Why isn't gay marriage legal yet?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Cheesecat**

sebster wrote:
Stormrider wrote:Do hetorosexaul people have a "right" to a spouse? No. You don't get a wife or husband just because you want one.

sbuh?

If a straight couple wants to get married they can. They don't have to earn anything, they can just do it. If a gay couple wants to get married they apparently need to 'earn' it by getting half the population of their state to support it.

Same goes for Gay marriages, until enough people think it's alright, it will remain this way. It will remain unrecognized by states until true majorities allow it. It's how the system works.

It should never get beyond a states rights issue. Let the indivual states decide and leave it at that.

That would be true if the US was a pure democracy. It isn't. It's a liberal democracy that recognises certain rights exist beyond the willingness of the mob to grant them.

That's not entirely true the US is a representative democracy (or if you really want to be specific "Federal presidential constitutional republic") and also US politics can't be entirely liberal in nature because

Republicans are more conservative than liberal, although the party and president in power is liberal at this moment in time.

**biccat**

Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:That's why in the UK you don't get "common law married" by living together for six months.

That's why marriage is formed by signing a legal contract with witnesses. Civil partnership is the same in all but name.

That's why the idea of heterosexual "marriage in all but name" is rather silly.

The only reason for having two different classes of marriage would be if the obligations on the contracting persons are different.

Oh its even murkier KK. There's caselaw supporting "reallocation of assets" including alimony type payments for couples where marriage is not even an issue (thanks California...)

Lets be clear, all (most?) of these cases are out of California. I don't think the insanity has spread outside of the West Coast.

**Frazzled**

biccat wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:That's why in the UK you don't get "common law married" by living together for six months.

That's why marriage is formed by signing a legal contract with witnesses. Civil partnership is the same in all but name.

That's why the idea of heterosexual "marriage in all but name" is rather silly.

The only reason for having two different classes of marriage would be if the obligations on the contracting persons are different.

Oh its even murkier KK. There's caselaw supporting "reallocation of assets" including alimony type payments for couples where marriage is not even an issue (thanks California...)

Lets be clear, all (most?) of these cases are out of California. I don't think the insanity has spread outside of the West Coast.

Good point although it has spread somewhat.

**Ahtman**

Cheesecat wrote:
sebster wrote:That would be true if the US was a pure democracy. It isn't. It's a liberal democracy that recognises certain rights exist beyond the willingness of the mob to grant them.

That's not entirely true the US is a representative democracy (or if you really want to be specific "Federal presidential constitutional republic") and also US politics can't be entirely liberal in nature because

Republicans are more conservative than liberal, although the party and president in power is liberal at this moment in time.

**Wolfun**

Chowderhead wrote:Seriously? Why isn't Gay Marriage legal? Besides the fact that a mystical man in the sky says that men shouldn't bonk other men, can anyone come up with a good reason why it isn't?

BECAUSE IT'S IMMORAL AND THE BIBLE SAYS SO

/Various other bigoted statements.

As a Bisexual, I think it's pretty disgusting that they can't even call it 'Marriage' in this country (or that it's illegal in the states).
I don't force my sexual preferences on anyone else, they shouldn't be able to force their's on mine.

**Frazzled**

You can call it marriage, you just don't get all the beneifts of the color of law unless you arrange it properly.

**The Crusader Of 42**

i laugh when people call it immoral to be gay in this modern culture, but seem not to bat an eye at all the sexually charged images gracing the media.
For the "Its creepy..." argument...
OMG these gay neighbors of ours are GARDENING!!!
NOW THIER EATING DINNER!!!
and... now... thier.... PAYING THIER TAXES!

Freedom is what Americas recogized for, and freedoms what you are going to get... If your a rich, white,hetrosexual male

**Frazzled**

The Crusader Of 42 wrote:i laugh when people call it immoral to be gay in this modern culture, but seem not to bat an eye at all the sexually charged images gracing the media.
For the "Its creepy..." argument...
OMG these gay neighbors of ours are GARDENING!!!
NOW THIER EATING DINNER!!!
and... now... thier.... PAYING THIER TAXES!

Freedom is what Americas recogized for, and freedoms what you are going to get... If your a rich, white,hetrosexual male

No. Freedom is what the United States is recognized for, not "America."

