California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

[ISiddiqui]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-CA-GayMarriage.html


SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

The justices released the 4-3 decision Thursday, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

The cases were brought by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom's direction.

Yay!! :D
<NYT_UPDATE_BOTTOM></NYT_UPDATE_BOTTOM></NYT_TEXT>

[MikeVic]

Planning a wedding ISiddiqui?

[ISiddiqui]

No, I just champion the cause of equal rights.

[MikeVic]

Oh ok fair enough.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Beyond being vaguely aware a ruling was due soon, I haven't been following this specific case closely, so I'm left to ask: Is the ruling really a surprise to anyone?

Heck, being California, I'm genuinely surprised it was even as close as it was.

[Masked]

Beyond being vaguely aware a ruling was due soon, I haven't been following this specific case closely, so I'm left to ask: Is the ruling really a surprise to anyone?

Heck, being California, I'm genuinely surprised it was even as close as it was.

I'm suprised by the ruling. A few years ago, California voters passed a measure blocking gay marriages. There are very significant difference between Northern and Southern California as well as coastal and interior regions.

[ISiddiqui]

And the CJ who wrote the opinion is a moderate Republican.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And the CJ who wrote the opinion is a moderate Republican.

Ah, I didn't even think about the RINO factor (if I had, I would be even less shocked, but still ...)

edit to add: And the linked article answer the other question I would have asked. Indeed, if they had taken the constitutional amendment route, the court would have been kept out of the process. I see where an effort to correct that tactical error is already underway.

[BrianD]

The idea of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage seems odd to me. There should be a mechanism in place to prevent the banning of equal rights.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The idea of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage seems odd to me. There should be a mechanism in place to prevent the banning of equal rights.

But if today's overturning of the voter's will is (state) constitutionally based (which I gather from a very quick skim of things) then amending the state constitution removes the court's ability to interfere (which is largely why 26(?) states have gone that more secure route).

The only "right" that exists in this case is what is constitutionally guaranteed, and the process allows for amendment. Basically, the difference lies in the procedure and who can assert their will upon the outcome.

I kind get what you're saying in an odd way though, I find it rather odd that the courts can unilaterally overturn the voters but that's the way the process works, leaving the more effective route (for many issues, not just this one) to be constitutional amendments where applicable.

[weegeebored]

The idea of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage seems odd to me. There should be a mechanism in place to prevent the banning of equal rights.I guess it depends on how you want to define "marriage". Think of the different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment.

[DaddyTorgo]

YAY CALI!!!

[lordscarlet]

The idea of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage seems odd to me. There should be a mechanism in place to prevent the banning of equal rights.

&lt;unrelated topic soapbox&gt;half a million people can't vote based on where they leave, what's the difference?&lt;/unrelated topic soapbox&gt;

[BrianD]

But if today's overturning of the voter's will is (state) constitutionally based (which I gather from a very quick skim of things) then amending the state constitution removes the court's ability to interfere (which is largely why 26(?) states have gone that more secure route).

The only "right" that exists in this case is what is constitutionally guaranteed, and the process allows for amendment. Basically, the difference lies in the procedure and who can assert their will upon the outcome.

I kind get what you're saying in an odd way though, I find it rather odd that the courts can unilaterally overturn the voters but that's the way the process works, leaving the more effective route (for many issues, not just this one) to be constitutional amendments where applicable.

I get how the process works and that rights come from the Constitution. It just seems odd to me that people are willing to create an amendment specifically to remove certain rights from a subset of the population. I guess my real beef is that people find it acceptable to ban marriage in this way. This seems like one of those things that will be seen as a big embarrassment at some point in the future.

[cartman]

&lt;unrelated topic soapbox&gt;half a million people can't vote based on where they leave, what's the difference?&lt;/unrelated topic soapbox&gt;

Who can spot the Freudian slip?

:D

[Galaxy]

I got mixed feelings on that. I don't have a problem with gay marriage (to be honest, I don't think the government should be involved in the marriage business), but I kind of hate to see that the will of the voters be overruled by the court system.

Could this become a big part of general election (in terms of who will appoint who, the reach of the court systems)?

[sabotai]

but I kind of hate to see that the will of the voters be overruled by the court system.

But that is exactly why the court system has that power, to prevent the majority from passing laws that deny constitutional rights to the minority. You can argue (as many have) that gay marriage is not protected by the US Consitution or any state's Constitution (which, by the way, is overruled by the US Constitution), but the ability to strike down laws that are unconstitutional (laws that must have been passed by the majority of voters or legislators) is part of the checks and balances between the three branches of government.

[larrymcg421]

I got mixed feelings on that. I don't have a problem with gay marriage (to be honest, I don't think the government should be involved in the marriage business), but I kind of hate to see that the will of the voters be overruled by the court system.


The will of the voters can't set aside guaranteed rights.

[JonInMiddleGA]

This seems like one of those things that will be seen as a big embarrassment at some point in the future.

Interestingly (okay, vaguely interesting at least) you could almost certainly find worse sentences to describe how I feel about the court ruling today.

edit to add
I guess my real beef is that people find it acceptable to ban marriage in this way.

Just as I have a bigger issue with the fact that there is actually some need to codify the definition, instead of it being inherently understood.

[BishopMVP]

The will of the voters can't set aside guaranteed rights.Theoretically, if it was the will of enough voters and senators, etc you could repeal the 14th Amendment.

[Shkspr]

Theoretically, if it was the will of enough voters and senators, etc you could repeal the 14th Amendment.


Leave West Virginia out of this.

[MrBug708]

I got mixed feelings on that. I don't have a problem with gay marriage (to be honest, I don't think the government should be involved in the marriage business), but I kind of hate to see that the will of the voters be overruled by the court system.

As a resident of California, my thoughts exactly

Could this become a big part of general election (in terms of who will appoint who, the reach of the court systems)?

Are you talking national? Or strictly in California?

[Honolulu_Blue]

But that is exactly why the court system has that power, to prevent the majority from passing laws that deny constitutional rights to the minority. You can argue (as many have) that gay marriage is not protected by the US Consitution or any state's Constitution (which, by the way, is overruled by the US Constitution), but the ability to strike down laws that are unconstitutional (laws that must have been passed by the majority of voters or legislators) is part of the checks and balances between the three branches of government.

Correct.

[Galaxy]

As a resident of California, my thoughts exactly



Are you talking national? Or strictly in California?

Nationally.

[larrymcg421]

Theoretically, if it was the will of enough voters and senators, etc you could repeal the 14th Amendment.

Sure, but that standard is (rightfully) extremely hard to reach.

[MrBug708]

Nationally.

Could be. I wouldn't mind seeing the Appeals court in the West be brought a little bit back from the far left.

