California Gay Marriage Ban Lifted

[Therumancer]

Besides which, the issue here is and always has been money. As someone pointed out early on (I haven't read all the responses) the whole "gay marriage" issue isn't one related to human rights and freedom, but the pursuit of the all mighty dollar. All of the stuff the judge mentioned in regards to that ruling have absolutly nothing to do with the central issue at stake. As things have stood for a while, there is nothing preventing a couple of homosexuals from exchanging vows during a party, and swapping rings or whatever. The meaning of which is totally between them and the community (and whether other gays consider the people involved 'off limits' being committed to each other). The issue of a marriage liscence comes down to legal recognition of the married status, and that legal status is generally only relevant in filing paperwork for tax breaks and the like. The tax breaks afforded to a married couple exist based on the presumption that they will be starting a family and having children, something that will not happen with a gay couple (pregnancy is not possible). Yes it IS true that not all heterosexual couples have children, but that was the intent of the laws and what happens in most cases. With homosexuals those tax breaks ultimatly come down to them being given free money for being gay, and one of the reasons why so many states waffle on the issue is when the bill comes due (so to speak) and they realize how much revenue it's going to actually wind up costing them.

Even if I wasn't anti-gay men, I wouldn't support gay marriage (and over the years I've met a number of very pro-gay people who I've debated with whom agree with me on these points). 10-20 years ago when hospitals were refusing visiting rights to homosexual "life partners" and such and similar kinds of issues there was more defense for seeking gay marriage laws. However as time as gone on most of those issues have been addressed and policies have changed greatly.

Generally speaking this would only be a constitutional issue if the goverment was preventing gays from getting married at all, not simply refusing to legally recognize it for tax purposes and such. A case could be made if say we had the police busting gay marriages and arresting the people involved for having the ceremony, or arresting gays with matching rings, or claiming exclusivity to each other based on vows. That's not what this is, it's 100% financial and bureaucratic. The judge speaks well to the crowd, and I think a lot of people are still ignorant about this specific issue and what it's about, getting caught up in the intertia of other beliefs they might have followed.

My general opinion on homosexuals aside, I do sort of agree with an earlier poster that has mentioned that we should probably do something about the tax breaks for married couples in general, and remove the entire issue of "goverment recognition of marriage" from the table entirely, and only see such benefits provided when they have kids. That would end a lot of this, as well as removing the fair point that there are heterosexual couples that wind up exploiting the marriage benefits without ever having kids (though I do believe they are a minority of people).

As I said to begin with, I expect this is going to be tossed back and forth for quite a bit yet.

In the end, understand that for all the fancy politics and powerfu imagery, this isn't a human rights issue. It's a money issue. Whether your in favor of gay rights, against them, or don't care, as things stand now this ultimatly comes down to the simple issue of your tax money and whether you believe gay couples should pay less taxes than you (and have more money in their pocket) just for being gay. Dress it up, dance around it, or look at it through a carnival mirror, that is what it comes down to.

You're saying that it's about "whether you believe gay couples should pay less taxes than you (and have more money in their pocket) just for being gay", but like you admit yourself, this is by no means about homosexuality, it's about married couples having more money if they don't have any children. And that's true about all married couples, straight and gay. And believe me - one thing a lot of gay people want is for the extra money to disappear thanks to their having kids, artificially inseminated, adopted or any other. One thing that bugs me is that you claim homosexuals are allowed to get married, they just don't get their marriages legally recognized. But the thing is, in most people's minds a marriage that isn't legally recognized isn't a marriage at all. You don't seem to understand that in most people's minds, "not being able to have your marriage legally recognized" is synonymous to "not being able to marry".

So to sum up my thoughts, this isn't about gay people having more money, it's about wanting gay love legally recognized. Your "more money for gays" argument has one fatal flaw - you don't realize that all the tax breaks given to gay married couples are also given to straight ones. The only way a straight couple won't have more money is if they choose to lose it because of their kids - so in fact gay people will still be on the losing end, since they'll have the same tax breaks as straight couples and less freedom. (Unless they live in a place where it's possible for them to have kids, of course. Adoption, insemination, etc.)

