I'm of the opinion that people who support civil unions are 90% of the way to supporting gay marriage, they just haven't heard the separate-but-equal argument yet.
I've given people that argument. Doesn't sway them.
Wish it would, though.
I find that amazing. One imagines that such a conversation can only follow one track, leading inevitably to the conclusion that marriage is a civil right and it can't be denied to one group because God said gays are icky.
Both Governors who only went as far as Civil Unions were persuaded by redundant additions that covered the churches, so it can't take people that much to get on board the whole way.
You think ruling against Prop 8 would have been throwing democracy out the window?
Was there anything in Prop 8 being put into law that made it an invalid law? It was put to vote by the people, and the people decided to pass it. I don't see how saying "Well... that was stupid so fuck the voice of the people" would be ok.
This is correct but not because it's the "voice of the people" but rather because the California Constitution says the people can do this.
The ruling should have been upheld because well, it's constitutional. I'm not sure if the people who were protesting against this don't realize this is the case or simply don't care.
Of course that doesn't make the California constitution right, and certainly the majority is not right in this case (and historically often isn't), which is why under a well crafted constitution you would need a super majority to make things like prop 8 actual law.
So first, get another proposition on the ballot to overturn this and then take a stab at fixing California's schizo constitutional amendment process.
I think Prop 8 was without a doubt the wrong decision.
But breaking down the idea of democracy would've been a horrible idea.
I don't want to see any restriction on gay rights, I can't understand anyone who has anything against it, even though I try to, but man, throwing democracy out the window is also bad idea.
Really this makes me respect the california courts while continuing to have very little respect for what apparently are the majority of the californian citizenry.
The whole idea behind American Democracy is Majority Rule with Minority Rights. The decision today just eliminated that last part and said to go at it with a Tyranny of the Majority. Fuck those homoqueers. If anything I'd say that the decision today broke down the idea of Democracy further than if they had ruled that Prop-8 constituted a Revision and was thus invalidated. As thing stand a majority of the populace in California are now legally capable of undoing any Democratically made decision previously ensuring that majority rule is not sacrosanct.
Tyranny of the Minority is just as bad as Tyranny of the Majority, if not worse.
Tyranny of the Minority is just as bad as Tyranny of the Majority, if not worse.
You're absolutely right. But in this case the tyranny of the majority strongly affects the minority (denying them equal rights), but the "tyranny" of the minority... has no effect on the majority at all.
Even if it did (like, say, desegregation), how does treating people equally benefit the minority over the majority? It can't, by definition.
As I live in a country where same sex marriage is legal, can someone from The America tell me why people are having such a hard time with it?
Gay people are icky. There's also some vague, ill-defined fear of "changing the definition of marriage" that no one can really articulate the effects of, but that just boils down to "gay people are icky" as well.
EDIT: Note, for the easily confused, that I am saying the prevailing cause of gay marriage opposition is homophobia. I am not myself stating that I personally think gay people are icky. I'm sure some of them are.
Professor Phobos on
0
Options
YamiNoSenshiA point called ZIn the complex planeRegistered Userregular
So if I'm understanding this right, California has civil unions which provide the same rights as marriage?
If this is the case, I'm fine with Prop 8. Don't give a shit about the word "marriage". If religious people care that much about the word in a legal context, them voting to protect it is cool with me, as long as it doesn't infringe on any actual rights.
Was this the case from the beginning? If so, what was all the fuss about?
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
So if I'm understanding this right, California has civil unions which provide the same rights as marriage?
If this is the case, I'm fine with Prop 8. Don't give a shit about the word "marriage". If religious people care that much about the word in a legal context, them voting to protect it is cool with me, as long as it doesn't infringe on any actual rights.
Was this the case from the beginning? If so, what was all the fuss about?
Why should religious people get to define a word that predates their stupid religion?
So if I'm understanding this right, California has civil unions which provide the same rights as marriage?
If this is the case, I'm fine with Prop 8. Don't give a shit about the word "marriage". If religious people care that much about the word in a legal context, them voting to protect it is cool with me, as long as it doesn't infringe on any actual rights.
