Marriage Equality Comes to Wisconsin

I can see why you would have an issue with it.

My reasoning at the time was that I frankly did not see how America could or would change to allow gay marriage in my life time. I honestly thought that 'civil unions' was going to be 'accomodation' that could give gay couples the rights of marriage and that Conservatives would be willing to accept that as long as it wasn't called marriage(as some still say today).

But I was wrong. Conservatives pushed legislation to make sure that Civil unions would not have the same legal rights as marriage, and American attitudes are changing faster than I ever dreamed.

Most of us accept that Jim Crow laws were immoral and unjust.

Within a few years- a decade or two at the most- laws preventing gay marriage will be seen in the same way.

 

"Gay marriage" has nothing to do with equality and is INequality by design. "Real equality" would involve marriage for any two consenting adults while gay marriage is abourt winning respect and dignity for homosexuals.

 

And day is night
And war is peace.

Marriage is about a loving, consensual lifelong partnership between a couple- and that is what people who want to get married want.

 

The single mother and grandmother down the street have been together for 12 years. Julie and Hillary Goodridge of the case Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the first decision creating a right to gay marriage, didnt even remain together for 2 years after getting married.

Like I said, "Gay marriage" has nothing to do with equality and is INequality by design. And nothing in your post even contradicts that assertion.

 

Lol, no. Including same sex couples makes marriage MORE equal. There is no way to argue against that and not look like a moron.

 

Couldnt think of anything relevant to the topic of discussion to respnd with, could you. Why dont you explain to us why marriage for any two consenting adults is NOT equality but marriage made availabe to gay couples is equality.

 

Marriage which includes a couple which previously was excluded is MORE equal.

 

Marriage is about a loving, consensual lifelong partnership between a couple- and that is what people who want to get married want.

It is what my wife and I wanted- and have.

It is what most people are hoping for when they get married.

 

No, here in the US, discrimination is judged by its relation to the governmental interest served. The fact that a couple happens to be gay, has no relation whatsoever to the stated governmental interest in fostering the formation of stable homes. Making it even more discriminatory.

 

That's nice. Goy anything relevant to the post of mine you chose to quote and respond to?

 

It is my response to your post

Marriage is about a loving, consensual lifelong partnership between a couple- and that is what people who want to get married want.

It is what my wife and I wanted- and have.

It is what most people are hoping for when they get married.

- - - Updated - - -

You of course have that backwards.

A state can discriminate- if it can demonstrate a valid purpose that is achieved by discriminating.

Discriminating against same gender couples does not do anything to 'foster the formation of stable homes'.

 

Correct. And as 20 federal courts have told you, no governmental interest is served by banning same sex couples. It's why you keep losing.

No. Marriage which includes a couple previously excluded is MORE equal.

 

????? I just stated it was your "response" to my post. I can tell because you place it under a quote of my post. I was pointing out it had no relevance to my post you quoted.

 

This is a real hoot! And timely at that. The same argument against same sex marriage that certain people have been advancing right here was mercilessly and explicitly smacked down!

 

Your confusion is not my problem.

Marriage is about a loving, consensual lifelong partnership between a couple- and that is what people who want to get married want.

It is what my wife and I wanted- and have.

It is what most people are hoping for when they get married.

 

The 7th Circuit’s decision came just nine days after oral arguments, an unusually quick decision for the court.

Republican appointee Judge Richard Posner wrote Thursday’s opinion for the panel. During oral arguments last month, he had likened same-sex marriage bans to now-defunct laws that once outlawed interracial marriage. They derived from “hate” and “savage discrimination” of gays, he said.

The states argued that the prohibitions helped foster a centuries-old tradition of marriage between men and women, and that the regulation of the institution of marriage was a tool for society to attempt to prevent pregnancies out of wedlock.

The court said that “tradition” isn’t a “lawful ground for discrimination.” The court also said that “homosexuals are among the most stigmatized, misunderstood, and discriminated-against minorities in the history of the world.”

 

Game over as per SCOTUS and the 7th Circuit!