The problem with your arguement is that two wrongs do not make a right. The intent of the laws is obvious and has apparently been well documented, the tax breaks are to help with the expense of bearing and raising children. The tiny number of married heterosexual couples who do not do this, yet exploit the tax benefits are in the wrong and the system does need to be adjusted accordingly. The fact that they are doing wrong does not mean "oh hey, because of this tiny group of people, we should invite tons more to come in ant do the same thing, the intent of the laws be damned". It also comes down to the simple fact that covering those tax breaks is going to cost the goverment money, meaning that either other taxes are going to have to be raised to cover it, OR your going to deal with less money in the goverment treasury which is of course going to mean less money for things like road repair, schools, and other services the goverment provides. This latter point being one of the reasons why a lot of states that were hot on the issue wound up doing an about face. In the end we're not talking about a trivial amount of money connected to a symbolic point. We're talking about giving people a ton of money to make a symbolic point, despite the money being intended for something entirely differant.

Issues like adoption, insemination, and others are other contreversial topics, and ones that not everyone agrees on, and also represent such a tiny group of people where they are allowed to be a non-factor at this point. If society got to the point where you had gay couples having kids as a virtual certainy, then a case could be made for extending the benefits. As things stand now however it should be noted that in cases like adoption and foster kids there are already mechanisms put in place to help the people taking them in deal with the expense. I'm sure we've all heard of the abuses of the foster care system over the years. The bottom line though is that those benefits exist and are justified largely because a foster parent otherwise wouldn't be getting the benefits that the birth parents would.

As I said, I do think that the system itself needs to be reformed. A tax break being assigned to people only after they have actually had kids. That has no real influance on whether or not gays should receive those tax breaks now. The system being broken does not mean it's justified to break it worse.

Also, I'm not going to agree that a lack of legal recognition is akin to not being able to get married at all. To be entirely honest as far as the institution of marriage goes, goverment involvement is fairly recent, and largely because of benefits. The various laws we have exist because of the problems of keeping track of who has been married, and of course dealing with other issues like incest (which is why blood tests are required). I say this because I know enough people who have done geneology, where when you go back far enough (beyond a couple hundred years) you cease having any kind of reliable records, and have to look towards things like old town records if they even bothered to keep them. It can even
get to the point where the only way to trace a family is through family records if they kept them that long because nobody in positions of authority had any reliable method in place to keep it all straight. Of course a lot of it DOES have to do with where your family is from how long it was civilized, and of course how those policies played out.

The institution of marriage is basically a mechanism for two people to declare themselves exclusive to each other and "off limit" to others seeking a mate. In the end what really matters is whether that exclusivity is respected by the rest of the community. If your gay that means that other gays respect the bond and don't try and "pick you up". Beyond that it's all about legal benefits, since if someone is bothering to keep track of it in the goverment, they doubtlessly started doing so in order to figure out who was actually entitled to what.

 

[Datalord]

Frankly, people are letting their view of gay marriage and fear of being accused of bigotry get in the way of their understanding of this event.

There aren't federal laws regulating marriage, and since they are not mentioned in the constitution, they are specifically left to the will of the STATE.

Furthermore, the belief that the ban denies some people their rights is crap, as none of the amendments in the bill of rights (or any subsequent amendment for that matter) mentions the right to get married. So the legal defense is based on the idea that the constitution is a living document.

I know this is going to sound alarmist, but wth, if the government has the freedom to interpret the laws to their choosing, we have a government above the laws, then its only a few small steps till big brother is watching you.

President Obama's second term is up? not allowing him to run provides unequal rights,

Unnamed President x can't veto a bill passed unanimously through congress three times already? unequal rights.

We can't set up camera's everywhere to tell if you support to government? Oh wait, that violates the president's right to not be insulted, can't find it in the constitution? well the constitution is a living document, just because it hasn't been changed doesn't mean it hasn't changed meaning.

in the short pragmatic view, this was a good act
in the short idealistic view, this was a bad act
in the long pragmatic view, this was a horrible act

and as much as i would like to rant disjointedly for several more pages, the more i write, the more TLDNR's i'll get

I do believe that you're wrong about the amendment. It was the 14th I believe.

The fourteenth states that all citizens receive the same rights, it does not state that anyone has the right to marry whomever they may choose to marry.

So basically, this legal decision states that the government, not the law decides your rights, and if they can add rights as they please, eventually someone will remove rights as he, she, or they please.

 

[Therumancer]

See I have a problem with your point of view is that your only looking at half the benefits of marriage. Thier are other benefits besides tax breaks that by your logic nobody should get gay or straight or for that matter why should we allow interacial couples to marry. Your set to far into the past and like the typical american only ever think about money.

