Use some common sense; that was then, in which Prop 8 suggested discrimination.
This is now.
On October 12, 2009, Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law The Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act, legislation proposed by State Senator Mark Leno to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries.
1911: "Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy."
Sounds like the same conceptual writers for the Yes on 1 / Yes on 8 campaigns, but replacing colour with gender....
In due time, same-sex marriage will not even be a question any more than black/white marriage as being a cause for concern.
@nnjhansen The people also include the governmental employees and lawmakers, of whom make up the 8 states in the USA that legalize same-sex marriage so far.
The people of all the states have been asked about condoning homosexuality, and compared to even 10 years ago, there is an overwhelming abundance of acceptance.
You have to accept the fact that it is a slow process, but it is an eventual win for all gay people, single, coupled or married.
@nnjhansen 8 states legalize and recognize same-sex marriage to date.
The statistics are in the favour of equality for same-sex couples. This is how the law-making process works. Slowly but surely we will have our deserved benefits and equality.
1.On October 12, 2009, Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law The Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act, legislation proposed by State Senator Mark Leno to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries.
2. Same-sex domestic partners would have all the rights and benefits that Washington state offers married couples under a bill that passed the state Legislature Wednesday. The House approved the Senate-passed measure on a mostly party-line 62-35 vote.
nnjhansen said: "If you can't win in CA or ME, where do you see evidence of this growing popular support?"
Guess what? You're wrong again. My marriage is legal in California.
On October 12, 2009, Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law The Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act, legislation proposed by State Senator Mark Leno to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries.
@nnjhansen "I have said repeatedly that this is an issue for the people to decide."
Yeah, & the people voted to recognize benefits to same-sex couples in Washington state.
You argue that same-sex couples shouldn't have the same benefits as het. couples. I counter-argue with facts and you say "I do not care about 71"? Nice cop-out.
EIGHT states have legalized same-sex marriage. Which is why the statistics show more people supporting same-sex couples. The people are deciding to support us.
I argue that the people who bestow benefits get to decide who gets them and who does not. If the people of WA want to grant benefits to people with dogs, I don't care. It is their call.
"The people are deciding to support us."
The people of 31 states have been asked to redefine marriage and 31 times they have responded negatively.
@nnjhansen "Obviously the people do not agree that you are entitled to what you believe you are. "
Obviously more and more people DO AGREE that there is discrimination toward homosexual couples, which is why same-sex marriage is legal and recognized in 8 states so far.
Which is why the polls clearly show that there is more support for same-sex couples than there was even 10 years ago.
Check the statistics for yourself; we are gaining momentum because we deserve equality.
"Check the statistics for yourself; we are gaining momentum because we deserve equality. "
In the past two years you have decisively lost elections in two of the most liberal states in the union. If you can't win in CA or ME, where do you see evidence of this growing popular support?
I pointed out the recent news that the voters of Washington state voted FOR EQUALITY, therefore the State recognizes all the same benefits to homosexual couples as to heterosexual couples.
Also, EIGHT states recognize same-sex marriage.
The voters and the government of America are siding with gay couples, slowly but surely.
Do you realize that the people of WA did not redefine marriage? They decided to do exactly what the voters of CA did that you and others have berated them for. They said in their state and alternate institution would be available with the same benefits a marriage.
The people in 31 states were given a say and in 31 they decided to go against your proposal.
Heterosexual-married couples are able to make medical decisions for their spouses.
Which is one good reason WHY people get married.
For support and security for their family.
Married couples are guaranteed certain benefits. This is EQUAL treatment to all married couples, therefore same-sex married couples deserve the same EQUAL treatment under the law.
You're absolutely wrong in your statement that laws are only about equal treatment to individuals.
"You're absolutely wrong in your statement that laws are only about equal treatment to individuals."
Lets see what the 14th Amendment has to say; "No State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I read that as 'any person' not any group, how about you?
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
@nnjhansen "Me, and the men who wrote it, ratified it, and interpreted it for close to 150 years."
Mmm hmm. You keep telling yourself that.
Still, it's discrimination. The same discrimination that black/white couples went through in the history of American law.
..which is why more people are voting to grant same-sex couples EQUALITY instead of obviously ancient laws that are not fair to all the citizens of the USA.
"..which is why more people are voting to grant same-sex couples EQUALITY instead of obviously ancient laws that are not fair to all the citizens of the USA."
31 states have put this issue to voters and your position has been rejected 31 times. Obviously the people do not agree that you are entitled to what you believe you are.
@nnjhansen "You have the EXACT same rights as every other man in the US. "
Foolish foolish man, You changed the word ('rights'). Shame on you. Let's get back to what we were REALLY discussing
I do NOT have the same equality as you do regarding my husband compared to other marriages in the USA.
That is discrimination.
The conditions and requirements are obviously unfair, which is why the people are now voting to change the laws to accommodate same-sex couples that deserve the same equalities.
Every licensing scheme is discriminatory. The entire point of a licensing scheme is to discriminate between those who comply with the requirements for the license and those that do not. You have simply chosen not to comply with the conditions that would entitle you to benefits.
@nnjhansen "You have simply chosen not to comply with the conditions that would entitle you to benefits."
So did black people when they wanted to marry white people. Obviously that licensing scheme was also wrong and discriminatory.
Couples that pay taxes to the State deserve the same benefits that the State grants to other couples. The same-sex couples live in the same arrangement as ALL other married couples; they deserve the same equality.
"You have the EXACT same rights as every other man in the US."
-- Of course he doesn't. Most folks can see the falsehood of your statement. He does not have the right to choose a spouse from among that group of other citizens to whom he most likely to be attracted.
A law requiring all red hair to be pulled out or all body parts over 6 feet to be amputated does not apply equally to all.
The law is clearly unequal; your position basically comes down to "inequality is a good thing."
nnjhansen said: "Public votes DO have special meaning. They are the purest expression of self-government."
Which is good news when the people of Washington state voted IN SUPPORT of same-sex couples [domestic partnership Senate Bill 5688 and House Bill 1727].
It's a fact: more and more people in America are recognizing same-sex couples' needs and desires of equality.
More and more people (including lawmakers) are siding with the GLBT for perfectly good reasons.
I do not have equality all across the USA. Here are examples:
I cannot go to another state and make medical decisions for my husband if we are in that position, nor can I visit my husband if he's in a hospital. DISCRIMINATION.
I cannot immigrate to the USA via marriage to my husband. DISCRIMINATION.
I am not entitled to estate inheritance of my husband's property if he dies. DISCRIMINATION.
I receive no pension of my husband dies. DISCRIMINATION.
@nnjhansen "...how many are the result of judges imposing their public policy views on the people?"
Imposing what's right for the millions of people whom pay taxes to those judges YET are unable to enjoy life as effectively as the rest of the taxpayers in society.
No bloodshed, just civil benefits being granted.
NO harm is done to allow equal benefits to same-sex couples.
NO harm done by granting equal benefits, which is why the people of Washington state voted FOR GLBT couples.
Granted to those who the grantees do not believe deserve them. Benefits by their nature are earned and the people giving them out get to determine who is and is not entitled to them.
"NO harm is done to allow equal benefits to same-sex couples."
Except for the harm it does to a system of self-governance.
nnjhansen, you truly believe it's better that millions of people die to change the laws than the diplomatic and non-violent change in our modern society?
How many of those states were the people or the people's representatives allowed to make the decision and how many are the result of judges imposing their public policy views on the people?
nnj: "judges imposing their public policy views on the people"
-- A biased description.
Judges are sometimes presented with two laws produced by "the people or the people's representatives" that conflict one with the other, and it is their job to reconcile them according to legal principles. This includes laws that ban SSM and laws that guarantee equal protection, which some judges find to be conflicting propositions, whether you agree with them or not.
There was no conflict as the people made clear when they voted overwhelmingly for Prop 22. The judges decided that they were a better arbiter of current community values than the people of the community themselves. It was a naked power grab as even those legal observers who support redefining marriage noted.
thecom: "nnjhansen believes homosexuals don't deserve benefits because we don't make babies."
