California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

You're right, the decision here is on marriage. However, people are complaining about gay couples not having equal access the things that accompany marriage, but in CA...they did. So what does that mean? Equality isn't sufficient unless they're allowed to force their way into an establishment they traditionally haven't been a part of?

This argument is about semantics for a lot of people, but the continued efforts of the gay community, even when receiving something mirroring marriage, provides valuable insight to the goals of their movement.

So to liberals and gay persons, would nationwide civil unions, if not called marriage, be sufficient?

This is so not an argument about semantics. This was discussed I thought really well a few pages ago, but to re-visit the question, NO, civil unions or domestic partnerships ARE NOT nearly the same as marriage. Read here: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html for full info. Prime points below:

Definitions

“Same-sex marriage” means legal marriage between people of the same sex.
* Massachusetts issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples (since 2004). On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. When the ruling goes into effect in June 2008, California will be the second state to legalize same-sex marriages.

“Civil union” is a category of law that was created to extend rights to same-sex couples. These rights are recognized only in the state where the couple resides.
* Vermont (since 2000), Connecticut (since Oct. 2005), New Jersey (since Dec. 2006), and New Hampshire (since 2007).

“Domestic partnership” is a new category of law that was created to extend rights to unmarried couples, including (but not necessarily limited to) same-sex couples. Laws vary among states, cities, and counties. Terminology also varies; for example, Hawaii has “reciprocal beneficiaries law.” Any rights are recognized only on the state or local level.
* Statewide laws in California, Hawaii, and Maine, Oregon, Washington, and district-wide laws in the District of Columbia, confer certain spousal rights to same-sex couples.

What's the Difference?

The most significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.

[shinerbock]

I think it is often an argument about semantics. A lot of conservatives feel this way, me being one. I really don't care if gays are given treatment similar to married couples. However, I will resist efforts to include homosexuals under the label of "marriage," because in my mind and the minds of millions of Americans, they simply don't meet the definition of the term.

Hence me asking about nationwide civil unions (meaning federally recognized).

Of course, many on my side of this argument will say they shouldn't be given equal benefits because the same motivations aren't present. I think their argument is valid, I just don't care enough to fight for it.

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

This is so not an argument about semantics. This was discussed I thought really well a few pages ago, but to re-visit the question, NO, civil unions or domestic partnerships ARE NOT nearly the same as marriage. Read here: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html for full info. Prime points below:

Definitions

“Same-sex marriage” means legal marriage between people of the same sex.
* Massachusetts issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples (since 2004). On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. When the ruling goes into effect in June 2008, California will be the second state to legalize same-sex marriages.

“Civil union” is a category of law that was created to extend rights to same-sex couples. These rights are recognized only in the state where the couple resides.
* Vermont (since 2000), Connecticut (since Oct. 2005), New Jersey (since Dec. 2006), and New Hampshire (since 2007).

“Domestic partnership” is a new category of law that was created to extend rights to unmarried couples, including (but not necessarily limited to) same-sex couples. Laws vary among states, cities, and counties. Terminology also varies; for example, Hawaii has “reciprocal beneficiaries law.” Any rights are recognized only on the state or local level.
* Statewide laws in California, Hawaii, and Maine, Oregon, Washington, and district-wide laws in the District of Columbia, confer certain spousal rights to same-sex couples.

What's the Difference?

The most significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.

[Rudey]

Nobody seems able to answer why someone can't marry their pet, their sister, or engage in polygamy. Sure, sure you judge it as a bad thing but I'm sure the people that engage in it would rather not be judged for what they do in their own time.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by Rudey

Nobody seems able to answer why someone can't marry their pet, their sister, or engage in polygamy. Sure, sure you judge it as a bad thing but I'm sure the people that engage in it would rather not be judged for what they do in their own time.

Because they can't.

I think this another part of the issue with gays getting married. The fear is that if you let them get married, then why stop there? Why not let people marry their pets (this was actually part of an episode on Southpark), sister or openly and legally engage in polygamy.

As noted earlier, this issue becomes a very slippery slope. How do you know when to stop. Because just as gays feel that their rights are being violated, then those that want to marry their pig, sister, neighbor's girls who live down the street will want to fight for the same right.

