Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

[7Deadly$ins]

I'm not in favor of denying benefits to anyone. I don't like the idea of homosexual marriage, plain and simple. That doesn't mean I'm a bigot. That doesn't mean I don't want them to have the same benefits. Is it that hard for you guys to understand?

 

IMO, it sounds like you're trying to impose your own beliefs on me. I appreciate your opinion and your strong defense against homosexual marriage, but that isn't going to change what I think.

 

And, 7Deadly$ins, there are people in the world that don't plan on having children, you know.

And I'm pretty much one of them. It was an example that was not a financial benefit. Whether you do not want children or you do, it doesn't change the fact that this is a problem.

[Obscure_Trash]

I couldn't spark a discussion on this story when I posted it two days ago. Hopefully you'll have more luck.

 

There's also the hair stylist for the governor of New Mexico who's refusing to grant her an appointment unless she reverses her position on gay marriage: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/22/styl...age-opposition/

I posted that one earlier, too, and got nothing. XD

 

Seems like we're all running around each other too much, lol.

[shadow_claw]

I believe that a law in California has been passed that Gay marriage is allowed. I believe that since the United States gives people free rights, that gay marriage should be allowed.

[The Evil Doer]

I couldn't spark a discussion on this story when I posted it two days ago. Hopefully you'll have more luck.

 

There's also the hair stylist for the governor of New Mexico who's refusing to grant her an appointment unless she reverses her position on gay marriage: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/22/styl...age-opposition/

Had no idea it was already posted, anyhow, I'll open it up then.

 

I think it sucks that she cant get married in her own state and I hope it changes one day soon, but with that being said what she's doing is simply unacceptable, a couple makes an appointment, trying to get married, its probably one of the biggest decisions they've made in their lives and a judge rains on their parade, a judge of all people ??

She is a part of the broken system, she should know how to fight it, taking it out on regular people who just want to get married is not the way, its called being a bully, what exactly is she saying here ? If I cant get married nobody cant ?

I find it to be unprofessional and rude, judges get to choose which laws to follow these days ? That's absurd, if it were a hetrosexual judge doing the same thing to a gay couple (in a state that allows gay marriages) he would be fired for something like that, and it would be justified IMO...

 

Hearing about a barber, well, he's a barber and we're talking about a haircut but a judge, I think judges should be held to higher standards

[KageSora]

I think it sucks that she cant get married in her own state and I hope it changes one day soon, but with that being said what she's doing is simply unacceptable, a couple makes an appointment, trying to get married, its probably one of the biggest decisions they've made in their lives and a judge rains on their parade, a judge of all people ??

She is a part of the broken system, she should know how to fight it, taking it out on regular people who just want to get married is not the way, its called being a bully, what exactly is she saying here ? If I cant get married nobody cant ?

I find it to be unprofessional and rude, judges get to choose which laws to follow these days ? That's absurd, if it were a hetrosexual judge doing the same thing to a gay couple (in a state that allows gay marriages) he would be fired for something like that, and it would be justified IMO...

I didn't read a single thing about her preventing people from getting married.

 

From what I've read, while she herself will not perform the ceremony she directs them to the other judges who will be more than happy to do so. It's hardly like she's the ONLY person in the area who can perform the ceremony, after all.

 

source

 

Additionally, she is not "choosing which laws to follow". Judges are not legally required to perform marriage ceremonies. They can, yes--but they don't HAVE to. It is not illegal for her to refuse to do so.

[The Evil Doer]

I didn't read a single thing about her preventing people from getting married.

 

From what I've read, while she herself will not perform the ceremony she directs them to the other judges who will be more than happy to do so. It's hardly like she's the ONLY person in the area who can perform the ceremony, after all.

 

source

 

Additionally, she is not "choosing which laws to follow". Judges are not legally required to perform marriage ceremonies. They can, yes--but they don't HAVE to. It is not illegal for her to refuse to do so.

So if a hetrosexual judge does the same thing to a homosexual couple you wouldnt be pissed at all ? You think the gay community would let it sly as if nothing had happened ?

You figure its right to punish regular people who have nothing to do with the dumb law instead of finding a proper way of fighting the system the same system she is a part of ?

[MellaBella]

The judge was/is very polite about everything to the couples and suggest to go to other judges in the apartment. I don't find that to be rude or unprofessional, in my opinion. It's not punishing any of the couples either, since they are being shown other people who could do it for them.

 

And it's within their right to not do it. Can't force a church to marry certain people, can't force a judge to marry certain people.

Edited February 27, 2012 by MellaBella

[The Evil Doer]

She is being polite while discriminating them based on their sexuality, well then its perfectly cool, I wonder what would you say if some other judge was doing so to a homosexual couple coz of their sexual orientation, or maybe to non-white people coz they are not white like him/her

[KageSora]

So if a hetrosexual judge does the same thing to a homosexual couple you wouldnt be pissed at all ? You think the gay community would let it sly as if nothing had happened ?

