Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

[cybrsage]

Who gives a shit if "the religious construct of marriage" predates anything? It's a contract -- a legal matter -- and therefore is under the purview of the law.

Make it personal as much as you want, but the reality is going to trump your point of view here.

It's to do with the law. Respect that first.

Stop being stupid on purpose.

 

[cybrsage]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not distort the issues cybrsage, catholic hospitals are free to do what they want to, but the second they accept Federal funding and tax exemptions, they lose their right to force their religious dogma on the larger public.

You started out so well, then you said they are forcing their religion on others and you failed. Almost a good try.

And now you are trying to crawfish out of that too, in a nation that was founded on separtition of church and State.

Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.


You also ignored the rest of my statement about the Brit Milah.

 

[JEDIYoda]

some seem to think "civil union" = same exact rights afforded by "marriage."

it absolutely does not.

and this is the issue. --- taken from Zinfamous post!

The word - MARRIAGE -- is the issue!

 

[blankslate]

Totally shocking, that the 9th would issue another terrible decision...... 🙄

Perhaps the scotus will correct their error, maybe they won't, but either way, it's clear the will of the people doesn't matter, only the will of the activist judges.

An activist Judge is a judge who doesn't decide the way that you would have liked them too...

 

[cybrsage]

some seem to think "civil union" = same exact rights afforded by "marriage."

it absolutely does not.

and this is the fucking issue.

Can you elaborate more? What rights do civil unions not have which marriages have?

 

[Craig234]

I think you're quite right. But the decent reads to me more like "Hey, hey, now.. Let's slow down a bit. We don't know much about this thing yet" while winking with his left eye.

Sounds a little like the people who have financial interests in denying climate change. There are marketing agencies who told them, 'say we don't know for sure, don't rush.'

 

[blankslate]

Can you elaborate more? What rights do civil unions not have which marriages have?

According to factcheck.org

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

the main differences are Joint Tax filings (married people can for federal taxes people in civil unions can only do so for state taxes).

Health Insurance Benefits federal law favors marriages over civil unions in this regard. ymmv when it comes to state laws.

Social Security benefits for survivors.... people in civil unions aren't treated the same as marriages.

 

[Craig234]

Pretty sure that marriage is considered a fundamental right after Zablocki v. Redhail. Maybe gay marriage is not considered a fundamental right, but the right to marry generally is.

I've seen multiple cases the Supreme Court reportedly declared marriage a 'fundamental right' - beginning with Loving v. Virginia.

It doesn't make much sense to say 'gay marriage' is not a fundamental right. The question is, is gay marriage similar to other marriage?

In other words, is there a legitimate basis for treating it differently?

That question was asked about race in Loving - and about gender here.

If that question is asked about, say, five year olds marrying, the answer they find is 'yes, that's different and justifies restrictions.'

This is why so much of the argument against inter-racial and intra-gender marriage is filled with vague phrases about 'natural' and 'traditional'.

Lacking substance, they just grasp for something.

 

[JEDIYoda]

State Recognition



When married couples move from one state to any other state, their marriage is still legally recognized. But that is not always the case with civil unions. For couples united by a civil union, legal recognition depends on whether the specific state where they live recognizes civil unions or not.



Unlike marriage, civil unions offer no federal protections, recognition or benefits.

State and Federal Taxes

Married couples are able to file joint tax returns, influencing the amount of taxes they owe and saving the effort of filing separate tax returns. While certain states recognize civil unions for tax purposes, a same-sex couple must still file separate federal tax returns. Even in states that offer tax benefits to couples in civil unions, that protection generally does not extend to joint federal and state programs.


Read more: Marriage Rights Vs. Civil Unions Rights | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_5681525_marriage-vs_-civil-unions-rights.html#ixzz1lomvdgvG

Also if your partner gets sick and you have a civil union quite often they will not recognize you as being family and will instead have a family member such as a brother or sister make decisions that you have no say in.....

The issue is that word -- Marriage!
If you would do some reading you would find that there is a vast difference between a civil union and a Marriage!

 

[Craig234]

According to factcheck.org

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

the main differences are Joint Tax filings (married people can for federal taxes people in civil unions can only do so for state taxes).

Health Insurance Benefits federal law favors marriages over civil unions in this regard. ymmv when it comes to state laws.

Social Security benefits for survivors.... people in civil unions aren't treated the same as marriages.

If civil unions had all the same rights as marriage, the only reason for keeping the words different would be to have a 'second class' marriage, 'separate but equal'.

