Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

If there is so much as the smallest possible chance that someone could still be denied visitation/the right to make medical decisions, then this is not ok.

Without it being obvious and well-known that same-sex couples can get married, it will happen. It has in the past, and it will continue to in the future. It doesn't matter how often, to whom, when or how much it's publicized, and what the circumstances of the denial are.

It should never happen. To anyone. Ever. There is no defense for it. Gay couples are forced (Yes!! forced!!) into this situation. Straight couples at least have the choice to take that risk when they don't get married.

This is a minor detail in the whole debate though. The only reason we're talking about it at all is because you have to change the topic five times a page in order to keep feeling as though you have some logical point. (Hint: You don't.)

No, you misunderstand me; it has two meanings. It is used to refer to pre-nuptial agreements by people who can't spell 'nuptial' and, more importantly, the contract of marriage itself. You're using it to mean any contract that is somewhat similar to the contract of marriage. No one else uses the term in this manner. This is the point I am making.

Are you failing to understand that, legally, "marriage" comes with said "marriage benefits"? Until you can tell me directly that you understand this and are willing to work from this premise alone, it's not worth having this conversation with you. Granted, it's probably not worth it anyway but I'm looking for a glimmer of hope here.

They are being denied benefits that they arguably have a right to. They are not being harmed by heterosexual couples having those benefits, they are being harmed by the denial of those benefits to them. Particularly since many benefits are unobtainable via any other means.

Edited, Aug 12th 2010 12:12am by Jophiel

To be fair, I'll address the rest of your post as well, since it has some merit:



You don't have a right to gain that legally defined status though Joph. That's the point. You do have a right to tie ribbons around your pinky and declare yourselves "love-bound". You have a right to define that relationship with a legally binding contract if you wish.

You do not, nor have you *ever* had a right to qualify for a state defined legal status. Ever. In the same way that you don't have a "right" be be defined as "handicapped", or "disabled", or "poor", or any of a dozen other legally defined statuses which may confer any of a number of government funded or mandated benefits.

Those are not rights. They never have been rights. That's what you don't seem to understand.



Why would there be one? I guess I'm unsure what you think the role of the government is here. Why on earth would the government create a legal status which conferred no benefits or penalties? What kind of bizarre love-fest with big government would make you think that we should have our government creating such things. That's just warped thinking.

You're also apparently unaware that the same word can hold different meanings. There is a religious "marriage", and a social "marriage", and a civil contract called "marriage". And there is *also* a state status called "marriage". Those are all of them different things. Or will you also argue that the Catholic Church's prohibition against marrying people who aren't members of their faith denied everyone else the "right to marry" as well?


Cause that would be... silly.

No, we call shenanigans. Which this thread is full of.

Back on topic, the ABA (American Bar Association) has come out in agreement with the judge's conclusion. They normally don't dip their toes in politics, but felt that this was an important enough case to speak up.

That was far from the only problem with that sentence. I mean, I don't really care that much, because it's not like you have anything interesting to communicate, but it's indicative of your general ineptitude.

Really?? You need food stamps but no one will give them to you? Wow.