You figure its right to punish regular people who have nothing to do with the dumb law instead of finding a proper way of fighting the system the same system she is a part of ?

It's... Not exactly the same thing. Since heterosexuals CAN legally get married and all.

 

But if suddenly homosexual marriage was allowed and heterosexual marriage was illegal and a heterosexual judge politely refused to marry a gay couple on the grounds that it was unequal and thus unfair application of the law and politely directed them to another judge in the building who would happily perform said ceremony... No I wouldn't have a problem with it. :|

 

 

As for a heterosexual judge denying a gay couple the ability to be married if it were legal... Well, no, I wouldn't consider it "punishing" regular people because the judge is refusing to perform a ceremony that is optional for them to perform in addition to telling the people exactly where they can go to get the ceremony performed.

 

 

And how is it punishing somebody if the judge is telling them exactly where they can go that very day to get exactly what they want? They might have to wait a little longer? Might have to walk all the way to another judge? How is that punishment?

 

To me, it's more like...

 

Say a person ran a business that did graphic design. They themselves do not approve of porn. A client comes to them and wants to hire them to do work for their porn site. The person turns them down because they do not approve of that, but helpfully suggests several others who charge similar rates who would be happy to work for the client. The person running the business is not legally obligated to take on a job that goes against their morals.

 

 

It may be somewhat discriminatory, but it's not illegal. Nor is it PREVENTING anybody from getting married.

[The Evil Doer]

But we're not comparing businessmen here, we are talking about judges, judges should be held to the highest moral standards in the entire country !!

 

With all due respect her reasoning has no relevance here, no matter how you want to portray things what she is doing is discriminating people based on their sexuality, if you are a racist then you are a racist, whether you have good reasons for being one is irrelevant to me, the only thing that matters is your actions and her actions paint a clear picture.

 

She has the right to not marry people but she's not simply choosing not to marry people, she is flat out saying I am discriminating hetrosexuals coz the state I live in discriminates gay people, when Texas passes the law she will probably start marrying people, to me this type of behavior from someone who is serving as a judge is simply unacceptable.

 

If there is a judge who is discriminating hetrosexuals/homosexuals/muslims/jews/blacks/asians based on their sexual orientation/religion/color I am extremely pissed that its allowed, such discriminiation/racism exists everywhere, but when we're completely cool with it existing amongst our judges... Thats a huge disappointment to me, those people should know better, they are judges for crying out loud

Edited February 27, 2012 by The Evil Doer

[diannethegeek]

I'm confused. She's putting everyone on a level playing field. I don't see how that's discrimination.

[Completely Different]

Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with that, either. She's still giving them the option and ability to get married, she's within the law, and politely explained that she morally believes its unfair to marry heterosexual couples while not giving the same chance to homosexual couples.

 

I can't really see how a peaceful protest against discrimination can itself be considered discriminatory.

[KageSora]

I'm confused. She's putting everyone on a level playing field. I don't see how that's discrimination.

This. I really don't understand what's discriminatory by refusing to personally be the one to grant a coveted status to some people while being legally required to refuse to grant said coveted status to another group of people who desire it just as strongly as those who are legally allowed to have it.

 

 

Especially when, as I stated, she is not preventing anybody from getting married.

 

 

 

Or are you saying that she should be legally required to go against her morals?

Edited February 27, 2012 by KageSora

[Wends]

I believe that a law in California has been passed that Gay marriage is allowed.  I believe that since the United States gives people free rights, that gay marriage should be allowed.

Actually, the law was voted down by the voters of California. The voters' decision was overturned by the courts, thereby legalizing it.

 

This has happened... I think it's 3 times now?

 

Simply put, I'll reitterate what others have said and what I said earlier: the government shouldn't be involved in the institution of marriage, anyway. Death taxes, inheritance taxes, federal and state claims to personal property and state and federal involvement in parental rights shouldn't exist. Revisit the tax code, rewrite it for equality all across the board and thereby eliminate the benefits a couple receives for being married, and the issue becomes moot. Allow insurance companies to advertise what they'll consider 'couples' for the sake of insurance payouts and benefits, and allow the individuals in question to shop for the company that will most benefit them.

 

Gay rights? Heck yes. Gay marriage? Get government out of it, and leave marriage as what it originally was - a religious rite designed to 'spritually bind' two people into 'one flesh'. Then go find a church that'll marry couples of the same gender if a rite is what the couple feels is necessary to create solidarity between them.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Wends

[The Evil Doer]

This. I really don't understand what's discriminatory by refusing to personally be the one to grant a coveted status to some people while being legally required to refuse to grant said coveted status to another group of people who desire it just as strongly as those who are legally allowed to have it.

