George Takei's Marriage Rendered Illegal

Eat shit and die, white trash.

It isn't like the "marriage" would've lasted anyway.

One day Sulu would've needed a helicopter ride and not had any cash to pay for it and his husband would've come home to Sulu's head in some pilot's lap.

It wasn't really a law. It was a court ruling.

And therein lies the problem. Takei would have been in court for YEARS trying to figure out who got what, and what gender equivalency applied in the dissolution of the marriage.

Or maybe they just would have written and signed a prenuptual agreement.

But there I go again with all that paperwork.

Many things appear to be inconvenient. But gays aren't losing their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by this. This a more a case of "Waaaaah! He gets better toys than I do!"

Last I looked, it wasn't up to me.

Which again, would have landed them in court for years.

So now a civil union is a marriage?

So straights can get married and gays can have civil unions.

Different things, but they mean the same thing.

Seperate but equal.

Discrimination.

Why?

People, people, people.... All this hate and rancor. We need to keep in mind what is important about this historic vote:

That my views have been right all along and that Uncle Alberts have been wrong.

Nah-na-na-na-na-naah, heh-heh-heh-heh-HEHH-heh!

I'm not claiming otherwise. I'm saying there are no special rights for being heterosexual.

Tradition is irrelevant. It is not legally-binding, and it's not the responsibility of the government to enforce it.

It's "throw them a bone" second-class citizenship, and no, it's not enough. Equality is not something that can be condescendingly doled out peacemeal,

The meaning of marriage is a personal thing. Legal recognition doesn't force you to see the subject differently. But this entire angle is a cowardly fucking lie anyway. What you're really saying is that you're not content with your personal meaning unless everyone else is constrained by it.

God doesn't get a vote. We don't live in a theocracy. Whether or not the clergy approves or the bible allows it is irrelevant. You cannot force anyone to take your religious beliefs into account.

....then don't live under a secular government, asswipe.

Since when have prenups NOT been challengable in the courts?

Oh, they are. But what does it have to do with gender equivalency?

Nice argument, junior. I accept your surrender.

Even with a prenup, the courts have to work within existing divorce law.

What does it have to do with gender equivalency? Do you understand the argument you're making?

No, it's more a case of bigoted fucktards thinking nobody sees through their pathetic smokescreens. If you hate homosexuals and resist any effort to treat them like people, quit being a coward and just fucking admit it.

When straights get a civil union they still call themselves married. If gays had a civil union I don't see why they wouldn't do the same thing.

He probably does.

Yes.
And in California, as in all other states, the divorce law system is NOT gender role neutral.

You can sweep away existing marriage law entirely and start over from scratch taking same-sex unions into account, or you can modify what's already in place to allow for them. What you cannot do is dismissively tell them "The paperwork is too difficult, so no marriage for you!" or "Here. Take this instead. It's almost the same, but you can't use our word!"

And it's SOOOO fucking hard to do a little search-and-replace to substitute "spouse" for "man/woman/husband/wife".

There aren't. Only some special priviliges.

They do it all the time because they take an oath(to god by the way) to preserve and protect the constitution. A constitution that is over 200 years old. So I'd say that tradition is pretty relevant in this country.

You have equality already. Try living in a country where gays are beheaded before making such a stupidly assinine comment like that again.

There are no constraints with marriage. Well, yes there are, but not the kind your talking about.

We swear on bibles when we testify, we swear on bibles when we take an oath, we have god on our money etc, etc. But I guess those will be the next big fights. And none of that makes us a theocracy. Do some reading about theocracies before you make that dumb assertion.

It's a good thing no one else has to spend years in court sorting their shit out.

Oh wait.....

I love when keyboard cowboys throw insults. You don't know me, you don't know who I know, so you're really looking stupid by making that statement. This has nothing to do with hating homosexuals, and any statement that says so is

And that is prejudicial.

Where in the constitution is the role to defend and uphold biblical tradition spelled out? Right. Quit talking out of your ass.

"It's worse over there, so be grateful for what you got!"

No. Try again.

The constraint I was describing was your personal definition of marriage. You see it one way, so everyone else should have to as well. Doesn't work that way.

Wow.

So, because of a few superficial references, that means religion is law? Either that, or you're pulling more irrelevancies out of your ass. We don't live in a theocracy, so no religious tradition is binding on the population.

Which is why the current law needs to be swept away and replaced with something less clusterfucked. It does NOT need to have shortcuts taken in order to satisfy selfish needs when doing so just increases the opposition of the majority to the concept, causing reactions like Prop 8 to be voted in.

But my God, the paperwork! Copies! Notarizing! Staples!!!