1) Its easier to get mortgages if your married
2) When you die your spouse inherits your posessions, another benefit of marriage
3) Power of attorney
4) Its a basic human right for two people to get married
5) Hospital privelages. They will often not let you visit somebody who is in critical care unless your a relative.
6) Disclosure rights

There are many many benefits of marriage that you dont consider. Then you also have to look at the fact of why should you be allowed to marry the person you love but they cant. That kind of seems unfair to me. Hell by your logic the only reason people ever get married anymore is because of tax breaks. Because hey its not about if they love each other or not its always about the money. You opinion may have been acceptable in the early 1900s but in todays society we should have to tolerate the shit your spewing. Why should you be allowed to discriminate against them when all they are asking for is the exact same rights that you have.

Actually, most of what you mention above is no longer a factor. Back 15 years or so such things in connection to gay marriage were a more valid point than they are now. Simply put the whole "Domestic Partner" thing works for most of those purposes where it used to be far less recognized. This includes things like mortgages because simply put the banks doing that want the business, and always did, they just wanted to avoid jumping in on a fad. Hospitals now also usually allow "domestic partners" to visit just like a spouse as well. Power of Attorney can be handed over to pretty much anyone you specify.


Things changed to address some of the valid points that were being made here, however the entire "gay marriage" thing has pretty much continued, because those kinds of "benefits" were always tertiary to the central points involved.

What's more I do not see marriage as a "fundemental human right" anymore than religion is a fundemental human requirement.

That said, there is nothing to prevent a couple of homosexuals from exchanging vows in front of a representitive of whatever force they believe in, and whose earthly organization is willing to accept them. The general purpose of marriage being to declare exclusivity to each other. In the end if other homosexuals respect the bond and don't continue to romantically pursue those that are married, then it's worked. If the bond doesn't mean anything to the community then it's a cultural problem and not a legal one.

I'll also go so far as to say that I don't think gay marriage has ever actually been illegal in that context, it's always been a matter of finding churches willing to perform the ceremony (which is changing). Even most of the anti-sodomy laws that have been on the books don't prevent it, though those laws DO mean that they would be committing a crime if they had sex despite the marriage.

Goverment recognition of marriage exists specifically due to goverment benefits like tax breaks. Things like marriage liscences also exist to prevent things like incest, again the central presumption being that a married couple is going to have kids. A baby born of close incest is going to be a liability to society and have a miserable life, so the goverment wants to prevent this kind of thing as much as possible, hence why blood tests have been such a big part of the liscensing process (there are other reasons as well, but that's a big one). Uncle Sam wants to make sure that nobody is lying on the paperwork so they can marry their sister.

The point being that the legal recognition doesn't exist for reasons that apply to homosexuals. It's unnessicary other than in terms of goverment granted benefits. Great strides in the other areas have taken place, and will continue to, and all of this has happened without recognizing gay marriage and granting tax breaks.

 

[HolyMoogle]

Again, very problematic. Western civilization is far older than Christianity's influence on it. You separate out the "Eastern cultures" from this analysis, yet it is absolutely not true that the West just sprang into existence at the birth of Christianity. Christianity didn't even take root in the West for some time.

You are very right that marriage has evolved much throughout the years - if it can "evolve" to be defined by the Christian religion which took over Europe, and can evolve to include people from greatly different classes/religions/races intermarrying, it can also evolve to include same-sex couples. The marriage as a religious institution argument always seems to deny the West its history and existence beyond and before Christianity, which is really quite demeaning to it. Consider ancient Greece being classified as the cradle of Western civilization - the West has history stretching back long, long before "Christendom".

You are 100% right, the West definitely has history from long before Christianity first reared its head.

That doesn't matter though. Marriage as we know it was solely a religious institution for hundreds of years, with the Church having complete control over it. It wasn't until relatively recently that governments began exerting some level of influence over it.

I'm not really saying anything about the history of marriage or anything else. I probably said it poorly, but what I was trying to get at is that right now, marriage in Western culture still retains much of the religious significance that it once held. As such, it is still a religious event/institution for many people.

Well sure, but you cannot deny that the 'marriage as a religious institution' argument pretty much always tries to claim that religion (read: Christianity) has sole "ownership" over the term and the concept, which is ludicrous and absurd. In a country built on the foundation of a separation of Church and State, and where people are free to choose their religion (or choose not to have a religion), the idea that one religion (or any) should determine what marriage is for the entire population is laughable.

 

[cobra_ky]

So basically, this legal decision states that the government, not the law decides your rights, and if they can add rights as they please, eventually someone will remove rights as he, she, or they please.

