patrick.net

Curious,

I'm aware of the recent decision about the issue in New York State. What makes you think I'm not aware of the decision? Just because I may not agree with a law doesn't mean I'm not aware of it.

As for the implication that I must be stupid for (supposedly) not knowing about the law, I'll let other Patnet users decide whether or not that's an "ad hominem" argument.

freak80 says

What makes you think I'm not aware of the decision? ... As for the implication that I must be stupid for (supposedly) not knowing about the law,

You requested the definition, I provided links. I didn't call you stupid, you said that.

freak80 says

No, pointing our [sic] your ad hominem attack isn't paranoia.

freak80 says

I'd be prosecuted under "hate crimes" laws and put in jail... enslaved.... For me, a vote for either party is a vote to slit my own throat.

Asking if I need to paste full text instead of a link is not an "attack," but you apparently believe it to be, and in the same thread you write that one major party wants you "put in jail," the other wants you "enslaved," and then you fall into violent imagery about slitting your own throat. Your reaction to marriage equality has revealed a side of your personality that I had never seen before, and which does worry me, because it sounds like the kind of thing two now-lost friends used to say before being hospitalized for clinical paranoia. Your reference to hate crimes, which you put in quotes, also worries me for a different reason:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-07/business/sns-rt-us-usa-wisconsin-shootingbre8740fp-20120805_1_white-power-music-end-apathy-sikh-temple

If you aren't paranoid, and are in fact planning something that would land you in jail for a hate crime, please stop and seek help immediately.

freak80 says

I'll let other Patnet users decide whether or not that's an "ad hominem" argument.

I don't hold not knowing all the laws against you. However, you're failure to address any of the very precise arguments I've made against all objections to marriage equality implies that you have no counter-arguments to make.

This in turn would lead anyone reading this thread to conclude that there is no legitimate reason to object to same sex marriages being recognized by the federal government and through federal law by all state governments.

But just in case you've manage to think up a counter-argument, feel free to post it now. Of course, you're free to not do so, but as the old saying goes, he who remains silent is understood to consent.

CaptainShuddup says

Marriage should be about producing kids. If you can't produce kids, then you shouldn't be allowed to get married. What's the point.

So, to be clear, infertile people should be denied marriage rights?

Thanks for the link to the NPR article. This news article from a balanced non partisan source is pretty damning of the gay movement. When someone tells them "no" based on religious grounds, they hire lawyers and proceed to punish them with litigation fees. The first ammendment says "government shall make no law respecting religion or preventing the practice thereof. If your interpretation of the 14th ammendment would require a religious leader to set aside his/her beliefs in support of the gay agenda, guess which ammendment trumps?
This is all beside the point. The real issue here is "should gays be permitted, encouraged, and aided in their fight for societal and cultural legitimacy, even at the cost of freedom of the other 90%?"
We already give them equal rights, and perhaps marriage as defined by the state is just a contract, as Dan has pointed out. If gays just get the contract, they will be dissatisfied. They want the people who frown on their lifestyle to be smacked into "right thinking" by the government. Even the incident with Dan Cathy's excoriation smacks of "thought crime." George Orwell would recognize this in an instant. It's our rights at stake. That is worth fighting for!

CL says

CaptainShuddup says

Marriage should be about producing kids. If you can't produce kids, then you shouldn't be allowed to get married. What's the point.

So, to be clear, infertile people should be denied marriage rights?

To be fair, the Captain said they should be sent to France after 15 years. France is a nice place. The Captain seemed to be be joking, too, unlike Quigley and freak80. The latter two seem to illustrate Bill Maher's observation about the bubble (see video above).

curious2 says

The Captain seemed to be be joking, too

Seemed like as good a place as any to interject with that salient point though. Marriage is for procreation breaks down as an argument when heteros can't procreate either, but are allowed to marry.

Logically, to ask if they can or intend to would be considered intrusive on the part of the Government. Why aren't gays afforded the same freedom?

Hey freak, consider this article while you're making your faggot jokes and trying to pretend religion is the base for all moral and intellectual activity in the US:

"GOP Insider: How Religion Destroyed My Party"

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/gop-insider-how-religion-destroyed-my-party

"In the new book, "The Party Is Over," veteran Republican Mike Lofgren writes about the rise of politicized religious fundamentalism and how the GOP devolved into anti-intellectual nuts."

Its a good read, from someone on the inside. And then maybe, you know, try to reconsider the questions you've pretended to be asking here. Good luck with your struggle.

...but honestly in your case I think the real struggle will come in about ten years or so when you start thinking "oh damn, I guess I should have… ..."

Quigley says

This is all beside the point. The real issue here is "should gays be permitted, encouraged, and aided in their fight for societal and cultural legitimacy, even at the cost of freedom of the other 90%?"

What freedom are you talking about? Freedom is a minimal set of laws, including minimal favoritism by the government. Not sure what cost of freedom there is in this discussion. If you want freedom then you should advocate government to get out of the marriage business altogether and other unfree favoritisms.

I am not voting. I have voted republican many times.

Wait, I changed my mind. I will vote democrat for the first time if it looks like Romney might win. I don't trust people with offshore bank accounts. That means you have no faith in this country and are trying to dodge taxes.

Quigley says

If your interpretation of the 14th ammendment would require a religious leader to set aside his/her beliefs in support of the gay agenda, guess which ammendment trumps?

I would argue that the 14th Amendment is more important than the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment grants rights, but the 14th Amendment says that everyone has the same rights, which is a more fundamental proposition. Equality of rights is even more than any individual right.

Nevertheless, the intention of the First Amendment is to prevent government from suppressing a religious minority and to prevent religion from controlling government. Both of these intentions are important. In regards to preventing religion from controlling the government, all objections to marriage equality are religious ones. Thus the prohibition on gay marriage is a violation of the First Amendment.

However, as Quigley states, the government is not suppose to suppress religions. Yet, it does. Remember Branch Davidian in Wacco, TX circa 1993? The government burned those people alive. Our government frequently prevent religious organization from

1. Arming themselves.
2. Having sexual relations with minors.
3. Performing human sacrifices.
4. Using illegal narcotics including marijuana.
5. Hiding faces behind a burka in many places such as airport security.
6. 90% of what's in the Bible is illegal. Ex: stoning your daughter if she has sex before marriage.

If we accept that the First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering in any way with any religion and that trumps all laws, then I have the right to open the Nudist Church of Weed, Firearms, and Peer-to-Peer File Sharing. Our first sacrament will be to tap the phones of every politician. And there's nothing the government could do about it. Yet, that's just not reality.

The First Amendment also states "Congress shall make no law bridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble". Yet, there are at restrictions on freedom of speech. You can't legally

1. Report a false emergency. Ex: Yelling fire in a crowed theater when there is none.
2. Make a threat of violence including death threats. Ex: Phoning in a bomb threat.
3. Make a knowingly false statement that damages a person. I.e., libel and slander.

Personally, I say these should be the only restrictions on free speech, but the government frequently includes others such as

1. Speaking your mind in court results in a contempt of court arrest.
2. Using profanity in certain places like aboard an airplane results in arrest.
3. Copyright, patent, and trademark laws.
4. Nondisclosure contracts which are written solely for the interest of one party and forced onto the other.
5. Court order silence including court orders regarding evidence.

And that's just to name a few.

And the right to peacefully assemble is not even considered a right anymore, but rather a privilege. You have to get a permit to protest. Think about what that means. You have to get the permission of government to protest government, and the government can say no and it can restrict when and were you protest. Remember Occupy Wall Street being kicked out of the parks?

The fact is there are many restrictions on the First Amendment that shouldn't be there according to the Constitution. It would be far better to explicitly list what those restrictions are so that we can limit them to just those explicit restrictions rather than letting the government constantly increase the restrictions.

In the NPR article, the only thing that happened to the ministry organization is that they lost tax exemption for the use of the pavilion. But religious organizations should not get any tax exemptions according to the First Amendment because a tax exemption is preferential treatment and thus an endorsement of that religion. And if you think that's not so because all religions get tax exemptions, name one Satanic Cult that gets tax exemption. Could a church of Satan get a tax exemption in our country? Hell no. What about my Nudist Church of Weed, Firearms, and Peer-to-Peer File Sharing?

Nevertheless, the issue of whether or not churches can refuse to perform gay marriages or refuse the use of their buildings for gay marriages is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the federal government should recognize gay marriages. Marriage equality can be achieved within our government and the legal system whether or not churches are required to not discriminate.

