Supreme Court Gay Rights Rulings: A Slippery Downhill Slope Toward What's Next?

Prop 8 was unconstitutional according to the CALIFORNIA constitution.
California courts struck it down.
Some uninterested parties took it to the US Supreme Court and the Court said, "We're not going to rule on that", so, it fell back to California, who had ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional (according to THEIR constitution) and that's where it stands.

reply to post by DonVoigt

Originally posted by DonVoigt
we as a collective society we have to come to an accepted definition for the difference in relationships so as we speak to each other about the subject we can communicate with each other with understandable definitions of words that we choose to describe it so as not to confuse one with the other

Sure. "Dating" means one thing, "Engaged" means something else and "Married" means something else. But none of these imply or assume the genders of those involved.

If you hear of two people "dating" YOU may assume that it's a boy and a girl, but you could be wrong. Same with "engaged" or "married", which can be a personal term or a legal term in this country.

reply to post by Darth_Prime

the fact is though that we are not allowed 'Marriage' because our sexuality, we have to wait whilst others vote on it. it's more of a 'thing' we can't have because our sexuality, and if we were not this way we could.

I know this is how it is more increasingly perceived, but I am here to tell you that it is simply untrue. The reason society has up to this point been hesitant to allow gay marriage is that a homosexual relationship by definition cannot be a marriage (as was explained in my OP).

we want to have the same freedoms rights and benefits that anyone else has and not denied based on sexuality

Let me ask you something. What freedoms, rights and benefits are being withheld from you that are offered to someone else? You are more than welcome to "marry" someone of the opposite sex and enjoy those benefits are you not? You are also free to have a "relationship" with someone of the same sex (which wasn't always the case mind you).

reply to post by LiveForever8

We already live in a world where a person can "marry" the Eiffel Tower.

Thank you. This is exactly the kind of thing that bolsters my case that this is an extremely slippery slope.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
Let me ask you something. What freedoms, rights and benefits are being withheld from you that are offered to someone else?

Here are 1,138 legal rights and protections that are afforded married people. Until DOMA was struck down, these were not available to gay people who got married in the 12 states that allow it.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
Thank you. This is exactly the kind of thing that bolsters my case that this is an extremely slippery slope.

That slippery slope is uphill, because a woman married the Berlin Wall 30 years ago, before gay marriage was legal... Your argument is invalid.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


According to the definition I set out, you are correct except the word married, married as I stated it does define it as heterosexual

reply to post by Bhadhidar

I think you completely Missed the point of the Court's ruling.

No one is "trying to redefine Marriage".

With all due respect, I beg to differ.

The court found, in striking down the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), that it un-constitutional to deny benefits and privileges to one group of citizens which are granted to another group of citizens based on clearly discriminatory practices.

Exactly. The "benefits and privileges" spoken of are already non-exclusive. Any consenting adult is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. What I am trying to get across is that the only way you can call this discriminatory is if you change the definition of marriage (which is as I have stated ad nauseum, classically a union between a man and a woman).

reply to post by Tykonos

Marriage between two people by it's definition, is the ultimate binding ceremony of two people brought together by mutual love.

Nope. Here's the proper definition given by good ol' Webster:

mar·riage
/ˈmarij/

Noun

1.) The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

Definitions of words do change over time.

I can see that...

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
What I am trying to get across is that the only way you can call this discriminatory is if you change the definition of marriage (which is as I have stated ad nauseum, classically a union between a man and a woman).

Also "classically" the woman was considered the man's property.

Guess you would be one that would like to go back to that standard.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


You clearly missed my distinction between equality by value, and equality by definition. Please go back and read my OP more carefully.

reply to post by OneisOne


You are misrepresenting my position. There are multiple facets to equality. My OP does not contradict itself.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

Exactly. The "benefits and privileges" spoken of are already non-exclusive. Any consenting adult is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. What I am trying to get across is that the only way you can call this discriminatory is if you change the definition of marriage (which is as I have stated ad nauseum, classically a union between a man and a woman).

It has NOTHING to do with marriage. Why is that so hard to understand?

This is the easiest way, I can explain this to to you.

1. The government creates a legal instituion that provides benefits to people who become a single financial entity through marriage.
2. The government decides themselves, based on religion and history that these benefits may only apply to people of opposing sex.

The discrimination is that the LEGAL contract that creates this financial union uses sexual orientation as it's basis for who gets in and who doesn't.

The government, has an obligation to provide the same benefits under it's legal contracts to all consenting adults, regardless of their sexual orientation, color, creed etc..

Here's another example.

Let's pretend for a moment that we didn't allow inter-racial marriages. Would you be changing the definition of marriage if a court determines that it's discriminatory to deny benefits based on race?

No, of course you wouldn't, because it has nothing to do with the marriage, and everything to do with the availability of a legal contract provided by your government that is then DENIED due to a discriminatory factor such as race, age etc..

