Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HtownWxBoy

California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

Recommended Posts

"
," either... Thank you, for stating the obvious.

Please explain this statement: "The fact that from one extreme the pendulum swung to the other extreme of total authoritarian control with the Third Reich only strengthens my point." What exactly do you mean?

Read the rest of the paragraph. As many great political thinkers have noted, a society in which the belief takes hold that there is no moral law is a society that is destined for tyranny. Chaos takes hold, and only a single, strong command can reign it in. Tocqueville's passages on this vol. 1, part 2, ch. 9 of Democracy in America are especially thought-provoking.

Using your logic, it's OK to refer to white males as men, and black males as boys.

Try it sometime.

Um, no, dbigtex. Referring to black males as boys is a slanderous term. Calling "marriage" the same thing it's been called in almost every society in history does not slander anyone.

The position that you guys are taking would be more like if a group of women demanded that they be called "men," that there not be different words for different genders, because of some perceived connotation they had of the word "men."

Why should this be decided by a vote while other civil rights issues weren't? Is it because it's about gay people or because it's about marriage?

Because it's not a civil rights issue, memebag! It's an issue of semantics - of what certain words do or do not mean. How many times do I have to explain this to you?

Civil unions do not carry all the benefits of marriage. For example, tax benefits.

I suggested that they should. In California, I think they do. I don't think that heterosexuals should have rights that homosexuals don't.

Yeah, 237.5 times. The half came when somebody called him a "Shister", and he just said "Thanks."

Look H-town, Red doesn't bother you in the morning when you are picking up those trashcans and throwin'em in the back of that big truck, so why do you want to bother him about his job ?

What? I don't pick up trash cans...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they carry tax benefits at the state level but it is not recognized by the Feds. That's one of the problems.

As I have mentioned, I do not want to marry my partner, but if I did, I would want the SAME benefits as marriage. Civil unions only take it so far.

I wouldn't care if it was called pizza time if it had the EXACT same benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because it's not a civil rights issue, memebag! It's an issue of semantics - of what certain words do or do not mean. How many times do I have to explain this to you?

You've never explained that to me. Regardless of the sematics, it is a civil rights issue. The right to marry is a civil right.

I suggested that they should. In California, I think they do. I don't think that heterosexuals should have rights that homosexuals don't.

But you think heterosexuals should have the right to marry and homosexuals shouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've never explained that to me. Regardless of the sematics, it is a civil rights issue. The right to marry is a civil right.

But you think heterosexuals should have the right to marry and homosexuals shouldn't.

I can't believe you are making these points now as though we hadn't discussed them back and forth a dozen times. Yes I did explain this to you - the whole example of "zerning" was an attempt to explain this to you.

You don't have a right to a word. Different words mean different things. The word "marriage" means "male and female." I don't have a "right to parenting" if I don't have children.

You need to start reading people's posts more carefully if you want to have internet arguments with them.

I wouldn't care if it was called pizza time if it had the EXACT same benefits.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't care if it was called pizza time if it had the EXACT same benefits.

How about we call it THIS then..................

peanut-butter-jelly.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't create a different definition. This is the definition that has existed since our laws were created. All I am saying... and please read this carefully... all I am saying is that if the definition is going to be changed, it should be done by majority vote - not by a court.

This is blatantly untrue and misleading, and is typical of your convoluted logic. The law you refer to is the "common law". This is law that has evolved over time, such as the laws against murder, theft and robbery. Interestingly, the "common law" was based on community norms, but defined by the courts, a practice that you denigrate as "legislating from the bench".

The problem with the "common law" is that it is virtually non-existent in today's United States. Virtually every state, and the United States, has codified its laws through legislation. This has the effect of overruling the "common law", as only the "laws on the books" apply from that date forward. Even backassward Texas undertook a massive codification of its patchwork common law system, beginning in the 1970s, so that the laws would be more uniform.

