The old California gay marriage thread is dead.

So.

I've ceased to care about the will of the majority in this scenario. This is a matter of civil rights. This will hopefully become my generation's Brown v. Board.

1/13/2010 11:45:42 AM

I've never really cared about what the majority thinks. If it were up to the majority the earth would still be flat and we'd be eating our food with sticks.

1/13/2010 11:57:18 AM

The current law is pretty messed up. If a gay couple got married before prop 8, they are fully married in the same sense that everyone else is, and if you got married after prop 8 then you are not (although I think you could file for a domestic partnership). Same goes for if you were married out of state before said date and then moved to CA today.

1/13/2010 12:14:01 PM

I guess it's better than simply voiding all present and past marraiges

1/13/2010 12:18:09 PM

No, that would be awesome. Void all marriages, give everybody a fresh start and a chance to escape their miserable married existence penalty free!

1/13/2010 12:19:35 PM

Think of the gold diggers, man. They have to make a living too.

1/13/2010 12:22:30 PM

While the SCOTUS is in the habit of giving all rights to anyone one or anything, why not gays?

1/24/2010 9:06:45 PM

^
Total agreement here with you Boone. Gov't politicians have no business deciding which consenting adults can get married.

1/24/2010 11:05:53 PM

there are no rights being suppressed here. Gays are free to marry anyone they want of the opposite sex. Pretty straightforward. They don't meet the legal definition of marriage. Case closed.

1/25/2010 1:42:42 AM

^ahahahahahahahahahaha hahahaha haha

Come on, burro. We all knew you were stupid, but I wasn't expecting you to be that stupid.
Unless of course that whole post was facetious, which doesn't seem to be the case.



v Shit, that doesn't even merit its own response. You shouldn't need this spelled out for you... and what little faith in humanity I have is telling me that you don't actually believe a word of what you just posted and are just trying to tow the republican line. I hope.

[Edited on January 25, 2010 at 2:11 AM. Reason : I'm sorry... but what you just posted is dumber than most of the things mambagrl says.]

1/25/2010 1:45:50 AM

look. there is nothing being denied them. They want to marry, they can. I can't marry a dog. Why? Because the law does not allow me to do so (the whole capable of making contracts thing, notwithstanding). Likewise, the law says I can't marry a guy. Should it be so? I dunno. I don't see a reason for it to be that way. But, let's admit that the law defines who can get married. It says a man and a woman. Well, two guys come up... There's no woman. Case closed. Now, when a guy and a girl show up and they are denied because one is gay, well, then, we've got another issue there.

1/25/2010 1:55:15 AM

that is one of the worst pieces of logic i have heard.

the fucking case is about the constitutionality of the law.

and your defense is "well. it's the law. what're you gonna do?"

and comparing marrying a dog to marrying someone of the same sex? real classy.

1/25/2010 2:04:17 AM

I'm pointing out that there is no actual discrimination via the law. I'm sorry that you can't wrap your brain around that. Again, the law does NOT say "gay people can't get married." If it did, then you might have a case. Rather, it says "a marriage takes a man and a woman." Which clearly allows gays to get married. Just not to who they might want to.

The dog comparison is obvious. It's showing why you can't just marry whatever the fuck you want. Because you aren't meeting the legal definition. Durrr.

[Edited on January 25, 2010 at 7:06 AM. Reason : ]

1/25/2010 7:05:46 AM

The dog comparison is not valid. Marrying a dog or any other form of animal isn't possible since the animal cannot give informed consent to marriage (at some point, the other person has to AGREE to get married).

Quit using it, it's ridiculous and makes anyone who does use it (or any other animal comparison) immediately less credible.

1/25/2010 8:09:03 AM

^ What if he had used the example of marriage among more than two people?

1/25/2010 8:14:27 AM

that has far different legal implications (for instance many of the implied rights of a spouse are called into question because there would be more than one spouse -- for instance in matters of estates and schiavo-type situations). but honestly if people want to get multi-married i don't give a shit.