**Cheesecat**

Frazzled wrote:
The Crusader Of 42 wrote:i laugh when people call it immoral to be gay in this modern culture, but seem not to bat an eye at all the sexually charged images gracing the media.
For the "Its creepy..." argument...
OMG these gay neighbors of ours are GARDENING!!!
NOW THIER EATING DINNER!!!
and... now... thier.... PAYING THIER TAXES!

Freedom is what Americas recogized for, and freedoms what you are going to get... If your a rich, white,hetrosexual male

No. Freedom is what the United States is recognized for, not "America."

After-all there's a reason why Canada is sometimes nicknamed "Soviet Canuckistan".

**Emperors Faithful**

Frazzled wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Government has no right ot be involved in marriage. Why is government telling people what they can and can't do? Its a contract, as long they are legally able to contract its their business.

Pretty sure it isn't. It's covered by legislation in most states.

New flash: thats the government. You want to get married-hey your funeral. The government should butt the out.

Case Law is the area that predominantly labels marriage as, essentially, a contract. Legislation rarely terms it as such, and there is a lot more to marriage than "Goverment Control is Bad!".

**Chowderhead**

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Government has no right ot be involved in marriage. Why is government telling people what they can and can't do? Its a contract, as long they are legally able to contract its their business.

Pretty sure it isn't. It's covered by legislation in most states.

New flash: thats the government. You want to get married-hey your funeral. The government should butt the out.

Case Law is the area that predominantly labels marriage as, essentially, a contract. Legislation rarely terms it as such, and there is a lot more to marriage than "Goverment Control is Bad!".

Not really. It's the crazy God-Fearing Conservatives who makes the entire system shut down like a raid on a brothel.

**biccat**

Chowderhead wrote:Not really. It's the crazy God-Fearing Conservatives who makes the entire system shut down like a raid on a brothel.

You need to work on your analogies.

**Chowderhead**

biccat wrote:
Chowderhead wrote:Not really. It's the crazy God-Fearing Conservatives who makes the entire system shut down like a raid on a brothel.

You need to work on your analogies.

I like it. It works, sort of...

**Platuan4th**

Chowderhead wrote:
biccat wrote:
Chowderhead wrote:Not really. It's the crazy God-Fearing Conservatives who makes the entire system shut down like a raid on a brothel.

You need to work on your analogies.

I like it. It works, sort of...

Except it doesn't at all. It's not the Far Left or Far Right that's keeping it from being passed, it's the vast majority of people which are moderate versions of their parties or politically middle of the road. Believe it or not, most people in the US, conservative or not, still don't like it.

As I said earlier, supporters are NOT the majority in the US, vocal or otherwise.

**biccat**

Platuan4th wrote:
Chowderhead wrote:
biccat wrote:
Chowderhead wrote:Not really. It's the crazy God-Fearing Conservatives who makes the entire system shut down like a raid on a brothel.

You need to work on your analogies.

I like it. It works, sort of...

Except it doesn't at all. It's not the Far Left or Far Right that's keeping it from being passed, it's the vast majority of people which are moderate versions of their parties or politically middle of the road. Believe it or not, most people in the US, conservative or not, still don't like it.

As I said earlier, supporters are NOT the majority in the US.

We were talking about the specifics of the analogy.

It worked like a snowplow in Jamaica.

**Howard A Treesong**

Kilkrazy wrote:That's why in the UK you don't get "common law married" by living together for six months.

That's why marriage is formed by signing a legal contract with witnesses. Civil partnership is the same in all but name.

As it should be, I don't believe in foisting the trappings of marriage upon people who clearly haven't agreed to it. If you want the pros and cons of marriage then that's a matter for you and your partner to decide and make a point of signing a public document to do so. I see no benefit in granting this to people who are not married and just living together no matter how long they are married. If they wanted it they would ask for it. By equal measure that's why I think pre-nups are a bit daft. If you don't want 'marriage' don't get married.

**Platuan4th**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:That's why in the UK you don't get "common law married" by living together for six months.

That's why marriage is formed by signing a legal contract with witnesses. Civil partnership is the same in all but name.

As it should be, I don't believe in foisting the trappings of marriage upon people who clearly haven't agreed to it. If you want the pros and cons of marriage then that's a matter for you and your partner to decide and make a point of signing a public document to do so. I see no benefit in granting this to people who are not married and just living together no matter how long they are married. If they wanted it they would ask for it. By equal measure that's why I think pre-nups are a bit daft. If you don't want 'marriage' don't get married.