There's no changing the definition of anything, unless YOU personally want to see it that way. Legally, the simply struck down the part that discriminated against people of a different sexual orientation.

~Tenth

reply to post by DonVoigt

Originally posted by DonVoigt
According to the definition I set out, you are correct except the word married, married as I stated it does define it as heterosexual

According to whom?

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

Merriam Webster

Originally posted by OneisOne

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
What I am trying to get across is that the only way you can call this discriminatory is if you change the definition of marriage (which is as I have stated ad nauseum, classically a union between a man and a woman).

Also "classically" the woman was considered the man's property.

Guess you would be one that would like to go back to that standard.

Listen, I am not here advocating a shift back to the dark ages. Obviously we have progressed positively in many areas. Just trying to follow this path through and speculate as to the dangers lying ahead. Question...have you googled NAMBLA yet?

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by Darth_Prime

 

the fact is though that we are not allowed 'Marriage' because our sexuality, we have to wait whilst others vote on it. it's more of a 'thing' we can't have because our sexuality, and if we were not this way we could.

I know this is how it is more increasingly perceived, but I am here to tell you that it is simply untrue. The reason society has up to this point been hesitant to allow gay marriage is that a homosexual relationship by definition cannot be a marriage (as was explained in my OP).

we want to have the same freedoms rights and benefits that anyone else has and not denied based on sexuality

Let me ask you something. What freedoms, rights and benefits are being withheld from you that are offered to someone else? You are more than welcome to "marry" someone of the opposite sex and enjoy those benefits are you not? You are also free to have a "relationship" with someone of the same sex (which wasn't always the case mind you).

No T no shade, that argument has been tossed around before "You are free to marry the opposite sex" but why would i?

the whole point is to get equal rights to marry who we want, if we wanted to get married, think of it this way, if you wanted you couldn't marry the same sex, even you as a heterosexual, if you so desired you could not marry the same sex,

as stated above is the list of things unattainable to Same sex couples before DOMA was ruled upon,

we are taking steps to equality, equality for everyone in daily life, and that is the main struggle

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
Question...have you googled NAMBLA yet?

What in the world does that have ANYTHING to do with 2 consenting adults getting married??

I would really, really like to know how you made that jump.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Miriam Webster is after all how we define words.however as you stated its how the law defines it for the purpose of discussion and the law doesnt see it the same way that Webster does, you have to accept the reality that humanity had had this discussion countless times and it always ends the same way as marriage being between a man and a womanand how one generation thinks they are going to force generations of people to see something that way just because a small minority of people want the majority to change to suit their precious feelings, that's not going to happen, that's just like Muslims demanding that the whole world has live by sharia law because they say so. Same thing with the gay community they demand that everybody show them tolerance where they have none for anyone else
oh and if you read it it says by the way I stated it

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Umm...yes, it has EVERYTHING to do with marriage. I'll borrow your format if I may:

1. The government creates a legal instituion that provides benefits to people who become a single financial entity through marriage.
2. The government decides themselves, based on the basic and longstanding definition of marriage that these benefits apply to a relationship of people of opposing sex.

The government, has an obligation to provide the same benefits under it's legal contracts to all consenting adults, regardless of their sexual orientation, color, creed etc...which they do. Any person of legal age in the United States of America is allowed the right to marry anyone of their choosing of the opposite sex.

Simple enough right?

Discrimination would entail denying a right based on sexual orientation color, creed etc that somebody else has. The right to marry someone of the opposite sex (what marriage is) is reserved for all. This is what I am arguing.

Your inter-racial marriage scenario, as I'm sure you know, was a reality at one time in the United States. You might be interested to know that the sole reason those laws were overturned was because they were contrary to the definition of marriage. In that case, it WAS discrimination because the legal right for a man and woman to be married was given to one group of people and withheld from another. This, as I have thoroughly explained, is not happening here.

In order for what you're proposing to be classified as discrimination, the definition of marriage must be changed. That's all.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews

Originally posted by OneisOne

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
What I am trying to get across is that the only way you can call this discriminatory is if you change the definition of marriage (which is as I have stated ad nauseum, classically a union between a man and a woman).

Also "classically" the woman was considered the man's property.

Guess you would be one that would like to go back to that standard.

Listen, I am not here advocating a shift back to the dark ages. Obviously we have progressed positively in many areas. Just trying to follow this path through and speculate as to the dangers lying ahead. Question...have you googled NAMBLA yet?

Only perverts or idiots think that is path to even follow. When women were giving the right to vote did people then demand that dogs and children also vote? I do not believe for one second any thinking person can believe that their is a path beyond two consenting adults of sound mind being allowed to marry. If you do not know twhy two consenting adults being allowed to marry is different than sleeping with animals or children then you have some problems. Your either are trying to spread fear to hide your own bigotry or are reveailing some hidden desire.