light as someone who likes big boobs or blonde hair. You have sexual characteristics that are more appealing to you.

But the biggest part is in fact choice. I'm not saying you have a choice on who you LIKE to have sex with. I'm saying you do have a choice on who or what you have sex with. There is nothing physically or genetically stopping a gay man from having sex with a woman. It is however impossible for a black person, through their own free will and choice with no outside influence, to become white just as it is impossible for a woman to become a man.

These are immutable characteristics. They cannot be changed without surgery.

Now I'm going to cover it because I know you will ask. Religion. Religion can change, so why is it in there. It is considered a fundamental human right and in many it is so ingrained in their lives it isn't a choice anymore. But with that, religion has a broad definition in law. Under most laws it is defined as moral or ethical beliefs held with strength and conviction of traditional religious views. So it covers much more than just the typical set of religion so I'm sure you would agree that it is acceptable as a protected class.

Why comes to my next point. If homosexuals aren't a protected class. Neither are heterosexuals. Black isn't a protected class, race is. Women aren't a protected class, sex is. If homosexuals become a protected class, well then heterosexuals are too.

The whole point I'm trying to make is that when someones sexual preference starts showing up on job applications, I will be marking homosexual. Because if there is a quota that will need to be met. I'm going to take the advantage. My last name is Italian and I have dark skin. I mark I'm Hispanic. Luckily I look like that. I can't pass as a female or black or pacific islander. And if homosexual shows up there, what does a homosexual look like?

Fabulous Fruit Salad


Ingredients

• 1 red apple, cored and chopped
• 1 Granny Smith apple, cored and chopped
• 1 nectarine, pitted and sliced
• 2 stalks celery, chopped
• 1/2 cup dried cranberries
• 1/2 cup chopped walnuts
• 1 (8 ounce) container nonfat lemon yogurt

Directions

1. In a large bowl, combine red apple, Granny Smith apple, nectarine, celery, dried cranberries, and walnuts. Mix in yogurt. Chill until ready to serve.

 

[gymfresh]

No. Absolutely Correct. If a church will perform a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple they will indeed be married. The United States government doesn't decide who can or cannot get married. They only decide who can or cannot get a marriage license. A marriage license doesn't determine if a couple is married. It only determines that that a couple can receive benefits from the United States government.

This is an example of splitting hairs that people have brought up before. When I wrote my post I was actually hoping you weren't seriously thinking of this contrived church/state example.

Whether or not the government confers benefits to those who are legally married, it is still the government that determines your civil (i.e., marriage) status. A couple is not "indeed married" for purposes of their civil status if a government license has not been issued and the marriage properly registered with the state.

And "the United States government" does not decide who or who does not get a marriage license, as you claim. The federal government couldn't give a rat's ass what any given state's criteria are for marriage. Some let 13-year-olds marry and some don't. Some let you marry your cousin and some don't. But historically the federal government has recognized all marriages that fully meet state law. It's only recently that an exception was made to address same-sex marriages, and it was instituted at a time when there were no states that married partners of the same gender. Now 6 states plus the District of Columbia have marriage equality and CA has legally married same-sex couples. The landscape is quite different.

 

[B_Jingoist]

This is an example of splitting hairs that people have brought up before. When I wrote my post I was actually hoping you weren't seriously thinking of this contrived church/state example.

Whether or not the government confers benefits to those who are legally married, it is still the government that determines your civil (i.e., marriage) status. A couple is not "indeed married" for purposes of their civil status if a government license has not been issued and the marriage properly registered with the state.

And "the United States government" does not decide who or who does not get a marriage license, as you claim. The federal government couldn't give a rat's ass what any given state's criteria are for marriage. Some let 13-year-olds marry and some don't. Some let you marry your cousin and some don't. But historically the federal government has recognized all marriages that fully meet state law. It's only recently that an exception was made to address same-sex marriages, and it was instituted at a time when there were no states that married partners of the same gender. Now 6 states plus the District of Columbia have marriage equality and CA has legally married same-sex couples. The landscape is quite different.

It isn't splitting hairs at all. A marriage license only means your marriage is recognized by the government. It doesn't mean you aren't married.

A couple can go down to their church, get married and never get a marriage license. But according to their religion, they are in fact married. Look at the Amish for instance. They don't apply for a marriage license, they aren't allowed to accept benefits for subsidies from the government, but are they any less married because of it?


