marriage equality in alabama

[Oasis]

not necessarily. if the people of a state hold a moral position on an issue and are specifically permitted by the 10th amendment to legislate on that position, they should be able to

gay people are not being denied equal protection under the law. they use the same courts and government services as any other individual

but why is it suddenly unconstitutional after hundreds of years for a state to use its tenth amendment powers to define marriage between a man and a woman if it so desires? what changed?

The 14th Amendment. If the state were to pass a law saying you could only marry heteroloveually, you're denying equal protection under the law to people who are not heteroloveual.

[Ad Bot]

[Camel]

this whole debacle could be avoided if marriage wasn't a tax benefit. it's already pretty absurd that we give tax benefits to married couples because that makes marriage a tool instead of a gauge on how much you love someone.

that being said, if we are to keep something as archaic as marriage, we oughta let everyone have it

[Tayasaurus]

We should just switch the entire United States over to Mario Party rules and see how it goes

No judging no discrimination, just coins and stars

[Oasis]

ah yes. i forgot the part where gay people are being thrown off bridges and imprisoned for 20 years for being gay

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/anti-gay-hate-crimes/

this whole debacle could be avoided if marriage wasn't a tax benefit. it's already pretty absurd that we give tax benefits to married couples because that makes marriage a tool instead of a gauge on how much you love someone.

that being said, if we are to keep something as archaic as marriage, we oughta let everyone have it

Marriage also allows for spousal privilege in court and it allows you to become a medical proxy if your spouse is not able to make medical decisions. Among stufftons of other things.

Also I don't know many married couples solely in it for those juicy tax benefits. lol

[Kearn]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/anti-gay-hate-crimes/

reworded

[otto-san]

people that are not legally able to marry are being denied the right to marry. when on a basis of the love of the partners, it would be discriminatory.

[Oasis]

straight dudes are prohibited from marrying men too. the only basis for your argument is that one law unequally affects one group over another, an argument which could be used to prohibit the government from having a progressive income tax as it disproportionally affects the rich

Partially true, however that's a bit of a logical fallacy. No citizen person can be denied equal protection under the law, the law states one citizen person can marry another but another set of citizens persons can't marry. Gender doesn't matter too much when it comes "citizen person".

[carolcat]

reworded

just bc it isn't legal to do a discriminatory act doesn't mean that discrimination can't happen

[Kearn]

the laws state that those states only recognize marriages involving individuals of the opposite love. it isn't specifically discriminating against gays or straights. all people of all orientations can't marry the same love

in regards to the spousal benefits, that's an issue that could be resolved with civil unions

just bc it isn't legal to do a discriminatory act doesn't mean that discrimination can't happen

can't by the government, which is what matters

[Oasis]

the laws state that those states only recognize marriages involving individuals of the opposite love. it isn't specifically discriminating against gays or straights. all people of all orientations can't marry the same love

in regards to the spousal benefits, that's an issue that could be resolved with civil unions

can't by the government, which is what matters

What law states that?

[Kearn]

the pertinent laws/state constitutional amendments involved that still define it as one man and one woman

[Headcrab Zombie]

but why is it suddenly unconstitutional after hundreds of years for a state to use its tenth amendment powers to define marriage between a man and a woman if it so desires? what changed?

The government is far from perfect, people apply their own views to what is constitutional or not

What changed is less people crying "muh religion" and more people advocating equality. We're at a point now where the majority of Americans are in approval of same love marriage

in regards to the spousal benefits, that's an issue that could be resolved with civil unions

You're creating an inferior version for no reason, telling people "oh, you can't have that, that's not for you"
It also just screams "separate but equal" an ideology that has been proven to not work, being previously used and overturned with black rights

[otto-san]

i don't really understand making a distinction between "marriage" and "civil union" if they do the exact same thing from a government standpoint; it just removes the symbolic connotation of "marriage" which is actually the entire human-standpoint reason for marriage. is there anything i'm really missing?

and if it's denied on the basis of love and not specifically loveual/romantic orientation, that's still discriminatory

[Camel]

Also I don't know many married couples solely in it for those juicy tax benefits. lol

yeah exactly. society doesn't view marriage as a company merger, they view it as a bond of holy matrimony

but by the government trying to legitimize it, you create a bunch of problems because you can't have "anything goes" policy in government.

people should get married because they love each other and that's it. there would be less loopholes and divorces, thats for sure, and there wouldn't be problems with marrying because it would be freedom of expression.

[Kearn]

the majority of Americans are in approval of same love marriage

this is only after courts began overturning the laws and the resulting the media crusade in favor

even the liberal bastion of california constitutionally defined marriage as one man and one woman

It also just screams "separate but equal" an ideology that has been proven to not work, being previously used and overturned with black rights

why do people always compare this to the civil rights era? blacks were never given equal services which is why the policies were overturned

gays are not subject to inferior services on every level and are not discriminated against by both the public and the government