Well I hear what you're saying but it can't be done with feelings or emotions. I had a professer in college who was homosexual, and oddly enough, she was an ordained episcopalian minister. She also gave us this argument one day thats really bothered me ever since...

"there trying the argument now that its not a choice and that we're born this way and it should be a right, but I don't want it to be a matter of genetics and nature, I want them to acknowledge that I'm an adult and I have a choice."

What I saw that day wasn't sound logic for a population segment who wanted to get married, I saw a talking point for her to feel morally superior. As I continue to digest lefty-thought more and more, I keep seeing victories lost because the Right wants to win, and the Left wants to be right (correct).

I'm a nerd and I watch speeches on Youtube like its my job, and I continue to watch MLKJ's last speech, mostly for its cadence but you can't let the message go. He doesn't ever come out and say "we should get civil rights because we're adults and we should" he hammers home the point on contradiction based on law. He opens with the phrase...

"All we say to America is be true to what ya said on paper." (or at least in the longest clip we can find he does) and thats the point.

Good logic says, "hey there people too, they should get what we get." but the Right, again on the losing side, sticks, with great discipline, to their positions that only sorta make sense and constantly say them until its an accepted position.

If the left, for just once in their lives stopped pretending this was a Disney flick, and starting playing hardball like peoples lives were at stake here, this country would look a lot different.

And thats why I love Obama, they asked him about it and he stuck to the Constitution. He guns for positions from the outset, he lets Biden work the gears in the background and he stands up front and rest on orrefutible law. I couldn't be happier that he's the man who won, and I'm proud to say I voted for him because for once I don't have a President leading the country and pussyfooting around with the opposition. I think if Clinton got in we'd have some "don't ask, don't tell" approach again.

California high court upholds *** marriage ban though allows existing marriages to stand.

I don't really understand this post at all. While Biden/Obama are both in favor of civil unions neither has had the balls to say they're in support of gay marriage. They like - like most Democrats - have successfully skirted around the issue and will probably keep doing so until they're 4/8 years is up.

Bummer...:\

I'm glad they did. Not that I'm anti-homosexual, but I'm pro-not overturning decisions of voters.

californians are being so gay about this marriage situation, homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

Exactly. Theres quite a bit of hatred for the Supreme Court but there really ought not to be.

If people put their effort into voting, which is easier, more effective, and less time consuming than standing outside of the courts, "boo-ing" and protesting, this wouldn't even be an issue.

The thing that drives me crazy is that California could have won this easily, but when the rights of individuals to be treated equally came up, California went to bed.

And now their pissed? They absolutly screwed the movement in the res of the country who was hoping to carry the momentum. This is going to effect New Hampshire, and I hope to god it passes in 2010 because we're never going to get Mississippi if we can't get California.

@Ethan - Obama is still doing what I want. Dennis Kucinich comes out with positions because he believes in them and we get no where.

Obama is going to skirt the issue, and its going to get done. He's smarter when it comes to politics than anyone could probably guess. And with Biden working the gears, he'll get more done by keeping the dust settled than by taking a righteous stand.

Maybe some don't agree with that. I can understand it. But to me, the rights of the people matter more than how people think we stand. Obama has gotten more done appearing to be centrist, and exploiting the liberal portion of the media than anyone openly Left could do.

I don't care what you say, I care what you do. Obama is making quite a bit happen, who cares about Grandstanding?

I'm not happy about it but I agree with you about not overturning the decisions of voters. I don't really blame the supreme court at all for this situation, the blame rests squarely on the 52% of California voters who voted yes on prop 8 back in November. Those are the people who need a smack upside the head.

To go further, and I still stand by what I originally said....BUT

What if the majority vote to deny a basic right to a certain part of the public [***s here, others elsewhere]? When does it draw the line where the government must step in to maintain it's duty to restore equity under the law? It's a slippery slope with no real correct answer I guess. What about polygamists? Just figured I'd play devil's advocate for a sec.

All good points. It's always a balancing act.

It certainly would be. The problem is we're not letting anyone maintain a legally binding relationship with multiples.

There wouldn't be any precedent for equality here. Equality will always be that; equal. No ones allowed to have multiple partners, so it is equal under the law.

Whats not equal here is that people aren't allowed to marry other people based on preference. If you prefer to marry another human, who's the government to tell you who it should be. Further more, why should the government be involved period?

The government should be stepping in to make sure equality is established in freedoms to marriage. Clear case here.

Hmmm...interesting what I did there. Isn't it the same? No one is allowed to do it, therefore we are all equal by that logic, correct?

with regard to polygamy?

Yes...

It's not equality when the homosexual population is denied the right to marry who they want to marry.
I don't understand how that's unclear.

