California, Marriage, and the Only Legitimate Reason Sexual Orientation Legally Matters

[Meadowchik]

From what I understand, the reason for the overturning of Prop 8 in California is that the state legislated "separate but equal,"  when it gave civil unions "with all the same rights as marriage." Atleast that is how the court sees it, IMO.  California is not allowed to say "they're basically the same, but we'll treat the relationships differently."

The 9th Circuit's decision does not affect other states, however.  It is up to other states to stand their ground and say "they are not basically the same, so we are not obligated to treat the relationships the same." 

And it is true that the relationships hetero vs homo are not basically the same.  To be intellectually honest, we must ask ourselves if the difference between them is important or not, and whether the importance is publicly relevant. All else being equal, the difference is that sex poses a risk unique to heterosexual partners.  In a sexual encounter, heterosexual partners risk creating biological bonds and therefore legal obligations.  In a sexual encounter between homosexual partners, there is no such risk.  Obviously, legal obligations are relevant to the public. 

The basic kernal to this whole issue is that heterosexual partners can and do create legal obligations without a legal contract, by virtue of biology.

This constitutes the reason for why the government can legally treat hetero couples differently.  They don't have to, IMO, but they can if the will of the people so chose.

ETA: Do you agree that this is the only legitimate difference between hetero and homosexual couples? If not, are there more, are there none?  Even if you agree that the difference is legitimate, do you value it less or more than giving homosexual couples the legal married status that some seek?

[ThatTXMom]

I say legalize same sex marriage so that we can focus on bigger issues... you know... like the state of our economy.  I think more and more politicians use this as a stump so they can divert attention from the big stuff.  Let's talk about gay marriage so we don't have to talk about how bad we screwed up the economy.

Let these people marry whoever hte hell they want so we can move on already!  Sheesh!

[Meadowchik]

Quoting ThatTXMom:

I say legalize same sex marriage so that we can focus on bigger issues... you know... like the state of our economy.  I think more and more politicians use this as a stump so they can divert attention from the big stuff.  Let's talk about gay marriage so we don't have to talk about how bad we screwed up the economy.

Let these people marry whoever hte hell they want so we can move on already!  Sheesh!

"Get it out of the way" is a poor way to go about making or changing laws.  It's one thing to put off making a decision, it's another decision entirely to make it dismissively. 

[ThatTXMom]

 

Quoting Meadowchik:

 

Quoting ThatTXMom:

I say legalize same sex marriage so that we can focus on bigger issues... you know... like the state of our economy.  I think more and more politicians use this as a stump so they can divert attention from the big stuff.  Let's talk about gay marriage so we don't have to talk about how bad we screwed up the economy.

Let these people marry whoever hte hell they want so we can move on already!  Sheesh!

"Get it out of the way" is a poor way to go about making or changing laws.  It's one thing to put off making a decision, it's another decision entirely to make it dismissively. 

I will admit that I feel like this is a non-issue.  The anti gay marriage crowd has made it one.  Why? Politicians capitalize on emotions to make it a big issue so they do not have to deal with things that ARE real issues affecting ALL AMERICANS.

If you can give me one good reason why same sex couples should NOT be allowed to marry, I might consider changing my stance.  But as it stands - if you remove religion from the argument - there really is NOT a reason why they should not be allowed to marry. 

 

[Meadowchik]

Quoting ThatTXMom:

 

I will admit that I feel like this is a non-issue.  The anti gay marriage crowd has made it one.  Why? Politicians capitalize on emotions to make it a big issue so they do not have to deal with things that ARE real issues affecting ALL AMERICANS.

Excuse me, but the pro-gay-marriage have made it an issue as well.  They are the ones seeking to

If you can give me one good reason why same sex couples should NOT be allowed to marry, I might consider changing my stance.  But as it stands - if you remove religion from the argument - there really is NOT a reason why they should not be allowed to marry. 

 

"Do you agree that this is the only legitimate difference between hetero and homosexual couples? If not, are there more, are there none?  Even if you agree that the difference is legitimate, do you value it less or more than giving homosexual couples the legal married status that some seek?"

(from ETA in OP)

[ThatTXMom]

 

Quoting Meadowchik:

 

Quoting ThatTXMom:

 

I will admit that I feel like this is a non-issue.  The anti gay marriage crowd has made it one.  Why? Politicians capitalize on emotions to make it a big issue so they do not have to deal with things that ARE real issues affecting ALL AMERICANS.

Excuse me, but the pro-gay-marriage have made it an issue as well.  They are the ones seeking to

If you can give me one good reason why same sex couples should NOT be allowed to marry, I might consider changing my stance.  But as it stands - if you remove religion from the argument - there really is NOT a reason why they should not be allowed to marry. 

 

"Do you agree that this is the only legitimate difference between hetero and homosexual couples? If not, are there more, are there none?  I don't have an opinion on this.  I am not homosexual, but I believe that the issue is between them and God and I do not have the right to impose my beliefs into their lives.

Even if you agree that the difference is legitimate, do you value it less or more than giving homosexual couples the legal married status that some seek?" I fail to see why they should be denied the legal status as married.

(from ETA in OP)

 What a same sex couple does, does not affect me.  So honestly... I just don't give it that much weight.  I do not think that denying them the right to marry will fix all of our social ills. 

[romalove]

 

Quoting ThatTXMom:

 

Quoting Meadowchik:

 

Quoting ThatTXMom:

 

I will admit that I feel like this is a non-issue.  The anti gay marriage crowd has made it one.  Why? Politicians capitalize on emotions to make it a big issue so they do not have to deal with things that ARE real issues affecting ALL AMERICANS.

