California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

However, marriage is a religious bond first and foremost.

Certainly not to the non-religious, who also get married.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by clintl

Certainly not to the non-religious, who also get married.

Agreed. My wife and I are both atheists and we got married. Religion played no role whatsoever in our decision to get married or our ceremony.

I certainly hope one day in the future people will be able to look back at this debate and simply shake their heads, like we do now when discussing the old laws prohibiting inter-racial marriages.

Same dance. Different tune.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I certainly hope one day in the future people will be able to look back at this debate and simply shake their heads, like we do now when discussing the old laws prohibiting inter-racial marriages.

I'm sure they will. The fact that lots of people already do gives me hope that the others are either afraid or just slow to catch up.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

From what I heard, the other law granted them all the rights of a married couple, with the exception that they were not "married" they were in some other sort of union.

I have no problem with giving gays equal rights, or extending rights to anyone that you desire to have those rights. However, marriage is a religious bond first and foremost. Since I can't think of a religion that allows gay marriage (although now days I'm sure one does) I think it is ridiculous to fight for a word.

This is stupid. Marriage existed as a social construct well before religion - there's also this wonderful thing called the Establishment Clause, that renders this a secular country. No one is telling your church to call this marriage - but they are telling your church that they shouldn't be able to define it for the rest of us.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Agreed. My wife and I are both atheists and we got married. Religion played no role whatsoever in our decision to get married or our ceremony.

I certainly hope one day in the future people will be able to look back at this debate and simply shake their heads, like we do now when discussing the old laws prohibiting inter-racial marriages.

Same dance. Different tune.

They will - the people defending this on religious grounds are like the segregationists of old, defending a dying construct with ad-hoc moral grounds ("its the way we've always done it".) I have no desire to force a church to conduct a gay marriage - but I don't think the church has a right to define what marriage is for me either. The battle is over - amongst people our age, gay marriage isn't an issue. Bluntly, as the old die, their prejudices will go with them.

[Chief Rum]

I haven't read the thread, so I hope I am not repetitive with what others may be saying, but my beef with gay marriage is that it would be a marriage. In my mind, that is a religious term. Unfortunately, the politicians aeons ago decided to legalize the terms of marriage, which is why this all sorts of a mess.

I am against gay marriage as so called, but I am 100% for civil unions, which (in my version) would serve the same function and enjoy the same rights as marriage. I would say marriage is the religious coupling in whatever form the religion may have it, while the civil union would become the legal definition, with all legal, tax, and insurance rights and what not. Marriage--whether gay or straight--would have no legal rights tied to it, and civil unions would be for all forms of formally linked "couples", no matter their composition.

It's the only way I know to preserve the sanctity of marriage while giving everyone--gay or straight--the same marital rights under the law.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I haven't read the thread, so I hope I am not repetitive with what others may be saying, but my beef with gay marriage is that it would be a marriage. In my mind, that is a religious term. Unfortunately, the politicians aeons ago decided to legalize the terms of marriage, which is why this all sorts of a mess.

I am against gay marriage as so called, but I am 100% for civil unions, which (in my version) would serve the same function and enjoy the same rights as marriage. I would say marriage is the religious coupling in whatever form the religion may have it, while the civil union would become the legal definition, with all legal, tax, and insurance rights and what not. Marriage--whether gay or straight--would have no legal rights tied to it, and civil unions would be for all forms of formally linked "couples", no matter their composition.

It's the only way I know to preserve the sanctity of marriage while giving everyone--gay or straight--the same marital rights under the law.

You keep saying this - why? Marriage existed before religion, shocking as this may be. I think the government should grant everyone civil unions - people can call whatever they want marriage, and there need not be any official definition.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

II would say marriage is the religious coupling in whatever form the religion may have it, while the civil union would become the legal definition, with all legal, tax, and insurance rights and what not. Marriage--whether gay or straight--would have no legal rights tied to it, and civil unions would be for all forms of formally linked "couples", no matter their composition.

If both groups, non-believers and gays are "sinners", and do not deserve the title marriage, why is it that people only attack and take issue with the gays?

[Groundhog]

Yeah, the fact is that the term "marriage" - whether the word itself was originally referring to a purely religious wedding or not (I honestly don't know and can't be bothered looking it up) - is now the term that people associate with the government-recognised civil union of two people.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

If both groups, non-believers and gays are "sinners", and do not deserve the title marriage, why is it that people only attack and take issue with the gays?

