Another State Legalizes gay Marriage

[ICantSpellDawg]

Does the civil union statute extend ALL of the same rights, verbatim? If it does not then it is a "separate but "equal" law" which legal precedent has maintained does not work, and is rarely equal in practice. This would include things people don't normally consider, like the ability to cover each other under insurance policies, pensions, etc.

But is there one man who can marry another man or one woman who can marry another woman? No. There is no legal discrimination or wording towards it unless you maintain that marriage is for the protection of all sexual relationships. I can't marry a man and neither can a homosexual man marry a man. If love isn't in the law books and homosexuality hasn't been proven to be something other than a choice, then it isn't discrimination.

Off topic:
Women are entitled to maternity leave and the choice of whether or not they have a baby and are responsible for it for it financially for the rest of their lives. Men don't have that choice, is that a separation of rights that is unconstitutional?

[Koga No Goshi]

But is there one man who can marry another man or one woman who can marry another woman? No. There is no legal discrimination or wording towards it unless you maintain that marriage is for the protection of all sexual relationships. I can't marry a man and neither can a homosexual man marry a man. If love isn't in the law books and homosexuality hasn't been proven to be something other than a choice, then it isn't discrimination.

Off topic:
Women are entitled to maternity leave and the choice of whether or not they have a baby and are responsible for it for it financially for the rest of their lives. Men don't have that choice, is that a separation of rights that is unconstitutional?

A man will never carry a baby in his womb. A gay man will have his partner dying in a hospital at some point or another, if they're together long enough. A gay couple will own property together. So the comparison of those rights based on maternity leave is specious. If, at some future point, sex change operations advance to the point where former men can fully carry babies to term, they should qualify for maternity leave, even if some throwbacks argue "but he's really still a man, he was born one, we've always defined someone's gender by the one they're born with."

And regarding the first paragraph, absolutely it is discriminatory. Different groups of people may tend towards different choices or lifestyles or experiences based on culture or identity. So saying that a gay man not being able to marry his partner is undiscriminatory because you, as a straight man, also cannot marry a man, is like saying a law banning Synagogue is not discriminatory. The Jews are not allowed to go to Synagogue, but neither are the Christians. So where's the discrimination? Fair for everyone.

We have a history of those kinds of "not discriminatory" laws, Tuff. Look at San Francisco during the post-gold rush era, where laws prohibited more than x people living in a house together or placed a special fee on businesses using a horse for delivery---- knowing, in advance, that those laws would hit the Chinese, and hardly anyone else.

That logic isn't really turning the tide here, sadly.