However, I'll address this issue now.

The question of whether or not churches can discriminate against homosexuals is exactly the same as the question of whether or not churches can discriminate against race. Can a church refuse to marry a black couple or an interracial couple? This is not an academic question. It happens all the time.

Church Votes Against Interracial Couples Becoming Members

White Baptist church in Mississippi bans black wedding

The bottom line is that yes, churches can refuse to perform marriage ceremonies on gays, blacks, and interracial couples. The churches can refuse to let women, Hispanics, Asians, cripples, or any other minority attend their masses. This is because churches are not like restaurants. They aren't commercial entities serving the community.

However, the state is then wrong to provide tax-free status to churches, and it is wrong to zone any land for churches. Religious ceremonies should be held in private residences, not zoned landed. After all, churches do not have to and do not serve the community at large like restaurants, night clubs, and bars do. Therefore, they should not get access to limited land, and certainly should not get tax exemptions. Let the faithful open their own homes to their flocks. Isn't that what Jesus would want anyway?

Remember, religious marriage is not civil marriage. The fact that you got married in a church does not grant you married status in the law. For that, you need a marriage license. Conversely, you can get married in law without getting married in any church. Civil marriage and religious marriage are completely independent of one another. Just ask any bigamist. His religious marriages aren't recognized by the state.

Quigley says

The real issue here is "should gays be permitted, encouraged, and aided in their fight for societal and cultural legitimacy, even at the cost of freedom of the other 90%?"

No, that's not the real issue. Of course gays and heterosexuals like me who support marriage equality should be permitted to advocate (or fight as you call it) for social justice, legal equality, and even social and cultural acceptance. That is our First Amendment right.

No one is proposing a law to encourage or aid in this quest. We are proposing to change the law to end discrimination and the violation of the 14th Amendment. Furthermore, whether or not you personally consider gay marriage to be culturally acceptable is irrelevant to whether or not the laws of our nation are written such that all people have the same rights. There are many people who don't find country music to be culturally acceptable, but they aren't proposing it be banned.

Finally, the legalization of same sex marriage does not cost any freedom of the other 90%. The only argument remotely stating that is the one presented in the NPR article about churches being required to perform gay or interracial or black marriages. And as I have pointed out, they don't and won't even when gay marriage is recognized under federal law.

Quigley says

We already give them equal rights, and perhaps marriage as defined by the state is just a contract, as Dan has pointed out. If gays just get the contract, they will be dissatisfied. They want the people who frown on their lifestyle to be smacked into "right thinking" by the government. Even the incident with Dan Cathy's excoriation smacks of "thought crime." George Orwell would recognize this in an instant. It's our rights at stake. That is worth fighting for!

Translation: If gays can married, it will be a slippery slope into an Orwellian nightmare where Americans are arrested for thought crime.

This is the exact same argument made against interracial marriage. It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now. The novel 1984 was about the removal of freedom and diversity, not the expansion of it.

curious2 says

The latter two seem to illustrate Bill Maher's observation about the bubble (see video above).

I've been saying that about the social conservatives on this site for months. So true.

curious2 says

The Captain seemed to be be joking

I think that often of social conservatives, and then I find out they are serious. I mean, how else do you explain George W. Bush, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, and Herman Cain?

G'Day,
You shouldn't vote if you don't like the candidates. With less than a 50% turn out, it will let 'them' know that it means...NONE OF THE ABOVE!

Regards,
Woomera

kentm says

Hey freak, consider this article while you're making your faggot jokes

Please give an example of where I did that.

kentm says

trying to pretend religion is the base for all moral and intellectual activity in the US:

Where did I invoke religion at all?

Quigley says

They want the people who frown on their lifestyle to be smacked into "right thinking" by the government. Even the incident with Dan Cathy's excoriation smacks of "thought crime." George Orwell would recognize this in an instant.

That's what it looks like, yes. I can't help but admire the sheer Machiavellian art of it all, though:

1) Re-define marriage as a "right" instead of an institution
2) Keep saying that people who support "traditional" marriage are against "gay rights" (as if anyone asks what you do at night before you can vote).
3) Use gay marriage (in states that have it) as a legal precedent to financially attack religious groups you don't like.

I give concrete examples of (3) and I'm subjected to personal attacks (like that I supposedly called someone a 'faggot').

