News Federal Judge Strikes Down Prop 8: California Gay Marriage Ban

[Jack21222]

I'm surprised I don't see a thread about this already up.

A federal judge struck down California's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage today.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/08/04/california-same-sex-marriage.html

Proposition 8 outlawed gay marriages in Callifornia, five months after they were legalized by the state's Supreme Court. The proposition was approved by 52 per cent of California voters in a referendum and passed by the state legislature.

Two gay couples who said the ban violated their civil rights were plaintiffs in the challenge.

Proposition 8 "fails to advance any rational basis for singling out gay men and women," Walker wrote in his ruling. "[This law] does nothing more than enshrine … that opposite-sex couples are superior."

The ruling will be appealed, of course, and will likely end up in the Supreme Court. This ruling is a huge step in the right direction for equality and civil rights. I have never heard a single sensible argument against same-sex marriage. Most come down to one of two things:

1) The dictionary says it's wrong

or:

2) The Bible says it's wrong

Neither of which are a good enough reason to discriminate based on gender. If a woman can marry a man, why can't another man do so? The government cannot discriminate based on gender without some compelling state interest. So far, no such compelling state interest has ever been demonstrated in court to my knowledge.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Why can a woman marry a man? No compelling state interest has been shown. I'm opposed to it. (As well as gay marriage.)

But the legal decision was the correct one, of course; insofar as the state must recognize marriage at all it must do so with equal protection.

 

[chemisttree]

So, if you are gay and in a same sex marriage and you are in the military, do you tell anyone? Sticky, sticky, sticky...

 

[lisab]

Yes it will be appealed, but I'd be surprised if this ends up in the Supreme Court. I mean it will get there but the Court will decline to hear it, I think. They're going to let the states deal with this issue.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Yes it will be appealed, but I'd be surprised if this ends up in the Supreme Court. I mean it will get there but the Court will decline to hear it, I think. They're going to let the states deal with this issue.

But the federal judiciary has already acted and said the states cannot deal with the issue. So to restore the situation where the states handle it, a higher court would need to overturn this.

This is a very interesting legal issue. Some questions that will surely come up:

1) Does a state have the right to craft a bad law? When can and when must the federal government step in?

2) US territories, where the federal government has more direct control than states, have differing rules on this. If the federal decision trumps state decisions, which federal decision?

3) Is this a Tenth amendment or a Fourteenth Amendment case? If the Tenth, doesn't the State get to "deal with the issue"? If the Fourteenth, where the Congressional action? (In the 14th, it's Congress that has the power to enforce)

(Note that I am not arguing that gay marriage is a good idea or a bad idea. I am arguing that the legal basis of the decision will have profound impacts on the question of how the US democracy is structured)

 

[talk2glenn]

Why can a woman marry a man? No compelling state interest has been shown. I'm opposed to it. (As well as gay marriage.)

But the legal decision was the correct one, of course; insofar as the state must recognize marriage at all it must do so with equal protection.

I generally agree that the state should recognize same-sex marriage to the extent that it recognizes any marriages, but is it really an equal protection issue?

The supreme court traditionally respects three categories of 14th amendment interpretation:

A) Racial discrimination laws, which are always illegal.
B) Gender discrimination laws, which are illegal unless there is a compelling, important public interest.
C) Everything else (which would include laws which discriminate based on sexual orientation), which are always legal unless there is shown to be no rational basis for the discrimination.

The prop 8 case was argued on the broadest basis of 14th amendment interpretation, the rational basis. So the courts effectively found that, based on the testimony offered, there was no rational reason for the state to deny marriage licenses to same sex couples. Doesn't this effectively declare the debate in psychology over the stability of homosexual families over?

I'm not up on the details, but I find it hard to believe that the defendants couldn't produce a single psychologist or sociologist to argue the contrary opinion. I guess the plaintiffs were just able to tear this testimony up, probably using statistics or the fact that gay couples can already adopt/live together/etc, so keeping them un-licensed isn't doing anything to protect the "family", even if we take it as true that homosexual couples are less able to raise children or stay together.

It will be interesting to see how it holds on appeal, because of the arbitrary nature of rational-basis interpretation. These are the easiest sort of equal protection cases to overturn, and appeals courts typically approach them cautiously and skeptically out of a concern that everyone and everything could become a "protected class".

 

[ZQrn]

This is a very unorthodox view for someone who's not straight and thus might one day use this. (then again, I don't plan on marrying) but I don't think this has anything to do with 'equality'.

