Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

[Feba]

Judge strikes down Prop. 8, allows gay marriage in California [Updated] | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times

Following logic, Feba hopes that the bigoted and old fashioned clerks that won't give him and his cat a marriage license will soon find their hands tied too.

[TheGrandMom]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Good. There is no reason that two (HUMAN lol) law abiding citizens of this world can not have a legal contract between them. That is all that marriage is...a legal binding contract. I don't have a problem with churches saying that they can't use their church because that is their right.

[Cotners]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Good. There is no reason that two (HUMAN lol) law abiding citizens of this world can not have a legal contract between them. That is all that marriage is...a legal binding contract. I don't have a problem with churches saying that they can't use their church because that is their right.

That is the fundamental difference in views though. You see marriage as nothing more than a legally binding contract while to me marriage is a sacred union that is not to be trod upon.

[Taskmage]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Imo, we're talking about two different things that have the same name. Sacred unions should have nothing to do with whether two people are allowed to file their taxes together.

[Feba]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

marriage is a sacred union that is not to be trod upon.

And surely you don't want the government to have anything to do with sacred unions.

[Mhurron]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

That is the fundamental diffence in views though. You see marriage as nothing more than a legally binding contract while to me marriage is a sacred union that is not to be trod upon.

That's kinda gay.

The legal entity of marriage has many secular benefits and rights to the two people involved. Denying those because the couple is of the same sex is no different then denying secular rights because the couple is interracial.

[Aksannyi]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

I've been married. Nothing sacred about it. Although I did sing some loud and hearty "Hallelujahs" when I got my divorce papers in the mail.

On topic (well, moreso): I'm happy with this. I also don't know why two people who love each other can't jump down the eternally fiery pit of everlasting hell. XD Just because they're the same sex? Meh, I don't care what they do behind closed doors.

[Cotners]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Imo, we're talking about two different things that have the same name. Sacred unions should have nothing to do with whether two people are allowed to file their taxes together.

California already allows couples to be legally joined and file taxes together etc. They are just not considered married. They still have all rights associated therein.

---------- Post added at 03:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:06 PM ----------

That's kinda gay.

I have made no snide remarks about other's beliefs, keep yours to yourself.

[Feba]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

I have made no snide remarks about other's beliefs, keep yours to yourself.

But then, Mhurron isn't believing in 'separate but equal' members of society.



Unrelated, but this ruling is apparently from the US constitution, not California's (as previous attempts had). I don't think district courts have much power, but given this is almost certainly going to be appealed, this could easily go to the Supreme Court. I have to imagine that this is going to be a huge case for them; up there with Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, and Bush v. Gore. Not just for the huge civil rights victory if same-sex marriage is found to be constitutionally protected, but also for all of the fighting on both sides. On the bright side, while they may say yes or no, if they say no, they also won't ban it. It'll still win eventually. If they say yes, it would be pretty much impossible to get a constitutional amendment against it.

[Mhurron]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

I have made no snide remarks about other's beliefs, keep yours to yourself.

Were you born without a sense of humour or was is surgically removed at a later time?

[Cotners]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Were you born without a sense of humour or was is surgically removed at a later time?

I believe your inability to relay humour is at fault.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Denying those because the couple is of the same sex is no different then denying secular rights because the couple is interracial.

Well, except a black woman and a white man are usually still equipped to have kids, while a gay couple is not. One couple here might be tasked with raising a functional member of society, while for the other it is scientifically impossible through natural means to have kids. So I would consider them different cases: an interracial couple can have kids and under the existing system, there's tax breaks for starting a family.

Allowing tax breaks to a couple that can't start a family seems a bit uneven to me.

A marriage is about love, creating a new branch within a family and potentially expanding that family by having children. If you're marrying for tax breaks and see it as a legally binding contract, I don't think any form of marriage should get tax breaks. If you're willing to have kids or adopt, that's another story.

Kids kind of are a financial burden, after all. They can't get a job, they eat, need clothes, a place to stay and all that. Costs extra money. Kids don't lighten the load. If I want to ease my financial burden as a single man, I just get a roommate.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Why are we rewarding the creation of more children? That's a terrible idea.

[Aksannyi]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

But how can you truly base a marriage on procreation alone? There are plenty of people who get married with no intention of ever having kids, straight or otherwise. There are plenty of gay people who probably wish to either adopt or bear children (via insemination or surrogacy or something), so why should that be the main basis for a marriage?

And for that matter, I was perfectly capable of getting pregnant without being married first.

Marriage is about loving someone and wanting to share your life with that person. All other benefits such as tax breaks, being able to make decisions should the spouse be incapable (vegetable, etc.), and whatever else should be just a bonus to the fact that you've spoken before your family, friends, and god (if you believe) that you wish to pledge your life to this person and that you want to be with them, committed for life.

It's sad that people can't see marriage in that capacity anymore. I'll admit, I did not get married for the right reasons, and look where I stand now. I would be happy to marry again if I truly felt devoted enough to someone in order to do it. But it shouldn't be taken as lightly as it is these days.

I'm getting off track somewhat, but honestly, marriage, by my definition, is the binding of two people together who wish to share their lives with each other, for better or for worse (yeah, cliche, you know what I'm getting at) and for eternity. It shouldn't just be a tax agreement or a vehicle for procreation. And for that matter, it shouldn't make a difference if you love the opposite sex or the same sex. Marriage is about a lifetime commitment to someone you love.

[Karinya]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Well, except a black woman and a white man are usually still equipped to have kids, while a gay couple is not. One couple here might be tasked with raising a functional member of society, while for the other it is scientifically impossible through natural means to have kids. So I would consider them different cases: an interracial couple can have kids and under the existing system, there's tax breaks for starting a family.

Allowing tax breaks to a couple that can't start a family seems a bit uneven to me.

Well, that's going to be a nasty surprise to anyone who remarries after menopause. Or anyone with an infertility disorder. Later on you mention adoption, which a gay couple *can* use to start a family. Lesbians can use a sperm bank too.

This argument has already been raised and very thoroughly refuted even before this particular case.

A marriage is about love, creating a new branch within a family and potentially expanding that family by having children. If you're marrying for tax breaks and see it as a legally binding contract, I don't think any form of marriage should get tax breaks.

I don't necessarily disagree, but the point of equal protection is that if you're going to provide some benefit (say, tax breaks) to one group of people (say, heterosexuals), you have to treat other similarly situated people EQUALLY.

If you're willing to have kids or adopt, that's another story.

Kids kind of are a financial burden, after all. They can't get a job, they eat, need clothes, a place to stay and all that. Costs extra money. Kids don't lighten the load. If I want to ease my financial burden as a single man, I just get a roommate.

We don't need more kids, but on the other hand, financially supporting families with kids also supports the kids themselves, which helps them have less-crappy lives later on. But either way, since lots of gay couples have kids whether the state recognizes their relationship or not, and even more opposite-sex couples *don't* have any kids, kids are a red herring.