-- Plenty of us make babies, thecom. We just don't look like the folks nnjhansen WANTS to make babies. He believes rights are for citizens who only LOOK like his ideal: a sterile heterosexual couple gets rights; a gay couple with five kids gets none.
My son thinks nnj is nothing but an elitist hiding behind fancy words. I'm afraid I have to agree.
Yeah my husband also agrees with you and your son, mike2jb.
nnjhansen is just skirting about with legal terminology; we know his ridiculousness stands clear when he feels gay marriage should be illegal primarily due to procreation.
Luckily for the millions of couples out there, his legal stance isn't concrete and his precious tradition/laws are changing to accommodate social equality.
Being Gay is not natural. Stop acting like its normal cause its not. Natural is when a Man and woman get married and "concieve" childeren. Gays can't do that. If a wife and husband walk around a park holding hands with kids playing thats normal. Its not the same when 2 men are holding hands. People would feel weird because its just not normal. i believe it also confuses childeren. If Gays get their way the huuman race will be wiped because we will not be able to reproduce.
It's not the majority, but you CAN'T deny that homosexuality has been present in humanity since documentation has existed.
Therefore, it is natural for humans to have both heterosexual and homosexual attractions.
Do you know why you're attracted to the opposite sex? Can you explain exactly why you have those attractions? They're NATURAL for you just as feelings and attractions are NATURAL for gay people.
The other problem with faggots is that they fall into 2 groups - the drag queen cut your dick off and try to be a woman faggot - and then you got the select few faggots like Jan Werner who built up some money. That is the faggot we see on TV. But really most faggots are drug abusers and suicidal. They also diddle little kids.
So, the millions of babies born outside of marriage PLUS the millions of children sitting in adoption agencies...those aren't taken into account when marriage is discussed?
If that's the case, by your rationale, children should ONLY be born through marriage.
Give me a break. Marriage isn't about procreation. Heterosexuals are doing a DAMN good job of making sure procreation is happening outside of marriage.
That tradition has been broken by heterosexuals for decades !!!
Well - faggots are more prone to molest children - Even GLAD put out those stats. So you should be careful when leaving kids near faggots.
As far as marriage I guess go get a civil union or something.
What this is really about for faggots is money. You see when the faggot dies of AIDS his faggot partner wants the Social Security Check so he can be a typical lazy faggot.
"Just because you want something does not make it a right."
Yeah, that's what people were telling the women in the 1920's when they weren't allowed to work.
That's what the people were telling the black population when they wanted to work, gain education AND when they wanted to marry people of different cultural/racial backgrounds.
And the point of the homosexual couples and the people that support homosexual couples is to point out the obvious flaw in governmental licensing grants when there is discrimination going on.
THAT'S why we vote on such cases.
That's why we will continue to fight until we gain equal benefits.
@nnjhansen "It is nice that you acknowledge that this is an issue for the voters."
Yeah it's GREAT that the voters of Washington state just yesterday passed a bill granting same-sex partners the same benefits as married couples.
This is social and legal progression for same-sex couples that deserve the same benefits as any heterosexual couple in the same living situation (and abiding by the same contingents).
Contingents should NOT be ruled out due to race, culture, religion or gender.
Yes, shame on the people that vote for discrimination.
They weren't aware of these benefits not granted because people LIE and say that homosexuals have the same RIGHTS as anyone else, when in actuality there are BENEFITS that aren't granted.
>1,000 benefits in fact.
It's a very deceptive trick to convince the public that it's okay to vote on something, but only certain pieces of the TRUTH are known in the adverts and arguments.
How is it a lie to tell the truth that homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else? What right are they being denied? What is the basis for this right? Is it enumerated somewhere? Is it derived from our history or customs? Just because you want something does not make it a right.
Not rights, BENEFITS. Go to my channel - in the channel description the facts are clearly stated for you (or anyone else) to read, unless you want me to start pasting the information in this video...
There are >1,000 benefits NOT granted to gay couples..and marriage would grant these benefits..many of them related to the betterment of health and home.
Just because you don't know truth doesn't mean you're right.
Even 'civil unions' and 'common-law partners' don't receive the same benefits as married couples.
Civil unions and common-law partners are 'marriage-like'...except they're not allowed to be married in many states. That's simply unfair, especially since those couples are denied >1,000 benefits that heterosexual couples are granted by means of marriage.
Of course not everyone can get benefits. You don't already know this?
@nnjhansen "Why do you deserve the same benefits if you are not seen as serving the same purpose? "
Marriage is only about purpose?
Are you 100% sure of that.
I deserve the same benefits because I am in a relationship with one other person to whom I dedicate my life to. We live the exact same life as any other married couple, therefore we deserve the same benefits.
What clauses of our relationship break the barrier of what YOU feel marriage is legally bound to?
The relationship you have entered is simply not as consequential to society as that between a man and a woman. There is a real and substantial difference in the effects that your relationship can have on society and those that the relationship between a man and a woman can.
@nnjhansen "There is a real and substantial difference in the effects that your relationship can have on society and those that the relationship between a man and a woman can."
What 'effects' do you speak of?
I urge you to use facts and truth in your answer, not suppositions.
Again, care to list the 'purposes' that marriage-licensees expect?
"One of the leading and most important objects of the institution of marriage under our laws is the procreation of children... This is implied in the very nature of the contract of marriage." (Carris v. Carris, 24 N.J. Eq. 516, 524)
"Since marriage was instituted to address the fact that sexual contact between a man and a woman naturally can result in pregnancy and childbirth, the Legislature's decision to focus on opposite-sex couples is understandable. Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1, 32 (N.Y. 2006)
You have never demonstrated that, even if procreation is a "purpose" of marriage laws (which you have not shown), that it is the only purpose. Marriage provides many benefits to society, most of which apply to same-sex couples.
Your attempts to shoe-horn legal opinion into your religious dogma are strained at best, simply false at worst.
@mike2jb "Your attempts to shoe-horn legal opinion into your religious dogma are strained at best, simply false at worst."
It's an interesting twist he's done, but you're right -- ultimately it's his personal opinion regarding the legalities of marriage as being sorely for procreation...peppered with legalities that CAN and WILL change in time to accommodate same-sex couples that deserve the same benefits.
I have provide court citations from 1873 ("One of the leading and most important objects of the institution of marriage under our laws is the procreation of children") to 2006 ("Since marriage was instituted to address the fact that sexual contact between a man and a woman naturally can result in pregnancy and childbirth") in which courts throughout the US acknowledge the purpose of marriage.
You exclude same-sex couples from the basic civil right of marriage because they do not naturally procreate. But you have given no evidence that procreation is an essential and exclusive purpose of marriage. In fact, you have given citations that speak of it as one of multiple "objects" and "interests" of marriage, and you continue to ignore that many legal marriages serve purposes other than procreation.
Well let's see, I have provided court citations which refer to the link between procreation and marriage as "unique", "principal", "essential", "leading", and "most important."
I have also provided you with a citation that states that it does not matter if the purpose is essential or exclusive, it merely has to be legitimate for the limitation related to it to be rational and acceptable.
You are making up a standard that exists no where in the law.
Unique, leading, most important and principal are not the same as exclusive.
I missed any reference to essential. If any court said marriage is "essential" for procreation, that leaves out a bunch of currently-married couples in every state.
As for the Indiana Court finding that the procreation argument is "rational," even without a claim of exclusivity, that's fine. Many arguments are rational, including those that refute your claim that marriage requires procreation.
Where do you get the idea that a purpose has to be exclusive for the state to legitimately placed conditions related to it on the issuance of a license? Such a test exists only in your head.
Courts for centuries have been clear, the (or just one) purpose of civil marriage is related to society's legitimate interest in procreation. The state is therefore entitled to condition the issuance of a marriage license on that which is reasonably related to procreation.
"Where do you get the idea that a purpose has to be exclusive for the state to legitimately placed conditions related to it on the issuance of a license?"
-- Do you know of any restrictions that are not exclusive?
There is a requirement in most states that a person uncover his face for a drivers license photo in order to receive a drivers license. This requirement is clearly not related to the exclusive or even primary purpose of a drivers license but for the identification purpose that a drivers license also serves.