[revrew]

The will of the voters can't set aside guaranteed rights.

Ah, but this is the very question at hand. Who establishes what are and aren't rights?

The Declaration established one standard ("endowed by our Creator with certain rights"), that a large portion of our nation, and certainly our court system, has since abandoned.

The Constitution created a system for voting on rights (the Bill of Rights, afterall, required ratification) and a court--not for determining rights, but for voting on laws that may or may not conflict with the Constitution.

Now, our courts have largely since abandoned this system as well, seeing themselves as the definer of rights, rather than the interpreters of law.

So, who establishes rights? There are three schools of thought:
1. Creator - as the Declaration declares
2. Vote of the people - as the Constitution largely establishes
3. The courts

Clearly, the courts are now typically in camp 3. But is this best? When one branch of government begins operating outside of the Constitutional bounds, and that's the branch that is responsible for interpreting the Constitution...do we have a problem on our hands?

If, however, the Constitution still has effect, then the people can still vote sufficiently to create, add, or take away rights as they wish--and the courts have no say in it. The curious situation that may arise soon is when the people pass a constitutional ammendment...and the courts rule it unconstitutional! :D

[ISiddiqui]

When one branch of government begins operating outside of the Constitutional bounds

ONE branch?

[Warhammer]

Supposedly there is a law on the books in Cali that allows gays to have equal rights as a marriage, but I forget what it is called. I don't understand why gays seek legal marriage when marriage is largely a religious custom and not a legal one (yes there are legal rights involved, but in Cali they are arguing that they want to be married and not united under the other law).

[Groundhog]

Evangelists throughout the US now eagerly await the next disaster to strike California.

[Groundhog]

Supposedly there is a law on the books in Cali that allows gays to have equal rights as a marriage, but I forget what it is called. I don't understand why gays seek legal marriage when marriage is largely a religious custom and not a legal one (yes there are legal rights involved, but in Cali they are arguing that they want to be married and not united under the other law).

Easy, equality. They want to be able to do what everyone else does.

[sabotai]

I don't understand why gays seek legal marriage when marriage is largely a religious custom and not a legal one

Probably the same reason that others are trying so hard ot keep gays from being able to use the word "marriage".

[BrianD]

Supposedly there is a law on the books in Cali that allows gays to have equal rights as a marriage, but I forget what it is called. I don't understand why gays seek legal marriage when marriage is largely a religious custom and not a legal one (yes there are legal rights involved, but in Cali they are arguing that they want to be married and not united under the other law).

Did the other law allow shared insurance coverage and things of that nature?

[BrianD]

Interestingly (okay, vaguely interesting at least) you could almost certainly find worse sentences to describe how I feel about the court ruling today.

edit to add


Just as I have a bigger issue with the fact that there is actually some need to codify the definition, instead of it being inherently understood.

While we agree on a number of things, I'm not surprised that this isn't one of them.

[JPhillips]

One thing should be clarified. The court didn't say that homosexuals have to be granted the right of marriage. It said that if California offers the right of marriage to hetero couples it must also offer that right to homo couples. It's pretty standard equal protection. California has every right to choose to offer only civil unions to all couples and allow marriage to be sanctioned solely by religious bodies.

[Galaxy]

But that is exactly why the court system has that power, to prevent the majority from passing laws that deny constitutional rights to the minority. You can argue (as many have) that gay marriage is not protected by the US Consitution or any state's Constitution (which, by the way, is overruled by the US Constitution), but the ability to strike down laws that are unconstitutional (laws that must have been passed by the majority of voters or legislators) is part of the checks and balances between the three branches of government.

I understand. I guess what I'm thinking is what revrew is getting at. What are the rights that are unconstitutional? Who determines those rights? What does marriage provide that a domestic partnership doesn't that is unconstitutional? Is it just the "label" of being married?

[JonInMiddleGA]

The curious situation that may arise soon is when the people pass a constitutional ammendment...and the courts rule it unconstitutional!

I absolutely anticipate this happening sooner rather than later.

[DaddyTorgo]

I understand. I guess what I'm thinking is what revrew is getting at. What are the rights that are unconstitutional? Who determines those rights? What does marriage provide that a domestic partnership doesn't that is unconstitutional? Is it just the "label" of being married?

lots of companies/programs/discounts etc. only apply to people that are "married" is the problem

jphillips' solution is what I have always supported - have the government get out of "marrying" and rewrite all laws to say "civil unions" and make everyone get a civil union, gay/straight/animal-marrying, and those that want to have a religious-sanctioned ceremony then can

[Warhammer]

Did the other law allow shared insurance coverage and things of that nature?

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.

[Groundhog]

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.

Is it though? "Marriage" is far beyond being just a "religious bond". My girlfriend isn't religious, but I'm pretty sure she has never in her life said "Gee, I can't wait till my civil union day".

[JPhillips]

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.

Marriage is a status granted by state and federal governments as well as religious bodies. As long as the state of California is going to determine who is and isn't married they have to allow homosexual as well as heterosexual marriages.

[Anthony]

this is a shame. i don't like the direction this country is going in. i don't mind gays having some type of union, but gay marriage is a mockery of actual marriage. i blame Will and Grace and Ellen Degeneres for all of this. i'm just disappointed in all this. this country is getting too progressive. i spit on the ground in disgust.

[Grammaticus]

Is it though? "Marriage" is far beyond being just a "religious bond". My girlfriend isn't religious, but I'm pretty sure she has never in her life said "Gee, I can't wait till my civil union day".

If you move to California, then your boyfriend wont have to say that either.

[sabotai]

What are the rights that are unconstitutional? Who determines those rights? What does marriage provide that a domestic partnership doesn't that is unconstitutional? Is it just the "label" of being married?

The US court system has the power of judicial review. They can overturn any federal law if they deem it incombaitible with the US Constitution (and all admendments), and they can overturn any state law if they deem it incompatible with federal law or the US Consitution (and all admendments). At the state level, they can overturn state law if they deem it incompatible with their state's constitution.

IOW, if a law, or referendum or whatever, contradicts a higher law (the highest being the US Constitution), the courts can strike it down. In this case, the California Supreme Court said the "seperate but equal" civil union law contradicted a higher law (the (established through previous court decisions) state constitutional "right to marry") and overturned it.

[Groundhog]

If you move to California, then your boyfriend wont have to say that either.

He's not really the marrying type.

[Groundhog]

this is a shame. i don't like the direction this country is going in. i don't mind gays having some type of union, but gay marriage is a mockery of actual marriage. i blame Will and Grace and Ellen Degeneres for all of this. i'm just disappointed in all this. this country is getting too progressive. i spit on the ground in disgust.

Completely agree. This issue is clearly the biggest crisis the US faces today.