Can people engage in polygamous or poly-amorous legal unions? No. Can people marry objects? No. Can people marry their first degree relatives? Nope, and so on...

There are a thousand other groups who have 'unconventional' romantic and/or sexual orientations and these are still not catered to, and catering to some of them might still seriously offend some group of society. This has nothing to do with 'equality' and it's very hard to deny that indeed, a marriage between a man and a woman and a marriage between two people of same sex is different because they can't have children. One of the reasons marriage was originally there, though that function is some-what deteriorated is to provide a stable platform to raise children, though it could very well be argued that it is in fact more unstable than just living together. Marriages are sometimes very 'unhappy', living together has less of that effect.

The only discrimination I see here is tax cuts that a woman and a woman who live in the same house can receive by just letting the government attach a label to that living together.

I once raised the reductio ad absurdum, say I have a flatmate at my university, we can get married then, my country allows same sex marriages, we then get a tax cut. The point is that when we get married, we can still sleep with other people, the law allows that, basically nothing changed, especially if we marry on separate financial terms. But we still get a tax cut. What stops me from just finding a random person of any sex, get married, and get that tax advantage?

This is why I believe that marriage should really not be the business of the state. People should be free to call their relationship with whomever as they please without the state giving it any legal sanction. Please, why would the state officially recognise my union to another person? I don't see what it ads, as long as I recognise it, that other person does, and maybe some of our mutual friends.

All the judge has done with this ruling is basically say that he personally does not consider same sex unions as 'weird' as poly-amorous unions or people being married to siblings or the Eiffel Tower, that's it. This has nothing to do with equality.

 

[Jack21222]

Can people engage in polygamous or poly-amorous legal unions? No.

If somebody can come up with a plan to make this work legally, I'd have no problem with this.

Can people marry objects? No.

Objects neither have the ability to consent nor do they have civil rights. Objects don't have the ability to inherit wealth, don't have the ability to visit their spouse in the emergency room, and so on. I find it hard to believe you're making this argument with a straight face.

Can people marry their first degree relatives? Nope, and so on...

I'd be ok with this too, though being directly related already provides some of the same benefits of marriage.

There are a thousand other groups who have 'unconventional' romantic and/or sexual orientations and these are still not catered to, and catering to some of them might still seriously offend some group of society.

No, it would be seen as a step in the right direction. Otherwise, it's an "all or nothing" fallacy.

This has nothing to do with 'equality' and it's very hard to deny that indeed, a marriage between a man and a woman and a marriage between two people of same sex is different because they can't have children.

Should we ban marriage for people 65 and older? Should we ban marriage for infertile people? We already allow people who can't have children to get married. Additionally, same sex couples can adopt, and lesbian couples can get artificial insemination.

One of the reasons marriage was originally there, though that function is some-what deteriorated is to provide a stable platform to raise children, though it could very well be argued that it is in fact more unstable than just living together. Marriages are sometimes very 'unhappy', living together has less of that effect.

I live with a lesbian couple with a 6 year old son. Why should they not be allowed to marry, if marriage is supposed to help with that?

The only discrimination I see here is tax cuts that a woman and a woman who live in the same house can receive by just letting the government attach a label to that living together.

Then you're not looking hard enough. There are inheritance law, hospital visitation rights, and health insurance to name three off the top of my head. There are more.

I once raised the reductio ad absurdum, say I have a flatmate at my university, we can get married then, my country allows same sex marriages, we then get a tax cut. The point is that when we get married, we can still sleep with other people, the law allows that, basically nothing changed, especially if we marry on separate financial terms. But we still get a tax cut. What stops me from just finding a random person of any sex, get married, and get that tax advantage?

You can do that RIGHT NOW if you want. It's perfectly legal to marry somebody and have sex with others. To use your own example against you, why should somebody of the opposite sex be able to marry your flatmate for tax incentives along with the other incentives I mentioned, but you cannot? That's sex discrimination against you and everybody the same sex as your flatmate.

This is why I believe that marriage should really not be the business of the state. People should be free to call their relationship with whomever as they please without the state giving it any legal sanction. Please, why would the state officially recognise my union to another person? I don't see what it ads, as long as I recognise it, that other person does, and maybe some of our mutual friends.

While I agree with you, that's another topic that isn't being discussed here. Whether or not there OUGHT to be government-sanctioned marriage, there IS. Since government has decided to have marriage, and it's not going anywhere anytime soon, it must be equal and not discriminatory based on gender.

All the judge has done with this ruling is basically say that he personally does not consider same sex unions as 'weird' as poly-amorous unions or people being married to siblings or the Eiffel Tower, that's it. This has nothing to do with equality.

