Full Version: Gay marriage, revisited
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Nov 10 2006, 01:09 PM) 
The one in Arizona. That was rejected for reasons having almost nothing to do with same-sex marriage, as noted in this article:
I know... the heterosexuals also wanted the ability to have the benefits of marriage without having to be married. So, it's okay to have heterosexual domestic partnerships rather than marriage... more children born out of wedlock?
Is it constitutional for the State of Arizona to knowingly allow non-procreative couples to marry and yet deny that right to same-sex couples because of the fact that they can't procreate? Is it not bigotry to defeat a bill intended to reserve marriage benefits for those who are married only because it affects straight couples as well? The people of Arizona want to protect the institution of marriage by maintaining domestic partnership benefits for unmarried people? Inviting more children to be born out of wedlock? How does this protect the institution of marriage, Blackstone?
QUOTE
QUOTE(entspeak)
And, New Jersey has also just become another state that will allow same-sex unions.
Again, by judicial fiat.
Really? Did the State of New Jersey argue that limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman was needed to encourage procreation? Did the State of New Jersey argue that it was needed in order to create an optimal living environment for children?
QUOTE(Blackstone)
They're most certainly allowed to marry. When people apply for a marriage license, no one even asks their sexual orientation. All that's happening is that marriage laws don't serve the preferences of homosexuals. There's nothing requiring every law to suit everyone's preferences equally, or even at all.
I didn't realize it was necessary for me to say "by not allowing homosexuals to marry EACH OTHER"...Evidently it is. And yes, there is, in fact a law that requires every law to suit everyone equally, a pretty important one, the Constitution: QUOTE
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If gays can't marry/unionize they are not guarenteed next of kin rights along with some others:
QUOTE
Parties to a civil union are given all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under Vermont law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage. These include:
Mutual financial support. Parties to a civil union shall be responsible for the support of one another to the same degree and in the same manner as prescribed under law for married persons.
Domestic relations law. The law of domestic relations, including annulment, separation and divorce, child custody and support, and property division and maintenance, adoption, and spouse abuse shall apply to parties to a civil union.
Laws regarding child custody and support. The rights of parties to a civil union, with respect to a child who either has become a natural parent to during the term of the civil union, shall be the same as those of a married couple, with respect to a child who either spouse has become the natural parent to during the marriage.
Property law and laws relating to decedents estates and probate. The laws relating to title, tenure, descent and distribution, intestate succession, waiver of will, survivorship, or other incidents of the acquisition, ownership, or transfer, inter vivos or at death, of real or personal property, including eligibility to hold real and personal property as tenants by the entirety (parties to a civil union meet the common law unity of person qualification for purposes of a tenancy by the entirety); probate law and procedure, including non-probate transfer apply to parties to a civil union.
Tort law. The laws relating causes of action related to or dependent upon spousal status, including an action for wrongful death, emotional distress, loss of consortium, dramshop, or other torts or actions under contracts reciting, related to, or dependent upon spousal status apply to parties to a civil union.
Tax laws and public assistance. The laws relating to taxes imposed by the state or a municipality other than estate taxes; to public assistance benefits under state law; the homestead rights of a surviving spouse under 27 V.S.A. § 105 and homestead property tax allowance under 32 V.S.A. § 6062 apply to parties to a civil union.
Spousal benefits. The laws relating to group insurance for state employees under 3 V.S.A. § 631, and continuing care contracts under 8 V.S.A. § 8005; victim's compensation rights under 13 V.S.A. § 5351; workers' compensation benefits; state pay for military service under 20 V.S.A. § 1544; and family leave benefits under 21 V.S.A. chapter 5, subchapter 4A apply to parties to a civil union.
Right to make medical decisions and to take family leave. Laws relating to emergency and non-emergency medical care and treatment, hospital visitation and notification, including the Patient's Bill of Rights under 18 V.S.A. chapter 42 and the Nursing Home Residents' Bill of Rights under 33 V.S.A. chapter 73; laws relating to the making, revoking and objecting to anatomical gifts by others under 18 V.S.A. § 5240; terminal care documents under 18 V.S.A. chapter 111, and durable power of attorney for health care execution and revocation under 14 V.S.A. chapter 121, subchapter 2 apply to parties to a civil union.
Other laws that may apply to parties to a civil union
prohibitions against discrimination based upon marital status;
laws relating to immunity from compelled testimony and the marital communication privilege;
the definition of family farmer under 10 V.S.A. § 272;
application for absentee ballot under 17 V.S.A. § 2532;
family landowner rights to fish and hunt under 10 V.S.A. § 4253;
legal requirements for assignment of wages under 8 V.S.A. § 2235; and
affirmance of relationship under 15 V.S.A. § 7.
Mutual financial support. Parties to a civil union shall be responsible for the support of one another to the same degree and in the same manner as prescribed under law for married persons.
Domestic relations law. The law of domestic relations, including annulment, separation and divorce, child custody and support, and property division and maintenance, adoption, and spouse abuse shall apply to parties to a civil union.
Laws regarding child custody and support. The rights of parties to a civil union, with respect to a child who either has become a natural parent to during the term of the civil union, shall be the same as those of a married couple, with respect to a child who either spouse has become the natural parent to during the marriage.
Property law and laws relating to decedents estates and probate. The laws relating to title, tenure, descent and distribution, intestate succession, waiver of will, survivorship, or other incidents of the acquisition, ownership, or transfer, inter vivos or at death, of real or personal property, including eligibility to hold real and personal property as tenants by the entirety (parties to a civil union meet the common law unity of person qualification for purposes of a tenancy by the entirety); probate law and procedure, including non-probate transfer apply to parties to a civil union.
Tort law. The laws relating causes of action related to or dependent upon spousal status, including an action for wrongful death, emotional distress, loss of consortium, dramshop, or other torts or actions under contracts reciting, related to, or dependent upon spousal status apply to parties to a civil union.
Tax laws and public assistance. The laws relating to taxes imposed by the state or a municipality other than estate taxes; to public assistance benefits under state law; the homestead rights of a surviving spouse under 27 V.S.A. § 105 and homestead property tax allowance under 32 V.S.A. § 6062 apply to parties to a civil union.
Spousal benefits. The laws relating to group insurance for state employees under 3 V.S.A. § 631, and continuing care contracts under 8 V.S.A. § 8005; victim's compensation rights under 13 V.S.A. § 5351; workers' compensation benefits; state pay for military service under 20 V.S.A. § 1544; and family leave benefits under 21 V.S.A. chapter 5, subchapter 4A apply to parties to a civil union.
Right to make medical decisions and to take family leave. Laws relating to emergency and non-emergency medical care and treatment, hospital visitation and notification, including the Patient's Bill of Rights under 18 V.S.A. chapter 42 and the Nursing Home Residents' Bill of Rights under 33 V.S.A. chapter 73; laws relating to the making, revoking and objecting to anatomical gifts by others under 18 V.S.A. § 5240; terminal care documents under 18 V.S.A. chapter 111, and durable power of attorney for health care execution and revocation under 14 V.S.A. chapter 121, subchapter 2 apply to parties to a civil union.
Other laws that may apply to parties to a civil union
prohibitions against discrimination based upon marital status;
laws relating to immunity from compelled testimony and the marital communication privilege;
the definition of family farmer under 10 V.S.A. § 272;
application for absentee ballot under 17 V.S.A. § 2532;
family landowner rights to fish and hunt under 10 V.S.A. § 4253;
legal requirements for assignment of wages under 8 V.S.A. § 2235; and
affirmance of relationship under 15 V.S.A. § 7.
The above came from this link.
CP
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Nov 12 2006, 03:13 PM)
QUOTE(Blackstone)
They're most certainly allowed to marry. When people apply for a marriage license, no one even asks their sexual orientation. All that's happening is that marriage laws don't serve the preferences of homosexuals. There's nothing requiring every law to suit everyone's preferences equally, or even at all.
