Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[Lelouche]

2. Therefore the only reason to demand that the government recognize this status, is to receive the legal benefits associated with this status. ^Greed

So, you ARE claiming that people only get married because they're greedy.

And your evidence for this, is that you don't want to get married.

actually my evidence for this is the patently obvious, If my gf wanted to get married, I wouldn't be opposed to the idea
Communal property rights of married couples is the greatest proof of this. If I bought the house, and everything in it, why would you be entitled to half of that in the divorce?

California law, I believe, splits communal property 50/50. I'm not sure what the law is in other states.

But I'm still confused by the other part... if your girlfriend wanted to get married (obviously, because she's greedy) - then you would marry her... because you are greedy?

I'd marry her out of love, but she is greedy...I won't hide that fact

and I would insist on a marriage of my definition, one that would eliminate the financial baggage usually associated with this rather unseemly tradition.

Also I retain the right to continue having sex with other people, nobody should own the body of another, not even via a marriage contract

in short, a pre-nup
so maybe I am greedy, but only in the sense that I want to maintain my personal freedoms

[Grave_n_idle]

I'd marry her out of love...

Then you recant your earlier nonsense?

[Lelouche]

You're right. Except married couples gets more tax breaks and more opportunities for loans. Especially if they have children (don't know if it matter if its adopted or not though).

I find this situation to be quite unreasonable
It's not enough to make burn down my government
but it does make me disinclined to respect the laws of my government

[Dempublicents1]

If the laws make it so only married people can make these kinds of decision regarding finance and deathbed visitation, and medial/hospital stuff, then that is all the more reason to abolish marriage as a state institution, anyone with whom you share that kind of bond should be able to make such decisions, in fact "Power of Attorney" is a current legal practice that gives you exactly the same rights, both financial and medical.

First of all, "Power of attorney" does not give you exactly the same rights at all. Even couples with durable power of attorney and medical proxy documents have been denied at times. The most durable and legally binding way to do this is to ensure that the person you wish to have these powers is to make sure that they are legally viewed as your next-of-kin, something that is achieved through marriage.

You don't have to be married to designate your partner as a beneficiary on your life insurance, or the executor of your will, or the inheritor of your property, or your medical caretaker.

You don't seem to understand how marriage works. Your spouse doesn't inherit your property. They already own it. Thus, it is not subject to inheritance taxes and the like. In marriage, assets (and debts) are jointly held. This is not something that can be achieved through other legal means.

Now, you are right that you don't need to be married to designate your partner as the executor of your will or the inheritor of property or as a medical caretaker (although you do need marriage to make some of these more legally enforceable). However, the process of going through all of those thing separately is far, far more difficult and expensive than simply getting them all in one package - ie. a marriage license. Meanwhile, there are numerous legal protections associated with marriage that cannot be obtained in any other way.

I don't want a higher tax burden because gays can get married.

Whoa, wait, how would taxes get raised?

They wouldn't. In fact, as was shown in the case, CA is currently missing out on a great deal of tax revenue specifically because same sex marriages are not granted.

actually that would make alot more sense if you didn't snip out the actual explanation, instead of inventing your own

There's Marriage, and then there's State Marriage.
The first is done for a number of reasons, Spiritual, Cultural, Religious, the desire to "Bond" with your partner, in some pseudo contractual way, as recognized by your community^Love
The Second is done for one Reason, Recognition of status by the state, in order to obtain the benefits of that status, as described by law ^Greed

I allow for the first, that's your business
The Second is a waste of resources, and is entirely arbitrary.

You're setting up a false dichotomy. Things like wanting to make sure your partner is taken care of after you die and doesn't lose his assets (like the house the two of you have lived in) is based just as much in love as it is in economics. Wanting your partner to be with you when you are on your deathbed, and to have that partner be able to make medical decisions for you in that instance is covered by marriage law, but has nothing to do with greed.

Well shit the government shouldn't have a say in THAT either... see once again it is the government at the root of the problem. Go fucking figure.

How, precisely, should we determine these things, then? Should we have a lottery to see who gets to make medical decisions for you if you cannot do so yourself, who gets to own your stuff after you die, etc.? These are legal matters, which means that they are determined through legal means.