The issue of poly couples was not being addressed here. You know how you can get in trouble for making off-topic posts here? Well, it's even worse in a court of law. The judge can't just go off making up rules about whatever he wants when this lawsuit was SPECIFICALLY about Proposition 8 in California, which was specifically about same sex marriage.

B) Gender discrimination laws, which are illegal unless there is a compelling, important public interest.
C) Everything else (which would include laws which discriminate based on sexual orientation), which are always legal unless there is shown to be no rational basis for the discrimination.

In a way, it is gender discrimination. I'm allowed to marry one of my roommates, but her girlfriend cannot. The only reason she cannot is because of her gender. That's gender discrimination.

 

[ZQrn]

If somebody can come up with a plan to make this work legally, I'd have no problem with this.

Neither do I, but it's not going to happen, and it's not going to happen under the equal protection clause for sure. People will find excuses just as they found excuses for same sex marriage in the past.

'equality' is a theoretically unattainable idea. You have to at one point discriminate one group to help another.

Objects neither have the ability to consent nor do they have civil rights. Objects don't have the ability to inherit wealth, don't have the ability to visit their spouse in the emergency room, and so on. I find it hard to believe you're making this argument with a straight face.

And this is pretty much why I think this is hypocrite. At various points in time the majority consensus was that black people or women did not have such attributes either.

That people have believed with a straight face the certainty of such things leaves me cautious to conclude such things that easily. If 300 years back all people in the US about believed that people that weren't white had no rights, no ability to do logical deduction, no civil rights and were not people at all. I find it not too unlikely that the current perception in that way of let us say, animals, is similarly misguided.

I'd be ok with this too, though being directly related already provides some of the same benefits of marriage.

I'm okay with it too, but you'll agree that it will take some time before it becomes protected under constitutional precedent.

No, it would be seen as a step in the right direction. Otherwise, it's an "all or nothing" fallacy.

Yet you argued against a marriage to objects.

You cannot deny the reality that some people are indeed in love with objects and feel a level of distress for not being able to marry such objects.

What I'm trying to point at is that the same judge who ruled this because of 'equality' would likely rule against the marriage to first degree relatives, while surely the same 'equality' applied.

The judge didn't rule from equality, simply from accepting same sex unions.

Should we ban marriage for people 65 and older? Should we ban marriage for infertile people? We already allow people who can't have children to get married. Additionally, same sex couples can adopt, and lesbian couples can get artificial insemination.

These are often the arguments I put forth against banning marriage for this reason and why I think it's hypocrite. I'm just pointing out that at least one variable is different.

Of course, I agree, you can't have both, if you say that marriage is solely to provide a stable incubator for children, you would have to ban infertile people from marrying too.

I live with a lesbian couple with a 6 year old son. Why should they not be allowed to marry, if marriage is supposed to help with that?

Some children do not like the idea of being adopted.

Then again, some children would love the idea if they have a rocky relationship with their parents.

To make matters more interesting, my flatmate's a lesbian paedophile. Yap, a pretty 20 year old girl who just happens to have a sexual attraction towards prepubescent young girls, I guess most people don't think of that when you say 'paedophile' but of course it happens just as often.

Then you're not looking hard enough. There are inheritance law, hospital visitation rights, and health insurance to name three off the top of my head. There are more.

In my country at least, those are waived if you marry under financial provisions. You can effectively select and tick boxes, and one of those boxes really comes down to nothing more than the label.

And why couldn't you tick those boxes without the marriage label? Say I want a friend of mine to inherit my money, I can do that, I can also give said hospital vistiation rights et cetera.

And I do believe that all those rights and all should be irrespective of gender or age and I don't see what it has to do with marriage specifically.

Also, I should be able to bequeath my fortune to the Eiffel tower to ensure it receives proper care, right?

You can do that RIGHT NOW if you want. It's perfectly legal to marry somebody and have sex with others. To use your own example against you, why should somebody of the opposite sex be able to marry your flatmate for tax incentives along with the other incentives I mentioned, but you cannot? That's sex discrimination against you and everybody the same sex as your flatmate.

I think you read more in this than you think, also, same sex marriages are legal here.

I'm just pointing out how meaningless 'marriage', and how stupid it is that people get tax cuts from it.

While I agree with you, that's another topic that isn't being discussed here. Whether or not there OUGHT to be government-sanctioned marriage, there IS. Since government has decided to have marriage, and it's not going anywhere anytime soon, it must be equal and not discriminatory based on gender.

