Since I know you're all obsessed with Maine politics...Follow

Hey, just like under most state laws and under federal acknowledgement.


Actually it means exactly that. In the eyes of the government (and therefore the courts), marriage absolutely involves the civil contract. That's, you know, kind of the whole point of there being court cases about it whereas no one has to go to court to just magically call themselves a fairy princess because there's no civil contract component to being a fairy princess like there is for being married.

I bet you thought you were clever when you typed it though. Keep saying I have it backwards! That'll make it true!

I'm more upset that you didn't use mine. I'm going to karma-kamp you now.

Sorry, the "or" following "civil contract" was supposed to be an "and" (or perhaps even a "with"). The point was not about the existence of a contract, but the degree to which legal restrictions and requirements were necessary for that contract (and thus the marriage) to be valid.

You're still getting the direction of the statement backwards. The prevailing argument at the time was that if the government had a law which stated that a marriage between a white person and a black person was illegal and void (as in the California law at the time), the impact of that law extended beyond a government regulating a contract one could enter. He correctly stated that a marriage is more than such a contract and should not be subject to discriminatory restrictions.

This is because the law stated that such a "marriage" was illegal and void, not that such a marriage would not qualify for a particular state status. It was because the law actually prevented people from entering into the contract of marriage which meant that it was too broad and discriminatory. Having been struck down, no law remained to limit who could enter into a marriage contract. This includes gay couples btw.


The only thing at issue here is whether or not the state has an obligation to provide the same set of benefits to anyone who enters into a marriage contract or not. That's an entirely different question. Barring two people from being able to enter into a marriage contract can rightly be said to restrict their right to marry (in the broader sense). The ability to enter into a marriage contract is no longer restricted as it was back then.


That's what the judge was talking about. If there was a law preventing gay couples from entering into any of a set of contracts normally associated with marriage, I would agree with you, and those should certainly be addressed. Heck. I posted just today that the direction I believe that the gay rights folks should have gone was to start writing said contracts and testing them in courts to make sure they were upheld and enforced. Basically, they already won their "right to marry" back when Perez struck down that California law (and in other states with Loving). The only thing remaining is to get married with contracts in hand, file them and if someone refutes them, file suit.


That's the real issue to fight for. But instead, they've been directed to go after the state statuses, which are largely meaningless. That's what's so bizarre about this whole thing. It's misplaced from the start and seems designed not to actually obtain for gay couples what they want and need, but simply to create a political conflict where one need not be.

Of course it is. It doesn't help society as much to provide cash rebates to people who buy regular cars as it does to provide cash rebates to people who buy hybrids. That is an *excellent* reason to only provide the cash rebates to people who buy hybrids.

Wouldn't you agree? I mean, we could provide those rebates, and it would certainly help those other people, but it doesn't serve any real purpose other than to waste money.

It's not about the government allowing you to collect your partners pension if he/she dies, is it?

How about you try to come up with a definition of marriage that includes qualifying for government provided benefits. We'll all have a good laugh...


It's a relationship between two people, typically involving a set of civil contracts which bind them together economically. We could sit here forever discussing why people get married, but that's not really the issue. The question is what a marriage consists of and how we legitimize it. Ultimately, a marriage is legitimized by the acceptance of others in society. That's represented by upholding the contractual agreements. If your contract says that your finances are shared, and one of you skips out with the money, does a judge enforce the contract? If the contract says that you have power of attorney over each other, does a hospital recognize that? If the contract says that the two of you are guardians of eachothers children, do the courts recognize that?


Those are the issues gay rights groups should be fighting for. Yet, for some strange reason, they're spending a ridiculous amount of time going after a smallish set of government benefits which act as incentives for marriage. Those benefits aren't "marriage". They don't define marriage. They have no basis in traditional history for marriage. And they certainly aren't required for marriage to exist (cause people managed to get married long before they were created). Yet that has become the sole focus of every single gay person in the country.

Why? You say I don't know what marriage is, but it appears as though I've got a better idea than the folks running the "cause".

Edited, Nov 5th 2009 7:38pm by gbaji

Then start laughing because no, I didn't get married for that. My husband will never have a pension, or a dime to his name when he dies. If he dies tomorrow, I'll be flat broke and bankrupt.

I got married because I wanted to be a family. I got married because I love him. I got married because I wanted to let everyone know that we have made a lasting commitment.

I'm not on his insurance. I would be better off financially if I were single, since the government would pay for my schooling and most likely feed me.

I got married for good old fashioned love.

Because it doesn't explain anything. It shows that you can't think in any form other than extreme, unrealistic absolutes with essentially no details added.



It's a terrible analogy. Atrocious. Embarrassing. Pitiful. It only works on a very, very, extremely, absurdly fundamental and basic level.



Almost nothing that we discuss in this forum is that obvious, and the benefits granted to married couples as opposed to any other form of couple extend far beyond the government having to "pay" for anything. Which is just you, yet again, demonstrating that you have severe tunnel vision.

ITT we learn that the "How's" to gbaji's arguments don't matter, they just are.


Seriously, tell me how you can be married without receiving the benefits.

Edited, Nov 5th 2009 10:33pm by Bardalicious

quick let's go express our love in the only way possible: having sex on the jungle gym of an elementary school.

that'll show them breeders.

This.

I'm a doctor.

I'm an internet lawyer!