George Takei's Marriage Rendered Illegal

It's definitely not about loosening the power of government over personal matters. If anything, it is further legitimizing and empowering the state's control over marriage.

The state, or in this case states have controlled marriage for quite a number of decades. For those who weren't aware, marriages licenses are something that have been issued for quite a long time.

And that makes it different than every other time anyone has been ask to cast a vote?

No, because they believe gay marriage to be wrong, thus they want the state to ban it. Many don't see that getting the state out of it altogether would solve their problem too and in a better way for all.

Exactly, hence us pointing out that for people who think that the state shouldn't be marrying people that things like this actually hurt their cause as well.

That which is submitted for government approval is mot, by definition, a private matter.

You'll not find it in the text. The founders did not list out the fundamental rights. A large body of federal constitutional case law has pretty much settled this beyond dispute.

The only way your comment makes sense is if you are saying that it is unconstitutional for the state to set any limits at all on two consenting adults who wish to marry.

Would such logic not, at a minimum, mean that laws which prohibited marriges between siblings or other close blood relatives would be unconstitutional?

Conversely, if the argument is "the state has a vested interest in prohibiting those" then there can be no other implication that it IS constitutional for a state to make such a prohibition if it can establish an interest.

Just to name one, free speech is a fundamental right.

There are limits on that.

So, no, I'm not saying there can't constitutionally be limits on fundamental rights. Hence the body of law known as Substantive Due Process.

So...you are saying the FSM is every bit as real and proven as gay marriage? or conversely gay marriage is just as much a fiction?

See, teaching about ancient Egypt being real doesn't mean you can teach Atlantis was real just because the law doesn't say "no teavhing about Atlantis!"

The test of making it into the curriculum is educational value and it is SUPER easy to prove that if gays can marry in your state kids need to, at some point, have that included in the appropriate class.

Have fun making a similar case for FSM.

I'm not sure I follow. Free Speech is a fundamental right of course, but it's not a right BECAUSE of due process. it's an enumerated right on it's own.

The due process clause, at a maximum, recognizes other rights exist (as per other amendments) but it is not the SOURCE of said rights, simply a statement of government's limits in regard to them, whatever they may be.

DD&B.

Without taking a stand on whether or not it SHOULD be taught, I have to tell you that you are either ignorant of, or willfully ducking, the fact that there have already been bills on the local and state level in CA that would have mandated that curriculum be adjusted to acknowledge the legitimacy of gay marriage.

Such a case is much easier to make if said marriages are recognized in state law. in fact, you can bet your ass that the first time a gay couple found out there was curriculum which did not so acknowledge, there would be a lawsuit aledging discrimination. and if there's anything schools do, it's knee jerk to avoid lawsuits.

Prop 8 didn't HAVE to speak to education because it's all part of the "law of unintended consequences" which affects pretty much every government act.


Protesting that allowing gay marriage has nothing to do with schools is simply a weak dodge because it assumes that the change happens in a vacuum and no government act occurs in a vacuum.

Like the one with the Mormon Enforcement Division?

In the same manner of it not being in a vacuum though, banning gay marriage does not exist in a vacuum either, as under the same logic their will be kids being taught that the only relationships deserving of most respect are those between a heterosexual married couple.

Well no. Check the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The valid argument is not whether or not GETTING MARRIED is a right - I would argue that anything which you can do privately that absolutely does no harm to another (individually or collectively) is a right.

BUT

LEGAL RECOGNITION of your private act is NOT a right. And "Equal protection" does not apply unless it applies absolutely (i.e. I could marry my daughter if both were consenting adults).

Yes. Which is exactly what those who opposed the Proposition intended.

And thus, we have what Tamar said - it's a direct claim not just on the ability to do a thing, but to have society recognize it with official approval.

I don't ask the state to officially recognize and approve my deviant behavior (deviant as a statistical term, not as a moral judgment) and I see no reason why I should be emotionally compelled to side with those who do.

Not that I'm against it either. But the sob stories about oppression don't move me. Gays are not seeking legal rights which they already have, they are seeking validation.

It's weak to need society to validate your chosen lifestyle.

And THAT sir, is the heart of it. Millions of dollars wasted, millions of emotional hurts and millions of people set at each others throats just because gays need the emotional validation of being able to use a word.

You give everyone the same legal rights in matters of the law and yet STILL be have to listen to all sorts of pissing and moaning and put up with all kinds of self-righteous posturing (on both sides) because people are arguing about whether or not the get to use a word.