But marriage is not and has never been discriminatory based on gender. People of either sex can marry.

The point is that laws are discriminatory based on whom and what you can marry, and gender is just a small island in all the discriminatory laws therein.

The issue of poly couples was not being addressed here. You know how you can get in trouble for making off-topic posts here? Well, it's even worse in a court of law. The judge can't just go off making up rules about whatever he wants when this lawsuit was SPECIFICALLY about Proposition 8 in California, which was specifically about same sex marriage.

I'm just pointing out why the judge didn't rule from 'equal protection' here but rather from 'I'm personally okay with same sex marriage'.

The same judge 50 years back would have probable not ruled the same, because it was less accepted. THis has nothing to do with 'equality', this has to do with homosexuality (thankfully) becoming more and more accepted, and the same people who advocate in favour now would have most likely advocated against 50 years back.

 

[Jack21222]

And this is pretty much why I think this is hypocrite. At various points in time the majority consensus was that black people or women did not have such attributes either.

At no point in human history did humans ever believe that women didn't have the ability to inherit wealth or consent. They didn't believe women had the RIGHT to inherit wealth or consent. They said nothing about the ABILITY.

OBJECTS ARE NOT SENTIENT. That you are arguing otherwise... I can't say anything further without getting an infraction. I don't know what to say to that.

 

[Gokul43201]

So, if you are gay and in a same sex marriage and you are in the military, do you tell anyone? Sticky, sticky, sticky...

Well, there's the obvious (legislative) fix for that problem.

 

[Gokul43201]

The prop 8 case was argued on the broadest basis of 14th amendment interpretation, the rational basis. So the courts effectively found that, based on the testimony offered, there was no rational reason for the state to deny marriage licenses to same sex couples. Doesn't this effectively declare the debate in psychology over the stability of homosexual families over?

To the contrary, it is only when the debate is essentially over that one can argue the existence of a rational basis (either for or against). If the current state of the science is inconclusive, there there is, by definition, no rational basis (against blah).

I think the onus should be on those that wish to deny a right to demonstrate the existence of a well-established scientific position (i.e., saying "this is debatable" is not strong enough grounds to argue for the elimination of a freedom). This argument probably has little legal strength. Legally, I imagine the onus is on the side that wishes to overturn precedent (or somesuch), if such a clear identification can be made.

 

[Char. Limit]

In response to Jack, I disagree that this is gender discrimination. Gender discrimination usually involves the favoring of one gender over another. However, gay men are just as discriminated against as lesbian women. It's not their gender that's being discriminated against, but their orientation.

It's not who you are, it's whom you're attracted to.

So, I would call this homophobia, not sexism.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I bet if the people who protest against gay marriage were suddenly denied the right to marry, they'd flip out. They're selfish. If people protested the right of blacks to get married, everyone would be shocked. But this is the same kind of bigotry and it's accepted and even encouraged. What business is it of anyone else if gays get married?

Look at the people with signs, adamant against gay marriage. They want to be the only ones allowed to get married and have children. Yes, the world is in dire need of more of those people.

 

[DanP]

OBJECTS ARE NOT SENTIENT. That you are arguing otherwise... I can't say anything further without getting an infraction. I don't know what to say to that.

I think you misunderstand.

He doesn't argues that objects are sentient. He points out that there are humans who suffer from rare forms of atypical brains who have become infatuate and in-love with objects. From their perspective, those objects have more value than a flash and blood sentient of whatever sex you want. There are cases where said persons will call the object "husband" or "wife".

You will understand that your typical perception of reality can constitute a serious offense to a person with atypical brain. An atypical brain may consier an object sentient, and there is nothing *you* can do about it, same way you can't to **** if a man only sleeps with other man, that's it, is gay. They are both atypical. The fact the one loves sentinets, one dogs, other cadavers, other objects should be irrelevant.

 

[turbo]

I don't have any lesbian relatives (huh?) but I have two gay first-cousins and a gay nephew on my wife's side. To some extent, they can come out and express themselves with regard to their sexual attraction (though one has not). I don't see the issue as being as much about when the state can get involved and confer tax advantages or force private companies to grant spousal privileges like shared health insurance. Instead, I see the push for the recognition of same-sex marriages as a push for social equality. If my nephew was in an accident and was in intensive care, would his partner have the right to visit him in the hospital? Could he be denied visitation rights by my nephew's family based on the state's definition of next-of-kin? If my nephew died, could his family swoop in and try to claim his estate, leaving his partner out in the cold? The rights of joint ownership, visitation, and next-of-kin status for same-sex partners are at stake - not just a piece of paper from the state that says you're married.

