Gay Marriage: Put into it's proper perspective

"Easier to say" is no excuse for posting inaccurate information, and it's no excuse for posting falsehoods either.

If Prop 8 fails, same sex couples - regardless of their orientation, and regardless of whether or not they're relationship has a sexual component - will be able to marry, so long as they aren't barred by some other factor.

No requirement that they be gay. No requirement that they be in a sexual relationship. You have nothing to the contrary to offer that hasn't already been debunked. Concede.

 

Neither inaccurate or false. From The In Re Marriage case. Marrage for gays. Not for "same Sex couples" such as my brother and I. Or the single mother and grandmother down the street. Thats why they call it "gay marriage"

http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C4/43C4t757.htm
In light of the evolution of our state's understanding concerning the equal dignity and respect to which all persons are entitled without regard to their sexual orientation, it is not appropriate to interpret these provisions in a way that, as a practical matter, excludes gay individuals from the protective reach of such basic civil rights….

our recognition that this basic civil right is applicable, as well, to gay individuals…

operate clearly and directly to impose different treatment on gay individuals because of their sexual orientation….

the current California statutes realistically must be viewed as discriminating against gay persons on the basis of their homosexual orientation….

Lesbians and gay men . . . share a history of persecution comparable to that of Blacks and women…..

in light of the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay persons, there is a very significant risk that retaining a distinction in nomenclature with regard to this most fundamental of relationships ….

impinges upon this privacy interest, and may expose gay individuals to detrimental treatment by those who continue to harbor prejudices that have been rejected by California society at large…..

 

Wo there you rascal
Not letting you marry because its incest is not discrimination ageist you because your gay


may be discrimination against people who want to marry their relatives

not letting you marry your mother is not a reason to take marriage away from heterosexual couples

not letting you marry your brother is no reason to take marriage away from homosexual couples

 

Because a legal kinship already exists

 

He surely KNOWS that; start IGNORING him on that particular point. He just wants to obfuscate and deflect when he brings that up.

 

No (*)(*)(*)(*) sherlock. We are of the "same sex" and yet still prohibited from marrying. Im not gay and never claimed it was discrimination because I was gay.

 

Sorry your right it’s not discrimination against same sex couples because you and your brother cant marry do to your kinship
May be discrimination against people who want to marry their relatives

not letting you marry your mother is not a reason to take marriage away from heterosexual couples

not letting you marry your brother is no reason to take marriage away from homosexual couples

Now there’s a problem if you can marry your adopted brother you were raised with and not a genetic one

 

Im not taking away marriage from anyone. Cant take away what they never had.

 

didn’t people who got married to someone of the same gender before prop 8 took effect get to keep their marriage in California?

its no reson to whithhold it either

 

Splitting hairs

 

Silliness.

 

It was not my intent to try and convince you of anything. I view that as an exercise in futility.

 

Except they (same-sex couples) did briefly enjoy marriage equality prior to the passage of Prop 8.

Try another lie.

 

now that’s a feeling we all understand and share

 

Bull excrement. I'm still convinced that I'll be able to recruit Silhouette into a homosexual lifestyle.

And soon even Sec will be introducing himself as "Straight" instead of "Man".

 

Quote all the times the court used the word gay in their ruling all you like - it still doesn't mean that they limited the effect of their ruling solely to gay couples. They struck Prop 8 as a whole. And what did Prop 8 do? It banned recognition of marriages between persons of the same sex - the broader group. Prop 8 didn't have anything to do with preventing incestuous couples from marrying, so striking Prop 8 in its entirety changed nothing in that regard.

So I will spell it out for you:

Fact: Prop 8 = ban on civil recognition of same-sex marriages.

Fact: Being of the same sex is not the only barrier to civil recognition faced by some couples.

Fact: The overturning of Prop 8 applies only to the specific barrier it imposed - a barrier based on the sex of both spouses. Not their orientation, but their sex.

Fact: The overturning of Prop 8 did not remove other legal barriers to civil recognition faced by some same-sex couples.