Was this the case from the beginning? If so, what was all the fuss about?
There are a couple issues:
1. Separate but equal...
2. Marriage, in the context of the states, is a civil contract, not a religious contract.
So if I'm understanding this right, California has civil unions which provide the same rights as marriage?
If this is the case, I'm fine with Prop 8. Don't give a shit about the word "marriage". If religious people care that much about the word in a legal context, them voting to protect it is cool with me, as long as it doesn't infringe on any actual rights.
Was this the case from the beginning? If so, what was all the fuss about?
So far as I can tell, this wasn't how Prop 8 was intended to work, but it seems that the court interpreted it this way. They seem to be saying that since the only difference between the two institutions is the name, that Prop 8 doesn't actually effect the equal protection clause. I'm not entirely certain I agree. Separate being inherently unequal and all that. But the fact remains that 3 years ago, gay couples couldn't get any form of marriage, and now they can get a domestic partnership and get all the same benefits and rights and everything that a straight marriage gets, so all in all this is a step forward I think.
So if I'm understanding this right, California has civil unions which provide the same rights as marriage?
If this is the case, I'm fine with Prop 8. Don't give a shit about the word "marriage". If religious people care that much about the word in a legal context, them voting to protect it is cool with me, as long as it doesn't infringe on any actual rights.
Was this the case from the beginning? If so, what was all the fuss about?
There are a couple issues:
1. Separate but equal...
Point is, is there any practical difference at all from the legal perspective? Even if the whole "separate but equal" thing applies here, is it a battle worth fighting right now?
2. Marriage, in the context of the states, is a civil contract, not a religious contract.
Clearly, they believe otherwise. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but they see it as interfering with their religious rights. On this forum, we typically talk about separation of church and state in the context of keeping religion out of government, but remember that it's supposed to go both ways. I don't see this as the government sticking its hands in the religion cookie jar, but I can see how they might feel that way, regardless of when the term "marriage" originated.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
So if I'm understanding this right, California has civil unions which provide the same rights as marriage?
If this is the case, I'm fine with Prop 8. Don't give a shit about the word "marriage". If religious people care that much about the word in a legal context, them voting to protect it is cool with me, as long as it doesn't infringe on any actual rights.
Was this the case from the beginning? If so, what was all the fuss about?
There are a couple issues:
1. Separate but equal...
Point is, is there any practical difference at all from the legal perspective? Even if the whole "separate but equal" thing applies here, is it a battle worth fighting right now?
2. Marriage, in the context of the states, is a civil contract, not a religious contract.
Clearly, they believe otherwise. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but they see it as interfering with their religious rights. On this forum, we typically talk about separation of church and state in the context of keeping religion out of government, but remember that it's supposed to go both ways. I don't see this as the government sticking its hands in the religion cookie jar, but I can see how they might feel that way, regardless of when the term "marriage" originated.
and religions that are fine with gay marriage? what of them?
the catholics and mormons don't own the word marriage.
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
0
Options
YamiNoSenshiA point called ZIn the complex planeRegistered Userregular
So if I'm understanding this right, California has civil unions which provide the same rights as marriage?
If this is the case, I'm fine with Prop 8. Don't give a shit about the word "marriage". If religious people care that much about the word in a legal context, them voting to protect it is cool with me, as long as it doesn't infringe on any actual rights.
Was this the case from the beginning? If so, what was all the fuss about?
Beginning from what? In re Marriage Cases provided the larger victory of noting that you couldn't have statutes or any legal governmental service of marriage being denied to a couple based on their sexual orientation as the institution of marriage was a basic human/civil right. Unfortunately, Proposition 8 was enacted at about the same time so you had both that case set down its ruling while the proposition took away the name 'marriage'.
It wasn't until this decision that the court outlined the extent of Prop 8's influence, which is to say, only a semantic one due to a number of legal reasons.
It seems pretty clear to me (again, I obviously have an opinion on the whole issue) that if legalizing gay marriage is the state putting its hand in the church's cookie jar, then having a legal institution of marriage at all is the state putting its hand in the church's cookie jar.