 

[dpackard]

I don't understand people who bring up different forms of relationships asking whether those should now get marriage status (polyamory, incest, bestiality, dendrophilia, furries, etc.) as if that's an argument against allowing gay marriage. They seem to be missing the point entirely. The slippery slope already exists - it is the rational examination of our traditions to separate the beneficial from the prejudicial, and is a debate that we should be having regardless of gay marriage. If there is no rational reason for some discriminatory practice, why on Earth should we continue to do so? Just because it's what we've been doing? That is a fallacious argument.

 

[Jack21222]

I think you misunderstand.

He doesn't argues that objects are sentient. He points out that there are humans who suffer from rare forms of atypical brains who have become infatuate and in-love with objects. From their perspective, those objects have more value than a flash and blood sentient of whatever sex you want. There are cases where said persons will call the object "husband" or "wife".

You will understand that your typical perception of reality can constitute a serious offense to a person with atypical brain. An atypical brain may consier an object sentient, and there is nothing *you* can do about it, same way you can't to **** if a man only sleeps with other man, that's it, is gay. They are both atypical. The fact the one loves sentinets, one dogs, other cadavers, other objects should be irrelevant.

Marriage has nothing to do with love, but rather with certain rights, benefits and privileges gained by the partner. An object cannot inherit an estate. An object can't be granted visitation rights in a hospital. An object doesn't gain health insurance benefits. An object cannot consent to marriage. An object can't sign the papers.

I'm annoyed at myself that I'm drawn into even debating this red herring, but this is two people now insisting that "what about people that want to marry inanimate objects?" is a valid argument.

 

[DanP]

I don't understand people who bring up different forms of relationships asking whether those should now get marriage status (polyamory, incest, bestiality, dendrophilia, furries, etc.) as if that's an argument against allowing gay marriage.

Because some of those are good examples of variances But one must be careful IMO what examples you use here, since marriage is a "consensual union". So regardless of the reality perception of a person who wishes to marry an object or a plant, it remains a simple problem of consent. None of those can express consent.

The slippery slope already exists - it is the rational examination of our traditions to separate the beneficial from the prejudicial, and is a debate that we should be having regardless of gay marriage. If there is no rational reason for some discriminatory practice, why on Earth should we continue to do so? Just because it's what we've been doing? That is a fallacious argument.

Humans are afraid of change, of individuals different than typical social member, and are most infatuated with their-selves, thinking they are righteous and the different one must be struck down like a rabid dog. In their holy mission against progress and change, they often relay on religious believes and on corrupt churches.

 

[DanP]

Marriage has nothing to do with love, but rather with certain rights, benefits and privileges gained by the partner. An object cannot inherit an estate. An object can't be granted visitation rights in a hospital. An object doesn't gain health insurance benefits. An object cannot consent to marriage. An object can't sign the papers.

Laws and customs change. Marriage with an object is out of question because marriage requires consent, but what you miss completely is that a person who has an atypical brain may perceive what majority see as "normal" as extremely flawed and discriminatory.

Our mission should be to cater to the needs of as many variations in the society without disrupting it. Not to adhere to rigid standards.

I'm annoyed at myself that I'm drawn into even debating this red herring, but this is two people now insisting that "what about people that want to marry inanimate objects?" is a valid argument.

And another thing. To be honest, man marrying another man is for me as alien as a man wanting to marry an object. I simply cannot comprehend either. But Ill just let both live , and do whatever floats their boat. They are no danger to me.

 

[Jack21222]

Laws and customs change. Marriage with an object is out of question because marriage requires consent, but what you miss completely is that a person who has an atypical brain may perceive what majority see as "normal" as extremely flawed and discriminatory.

Our mission should be to cater to the needs of as many variations in the society without disrupting it. Not to adhere to rigid standards.

It's not discriminatory to say that a non-living object can't sign marriage paperwork. That isn't a rigid standard, it's a fact. This has nothing to do with laws and customs.

If somebody's brain is so "atypical" that they believe inanimate objects can have a thought process, then they need psychiatric help. I find it highly offensive that you'd put somebody that delusional and homosexuals in the same category.

And another thing. To be honest, man marrying another man is for me as alien as a man wanting to marry an object. I simply cannot comprehend either.

You seriously can't tell the difference between an object and a human being with regards to marriage? I'm sorry, I've outlined all of the benefits of marriage that apply to humans but not to objects. If you fail to see the difference, there's nothing more I have to say to you.

