Page 27 of 69 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 690

Thread: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

  1. #261
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by Heretic View Post
    One is recognition. Marriages are recognized by both the state govenrments and the federal. Civil unions are not, and may be invalidated or ignored depending on which state you move to after getting one.
    So can marriages.

  2. #262
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by dclxvinoise View Post
    How is denying marriage to people just because of their sexual orientation not discrimination?
    Because it not denying people marriage based on their sexual orientation.
    For two reasons.

    #1 Same sex couples can marry. It just will not be recognized by the government.

    #2 The laws deny the marriage recognition based on a person's gender in relation to another's gender not on sexual orientation.

    A man can't marry a man.
    A woman can't marry a woman.
    A man can marry a woman.
    A woman can marry a man.

    Since no specific group is named, and all people are either man or woman, the law is applied equally and doesn't discriminate.

  3. #263
    Dream Walker
    Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Seen
    07-17-15 @ 12:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,265
    Blog Entries
    10

    Setting Precedent

    "Setting Precedent"
    Quote Originally Posted by 70s_guy View Post
    Civil unions ARE not marriage. Just as any same sex marriage would NOT be marriage.
    Nonsense, a marriage is a general term for a civil union (contract), where the civil contract unites the community property interests of two or more entities, for future endeavor, whether those entities are individuals or corporations.

    Registration of certain civil unions (marriages) with the public government for the purpose of receiving some benefit entitlement, some positive obligation from the public government, some positive right, may not be equally endowed.

    The public government does not prohibit the formation of civil unions -- marriages, it simply is not required to equally endow positive obligations for benefit entitlements based on civil union contract discriminants.

    An amendment which would seek to establish the term "marriage" as distinct from "civil union" lacks justification; whereas an amendment which would seek to establish a distinction between forms of civil union, and thus a distinction between forms of marriage, is legitimate.

    An amendment which would set to a vote the option for homosexual marriages to receive certain positive rights is legitimate.

    Likewise, distinctions or discrimination between marriages (civil unions) which are homosexual, heterosexual, corporate, commune, polygamist, or polyandry, can exist and the positive rights provided for each may not be equally endowed.
    Last edited by Monk-Eye; 11-06-08 at 10:10 PM.

  4. #264
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    12-11-08 @ 10:09 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    71

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    Because it not denying people marriage based on their sexual orientation.
    For two reasons.

    #1 Same sex couples can marry. It just will not be recognized by the government.
    Which basically degrades it to pretending to marry.

    #2 The laws deny the marriage recognition based on a person's gender in relation to another's gender not on sexual orientation.
    What a coincidence! That just happens to discriminate against one sexual orientation: gay.

    A man can't marry a man.
    A woman can't marry a woman.
    A man can marry a woman.
    A woman can marry a man.

    Since no specific group is named, and all people are either man or woman, the law is applied equally and doesn't discriminate.
    Except homosexuals just happen to have a tendency toward their own sex in a way that heterosexuals do not. It's so flagrantly obvious.
    Seriously, this is synonymous to: the law won't recognize gay love. Only straight love is recognized by law.
    Last edited by StoneCrow; 11-06-08 at 10:10 PM.
    Self-Proclaimed Slacker

  5. #265
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by veganshawn View Post
    Technically smoking infringes on another persons right to happiness where as gay couples being married doesn't hurt anyone.
    And if government gets out of marriage what would happen to marriages like mine where my wife and I are both agnostic and wouldn't want to get married in a church.
    Your views on smoking really have nothing to do with the examples I posted.

    To your other point. If you felt you needed your relationship to be solidified on paper you could go to an attorney and have him draw up the papers.

  6. #266
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by StoneCrow View Post
    Which basically degrades it to pretending to marry.



    What a coincidence! That just happens to discriminate against one sexual orientation: gay.



    Except homosexuals just happen to have a tendency toward their own sex in a way that heterosexuals do not. It's so flagrantly obvious.
    Seriously, this is synonymous to: the law won't recognize gay love. Only straight love is recognized by law.
    I'll use my earlier example here:

    If smoking is legal in a state one person likes to smoke cigarettes and another likes to smoke pot. Is the person who likes to smoke pot's rights being violated?
    No. These two people are both smokers, one just prefers a different substance. The law is applied equally. All may smoke tobacco, None may smoke pot.

    To apply this to marriage all persons may marry anyone of the opposite sex, No one may marry someone of the same sex.

    The fact that you don't want to do the legal variety of smoking, marriage, whatever, makes no difference as long as the law is applied equally to all persons.

  7. #267
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    12-11-08 @ 10:09 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    71

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    The fact that you don't want to do the legal variety of smoking, marriage, whatever, makes no difference as long as the law is applied equally to all persons.
    "Anyone who's skin is black is sentenced to death."

    What? I said anyone who's skin is black. That includes white people! If their skin is black, they are hereby sentenced to death! The law is applied equally to all persons!
    Self-Proclaimed Slacker

  8. #268
    Dream Walker
    Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Seen
    07-17-15 @ 12:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,265
    Blog Entries
    10

    Crude

    "Crude"
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    #1 Same sex couples can marry. It just will not be recognized by the government.
    What does that mean, recognized?
    The government does not validate or sanction marriage.

    Marriage is a civil contract, a civil union between entities, that may be litigated in any civil court; that is recognition.

    If the government outlawed the formation of civil contracts between same sex persons, or passed laws which prevented sexual relations between such persons, that would mean that gay marriage was outlawed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    #2 The laws deny the marriage recognition based on a person's gender in relation to another's gender not on sexual orientation.
    And affirmative action places persons ahead of others based on color and gender.

  9. #269
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by StoneCrow View Post
    "Anyone who's skin is black is sentenced to death."

    What? I said anyone who's skin is black. That includes white people! If their skin is black, they are hereby sentenced to death! The law is applied equally to all persons!
    Not true. You applied the law to a specific group, persons with black skin.

    In the case of marriage, EVERYONE is either male or female. The law applies to EVERYONE.

  10. #270
    Sage
    jfuh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Pacific Rim
    Last Seen
    01-20-12 @ 09:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    16,631

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    The bottom line is the people have spoken and they are against gay marriage.....They also voted it down in Arizona and Florida......As long as this is a Judo/Christian Nation that will happen........
    The bottom line is the people had spoken and they were against minority equality in full support of jim crow laws.
    USSC ruled such laws unconstitutional.
    I don't know what country you live in NP, but in the United States of America we celebrate freedom of religion as one of the cornerstones of our society. With no religious faith favorable over another. It's written right there in the first amendment - read it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride
    Almost every state has a DOMA or and amendment protecting marriage........Activist judges tried to change that in California and were shot down big time............
    Activist judges ruled against Jim Crow laws as well.
    Amendment to a constitution is not something that a simple majority can make. The US constitution requires 2/3's to pass any amendment - see article V of the constitution.
    There is also a requirement by the California state constitution which is that only the legislature can submit a proposal for constitutional amendments - not just anyone.
    Prop 8 didn't meet this criteria - hence regardless of the simple majority the amendment is illegitimate.

Page 27 of 69 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •