›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

«134567…39

Comments

  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    So we can straight folks get the benefits of civil unions?
  • AprecheApreche
    So we can straight folks get the benefits of civil unions?
    You can already, they just put a different word on it.
  • AndrewAndrew
    You can already, they just put a different word on it.
    That's the problem I have with Civil Unions, they just sound so much like "separate but equal".
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    You can already, they just put a different word on it.
    That's the problem I have with Civil Unions, they just sound so much like "separate but equal".
    It's just a word. If a civil union grants the EXACT same legal benefit as a marriage, then it doesn't matter what you call it. So if someone gets their knickers in a twist because gay people want to get "married," give 'em "civil unions" that do the exact same thing and tell everyone else to go stuff it.

    So, in reference to the decision, what was the situation? Did California have an option for gay people that was the legal equivalent of marriage before now, or not? If they didn't, this is totally 100% awesome. If they DID have some kind of thing that was "different but equal," then I don't see this as being such a big deal.
  • AndrewAndrew
    edited May 2008
    It's just a word. If a civil union grants the EXACT same legal benefit as a marriage, then it doesn't matter what you call it. So if someone gets their knickers in a twist because gay people want to get "married," give 'em "civil unions" that do the exact same thing and tell everyone else to go stuff it.
    Yeah, you're right. We can give them something exactly equal, but it will just be called something else so we can separate it from marriage. Wait...

    Black, White; they are both just words. If the water fountains are the same, what is the problem?
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited May 2008
    Did California have an option for gay people that was the legal equivalent of marriage before now, or not?
    Not.

    Meanwhile, Michael Medved says American superiority is genetic.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    You can already, they just put a different word on it.
    That's the problem I have with Civil Unions, they just sound so much like "separate but equal".
    I find the word "Civil" seems to water words down.
  • RyanRyan
    Today is a happy day indeed =), hopefully more states will begin to follow suit.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    I used to be against the idea of calling it marriage but I don't care anymore.

    I do have to wonder how this will affect the military.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    I do have to wonder how this will affect the military.
    Obama: Repeal of "Don't Ask" Possible
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    edited May 2008
    It's just a word. If a civil union grants the EXACT same legal benefit as a marriage, then it doesn't matter what you call it. So if someone gets their knickers in a twist because gay people want to get "married," give 'em "civil unions" that do the exact same thing and tell everyone else to go stuff it.
    Yeah, you're right. We can give them something exactly equal, but it will just be called something else so we can separate it from marriage. Wait...

    Black, White; they are both just words. If the water fountains are the same, what is the problem?
    Except that the water fountains WEREN'T equal. The "separate but equal" crap was used to give blacks the shaft by giving them a less-than-equal share.

    I'm talking about something that is 100% functionally identical to the idea of "marriage." In this case, it would do everything else, but it would have a different name. That's it. Just the name.

    If fundamentalists just want to preserve the WORD "marriage," why bother fighting it? Let them be bigots; you won't change that no matter how hard you try. Work around it and get the same thing anyway.

    If everyone is suddenly OK with calling it "marriage," then call it marriage. That's fine too. Seems to me that people from both sides seem to get hung up on the WORD. Just assign a new label to the same damn thing and go on your merry way.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    edited May 2008
    The repeal of "separate but equal" made many business owners happy. Those who wanted black customers simply could not have them due to backlash from the bigots in the area. Once the doors were blown open business no longer had to operate under those rules.

    Don't get me wrong, some did still choose to try to operate under those rules but business will always choose profit over politics.

    The only logical reason I can see for not wanting to call it marriage is that marriage has been accepted to mean "man and woman" for so long. It's kind of like when you go to IHOP to order a Big Grand Slam Breakfast and find out that they changed the name to Grand Bam Breakfast Meal. It's still the same meal but it just doesn't feel right until you get used to it.