[Lelouche]

I'd marry her out of love...

Then you recant your earlier nonsense?

If you snip my post again, and only respond to one thing out context, of course it looks like you were right

but if you actually kept the whole post, you would see the correct answer

Snip my post again, and I will place you on ignore

[Grave_n_idle]

I'd marry her out of love...

Then you recant your earlier nonsense?

If you snip my post again, and only respond to one thing out context, of course it looks like you were right

but if you actually kept the whole post, you would see the correct answer

You can't have it both ways.

Either you will marry her out of love - in which case your earlier statement was a lie.

Or marriage is something people ONLY do because they are greedy (as you said earlier) in which case, you're obviously lying about marrying her out of love.


I didn't snip anything that matters. I was simply addressing your apparent inability to answer a simple yes/no question with a simple yes or no.

[The Black Plains]

I'd marry her out of love...

Then you recant your earlier nonsense?

If you snip my post again, and only respond to one thing out context, of course it looks like you were right

but if you actually kept the whole post, you would see the correct answer

Snip my post again, and I will place you on ignore

I will leave this argument by saying this, seriously grave... that was kinda low. He obviously explained further in the post and that changed the meaning from what your misquote seemed.

[Lelouche]

~snip

actually every single protection you get via marriage, has a legal equivalent
and if it doesn't, get one
and I'm sure any lawyer worth his salt could create a contract that would create identical protections to that of marriage
I'm sure they would be able to standardize such a form
and I'm sure the courts would find it enforceable

in short, you are wrong.

[Lelouche]

I'd marry her out of love...

Then you recant your earlier nonsense?

If you snip my post again, and only respond to one thing out context, of course it looks like you were right

but if you actually kept the whole post, you would see the correct answer

You can't have it both ways.

Either you will marry her out of love - in which case your earlier statement was a lie.

Or marriage is something people ONLY do because they are greedy (as you said earlier) in which case, you're obviously lying about marrying her out of love.


I didn't snip anything that matters. I was simply addressing your apparent inability to answer a simple yes/no question with a simple yes or no.

It's not a simple yes no answer
and you snipped me again
Ignore city here you come

I'll remove you in 1 week
behave yourself next time

[Dempublicents1]

You're right. Except married couples gets more tax breaks and more opportunities for loans. Especially if they have children (don't know if it matter if its adopted or not though).

The idea that married couples get some sort of automatic tax break is a myth. The "filing jointly" tax structure is closely aligned with that for a single person. In most cases, a married couple will pay the same amount in taxes that they would as single individuals. In some cases, they will pay more. In others, they will pay less. I'm not sure where you're getting the part about the loans, unless it is a reference to the fact that married people are often seen as statistically more stable - something that has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with how financial institutions calculate risk. And all of the tax benefits associated with children are equally available to married and non-married parents.

I'd marry her out of love, but she is greedy...I won't hide that fact

and I would insist on a marriage of my definition, one that would eliminate the financial baggage usually associated with this rather unseemly tradition.

Also I retain the right to continue having sex with other people, nobody should own the body of another, not even via a marriage contract

in short, a pre-nup
so maybe I am greedy, but only in the sense that I want to maintain my personal freedoms

So you don't actually want to merge your life with someone else in the way that most married people do. Good for you.

Many of us, on the other hand, do wish to live a life that is built with another person in that way, no matter how "unseemly" you might find it.

[Norstal]

You're right. Except married couples gets more tax breaks and more opportunities for loans. Especially if they have children (don't know if it matter if its adopted or not though).

I find this situation to be quite unreasonable
It's not enough to make burn down my government
but it does make me disinclined to respect the laws of my government

It kind of makes sense though. Most newlywed couples find it hard to afford a new house and they are expected to have children. I'm also sure that gay couples wants to have a family too. Though I suppose some gays just have that married status to evade taxes.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'd marry her out of love...

Then you recant your earlier nonsense?

If you snip my post again, and only respond to one thing out context, of course it looks like you were right

but if you actually kept the whole post, you would see the correct answer

Snip my post again, and I will place you on ignore

I will leave this argument by saying this, seriously grave... that was kinda low. He obviously explained further in the post and that changed the meaning from what your misquote seemed.

