California high court upholds gay marriage ban

[don_equis]

I don't think this issue has to do with extending civil liberties to all, it's about changing the definition of what marriage is to conform to political correctness. What rights are denied to homosexuals anyway? I mean, marriage means "husband and wife", "man and a woman", so a man can't legally marry a man or a woman can't legally marry a woman and you all are acting like gays have absolutely positively not rights at all, when in fact they have all the rights everyone else has.

Are they denied the right to free speech? No, they have gay pride parades.

Are they denied the right to keep and bear arms? No, at least not here in Texas they can own a gun like anyone else.

Are they denied the right to vote? Not that I know.

Are they denied the right to hold public office? Hello, Barnie Frank.

Are they denied the right to have a job? Hello, Hollywood and Broadway!

Are they denied the right to an education? I saw several of them in college.

Are they denied the right to have property? No, I've met gay people who own their own home and even a profitable business and I wish them the best of luck on that. And this is just a short list of all the rights I could think about now I need to go have breakfast, they have the right to that too, you know?

Thank you!! :thumbsup:

Number of Legal Benefits:
Marriage: Over 1,049 federal and state level benefits.
Civil Unions: Over 300 state level benefits. No federal protection.
I sure don't see any benefits or maybe I don't know they are out there for me. I just know that Colorado passed some sort of medical benefit law for same sex couples. I go for anything shit they hit me with red tape and I can't cry "discrimination" like gay folks do.

Tax Relief:
Marriage: Couples can file both federal and state tax returns jointly.
Civil Unions: Couples can only file jointly in the state of civil registration.

Shit it seems like I used to get more money back when I was on my own than now, so I really don't see the benefit of joint claims. Cuz if the other half has fucked up tax debt your ass is penalized too and if you want to fight it it takes a lot of red tape to get through.

Medical Decisions:
Marriage: Partners can make emergency medical decisions.
Civil Unions: Partners can only make medical decisions in the registered state. Partners may not be able to make decisions out of state.

That's why people need to be responsible and make their own personal decision on how they want to be taken care of.

Gifts:
Marriage: Partners can transfer gifts to each other without tax penalty.
Civil Unions: Partners do not pay state taxes, but are required to report federal taxes.

???? :dunno:

Death Benefits:
Marriage: In the case of a partner's death, the spouse receives any earned Social Security or veteran benefits.
Civil Unions: Partners do not receive Social Security or any other government benefits in case of death. In the case of the death of former Congressman Gerry Studds, his partner of 15 years was denied the government pension that would have gone to a legally recognized spouse.

Not thruth, my mother in law just lost her husband to cancer and it was a bitch trying to get her health insurance to take care of him even though she was paying for it every month on time. Once he passed away all his years of earned and deserved social security became part of uncle sam, it did not transfer to her.

Child/Spousal Support:
Marriage: In case of divorce, individuals may have a legally-binding financial obligation to spouses and children.
Civil Unions: In the case of dissolution , no such spousal or child benefits are guaranteed or required out of state.

Most hetero couples can naturally have kids, gay couples can't. Unless they adopt or have them from a previous hetero marriage then I am assuming there are some provisions for it.

Immigration Rights:
Marriage: U.S. citizens and legal residents can sponsor their spouses and family members for immigration.
Civil Unions: U.S. citizens and legal residents cannot sponsor non-legal spouses or family members.

For what to bring more gay immigrants here?? just a joke, don't really care about who they can bring or not.

Perhaps most importantly, you can marry the person you love. They can't.

I want to marry Megan Fox, but I can't. Gays think that hetero couples have it so nice and easy and it's not so. So I really don't see where I have so many "rights" beacuse of me being hetero more than someone that chose a lifestyle that has to do with his "sexual orientation" of what they do behind doors.

 

[bodie54]

I want to marry Megan Fox, but I can't.