THAT, my friends, is a perfect illustration of how pathetic we've become as a people.

There is no right, Constitutional or otherwise, to have the state confer a title upon you.

It's nothing more than a demand for validation - which is not an interest of the state.

So you are arguing for a constitutional right to convenience?

Actually, the same logic DOES apply. The reason those laws (rightfully) failed is that the courts found the state could not demonstrate an interest in setting that limitation. it did not find that the state had no right to set limits.

I assume the day is coming when courts will make a similar Loving decision regarding gay marriage, for that matter and SCOTUS will uphold it. But until SCOTUS does so, these people (misguided or not) are acting within the boundaries of the constitution by the simple fact that SCOTUS have not decided that the state has no vested interest in holding that restriction.

Now, i myself argue SCOTUS has gotten it wrong before so I have no beef with those who say SCOTUS is on the wrong side of it now.

But what is legal and what is "right" are not always the same thing.

You have that ass-backwards.

A few days ago, in California they could use that word.

It wasn't just the word though, there are numerous other factors that come into play when you are legally married.

Millions of dollars was spent on this campaign to stop them using that word.

You can't have it both ways.

Either it's just a word, in which case the religious groups which push this type of thing are wasting millions of dollars in one of the most worthless ways possible since not only is it just a word, but it doesn't even affect them, or it is much more than a word.

There would be no need for a divorce. Under the scenario usually proposed, a civil union would parallel a private ceremony, not replace it. If my state passed a law next year that said - in effect - "the rights and privileges formerly accrued to legal marriages shall now only accrue to those having entered into a legal civil union as provided for in this statute" then the choice that I and my wife would face would be:

a. file the necessary forms to have a legally recognized CU alongside our present marriage; or

b. forfeit those legal privileges now attached to holding a marriage license.

In neither case would a divorce be required or relevant.

And your repeated asking of that question is either an act of trolling or an indication of stupidity.

Oh I agree. I'm not taking sides on that...some wanted to use it, some wanted to stop them from using it - all of it is stupid.

that said, if there was no massive campaign to GET to use it, there would have been no need for a massive campaign to STOP them using it.

Unless there was some pre-emptive expensive campaign to prevent the use of it before anyone asked, I have to conclude that the plea for validation was the first stupid act, which led to the responding stupid act.

What is stupid about wanting the person you love and intend to spend the rest of your life with to be legally recognized as such?

What is stupid about wanting to ensure that if you die, your partner will not be screwed over by inheritance law? Or that if anything happens to either of you you will be legally recognized as next of kin?

What is stupid about thinking that if you have paid into systems throughout your life (both private and government) that would benefit a spouse if something happened to you, shouldn't be cut off to someone simply because their partner has the wrong genitals?

What is stupid about wanting your partner to be able to visit you more freely in hospital, or vice versa?

If you or your partner is taken to court, what is stupid about not wanting to have less rights against disclosing confidential conversations than another couple next in line who just happen to be of the opposite sex?

If you are the victim of a crime, what is stupid about wanting your partner to be able to claim crime victims' recovery benefits?

If you have happen to fall in love with someone from another country, what is stupid with wanting to have access to legal avenues for preventing them getting deported and the government forcefully separating you?

What is stupid about wanting the assurance that your partner will be able to visit you in potential family only situations, or vice versa?

As a couple who may have lived together for decades, what is stupid with wanting the convenience of being able to file a joint tax return?

Quick list off the top of my head of ways in which homosexual couples are directly affected by this.

You're right, they're a bunch of idiots putting all this effort just for a simple stupid word.

Hey. Don't get mad at me. The people of California have spoken. I'm right and Uncle Albert and actormike are wrong.

Why not?

Are we constitutionally entitled to the use of certain words?

And all of this is somehow conferred by using a different word for the same legal state of being?

Call it civil unions or marriage or lolabridgida...if it's confers the same legal benefits, why are we arguing over the word?

So are civil unions between homosexuals allowed in California?

I haven't read the proposition.

I was shocked too.

Can't speak for your area but around here we had many more No on 8 commercials than Yes on 8 ones. And the No on 8 commercials were much farther over the top. Did you see the one where they equated banning gay marriage with Japanese internment camps?

I like how a lot of the so-called libertarians in this thread oppose gay marriage. Honestly, who really cares if two folks of any gender want to get married? How does it affect you personally? I just don't get it.