    I have to wonder how this will affect the father's rights issues in divorce court? I know some courts typically side with the mother of the children but who will they side with if the kid has two dads?
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    The repeal of "separate but equal" made many business owners happy.
    You are really into the revisionist history, aren't you?
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    The repeal of "separate but equal" made many business owners happy.
    You are really into the revisionist history, aren't you?
    How is that (and my follow up sentence) revisionist history? I did not say "most" or "a majority" I said "many". As in "Being one of a large indefinite number".
  • AprecheApreche
    I've got a better idea. How about we get rid of state-sponsored marriage and marriage licenses altogether? Why do we need the government to give incentives to people to partner up? I think that people do a plenty good job of partnering up all on their own without incentives from the government.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    I've got a better idea. How about we get rid of state-sponsored marriage and marriage licenses altogether? Why do we need the government to give incentives to people to partner up? I think that people do a plenty good job of partnering up all on their own without incentives from the government.
    I think I wrote that months ago.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    Yeah, you're right. We can give them something exactly equal, but it will just be called something else so we can separate it from marriage. Wait...
    The problem with your argument is that marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. "Water fountain" was not defined as a "bubbler that dispenses water to whites." So the separate but equal argument does not apply to marriage. Civil unions are equivalent to marriages. And since a gay couple can never meet the criteria for marriage (man and woman), then it is appropriate to grant the same rights, but call it something unique - which is exactly what it is.
  • AndrewAndrew
    Except that the water fountains WEREN'T equal. The "separate but equal" crap was used to give blacks the shaft by giving them a less-than-equal share.
    Are you saying it would have been ok with it if the water fountains were in fact equal?
    I'm talking about something that is 100% functionally identical to the idea of "marriage." In this case, it would do everything else, but it would have a different name. That's it. Just the name.
    If it's just the name, then why bother? Didn't SCOTUS find that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal?

    I have no idea how you can think that having two separate but equal laws is not De jure racism. I'm surprised that you of all people are willing to bow down to bigoted assholes who get upset because of a single word. People don't have the right to not be offended.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Except that the water fountains WEREN'T equal. The "separate but equal" crap was used to give blacks the shaft by giving them a less-than-equal share.
    Are you saying it would have been ok with it if the water fountains were in fact equal?
    I'm talking about something that is 100% functionally identical to the idea of "marriage." In this case, it would do everything else, but it would have a different name. That's it. Just the name.
    If it's just the name, then why bother? Didn't SCOTUS find that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal?

    I have no idea how you can think that having two separate but equal laws is not De jure racism. I'm surprised that you of all people are willing to bow down to bigoted assholes who get upset because of a single word. People don't have the right to not be offended.
    The ban on gay marriage is not racism by analogy. The courts have already ruled as such.
  • AndrewAndrew
    The ban on gay marriage is not racism by analogy. The courts have already ruled as such.
    Which cases?

    I could be wrong, but personally I believe they are very similar. Besides, just because marriage has been defined as man and woman in the past doesn't mean it's right nor that we should respect it.
  • NeitoNeito
    Here's my prediction, based on what happened here (Massachusetts) when basically the same thing happened.
    All the religious freakjobs and homophobes will get really pissed and rant and rave and promise the sky falling in on their heads. However, the legislature will stall and stall and get deadlocked, and then everyone will basically stop caring and go back to life as usual, and everyone will realize that just because a guy can get married to other guys doesn't make it the end of the world.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    edited May 2008
    Baker vs. Nelson

    Many in the gay marriage movement have tried painting their issue as an extension of Loving vs. Virginia but have failed. That case involved criminal charges if you married outside your race. Gay marriage is not a criminal issue the way inter-racial marriage was treated in some states. Gay marriage is simply ignored, not prosecuted over.
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    edited May 2008
    Except that the water fountains WEREN'T equal. The "separate but equal" crap was used to give blacks the shaft by giving them a less-than-equal share.
    Are you saying it would have been ok with it if the water fountains were in fact equal?
    I'm talking about something that is 100% functionally identical to the idea of "marriage." In this case, it would do everything else, but it would have a different name. That's it. Just the name.
    If it's just the name, then why bother? Didn't SCOTUS find that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal?