So, for you to claim that "the definition" is the one that has existed since our laws were created, means that we are only going back 30 years or so (in Texas). But, more importantly, what is THE DEFINITION? Because we operate under statutory law, there is no single definition. There is the US definition, which may vary, depending on whether the definition is for tax purposes, or compelling a spouse to testify against the other. There are 50 state definitions. There may be literally thousands of local definitions in various city ordinances throughout the country. Yet, you authoritatively state that there is ONE DEFINITION, and it has been settled forever. And, you are flat wrong.

I am confident that throughout your many posts you have not once actually looked at the laws and definitions that the California court made its ruling upon. I understand why. I know from your previous posts that you are a religious man and that you come at this argument from a set of deeply held beliefs. While I do not share those beliefs, I do not quibble with them. However, this court ruling is not based on a belief system. It is based on an interperetation of the statutory laws on the CALIFORNIA books. If you have not once read the law and the definition on the California books, you cannot argue intelligently that it is incorrect. Many of these definitions do not include "one man and one woman", thereby making the definition open-ended as to who can get married.

THIS is why I remind you that I am a lawyer...because these court rulings are based on the law...not my preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many of these definitions do not include "one man and one woman", thereby making the definition open-ended as to who can get married.

This is where I think the "definition" gets sticky, because we have to remember WHEN the laws were written. There were barely ANY openly gay couples, and even then, they were shunned or shamed for being open. The law was written using the "assumption" of the law as it pertained to "one man and one woman" and that gay couples would NEVER actually think that they should have a right to marry. Well, we all know what happens when we ASSUME things, so, "natural law" has to be redetermined by man and adhered to as interpreted and defined by our constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't believe you are making these points now as though we hadn't discussed them back and forth a dozen times. Yes I did explain this to you - the whole example of "zerning" was an attempt to explain this to you.

A failed attempt, remember?

You don't have a right to a word. Different words mean different things. The word "marriage" means "male and female." I don't have a "right to parenting" if I don't have children.

Again, this isn't about the word, it's about the civil right.

You need to start reading people's posts more carefully if you want to have internet arguments with them.

I've read every word of your posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is where I think the "definition" gets sticky, because we have to remember WHEN the laws were written. There were barely ANY openly gay couples, and even then, they were shunned or shamed for being open. The law was written using the "assumption" of the law as it pertained to "one man and one woman" and that gay couples would NEVER actually think that they should have a right to marry. Well, we all know what happens when we ASSUME things, so, "natural law" has to be redetermined by man and adhered to as interpreted and defined by our constitution.

I agree, but poorly written laws are the easiest to attack. Further, they are still the law, even if poorly written. There is a process for defending vague laws called "legislative intent". This is where one tries to determine what the lawmakers were thinking when the law was written. Not coincidentally, this is where a lot of "legislating from the bench" accusations can arise.

It should be pointed out that this lawsuit basically arose from the fact that California enacted two separate laws aimed at two groups of people, giving the appearance of "separate but equal", the exact complaint that memebag is making. This conflicts (according to the court) with California and US civil rights laws.

Now, I'm done. Being neither gay, nor religious, nor Californian, I have little more than a passing interest in what gay and religious Californians fight over, and I've spent far more time on my last 2 posts than I ever intended. I will leave this debate in the capable hands of memebag and H-Town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, but poorly written laws are the easiest to attack. Further, they are still the law, even if poorly written. There is a process for defending vague laws called "legislative intent". This is where one tries to determine what the lawmakers were thinking when the law was written. Not coincidentally, this is where a lot of "legislating from the bench" accusations can arise.

It should be pointed out that this lawsuit basically arose from the fact that California enacted two separate laws aimed at two groups of people, giving the appearance of "separate but equal", the exact complaint that memebag is making. This conflicts (according to the court) with California and US civil rights laws.

Now, I'm done. Being neither gay, nor religious, nor Californian, I have little more than a passing interest in what gay and religious Californians fight over, and I've spent far more time on my last 2 posts than I ever intended. I will leave this debate in the capable hands of memebag and H-Town.

