June: LBGT Pride Month, per Obama proclamation

[Correction]

Black people do have ALL the privileges of marriage that everybody else has. Right now. Everybody can marry someone of the same color, right now, even black people. We all know this is a little silly when it is applied, because black people simply cannot enjoy a marriage to someone of the opposite race. So, yes, the United States constitution does, currently, give ALL the privileges of marriage to black people. Like everybody else, they can marry someone of the same color.

Circles, circles

I mean, what about my liberty? I want to marry six women, ten men, three teenagers, four toddlers, a goat, my talking gorilla Penelope, and Rusty. Why can't I? I deserve my liberty.

I'm sure you could say you're married to your cat, but getting spousal tax/insurance benefits out of it might be a hard sell. Which is really the core issue for gays; the fact that they're relegated to second class citizens compared to heterosexual couples economically.

[Julian]

I want to marry my cat, Rusty. He's cute, orange, and I'm in love with him. Are you denying my right to marry the cat that I choose?

I mean, what about my liberty? I want to marry six women, ten men, three teenagers, four toddlers, a goat, my talking gorilla Penelope, and Rusty. Why can't I? I deserve my liberty.

You're perfectly right. People shouldn't be allowed to marry animals, or children, or multiple people, or people of the same sex, hell, why stop there? Opposite sexes shouldn't be allowed to marry either. No one should be allowed to get married!

[Skjie]

I want to marry my cat, Rusty. He's cute, orange, and I'm in love with him. Are you denying my right to marry the cat that I choose?

I mean, what about my liberty? I want to marry six women, ten men, three teenagers, four toddlers, a goat, my talking gorilla Penelope, and Rusty. Why can't I? I deserve my liberty.

I personally don't think polygamy is such a big deal for consenting adults, but I can ensure you it's not anywhere in the constitution that would allow any judge to let me do so.

Let's face it, we can't do anything we want under the umbrella of "liberty". Legitimately get it into law first, then you can do it.

Rusty, just like the teenagers, toddlers, goat and Penelope all cannot give legal consent. Unlikely two adult male or females.

[Leif]

You're perfectly right. People shouldn't be allowed to marry animals, or children, or multiple people, or people of the same sex, hell, why stop there? Opposite sexes shouldn't be allowed to marry either. No one should be allowed to get married!

I think you missed the point.

Letting open season start for marriage isn't something you just do and then never look back. I mean, what happens if you are married to three women and you end the marriage. How do you split up the money? Do you get half and the other three split the other half, or do you each get a fourth?

There are obvious things to work out. Personally, I don't care if people marry their dogs. But you can't just overturn everything you don't like as "unconstitutional" and walk the other way.

Which is really the core issue for gays; the fact that they're relegated to second class citizens compared to heterosexual couples economically.

It is unfair that gays want to marry people of the same sex and that because of this conflict, many cannot get the same economic benefits as heterosexual couples. Still, they, like everybody else are not denied these benefits. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Rusty, just like the teenagers, toddlers, goat and Penelope all cannot give legal consent. Unlikely two adult male or females.

But is it not compromising their liberty to deny them this ability to give consent? Is that not unconstitutional? Or are the cats too stupid? Do we need to give IQ tests to see if someone is fit to marry? Oh wait, we can't do that either. That's denying them their liberty!

Circles, circles... because black people simply cannot enjoy a marriage to someone of the opposite race

Not only do you think race and sexual orientation are on the playing field, you try to switch the words to make me seem like a gay-hater or something.

I've dated a woman or two in my limited days. I couldn't marry one and live happily ever after (unless she was Kathy Griffin. Or Ann Coulter. I'd go straight for Kathy and Ann.). I think we all know that interracial relationships are as valid as any other.

[Skjie]

tbh, I'm not sure if you're trolling yourself anymore. A child cannot give legal consent because they are not mentally able to understand the consequences. An animal is the same. If you are going to try and compare that to a fully grown adult you are clearly too retarded to discuss with, or you are trying to troll.

[Correction]

This isn't about validity, this is about recognition under the law. No federal statute right now permits the same rights to same-sex couples as they do to married couples. There's a pretty substantial list of benefits this denies them from the simple fact that they aren't legally married.

[Leif]

tbh, I'm not sure if you're trolling yourself anymore. A child cannot give legal consent because they are not mentally able to understand the consequences. An animal is the same. If you are going to try and compare that to a fully grown adult you are clearly too retarded to discuss with, or you are trying to troll.

Well, it's neither. My points aren't meant to ignite this whole "why can't I marry a toddler?" debate. It's meant to illustrate that there are proper channels to solve these discrepancies instead of just handing it to the courts and asking them to call stuff unconstitutional.

