Is There A Legal Reason...

[Cambridge]

Well, Sharon...we in Northern California are working very hard to be the instrument of that very change. Notice that the California case is not merely a citizen challenging the California law prohibiting same-sex marriage. It is the City and County of San Francisco versus the State of California. San Francisco, as a civic entity, has taken it upon itself to change this law because it genuinely believes that it is an unfair, bigoted law. And rest assured...if it loses in the California courts, the City and County of San Francisco is quite wealthy...it has the resources to carry on the fight a lot further.

But let’s address your question. Yes, there are laws on the books and you and I don’t like those laws. Can they be changed? Of course. The Massachusetts Supreme Court has paved the way. The US Constitution and all state constitutions have a provision called the equal protection clause. I've gone into intricate detail on its analysis twice on this thread, so I won’t repeat myself. But it says at a minimum, to treat classes of people unequally, there must be a rational basis. Massachusetts said there is no rational basis for preventing gays from marrying. New York took a different approach. The State of New York offered a totally inane reason for the law, and in order to avoid the inevitable collective horse laugh of the rest of the world, it said that it was not the court’s job to determine what is “rational.” The Court said that it was the prerogative of the State of New York to determine what was rational. In other words, if New York says that pigs can fly, who is to say that is irrational. That is why I say New York no longer has a valid equal protection law. They threw out the baby with the bath.

It’s past 10…gotta go to bed.

[The Colonel]

As to why gay marriage should not be legal? That is, and arguement that would stand up in court of law.

In 49 of the 50 American states, there is indeed a legal reason that "would stand up in court of law," to wit: the legal definition of "marriage" expressly provides that it is between a man and a woman.

Besides that reason, I mean.

That is the legal reason.

In the UK the principle is the same. A marriage is still legally defined as between a man and a woman under the Matrimonial Causes Act (1973).

Nevertheless, the Civil Partnerships Act (2004) established legal gay relationships with all the rights that married heterosexuals enjoy.

Therefore, in the UK, Civil Partnership is not legally termed marriage (though it is often termed so by the public) but is identical in all but name.

Therefore, in the US, there should be no problem whatsoever with Civil Partnership and them enjoying the same rights as married heterosexuals, if it is not legally termed marriage.

If that is the only obstacle - then it is easily overcome.

[myron myron]

It is not an obstacle "easily overcome" in a democratic country where the overwhelming majority want the definition of marriage to remain as between a man and a woman.

Civil unions are different to marriage.

[The Colonel]

It is not an obstacle "easily overcome" in a democratic country where the overwhelming majority want the definition of marriage to remain as between a man and a woman.

Civil unions are different to marriage.

The only difference in the UK is the name.

That is absolute fact.

[Fred75]

It is not an obstacle "easily overcome" in a democratic country where the overwhelming majority want the definition of marriage to remain as between a man and a woman.

Civil unions are different to marriage.

The only difference in the UK is the name.

That is absolute fact.

That answers why marriage is a joke to you then.

And it would make marriage a joke to me too.
I mean if two MEN can have a civil union, who's to say a civil union between a man and a goat is wrong!

So ya... when marriage = civil union .... marriage is a joke.

[The Colonel]

It is not an obstacle "easily overcome" in a democratic country where the overwhelming majority want the definition of marriage to remain as between a man and a woman.

Civil unions are different to marriage.

The only difference in the UK is the name.

That is absolute fact.

That answers why you see marriage as a waste of time then.

I never said that at all.

[Cambridge]

It is not an obstacle "easily overcome" in a democratic country where the overwhelming majority want the definition of marriage to remain as between a man and a woman.

Civil unions are different to marriage.

This is identical to the argument that was made against interracial marriage in the US. A democratic country where “the overwhelming majority want the definition of marriage to remain as between” the same race. That was a fact back then. And here we go again, with the same excuses…excuses…excuses. The plain fact is that it is none of anyone’s business what interracial couples want to do with their lives, just as it is none of anyone’s business what gay couples want to do with their lives. Leave em alone and stop trying to impose your will on others. That has been the bane of human existence since time began.

[Fred75]

It is not an obstacle "easily overcome" in a democratic country where the overwhelming majority want the definition of marriage to remain as between a man and a woman.

Civil unions are different to marriage.

This is identical to the argument that was made against interracial marriage in the US. A democratic country where “the overwhelming majority want the definition of marriage to remain as between” the same race. That was a fact back then. And here we go again, with the same excuses…excuses…excuses. The plain fact is that it is none of anyone’s business what interracial couples want to do with their lives, just as it is none of anyone’s business what gay couples want to do with their lives. Leave em alone and stop trying to impose your will on others. That has been the bane of human existence since time began.

Your WRONG!
You cant wake up one morning and say your NOT going to be black or white.
You CAN say that with sexuality though!

That's the difference.

[Cambridge]

It is not an obstacle "easily overcome" in a democratic country where the overwhelming majority want the definition of marriage to remain as between a man and a woman.

Civil unions are different to marriage.

This is identical to the argument that was made against interracial marriage in the US. A democratic country where “the overwhelming majority want the definition of marriage to remain as between” the same race. That was a fact back then. And here we go again, with the same excuses…excuses…excuses. The plain fact is that it is none of anyone’s business what interracial couples want to do with their lives, just as it is none of anyone’s business what gay couples want to do with their lives. Leave em alone and stop trying to impose your will on others. That has been the bane of human existence since time began.

Your WRONG!
You cant wake up one morning and say your NOT going to be black or white.
You CAN say that with sexuality though!