What a copout........ :P:lol: ! Thank you for your time counselor . At least I learned something new today, "legislative intent"

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What a copout........ :P:lol: ! Thank you for your time counselor . At least I learned something new today, "legislative intent"

Legislative intent can be a big one. In fact, if you look at Texas' own marriage amendment, it appears to outlaw "traditional marriage", as well as gay marriage. The legal scholars say that "legislative intent" makes it clear that "traditional marriage" is safe.

Hmmmm...... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Legislative intent can be a big one. In fact, if you look at Texas' own marriage amendment, it appears to outlaw "traditional marriage", as well as gay marriage. The legal scholars say that "legislative intent" makes it clear that "traditional marriage" is safe.

Hmmmm...... ;)

Safe from WHAT exactly ? Oh, meaning that what the "traditional marriage" of the time the law was written, ie. one man and one woman, is safe, and will continue in place?

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Safe from WHAT exactly ? Oh, meaning that what the "traditional marriage" of the time the law was written, ie. one man and one woman, is safe, and will continue in place?

Here is what the constitutional amendment said:

"The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

So, it says marriage is "one man and one woman", then goes on to prohibit "any legal status identical or similar to marriage". That sounds like it just outlawed marriage, since that is identical or similar to marriage. The legislative intent, however, was to outlaw civil unions or any other state's gay marriage...at least that is the argument. It hasn't been tested in the courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is what the constitutional amendment said:

So, it says marriage is "one man and one woman", then goes on to prohibit "any legal status identical or similar to marriage". That sounds like it just outlawed marriage, since that is identical or similar to marriage. The legislative intent, however, was to outlaw civil unions or any other state's gay marriage...at least that is the argument. It hasn't been tested in the courts.

With the usual disclaimer, "I'm no lawyer, but..."

That's my understanding, too. How inprecise.

Thanks again, RedScare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A failed attempt, remember?

Pretty subjective there, memebag. You dropped the thread of discussion after post #129, and only came back when the discussion had changed.

You still haven't answered my essential point, that the public has the right to define a word as meaning a certain thing, and no one has any "right" to that word unless they've done what that thing is. Kind of like parenting - there's no "right to parenting" unless one has a child. Similarly, there is no "right to marriage" unless a man and a woman have been united.

I have said that gay civil unions should have the same rights under law as marriages - hence there would be no difference in the eyes of the law, and therefore not a civil rights issue. All the argument becomes after that is begging to have a certain word applied. But the word does not mean what gay people want it to mean (just like "parenting" if one does not have a child), and therefore cannot be applied.

When you can address this point, instead of just repeating "but there's a right to marriage, there's a right to marriage," I will come back in. Otherwise, I'm done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is blatantly untrue and misleading, and is typical of your convoluted logic. The law you refer to is the "common law". This is law that has evolved over time, such as the laws against murder, theft and robbery. Interestingly, the "common law" was based on community norms, but defined by the courts, a practice that you denigrate as "legislating from the bench".

The problem with the "common law" is that it is virtually non-existent in today's United States. Virtually every state, and the United States, has codified its laws through legislation. This has the effect of overruling the "common law", as only the "laws on the books" apply from that date forward. Even backassward Texas undertook a massive codification of its patchwork common law system, beginning in the 1970s, so that the laws would be more uniform.

So, for you to claim that "the definition" is the one that has existed since our laws were created, means that we are only going back 30 years or so (in Texas). But, more importantly, what is THE DEFINITION? Because we operate under statutory law, there is no single definition. There is the US definition, which may vary, depending on whether the definition is for tax purposes, or compelling a spouse to testify against the other. There are 50 state definitions. There may be literally thousands of local definitions in various city ordinances throughout the country. Yet, you authoritatively state that there is ONE DEFINITION, and it has been settled forever. And, you are flat wrong.

