This image has been resized, click here to view the full-sized image.
Today was the first day of oral arguments in the Supreme Court concerning California's Proposition 8.
Prop 8 states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Sadly, cameras are not allowed inside our Supreme Court, but they do record the audio. Below is that audio if you'd like to listen to what was said. Some of it is pretty funny actually.
I too don't think this is the case they will use to put this question to bed, but you never know.
That anti-LGBT marriage lawyer is so out of his depths in this case and makes some of the funniest dialog in that link I posted. The Justices have a field day with him.
#1526056 by Timex (Power User) at 2013-03-27 04:47:08 (4 months ago) - [Report]
California already has equal civil union under Family Law.
People that simply want to go to the USSC over the centuries long definitions of an English word are beyond strange indeed.
Who the hell are they to tell the whole English speaking world what a word is meant to convey as it suits them...and the rest of the world be damned.
Take your equal Rights and lawful status under the laws of California and leave the rest of the world and language alone.
I don't think they are trying to change the meaning of the word marriage at all Timex. My understanding is that they don't want the word excluded from them.
I don't see this going away any time soon either..
You might not live to see it, but sooner or later it is going to happen in this country. Best to make your peace with that now. I have.
#1526060 by Timex (Power User) at 2013-03-27 05:12:59 (4 months ago) - [Report]
warduke wrote:
I don't think they are trying to change the meaning of the word marriage at all Timex. My understanding is that they don't want the word excluded from them.
Then they have mental issues.
Everyone in California already has the EXACT SAME RIGHTS and PROTECTIONS under California Family Law.
This is after all a case about California Law...remember?
Clearly the are attempting to change the meaning of a word the world has used for ever simply in some twisted vision of mind and they don't care about the rest of the people in the world.
I think you might be putting a bit to much behind the word marriage.
I don't really care one way or the other so long as all people have the same rights under law. It's pretty obvious which way the wind is blowing on the subject. You're going to lose this one sooner or later Timex.
I know it's flipping California Timex. I only created the damn topic four hours ago..
Do you understand that any decision made by the Supreme Court would effect more than just this California law? Which is why I am in agreement with Qbert that they will most likely kick this back to the state level for now.
It's also worth noting that if it does get kicked back to the California court decision, LGBT marriage will be legal.
Whats the harm in letting them getting married? Its being in debates in Aus and I am all for it. I see no harm.
I think everyone is approaching this with the wrong perspective, it is not really about gay getting married it is about whether or not the government has any say in the matter. The only role the federal government has in this area is whether or not a couple qualifies for tax and benefit incentives and other various entitlements that other couples receive, not to change the definition about what constitutes a specific word such as marriage. So long as that criteria is met the definition of marriage is irrelevant to rights of gay couples.
Gay people already have equal rights . They can get married, to a person of the opposite sex, just like everybody else.
#1526160 by Timex (Power User) at 2013-03-27 23:59:49 (4 months ago) - [Report]
mbodnar wrote:
Gay people already have equal rights . They can get married, to a person of the opposite sex, just like everybody else.
Or in California they can "register with the State" for Civil Union and get the same tax break so, so much for the Prop 8 issue.
The federal law about the legal definition of the word "marriage" does not need to be changed.
The IRS code needs to be changed to allow deductions for Civil Unions.
Actually, that's not true at all mbodnar. In Michigan, LGBT cannot get married, they cannot have a civil union nor can they cannot adopt.
Article 1, Section 25 of Michigan's Constitution:"To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."
And that's from a blue state..
Do I have a problem with it? Yes. It's a bit too far imo, to have added that into our states constitution.
In fact, 30 states ban same sex marriage and civil unions by same sex couples..
Gay people already have equal rights . They can get married, to a person of the opposite sex, just like everybody else.
Yeah, just like black people had equal rights, they could use the toilet, it just had to have a sign "colored" hanging on the door. They could also go to school as white kids, that school just had to be a school for colored people. etc. etc.
Im sorry,but that argument is just so old and idiotic.