@nnjhansen "There is a requirement in most states that a person uncover his face for a drivers license photo in order to receive a drivers license."
If people don't agree with the law, they fight to have it changed.
You can talk all day about what the laws are, but you keep avoiding the concept that laws (and traditions) are constantly changing to accommodate social progress.
nnj: "What this is not is a question of one group being treated unequally ..."
- Same-sex couples have been banned from marriage. This is unequal treatment. Your claim appears to be only that the inequality is justified.
"... or anything approaching a denial of civil rights"
-- Every voter in my state who voted for Prop 8 had to make his mark next to the statement "Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry." Our state Supreme Court had found that marriage is a "fundamental civil right."
No 'right' that had ever been acknowledged in our law, history, or custom was eliminated. Four lawyers in robes do not get to create 'rights' out of whole cloth.
Since it is individuals who are entitled to equal protection, your assertion that a group is being treated unequally is moot. In fact, every licensing scheme treats one group differently than another; those who can and choose to satisfy the requirements and those that do not. That is the point of licensing after all.
-- Oh, for cripes' sakes, every quote you have littered this board with is from "lawyers in robes." Did the robed lawyers err when they upheld part of Prop 8?
No rights have been "created" by our Supreme Court or the others that have ruled on this issue. There is already a right to marriage; the judges have clarified which citizens may or may not lawfully be denied this civil right.
The Supreme Court of California created a "right" to marry someone of the same sex. Such a right had never before been recognized by a CA or US law. They simply made it up.
"The Supreme Court of California created a "right" ..."
-- Your interpretation.
The right of marriage already existed and had been unfairly denied to some couples. The court removed the restriction, just as they did for interracial couples in 1948, and in fact cited the 1948 case as precedent.
@nnjhansen "They removed a restriction that was fundamental to the state's legitimate interest."
So what? It benefits more humans whom live under the state's laws AND pay the state's taxes -- in fact gay couples pay MORE taxes than heterosexual taxes.
@nnjhansen "Courts are not empowered to 'find' new rights."
They were empowered to 'find' new rights when they abolished slavery.
"Individuals are entitled to equal protection in our system, not groups."
Good luck changing the laws to suit your ridiculous proposition: nnjhansen versus ALL the married couples in the country that receive equal protection.
"They were empowered to 'find' new rights when they abolished slavery."
The courts abolished slavery? Where? When? Last I checked it took a civil war and the passage of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution to do that in the US. Courts played no role at all.
"it took a civil war and the passage of the 13th Amendment ..."
Absolutely right, nnj. And just like almost every other basic civil right in this country's history, that one was NOT established by a vote of the people.
What a travesty that the marriage rights of a minority have now been put up for a vote.
The passage of a constitutional amendment is an incredibly difficult political task. One that cannot be accomplished without overwhelming popular support. That there is no federal procedure for the direct submission of issues to the voters but to argue that a constitutional amendment can be ratified in the absence of popular support is ludicrous.
No marriage rights were taken away. Every individual still has the EXACT same ability to marry.
"to argue that a constitutional amendment can be ratified in the absence of popular support is ludicrous"
-- You have no proof of this whatever. You have no proof that a direct popular vote by ALL voters in 1865 would have passed the 13th amendment.
The 19th passed the last legislature by a single representative who changed his vote at the last minute, knowing that voting in favor was going against popular opinion and that a majority of his constituents were opposed it.
@nnjhansen "I have the millions of killed and wounded who fought to see that slavery ended. Better than a vote."
Personal opinion. Thanks for sharing. It isn't going to change the fact that more people are in support for homosexuality and same-sex marriage than even 20 years ago.
People shouldn't have to be killed or wounded to have social/legal equality.
nnj: "The passage of a constitutional amendment is an incredibly difficult political task"
-- And it is carried out by state ligislatures. History perfectly well illustrates that legislatures commonly vote for civil rights issues in opposition to popular opinion (as happened throughout the South in the 70's).
California's AB 43 that would have made SSM legal passed our state legislature in 2007. The popular vote a year later was obviously a far different outcome.
So your argument is that a state legislature, which has only the power that the people give to it and which is composed of those elected by the people to represent the people is somehow a more legitimate maker of public policy than the people themselves?
-- No, this the latest in an exchange you and I have had, the beginnings of which are apparently lost. I believe you had claimed that public votes against SSM had a special meaning of some sort. I responded that no important civil rights had come from popular vote and that most would probably have been voted down. You then claimed that Constitutional amendments ... etc, etc.
Public votes DO have special meaning. They are the purest expression of self-government. There is no provision at the federal level for such an expression so your comment about no important civil rights being enacted in such a manner is meaningless. The next best expression (and the best federal) is a constitutional amendment.
-- What an interesting hierarchy you have invented. Maybe we could color-code these "best" and "next best" laws like prize ribbons at the county fair. I suppose we'd run out of colors by the time we got to the bottom of your list. Is your fantasy law-ranking supported by anything written or did you simply make it all up, nnj?
Yes, try reading the constitutions of the United States and the various states. They are all premised on the idea that the people are sovereign and all legitimate political power flows from the people.
"They are all premised on the idea that the people are sovereign and all legitimate political power flows from the people."
-- But they are not based upon some made-up hierarchy of "best" and "next-best" laws. Power flows from the people and the people decide how best to exercise that power. It is not always by mob rule. In fact it's usually by thoughtful legislation and not by Propositions with votes that turn on which side pays for the cleverest bumper-sticker or scariest TV ad.
Actually in the case of both the federal and CA systems, it is. In the federal system, a constitutional amendment is the "best" as it cannot be overturned by statute or court decision. It is the supreme law of the land. In CA, a law passed through the initiative process is 'better' than one passed by the legislature as it cannot be repealed by a mere vote of the legislature. The people of CA also retained for themselves the final say in amending their constitution.
@mike2jb "It is not always by mob rule. In fact it's usually by thoughtful legislation and not by Propositions with votes that turn on which side pays for the cleverest bumper-sticker or scariest TV ad."
Getting all technical again. You're petty, nnjhansen.
THE POINT IS the laws changed.
The laws are changing all the time, and the laws regarding marriage are also ALREADY changed and will continue to change to accommodate same-sex couples that demand equality.
Homosexual couples go through anguish and suffer more by not receiving the same benefits. It's blatant discrimination, which is why more countries are legalizing same-sex marriage.
The state does not issue licenses or change the requirements for a license because someone's feelings are hurt because they don't qualify. Maybe all those law school graduates who suffer anguish at not being able to pass the bar exam should be given a law license anyway so they feel better.
nnj: Yes there is to show one'sface for a DL photo, and this requirement therefore excludes all persons who cannot or will not uncover their faces.
It is exclusive, as are all requirements. There is no doubt that marriage laws are also exclusive.
However, your false claim is that procreation is not merely one of many "purposes" of marriage laws, but that it is an exclusive purpose. Your court quotes have not shown this and millions of existing non-procreative marriages refute your claim.
You really have a difficult time distinguishing between a purpose and a requirement, don't you?
The 'requirement' to show your face on a drivers license is applicable whether you use your drivers license for the identification 'purpose' it is related to or not.
Similarly, the 'requirement' for a man and a woman in a marriage is applicable whether or not you fulfill the 'purpose' it is related to.
Whether procreation is merely one of many purposes is irrelevant, as long as it is A purpose.
nnj: "Whether procreation is merely one of many purposes is irrelevant, as long as it is A purpose."
-- It's hardly irrelevant to the claim you have made: that this "purpose" necessarily precludes same-sex couples from marriage because they cannot procreate in the way you would like.
There are many "purposes" of marriage. Same-sex spouses fulfill some of these, as do opposite-sex spouses.
Opposite sex couples can satisfy ALL the requirements associated with ALL the purposes and therefore are entitled to a license. Same sex couples cannot and therefore are not entitled to that license.
Try getting any other license from the state by arguing that you have satisfied SOME of the requirements but not to worry because you don't think those other requirements are important. Let me know how that works out for you.
"Opposite sex couples can satisfy ALL the requirements ..."
