Thread: I don't understand why gays want to marry

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Same would apply to any couple prevented by law from marrying, and yet, you are only concerned if they happen to be homosexual.

Homosexual couples are blatantly denied marriage; that is the concern of many.

Originally Posted by Johnny-C

Homosexual couples are blatantly denied marriage; that is the concern of many.

Can you show me ANY law that would even be concerned with ones homosexuality? Marriage laws are unconcerned with ones sexuality.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Can you show me ANY law that would even be concerned with ones homosexuality? Marriage laws are unconcerned with ones sexuality.

You are kidding, right?

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Same would apply to any couple prevented by law from marrying, and yet, you are only concerned if they happen to be homosexual.

Is there another large, mobilized group of couples currently prevented from marrying who have put in decades of lobbying and grass-roots legwork towards a single goal? If so let them make their case. It sounds like you'd like all kinds of other types of marriages legalized as well. Some fairly fringe ones, if you ask me, but who am I to judge? Get off your butt and start handing out flyers if you want your secret little obsessions validated. Complaining here about your inability to marry a horse won't get you any closer to a that blissful stable or that sweet, sweet hay. Careful about the side entrance, though. It's a bit of a slippery slope.

Hwey instead of "Marriage equality " for religious nutty Gay and Lesbians ,why not a unified campaign to abolish Marriage a culturally backward and oppressive religious social throwback .News flash the social institution responsible for the coverup of Violence and abuse is MARRIAGE ,how many destroyed lives abused humans smashed chilhoods is marriage responsible for ,how many women are enslaved sexually and Physically no more then SLAVES with Marraiges World wide?

the figure would run into 100's of millions.

Yet we have this crazy demand of a SMALL ,section of the Homosexual community for Religious Rites equality ,Amazing how many times do the Churches have to attack homosexuality before you understand until Religion is abolished or dies away they will be mortally hostile to Homosexuals ,now a small religious nutty group called the LGBTIQC wants to actually tie Homosexuals to the churches that hate them good thinking that get up and personal with those that have slaughtered ,Persecuted and oppressed people like your good selves for millenia and counting .

Outside the sick religious backward needs of religious nutter Gay and Lesbians Marraige Rites Equality makes no sense the churches couldn't have organised it better if thwey tried a Pretext to launch Provocations and open attacks on not the LBGTIQ community but the HOMOSEXUAL Commmunity as whole .


who are the idiots that started this insanity in the first place and are they Catholics????

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Can you show me ANY law that would even be concerned with ones homosexuality? Marriage laws are unconcerned with ones sexuality.

That is true which is why arguments based upon the sexual relations of the individuals involved are invalid. It is the prohibition of same-gender marriage that is at issue and that is gender discrimination. It doesn't even relate to procreation per se because most laws that provide benefits related to marriage are based upon the merged financial assets of the couple and are completely unrelated to children. This is where the true discrimination and violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment exists. Joint tax filing status, SSI spouse survivior and retirement benefits, bankruptcy laws, etc., are completely unrelated to children. They all deal with the merged financial assets of the couple (i.e. the personal financial partnership established by the couple) and they are completely unrelated to children or procreation.

It is the gender discrimination which is unconstitutional and this has nothing to do with sexual behavior or children or procreation.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

First of all, I think marriage should be removed from the government entirely and privatized as a contractual matter. Thus, anyone could enter into a private contract that they could call a marriage or anything, man, woman, one person, two people, whatever. I think this is appropriate and good way to satisfy everyone.

But regardless, I don't understand why same-sex couples want to get married in the first place. The whole point of marriage is not to be symbol for twoo wuv or anything of the sort, despite what Disney says about it. It has a legal role to regulate the bearing and raising of children, in regards to issues such as paternity, custody disputes, etc. Since a homosexual couple cannot bear children together, what's the point? It seems like it's more about a desire to assimilate than anything else, the idea that if gays are married, the soccer mom contingent will be more likely to accept them. Other than that, it's a mere symbol of romantic infatuation that could just as easily be expressed with Valentine's Day candy. Their free to enter into a contract and call it what they want--I wouldn't stop them. I just don't see the point.

The same goes, by the way, for heterosexual couples that do not want to have children. I don't see the point of marriage for them either.

Crickey you are in trouble ,I agree with you whole heartedly ,and think with the stripping away of the marriage tinsel,how happier and gayer the world would be .

Marriage contracts are property contracts ,now if we could just take the conponent that Humans could ever be defined as property then hey we are there.

Please note how the Homosexual commuity is being attacked and hijacked by something that calls itself the 'Gay and Lesbian "Community .they have to distort the Language in order to smuggle in their rightwing defence of the Human slavery concepts promoted by the religious biggots and oppressors of women with Marriage ,hey given a chioce of standing in the trench with the Female community [50%]of humanity and their struggle against marriage slavery ,and a bunch of nutty 'Gay " Right -wingRadicals,hey I know which truely represents the fight for Equality ,

My sisters,we see your plight with the mechanism of Marriage which the Patriarchal Religious Institution of Sexual slavery called "Marriage",we are fighting for your liberation against some nutty non-existant Queer strange very Right-wing group called the LGBTIQC, who not a single human defends, that wants to defend and prop up this inhumane "marriage slavery".