I think people are confused on how Common Law Marriages actually work(either that or it makes less sense outside of Louisiana and Napoleonic Law). You're not married just because you live together for x amount of time, you're married because you've presented yourself as married for that x amount of time whilst living together.

**nels1031**

Melissia wrote:Because a lot of people in the US are stupid bigots who claim that their beliefs are based off of whatever parts of an old book which happens to align with their beliefs no matter how skewed their interpretation has to be to get said old book to agree. And they only want to apply the constitution where it benefits them directly, too.

There seems to be a perception here (and amongst many gay marriage proponents) that its strictly religious people that are blocking same sex marriage and thats simply not true. There are cultures in America that, regardless of religious preference or practice, are simply against it because that is how they are brought up. Patriarchal cultures revolve around the supposedly inherent strength of men and the place of women in these cultures, and homosexuals (or more accurately, stereotypes of it) are viewed as an antithesis to their cultural viewpoints. "Men should be strong, and gay men are sissies" "Women should be making babies" types of view. These cultures run a spectrum of racial colors and rarely is religion involved, but mainly the home and neighborhood where the culture is prevalent.

Religious folks get the brunt of criticism from pro-same sex marriage proponents because they are the loudest opponents, but the root cause of its opposition is much more deeply rooted then one dude standing at a pulplit once a week telling people what to think. If organized religion (of any denomination) was really that effective at swaying peoples thoughts, we'd probably see a marked decrease in murder, theft, cheating and everything else that the bible or other preferred religious tome restricts.

Mainstream religion changes with people to stay relevant, so until some cultures become more liberal and tolerant, it will stay the course.

**Ahtman**

It is true that it isn't entirely based on religion, polliung data shows a strong correlation. The greatest opponents of it are also those that self identify as 'very religious'. Culture obliviously plays it's part to, such as in the African American community has historically has little tolerance for it, a fact utilized in Prop 9. Age is a factor as well and as the generations that grew up under less open times are more likely to be against it. Even those numbers drop by a few percentage points every few years though as it becomes less of an issue. Still a long way to go, and it is fair to say that religion is the engine that pulls the train to keep it illegal, but it is not the only car on the track, as it were. This also shouldn't be used to paint religion as a whole, as not all religious people are opponents.

In fact recently released data shows that for the first time a majority of Americans are pro-gay marriage. link

**sebster**

biccat wrote:I think I said there are plenty of rational arguments that are based on religion and/or morality, but I am not aware of any non-moral arguments against it.

Even moral arguments are drawn from a rational basis. Well, the good moral arguments are. The bad moral arguments are plentiful, and should be included in that big list of 'crappy reasons people have tried to oppose gay marriage that ultimately don't make any sense'.

Then again, I'm not aware of any non-moral arguments against bigamy or child pornography either. Does that mean these laws should be repealed?

Really? You honest and truly are unaware of non-moral arguments against bigamy and child pornography?

Bigamy should not be recognised by government as marriage already as incredibly complex situations relating to child custody and property ownership. Consider how complex and messy it gets to determine who gets the children and the house, and who owes on-going support to who when a couple breaks up, now imagine how messy that would get when there's four wives and six husbands in the relationship.

Child pornography is wrong because a person under the age of 18 is not capable of entering into a contract on their own behalf, such as agreeing to be photograpged nude or in simulated sex.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Government has no right ot be involved in marriage. Why is government telling people what they can and can't do? Its a contract, as long they are legally able to contract its their business.

Yeah, I agree with this exactly. Two private individuals want to contract privately, they're welcome to. If those two individuals want to contract privately with a church to make their wedding a religious one, and the church wants to go along with it, then they're welcome to.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AvatarForm wrote:Neither do religions... since when has a faith had legal say-so over the rights of individuals or businesses?

But the religion doesn't have say-so. It can refuse to be part of the service, but it can't stop them getting married. If another church wants to marry them, it can.

Or at least, that's how it should be. Free right to contract and all that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheesecat wrote:That's not entirely true the US is a representative democracy (or if you really want to be specific "Federal presidential constitutional republic") and also US politics can't be entirely liberal in nature because

Republicans are more conservative than liberal, although the party and president in power is liberal at this moment in time.

