Last edited by Jerry; 05-27-09 at 10:59 AM.
You can hide behind the guise of concrete legality all you want by saying that gays already have equal rights via heterosexual marriage, but that is not equal rights to homosexuals which is why the fight is happening in the first place. Repeating that idea over and over is simple denial of reality, even though it has a nice catch.
The fact that the Constitution didn't mention marriage at all until Prop 8 means that it is actually heterosexuals who created the new right for themselves. Of course, you'll then argue that the precedent is tradition... but since we're talking in a "legal thread", that's not valid.
The very legality of this is subjective and open to interpretation since it is a new issue, and it is bound to take aspects of the social and legal realms into consideration. I don't see how you can sterilize the issue by making such an arbitrary separation.
Fact is, heterosexuals want a unique right created for themselves, and they've accomplished that through popular activism. Now gays have the right to continuing lobbying for the ballot at every single opportunity until equality is demonstrated. It's that simple.
I've read your arguments on this subject, Jerry, and you make good points. If I may be so bold, you seem like the kind of person who could put aside any presuppositions and be willing to give homosexual couples a fair shot if gay marriage became legal in your state. But if we disrespect your beliefs and start blasting away at those who currently disagree with us on the issue... Well, I guess it would be difficult to convince anyone under those circumstances.
This ruling didnt have anything to do wirth the constitutionality of the ban on gay marriage, but the procedure under which the amendment to that effect was created/passed.Just kidding, they ruled on the Constitution twice one time in favor of gay marriage and one time against after the Constitution was amended.
How were they wrong?
I said the situation was equal because gays have Domestic Partnership.
All those rights you were just ranting about: gays have them, right now, even under Prop8. They have their rights, they won, it's over.
One other important thing. A domestic partnership is not transferrable to many other nations, or even other States, in the way that a marriage would be. Marriage licensing is "stronger" for this reason, or even civil unions which, as of now, are outlawed for gays.Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California#Differences_fro m_Marriage
Also, the term "marriage" is significant to a lot of people, such as gays who are religious. They should have the ability to get married in the church of their faith if that church is willing to perform the ceremony. As it stands, they cannot do that because the law makes the decision for all churches. IMO this also steps upon the religious freedoms of churches and their communities who are in favor of same-sex marriage, and there are many.
I'm tolerant, and the very ****ing definition of tolerant allows me to express objection, so expressing my objection in no way means I oppose gay-marriage.
SD put the issue to a vote a few years ago, and I chose not to vote either way on the issue. I left that portion of the ballot blank.
I don't support gay-marriage and because of that I'm accused of opposing it.
I don't buy into the bull**** surrogate arguments presented in these threads by pro-gm and because I don't drink their kool-aid I'm accused of being a homophobe.
I practice tolerance, I refrain from injecting my personal religious opinion into law, and yes while I'm remodeling a gay couple's kitchen I treat them with the up most respect just as I do with every other client.
I know my motivations and if others can't see that I walk the walk with my religion then that's their problem.