Same sex marraige resumes in California

[randomrogue]

Europe as a whole is just as diverse as the US. The last 15 years though have really brought a lot of immigrants and refugees from Africa and the middle east so now there's quite a bit of diversity nationally as well.

The idea that Europe is homogeneous is an old idea. No doubt that when I was a kid, and my parents were kids, there were very few immigrants but today it's way different.

When I hear these kinds of comments it becomes very clear that you're getting information from right wing talk radio.

 

[Retro Rob]

I gave you too much credit about your argument, Rob. For you to compare the relationshiip between two people in romance and love and partnership with loving your car and marrying it shows such a basic irrationality that you leave nothing to discuss - but you trash every heterosexual marriage with that tribialization.

Honestly, why do you whine so much?

I wasn't comparing object love to human love -- I was pointing out the real fallacy about how marriage between two persons of the same sex should be granted if they "love" each other... "love" being your defining term.

The point is, you aren't defining marriage, so it can really be anything anyone wants as long as "love" is involved.

 

[randomrogue]

You love your car?

Do you love lamp too? Did you eat a big red candle?

 

[Retro Rob]

You love your car?

Do you love lamp too? Did you eat a big red candle?

Sorry, but I don't love inanimate objects. You're thinking of Nahalem!😉

 

[Craig234]

Honestly, why do you whine so much?

Only 'whining' here is yours. That comment is not helpful and not appropriate.

I wasn't comparing object love to human love -- I was pointing out the real fallacy about how marriage between two persons of the same sex should be granted if they "love" each other... "love" being your defining term.

The point is, you aren't defining marriage, so it can really be anything anyone wants as long as "love" is involved.

Yes, you were. You specifically asked if two gay people who love each other can get married, then there's no difference with you marrying your care you love.

You specifically compared 'human love' of gays to object love.

Like I said I overestimated your argument. Now you're denying what you said.

You're off on some irrational tangent, so let's be clear for you.

Whatever it is you think allows two heterosexual people to have the right to get married, two gay people have also giving them that same right.

If that's 'love', or not, either way.

 

[Retro Rob]

Only 'whining' here is yours. That comment is not helpful and not appropriate.



Yes, you were. You specifically asked if two gay people who love each other can get married, then there's no difference with you marrying your care you love.

You specifically compared 'human love' of gays to object love.

Like I said I overestimated your argument. Now you're denying what you said.

You're off on some irrational tangent, so let's be clear for you.

Whatever it is you think allows two heterosexual people to have the right to get married, two gay people have also giving them that same right.

If that's 'love', or not, either way.

Yeah, and you've just moved goalposts when first you said "love" now its "rights"

🙄

 

[Craig234]

Yeah, and you've just moved goalposts when first you said "love" now its "rights"

🙄

I didn't move the goalposts, you disagreed with where I put them so I moved them as you requested. I generalized the issue since you objected to 'love', I said 'ok then'.

 

[Craig234]

I have a question, if anyone knows.

A big issue now is, 'what about people who are legally married as a same-sex marriage in a state where it's legal, and then move to another state where it isn't?'

My question is, states already differ on things like age requirements for marriage; 26 states allow first cousins to marry.

How have those issues always been treated legally? If you marry your first cousin in a state where it's legal and move to one where it isn't, are you legally married?

I'm wondering what the law has been on that issue - you'd think as a starting point, same-sex couples should be the same as any other of those issues.

And I dont remember every hearing about marriages being 'invalid' for those reasons.

Anyone know the law on the issue? Is it just custom that they'll break for same-sex? Has it come up as a constitutional issue?

I know some states have passed constitutional amenements NOT to recognize such marriages - I don't mean that part of the law.

 

[zinfamous]

There are laws allowing employers to fire employees simply for being gay. I would say those should be pretty high on the list. I can only think of a single job where being gay MIGHT impact performance (straight porn star), and they shouldn't be fired because they are gay, they should be fired because they are unable to perform the actions required.

Thankfully, homosexuality is losing a lot of its stigma as being immoral and bad.

why wouldn't they? Don't several straight porn stars perform in gay porn?

 

[smackababy]

why wouldn't they? Don't several straight porn stars perform in gay porn?

I am not saying they can't, just that if they are unable for any reason (and not being attracted to your co-star could be a reason for that).

 

[Craig234]

why wouldn't they? Don't several straight porn stars perform in gay porn?

