Basically it comes down to "you can't discrimninate against an individual based on his/her sexual preference" . . goes along with race, ethnicity, sex, nationality, etc.

I don't know why they don't treat it in 2 fashions:
1. legal - civil unions - legal contracts and declarations
2. religious - marriage.

all gays want is #1 ! They're tired of being penalized (legally) because the don't conform to the traditional definition of "marriage".

It's not that hard to see the inequality under the law - except for religious pinheads who are biased.

Better a beginning than and end. YAY!!!

Did he say something funny? More to the point, is their anything funny about homophobia? I'm guessing both answers are "no". But you had to figure he'd be all over this topic. Rabbits and all.

I'm right with you on this - government should not be involved in marriage (religious), only in legally upheld contracts.

Though as far as I am aware, aside the word marriage and an officially recognised ceremony, California law supports almost everything else - partner health coverage, visitation in hospital, etc. In fact in the case of hospital visitation/decisions I believe that a person should be able to nominate anybody as their proxy. Heck my family (aside from wifey) live over 4000miles away, it's totally impractical for a hospital to consult my nearest relative if both my wife and I are incapacitated.

I do wonder how this ruling stands as a precident. The last time CA voted to outlaw gay marriage, it was only a law that a judge overturned. This time it's part of the CA constitution - does that set a precident that a judge may overturn any part of a state constitution as "unconstitutional"??

The claim that there's discrimination over marriage is false. I've given examples of homosexuals who got married without trying to change its meaning and could give others. By the same token the analogy made with race is also false as with other forms of real discrimination.


Tax discrimination in favour of marriage is intentional. Those who think the policy is wrong should campaign for equal treatment of taxpayers rather than try to change the definition of marriage.


No I can't see it - but I agree that religious pinheads harm the case for the preservation of marriage rather than assist it.

km

I don't call that much of an apology.

km

If you stop with the "natural," I won't restore my aardvark.

The United States Constitution is the ultimate law of the land. So if a judge finds a conflict between a state's constitution and the U.S. Constitution, the latter takes precedence.

If it were any other way, the Bill of Rights would be totally unenforceable.

1. If the state doesn't recognize the legal union, it's useless. That's the problem - most states don't recognize same sex unions legally. They see them as 2 individuals, not a legal partnership.

2. It's NOT just taxation- it's things like inheritance, it's legal issues like power of attorney, medical issues like being able to be considered "family" if someone is critically injured or hospitalized, there are tons of legal issues besides taxation. Different sex couples have them - same sex couples don't. Why? boils down to the individuals characteristics, and the way laws are tailored around religious beliefs.

[/discussion]

It's supposed to be useless i.e. for anyone falling outside the rules.


That's because they are two individuals. Marriage doesn't mean "any union" but the union of one man and one woman. Like the tennis "mixed doubles": teams are made up of two individuals of the opposite sex. Presumably you would scrap any such competition on grounds that it discriminates against gay partners?


Agreed - I was using taxation as a metaphor for all examples of unequal treatment.


Essentially because homosexuality is an affliction affecting a small minority of persons rather than an equal and alternative sexuality. Instead of patronising those affected with the pretence that their proclivity is as natural as the wind and rain it's necessary to speak the truth so that legislators can turn their attention to what really counts - equality of all persons as individuals. Changing the meaning of marriage would equalise rights for gays but not for other singles so it would itself be discriminatory.


No I don't agree with that... unnatural unions should be discouraged because they're potentially harmful - if religious persons happen to make that case on other grounds they're simply arriving at the right result for the wrong reasons.

km