 

[DanP]

If somebody's brain is so "atypical" that they believe inanimate objects can have a thought process, then they need psychiatric help. I find it highly offensive that you'd put somebody that delusional and homosexuals in the same category.

Of course you do. No surprise here. That's what humans do. Gay included. They fight for their *group* rights, but when a different group , a different variance in the population would dare to dream of something differently, they'll revert to oppression. They are different, they must be delusional, they are sick, put them in asylums, burn them at stake.

Would it surprise you that there are man who think that gay persons should be hospitalized and cured ? That they need medical and psychological help ?

The truth is, a gay man, and man who does his dog, one who sleeps with it's wife and one which sleeps with objects can be all 4 valuable member of the society, extremely similar in all save of sexual behavior.

 

[DanP]

You seriously can't tell the difference between an object and a human being with regards to marriage? I'm sorry, I've outlined all of the benefits of marriage that apply to humans but not to objects. If you fail to see the difference, there's nothing more I have to say to you.

I wrote for you above that marriage with objects is atm impossible because marriage requires consent. So yeah. Learn to read.

Im speaking of catering to variances and accommodating them. It is not important what I think, even less important what you think, what is important is to make as many different groups happy and let them live a happy life. It is important what many of variant groups think and allow their voices to be heard. I guess is too much to ask from somebody like you.

 

[lisab]

When there was debate some 100 years ago about whether women should have the right to vote, did anyone ever bring up the "What if my cat wants to vote?" argument? Of course not. Perhaps people were more sensible then.

We're talking about *human* rights here, fundamental human rights. Stop the silly, silly talk of people wanting to marry "things" should gay marriage ever become legal.

 

[Char. Limit]

Thank you, Lisa. Just what I wanted to say, only I didn't know how to phrase it.

Personally, I believe there's nothing rational about gay marriage. Has anyone found a logical argument against it? No. So, I support gay marriage between two consenting adults. Those last three words are important restricters, by the way.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Laws and customs change. Marriage with an object is out of question because marriage requires consent, but what you miss completely is that a person who has an atypical brain may perceive what majority see as "normal" as extremely flawed and discriminatory.

Our mission should be to cater to the needs of as many variations in the society without disrupting it. Not to adhere to rigid standards.

Its not just a matter of consent. Objects can not enter into contract and they can not enter into contract because they have no will, no desire, no cognition, no actions, ect. A person can say that they would like to marry their car, they can call the car their spouse, they can have a marriage ceremony if they are so inclined, and then they can live out their married life with no issues at all what so ever because their "spouse's" rights will never be infringed in any fashion because the "spouse" will never wish to make a hospital visit, get health insurance coverage, take legal action on behalf of its "spouse", ect. There will never be any legal issues because the car can not, as a matter of course, bring any legal action against anyone or anything for any reason at all.

 

[Jack21222]

I wrote for you above that marriage with objects is atm impossible because marriage requires consent. So yeah. Learn to read.

I can read. You personally believe that marrying an object is just as weird as marrying a human. See?

And another thing. To be honest, man marrying another man is for me as alien as a man wanting to marry an object

 

[DanP]

I can read. You personally believe that marrying an object is just as weird as marrying a human. See?

Yes, man marrying man and man marrying their inflatable doll are both equally alien to me. If I came to understand and accept gay marriage, why would I oppose another variant group ? They are both as different from me as day from light, regarding sexual practices. Equally alien.

 

[DanP]

Its not just a matter of consent. Objects can not enter into contract and they can not enter into contract because they have no will, no desire, no cognition, no actions, ect. A person can say that they would like to marry their car, they can call the car their spouse, they can have a marriage ceremony if they are so inclined, and then they can live out their married life with no issues at all what so ever because their "spouse's" rights will never be infringed in any fashion because the "spouse" will never wish to make a hospital visit, get health insurance coverage, take legal action on behalf of its "spouse", ect. There will never be any legal issues because the car can not, as a matter of course, bring any legal action against anyone or anything for any reason at all.

Legal systems, like everything else, are in continuous updates.

 

[DanP]

We're talking about *human* rights here, fundamental human rights. Stop the silly, silly talk of people wanting to marry "things" should gay marriage ever become legal.

Agreed. We are talking about fundamental rights. Why wouldn't the lunatic who loves his airfilled doll or his 101 Dalmatians and what's to marry it have less rights than me, you, or a gay person ?

Why would a variance be kept away from it's pursuit of happiness ?