People are able to perform sex acts with the gender they are not attracted to (just as they can with the gender they are attracted to, but not the person in question).

If someone held a gun to your head, you could give a blow job or have anal sex just as you could with a woman, however repulsed you were.

Such motivations can include the money for porn stars, or the social stigma or desire for reproducing for a gay person marrying a straight, for common examples.

But many - I think most - porn stars, at least men, are not willing to do so even for the money. I've seen female porn stars who refuse to do scenes with women, disgusted.

Though this is a bit of a tangent, the point being, discrimination is wrong.

 

[smackababy]

I have a question, if anyone knows.

A big issue now is, 'what about people who are legally married as a same-sex marriage in a state where it's legal, and then move to another state where it isn't?'

My question is, states already differ on things like age requirements for marriage; 26 states allow first cousins to marry.

How have those issues always been treated legally? If you marry your first cousin in a state where it's legal and move to one where it isn't, are you legally married?

I'm wondering what the law has been on that issue - you'd think as a starting point, same-sex couples should be the same as any other of those issues.

And I dont remember every hearing about marriages being 'invalid' for those reasons.

Anyone know the law on the issue? Is it just custom that they'll break for same-sex? Has it come up as a constitutional issue?

I know some states have passed constitutional amenements NOT to recognize such marriages - I don't mean that part of the law.

I believe, and I'd have to research more on this, that legal contracts must be recognized regardless of state. So, if they are married in California and then move to Texas (I am just guessing Texas doesn't allow it), Texas is required to honor said contract. They do not have to grant them, but the couple is still afforded every right of a couple legally wed in the state of Texas.

 

[Retro Rob]

Though this is a bit of a tangent, the point being, discrimination is wrong.

Technically, discrimination isn't always wrong. Just wanted to point that out since you were being overly general.

It's not wrong to keep women out of the NFL playing against much larger, stronger, athletic men and putting women at a horrid disadvantage, nor is it wrong for you to discriminately buy a Chrysler over a Ford. I know what context you're speaking in, but that word has really lost its meaning because of how loosely, and many times falsely, its thrown around.

 

[fskimospy]

I believe, and I'd have to research more on this, that legal contracts must be recognized regardless of state. So, if they are married in California and then move to Texas (I am just guessing Texas doesn't allow it), Texas is required to honor said contract. They do not have to grant them, but the couple is still afforded every right of a couple legally wed in the state of Texas.

Not as of right now. The full faith and credit clause has never been used to force states to recognize marriages from other states.

That doesn't mean that people won't try to do that in the future, (and perhaps succeed) but as of right now that section of DOMA is still in force and Texas doesn't have to accept them.

 

[Retro Rob]

Not as of right now. The full faith and credit clause has never been used to force states to recognize marriages from other states.

That doesn't mean that people won't try to do that in the future, (and perhaps succeed) but as of right now that section of DOMA is still in force and Texas doesn't have to accept them.

Wait...

So basically, people are going to be sued of they don't marry gays. What was the point to not making it nationwide, then?

 

[zinfamous]

Wait...

So basically, people are going to be sued of they don't marry gays. What was the point to not making it nationwide, then?

One would hope not, but there is lawsuit for just about anything, these days. Regardless, such a lawsuit, especially aimed at a church or religious group, should have little to no bearing.

I guess that is the main fear of the variously religious. They should be protected from such attempts, but it doesn't mean people won't try to push it.

Regardless, the desire to not be harassed by the secular world is no valid reason for the variously religious to demand legislated bigotry over everyone.

 

[Retro Rob]

One would hope not, but there is lawsuit for just about anything, these days. Regardless, such a lawsuit, especially aimed at a church or religious group, should have little to no bearing.

I guess that is the main fear of the variously religious. They should be protected from such attempts, but it doesn't mean people won't try to push it.

Regardless, the desire to not be harassed by the secular world is no valid reason for the variously religious to demand legislated bigotry over everyone.

No, its isn't a reason to for it. However, I think this is a legitimate concern for those religions because there are Churches that marry gays, so why can't you? So it looks to be bigotedly-motivated.

I mean, Justice Kennedy basically said as much -- that any opposition to gay marriage is motivated by apathy, and hate. I don't think this is at all true. I can say religious opposition is motivated by the exact same thing... I don't think that's true either.

