You should pay attention to what I am saying. I strongly support legalizing gay marriage. There is a difference between that and supporting efforts to declare it a constitutional right.
But it was the SC that has repeatedly declared marriage a 'right.' Whether you approve of how the country got to a 'right' to marriage, that IS the law, and the SC makes laws like with every single decision, individuals and businesses rely on those laws, and file lawsuits when they believe some other law conflicts with this SC precedent and interpretation. It's simply, objectively, how our legal system works, whether you agree or not.
For some odd reason, when gay activists do the same thing done daily in every federal court in America, it's an outrage. I'm missing something.
The police were actually called in by the individual's jealous (apparently justifiably so) boyfriend, who was drunk and made a false claim to the police about there being an armed intruder inside. All the two caught having sex would have had to deal with was a few hours in lockup and less than two hundred dollars in fines between the two of them. The fines only increased by a small amount due to the efforts of their attorneys to make a Supreme Court case out of it. Hardly the kind of story you wish to hail as the crowning achievement of your civil rights movement.
Like I said, when it's not you and it will never BE you, it's easy to trivialize the right of the state to punish some other disfavored minority for consensual act in their own home.
Only counts if they are actually rights. At any rate, when something is deeply and reasonable contentious, the least provocative route is usually the best, unless there is a dire need for quickly addressing the issue.
I suppose you mean it's the best for those who have nothing at risk and are quite happy with the status quo. For them, there is NEVER a 'dire need' to address anything affecting other people, not them. And can you name ANY major shift/accomplishment that happened with everyone asking nicely?
The key point is that it has been constantly argued that gay marriage being legalized would not somehow lead to polygamy. People get all indignant when it is brought up, but these kinds of legal rulings make it only a matter of when a sufficiently-interested group finds cause to make the argument.
To be fair, the same ones arguing that it will lead to polygamy typically throw in marrying dogs, your sister or brother, and whatever freak union the speaker can come up with. But as I've said, if there is no legitimate compelling, identifiable state interest being advanced with a ban on polygamy, why should you or I care if it's made legal?
They're fighting in the courts in lieu of pursuing actual legal procedures. I am curious as to what the rush is about. All these couples spontaneously appearing all over the country to try and have gay marriage declared a constitutional right by the courts are not in any imminent danger. Not having marriage is not clearly causing them significant problems.
That makes no sense, and they're fighting in the courts, through public opinion, and at the state and national legislative levels. Court battles aren't
in lieu of anything, they are in addition to those other efforts. The athletes recently outing themselves are part of the effort. 8 states have legalized SSM through the legislature, 3 more through voter referendum, so far.
And the rest is just a version of, "I can get married and secure those very unique rights, benefits and obligations, in 10 minutes in Vegas. That gays cannot get married at all is
no biggee to me, so since I don't care about their so called 'right' to marry, they shouldn't care either! Silly gays. And, hey, if businesses want to deny service to OTHER people, they should just get over it. Why should I care that some other people not like me are getting denied services?"
The religious and personal aspects have nothing to do with the legal recognition. One can have those without the piece of paper. Inheritance, healthcare, and parental rights can all be addressed in one way or another by existing legal agreements (wills, power-of-attorney, guardianship/second-parent adoption). A strong argument for gay marriage would basically be that it single legal instrument that can encompass all such rights and privileges sought by a committed couple.
Of course - from the point of view of the state, which is what we're talking about, marriage is ENTIRELY about securing those rights and privileges. And they cannot ALL be addressed with legal papers. E.g, in my state, the spouse gets at least a third of an estate unless he or she signs away that right. If my wife was a live in girlfriend, she's presumed to get NOTHING, and without a will my assets pass to my family. One could draw up a long list of benefits ONLY available to a spouse.
Mere excuses for horrendous treatment of other people and their freedom of conscience. Weddings are already extravagant bourgeois spectacles that are by no means a necessity, let alone a right. Suggesting you can drive someone out of business for refusing to indulge your pursuit of that spectacle when it goes against their conscience is quite obscene.
[/QUOTE]
I think I understand - the Mozilla guy possesses a freedom of conscience to contribute to a fund that is intended to deny his gay employees the right to marry. I'm with you, he has that right. And he also has the right for his acts directed against the rights of his gay employees to be free from protest, and any real world consequences?
The whole thing is no more than, "It's 'obscene' for people to protest unless I share their concerns! Laws against discrimination against LGBT do not apply if the person declares a religious reason for breaking those laws!"
hence all the court cases that goes against what you just said
