George Takei's Marriage Rendered Illegal

Yes, all subjective--which is why democracy works best.

And the people have spoken.

With men like UA leading the charge to defend the right to gay marriage, I predict that the DOMA will be remade into an actual amendment to the Constitution of the US at this rate!

'The people' once believed it was right to put children up chimneys.
'The people' once believed there was nothing wrong with slavery.
'The people' once believed that black people should give up their seats on the bus.

'The people' aren't always right, especially when it comes to 'the others'.

And if the people still believed those things today, we'd stay have them around.

There is no right or wrong.

Yet another problem created by the government - inheritance tax.

What gives blood relatives the ability to determine who can visit in the hospital? Oh right, the state.

Actually I'm arguing in favor of not being compelled to disclose confidential conversations at all.

True. Which means they are just as strong.

Absolutely.

Which is going right back to my point that the initial attempt to go beyond "domestic partnership" and claim the right to use a word was foolish and emotional (or, if you believe the religious right, a conspiracy agenda to render the concept of marriage meaningless but I'm not going near that notion).

No. Using the word "marriage" is completely appropriate and reasonable. The only thing foolish is the Christian Right making such a fuss over it. That complaint has nothing to do with reason or logic.

Typical response to an ignorant individual who is proven categorically wrong.

What a flipping stupid thing to post... gays who have been married having their marriages rendered illegal.

BD, thanks for demontrating what a complete moron and idiot you truly are.

Appropriate? Fine by me.
Reasonable? Sure.

a RIGHT? NECESSARY?

Not at all.

It's a contrived controversy.

Sooooo ... if you don't want something added to the school curriculum, that means it should be banned?

Inheritance laws in some places that tax inheritance to people who are not immediately family regardless of if it was bequeathed to them in a will.

How about you spell that out rather than patronizing repeating something that does not apply in this case.

Some systems, both public and private, still treat spouses differently, meaning that a homosexual partner cannot be a beneficiary.

Whether or not the public system should exist is irrelevant at this moment since my question was to Shep asking why it is stupid, as he asserted, for homosexual partnerships to want access to marriage. Even if those public systems shouldn't exist, the fact is that they do and thus are a real practical consideration.

See my above response about how that is irrelevant. The fact that you assert these rules should not exist does not change the fact they do and likely will for the foreseeable future. That also disregards the fact that many of these rules are based around real practical concerns such hospitals wanting close family to have access while having time when the hospital will not be filled with other random visitors to allow medical staff to work more easily.

Again, the point here is not what those rules should be, it as about what those rules are and thus why it is not stupid to want to be treated as a married couple in regards to them.

That is a valid point and without knowing the full reason for this law I am inclined to think it shouldn't even exist. With that said, again it has to be pointed out that it does exist, and therefore it is not stupid to want the ability to take advantage of it.

First response about personal responsibility doesn't apply here, since as with my first response these type of claims are often restricted to immediate family. So therefore it is still a valid question to ask Shep why it is stupid to want to have the ability to do so.

I never said it did, if you will look again you will see that all my points are not even necessarily arguments for why gay marriage should exist, only why it is not stupid and without any practical merit to want it to exist.

Again, the fact that you don't think the state should not be doing those things does not change the fact that they do. Therefore it is still valid to ask what is stupid about wanting the assurance that your partner will be able to visit you in potential family only situations, or vice versa.

Maybe so, doesn't answer the question I asked though.

I think we have already established that there are more practical concerns here that go beyond what can be covered by personal responsibility. Also, again, while I am in support of gay marriage that is not what this post of mine was. Instead it was a reaction to Sheps insistence that this is all just about wanting to use a word and seeking emotional validation and is, using his own words here, "stupid" and "moronic".

It's a shame that is only one of the issues, yet you continue to focus exclusively on it, even denying that any practical considerations exist.

You have yet to show me a practical consideration that cannot be addressed by minor adjustments to existing law.

The vast majority of which (if not all), in fact, already addressed in California by "domestic partnerships"

Wait a minute, Bailey, is this supposed to be reasons couples would want the state to recognize their relationship, or reasons the state wants to recognize it? The list reads like the latter (and "I also see you decided not to address a single point I raised about lots of good reasons to have a relationship recognised." sounds like it too), but your responses imply the former. Clarification?

I see the homos are blaming the Mormons.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-protest7-2008nov07,0,3827549.story

This will not end well.

And I was. My bad, carry on. I read the later post first, vaguely recalled seeing a list a page back, and quoted it without looking at the context.

Unless i am missing something about the current state of California law - the legal inequalities were ALREADY ADDRESSED before the legal move to allow them to "get married" (as opposed to entering into domestic partnerships)

If that's the case, then ignoring that reality in order to fight for the word "married" is dumb. If there remained things undone, then the legislature could have passed a very simple amendment to the DP law which says "all the rights and privileges under California state law which acrue to marriage also acrue to domestic partnerships."

I do have to note here though, in passing, that one could still make the case that the state exercising discretion about who can or cannot get married has not been held by the courts as a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equality under the law. Again, I refer you to the fact that close blood relatives can't marry and this is not held to be "inequality" by the courts. Presumably because the state has presenting a compelling reason why they should be barred.
So as a technical matter, the courts recognize the rights of states to "discriminate" in this matter - the only question would then be whether being of the same gender is a condition the state has an interest in.

This goes beyond California though, I have mentioned how your federal government has laws that prevent it from even acknowledging the existence of same sex relationships in any way as marriage.

I have also mentioned how here in Australia, the same type of people who are against homosexual marriage have also overruled any moves towards granting civil unions.

The fact is that domestic partnerships/civil unions are both not equal to marriage, and in fact are not allowed or acknowledged in many places.

Which won't be solved by California law, even if California law called them married.

Which I assume would happen here but is a different argument from the one I am making.

How are the different in terms of legal equality on the state level? (in the states which have them)

whether or not they are allowed everywhere is not germaine to my point.
[quote-Ancalegon]
Agreed, but in fairness hetero's should have the use of that name by the state striped as well. Equality and all that. [/quote]

I'm on record as favoring the removal of legal recognition of private marriage entirely as I've mentioned in this thread BUT if hetros and homos have the same legal rights (under state law) and one is called X and the other is called Y - that's NOT "inequality"

That's semantics.

Oh look, here's Volpone being wrong yet again

Also cripes, it's been nearly 15 years since this happened? God, we're getting old.

@Shirogayne

My views have evolved a bit in 14 years. I'd now agree that gay marriage falls under equal protection of the law and is a right. I have absolutely no problem with it.

But will happily support politicians who say they intend to take away that right.

I'm glad that @Nova killed Shep.

Is it fucked up I want to reply to old Shep posts as wackier 33 year old Dicky?

Find a single one of my posts asserting that individual rights should require majority approval. Just one.

Fascinating.

I don't know if it's in a post, but every time the subject of abortion comes up, you immediately go to your taxes. Despite you already having knowledge that your tax dollars do not go toward abortions for anyone - well. Not, anyone who is not a congressperson or wealthy enough to bribe congress to pay for it.

How so? Explain. Show your work, low- effort troll.

And then you immediately leap to the wrong conclusion. As far as I'm concerned, abortions SAVE me money and should be performed as often as possible.