Also, are there any religious organizations that can get away with refusing to marry a interracial couple? Refusing to marry gays won't be tolerated for long. People actually think they're on the brink of peace and equality with this -- I beg to differ. So if religion is standing in the way, I don't see a reason for them to indefinitely allow Churches to refuse to marry gays.

 

[fskimospy]

Wait...

So basically, people are going to be sued of they don't marry gays. What was the point to not making it nationwide, then?

Wait, what? I don't think you understood what I wrote. People aren't going to be sued at all. A state might be sued to accept gay marriage under the full faith and credit clause, yes, but this has nothing to do with individuals or churches whatsoever.

That being said, I hope they are sued and I hope they lose.

 

[Craig234]

Technically, discrimination isn't always wrong. Just wanted to point that out since you were being overly general.

It's not wrong to keep women out of the NFL playing against much larger, stronger, athletic men and putting women at a horrid disadvantage, nor is it wrong for you to discriminately buy a Chrysler over a Ford. I know what context you're speaking in, but that word has really lost its meaning because of how loosely, and many times falsely, its thrown around.

OK, I've made that point repeatedly - I was discussing the specific discrimination in the context of the post, to clarify, dicrimination against gays' equal rights.

 

[Craig234]

Not as of right now. The full faith and credit clause has never been used to force states to recognize marriages from other states.

That doesn't mean that people won't try to do that in the future, (and perhaps succeed) but as of right now that section of DOMA is still in force and Texas doesn't have to accept them.

So, what's the legal situation for other issues, like underage spouses or first cousins?

 

[Craig234]

No, its isn't a reason to for it. However, I think this is a legitimate concern for those religions because there are Churches that marry gays, so why can't you? So it looks to be bigotedly-motivated.

I mean, Justice Kennedy basically said as much -- that any opposition to gay marriage is motivated by apathy, and hate. I don't think this is at all true. I can say religious opposition is motivated by the exact same thing... I don't think that's true either.

Also, are there any religious organizations that can get away with refusing to marry a interracial couple? Refusing to marry gays won't be tolerated for long. People actually think they're on the brink of peace and equality with this -- I beg to differ. So if religion is standing in the way, I don't see a reason for them to indefinitely allow Churches to refuse to marry gays.

Of course religious institutions can refuse to marry inter-racial couples or anyone else they want. The Mormons CHOSE to allow blacks.

The only valid issue I've seen come up with the religious area is that military chaplains cannot discriminate - by faith or now by sexual orientation.

And that is causing some friction with chaplains who don't want to provide matiral counseling or marriage ceremonies to gay couples, reportedly. Too bad, I say.

Outside of that sort of public service religious role where discrimination has to be banned, religious institutions are free to discriminate generally as I understand it.

Ask the women who want to be Catholic Priests.

 

[Craig234]

Wait, what? I don't think you understood what I wrote. People aren't going to be sued at all. A state might be sued to accept gay marriage under the full faith and credit clause, yes, but this has nothing to do with individuals or churches whatsoever.

That being said, I hope they are sued and I hope they lose.

I don't agree with that. I strongly disagree with their discrimination but it's a freedom.

 

[SMOGZINN]

So, what's the legal situation for other issues, like underage spouses or first cousins?

As of right now it is legal limbo. Theoretically every state must accept a marriage made in any state, and that is how it has been used concerning age and relationship status, but this has never really been tested. DOMA modified it to specifically say 'except gays'. That part of DOMA was NOT struck down, so right now Texas does not have to honor a same-sex marriage formed in California.
That will almost certainly be be challenged, and seeing the current ruling of SCOTUS, will be struck down as well. It will just take some time for a case to make it to that level.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I don't agree with that. I strongly disagree with their discrimination but it's a freedom.

I think he meant the states get sued. As for non-governmental entities, that will be an interesting thing to watch. No one is going to force a private entity like a church to perform same-sex weddings, but will, for example, insurance companies have to recognise same-sex marriages in a state that does not? This ruling has opened a can of worms that the courts are going to have to deal with for a long time to come, unless the rest of DOMA is struck down.

 

[smackababy]

I think a problem is the contracts being upheld in other states is leftover from the days of slavery. I believe it was put into place so a runaway slave couldn't go to another state and your contract of ownership becomes void.

Marriage is generally accepted in every state, but that is because it was always in line with DOMA and gays were excluded. Now that that has changed, states should be legally required to honor the marriages, but I don't think it has been challenged yet.