I am confident that throughout your many posts you have not once actually looked at the laws and definitions that the California court made its ruling upon. I understand why. I know from your previous posts that you are a religious man and that you come at this argument from a set of deeply held beliefs. While I do not share those beliefs, I do not quibble with them. However, this court ruling is not based on a belief system. It is based on an interperetation of the statutory laws on the CALIFORNIA books. If you have not once read the law and the definition on the California books, you cannot argue intelligently that it is incorrect. Many of these definitions do not include "one man and one woman", thereby making the definition open-ended as to who can get married.

THIS is why I remind you that I am a lawyer...because these court rulings are based on the law...not my preference.

Thank you for your well-thought-out post RedScare. It has the virtue of actually addressing my points, rather than ignoring them and going on spin cycle like some of the other posters here.

I think you've misunderstood a couple of things about my viewpoint, and I'd like to explain them to you. First, while you are correct that I am a religious man and personally hold a religiously-informed idea of marriage, I do not expect civil law to adopt that idea, nor do I expect that the law be based on my personal preference. I'm not sure why you assumed that about me, but if you did, then you were wrong.

I do however expect the law to be based on the preferences of the majority, unless those preferences deny to certain people a constitutional right. To my understanding the preferences of the majority, while previously embodied by common law, were codified in recent times under statutory law. So although statutory law may only go back so far, there is nonetheless a certain continuity between the two.

Now here is where we probably disagree. You say there are as many different definitions of marriage as there are states. I would say that while there may be as many different wordings in statutory law as there are states, almost all of these states nonetheless operate (either explicitly or implicitly) on a commonly held definition of marriage, which is that it is something that unites one man and one woman. If the law does not explicitly define marriage is such, it is probably because that definition was simply understood and no one imagined it would need to be defined - sort of like "parenting," where I imagine most people would see little need to define a "parent" as "one who has a child."

You are right that I have not directly read the California law books, but from what I understand through other sources, they refer to marriage as being between a man and a woman. If, however, I am wrong, and they do not explicitly define marriage in that way, then I will withdraw that argument against the Supreme Court's ruling, and wait for the California public to decide this fall whether they want marriage to be defined as between a man and a woman, or just between any two people. Either way though, I still maintain what I have maintained throughout this discussion: that it is the public's right to define (by majority rule) what it wants particular words like "marriage" to mean. A court should not decide that for people, but if that decision is not made clear in the text of the law, then I will accept the court's right to extend marriage to whomever they feel it should be extended to (but still wonder why they don't extend it to polygamists, incest, etc.).

I hope my logic was less "convoluted" this time.

Edited by H-Town Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You still haven't answered my essential point, that the public has the right to define a word as meaning a certain thing, and no one has any "right" to that word unless they've done what that thing is. Kind of like parenting - there's no "right to parenting" unless one has a child. Similarly, there is no "right to marriage" unless a man and a woman have been united.

I haven't answered your "essential point" because it isn't relevant to the discussion. First, I'm unaware of any right for "the public" to define words. And as I have said several times, this isn't about the word. It's about a legal precedent. California law has recognized the right to marry as a civil right. The California Supreme Court has ruled that right can't be limited to opposite sex couples. Clearly this isn't about a word.

I have said that gay civil unions should have the same rights under law as marriages - hence there would be no difference in the eyes of the law, and therefore not a civil rights issue. All the argument becomes after that is begging to have a certain word applied.

No, the argument after that is the same argument that did away with the "separate but equal" approach to civil rights. Since "separate but equal" can't be equal, there's no legal leg to stand on for creating a marriage that isn't a marriage.

When you can address this point, instead of just repeating "but there's a right to marriage, there's a right to marriage," I will come back in. Otherwise, I'm done.

Please read the ruling before you come back, if you come back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are right that I have not directly read the California law books, but from what I understand through other sources, they refer to marriage as being between a man and a woman. If, however, I am wrong, and they do not explicitly define marriage in that way, then I will withdraw that argument against the Supreme Court's ruling, and wait for the California public to decide this fall whether they want marriage to be defined as between a man and a woman, or just between any two people.