[Radii]

lots of companies/programs/discounts etc. only apply to people that are "married" is the problem

jphillips' solution is what I have always supported - have the government get out of "marrying" and rewrite all laws to say "civil unions" and make everyone get a civil union, gay/straight/animal-marrying, and those that want to have a religious-sanctioned ceremony then can

+1. Marriage in the United States has zero to do with religion as it stands today. The marriage ceremony may by choice be made religious, but marriage itself is nothing more than a legally binding contract. If that pisses off a segment of the population, changing our laws to require civil unions for all, and to get rid of this word that ties it to religion and let every couple handle that as they'd like seems the only logical way to go.

[Anthony]

Completely agree. This issue is clearly the biggest crisis the US faces today.

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.

[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.

[ISiddiqui]

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.

As stated, it is a state recognized institution, so saying it is a religious bond foremost just doesn't fly really with this issue. Secondly, there are plenty of Prostestant Churches that allow gay marriage. This has caused splits in some denominations as well (the Anglicans and Lutherans come to mind).

[clintl]

However, marriage is a religious bond first and foremost.

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

[Honolulu_Blue]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Gay people? People who don't like discrimination?

Nah.

[Shkspr]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

http://dogs.thefuntimesguide.com/images/tips/a-dog-wedding.jpg

[Galaxy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 :).

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]

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

[RedKingGold]

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).

You're assuming that polygamists are a category which would receive stricter scrutiny. Perhaps based on ethnicity, it could work, but I really do not see the Court expanding which categories receive stricter scrutiny in the immediate future.

Thus, because polygamists do not receive stricter scrutiny, the government would only have to survive rational basis review (which it usually does) to ban polygamists.

[SFL Cat]

You mean its all about what the Constitution mandates :).

That's what it should be. :(

If the Constitution is silent about a subject, it should either be amended to address it or it should be left up to the people to decide. As it stands, it has become all about what judges think the "intent" of the document is. I've never liked the idea of unelected officials unilaterally creating laws.

That's why picking judges for the high court has become such a pissing contest between the parties.

[Raiders Army]

FWIW, I would be the third husband to Jessica Alba.

[Anthony]

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.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v247/HellAtlantic/Hicksville.jpg

:)

[Anthony]

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.

and for the most part, if i'm one of 10 people in a room, and the other 9 people all agree that it's ok for an older man in his 50's to marry and have sexual relations with a 14 year old - if i don't agree does that make me the idiot? its of no concern to me if there's a majority here who are so ultra progressive and accepting of others and i'm the only one who stops and says "wait a minute here, is this really the direction we want to go?". i wasn't put on earth to judge people, but i'm still allowed to have my own opinion.

everyone has this need to waive their "everyone is equal, no matter their lifestyle or choices!!!" flag. i don't. i think its important to have a clear path of what is proper and normal. sure, its ok sometimes to veer off the path from time to time, we're all individuals who come from different parts of the globe/country afterall, but for the most part i think it's wise to have a definite path that says "this is what society should be like" so that its easy to see what is and isn't acceptable. its important to have the standard that shows what is and isn't "normal". and it's ok to sometimes say "while you are allowed to live how you like, you simply aren't walking the same path as the rest us of are so as such, unfortunately, we can't afford you the same rights as us." you simply can't say "i respect your right to mutilate cute little bunny rabbits out of sheer enjoyment, walk side by side with me - we are equals".

there's no place for racism or sexism. we are born a certain sex and we can't help the color of our skin. no one should be considered not equal on those grounds. i agree with that. everything outside of that though, is pure personal choice, and we can choose to walk the line or not (i'm not interested in debating whether homosexuality is something you're born with or not). my point is it wasn't too long ago two people of the same sex couldn't walk the streets holding hands and not be attacked. we're over that period now. all of a sudden we went from gay tolerance to celebrating homosexuality and now saying gay people should have the same rights as a man and woman joining each other in marriage. that is a little too far off that path for me. so going back to my point, i think its ok for them to be off of that path, i respect their right to live as they choose and be considered a civil couple, but i don't think we should welcome them on this "path of normalcy" (for lack of a better term). cuz once you do that, then others who live on the outskirts of that path will soon be knocking, and at what point do we say "no, this isn't legal and we simply don't want that to be recognized by the government as allowable in this society".

but what do i know, i apparently should keep these views to myself or among my brethren a couple towns over in Hicksville, USA. :rolleyes:

[Galaxy]

and for the most part, if i'm one of 10 people in a room, and the other 9 people all agree that it's ok for an older man in his 50's to marry and have sexual relations with a 14 year old - if i don't agree does that make me the idiot? its of no concern to me if there's a majority here who are so ultra progressive and accepting of others and i'm the only one who stops and says "wait a minute here, is this really the direction we want to go?". i wasn't put on earth to judge people, but i'm still allowed to have my own opinion.

everyone has this need to waive their "everyone is equal, no matter their lifestyle or choices!!!" flag. i don't. i think its important to have a clear path of what is proper and normal. sure, its ok sometimes to veer off the path from time to time, we're all individuals who come from different parts of the globe/country afterall, but for the most part i think it's wise to have a definite path that says "this is what society should be like" so that its easy to see what is and isn't acceptable. its important to have the standard that shows what is and isn't "normal". and it's ok to sometimes say "while you are allowed to live how you like, you simply aren't walking the same path as the rest us of are so as such, unfortunately, we can't afford you the same rights as us." you simply can't say "i respect your right to mutilate cute little bunny rabbits out of sheer enjoyment, walk side by side with me - we are equals".

there's no place for racism or sexism. we are born a certain sex and we can't help the color of our skin. no one should be considered not equal on those grounds. i agree with that. everything outside of that though, is pure personal choice, and we can choose to walk the line or not (i'm not interested in debating whether homosexuality is something you're born with or not). my point is it wasn't too long ago two people of the same sex couldn't walk the streets holding hands and not be attacked. we're over that period now. all of a sudden we went from gay tolerance to celebrating homosexuality and now saying gay people should have the same rights as a man and woman joining each other in marriage. that is a little too far off that path for me. so going back to my point, i think its ok for them to be off of that path, i respect their right to live as they choose and be considered a civil couple, but i don't think we should welcome them on this "path of normalcy" (for lack of a better term). cuz once you do that, then others who live on the outskirts of that path will soon be knocking, and at what point do we say "no, this isn't legal and we simply don't want that to be recognized by the government as allowable in this society".

but what do i know, i apparently should keep these views to myself or among my brethren a couple towns over in Hicksville, USA. :rolleyes:

Why do you think being progressive means a 50 year old marrying a 14 year old? I don't think any one, even "progressive" people, would approve of that. I'm sure most would want that man to get raped and beat in jail. if your going to use examples, use ones that actually fit the term "progressive".

