Cali Gay Marriage Opinion to be Released Today

[jakee 1,497]

Quote

When blacks were not afforded equal rights it was because they were black. Gays are not being discriminated against in any way because of any traits.

Except the trait of homosexuality.

It is un-fucking-believable that you don't get this. So unbelievable in fact, that I'm pretty sure that you do get it, and are only persisting in this pretence of stupidity because you don't want to admit the real reason you're against it.

Oh, and any time you'd like to explain how gay marriage would give gay people 'special' rights that other people don't have, you just feel free to write that out for us.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

But, like I said, the Constitution and the Declaration are not the sole repositories of law in the US. That's not what they're for, it's not what they do.

You might as well stop with the red herrings because no one is buying it. They were the sole repositories of law when our government was formed and at that time there was a separation of government and marriage. That proved what you said was wrong. In post 78 did you not say that “You seem to be blissfully unaware that in the society whos language we get the word "marriage" from religion and government was inseperable.”?. Now the question again is at the time when the USA government was formed and for several years afterwards were the government and marriage separate? If the answer is yes which it is then your statement is wrong. You then asked me “Can you show me when marriage has ever been seperate from government?” and I did.

Quote

You also don't seem to have accepted my suggestion that you actually find out where the word marriage comes from, since your whole argument seems to hang on the definition and origin of that word.

Your false assumption is that I don’t know. You also have a false assumption that people actually have to answer you and agree with you or be wrong.

Quote

Because it is. You're happy to deny rights to people that you would otherwise be happy for them to enjoy, simply because you don't want the government to use a particular word in a particular way. It's really, really petty.

It is pretty arrogant to think that one person is wiser than the millions. Prove that I am “happy” to deny the right of people. You really need to quit telling people what their emotions are when you both lack the wisdom to know and you are wrong. I am neither denying the right of anyone the right to get married by whatever faith they follow or join in a civil union. Just because I don’t agree with their views does not mean that I don’t respect them. That is something you might learn.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[jakee 1,497]

Quote

In post 78 did you not say that “You seem to be blissfully unaware that in the society whos language we get the word "marriage" from religion and government was inseperable.”?. Now the question again is at the time when the USA government was formed and for several years afterwards were the government and marriage separate? If the answer is yes which it is then your statement is wrong.

Do you think marriage originated with the US?

Quote

Your false assumption is that I don’t know. You also have a false assumption that people actually have to answer you and agree with you or be wrong.

You said marriage was a specific religious term. I'll ask again, which religion? Where does it come from? What does it mean?

Quote

It is pretty arrogant to think that one person is wiser than the millions.

Very dumb statement. I am by no means the only person who thinks the way I do about this. If I'm one against millions on this issue then so are you.

Quote

Prove that I am “happy” to deny the right of people.

Replace happy with willing.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

Do you think marriage originated with the US?

Nope, but that is irrelevant. You said “word "marriage" from religion and government was inseperable” and I showed you a government where it was. Not to mention the fact that this thread IS about the USA.

Quote

Very dumb statement. I am by no means the only person who thinks the way I do about this. If I'm one against millions on this issue then so are you.

No, it is not “dumb”. Any one person that thinks they are wiser than millions is usually arrogant. While I agree that there are probably a lot of people that think it may be “petty” they are clearly in the minority. The majority of people on both sides of the issue are pretty passionate about their position and “petty” is not a word that would accurately describe it.

Quote

Replace happy with willing.

Okay, replace it and try and prove it. I have not, nor proposed to deny anyone equality or religious freedom.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[wmw999 2,452]

Quote

They were the sole repositories of law when our government was formed

I rather doubt it. Neither the DOC nor the Constitution makes murder illegal, but I'd bet that it was considered illegal.

The Constitution is the national framework up which other laws, federal, state, and local, are placed. If a law doesn't fit in the framework, then either the framework has to be changed, or the law is invalid. At least that's the way I understand it.