I didn't realize it was necessary for me to say "by not allowing homosexuals to marry EACH OTHER"...Evidently it is.I think the point is, the term "discrimination" and "not allowed to marry" are being thrown around when it is clearly not true. Gays can marry just like anyone else. However, they also want to be able to marry someone of the opposite sex - something it is not possible for heteros to do either. It is a level playing field (rightly or wrongly) with nobody being favored. However, gays want to extend marriage to include same sex, but it doesn't mean they relinquish the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
There is no "either or". If a same sex marriage ends in divorce, they can remarry opposite sex people if they so choose. That right will never be removed.
The complaint that gays can't marry someone of the opposite sex is a valid argument. However, saying they are being discrimnated against or not allowed to marry is just not true
QUOTE(DaytonRocker)
think the point is, the term "discrimination" and "not allowed to marry" are being thrown around when it is clearly not true. Gays can marry just like anyone else. However, they also want to be able to marry someone of the opposite sex - something it is not possible for heteros to do either. It is a level playing field (rightly or wrongly) with nobody being favored. However, gays want to extend marriage to include same sex, but it doesn't mean they relinquish the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
DR, I don't get it. The whole "point" of homosexuality is that you are attracted to members of the same sex; what good is being able to marry women if you are a gay man? This argument doesn't hold water. By definition heterosexual men can't marry men, otherwise they'd be gay. The logic you're using is circular. Hetero men not being able to marry men does not mean that gays are equal, it simply means that the definition of heterosexual entails one not marrying a member of the same sex. In addition, and as I said before, heterosexual men who marry are afforded rights that gay men cannot, by law receive, that is by definition "unequal" and therefore descrimination, and per the 14th Amendment, illegal. As I said, I'm not getting it.CP
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Nov 12 2006, 10:48 PM)
DR, I don't get it. The whole "point" of homosexuality is that you are attracted to members of the same sex; what good is being able to marry women if you are a gay man?
Anne Heche. Bisexuals. Transsexuals. Sexually confused people. That list is endless. I don't see how you couldn't understand it unless you don't want to see it.
CP, dont buy into this baloney, Dayton has used this often, as many against gay marriage have used the 'what about marrying goats' theory. Anywhere, any lint filled, dusty space because there is no real argument, other than religious, and the 'ick' factor to deny marriage to homosexuals. Its been debated time and time again, which was NOT the reason I started this thread.
Its true that many states have passed anti-gay marriage amendments, but I feel this is as reactionary as people shutting down schools not to allow blacks in to study. Gay marriage will be a given in our lifetime, as it is in Canada, Spain and many countries today, with realistic, logical, tolerant and kind people doing the voting. We just have a bunch of mean ugly bigots in this country, but the youth, they get it. Its just a matter of time.
Its true that many states have passed anti-gay marriage amendments, but I feel this is as reactionary as people shutting down schools not to allow blacks in to study. Gay marriage will be a given in our lifetime, as it is in Canada, Spain and many countries today, with realistic, logical, tolerant and kind people doing the voting. We just have a bunch of mean ugly bigots in this country, but the youth, they get it. Its just a matter of time.
QUOTE(DR)
Anne Heche. Bisexuals. Transsexuals. Sexually confused people. That list is endless. I don't see how you couldn't understand it unless you don't want to see it.
Pardon my idiocy, now I'll be able to tell all the gay people I know that they can marry women. Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty they are free at last 
. DR, if you're GAY, you are not BISEXUAL, they are two separate categories, your last post is a nonsequiteur. The argument your making, honestly, DR is absurd. Gays, by definition are attracted to and would marry the OPPOSITE sex, and not all gay people are bisexuals, most are not. Do you have anything to say about the fact that gays are not "eligible" for the same rights as heterosexuals, other than to say that gays are perfectly free to simply convert to bisexualism?CP
QUOTE(Dayton Rocker)
Gays can marry just like anyone else.
You mean the way Richard Loving could have married a white woman? When the Supreme Court decided in Loving v. Virginia that marriage was a "fundamental civil right", why did they not just play stupid semantic games and claim the Lovings were free to marry people they weren't in love with.