:1orglaugh

I'm going to presume you're just kidding around because surely you couldn't have missed the point that badly

 

[shayd]

[/COLOR][/COLOR]

We are not living in the system of the "judges' that's Judge Dredd. A measure that was put there by vote prevailed as it should in a democratic proccess. They did the right thing, if gay dudes want to change it then perharps instead of jumping on cars after the ballot is passed or attacking good looking babes like Ms California, they should try to persuade the voters by being "nice" and selling their point, not being violent fairies from hell.

Your hair example falls short is not the same. I can see that you have changed your hair color, but for you to come out and say that you are gay then you are bringing with you and putting "out there" your behind closed doors lifestyle. Do I go out there and want special treatment because I am heterosexual??

You're completely missing the point. You're looking at legislation from an elementary standpoint, as in, just because a measure is passed by the popular vote does not make it constitutional, and thus fit to make into law. Homosexuals should NEVER have to persuade anyone to be ensured civil liberties, nor should any other group of people, because those rights are enumerated in the Constitution.

I'm not sure how your argument detracts from mine, but alright, if the hair example doesn't work for you, let's go with the always contentious issue of race. In the same way that I cannot be denied access to a marriage license for being black, or white, or any other race, you can't deny access to homosexuals. Legally speaking there is absolutely nothing that is inherently different between a black person, and a white person, or any other race. The exact same is true about homosexuals, they have the exact same legal standing as a heterosexual.

Your last sentence is a bit disturbing for me, because no one in favor of same-sex marriages wants special treatment, they want the same privileges as any other citizen, no more, no less.

You don't need it because you've always enjoyed the rights gay people are denied.

Beautifully put. Couldn't agree more. I think if those opposed to same-sex marriages were to switch their roles with homosexuals (as in be denied the ability to marry) they'd quickly find that denial of privileges just isn't right, legally, ethically, morally, or Constitutionally.

Exactly what rights are gay people denied that I just always so enjoy for being hetero?? I betcha than any hetero guy that get's divorce surely doesn't feel like he got's any rights after his wife wipes hm out clean. So what exactly do I enjoy more than the poor and oppressed gay folks?

The right to marry whomever you want. You're looking way too far into what marriage entails, without realizing that homosexuals can't even get married in the first place. Of course divorced people will have some bias towards marriage, but that's irrelevent, and moreover those same people didn't have that bias before getting married.

I don't think this issue has to do with extending civil liberties to all, it's about changing the definition of what marriage is to conform to political correctness. What rights are denied to homosexuals anyway? I mean, marriage means "husband and wife", "man and a woman", so a man can't legally marry a man or a woman can't legally marry a woman and you all are acting like gays have absolutely positively not rights at all, when in fact they have all the rights everyone else has.

I don't think anyone here has at any point made the case that homosexuals have no rights. Proponents of same-sex marriage have rather don't have this right, which they, as stated in the Constitution should have. Marriage is in fact a social and or legal union of two parties. There are absolutely no gender roles within marriage itself. What you are referring to is traditional Christian marriage. I sincerely hope I don't have to explain why incorporating Christian marriage into our legal system is unconstitutional. Thus, there is absolutely no reason to deny the right to marry to gay people. None.

If you think the movement is about being politically correct (whatever that is) then I'm inclined to presume you think the same about segregation, which is a bit ridiculous. Just as you wouldn't deny the right to marry to a black person, you can't to a homosexual because Constitutionally speaking, there is no difference between the two of them.

 

[Rattrap]

I'm usually all over this discussion, but Shayd's beat me to the point, and probably a bit more effectively, too (kudos to that!).

I don't think this issue has to do with extending civil liberties to all, it's about changing the definition of what marriage is to conform to political correctness. What rights are denied to homosexuals anyway? I mean, marriage means "husband and wife", "man and a woman", so a man can't legally marry a man or a woman can't legally marry a woman and you all are acting like gays have absolutely positively not rights at all, when in fact they have all the rights everyone else has.

