Why people say Gay marrage is just the tip of the iceberg

[Bob Hubbard]

Mr. Sulu got married in California.
If he decided to move to Texas, under Texan State Law, he's not married. In fact, under Texan law recognizing him as married is illegal.
So should Mr. Sulu become ill, his life partner, his legally married spouse, is denied the right to be there by his side. Can't make the decisions I or you would make for our own spouse in that situation. Could be separated from any kids that may be in the relationship. Locked out of bank accounts, evicted from a home, and so forth.

Some people are ok with that.

I'm not.

That's why it's an important issue to me. Fairness and what's right.


Edited:
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Texas

 

[ballen0351]

[
So now the people of texas should be required to follow the laws of the people of california? Its simple really if you don't like the laws in texas don't move to texas.

Mr. Sulu got married in California.
If he decided to move to Texas, under Texan State Law, he's not married. In fact, under Texan law recognizing him as married is illegal.
So should Mr. Sulu become ill, his life partner, his legally married spouse, is denied the right to be there by his side. Can't make the decisions I or you would make for our own spouse in that situation. Could be separated from any kids that may be in the relationship. Locked out of bank accounts, evicted from a home, and so forth.

Some people are ok with that.

I'm not.

That's why it's an important issue to me. Fairness and what's right.


Edited:
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Texas

 

[granfire]

[
So now the people of texas should be required to follow the laws of the people of california? Its simple really if you don't like the laws in texas don't move to texas.

Any state ought to be required to acknowledge and respect the laws of any other state. Like they accept your driver's license or the marriage certificate of a hetero couple.

All men are created equal, you know.

 

[ballen0351]

Huh? Toaster?

No, you are mudding the waters with such arguments.

Some one a few pages back Asked why would I care if a guy wanted to marry a toaster it does not effect me so who cares

There is no one good argument to deny a same sex couple the same rights any hetero couple receives by just signing the papers.
The 'marrying a house' or toaster, or animal, or polygamy arguments is all smoke and mirrors.

Then way has it been voted down in 39 states?

narrow margin: 2 people, one event. Stay on task!

and if that was all it was it would be simple. But People will use this as a spring bored to other things. Thats just what we do and at some point people need to say enough is enough and apparently in 39 states this is that point.

Explain why a gay couple should not be allowed to make the decisions in a life altering situation, like one being on life support.
Or even as simply as being allowed to be in the hospital room with their life partner as spouse, something that is a given for a hetero couple.

You should not need to be married for that and you dont need to be gay. Shouldnt hetro couples that dont believe in marriage but have been together for years be allowed the same thing?

explain please.

Or pick any of the list Bob was kind enough to dig out, assuming a civil union was even allowable in any given state.

When we got this problem solved, we can tackle the polygamy thing, but by then it won't be an issue if there are only one man and several women, or more men than women.

And lets face it. There have always been the crazies, wanting to marry their dog or what have you. And let's not forget, i think there are precedents on animal inheriting estates...

Close what door? On allowing equal rights to all people in the jurisdiction? Why would you want to do that?

Why should that only be applied to marriages? If I dont want to be married but live with my girlfriend for 20 years have kids shouldnt we have the same right?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

[
So now the people of texas should be required to follow the laws of the people of california? Its simple really if you don't like the laws in texas don't move to texas.

Texas does not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions (Texas Family Code § 6.204(c)).[SUP][4][/SUP] The Constitutionality of refusing to recognize a lawful marriage performed in another State remains in dispute. Generally, the Full Faith and Credit Clause found in Article IV Section 1 would prohibit a State from doing this, but some discretion has also been given to States in certain matters. The Constitutional provision does give Congress the power to, "prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." (Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution).

According to the Texas State Constitution, it differs to the US Constitution as a higher law.

Also we have a right to go where we want, to live where we want. Texas and other states that legalize discrimination like this, inhibit that.

 

[elder999]

[
So now the people of texas should be required to follow the laws of the people of california? Its simple really if you don't like the laws in texas don't move to texas.

No, the state of Texas has to acknowledge the contract made in California that is called "marriage." The Full Faith and Credit Clause, Article IV, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Which is why the SCOTUS won't hear the California Proposition 8 case-to rule for it is to subvert the will of the people in states that have made gay marriage legal, and to rule against it is to make gay marriage the law of the land.

 

[ballen0351]

Any state ought to be required to acknowledge and respect the laws of any other state. Like they accept your driver's license or the marriage certificate of a hetero couple.

