Openly gay New York Democrats oppose plan to open Chick-fil-A restaurants along I-90

Marriage for any two consenting adults who desire a marriage would end the special rights. We should do away with all Old Testament restrictions on marriage, NOT just those restrictions that conflict with homosexuals preferences.

 

Its not in the law. It is in their intended purpose. From one of the California cases quotes below. Its obvious that the court wasnt eliminating the limitation to the opposite sex in marriage so two heterosexual friends of the same sex can receive the governmental benefits of marriage. It was done purely for the benefit of homosexuals. To win more "respect and dignity" for the homosexuals. Their entire constitutional theory is based upon opposite sex marriage exclusion of homosexuals who would rather marry someone of the same sex that violates the constitution.

In light of the evolution of our state's understanding concerning the equal dignity and respect to which all persons are entitled without regard to their sexual orientation, it is not appropriate to interpret these provisions in a way that, as a practical matter, excludes gay individuals from the protective reach of such basic civil rights…....

entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage...

couple's right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families,...

designation of "marriage" exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect....(*)

same-sex couple's fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple....(*)

gay individuals are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect {Page 43 Cal.4th 822} and dignity afforded all other individuals...

In light of the evolution of our state's understanding concerning the equal dignity and respect to which all persons are entitled without regard to their sexual orientation, it is not appropriate to interpret these provisions in a way that, as a practical matter, excludes gay individuals...(*)

the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships....

by reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same-sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership -- pose a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to marry....(*)

right of an individual and a couple to have their own official family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the family relationship of other couples....(*)

the state's assignment of a different name to the couple's relationship poses a risk that the different name itself will have the effect of denying such couple's relationship the equal respect and dignity to which the couple is constitutionally entitled....

the right of those couples to have their family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the family relationship of opposite-sex couples....

fundamental interest of same-sex {Page 43 Cal.4th 847} couples in having their official family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that conferred upon the family relationship of opposite-sex couples...

 

Sorry I assumed your objection as to gays getting married was religious. Mea Culpa. You say its not based on any type of propaganda so what is it based on. Also can you please look up what a straw man fallacy actually is. It is so common on forums when someone disagrees with what another says to call the other person's arguments a strawman fallacy.

Can you please address both your words and mine. You not I engaged in one. You came on this forum to make the statement gay people should not get married. Why? Your whole posing of gay people getting married as giving them special rights is a strawman fallacy.

In fact in many states and where I live in Canada, gay people get married. There is nothing special about it at all.

You made the statement and you make the assumption gays have no right to be married only heterosexuals. That is the whole point of your calling there being married a special right. Its not special. Its ordinary. It is in fact the same right as when straight people get married.

The law for gays and straights is identical.

Next don't tell me or anyone we have to explain to you why gays have a right to get married. You need to explain why they should NOT.

Until you do you engage in a strawman fallacy and no do not tell me I must explain why allowing gays the right to marry is special you do. You are the one who contends it.

You even know what you have a double standard. You claim its not based on religion or propaganda do share. Share your sources and value system for why gays getting married is a special legal right. Its not. It is in fact illogical to say so. Now please back it up.

You are trying to lend to the impression you proved gays should not get married and so if they do its an unfair right but you never explained the basis why. That is a blatant strawman fallacy.

My assuming you are getting your double standard from religion was as you argue an erroneous assumption.

I do note you will not respond and explain your double standard for gays but you will repeat it over and over as if its the correct one and anyone who disagrees is wrong and wants to change the law. That is false. Many gay people get married in religious ceremonies IF there state does not allow it or they come to Canada and get married. Because of the US constitution like our Canadian Charter of Rights, the days of using the law to create one standard for gays and one for straights is over.

Further why would it bother you what two consenting adults do? What is it your business? No one asked you to approve but to think you can ask the country to engage in discrimination because you do is illogical.

 

The law for gays and straights is identical but heterosexual couples and homosexual couples are not identical.
You are bringing the same fallacy that most of people fall into when they listen to homosexual propaganda.
If benefits are the same but responsibilities are different it is not an equality under the law.

Special rights is a corrupt politics that leads to the destruction of government institutions.
So it is my business

 

I am neutral on that issue (although I always agree with removing unconstitutional religious garbage from our laws). Good luck on your legal fight.

 

That is not written into the law however.
The federal decision also did not echo that sentiment.

 

What governmental institution do you believe will be destroyed by allowing same sex couples or elderly / infertile heterosexual couples to sign a civil contract?

 

Any institution. If you pay public benefits to fulfil private interests without any justification, it is an outright corruption.
Corruption is main reason that countries get destroyed.
"Lets not mince words: In the developing world, corruption is public enemy number one.”
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/s...group-president-jim-yong-kim-corruption-event

 

Did you invent a definition for corruption now? Because removing gender requirements from marriage doesn’t fit any definition I can find.

I do hope one day you can post your dictionary online. It would be a fascinating read.

Since you dipped out of our previous conversation, Can you post the law that says rights were only extended to homosexuals as per your claim.

