George Takei's Marriage Rendered Illegal

I just looked up about the Defense of Marriage act.

Guess who authored it?

Bob Barr.

That has been well documented as one of the "Come to Jesus" moments that Bob had to have with libertarians when he switched. The other was his zealous drug warrior status. There are still libertarians that hold it against him. Look up some stories on the last convention and you'll find planty of voices against Barr for those two reasons.

Still has to satisfy the objective standard and prove it. You can't just say "I'm harmed".

I guess I don't see what you're being asked to do besides put up with it. You should be free to reject whatever beliefs you choose, but only for yourself.

That rules out a lot more than the acknowledgement of gay marriage.

I think you already know my answer to that. Private property means the owner's word is law.

No more than you are constitutionally entitled to deny some people the use of certain words.

If the difference is trivial, why resist it?

California doesn't have civil union's, but there are domestic partnerships which are close to the same thing as a civil union. It offers up almost the same thing as a marriage, but is not recognized by the federal government. So in other words, those who are in domestic partnerships aren't penalized with the marriage penalty tax on their annual tax returns I guess.

Well, what the hell. If words don't mean anything, maybe we can give this gay marriage thing a go. But obviously "husband" and "wife" won't work. So how about for a gay marriage they call them "pedophile #1" and "pedophile #2". After all, it's only words, right? We'll just redefine what "pedophile" is.

The whole "words don't matter" argument shows the hypocrisy involved: we're told, "It's no big deal. The word really doesn't mean anything." But when the reply is "OK. You can have the same rights and privileges as a heterosexual couple, but we'll call it a 'civil union'," and the gays are all "NO! IT HAS TO BE CALLED A 'MARRIAGE' OR YOU'RE PERSECUTING US!"

Words do mean something. They mean exactly what the population speaking a particular language need them to mean. They are not and never have been arbitrarily set in granite to grant one section of the population total control over symbolism and perception.

And here's a crazy thought. You never have to refer to a same-sex union as a marriage. You don't have to think of them that way or acknowledge the marriage in any way. For those of us who are not nosy sanctimonious douchebags unable to mind their own fucking business, all that is required is that we be content with what the word means to us personally.

Indulge in whatever adult union your belief system provides. The government should play no role. No incentives and no punishments.

I wouldn't say no role, just a strictly limited role. Ensure there is no coercion, that all participants are of sufficient age and mental capacity to consent and do so with full knowledge of the implications, then leave 'em the fuck alone.

Age, informed consent and mental capacity should be a consideration for all potentially criminal situations. Nothing illegal should become legal upon marriage.

My apology BD. I wasn't sure given your choice in titles for the subject line and your OP.

It's all very simple.

Straights want to get married. Do they have civil union? No (99% of the time). They have a WEDDING!

So Gay couples also want to get married. But lot's of bigoted straights get bent out of shape and don't want them to have a wedding or get married. They want gays to have civil unions instead.

Separate but equal = discrimination.


See, I told you it was simple.

Than why did you choose the following for your subject?

It makes you like an ignorant fool. You seem to believe that by CA amending its Constitution, something that took a 2/3's super majority to do it would void out his marriage which it does not. It also makes you look like an ignorant individual regarding the US Constitution and ex post factos.

Apparently I shouldn't bother reading the subject lines to your threads given the fact they have absolutely nothing to do with whatever you claim the point of the thread to be?

Oh and by the way, the following excerpt from your OP is completely wrong. Now who is ignorant?

This constitutional amendment to CA's constitution does not nullify existing gay marriages. Where in the hell did you get your education?

I'm sorry BD, I didn't mean to blow apart your claims. It is just that it was so easy to do. I'll try harder next time to show more restraint and not hurt your fragile wittle feelings.

I'm sorry, did you say something Kirky? It's hard for me to pay attention to your rantings when I simply don't give a fuck with what you have to say. But I'm funny that way.

I told Bailey in another post that I think both sides are being moronic about it. it just so happens that the first blow was the action TO use it.

I think trying desperately to get the validation (which is all the gays are doing) is moronic and I think trying desperately to deny them is moronic.

there are no good guys in this.

No, not really.

the reason so-called SBE schools were unconstitutional is because they were NOT, in fact EQUAL....not even remotely.

Having two seperate institutions which are equal before the law satisfies logic and constitutionality. The requirement is "equal before the law" and that's the failing that needs to be addressed where it exists.