Are women still forced to say 'Love honour and OBEY' in the USA?

That should be Abolished !

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

Okay, so then why do so many not consider civil unions good enough? And wouldn't abolished government-licensed marriage (originally created to enforce such things as anti-miscegenation laws) solve this wholly?

Because in many places, civil unions do not carry the same rights and recognition (from a legal standpoint) as a formal marriage.

Originally Posted by dingoesatemybaby

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

Okay, so then why do so many not consider civil unions good enough? And wouldn't abolished government-licensed marriage (originally created to enforce such things as anti-miscegenation laws) solve this wholly?

Because in many places, civil unions do not carry the same rights and recognition (from a legal standpoint) as a formal marriage.

In fact civil unions never provide the identical rights and recognition as the legalized institution of marriage. While there have been several state court cases on this it is best summarized in the California State Supreme Court decision on Prop 22 which denied opposite-gender couples from marrying under state law:

Upon reviewing the numerous past California decisions that examine the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to marry, the opinion explains that the core substantive rights embodied in the right to marry “include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage.” The opinion then observes that “in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”

The opinion concludes that “in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.”

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/NR26-08.PDF

There is an even more egregious violation of equality when we address discrimination at the federal level where legally married same-gender couples under the laws of a state are denied equality under federal law. This was addressed in the case of COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS v UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ERIC K. SHINSEKI, and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA which is perhaps best summarized by the following summary:

In upholding the Commonwealth’s challenge, the Court found that because DOMA affected 1,138 different federal laws, including copyright protections, the right to care for a spouse under the FMLA, and testimonial privileges, it could not be sustained solely as an exercise of federal power under the “Spending Clause” (the right to determine how federal money is best spent to promote the general welfare). Furthermore, because DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause (as held in the companion case), DOMA cannot be justified even under the Spending Clause with respect to those applications addressing the disbursements of federal funds. Finally, the Court referenced the “collision course,” and held that DOMA “plainly intrudes on a core area of state sovereignty – the ability to define the marital status of its citizens.”

http://www.employeebenefitscounsel.c...federal-court/

In the Federal Court decision specific to DOMA and the marriage laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts of the Court stated:

The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the
firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that
reason, the statute is invalid.

http://www.healthcareemploymentcouns...20of%20HHS.pdf

With this said we can also comment that in California, after the State Supreme Court mades it's decision on Prop 22 that it violated the equal protection clause of the State Constitution the people of California sought to institutionalize this discrimination under the law with the passage of Prop 8 that would circumvent the State Constitution's requirement for equal protection. Prop 8 has already been declared to be an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by the 9th District Court and that decision has been upheld by a three judge panel of the 9th District Court of Appeals. Further litigation is anticipated and eventually this will probably be heard by the Supreme Court. As noted above in the Massachusetts DOMA case there have been 1,138 different federal laws identified which are inherently discriminatory related to marriage so it will be virtually impossible for the US Supreme Court to rule that the prohibitions against same-gender marriage are not a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

But that's not all because we now come to the most invidious action of all. Mitt Romney, the presumed Republican presidential candidate, has signed the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) pledge which calls for a US Constitutional Amendment to institutionalize this discrimination in the United States by circumventing the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. NOM is a political front organization for the Mormon Church, of which Romney is a member, and NOM was behind the passage of Prop 8 in California which circumvented the equal protection clause of the California State Constitution. They want to institutionalize discrimination under the Constitution of the United States.

Let us look at this in a historical perspective. It would have been the same as the case of Loving v Virginia where inter-racial marriage was prohibited but instead of the Supreme Court decision declaring it an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause a bunch of racists managed to get a Constitutional amendment passed prohibiting inter-racial marriage. This would have circumvented any ability of the Court to end the invidious racial discrimination at the time and the amendment proposed by NOM would circumvent the invidious gender discrimination we have today related to the marriage law.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

First of all, I think marriage should be removed from the government entirely and privatized as a contractual matter. Thus, anyone could enter into a private contract that they could call a marriage or anything, man, woman, one person, two people, whatever. I think this is appropriate and good way to satisfy everyone.

But regardless, I don't understand why same-sex couples want to get married in the first place. The whole point of marriage is not to be symbol for twoo wuv or anything of the sort, despite what Disney says about it. It has a legal role to regulate the bearing and raising of children, in regards to issues such as paternity, custody disputes, etc. Since a homosexual couple cannot bear children together, what's the point? It seems like it's more about a desire to assimilate than anything else, the idea that if gays are married, the soccer mom contingent will be more likely to accept them. Other than that, it's a mere symbol of romantic infatuation that could just as easily be expressed with Valentine's Day candy. Their free to enter into a contract and call it what they want--I wouldn't stop them. I just don't see the point.

The same goes, by the way, for heterosexual couples that do not want to have children. I don't see the point of marriage for them either.

http://stuff.digitalock.com/Will.I.Am-AlexOnTheSpot.mp3

On so many levels it doesn't matter. Since the beginning of time elders have been taking care of youngers.

http://stuff.digitalock.com/The_Corr...rae_France.mp3

Adoption of stranded kids is the most normal thing in the universe.