While reading arguments against same sex marriage...

[Lursa]

You sure are gay on the prospects of this issue.

????

What kind of a response is that?

 

[cabse5]

That is your opinion. That also was the opinion of many people when it came to interracial marriage. They quoted the bible saying 'kind must be with kind'.

It will happen from a legal stand point.

You distinguish between marriages of like races and different races, here. Yet, not same sex marriage and hetro marriage... Why is that? Are you a bigot? I haven't heard of the possibility of it happening... is The Judiciary ready to rule, here?

 

[cabse5]

????

What kind of a response is that?

If you read the part of the quote I bolded, that might provide some clarity to my response. I'd say the poster is gay on the prospects of the SSM issue.

 

[joG]

"There is a God."

Sorry, you have to prove THAT.

Since the claim is that he exists, THAT must be proven. No one has to prove he doesnt exist. Cuz there is no way to prove a negative. Now dont pretend you dont know that. This isnt 2nd grade.

And scientific proof does NOT rely on disproof if there is NO result. Disproof in science is evidence proving the contrary, the opposite.

OK, maybe we do need to return to 2nd grade for you.

Well, actually, that is not correct. The scientific method formulates a hypothesis and makes a prediction. If the prediction is falsified the hypothesis is altered. The procedure is repeated until no falsification is found. This does not constitute proof, however, as later testing can reveal false predictions. For this reason it is widely thought that proof will always remain elusive.

 

[joG]

So the fact that you brought up the Latin base of the word 'matrimony' was what....? If the 'word' means nothing, including as applied to contracts...why bring that up?

Sure thing.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Prop 8, that ill-fated piece of legislation passed in 2008, tried to allow California unions to have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

Hogwash.

Prop 8 had nothing to do with providing Civil Unions to have all the rights and responsibilities of Civil Marriage.

PROPOSITION 8
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the
provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.

This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by
adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are
printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage
Protection Act.”

SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution,
to read:

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.​

http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2008/general/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf#prop8



>>>>

What have you proven, here?

That your claim that Prop 8 provided for equality between Civil Unions and Civil Marriages was incorrect.

Civil Unions aren't even mentioned in Prop 8.

What were the provisions for the California Proposition 8 legislation passed in 2008 for unions?

None

I'll give you one: yes, prop 8 defined marriage between a man and woman. Can you name any more provisions in that legislation?

There are no other provisions in that legislation, the quote above is the enitrety of the "legislation" which was a voter initiative to deny Same-sex Civil Marriage in California - it did nothing with Civil Unions.

Just follow the link, feel free to point out any section dealing with Civil Unions - it will be hard though, there were none.



>>>>

 

[maquiscat]

Wow you did not get that line of application at all.

Then please rephrase. It may well have been in the presentation.

 

[roguenuke]

Glad to know you recognize a distinction where separate but equal institutions are allowed in America. Will you now withdraw your idiotic "there are no separate but equal institutions allowed in America <then you changed it to American government, then you changed it to...> " thesis?

I have corrected myself well enough. You are the one who is trying to change something to a "separate but equal" thing in the US government simply because you don't want another group, same sex couples to use a word that is used by the government.

 

[roguenuke]

Here, I've quoted your post, again, for clarity:
Here was my response to your response:
Get it, now?

No. That is still not clear as to what the heck you are talking about at all. We are talking about right now, not 2008, not 2010. Right now 2014, when the majority of the country supports same sex marriage and has supported same sex marriage for the last 2 years. Where at least 13 states have legalized same sex marriage since 2010.

Prop 8 changed the definition of marriage in California. A judge had already ruled that the laws in California did not deny marriage to same sex couples. Prop 8 changed that. In fact, there were no laws explicitly against same sex marriage itself until the 1990s, when people changed the laws because they were afraid of same sex marriage becoming legal.

 

[roguenuke]

You sure are gay on the prospects of this issue.

Your responses are becoming less and less logical. I am quite happy that so many people within our country are understanding that it is not right to discriminate against same sex couples wanting to get married, even if many of those people may personally still believe that homosexuality itself is wrong. I have been taught my whole life that it is wrong to treat people differently under the law or even personally just because you think they are sinning, especially if they are not doing anything to harm others, which homosexuality nor same sex marriage does nothing to harm anyone.

I am very knowledgeable on this issue since I have been arguing for same sex marriage with other people since I was a Junior in high school, 18 years ago.

 

[roguenuke]

What have you proven, here? What were the provisions for the California Proposition 8 legislation passed in 2008 for unions? I'll give you one: yes, prop 8 defined marriage between a man and woman. Can you name any more provisions in that legislation?

How about you provide those since you seem to believe that there was more to just Prop 8 than has been stated already.

If you are trying to talk about Domestic Partnerships in California, they came about in 1999, and were changed by over a dozen different bills in over about the same number of years to reach a point where they were equivalent to civil unions in other states (and pretty much state recognized opposite sex marriages). They were not tied to Prop 8 at all besides those for Prop 8 using them to attempt to justify why same sex couples were being "treated equally" under the laws of California.

