California Fails Again

The California Supreme Court rules that Californians did legally outlaw same-sex marriage, but existing same-sex marriages are valid.  San Franciso Chronicle

I hate Prop 8.

You're right - sorry... not "ok", but "discrimination". I understand that you aren't saying that any of this is "ok"

I guess if you don't view the black/white example as discrimination, then we just have different views on what constitutes discrimination.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I view discrimination as not letting someone do something because of their race or gender, etc., regardless of how consistent you are. Not allowing someone to marry a man because of their gender is discrimination, because you are allowing women to marry a man, but you aren't letting a man marry a man.

I believe same sex marriage will be legal everywhere in the US before too much more time has passed.

It will most likely be settled as a discriminationary practice.

I respect your opinions and hope we'll be able to celebrate our common hope very soon.

Original Post by qaowk:

I believe same sex marriage will be legal everywhere in the US before too much more time has passed.

It will most likely be settled as a discriminationary practice.

I respect your opinions and hope we'll be able to celebrate our common hope very soon.

Agreed. :)

Original Post by qaowk:

 I disagree.  No one is being excluded from marriage, of either gender.  All women  can still marry, and so can all men. How is that discrimination?

Billy has the right to marry Sally (assuming they're both of legal age, sane, and single).

Susie does not have the right to marry Sally.

So Billy and Susie are treated differently by law based on nothing but their gender.  If that isn't gender based discrimination, I don't know what is. 

Can't say I was surprised... but still very happy for the 18 000 odd couples whose marriages remain valid.

Reminds me again how lucky I am to be in South Africa where gay people can get married.

Well what's happening in Ireland (or well what has happened here for decades now) is a very good example of why gov't and church should not mix!

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by qaowk:

 I disagree.  No one is being excluded from marriage, of either gender.  All women  can still marry, and so can all men. How is that discrimination?

Billy has the right to marry Sally (assuming they're both of legal age, sane, and single).

Susie does not have the right to marry Sally.

So Billy and Susie are treated differently by law based on nothing but their gender.  If that isn't gender based discrimination, I don't know what is. 

 this.

Just because all people within a group are treated the same, does not mean that the group, itself, is not being discriminated against.

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by qaowk:

 I disagree.  No one is being excluded from marriage, of either gender.  All women  can still marry, and so can all men. How is that discrimination?

Billy has the right to marry Sally (assuming they're both of legal age, sane, and single).

Susie does not have the right to marry Sally.

So Billy and Susie are treated differently by law based on nothing but their gender.  If that isn't gender based discrimination, I don't know what is. 

 It isn't marriage they are being denied.  All 3 of them can marry.  Therefore the stickler is not marriage, it is same sex.  Neither Billy, nor Sally, nor Susie are allowed to marry same sex, and unless an exception is made, there is no discrimination.

qaowk - can you give us an example of what you do consider discrimination?

Original Post by kathygator:

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by qaowk:

 I disagree.  No one is being excluded from marriage, of either gender.  All women  can still marry, and so can all men. How is that discrimination?

Billy has the right to marry Sally (assuming they're both of legal age, sane, and single).

Susie does not have the right to marry Sally.

So Billy and Susie are treated differently by law based on nothing but their gender.  If that isn't gender based discrimination, I don't know what is. 

 this.

Just because all people within a group are treated the same, does not mean that the group, itself, is not being discriminated against.

 I agree with you that a group can be discriminated against, but no matter hou many or how few groups or singles you apply it to, no one at all is being allowed same sex marriage. Not any group, not any single, not any gender or age or color, and until someone is being allowed, and someone else denied, there is no discrimination.

Original Post by amethystgirl:

qaowk - can you give us an example of what you do consider discrimination?

 Yes, Since we're talking about marriage, I'll use that, but there are many kinds of discrimination.

marriage: I'll use  4 couples, just to make it easy, couple 1 is male/female & are allowed to marry each other.  Couple 2 are male/male and are not allowed to marry each other.  Couple 3 are female/female and are not allowed to marry each other.  If couple 2 changes partners with couple 3 they will all be male/female and all of them can marry.  Because only  opposite sex and no same sex couples were allowed to marry, there has been no discrimination.  But then along comes couple 4 who are male/male.  If they are denied marriage, there still has been no discrimination , because the same rule still applied.  But if they are allowed to marry there has been discrimination against both couple 2 and couple 3, because they were denied something other people were allowed.  After couple 4 are allowed to marry, every other person who comes after has the choice of same sex, or opposite sex marriageand if that choice is denied, they are all discriminated against.   

Actually, I was hoping for an example from our history...

For instance, I think it's discrimination to make people of a certain race sit in the back of the bus. They are still allowed to ride the bus, but not where they want to sit. That's discrimination.

Or, not hiring women into management positions - only hiring them as secretaries. That's employment discrimination. The company is still giving them a job - just not the job that they applied for and are qualified for.