All men are created equal, you know.

So when 2 states disagree what state is right? Shouldnt that apply to all laws then. If I can open carry a gun in Texas why cant I do it in New York?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

You should not need to be married for that and you dont need to be gay. Shouldnt hetro couples that dont believe in marriage but have been together for years be allowed the same thing?

explain please.

a man and woman can claim to be married. No one questions it.
Same sex couple are either denied or questioned. While you're home rooting around for your 'license', your partner is dying in the hospital.
Fair? Right? Proper?

Not to me.

In some states all you need to be married is to claim it. No ceremony, no permit, no paperwork. It's called 'common-law'.
I don't live in a state that recognizes 'common-law' marriage.
http://www.unmarried.org/common-law-marriage-fact-sheet.html

 

[Bob Hubbard]

So when 2 states disagree what state is right? Shouldnt that apply to all laws then. If I can open carry a gun in Texas why cant I do it in New York?

Amendment 10 of the US Constitution.

Gun carry laws are left to the States to decide. Large body of case-study in that argument. It's referenced in one or more of the 2nd Amendment arguments.

 

[ballen0351]

No, the state of Texas has to acknowledge the contract made in California that is called "marriage." The Full Faith and Credit Clause, Article IV, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

So my legal gun permit license in Texas should be good in New York and my medical Marijuana card in California should be good in Ohio.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Soooo...

Bob, allice, ted, steve, jill, kathy and dave are all married...to each other. They have in their marriage bobby, allice, teddy, frank, grace, stevey, lionel, jane as minor children.

Bob wants to divorce Jill, and dave but not ted alice or steve and he claims direct parentage and demands sole custody of teddy and jane but not teddy, frank, grace and stevey. Jill and dave demand alimony and child support for teddy, frank, grace, stevey, lionel, jane bobby and joint custody of teddy and jane. The court then requires dna testing of all involved to sort out which children are biological offspring of which parents...

You know, just typing this out is a problem, imagine trying to sort this out in court, considering that the family courts aren't already jammed to the gills with divorces of single male/female couples.

Credit where due, I think this reasoning against polygamy actually has some merit. A marriage involving 5 individuals, each being married to all the others, would be a nightmare to any probate or divorce judge. I can just imagine the hilarity ensuing when three of the individuals don't write a will, two of them will their possession to each other, and then some poor judge has to figure out parental authority when someone in this happy family divorces.

That being said, and so long as we're playing the wonderful game of "what-if", it's possible to develop probate, adoption, and inhereitance laws to accomodate multiple-partner marriage setups. Difficult certainly, game-changing without a doubt, but nonetheless possible.

Oh, and sorry for the late response.

 

[ballen0351]

Amendment 10 of the US Constitution.

Gun carry laws are left to the States to decide. .

As are marriage laws.

 

[ballen0351]

but nonetheless possible.

.

really? because we cant even agree as a nation on laws for two people yet. I couldnt imagine that

 

[elder999]

As are marriage laws.

Yes, but if my wife and I were to move to any other state in the country, that state would be legally required to recognize that we're married.

 

[granfire]

Some one a few pages back Asked why would I care if a guy wanted to marry a toaster it does not effect me so who cares

Valid point tho: does it affect you if a guy marries his toaster?
Answer honestly! Assuming it si not your toaster he fell in love with.

Then way has it been voted down in 39 states?

Tyranny of the masses. It's good to be a small part of a larger whole.

and if that was all it was it would be simple. But People will use this as a spring bored to other things. Thats just what we do and at some point people need to say enough is enough and apparently in 39 states this is that point.

It IS that simple. 2 people one event.
everything else is thrown in to murk up the issue (successfully) like it was back in the early 90s about gays in the armed forces, cross dressers, transsexuals and pedophiles and rapists thrown in for good measure to make a point why gays are unfit to serve the country and die for it.

You should not need to be married for that and you dont need to be gay. Shouldnt hetro couples that dont believe in marriage but have been together for years be allowed the same thing?

true, you should not, but you have to.
And in a good amount of states there is the common law marriage, as Bob noted, plus when a couple like that splits judges often enough recognize the union to be like marriage and award benefits accordingly.

Why should that only be applied to marriages? If I dont want to be married but live with my girlfriend for 20 years have kids shouldnt we have the same right?

again, see above.
hetero couples do enjoy benefits even without the signed paper.

