U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:31 PM
 
Location: West Hollywood
3,196 posts, read 2,351,854 times
Reputation: 5262

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
Wrong. The Everything but marriage law in WA state conferred all the rights and benefits without redefining marriage.
What's your obsession with changing the definition of marriage? It's a legal definition. Laws can be changed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:32 PM
 
Location: My House
33,058 posts, read 26,870,396 times
Reputation: 24400
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
It doesn't bother me on a religious level. It bothers me on a logical level.

I have no issue with gay people entering domestic partnerships in which every legal benefit they seek is conferred upon them.

I agree that a stable society is better for everyone.

I do not agree that equality is the issue. If equality were the issue, then gays would be fighting to legalize polygamy, too. If the issue is to make all coupling equal, then there should be no distinction at all with regard to number of individuals, ages, sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc.

Currently, any male is equally free to marry any female and vise versa. The fact that a male is not attracted to a female, does not constitute inequality under the law. The fact that a male demands that the law recognize his preference to marry another man is preferential treatment under the law.
How does that track? It's not logical.

Reverse it. Would it be logical if you woke up tomorrow and were only allowed to marry someone of your same sex?

Would you feel that your rights as a heterosexual were equal to the rights of homosexuals, then?

After all, they can marry people they love who align with their sexual orientation.

You could get married. Just not to someone you loved who matched your sexual orientation.

I would not feel like my rights were equal.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:34 PM
 
29,805 posts, read 15,208,051 times
Reputation: 15584
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
I don't agree with, not would I support any law that denies gay people the same rights afforded to everyone else. You and your partner should not be precluded from having a civil union, domestic partnership or any other contractual agreement that would confer all those rights and benefits upon you.
I am fascinated to see how everyone arguing against same-sex marriage is suddenly embracing full-rights civil unions. If that offer had been seriously extended at any time during the actual fight over marriage equality, who knows, the same-sex marriage backers might have settled for it. But with well over a dozen states going out of their way to ban civil unions as well as marriage, it appears to have been a minority point of view.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:34 PM
 
3,454 posts, read 1,695,480 times
Reputation: 2201
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoopLV View Post
Ahhhh.... so as long as it isn't called m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e, you're OK with it? The same property rights, power of attorney provisions, tax rules and similar. All OK. Just don't call it marriage. Is this EXACTLY how you feel? Because I don't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth.

But if this is the case, denying people rights over a word has got to be the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. That is exactly like saying, "I don't mind if women go to a booth, select a candidate, and pull a lever -- just don't call that action 'voting.' Because then it's special treatment! I'm OK with women selecting representatives. Really! But I don't want them to vote."

I'm not sure even the most foolish men in the early 20th century would have said something THAT preposterous.
Genius.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:41 PM
 
7,356 posts, read 4,427,372 times
Reputation: 8306
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
Wrong. The Everything but marriage law in WA state conferred all the rights and benefits without redefining marriage.
Oh, I see. So if a gay person dies in Washington, their life partner of ten years or longer will be eligible for SS benefits, even though the SSA says not unless you were legally married? Are you sure?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:42 PM
 
6,121 posts, read 3,318,365 times
Reputation: 13007
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
Why would I be "afraid that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality"? That doesn't even make sense??? I do believe that everyone should be treated equally under the law.

I'm sorry you don't understand my opinion, but that doesn't translate to me fearing anything. That is about as logical as saying that if I don't agree that pizza tastes good, I must fear and hate it.

People are allowed to have different values and opinions without fear and hatred of others.
Except in whom they are permitted to marry and in the equality of benefits deriving therefrom.

Got it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 06:08 PM
 
Location: Type 0.7 Kardashev
10,577 posts, read 6,825,417 times
Reputation: 37337
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
Wrong. The Everything but marriage law in WA state conferred all the rights and benefits without redefining marriage.
Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.

The Washington law did not convey a single federal benefit of marriage. Not one (obviously - did you really need to be told that a state law did not impact any federal laws, from tax issues to federal pensions to military survivor benefits, and on and on and on?). There are well over 1000 such benefits.
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples

So, completely aside from the nonsense that are separate but (supposedly) equal laws, you're factually wrong on your claim.

Civil marriage law changes constantly.

And, as an aside, the anti-gay crowd has opposed the separate but (supposedly) equal civil unions/domestic partnership laws every time they've been proposed - so lose the false posturing that claims that if only gays had been willing to settle for something kinda-sorta-like-but-not-really marriage, then no one would have had a problem with that - because it's rank historical revisionism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 06:17 PM
 
29,805 posts, read 15,208,051 times
Reputation: 15584
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
As I stated in another post, I voted in WA state for the Everything but Marriage law that was passed and enacted and provided for gay couples who registered their civil unions to receive all the benefits they seek with regard to property/medical/financial/etc. protections, as it should be.
And if you took your WA-registered civil union paperwork to the USCIS to apply for your foreign-born spouse to join you in the US - like any straight spouse can do for his/her partner - the answer would be?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 07:01 PM
 
920 posts, read 476,771 times
Reputation: 638
Quote:
Originally Posted by MordinSolus View Post
What's your obsession with changing the definition of marriage? It's a legal definition. Laws can be changed.
Agreed. Laws can be changed.

If the Supreme Court was to issue the following opinion on this issue. Would you, as a gay individual, be satisfied?

The court has determined that the privilege of marriage is conferred upon an individual and since the current construct of marriage does not prohibit a gay individual from entering into a marriage, a state does have the right to maintain the current definition of marriage without violating the 14th Amendment o protections of an individual's right to equal protection under the law.

That being said, any law that forbids any person, gay or straight, from engaging in a contractual arrangement, civil union or domestic partnership under which all benefits conferred to individuals who are married is a direct violation of the 14th Amendment and is prohibited as unconstitutional.

Does that not provide what gay couples are seeking?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 07:23 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
19,428 posts, read 9,742,596 times
Reputation: 7535
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
Agreed. Laws can be changed.

If the Supreme Court was to issue the following opinion on this issue. Would you, as a gay individual, be satisfied?

The court has determined that the privilege of marriage is conferred upon an individual and since the current construct of marriage does not prohibit a gay individual from entering into a marriage, a state does have the right to maintain the current definition of marriage without violating the 14th Amendment o protections of an individual's right to equal protection under the law.

That being said, any law that forbids any person, gay or straight, from engaging in a contractual arrangement, civil union or domestic partnership under which all benefits conferred to individuals who are married is a direct violation of the 14th Amendment and is prohibited as unconstitutional.

Does that not provide what gay couples are seeking?
Keep dreaming.

The supreme court has ALREADY ruled that the 14th applies to marriage, and the question before them doesn't mention "gay, homosexual, or lesbian" it mentions sex as in male or female.
Quote:
The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of
certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:
1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/c...615zr_f2q3.pdf

They will be ruling on these two questions, neither of which mentions sexual orientation.

We already know that discrimination based on sex/gender runs afoul of the 14th AND that the 14th applies to marriage.
Sorry, but the writing is on the wall.

Your pleading to take a "separate but equal" marriage like arrangement is no longer an option. Plus there is that whole separate but equal ruling from the past, that one didn't work out too well if I remember correctly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top