Posted by jrd_x on 5/14/2012 9:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2012 9:42:00 PM (view original):
Depends on your definition of a couple, doesn't it?

DOMA defines a couple, with respect to marriage, as one man and one woman.

Society has defined couples as opposite sex partners and same sex partners.

A large part of society also believes marriage is between one man and one woman.

You see the difference right?  How you define "couple" is by what society accepts.  There aren't any special benefits.  It just is.  To deny that the definition of couple includes same sex couples would be to deny the existence of gay people.

Marriage is a status granted by the government.  There are special rights and benefits to being married.  The government granted that right to same sex couples in California.  In order to take that right away from same sex couples, the government needs a compelling legal reason.  It doesn't have one, so it's likely that prop 8 will remain overturned.

You can't have it both ways.  You cannot insist that "couple" is defined by what a large portion of society accepts, but then turn around and say that "marriage" is something other than what a large portion of society accepts.

A large portion of society does not accept same-sex marriage.  You acknowledge that as fact, don't you?

So you don't see the difference?

What I see is that you are trying to say that "social acceptance" defines what a couple is, but that "social acceptance" does not define what marriage is.

Again, you can't have it both ways.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/14/2012 9:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2012 9:36:00 PM (view original):
People used to have the "right" to own slaves in this country.  Seems that "right" was taken away.  Maybe it never was really a legitimate "right" in the first place?

Yeah it was taken away.  For everyone.

Today some couples have the right to get married and some don't.

Before Proposition 8, all Californians had the "right" to enter into a same-sex marriage.  Proposition 8 took that "right" away.  For everyone.

Rights are not up for a majority vote(except when they are) and society determines what constitutes a couple(except when they don't).  

Crystal clear. 

The government should get out of the business of marriage.  There is a problem with a separation of church and state.  Churches have been marrying people long before the USA even existed.  The government should only be allowed to create "personal partnership" contracts.  Leave the marrying to the churches and they can decide if they want to marry a man and woman, man and man, man to many men, or man to goat. 

Posted by tecwrg on 5/15/2012 5:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/14/2012 9:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2012 9:36:00 PM (view original):
People used to have the "right" to own slaves in this country.  Seems that "right" was taken away.  Maybe it never was really a legitimate "right" in the first place?

Yeah it was taken away.  For everyone.

Today some couples have the right to get married and some don't.

Before Proposition 8, all Californians had the "right" to enter into a same-sex marriage.  Proposition 8 took that "right" away.  For everyone.

Before Loving, all Virginians had the right to marriage, as long as it was to a the person of the same race.

Prop 8 took from same sex couples the right to marry without a compelling legal reason.  Which is why prop 8 was overturned.

Do you have a compelling legal reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry?

Posted by tecwrg on 5/15/2012 5:55:00 AM (view original):
What I see is that you are trying to say that "social acceptance" defines what a couple is, but that "social acceptance" does not define what marriage is.

Again, you can't have it both ways.

Well, yeah you can, because they aren't the same thing.  Marriage is a legal status assigned by the government.  Couple isn't.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 9:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/15/2012 5:55:00 AM (view original):
What I see is that you are trying to say that "social acceptance" defines what a couple is, but that "social acceptance" does not define what marriage is.

Again, you can't have it both ways.

Well, yeah you can, because they aren't the same thing.  Marriage is a legal status assigned by the government.  Couple isn't.

OK, fine.  Marriage is a legal status assigned by the government.  DOMA is the federal law that defines it as the legal union of one man and one woman.

Does that bring this discussion to a close?

Posted by tecwrg on 5/15/2012 9:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 9:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/15/2012 5:55:00 AM (view original):
What I see is that you are trying to say that "social acceptance" defines what a couple is, but that "social acceptance" does not define what marriage is.

Again, you can't have it both ways.

Well, yeah you can, because they aren't the same thing.  Marriage is a legal status assigned by the government.  Couple isn't.

OK, fine.  Marriage is a legal status assigned by the government.  DOMA is the federal law that defines it as the legal union of one man and one woman.

Does that bring this discussion to a close?

No.  The AG isn't going to defend that law anymore because they believe it is unconstitutional.  Prop 8 was overturned because the federal judges thought it was unconstitutional.

Do you have a legal reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry?  Or are you just concerned with making sure everyone lives by the same bible bullshit as you?

No, we're back to "compelling legal reason".   Which doesn't explain why a state like NC just passed a law banning SSM by a majority vote(neither of which can happen according to jrdx).

The Attorney General is part of the Executive Branch of government.  The Executive Branch is not the arbiter of constitutional versus unconstitutional.  Only the Judicial Branch can make that determination.  Surely you must have learned that in high school.

The President of the United States has a sworn obligation to uphold the laws of this country.  DOMA is a federal law.  By choosing to selectively ignore the enforcement of federal law, the Obama Administration is not living up to it's sworn duty to the American public.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 9:52:00 AM (view original):
No, we're back to "compelling legal reason".   Which doesn't explain why a state like NC just passed a law banning SSM by a majority vote(neither of which can happen according to jrdx).

Same sex marriage was already banned in NC.  That was a ban on all civil unions (straight and same sex).

A compelling legal reason is necessary to take a right away from a group.  It is the reason that Prop 8 was overturned in California.  

Do you have a compelling legal reason to take that right away/?