Separated but equal is not true equality, it's a way to make things look like equal but in reality to be non equal.
I think it states in your constitution something about everybodys right to pursue happiness.
I can imagine marriage being that kind of thing for many people.
Also expanding rights when there is no harm involved is always a good thing, after same sex marriage everybody (including heteros) can also marry a person of same sex, this expands also hetero rights.
Everything should be allowed by default and only forbidden if there are good reasons for it, thats how a true society based on liberty works.
Boy are you ever in left field with those comments.
Im in the field of being a decent human being who wants to see as much liberties and equality as possible.
As I pointed out above, "allowed to do" is the default, "not allowed" can only follow if there are good reasons, in this case there are none. The tradidtional hetero marriage is not going to chance at all, the institution of marriage only expands.
Gay people already have equal rights . They can get married, to a person of the opposite sex, just like everybody else.
Yeah, just like black people had equal rights, they could use the toilet, it just had to have a sign "colored" hanging on the door. They could also go to school as white kids, that school just had to be a school for colored people. etc. etc.
Nope, that's completely different and unequal. At the present time homo/heterosexuals are permitted by law to do EXACTLY the same thing.
What you seek is not equality.
Edit: This isn't to say I'm for or against gay marriage, but let's use proper terminology. The same sex marriage issue isn't one if equal rights, it's one of granting SPECIAL rights due to sexual preference.
It's based on similar twisted argument.
"You can go to public toilets like everbody else".
To marry somebody who you love and want to marry is currently not an option for most gay people, just like it was not an option go to what ever toilet you wanted for black people.
Quote:
What you seek is by no measure equality.
But it is, hetero people can also marry a person who is same sex if this is passed.
It expands both gay and heteros rights.
Quote:
Edit: This isn't to say I'm for or against gay marriage, but let's use proper terminology. The same sex marriage issue isn't one if equality, it's one of granting SPECIAL rights due to sexual preference.
It is about equality when it is clear that the other group is different and the current laws about marrying opposite sex does not take that in consideration.
It's only equal under a states law, if that state says it is equal. However, in those states that do say it is equal, it is still not equal under federal law. That's section 3 of DOMA.
I have no interest in the Supreme Court's definition of marriage. It's not their job. However, it is also not the job of Congress or the President.
DOMA
Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Section 3 needs to go.. Only then can we talk equality.
Whats the harm in letting them getting married? Its being in debates in Aus and I am all for it. I see no harm.
I think everyone is approaching this with the wrong perspective, it is not really about gay getting married it is about whether or not the government has any say in the matter. The only role the federal government has in this area is whether or not a couple qualifies for tax and benefit incentives and other various entitlements that other couples receive, not to change the definition about what constitutes a specific word such as marriage. So long as that criteria is met the definition of marriage is irrelevant to rights of gay couples.
I disagree. Gay and Lesbian marriage is a an item affecting the whole of the United States and Australia for that matter.
Its like some people are scared that if you let G&L get married, they will be running though the streets and standing outside every single street store.
Its not illegal for people to be gay or lesbian. People are making excuses like yourself saying its more about tax breaks and as long as they get that, the definition of marriage is irrelevant
Its only a word, and a word can have many different meanings.
#1526365 by bolg (Power User) at 2013-03-29 08:32:49 (4 months ago) - [Report]
Why should even the states decide if gays can marry? Let just any church or other organisation issue marriage licenses to gays if they wish.
Because you don't need a church or other organization to get married..
#1526397 by hOG (Crusader Mod) at 2013-03-29 15:21:32 (4 months ago) - [Report]
Gay marriage is lawful here (at least only in Christian churches), it is up to the individual pastors to yes or no a wedding, but since it has been implemented last year it has been used once, twice maybe. The hipster politicians expected thousands. Like someone said earlier this isn't just about rights.
This topic has been autolocked for inactivity. If you have something to add, Click Here to request it is re-opened.
(Power User) at 2013-03-27 01:40:23 (4 months ago) - [