Since the framework was written in the 1700's, sometimes situations that we think need laws don't fit cleanly in there. That's why we have federal courts.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[DARK 0]

Quote

We choose who to love and who we want to marry,

you dont seriously believe that do you? do you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex or would you say that it is a trait?

im going to assume that you agree it is a trait and not a choice

if it is a trait then it is one that prevents them from being in love with someone of the opposite sex(if im saying any of this wrong or misrepresenting any homosexuals feel free to step in and correct me im straight) as in in-love in the way you are in-love with your wife / so

now the law allows you to marry the person you love because it allows you to marry the person you are likely to follow in love with ie someone of the opposite sex

the law does not allow homosexuals to marry the person they are likely to fall in love with simply because it is someone of the same sex. they are attracted to that person because of an attraction trait they have

its not that difficult to understand and i think you are being deliberately pedantic just to piss people off

[jakee 1,497]

Quote

Nope, but that is irrelevant. You said “word "marriage" from religion and government was inseperable” and I showed you a government where it was. Not to mention the fact that this thread IS about the USA.

Pretty pathetic quote mine when you have to cut off the first half of my sentance, do ya think that means you're trying to twist what I said? I said that in the society where we get the word marriage from, religion and government were inseperable. It is absolutely relevant to the issue because you are basing your entire reason for not wanting to allow gay marriage on your idea of what the word marriage means, and it being specifically religious and nothing to do with the government.

Quote

No, it is not “dumb”. Any one person that thinks they are wiser than millions is usually arrogant.

It is dumb. Do you think you are right on this issue? Do you think you are right on any issue? If so, you think you are wiser than millions and are therefore arrogant. Doesn't make sense, does it?

Quote

The majority of people on both sides of the issue are pretty passionate about their position and “petty” is not a word that would accurately describe it.

You said you were against gay marriage, for the sole reason that the word marriage was being used. That's petty.

Quote

Okay, replace it and try and prove it. I have not, nor proposed to deny anyone equality or religious freedom.

Would you vote for or against gay marriages? Would you vote for or against gay civil unions?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

The Constitution is the national framework up which other laws, federal, state, and local, are placed.

I agree, I was only using jakee's verbiage for simplicity so that maybe he would understand. The laws that invoked marriage into our government did not come for years after our government was formed. Remember that I was only showing that at some point marriage and government (USA) were separate.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[jakee 1,497]

Quote

I agree, I was only using jakee's verbiage for simplicity so that maybe he would understand.

That's funny, 'cos I fucking told you that was the case and you protested the opposite.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

Pretty pathetic quote mine when you have to cut off the first half of my sentance, do ya think that means you're trying to twist what I said? It is absolutely relevant to the issue because you are basing your entire reason for not wanting to allow gay marriage on your idea of what the word marriage means, and it being specifically religious and nothing to do with the government.

Not pathetic at all, lets take the entire quote “I said that in the society where we get the word marriage from, religion and government were inseperable.” Is the USA part of society or not? Has that government ever been separate from marriage? Since it has your statement fails.

Quote

It is dumb. Do you think you are right on this issue? Do you think you are right on any issue? If so, you think you are wiser than millions and are therefore arrogant. Doesn't make sense, does it?

What I do know is that am wise enough to be respectful and not call others “dumb” because my view is different. Something you might try and learn.

Quote

You said you were against gay marriage, for the sole reason that the word marriage was being used. That's petty.

It is not according millions of people involved that think otherwise.

Quote

Would you vote for or against gay marriages? Would you vote for or against gay civil unions?

I guess you have not read what I posted. I would and have voted against gay marriage just as I would for non-gay marriage if it were placed on the ballot. I have and would vote for gay and non-gay civil unions. I have constantly stated that I don’t think that the government should have the power to tell me who I can spend my life with or who I can assign my benefits to. There are laws here that require blood test to get a marriage license. If you test positive for AIDS for example you can’t get married, that is wrong. Why do you think that it is right that the government can consider my marriage before God invalid unless THEY approve it? Talk about arrogance. Are we clear?