-- Well, no, in point of fact SOME opposite sex couples can do that. It is now you who are confusing requirements and purposes.
There is no doubt the requirements are restrictive, just as requirements to vote were a century ago. The issue is whether there is just cause for those restrictions (in some states). You have argued that one of the several "purposes" of the law supersedes all others. This is false.
No, ALL opposite sex couples can meet that requirement by definition. The requirement IS one man and one woman.
One "purpose" does not have to supersede the others for the restrictions related to it to be legitimate and just. If the purpose is legitimate and the restriction is reasonably related that purpose, that is all that is needed.
Agree!!! I'm a lesbian and I'm proud!!
NickiMinajLova114 2 months ago
FAIL
freakylocz14 5 months ago
I know the kid at 0:12.
redsoxfan1984 1 year ago
YES WE DID! YES WE DID!
soicuw 2 years ago
Everyone should have the FREEDOM TO GET MARRIED... I love you all
JoeyBoya 2 years ago 3
@nnjhansen
Stop living in the past. Look ahead to the future!
Myself and my husband are looking forward to more states legalizing our marriage, not just the 8 states so far. :-)
thecommercialedge 2 years ago 2
8 states legalize same-sex marriage.
Progress for social equality is just a matter of time. :-)
Just as it was for the black/white couples that desired to be married to each other.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago 6
@nnjhansen "Then why the opposition to Prop 8?"
Use some common sense; that was then, in which Prop 8 suggested discrimination.
This is now.
On October 12, 2009, Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law The Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act, legislation proposed by State Senator Mark Leno to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries.
The future is bright. It's just a matter of time.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
"recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries." conducted prior to 5 Nov 2008.
0 for 31
nnjhansen 2 years ago
1911: "Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy."
Sounds like the same conceptual writers for the Yes on 1 / Yes on 8 campaigns, but replacing colour with gender....
In due time, same-sex marriage will not even be a question any more than black/white marriage as being a cause for concern.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
@nnjhansen The people also include the governmental employees and lawmakers, of whom make up the 8 states in the USA that legalize same-sex marriage so far.
The people of all the states have been asked about condoning homosexuality, and compared to even 10 years ago, there is an overwhelming abundance of acceptance.
You have to accept the fact that it is a slow process, but it is an eventual win for all gay people, single, coupled or married.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
How many states have redefined marriage through the legislative process? Two?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "How many states have redefined marriage through the legislative process? "
The ball has started rolling...forward...for equality to all married couples. It is a transition period, yes, but it is one that you can not stop.
Not even I could stop it if I wanted.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
If people didn't support gay marriage, there wouldn't be 8 states legalizing same-sex marriage.
How's that for some hard facts? :-)
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
In how many of those 8 states were the people asked? In how many was it imposed by a court?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "In how many of those 8 states were the people asked? In how many was it imposed by a court? "
The same way that black/white marriages became legal in 1948, perhaps? ;-)
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
Defining marriage is what grants homosexual partners the same equalities as heterosexual partners.
If the same benefits are applied without marriage, then great.
Either way, we're still gaining momentum. Not just on a petty 2-year scale, either. hahah
Compared to 50 years ago, we could be fired for being gay. Now we are getting married to the one we love.
Social progress is a wonderful thing.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
"If the same benefits are applied without marriage, then great."
Then why the opposition to Prop 8? Under CA law domestic partnerships are granted all the benefits of marriage.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen 8 states legalize and recognize same-sex marriage to date.
The statistics are in the favour of equality for same-sex couples. This is how the law-making process works. Slowly but surely we will have our deserved benefits and equality.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
@nnjhansen
Prop 8 is about the ability to be married.
According to California state, I am legally married to my husband and they grant us full benefits.
That's not a loss to us. That is success and social/legal progress. ;-)
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
"That's not a loss to us."
Whatever lets you sleep at night.
0-31
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "Whatever lets you sleep at night."
That's right, and in California state I can sleep much more sound now that the government supports same-sex marriage.
Thank you for the well-wishes from my husband, myself and all the married couples in the state of California.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
@nnjhansen
1.On October 12, 2009, Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law The Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act, legislation proposed by State Senator Mark Leno to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries.
2. Same-sex domestic partners would have all the rights and benefits that Washington state offers married couples under a bill that passed the state Legislature Wednesday. The House approved the Senate-passed measure on a mostly party-line 62-35 vote.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
nnjhansen said: "If you can't win in CA or ME, where do you see evidence of this growing popular support?"
Guess what? You're wrong again. My marriage is legal in California.
On October 12, 2009, Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law The Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act, legislation proposed by State Senator Mark Leno to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
You still lost Prop 8.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen You still lost The Marriage Recognition and Family Protetion Act in California.
You still lost Referendum 71 in Washington state.
These are more recent than your petty claim of losing Prop 8. Nice try.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
I did not lose 71, I do not care about 71. 71 did not attempt to redefine marriage.
I have said repeatedly that this is an issue for the people to decide.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "I have said repeatedly that this is an issue for the people to decide."
Yeah, & the people voted to recognize benefits to same-sex couples in Washington state.
You argue that same-sex couples shouldn't have the same benefits as het. couples. I counter-argue with facts and you say "I do not care about 71"? Nice cop-out.
EIGHT states have legalized same-sex marriage. Which is why the statistics show more people supporting same-sex couples. The people are deciding to support us.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
I argue that the people who bestow benefits get to decide who gets them and who does not. If the people of WA want to grant benefits to people with dogs, I don't care. It is their call.
"The people are deciding to support us."
The people of 31 states have been asked to redefine marriage and 31 times they have responded negatively.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "Obviously the people do not agree that you are entitled to what you believe you are. "
Obviously more and more people DO AGREE that there is discrimination toward homosexual couples, which is why same-sex marriage is legal and recognized in 8 states so far.
Which is why the polls clearly show that there is more support for same-sex couples than there was even 10 years ago.
Check the statistics for yourself; we are gaining momentum because we deserve equality.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
"Check the statistics for yourself; we are gaining momentum because we deserve equality. "
In the past two years you have decisively lost elections in two of the most liberal states in the union. If you can't win in CA or ME, where do you see evidence of this growing popular support?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "In the past two years"
Oh nnjhansen, you're not looking at the big picture. Do the same comparison to 10 years ago. 20....50....100 years ago.
2 years is a mere blip in the timeline of humanity.
If you deny that fact, you are more ignorant than I thought.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
Let me know when you win one, they we can discuss 10 or 20 years from now.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
"The same discrimination that black/white couples went through in the history of American law."
Notice how nnjhansen wilfully ignores all my references to the black/white discrimination that went on in a legal sense back only ~50 years ago.
I wonder if nnjhansen also disagrees with anti-black/white marriage legalities simply because the law used to discriminate against them as well....?
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
nnjhansen, why do you keep lying?
I pointed out the recent news that the voters of Washington state voted FOR EQUALITY, therefore the State recognizes all the same benefits to homosexual couples as to heterosexual couples.
Also, EIGHT states recognize same-sex marriage.
The voters and the government of America are siding with gay couples, slowly but surely.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
Do you realize that the people of WA did not redefine marriage? They decided to do exactly what the voters of CA did that you and others have berated them for. They said in their state and alternate institution would be available with the same benefits a marriage.
The people in 31 states were given a say and in 31 they decided to go against your proposal.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "The people in 31 states were given a say and in 31 they decided to go against your proposal."
Another blatant lie.
My proposal is for equality, which the voters of Washington state voted FOR.
FACT: Homosexual couples are granted equal benefits as heterosexual couples in Washington state.
FACT: Homosexual couples are granted equal benefits as heterosexual couples in 8 other states.
The people = lawmakers as well, deary.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
FACT = Marriage in Washington is the union of one man and one woman.
FACT = In none of those states were the people directly consulted. In many of them, a court imposed it.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Married couples are citizens.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
The individuals in the marriage may both be citizens, one may be and the other not, or they both may not be.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Married heterosexual couples share the same equalities in benefits all across the country.
Homosexual couples do not.
