gay marriage ban (Page 3)

But without a will, doesn't the estate go to the spouse by default? It may still be challenged, but that a "domestic partner" wouldn't receive the estate by default. Therefore that's a benefit married people get that wouldn't be available to homosexual couples. 

The gay brother (B) of my oldest friends died of leukemia 3 years ago this weekend. B's live-in partner (M) was allowed at his bedside only at the pleasure of B's parents (who believed that their god gave B leukemia as punishment for his homosexuality). B was so worried that his parents would block M from visiting that he begged his brother not to allow his parents to stop M from visiting. B was put into an induced coma and from then on, all decisions were made by his parents, not by M.

B strongly expressed that he did NOT want an open casket memorial service. His parents disregarded his wishes. B's partner was allowed absolutely no say in the memorial service - he wasn't family.

Rights bestowed upon married couples are not trivial. They have significant impact on some of life's most heartbreaking moments. This isn't a debate about sterile issues; it's about how people live and die together.

Please read up a few posts regarding the "rights" that are granted to a spouse that are not granted to a domestic partner.

Are you for or against the granting of those rights to a gay partner?

Can you explain under what circumstances the state/gov't should be allowed to grant certain "rights" or "priveleges" to one group, but not another?  Like say, voting?  Maybe we should apply a literacy test before allowing people to vote, the same way we apply an "opposite sex" test before granting spousal rights.

Follow your own advice and formulate successful arguments against the points made above, rather than just calling them 'weak'.

-Chris 

So don't even call them rights.

Why, in this country, should any person be treated differently than any other person? What if there was a black marriage ban? What if there was an interracial marriage ban?  

Come on, John. That's exactly what the dismay and debate is all about - the absence of the right of some people to get married while other are allowed the right. It's a foregone conclusion that we enjoy the right to marital union. 

The State currently allows opposite gendered couples the right to marital union and all the rights that are conferred upon marriage. Generally, they confer the right to marital union when two people meet basic requirements: a) age requirement, b) opposite genders and c) sound mind.

Very simply, some people want the opposite gender requirement removed by the State. That's not so hard to understand.

Pssst, Jim. There were and there might still be some in some Southern states.

Amended: Alabama got progressive in November 2000! It was the last state with a ban on interracial marriage.

Also: 

In 1967 the Supreme Court found that so-called anti-miscegenation laws violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

F*&kers. 

John - I agree that there have been some posts that are debating/stating the desires of one side or the other without answering your earlier questions and that seems frustrating for you, but not everyone wants or is capable of discussing the exact issue you are getting at.  If you're aggravated/frustrated, take a deep breath and let's get back to an informative debate.  I think you are bringing some important information to the argument and regardless of whether I or anyone else agrees or disagrees with it please keep bringing it.  I think there are probably a lot of people lurking who want to hear good, informative points from both sides of the argument but don't want to get in the fray themselves.  I think it is very interesting.

<<<sitting back down in the bleachers to continue watching>>>

I don't know this for a fact, but I assume that there are also statutes which require that a man and women that wish to marry may not be too closely related.

This would be an example of a heterosexual couple being denied the "right" to marry.

Question: would a gay or lesbian couple be required to follow the same statute of, for example, siblings or first cousins not being able to marry? If not, would that be a violation of due process to the heterosexual couple? If the gay or lesbian couple are not allowed, why would that be? The gay or lesbian couple will not procreate together, so why place a limitation on their blood relationship?

My understanding is that the landmark case which helped establish the right to privacy as a right protected by the constitution was the Griswold case. That's the case that found the Connecticut law against contraception unconstitutional.

That case was argued, to my understanding, using the concept of Natural Law. If this is indeed true, and a Natural Law arguement is necessary in order to find support in the constitution for a right to privacy, would you then accept that a Natural Law arguement could be used to address other issues?