Proposition 22 was an attempt to explicitly define marriage as "between a man and a woman". That's what the Supreme Court overturned, saying that defining marriage that way was unconstitutional. Did you even know this much about the case?

Edited by memebag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, memebag uses the very decision that I am arguing against as the sole support for his argument. It's like using Roe v. Wade as your reason for why Roe v. Wade is a good ruling. Weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again, memebag uses the very decision that I am arguing against as the sole support for his argument. It's like using Roe v. Wade as your reason for why Roe v. Wade is a good ruling. Weak.

Once again, you won't be bothered to read the decision to see that you aren't even arguing against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, the argument after that is the same argument that did away with the "separate but equal" approach to civil rights. Since "separate but equal" can't be equal, there's no legal leg to stand on for creating a marriage that isn't a marriage.

Union of two people of like gender is not the same thing as union of two people of different gender. It will always be a separate thing, and there's nothing wrong with having separate words for each of the two things. But we can make it equal under law.

Tell me, if the same rights and privileges are given to both unions, how can they not be equal?

Once again, you won't be bothered to read the decision to see that you aren't even arguing against it.

Sure I am. I am arguing against the court saying that the public cannot define marriage the way it wants to (as it did in Prop. 22). I have argued this consistently throughout this discussion.

Your only counter to my arguments has essentially been, "Well the Supreme Court made the decision." Circular logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a situation for you to tackle, memebag:

A father is the male parent of a child. A mother is the female parent of a child.

Two separate things, but yet they both have many of the same rights under law.

Separate but equal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Union of two people of like gender is not the same thing as union of two people of different gender. It will always be a separate thing, and there's nothing wrong with having separate words for each of the two things. But we can make it equal under law.

Tell me, if the same rights and privileges are given to both unions, how can they not be equal?

You can't make them equal under the law. Remember Brown v. Board of Education? Separate but equal is not equal.

Sure I am. I am arguing against the court saying that the public cannot define marriage the way it wants to (as it did in Prop. 22). I have argued this consistently throughout this discussion.

Your only counter to my arguments has essentially been, "Well the Supreme Court made the decision." Circular logic.

So you've read the decision now?

Here's a situation for you to tackle, memebag:

A father is the male parent of a child. A mother is the female parent of a child.

Two separate things, but yet they both have many of the same rights under law.

Separate but equal?

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't make them equal under the law. Remember Brown v. Board of Education? Separate but equal is not equal.

Yes you can make them equal - if the law gives the same rights and privileges to both, then they are equal.

Brown v. Board of Education is a red herring - those schools were unequal for reasons that have nothing to do with marriage.

So why doesn't the "separate but equal" problem apply to the terms "mother" and "father"?

Edited by H-Town Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you've read the decision now?

I've read the parts that are relevant to my argument. Can you respond to this argument without using circular logic, i.e. using the fact of the decision itself as your support?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes you can make them equal - if the law gives the same rights and privileges to both, then they are equal.

Brown v. Board of Education is a red herring - those schools were unequal for reasons that have nothing to do with marriage.

So why doesn't the "separate but equal" problem apply to the terms "mother" and "father"?

I don't understand the question. The separate but equal problem doesn't apply to "mother" and "father" because they aren't equal. I can't figure out why you're asking.

I've read the parts that are relevant to my argument. Can you respond to this argument without using circular logic, i.e. using the fact of the decision itself as your support?

I can't respond without using the logic from the decision. You're arguing against it; I'm arguing for it. If you can find a flaw in the logic of the decision, we can argue about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand the question. The separate but equal problem doesn't apply to "mother" and "father" because they aren't equal. I can't figure out why you're asking.

Should the women's rights movement be pushing for the abolition of separate terms for separate genders ("man" and "woman"), since (by your reasoning) equality is impossible as long as there are separate names?

