Tell me again about how the stars define our time zones here on Earth.
It does stigmatize the civil union folks, and the benefits are never truly equal.Also today, if you listened, the litigants admitted that CA already had laws such that same-sex civil unions had every benefit as a married couple. Except calling it a "marriage", and that the basis of their argument was that this "stigmatized" the civil union folks.
One of you will end up here next!
Yes, but this first assumes that marriage is a "right". That has not been determined. Further, as this was a CA case, CA Civil Unions already grant all those privileges to a same-sex union. As noted earlier, and established in Law, the government has a vested interest in promoting opposite sex marriage, in that it better regulates and promotes procreation.the right to have the person they've identified as the love of their life receive the same benefits that anyone else would. You may not think of it as a right but when say for example a gay Soldier is killed or wounded in combat, the spousal benefits that would normally go to the spouse of a straight Soldier are not given to a gay one, likewise if they have children they are not given the same benefits either. Even if that Soldier is not killed in combat his spouse is still denied medical care from the military, on post housing, and all the other benefits hetro couples would enjoy.
Which may make tomorrow's hearing all the more interesting.This is because the Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and being Federal Law it applies to the US military, so even if this Soldier was legally married in his state to someone of the same sex the military does not recognize it.
I think there a broad difference between those who oppose SSM, and those who would also oppose just the creation of a civil union, or such as a power-of-attorney, that would allow a same-sex couple to have full visitation rights in case of hospitalization. There are plenty of ways for same-sex couples to obtain that privilege.Some people, I don't know if this includes you, however view this as acceptable because if God forbid a male Soldier sees his husband in hospital or even on his deathbed then some how that will undermine the meaning of my marriage or the already trashed institution of it.
You are assuming that the institution of "Marriage" is a right, and are muddling it with "privileges". I do not yet see where anyone linked to a valid "equal protection" argument either. As we have a DOMA that has not been deemed Unconstitutional, and do not otherwise have a right for any two folks to get married, much less 3, there is no foundation for an "equal protection" case. Heck, 41 states currently do not allow SSM.Is that equal protection under the law? Is it equal protection that a man who in every aspect of his life treats another man as his spouse be denied the same rights and privileges as a man who treats a woman as his spouse?
I reject your argument. First off, I see a law as needing an affirmative value, or in this case, as protecting a clear "Right". That has not been at all established with SSM. Your argument could otherwise be applied to polygamy.What possible reason is there to not allow this, what do we as a society or as individuals gain from denying it? What benefit is there? Is it just because it makes some people uncomfortable because its against their personal values? Is that reason enough to deny someone all these privileges enjoyed by hetero couples? And what if the shoe was on the other foot, and someone was trying to take away something important to you because it was against their values? Would you still feel the same since they were in the majority?
I also reject the "what if ... taking away something important to me" argument. That is to assume that I had something to begin with, and that it was now being legislated against.
I'm pretty sure that 10 years ago or so people would have held out same sex marriage as an example of a ridiculous, impossible slippery slope outcome.And that's not even bothering with your slippery slope bestiality bull****. Animals can't sign legal contracts.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
The fact remains that the State has a vested interest in promoting heterosexual marriage.
Further, the argument made is not "against gay marriage". The argument is as to why the State has a proper interest in establishing the Institution of Marriage as it has. That is a completely different argument than how you attempted to frame it.
Last edited by Eighty Deuce; 03-26-13 at 06:07 PM.