Does this mean only a gay person can marry another gay person?

Is sexual love required? How about platonic love?

Does the court need to determine the quality of love? Quantity?

Gays have exactly the same rights as straight people.

A gay man can marry a gay woman. A gay woman can marry a straight man. The opposite is also true.

A straight man can't marry another man. Nor can a straight woman marry another woman.

So they are treated equally under the law. Neither a gay or straight can call a same sex union marriage.

Liberty? Please, is anyone being arrested for marrying a same-sex partner? Of course not. I

s anyone currently prevented from being by the side of a sick same sex partner in California? Not according to current law.

So gays don't want the same treatment as straights, they want "special" status. They want to be "protected" by the state. A status straight people won't get.

It's all about the money. It's about insurance benefits, and survivor benefits, and tax benefits, and health benefits. It's about increasing taxes on straight people to pay the medical bills of AIDS patients.

First to answer your stupid question: you are now in luck, a straight man would be able to marry a straight man.

Second:

"Is anyone currently prevented from being by the side of a sick same sex partner in California? Not according to current law."

Then you do not know much about current law, yes they can be prevented from being their.

"It's all about the money. It's about insurance benefits, and survivor benefits, and tax benefits, and health benefits. It's about increasing taxes on straight people to pay the medical bills of AIDS patients."

No, it is about human dignity, it is about love, and devotion and promising someone you will be there to protect them no matter what. It is about finding the person you can share all of your life with, and just in case after being together for 25 , 40 or 50 years someone who can hold your hand as you take your last breath in a hospital.

It is about being afforded the sme rights as others, no more and no less. Seperate but equal is never equal.

justanotherbrick:

"Is anyone currently prevented from being by the side of a sick same sex partner in California? Not according to current law."

Then you do not know much about current law, yes they can be prevented from being their.

"It's all about the money. It's about insurance benefits, and survivor benefits, and tax benefits, and health benefits. It's about increasing taxes on straight people to pay the medical bills of AIDS patients."

No, it is about human dignity, it is about love, and devotion and promising someone you will be there to protect them no matter what. It is about finding the person you can share all of your life with, and just in case after being together for 25 , 40 or 50 years someone who can hold your hand as you take your last breath in a hospital.

It is about being afforded the sme rights as others, no more and no less. Seperate but equal is never equal.

Well you did avoid the money and benefits statement, which is very telling.

And I hate to tell you this, but having state call you union marriage won't get you any of the "human dignity, ..love..devotion ..and protection" you crave. All this is available without the name" marriage" just as it's not guaranteed under the name of "marriage".

If you require state sanction and a name to have human dignity, it's a shame because you've already lost it.

You can be married in the eyes of your god, your church, your family and friends, and your community. Unless it's for the money, why do you need a government's sanction?

Right_By_Choice:

So gays don't want the same treatment as straights, they want "special" status. They want to be "protected" by the state. A status straight people won't get.

Actually, straight people WILL get that status. Allowing same-sex marriages means straight men can marry eachother too! What's your point?

Anyway, you wouldn't be calling it 'special' if it was a right denied to you.

And what is wrong with giving gay couples the same finanical rights straight couples have?

"Well you did avoid the money and benefits statement, which is very telling. "

Telling how? I already have those financial rights. What is wrong with gay couple having the same rightes with regards to money? A great deal of the civil code deals with money, how and when it transfers, etc. Would you give up your right to name your beneficiaries etc?

Right_by_Choice

This decision is not about the money. In California, domestic partnerships are almost identical (from a legal and financial standpoint) to marriages. The court does not contest this. Basically, they just rule that the State has no legitimate reasons to restrict same sex marriages, thus, statues designed to do so are unconstitutional.

I'm also a bit unclear as to what "special rights" same sex couples are enjoying as a result.

"And I hate to tell you this, but having state call you union marriage won't get you any of the "human dignity, ..love..devotion ..and protection" you crave. All this is available without the name" marriage" just as it's not guaranteed under the name of "marriage".