Keep in mind, of course, that segregation was about much more than separate names - it was about separate institutions, where the potential for inequality was there because of funding, etc. If different types of civil union are given the same tax breaks, etc., I don't see what the problem is. It's a poor analogy.

I can't respond without using the logic from the decision. You're arguing against it; I'm arguing for it. If you can find a flaw in the logic of the decision, we can argue about that.

I've found the flaw and pointed it out explicitly many times. The court cannot tell the public how it can and cannot define things (as it did in overruling Prop. 22). Your only substantive response to this has been to compare what I am saying to the logic used for segregation, but for myriad reasons, using separate words to refer to same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions has nothing to do with segregating people based on skin color.

Once again, if using different terms for different things is like segregation, then my using the terms "man" and "woman" for the male and female genders is segregation. Silliness.

Edited by H-Town Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes you can make them equal - if the law gives the same rights and privileges to both, then they are equal.

Brown v. Board of Education is a red herring - those schools were unequal for reasons that have nothing to do with marriage.

So why doesn't the "separate but equal" problem apply to the terms "mother" and "father"?

Those schools (and water fountains, restaurants, public restrooms, etc) were equal. They were separate, but equal. If you asked the general public, back in the day, they would probably agree by wide margins, that everything was A-OK.

The Brown decision was about civil rights. Establishing one civil marriage/union institution is about civil rights. There is no red herring.

Answer this question: Why is it in the state's best interest to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples? That is, what harm is the state trying to protect itself against by imposing such a limitation? Answers that don't count: "It's always been this way" (so what? and?) and slippery slope arguments (if you do X, then Y might follow, so we should not do X.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Answer this question: Why is it in the state's best interest to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples? That is, what harm is the state trying to protect itself against by imposing such a limitation? Answers that don't count: "It's always been this way" (so what? and?) and slippery slope arguments (if you do X, then Y might follow, so we should not do X.)

Try to understand this answer: Nothing is being limited. Same-sex couples have their union, and opposite-sex couples have their union. The union of an opposite-sex couple just happens to be called "marriage."

Why don't you come up with your own name for same-sex unions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why don't you come up with your own name for same-sex unions?

CU'd?

Wonder Twink Power Activation?

SSU'd.

Unioned.

U-Hauled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Try to understand this answer: Nothing is being limited. Same-sex couples have their union, and opposite-sex couples have their union. The union of an opposite-sex couple just happens to be called "marriage."

Why don't you come up with your own name for same-sex unions?

That is not the question. The question is: what harm is the state trying to protect itself against? Or better yet... why is it in the state's best interest to continue to harm same-sex couples, by excluding them from a single system of civil marriage/union statutes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should the women's rights movement be pushing for the abolition of separate terms for separate genders ("man" and "woman"), since (by your reasoning) equality is impossible as long as there are separate names?

I dunno.

Keep in mind, of course, that segregation was about much more than separate names - it was about separate institutions, where the potential for inequality was there because of funding, etc. If different types of civil union are given the same tax breaks, etc., I don't see what the problem is. It's a poor analogy.

It isn't an analogy, it's a legal precedent.

I've found the flaw and pointed it out explicitly many times. The court cannot tell the public how it can and cannot define things (as it did in overruling Prop. 22). Your only substantive response to this has been to compare what I am saying to the logic used for segregation, but for myriad reasons, using separate words to refer to same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions has nothing to do with segregating people based on skin color.

The court didn't tell the public how it can define things. It ruled that Prop. 22 was unconstitutional. Are you arguing that the court can't rule on the constitutionality of laws?

Once again, if using different terms for different things is like segregation, then my using the terms "man" and "woman" for the male and female genders is segregation. Silliness.

Once again, it isn't about the words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is not the question. The question is: what harm is the state trying to protect itself against? Or better yet... why is it in the state's best interest to continue to harm same-sex couples, by excluding them from a single system of civil marriage/union statutes?