If they believe in this, perhaps we should cater to their needs too.

 

[Jack21222]

Yes, man marrying man and man marrying their inflatable doll are both equally alien to me. If I came to understand and accept gay marriage, why would I oppose another variant group ? They are both as different from me as day from light, regarding sexual practices. Equally alien.

Good, I'm glad you agree. I was afraid I was going to be accused of quoting you out of context.

 

[DanP]

Good, I'm glad you agree. I was afraid I was going to be accused of quoting you out of context.

Nah. It's OK.

The issue is simple. I came to support gay marriage proposals, but if zoos one day decide they want to be able to marry their dogs and redefine marriage to allow that, Ill support that too, I just can't accommodate a variance and turn my head from all others.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Legal systems, like everything else, are in continuous updates.

That is my point though. There is no legal issue. There would need to be a victim and the victim would need to bring suit. A car can not bring suit, not for any legal reason but simply as a fact of reality. Please go marry your car (or what ever other object you wish if you have not a car) and tell it for us that you would like it to take legal action if it is ever discriminated against as your spouse. Let us know how long it takes for your "spouse" to take any sort of legal action.

 

[mgb_phys]

When there was debate some 100 years ago about whether women should have the right to vote, did anyone ever bring up the "What if my cat wants to vote?" argument? Of course not. Perhaps people were more sensible then

Close:
"Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all"

Samuel Johnson (early 19C ?)

 

[mgb_phys]

Its not just a matter of consent. Objects can not enter into contract and they can not enter into contract because they have no will, no desire, no cognition, no actions, ect.

Corporations are non-human legal entities that can enter into contracts, be sued, etc.
They were invented because the same view existed in the middle ages - that only a person could make a contract.

 

[DanP]

That is my point though. There is no legal issue. There would need to be a victim and the victim would need to bring suit. A car can not bring suit, not for any legal reason but simply as a fact of reality.

Irrelevant. We can recognize the right of a man to marry a car without anthropomorphizing the car itself and recognize it the the right to bring a suit. It;s a simple issue of changing the definition of marriage. And this requires legal changes.

We do not cater to the rights of the car here, we cater to the right of the variant human who believes it will make him happy to marry a car.

From a legal point of view, what you said happened before. But back-wise. It happened with women. The law did not recognized them the right to inheritance, right to bring suits and many other rights. It was irrelevant that the women was physically able to exercise those rights in the eventuality they would be granted. From the point of *view of law*, there was no major difference between a car and women. Fortunately, law changed.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Corporations are non-human legal entities that can enter into contracts, be sued, etc.
They were invented because the same view existed in the middle ages - that only a person could make a contract.

They are a legal fiction representing the interests of people.

Irrelevant. We can recognize the right of a man to marry a car without anthropomorphizing the car itself and recognize it the the right to bring a suit. It;s a simple issue of changing the definition of marriage. And this requires legal changes.

We do not cater to the rights of the car here, we cater to the right of the variant human who believes it will make him happy to marry a car.

From a legal point of view, what you said happened before. But back-wise. It happened with women. The law did not recognized them the right to inheritance, right to bring suits and many other rights. It was irrelevant that the women was physically able to exercise those rights in the eventuality they would be granted. From the point of *view of law*, there was no major difference between a car and women. Fortunately, law changed.

And as I already pointed out that "variant human" can "marry" their car if they wish. No legal issues will arise.

A car can theoretically bring legal action. The point is that it doesn't. When you find Kitt from Knight Rider we can discuss this again.

 

[DanP]

They are a legal fiction representing the interests of people.

So we can create other legal fictions to allow a human to marry a robot or a car.

And as I already pointed out that "variant human" can "marry" their car if they wish. No legal issues will arise.

You are mistaken. A human cannot marry at current time a car. The law does not recognize such a marriage. Gay ppl can "marry" in California even now. Nothing to stop them. But they don't want to "marry" they want to **marry**.

A car can theoretically bring legal action. The point is that it doesn't. When you find Kitt from Knight Rider we can discuss this again.

Irrelevant. You insist on anthropomorphizing a car. But it's not required. All that is required are legal changes regarding marriage dealing with sentient-non sentient unions.

 

[Office_Shredder]

A person can't enter into any kind of contract with a car. Why are we singling out marriage here? The same applies for other proposed instances: you can't enter into a contract with a dog, or a 12 year old kid (certainly not one that would be binding)

 

[turbo]

C'mon Dan! Let's confine this to basic human rights. The right-wingers in my state fought same-sex marriages by dragging out all kinds of "deviant" behavior that would "ruin our society" if gay marriage was allowed, including child molestation. Ironic, in the sense that the biggest in-state supporter of the repeal movement was the Roman Catholic Church, which denied and covered up case after case of child molestation by their clergymen for decades.