 

[ballen0351]

Valid point tho: does it affect you if a guy marries his toaster?
Answer honestly! Assuming it si not your toaster he fell in love with.

does it affect me directly no but does it effect society if we decide its ok? I dont know

Tyranny of the masses. It's good to be a small part of a larger whole.

and you would be ok with it if the 39 states agreed with you. but since they dont its Tryanny

It IS that simple. 2 people one event.
everything else is thrown in to murk up the issue (successfully) like it was back in the early 90s about gays in the armed forces, cross dressers, transsexuals and pedophiles and rapists thrown in for good measure to make a point why gays are unfit to serve the country and die for it.

because it happens. People purposly push the issue to make a point to ty and get a payoff. See the other post I had about the gay guy in my police academy class that had no desire to be a cop he just wanted to be kicked out so he can sue. I could easily see someone sue for discrimination because he cant marry his goat, toaster, sister, mother, insert anything here. So you do need to look at the bigger picture. It effects it all.

true, you should not, but you have to.

so if the real fight was about equality then they should be what we are working to change.

And in a good amount of states there is the common law marriage, as Bob noted, plus when a couple like that splits judges often enough recognize the union to be like marriage and award benefits accordingly.

"Like a marriage" not a marriage each state sees common law differently so again its up to the state to decide

again, see above.
hetero couples do enjoy benefits even without the signed paper.

not in all states and not all benefits so why single them out? Or are none married hetero couples not "victim" enough for the debate?

 

[ballen0351]

Yes, but if my wife and I were to move to any other state in the country, that state would be legally required to recognize that we're married.

Only because that state recognizes marriages. If a state was to git rid of marriage all together they wouldnt. As I was reading up on new Hapmshire I saw some of the libertarians in the state "congress" (I dont know what they call it up there) had discussed getting rid of marriage all together and going to a strict civil unions for all and converting all marriages in that state to a civil union. Could they convert your marriage to a civil union? I dont know

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Only because that state recognizes marriages. If a state was to git rid of marriage all together they wouldnt. As I was reading up on new Hapmshire I saw some of the libertarians in the state "congress" (I dont know what they call it up there) had discussed getting rid of marriage all together and going to a strict civil unions for all and converting all marriages in that state to a civil union. Could they convert your marriage to a civil union? I dont know

Article 4 - Section 1.

 

[granfire]

does it affect me directly no but does it effect society if we decide its ok? I dont know



and you would be ok with it if the 39 states agreed with you. but since they dont its Tryanny



because it happens. People purposly push the issue to make a point to ty and get a payoff. See the other post I had about the gay guy in my police academy class that had no desire to be a cop he just wanted to be kicked out so he can sue. I could easily see someone sue for discrimination because he cant marry his goat, toaster, sister, mother, insert anything here. So you do need to look at the bigger picture. It effects it all.




so if the real fight was about equality then they should be what we are working to change.

"Like a marriage" not a marriage each state sees common law differently so again its up to the state to decide






not in all states and not all benefits so why single them out? Or are none married hetero couples not "victim" enough for the debate?

Stick with the topic.
A gay is not a cross dresser is not a transsexual is not a pedophile is not a rapist.

Intersections might exist, but not necessarily. So throwing all of that in the discussion is not contributing to an honest discussion.

So, a handful of people marry toasters. Does that affect society. past injuries possibly inflicted upon marritial activities, I dare say no.


but again, you chose to not read argument you don't like. As Bob puts it, as hetero you don't have to prove marriage, you often don't even have to go through the motions. It is a given.

As to tyranny of the masses, that's the nature of the beast.
That's why the founding fathers put in provisions to limit the masses from imposing their believes upon the population who does not share their thoughts.

Again, while you bring in broad argument, as in society forms the laws it wants to live under, you fail to see the implications your broad statement has. As before, I say it again: ask Chanuck and Tez about what can happen when the checks and balances fail to protect the minority.

You like to point at the grand old paper that is the Constitution when it suits you (as in Free speech, regardless of content) but you forget one little bit as convinient: All men are created equal.
And even that statement has undergone an undocumented amendment, since then it was all white males...not women (chattel) or men (people) of other color.

All men - Humans - are created equal, they should enjoy equal rights under the law. That ought to include the right to marry the person of their choosing.

 

[ballen0351]

Gay men are not equal under the law. They are protected class. If a guy walks up and hits me in the face its an assault. If he walks up says your a (insert gay slur) and hits me its a hate cries with a tougher penality. So they are not equal. So if you can have special laws for them regarding assaults then why not special laws for them regarding civil unions. We already treat them differently