The state is mean. This is the same state that kills more prisoners than any other state (I think) ... don't expect a lot of reason or sympathy from Austin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dunno.

By your logic, even if fully equal rights for women are achieved, they are in the same unfortunate position as black people during segregation as long as the separate terms "man" and "woman" are in use. Separate but equal.

It isn't an analogy, it's a legal precedent.

You are using the analogy to say that it is a precedent. I think you should have realized that. At this point, your arguing seems disingenuous.

The court didn't tell the public how it can define things. It ruled that Prop. 22 was unconstitutional.

And in making that ruling, it told the public how it could define things. Wrongly.

Are you arguing that the court can't rule on the constitutionality of laws?

Nope, just arguing with their decision on this law.

Once again, it isn't about the words.

Yes it is. That's all it's about.

That is not the question. The question is: what harm is the state trying to protect itself against? Or better yet... why is it in the state's best interest to continue to harm same-sex couples, by excluding them from a single system of civil marriage/union statutes?

If there are two different names for two different acts (same-sex union and opposite-sex union), but both acts are given the same rights and privileges under law, then no one is being harmed. The harm is all in your mind.

Edited by H-Town Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Using your logic, it's OK to refer to white males as men, and black males as boys.

Try it sometime.

Um, no, dbigtex. Referring to black males as boys is a slanderous term. Calling "marriage" the same thing it's been called in almost every society in history does not slander anyone.

Um, yes.

Your point (if, indeed, you have one) is that the word 'marriage' shouldn't be profaned by applying it to a union of fags or dykes. Try as you might to pretty it up, that's the basis of your argument. If not, why not call a marriage by its proper name, rather than this (not good as marriage, therefore slanderous) "civil union" nonsense?

Your contention that calling marriage the same thing it's been called "in almost every society in history" is so fatuous as to provoke disgusted, pitying chuckles. Really?! The Romans called it marriage? The French? The Chinese? The Iroquois?

Consult a dictionary. Yes, some definitions use the terms "man and woman" and "husband and wife".

They also include "The act of marrying or the ceremony of being married; a wedding." "Any close union."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If there are two different names for two different acts (same-sex union and opposite-sex union), but both acts are given the same rights and privileges under law, then no one is being harmed. The harm is all in your mind.

You still fail to answer. You refuse to bring forward one plausible argument as to the harm that you/the state are trying to protect against that would rationalize your position as to why one system of civil marriage/unions cannot be utilized, for secular purposes, for both opposite and same-sex couples. Two different names for two different acts, given the same rights... OK... but why go to those lengths of creating two systems? What harm, which you have failed to name, drives you to this position, in the first place? You say "there is none" - if you create two equal systems; therefore there is no harm to same-sex couples. But what harm was posed to opposite-sex couples that was so great, that you had to exclude same-sex couples, giving them some other system. You have failed to address this fundamental question. All of your arguments/posts are built upon thin air, without addressing the question of harm, first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You still fail to answer. You refuse to bring forward one plausible argument as to the harm that you/the state are trying to protect against that would rationalize your position as to why one system of civil marriage/unions cannot be utilized, for secular purposes, for both opposite and same-sex couples. Two different names for two different acts, given the same rights... OK... but why go to those lengths of creating two systems? What harm, which you have failed to name, drives you to this position, in the first place? You say "there is none" - if you create two equal systems; therefore there is no harm to same-sex couples. But what harm was posed to opposite-sex couples that was so great, that you had to exclude same-sex couples, giving them some other system. You have failed to address this fundamental question. All of your arguments/posts are built upon thin air, without addressing the question of harm, first.

Two names, one system. You haven't addressed the question of harm. Show me where the "harm" is, if all that is different is a name.

Um, no, dbigtex. Referring to black males as boys is a slanderous term. Calling "marriage" the same thing it's been called in almost every society in history does not slander anyone.

Um, yes.