Excuse me, but the pro-gay-marriage have made it an issue as well.  They are the ones seeking to

If you can give me one good reason why same sex couples should NOT be allowed to marry, I might consider changing my stance.  But as it stands - if you remove religion from the argument - there really is NOT a reason why they should not be allowed to marry. 

 

"Do you agree that this is the only legitimate difference between hetero and homosexual couples? If not, are there more, are there none?  I don't have an opinion on this.  I am not homosexual, but I believe that the issue is between them and God and I do not have the right to impose my beliefs into their lives.

Even if you agree that the difference is legitimate, do you value it less or more than giving homosexual couples the legal married status that some seek?" I fail to see why they should be denied the legal status as married.

(from ETA in OP)

 What a same sex couple does, does not affect me.  So honestly... I just don't give it that much weight.  I do not think that denying them the right to marry will fix all of our social ills. 

 Keeping gay people from marrying will not fix all of our social ills.  Having them marry will not fix all our social ills.

However, allowing them to marry will remove this issue and allow room and time to deal with other issues that constitute social ills that need fixing, like joblessness, homelessness, and hunger.

We are taking up a lot of precious time arguing over something that, at the end of the day, is going to happen. 

[ThatTXMom]

 Exactly.  But you are still nuts.  Just sayin'. 

Quoting romalove:

 

Quoting ThatTXMom:

 

Quoting Meadowchik:

 

Quoting ThatTXMom:

 

I will admit that I feel like this is a non-issue.  The anti gay marriage crowd has made it one.  Why? Politicians capitalize on emotions to make it a big issue so they do not have to deal with things that ARE real issues affecting ALL AMERICANS.

Excuse me, but the pro-gay-marriage have made it an issue as well.  They are the ones seeking to

If you can give me one good reason why same sex couples should NOT be allowed to marry, I might consider changing my stance.  But as it stands - if you remove religion from the argument - there really is NOT a reason why they should not be allowed to marry. 

 

"Do you agree that this is the only legitimate difference between hetero and homosexual couples? If not, are there more, are there none?  I don't have an opinion on this.  I am not homosexual, but I believe that the issue is between them and God and I do not have the right to impose my beliefs into their lives.

Even if you agree that the difference is legitimate, do you value it less or more than giving homosexual couples the legal married status that some seek?" I fail to see why they should be denied the legal status as married.

(from ETA in OP)

 What a same sex couple does, does not affect me.  So honestly... I just don't give it that much weight.  I do not think that denying them the right to marry will fix all of our social ills. 

 Keeping gay people from marrying will not fix all of our social ills.  Having them marry will not fix all our social ills.

However, allowing them to marry will remove this issue and allow room and time to deal with other issues that constitute social ills that need fixing, like joblessness, homelessness, and hunger.

We are taking up a lot of precious time arguing over something that, at the end of the day, is going to happen. 

 

[romalove]

 

Quoting ThatTXMom:

 Exactly.  But you are still nuts.  Just sayin'. 

 Keeping gay people from marrying will not fix all of our social ills.  Having them marry will not fix all our social ills.

However, allowing them to marry will remove this issue and allow room and time to deal with other issues that constitute social ills that need fixing, like joblessness, homelessness, and hunger.

We are taking up a lot of precious time arguing over something that, at the end of the day, is going to happen. 

 

 This will amuse you.  I play Words with Friends and am known to be kind of tough at the game.  I have a friend who plays with me all the time, and she put a C up and I made the word COCONUTS from it, and since then, she has started calling me Coconut, and has a bunch of my other friends doing the same.

So I am not just nuts, I am coconuts.  :-)

[ThatTXMom]

 

Quoting romalove:

 

Quoting ThatTXMom:

 Exactly.  But you are still nuts.  Just sayin'. 

 Keeping gay people from marrying will not fix all of our social ills.  Having them marry will not fix all our social ills.

However, allowing them to marry will remove this issue and allow room and time to deal with other issues that constitute social ills that need fixing, like joblessness, homelessness, and hunger.

We are taking up a lot of precious time arguing over something that, at the end of the day, is going to happen. 

 

 This will amuse you.  I play Words with Friends and am known to be kind of tough at the game.  I have a friend who plays with me all the time, and she put a C up and I made the word COCONUTS from it, and since then, she has started calling me Coconut, and has a bunch of my other friends doing the same.

So I am not just nuts, I am coconuts.  :-)

 Hehehehehehehe - ammo

[Meadowchik]

Quoting ThatTXMom:

 Keeping gay people from marrying will not fix all of our social ills.  Having them marry will not fix all our social ills.

However, allowing them to marry will remove this issue and allow room and time to deal with other issues that constitute social ills that need fixing, like joblessness, homelessness, and hunger.

We are taking up a lot of precious time arguing over something that, at the end of the day, is going to happen. 

 

I don't suppose you are saying that laws should just be forced upon the American people without reasoning, though, do you?  That would set a poor precedent which could spell disaster when we are also trying to work out the other issues.  So, in an effort to promote expediency AND reason, I have proposed what I think is the core difference between hetero and homosexual sexual partners. 

If it truly is the only or last legitimate difference, then the process is simplified.  The next thing would be to decide whether the difference is something marriage laws affect...

I appreciate what you guys are saying, but we cannot just snap our fingers and say "and so it is..." Somebody has to do the work of reasoning it all out if the work is worth doing.