Gay Marriage Legal in California

[Simius]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Are you seriously asking me how polygamous folks are being oppressed?

Indeed. Who is a polygamist not allowed to marry due to their religion. What limitation on marriages are they denied due to their religion? Or do they have the exact same rights and opportunities to enter marriages in the same way and to the same people everyone else in California has?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Simius

Indeed. Who is a polygamist not allowed to marry due to their religion. What limitation on marriages are they denied due to their religion? Or do they have the exact same rights and opportunities to enter marriages in the same way and to the same people everyone else in California has?

I never said it had anything to do with their religion.

[Simius]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I never said it had anything to do with their religion.

K. Are polygamists restricted from doing anything regarding marriage that a non-polygamist is allowed to do?

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I think it's a step in the wrong direction. Abrogating a large portion of the tax incentives for getting legally married was a step in the right direction. Legalizing gay marriage is a step in the wrong direction.

My position is that marriage should not be recognized by the state at all. Instituting more state-sanctioned recognition is a step in the wrong direction.

Lets ignore all other legal, social, and personal benefits of marriage. Lets instead focus on minor tax differences.

Given the chance to vote, you would vote against gays being allowed to marry simply because you don't like those tax differences?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Lets ignore all other legal, social, and personal benefits of marriage. Lets instead focus on minor tax differences.

Given the chance to vote, you would vote against gays being allowed to marry simply because you don't like those tax differences?

I would vote against the state recognizing gay marriage because I favor equality.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Simius

K. Are polygamists restricted from doing anything regarding marriage that a non-polygamist is allowed to do?

Are gays restricted from doing anything non gays are allowed to do?

[Simius]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Are gays restricted from doing anything non gays are allowed to do?

Nope. In CA before this law change gays were not restricted from doing anything regarding marriage that non gays were allowed to do.

However, men were restricted from doing something regarding marriage that non-men were allowed to do. (They weren't allowed to marry men.) Women were also restricted from dong something regarding marriage that non-women were allowed to do. (They weren't allowed to marry women.)

After this law change that inequality was eliminated. But I'll ask you directly, what restrictions are placed on a polygamist regarding marriage that isn't placed on a non-polygamist?

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I would vote against the state recognizing gay marriage because I favor equality.

Really? So the amendment that allowed blacks to vote was a hateful, bigoted vote you would not support?
States recognizing interracial marriage, bigoted.
How about the allowing black men to serve in white regiments in the military? Truman was such a bigot for that one.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Really? So the amendment that allowed blacks to vote was a hateful, bigoted vote you would not support?

Singling out a group of people isn't equality. It separates the group from the whole, thereby extinguishing true equality (where an encompassing statement nullifies the need for an explicit context).

Making a law that says "Blacks can vote" to add onto "All citizens over 18 can vote" combine to be "All citizens over 18 can vote, plus blacks can too."

The two groups (everyone over 18 and blacks) become separate. Unequal.

The courts should have said "black people are people. People can vote. Therefore, we need no more law, it always should have been and now we can make sure that everyone is included."

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Singling out a group of people isn't equality. It separates the group from the whole, thereby extinguishing true equality (where an encompassing statement nullifies the need for an explicit context).

Making a law that says "Blacks can vote" to add onto "All citizens over 18 can vote" combine to be "All citizens over 18 can vote, plus blacks can too."

The two groups (everyone over 18 and blacks) become separate. Unequal.

The courts should have said "black people are people. People can vote. Therefore, we need no more law, it always should have been and now we can make sure that everyone is included."

ffs, you guys troll so hard on semantics its shameful.

Before 15th amendment- widely recognized that blacks couldn't vote, and clearly started that way when the constitution was ratified.

After the 15th amendment- blacks could vote

[Simius]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Singling out a group of people isn't equality. It separates the group from the whole, thereby extinguishing true equality (where an encompassing statement nullifies the need for an explicit context).

Making a law that says "Blacks can vote" to add onto "All citizens over 18 can vote" combine to be "All citizens over 18 can vote, plus blacks can too."

The two groups (everyone over 18 and blacks) become separate. Unequal.

The courts should have said "black people are people. People can vote. Therefore, we need no more law, it always should have been and now we can make sure that everyone is included."

It is a good thing that is basically what the amendment says:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

There isn't anything in that amendment that specifies any particular race, instead it grants everyone the same right to vote regardless of race.

Not sure what your point was, bro.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Simius

There isn't anything in that amendment that specifies any particular race, instead it grants everyone the same right to vote regardless of race.

Not sure what your point was, bro.

And you think that wasn't directed primarily at a specific race?

It makes the most sense to ensure ALL legal citizens are allowed to vote than to get it passed for one race at a time, but certainly one race was the catalyst.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I would vote against the state recognizing gay marriage because I favor equality.

That doesn't make any sense.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Simius

K. Are polygamists restricted from doing anything regarding marriage that a non-polygamist is allowed to do?

Yeah, getting married to multiple people.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, getting married to multiple people.

Non polygamists are allowed to marry multiple people?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Non polygamists are allowed to marry multiple people?

Non polygamists don't want to, so I don't think that's really a valid point

I don't see what business it is of the government what "family" dynamic consenting adults decide to be in, but so long as they're in the business of recognizing and providing benefits and rights (like hospital visits, stuff regular power of attorney can't cover).. they shouldn't be discriminating against combinations of people, whether it's male male, female female, male female, male female female, or whatever..

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by motivez

Non polygamists don't want to, so I don't think that's really a valid point

I don't see what business it is of the government what "family" dynamic consenting adults decide to be in, but so long as they're in the business of recognizing and providing benefits and rights (like hospital visits, stuff regular power of attorney can't cover).. they shouldn't be discriminating against combinations of people, whether it's male male, female female, male female, male female female, or whatever..

So non gay people don't want to marry their same sex. Do you apply the same logic there?

I'm so confused here

[Simius]

Originally Posted by motivez

And you think that wasn't directed primarily at a specific race?

It makes the most sense to ensure ALL legal citizens are allowed to vote than to get it passed for one race at a time, but certainly one race was the catalyst.

Of course it was. But his objection is that it made blacks a separate group when the amendment did the exact opposite.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by thewise1

So non gay people don't want to marry their same sex. Do you apply the same logic there?

I'm so confused here

It looked like you were trying to make the point that because non polygamists weren't allowed to marry multiple people, it wasn't discrimination. Is that wrong?