 

You stated that:"heterosexual couples and homosexual couples are not identical." However you also prefaced it by saying, " The law for gays and straights is (identical).

Your comment above therefore is illogical. In determining whether the marriage of two gay people or two straight people is identical the law defines them as the same. It is the law that determines eligibility of who marries and therefore determines marriage whether you are straight or gay is the same. Your subjective opinion that the marriages are not the same is based on your subjective opinion not the law and as a result its irrelevant to the question and answer. Its no more relevant than saying no two straight marriages are identical because the partners are not the same or because they do not engage in the identical kind of sex. So you engage in a fallacy that is illogical in assuming because you do not believe gays should marry is not the same as straight people marrying. It is. The eligibility laws are the same. The partners must consent, be of legal age, legal capacity and obtained a marriage license.

You then stated "responsibilities are different" between a gay married couple and a heterosexual couple. According to the law the legal responsibilities are identical so again you try reinvent "responsibility" from its actual legal definition to your subjective one which you do not explain. You make no explanation how you determined the responsibilities are different, you just throw out your assumption with no basis and its fallacious. Once married the responsibilities imposed in marriage by laws of inheritance, support, maintenance (called alimony in the states), property division, custody and access are the same.

You then made a statement I listen to homosexual propaganda. What does that mean? In fact there are many gay people who are against
marriage just like there are straight people against marriage. Its interesting you claim your views on homosexuality are not based on religion but you won't say what they are based on? Why not?Who are you to argue my opinions are based on homosexual propaganda when you won't disclose what your beliefs are based on? Now since you brought it up and question my personal beliefs am I pleased to disclose them. I have been a lawyer since 1983. I practiced as a criminal prosecutor, family mediator and private lawyer as well as legal counsel for corporations, government and non profit organizations. I also have been a law professor over 20 years including teaching Family Law. My biases come from a Master's in Law and a Master's in Applied Psychology, my undergraduate degrees in Political Science and Law, training in forensic profiling, marriage counseling, and plain old life including blue collar to white collar jobs. My bias is in the belief that all people have the right to be married regardless of their gender, That bias came from watching people die of aids at a time when gay people were not allowed to be considered spouses and watch their partners die in pain but be separated from them by next of kin of the dying patient because the next of kin did not approve of their relationship. My bias comes from prosecuting sex crimes cases for many years and seeing violence
destroy gays and straights equally. My bias comes from representing molested children who believed they brought it on themselves because they were gay and from dealing with people who call all gay people pedophiles. There you asked I put it out there for you Ok?

You stated gay marriages leads to the destruction of governments. What governments. Where? Provide your example of which gays destroyed government and how the government crumbled because they married a fellow gay. Please. Explain.

As we speak numerous gays are being married in the US, Europe and Canada. As far as I know our governments have not crumbled.

In conclusion, you again repeat without explaining your basis for why if the law is identical for gays and straights that equality special to gays only. Where do you base your values that gays should not be married. Why will you not disclose where you learned this and whether its your religious beliefs, political beliefs, or something else. You accused me of quoting homosexual propaganda what are you quoting?

 

I won't mince words then...what the..... does the above have to do with gay marriage?

 

The man is presumed a father of the child if child is born while he was married.
There is no such provision of homosexuals.

 

Why are you trying to mislead honorable discussion participants?
Gender requirements has not been removed for heterosexual couples.
Man is still a man and a father of the child if child has been born while married.

 

I am against corruption and that is good reason to oppose gay marriage (special right)
I am for the truth as well.
No public benefits for private special interests.

If every president in US is worse then previous,
if living standards deteriorating every year
the country is crumbling.

 

I must have missed that individual, care to point them out?

Can two heterosexuals of the same sex marry, yes or no?

He is the assumed father in several states. Again, gender requirements were removed from marriage.

Why are you dodging such a simple question, Can you post the law that says rights were only extended to homosexuals as per your claim.

 

Your nuance will unfortunately be ignored.

Bigotry is such a blinding agenda.

 

This is a discussion forum, not a legal fight forum. The laws prohibiting marriage between closely related couples originates from the bible.

 

The laws were the same for gays and straights under traditional opposite sex marriage. Traditional marriage law AND current marriage law is silent on sexual orientation. Ones sexual orientation was no concern under marriage law, past or present.

 

He would be the presumed father in all 50 states. And the gender requirements of such paternity statutes remains.

Sec. 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:

(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;

 

And we are discussing a legal topic. Not a biblical one. Biblical marriage has nothing to do with this discussion. There is an entire sub-forum if you want to discuss it in this context

 

And that is still the case. Did you have a point?

 

Yes, I posted it many times, All you have to do just read law more carefully.
In current marriage law word man (reference to the gender) has not been removed from the law, so gender requirement stays intact for heterosexual couples.
There is no such requirement for homosexual couples.
That is exactly the law that is unfair and treats homosexuals as special.

 

Yes, a discussion as opposed to a legal fight.

 

To correct you.

 

There is nothing wrong with bigotry if it is a bigotry against those who is trying to mislead and deceive people.