He did nothing of the sort. HE said he would marry her out of love, and then produced five lines of nonsense about a 'marriage of his definition'. Either it's a legally recognised marriage, or it;'s not. If he's on topic, and it's a legally recognised marriage - then he's just doing it because he's greedy, and he isn't doing it out of love.

If it's not a legally recognised marriage, it's off-topic and has nothing to do with the debate, and - while he might do it out of love - it's not a real marriage.

As I said in my reply to him - I didn't snip anything that changes the overall impact of the post on the debate.

[Grainne Ni Malley]

The only necessity for government involvement is the legal ramifications of marriage. marriage is - whether we like it or not - a contract.

'God' isn't going to appoint custody of the tv when your S.O. leaves you for a pale European cellist.

We don't like, and we have the power to change that. (or specifically the group can change, as the individual is almost entirely powerless in this case)

If marriage is about love, then who really gives a damm about the TV?
I'll just let that one sink in.

I'll agree that the TV thing is a bit off. I would like to think that nobody really goes into marriage thinking about what they'll get out of it when the divorce is finalized. I'm sure that there are some out there who do exactly that, though. Still, there should be the same kind of recognition for any person that shared his or her life with their partner, regardless of sexual orientation. Same-sex couples should be afforded the same rights and protections as heterosexual married couples.

Like the ability to handle the estate or even participate in the process in the event of the death of your partner. The ability to retain what you and your partner have accumulated over the years spent together as opposed to long-lost nephew John Doe getting everything including the roof over your head. Or how about even the ability to be with your partner while he or she is in the hospital? The ability to make medical decisions for your partner if need be. Or the ability to sue the hospital in the case of wrongful death. These are rights afforded to married couples and denied to or at least extremely difficult for same-sex couples under the current state of things.

[Grave_n_idle]

It's not a simple yes no answer

Then you've defeated your own argument.

The good news is - you apparently really do love your girlfriend.

The bad news is that you've wasted the last four pages on the statement "This argument is about greed, pure and simple", which you knew was bullshit when you wrote it.

[Norstal]

You're right. Except married couples gets more tax breaks and more opportunities for loans. Especially if they have children (don't know if it matter if its adopted or not though).

The idea that married couples get some sort of automatic tax break is a myth. The "filing jointly" tax structure is closely aligned with that for a single person. In most cases, a married couple will pay the same amount in taxes that they would as single individuals. In some cases, they will pay more. In others, they will pay less. I'm not sure where you're getting the part about the loans, unless it is a reference to the fact that married people are often seen as statistically more stable - something that has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with how financial institutions calculate risk. And all of the tax benefits associated with children are equally available to married and non-married parents.

You haven't heard about newlyweds that wants a new home to raise their family? I mean, its been portrayed in the media several times. They need loans and, perhaps not tax breaks, but perhaps tax returns. Yes its true they won't get these benefits at an instant and they will need to fulfill requirements to get it, such as having children. Again, I wasn't aiming at financially stable. Its more convincing to bankers and loaners to loan money to married couples instead of individuals.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'll agree that the TV thing is a bit off. I would like to think that nobody really goes into marriage thinking about what they'll get out of it when the divorce is finalized.

The ascendancy of the pre-nup suggests that's more than a little hopeful.

[Dempublicents1]

actually every single protection you get via marriage, has a legal equivalent

No, it doesn't. And the fact that you think it does makes it clear that you are woefully unqualified to converse on this topic.

and if it doesn't, get one

It isn't really that simple.

and I'm sure any lawyer worth his salt could create a contract that would create identical protections to that of marriage

No, he really couldn't. Not without a government structure in which to do so. First of all, many of the protections deal with the way in which the government recognizes the couple. In some cases, the couple is seen as a single legal entity, rather than two separate ones. That requires "government intrusion", as you put it. Secondly, all contracts fall under the purview of the government, so any such contractual agreements would necessarily entail "government intrusion".

I'm sure they would be able to standardize such a form

You mean....like....a marriage license?