Which is exactly what Proposition 8 did. The California Supreme Court determined that there was a right to same-sex marriage under the state Constitution. Proposition 8 amended the Constitution to eliminate that right.

Spoiler: That is exactly how it was phrased when it appeared on the ballot.

What's more I do not see marriage as a "fundemental human right" anymore than religion is a fundemental human requirement.

Then do you disagree with Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia? It held that marriage was "a basic civil right of man" and a "fundamental freedom".

The point being that the legal recognition doesn't exist for reasons that apply to homosexuals. It's unnessicary other than in terms of goverment granted benefits. Great strides in the other areas have taken place, and will continue to, and all of this has happened without recognizing gay marriage and granting tax breaks.

I believe that gay married couples deserve to be treated the same as heterosexual married couples. If that means legalizing gay marriage, great. If that means eliminating the legal benefits surrounding marriage, just as well. If you want to replace marriage benefits with benefits for people who are raising children, more power to you. The important thing, at least for me, is that the law is applied equally on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.

 

[AcacianLeaves]

90% of species murder each other indiscriminately without thought. It's natural. So should we overlook that as well? What about rape? I'm certain not all those animals mounting each other are necessarily doing it consentually. What about interspecies? Dogs hump just about anything, so perhaps humans should be allowed to reciprocate? And of course, Animals don't pay an awful lot of attention to age, just whether a female is breedable or not.. well physiologically speaking, a human female is technically breedable at 13 years of age, sometimes younger. So you are saying, by that logic of "the animals do it! it's natural" that we can go ahead and do any of the things listed above as well right?

See the thing is, human beings are greater than our animal counterparts. We have a defined morality, we contemplate our actions, we perceive our world on a different level. So what we define as natural and allowable is only determined by the society that exists in that moment.
If this was ancient Rome, young bisexual relationships would have been all the norm, in fact almost a requirement if you wanted your friends to respect you. Of course, so was owning slaves... should we bring that back too? You know, since Rome had it all figured out on the sexual front? In Rome, feeding criminals to wild animals for sport was accepted... how about that?

My point here is merely to point out that EVERY argument has a valid counter argument from a certain perspective.

The fact that homosexuality occurs in nature is a counter to the argument that homosexuality is a choice and not part of nature.

The morality of homosexuality is an entirely different debate. If someone countered my argument that homosexuality occurs in nature with an argument that 'so does murder and rape', they would be admitting that homosexuality is not a choice and my point would be made.

When discussing the morality of homosexuality, there is one important question to ask - who is the victim in a consensual homosexual relationship or marriage? Murder, rape, bestiality, and sexual relationships with children all have definable victims. Consensual homosexual marriage has no victim, and therefore is objectively not immoral. You can say that it's against your religion or your own personal beliefs, but that doesn't make you a victim. Some people feel that divorce is immoral, should we then outlaw divorce? Legally speaking, we have to protect victims, and consensual homosexuality has none.

 

[LordWalter]

I love it when Americans start getting into a frenzy over the constitution no matter which side they are on. The Conservatives scream that it was passed unconsitutionally and that the Obama administration wants to murder everyone in their beds because they hate America, and the Democrats argue that the entire thing was unconstitutional from the start and should be overturned.
Thank god I live in England where all our polititions may be boring old farts, but they dont try and whip up a mass frenzy of misinformation and hate.

I can see the housing contract now:

"I solemnly promise to start spelling color like colour, to never express a preference for weather that isn't foggy, and to never throw your tea into the harbor while dressed as an Indian."

=p True. Hey, mind if I stay at your flat for awhile? aka forever?

Sure thing, I will make up a bed for you on the floor, mind the jar of leeches, they are the house pet since regular ones are not allowed. They feed on those that displease us.

 

[Datalord]

Frankly, people are letting their view of gay marriage and fear of being accused of bigotry get in the way of their understanding of this event.

There aren't federal laws regulating marriage, and since they are not mentioned in the constitution, they are specifically left to the will of the STATE.

Furthermore, the belief that the ban denies some people their rights is crap, as none of the amendments in the bill of rights (or any subsequent amendment for that matter) mentions the right to get married. So the legal defense is based on the idea that the constitution is a living document.

I know this is going to sound alarmist, but wth, if the government has the freedom to interpret the laws to their choosing, we have a government above the laws, then its only a few small steps till big brother is watching you.

President Obama's second term is up? not allowing him to run provides unequal rights,

Unnamed President x can't veto a bill passed unanimously through congress three times already? unequal rights.