1/25/2010 8:22:57 AM

^ I don't, either--I was simply posing the question. If such a "marriage" were among adults of sound mind, then consent would no longer be the issue.

1/25/2010 8:26:55 AM

Honestly, at this point I don't particularly care about polygamy. I can see it being a pain-in-the-ass for our government to process, but it's not like our system is set up for an easy conversion to homosexual marriages either. The system would just have to adapt. Personally I couldn't imagine having multiple wives (my wife is more than enough thank-you-very-much), but that doesn't mean that it can't work in a community designed to support it.

At least, that's looking at it on one level. There is a concern that polygamy has led to a rise in extremist behavior in some Islamic countries because young males find it hard to gain mates on this planet, and therefor an alternative of paradise seems more and more appealing to them. But that's just speculation.

1/25/2010 8:30:35 AM

You people really have no clue what it truely means to be married. When you are married you have an agreement between the two individuals and God. You don't get married to have your relationship "blessed", you get married to make an eternal promise to God to be true to your spouse. Ever wonder why the divorce rate and such is so high in today's society, it is in direct relations to people not understanding the true meaning of marriage a society with dying morality.

1/25/2010 10:19:13 AM

Quote :

"the law does NOT say "gay people can't get married." If it did, then you might have a case."

If a religion wants to define marriage as one man/one woman and restrict it to that..that's fine. If you don't like it than don't subscribe to it.

But if two (or more I guess) people want to combine their fortunes legally, the gov't must recognize that union and treat all the same. So a church, if it wants, can see you as married...and the gov't, despite the church, must see you as a legal union.

1/25/2010 10:20:52 AM

Quote :

"But if two (or more I guess) people want to combine their fortunes legally, the gov't must recognize that union and treat all the same."

I believe that two people can do so today without "marriage." IIRC, most of the rights associated with marriage can be attained without marriage. marriage is just an added convenience for all of that. I think a lot of this is gays wanting those rights, yes, but another major part of it is the desire for implicit acceptance / status that comes with being "officially married."

1/27/2010 1:06:40 AM

Quote :

"You people really have no clue what it truely means to be married. When you are married you have an agreement between the two individuals and God. You don't get married to have your relationship "blessed", you get married to make an eternal promise to God to be true to your spouse. Ever wonder why the divorce rate and such is so high in today's society, it is in direct relations to people not understanding the true meaning of marriage a society with dying morality."

]

The state with the lowest divorce rate in the country is the one that has had gay marriage the longest. Of course many of the churches there are very open and accepting and many perform marriages for any couple wishing to get married, gay or straight.

If marriage is a matter of religion, then who is the government to say the churches that do perform marriages for gay couples are wrong, and if it is a secular matter then why would religion come into it at all?

1/27/2010 1:19:00 AM

Blacks are free to marry anyone they want of the same race. Pretty straightforward. They don't meet the legal definition of marriage. Case closed.

look. there is nothing being denied them. They want to marry, they can. I can't marry a dog. Why? Because the law does not allow me to do so (the whole capable of making contracts thing, notwithstanding). Likewise, the law says I can't marry a black woman. Should it be so? I dunno. I don't see a reason for it to be that way. But, let's admit that the law defines who can get married. It says a black man and a black woman. Well, an interracial couple comes up... They aren't the same race. Case closed. Now, when a black guy and a black girl show up and they are denied because one is black, well, then, we've got another issue there.

I'm pointing out that there is no actual discrimination via the law. I'm sorry that you can't wrap your brain around that. Again, the law does NOT say "black people can't get married." If it did, then you might have a case. Rather, it says "a marriage takes a black man and a black woman." Which clearly allows blacks to get married. Just not to who they might want to.

The dog comparison is obvious. It's showing why you can't just marry whatever the fuck you want. Because you aren't meeting the legal definition. Durrr.

1/27/2010 1:30:05 AM

it was a joke. bigun20 posted that retarded shit in another thread

1/27/2010 12:06:24 PM

Hey, I picked up on it.

