Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

**Fragony** · 08-08-2010, 09:38

So why can't they keep it exclusive, a civil union grants the same rights, so it isn't about equal rights. So it's about what.

**a completely inoffensive name** · 08-08-2010, 09:45

Originally Posted by Fragony

So why can't they keep it exclusive, a civil union grants the same rights, so it isn't about equal rights. So it's about what.

You can't have two institutions for the same service based upon race, gender or sexuality period. It's called "separate but equal" and it was officially struck down by the Supreme Court in the 1950s under Brown vs. Board of Education. Saying that gays have civil unions is like saying that blacks had their own water fountains to go to, which provided water just like the white fountains did. So what do they really want when those blacks said they wanted to drink from the white water fountains?

**Fragony** · 08-08-2010, 09:58

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

You can't have two institutions for the same service based upon race, gender or sexuality period. It's called "separate but equal" and it was officially struck down by the Supreme Court in the 1950s under Brown vs. Board of Education. Saying that gays have civil unions is like saying that blacks had their own water fountains to go to, which provided water just like the white fountains did. So what do they really want when those blacks said they wanted to drink from the white water fountains?

Nah, no two different institutions for the same thing as it's not the same thing. There is the paperwork and the deeper meaning for some. They can have the paperworks but it's deeper meaning is simply beyond their reach, they can demand it all they want, they are equal for the law but gay marriage will never be more. If conservatives feel there is tresspassing into their spiritual property I agree with them. Hands of, why want it, is a little respect so much to ask?

**a completely inoffensive name** · 08-08-2010, 10:04

Originally Posted by Fragony

Nah, no two different institutions for the same thing as it's not the same thing. There is the paperwork and the deeper meaning for some. They can have the paperworks but it's deeper meaning is simply beyond their reach, they can demand it all they want, they are equal for the law but gay marriage will never be more. If conservatives feel there is tresspassing into their spiritual property I agree with them. Hands of, why want it, is a little respect so much to ask?

Ahh, I see. Love and commitment and understanding what marriage truly is, is simply beyond the reach of gays and lesbians. Well, your bigotry certainly is compelling and completely logically sound. Let's just say I agree with you so you don't feel compelled to type another one of those posts.

**Fragony** · 08-08-2010, 10:16

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Ahh, I see. Love and commitment and understanding what marriage truly is, is simply beyond the reach of gays and lesbians.

The essence of marriage is beyond their reach, there is no promise of a future. Can't have that, isn't it enough that they love eachother, apperently not. They want to pretend it is and so should we, but it will never be the same thing. For some marriage has a meaning, and mocking that I can see no other than an act of agression.

I object to 'my bigotry' by the way as I'm not with the conservatives here, but I am not going to just dismiss them. You don't have to agree with an argument to defend it. IMHO it's perfectly fine as the institute was reduced to love and commitment anyway, but not everybody sees it like that, and that is also fine chez frag. Live and let live.

**Moros** · 08-08-2010, 12:59

Marriage is gay.

**Tellos Athenaios** · 08-08-2010, 15:46

Originally Posted by Fragony

The essence of marriage is

Marriage is first a ceremony that celebrates the union, only then a formal legal status. You are right that to (most, if not) all intents and purposes “Civil Union” and “Marriage” are idempotent but you are wrong that this is so in the mind of people who do get married.

If you were right, there would be no reason why heterosexual couples would want to get married; there would be no such ceremony anymore at all: you'd file a form and collect your certificate. But that is not the way it is, because the people who do get married want it to be something more -- more ceremony, more meta-physical value. At that point both “Civil Union” and “Marriage” are not equivalent and it is perfectly understandable that homosexual couples might want to enjoy the same privileges as a heterosexual couple for that reason.

Then if you hold by the idea that “marriage” is performed under the “auspices” of the state (which it is in California, the Netherlands, and other countries where a religious service does not at the moment count in any way as getting married); and you hold by the idea that the “state” may not discriminate against people based on sexual preferences, then it follows that marriage should be as open to homosexual couples as it is to heterosexual couples.

So if the USA constitution mandates that the state must not discriminate against people based on sexual preferences, it follows that California must allow both homosexual and heterosexual couples to be married if it allows either, because in the USA federal laws trump state laws. Since California allows heterosexual couples to be married, it then follows that it must allow homosexual couples as well: ergo proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

**Fragony** · 08-08-2010, 16:14

You are talking to the wrong person, it's not my point I am merely defending iit as it IS a valid point. If you check all boxes on how we should respectfully get along, than how could you even begin to defend such a mockery of what people truly care about. If you change it's meaning that also means your parents and their parents, and in the end it doesn't mean anything anymore, it's theatre. As society has changed so should we, but it shouldn't be a mandatory celebration..

**Ironside** · 08-08-2010, 09:59

Originally Posted by Fragony

So why can't they keep it exclusive, a civil union grants the same rights, so it isn't about equal rights. So it's about what.

So you want to have a separate but equal policy and then wondering what the fuzz is about?

What is the common term for a non-religious state marriage? Both official and non-official.

And evidence is pretty clear that the natural human state is mostly monogomous, but with room for changing partners and cheating.

**Fragony** · 08-08-2010, 10:07

Originally Posted by Ironside

So you want to have a separate but equal policy and then wondering what the fuzz is about?

What is the common term for a non-religious state marriage? Both official and non-official.

And evidence is pretty clear that the natural human state is mostly monogomous, but with room for changing partners and cheating.

We get by with freedom of thought, conservatives have that right as well, as if everything should be swept away in the wave of progression. Can they keep something for themselves?