QUOTE(Artemise @ Nov 12 2006, 11:16 PM)
CP, dont buy into this baloney, Dayton has used this often, as many against gay marriage have used the 'what about marrying goats' theory.
There ya go...I was wondering how long it would take for the "we hate your argument, so shut up" rants.
Do me a favor Artimese - show me one specific example of where I've suggested non-consenting adults (e.g. goats, sheep, etc) in an argument and/or a religious reason. Just one. I'm asking nicely. The entirety of my arguments are based on people marrying people - everytime. And there are a lot of gray areas in that realm that you people deny exist as it relates to same sex marriage.
If there is nothing to debate, why have the thread? Why not create a thread titled: "List all your reasons you are for gay marriage". I think you guys would feel much better about it then...
QUOTE(DR)
Why not create a thread titled: "List all your reasons you are for gay marriage". I think you guys would feel much better about it then...
I'm sorry, "you guys"? Who is "you guys"? I responded to your argument...twice, as did Grendel [welcome back by the way!]. Saying that gays are equal to heterosexuals because heterosexual men can't marry men either is ridiculous for the reasons I've stated. The fact is that homosexuals are denied the rights I cited above unless they are lucky enough to live in a state with civil unions and that is unequal and therefore unConstitutional.On edit: BTW, I didn't see just where Artimise told you to "shut up" and I hardly call her post a "rant".
CP
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Nov 12 2006, 09:31 PM)
I think the point is, the term "discrimination" and "not allowed to marry" are being thrown around when it is clearly not true. Gays can marry just like anyone else. However, they also want to be able to marry someone of the opposite sex - something it is not possible for heteros to do either. It is a level playing field (rightly or wrongly) with nobody being favored. However, gays want to extend marriage to include same sex, but it doesn't mean they relinquish the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
There is no "either or". If a same sex marriage ends in divorce, they can remarry opposite sex people if they so choose. That right will never be removed.
The complaint that gays can't marry someone of the opposite sex is a valid argument. However, saying they are being discrimnated against or not allowed to marry is just not true
USSC on classifications under the Equal Protection Clause... from GULF, C. & S. F. R. CO. v. ELLIS, 165 U.S. 150 (1897) – section used as precedent in McLAUGHLIN v. FLORIDA, 379 U.S. 184 (1964) which, in turn was used as precedent in Loving v. Virginia.
QUOTE
But it is said that it is not within the scope of the fourteenth amendment to withhold from states the power of classification, and that, if the law deals alike with all of a certain class, it is not obnoxious to the charge of a denial of equal protection. While, as a general proposition, this is undeniably true, yet it is equally true that such classification cannot be made arbitrarily. The state may not say that all white men shall be subjected to the payment of the attorney's fees of parties successfully suing them, and all black men not. It may not say that all men beyond a certain age shall be alone thus subjected, or all men possessed of a certain wealth. These are distinctions which do not furnish any proper basis for the attempted classification. That must always rest upon some difference which bears a reasonable and just relation to the act in respect to which the classification is proposed, and can never be made arbitrarily, and without any such basis.
The fact that homosexuals are still allowed to marry those of the opposite sex does not make the bans constitutional in light of the Equal Protection Clause. This argument was put forth in support of anti-miscegenation laws and didn't fly because, as was expressed in Perez v. Sharp:
QUOTE
...the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice...
While this case dealt with race, it doesn't change the fact that the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice. Any restriction on that choice is subject to challenge and review based on the fact that marriage is recognized as a fundamental right. So, the fundamental right to marry is the right to marry the person of one's choice. This does not automatically make any restriction on the choice of who we marry unconstitutional, but the government must prove – and the burden of proof is on the government – that the restriction is not arbitrary and that it is necessary in order to further some purpose.
So, your argument that homosexuals still have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex – and, therefore, there is no invidious discrimination – is absurd. We have the right to marry the person of our choice and the government may only restrict that choice if it serves a valid State interest and the restriction is necessary in order to further that interest.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.