Your point (if, indeed, you have one) is that the word 'marriage' shouldn't be profaned by applying it to a union of fags or dykes. Try as you might to pretty it up, that's the basis of your argument. If not, why not call a marriage by its proper name, rather than this (not good as marriage, therefore slanderous) "civil union" nonsense?

Your contention that calling marriage the same thing it's been called "in almost every society in history" is so fatuous as to provoke disgusted, pitying chuckles. Really?! The Romans called it marriage? The French? The Chinese? The Iroquois?

Consult a dictionary. Yes, some definitions use the terms "man and woman" and "husband and wife".

They also include "The act of marrying or the ceremony of being married; a wedding." "Any close union."

Who said anything about profaning? I think you're coming into this thing with a lot more emotion than I have, and it is causing you to read in things that aren't there. I'd rather just agree to disagree than let this get too ugly. I have respect for you and a couple of the other posters on this thread, and I'd rather not needlessly provoke more bad feeling when all of our arguments have been stated pretty clearly already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By your logic, even if fully equal rights for women are achieved, they are in the same unfortunate position as black people during segregation as long as the separate terms "man" and "woman" are in use. Separate but equal.

You are using the analogy to say that it is a precedent. I think you should have realized that. At this point, your arguing seems disingenuous.

And in making that ruling, it told the public how it could define things. Wrongly.

Nope, just arguing with their decision on this law.

Yes it is. That's all it's about.

If there are two different names for two different acts (same-sex union and opposite-sex union), but both acts are given the same rights and privileges under law, then no one is being harmed. The harm is all in your mind.

MidtownCoog is right. H-Town Man wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay... that last post was just totally strange and unexpected...

:unsure:

H-Town Man is a little weirded out right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If there are two different names for two different acts (same-sex union and opposite-sex union), but both acts are given the same rights and privileges under law, then no one is being harmed. The harm is all in your mind.

Amazing how simple that is. This really has nothing to do w/ "marriage"... it's about equal rights. People who are born straight and get married to a person they love are given additional rights through our Government... gay people are punished for being born gay by being denied those rights. That whole "it will ruin the sanctity of marriage" thing is crap... MORE people will be getting married! Marriage rates are dropping in parts of the world b/c straight people just don't want to get married as much or as early in their lives... how is that gay people's fault??? Heck don't call it marriage... that doesn't bother me... just allow for gay people to get the same rights as straight people get when they get "married". If marriage in a church did not lead to the US Government bestowing additional rights and privileges I don't think there would be this much of a problem. Let people do in their churches what they want to do... it's the Government stepping in with gifts of additional rights that makes this such a big problem. This is supposed to be America... the land of equal rights... isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heck don't call it marriage... that doesn't bother me... just allow for gay people to get the same rights as straight people get when they get "married".

That's what I'm saying, WxBoy. We agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's what I'm saying, WxBoy. We agree.

I say, why not? If you support equal rights, and these people want to call it marriage, why not? Sounds like semantics to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, 237.5 times. The half came when somebody called him a "Shister", and he just said "Thanks."

Look H-town, Red doesn't bother you in the morning when you are picking up those trashcans and throwin'em in the back of that big truck, so why do you want to bother him about his job ?

It's "shyster", if you're gonna call him names let's atleast get it right. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's "shyster", if you're gonna call him names let's atleast get it right. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I would have a response, but I am still getting over the fact that you actually put "QUOTE MARKS" around something ! :o:P;):lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two names, one system. You haven't addressed the question of harm. Show me where the "harm" is, if all that is different is a name.

Since the name part should be no big deal, what is the harm in calling it a "marriage?" You haven't addressed the question of harm with that, show me where the harm is that would justify two names for one system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since the name part should be no big deal, what is the harm in calling it a "marriage?" You haven't addressed the question of harm with that, show me where the harm is that would justify two names for one system.

Ditto...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Union of two people of like gender is not the same thing as union of two people of different gender.

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...