Because people are hypocritical idiots?

[Groundhog]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

Dictionary makes a point of mentioning legal or religious.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

You keep saying this - why? Marriage existed before religion, shocking as this may be. I think the government should grant everyone civil unions - people can call whatever they want marriage, and there need not be any official definition.

So you essentially agree with me then. Strip marriage of the "legalities" and have a new definition to handle the official stuff like ownership issues, taxes, insurances, and what not.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

If both groups, non-believers and gays are "sinners", and do not deserve the title marriage, why is it that people only attack and take issue with the gays?

Because those people don't consider themselves sinners on the same level as gay people, I would imagine. But you would have to ask them--I am not a member or supporter of the "Christian right thinks gays are sinners" group.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Yeah, the fact is that the term "marriage" - whether the word itself was originally referring to a purely religious wedding or not (I honestly don't know and can't be bothered looking it up) - is now the term that people associate with the government-recognised civil union of two people.

Yup, and I think that's what get's the Christian right riled up. Okay, let's change the name, at least in the officialese. And as Crap says, what you call it outside of the legal terms like "civil union", what you call it on your own is your own business.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Yup, and I think that's what get's the Christian right riled up. Okay, let's change the name, at least in the officialese.

Problem is they would fight something like that just as much as they fight against gay marriage. They would turn it around and say the usual "They are trying to take God out of the country" or something, and they would also argue doing that would "downgrade" their marriages.

All nonsense, of course, but nonetheless they'll fight the idea of "universal civil unions" and the taking of the term marriage out of legalities pretty damn hard.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Problem is they would fight something like that just as much as they fight against gay marriage. They would turn it around and say the usual "They are trying to take God out of the country" or something, and they would also argue doing that would "downgrade" their marriages.

All nonsense, of course, but nonetheless they'll fight the idea of "universal civil unions" and the taking of the term marriage out of legalities pretty damn hard.

Yup, that's one reason me and them don't see eye to eye too much.

[Galaxy]

So, basically, we are having an all out fight over gays getting married, just so they can call themselves married (or the conservatives don't want them to call themselves that)?

[st.cronin]

Whelp, that's two threads today where Hell Atlantic and I see eye to eye.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

So, basically, we are having an all out fight over gays getting married, just so they can call themselves married (or the conservatives don't want them to call themselves that)?

Erm. I would imagine there are also a number of legal rights (benefits, property, taxes, etc) that come along with being recognized as married by your state of residence.

[RedKingGold]

Meh. Who cares.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Meh. Who cares.

Gay people? People who don't like discrimination?

[Glengoyne]

As a resident of CA, I voted against the proposition banning gay marriage. I think the Government should deal with and treat individuals equally. The fact that the Republicans made a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage one of their first platform planks at the 2004 convention actually swayed me from registering as a Republican.

This ruling doesn't set well with me. I believe that the people have spoken, and it wasn't close. Add this to the fact that Civil Unions already accord same sex couples all of the same rights that married couples enjoy in the state. The people were clearly against the concept, and now a court has invalidated their will.

Now I'm in the weird situation that I may actually vote for the amendment to ban gay marriage, not so much in reversing my position as I'd be making a statement about judges making such rulings.

I'll also note that I doubt the amendment will pass, but it will definitely be on the ballot.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

Gay people? People who don't like discrimination?

Nah.

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

This ruling doesn't set well with me. I believe that the people have spoken, and it wasn't close.

The court agrees with you - they just think the people spoke in 1879.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Whelp, that's two threads today where Hell Atlantic and I see eye to eye.

on what points did i make do you agree with me on this topic, out of curiosity?

i expected to be in the clear minority, which turned out to be correct, but i'm surprised to see we feel the same way about this, you of all people LOL.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

on what points did i make do you agree with me on this topic, out of curiosity?

i expected to be in the clear minority, which turned out to be correct, but i'm surprised to see we feel the same way about this, you of all people LOL.

I really thought your initial post in this thread was being satirical. I was a lot less sure of the second post, but still hopeful.

Now that I realize they were not, well... yeah.

[ISiddiqui]

This ruling doesn't set well with me. I believe that the people have spoken, and it wasn't close. Add this to the fact that Civil Unions already accord same sex couples all of the same rights that married couples enjoy in the state. The people were clearly against the concept, and now a court has invalidated their will.

