4 ms·

But those contracts and benefits can be had without the word. Was Prop 8 attempting to permanently remove the ability to gain those benefits?

Karunamon 13y ago
Which is a longer and more arduous process to fix. In the mean time, you've got a constitutional issue that must be addressed now. California had a few options here. * Redefine all "marriages" as "civil unions". Makes the religious folks and libertarians happy, but introduces a problem in that you've deleted something that every other state recognizes. How will marriages in other states carry over? How about contracts that recognize a marriage (out of state insurance comes to mind)? Etc? Those would all be invalid. You've also ensured that any union in California (ANYONE's, not just LGBT's) would be invalid in any other state because they're legally not marriages anymore. I say this solution introduces what would be known in the packaging world as dependency hell. Too many other things rely on the first thing to exist in its current state. You've introduced a change that is going to break a lot of things without dealing with them first. Bad idea all around. * Amend the legal definition of marriage to include any two people. Simplest thing that could possibly work, ensures that marriages performed in the state will be recognized elsewhere and for other purposes. No dependency issues. Annoys the religious folks a bit, but religious views have no say in law anyways!
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  This is a rational argument, and this is the argument people should be having with those who oppose it rather than name calling and mudslinging. But nothing that you say here justifies calling those who oppose this bigots, etc. Either way, the California legislature is probably the wrong place to have this discussion, as a marriage in California wouldn't necessarily be recognized in other states anyways.
  - bluntly_said 13y ago
    This is true, marriage in one state does not have to be recognized in another, or even federally. California amending it's marriage laws does not solve "dependency hell". It does however force your morals on a religious community within the state. Just like prop-8 was trying to force their morals on the gay community in that state. BOTH sides got this one wrong.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    I think that was part of the goal of redefining marriage legally. Which is pretty damn brilliant once you think about it. The full faith and credit clause ensures that contracts (which is what a marriage technically is) are valid in all other states in the union. This completely sidesteps any local laws that might be otherwise inferior, and also ensures that the case can be easily escalated (all the way to SCOTUS if necessary) in case of issues.
bluntly_said 13y ago
Those contracts and benefits were already present and available under a domestic partnership. Prop-8 merely wanted marriage to remain between a man and a women (in the legal sense, in all reality, some scummy shit came out around that prop) My issue with Karunamon's argument in most of his comments, is that he dismisses that idea, and instead attempts to force his own morals into a legal construct. Namely, that all people should be able to be married, regardless of religious connotations involved. Then he defends forcing that legal construct into law by claiming it's only to gain the rights of marriage, ignoring that they were already available. He is now participating on the same level that prop 8 was: Forcing religious constructs into law, because he agrees with them. Now, solving the separate but equal nonsense is a good discussion to have but his points there about co-opting marriage to do it seem hollow, It doesn't solve the problem, it doesn't solve dependency hell. It just co-opts a word to mean what he believes it should.

Karunamon 13y ago

Which is a longer and more arduous process to fix. In the mean time, you've got a constitutional issue that must be addressed now. California had a few options here. * Redefine all "marriages" as "civil unions". Makes the religious folks and libertarians happy, but introduces a problem in that you've deleted something that every other state recognizes. How will marriages in other states carry over? How about contracts that recognize a marriage (out of state insurance comes to mind)? Etc? Those would all be invalid. You've also ensured that any union in California (ANYONE's, not just LGBT's) would be invalid in any other state because they're legally not marriages anymore. I say this solution introduces what would be known in the packaging world as dependency hell. Too many other things rely on the first thing to exist in its current state. You've introduced a change that is going to break a lot of things without dealing with them first. Bad idea all around. * Amend the legal definition of marriage to include any two people. Simplest thing that could possibly work, ensures that marriages performed in the state will be recognized elsewhere and for other purposes. No dependency issues. Annoys the religious folks a bit, but religious views have no say in law anyways!

hackinthebochs 13y ago
This is a rational argument, and this is the argument people should be having with those who oppose it rather than name calling and mudslinging. But nothing that you say here justifies calling those who oppose this bigots, etc. Either way, the California legislature is probably the wrong place to have this discussion, as a marriage in California wouldn't necessarily be recognized in other states anyways.
- bluntly_said 13y ago
  This is true, marriage in one state does not have to be recognized in another, or even federally. California amending it's marriage laws does not solve "dependency hell". It does however force your morals on a religious community within the state. Just like prop-8 was trying to force their morals on the gay community in that state. BOTH sides got this one wrong.
- Karunamon 13y ago
  I think that was part of the goal of redefining marriage legally. Which is pretty damn brilliant once you think about it. The full faith and credit clause ensures that contracts (which is what a marriage technically is) are valid in all other states in the union. This completely sidesteps any local laws that might be otherwise inferior, and also ensures that the case can be easily escalated (all the way to SCOTUS if necessary) in case of issues.

bluntly_said 13y ago

Those contracts and benefits were already present and available under a domestic partnership. Prop-8 merely wanted marriage to remain between a man and a women (in the legal sense, in all reality, some scummy shit came out around that prop) My issue with Karunamon's argument in most of his comments, is that he dismisses that idea, and instead attempts to force his own morals into a legal construct. Namely, that all people should be able to be married, regardless of religious connotations involved. Then he defends forcing that legal construct into law by claiming it's only to gain the rights of marriage, ignoring that they were already available. He is now participating on the same level that prop 8 was: Forcing religious constructs into law, because he agrees with them. Now, solving the separate but equal nonsense is a good discussion to have but his points there about co-opting marriage to do it seem hollow, It doesn't solve the problem, it doesn't solve dependency hell. It just co-opts a word to mean what he believes it should.