It shouldn't depend on fostering good will. It's not a gift, and it's not fucking charity. Being an irritating pain in the ass who places too much emphasis on symbolism and perception does not make someone less deserving of equal rights. So what if they're really looking for sentimental, mainstream validation? Nothing requires you to buy into the idea that allowing them to call themselves "married" grants them that validation.

It's like some people think gay couples would be walking up to them on the street and demanding acknowledgement or something. "Hey, you! Say we're married! Say it! SAY IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT!!"

Because...

1) They usually don't confer the same benefits.

2) The same people against same sex marriage also tend to oppose civil unions.

You realise that your Defence of Marriage act expressly forbids your government from recognizing gay civil unions as being worthy of the same recognition as marriage in any way?

Here in Australia when the ACT (Australian Capital Territory) tried to create Civil Unions a couple of years ago they were overruled by the Federal government for being too similar to marriage.

Despite how many times you repeat it, this is not just about a word.

It's moronic now? I see you have stepped up from stupid.

I also see you decided not to address a single point I raised about lots of good reasons to have a relationship recognised.

All true. Still doesn't make it any less weak that they THINK they need it.

The way I read this is something that in other scenarios you might be saying:

No one is entitled to demand my approval or even acceptance. they are entitled to equality before the law and that's it.

I don't have as much issue with them crying about not getting to use the word as I do with them trying to manipulate the legal system (and great expense and strife) for something so simplistic as emotional validation.

THAT is the answer to "so what?"

Whining for validation is only an irritation - going through long expensive (to the taxpayer) legal wrangling for emotional validation is something else again.

Tell me some specific right you are being denied in terms of equality before the law - I'm on your side. Bitch and moan because your feelings are hurt? Not so much.

In this case, "emotional validation" and "total equality before the law" are achieved by the same action. It's the individual's character that determines which aspect he/she fixates on.

What points?

It's moronic because it's mentally weak to want others to validate your choices, life, actions, or attractions.

Without going into detail, there are things in my life and relationship that the "religious right" would condemn as strongly as they condem gay marriage.

My reaction? Fuck 'em. I could not possibly begin to consider the idea that I could care less than I do.

That, IMO, is the smart and sane reaction to such disapproval. Crying like a little girl because I'm not "accepted and approved" is not an option.

Again - not speaking of equality before the law here - speaking of emotional validation.

Don't be a lazy ass and write your will. Personal responsibility. Say it with me now. Per-son-al re-spon-si-bi-li-ty.

For private systems, you have to designate beneficiaries already. The public systems shouldn't exist anyway. If they must, see previous argument.

A problem the state created (the laws regulating hospital visits) does not warrant further state intervention.

And what about those couples not married? Why should they have the same issue? So much for "equality before the law".

See first response.

Finally, a decent argument. Please, explain how that necessitates the government recognizing strictly domestic marriages.

Again all contrivances of the state.

Again problems the state created with income taxation.

A few are excuses for laziness, the rest are the state's fault to begin with. You've only got one argument with any validity at all here, but probably not for the reasons you think. There is no other justification, then, for the state to recognize marriages to cover its own ass for its shortcomings.

That doesn't mean that the problem of equality MUST be solved by the most emotionally satisfying action.

I assume that list O2C addresses above is what you were referring to.

I see nothing on that list that can only be addressed by the use of the word "marriage" as opposed to the term "civil union" or "domestic partnership"


I am on record as favoring equality before the law - what, beyond that, is the value in being "recognized" by the state as "married"?

Whether or not it's "emotionally satisfying" should not enter into consideration, for or against. Equal rights are not a matter to be determined by feelings, and that goes as much for the people who don't want "their" word redefined as it does for those who think a change in legal status means mainstream society must finally embrace them.

Supporters of "gay marriage" have some pretty loaded ideas about love, family, and the history of the institution.

See, why didn't McCain play up this wedge issue more? It won Bush the White House--twice!

Except that over here, married couples don't pay inheritance tax on what they inherit from each other. Makes quite a difference.

So when family members who haven't seen someone for years have more say in who visits them than the person they might have lived with for 20 years or more you're OK with that? Nice.

I assume you're referring to hetero couples. They've made the choice not to get married. Gays don't have a choice.
Your other arguments are just as weak.

subjective + subjective + subjective = irrelevant.