But I mean, yeah, you're right, that's how a lot of them feel. I've had numerous people try to use exactly that argument, Orem.
How the hell might they feel that way? I mean, rationally.
Because marriage has so often been tied to the church throughout United States history? Because within our traditions as a country, they are related? I don't regard this as a basis for law, but as I said, I can understand the perspective of those who do. Understanding does not signify agreement.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
I just think that "feeling" dissolves so quickly under even casual scrutiny as to be disregarded. It's like if I said "well I can understand how some people might feel like the CIA has implanted a microchip in their brain that records their thoughts and transmits them back to a field agent." I understand that it's because they're fucking crazy.
Does the difference between a domestic partnership and a marriage affect how the union is recognized by other states?
To my knowledge, no. Even if it did, aren't there only one or two states which recognize out-of-state gay marriages but don't grant their own? It's kind of a non-issue. Especially since neither is going to be recognized federally, either.
So far as I can tell, this wasn't how Prop 8 was intended to work, but it seems that the court interpreted it this way. They seem to be saying that since the only difference between the two institutions is the name, that Prop 8 doesn't actually effect the equal protection clause. I'm not entirely certain I agree. Separate being inherently unequal and all that. But the fact remains that 3 years ago, gay couples couldn't get any form of marriage, and now they can get a domestic partnership and get all the same benefits and rights and everything that a straight marriage gets, so all in all this is a step forward I think.
Well, the odd things is that when you're talking about a legal contract/construct you truly can make them "separate but equal." Unlike water fountains or schools, which will be inherently different (being discrete...things) and which will almost certainly become quite unequal (the entire intent being discrimination), it's possible to make two contracts exactly alike except for the name at the top ("Partnership" versus "Marriage"). And to grant the exact same rights to both. To the point that there is literally zero functional difference between the two. Unlike, again, schools/water fountains/bus seats/whatever.
I personally still oppose it ("it" being separate civil partnerships) on principle, and because I think the religious opposition is being fucktarded (despite being religious myself), but I think comparing it to other past forms of "separate but equal" fails due to the above.
So if I'm understanding this right, California has civil unions which provide the same rights as marriage?
If this is the case, I'm fine with Prop 8. Don't give a shit about the word "marriage". If religious people care that much about the word in a legal context, them voting to protect it is cool with me, as long as it doesn't infringe on any actual rights.
Was this the case from the beginning? If so, what was all the fuss about?
There are a couple issues:
1. Separate but equal...
Point is, is there any practical difference at all from the legal perspective? Even if the whole "separate but equal" thing applies here, is it a battle worth fighting right now?
Legally, there are something like 800-1500 rights and privilages accorded to marriage but not to civil unions across the united states. Most are pretty minor, but some are pretty serious. Some can be duplicated via special legal contracts that married people do not have to spend the time, effort and money to acquire. Some simply cannot be replicated.
And there's a very real sense that it's a self-destructive compromise, since it de factor acknowledges the intolerant view that gay marriage isn't "real marriage." Basically the symbolism is important and can't be ignored.
Professor Phobos on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
So far as I can tell, this wasn't how Prop 8 was intended to work, but it seems that the court interpreted it this way. They seem to be saying that since the only difference between the two institutions is the name, that Prop 8 doesn't actually effect the equal protection clause. I'm not entirely certain I agree. Separate being inherently unequal and all that. But the fact remains that 3 years ago, gay couples couldn't get any form of marriage, and now they can get a domestic partnership and get all the same benefits and rights and everything that a straight marriage gets, so all in all this is a step forward I think.
Well, the odd things is that when you're talking about a legal contract/construct you truly can make them "separate but equal." Unlike water fountains or schools, which will be inherently different (being discrete...things) and which will almost certainly become quite unequal (the entire intent being discrimination), it's possible to make two contracts exactly alike except for the name at the top ("Partnership" versus "Marriage"). And to grant the exact same rights to both. To the point that there is literally zero functional difference between the two. Unlike, again, schools/water fountains/bus seats/whatever.