That is discrimination.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
Married heterosexual couples meet satisfy the conditions attached to the benefits, same sex couples do not.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "Married heterosexual couples meet satisfy the conditions attached to the benefits, same sex couples do not. "
Homosexual couples "meet satisfy" in 8 states so far.
Yet, the discrimination has yet to be conquered across the rest of the country.
The conditions are changing, and the benefits are to be granted, because it's right and FAIR.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
"It's not anyone's business to interfere with personal decisions."
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
If you do not want the state to interfere, do not ask for a license.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "If you do not want the state to interfere, do not ask for a license."
More skirting.
The State's legal document (marriage) permits myself and my husband to have the same equalities as any other married couple.
Currently this is not the case in every state, and it's blatant discrimination.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
So, every state license has to be recognized by the federal government and all the other states?
Does that mean you believe my concealed carry permit should allow me to carry a gun in NYC or San Francisco?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Heterosexual-married couples are able to make medical decisions for their spouses.
Which is one good reason WHY people get married.
For support and security for their family.
Married couples are guaranteed certain benefits. This is EQUAL treatment to all married couples, therefore same-sex married couples deserve the same EQUAL treatment under the law.
You're absolutely wrong in your statement that laws are only about equal treatment to individuals.
Marriage isn't just about making babies.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
"You're absolutely wrong in your statement that laws are only about equal treatment to individuals."
Lets see what the 14th Amendment has to say; "No State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I read that as 'any person' not any group, how about you?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen ""No State ... deny to any..."
You cut a bunch of the Amendment out. I see that as a misnomer.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
Here is the entire section 1 of the amendment:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Feel better?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
No wonder you cut the amendment.
CITIZENS = married couples
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
CITIZENS are individuals.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "CITIZENS are individuals."
That's how you personally see it.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
"That's how you personally see it."
Me, and the men who wrote it, ratified it, and interpreted it for close to 150 years.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "Me, and the men who wrote it, ratified it, and interpreted it for close to 150 years."
Mmm hmm. You keep telling yourself that.
Still, it's discrimination. The same discrimination that black/white couples went through in the history of American law.
..which is why more people are voting to grant same-sex couples EQUALITY instead of obviously ancient laws that are not fair to all the citizens of the USA.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
"..which is why more people are voting to grant same-sex couples EQUALITY instead of obviously ancient laws that are not fair to all the citizens of the USA."
31 states have put this issue to voters and your position has been rejected 31 times. Obviously the people do not agree that you are entitled to what you believe you are.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "Couples or groups are not entitled to equal treatment under the law, individuals are."
Married heterosexual couples recieve >1,000 MORE benefits than same-sex couples.
I'm posting facts. You posted a blatant lie.
I do NOT have the same equality that you do regarding my husband in the USA.
That's discrimination, which you obviously support.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
Married heterosexual couples have complied with the conditions and requirements for those benefits. You have chosen not to.
You have the EXACT same rights as every other man in the US.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "You have the EXACT same rights as every other man in the US. "
Foolish foolish man, You changed the word ('rights'). Shame on you. Let's get back to what we were REALLY discussing
I do NOT have the same equality as you do regarding my husband compared to other marriages in the USA.
That is discrimination.
The conditions and requirements are obviously unfair, which is why the people are now voting to change the laws to accommodate same-sex couples that deserve the same equalities.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
Every licensing scheme is discriminatory. The entire point of a licensing scheme is to discriminate between those who comply with the requirements for the license and those that do not. You have simply chosen not to comply with the conditions that would entitle you to benefits.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "You have simply chosen not to comply with the conditions that would entitle you to benefits."
So did black people when they wanted to marry white people. Obviously that licensing scheme was also wrong and discriminatory.
Couples that pay taxes to the State deserve the same benefits that the State grants to other couples. The same-sex couples live in the same arrangement as ALL other married couples; they deserve the same equality.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
No they do not live in the same arrangement. One arrangement consists of a man and a woman, the others do not.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
"You have the EXACT same rights as every other man in the US."
-- Of course he doesn't. Most folks can see the falsehood of your statement. He does not have the right to choose a spouse from among that group of other citizens to whom he most likely to be attracted.
A law requiring all red hair to be pulled out or all body parts over 6 feet to be amputated does not apply equally to all.
The law is clearly unequal; your position basically comes down to "inequality is a good thing."
mike2jb 2 years ago
No, he has the opportunity to choose a spouse from the same group of people as every other man. That is equality.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "he has the opportunity to choose a spouse from the same group of people as every other man"
Every? Every other man? 100% of other men in the country?
Even the "Every" other homosexual men who have no desire to being married to someone of the opposite sex?
You expect homosexuals to go against their natural attractions and marry someone of the opposite sex?
That would do more harm than good for both parties involved. Obvious incompatability.
What a stupid suggestion, nnjhansen.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "You have equality"
Also, WE refers to all GLBT couples. Not just myself and my husband.
Stop playing ignorant.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
Couples or groups are not entitled to equal treatment under the law, individuals are.
Stop being ignorant.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
nnjhansen said: "Public votes DO have special meaning. They are the purest expression of self-government."
Which is good news when the people of Washington state voted IN SUPPORT of same-sex couples [domestic partnership Senate Bill 5688 and House Bill 1727].
It's a fact: more and more people in America are recognizing same-sex couples' needs and desires of equality.
More and more people (including lawmakers) are siding with the GLBT for perfectly good reasons.
We deserve equality.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
That is the prerogative of the people of Washington.
"We deserve equality. "
You have equality.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "You have equality."
Liar !!
I do not have equality all across the USA. Here are examples:
I cannot go to another state and make medical decisions for my husband if we are in that position, nor can I visit my husband if he's in a hospital. DISCRIMINATION.
I cannot immigrate to the USA via marriage to my husband. DISCRIMINATION.
I am not entitled to estate inheritance of my husband's property if he dies. DISCRIMINATION.
I receive no pension of my husband dies. DISCRIMINATION.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "...how many are the result of judges imposing their public policy views on the people?"
Imposing what's right for the millions of people whom pay taxes to those judges YET are unable to enjoy life as effectively as the rest of the taxpayers in society.
No bloodshed, just civil benefits being granted.
NO harm is done to allow equal benefits to same-sex couples.
NO harm done by granting equal benefits, which is why the people of Washington state voted FOR GLBT couples.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
"just civil benefits being granted"
Granted to those who the grantees do not believe deserve them. Benefits by their nature are earned and the people giving them out get to determine who is and is not entitled to them.
"NO harm is done to allow equal benefits to same-sex couples."
Except for the harm it does to a system of self-governance.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
nnjhansen, you truly believe it's better that millions of people die to change the laws than the diplomatic and non-violent change in our modern society?
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "Well so far you are 0 for 31 in getting the people to change them. You seem to be the one who can't get the message."
HOW MANY states legalize and recognize same sex marriage?
Certainly not 0.
The answer: EIGHT.
Also, Washington state just last week passed the law to provide same-sex couples to ALL the same benefits that married couples receive.
Your data is false.
I'm providing YOU with facts. That's the message you don't seem to get.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
How many of those states were the people or the people's representatives allowed to make the decision and how many are the result of judges imposing their public policy views on the people?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
nnj: "judges imposing their public policy views on the people"
-- A biased description.
Judges are sometimes presented with two laws produced by "the people or the people's representatives" that conflict one with the other, and it is their job to reconcile them according to legal principles. This includes laws that ban SSM and laws that guarantee equal protection, which some judges find to be conflicting propositions, whether you agree with them or not.
They are not "imposing" anything.
mike2jb 2 years ago
There was no conflict as the people made clear when they voted overwhelmingly for Prop 22. The judges decided that they were a better arbiter of current community values than the people of the community themselves. It was a naked power grab as even those legal observers who support redefining marriage noted.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
nnjhansen, you don't seem to understand something.
Your concepts / ideals are not concrete just because they're laws. The laws change.
Heterosexual Marriage isn't even keeping the same ideals and values as it did 50 years ago.
CHANGE -- get used to it.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
nnjhansen believes homosexuals don't deserve benefits because we don't make babies.