If you require state sanction and a name to have human dignity, it's a shame because you've already lost it."

The dignity I speak of is for a man (or woman) to be with his partner while sick, to make health decisions together, to speak to a doctor together, to not have to deal with the stess of being kicked out of a hospital because you did not bring the papers from your attorney as you rushed to the hospital with a partner suffering from a massive heart attack.

It is you how is living without dignity, because it is you who is living without true, unconditional, nonjudgemental love in your heart.

I avoided the money quesiton because these are the issues that can be dealt with legaly in manner that is much more straight forward. I also did not respond to it because it is the least important of my reasons believeing that all people should have the same rights.

Tye,

Benefits aren't rights. They are legislative acts voted on by our elected representatives. If gays demand the same benefits without having to jump through the same hurdles, then yes I believe they are being treated "special".

If our legislature votes to give them the same benefits, wonderful. But a judge shouldn't declare by fiat they are entitled.

"If our legislature votes to give them the same benefits, wonderful. But a judge shouldn't declare by fiat they are entitled."

1. With this logic a judge should not have declared the benefits of white, property owning men on African Americans or Women.

2. If you read the decision, the judges did not declare they are entitled. The judges interperted the Constitution of the State of California, this is the purpose of judges, this is there job. They have not denied the right of the legislature and the people of California to deny these rights, but have told them what rights the Constitution grants, and has given the people the power to accept those rights or change them.

Straight married couples had to jump through the legislative process hoops for any benefits, or entitlements. Gay couples want it given by fiat.

Even the right to state sanctioned marriage was given by the state using the law making processes. A judge (or judges) didn't just one day decide that straight couples could marry. Laws were sought, voted upon, and passed to make it possible. As far as I know, a right to marriage, state sanctioned marriage isn't in the state, or national constitution.

Gays aren't willing to use the same procedures straight people had to go through.

Hence the term "Special Rights".

Right_By_Choice:

Straight married couples had to jump through the legislative process hoops for any benefits, or entitlements. Gay couples want it given by fiat.

Even the right to state sanctioned marriage was given by the state using the law making processes. A judge (or judges) didn't just one day decide that straight couples could marry. Laws were sought, voted upon, and passed to make it possible. As far as I know, a right to marriage, state sanctioned marriage isn't in the state, or national constitution.

Gays aren't willing to use the same procedures straight people had to go through.

Hence the term "Special Rights".

Your argument is so full of holes it carries no water. Do you not think needing to sue the state and continue a legal battle to the Supreme Court is "jumping through hoops"?

And exaclty what hoops would a straight couple today need to jump through? By your argument everyone and anyone who gets married without having a law passed throught the legislature is being granted special rights.

"Gays aren't willing to use the same procedures straight people had to go through."

This is simply untrue. First off, I'm not aware of opposite sex couples "fighting" for marriage benefits, but regardless, same sex couples did go through the legislative process for the benefits included in domestic partnerships (which happen to be almost identical to marriage benefits in CA).

This is an incredibly important point, and is essential to understanding the ruling. They did not rule that a ban on same sex marriages is unconstitutional. Instead, they ruled that because domestic partnerships and marriages are essentially the same, it is unconstitutional to distinguish between who is accorded each (based on sexual orientation).

Please read the opinion before making such uninformed statments.

I have literally no idea what you're talking about. I got married two years ago and I don't recall jumping through a single hoop. We got the license, I changed my last name, we got cheaper insurance, filed jointly for taxes...it was all pretty easy and straightforward. I don't know where you live that stright people are forced to "jump through the legislative process hoops for any benefits, or entitlements" but I would suggest moving.

Also, I think it's amazing that you think the years and years of fighting for the right to marry in states across the country demonstrates that gay people are just demanding special treatment. It seems like they're working pretty hard to get the same thing that the rest of us take for granted.