Why Sally Ride waited until her death to tell the world she was gay

Nothing. Perhaps a civil rights movement for individuals is in order.

 

Maybe because she knew noone cared?

Except of course her Activist sister who is now making sure we all know....

 

I reject the premise that our society is dictated to by whomever Kim Kardashian is or what she does. Marriage predates her by several tens of thousands of years.

 

Again nothing is stopping you from pursuing that claim either, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether same-sex marriages are recognized under law.

 

I was married in a non-religious ceremony. It is a societal entity which many intertwine with their particular religious views. Government is involved because we as a society know it is in the interest of our society to encourage and sanction and support heterosexuality and heterosexual unions.

 

They are privileges and they are handed out equally.

 

It's not picking winners and losers. It is supporting and encouraging the natural heterosexuality of our species and society without which we will cease to exist.

Why should we as a society through the state encourage and support and sanction homosexuality. Of what benefit to the future of our society and future generations is it to do such a thing?

 

promoting tolerance and acceptance of other people's legal choices is a good thing for society to strive for.

 

Again...I get it. My basic "point" was to expose the "equal protection" violations inherent in legal "unions" between two humans...and how gay marrige/civil union proponents are claiming "equal protection" to benefit from these violations.....while both married heteros and gay marriage advoctes stick their heads in the sand to avoid addressing or concerning themselves with the unconstitutionality of the preferential treatment.

 

And this was my point that singles receive no special treatment and are force to pay good-hearted attorneys to handle their affairs lest the state take it all.

Hence, why people should get married however they feel (church, family ceremony, under the stars, etc) and have these kinds of property and custody arrangements handled separately. There are people who are life-long couples who choose not to marry because they consider it a religious thing, but do have families.

Look at Brangelina...they have what...80 kids? They are all living together, share property, etc. They've used the courts to create arrangements...as they should.

 

This is not about tolerating and accepting. We have no laws against or preventing or outlawing homosexuality. This is about encouraging and supporting and sanctioning homosexuality through legal marriage. It is important that we do so for our heterosexuality upon which our species is dependent for many reasons. There is no such need or requirement vis-a-vis homosexuality.

 

Actually I read it. From the SCOTUS decision in Reynolds v United States:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/reynoldsvus.html

It would do many well to actual research their own opinions and find support for them as opposed to assuming a position or expressing an opinion that is contradicted by the Law or the US Constitution. A great source of information related to our Constitutional protections is found in the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. I would also highly recommend reading both the majority and minority opinions where there is a split decision because the legal arguments can be very informative.

 

Because nobody with a fricking brain cares that she, or anyone else, is gay. It should be kept personal, not public. Gays like to be victims. So they advertise that their gay, and then snivel that people don't like them. If the truth be known, people who pretend not to be offended at the gay "lifestyle" really view them like circus freaks, like the tattooed lady or some other oddity.

 

Ah, is'nt that sweet, the moral void position, Fail.

 

Well, we have the death penalty too.

We also have a lot of crime and poverty, although admittedly, much of the Islamic World has lower crime rates.

We also have a lot of religious fundamentalists -- considerably more than most of our First World peers.

 

Can you try to post something that makes some sense next time.

 

Exactly....get the state out of the social engineering "couples" business....everything should be based on the individual, and their choices to navigate relationships and wealth dissemination within them using contract law....

Extending my hypothetical....I could spend thousands on lawyers and could do all the estate planning in the world, but the fact still remains that being a single individual at the time of my death, my estate cannot be transfered to an individual of my choosing without government confiscating a sizable portion of it from the beneficiary.

I, as a single individual, am "permitted" to dispose of my wealth by "gifting" only about $12K per year before government steps in to confiscate its "cut".....
where, if I and "another" were a legally recognized "union", I can transfer my wealth to them in any amount I choose with no strings or tax liability attached.

It's all a mess, and an egregious violation of the 14th, IMO.

 

I'm all for examining any legal scenario on a case by case basis. What I object too is the lazy thinking that if you recognize one thing legally you must recognize another.

Gays have already spent decades and millions proving they are similarly situated (the legal standard) to most heterosexual couples (those with the natural ability to procreate with each other) and IDENTICALLY situated (beyond the legal standard) to the remainder (those without the natural ability to procreate with each other) with respect to the administration of marriage contract law.

Absent provable harm there are no other salient objections, particularly given that "moral disapproval" alone (and by precedent) is not a sufficiently rational or compelling basis to maintain a challenged discrimination.

If single/related people want to advance a similar claim, I'm all for hearing their arguments and will support them if I agree.

 

Surely, it makes more sense than an atheist who has hangups with gay people.

 

Well, you know how it is. The same people that b#tch about how allowing gay marriage "sanctions" homosexuality refuse to acknowledge that the status quo sanctions a heterosexual union at the cost of single people.

If we really want to get down to it, marriage (regardless of its form) should be done for personal reasons rather than have the state subsidize it.

 

no one is ENCOURAGING non-homosexuals to enter into homosexual marriages or homosexual relationships. And your question had nothing to do with the LEGALITy of the issue but what was the benefit to society. A society that is tolerant and accepting of individuals is a better society than one that is not.

 

The State has always had an interest in establishing stable families by the legal institution of marriage for procreation and child rearing but that has never been the only reason for the legal institution of marriage. Those that cite this limited State's Interest and fail to recognized the other interests of the State are being fundamentally dishonest in their arguments.

The State also has an interest in marriage for a couple that never plans on having children but instead is joining together in a lifetime commitment for their mutual benefit. A young couple with no interest in children are encouraged to marry so that they can share the benefits of duel incomes, mutual retirement investion, purchasing homes, sharing in medical insurance where one of the partner's employment offers insurance and the others does not. All of these are beneficial to society.

Today we have a relatively large percentage of D.I.N.K.s (duel income, no kids) in American that reflect many millions of married couples. All of these couples also enjoy a "State's Interest" in their marriage and receive special benefits of that legal institution. They are no different than a same-sex couple in any respect. We even applaud the two old people that met in an "old folks" home and marry in their 80's as we find their story heartwarming. They're certainly not interested or capable of having children.

Even with the State's Interest in child rearing this touches same-gender couples as 30%, almost 1/3 of all, same-gender couples are raising children. This is a "State Interest" that universally applies regardless of the gender of the couple raising the child or children.

What is also important is the simple fact that allowing same-gender marriage, or allowing "DINK" marriage, or allowing marriage for very old couples in no way diminishes the States Interests related to procreation and child rearing. There are no negative effects to this acknowledged State's Interest.

 

To the bolded, that's why I object to the state involving itself in consenting human relationships.

Affording special rights, liberties and financial benefits to legal "unions" between two humans... while virtually ignoring the single individual's rights and liberties... presents endless potential for someone somewhere being "discriminated" against, and clogging the courts, and the court of public opinion with wholly unnecessary burdens and divisiveness.

 

Gays should have equal rights.

My whole issue is that many of the activists have a far different agenda than the reasonable people. I am all for equal rights. To that end, the government should ONLY be involved in CIVIL UNIONS regardless of hetero or homo sexuality. Only churches should do marriages. That way everyone gets what is fair. Homosexuals can have all the benefits and specific Churches will not be forced to marry gays or lose their tax exempt status. The goal of many gay activists is to march into the Catholic, Baptist, LDS, etc... churches after the law passes.... ask for a marriage, get denied, and then file a lawsuit. When they could just find a Church like the Episcopalian that would have happily married them. Many of the Liberals will use this to attack religion.

 

I know some cons who are liberatarian enough to support SSM , I know most libertarians support it, so not all cons are bad Mak