The anti-gay marriage crowd has been cornered into the semantics argument. "Marriage equals A man + a woman, therefore, a man + man does not equal marriage." It's not a good argument, because no one has a monopoly on language, and words often carry different meanings and connations across different groups.

So, you kind of have to get away from the word marriage and define your terms. If someone starts using this argument, you have to say to them, "alright, so a marriage is defined as a man and a woman. Would you support allowing same sex couples to join in a partnership that granted exactly the same rights and priviledges that exist in a state-sanctioned marriage?" If they answer yes, then they essentially support gay marriage. That legal partnership could be established, and no one could prevent the same sex couple from calling themselves "married." If they answer no, then they're just your run of the mill bigot.

1/27/2010 12:27:47 PM

some of you sure are passionate about letting these peterpuffers take the plunge.

1/27/2010 12:51:04 PM

Quote :

"Blacks are free to marry anyone they want of the same race. Pretty straightforward. They don't meet the legal definition of marriage. Case closed."

I knew you were going to go there. And yet, it is still just as valid. Fact is, if a state wants to be dumb enough to have such a law, that's fine. People will simply vote with their feet and say "fuck this backwards state."

Quote :

"The anti-gay marriage crowd has been cornered into the semantics argument. "

absolutely not. You have a legal definition. A guy marrying a guy doesn't meet that definition. In the same way that a 17 year old cannot register to vote. He doesn't meet the legal definition. The fact is, the "pro-gay marriage" crowd has no valid reason for pushing for "marriage." The rights and benefits are already available! All they want is legislated acceptance of their lifestyle. Of course, you can't win many hearts and minds with that kind of thing, so they make it instead seem that they are fighting for "equality," all when they already have the very thing they say they are fighting for.

1/27/2010 6:08:57 PM

Quote :

"I knew you were going to go there. And yet, it is still just as valid. Fact is, if a state wants to be dumb enough to have such a law, that's fine. People will simply vote with their feet and say "fuck this backwards state.""

but it's not. this was covered by the supreme court 40 years ago (loving v virginia)

1/27/2010 7:05:42 PM

I recognize that. you do realize, though, that the SC can be wrong, right? Kelo vs New London ring a bell? Moreover, the law in the Loving case made it illegal to do so, punishable by prison. The current laws simply say who can get married. There is a massive difference. What was ruled unConstitutional was not saying "whites can only marry whites." Rather, it was giving a punishment to a black person for doing the same thing a white could do without being punished.

1/27/2010 7:13:13 PM

from another thread, but posted here for continuity:
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=565942&page=6#13692711

Quote :

"I still think a pretty strong argument based on equal protection can be made for gay marriage on US constitutional grounds, which would make state decisions irrelevant. Ultimately I think that's what will happen. At present people are being discriminated upon based on gender. A law stating that only a man and a woman can jointly enter into marriage is pretty clearly discriminating based on gender if it makes it illegal for a man and another man to enter into marriage. Seems pretty straight forward to me, but hey, we'll see how it shakes out."

But no, they aren't being discriminated against. There is nothing saying that a man can't marry, nor is there anything saying a woman can't marry. Moreover, the laws aren't making anything "illegal." The laws just say "the state will only issue a marriage license for a man and a woman." There is no statement of legality or illegality (read: criminality).

At best, you could only make the case that homosexuality was being discriminated against, but homosexuality, as it currently stands, is not a protected class federally. Thus, there can be no Constitutional argument made for Equal Protection purposes. Even then, there would still be nothing saying that gays can't marry, as I've already pointed out.

1/27/2010 7:23:31 PM

Quote :

"The rights and benefits are already available! All they want is legislated acceptance of their lifestyle. Of course, you can't win many hearts and minds with that kind of thing, so they make it instead seem that they are fighting for "equality," all when they already have the very thing they say they are fighting for."

Explain, please. The rights and benefits are not currently available. You see it all the time with gay couples who are unable to make wills stand up, unable to make medical decisions for their partners, etc.