If we think equal rights is only applicable to a particular percentage of the population, then we've got our definition of equality wrong.
If we generally say that no one can marry the same sex, regardless of gender, then we're willfully and knowingly discriminating against homosexuality.

Equating polygamy with homosexuality is just stupid. It's literally the definition of apples and oranges. It isn't a biological condition to only be attracted to/have relationships with multiple partners at the same time all of whom you're legally married to.

And why is it equal if homosexuals are allowed to marry who they wish but a polygamist wouldn't be able to [which in this case would obviously be multiple people]? If we don't allow it, aren't we willingly discriminating against polygamy? There are no consent or medical reasons for it being illegal, just some sort of religious dogma. I have no idea how you can say that equality should apply to homosexuals and not polygamists.

I'm not equating the ethics and biology of the two of them at all, I'm equating their status under the law. He stated that it is fine to not have polygamy because it is equal under the law in the sense that no one else is allowed to do it. If that's the case, the same argument can be made for homosexuals in that no one is allowed to marry someone of the same sex under the law. Ta da, equal.

And I'd be very careful with how you define a "biological condition"...what exactly is the sex drive?

I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage at all. It should be up to the church or individuals who gets married to who.

Why do I care if someone Marry's a man, woman, 10 men and 12 woman or a herd of cattle. There is no law that says I can't call them a crazy fucking asshole.

I agree that if homosexuals are allowed to marry, polygamists at least deserve to have their case reexamined. But one of the reasons why it's not very likely that polygamist marriages will become legal in the near future is that it creates a world of social and legal problems (like for instance, if one of the parties to a polygamist marriage dies, there would be a problem regarding inheritance, if they become incapacitated, there are issues as to which of the other spouses would be able to make medical or other decisions for them etc.) and changes the institution of marriage for everyone, unlike granting same-sex couples the right to marry which doesn't.

Interesting argument, the equality one's just weren't cutting it. As I said [or if I didn't, now I'm saying it], I'm not for polygamy at all but was just playing devil's advocate. It brings in a whole slew a potential suitors for polygamy though if opened up. I do feel it's a matter of time before *** marriages are legalized.

As to JJJ, that's not really the point since the government has already decided to involve itself in marriages. Though in theory I agree with your point.

Uh to continue with this train of terrible logic your point is still moot. Some people are allowed same-sex marriage under the law (see a few states, Canada, and so on.) No one in the United States is allowed to married to multiple partners at once but you can go to Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut and Iowa if you want same-sex marriage. So no you aren't all equal as United States citizens right now.

I don't really see what's wrong with me referring to homosexuality as a biological condition. I've never met a homosexuality who said they were born straight and decided to switch later, so I would consider it something you're born with (which is the basic definition for biological condition. I know sexuality has more to do with psychology than genetics but I don't really care unless you want to argue semantics.) I don't consider polygamy/monogamy to be as innate as that. They're more something of social construct and societal expectations.

Zoophilia should remain illegal in all circumstances. Animals can't give consent.

WTF does Canada have to do with anything? And you are missing the point completely. If the Supreme Court ruled that the states who have same-sex marriage are no longer allowed to, then would all things be considered equal? As said, no one is allowed to marry someone of the same sex. By the definition stated, that is equal, correct?

Right, I'm saying it's quite easy to have an argument that polygamy is biological.

The equality arguments weren't cutting it, but saying "Polygamy would be redrafting the rules, so *** can get married" works better?

The only reason Polygamy is involved is because it also isn't legal. But theres no other relationship between homosexuality and polygamy.

If you ever ask a opponent of *** marriage what the definition of marriage is they gerenally say "its defined as being between a man and a woman."

If that all that it is, then homosexual couples couldn't be definition. But that isn't even a complete sentence and there are terrible amounts of legal rammifictions that come with marriage.

The reason they short the definition is because they don't know. If the question was asked this way, "should anyone be denied the right, by the federal government to give their money to who they want when they die? Should the government be allowed to deny who makes their medicial decisions should they no longer be able to?"

if they equality argument isn't cutting it, then you're in favor of the Fed picking a choosing who can do what. And its inherently against everything the country, and certainly conservatives are vying for.

I can't pretend to know what the homosexual community is feeling about the word "marriage" being attached, I just don't know. But there are some school desks down in Kansas that say it can't be any other way. Theres a train car in the deep south that says unless its marriage, it isn't anything.

We are talking about equality here, under the law. If the laws of this country are as fickle as some would like them to be, why don't we just go back to Hammurabis law. Why don't we start breaking everything back down.