Pretty pathetic reasoning seeing as how heterosexuals are doing a fine job of contributing to the eventual OVER-population of the planet.
Gay marriage (or granted benefits to gay couples) in NO WAY will threaten procreation on this planet.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
thecom: "nnjhansen believes homosexuals don't deserve benefits because we don't make babies."
-- Plenty of us make babies, thecom. We just don't look like the folks nnjhansen WANTS to make babies. He believes rights are for citizens who only LOOK like his ideal: a sterile heterosexual couple gets rights; a gay couple with five kids gets none.
My son thinks nnj is nothing but an elitist hiding behind fancy words. I'm afraid I have to agree.
mike2jb 2 years ago
@mike2jb "I have to agree."
Yeah my husband also agrees with you and your son, mike2jb.
nnjhansen is just skirting about with legal terminology; we know his ridiculousness stands clear when he feels gay marriage should be illegal primarily due to procreation.
Luckily for the millions of couples out there, his legal stance isn't concrete and his precious tradition/laws are changing to accommodate social equality.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
"and you continue to ignore that many legal marriages serve purposes other than procreation. "
DING DING DING DING DING, mike2jb, you've just pointed out nnjhansen's flaw in this debate.
He is obsessed with ONE purpose (which is clearly done outside of marriage anyway) that he personally feels is attributed to marriage.
Marriage is not just about procreation. Marriage is about a lot of things that gay couples are striving for.
Social / Beneficial / Legal equality.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
Being Gay is not natural. Stop acting like its normal cause its not. Natural is when a Man and woman get married and "concieve" childeren. Gays can't do that. If a wife and husband walk around a park holding hands with kids playing thats normal. Its not the same when 2 men are holding hands. People would feel weird because its just not normal. i believe it also confuses childeren. If Gays get their way the huuman race will be wiped because we will not be able to reproduce.
kcchiefsbaby 2 years ago
@kcchiefsbaby "Being Gay is not natural."
It's not the majority, but you CAN'T deny that homosexuality has been present in humanity since documentation has existed.
Therefore, it is natural for humans to have both heterosexual and homosexual attractions.
Do you know why you're attracted to the opposite sex? Can you explain exactly why you have those attractions? They're NATURAL for you just as feelings and attractions are NATURAL for gay people.
Besides, gay couples cause no harm to anyone.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
"societal purpose "
HA HA HAAAA!!! My goodness.....gay marriage will break the societal purpose of procreation.
You're a riot.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
The other problem with faggots is that they fall into 2 groups - the drag queen cut your dick off and try to be a woman faggot - and then you got the select few faggots like Jan Werner who built up some money. That is the faggot we see on TV. But really most faggots are drug abusers and suicidal. They also diddle little kids.
EpyCalvinNukeLaloosh 2 years ago
*stifled laughter*
So, the millions of babies born outside of marriage PLUS the millions of children sitting in adoption agencies...those aren't taken into account when marriage is discussed?
If that's the case, by your rationale, children should ONLY be born through marriage.
Give me a break. Marriage isn't about procreation. Heterosexuals are doing a DAMN good job of making sure procreation is happening outside of marriage.
That tradition has been broken by heterosexuals for decades !!!
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
Well - faggots are more prone to molest children - Even GLAD put out those stats. So you should be careful when leaving kids near faggots.
As far as marriage I guess go get a civil union or something.
What this is really about for faggots is money. You see when the faggot dies of AIDS his faggot partner wants the Social Security Check so he can be a typical lazy faggot.
EpyCalvinNukeLaloosh 2 years ago
nnjhansen said: "The difference is that more people agree with me than with you"
Yeah, you don't agree with gay marriage. That's fine and dandy.
Continue to watch the polls. The points have already shifted to the near-median mark regarding support for same-sex marriage.
In a matter of 10 years, there will most certainly be a majority of voters supporting marriages such as the one I have with my husband.
Why?
Because there is no proof that same-sex marriage causes any harm to anyone.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
"Just because you want something does not make it a right."
Yeah, that's what people were telling the women in the 1920's when they weren't allowed to work.
That's what the people were telling the black population when they wanted to work, gain education AND when they wanted to marry people of different cultural/racial backgrounds.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
"That is the point of licensing schemes. "
And the point of the homosexual couples and the people that support homosexual couples is to point out the obvious flaw in governmental licensing grants when there is discrimination going on.
THAT'S why we vote on such cases.
That's why we will continue to fight until we gain equal benefits.
Anything less than equality is unfair.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
What you see as a flaw others see as fundamental to the purpose of the license.
It is nice that you acknowledge that this is an issue for the voters.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "It is nice that you acknowledge that this is an issue for the voters."
Yeah it's GREAT that the voters of Washington state just yesterday passed a bill granting same-sex partners the same benefits as married couples.
This is social and legal progression for same-sex couples that deserve the same benefits as any heterosexual couple in the same living situation (and abiding by the same contingents).
Contingents should NOT be ruled out due to race, culture, religion or gender.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
Yes, shame on the people that vote for discrimination.
They weren't aware of these benefits not granted because people LIE and say that homosexuals have the same RIGHTS as anyone else, when in actuality there are BENEFITS that aren't granted.
>1,000 benefits in fact.
It's a very deceptive trick to convince the public that it's okay to vote on something, but only certain pieces of the TRUTH are known in the adverts and arguments.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
How is it a lie to tell the truth that homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else? What right are they being denied? What is the basis for this right? Is it enumerated somewhere? Is it derived from our history or customs? Just because you want something does not make it a right.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "What right are they being denied?"
Not rights, BENEFITS. Go to my channel - in the channel description the facts are clearly stated for you (or anyone else) to read, unless you want me to start pasting the information in this video...
There are >1,000 benefits NOT granted to gay couples..and marriage would grant these benefits..many of them related to the betterment of health and home.
Just because you don't know truth doesn't mean you're right.
Do research. STOP discrimination.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
Those benefits are granted in return for compliance with the conditions set on the issuance of a license, are they not?
The fact that some people choose not to comply with those conditions does not make the conditions (or the benefits attached) any less legitimate.
All licenses grant benefits. That is the point of licensing schemes.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "Those benefits are granted in return for compliance with the conditions set on the issuance of a license, are they not?"
Compliance unfairly discriminates against homosexual couples that have been in marriage-like relationships for years OR for decades.
The point of social equality and benefits that the government grants is to include all members of society.
Even 'civil unions' and 'common-law partners' don't receive the same benefits as married couples.
This is grossly unfair.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
What exactly is 'marriage-like'? Does such a concept exist for any other licensing scheme?
Benefits are contingent on something, that is what makes them benefits. If everyone gets them it defeats the purpose.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen - I previously stated:
Even 'civil unions' and 'common-law partners' don't receive the same benefits as married couples.
Civil unions and common-law partners are 'marriage-like'...except they're not allowed to be married in many states. That's simply unfair, especially since those couples are denied >1,000 benefits that heterosexual couples are granted by means of marriage.
Of course not everyone can get benefits. You don't already know this?
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
They don't receive the same benefits because they are not the same thing.
Marriage serves a societal purpose. Those benefits are contingent on a couple satisfying the reasonable requirements related to that purpose.
Civil unions do not serve the same purpose, are not subject to the same requirements, and therefore do not warrant the same benefits.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "They don't receive the same benefits because they are not the same thing."
They most certainly do in the 7 states (so far) that grant the same benefits to same-sex couples.
"Marriage serves a societal purpose."
Marriage is more about tradition than purpose.
Whatever happens in marriage is happening outside of marriage.
You're right about civil unions, which is one main reason why gay couples are fighting to obtain marriage licenses.
We deserve the same benefits.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
Then that is the decision of the people in those seven states.
Why do you deserve the same benefits if you are not seen as serving the same purpose?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "Why do you deserve the same benefits if you are not seen as serving the same purpose? "
Marriage is only about purpose?
Are you 100% sure of that.
I deserve the same benefits because I am in a relationship with one other person to whom I dedicate my life to. We live the exact same life as any other married couple, therefore we deserve the same benefits.
What clauses of our relationship break the barrier of what YOU feel marriage is legally bound to?