I've always taken issue with this, as people like to put it out there as something that just is. "Marriage is what it is, and you can't change that!" That's Grade-AA Politician-level bullshit. We define words however we want to. We change the definition of words when we want to. We do it all the time. But that's such a trivial point anyway and Shayd put it much better:

Marriage is in fact a social and or legal union of two parties. There are absolutely no gender roles within marriage itself. What you are referring to is traditional Christian marriage. I sincerely hope I don't have to explain why incorporating Christian marriage into our legal system is unconstitutional. Thus, there is absolutely no reason to deny the right to marry to gay people. None.

I don't think I could agree with this statement any more if I made stuff up to insert into it. As long as the state/federal is involved at all, there shouldn't be any arbitrary discrimination. And as Bodie listed, the state/federal is involved:

Number of Legal Benefits:
Marriage: Over 1,049 federal and state level benefits.
Civil Unions: Over 300 state level benefits. No federal protection.

This is quite the rebuttal to "separate but equal". Evidentially not.

 

[Wickedclown]

Most people in these "Homophobia-threads" seem to live in
fear to be infected with somekind of virus. Live the way you like it,
for christssake. ...and let others live their way.

 

[gunslingingbird]

Quite the can of worms I opened with this thread.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Number of Legal Benefits:
Marriage: Over 1,049 federal and state level benefits.
Civil Unions: Over 300 state level benefits. No federal protection.

Tax Relief:
Marriage: Couples can file both federal and state tax returns jointly.
Civil Unions: Couples can only file jointly in the state of civil registration.

Medical Decisions:
Marriage: Partners can make emergency medical decisions.
Civil Unions: Partners can only make medical decisions in the registered state. Partners may not be able to make decisions out of state.

Gifts:
Marriage: Partners can transfer gifts to each other without tax penalty.
Civil Unions: Partners do not pay state taxes, but are required to report federal taxes.

Death Benefits:
Marriage: In the case of a partner's death, the spouse receives any earned Social Security or veteran benefits.
Civil Unions: Partners do not receive Social Security or any other government benefits in case of death. In the case of the death of former Congressman Gerry Studds, his partner of 15 years was denied the government pension that would have gone to a legally recognized spouse.

Child/Spousal Support:
Marriage: In case of divorce, individuals may have a legally-binding financial obligation to spouses and children.
Civil Unions: In the case of dissolution , no such spousal or child benefits are guaranteed or required out of state.

Immigration Rights:
Marriage: U.S. citizens and legal residents can sponsor their spouses and family members for immigration.
Civil Unions: U.S. citizens and legal residents cannot sponsor non-legal spouses or family members.

Perhaps most importantly, you can marry the person you love. They can't.

Not to be "that guy", but all of those "rights" that gay people are supposedly being denied are actually not being denied at all. Homosexual couples can make all of that stuff happen, just as heterosexual couples can. It just takes a little more effort, time and paperwork, but all of it can happen.

The only thing that homosexual couples are being denied is the title of "MARRIED"...nothing more.

There are legal documents that can be signed which give people the ability to all of the above (medical decisions, child benefits, etc).

:2 cents:

 

[shayd]

Not to be "that guy", but all of those "rights" that gay people are supposedly being denied are actually not being denied at all. Homosexual couples can make all of that stuff happen, just as heterosexual couples can. It just takes a little more effort, time and paperwork, but all of it can happen.

The only thing that homosexual couples are being denied is the title of "MARRIED"...nothing more.

There are legal documents that can be signed which give people the ability to all of the above (medical decisions, child benefits, etc).

:2 cents:

That's the exact reason why I was saying earlier that the benefits that are associated with getting married are irrelevent. It's the institution itself that must be extended to all citizens.

Not to harp on it again, but when segregation existed, African Americans could go to a restaurant and get the same food that whites could, but it had to be at another black-only place, which is unconstitutional. The exact same thing applies to marriage: you can't segregate it. Sure, the benefits from marriage are nice, and you're absolutely right, gay people can get those same benefits through domestic partnership, but the institution of marriage itself is what's at stake.