On that note, while I don't agree with your views, I respect them. Personally, as many have mentioned, we should eliminate the term "marriage" from government use. Call them civil unions, all with the same benefits and rights, and let the couples worry about what to call themselves.

[RainMaker]

and for the most part, if i'm one of 10 people in a room, and the other 9 people all agree that it's ok for an older man in his 50's to marry and have sexual relations with a 14 year old - if i don't agree does that make me the idiot? its of no concern to me if there's a majority here who are so ultra progressive and accepting of others and i'm the only one who stops and says "wait a minute here, is this really the direction we want to go?". i wasn't put on earth to judge people, but i'm still allowed to have my own opinion.
That's an insane comparision. A 14 year old girl by our standards doesn't have the mental capacity to make those decisions yet. Two gay people getting married is an act by consenting adults.

I have a question, and I am in no way bashing your beliefs. I have friends and family against gay marriage for particular reasons. But I've yet to get someone to answer me this.

Why is it so bad? Why is giving two men or two women the ability to file a joint tax return and collect on each other's life insurance such a horrible thing? What does it affect in this country? Maybe it's my libertarian side that comes out in these discussions, but I've honestly never given a crap what other people do in their social lives. It has never once affect my life.

And your one argument about showing people what is "normal" is just flawed in my opinion. Who defines what "normal" is? Our politicians, our churches, our neighbors? There are people who feel it's normal to be married young, have a lot of kids, have the wife stay home and tend to the house while the husband goes out and works. Some believe it's normal for both to have careers, start a family later in life, and utilize nannies while raising their child. I just think it's wrong for you to define "normal", when it's going to change from person to person.

[Anthony]

Why do you think being progressive means a 50 year old marrying a 14 year old? I don't think any one, even "progressive" people, would approve of that. I'm sure most would want that man to get raped and beat in jail. if your going to use examples, use ones that actually fit the term "progressive".


being extreme here. you have black and white issues (figurtively speaking). white issues representing acceptable and normal (your average heterosexual, picket fence, Joe and Jane Smith relationship), black issues representing the opposite of that (your pedophiles, or beastiality, for example). then you have this whole gray area (homosexual couples wanting to get married). now, once you start taking things from that gray area and allow them into the white area you start to open up the floodgates. how much from that gray area are we going to allow as acceptable until we reach that extreme black area? once you allow the homosexual marriages, what else do we allow? what else is allowed to be included in the definition of normal? because once you go down that road it becomes easy to say "well, if we're going to allow this, we now have to allow that".

so that's my point. first its gay marriage. what then? people become so shortsighted because they're falling over themselves to appear so accepting of other people's lifestyles. rather than look down the horizon and ask "what kind of snowball effect is this going to have?" they want to be PC and shout "everything should be fair and equal". this isn't about me being closeminded, it's about me not wanting to see what this leads to years down the road, now that we've allowed the government to govern relationships.

i grew up being taught that homosexuality is forbidden and an abomination, i've progressed to the point where homosexuality can now be defined as an "alternative lifestyle". alternative being the keyword here. alternative to what is considered a normal, acceptable lifestyle - a man and a woman. and i was fine with homosexuality being simply an alternative lifestyle. heck, i watched Will and Grace, i've rubbed elbows with gay people being a New Yorker. i'm cool with it. i was ok with homosexuality being the satelite that revolves around the sphere of normalcy - like the moon we see it, we acknowledge its existence, but it's still far enough away. but that's not enough apparently. to me this whole ruling just puts the official seal of approval on gay marriage now. now, marriage is not just a man and a woman, it's now a man and a woman or two men/two women. i just don't like that we've gone down this road, that's all. i was fine with the way things were before. change is good, but not all the time. we still need that north star to guide our ships by, we still need some things in life to remain constant, unchangeable.

[Anthony]

whatever, no one's opinion is going to be changed on a message board. i've spoken my mind here, anything after this becomes repetitive. i'll try to remain silent in this thread for as long as i can.

[Groundhog]

I honestly can't believe people believe that allowing gays to marry is going to open the floodgates towards state-sanctioned pedophillia. Yeesh.

[Groundhog]

i was fine with the way things were before. change is good, but not all the time. we still need that north star to guide our ships by, we still need some things in life to remain constant, unchangeable.

That's awful selfish of you.

[Glengoyne]

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.


I didn't think that this was the first time this law has been reviewed by the CA Supreme Court. Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought this had previously passed judicial scrutiny.

In the bigger picture, the Civil Union in CA provides all of the benefits of marriage that the state can provide. So I don't see that the law is truly discriminatory.

[JPhillips]

If, as has been argued here, marriage is just a word, why do people want to refuse it for gays?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I honestly can't believe people believe that allowing gays to marry is going to open the floodgates towards state-sanctioned pedophillia. Yeesh.

And not all that long ago someone could have easily said they couldn't envision something as absurd as state-sanctioned gay marriage. And yet here we are.

[ISiddiqui]

I honestly can't believe people believe that allowing gays to marry is going to open the floodgates towards state-sanctioned pedophillia. Yeesh.

It's really utterly silly, but still people want to scaremonger on those lines.

[RedKingGold]

Even more surprising than HA's comments is the fact that you guys are getting so offended by him. This is protocol and par for the course for him. He's probably a homosexual baby toucher in real life, but hides behind a homophobic facade at FOFC. ;)

[ISiddiqui]

You're assuming that polygamists are a category which would receive stricter scrutiny. Perhaps based on ethnicity, it could work, but I really do not see the Court expanding which categories receive stricter scrutiny in the immediate future.

Thus, because polygamists do not receive stricter scrutiny, the government would only have to survive rational basis review (which it usually does) to ban polygamists.

IIRC, discrimination based on religion gets strict scrutiny. Or at least higher scrutiny. Most polygamous marraiges are based on a view of religious teachings.

[ISiddiqui]

That's what it should be. :(

If the Constitution is silent about a subject, it should either be amended to address it or it should be left up to the people to decide. As it stands, it has become all about what judges think the "intent" of the document is. I've never liked the idea of unelected officials unilaterally creating laws.

That's why picking judges for the high court has become such a pissing contest between the parties.

Equal protection of the laws is pretty clear in the 14th Amendment.

[Galaxy]

Even more surprising than HA's comments is the fact that you guys are getting so offended by him. This is protocol and par for the course for him. He's probably a homosexual baby toucher in real life, but hides behind a homophobic facade at FOFC. ;)

I just find it strange he posts about woman the way he has in, considering his current status, yet he is offended at the idea of gay marriage.

I think that with the 50-some % divorce rates, number of children we have today outside of marriage (not to say that is right or wrong) and politics in marriage (pre-nups, greedy divorces, ect.); I just we are romancing the idea that marriage is the same concept as it pre-Boomer generations. Not that it doesn't work, it just doesn't seem to be the same in today's society.

