California Prop 8 overturned

[Tim]

See that's the problem, the government nor the courts are running marriage. Just like they don't run your marriage, they only file your business license/marriage certificate. That's it.

The government is not in the business of marriage, never has, never will. If you meet some very basic requirements, you get your marriage certificate. The state files it and makes it available to anyone that needs to verify your marriage status.

The government doesn't give a crap about "holy matrimony" what religion you are, if you have a loving relationship, if you have a chance in hell of making it past your first week of marriage or if you are doing it for tax purposes... so explain to me how government is in the business of marriage because they issue the license.

 

[Minor Axis]

See that's the problem, the government nor the courts are running marriage.

My point is that the courts are refereeing marriages. Accountable is advocating replacing marriage with some other contract(s). I really don't see much difference here from a practical standpoint. I see being forced to rely on other contracts to achieve the protections of marriage as an inconvenience. I also disagree with his statement that marriage is the only contract that can be broken without consequence.

 

[Accountable]

You can't really compare the feelings of liking someone in a relationship to "Gay feelings".

Why on earth not? :confused

I agree, but don't see it as something that precludes marriage. I also suspect, maybe prejudicial or historically, that when it comes to single men fathering children, they have a bad track record as in not wanting the responsibility.

This trend about not holding people responsible simply because they don't want responsibility - when did we start doing that? It's been around quite awhile now.

See that's the problem, the government nor the courts are running marriage. Just like they don't run your marriage, they only file your business license/marriage certificate. That's it.

The government is not in the business of marriage, never has, never will. If you meet some very basic requirements, you get your marriage certificate. The state files it and makes it available to anyone that needs to verify your marriage status.

The government doesn't give a crap about "holy matrimony" what religion you are, if you have a loving relationship, if you have a chance in hell of making it past your first week of marriage or if you are doing it for tax purposes.

If that were true, gay marriage, marriages of convenience, or possibly even polygamy would not be issues.

My point is that the courts are refereeing marriages. Accountable is advocating replacing marriage with some other contract(s). I really don't see much difference here from a practical standpoint. I see being forced to rely on other contracts to achieve the protections of marriage as an inconvenience. I also disagree with his statement that marriage is the only contract that can be broken without consequence.

Close, but not quite. The contracts are there already. We have two systems, one of which offers more protection than the other. I think we should be consistent and use only one system. Since marriage only covers heterosexual couples and the other system covers everyone, it's a simple fix to drop marriage.

 

[Peter Parka]

True, but you can always choose how to react to the feeling. Imagine if you fell in love with a person already committed to a different relationship.

That would involve another, innocent person getting hurt if you acted on your feelings. I dont see anyone getting hurt if two gay, single people fall in love.

 

[Minor Axis]

Close, but not quite. The contracts are there already. We have two systems, one of which offers more protection than the other. I think we should be consistent and use only one system. Since marriage only covers heterosexual couples and the other system covers everyone, it's a simple fix to drop marriage.

Can you give an example of more protections? If it is that marriage automatically grants the spouse decisions over the other spouse in time of sickness and regarding responsibility for children, then it would make more sense to include gays in the marriage equation, then reduce protections for some other form of a contract.

But the theme here seems to be get government out of marriage. I just don't get why you are debating this point. Government/courts will always be involved in the judication of all contracts, marriage or other.

That would involve another, innocent person getting hurt if you acted on your feelings. I dont see anyone getting hurt if two gay, single people fall in love.

Just remember this argument is not about logic, Prop 8 is about keeping gay couples from achieving the same protections as hetro couples and the reason is because a group of people, whatever their motivations, feel some level of disgust directed towards gays and somehow think that keeping them down equates to making them go away.

 

[Accountable]

That would involve another, innocent person getting hurt if you acted on your feelings. I dont see anyone getting hurt if two gay, single people fall in love.

'Kay. :confused

Can you give an example of more protections? If it is that marriage automatically grants the spouse decisions over the other spouse in time of sickness and regarding responsibility for children, then it would make more sense to include gays in the marriage equation, then reduce protections for some other form of a contract.

I can tell you what I've learned from a well-respected member here:

The unmarried father of a child has very limited rights as compared to the married fat her. In the case of single parents, most of the rights and responsibilities automatically, except for paying child support go to the unwed mother.

Why only allow homosexuals? Why not allow everyone? Equal protection under the law. Allowing some while disallowing others goes against that.

But the theme here seems to be get government out of marriage. I just don't get why you are debating this point. Government/courts will always be involved in the judication of all contracts, marriage or other.

Adjudicating the contracts is exactly the point. Everyone should be able to enter into the contract, regardless if they have a sexual relationship. The word "Marriage" carries a social definition that excludes non-sexual or non-loving (as opposed to unloving) relationships, so the term needs to stay in the social world, not the litigious one.

Is your reticence only because it's a new & unusual idea? I ask because you don't seem to have any real objections to it.

 

[All Else Failed]

I thought gays were supposed to be edgy, living the alternative lifestyle, and whatnot? When did gays become boring?

 

[retro]

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has overruled the lower court ruling that same-sex marriages can take place in anticipation of ruling on it themselves.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100816/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial

 

[itsmeJonB]

I thought gays were supposed to be edgy, living the alternative lifestyle, and whatnot? When did gays become boring?

What's edgy about someones sexuality?

 

[porterjack]

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has overruled the lower court ruling that same-sex marriages can take place in anticipation of ruling on it themselves.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100816/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial

does this mean it is destined foer the supreme court

 

[All Else Failed]

What's edgy about someones sexuality?

Nah the image of the gay person, especially in the 60s-the 2000s was one of an edgy lifestyle.

 

[Minor Axis]

does this mean it is destined foer the supreme court

My understanding is that it is going to some court in Dec.

 

[retro]

does this mean it is destined foer the supreme court

My understanding is that it is going to some court in Dec.

It's headed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals the first week of January to hear arguments on whether or not it should proceed to trial in that court. The 9th Circuit is the last stop before the Supreme Court, which is where it will end up anyway.