California Gays just wont give up! Damn Freaks!

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Geek

You know what happens when Gays get the right to marry? Gay people get married. That's it. No apocalypse, no gorilla's punching you in the genitals.

DAMN

[This_person]

Originally Posted by camily

Maybe they want to get married because they love each other and want to make the commitment to each other legally. Why do other people get married? They want to be married for the same reason. Gay people are just people. Homosexuality does NOT define them. When you think of who you are is heterosexual the first thing that comes to your mind? Probably not. Their sexuality is only an issue to YOU. They think of themselves as someone that is in love with someone else and wants to marry them. Plain and simple. Yes, their sexuality is an issue, but ONLY because some heterosexuals make it that way. I personally have bigger fish to fry. I'm happy to see other people happy.

What commitment are they denied to make?

Go to your preferred spot to be married, get married, celebrate anniversaries, buy homes together, raise any children you're able to bear or adopt together, keep joint checking and savings accounts, argue over who used the last of the cereal, have living wills and be executors of each other's estates......... What are they denied, but a word on a certificate that doesn't fit their union anyway?

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

You (and everyone else) have still not produced a Constitutional violation.

However, no one does care what people do in terms of a legal contract. It's just which contract do they fill out.

Civil union for same gendered, "marriage" contract for opposite gendered.

Yeah, I have. And you've presented yours. And we disagee.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Yeah, I have. And you've presented yours. And we disagee.

You've said it's the 14th, and that doesn't apply. That's different than disagreement.

However, works for me!

[thatguy]

Originally Posted by This_person

What commitment are they denied to make?

Go to your preferred spot to be married, get married, celebrate anniversaries, buy homes together, raise any children you're able to bear or adopt together, keep joint checking and savings accounts, argue over who used the last of the cereal, have living wills and be executors of each other's estates......... What are they denied, but a word on a certificate that doesn't fit their union anyway?

how about health insurance? if you aren't married you cannot get put on each others insurance.
How about filing taxes as married?
How about certain cases where rights are assumed between married people (one dies without a will)

there are plenty of cases where they are denied things. And the word fits their commitment just fine. Maybe we should just call hetero marriges "breeding contracts", that way you can have something that truely is only between a man and a woman......

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

You've said it's the 14th, and that doesn't apply. That's different than disagreement.

However, works for me!

...you are denying someone(s) the right to engage in a typical legal contract based on what they do in their bedroom and that is, in my view, clearly unconstitutional. Further, some seek to make this discrimination a constitutional amendment, becoming the first amendment, ever, that specifically singles individuals out based on a characteristic.

In my view, the intelligent thing to HAVE done, when we had the power, was to come to an agreement specifying that marriage is between two consenting adults and send that off through the system forever ending a contentious issue that has long put the GOP and conservatives in the unenviable position of seeking to use the constitution to DENY individual rights.

It is one thing to fight for the rights of an unborn baby. It is a victim. Something is being done to it. It is another thing to try and control what consenting adults choose to do in the context of legitimizing and recognizing a committed relationship.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by thatguy

how about health insurance? if you aren't married you cannot get put on each others insurance.

That's not a right, that's up to the health insurance companies. Some do, some don't. The government has nothing to do with that (yet).

How about filing taxes as married?

Did you read my posts?

How about certain cases where rights are assumed between married people (one dies without a will)

Get a will. Get a civil union and have that be part of it.

there are plenty of cases where they are denied things. And the word fits their commitment just fine.

Find a 30+ year old dictionary through a thousand year old dictionary (yes, I'm making that part up, but you get my drift) and see if it really fits. Change for changes' sake is not smart nor worthwhile

Maybe we should just call hetero marriges "breeding contracts", that way you can have something that truely is only between a man and a woman......

If that were what they were called for hundreds of years, it would be true. Otherwise, why change what's worked for so long?

[sunmoonstars]

Originally Posted by thatguy

Maybe we should just call hetero marriges "breeding contracts", that way you can have something that truely is only between a man and a woman......

Breeding Contracts...LOL

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...you are denying someone(s) the right to engage in a typical legal contract based on what they do in their bedroom and that is, in my view, clearly unconstitutional.

No one is denying a homosexual person from the right to enter into a marriage contract. They're merely defining what a marriage contract is. They (in CA, anyway, where we're talking about in this thread) have the option of going into a civil union contract since that fits the situation they are in should they want to enter with someone of the same gender

Further, some seek to make this discrimination a constitutional amendment, becoming the first amendment, ever, that specifically singles individuals out based on a characteristic.

You mean, other than age?

In my view, the intelligent thing to HAVE done, when we had the power, was to come to an agreement specifying that marriage is between two consenting adults and send that off through the system forever ending a contentious issue that has long put the GOP and conservatives in the unenviable position of seeking to use the constitution to DENY individual rights.

Then you would have the polygamists, then the incestuous......... Because, if you can't say opposite gender, then HOW can you put a limit on number, or relationship? Change it and it may never end changing. Leave it alone, and it's fine.

It is one thing to fight for the rights of an unborn baby. It is a victim. Something is being done to it. It is another thing to try and control what consenting adults choose to do in the context of legitimizing and recognizing a committed relationship.

No one is trying to control it, just define the similarities through civil union contracts, and differences through civil union contracts.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

No one is denying a homosexual person from the right to enter into a marriage contract. They're merely defining what a marriage contract is. They (in CA, anyway, where we're talking about in this thread) have the option of going into a civil union contract since that fits the situation they are in should they want to enter with someone of the same genderYou mean, other than age?Then you would have the polygamists, then the incestuous......... Because, if you can't say opposite gender, then HOW can you put a limit on number, or relationship? Change it and it may never end changing. Leave it alone, and it's fine.No one is trying to control it, just define the similarities through civil union contracts, and differences through civil union contracts.

Age, as I have said repeatedly, passes constitutional muster because it makes NO distinction based on race, creed, religion, gender or sexual habits.

There is no constitutional issue defining marriage as limited to two adults as limited contracts in terms of number of partners or members are nothing new and, again, as in age, it would apply evenly and without discrimination.

By all means, lose the opportunity to compromise and lose the whole thing in the process.