I personally still oppose it ("it" being separate civil partnerships) on principle, and because I think the religious opposition is being fucktarded (despite being religious myself), but I think comparing it to other past forms of "separate but equal" fails due to the above.
I think this may in part be why the court ruled as it did, after taking the stance of the previous cases as well as outlined the extremely limited effect of Prop 8.
Does the difference between a domestic partnership and a marriage affect how the union is recognized by other states?
Probably not. If Alabama won't recognize or grant same-sex relationships any rights, a same-sex couple from California that moves to Alabama is out of luck regardless of whether they were married or in a domestic partnership in California.
Legally, there are something like 800-1500 rights and privilages accorded to marriage but not to civil unions across the united states. Most are pretty minor, but some are pretty serious. Some can be duplicated via special legal contracts that married people do not have to spend the time, effort and money to acquire. Some simply cannot be replicated.
This is important, because even if California were to create an exactly equal construct within their borders, it wouldn't mean jack shit across state lines. So if a gay couple were to travel to (or through) Idaho, or Alabama, or really any other state and one were to wind up hospitalized (accident, whatever) they could well be fucked on that front...because they're not "married."
Of course, even "married" they might well be fucked if the backwards-ass state they're in doesn't recognize the marriage.
But whatever.
It matters. Which kinda contradicts what I said above, but I was thinking from a strictly in-state perspective.
mcdermott on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
So if I'm understanding this right, California has civil unions which provide the same rights as marriage?
If this is the case, I'm fine with Prop 8. Don't give a shit about the word "marriage". If religious people care that much about the word in a legal context, them voting to protect it is cool with me, as long as it doesn't infringe on any actual rights.
Was this the case from the beginning? If so, what was all the fuss about?
There are a couple issues:
1. Separate but equal...
Point is, is there any practical difference at all from the legal perspective? Even if the whole "separate but equal" thing applies here, is it a battle worth fighting right now?
Legally, there are something like 800-1500 rights and privilages accorded to marriage but not to civil unions across the united states. Most are pretty minor, but some are pretty serious. Some can be duplicated via special legal contracts that married people do not have to spend the time, effort and money to acquire. Some simply cannot be replicated.
In California, this isn't the case, at least according to the Attorney General. Domestic partnerships offer the same substantive rights as marriage.
So if I'm understanding this right, California has civil unions which provide the same rights as marriage?
If this is the case, I'm fine with Prop 8. Don't give a shit about the word "marriage". If religious people care that much about the word in a legal context, them voting to protect it is cool with me, as long as it doesn't infringe on any actual rights.
Was this the case from the beginning? If so, what was all the fuss about?
There are a couple issues:
1. Separate but equal...
Point is, is there any practical difference at all from the legal perspective? Even if the whole "separate but equal" thing applies here, is it a battle worth fighting right now?
Legally, there are something like 800-1500 rights and privilages accorded to marriage but not to civil unions across the united states. Most are pretty minor, but some are pretty serious. Some can be duplicated via special legal contracts that married people do not have to spend the time, effort and money to acquire. Some simply cannot be replicated.
But does that have anything to do with California's ruling? I understand that this is the case federally, but is there any difference in how the state of California treats civil unions and marriages? That's the main question I was asking earlier.
And there's a very real sense that it's a self-destructive compromise, since it de factor acknowledges the intolerant view that gay marriage isn't "real marriage." Basically the symbolism is important and can't be ignored.
That's kind of the point, for many religious people. To them, it's not real marriage and it never will be. And I fully support their right to believe that and say that and whatever else the fuck they want as long as they don't actually infringe on the rights of others.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
So far as I can tell, this wasn't how Prop 8 was intended to work, but it seems that the court interpreted it this way. They seem to be saying that since the only difference between the two institutions is the name, that Prop 8 doesn't actually effect the equal protection clause. I'm not entirely certain I agree. Separate being inherently unequal and all that. But the fact remains that 3 years ago, gay couples couldn't get any form of marriage, and now they can get a domestic partnership and get all the same benefits and rights and everything that a straight marriage gets, so all in all this is a step forward I think.