This is what I mean when I say the far-left is just as authoritarian and unhinged as the far right.

So Kentm and Curious2, you've made my point about not voting for Democrats. If Democrats actually went after the top 0.1% (like they're supposed to do) I might support them. But what has Obama done? He hasn't done anything to reign in the power of Big Finance that owns the government. See the Matt Taibbi articles. Rather, Obama has just given the homosexual special interest groups what they want (repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell). Apparently privacy and tolerance is *not* what they want, but rather a government "stamp of approval" which they use to go after (with the force of the state) people they don't like.

So no, Patnet readers. "Social issues" are *not* just phoney issues created out of thin air by Fox News and AM radio.

omerde says

You shouldn't vote if you don't like the candidates. With less than a 50% turn out, it will let 'them' know that it means...NONE OF THE ABOVE!

This would work if only by voting none of the above, no one got to hold the office. We could fire someone without replacing him with someone else. All votes from the empty chair are automatically set to no.

freak80 says

Where did I invoke religion at all?

I've concluded that your opposition to gay marriage and all opposition from the right is based solely on religious bigotry because you cannot answer any of the simple, honest, and straightforward questions I've asked regarding your position. No social conservative can because the only way to honestly answer the questions is with

I have no legal reasons to deny gays the right to marry. I just don't want them to because my fictitious god hates fags. Of course, this belief that a sky daddy hates fags is nothing more than a reflection of my own personal neurosis. But I am unwilling to admit that in public. This is why I cannot have an honest, rational discussion of gay marriage. I must always employee baseless fears and emotional manipulation, and I must stay away from reality as much as possible. Reality has a liberal bias.

Of course, if I am wrong about the above, then please, pretty please with sugar on top of it, will some conservative provide rational and honest answers to the questions I directed at freak80 including why the 14th Amendment either should be repealed, or does not apply to gay marriage like it does to interracial marriage, or why the Supreme Court was wrong in Loving vs. Virginia. These are the only three logical possibilities.

Dan8267 says

Patrick

Links to postings that are part of a thread with multiple page breaks are still not working. Example: http://patrick.net/?p=1214837#comment-851760

The link has to include the "c" parameter so I can calculate which page of comments to show. Then the hashtag jumps to the right part of that page. So for the example you gave, this should work:

http://patrick.net/?p=1214837&c=851760#comment-851760

The link has to include the "c" parameter so I can calculate which page of comments to show.

Is it possible to include the "c" parameter when you quote a post? Also, is the "c" parameter always the same as the "comment" parameter? If so, why would it be necessary?

freak80 says

1) Re-define marriage as a "right" instead of an institution
2) Keep saying that people who support "traditional" marriage

You keep reverting to the same thing even when I provide you links to the actual statutory definition of legal marriage, and you never answered my question. If the Republicans decree that only Baptist marriages will be recognized, or that Catholics will be restricted to marrying other Catholics (which is also the Vatican position), will you still say that marriage is a religious "institution" and the laws must simply administer your preferred religious restrictions? And what do you say to the religions and countries that do recognize same-sex marriage? Have those religions chosen the wrong God, because you know (or are) the only true one, and have those countries increased their risk of hurricanes? How do you get to own marriage as an "institution" with your definition being the only true one, no matter what the Constitution and the laws say? Why is your favored "tradition" the only one that matters, while others have their own traditions?

curious2 says

will you still say that marriage is a religious "institution" and the laws must simply administer your preferred religious restrictions?

Marriage is an inherently religious idea, I believe. That's why I say we just invoke "separation of church and state" and get the government out of the marriage business altogether. Let individual religious groups decide who they will marry according to their own beliefs.

curious2 says

Have those religions chosen the wrong God, because you know (or are) the only true one, and have those countries increased their risk of hurricanes?

That's going off in a whole new direction. Who said anything about hurricanes?

curious2 says

Why is your favored "tradition" the only one that matters

What is my favored tradition? I don't understand.

freak80 says

Marriage is an inherently religious idea, I believe... What is my favored tradition? I don't understand.

You keep reverting back to your favored definition of "traditional marriage," no matter how many links I provide showing the legal definition of marriage. What I find especially strange is your unfounded and clearly false belief that marriage is inherently religious, even though I've already pointed out that marriage (including same-sex marriage) goes back further than any of the currently popular religions. Should there be a religious test to marriage, i.e. if you don't pray often enough your marriage gets taken away?