It's hilarious to me that most of the people who argue "Get the government out of marriage" then turn around and argue in favor of a standardized legal package that would constitute marriage. It seems that you guys just want to re-invent the wheel for some strange reason.

and I'm sure the courts would find it enforceable

Just like they've found the legal agreements non-married couples have been able to enter into to be enforceable? Oh, wait, they often haven't....

in short, you are wrong.

Yes, your completely incorrect and uninformed legal analysis is clearly proof of that.

[Grainne Ni Malley]

I'll agree that the TV thing is a bit off. I would like to think that nobody really goes into marriage thinking about what they'll get out of it when the divorce is finalized.

The ascendancy of the pre-nup suggests that's more than a little hopeful.

Ugh, pre-nups. It's like saying, "I'm marrying you with the full expectation that you are going to rob me blind when this all falls to shit." I guess nowadays it's becoming more and more an issue of common-sense protection, but what an ugly way to start things out! I suppose I'm a little behind the times in my thinking.

[Dempublicents1]

The idea that married couples get some sort of automatic tax break is a myth. The "filing jointly" tax structure is closely aligned with that for a single person. In most cases, a married couple will pay the same amount in taxes that they would as single individuals. In some cases, they will pay more. In others, they will pay less. I'm not sure where you're getting the part about the loans, unless it is a reference to the fact that married people are often seen as statistically more stable - something that has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with how financial institutions calculate risk. And all of the tax benefits associated with children are equally available to married and non-married parents.

You haven't heard about newlyweds that wants a new home to raise their family? I mean, its been portrayed in the media several times. They need loans and, perhaps not tax breaks, but perhaps tax returns. Yes its true they won't get these benefits at an instant and they will need to fulfill requirements to get it, such as having children. Again, I wasn't aiming at financially stable. Its more convincing to bankers and loaners to loan money to married couples instead of individuals.

You didn't actually read my reply, did you? How about you try again? I'll leave it quoted for your benefit. I'll even bold the important parts.

[Norstal]

The idea that married couples get some sort of automatic tax break is a myth. The "filing jointly" tax structure is closely aligned with that for a single person. In most cases, a married couple will pay the same amount in taxes that they would as single individuals. In some cases, they will pay more. In others, they will pay less. I'm not sure where you're getting the part about the loans, unless it is a reference to the fact that married people are often seen as statistically more stable - something that has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with how financial institutions calculate risk. And all of the tax benefits associated with children are equally available to married and non-married parents.

You haven't heard about newlyweds that wants a new home to raise their family? I mean, its been portrayed in the media several times. They need loans and, perhaps not tax breaks, but perhaps tax returns. Yes its true they won't get these benefits at an instant and they will need to fulfill requirements to get it, such as having children. Again, I wasn't aiming at financially stable. Its more convincing to bankers and loaners to loan money to married couples instead of individuals.

You didn't actually read my reply, did you? How about you try again? I'll leave it quoted for your benefit. I'll even bold the important parts.

Tax returns are paying taxes? What is this I don't even...

Loans don't have to do with the law, but like I said, bankers and loaners are more confident in giving loans to couples. Before you say it has nothing to do with the law, the law regulates corporations, so its not out of context.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'll agree that the TV thing is a bit off. I would like to think that nobody really goes into marriage thinking about what they'll get out of it when the divorce is finalized.

The ascendancy of the pre-nup suggests that's more than a little hopeful.

Ugh, pre-nups. It's like saying, "I'm marrying you with the full expectation that you are going to rob me blind when this all falls to shit." I guess nowadays it's becoming more and more an issue of common-sense protection, but what an ugly way to start things out! I suppose I'm a little behind the times in my thinking.

Oh, I agree with you. I'm the sort of romantic idealist who married because that's what we wanted to do... which, I guess, means I'll end up screwed if there's a divorce squirreled-away in my future somewhere.

But it's not something new - as I mentioned elsewhere, the 'marriage' laws in the Hammurabi code of laws are property laws, not religious ones. Who gets the TV (so to speak) has always been an issue.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Note: I apologize for not replying post-by-post to arguments in this thread. I simply haven't had time today. Please excuse the lengthy shotgun approach below.