Think about every wedding you have been to. The couple says I do, they kiss. They are now married. I've never heard someone say "We aren't married until we get the license in the mail"

 

[monel]

Jingoist, please tell when exactly you "chose" to be straight. I know I didn't. My attraction and desire for woman was not taught to me. It wasn't the result of a conscious decision. I dare say it is the same for all straight people and, were they asked, encouraged or threatened to get sexually involved with someone of the same gender, it would not change their innate desire for the opposite sex. Their orientation is not the result of a preference akin to liking blonds better than brunettes. To suggest otherwise is ignorance.

By the way, since you raised it, Religion does not constitute a protected class. It has been afforded a special place under the Constitution protecting it from incursions by the government. Protected classes are a Judicial construct resulting from years of government violations of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

 

[JustAsking]

In America, everything is legal unless there is a law declaring it illegal.

Our laws are full of restrictions on the rights of people in order to protect other rights of people. Another overriding principle is that the law protects minority rights from majority rule (sometimes called the Tyrrany of the Majority).

Therefore any law restricting rights needs to have a compelling reason why it needs to exist. Therefore, any law restricting the rights of some or all people should be challenged at any time by anyone through due process.

Legal marriage confers legal benefits on the partners in a marriage. Laws restricting same sex marriage restrict the rights of those individuals who are seeking same sex marraige.

There is no compelling reason why those rights need to be restricted.

 

[gymfresh]

That is the thing. Someones sexual preference isn't a class.

I use sexual preference not sexual orientation because it is more accurate.

I'm saying you do have a choice on who or what you have sex with. There is nothing physically or genetically stopping a gay man from having sex with a woman.

So gays are simply heterosexuals who choose over and over again to pervert what they easily could be doing and enjoying? Wow. Someone really does not have a clue what being homosexual is.

Gay rights organizations are not seeking a special category for homosexuals. They're simply looking for laws and recognition to be applied equally. No one understands the notion that sexual orientation is the protected category better than they do. Many straights clearly do not, which is why Colorado's Amendment 2 got shot down so fast by the courts.

 

[gymfresh]

A couple can go down to their church, get married and never get a marriage license. But according to their religion, they are in fact married.

And their civil status is still: single.

Think about every wedding you have been to. The couple says I do, they kiss. They are now married.

They're fairy tale married. Their civil status under the law has not changed.

Civil status is still a big deal in this country, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.

 

[B_Jingoist]

Jingoist, please tell when exactly you "chose" to be straight. I know I didn't. My attraction and desire for woman was not taught to me. It wasn't the result of a conscious decision. I dare say it is the same for all straight people and, were they asked, encouraged or threatened to get sexually involved with someone of the same gender, it would not change their innate desire for the opposite sex. Their orientation is not the result of a preference akin to liking blonds better than brunettes. To suggest otherwise is ignorance.

By the way, since you raised it, Religion does not constitute a protected class. It has been afforded a special place under the Constitution protecting it from incursions by the government. Protected classes are a Judicial construct resulting from years of government violations of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

I didn't choose to be straight, but I do choose to have sex with women and therein lies the fundamental difference. I've posed the question before here and it went unanswered.

How do you define gay. Is it a feeling or an action? Does be attracted to the same solely make you gay. Or does engaging in sexual intercourse with the same sex make you gay. And if it is both, well that means someone who is attracted to both cannot be classified and someone who hasn't had sex yet has no sexual identity.

As for religion, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would beg to differ.

 

[monel]

Think about every wedding you have been to. The couple says I do, they kiss. They are now married. I've never heard someone say "We aren't married until we get the license in the mail"

Your argument is ridiculous. A couple cannot avail of the benefit afforded by the State to married couples until they have obtained a State marriage license. Since many states will not permit same sex couples to get a marriage license they cannot avail of the benefits afforded to their straight counterparts. That is a per-se violation of the equal protection clause. The change is coming and because it offends your religious beliefs or sense of morality doesn't mean a hill of beans. Get used to it.

 

[B_Jingoist]

So gays are simply heterosexuals who choose over and over again to pervert what they easily could be doing and enjoying? Wow. Someone really does not have a clue what being homosexual is.

Gay rights organizations are not seeking a special category for homosexuals. They're simply looking for laws and recognition to be applied equally. No one understands the notion that sexual orientation is the protected category better than they do. Many straights clearly do not, which is why Colorado's Amendment 2 got shot down so fast by the courts.