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[Caitlin89 0]

Quote

Discrimination is treating one group of people different than another because of a trait, not because of a free-will choice. We choose who to love and who we want to marry, it is not somethig that is forced upon us or that we have no say in.
When blacks were not afforded equal rights it was because they were black. Gays are not being discriminated against in any way because of any traits. Nobody here has shown any law that specifically denies any person the right to marry because of their sexual orientation. Show me anywhere in the law where it says "Homosexuals are not allowed to marry" and I will agree with you 100% that they are being discriminated against.

This argument, as you've been told, is completely asinine. It's mind boggling on several levels to imagine anybody possessing this train of thought, not to mention incredibly sad. Through reading your posts here, it's evident that you view homosexuality as a choice, which is obviously incorrect, and in many aspects, the basis of the entire gay marriage debate. Do I think your mind will change? No, probably not, though I do hope that at some point, you can acquire the intelligence to draw up a more effective argument for denying any person basic civil rights.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That seems more complicated to me, and it wouldn't give same-sex couples the same federal rights that heterosexual married couples currently have.

Yes it would. Full Faith and Credit means that any marriage, performed anywhere in the nation, would have to be recognized. You wouldn't have to force any jurisdictions to perform ceremonies they didn't like, but they'd all have to recognize the acts of other jurisdictions.

Perhaps, if the DOMA was repealed.

As I said, I think that DOMA can't pass Constitutional muster (again, under Full Faith and Credit).

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Through reading your posts here, it's evident that you view homosexuality as a choice, which is obviously incorrect, and in many aspects, the basis of the entire gay marriage debate.

You know, this always comes up in these debates. And there seems to be a lot of people who believe homosexuality is a choice, but I've yet to get any of these people to explain to me how they themselves chose their own sexual orientation.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

When it comes back to the subject of gay rights, I wish you were right, but...

I know that it's easy to Google up a number of news stories about this.

Honestly, though, I think those are cases that needs to be dealt with individually, and are far out of the mainstream. I also think that what you're seeing is a violation of medical ethics, and can be sorted out pretty easily that way.

My wife is a doctor with a 100% inpatient practice. The only people who get denied visitation rights are people who are potentially violent, people who the patient asks to be kept out, and (most common) people who try smuggle the patient prohibited substances (it blows my mind that there are people trying to sneak whiskey in to patients in hospitals). She's never had a case where someone claiming to be a spouse or partner was denied visitation, or even challenged on their claim to be a spouse or partner.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

As I said, I think that DOMA can't pass Constitutional muster (again, under Full Faith and Credit).

I agree. Yet, thirteen years later, and there it still is. And same-sex couples who are legally married in any of the states that allow it still don't have their marriages recognized by the federal government or by most other states. (At least, not that I'm aware of.)

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

As I said, I think that DOMA can't pass Constitutional muster (again, under Full Faith and Credit).

I agree. Yet, thirteen years later, and there it still is. And same-sex couples who are legally married in any of the states that allow it still don't have their marriages recognized by the federal government or by most other states. (At least, not that I'm aware of.)

In pure dollar terms, getting a case to the SCOTUS will be cheaper than all the campaigning on this issue. I'm a little surprised no one has done it yet. I also think it's a winner on the current makeup of the court, especially if you can hit them with another FFC case from the other side of the spectrum (concealed weapons permits spring immediately to mind) in the same session.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Shotgun 1]

Regarding the visitation rights, I admittedly have very little experience with hospitals (thankfully!), but from what I have seen, it appears that spouses do have more extensive visitation rights than non-family.

When my husband was injured, I was pretty much allowed to be with him in the hospital wherever he was, at any time (short of going into surgery with him). I was able to sleep in the same room with him every night while he was there, and I was able to make decisions for him and sign papers, etc. when necessary.

But when a friend of mine was in a very similar situation with her boyfriend (not married), she was only allowed to see him during the hospital's "visiting hours." And of course she was not allowed to make any decisions for him or anything like that.

