California Court: Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

LightningBoy · **Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:54 pm**

Fine, I want to marry a duck. Discriminating against me, by that logic, should be unconstitutional.

Hitchhiker · **Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:13 am**

Go ahead, marry a duck.

You aren't harming me in any way, and if you truly love each other and desire happiness, who am I to say no just because you're marrying outside your species?

lex · Lieutenant Commander Joined: 23 Dec 2004 Posts: 226

Link, the Hero of Time · **Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:10 am**

LightningBoy · **Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:26 am**

Who said anything about Sex. I want to marry the duck, not go any further. As for it being illegal, the Supreme Court has already ruled that closed doors are closed doors.

So what if it's not two humans, I want marriage redefined to fit my situation. If gays can redefine marriage from "a man and a woman" to "two people", then I want it redefined from "two people" to "two beings".

At least hitchhiker is remaining consistent, and arguing my points, and not just saying "that's stupid" like others would.

Obviously, I don't want to marry a duck, but someone probably does, and by redefining the term here, you're leaving it open to further redefinition..

Link, the Hero of Time · **Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:37 am**

Uhh... it's not just sexual relations with animals. It's the extreme love for animals. Marrying a duck would fit under that.

If the definion of marriage is the only reason behind the fact that homosexuals shouldn't marry then your arguments are severely lacking.

As for you wanting to redefine marriage, one person cannot go around changing the rules for their own gain. the world doesn't work like that. We live in a democracy, where the needs of the many outway the few.

LightningBoy · **Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:50 am**

Link, the Hero of Time · **Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:55 am**

LightningBoy · **Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:59 am**

It was a gallup poll, how about the fact that the people, in every state which had such an ammendment up for election, approved them. No states had a gay-marriage ban turned down by the voters.

Gallup polls are scientifically the best polls there are. With only a 3% margin of error, and a total randomization of subjects, it's HIGHLY unlikely that its results are not representative of the American opinion.

Hitchhiker · **Tue Mar 15, 2005 2:01 am**

Link, the Hero of Time · **Tue Mar 15, 2005 2:02 am**

Right. I do remember that gallup polls were wrong when comapred to polls where numerous amounts of people tested and results were not generalized as they are in Gallup polls.

LightningBoy · **Tue Mar 15, 2005 2:08 am**

Hitchhiker · **Tue Mar 15, 2005 2:10 am**

Indeed. Even looking back in general history, much of the limitations of marriages changed just through general public opinion. As our society becomes more cohesive and our government structures more ordered, we seek to implement changes at a policy level rather than a public level.

webtaz99 · **Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:25 am**

Personally I object to gay marriages because I object to homosexuality. But I don't believe there should be a Constitutional ruling either. I say let gays marry; it's one less thing for them to whine about.

Jeff Miller · **Tue Mar 15, 2005 10:09 am**

No offense intended but the people who can't even possibly accept equal rights for same sex couples are stuck in the old time and are possibly more dangerous than anyone in the world. Aren't we spose to look past the surface and see people for who they truely are? If a specific couple is happy why not let them show it openly? What harm can it do to us.

snowcat · **Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:30 pm**

better yet, can't we all think about what marriage IS? I've seen a lot of threads on this topic, everywhere on the net, and everywhere people are rolling over each other claiming they know the one and only truth, and all assuming they, and the posters with them on that thread, know what exactly is marriage, what its about, what rights it should or should not protect, and which role the state should take therein.

But how can we have a fruitful discussion if you do not define what your topic of discussion is, first?

I suspect a lot of trouble stems form that one; what we think marriage should be. And what we think human rights, citizenship rights, and gay rights are. What we think are the differences between these three.

If one is a legally acknowledged citizen of a state, one therefore gets certain (unalienable!?) rights, as defined in the constitution of said state.
The state, customarily, allows it's citizens to marry, and therefore get a specific set of priviliged rights as a union of two people. PLEASE note that I am talking about a worldy, juridical marriage only, NOT a religious marriage performed in a ritual for a God in the name of a belief (which belief is besides the point here) Those are two very different things, if the aforementioned state is truly a secular state, granting all its citizens the same rights, no matter what belief, sex or skin color they carry.

So the true topic of discussion here, is: is juridical marriage a union between only a man and a woman? And how then, can you explain that, even though homosexuals wanting to marry, are citizens of your state and may have the same citizens rights as you have, except when they want to marry? Then, suddenly, they are lesser citizens of the state? And if gays can be lesser citizens of the state, who else can be considered lesser citizens of the state, just because they make different choices in life then the majority? And what choices are those, exactly? Being a democrat? being a republican? Being a bum? Being a banker?

Sure, everybody is entitled to their opinion AND their way of life, as long as they do not harm others and/ or stay within the limits of the law. And what the majority wants, is what gets done (HA! but lets not get into that one here) with the consideration of the minority, right? That means, that the minorities get granted the citizens' rights every one else also gets, right? And it is the state's affair to see to it that each and every citizen of said state can actually claim these rights, right?

You see, then, that gay marriage is not about what the majority wants, its about what kind of rights you want to issue to your citizens. Either the state decides to give them ALL (And were still talking humans here, as animals cannot partake in citizenship) the same rights, or the state decides to discriminate, and have lesser citizens, with lesser rights, who are of lesser worth, and can be dissaproved of, can be banned from insurances, from hospitals where their loved ones are being brought to, can be hampered in buying property, hampered in accumulating wealth, hampered in the pursuit of their happiness.

Beta6 · **Tue Mar 15, 2005 2:17 pm**

trek4of9 · **Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:00 pm**

Well said snowcat! And thanks to those that are understanding and open about this sensitive issue.

I would like to add that I feel it's wrong to ban Gay Marriage because our constitution is supposed to guarantee us as citizens the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's not there to discriminate against us but should be there to guarantee us the same equal rights and privlidges as hetro couples.

Five - seveN · **Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:30 pm**

voy416 · **Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:01 pm**

I do not get why people make a BIG deal out of nothing jezzz let gay people marry. just because people do not like it or its what the bible says or my favorite one we have to protect marriage pleasssse half of the celebrities getting married like it is free candy more people getting divorces and people in Las Vegas just getting married for the hell of it frankly just because people have something stuck up some where or a big chip on there shoulder. what gives people the right to say gay marriage is wrong or that gay people choose to be that way guess what if being gay is so easy to stop why do u think gay people want to get married or have kids or just try to live there lives BIG deal some woman sleep with woman, some man sleep with man DEAL WITH IT its is a new world or trying to be if your straight good for ya. if your gay good for ya
This is my opinion and that is all

webtaz99 · **Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:17 am**

Five - seveN · **Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:22 pm**

Why you object to gay marriage.

IntrepidIsMe · **Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:04 pm**

snowcat · **Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:43 am**

Indeed. Its is not a matter of approving or disapproving with gay marriage. It is a matter of giving everybody the same opportunities to live their life and make their life's choices. That is all. Which is a big deal, in itself, but it has nothing to do with the (dis)approval of homosexuality.

I think I have said all on this topic I wanted to say.

Except that I love the signature of IntrepidIsMe. Good one!