    I have no idea how you can think that having two separate but equal laws is not De jure racism. I'm surprised that you of all people are willing to bow down to bigoted assholes who get upset because of a single word. People don't have the right to not be offended.
    I suppose I would be OK with a "separate but equal" scenario was EXACTLY 100% equal in all regards. The particulars of the "separate but equal" laws were such that they were inherently unequal. You're dealing with division of limited resources, and it's pretty much impossible to do that in a "separate but equal" fashion.

    However, you CAN make different but equal laws regarding marriage, since it's not separating limited resources.

    Now, on to a larger explanation. Yes, it's just a word. In a perfect world, everybody would be fine with everybody's decision of who to marry, and nobody would give two shits about someone else's love life. I long for that day, I really do.

    This isn't a matter of "bowing" to a bigot. "Bowing" to the bigot is actually sort of what we're doing right now; the whole goal of the bigot is to prevent gay people from enjoying equal rights. As long as we keep fighting about what to call it, while never instituting a solution, gay people won't have fully equal protection under the law. That's the goal: equal protection under the law. If all you have to do is call it a "civil union" and it'll do everything that a marriage would do, why fight it? Get the rights NOW, and just ignore the bigots. They're going to be there until we can advance to the point where everybody just accepts homosexuality.

    Basically, if you can get the rights now by calling it something else, just get the damn rights. You can't win a fight against the bigots, because they're irrational assholes. If you wait to get your rights until the bigots are willing to call it "marriage," you're going to wait a long time. Get the rights first, enjoy equal protection, and then with time maybe we can marginalize the bigots. Changing people's opinions as to the acceptability of homosexuality won't happen overnight; getting gay couples the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples will happen a hell of a lot faster.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • AndrewAndrew
    Basically, if you can get the rights now by calling it something else, just get the damn rights. You can't win a fight against the bigots, because they're irrational assholes. If you wait to get your rights until the bigots are willing to call it "marriage," you're going to wait a long time. Get the rights first, enjoy equal protection, and then with time maybe we can marginalize the bigots. Changing people's opinions as to the acceptability of homosexuality won't happen overnight; getting gay couples the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples will happen a hell of a lot faster.
    Yeah, I can see the sense in that. I guess I was wrong.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    Basically, if you can get the rights now by calling it something else, just get the damn rights. You can't win a fight against the bigots, because they're irrational assholes. If you wait to get your rights until the bigots are willing to call it "marriage," you're going to wait a long time. Get the rights first, enjoy equal protection, and then with time maybe we can marginalize the bigots. Changing people's opinions as to the acceptability of homosexuality won't happen overnight; getting gay couples the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples will happen a hell of a lot faster.
    Yeah, I can see the sense in that. I guess I was wrong.
    Well, the solution sucks balls. In a sense, I am saying to give up the fight, because the other side is a bunch of assholes. I'm not saying that I like that idea; I'm just saying it's the most practical solution I can see.

    I'd love to tell everyone that they should always fight for their principles, but that just doesn't always work. There are more fights out there than we can win; better to pick the ones you can actually win, or at least fight in such a way that you can make progress.
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    edited May 2008
    Has no-one made a "This will be good for Rym and Scott" joke yet? I would, but my American geography (or any kind of geography) is pretty bad so I couldn't do it justice.
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • ......
    Has no-one made a "This will be good for Rym and Scott" joke yet?
    They don't live in California. Sail does though...
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    edited May 2008
    I wasn't sure of the travel distance or arrangements.
    Funny answer: What distance can overcome their love?
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • ZakoSoldierZakoSoldier
    I still stand by my change all marriages to civil unions position. That way everyone has the same terminology on their tax forms. I don't really think that allow marriage is a big deal but for some this will. The only people who really care about this word switch are gay activists and super-Christians.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    That way everyone has the same terminology on their tax forms.
    If this is your main criteria for evaluating major social policy, then God help you.
Sign In or Register to comment.