The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

When are all of you old haters going to realize that trying to prevent the LGBT community from getting their rights is like the Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke?

Given that homosexuals can already choose to cohabit and contract to arrange their property as they may choose, there seems to be nothing gained from enabling marriage for them except for the perceptual issues of the status involved and the various tax breaks associated with marriage.

Even here I'm not sure of all the facts - can homosexual couples file joint tax returns & claim the "Head of Household" category?

That, of course is a distortion, if said opposition is based on any other motive - and I can instantly think of many other possibilities for it.

georgeob1 wrote:

Given that homosexuals can already choose to cohabit and contract to arrange their property as they may choose, there seems to be nothing gained from enabling marriage for them except for the perceptual issues of the status involved and the various tax breaks associated with marriage.

That's simply not true. There are many property rights that married persons enjoy that can't be duplicated by means of a contract. For instance, only married persons are entitled to hold property by a tenancy by (or in) the entirety. Furthermore, in states which have community property laws (which includes California), only property acquired by married couples constitutes community property.

A contract also cannot protect a surviving spouse in the same manner as laws of succession. Surviving spouses typically have an automatic one-half or one-third share of the deceased spouse's estate if the spouse dies intestate, and often will have an automatic share of the estate even if the spouse dies with a will. In California, for instance, the surviving spouse is automatically entitled to one-half of the couple's community property (Cal. Prob. Code Sec. 100). Unmarried couples, on the other hand, can't acquire community property (not even if they agree to do so by contract), so the surviving partner doesn't have that protection.

Well, that's not quite true either. In New Jersey the domestic partnership law includes the right to tenancy by the entirety (see: Hennefeld v. Township of Montclair) as does the CA Civil Union law. The CA Civil Union law (AB 205) also covered the issue of community property and treats those in domestic partnerships the same as those who were married.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

When the most liberal Senator in congress, and the standard bearer for the left-wing of his party, feels compelled to stake out a posiion that marriage must be limited to a a union between one man and one woman, gays and lesbians should dispair, or, at least, cultivate patience.

Clearly, the strategy is to relentlessly chip away at cultural barriers until they fall apart, but there really is no sign that such a breakthrough is imminent.

This is not a Left vs Right issue. It is a Left vs the rest of the population issue. Activist judges can attempt to force society in a direction it does not want to follow, but over and over again we have seen that when democratic processes are allowed to prevail the issue is decided against same sex marriages.

These judges are not doing "the cause" much good.If a democratically supported statute cannot withstand an activist majority on the bench, the populace will be forced to amend constitutions - state and perhaps eventually federal. Judges don't get to overturn constitutional amendments.

With each minor victory in his battle, the pro-same sex marriage bloc pushes the general populace towards a US constitutional amendment which would be a major setback.

The irony of this mess is that the conventional liberal attitude towards marriage is that it is an outdated, and largely misogynist institutionn and yet it's the Holy Grail for Gays and Lesbians.

You are aware of course that 3 of the 4 "activist judges" that created the majority ruling in the CA case were appointed by Republican govenors right?

The irony of this mess is that the conventional liberal attitude towards marriage is that it is an outdated, and largely misogynist institutionn and yet it's the Holy Grail for Gays and Lesbians.

Finn, you are correct that the aggressive fixation to use the term 'marriage' even while scorning the institution itself is driving the effort to protect traditional marriage. And this would never have happened if the very people most promoting the issue were not so intractable in discussing any form of compromise. It is unfortunate because if everybody's point of view was equally respected, I think most states would have already provided the very protections the gay community says that it wants and the federal government would follow suit.

I would like to hear from somebody well versed in Constitutional Law, however, who could speak to how the issue might wind up for an opinion by the SCOTUS.

Meanwhile for the time being, I shall ignore Cyclop who purports to know what I have NEVER done even as he purports to claim he knows what I have posted.

Foxfyre wrote:

Finn, you are correct that the aggressive fixation to use the term 'marriage' even while scorning the institution itself is driving the effort to protect traditional marriage. And this would never have happened if the very people most promoting the issue were not so intractable in discussing any form of compromise. It is unfortunate because if everybody's point of view was equally respected, I think most states would have already provided the very protections the gay community says that it wants and the federal government would follow suit.

I would like to hear from somebody well versed in Constitutional Law, however, who could speak to how the issue might wind up for an opinion by the SCOTUS.

Meanwhile for the time being, I shall ignore Cyclop who purports to know what I have NEVER done even as he purports to claim he knows what I have posted.

The California Supreme Court ruling was based on the California constitution. In order for this issue to find its way before the US Supreme Court, lower federal courts must rule on it in terms of the US constitution.
I doubt that is part of the legal strategy of those in favor of same sex marriages - particularly with the current make-up of the SCOTUS.

I anticipate that Californians will vote for an amendment to their state constitution that will define marriage as being between one man and one woman and this will put the matter to rest at the state level until the supporters of gay marriage are able to persuade a majority of Californians that the state constitution should be further amended to allow same sex marriage. Right now it is clear that they do not have such support within the general population - even in California, which is generally considered to be more progressive than most states.