You also seem to ignore the importance of voters' opinions in deciding party platforms. "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was repealed because (a) 70% of voters wanted it repealed, and (b) federal courts had declared it unconstitutional and ordered the Pentagon to stop enforcing it (and the Pentagon did stop, worldwide, then started again when the Obama administration filed an "emergency appeal"). You ignore all that and say it was catering to a special interest, when in fact it was merely following the law and the will of 70% of voters.

freak80 says

Who said anything about hurricanes?

Pat Robertson. He shares your belief that everything is religious and the law must follow the will of [his particular] omnipotent God, whom he exclusively speaks for and nobody else can hear except through him. He has warned specifically that hurricanes are divine wrath for not listening to The Word According to Pat.

curious2 says

no matter how many links I provide showing the legal definition of marriage.

You provided the link to a court decision of a state. I don't agree with the ruling. They argue under the same false premises that you do. The "conclusion" is already "built in" from the very beginning.

We shouldn't be surprised at that. Judges are politicians. It's what they do.

Again, I ask you: have you stopped beating your wife?

freak80 says

You provided the link to a court decision of a state.

...and links to the laws of your own state, and examples of whole countries (Canada, Hungary).

You never answer my questions, and instead you revert to your joke question about whether you've stopped beating your wife. Have you?

curious2 says

Should there be a religious test to marriage, i.e. if you don't pray often enough your marriage gets taken away?

My position is very clear to anyone reading this discussion: the government shouldn't be granting or taking away anyone's marriage. They shouldn't be in the business at all.

If we want "civil domestic contracts" simply in the interest of forming "households" then fine. I have no problem with that.

I'm not a fan of people suing churches just because they won't recognize certain "marriages."

How can I put it anymore straightforward than that?

Go ahead and have the "last word."

Dan8267 says

Is it possible to include the "c" parameter when you quote a post? Also, is the "c" parameter always the same as the "comment" parameter? If so, why would it be necessary?

The "c" parameter should be automatically included when you quote a post. If it does not happen, please send me an example so I can reproduce and fix it.

Yes, it is always the same as the "comment" parameter. The reason I need to put it in the URL twice is that the hash tag parameter (#comment-854783 for example) cannot be detected on the server side.

Indeed, why?

Both Romney and Obama are worse for economy.

Both are bad for human rights.

Both are sure to cause another disaster in Afghanistan.

Both will go on destroying American middle class and anything productive here.

There is only one difference: Romney went to Israel and put American interests on sale there. With Romney as a president now we'll get a guaranteed new war in Iran, which will turn to a disaster unseen yet. (Will end up much worse than Vietnam).

But than again, we are in California? Will our vote change anything? Obviously NO. So why should we vote?

curious2 says

Please read the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and section 10 of New York's Domestic Relations Law (which defines marriage as a civil contract), and reconsider your statement about marriage. Whatever your religious views might be, they do not excuse denying other Americans the equal protection of the laws. Everyone has the right to their own opinions, but not their own facts, nor can they be made strangers to the laws of their own country.

I have a question: civil contracts may include more than two parties. So is polygamist marriage is illegal? Why? Why nobody care about the rights of polygamists?

The "c" parameter should be automatically included when you quote a post. If it does not happen, please send me an example so I can reproduce and fix it.

I think I've copied URLs from the user comment history page, http://patrick.net/comments.php?a=8267&submit=Search

On that page, the URLs in the date fields after each post do not have the "c" parameter, just the "comment" anchor. The parameter should be added to those links.

Yes, it is always the same as the "comment" parameter. The reason I need to put it in the URL twice is that the hash tag parameter (#comment-854783 for example) cannot be detected on the server side.

Makes sense. There is a way to handle that though. If you have a HTTP request handler, you could query the HttpRequest object's URL parameter and determine if the comment anchor is present and treat it like a request parameter. That would make the c parameter unnecessary altogether.

Dan8267 says

I think I've copied URLs from the user comment history page, http://patrick.net/comments.php?a=8267&submit=Search

On that page, the URLs in the date fields after each post do not have the "c" parameter, just the "comment" anchor. The parameter should be added to those links.

You are right! Thanks for telling me about that. Fixed now.