Anyhow, I don't know if that is representative of the system in general, but it makes me think that a non-married same-sex partner would likely have less visitation rights in a hospital setting than a legally-married same-sex partner would.

[billvon 2,996]

>Discrimination is treating one group of people different than
>another because of a trait, not because of a free-will choice.

Exactly. And homosexuality is a trait, not a free-will choice. (Unless you are going to argue that nude men turn you on just as much as nude women, and you've "made a choice" to go after women alone!)

>When blacks were not afforded equal rights it was because they were black.

They had exactly the same rights as whites! They could marry their own race, just like whites. Were you OK with that?

>Gays are not being discriminated against in any way because of any traits.

They are denied a right that I have. Therefore they are being discriminated against.

> Show me anywhere in the law where it says "Homosexuals are not
>allowed to marry"

Show me anywhere where any law from the 1950's said "blacks are not allowed to marry." Again, are you therefore OK with banning interracial marriage?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Discrimination is treating one group of people different than another because of a trait, not because of a free-will choice.

Right. And being gay is a trait, not a free will choice. Not allowing an unmarried gay person to marry the person he/she loves, while allowing an unmarried straight person to marry the person he/she loves is, by your own definition, discrimination.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jakee 1,497]

Quote

Not pathetic at all, lets take the entire quote “I said that in the society where we get the word marriage from, religion and government were inseperable.” Is the USA part of society or not? Has that government ever been separate from marriage? Since it has your statement fails.

Bolded the relevant part. Do you for some reason think that 'marriage' is an American word? If you do, you're obviously wrong, if you don't, your reply is not relevant and only serves to dodge the point.

Quote

What I do know is that am wise enough to be respectful and not call others “dumb” because my view is different. Something you might try and learn.

Keep up Mike. I said it was dumb for you to say that I am one against millions. And it was dumb to say that, because it applies equally to you and everyone else involved in the debate.

Quote

It is not according millions of people involved that think otherwise.

It doesn't matter how many people are involved. If the reasoning is petty then it's petty.

Quote

I guess you have not read what I posted. I would and have voted against gay marriage just as I would for non-gay marriage if it were placed on the ballot. I have and would vote for gay and non-gay civil unions.

Actually I have read what you've posted, because I knew that's what you were going to say. In light of the above how can you possibly say that what I wrote earlier was wrong? You are happy to deny rights to a group of people, rights you would otherwise be happy for them to have, based purely on the use of one word. It's very, very petty.

Quote

I have constantly stated that I don’t think that the government should have the power to tell me who I can spend my life with or who I can assign my benefits to. There are laws here that require blood test to get a marriage license. If you test positive for AIDS for example you can’t get married, that is wrong. Why do you think that it is right that the government can consider my marriage before God invalid unless THEY approve it?

But under your idea of civil unions things would be exactly the same, just by a different name. Under your plan of seperate civil unions and religious marriages the Government would still consider your marriage before God legally invalid unless you jumped through the hoops for a civil union. They would still tell you who you could and couldn't assign your benefits to under a civil union. Things would be exactly the same, just working under slightly different terminology.

For the record, I couldn't care less whether everyone has government recognised marriages or government recognised civil unions. I just can't believe you'd be so petty as to vote to deny equal rights to gay people based solely on your dissatisfaction with the way one word is used. By all means campaign to change the way the government uses its terminology, but why, why unfairly penalise another group of people in the meantime?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,497]

Quote

My wife is a doctor with a 100% inpatient practice. The only people who get denied visitation rights are people who are potentially violent, people who the patient asks to be kept out, and (most common) people who try smuggle the patient prohibited substances (it blows my mind that there are people trying to sneak whiskey in to patients in hospitals). She's never had a case where someone claiming to be a spouse or partner was denied visitation, or even challenged on their claim to be a spouse or partner.

