George Takei's Marriage Rendered Illegal

Marriage isn't a right, really. It's an arrangement defined by law that is, by its definition, inclusive of some and exclusive of others. Not everyone can be married. Not every configuration of people can be eligible for marriage.

If one argues that marriage MUST (not should, but MUST) include homosexual couples on grounds of equality, then every other configuration must also be recognized which is, of course, ridiculous. Shall we allow groups of 10 to marry? If the gender is not sacrosanct, why is the number?

Suppose you think the state should get out of the marriage business and leave it a private matter. Fine. Do you oppose abolishing discrimination laws vis-a-vis marriage? If no, then you still support state validation of marriage and the enforcement of the state view on the public. If yes, then you open up avenues of discrimination that your whole support of gay marriage is hypothetically against...

If you accept the idea that government ought to be able to offer tax benefits and penalties for particular kinds of contracts being signed or not signed based on a theory of "social good", then you have to accept the idea that they can pick and choose who is allowed to sign said contracts based on the same.

So for you, prop 8 comes down to whether or not you're in favor of gays and lesbians getting married, and it has nothing to do with rights. This is, I suspect, the majority of both the Yes on 8 and No on 8 crowd.

If you don't, then you have an obligation to try to get the state out of the marriage business entirely. I, and, I suspect, a minority of No on 8 crowd fall into this category, and even some Yes on 8 folks, although with faulty reasoning: if it was an actual ban on gay marriage (as opposed to re-recognizing straight marriage) it would make sense for this to be a piecemeal move towards getting the state out of marriage.

It was because God Said So.

And for the children.

The subject doesn't enjoy any special status with me. I have nothing but contempt for the idea of allowing the majority to vote down any right. It just galls me that people presume to dictate things like this to each other. The fucking all-important collective needs a damned good tangible reason to deny freedoms, not award them.

When it comes to changing an institution that is been in place for many years and comes down to the population voting on it then it becomes my business.

Hmmmm. Ok then.

Maybe I'm just a strange one. If it doesn't impact me, I don't give a shit. At all. Religion, abortion, fags....

Misquote!? I didn't misquote anything!

Hey...if it's none of my fucking business, don't seek my fucking approval.

I can tell you right now, if marriage was outlawed tomorrow I would still be married in every way that matters because I don't fucking need the state to approve of my love life.

I'm surprised about one thing in CA: Prop 4 did a lot better this time around than in its 2006 incarnation, and in more counties. I wonder what could have caused that...

Why not? If people want to fuck up their lives in such a complicated manner, they should be free to do so. The burden would be on them to confine the damage to their own existence. If the contract imposes extra paperwork overhead, the burden would be on them to pay for it. The fact that people resist change and are intolerant of others living differently from them is fucking irrelevant. If it doesn't harm you or infringe on your rights, you have no business interfering.

What was Prop 4?

Appeal to tradition. Appeal to popularity. Both completely fucking irrelevant. It is not a legitimate role of government to guarantee that your precious fucking traditions never have to endure change, or that you never have to tolerate something you don't like.

So why stay married? Why marry in the first place?

Oh really? Didn't I say something about harm? Are you going to claim that you didn't leave that part off to falsely discredit it as a claim to unlimited, unconditional freedom?

Now you begin to understand. The approval of uninvolved parties should never have been a factor.

It's not the role of Government to be in the business of marriage at all, now is it?

Parental notification for minors before an abortion. Failed rather badly last time as prop 84(85? 87? I don't remember which), but only by a couple % this time. Whereas Prop 8 passed by a much smaller margin than Prop 22, its predecessor.

Correct.

The gubmint never should have stuck it's nose into a religious issue.

That is what he gets for not inviting Shat to his wedding

I would say no, but the choice is between removing government from the equation entirely, or applying the status equally to all adults who wish to consider themselves married.

And religious groups should never have stuck their nose into a private matter between consenting adults. But here we are.

Then don't put it to a fucking vote, because vote is won by fucking popularity.

Once again, that works both ways. It seems to me that you're the one having trouble tolerating something you don't like. You bring up roles of government, yet you can't accept the fact that your precious tradition was struck down by a fair government action such as voting. That's a lot more than I can say for the activist judges who basically ignored government law and forced this amendment in the first place.

It's not an exclusively religious issue just because some churches perform marriage. If the objection from the God side of the aisle is that it would have allowed the wrong people to use a word that religious folks mistakenly claim as their own, then the objection is completely without merit. Religion doesn't own the word or the institution. No church has to marry anyone they don't want to, but they have no business interfering with someone's efforts to attain that status elsewhere.

Unfortunately, marriage is also a contractual issue. Which means the gov't HAD to stick its nose in.

^ No, all they HAVE to do is enforce it.

What about those religions that allow gay marriage?

Of course, the "people will marry their horses" argument.

Yes.

So I'm sure you were appalled when schools became forcefully desegregated.

Then guys in the mafia could all get married and be immune to being compelled to testify against one another in court.

Except that isn't the end of it. A big part of the support for Prop. 8 was the idea that gay marriage was going to be "regularized" by the curriculum in public schools. As such, for those who might disapprove but otherwise be tolerant of gay marriage, the problem became one of the state selecting their children's moral views. With the state influence through both education and discrimination laws, gay marriage wouldn't merely be tolerated...it would have to be accepted.

Who defines "harm" for me? I'm not harmed in any direct way by someone littering, but there are still laws against it...

Do you think maybe, if they'd consulted me, I would have discouraged putting it to a vote?

Something I don't like? Yeah, I guess the total subversion of the principles of representative democracy, founded on the idea that no majority of any size can vote down the rights of the individual, qualifies as something I don't fucking like.

A public vote isn't a private matter.

*sigh*

This circular shit....religion is interested because it is their ceremony and beliefs they are protecting. Like it or not, many religions consider homosexuality wrong and not a pairing fit to take a vow before God...it is not a marriage that could be made according to their tenets.

The contract shit and benefits via the state is a seperate issue. One I doubt much of anyone cares about when voting against this sort of thing.

No one is stopping gay people from living as a married couple. I know plenty who do. They want approval and acceptance and you just can't legislate that.

Didn't say that. I simply said that you can't argue for gay marriage on the basis of equal protection without opening the door to other configurations.

Ridiculous.

Yes, it's a fundamental right protected by the Due Process clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Only as far as necessary to ensure that all parties were of sufficient mental capacity to knowingly consent and did so freely, and then enforce the terms of the contract. Everything else is just overbearing assholes poking their noses where they don't belong.