I'm using the term in the classical sense, which is a democratic society that recognises core freedoms as fundamental, specifically basing those freedoms around personal liberty. It is a form of representative democracy.

It doesn't matter what political party the government of the day is, it's describing the form of government itself.

**Cheesecat**

sebster wrote:
biccat wrote:I think I said there are plenty of rational arguments that are based on religion and/or morality, but I am not aware of any non-moral arguments against it.

Even moral arguments are drawn from a rational basis. Well, the good moral arguments are. The bad moral arguments are plentiful, and should be included in that big list of 'crappy reasons people have tried to oppose gay marriage that ultimately don't make any sense'.

Then again, I'm not aware of any non-moral arguments against bigamy or child pornography either. Does that mean these laws should be repealed?

Really? You honest and truly are unaware of non-moral arguments against bigamy and child pornography?

Bigamy should not be recognised by government as marriage already as incredibly complex situations relating to child custody and property ownership. Consider how complex and messy it gets to determine who gets the children and the house, and who owes on-going support to who when a couple breaks up, now imagine how messy that would get when there's four wives and six husbands in the relationship.

Child pornography is wrong because a person under the age of 18 is not capable of entering into a contract on their own behalf, such as agreeing to be photograpged nude or in simulated sex.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Government has no right ot be involved in marriage. Why is government telling people what they can and can't do? Its a contract, as long they are legally able to contract its their business.

Yeah, I agree with this exactly. Two private individuals want to contract privately, they're welcome to. If those two individuals want to contract privately with a church to make their wedding a religious one, and the church wants to go along with it, then they're welcome to.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AvatarForm wrote:Neither do religions... since when has a faith had legal say-so over the rights of individuals or businesses?

But the religion doesn't have say-so. It can refuse to be part of the service, but it can't stop them getting married. If another church wants to marry them, it can.

Or at least, that's how it should be. Free right to contract and all that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheesecat wrote:That's not entirely true the US is a representative democracy (or if you really want to be specific "Federal presidential constitutional republic") and also US politics can't be entirely liberal in nature because

Republicans are more conservative than liberal, although the party and president in power is liberal at this moment in time.

I'm using the term in the classical sense, which is a democratic society that recognises core freedoms as fundamental, specifically basing those freedoms around personal liberty. It is a form of representative democracy.

It doesn't matter what political party the government of the day is, it's describing the form of government itself.

Isn't that Libertarianism not liberalism?

**biccat**

sebster wrote:Bigamy should not be recognised by government as marriage already as incredibly complex situations relating to child custody and property ownership. Consider how complex and messy it gets to determine who gets the children and the house, and who owes on-going support to who when a couple breaks up, now imagine how messy that would get when there's four wives and six husbands in the relationship.

Polygamy has been going on for a long, long time before the United States was even a twinkle in Thomas Jefferson's eye. These issues are not new, and are easily overcome.

Also, do you understand what bigamy is? Because four wives and six husbands is not bigamy.

sebster wrote:Child pornography is wrong because a person under the age of 18 is not capable of entering into a contract on their own behalf, such as agreeing to be photograpged nude or in simulated sex.

This is a moral argument. There's no rational, amoral reason to suggest that children under 18 can't grant consent.

There is, however, a very strong moral case against child pornography.

**youbedead**

biccat wrote:
sebster wrote:Bigamy should not be recognised by government as marriage already as incredibly complex situations relating to child custody and property ownership. Consider how complex and messy it gets to determine who gets the children and the house, and who owes on-going support to who when a couple breaks up, now imagine how messy that would get when there's four wives and six husbands in the relationship.

Polygamy has been going on for a long, long time before the United States was even a twinkle in Thomas Jefferson's eye. These issues are not new, and are easily overcome.

Also, do you understand what bigamy is? Because four wives and six husbands is not bigamy.

bigamy is the act of entering into a marriage with one person while still legally married to another

through extremely convoluted and sit-com worthy hijinks there could end up being four wives and six husbands

sebster wrote:Child pornography is wrong because a person under the age of 18 is not capable of entering into a contract on their own behalf, such as agreeing to be photograpged nude or in simulated sex.

This is a moral argument. There's no rational, amoral reason to suggest that children under 18 can't grant consent.