[RainMaker]

I think that with the 50-some % divorce rates, number of children we have today outside of marriage (not to say that is right or wrong) and politics in marriage (pre-nups, greedy divorces, ect.); I just we are romancing the idea that marriage is the same concept as it pre-Boomer generations. Not that it doesn't work, it just doesn't seem to be the able in today's society.
That's what I don't get either. For some reason, people have this fantasy that marriage is this fairy tale where everyone ends up happy.

Marriage blows in this country. We have high divorce rates, high annulment rates, messy courts, and tons of other bullshit. We have a high child out of wedlock rate and more children born into poverty than any other advanced country in the world. What exactly is gay marriage going to destroy here?

[Groundhog]

Even more surprising than HA's comments is the fact that you guys are getting so offended by him. This is protocol and par for the course for him. He's probably a homosexual baby toucher in real life, but hides behind a homophobic facade at FOFC. ;)

I'm not surprised about HA (or JIMGA)'s comments; I'm surprised there are other people here who agree with him.

[Groundhog]

And not all that long ago someone could have easily said they couldn't envision something as absurd as state-sanctioned gay marriage. And yet here we are.

:rolleyes:

You may be opposed to gay marriage due to personal or religious grounds, but I don't believe you are stupid enough to think that pedophilia, something which is looked down upon by everybody except the small percentage of pedophiles, is the next logical step (or even at all related) to two consenting ADULTS being able to marry whoever they please. Non-sequitur scaremongering sums your position up nicely.

[Crapshoot]

And not all that long ago someone could have easily said they couldn't envision something as absurd as state-sanctioned gay marriage. And yet here we are.

And if some of the people you cite as cohorts had their way, the idea of equal civil rights wouldn't have come about either. I'm comfortable we're on the right side here. :D

[Marc Vaughan]

If, as has been argued here, marriage is just a word, why do people want to refuse it for gays?


I had promised myself I'd avoid this thread but here I am all the same ;)

I think that some people are offended by gay marriages for either (i) religious reasons, (ii) because they view marriage as first and foremost a setup for conceiving an raising children within.

The first of these is something which is open to interpretation from each of the various main religions which exist and is a sign of just how dangerous religion can be when applied blindly to the world imho.

The second argued that marriage should be restricted to 'traditional' relationships and preserved as a method to raise children within. Many studies have frequently shown that kids raised within a traditional family tend to do better ecomically and emotionally than children without this setup.
(I haven't seen similar studies involving kids raised within a same sex family marriage and it could well be that the same advantages are transferred through that setup.)

As from a realistic perspective its much more likely that heterosexual couples will raise children than same sex couples the arguement is then that the tax and economic advantages for marriage should be reserved for heterosexual marriages as these are the most likely to fall under the intent of marriage (ie. raising kids) and bettering society.

PS - To be honest I don't have a particularly strong stance either way on this topic - I'm quite happy for gay people to get married but see marriage largely as a piece of paper myself and so not worth getting bitter and twisted over ...
Mainly this post is to try and encourage this thread to stay constructive rather than devolve into a slagging match.

[RedKingGold]

IIRC, discrimination based on religion gets strict scrutiny. Or at least higher scrutiny. Most polygamous marraiges are based on a view of religious teachings.

Well, you're getting more into a First Amendment issue than a classification issue. Then you have to get into permissive vs. mandatory accomodation and nondiscrimination views and endorsement and blah, blah, blah. But, even there, considering the current membership of the Court, I doubt that a broad no polygamy ban would be shot down for a variety of reasons (stare decisis, fear of judicial decision making for legislatures, no need for accomodation, not a class, etc.)

[RendeR]

In time, all bigotries will fade, but as with any great change in humanity it will take that time to happen. The beginnings are here, we can see the cracks in the right-wing movement to ban gay marriage already starting to give way to more intelligent and equal governance for all people.

The laws and even the amendmants to state constitutions will in time be stricken because the highest law in this country, the constitution, says they are wrong.

There is no room in a truly free society for any group, majority OR minority to pass limitations against any other group( and please, lets keep the ignorant arguements about pedohilia out of tihs, there is a difference between harming children and consenting adults making a choice for themselves, get a grip here) . Are we a truly free society?

Not yet, but we're always trying. Unfortunately we get setbacks like the past 8 years every so often that keeps us shrouded in ignorance and bigotry of one group over another. All in the name of Religion, or family values or the good old days.

Society will always change and there will always be resistance to change. The hardest thing to learn is that we as individuals have the final say in things. Groups come and groups go, but how we live from day to day is OUR choice, our decision every single moment we draw breath.

Live and Let Live. And one day we might actually get over ourselves and find that truly free society.

[SteveMax58]

:rolleyes:

You may be opposed to gay marriage due to personal or religious grounds, but I don't believe you are stupid enough to think that pedophilia, something which is looked down upon by everybody except the small percentage of pedophiles, is the next logical step (or even at all related) to two consenting ADULTS being able to marry whoever they please. Non-sequitur scaremongering sums your position up nicely.

While I too find it hard to fathom pedophilia being given any level of acceptability legally...I would say that I believe you might be grossly underestimating the vehemont unacceptance level of gay relationships, from a mere 50 years ago.

I can understand JiMGA & HA's comments, because if you look at how everything progresses in society, IMHO...
1. It begins with discussion and acceptance of the overt negativity of the subject
2. Then becomes so universally accepted as "wrong" it becomes fodder for comedy and ridcule, to the point that ridicule becomes scorn
3. People then begin to try and understand this segment of society, since we are a society that does not want to exclude anybody, and is compassionate to those who areshunned from it
4. This then progresses to "knowing" somebody who does it(because our society tends to encourage diversity in lifestyle)
5. Then moves towards philosophical debate(and subsequent legitimization) of the semantics of precisely what is "wrong or right" and how some people have no control over it, so who are we to judge?
6. Then people become more accepting(or less unaccepting)
7. Then any opposition becomes an old-world thinking person for suggesting it wrong(for whatever their reason)
8. Then it becomes legal and (reluctantly) accepted by all, and not PC to voice otherwise

When you consider the increased sexualization of teenagers (namely girls) these days, I dont know if it is that far-fetched to think that we are between steps 3 & 4 in my (admittedly strawman) roadmap.

My personal belief is that the word "marriage" should be removed from legal verbiage, and substituted with "civil union". Civil union then becomes the default word for consenting adults to "apply" for perks and privileges that society deems worthy of rewarding(a seperate discussion to me).

[Toddzilla]

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."I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply made a poor choice rather than an intentional one - but your comparison of homosexual rights and pedophile rights is probably the most inflammatory, ignorant, and prejudicial I've ever come across. (Gay bashers *love* this argument).