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
Civil marriage has a purpose. Do you deny that?
The relationship you have entered is simply not as consequential to society as that between a man and a woman. There is a real and substantial difference in the effects that your relationship can have on society and those that the relationship between a man and a woman can.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "There is a real and substantial difference in the effects that your relationship can have on society and those that the relationship between a man and a woman can."
What 'effects' do you speak of?
I urge you to use facts and truth in your answer, not suppositions.
Again, care to list the 'purposes' that marriage-licensees expect?
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
I have court citations going back centuries attesting to the purpose of civil marriage. Pick a decade and I will try to satisfy your curiosity.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "Pick a decade and I will try to satisfy your curiosity. "
Since this debate applies to the current legal ramifications, let's stick to current 'purposes', thank you.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
The purpose has remained the same.
From 1873;
"One of the leading and most important objects of the institution of marriage under our laws is the procreation of children... This is implied in the very nature of the contract of marriage." (Carris v. Carris, 24 N.J. Eq. 516, 524)
nnjhansen 2 years ago
to 2006;
"Since marriage was instituted to address the fact that sexual contact between a man and a woman naturally can result in pregnancy and childbirth, the Legislature's decision to focus on opposite-sex couples is understandable. Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1, 32 (N.Y. 2006)
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Do you need more?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "Civil marriage has a purpose. Do you deny that?"
ALL marriage serves a purpose. You don't seem to grasp the concept that marriage serves a viable purpose to same-sex couples as well.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
What societal purpose do you believe same sex marriage serves?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "What societal purpose do you believe same sex marriage serves?"
The same as heterosexual marriage, of course. To me, my husband and the government we live under, there's no difference.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "Marriage serves a societal purpose."
Care to list these 'purposes' that marriage-licensees expect?
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
@nnjhansen
You have never demonstrated that, even if procreation is a "purpose" of marriage laws (which you have not shown), that it is the only purpose. Marriage provides many benefits to society, most of which apply to same-sex couples.
Your attempts to shoe-horn legal opinion into your religious dogma are strained at best, simply false at worst.
mike2jb 2 years ago
@mike2jb "Your attempts to shoe-horn legal opinion into your religious dogma are strained at best, simply false at worst."
It's an interesting twist he's done, but you're right -- ultimately it's his personal opinion regarding the legalities of marriage as being sorely for procreation...peppered with legalities that CAN and WILL change in time to accommodate same-sex couples that deserve the same benefits.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
I have provide court citations from 1873 ("One of the leading and most important objects of the institution of marriage under our laws is the procreation of children") to 2006 ("Since marriage was instituted to address the fact that sexual contact between a man and a woman naturally can result in pregnancy and childbirth") in which courts throughout the US acknowledge the purpose of marriage.
What other demonstration would you like?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
nnj: "What other demonstration would you like? "
-- One that supports your claim.
You exclude same-sex couples from the basic civil right of marriage because they do not naturally procreate. But you have given no evidence that procreation is an essential and exclusive purpose of marriage. In fact, you have given citations that speak of it as one of multiple "objects" and "interests" of marriage, and you continue to ignore that many legal marriages serve purposes other than procreation.
mike2jb 2 years ago
Well let's see, I have provided court citations which refer to the link between procreation and marriage as "unique", "principal", "essential", "leading", and "most important."
I have also provided you with a citation that states that it does not matter if the purpose is essential or exclusive, it merely has to be legitimate for the limitation related to it to be rational and acceptable.
You are making up a standard that exists no where in the law.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen
Unique, leading, most important and principal are not the same as exclusive.
I missed any reference to essential. If any court said marriage is "essential" for procreation, that leaves out a bunch of currently-married couples in every state.
As for the Indiana Court finding that the procreation argument is "rational," even without a claim of exclusivity, that's fine. Many arguments are rational, including those that refute your claim that marriage requires procreation.
mike2jb 2 years ago
Where do you get the idea that a purpose has to be exclusive for the state to legitimately placed conditions related to it on the issuance of a license? Such a test exists only in your head.
Courts for centuries have been clear, the (or just one) purpose of civil marriage is related to society's legitimate interest in procreation. The state is therefore entitled to condition the issuance of a marriage license on that which is reasonably related to procreation.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
"Where do you get the idea that a purpose has to be exclusive for the state to legitimately placed conditions related to it on the issuance of a license?"
-- Do you know of any restrictions that are not exclusive?
mike2jb 2 years ago
There is a requirement in most states that a person uncover his face for a drivers license photo in order to receive a drivers license. This requirement is clearly not related to the exclusive or even primary purpose of a drivers license but for the identification purpose that a drivers license also serves.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "There is a requirement in most states that a person uncover his face for a drivers license photo in order to receive a drivers license."
If people don't agree with the law, they fight to have it changed.
You can talk all day about what the laws are, but you keep avoiding the concept that laws (and traditions) are constantly changing to accommodate social progress.
Which is why:
Slavery is not legal now.
Homosexuality is legal.
I'm married to my husband. :-)
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
Is this supposed to be an argument against against something I have said?
I have repeatedly said that this is an issue for the people of the state. If they decide they wish to redefine marriage, that is their prerogative.
What this is not is a question of one group being treated unequally or anything approaching a denial of civil rights.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
nnj: "What this is not is a question of one group being treated unequally ..."
- Same-sex couples have been banned from marriage. This is unequal treatment. Your claim appears to be only that the inequality is justified.
"... or anything approaching a denial of civil rights"
-- Every voter in my state who voted for Prop 8 had to make his mark next to the statement "Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry." Our state Supreme Court had found that marriage is a "fundamental civil right."
mike2jb 2 years ago
"Same-sex couples have been banned from marriage. This is unequal treatment."
Individuals are entitled to equal protection in our system, not groups. Individuals are treated equally under the law.
"Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry." Our state Supreme Court had found that marriage is a "fundamental civil right."
You know as well as I do that Jerry Brown changed the title and language of the prop in order to decrease support for it.
Courts are not empowered to 'find' new rights.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
nnj: "You know as well as I do that Jerry Brown changed the title and language of the prop in order to decrease support for it."
-- People voted for what was on the ballot. It would be fraudulent to do otherwise. Rights were eliminated.
"Individuals are entitled to equal protection in our system"
-- Irrelevant to the claim you made: "What this is not is a question of one group being treated unequally ..."
One group was clearly treated unequally; your claim is false.
mike2jb 2 years ago
No 'right' that had ever been acknowledged in our law, history, or custom was eliminated. Four lawyers in robes do not get to create 'rights' out of whole cloth.
Since it is individuals who are entitled to equal protection, your assertion that a group is being treated unequally is moot. In fact, every licensing scheme treats one group differently than another; those who can and choose to satisfy the requirements and those that do not. That is the point of licensing after all.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
nnj: "Four lawyers in robes .."
-- Oh, for cripes' sakes, every quote you have littered this board with is from "lawyers in robes." Did the robed lawyers err when they upheld part of Prop 8?
No rights have been "created" by our Supreme Court or the others that have ruled on this issue. There is already a right to marriage; the judges have clarified which citizens may or may not lawfully be denied this civil right.
mike2jb 2 years ago
The Supreme Court of California created a "right" to marry someone of the same sex. Such a right had never before been recognized by a CA or US law. They simply made it up.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
"The Supreme Court of California created a "right" ..."
-- Your interpretation.
The right of marriage already existed and had been unfairly denied to some couples. The court removed the restriction, just as they did for interracial couples in 1948, and in fact cited the 1948 case as precedent.
mike2jb 2 years ago
No one was denied marriage.
The only 'right' to marriage that existed was in the context of legitimate state restrictions.
They removed a restriction that was fundamental to the state's legitimate interest. They made policy and that is not their job.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "They removed a restriction that was fundamental to the state's legitimate interest."
So what? It benefits more humans whom live under the state's laws AND pay the state's taxes -- in fact gay couples pay MORE taxes than heterosexual taxes.
That's simply not fair.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "Such a right had never before been recognized by a CA or US law. They simply made it up."
So what?
Laws / rights / benefits are made up all the time, just not on this issue we're discussing.