Domestic partnership in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Domestic partnerships in California now are for older people who don't want the federal recognition (for whatever reasons, likely tax issues) that come with legal marriage.

Domestic partnership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[roguenuke]

You distinguish between marriages of like races and different races, here. Yet, not same sex marriage and hetro marriage... Why is that? Are you a bigot? I haven't heard of the possibility of it happening... is The Judiciary ready to rule, here?

Legally, marriages between interracial couples and same race couples are not distinguished between. They all have the same marriages. They are distinguished between during debates to provide clarity and/or descriptors for specific types of marriages. The same is true when it comes to distinctions between same sex couples and opposite sex couples. It is a descriptor to distinguish between one characteristic within the relationship that makes the couple types different. I can do it with so many different things. You can say that there are dual military couples, single military couples, and civilian or nonmilitary couples (I have belonged in each of these types of couples throughout my 7 years of marriage to my husband with our various changing statuses). You can have interfaith couples, same faith couples, and even no faith couples. It has nothing to do with legality and everything to do with clarification.

 

[Deuce]

Glad to know you recognize a distinction where separate but equal institutions are allowed in America. Will you now withdraw your idiotic "there are no separate but equal institutions allowed in America <then you changed it to American government, then you changed it to...> " thesis?

Why are you ignoring the "state interest" part?

 

[Henrin]

Why are you ignoring the "state interest" part?

I don't know about him, but I ignore it because I can't find those words in the Constitution.

 

[cabse5]

No. That is still not clear as to what the heck you are talking about at all. We are talking about right now, not 2008, not 2010. Right now 2014, when the majority of the country supports same sex marriage and has supported same sex marriage for the last 2 years. Where at least 13 states have legalized same sex marriage since 2010.

Prop 8 changed the definition of marriage in California. A judge had already ruled that the laws in California did not deny marriage to same sex couples. Prop 8 changed that. In fact, there were no laws explicitly against same sex marriage itself until the 1990s, when people changed the laws because they were afraid of same sex marriage becoming legal.

Fine. I'll clarify my posts and you become a clairvoyant and ascertain my intentions, or better yet, tell me what I should be posting...

I'm trying to point out disingenuous statements that you've posted previously on this thread like, for example, in my words to describe one of your posts: you aren't changing any 'mood' of the country on SSM since more and more Americans have come to accept SSM. I pointed out in response that SSM advocates, like yourself, applauded The Federal Government's unconstitutional ruling of California's Prop 8 in 2010 BEFORE SSM was close to having a majority acceptance in America. And besides, the state by state rulings on SSM is a farce because The Judiciary has SSM as a precedent and The Federal Government will overturn any state's attempt to differentiate SSM and hetro marriage.

 

[cabse5]

Roguenuke. What were some of the areas that The California Union laws of during 2008 attempted to 'equalize' rights of marriage and unions?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I don't know about him, but I ignore it because I can't find those words in the Constitution.

So unless words are enumerated in the Constitution, rights don't exist?



>>>>

 

[Henrin]

So unless words are enumerated in the Constitution, rights don't exist?



>>>>

No, I don't believe there is a such thing as unicorns and invisible words in the Constitution. Like for example, I can't find the word business in the commerce clause, but apparently it's there. Can anyone tell me where this invisible word is in the commerce clause?

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, I don't believe there is a such thing as unicorns and invisible words in the Constitution. Like for example, I can't find business in the commerce clause, but apparently it's there. Can anyone tell me where this invisible word is in the commerce clause?

So, can you answer without the silliness and deflection: Do you believe that rights don't exist unless specifically enumerated in the Constitution?



>>>>

 

[Henrin]

So, can you answer without the silliness and deflection: Do you believe that rights don't exist unless specifically enumerated in the Constitution?



>>>>

Sure, but that has nothing to do with the government providing anything. The marriage license provides the people with ZERO rights.

 

[cabse5]

Sure, but that has nothing to do with the government providing anything. The marriage license provides the people with ZERO rights.

Actually, the marriage license provides the same sex couple with the comfort that their marriages and hetro marriages are the same. When they clearly are not .

 

[cabse5]

The Judiciary has SSM as a precedent because The Judiciary can't differentiate between equality and sameness.

 

[cabse5]

Why are you ignoring the "state interest" part?

OK, what is the state interest part?

 

[Zinthaniel]

The marriage license provides the people with ZERO rights.

Wrong.

Currently Homosexuals unable to marry their significant other are barred from these rights -

Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.
Debts: Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other's debt.
Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.
Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.
Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.
Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.
Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.
Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.
Insurance: Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.
Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.
Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.
Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.
Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.
Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family's resources without adverse tax consequences.

&

US Military Same-Sex Couples Denied Benefits As Pentagon Yet To Reach Deals With Overseas Host Countries

 

[Henrin]

Wrong.

Currently Homosexuals unable to marry their significant other are barred from these rights -

Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.
Debts: Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other's debt.
Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.
Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.
Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.
Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.
Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.
Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.
Insurance: Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.
Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.
Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.
Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.
Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.
Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family's resources without adverse tax consequences.

Great list. None of those are rights however. Rights are granted by your facilities, not by the government.