Well, the odd things is that when you're talking about a legal contract/construct you truly can make them "separate but equal." Unlike water fountains or schools, which will be inherently different (being discrete...things) and which will almost certainly become quite unequal (the entire intent being discrimination), it's possible to make two contracts exactly alike except for the name at the top ("Partnership" versus "Marriage"). And to grant the exact same rights to both. To the point that there is literally zero functional difference between the two. Unlike, again, schools/water fountains/bus seats/whatever.
I personally still oppose it ("it" being separate civil partnerships) on principle, and because I think the religious opposition is being fucktarded (despite being religious myself), but I think comparing it to other past forms of "separate but equal" fails due to the above.
I think this may in part be why the court ruled as it did, after taking the stance of the previous cases as well as outlined the extremely limited effect of Prop 8.
Even in this example, however, "separate but equal" may not always be equal. Say someone in a domestic partnership gets sick and his partner wants to visit him in the hospital, said hospital having a policy that states that only spouses may visit. A hospital employee who was feeling dickish theoretically could deny the domestic partner the right to visit, on the grounds that he's not a spouse. Now, if "domestic partnership" was defined as "marriage in all but name," a court would strike down that policy right quick. It's a pain in the ass, though; the partner would actually have to sue the hospital, which takes time and money, and in the meantime he still wouldn't get to see his partner. There is simply no good reason beyond some vague sense of religious offense (and hence no good reason at all) to deny the status of marriage to homosexuals.
That's kind of the point, for many religious people. To them, it's not real marriage and it never will be. And I fully support their right to believe that and say that and whatever else the fuck they want as long as they don't actually infringe on the rights of others.
I don't. Because that's silly, and a piss-poor standard to hold laws to.
Regardless, is there some reason you don't support the rights of the various churches that are willing to marry two consenting adults to have their marriages recognized like any other? Mainstream Christianity (plus Mormonism) is not the only religion in this country, so why should they alone get to define the institution of marriage?
Legally, there are something like 800-1500 rights and privilages accorded to marriage but not to civil unions across the united states. Most are pretty minor, but some are pretty serious. Some can be duplicated via special legal contracts that married people do not have to spend the time, effort and money to acquire. Some simply cannot be replicated.
So far as I can tell, this wasn't how Prop 8 was intended to work, but it seems that the court interpreted it this way. They seem to be saying that since the only difference between the two institutions is the name, that Prop 8 doesn't actually effect the equal protection clause. I'm not entirely certain I agree. Separate being inherently unequal and all that. But the fact remains that 3 years ago, gay couples couldn't get any form of marriage, and now they can get a domestic partnership and get all the same benefits and rights and everything that a straight marriage gets, so all in all this is a step forward I think.
Well, the odd things is that when you're talking about a legal contract/construct you truly can make them "separate but equal." Unlike water fountains or schools, which will be inherently different (being discrete...things) and which will almost certainly become quite unequal (the entire intent being discrimination), it's possible to make two contracts exactly alike except for the name at the top ("Partnership" versus "Marriage"). And to grant the exact same rights to both. To the point that there is literally zero functional difference between the two. Unlike, again, schools/water fountains/bus seats/whatever.
I personally still oppose it ("it" being separate civil partnerships) on principle, and because I think the religious opposition is being fucktarded (despite being religious myself), but I think comparing it to other past forms of "separate but equal" fails due to the above.
In the abstract, yes this is true. However marriage rights don't exist in some void where ignorant human beings and institutions cannot get to them. Very much like water fountains or schools, someone with a perfectly valid claim to the same discrete things as a married person can and will be denied them due to the inability to legally claim that the guy in the ER who you don't realize is allergic to penicillin is their spouse. Given the time sensitive nature of a lot of the rights and responsibilities granted by marital status, simply having the power to win your case in court several months after the fact does not really enhance the argument, either.
Plus the whole, Civil Unions have yet to actually perfectly mirror Civil Marriage rights so it's still an academic distinction to claim that it is theoretically possible to make the two the same. Because at the moment the two institutions are separate and unequal.
Posts
I find that amazing. One imagines that such a conversation can only follow one track, leading inevitably to the conclusion that marriage is a civil right and it can't be denied to one group because God said gays are icky.