It's called progress.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "Courts are not empowered to 'find' new rights."
They were empowered to 'find' new rights when they abolished slavery.
"Individuals are entitled to equal protection in our system, not groups."
Good luck changing the laws to suit your ridiculous proposition: nnjhansen versus ALL the married couples in the country that receive equal protection.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
"They were empowered to 'find' new rights when they abolished slavery."
The courts abolished slavery? Where? When? Last I checked it took a civil war and the passage of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution to do that in the US. Courts played no role at all.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
"it took a civil war and the passage of the 13th Amendment ..."
Absolutely right, nnj. And just like almost every other basic civil right in this country's history, that one was NOT established by a vote of the people.
What a travesty that the marriage rights of a minority have now been put up for a vote.
The very definition of "tyranny of the majority."
mike2jb 2 years ago
The passage of a constitutional amendment is an incredibly difficult political task. One that cannot be accomplished without overwhelming popular support. That there is no federal procedure for the direct submission of issues to the voters but to argue that a constitutional amendment can be ratified in the absence of popular support is ludicrous.
No marriage rights were taken away. Every individual still has the EXACT same ability to marry.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
"to argue that a constitutional amendment can be ratified in the absence of popular support is ludicrous"
-- You have no proof of this whatever. You have no proof that a direct popular vote by ALL voters in 1865 would have passed the 13th amendment.
The 19th passed the last legislature by a single representative who changed his vote at the last minute, knowing that voting in favor was going against popular opinion and that a majority of his constituents were opposed it.
mike2jb 2 years ago
I have the millions of killed and wounded who fought to see that slavery ended. Better than a vote.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "I have the millions of killed and wounded who fought to see that slavery ended. Better than a vote."
Personal opinion. Thanks for sharing. It isn't going to change the fact that more people are in support for homosexuality and same-sex marriage than even 20 years ago.
People shouldn't have to be killed or wounded to have social/legal equality.
You're living in the past.
We're living in a more civil society now.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
nnj: "The passage of a constitutional amendment is an incredibly difficult political task"
-- And it is carried out by state ligislatures. History perfectly well illustrates that legislatures commonly vote for civil rights issues in opposition to popular opinion (as happened throughout the South in the 70's).
California's AB 43 that would have made SSM legal passed our state legislature in 2007. The popular vote a year later was obviously a far different outcome.
mike2jb 2 years ago
So your argument is that a state legislature, which has only the power that the people give to it and which is composed of those elected by the people to represent the people is somehow a more legitimate maker of public policy than the people themselves?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
"So your argument is that a state legislature .."
-- No, this the latest in an exchange you and I have had, the beginnings of which are apparently lost. I believe you had claimed that public votes against SSM had a special meaning of some sort. I responded that no important civil rights had come from popular vote and that most would probably have been voted down. You then claimed that Constitutional amendments ... etc, etc.
mike2jb 2 years ago
Public votes DO have special meaning. They are the purest expression of self-government. There is no provision at the federal level for such an expression so your comment about no important civil rights being enacted in such a manner is meaningless. The next best expression (and the best federal) is a constitutional amendment.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
nnj:
-- What an interesting hierarchy you have invented. Maybe we could color-code these "best" and "next best" laws like prize ribbons at the county fair. I suppose we'd run out of colors by the time we got to the bottom of your list. Is your fantasy law-ranking supported by anything written or did you simply make it all up, nnj?
mike2jb 2 years ago
Yes, try reading the constitutions of the United States and the various states. They are all premised on the idea that the people are sovereign and all legitimate political power flows from the people.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
"They are all premised on the idea that the people are sovereign and all legitimate political power flows from the people."
-- But they are not based upon some made-up hierarchy of "best" and "next-best" laws. Power flows from the people and the people decide how best to exercise that power. It is not always by mob rule. In fact it's usually by thoughtful legislation and not by Propositions with votes that turn on which side pays for the cleverest bumper-sticker or scariest TV ad.
mike2jb 2 years ago
Actually in the case of both the federal and CA systems, it is. In the federal system, a constitutional amendment is the "best" as it cannot be overturned by statute or court decision. It is the supreme law of the land. In CA, a law passed through the initiative process is 'better' than one passed by the legislature as it cannot be repealed by a mere vote of the legislature. The people of CA also retained for themselves the final say in amending their constitution.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@mike2jb "It is not always by mob rule. In fact it's usually by thoughtful legislation and not by Propositions with votes that turn on which side pays for the cleverest bumper-sticker or scariest TV ad."
Hahah well said. :-)
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "The courts abolished slavery?"
Getting all technical again. You're petty, nnjhansen.
THE POINT IS the laws changed.
The laws are changing all the time, and the laws regarding marriage are also ALREADY changed and will continue to change to accommodate same-sex couples that demand equality.
Just as the slaves demanded equality back then.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
The laws change when the people decide to change them.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "The laws change when the people decide to change them. "
EXACTLY. So that's something you have to get used to.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
Well so far you are 0 for 31 in getting the people to change them. You seem to be the one who can't get the message.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "I have repeatedly said that this is an issue for the people of the state."
What I have said is if people that DESERVE more rights and benefits, they fight to have the laws changed in their favour.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
"people that DESERVE more rights and benefits"
People "deserve" benefits? Isn't that properly left up to the person or people who give the benefits, not to the potential recipients?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen "People "deserve" benefits?"
Homosexual couples go through anguish and suffer more by not receiving the same benefits. It's blatant discrimination, which is why more countries are legalizing same-sex marriage.
thecommercialedge 2 years ago
The state does not issue licenses or change the requirements for a license because someone's feelings are hurt because they don't qualify. Maybe all those law school graduates who suffer anguish at not being able to pass the bar exam should be given a law license anyway so they feel better.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
nnj: Yes there is to show one'sface for a DL photo, and this requirement therefore excludes all persons who cannot or will not uncover their faces.
It is exclusive, as are all requirements. There is no doubt that marriage laws are also exclusive.
However, your false claim is that procreation is not merely one of many "purposes" of marriage laws, but that it is an exclusive purpose. Your court quotes have not shown this and millions of existing non-procreative marriages refute your claim.
mike2jb 2 years ago
You really have a difficult time distinguishing between a purpose and a requirement, don't you?
The 'requirement' to show your face on a drivers license is applicable whether you use your drivers license for the identification 'purpose' it is related to or not.
Similarly, the 'requirement' for a man and a woman in a marriage is applicable whether or not you fulfill the 'purpose' it is related to.
Whether procreation is merely one of many purposes is irrelevant, as long as it is A purpose.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
nnj: "Whether procreation is merely one of many purposes is irrelevant, as long as it is A purpose."
-- It's hardly irrelevant to the claim you have made: that this "purpose" necessarily precludes same-sex couples from marriage because they cannot procreate in the way you would like.
There are many "purposes" of marriage. Same-sex spouses fulfill some of these, as do opposite-sex spouses.
mike2jb 2 years ago
Opposite sex couples can satisfy ALL the requirements associated with ALL the purposes and therefore are entitled to a license. Same sex couples cannot and therefore are not entitled to that license.
Try getting any other license from the state by arguing that you have satisfied SOME of the requirements but not to worry because you don't think those other requirements are important. Let me know how that works out for you.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
"Opposite sex couples can satisfy ALL the requirements ..."
-- Well, no, in point of fact SOME opposite sex couples can do that. It is now you who are confusing requirements and purposes.
There is no doubt the requirements are restrictive, just as requirements to vote were a century ago. The issue is whether there is just cause for those restrictions (in some states). You have argued that one of the several "purposes" of the law supersedes all others. This is false.
mike2jb 2 years ago
No, ALL opposite sex couples can meet that requirement by definition. The requirement IS one man and one woman.
One "purpose" does not have to supersede the others for the restrictions related to it to be legitimate and just. If the purpose is legitimate and the restriction is reasonably related that purpose, that is all that is needed.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
"ALL opposite sex couples can meet that requirement by definition"
A mother and her son?
mike2jb 2 years ago
Did you see "that" in that requirement?
nnjhansen 2 years ago