Fact: The overturning of Prop 8 DOES APPLY to same-sex couples not barred by any other fact of law.

Fact: The set of same-sex couples includes gay couples, but is not exclusively comprised of gay couples.

Fact: The overturning of Prop 8 does apply to same-sex spouses who are not gay and who are not barred by any other fact of law.

Fact: The overturning of Prop 8 does not apply exclusively to gay couples. It applies to all same-sex couples not otherwise barred by any other fact of law.

Fact: The legal barriers that remain against civil marriage recognition of closely related couples applies to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

Fact: Because the set of same-sex couples who were barred from civil marriage recognition exclusively as an effect of Prop 8 includes persons who are not gay, and because the court did NOT limit it's ruling only to gay couples but instead struck Prop 8 in its entirety, it is a LIE to state that the ruling only applies to gay couples.

It doesn't apply, for example, to gay couples who are also barred because of being closely related. Overturning Prop 8 did not remove the latter barrier, because that barrier was not imposed by Prop 8.

It DOES apply, to couples who are of any orientation AND of the same sex AND not barred by any other fact of law.

These are indisputable facts. Concede.

 

Dixon's entire argument here using closely related couples as a prop is built on ignoring multiple layers of inclusion and exclusion from separate facts of law.

In complaining that the court treated gay people special for being gay, using close relation between brothers as an example of a non-gay same-sex couple still barred from civil marriage, Dixon asks us to ignore that closely related gay couples will also remain barred from civil marriage after Prop 8 is overturned. Dixon asks us to ignore that non-gay couples who aren't closely related (or barred for some other reason) got exactly the same thing from the overturning of Prop 8 as gay couples who aren't closely related (or barred for some other reason)

If the ruling was all inclusive of any gay couple while excluding some same-sex couples, he might have a point. However, that's not what the ruling did. The ruling was inclusive of some same-sex couples while excluding other same-sex couples. Gay people didn't get anything special in comparison to non-gay same-sex couples. Same-sex couples who aren't closely related did get something that closely related couples of both the same sex and opposite sexes did not. Why? Because the exclusion enacted with Prop 8 didn't change the status of closely related couples with regard to the ability to enjoy civil marriage recognition - it changed the status of same sex couples in that regard.

 

maybe he’s just trolling?

 

Nope. It was only discrimination against gay couples that was held to be a violation of the constitution and only gay couples that marriage was extended to. Affirmative action by the government to correct for the animus they perceive towards homosexuals. These are facts. Thats why its called "gay marriage"

 

Uuuuuhhh YEAH, because the In Re marriage case had only extended marriage to gay couples. It was only for gay couples that they were seeking "respect and dignity" with marriage.

 

I hope before my kids leave this world that labels are things of the past.

Not to go off topic but if that 17 year old kid in FL was shot because he was black....................then we have a long way to go.

 

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The things you state are not facts.

 

Also not true.

California Supreme Court Decision in In Re: Marriage cases

Like I said, you can quote every instance of the court saying "gay" or "gay marriage" all you like, but that doesn't change the final effect and directives of their ruling, which states explicitly that the designation of marriage must be made available to SAME SEX COUPLES, not just gay couples.

You don't have a leg to stand on. You've been caught once again making a false statement, and the proof against you couldn't be clearer.

Concede.

 

Nothing to concede.

 

Yes, same-sex marriage legislation is designed to deal in particular with the purported discrimination against Gay couples. This much is obvious in the debates and quotes pulled from legislation.

But it also does not specifically exclude non-gays at the same time. The legislation has them in mind, but the impact goes further. It makes it more similar to how opposite-sex marriage exists.... i.e. straight couples can marry, but even plutonic couples of the opposite sex can marry. Same-sex marriage would be no different.


It's kinda like laws in the south that required poll tax, or requirements to have certain levels of education before you vote... They impacted black, and white people. Eliminating those laws was specifically designed to aide black people who were disproportionately effected, but this did not exclude white people who also benefitted.