This is correct but not because it's the "voice of the people" but rather because the California Constitution says the people can do this.
The ruling should have been upheld because well, it's constitutional. I'm not sure if the people who were protesting against this don't realize this is the case or simply don't care.
Of course that doesn't make the California constitution right, and certainly the majority is not right in this case (and historically often isn't), which is why under a well crafted constitution you would need a super majority to make things like prop 8 actual law.
So first, get another proposition on the ballot to overturn this and then take a stab at fixing California's schizo constitutional amendment process.
Tyranny of the Minority is just as bad as Tyranny of the Majority, if not worse.
You're absolutely right. But in this case the tyranny of the majority strongly affects the minority (denying them equal rights), but the "tyranny" of the minority... has no effect on the majority at all.
Even if it did (like, say, desegregation), how does treating people equally benefit the minority over the majority? It can't, by definition.
You know, something that shows that you're capable of stringing together words into longer, more complex thoughts than nonsensical talking points?
Have you ever had to write an essay for school, or anything like that?
Gay people are icky. There's also some vague, ill-defined fear of "changing the definition of marriage" that no one can really articulate the effects of, but that just boils down to "gay people are icky" as well.
EDIT: Note, for the easily confused, that I am saying the prevailing cause of gay marriage opposition is homophobia. I am not myself stating that I personally think gay people are icky. I'm sure some of them are.
Religion and ignorance.
If this is the case, I'm fine with Prop 8. Don't give a shit about the word "marriage". If religious people care that much about the word in a legal context, them voting to protect it is cool with me, as long as it doesn't infringe on any actual rights.
Was this the case from the beginning? If so, what was all the fuss about?
There are a couple issues:
1. Separate but equal...
2. Marriage, in the context of the states, is a civil contract, not a religious contract.
NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
So far as I can tell, this wasn't how Prop 8 was intended to work, but it seems that the court interpreted it this way. They seem to be saying that since the only difference between the two institutions is the name, that Prop 8 doesn't actually effect the equal protection clause. I'm not entirely certain I agree. Separate being inherently unequal and all that. But the fact remains that 3 years ago, gay couples couldn't get any form of marriage, and now they can get a domestic partnership and get all the same benefits and rights and everything that a straight marriage gets, so all in all this is a step forward I think.
Point is, is there any practical difference at all from the legal perspective? Even if the whole "separate but equal" thing applies here, is it a battle worth fighting right now?
Clearly, they believe otherwise. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but they see it as interfering with their religious rights. On this forum, we typically talk about separation of church and state in the context of keeping religion out of government, but remember that it's supposed to go both ways. I don't see this as the government sticking its hands in the religion cookie jar, but I can see how they might feel that way, regardless of when the term "marriage" originated.
and religions that are fine with gay marriage? what of them?
the catholics and mormons don't own the word marriage.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
I think I found your problem.
Beginning from what? In re Marriage Cases provided the larger victory of noting that you couldn't have statutes or any legal governmental service of marriage being denied to a couple based on their sexual orientation as the institution of marriage was a basic human/civil right. Unfortunately, Proposition 8 was enacted at about the same time so you had both that case set down its ruling while the proposition took away the name 'marriage'.
It wasn't until this decision that the court outlined the extent of Prop 8's influence, which is to say, only a semantic one due to a number of legal reasons.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
But I mean, yeah, you're right, that's how a lot of them feel. I've had numerous people try to use exactly that argument, Orem.
Right, right, I was just trying to understand Orem's sympathy.
and there is a similar one for Europe.
Because marriage has so often been tied to the church throughout United States history? Because within our traditions as a country, they are related? I don't regard this as a basis for law, but as I said, I can understand the perspective of those who do. Understanding does not signify agreement.
To my knowledge, no. Even if it did, aren't there only one or two states which recognize out-of-state gay marriages but don't grant their own? It's kind of a non-issue. Especially since neither is going to be recognized federally, either.