This is what the law calls discrimination, and I don't see how same-sex marriage doesn't fall under the same overarching ideas.

Surely the discrimination is based on sexual orientation? 

Original Post by amethystgirl:

Actually, I was hoping for an example from our history...

For instance, I think it's discrimination to make people of a certain race sit in the back of the bus. They are still allowed to ride the bus, but not where they want to sit. That's discrimination.

Or, not hiring women into management positions - only hiring them as secretaries. That's employment discrimination. The company is still giving them a job - just not the job that they applied for and are qualified for.

This is what the law calls discrimination, and I don't see how same-sex marriage doesn't fall under the same overarching ideas.

Yes, it's not people's right to marry that's being denied, it's  their right to marry whoever they choose 

Original Post by amethystgirl:

Actually, I was hoping for an example from our history...

For instance, I think it's discrimination to make people of a certain race sit in the back of the bus. They are still allowed to ride the bus, but not where they want to sit. That's discrimination.

Or, not hiring women into management positions - only hiring them as secretaries. That's employment discrimination. The company is still giving them a job - just not the job that they applied for and are qualified for.

This is what the law calls discrimination, and I don't see how same-sex marriage doesn't fall under the same overarching ideas.

 I agree. If you allow one person to ride in front of the bus and refuse to allow another person to ride in front of the bus, that's discrimination.  But if no one is allowed to ride in front of the bus, there has been no discrimination.

I agree.  If an employer hires several men for, and refuses to hire women with the same qualifications, that's discrimination.  But if no one is hired,there has been no discrimination.

The reason that same sex marriage is different, is because before there can be discrimination , there has to be someone allowed, and someone not allowed the same thing.  So far no one has  been allowed same sex marriage.and until that happens, discrimination can't happen.  Discrimination means treating someone differently.   If no one can do it to start with, who have you discriminated against?

Original Post by misscherryjane:

Original Post by amethystgirl:

Actually, I was hoping for an example from our history...

For instance, I think it's discrimination to make people of a certain race sit in the back of the bus. They are still allowed to ride the bus, but not where they want to sit. That's discrimination.

Or, not hiring women into management positions - only hiring them as secretaries. That's employment discrimination. The company is still giving them a job - just not the job that they applied for and are qualified for.

This is what the law calls discrimination, and I don't see how same-sex marriage doesn't fall under the same overarching ideas.

Yes, it's not people's right to marry that's being denied, it's  their right to marry whoever they choose 

 You are exactly right!  And as long as no one can do it, every one is denied, so where is the discrimination?

Because according to that - I can only marry anyone I choose, as long as I choose a man.

I think that you are viewing same-sex marriage as something inherently different from opposite-sex marriage (even if you think both should be allowed) - I disagree - to me, marriage is a union between two people - it's a pledge to be faithful to each other, and honor and love each other. Regardless of the genders of the two people involved.

If nobody were allowed to be married to a man, that would be consistent. But half the population is allowed to be married to a man, and the way that half is determined is by their gender.

I'm not allowed to marry a woman because of my gender.
Joe Schmoe is allowed to marry a woman, because of his gender - that's not equal.

Original Post by qaowk:

 You are exactly right!  And as long as no one can do it, every one is denied, so where is the discrimination?

Your "logic" is ridiculous. If everyone was denied the right to marriage then your reasoning would be right but it only applies to same-sex couples. 

Original Post by amethystgirl:

Because according to that - I can only marry anyone I choose, as long as I choose a man.

I think that you are viewing same-sex marriage as something inherently different from opposite-sex marriage (even if you think both should be allowed) - I disagree - to me, marriage is a union between two people - it's a pledge to be faithful to each other, and honor and love each other. Regardless of the genders of the two people involved.

If nobody were allowed to be married to a man, that would be consistent. But half the population is allowed to be married to a man, and the way that half is determined is by their gender.

I'm not allowed to marry a woman because of my gender.
Joe Schmoe is allowed to marry a woman, because of his gender - that's not equal.

 Actually I don't view them as different.  What is different is opposite sex marriage meets the criteria that must be met in order for it to happen.  Opposite sex marriage does not meet that criteria, so it is not allowed to happen.

Equality is different from discrimination.

A marriage license is not an inherent right, it is a privilege.  There is a lot of criteria that must be met before you can get that license.  Being  of opposite sex is one of those criteria.  If they did away with all criteria except  having to be opposite sex, that would be discrimination.

Original Post by alibsam:

Original Post by qaowk:

 You are exactly right!  And as long as no one can do it, every one is denied, so where is the discrimination?

Your "logic" is ridiculous. If everyone was denied the right to marriage then your reasoning would be right but it only applies to same-sex couples. 

 No, it doesn't only apply to same sex couples.  see my last post.