We're trying to better hold up ideals of the Constitution. That there aren't special privlages for some. That there are no second class citizens. I'm not going to tell you which side you should be falling on, its your decision. But in the end we're going in on direction or another. But i'd rather be with New England on this one than Saudi Arabia.

No that isn't equality because it's terrible logic. You're saying that if the Supreme Court banned same-sex marriage completely (which would be unconstitutional so I have no idea why they would) then we'd all be equal because no one could get same-sex marriage. One of your premises in statement is that heterosexuality is somehow more right than homosexuality and there's no way you can prove that through any sort of logical or rationalization.

Yes, from a legal standpoint, that makes a world of difference. One is easily doable without turning the whole institution on its head, the other isn't. That makes for a reasonable state interest for continuing to ban polygamist marriages.

The connection is that these two groups of people are being denied the right to have their relationships officially recognized. If we're going by the argument that everyone has a right to marry whomever one wishes, there's no philosophical argument to make against polygamist relationships. But again, there are legal and other practical issues which I've stated above which make the issue more complicated.

The rest of your post made no sense. Do you have dyslexia perchance?

No that's not a premise at all. You are completely missing the point of this and it's not that difficult to grasp. I'm judging this from a completely legal standpoint, which is how the courts should judge it.

Definition: Equality before the law or equality under the law or legal egalitarianism is the principle under which each individual is subject to the same laws, with no individual or group having special legal privileges.

With that out the way and *** marriage being illegal, it is still equal under the law. Each individual is subject to the same laws. No one is allowed to be married to a person of the same sex, no one is allowed to marry someone underage, no one is allowed to marry multiple persons. That is EQUAL by the definition put forward.

You seem to be arguing that a certain group of people are not equal because who they WISH to be married to is not allowed by the set laws, then that argument can be made. But both polygamists and homosexuals fall under that definition. As stated, a polygamist would still not be allowed to marry who they WISH to be married to. If you are going to allow people to marry who they wish, all should be allowed that right so we are equal under the law.

I'm translating it from Spanish, and I don't know how to bring it into "cunt" yet.

Also, I think you're a moron and you have zero idea how the legal process works.

If Ethan is making that assertion, then he's the only one (on these boards) making this assertion.

I'd ask again, what does Marriage mean? Because its blanket under your view of the law, but not all views. Again, we'd have to agree on what marriage is.

Under California state law, marriage is considered a bond between a man and a woman. I'm not sure what else matters.

The rest of the definition. So Marriage is the same as a large roll of duct tape?

The "bond" issue is what I need defined.

Plain English would suffice...;)

I'd ask you to explain it to me, but there wouldn't be much point with your current state of literacy. Maybe you could ask some of your better educated friends to proofread it?

I had searched for a more legal definition before I posted that but was lazy and it wasn't one of my first finds.

I'm assuming you mean the legal rights you obtain through marriage? If so, California allows just about all of these rights to *** and lesbian couples already...just doesn't allow the use of the term marriage.

no the rights come with the title. I want to know what the title means.

If its between a man and a woman, I want to know what the "it" is. Whats between a man anda woman. The bond? Only the bond?

I'd write more slowly if I had all day too. I'm at work my friend, i'm running in and out of the office. Someday you'll understand little buddy.

Also, no ones better educated than I am. You wait till I speak your language.

Ignoring the legal rights, I'd assume "it" is the state acknowledging the legality of the "permanent" [ay, not so much anymore] bond between two people.

See this is why words matter.

If its a permenant bond, then other things that are permenant must be required to either be called Marriage or not be permenant.

Can two men enter into a business partnership then? Thats a bond right? Does it have to have an end date?

I'll spell this out more clearly because some Croats might be reading; You can't start passing legislation without know what it is you're putting into law.

I think if we get down to it, marriage is going to have a spiritual connotation. At which point, I think we can both agree the law has no place in. Without a spiritual nature, i'm not sure waht Marriage is.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. It all depends in the contract you sign. When you get married, you sign a contract. When you form a business partnership, you sign a contract. The nature of the contracts are quite different.

People on these boards just can not handle my mind blowing metaphors.

You're looking at that backwards. This is in the context of the bond. I want to know whats bonded in Marriage, and if its just simply a bond, is this restricting other bonds?

If the nature is different, explain that one.

The civil institution of marriage is regulated by the state because it has specific social benefits, namely promoting stability in the relationship which has positive effects on the partners and society as a whole, not the least of which is creating a stable environment for child rearing.

Why don't you explore a marriage contract in California and a business contract to form a partnership in the state? I'm not going to do all the searching for you, if you are wondering the difference search it for yourself.

The restrictions aren't the same under the law because the current law states as such. Your metaphors are mind blowingly stupid.