Supreme Court on Prop 8: Gay Marriage Legal in California

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
Equality is not something that should be voted on in the first place though, if so let it be a state decision on Straight Marriage too,

whilst this is about our right to marry, it is also a bigger picture of Equality for all humans

Then argue for the State to remand itself from even dictating such relationships in the first place and allow the private citizens to decide how they associate; gay or straight.

I understand the benefits tied with a "legal" marriage (is there any other kind other than two people joining in mutual agreement?) and that is what has many joining the fight, but remove that aspect, and it becomes a non-political battle and one truly about equality.

The fact that straight and gay couples seek the blessing of the State to sanctify their associations is beyond me.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
The fact that straight and gay couples seek the blessing of the State to sanctify their associations is beyond me.

It is a very odd custom we have here, I must agree. And I think there is a certain amount of societal brainwashing going on, to get us to think it's the right thing to do... "Grow up, get married and have kids"... That's the spiel.

However, I don't think people are asking the State for any sort of blessing or sanctity. I wasn't when I married. I had lived with my spouse for a couple years. I wasn't actually thinking about that aspect at all. I just wanted to get married.

Bottom line, that's the way the laws are organized at this time and every citizen should be treated equally under those laws. I would like to see the government out of marriage and personal relationships altogether, but until then, lets give all people equal treatment and access to the benefits of legal marriage.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
Equality is not something that should be voted on in the first place though, if so let it be a state decision on Straight Marriage too,

whilst this is about our right to marry, it is also a bigger picture of Equality for all humans

Then argue for the State to remand itself from even dictating such relationships in the first place and allow the private citizens to decide how they associate; gay or straight.

I understand the benefits tied with a "legal" marriage (is there any other kind other than two people joining in mutual agreement?) and that is what has many joining the fight, but remove that aspect, and it becomes a non-political battle and one truly about equality.


The fact that straight and gay couples seek the blessing of the State to sanctify their associations is beyond me.

Its not the state blessing they seek but the many laws that benefit spouses, ie the right to compensation for industrial death, armed forces death (if a gay dies his partner is not entitled to that what a widow is), tax breaks for married couples, next of kin privilege, non married couples also need to pay inheritance tax on their partners property to inherit and a whole host of other benefits that only married people are entitled to. Commitment is just a small part of the issue.

People join in mutual agreement all the time, contracts bind two or more parties and a corporation incorporates many share holders in to a single legal person. Marriage is basically a contract.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


How would you feel if your partner went into hospital and you were denied access because you weren't legally married and your partner then died and you didn't even have the opportunity to say goodbye? This is not a benefit that gay people want, it is a human right!

Originally posted by wiser3
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

How would you feel if your partner went into hospital and you were denied access because you weren't legally married and your partner then died and you didn't even have the opportunity to say goodbye? This is not a benefit that gay people want, it is a human right!

You assume I have a problem with two people associating with each other; you are sorely wrong. My point was that because we have allowed the State to dictate (through 'licencing') who gets what based on their associations, we have allowed this situation to develop into the monster it has become.

Try breaking loose the preconceived notions you hold of those who don't fit your views.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I think the only way we're going to get the state out of marriage is to stop getting legally married. The Trend is Downward

Trying to force the state out will never work (IMO), but more and more, people are deciding not to engage, for whatever reason. I think it's a good change.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think the only way we're going to get the state out of marriage is to stop getting legally married. The Trend is Downward

The legal trend is promising in a few aspects really. First, people are recognizing that they don't need the State's blessing to be married (or considered a unit); they are because they chose to be. Legal implications fall under Common Law at that point and not subjective to the winds of political hopefulness.

Trying to force the state out will never work (IMO), but more and more, people are deciding not to engage, for whatever reason. I think it's a good change.

We hold all the power so if a State wishes to abolish the power given by the State, it will be done. We don't force anything, we allow it to happen as citizens and as self-governing people.

Indeed, but if you are offering benefits to Married couples, then all Humans deserve those benefits regardless of sexuality.

would it be better if the states were out of marriage? sure, but as it is now, we deserve the right to marry if we want to gain the same benefits

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
...but as it is now, we deserve the right to marry if we want to gain the same benefits

You are well within your right to get married. What isn't (and where the State needs to leave the business of who associates with whom) is what you get out of it. That is legal bribery, done under the color of tax law.

No one State ever stepped into a person's home and declared they are not married (even though they held a common law marriage; it just might not be recognized by the State). It doesn't mean they aren't.

What all this is about is recognition (with the benefits of tax relief and other miscellaneous circumstances) that come along with it. If we all fought to change the tax code to not legally buy off what the State has determined to be "legal" in terms of association (which in fact is unconstitutional at the Federal level via the First Amendment) we can see the true colors of both sides.

To be honest, I am not sure I want to see those true colors as I believe they will surprise everyone.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
You are well within your right to get married.

This is about LEGAL marriage. The state institution of marriage, not common law marriage or cohabitation.

What all this is about is recognition (with the benefits of tax relief and other miscellaneous circumstances) that come along with it.

That may be what it's all about TO YOU. But, believe it or not, many people want to get legally married as a proclamation of their love and commitment to each other. I know that may sound crazy, but that was MY reason when I got married (both times). I was ignorant of the legal and financial benefits of legal marriage (both times). The official push for gay marriage may have a lot to do with legal benefits, and they are using equal treatment under the law as their legal reason, but many gay people just want to get legally married for other reasons. You can refuse to believe that, but it's still true.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


What is "legal" marriage then? Why does it need the States' approval to make such a union, between two private citizens? I understand your argument fully. I am offering another point of view as to why we need the State out of the process altogether.

In my faith and my own right (my 1st and 9th Amendment Rights) to choose who I am with, without fear of the Government dictating or 'authorizing' such a union. It is also my faith that my marriage is ordained by God and not the State.

Again, I understand what you are saying...I am saying that the "state" approved form is a more recent tax-racket and control scheme that is now being used to dictate, divide and control.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
What is "legal" marriage then? Why does it need the States' approval to make such a union, between two private citizens?

The state is involved so that I can be covered under my husband's insurance, so he can visit me in intensive care and make medical decisions and after-death decisions for me. So that if we divorce, the property can be equitably divided. So we can get family rates on insurance. So that when my husband dies, all his assets come to me, without courts and red tape. There are many reasons that the state is involved.

In my faith and my own right (my 1st and 9th Amendment Rights) to choose who I am with, without fear of the Government dictating or 'authorizing' such a union. It is also my faith that my marriage is ordained by God and not the State.

That's fine. No one is FORCING you to involve the state. It's just an option.

Again, I understand what you are saying...I am saying that the "state" approved form is a more recent tax-racket and control scheme that is now being used to dictate, divide and control.

I understand what you are saying, too, and I kind of agree. I just want to have the OPTION to have all the legal stuff taken care of.