I'm quite sure that when Loving v. Virginia was decided, a majority of people in the state of Virginia were against whites and blacks marrying. I'm not sure what role the will of the people should have when laws violate the Constitution.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

it is and it isn't. some things are best left unchanged. there is clearly no practical purpose behind 2 gay people being married. they get to walk the streets hand in hand, the world has progressed enough where they can do that. but no, that's not enough. they need to be afforded the same advantages as a man/woman being joined together.

everything in life, especially with the government, is a slippery slope. you start allowing certain advantages where there wasn't any before, and soon enough others want the same thing. you really can't give people an inch, because they'll want the whole damn yard - i live my life according to that maxim. first its gay marriage, what is it tomorrow? you have to be able to look several steps down the road. what's next - allowing teens to get married? allowing men to take young brides? where does this all lead to? i rather not find out, which is why i rather not allow gay marriage. would the world have truly ended if they weren't able to get married? i'm just disappointed.

Seriously dude - why don't go to Hicksville, USA, and you can spend time discussing how things were better in the good ol' days when those minorities and women knew their place, and men were men. You come across as a complete idiot here, and you weren't exactly working of high expectations.

[st.cronin]

I believe there actually is a town called Hicksville not very far from where Hell Atlantic lives.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Where it leads is people not getting discriminated against because of what sex their legal-age and willing partner and lover is.

If you think it's going to lead to 13 year olds getting married (which is exactly what used to happen in these "religious ceremony" known as marriage), then I think you are far too paranoid.

Not especially. Laws have always been about a society, or at least the majority in a society, deciding what behaviors are acceptable and/or unacceptable. A majority of people in California decided that they didn't want a same-sex union to have equal status with heterosexual marriage, and yet a court violated the will of the people saying they cannot pass laws that violate perceived rights of people because of their sexual proclivities. And yet, American society certainly does. Pedophiles have it a lot worse than gays ever did -- they are basically marked as sex offenders for the rest of their lives -- don't know of any gays that have to register as gays when they move to a new community. Adultery is ironclad grounds for a divorce. People caught having sex with animals are charged with crimes.

What is to keep pedophiles from following the same game plan homosexuals used to fight for their "rights"? You might laugh, but 40 years ago, this same discussion about state recognizition of same-sex marriage would be equally "ludicrous."

[JPhillips]

The difference is that homosexual couples are beyond the age of consent. Pedophiles prey on children too young to consent and animals are not capable of consensual sex. Adultery isn't illegal, but would presumably be grounds for a divorce of a homosexual marriage as well.

The people don't get to make laws that violate the Constitution.

[lungs]

OMG! They're gonna let queers marry!!! What's next, dogs??

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I haven't read the thread, so I hope I am not repetitive with what others may be saying, but my beef with gay marriage is that it would be a marriage. In my mind, that is a religious term. Unfortunately, the politicians aeons ago decided to legalize the terms of marriage, which is why this all sorts of a mess.

I am against gay marriage as so called, but I am 100% for civil unions, which (in my version) would serve the same function and enjoy the same rights as marriage. I would say marriage is the religious coupling in whatever form the religion may have it, while the civil union would become the legal definition, with all legal, tax, and insurance rights and what not. Marriage--whether gay or straight--would have no legal rights tied to it, and civil unions would be for all forms of formally linked "couples", no matter their composition.

It's the only way I know to preserve the sanctity of marriage while giving everyone--gay or straight--the same marital rights under the law.

Agreed with Chief on all counts.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by lungs

OMG! They're gonna let queers marry!!! What's next, dogs??

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Erm. I would imagine there are also a number of legal rights (benefits, property, taxes, etc) that come along with being recognized as married by your state of residence.

Wasn't that the purpose of a civil union?

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

This ruling doesn't set well with me. I believe that the people have spoken, and it wasn't close. Add this to the fact that Civil Unions already accord same sex couples all of the same rights that married couples enjoy in the state. The people were clearly against the concept, and now a court has invalidated their will.

Now I'm in the weird situation that I may actually vote for the amendment to ban gay marriage, not so much in reversing my position as I'd be making a statement about judges making such rulings.

I'll also note that I doubt the amendment will pass, but it will definitely be on the ballot.