It's not right that gay people often cannot get married, do the whole hospital DNR thing, get benefits, adopt, etc to/with people of the opposite sex. However, in the eyes of the law, it is completely equal because they can do all those things with people of the opposite sex like everybody else. Right now. Heterosexuals cannot marry people of the same sex many places just like the gays can't. Again, it's equal. If you don't like it, you follow in the footsteps of many states that are now working towards this goal by working through the legislature and allowing ALL people (gay or straight) to marry people of the same sex and gain all the benefits that come hand in hand with that.

[Correction]

State laws aren't enough since what benefits are portable can vary widely, and there's nothing on the federal laws to protect the portability of existing benefits for gay couples should they move.

[Leif]

Well, I don't think the Supreme Court plans on touching that issue anytime soon.

And I agree that state laws are not enough. If it's going to be solved, it will probably be introduced in legislation.

I recommend the Democrats hurry before the Republicans take over the world from the radical Socialists !!!! mwahahahahaha! Ann Coulter for 2012!

[Skjie]

I do not think that words means what you think it means.
http://elultimoquecierrelapuerta.fil.../02/inigo1.jpg
Equivalent is the word you are looking for, not equal.

[Leif]

I do not think that words means what you think it means.
http://elultimoquecierrelapuerta.fil.../02/inigo1.jpg
Equivalent is the word you are looking for, not equal.

Eh, I'll admit that in the context of the real living world, equivalent is more appropriate. However, in the law, where it counts and currently stands, equal is the right word.

[Skjie]

Unless the law is being interpreted wrong!

[archibaldcrane]

Eh, I'll admit that in the context of the real living world, equivalent is more appropriate. However, in the law, where it counts and currently stands, equal is the right word.

It's as equal as a similar law regarding marrying "members of the same race" would be equal. Everyone gets the right to marry the same race, whether they are black, white, asian, etc. Similarly, everyone gets the right to marry the opposite sex, whether they are male or female.

Neither instance is "equal", and you can argue the equivalency all you want.

The Supreme Court's decision re: interracial marriages was as follows:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

I find it hard to argue that this ruling is legitimate, but a similar ruling based on gender or sex instead of race would not be legitimate.

[Leif]

Well, that's where you're wrong.

Neither instance is "equal", and you can argue the equivalency all you want.

Men can marry someone of the opposite sex. Women can marry someone of the opposite sex. Gay men can marry someone of the opposite sex. Gay women can marry someone of the opposite sex.

Seems pretty equal to me. Fairness is another issue, simply because a man-woman marriage probably has more emotional significance to a heterosexual couple than a homosexual couple.

I'm going to give a little scenario... bear with me.

A nice family sits down for breakfast. Tommy and Timmy sit down at the table ready for their daily Cheerios. Mommy serves them all Cheerios! Once Tommy sees the Cheerios he screams out, "I want Frosted Flakes! I don't like Cheerios! It's not fair!".

Well, unfortunately for Tommy, it is fair. Both kids get Cheerios. It's too bad for Tommy that he doesn't like them but Timmy does. If he wants something else, he needs to get Daddy to balance the budget to buy his Frosted Flakes.

Nobody is getting any more than anybody else in this situation or in real life. Everybody can get married to someone of the opposite sex. It just means more to certain people.

I find it hard to argue that this ruling is legitimate, but a similar ruling based on gender or sex instead of race would not be legitimate.

Years ago...

White women could marry a white man. Black women could marry a black man.

Is that equal? No. I think we all know that. But let me apply the same logic to sexual orientation that you claim proves your point.

Straight women can only marry straight men.
Straight men can only marry straight women.
Gay men can only marry gay men.
Gay women can only marry gay women.

See. The scenario is actually quite different.


I think most of us know that many people feel just like many did in the past centuries. It's tough not being able to marry the person you truly want to marry.

[archibaldcrane]

How about this? Timmy gets Frosted Flakes, and Tommy gets Cheerios. Timmy gets pissed because he wants Cheerios, and mommy and daddy tell him to fuck off, you'll get the cereal we allow you to have because you're Timmy, got it?

Men get women, and women get men, but if men want what women have (the ability to marry men) then they are told to fuck off. If men want the same rights as women (the ability to marry men) they can't have them. It's extremely, extremely simple gender discrimination. That's all.

Equal is the same. The right to marry men is not the same as the right to marry women. Those are two different rights. I'd argue that the right to marry a black man vs. the right to marry a white man is a much more similar right, than the right to marry a woman vs. the the right to marry a man.