lexu posted:

---

On pain of irrationality...

---

Lord_Vivec posted:

---

Darth_Guy posted:

---

You can't refuse a Jewish person service in a restaurant without being sued, so there's still that...

---

What services could a Jewish person get in a church?

---

Lord_Vivec posted:

---

Lol. Really, though, is it not enough that I support homosexuals getting equal rights? What more do you ask?

---

Lord_Vivec posted:

---

Darth_Guy posted:

---

You can't refuse a Jewish person service in a restaurant without being sued, so there's still that...

---

What services could a Jewish person get in a church?

---

Lord_Vivec posted:

---

lexu posted:

---

On pain of irrationality...

---

Lol. Really, though, is it not enough that I support homosexuals getting equal rights? What more do you ask?

---

How about not making this thread all about you?


Also: Please guys, let's lay off teh bashing, even jokingly. It's kindling to the flame.

lexu posted:

---

It has nothing to do with establishing social parameters, but rather upholding the ones we've chosen to bind ourselves to in the constitution which says everyone is equal. Right? Polygamy is illegal for everyone. Marriage is only illegal for gays. That doesn't adhere to the social standards we've already set under the law. So explain how that is a fallacious argument.

---

Jello posted:

---

I'm sorry, but the Constitution is a pact between the government and the People guarenteeing certain protections and the like. It is absolutely unacceptable for the government to impose shackles on the popular will on the basis of the very document that was created to limit the government's power. They do this all to often, and they keep doing this without showing any sign of abating.

---

As usual, the lazy critics are uninformed. The California court has not over-ruled the legislature: in fact, the legislature has voted for full marriage equality twice already. And the court has not "created" a right to marriage for gay couples. It has argued that if the state has conceded that domestic partners should have, under state law, all the benefits and responsibilities of married couples, the designation of a separate and distinct category must be suspect, under strict scrutiny, to the inference that the designation is based on a desire to deny gay couples equal dignity and recognition. This is the same point I've made in the past; isn't constructing a separate and distinct category an example of pure animus? You have conceded the substance, but cannot concede the name. Since no heterosexual couple's rights would be affected in any way, what exactly is the rationale for maintaining the distinction? Except bias?

The Court did not rule that California must allow same-sex couples the right to enter into "marriage." It merely ruled that if the state allows opposite-sex couples to do so, then same-sex couples must be treated equally. The Court explicitly left open the possibility that the state could distinguish between "marriage" (as a religious institution) and "civil unions" (as a secular institution) -- i.e., that California law could leave the definition of "marriage" to religious institutions and only offer and recognize "civil unions" for legal purposes -- provides that it treated opposite-sex and same-sex couples equally. The key legal issue is equal treatment by the State as a secular matter, not defining "marriage" for religious purposes.