[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 10:16 PM. Reason : asdasf]

1/27/2010 10:13:44 PM

they are very much able to do those things. They just have to go down to the courthouse and file the paperwork for each of them. Hell, a will is binding no matter who the fuck is in it, as long as it is properly filed.

1/27/2010 11:34:34 PM

Quote :

"They just have to go down to the courthouse and file the paperwork for each of them"

yet heterosexual married couples do not. that is the whole point. also, there are certain privileges granted married couples that cannot be granted via filing papers with a court. and yes an answer to most of this could be "the gov't should stay out of marriages period." but that about the most politically untenable solution to this problem i can imagine. the easiest solution would be to treat homosexual couples in the same way that we do heterosexual ones. there wouldn't even really have to be much change in laws at all.

1/27/2010 11:52:45 PM

Quote :

"Hell, a will is binding no matter who the fuck is in it, as long as it is properly filed."

Not even close to being the case. Wills get disputed all the time, and are frequently not executed in the manner in which they were legally filed. If it comes down to it, the state often sides with the relatives of the deceased over other people (in this case, a homosexual partner) if they can raise any issue, legitimate or not, about the deceased mental state at the time of the will's filing or convince a court that the deceased was somehow coerced. Conversely, the court will almost always side with the spouse of the deceased over others with few exceptions.

1/28/2010 12:55:15 AM

Yeah, legal documents & civil unions can never match marriage. There are many stories about hospital visits being denied because the couple only had a civil union & legal signed documents copies on hand.

I recall a specific case of a family cruise, one lady fell very ill, and was rushed to a hospital. And she spent the next many hours alone in the hospital because he wife and kids were kept in the waiting room because when docked to get to the nearest hospital which happened to be in Florida, they wound up at a hospital that wouldn't accept legal documents from gay couples. After something like 18 hours alone she died. The kids couldn't say goodbye to their dying mom because some people want to have a semantics arguments over the word marriage.

1/28/2010 1:20:44 AM

Would you consider the issue to be resolved if the civil union were given exact same legal status as marriage and, thus, private institutions were required to recognize it as such?

1/28/2010 1:08:44 PM

Yes. Then for all legal intents and purposes they would be married. That's all the gay community wants. Hell, if it tickled their fancy they could even call themselves married (it's not all that difficult to find a church that will perform a same sex wedding in states that allow civil unions. And I'm sure you wouldn't want to dictate to a church for whom they can and cannot perform wedding ceremonies).

The hang up is not about the word. The sooner some folks get it through their thick skulls the better. It is about the legal benefits. If all the same legal rights were granted I'm not sure why you would need two separate terms for it, but sure I'd consider the issue closed.

1/28/2010 2:13:31 PM

separate but equal

1/28/2010 2:52:47 PM

Which has already been ruled unconstitutional regarding race. Unfortunately sexual orientation has not received the same treatment as race when it comes to law. If it took separate but equal to move us towards that I think the gay community and its supporters would deal with it for the time being. Unfortunately civil rights often come in baby steps and not leaps and bounds.

1/28/2010 5:58:07 PM

but now that we have the hindsight of knowing that separate but equal did not work why would we want to repeat?

1/28/2010 9:38:42 PM

Quote :

"yet heterosexual married couples do not. that is the whole point"

no it's not. both things are available to all equally. THAT is the whole point.

Quote :

"Yeah, legal documents & civil unions can never match marriage. There are many stories about hospital visits being denied because the couple only had a civil union & legal signed documents copies on hand."

then cause a stink and have your lawyer on the phone when you walk in. Legal documents should not be ignored, no matter what. You signed em, you paid the fee to do so, use it.

Quote :

"but now that we have the hindsight of knowing that separate but equal did not work why would we want to repeat?"

you assume that there is something even remotely similar between race and sexual choices.

1/28/2010 11:43:18 PM

You assume that sexual orientation is a choice in spite of the mounting scientific evidence that it is at least partly genetic and possibly mostly genetic. Furthermore we do protect people from discrimination based on religion, which is undeniably a choice (and yes, I do realize that it is expressly mentioned in the constitution).