Dan8267 says

you could query the HttpRequest object's URL parameter and determine if the comment anchor is present

No, I've checked the network traffic with tcpdump and the comment anchor is never even sent to the server. So there is no way to use the hash tag alone to find the right page of comments. But if you don't have the hash tag, then the browser does not jump to the right point. So I am forced to have both the c parameter in the URL (to find the right page of comments) and the hash tag (to make the browser scroll down to that comment).

freak80 says

If we want "civil domestic contracts" simply in the interest of forming "households" then fine. I have no problem with that.

I'm not a fan of people suing churches just because they won't recognize certain "marriages."

I like that. Determining whether you're forming a household or not is entirely up to the individual. What you call it is up to the individual. Something like the common law marriage stuff, if two unrelated people live together for X years, they are a couple.

If one wants to have a religious ceremony or secular ritual to formalize it in one's own mind, that's one's own decision.

No, I've checked the network traffic with tcpdump and the comment anchor is never even sent to the server.

Ah, yeah, that's right. The hash component of the page URL, everything following the # sign, is not sent from the browser to the server and is meant only for the browser to process. That's part of the W3C standard. Forgot about that.

thunderlips11 says

I like that. Determining whether you're forming a household or not is entirely up to the individual. What you call it is up to the individual. Something like the common law marriage stuff, if two unrelated people live together for X years, they are a couple.

Seems fair to me.

Write in Ron Paul on the ballot.
I am.

freak80 says

My position is very clear to anyone reading this discussion: the government shouldn't be granting or taking away anyone's marriage. They shouldn't be in the business at all... How can I put it anymore straightforward than that?
Go ahead and have the "last word."

Actually I agree with that position, but it wasn't clear (to me at least) from what you wrote earlier. To the contrary, at the beginning of the thread you wrote the Democrats' support for the equal protection of the marriage laws prevented you from voting for them. While most voters support marriage equality, including the vast majority of registered Democrats and most independents, you seemed to view the Democratic Party's support as an unforgivable sin. In contrast, you did not appear to blame the Republican Party for promising to amend the Constitution of the United States for the sole purpose of re-defining marriage to exclude gay couples. Among major Republican candidates, only Ron Paul had the courage to say no to that, and this whole debate illustrates the importance of limiting government in the way he advocated (and the founders believed). The less we involve government in things, the less we need to agree on. This is what the founders saw as well: by keeping their various religious beliefs and disbeliefs out of the picture, they didn't need to agree whose was the "one true god" (if any), so people couldn't be easily divided and misruled the way people are now.

I do observe that on this particular topic you seem to have a Maher-bubble that facts bounce off of, as pebbles bounce off armor plate (to borrow from the Alternet article above). Surveys since 2010 have shown that most voters support marriage equality, so it is unsurprising that a major party would adopt a position that most voters agree with; your assertion that it prevents you from voting for them is an anomaly, and your statement that it narrows the Democrats' base to "the Castro district" is demonstrably incorrect. Moreover, marriage, including same-sex marriage, has been around longer than any of the currently popular religions, so there is no basis for any current religion to claim ownership of "traditional marriage" or exclusive authority to define it. We have a legislative and judicial process to define terms, though I agree some terms become too personal and it would be better to keep the government out altogether. (I also feel this way about healthcare, for example, as to which different people have very different ideas.) In the past I liked many of your comments and nearly always agreed with you, but on this topic it appears we must disagree, and again that illustrates the value of limiting government to things people can agree on. It has become too easy for politicians to divide people because 51% stand ready to lock up the other 49%, for any reason or for none, or to take their marriages away, or tax/penalize them for not buying something unless they join an exempted religion (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses). People so divided are easily misruled and exploited.

I will leave the "last word" to quoting the Constitution of the United States: "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

curious2 says

I will leave the "last word" to quoting the Constitution of the United States: "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Well put curious. And to further the sentiment, if marriage were not a recognized legally binding contract. If marriage did not come with the tax advantages, ability to make life and death medical decisions, etc. Then one could make the 'marriage is a religious instrument' argument.

I got married on a beach in Hawaii, there was no church, no priest, no mention of 'god' in my ceremony, but I am no less 'married'. The plain fact is, marriage is no longer defined by religion, and hasn't been since the inception of this country.