Consider the rights of human adults and leave it at that. Is that too much to ask? It's off-topic to stray far from that standard, IMO.

 

[DanP]

C'mon Dan! Let's confine this to basic human rights. The right-wingers in my state fought same-sex marriages by dragging out all kinds of "deviant" behavior that would "ruin our society" if gay marriage was allowed, including child molestation. Ironic, in the sense that the biggest in-state supporter of the repeal movement was the Roman Catholic Church, which denied and covered up case after case of child molestation by their clergymen for decades.

Oh, don't even get me started with the church

Consider the rights of human adults and leave it at that. Is that too much to ask? It's off-topic to stray far from that standard, IMO.

Sure Turbo. You are right.

 

[turbo]

Sure Turbo. You are right.

Thanks, Dan. This cause is near to my heart because it has the potential for positively impacting the lives of some people that I care for.

 

[mheslep]

I'd like the see the government get completely out of the marriage business. Let government issue partnership agreements that take into account tax qualifications and property, which it already does, and no more. Let government issued 'marriage' certificates cease to exist. Let the traditional instruments of society like the church handle marriage along with the societal and moral promises that marriage traditionally entails. I believe most of this conflict has come about from an ever increasing and misplaced reliance on government to sanction moral couplings between people.

 

[Char. Limit]

Just a question, is it too early to have accurate statistics on the gay divorce rate? Because based on intuition, I think it would be lower than the straight divorce rate, but I can't confirm it.

 

[DanP]

Let the traditional instruments of society like the church handle marriage along with the societal and moral promises that marriage traditionally entails. I believe most of this conflict has come about from an ever increasing and misplaced reliance on government to sanction moral couplings between people.

You can't do that. How would you marry humans which would never step into a church because they have no religious believes, or couples which the church would never marry, like the gay couples we talk about in this thread ?

We must recognize the right to marry to gay and atheists and to all other ppl which the church won't marry, or they don't want to have anything in common with the church.

 

[vela]

You can't do that. How would you marry humans which would never step into a church because they have no religious believes, or couples which the church would never marry, like the gay couples we talk about in this thread ?

mheslep didn't say only churches can take care of marrying individuals but that marriage can be handled by non-governmental institutions, a church being one example.

 

[mheslep]

You can't do that. How would you marry humans which would never step into a church because they have no religious believes, or couples which the church would never marry, like the gay couples we talk about in this thread ?

We must recognize the right to marry to gay and atheists and to all other ppl which the church won't marry, or they don't want to have anything in common with the church.

We <> the government. I said societal institutions like the church. What does it mean to have a Judge marry a couple? Why not a plumber?

All the government really need add is a legal sanction saying the partners have group tax recognition and group property rights - which civil partnerships already do - for atheists and everyone else. So why does the government ever need to utter the word 'marriage'? What, beyond legal tax and property rights, do you imagine the government confers in a marriage ceremony?

 

[DanP]

mheslep didn't say only churches can take care of marrying individuals but that marriage can be handled by non-governmental institutions, a church being one example.

Church is the only important "traditional" institution who married ppl (ship captains and likes not included) was church. To create new entities to deal with marriage would be unpractical.

The institutions we have are perfectly able to marry ppl. We need nothing else.

 

[DanP]

What, beyond legal tax and property rights, do you imagine the government confers in a marriage ceremony?

What, beyond empty words, do you think the a societal institution like the church confers in a marriage ceremony ? If the state needs to sanction what the church does, (tax, property reasons, whatever) why don't let the state handle it and eliminate superfluous involvement of societal institutions ?

Its efficient as it is.

 

[turbo]

mheslep didn't say only churches can take care of marrying individuals but that marriage can be handled by non-governmental institutions, a church being one example.

In the US, a church can perform the ceremony, but you are not "married" until the church officials file the paperwork with the civil authorities. My wife and I were married by a justice of the peace ~35 years ago. The JOP was a friend of ours, and we both had our own best friends as best man and maid of honor. The JOP wore a nice matching skirt and jacket. The rest of us were in jeans and T-shirts, and we drank our celebratory cheap champagne out of a variety of mismatched glasses and cups.

It has been traditional for governmentally-sanctioned officials at all levels to be responsible for performing weddings. I don't think we should roll that tradition back or weaken it.