George Takei's Marriage Rendered Illegal

Hmmm....

Which is how it already is, at least here and I assume in the US. The government licenses people to conduct marriages and there are a civil set of requirements and paperwork that both parties must fill out. When getting married you actually specify whether it will be a civil or religious ceremony, and both are recognised equally so long as the legal requirements are met.

So let's say you get your wish, and the government only recognizes civil unions and leaves marriage to religions. All that is effectively doing is changing the name of legal marriage, but lets run with it.

So a gay couple goes and gets this civil union, which gives them the exact same legal status as a heterosexual civil union, which is the exact same legal status of what marriage used to have.

1) Since there are no longer any legal restrictions on marriage, they can then have a ceremony that "marries" them anyway. So you have spent a whole lot of time and money rewriting a whole bunch of laws, and the only real end product is that you have renamed marriage to civil union.

2) I think you are dreaming anyway if you think that the "WE HAVE TO DEFEND MARRIAGE!" crowd would support a measure that would make marriage legally irrelevant.

You do realise that civil unions do not have the same legal standing as a marriage a lot of the time right? They do in some countries, but in many countries civil unions have restrictions on them relating to things like power of attourney.

Also again, it is pretty obvious that the problem is not just the name difference between civil unions and marriages. Your federal Defense of Marriage Act even states this:

So even where same sex civil unions are allowed in the US, by your own laws (pushed through to placate the same voters who voted Yes on 8 incidentally) they cannot get the same rights as a married couple.

Damnit. Having just been in CA I found this one of the more refreshing things about the place and was disappointed to hear that they were on the verge of voting it down. The radio ads against gay marriage were pretty out-there. I'm not sure why anyone would have gone for them.

So your answer is...?

More to the point, if it isn't a right, what is the government's definitional interest?

So when are you divorcing your husband and entering into a civil union with him?

1.) Marriage is a privilge, not a right. The only thing you're being denied is the state officially declaring your same gender spouse a marriage. Oh Noes!
2.) Grab any person you want to perform your ceremony and consider yourself married under whatever denomination you want to make up. No ones stopping you.Just don't expect the state to recognize it.
3.) If you truly care about equal rights, how do you feel about affirmative actions laws that benefit select groups at the exclusion of others. How about scholorships that are awarded by race and gender? That are many special privilige programs out there that are exclusive.If you and the gay community were as compassionate about doing away with those, then I'd consider you to be truly caring of any missing rights. But since you don't, I can only conclude that this is ONE MORE case of a group trying to push their lifestyle on others. You guys along with the atheists were the ones who fought tooth and nail to remove any sign of religion from public schools and government buildings. This gay marriage crap is just another example.

Perhaps I was too generous in my assessment of your intelligence. Hmm, the difference between murder and being able to get a piece of paper that has no practical meaning........ That should only take a year or two to figure out the difference.

It's a licensed contractual relationship, which the gov't is responsible for maintaining a rational framework in which the contract can be enforced.

Irrelevant. The people have spoken, and they have voted to shoot anyone of your religious persuasion.

Do you resist or comply with the will of the people?

Think carefully before you answer.

So rational = no gays?

Call it whatever you want. If the government gets involved, it must do so with total neutrality, with no regard for religious tradition or any other irrelevant subjective bullshit.

Completely pointless.

So, another fucking tool who can't discuss one topic without using a half-dozen other subjects as a distraction tactic. Wonderful.

Start threads on any one of those, and I'll happily let you have it.

GOD


HATES


FAGS!!!

Under the current system as written, no gays. Write a new set of laws that isn't a cluster fuck.

So we only discriminate until new laws are written? But before then, it's ok?

Because the Government needs to get the fuck out of it, period.

That argument is so goddamn stupid it defies belief. Write a new set of laws to administer a legal privilege that isn't fucking legal yet? Waiting for that means it will never happen. Bureaucratic pedantry should not be an obstacle to a fundamental right, and you would never accept it as such if you had a personal stake in it.

Fucking nazi file clerk.

But until they do, discriminate away!

Right?

Until that time comes, the government's policy needs to be expanded to include all consenting adults. What you're doing here is similar to what Bear the Nazi File Clerk(tm) is doing: dishonestly framing it as a choice between allowing it under impossible requirements, or doing nothing at all.

What the hell kind of point is that?

Why would I end a marriage with a person just to enter a marriage with the same person?

i'm actually embarassed for bear. obviously this topic hits close to home and i'm firm in my belief that i should have the right to marry a woman if i so choose, but i do enjoy the posts from both sides of the argument in general. (hi pala! )

but damn, bear. just.....DAYUM!

Assuredly!

That's why I vote for gay rights constantly! I LOVE discrimination!

That's generally been the most effective way of getting rid of discrimination.

Get some reading comprehension. You might learn something, and become less stupid than your spouse.

i learn new things all the time. the trick is to spend more time trying to think through the things being discussed and less time trying to make other people think you know what you're talking about.

Too bad you're thinking about yourself rather than making a bad situation better. Thinking like that is what brings about unintended consequences that cause harm rather than joy.

But that's exactly what judges are supposed to do... Evaluate existing laws and use that to determine how the laws effect the case at hand. It's supposed to be protection from the "tyranny of the majority," so to speak.

So why not allow marriage instead of civil unions only for gays that show they know what they're getting into? Churches should damn well be free not to marry whoever they wish not to marry (and that extends very much to straight couples that look headed towards break-up as well), but that's no reason why they can't be legally married by judges and allowed to have the papers to say "marriage" over "civil union."

I've been discussing with you for multiple pages.No matter how many ways you try and spin this,there are no special rights with being married. Trust me, I was once. If marriage was so special, there wouldn't be couples filing separate on their tax returns.This is a case of you and your ilk trying to once again change traditions that made this country what it was.I could care less what you're personal opinion of me is, because I gave up trying to satisfy you types a long time ago. Civil Unions aren't enough for you, even though you get the same privilidges as a married couple does. No, you want to go even further and destroy the meaning of marriage because you hate religion. That's all this is. Just another attempt by you assholes to stick another knife into religion.Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

By the way, I'll "have" any discussion I want on this board. If you can't stand disagreement then don't post on a message board. Same goes for trying to push your agenda on other people. If you can't stand the backlash then don't put your agenda up for a vote.

The problem for me isn't marriage. It's the divorce.

Individual rights are not trumped by expedient practicality or convenience. Some of them can be decidedly inconvenient.