Compare homosexual marriage to murder next time, because the analogy is just about as accurate.

Pedophiles have it a lot worse than gays ever did

No, sir, you are wrong. Pedophiles don't have it bad - they're breaking the law and they don't have it bad enough. Pedophiles aren't a persecuted class of citizens, they're breaking the law. Homosexuals are discriminated against.

[Flasch186]

I had promised myself I'd avoid this thread but here I am all the same ;)

I think that some people are offended by gay marriages for either (i) religious reasons, (ii) because they view marriage as first and foremost a setup for conceiving an raising children within.

iii. want to be judger and anyone not exactly like them is judged negatively.
iv. are running from their own perceived demon.

etc. etc.

I dont think that there are only 2 reasons people fall into one camp or the other.

[SFL Cat]

:rolleyes:

You may be opposed to gay marriage due to personal or religious grounds, but I don't believe you are stupid enough to think that pedophilia, something which is looked down upon by everybody except the small percentage of pedophiles, is the next logical step (or even at all related) to two consenting ADULTS being able to marry whoever they please. Non-sequitur scaremongering sums your position up nicely.

This statement 40 years ago:

You may be opposed to interracial marriage due to personal or religious grounds, but I don't believe you are stupid enough to think that homosexuality, something which is looked down upon by everybody except the small percentage of perverts, is the next logical step (or even at all related) to two consenting ADULTS being able to marry whoever they please. Non-sequitur scaremongering sums your position up nicely.

This statement 40 years from now:

You may be opposed to pedophile relationships due to personal or religious grounds, but I don't believe you are stupid enough to think that necrophilia, something which is looked down upon by everybody except the small percentage of freaks, is the next logical step (or even at all related) to two loving people being able to have sex with whoever they please. Non-sequitur scaremongering sums your position up nicely.

[SFL Cat]

Obviously... :rolleyes:

[JPhillips]

Let's just cut to the chase and admit the obvious, you'd believe homosexuals should be treated as perverts. It really has nothing to do with a slippery slope argument.

[Anthony]

In time, all bigotries will fade, but as with any great change in humanity it will take that time to happen. The beginnings are here, we can see the cracks in the right-wing movement to ban gay marriage already starting to give way to more intelligent and equal governance for all people.

The laws and even the amendmants to state constitutions will in time be stricken because the highest law in this country, the constitution, says they are wrong.

There is no room in a truly free society for any group, majority OR minority to pass limitations against any other group( and please, lets keep the ignorant arguements about pedohilia out of tihs, there is a difference between harming children and consenting adults making a choice for themselves, get a grip here) . Are we a truly free society?

Not yet, but we're always trying. Unfortunately we get setbacks like the past 8 years every so often that keeps us shrouded in ignorance and bigotry of one group over another. All in the name of Religion, or family values or the good old days.

Society will always change and there will always be resistance to change. The hardest thing to learn is that we as individuals have the final say in things. Groups come and groups go, but how we live from day to day is OUR choice, our decision every single moment we draw breath.

Live and Let Live. And one day we might actually get over ourselves and find that truly free society.

you see, this is the arguement that frightens me. we should all be free. let's not pass limitations on others. live and let live. let's be truly free.

your idea of free is being in an open marriage. you don't want anyone treading on you. say your next door neighbor, on the other hand, believes in being allowed to marry his sister. now, you would want to say "hold up, marrying your sister is just silly, no one should that be acceptable" but then wouldn't you be setting limitations on someone else? not everyone has the same idea of free.

i think if you put 100 people on a deserted island and tell them all there is no formal goverment and they're all free to do as they wish, you'll find that would be a recipe for disaster. so you need boundaries. you need structure. you need limitations. not everything can be fair, as i mentioned before.

and i agree with what Marc mentioned - ultimately i feel a marriage should be for procreation. sometimes people aren't able to reproduce, or there comes a point where they decide they don't want children, and i have no prob with that. but the institution of marriage, from what i was taught, was a way to be considered a union in both the eyes of the law and the eyes of God, and a child is produced which is the manifestation of that love. this is marriage. and yes, because that married couple is reproducing, furthering the human race for future generations they should be afforded more rights than homosexual civil unions. same sex couples can not reproduce. what benefit does society receive from having a same sex married couple?

[Anthony]

While I too find it hard to fathom pedophilia being given any level of acceptability legally...I would say that I believe you might be grossly underestimating the vehemont unacceptance level of gay relationships, from a mere 50 years ago.

I can understand JiMGA & HA's comments, because if you look at how everything progresses in society, IMHO...
1. It begins with discussion and acceptance of the overt negativity of the subject
2. Then becomes so universally accepted as "wrong" it becomes fodder for comedy and ridcule, to the point that ridicule becomes scorn
3. People then begin to try and understand this segment of society, since we are a society that does not want to exclude anybody, and is compassionate to those who areshunned from it
4. This then progresses to "knowing" somebody who does it(because our society tends to encourage diversity in lifestyle)
5. Then moves towards philosophical debate(and subsequent legitimization) of the semantics of precisely what is "wrong or right" and how some people have no control over it, so who are we to judge?
6. Then people become more accepting(or less unaccepting)
7. Then any opposition becomes an old-world thinking person for suggesting it wrong(for whatever their reason)
8. Then it becomes legal and (reluctantly) accepted by all, and not PC to voice otherwise

When you consider the increased sexualization of teenagers (namely girls) these days, I dont know if it is that far-fetched to think that we are between steps 3 & 4 in my (admittedly strawman) roadmap.

My personal belief is that the word "marriage" should be removed from legal verbiage, and substituted with "civil union". Civil union then becomes the default word for consenting adults to "apply" for perks and privileges that society deems worthy of rewarding(a seperate discussion to me).

hi,

you are smart and you "get it".

[ISiddiqui]

and i agree with what Marc mentioned - ultimately i feel a marriage should be for procreation. sometimes people aren't able to reproduce, or there comes a point where they decide they don't want children, and i have no prob with that. but the institution of marriage, from what i was taught, was a way to be considered a union in both the eyes of the law and the eyes of God, and a child is produced which is the manifestation of that love. this is marriage. and yes, because that married couple is reproducing, furthering the human race for future generations they should be afforded more rights than homosexual civil unions. same sex couples can not reproduce. what benefit does society receive from having a same sex married couple?

Then why do you support people who are sterile getting married? Obviously there is "no benefit to society" in your mind from that. There is no chance of kids there. You just don't have a problem with that, because well, it flys in the face of your argument, but you don't want to tell sterile straight people they can't marry.

