Prop 8 over turned

[davidmash]

I was just watching the news and it looks like the ban has been over turned. I guess now it goes to the appellate court and then the SCOTUS.

I am glad it got over turned. One step closer to equality.Prop 8 overturned

[JollyRoger]

It's about time the country grew up. Some boys like boys. Other boys like them back. BFD.

[cdplayer]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

It's about time the country grew up. Some boys like boys. Other boys like them back. BFD.

Now that what he said is very cool! And original. I like that.

[Skid Row Joe]

Originally Posted by davidmash

One step closer to equality.

In exactly what ways is a homosexual unequal to anyone in the U.S.?

[MTI]

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

In exactly what ways is a homosexual unequal to anyone in the U.S.?

In many states, where married couples hold real estate as "tenants by the entirety" that form of title is immune from judgments against a single spouse, since each spouse holds an indivisible share of the property. That form of title also allows for surviorship transfer outside of probate.

Then there's that military service hiccup . . .

[Skid Row Joe]

Homosexuals have ALL the rights guaranteed any heterosexual by the U.S. Constitution.

Sexual preference has nothing to do with loss of rights or inequality, under the laws of our country.

[cmbdiesel]

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

Homosexuals have ALL the rights guaranteed any heterosexual by the U.S. Constitution.

Sexual preference has nothing to do with loss of rights or inequality, under the laws of our country.

Try telling that to the IRS, or an HMO.

[Skid Row Joe]

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Try telling that to the IRS, or an HMO.

As long as the law backs them up - what's to tell them?

[Honus]

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

Homosexuals have ALL the rights guaranteed any heterosexual by the U.S. Constitution.

That's a circular argument.

Sexual preference has nothing to do with loss of rights or inequality, under the laws of our country.

Apparently you missed the post immediately preceding your own. So that you don't have to scroll back, I will repeat it here:

Originally Posted by MTI

In many states, where married couples hold real estate as "tenants by the entirety" that form of title is immune from judgments against a single spouse, since each spouse holds an indivisible share of the property. That form of title also allows for surviorship transfer outside of probate.

Then there's that military service hiccup . . .

Say whatever you want, but the things that MTI lists are big advantages given to non-gay married couples. And it doesn't stop there. Married couples get other advantages in insurance, inheritance, and probably other areas that I can't think of right at the moment.

Perhaps a majority of Americans favor such disparate treatment of gays, so it is there right to pass anti-gay laws, unless the Constitution says otherwise. And that part seems to be in question.

[JollyRoger]

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

Homosexuals have ALL the rights guaranteed any heterosexual by the U.S. Constitution.

Sexual preference has nothing to do with loss of rights or inequality, under the laws of our country.

An utterly, utterly false statement. Demonstrably false, legally false, just plain false.

[davidmash]

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

In exactly what ways is a homosexual unequal to anyone in the U.S.?

This case has nothing to do with homosexuality being equal to or less equal than anything else regardless of how much you want to make the argument about that.

This case has to do with civil rights and the 14th amendment. This case is arguing that all people of consenting age have the right to marry according to the the 14th amendment.

So as I said, one step closer to equality for all people.

[Skid Row Joe]

Originally Posted by davidmash

This case has nothing to do with homosexuality being equal to or less equal than anything else regardless of how much you want to make the argument about that.

This case has to do with civil rights and the 14th amendment. This case is arguing that all people of consenting age have the right to marry according to the the 14th amendment.

So as I said, one step closer to equality for all people.

See above post.....#12

It is all about homosexuality - has nothing to do with the law....

[Scruffyguy1981]

In the eyes of the IRS I cannot file jointly with my partner and take advantage of the same tax benefits a "traditional" couple has available, unless the state you reside in recognizes same sex marriage. In many places you are not allowed into the hospital room with your partner or allowed to make the same decisions for them that a "traditional" couple would be able to. There are a number of double standards applied to people simply because of who they love. I was very irritated by how the mormons stuck their nose into the political affairs of another state. It's yet another example of the lack of seperation of church and state (namely with the LDS church) and the lack of government enforcement on it. What did they get fined, something like 3-5 thousand? Thats pocket change to them. I do have some personal hostility towards them, I admit that. I have never felt welcome here in the ten years I have lived here. There always seems to be this sense of fakeness and hatred. It may just be made up by my imagination, but I know I'm not the first to notice this, especially in the more rural areas.

[smittyinnola]

Why should the government have any say on the consentual adult relationships that people want to enter into in this country? Don't they have better ***** to focus on like crime, the economy, or paving the roads (potholes wreak havok on my tires!)

Seriously, relationships are hard period! Straight, Gay or otherwise it makes no difference...you still have to argue over who forgot to put the cap on the toothpaste.

There is no logical reason for bias! Remember that interacial marriage was illegal in some states until the 1960s! What was the rationale for that again...yeah thats what I thought.

[Billybob]

Originally Posted by davidmash

This case has to do with civil rights and the 14th amendment. This case is arguing that all people of consenting age have the right to marry according to the the 14th amendment.

Except for the polyamourists, the poligamists, brothers, sisters, parents and children, uncles, aunts and cousins! If all people have the individual right to marry why can't adult brother and an adult sister? Or a father and an adult daughter? Why can't two adult brothes? Wouldn't their individual rights be denied unconstitutionaly? If the right is individual how can the rights of individual poligamists to be married be denied?

Or do only "gay" individuals have that right, how about three gay brothers getting married, under what circumstance could any one of their individual right to marry be constitutionally denied?