We can't set up camera's everywhere to tell if you support to government? Oh wait, that violates the president's right to not be insulted, can't find it in the constitution? well the constitution is a living document, just because it hasn't been changed doesn't mean it hasn't changed meaning.

in the short pragmatic view, this was a good act
in the short idealistic view, this was a bad act
in the long pragmatic view, this was a horrible act

and as much as i would like to rant disjointedly for several more pages, the more i write, the more TLDNR's i'll get

I do believe that you're wrong about the amendment. It was the 14th I believe.

The fourteenth states that all citizens receive the same rights, it does not state that anyone has the right to marry whomever they may choose to marry.

So basically, this legal decision states that the government, not the law decides your rights, and if they can add rights as they please, eventually someone will remove rights as he, she, or they please.

I just fucking facepalmed. In fact, all intelligent people just fucking facepalmed! They all get the same rights. Yet only people who were heterosexual got to marry the person they were in love with. THAT'S NOT THE SAME MOTHERFUCKING RIGHTS!

Does no one understand? a LEGAL RIGHT is a right that the law mandates that you have. You have the right to freedom of speech, expression, and religion; you have the right to bear arms; you have the right to refuse to quarter troops in you house; while it may be fair to let anyone marry anyone they love, that's not the issue.

The issue is that the 14th deals with citizens receiving the rights listed in the constitution, regardless of context. So every citizen can plead the 5th, or the 2cd, or the 15th and they receive the rights listed in the amendment, however, there is not an amendment that specifies the right to marry, and as such it is not defended by the 14th.

However, more people would realize this if the ban rescinded was something completely pointless, like a ban on...say...the right to own manta rays, as opposed to something completely polarizing like gay marriage.

 

[Datalord]

So basically, this legal decision states that the government, not the law decides your rights, and if they can add rights as they please, eventually someone will remove rights as he, she, or they please.

Which is exactly what Proposition 8 did. The California Supreme Court determined that there was a right to same-sex marriage under the state Constitution. Proposition 8 amended the Constitution to eliminate that right.

I believe that gay married couples deserve to be treated the same as heterosexual married couples. If that means legalizing gay marriage, great. If that means eliminating the legal benefits surrounding marriage, just as well. If you want to replace marriage benefits with benefits for people who are raising children, more power to you. The important thing, at least for me, is that the law is applied equally on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.

Wait, they amended the constitution, with a popular vote, not overruled, but amended, using a legal method, then the federal government claimed that it violated federal law, and overruled the ban?
The feds ignoring the 10th, claiming existence of a mythical 64th amendment, and then in response to a state voting to change a law?

 

[Xojins]

I'll just come right out with it. The founding fathers were, like it or not, Christians, and they would never have wanted this for our country. They would have shaken their head at it. So how is it unconstitutional? Now excuse me while I ready my defensive procedures.

Because of that whole "separation of church and state" thing everyone likes to ignore, making gay marriage or homosexuality illegal for religious reasons is unconstitutional. If you can find a good reason that has nothing to do with religion whatsoever why gay people shouldn't get married, I'd like to hear it.

P.S. And really think hard about your response because the overwhelming majority of reasons I've heard have roots in religion at the very least.

I guess it all goes back to moral choice then, and where you draw you moral line. Like in abortion, whether or not you think it is right to suck the brains out of a 7 month old baby in the womb or not. Morality would be easier if everyone saw everything the same way. I don't believe it is a natural function of the body to find other guys attractive. I know a guy who said that he used to have slightly gay feelings, but he just said no to them and then he hasn't felt any since. But ask a guy who likes girls to bring that under control now...

Yes but morals still have roots in religion. If religion didn't exist in the world our idea of "morals" would be drastically different. Anyway homosexuality isn't a uniquely human phenomenon, it occurs in the wild (nature) as well, so how is it that unnatural?

 

[brainslurper]

@night templar
i dont give two shits what is a democracy and whats not, and it seems youve missed the point of that. if right now they said we would decide the presedent by making the two canidates kick eachother in the balls until one falls over and the other one is the winner, i would be totally fine with that, i would just hope it would be on tv. and john mcain was involved. but the idea that after a law has been passed by one power then another power who is not in charge of deciding whether prop 8 passed or not can come in after 2 years and say that its not allowed is retarded. if they were the ones to decide on the props then thats fucking fine but when they put someone else in charge of it then you cant come in and make up their mind for them.