I would also support separating religious ceremonies from legally binding contracts, at least in theory. I qualify my statement because but how would you handle that? Would all current 'marriages' be nullified if we did this? (Since the implication is that religious ceremonies would not be legally recognized)

Does this mean that after your church ceremony, you have to go to the courthouse to take some sort of legally binding oath to codify it? If no, then you are back to implying a religious marriage ceremony has legal implications, which means a gay couple having their own ceremony (religious or not) would be doing something verbatim identical, so why not just call it marriage and be done with it?

As an Atheist, I am totally flummoxed as to why people get so hung up over the word 'marriage'. If two people (regardless of gender), or even multiple people (ie Mormons) want to take an oath that says they dedicate their lives to each other in a loving manner, and they live by those covenants. How is the institution of marriage sullied by this? How does this negatively impact freak and his wife who got married in their church in front of their god?

gbenson says

I would also support separating religious ceremonies from legally binding contracts, at least in theory. I qualify my statement because but how would you handle that? Would all current 'marriages' be nullified if we did this? (Since the implication is that religious ceremonies would not be legally recognized) Does this mean that after your church ceremony, you have to go to the courthouse to take some sort of legally binding oath to codify it?

Several countries separate the legal and religious ceremonies. For example, in Argentina, which is ~80% Catholic but respects freedom of religion, most people have two weddings: the legal one which is usually simple, followed by a lavish church celebration. I know people who were married that way years ago, they've been doing it that way so long it's what they mean when they say traditional marriage. I don't know when it started, but there was certainly no need to take away anyone's existing marriage; legislation is generally prospective, i.e. weddings after a certain date require a license but don't require a church ceremony, and then people can choose whether to add the church ceremony. Argentina recognizes same-sex marriage, though presumably if the newlyweds want a religious ceremony afterwards it won't be in a Catholic church.

Dan8267 says

Personally, I hope all gay couples sue the fuck out of the IRS and US Treasury for overpaid taxes and for penalties and interest for the past 100 years!

What a nonsense!
First of civil unions of the same sex couples are fully recognizes and in terms of taxes treated in the same exact way as married couples. They also may adopt children etc. In short, there is absolutely no civil, financial or other material benefits of marriage.
Second, have you heard of the marriage tax punishment? i.e when both partners have significant income their taxes when filing join tax return are much higher than when filing separately. So, who should sue IRS?

michaelsch says

In short, there is absolutely no civil, financial or other material benefits of marriage.

Yes there are. Survivor's benefits. Social Security. Unpaid leave for sick "spouse". End of life decisions. The right not to testify against your "spouse". And more.

michaelsch says

First of civil unions of the same sex couples are fully recognizes and in terms of taxes treated in the same exact way as married couples.

That is false. Some states, including California, treat registered domestic partnerships the same as marriage for tax purposes at the state level, but the federal government refuses to do the same. The result is many couples need to prepare three tax returns: (1) state level return on which they are married, (2) federal return as if they were not married, (3) state level return to adjust for the differences.

CL says

michaelsch says

In short, there is absolutely no civil, financial or other material benefits of marriage.

Yes there are. Survivor's benefits. Social Security. Unpaid leave for sick "spouse". End of life decisions. The right not to testify against your "spouse". And more.

Marriage, according to the US Government Accounting Office, bestows upon the legally married, as of 2004, 1,138 statutory provisions. I have pasted the core of the letter written by the GAO to then Senator Frist of TN.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

Subject: Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report

Dear Senator Frist:

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) provides definitions of “marriage” and “spouse” that
are to be used in construing the meaning of a federal law and, thus, affect the interpretation
of a wide variety of federal laws in which marital status is a factor.
1
In 1997, we issued a
report identifying 1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in
which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital
status is a factor.
2
In preparing the 1997 report, we limited our search to laws enacted prior
to September 21, 1996, the date DOMA was signed into law. Recently, you asked us to
update our 1997 compilation.
We have identified 120 statutory provisions involving marital status that were enacted
between September 21, 1996, and December 31, 2003. During the same period, 31 statutory
provisions involving marital status were repealed or amended in such a way as to eliminate
marital status as a factor. Consequently, as of December 31, 2003, our research identified a
total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which
marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges.

BTW, there isn't a single 'civil union' law or 'domestic partnership' law that bestows even a very tiny fraction of 1,138 city or state rights and benefits, and ZERO federal ones.