I'm wondering why you continue to insist that civil unions provide the same benefits as marriage when, in point of fact, they do not? I'm just curious as to why you seem to believe that homophobia and downright hatred of the gay community is an acceptable legal position for the government to take.

1/28/2010 11:58:00 PM

I'm sorry, but ramming my penis into anything is a choice.

Quote :

"I'm wondering why you continue to insist that civil unions provide the same benefits as marriage when, in point of fact, they do not?"

Where have I said anything like that? are you confusing me with anyone else here?

Quote :

"I'm just curious as to why you seem to believe that homophobia and downright hatred of the gay community is an acceptable legal position for the government to take."

Wow, that's the mother of all strawmen. Congratulations!

1/29/2010 12:32:26 AM

Quote :

"The fact is, the "pro-gay marriage" crowd has no valid reason for pushing for "marriage." The rights and benefits are already available!"

That combined with your insistence that hey, gays can marry, just not to other gays, is enough to convince me that you are either being willfully obtuse or feel that gays do not deserve equal protection under the law.

What you have insisted upon is patently false, they are not able to acquire the same rights and benefits, they cannot file jointly on taxes. That's one pretty glaring example and it cannot be obtained by "going down to the court and filing the paperwork."

As of yet I've never seen anyone make a cogent argument about keeping marriage "between a man and a woman" that does not rely on religious underpinnings, and in a secular legal system that carries no weight.

1/29/2010 2:48:50 AM

Quote :

"I'm sorry, but ramming my penis into anything is a choice."

So if it's a choice, did you choose women over men? Do you have to restrain yourself from sucking dicks? If so, you're probably gay.

1/29/2010 7:52:49 AM

Yes, the act of having sex requires a conscious choice. Who you want to have sex with is a much more primal thing and is not a conscious decision. It's not like you just pick out who you're going to fall in love with. I hate to bring up gay sex among virtually all primates, but we can go down that route if you want. We can also talk about the fact that homosexuality is as old as human history itself. The idea that being gay is purely choice is held by almost no one who has done any kind of research on the subject.

I'm just guessing here, based on my limited exposure to gay culture, but most of them wouldn't have chosen a lifestyle that makes them the target of violence, derision, and often alienates friends and family who suddenly decide they are somehow subhuman.

1/29/2010 12:09:03 PM

Quote :

"That combined with your insistence that hey, gays can marry, just not to other gays, is enough to convince me that you are either being willfully obtuse or feel that gays do not deserve equal protection under the law. "

THEY ALREADY HAVE EQUAL PROTECTION!!! Where is there ANY law that says a homosexual can't get married. show it to me!

Quote :

"As of yet I've never seen anyone make a cogent argument about keeping marriage "between a man and a woman" that does not rely on religious underpinnings, and in a secular legal system that carries no weight."

Then you haven't been listening. To ignore the FACT that marriage is heavily connected to procreation is to be willfully dishonest.

Quote :

"What you have insisted upon is patently false, they are not able to acquire the same rights and benefits, they cannot file jointly on taxes."

They can if they marry someone of the opposite sex. This is akin to arguing that a 17 year old not being able to vote is not "Equal Protection." The legal fucking definition is what counts here, dude.

Quote :

"I hate to bring up gay sex among virtually all primates, but we can go down that route if you want. "

And there are copious amounts of animals that practice cannibalism. Does that make cannibalism among humans natural and "genetic?" Of course not.

Quote :

"We can also talk about the fact that homosexuality is as old as human history itself."

So is murder. Doesn't make it genetic.

Quote :

"The idea that being gay is purely choice is held by almost no one who has done any kind of research on the subject."

And that would be something you would need evidence to claim. Evidence of some who believe it is NOT evidence that ALL believe it.

Quote :

"I'm just guessing here, based on my limited exposure to gay culture, but most of them wouldn't have chosen a lifestyle that makes them the target of violence, derision, and often alienates friends and family who suddenly decide they are somehow subhuman."