Well, the odd things is that when you're talking about a legal contract/construct you truly can make them "separate but equal." Unlike water fountains or schools, which will be inherently different (being discrete...things) and which will almost certainly become quite unequal (the entire intent being discrimination), it's possible to make two contracts exactly alike except for the name at the top ("Partnership" versus "Marriage"). And to grant the exact same rights to both. To the point that there is literally zero functional difference between the two. Unlike, again, schools/water fountains/bus seats/whatever.
I personally still oppose it ("it" being separate civil partnerships) on principle, and because I think the religious opposition is being fucktarded (despite being religious myself), but I think comparing it to other past forms of "separate but equal" fails due to the above.
Legally, there are something like 800-1500 rights and privilages accorded to marriage but not to civil unions across the united states. Most are pretty minor, but some are pretty serious. Some can be duplicated via special legal contracts that married people do not have to spend the time, effort and money to acquire. Some simply cannot be replicated.
And there's a very real sense that it's a self-destructive compromise, since it de factor acknowledges the intolerant view that gay marriage isn't "real marriage." Basically the symbolism is important and can't be ignored.
I think this may in part be why the court ruled as it did, after taking the stance of the previous cases as well as outlined the extremely limited effect of Prop 8.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Probably not. If Alabama won't recognize or grant same-sex relationships any rights, a same-sex couple from California that moves to Alabama is out of luck regardless of whether they were married or in a domestic partnership in California.
This is important, because even if California were to create an exactly equal construct within their borders, it wouldn't mean jack shit across state lines. So if a gay couple were to travel to (or through) Idaho, or Alabama, or really any other state and one were to wind up hospitalized (accident, whatever) they could well be fucked on that front...because they're not "married."
Of course, even "married" they might well be fucked if the backwards-ass state they're in doesn't recognize the marriage.
But whatever.
It matters. Which kinda contradicts what I said above, but I was thinking from a strictly in-state perspective.
In California, this isn't the case, at least according to the Attorney General. Domestic partnerships offer the same substantive rights as marriage.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
But does that have anything to do with California's ruling? I understand that this is the case federally, but is there any difference in how the state of California treats civil unions and marriages? That's the main question I was asking earlier.
That's kind of the point, for many religious people. To them, it's not real marriage and it never will be. And I fully support their right to believe that and say that and whatever else the fuck they want as long as they don't actually infringe on the rights of others.
Even in this example, however, "separate but equal" may not always be equal. Say someone in a domestic partnership gets sick and his partner wants to visit him in the hospital, said hospital having a policy that states that only spouses may visit. A hospital employee who was feeling dickish theoretically could deny the domestic partner the right to visit, on the grounds that he's not a spouse. Now, if "domestic partnership" was defined as "marriage in all but name," a court would strike down that policy right quick. It's a pain in the ass, though; the partner would actually have to sue the hospital, which takes time and money, and in the meantime he still wouldn't get to see his partner. There is simply no good reason beyond some vague sense of religious offense (and hence no good reason at all) to deny the status of marriage to homosexuals.
No, DOMA invalidates any right to reciprocity regardless of what the 'Constitution' might tell you.
I don't. Because that's silly, and a piss-poor standard to hold laws to.
Regardless, is there some reason you don't support the rights of the various churches that are willing to marry two consenting adults to have their marriages recognized like any other? Mainstream Christianity (plus Mormonism) is not the only religion in this country, so why should they alone get to define the institution of marriage?
DOMA is irrelevant. Since time immemorial, the states have been free not to recognize marriages from other states.
Which ones can't be replicated?
In the abstract, yes this is true. However marriage rights don't exist in some void where ignorant human beings and institutions cannot get to them. Very much like water fountains or schools, someone with a perfectly valid claim to the same discrete things as a married person can and will be denied them due to the inability to legally claim that the guy in the ER who you don't realize is allergic to penicillin is their spouse. Given the time sensitive nature of a lot of the rights and responsibilities granted by marital status, simply having the power to win your case in court several months after the fact does not really enhance the argument, either.
Plus the whole, Civil Unions have yet to actually perfectly mirror Civil Marriage rights so it's still an academic distinction to claim that it is theoretically possible to make the two the same. Because at the moment the two institutions are separate and unequal.