California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

[BryanS]

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.)

[H-Town Man]

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?

[MidtownCoog]

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.

[BryanS]

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?

[memebag]

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.

[houstonmacbro]

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.

[H-Town Man]

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.

[dbigtex56]

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."

[BryanS]

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.

[H-Town Man]

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.

[memebag]

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.

[H-Town Man]

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

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

[HtownWxBoy]

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?

[H-Town Man]

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.

[RedScare]

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.

[Mark F. Barnes]

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:

[TJones]

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

I would have a response, but I am still getting over the fact that you actually put "QUOTE MARKS" around something !

[rps324]

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.

[BryanS]

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...

[rps324]

Union of two people of like gender is not the same thing as union of two people of different gender.

Why?

[H-Town Man]

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.

It should be the public's decision what words like that are going to refer to, not a court's.

Why?

Well, because one is a union of like gender. The other is a union of different genders. They're two different things.

This really isn't that complicated.

[dbigtex56]

It should be the public's decision what words like that are going to refer to, not a court's.

Well, because one is a union of like gender. The other is a union of different genders. They're two different things.

This really isn't that complicated.

Now you're talking!

What's needed here is a retronym. So, if it's a union of like gender, let's call it marriage. If it's a union of different genders, henseforth it shall be known as "a mixed marriage."

[memebag]

It should be the public's decision what words like that are going to refer to, not a court's.

...

This really isn't that complicated.

Right. I've got it now. The courts can rule on the constitutionality of laws, unless those laws redefine what words mean. Any law that changes the meaning of any word is immune from that kind of review.

Couldn't be simpler.

[Mark F. Barnes]

I kinda understood the issue wasn't whether a gay couple wanted to be called "married" or "not married", they just want the same tax benefits and insurance breaks, as any other couple. Am I missing something here? Treat it like "Common Law" they live together for X number of years, let them file any way they want. Common Law allows others to do that, does it not? Who gives a crap if the so called union is solemnized or not. I am sure those involved don't they just want to be able to file their taxes and health-care like anyone else. My vote, treat it like "common law", who gives a rats ass about the rules for the solemnization of marriages, and whether or not it's a man and a woman or whatever. They want tax benefits and health-care benefits not solemnization. Or have I missed something here?

[memebag]

Or have I missed something here?

I think so. As I read the ruling, it isn't enough to give homosexuals the same benefits and responsibilities as married heterosexuals but call it a "civil union". Because the state of California recognizes the right to marry as a civil right, and because the legislature has tried to grant equal rights to homosexuals, then homosexuals have the right to marry.

The problem with all of this is that it violates the little known principle of "separation of judiciary and language". The California Supreme Court is (apparently) prohibited from ruling on the constitutionality of any law that might change what a word means.

[Mark F. Barnes]

So the semantics of all this bears on verbiage? Okay let me try and get a grip on this whole argument. Legally, (help me here Red), "marriage" is a the act of establishing kinship outside of bloodline, common law or otherwise. Let's leave the entire "God" "Church" and "Religion" out of the entire argument. These are choices and preferences, not law. So drop the whole term "Civil Union" and go with the "Common Law" stance, or even call it a "contractual union". What's not legal about the term "Contractual Union"? Is there some verbiage in there that would conflict with and legal verbiage otherwise. Two people enter into a contract, to take care of one anther and be financially responsible for one another, till the contract is revoked by a judge. Just as binding as the crap they use in a church "till death do us part" or"as long as you both shall live" which is broken daily. It's not a whole lot different than co-signing on another person's loan. It will make you contractually responsible for the welfare of this other person. And with that in mind, allows you to in fact claim them as a dependant, and give you the tax benefit issue, as well as the health-care benefit issue. Just call it a contract and be done with it. There are couples that enter into "marriage" for no other reason than for the financial advantages. They no more give a crap about one another than a man in the moon. And when then advantages are no longer worthy, they are out of there, they file the papers and it's over. Where is the sanctity in all that?

[KinkaidAlum]

It should be the public's decision what words like that are going to refer to, not a court's.

IF THE PUBLIC GETS TO DECIDE WORD MEANING THEN I THINK WE ARE IN TROUBLE. THIS THREAD IS REDONKULOUS.

Well, because one is a union of like gender. The other is a union of different genders. They're two different things.

This really isn't that complicated.

YOU ARE HEADING DOWN A SLIPPERY SLOPE HERE. FROM THIS LOGIC ONE COULD ARGUE THE FOLLOWING; ONE IS A WHITE MAN AND ONE IS A BLACK MAN. THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. THAT WOULD GET REALLY COMPLICATED...

In the end, my opinion on gay marriage is like my opinion on abortion; if you are against it, then don't have one. Now that is not complicated.

[houstonmacbro]

In the end, my opinion on gay marriage is like my opinion on abortion; if you are against it, then don't have one. Now that is not complicated.

I have a feeling abortion is next in the sites for the radical right.

[BryanS]

I have a feeling abortion is next in the sites for the radical right.

Let the womyn of the country decide that issue. Men should have no say. Kinda like gay marriage. Let all the gays decide. It doesn't affect straight people.

[RedScare]

So the semantics of all this bears on verbiage? Okay let me try and get a grip on this whole argument. Legally, (help me here Red), "marriage" is a the act of establishing kinship outside of bloodline, common law or otherwise. Let's leave the entire "God" "Church" and "Religion" out of the entire argument. These are choices and preferences, not law. So drop the whole term "Civil Union" and go with the "Common Law" stance, or even call it a "contractual union". What's not legal about the term "Contractual Union"? Is there some verbiage in there that would conflict with and legal verbiage otherwise. Two people enter into a contract, to take care of one anther and be financially responsible for one another, till the contract is revoked by a judge. Just as binding as the crap they use in a church "till death do us part" or"as long as you both shall live" which is broken daily. It's not a whole lot different than co-signing on another person's loan. It will make you contractually responsible for the welfare of this other person. And with that in mind, allows you to in fact claim them as a dependant, and give you the tax benefit issue, as well as the health-care benefit issue. Just call it a contract and be done with it. There are couples that enter into "marriage" for no other reason than for the financial advantages. They no more give a crap about one another than a man in the moon. And when then advantages are no longer worthy, they are out of there, they file the papers and it's over. Where is the sanctity in all that?

You are right about hetero marriages for financial security. An article I read this morning said that over 50% of US households are headed up by single people...outright singles, widows, single moms, etc. A study showed 7% of married couples did so for insurance. The problem with "civil unions" or "contractual unions" is that in the law, words DO matter. While two people can contractually obligate each other just like a traditional marriage, they cannot obligate insurance companies, employers or governments. All of those important benefits that are afforded to "married" persons would not be afforded to "civilly united" or "contractually bound" persons, unless each of those entities changed their language to include them. Since you cannot force them to change their language, a "civil union" is NOT equal to a marriage, although I suppose that California could pass a law stating that all benefits of a marriage apply to a civil union. The problem here is that the court cannot create a new law. Since there is no law to that effect currently on the books, it seems the court felt it had no choice but to allow gays to marry.

I have a feeling abortion is next in the sites for the radical right.

Not even on the radar this year. Iraq and the economy.