 

 

Especially when, as I stated, she is not preventing anybody from getting married.

 

 

 

Or are you saying that she should be legally required to go against her morals?

When you refuse to marry all people its cool coz you're giving everyone the same treatment, when you refuse to marry only one group of people you are discriminating them, its pretty damn simple, and reasoning behind it is irrelevant, the fact that some guys here are calling a straight up discrimination a peaceful protest is the best example of double standards.

 

I am saying that if as a judge her morals compel her to discriminate other people, which is basically what she is fighting against, then she should not be a judge.

[skinst]

Gay rights? Heck yes. Gay marriage? Get government out of it, and leave marriage as what it originally was - a religious rite designed to 'spritually bind' two people into 'one flesh'. Then go find a church that'll marry couples of the same gender if a rite is what the couple feels is necessary to create solidarity between them.

Holy Matrimony is religious, not marriage.

[hazeh]

When you refuse to marry all people its cool coz you're giving everyone the same treatment, when you refuse to marry only one group of people you are discriminating them, its pretty damn simple, and reasoning behind it is irrelevant, the fact that some guys here are calling a straight up discrimination a peaceful protest is the best example of double standards.

 

I am saying that if as a judge her morals compel her to discriminate other people, which is basically what she is fighting against, then she should not be a judge.

I don't really see it as discrimination either. I see a judge standing up for what she believes is right, and as a judge has the right to do, by placing heterosexuals and homosexuals at an equal level. I don't see it as a "oh because you can get married and I can't you suck" type thing. I see it as a "it is my belief as a judge that all persons should be equal and therefore I will treat all persons as equal under my power".

 

It is not the same as if a heterosexual judge decided not to marry a homosexual judge just because he doesn't like homosexuals. It stated specifically in that article that the judge is a great supporter of marriage and has nothing against heterosexual people at all- but she is using her power (appropriately, I might add) as a judge to voice her protest against the inequality running rampant in her state. It's nothing against heterosexual people. It's everything against the unequal marriage laws.

[KageSora]

When you refuse to marry all people its cool coz you're giving everyone the same treatment, when you refuse to marry only one group of people you are discriminating them, its pretty damn simple, and reasoning behind it is irrelevant, the fact that some guys here are calling a straight up discrimination a peaceful protest is the best example of double standards.

 

I am saying that if as a judge her morals compel her to discriminate other people, which is basically what she is fighting against, then she should not be a judge.

...There are two groups of people here--those who are heterosexual and thus legally allowed to marry, and those who are homosexual and thus not legally allowed to marry.

 

 

How is it discriminatory to say "I'm going to treat both groups the same--therefore, since one group is not legally allowed to marry, I will not perform this ceremony for the group that is legally allowed to marry, thus meaning I am treating both groups the same way."

[The Evil Doer]

I love how everybody is calling this equal treatment, homosexuals are being discriminated against in Texas, so she is discriminating hetrosexuals, now its all good coz everybody is being discriminated against hence being equal.

I dont believe that one discrimination should be fought against by another discrimination, especially not by someone who is a judge.

 

The funny thing is that 2 or so months ago we had an abortion thread where some religious pharmacist prevented girls from buying the afterpill coz those were his morals, 99% of you were ready to kill him, even though it is so called his legal right, even though its so called his moral compass, even though we were discussing a pharmacist as opposed to a well educated well accomplished judge, yet somehow you all held that pharmacist to a higher moral standards than you hold this judge to, a pharmacist (not from Sydney but from some small village) should know the difference between right and wrong but judge shouldnt ?

 

Amazing, its just amazing how biased things here are.

 

Religious person will say something against us atheists and 99% of the people here will tear him apart, on the other hand us atheists can say whatever we want coz we are the tolerant ones.

 

White person is racist towards a non-white person and everybody will be completely shocked but if a non-white person does that to a white man, well then its just funny.

 

Hetrosexuals will discriminate homosexuals and get fired for it, homosexual doing the same thing, she is a freedom fighter, equlity believer...

 

Amazing.. the lenghts to which people will go to justify certain things... all it takes is to switch sexual orientation/gender/religion/color of the characters in the story and the same people will change their stripes from black to white, yet everybody is all about equality here, interesting concept indeed

Edited February 27, 2012 by The Evil Doer

[Alpha1]

I love how everybody is calling this equal treatment, homosexuals are being discriminated against in Texas, so she is discriminating hetrosexuals, now its all good coz everybody is being discriminated against hence being equal.

I dont believe that one discrimination should be fought against by another discrimination, especially not by someone who is a judge.