It comes down to the heterosexuals who want to feel their marriages are better than, are the 'real' marriages, wanting to protect that 'superiority' by denying gays the word.

And that's a clear discrimination there is no justification for harming homosexual people.

What underlies this is the heterosexuals who feel this way not understanding homosexuality.

Last night, I listened to a radio called who said he's a marine complaining that he's a baptist, and this country was founded on Christian values, and the gays getting so much attention to their rights now was nothing but the country embracing things that were wrong, and thhe destruction of the nation's morals, and so it's no surprised the country is having some hard times while we do that.

In other words, ending discrimination against gays is the cause of the financial crash.

Many people actually seem to view things that way. They use the word 'morality' to describe their desire to discriminate - not to describe the end of wrong discrimination.

So when you talk about 'gay marriage' to such people, they hear you are attacking their religion, their country, and inviting the country to be destroyed.

And we wonder how it was possible to scapegoat Jews in 1930's Germany?

How can you have a discussion on the details of the law with such people, when they are on such a different agenda?

If someone asked you to agree to the terrorists nuking the country because of a fine legal 'right' they're claimed to have, would you agree to that?

Of course not - but that's how many of these people seem to react to gay marriage. It's irrational, it's immoral, and it's well ingrained.

I made this analogy on another point, but it also helps explain something like the south's almost universal defense of slavery while most did not own slaves - it was viewed as attack on their 'culture' that made them willing to leave the nation and go to war, not for so much rational reasons, but fury over an 'attack' on their 'way of life'. Who cared about the slaves' rights? Who cared about the gays' rights?

Save234

 

[HomerJS]

If civil unions had all the same rights as marriage, the only reason for keeping the words different would be to have a 'second class' marriage, 'separate but equal'.

It comes down to the heterosexuals who want to feel their marriages are better than, are the 'real' marriages, wanting to protect that 'superiority' by denying gays the word.

And that's a clear discrimination there is no justification for harming homosexual people.

What underlies this is the heterosexuals who feel this way not understanding homosexuality.

Last night, I listened to a radio called who said he's a marine complaining that he's a baptist, and this country was founded on Christian values, and the gays getting so much attention to their rights now was nothing but the country embracing things that were wrong, and thhe destruction of the nation's morals, and so it's no surprised the country is having some hard times while we do that.

In other words, ending discrimination against gays is the cause of the financial crash.

Many people actually seem to view things that way. They use the word 'morality' to describe their desire to discriminate - not to describe the end of wrong discrimination.

So when you talk about 'gay marriage' to such people, they hear you are attacking their religion, their country, and inviting the country to be destroyed.

And we wonder how it was possible to scapegoat Jews in 1930's Germany?

How can you have a discussion on the details of the law with such people, when they are on such a different agenda?

If someone asked you to agree to the terrorists nuking the country because of a fine legal 'right' they're claimed to have, would you agree to that?

Of course not - but that's how many of these people seem to react to gay marriage. It's irrational, it's immoral, and it's well ingrained.

I made this analogy on another point, but it also helps explain something like the south's almost universal defense of slavery while most did not own slaves - it was viewed as attack on their 'culture' that made them willing to leave the nation and go to war, not for so much rational reasons, but fury over an 'attack' on their 'way of life'. Who cared about the slaves' rights? Who cared about the gays' rights?

Save234

and striking down seperate but equal was settled in such landmark SC cases like Brown v Board of Education

 

[cybrsage]

According to factcheck.org

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

the main differences are Joint Tax filings (married people can for federal taxes people in civil unions can only do so for state taxes).

Health Insurance Benefits federal law favors marriages over civil unions in this regard. ymmv when it comes to state laws.

Social Security benefits for survivors.... people in civil unions aren't treated the same as marriages.

Interesting, did not know that. I always thought a marriage was simply a heterosexual civil union. This only strengthens my view that the government should get out of marriage altogether and only issue civil unions. Paperwork can be change with a copy-paste routine to replace marriage with civil union...and an order sent out to say all paperwork already printed with marriage on it actually means civil union. That way we don't have to kill a lot of trees for the change.

It also strengthens my view that this should be a federal issue and not a state issue. Civil unions/marriages must be portable across state lines.

 

[cybrsage]

Seperate but Equal is alive and well in the US...just go to any mall and notice the signs on the restrooms.

I know, you all are going to say seperate but equal based on sex is not the same as seperate but equal based on sex.....oh wait...