You really aren't getting it.

You can not base laws on feelings. Feelings are subjective. They don't apply across the board. You can only base laws on what you do.

 

[B_Jingoist]

And their civil status is still: single.




They're fairy tale married. Their civil status under the law has not changed.

Civil status is still a big deal in this country, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.

And as I've said before, if you want the legal protections, get a lawyer write up the documents.

You don't have a right to marriage benefits.

 

[monel]

I didn't choose to be straight, but I do choose to have sex with women and therein lies the fundamental difference. I've posed the question before here and it went unanswered.

How do you define gay. Is it a feeling or an action? Does be attracted to the same solely make you gay. Or does engaging in sexual intercourse with the same sex make you gay. And if it is both, well that means someone who is attracted to both cannot be classified and someone who hasn't had sex yet has no sexual identity.

As for religion, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would beg to differ.

The question you posited is so ignorant that it does not deserve an answer. And, though religious groups have protected class status, "Religion" has not. And that's not just semantics.

 

[zephyr808]

This is an example of splitting hairs that people have brought up before.

There does seem to be an awful lot of that going on in this thread, doesn't there? Everytime someone gives their opinion about gay marriage, the conversation veers in a different direction, of whether marriage is a right or a privilege, or the definitions of marriage before the Revolutionary War, or whether or not the government should even be involved in marriages at all, or sexual "preference" vs. sexual orientation, etc etc. It's like the tactic used by some politicians, throw everything you've got at the other side to try and muddy the waters as much as possible, whether it's based on facts or opinions designed to appear as though they are facts, and use the confusion as an attempted justification for the status quo. That's not good enough, and besides as monel stated, if the government bestows benefits of marriage on straight couples (which it does), then it cannot pick and choose who gets those benefits and who doesn't in a discriminatory manner.

 

[B_Jingoist]

The question you posited is so ignorant that it does not deserve an answer. And, though religious groups have protected class status, "Religion" has not. And that's not just semantics.

How is it ignorant in any way shape or form?

To be identified as belonging to a class or group there has to be some standard for identification. One cannot simply belong to a certain group because they will it to be so. So I ask again, what makes someone gay.

And I will say again. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 begs to differ.

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

SEC. 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.

It is in there about 40 more times if you care for me to quote them all.

 

[B_Jingoist]

There does seem to be an awful lot of that going on in this thread, doesn't there? Everytime someone gives their opinion about gay marriage, the conversation veers in a different direction, of whether marriage is a right or a privilege, or the definitions of marriage before the Revolutionary War, or whether or not the government should even be involved in marriages at all, or sexual "preference" vs. sexual orientation, etc etc. It's like the tactic used by some politicians, throw everything you've got at the other side to try and muddy the waters as much as possible, whether it's based on facts or opinions designed to appear as though they are facts, and use the confusion as an attempted justification for the status quo. That's not good enough, and besides as monel stated, if the government bestows benefits of marriage on straight couples (which it does), then it cannot pick and choose who gets those benefits and who doesn't in a discriminatory manner.

That is the thing. The law is based on individuals. We don't have collective laws.

A male can apply for a marriage license. A female can apply for a marriage license. A homosexual can apply for a marriage license. As long as the other individual is of the opposite sex, anyone can apply for a marriage license.

 

[monel]

Jingoist, please read the first two words of the section. Of the Act you posted. "All persons". It is groups of persons that are protected. Not Religion.

And if you have to ask how your question is ignorant, nothing anyone here can say or do can show you.

 

[B_Jingoist]

Jingoist, please read the first two words of the section. Of the Act you posted. "All persons". It is groups of persons that are protected. Not Religion.

And if you have to ask how your question is ignorant, nothing anyone here can say or do can show you.

No, it is not groups of persons. Laws do not apply to groups. They apply to individuals. As I've said, there are no collective laws.

And this one clearly states one cannot be discriminated based upon their religion.

 

[B_Jingoist]

As far as ignorance goes. You are ignorant.

You can't separate reasoning from outcome.

If I told that my shirt is black because it reflects all the light. I'd be wrong in the reasoning, but it doesn't change that my shirt is black.

I'm telling you that the reasoning being used to support same-sex marriage is not based in the Constitution, they are not based on law and they are illogical and simplistic emotional responses.

That doesn't mean I want to stop gays from getting married. It just means you have faulty reasoning.