That's the difference.

No, you’re wrong hairy back, And now the California Supreme Court has declared that you are wrong. This is the decision of the most powerful Supreme Court in the Nation. Massachusetts was the cutie, but California was the stud. California rules.

[myron myron]

The California Supreme Court legislated from the bench by subjecting the democratically enacted law to "strict scrutiny" and finding no "compelling state interest" by a 4-3 decision because the law would easily pass muster under a "rational basis" standard of review.

What a subversion of democracy.

Given that 48 states and the federal government define marriage as between a man and a woman, same-sex marriage will not be legally recognized outside Massachusetts and California.

[The Colonel]

The California Supreme Court legislated from the bench by subjecting the democratically enacted law to "strict scrutiny" and finding no "compelling state interest" by a 4-3 decision because the law would easily pass muster under a "rational basis" standard of review.

What a subversion of democracy.

Given that 48 states and the federal government define marriage as between a man and a woman, same-sex marriage will not be legally recognized outside Massachusetts and California.

The real issue for you isn't a legal one, is it?

[The Colonel]

It is not an obstacle "easily overcome" in a democratic country where the overwhelming majority want the definition of marriage to remain as between a man and a woman.

Civil unions are different to marriage.

This is identical to the argument that was made against interracial marriage in the US. A democratic country where “the overwhelming majority want the definition of marriage to remain as between” the same race. That was a fact back then. And here we go again, with the same excuses…excuses…excuses. The plain fact is that it is none of anyone’s business what interracial couples want to do with their lives, just as it is none of anyone’s business what gay couples want to do with their lives. Leave em alone and stop trying to impose your will on others. That has been the bane of human existence since time began.

Your WRONG!
You cant wake up one morning and say your NOT going to be black or white.
You CAN say that with sexuality though!

That's the difference.

No - you can't actually.

[Fred75]

It is not an obstacle "easily overcome" in a democratic country where the overwhelming majority want the definition of marriage to remain as between a man and a woman.

Civil unions are different to marriage.

This is identical to the argument that was made against interracial marriage in the US. A democratic country where “the overwhelming majority want the definition of marriage to remain as between” the same race. That was a fact back then. And here we go again, with the same excuses…excuses…excuses. The plain fact is that it is none of anyone’s business what interracial couples want to do with their lives, just as it is none of anyone’s business what gay couples want to do with their lives. Leave em alone and stop trying to impose your will on others. That has been the bane of human existence since time began.

Your WRONG!
You cant wake up one morning and say your NOT going to be black or white.
You CAN say that with sexuality though!

That's the difference.

No - you can't actually.

Sure you can.
By not having sex with the same sex.

Not only that... your also implying that homosexuals cannot control their own minds and thinking.
Are they that mentally undeveloped not to control themselves?

Or are you telling us that AA is a waste of tie because they cannot change an alcoholics behavior?
Or drug users cannot change their behavior?

[The Colonel]

It is not an obstacle "easily overcome" in a democratic country where the overwhelming majority want the definition of marriage to remain as between a man and a woman.

Civil unions are different to marriage.

This is identical to the argument that was made against interracial marriage in the US. A democratic country where “the overwhelming majority want the definition of marriage to remain as between” the same race. That was a fact back then. And here we go again, with the same excuses…excuses…excuses. The plain fact is that it is none of anyone’s business what interracial couples want to do with their lives, just as it is none of anyone’s business what gay couples want to do with their lives. Leave em alone and stop trying to impose your will on others. That has been the bane of human existence since time began.

Your WRONG!
You cant wake up one morning and say your NOT going to be black or white.
You CAN say that with sexuality though!

That's the difference.

No - you can't actually.

Sure you can.
By not having sex with the same sex.

Not only that... your also implying that homosexuals cannot control their own minds and thinking.
Are they that mentally undeveloped not to control themselves?

Or are you telling us that AA is a waste of tie because they cannot change an alcoholics behavior?
Or drug users cannot change their behavior?

Then I trust you will be sleeping with another male tonight then Fred?

I also trust that you can abstain permanently from heterosexual sex your whole life too? Never have a relationship and never love?

I don't think so.

[Fred75]

It is not an obstacle "easily overcome" in a democratic country where the overwhelming majority want the definition of marriage to remain as between a man and a woman.

Civil unions are different to marriage.

This is identical to the argument that was made against interracial marriage in the US. A democratic country where “the overwhelming majority want the definition of marriage to remain as between” the same race. That was a fact back then. And here we go again, with the same excuses…excuses…excuses. The plain fact is that it is none of anyone’s business what interracial couples want to do with their lives, just as it is none of anyone’s business what gay couples want to do with their lives. Leave em alone and stop trying to impose your will on others. That has been the bane of human existence since time began.

Your WRONG!
You cant wake up one morning and say your NOT going to be black or white.
You CAN say that with sexuality though!

That's the difference.

No - you can't actually.

Sure you can.
By not having sex with the same sex.

Not only that... your also implying that homosexuals cannot control their own minds and thinking.
Are they that mentally undeveloped not to control themselves?

Or are you telling us that AA is a waste of tie because they cannot change an alcoholics behavior?
Or drug users cannot change their behavior?

Then I trust you will be sleeping with another male tonight then Fred?

I also trust that you can abstain permanently from heterosexual sex your whole life too? Never have a relationship and never love?

I don't think so.

If I wanted too... I could.
You see... I'm not an animal. I'm a thinking human with a brain that I can use to control myself.

You may be a hedonist hairless ape.... but I am not.