Lots of people make stupid decisions every day. Doesn't make homosexuality any less of a decision.

1/29/2010 8:34:15 PM

The argument isn't about what the legal definition of marriage is, it's whether that legal definition is constitutional based on a given state's constitution and the US constitution. Lots of laws and legal definitions exist that are later found not to be in accordance with the constitution. In point of fact the legal definition of "marriage requires a man and a woman" is not consistent across all states.

Your half-assed insistence that gays can get married, just not to the person of their choice is so stupid and misses the entire point of the argument that it's not even worth addressing, so that's all I'll say about it.

Marriage's social underpinnings have traditionally been put in place to provide a stable environment for child rearing, that is true. However, whether or not someone intends to procreate or is capable of procreating is of no consequence for creating a legal marriage contract. Why should we judge a sterile man marrying a barren woman any differently than two men getting married. The only difference present is that one contract is between people of two opposite genders and one is between two people of the same gender. Furthermore we don't require marriage as a prerequisite to procreation, nor do we hold marriage sacrosanct when raising children, as evidenced by the high rates of divorce and single parent households. I'm not saying this is a positive, but it is a fact.

Finally, your ignorance of the research on the subject not withstanding, homosexuality is not a choice. However, even if it were, the argument can still be made that there is not reason to exclude from someone full legal access based simply on who they are fucking. Religion is clearly a choice, yet it is a protected class.

Why should we not extend that status to homosexuals? There was a time when men who did not own property did not have full legal status, and after that women were still excluded, and then non-whites, etc. Don't get me wrong, I fully support private entities being allowed to exclude whoever they want from membership or involvement (I don't support affirmative action, I don't like smoking bans, etc.) but the government is supposed to treat all citizens equally and extend to them the full protection of the law as long as they are citizens of the state in question.

1/29/2010 9:08:23 PM

Quote :

"Marriage's social underpinnings have traditionally been put in place to provide a stable environment for child rearing, that is true. However, whether or not someone intends to procreate or is capable of procreating is of no consequence for creating a legal marriage contract. Why should we judge a sterile man marrying a barren woman any differently than two men getting married."

Because they still fit, ultimately, the purpose of marriage. Yes, procreation is not possible, but to ignore the procreative history of marriage is to completely misunderstand its purpose and intent.

Quote :

"Furthermore we don't require marriage as a prerequisite to procreation, nor do we hold marriage sacrosanct when raising children, as evidenced by the high rates of divorce and single parent households."

That we do not always use marriage for procreation is not evidence that marriage is not tied to procreation.

Quote :

"Why should we not extend that status to homosexuals?"

As the person challenging the status quo, the honus is on you to show that we should. There are a LOT of choices that are not protected. To me, homosexuality is no different.

Quote :

"There was a time when men who did not own property did not have full legal status"

Bullshit. They had all of the protections of the law.

Quote :

"However, even if it were, the argument can still be made that there is not reason to exclude from someone full legal access based simply on who they are fucking."

Again, there is no prohibition against a homosexual marrying someone of the opposite sex. They have all legal access they would normally have.

Quote :

"but the government is supposed to treat all citizens equally"

It does no such thing. And you know it. Affirmative Action alone proves that point. Moreover, 17 year-olds can't vote. The fact is, these people are still being treated equally. They can marry someone of the opposite sex all they want.

1/29/2010 9:21:48 PM

Quote :

"Your half-assed insistence that gays can get married, just not to the person of their choice is so stupid and misses the entire point of the argument "

It boggles the mind that he can be ridiculous and retarded enough to sit there and make that argument with complete seriousness.


I mean, gay activists often annoy the shit out of me to the point of making me significantly less sympathetic to their cause, but I can't even imagine how someone could be enough of a dumbass to say "Gays CAN get married! There's no law that says otherwise...they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex...I mean, what's the issue here?"



oh, and yes...the real answer is for marriage to be simply a social and/or religious ceremony, and the for the gov't to stay out of it to the max extent possible.

1/29/2010 9:23:40 PM