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.
The point is that it's not a wacko, left-wing conspiracy as many suppose. The arguments are so clear that even otherwise conservative Republicans agree.
right, even Ted Olsen was one of the legal counsels. He just called it a victory for the rights of all Americans.
This is the pitiful level of argumentation made by people who oppose gay marriage. If a man can marry a man, eventually, a man will be able to marry a horse. Nevermind that animals can't consent.
I agree with you. But it's not wrong to assume that at some point a group of human beings who can consent are going to want to marry each other. It could be three people, or 103 people. Will you be prepared to give them the same freedoms? I'm not calling you out or accusing you of anything, and your answer may in fact be YES. But if at some point a large group of people want to marry each other, I don't see how anyone can tell them that they can't. I'm just throwing something out there that WILL come up at some point, and probably very soon. If this is about human rights, how can multiple humans wanting this to extend to them be told no?
This is the pitiful level of argumentation made by people who oppose gay marriage. If a man can marry a man, eventually, a man will be able to marry a horse. Nevermind that animals can't consent.
there you go again. always sticking up for the animals.
Funny how so many people who oppose gay marriage and want to uphold "the sanctity" of marriage don't actually know how marriage functions as a legal construct in our country. You'd think for something so sacred they would know how it differs from a civil union. Turns out it's just lip service to disguise their blatant homophobia.
So, ONE judge gets to nullify the will of the people of California.
Outrageous.
This is liberal judicial activism at it's core.
Well, when the will of the people takes away the rights of others....
I'm sure the will of the people of Mississippi and Alabama would have been to keep slaves, keep interracial marriage illegal, etc. much longer than they did.
Here are some of the legal rights that married couples have and gays and lesbians are denied:
Joint parental rights of children
Joint adoption
Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
Crime victims recovery benefits
Domestic violence protection orders
Judicial protections and immunity
Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
Public safety officers death benefits
Spousal veterans benefits
Social Security
Medicare
Joint filing of tax returns
Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
Child support
Joint Insurance Plans
Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
Estate and gift tax benefits
Welfare and public assistance
Joint housing for elderly
Credit protection
Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans
I agree with you. But it's not wrong to assume that at some point a group of human beings who can consent are going to want to marry each other. It could be three people, or 103 people. Will you be prepared to give them the same freedoms? I'm not calling you out or accusing you of anything, and your answer may in fact be YES. But if at some point a large group of people want to marry each other, I don't see how anyone can tell them that they can't. I'm just throwing something out there that WILL come up at some point, and probably very soon. If this is about human rights, how can multiple humans wanting this to extend to them be told no?
If your only argument against gay marriage is that it could be extended to polygamous relationships then you should be more concerned to define marriage as a monogamous relationship between two individuals than to specify it as a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman.
I agree with you. But it's not wrong to assume that at some point a group of human beings who can consent are going to want to marry each other. It could be three people, or 103 people. Will you be prepared to give them the same freedoms? I'm not calling you out or accusing you of anything, and your answer may in fact be YES. But if at some point a large group of people want to marry each other, I don't see how anyone can tell them that they can't. I'm just throwing something out there that WILL come up at some point, and probably very soon. If this is about human rights, how can multiple humans wanting this to extend to them be told no?
Unlikely.
The basis for this decision is basically whatever heterosexual couples are capable of doing, homosexual couples are capable of as well. And if there are things that homosexual couples are incapable of, there are countless example of legally recognized heterosexual married couples who are also incapable of these things.
I can think of several real problems with 103 people getting married--most notably child custody. Having a child bounce around between 103 people would probably do irreparable harm.
What will the definition of marriage be if it's going to change?
I'm asking a legitimate question here and I'm interested in all answers.
If marriage is not between a man and a woman, is it fair to say it's between two people? Why two? If all humans who can give consent are free to marry each other, group marriage should be recognized too, right? As long as it's between consenting adults, the number of people involved should not matter going forward any more than the sexes of the people involved. If the game is going to change, it should change for everyone who has the right to give their consent.
Edit: For the record, if this country is going to recognize gay marriage, I believe that it should recognize all marriages between consenting adults, regardless of the number of people involved. In my opinion if a group of people are not doing anything to hurt anyone, they must be extended the same rights as gay people. That's what human rights should mean. And that means a lot more changes than many people are planning for could be coming.
Well, when the will of the people takes away the rights of others....
I'm sure the will of the people of Mississippi and Alabama would have been to keep slaves, keep interracial marriage illegal, etc. much longer than they did.
Right, it is succinctly unconstitutional for the majority people to infrindge the rights of the mnority. I believe this was the heart of the ruling-why Prop 8 was in fact illegal.
And besides we are defined as a nation with majority rule with minority rights.
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.
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.