Publically acknowledging a committed relationship as having binding legal rights. The benefit society is recieves is having psychologically healthy individuals (being seen as a lesser person has a strong detrimental effect on your psyche).


Oh, as for the inane pedophila comes next remarks. The people who would be on the rafters on this should take care to realize that has homosexuality has become more accepted, pedophila has become less and less accepted. If you recall people as young as 14 or 12 could get married in the past. And especially women that age would be married off to older men.

[Flasch186]

Pedophilia is wrong unless of course the kid is seduces you.






/in case I ever run for office this is a joke :)

[Raiders Army]

Then why do you support people who are sterile getting married? Obviously there is "no benefit to society" in your mind from that. There is no chance of kids there. You just don't have a problem with that, because well, it flys in the face of your argument, but you don't want to tell sterile straight people they can't marry.

There's a difference between hetero sterile people and homosexual people having kids. In one, the role model is something that benefits the reproduction of the human race and the other is a role model of what not to do if you want the human race to continue.

[ISiddiqui]

There's a difference between hetero sterile people and homosexual people having kids. In one, the role model is something that benefits the reproduction of the human race and the other is a role model of what not to do if you want the human race to continue.

A) What if the hetero sterile people don't WANT kids at all? Hell, what if hetero non-sterile people don't want kids at all.

B) I'm thinking that "role models" of sexual prefence isn't going to make much of a difference to the second head. That sort of thinking falls into the trap of the "homosexuality is just a choice" BS.

[Chief Rum]

Rollie-eyes me all you want, but the way I read your post indicated that you had interracial marriage, homosexuality, pederastry, and necrophilia all on the same slippery slope.

Well, in some ways, they are all on the same extremely broad slope, one end being an absolute moral society deeming Puritanic values to a ridiculous level to be the standard, along with a belief that the chosen people of God are white, heterosexual Christian males, while the other is the complete absence of morals as provided to us through the Judeo-Christian ethic, wherein even necrophilia and pedophilia are excused and allowed.

Obviously, it is such a bafflingly large slope, broad in many directions (there is no one step to the next on this slope), it is preposterous to try to draw connections between those four in any meaningful way--not that that stops those against at least one of them from trying.

[cartman]

I'd like to have an example of a law that was passed by the courts. I hear the argument that judges pass laws, when they can do no such thing. Overturning a law on constitutional or legal process grounds is not equal to passing a law. A court cannot create and put on the books a law that does not currently exist.

[Chief Rum]

I'd like to have an example of a law that was passed by the courts. I hear the argument that judges pass laws, when they can do no such thing. Overturning a law on constitutional or legal process grounds is not equal to passing a law. A court cannot create and put on the books a law that does not currently exist.

I would agree with this, although I think what they meant was defining existing laws through precedent, or allowing previous laws or practices to stand or become re-enacted when the law that eliminates them is declared unconstitutional.

[RainMaker]

your idea of free is being in an open marriage. you don't want anyone treading on you. say your next door neighbor, on the other hand, believes in being allowed to marry his sister. now, you would want to say "hold up, marrying your sister is just silly, no one should that be acceptable" but then wouldn't you be setting limitations on someone else? not everyone has the same idea of free.
Why do their need to be limitations on what someone does in their private life? If it doesn't hurt you in anyway, why is there a limitation? This is the part of your argument I can't understand. Why are there these limitations if it takes place between consenting adults?

I'll add I think incest is a bad argument on your part as the main reason it's illegal today is due to the high level of genetic defects it causes in offspring.

i think if you put 100 people on a deserted island and tell them all there is no formal goverment and they're all free to do as they wish, you'll find that would be a recipe for disaster. so you need boundaries. you need structure. you need limitations. not everything can be fair, as i mentioned before.
Your hypothetical scenario is not at all related to gay marriage. Your scenario works out better if you say, the 100 people are all free to do as they wish as long as they don't infringe on that right of others.

In any case, you have yet to provide what this structure and these limitations on gay marriage will help within society. You just say "we need structure" but have failed to mention why.

and i agree with what Marc mentioned - ultimately i feel a marriage should be for procreation. sometimes people aren't able to reproduce, or there comes a point where they decide they don't want children, and i have no prob with that. but the institution of marriage, from what i was taught, was a way to be considered a union in both the eyes of the law and the eyes of God, and a child is produced which is the manifestation of that love. this is marriage. and yes, because that married couple is reproducing, furthering the human race for future generations they should be afforded more rights than homosexual civil unions. same sex couples can not reproduce. what benefit does society receive from having a same sex married couple?

If a marriage is for procreation, no one who is impotent or has a defect that doesn't allow them to have children should be given a marriage license. Those who have vasectomies or their tubes tied should have their marriage immediately revoked. Once you have become too old to bear children or create them, you marriage should also become null and void.

I mean if it's all about procreation, you would be hypocritical to allow those who can't procreate into this marriage. They, as you say, "offer no benefit to society".

And lets stop using the "eyes of God" argument in this stuff. Not everyone believes in God and in fact, as science continues to be taught to people, less and less people will believe in God. Not all of us want our laws to be developed around some fairy tale from thousands of years ago that science has disproven.

[Raiders Army]

A) What if the hetero sterile people don't WANT kids at all? Hell, what if hetero non-sterile people don't want kids at all.

B) I'm thinking that "role models" of sexual prefence isn't going to make much of a difference to the second head. That sort of thinking falls into the trap of the "homosexuality is just a choice" BS.

Very true.

And lets stop using the "eyes of God" argument in this stuff. Not everyone believes in God and in fact, as science continues to be taught to people, less and less people will believe in God. Not all of us want our laws to be developed around some fairy tale from thousands of years ago that science has disproven.

You're crossing the line here. I should know, since I've crossed it many times before. :)

You extol the rights of gays and deride gay bashers, yet you have become a religious basher by calling someone's beliefs fairy tales. That's pretty harsh.

[Groundhog]

This is a great game, let me try:

"I like video games."

This statement 40 years ago:

"I like playing ball in the park with my friends."

This statement 40 years from now:

"I like stealing cars, shooting people, and picking up prostitutes from street corners."

Hence: Video games are evil!!!!!!!! :eek:

[Chief Rum]

This is a great game, let me try:

"I like video games."

This statement 40 years ago:

"I like playing ball in the park with my friends."

This statement 40 years from now:

"I like stealing cars, shooting people, and picking up prostitutes from street corners."

Hence: Video games are evil!!!!!!!! :eek:

I always suspected I was supporting pure evil. Thanks for the head's up, GH!

[Anthony]

Why do their need to be limitations on what someone does in their private life? If it doesn't hurt you in anyway, why is there a limitation? This is the part of your argument I can't understand. Why are there these limitations if it takes place between consenting adults?