The courts have a duty to overturn unconstitutional laws, whether the laws were passed by the legislature or by voters. That's a fundamental part of their job, and there's no point in having a constitution if the courts don't do it.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The difference is that homosexual couples are beyond the age of consent. Pedophiles prey on children too young to consent and animals are not capable of consensual sex. Adultery isn't illegal, but would presumably be grounds for a divorce of a homosexual marriage as well.

The people don't get to make laws that violate the Constitution.

Marriage is granted under the age of consent.

And if laws cannot be made that violate the constitution, then why is Polygamy illegal? Especially if it is amongst people who are adults and beyond the age of consent?

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Marriage is granted under the age of consent.

And if laws cannot be made that violate the constitution, then why is Polygamy illegal? Especially if it is amongst people who are adults and beyond the age of consent?

Because it's generally part of religion

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

And if laws cannot be made that violate the constitution, then why is Polygamy illegal? Especially if it is amongst people who are adults and beyond the age of consent?

Actually there has been a lot of discussion (at least in law school discussions and law review articles) that based on the court's precedents (not even counting anything about homosexuality) that a ban on polygamy probably wouldn't be able to stand anymore.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Actually there has been a lot of discussion (at least in law school discussions and law review articles) that based on the court's precedents (not even counting anything about homosexuality) that a ban on polygamy probably wouldn't be able to stand anymore.

Interesting. Is that the next fight, once the this fight is next? Do you see this becoming a big issue in the presidential race over the appointment of judges?

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The difference is that homosexual couples are beyond the age of consent. Pedophiles prey on children too young to consent and animals are not capable of consensual sex. Adultery isn't illegal, but would presumably be grounds for a divorce of a homosexual marriage as well.

The people don't get to make laws that violate the Constitution.

Age of consent is an arbitrary age selected by adults for children...so can that be considered constitutional? And anyone who thinks animals are not capable of consent have obviously never tried to give a dog a bath that didn't want one.

And if the Supreme Court is the end-all and be-all that some here like to make the case -- the High Court at one time upheld the Constitutionality of certain people being the property of other people...so what happened with that?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Interesting. Is that the next fight, once the this fight is next? Do you see this becoming a big issue in the presidential race over the appointment of judges?

No. Mostly because most people don't care about polygamy (except when they unearth a cult and they express horror at the 14 and 15 year olds that have been forced into a plural marriage).

[st.cronin]

I don't think America is ready to sanction polygamous marriages, Imran, just my own opinion.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't think America is ready to sanction polygamous marriages, Imran, just my own opinion.

That's the point...doesn't matter what the people want or are ready for...right now, it's all about what the courts decide.

[st.cronin]

I thought what Isiddiqui was saying was that if a court overturned a law against polygamy, that nobody would really care. I don't think that's correct.

Maybe he was saying something else, though.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

No. Mostly because most people don't care about polygamy (except when they unearth a cult and they express horror at the 14 and 15 year olds that have been forced into a plural marriage).

I think you underestimate the conservative attitude towards having more than one wife in the United States of America.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Maybe he was saying something else, though.

The way I read hist comment is that most people don't really think about polygamy, there aren't many people trying to push for legal polygamy, so while most people might be against it, it's not really an issue they care that much about. As in, they don't spend any real amount of time paying attention to it, except when a large polygamist group is raided and on the news everyday.

They'll care about it, probably care about it a lot, just at the point that it looks like it may become legal, if that ever happens.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

That's the point...doesn't matter what the people want or are ready for...right now, it's all about what the courts decide.

You mean its all about what the Constitution mandates .

Originally Posted by sabotai

The way I read hist comment is that most people don't really think about polygamy, there aren't many people trying to push for legal polygamy, so while most people might be against it, it's not really an issue they care that much about. As in, they don't spend any real amount of time paying attention to it, except when a large polygamist group is raided and on the news everyday.

What I meant is that most people don't care enough about it to challenge the illegality of polygamy (the chances of it becoming the "next fight"). Most of the people who get busted for polygamy are usually guilty of having someone underage get married, so that usually trumps the polygamy stuff.

[ISiddiqui]

Though I do think one way a court could easily strike down polygamy without bringing a lot of other stuff into it is by invoking a Brown v. Board standard, which is polygamous marriage is inherantly unequal.

(Not that I'd agree, but it could work as an argument).

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I think you underestimate the conservative attitude towards having more than one wife in the United States of America.

They stick to having women on the side