In her state, she isn't required to perform any according to the article. She's not performing any. She's not giving ceremonies for some people and leaving out others.

 

Lets say she was required by law. If this was the case, it would be civil disobedience. You go girl!

Edited February 27, 2012 by Alpha1

[Obscure_Trash]

I love how everybody is calling this equal treatment, homosexuals are being discriminated against in Texas, so she is discriminating hetrosexuals, now its all good coz everybody is being discriminated against hence being equal.

I dont believe that one discrimination should be fought against by another discrimination, especially not by someone who is a judge.

Except for it isn't discrimination. If she was just preforming ceremonies for homosexuals but not heterosexuals, then yeah, that would be discrimination. However, she cannot, is not allowed to preform ceremonies for same-sex couples, so she's just not preforming any ceremonies until she can. At that time, she'll preform both hetero- and homosexual marriages.

 

I'm really confused why you think this is discrimination. It's actually discrimination to continue to preform ceremonies for heterosexuals while homosexuals are preformed marriages. Seems she's the only one really doing her job, to me.

 

Maybe if more judges had morals for equality, Texas would be closer to equality.

[hazeh]

I love how everybody is calling this equal treatment, homosexuals are being discriminated against in Texas, so she is discriminating hetrosexuals, now its all good coz everybody is being discriminated against hence being equal.

I dont believe that one discrimination should be fought against by another discrimination, especially not by someone who is a judge.

 

The funny thing is that 2 or so months ago we had an abortion thread where some religious pharmacist prevented girls from buying the afterpill coz those were his morals, 99% of you were ready to kill him, even though it is so called his legal right, even though its so called his moral compass, even though we were discussing a pharmacist as opposed to a well educated well accomplished judge, yet somehow you all held that pharmacist to a higher moral standards than you hold this judge to, a pharmacist (not from Sydney but from some small village) should know the difference between right and wrong but judge shouldnt ?

 

Amazing, its just amazing how biased things here are.

 

Religious person will say something against us atheists and 99% of the people here will tear him apart, on the other hand us atheists can say whatever we want coz we are the tolerant ones.

 

White person is racist towards a non-white person and everybody will be completely shocked but if a non-white person does that to a white man, well then its just funny.

 

Hetrosexuals will discriminate homosexuals and get fired for it, homosexual doing the same thing, she is a freedom fighter, equlity believer...

 

Amazing.. the lenghts to which people will go to justify certain things... all it takes is to switch sexual orientation/gender/religion/color of the characters in the story and the same people will change their stripes from black to white, yet everybody is all about equality here, interesting concept indeed

But the thing is, THIS ISN'T DISCRIMINATION. That's the whole point we're making that you're not getting. Calling it discrimination just because that's what it sounds like doesn't mean it is.

 

A pharmacist not giving morning-after pills isn't an issue of discrimination, it's an issue of woman's health and what should be more important in the face of law. Not discrimination.

 

It is not discrimination when the judge refuses to preform an OPTIONAL part of her abilities to a sector of people because another sector was not equal to the first. Perhaps it seems like a bit of a reverse psychology thing here to you, but I think she's on the right track of "if not all, then none" mentality. It's not a "just these people and not these people" which IS discrimination. Again, you're missing the point. It's not against heterosexuals. It's her stand against THE LAW.

[The Evil Doer]

Ok, if you cant seem to understand why is it discrimination, answer me this question -

 

A judge in California says on TV "I will not marry people as long as homosexuals are allowed to get married in California" equal treatment for all, is it still cool with you guys ?

 

A judge In Idaho says on TV "I will not marry people as long as colored people are allowed to get married in Idaho" equal treatment for all, is it still cool with you guys ?

 

 

[hazeh]

Ok, if you cant seem to understand why is it discrimination, answer me this question -

 

A judge in California says on TV "I will not marry people as long as homosexuals are allowed to get married in California" equal treatment for all, is it still cool with you guys ?

 

A judge In Idaho says on TV "I will not marry people as long as colored people are allowed to get married in Idaho" equal treatment for all, is it still cool with you guys ?

The problem with your examples is that the judges you're referring to aren't going on about equal treatment. They're going off just by what they want- and yes, while the judge wants homosexual marriage to be legalized, she isn't against heterosexual marriages. From your examples, those judges are against colored marriages and homosexual marriages and doing this out of spite.

 

That is not what this judge is doing.

So, no, not applicable.

[The Evil Doer]

Just like her, they are not giving special treatment to neither group hence equal treatment and what do you mean out of spite anyways ?

Is he not allowed to oppose homosexual marriages if that's dictated by his moral compass ?

Equality for all people is not something everybody believes in and it doesnt make them wrong or you right

Edited February 27, 2012 by The Evil Doer