There is, however, a very strong moral case against child pornography.

Aside from the fact that there is plenty of evidence that children cannot understand the concept and therefore can't willingly consent. Its the same reason that having sex with someone who is unable to knowingly give consent (such as under the influence of drugs like ruphes) is often classed as rape

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

Wolfun wrote:As a Bisexual, I think it's pretty disgusting that they can't even call it 'Marriage' in this country (or that it's illegal in the states).
I don't force my sexual preferences on anyone else, they shouldn't be able to force their's on mine.

Bis ftw!

**Kilkrazy**

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:Child pornography is wrong because a person under the age of 18 is not capable of entering into a contract on their own behalf, such as agreeing to be photograpged nude or in simulated sex.

This is a moral argument. There's no rational, amoral reason to suggest that children under 18 can't grant consent.

There is, however, a very strong moral case against child pornography.

Since children have not developed full cognitive faculties, they are unable to grant consent. They literally do not understand what they are agreeing to.

**AvatarForm**

Frazzled wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
AvatarForm wrote:Many of my friends have had Civil Unions overseas, then the AUS government recognises them as a couple, legally.

Though here, if you live together in a relationship for more than 6 months you are de facto by Law. Im not sure how much that entitles you to, but it is a beginning.

Who decides what is and isn't "a relationship"? Some relationships are more serious than others, what's the criteria? Where's the burden of proof? I assume two blokes sharing a flat for a year or so won't find that one guy is entitled to keep half the stuff when the other moves out.

US case law disagrees with you depending on the facts. Be careful what you wish for dudes, you might get it.

Half your stuff..gone!

Not if you are serious about a long-term commitment...

**SpaceMonk**

Actually they should make ALL marriage Illegal

Just jokes ... each to there own I reckon

**Emperors Faithful**

sebster wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Government has no right ot be involved in marriage. Why is government telling people what they can and can't do? Its a contract, as long they are legally able to contract its their business.

Yeah, I agree with this exactly. Two private individuals want to contract privately, they're welcome to. If those two individuals want to contract privately with a church to make their wedding a religious one, and the church wants to go along with it, then they're welcome to.

The idea of marriage as a contract and nothing else is a relatively new idea in law, and (to be honest) not one I'm entirely comfortable with.

**Deadshane1**

I want to Marry the Grey Knight codex...is that legal?

**Frazzled**

Cheesecat wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
The Crusader Of 42 wrote:i laugh when people call it immoral to be gay in this modern culture, but seem not to bat an eye at all the sexually charged images gracing the media.
For the "Its creepy..." argument...
OMG these gay neighbors of ours are GARDENING!!!
NOW THIER EATING DINNER!!!
and... now... thier.... PAYING THIER TAXES!

Freedom is what Americas recogized for, and freedoms what you are going to get... If your a rich, white,hetrosexual male

No. Freedom is what the United States is recognized for, not "America."

After-all there's a reason why Canada is sometimes nicknamed "Soviet Canuckistan".

I am so stealing this and sending to some of my comrades.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Government has no right ot be involved in marriage. Why is government telling people what they can and can't do? Its a contract, as long they are legally able to contract its their business.

Pretty sure it isn't. It's covered by legislation in most states.

New flash: thats the government. You want to get married-hey your funeral. The government should butt the out.

Case Law is the area that predominantly labels marriage as, essentially, a contract. Legislation rarely terms it as such, and there is a lot more to marriage than "Goverment Control is Bad!".

You literally don't know what you're talking about. Go away.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Government has no right ot be involved in marriage. Why is government telling people what they can and can't do? Its a contract, as long they are legally able to contract its their business.

Pretty sure it isn't. It's covered by legislation in most states.

New flash: thats the government. You want to get married-hey your funeral. The government should butt the out.

Case Law is the area that predominantly labels marriage as, essentially, a contract. Legislation rarely terms it as such, and there is a lot more to marriage than "Goverment Control is Bad!".

You literally don't know what you're talking about. After all, if it wasn't bassed on legislation it wouldn't be law that needed to be changed now would it? Go away.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
Chowderhead wrote:Not really. It's the crazy God-Fearing Conservatives who makes the entire system shut down like a raid on a brothel.

You need to work on your analogies.

It did sound cool though.