I know those arguing against the U.S. District Court's opinion (but have clearly failed to actually read the extremely thorough 136-page decision they are upset about or even read/reply to my brief summary of it) are unlikely to read any of this, but, as some of the same bullshit arguments against same-sex marriage are being recirculated herein, I thought I'd post some past answers:

1. As I said in my earlier post, contrary to those whining about judicial activism or the "will of the voters, fundamental rights and equal protection of the laws do not depend on the whim of majority opinion or the outcome of elections. The Supreme Court explained this in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

Despite this being a nearly 70-year old precedent, some right-wingers have rejected it as judicial activism. Well, guess what? Here is the same sentiment from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

The Bill of Rights is devised to protect you and me against, who do you think? The majority. My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk. And the notion that the justices ought to be selected because of the positions that they will take, that are favored by the majority, is a recipe for destruction of what we have had for 200 years.

2. The view that there is no right to marriage because it is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is absurd. It flies in the face of: (1) the multiple SCOTUS cases dating back many, many decades saying there is a right to marriage, (2) the 9th Amendment, (3) the 5th and 14th Amendments' protection of substantive liberty, (4) the intent of the Founders of the Constitution that it protect rights beyond those enumerated, (5) the intent behind the 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments, and (6) at least 150 years of SCOTUS caselaw regarding the protection of unenumerated rights. Moreover:

A. Whether or not a right or liberty interest is expressly stated in the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't protected by the Constitution. As the Supreme Court explained in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992):

Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The controlling word in the cases before us is "liberty." .... ... It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. We have vindicated this principle before. Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the Bill of Rights, and interracial marriage was illegal in most States in the 19th century, but the Court was no doubt correct in finding it to be an aspect of liberty protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (relying, in an opinion for eight Justices, on the Due Process Clause). Similar examples may be found in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 94-99 (1987); in Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-686 (1977); in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 481-482 (1965), as well as in the separate opinions of a majority of the Members of the Court in that case, id. at 486-488 (Goldberg, J., joined by Warren, C.J., and Brennan, J., concurring) (expressly relying on due process), id. at 500-502 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment) (same), id. at 502-507, (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment) (same); in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-535 (1925); and in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399-403 (1923).

Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U.S. Const., Amdt. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized:

[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This "liberty" is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment. Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S., at 543 (dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds).

Justice Harlan wrote these words in addressing an issue the full Court did not reach in Poe v. Ullman, but the Court adopted his position four Terms later in Griswold v. Connecticut, supra. In Griswold, we held that the Constitution does not permit a State to forbid a married couple to use contraceptives. That same freedom was later guaranteed, under the Equal Protection Clause, for unmarried couples. See Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972). Constitutional protection was extended to the sale and distribution of contraceptives in Carey v. Population Services International, supra. It is settled now, as it was when the Court heard arguments in Roe v. Wade, that the Constitution places limits on a State's right to interfere with a person's most basic decisions about family and parenthood, see Carey v. Population Services International, supra; Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977); Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra; Loving v. Virginia, supra; Griswold v. Connecticut, supra; Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra; Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, as well as bodily integrity, see, e.g., Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221 -222 (1990); Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985); Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).

...

Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S., at 685 . Our cases recognize the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, 405 U.S., at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

B. To further illustrate the point, here are just a few examples of Constitutional rights that are not "expressly stated" in the Constitution but that are protected by the Constitution:

• the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
• the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
• the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
• the right to travel within the United States
• the right to marry or not to marry
• the right to make one's own choice about having children
• the right to have children at all
• the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
• the right to custody of one's children
• the right to choose and follow a profession
• right to bodily integrity

Do you really wish to insist that none of these are protected by the Constitution?

3. Despite ridiculous and baseless (and hypocritical) accusations of bias being made against a distinguished and fair (and conservative Republican) jurist, Chief Judge Walker is not the first federal judge to rule that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because it does not pass even the rational-basis test. See United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management (44p pdf); see also post describing decision in Gill.

4. One cannot distinquish SCOTUS's "right to marriage" caselaw on the ground that Loving v. Virginia was and/or the 14th Amendment is about racial discrimination.