All in all, the only group who would benefit from all these marriages would be Target's bridal registry.

[Dionysus]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Because they can't.

I think this another part of the issue with gays getting married. The fear is that if you let them get married, then why stop there? Why not let people marry their pets (this was actually part of an episode on Southpark), sister or openly and legally engage in polygamy.

As noted earlier, this issue becomes a very slippery slope. How do you know when to stop. Because just as gays feel that their rights are being violated, then those that want to marry their pig, sister, neighbor's girls who live down the street will want to fight for the same right.

All in all, the only group who would benefit from all these marriages would be Target's bridal registry.

Honestly, I wouldn't give a damn if someone wanted to marry their sister or more than one person.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by Dionysus

Honestly, I wouldn't give a damn if someone wanted to marry their sister or more than one person.

Coming from you, I am not surprised.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Because they can't.

I think this another part of the issue with gays getting married. The fear is that if you let them get married, then why stop there? Why not let people marry their pets (this was actually part of an episode on Southpark), sister or openly and legally engage in polygamy.

As noted earlier, this issue becomes a very slippery slope. How do you know when to stop. Because just as gays feel that their rights are being violated, then those that want to marry their pig, sister, neighbor's girls who live down the street will want to fight for the same right.

All in all, the only group who would benefit from all these marriages would be Target's bridal registry.

This is actually pretty easily answered -- two adults have the capacity to consent and others are not hurt by their decision to marry. An animal/child doesn't have the capacity to consent.

As for incest, the likelihood of birth defects means that your decision to procreate hurts others.

Gays being married really hurts no one.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by Kevin

This is actually pretty easily answered -- two adults have the capacity to consent and others are not hurt by their decision to marry. An animal/child doesn't have the capacity to consent.

As for incest, the likelihood of birth defects means that your decision to procreate hurts others.

I agree with this too.

But, an argument presented to me was that the basic human rights of gays are being denied because they can not marry who they want. Couldn't someone who wants to marry their pig say the same thing? Their basic human rights to marry who they want is being denied? Because they know their pig loves them as much as they do and the best way to express their love is to marry their pig.

Gays being married really hurts no one.

On a day to day basis, no. In terms of a moral fabric, I feel yes, it does.

[AGDee]

The argument was that two consenting adults who can marry without harming anybody should be allowed to. A pig is not a consenting adult. As noted above, if a brother and sister procreate, there is a great chance for harm to the child. I'm not convinced that polygamy should be illegal either. Perhaps if it were legal, there would be more control over whether groups like the FDLS would be marrying children and hiding out in compounds. I am of the mind frame that anything that doesn't harm anybody else or infringe on someone else's rights should be legal.

Not allowing gays to be married doesn't change the fact that they are gay and living a gay lifestyle. Allowing gays to be married isn't going to increase the number of homosexuals in our country. Either they are gay or they aren't. Nothing you believe is going to change that fact.

It seems as though our basic difference is that I don't believe you can or should legislate morality and you do. We clearly each feel strongly about that basic premise and we clearly won't be changing each other's minds. I think the debate is worth hashing out and I do appreciate a good debate that is done without insults and name calling

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by Kevin

This is actually pretty easily answered -- two adults have the capacity to consent and others are not hurt by their decision to marry. An animal/child doesn't have the capacity to consent.

As for incest, the likelihood of birth defects means that your decision to procreate hurts others.

Gays being married really hurts no one.

Kevin, you should learn to read better.

An animal does not consent to being shocked, having a bullet put into its head, being cut up, and served to you on your dinner plate. But you do it anyway. So now you're worried about its right to consent?

And you don't have to have babies with incest. Now what? It hurts no one right?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Rudey

Kevin, you should learn to read better.

An animal does not consent to being shocked, having a bullet put into its head, being cut up, and served to you on your dinner plate. But you do it anyway. So now you're worried about its right to consent?

And you don't have to have babies with incest. Now what? It hurts no one right?

Some would argue, marriage is a different (and often worse) fate than becoming someone's dinner.