I don't think it's likely that the US Supreme Court would rule in favor of same-sex marriage, but if they did, we could expect a renewed and vigorous effort to amend the US constitution to overturn any such decision. That is a tougher row to hoe than amending any state constitution, but the support for it is probably there in the general populace who, according to many, would reveal themselves to be homophobic.

Quote:

The irony of this mess is that the conventional liberal attitude towards marriage is that it is an outdated, and largely misogynist institutionn and yet it's the Holy Grail for Gays and Lesbians.

It is not that it is a "holy Grail" whatever the heck that means. The issue is that two people who want to get married should be allowed to do it if they are both two consenting adults with the capacity to make an informed decision to do so. (have to put all that in there considering all the ridiculous arguments which have been made by those who oppose gay marriages.)

I personally believe homosexual acts to be a sin along with just trying to appear to be another gender than the one you were born to be.

However; I don't believe it is my right to force my own religious beliefs down the throats of others who might not share those beliefs and that is what banning gays does in a nut shell.

revel wrote:

Quote:

The irony of this mess is that the conventional liberal attitude towards marriage is that it is an outdated, and largely misogynist institutionn and yet it's the Holy Grail for Gays and Lesbians.

It is not that it is a "holy Grail" whatever the heck that means. The issue is that two people who want to get married should be allowed to do it if they are both two consenting adults with the capacity to make an informed decision to do so. (have to put all that in there considering all the ridiculous arguments which have been made by those who oppose gay marriages.)

I personally believe homosexual acts to be a sin along with just trying to appear to be another gender than the one you were born to be.

However; I don't believe it is my right to force my own religious beliefs down the throats of others who might not share those beliefs and that is what banning gays does in a nut shell.

I assume you understand what the Holy Grail is, but if not, google the term and you'll quickly learn.

I don't consider homosexuality or cross dressing to be "sins," but I do find it interesting that you believe that you don't have an obligation (to society if not God) to oppose what you believe to be sin. We're not discussing imprisoning or eradicating homosexuals we are discussing accepting their lifestyle (which you yourself define as a sin) within the most fundamental framework of our society. Your religious beliefs are, of course, your own but it seems inconsistent for someone who accepts that "sins" exist is content with society enabling them.

It is also interesting that while your seem keen to express tolerance for other's acceptance and, frankly, glorification of sin, you have far less tolerance for the religious and political views of others.

The opposition to same-sex marriages is not based solely on religious beliefs, and banning anything is, in a nut shell, forcing beliefs, of one sort or another, down the throats of others. Nothing should be banned?

Is it even worth me asking again?

What are the non-religious grounds for opposing gay marriage? The non-homophobic grounds? What harm is done by allowing it?

Even though several anti-gay marriage posters here have referred to these 'other reasons,' none of them have explained what those reasons are, and I'd be really interested to hear them.

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

"Homophobia" literally means fear of homosexuals. It is being cast about here as applying to anyone who opposes anything any of the various homosexual lobbying and support groups favor. That, of course is a distortion, if said opposition is based on any other motive - and I can instantly think of many other possibilities for it. For zealous practicioners of the contemporary religion of political correctitude, homophobia is, of course, a cardinal sin, and it appears that Cyclo uses it in that sense.

Can you enlighten me on those other motives, George?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

"Homophobia" literally means fear of homosexuals. It is being cast about here as applying to anyone who opposes anything any of the various homosexual lobbying and support groups favor. That, of course is a distortion, if said opposition is based on any other motive - and I can instantly think of many other possibilities for it. For zealous practicioners of the contemporary religion of political correctitude, homophobia is, of course, a cardinal sin, and it appears that Cyclo uses it in that sense.

Can you enlighten me on those other motives, George?

Cycloptichorn

I restored my original quote to its entirety, just to avoid any inadvertant distortion, based on the removal of the context in which it was made.

Sure anything other than an unreasoning fear of homosexuals will do. Use your well-developed imagination.

For example one could be the opinion that the various tax breaks and contract provisions in the laws of various states were enacted mostly based on an original legislative intent of providing some economic compensation and protection for those who chose to bear and rear the children, who will later continue the life of the nation and pay for everyone's Social Security benefits. Making them available to everyone in such a way forces government to look to other taxes to replace lost revenue, and thus also to those child-rearing couples for whom the original benefits were intended. All you have to get your arms around here, Cyclo, is the principle that there is no free lunch.

Do you intend to imply that anyone who opposes the recent CASC action is necessarily "Homophobic"? A valid question here, given the opening proposition in this thread.

For example one could be the opinion that the various tax breaks and contract provisions in the laws of various states were enacted mostly based on an original legislative intent of providing some economic compensation and protection for those who chose to bear and rear the children, who will later continue the life of the nation and pay for everyone's Social Security benefits