First, the 14th Amendments plain language applies to "persons" and not just "races." It has both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause -- which provide independent arguments in support of same-sex marriage. A modicum of research on what the 14th Amendment means reveals it is not limited to the context of stopping racial discrimination. See, e.g., Findlaw's Annotated 14th Amendment; Wikipedia: Fourteenth Amendment; Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause; Equal Protection and Fundamental Rights; Substantive Due Process.

Second, both before and after Loving, SCOTUS recognized the fundamental right to marriage was protected by the Due Process Clause[s] of the Constitution outside the context of anti-miscegenation laws. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (saying that "[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men", marriage "is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'," and marriage is a "fundamental freedom"); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374,383 (1978) ("[Our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance..."); Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639 -640 (1974) ("This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942); Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

Third, even in Loving, the Court invalidated laws against interracial marriage on two independent grounds. The first was that such laws discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Bans on same-sex marriage discriminate on the basis of gender and are no more valid. Some try to claim Loving's Equal Protection analysis was based on the discriminatory intent of the laws against interracial marriage. I don't totally agree. Regardless, laws against same-sex marriage such as California's Prop. 8 are clearly based on the same type of discriminatory animus. The second ground was that such laws denied a fundamental right in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court's analysis on that point had nothing to do with racism.

5. The "history" or "tradition" of the institution of marriage does not support (let alone justify) the exclusion of same-sex couples.

A. The American Bar Association provides a brief, but detailed and useful history of marriage (as well as other cogent points related to this whole debate) in their ABA White Paper: An Analysis of the Law Regarding Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships (60p pdf) (see pages 7-11). As the ABA explains (referring to the history of marriage worldwide), "the institution of marriage, rather than being a single, unchanging concept of one man and one woman committed to each other for life, has been a fluid paradigm, changing with the culture and societal norms of the time." Polygamy has been and still is common in many cultures (including the Judeo-Christian past). Same-sex marriages and polyandry have been recognized by different cultures at different times. Monogamous marriages between one man and one woman with religious overtones and/or civil recognition (other than as a contract) is a relatively recent phenomenon. And, even in that context, the laws and customs concerning the definition of marriage have undergone constant change. See also Testimony of Harvard's Jonathan Trumbull Professor of American History Nancy Cott in Perry v. Schwarzenegger in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 11, 2010 (214p pdf, see pp. 181-210); Continued Testimony of Professor Nancy Cott in Perry v. Schwarzenegger in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 12, 2010 (245p pdf, see pp. 5-40, 115-134).

B. Same-sex marriage is not a recent invention. See, e.g., Wikipedia: History of same-sex unions; Testimony of Harvard's Jonathan Trumbull Professor of American History Nancy Cott in Perry v. Schwarzenegger in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 11, 2010 (214p pdf, see pp. 181-210); Continued Testimony of Professor Nancy Cott in Perry v. Schwarzenegger in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 12, 2010 (245p pdf, see pp. 5-40, 115-134); Allan Tulchin, "Same-Sex Couples Creating Households in Old Regime France: The Uses of the Affrèrement," Journal of Modern History (September 2007) ([i]see link); William N. Eskridge, Jr., "A History of Same-Sex Marriage," Virginia Law Review, Vol. 79, No. 7 (Oct., 1993), pp. 1419-1513; Mathew Kuefler, "The Marriage Revolution in Late Antiquity: The Theodosian Code and Later Roman Marriage Law," Journal of Family History 32: 343–370 (2007); Gay Marriage Goes Way Back; Taking a 'Husband': A History of Gay Marriage.

6. Beyond being a ship that sailed long ago, the "government should just stay out of marriage argument" is both wrong and should not be used to deny same-sex couples the benefits of the institution of marriage.

A. Remember those "inalienable rights" our Founders talked about or the "natural rights" to which libertarians often refer. One of them is the right to marriage. This right is also connected to other natural rights.

B. Similialry, remember the concept of property rights so near and dear to the hearts of so many free-market conservatives and libertarians. Legal recognition of marriage is a vital protection and extension of those rights.