 

[Craig234]

and striking down seperate but equal was settled in such landmark SC cases like Brown v Board of Education

Yes, a saying came out of that, 'separate but equal is inherently unequal'.

I think that's the case when the basis for 'separate' is that desire for 'second class'.

There are two issues - one was that separate but equal tended not to be equal - things for blacks tended to be worse - but also that even if equal, it was discriminatory.

The only thing really achieved by 'black drinking fountains' and 'black seats at the back of the bus' and 'black entrances to restaurants' was to treat them as inferior.

And that's one of the two main things behind the opposition to equality for gays, the bigotry wanting to keep them as 'wrong, even if tolerated' - that and some religious opinion.

Of course other religious opinion defends the morality of their right to equality.

 

[fskimospy]

Seperate but Equal is alive and well in the US...just go to any mall and notice the signs on the restrooms.

I know, you all are going to say seperate but equal based on sex is not the same as seperate but equal based on sex.....oh wait...

The stupidity of this argument has already been dealt with. Stop trolling.

 

[theevilsharpie]

Seperate but Equal is alive and well in the US...just go to any mall and notice the signs on the restrooms.

Your analogy is invalid as gender-specific restrooms are provided as a matter of courtesy, not as a matter of law.

 

[Craig234]

Your analogy is invalid as gender-specific restrooms are provided as a matter of courtesy, not as a matter of law.

That's not the flaw with his analogy. If it were, the issue would be the government not allowing such 'courtesies' as violations of 'separate but equal'.

Rather, it's about the fact that society accepts the desire for privacy by gender in bathrooms some share as a case where 'separate but equal' is not based on bigotry.

Having drinking fountains at different heights for adults and children similarly is not based on bigotry, unlike fountains labeled by race.

 

[woolfe9999]

Pretty sure that marriage is considered a fundamental right after Zablocki v. Redhail. Maybe gay marriage is not considered a fundamental right, but the right to marry generally is.

Good catch. It caused me to look over Zalocki and some related cases. Zoblicki does say that marriage is a "fundamental right" (based primarily on Loving) but applies intermediate scrutiny, a standard in between rationale basis and strict scrutiny, to the statute at issue there. There is apparently still some debate about what level of scrutiny is appropriate where regulation of marriage is concerned. Nonetheless, all the precedent thus far suggests that rational basis was the appropriate standard in this particular case, unless or until the SCOTUS decides otherwise.

 

[lopri]

Sounds a little like the people who have financial interests in denying climate change. There are marketing agencies who told them, 'say we don't know for sure, don't rush.'

Indeed. It seems as though the judge more or less felt bound to say something different, being appointed by a Republican president and all that. Maggie Gallagher condemns it as a "very timid decent." (while reading completely the opposite of the judge's take on Baker v. Nelson)

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...rs-you-are-irrational-bigots-maggie-gallagher

 

[jackstar7]

Stop being stupid on purpose.

I'm pleased to know this is the best you could do.

Oh, also you should do some reading on marriage. Check Roman society and see how religious their marriages were...

 

[zinfamous]

next comes legal incest and beastiality. Marry your sister and dog.. all three of you can vote for the obama.

I really think you are one of the dopers that you hate.

must fundies tend to feed off of their own self-hate, anyway.

 

[zinfamous]

You should definitely go to law school. It's a crime that you're depriving the country of such well considered legal reasoning.

😀

 

[zinfamous]

According to factcheck.org

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

the main differences are Joint Tax filings (married people can for federal taxes people in civil unions can only do so for state taxes).

Health Insurance Benefits federal law favors marriages over civil unions in this regard. ymmv when it comes to state laws.

Social Security benefits for survivors.... people in civil unions aren't treated the same as marriages.

Also:

Hospital visitations

Adoptions.

several rights that are not granted to those joined by a civil union vs those who are "married."

 

[shadow9d9]

Can you elaborate more? What rights do civil unions not have which marriages have?

Many organizations/people are not aware of the legal ramifications of civil, which causes problems at hospitals, doctors, etc. This added encumberment makes them not equal.

 

[zinfamous]

Seperate but Equal is alive and well in the US...just go to any mall and notice the signs on the restrooms.

I know, you all are going to say seperate but equal based on sex is not the same as seperate but equal based on sex.....oh wait...

You really don't have a dog in this argument, do you?

I suspect that your ability to form a rational, coherent argument is compromised by some fundamental fear of education, or something?

is that about right?

And I wonder how much you actually know about that document you use as your avatar?