Visitation is only one part of it though, isn't it? What happens when it comes down to treatment choices being made on the patients behalf? What happens when the partner and other family disagree? In short, what about the really important stuff?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

>Discrimination is treating one group of people different than
>another because of a trait, not because of a free-will choice.

Exactly. And homosexuality is a trait, not a free-will choice. (Unless you are going to argue that nude men turn you on just as much as nude women, and you've "made a choice" to go after women alone!)
You are correct. Homosexuality is a trait. But nobody is being targeted because they are homosexual. If I am wrong, show me the evidence and I will admit I was wrong.

>When blacks were not afforded equal rights it was because they were black.

They had exactly the same rights as whites! They could marry their own race, just like whites. Were you OK with that?
People were deinied the right to choose their partner specifically because of skin color and/or heritage, something that is totally different than who they choose to love

>Gays are not being discriminated against in any way because of any traits.

They are denied a right that I have. Therefore they are being discriminated against.
Once again, where do you see it written in the laws that they are being denied any rights because of their sexual orientation?

> Show me anywhere in the law where it says "Homosexuals are not
>allowed to marry"

Show me anywhere where any law from the 1950's said "blacks are not allowed to marry." Again, are you therefore OK with banning interracial marriage?

You forgot one very important part that changes the entire meaning of the phrase. In the 1950s blacks were not denied the right to marry, they were denied the right to marry whites. That one little word makes all the difference in context.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

A lot of people are opposed to same-sex marriages because they feel it would somehow lessen or trivialize the meaning of the partnership they or their family have enjoyed and taken pride in for many, many years. Before you make any assumptions I will tell you that I am not one of them.
But for those who do feel that way I can assure you, young man, that it most definitely is not petty in any way, shape, or form.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[billvon 2,996]

>But nobody is being targeted because they are homosexual.

California just passed a ballot measure that targeted homosexuals. It removed their right to marry the person they love, a right that they had before the measure was passed.

>People were deinied the right to choose their partner specifically because
>of skin color and/or heritage, something that is totally different than who
>they choose to love.

Huh? Blacks could select from any other black; they still had the same freedom that gays have. Gays can still select anyone from the opposite sex. How is that different? They both still get a choice as long as they choose the right person to love, one who's not the wrong color or sex.

> In the 1950s blacks were not denied the right to marry, they were
>denied the right to marry whites.

Exactly! Just as today, gays are not denied the right to marry, they are simply denied the right to marry someone of their preferred gender.

You're arguing more and more strongly that this situation is very analogous to the inter-racial marriage issues of the 1950's.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

]Not pathetic at all, lets take the entire quote “I said that in the society where we get the word marriage from, religion and government were inseperable.” Is the USA part of society or not?

The USA is part of society, but it is not part of "the society where we get the word marriage from." The term marriage existed long before the USA existed.

Quote

Has that government ever been separate from marriage? Since it has your statement fails.

Not at all, since you have failed to show that marriage has ever been separate from government. (Note that I don't know if it has or hasn't, just that you haven't logically shown that it has.)

Even if we restricted the discussion to the USA, which would serve to avoid answering the question about the origin of the term marriage posed by [jakee], we would still have to examine state and local governments, not just the Constitution, before we could claim that marriage was completely separate from government.

Quote

Quote

Would you vote for or against gay marriages? Would you vote for or against gay civil unions?

I guess you have not read what I posted. I would and have voted against gay marriage just as I would for non-gay marriage if it were placed on the ballot. I have and would vote for gay and non-gay civil unions. I have constantly stated that I don’t think that the government should have the power to tell me who I can spend my life with or who I can assign my benefits to.

Yet your vote has served to give the government additional power to tell people who they can or can't assign benefits to. Since mutual friends tell me you're actually a pretty intelligent guy, I'm left to believe that you're attempting to retroactively justify your vote to enshrine discrimination in the Florida state constitution.

Quote

Why do you think that it is right that the government can consider my marriage before God invalid unless THEY approve it? Talk about arrogance. Are we clear?

You have already admitted voting to give the Florida state government precisely such authority.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!