C. Marriage is a civil institution with a fundamental role in society. Long-term stable relationships between individuals have long been deemed important and tied to other rights, benefits, responsibilites, and privileges. There are literally thosands of other rights, privileges, and benefits legally tied to marital status. There are copious reasons, including simple efficiency, for recognizing this via government rather than requiring massive amounts of contractual or other agreements to replace these (even where this is possible). Some of these rights enshrined in federal law include:

• distribution of property upon divorce
• right to seek spousal support (alimony, maintenence)
• automatic presumption of parentage for children born during marriage
• right to adopt, including stepparent adoption
• eligible for care of foster child
• right to enter into premarital agreements
• joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
• joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
• family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
• next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions, consent to organ donation, consent to autopsy
• family health insurance, including rights under COBRA
• custodial, visititation, or parenting rights to children and child support after divorce
• domestic violence intervention, including restraining orders and right to occupy home
• access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
• joint petititions to immigrate
• special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens re immigration
• threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
• court notice of probate proceedings
• existing homestead lease continuation of rights
• regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
• right to take leave under Family Medical Leave Act and funeral and bereavement leave
• insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society (i.e., health insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, etc)
• accesss to medical records
• permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
• right of survivorship of custodial trust
• right to change surname upon marriage
• right to inheritance of property
• spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
• right to seek compensation for wrongful death, loss of consortium, or intentional infliction of emotional distress
• ability to roll over spouse's 401(k) or other retirement accounts
• eligibility for tenancy by the entirety
• benefits and rules pertaining to family farms
• joint filing of taxes

Similar benefits (and more) exist under the laws of each state. Again, these are all seperate from any consideration of welfare/government assistance or taxes.

sources: Wikipedia, 1997 GAO report (75p pdf), 2004 GAO report (18p pdf), American Bar Assn. White Paper. (60p pdf, see pp. 16-17).

D. We should and must reject the logic of the My Lai Massacre: "We must destroy marriage to save it" (from the gays and lesbians).

7. It is simply ludicrous to argue that same-sex marriage cannot be allowed because it or homosexuality are "not normal" or are "abnormal. Even if this were a relevant concern, it isn't really true:

A. We know from the standpoint of psychiatry and psychology that homosexuality is normal and NOT abnormal. See, e.g., http://www.apa.org/about/governance/cou ... tion.aspx; http://www.soulforce.org/article/642; http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission ... gland.pdf; http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/se ... tion.aspx; http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/th ... ponse.pdf; http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/press/pressrel ... ment.aspx; http://www.apa.org/research/action/gay.aspx; http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx; http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/am ... ence.aspx; http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/am ... gley.aspx; http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/humanrights.pdf.

B. Normal can mean the following (under which homosexuality is normal):

• occurring naturally
• conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
• a : of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development b : free from mental disorder
• free from any infection or other form of disease or malformation, or from experimental therapy or manipulation
• functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies
• characterized by balanced well-integrated functioning of the organism as a whole

See, e.g., http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/normal; http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normal

C. "Normal" in terms of the mean or standard deviations from a normal distribution of human sexual orientation is nigh impossible to establish one way or another. Sexual orientation is a fluid concept and getting accurate figures in Western countries is difficult enough for copious reasons without the added difficulties of the rest of the world. No fair conclusion can be drawn that homosexuality is not "normal" based on a distribution curve of world human sexual orientation. See, e.g., http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLand ... 16078-001; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... ientation; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality; http://www.linfo.org/human_variability.html; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation; http://www.radstats.org.uk/no083/Ross83.pdf; http://books.google.co.in/books?id=zikd ... pt&f=false (page 478); http://books.google.co.in/books?id=sFHX ... pt&f=false (page 81).

8. Same-sex couples cannot be denied the right to marry on the grounds that marriage is for procreation or "propagation of the species."

A. We have never required procreation as a condition of marriage. The idea is obscene. (And shockingly authoritarian.) Nor has this historically been the primary purpose of marriage. See ABA White Paper: An Analysis of the Law Regarding Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships (60p pdf) (see especially pages 7-11). Also, one not only can be married without having children, but one also can have children without being married. The two simply are not inherently connected.

B. Homosexuals can propogate or can adopt children. The number of children in America currently being raised by gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents is unknown. Resistance to lesbian and gay rights continues to force many lesbian and gay people to remain silent about their sexual orientation and relationships. In 1999, however, research estimated that the total number of children nationwide living with at least one homosexual parent ranged from six to 14 million. And, as of the 2000 Census, at least two million gay, lesbian, or bisexual people were interested in adopting some of the many, many children needing care in this country.

C. Begetting and raising children is not the only way to benefit society or the species -- even from the narrow viewpoint of propogation. Homosexuality in some portion of a species population can be an evolutionary advantage. See, e.g., link, link, link. More specifically, homosexuality and same-sex relationships can be of evolutionary benefit to humans. See, e.g., link, link, link (29p pdf), link

D. The scientific evidence is overwhelming that: same-sex marriages are healthy, stable, and committed; denying marriage to same-sex couples causes harm to those couples; same-sex parenting does not harm (and may even benefit) children; AND denying same-sex marriage harms families. See, e.g., Amicus Brief of the American Psychological Assn., American Psychiatric Assn., etc (75p. pdf); American Psychological Association Resolution on Sexual Orientation and Marriage (5p pdf); American Psychological Association Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children (3p pdf); Lambda Legal: Denying Access to Marriage Harms Families.

9. Just for the heck of it, here are a sampling of Christian, conservative, and/or economic arguments for same-sex marriage:
The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
An Argument for Gay Marriage (Christian)
Gay Marriage: Theological and Moral Arguments (not an argument for same-sex marriage, but for a more open Christian perspective)
MARRIAGE MAKES CENTS: HOW LAW & ECONOMICS JUSTIFIES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Economic benefits of gay marriage

[Ryadn]

Honestly the plaintiffs coulda showed up and slept, without offering any arguements. Say what you want about people crying activists judges, When the judge trying the case is Openly Gay?

Not saying that he isnt a qualified judge, but he should not have been allowed to over see this case based on grounds that his personal views would bias his decision. If they proponents appeal on this basis, they will win the appeal, and the law gets put back in place.

Oh, good. Being gay is a "personal view" now.

Oh, good. You're a prodigy of David Copperfield.


He's Gay. He's passing ruling on whether a ban on Gay Marriage is Constitutional. He's Judging on something that directly affects him. It is impossible for him to remain Objective. It's like letting a guy on Death Row decide if Capital Punishment is Constituional or not.

Riiiiight. Because, of course, lal gay people are of a hive-mind mentality that gay marraige is an absolute moral imperative, and because, of course, a straight judge wouldn't have their own views on the legality of gay marraige. Unless you cna find any evidence - anywhere credible, please - that Judge Walker has expressed opinions in the past that gay marraige is a moral imperative, please stfu about shit you know nothing about.

Wait, why are straights deciding what gays can and cannot do at all? Wouldn't it make more sense to let gays decide if they can get married or not?

No. Let's let welfare recipients decide how much welfare they get while we are at it.

How is that in anyway related to a group of people deciding if they get to have a certain human right or not?

That makes absolutely no sense dude. Of course they will vote yes for themselves, people grab as much power as they can.

So giving them selves the right to get married equals a powergrab?

What? That makes no sense

Gays already have the "right" to get married. What they want is for the "Right" of everybody to be able to marry the same gender.

Actually, all we want is that everyone should be able to marry whomever they want. You have that. Why can't I?

I'm so unselfish, I'd happily grant straight people the right to marry adults of the same sex. So it isn't even 'special'!

[Ryadn]

Maybe that idiot judge will come to his senses and do the right thing by keeping prop-8 as law. The people voted, plain and simple.

Unfortunately, people cant vote away the Constitution.

No, but we can burn it, and summarily execute all those who used it as a tool of oppression against the will of the people

You heard it here first, folks: The U.S. Constitution is a tool of oppression against the people.

It absolutely does not get any more cognitively dissonant than that.

[The Rich Port]

*the snip to end all snips*

GIVE THE CAT-TRIBE A MEDAL. HE IS A PRETTY COOL GUY. EH PROVES CONSERVATIVES WRONG AND DOESN'T AFRAID OF ANYTHING.