I'll add I think incest is a bad argument on your part as the main reason it's illegal today is due to the high level of genetic defects it causes in offspring.


being free, and being free to do whatever the hell you want - those are two different concepts. if you fail to see why then i need not write further.

and if the brother and sister don't plan on having kids - you still want to infringe on their rights to marry or you ok with that? afterall, as some stated here, not everyone gets married to have kids. so what then? we start allowing brother/sister marriages? because if you still want to ban incest marriage then you're now infringing on what those two consenting adults want to do with their lives. just being in a group, be it GLAAD, be it the People's Liberation For Incestual Marriage In America, or the Coalition Of Older Men Who Want Teen Brides (again, using extreme examples here to help illustrate a point) doesn't mean you should now be granted equal rights and afforded the same privileges. there needs to be a standard we live by where we can say "no, not this time. we don't want our society to regress by allowing and sanctioning this group of people. this is not an element we want to be formally recognized in our society".

Your hypothetical scenario is not at all related to gay marriage. Your scenario works out better if you say, the 100 people are all free to do as they wish as long as they don't infringe on that right of others.

In any case, you have yet to provide what this structure and these limitations on gay marriage will help within society. You just say "we need structure" but have failed to mention why.

look at the Free Mode in GTAIV online to see an example of what would happen in society if we had no structure or limits. look at RoboCop to see what happens when order breaks down. that's just a silly example, but the fact remains if we were all free to do whatever we wanted it'd never be safe to drive a car, we could never walk around with money in our pockets and we truly would have to lock our daughters up. we need structure, going back to gay marriage, because we need to establish when it's ok or not ok to do something. we can't just go around granting rights to every group just because in their mind they're being infringed upon.

And lets stop using the "eyes of God" argument in this stuff. Not everyone believes in God and in fact, as science continues to be taught to people, less and less people will believe in God. Not all of us want our laws to be developed around some fairy tale from thousands of years ago that science has disproven.

i don't believe in God, to be honest, that doesn't mean i want to abolish all traces of tradition. not believing in God doesn't stop people from celebrating Christmas, but we all do it anyway. that's a religious holiday, a time meant to reflect on the birth of the Son Of God. just because you remove the religious element from your life or no longer believe in the religion behind the ceremony doesn't mean you get to poo-poo all over it. we were having weddings in churches and temples to have the blessings of our Creator (whoever/whatever that might be) long before we were getting hitched at a city hall or a Vegas drive-thru. to me, marriage is a religious institution/act joining a man and a woman in a union that is formally recognized by the state.

[SFL Cat]

Pedophilia is wrong unless of course the kid is seduces you.






/in case I ever run for office this is a joke :)

Heh...too late. :)

Actually, just push back your run 10-15 years. By then it might not be such a big deal.

[Groundhog]

look at the Free Mode in GTAIV online to see an example of what would happen in society if we had no structure or limits. look at RoboCop to see what happens when order breaks down. that's just a silly example, but the fact remains if we were all free to do whatever we wanted it'd never be safe to drive a car, we could never walk around with money in our pockets and we truly would have to lock our daughters up. we need structure, going back to gay marriage, because we need to establish when it's ok or not ok to do something. we can't just go around granting rights to every group just because in their mind they're being infringed upon.

Humans need structure and limits. Chaos and outright anarchy might crop up in different places from time to time, but it's a temporary situation that is resolved once a new power is in place. We love structure and limits. It's wired in to our brains even if we don't realise it. Nothing like gay marriage (or anything else) is going to suddenly change that.

[SFL Cat]

This is a great game, let me try:

"I like video games."

This statement 40 years ago:

"I like playing ball in the park with my friends."

This statement 40 years from now:

"I like stealing cars, shooting people, and picking up prostitutes from street corners."

Hence: Video games are evil!!!!!!!! :eek:

Well, they say you are what you eat.

I remember the first time I went to see an R-rated movie...I kind of lied to the folks, because they were real picky about the movies they let us kids go see...but during the flick they showed someone being murdered in a very graphic way, and it really upset and shocked me at the time.

Of course, years later, after much motion picture bloodshed and carnage I remember coming out of a theater after a particularly bloody horror flick and realized how desensitized I had become to the violence on the screen. I could watch mayhem much more graphic than the murder that had upset me so much years earlier without a second thought.

Part of that is understanding what I'm seeing on the screen isn't real. But still, there is a voyeuristic element to it that is rather unsettling when you think about it. That's one reason I don't go to see splatter-horror movies anymore.

I think the same can be said for video games like Grand Theft Auto...where you are actually playing a criminal, jacking cars, raping and murdering people. Not saying everyone who plays it will become a psycho murderer, but I sometimes wonder if "pretending" to do such things on a regular basis can desensitize one's moral sense of right and wrong?

[Groundhog]

If someone is encouraged by a movie or video game to do something terrible then I'd argue that if it wasn't the game/movie, it just would've been something else that eventually pushed them over the edge.

A sense of right and wrong is not something that can just be erased by playing a video game or watching a movie, it requires a lot of external, real-world "help" to get you to that point.

[Grammaticus]

Why do their need to be limitations on what someone does in their private life? If it doesn't hurt you in anyway, why is there a limitation? This is the part of your argument I can't understand. Why are there these limitations if it takes place between consenting adults?

I'll add I think incest is a bad argument on your part as the main reason it's illegal today is due to the high level of genetic defects it causes in offspring.


And lets stop using the "eyes of God" argument in this stuff. Not everyone believes in God and in fact, as science continues to be taught to people, less and less people will believe in God. Not all of us want our laws to be developed around some fairy tale from thousands of years ago that science has disproven.

What do birth defects have to do with anything? Someone can make the argument that a much higher level of AIDS infections occur in homosexual relationships (yeah I know the argument is marriage, but it was simply accepting gay sex 20 years ago). Also, birth defects and severe mental and physical retardation are linked to genetic history (even in non-incestuous scenarios) as well. We are not stopping people who continue to have high rates of ratarded children from having babies. The brother / sister or father / daughter, etc. example fits the argument perfectly. Either accept the freedom to do as consenting adults want or don't. That also means youthenasia when consenting, etc.

As for the "eyes of god", we have laws being crafted today based upon the old argument that some races were not as talened as others. Since we all know that all races are equal, even black and white (add any other race you want) and the civil rights war was fought and won in the 1960's, can we stop creating laws around affirmitive action and race based policy? That fairy tale should not be driving policy today.

[SFL Cat]

If someone is encouraged by a movie or video game to do something terrible then I'd argue that if it wasn't the game/movie, it just would've been something else that eventually pushed them over the edge.

A sense of right and wrong is not something that can just be erased by playing a video game or watching a movie, it requires a lot of external, real-world "help" to get you to that point.

Not saying that it will cause people to something terrible.

I'm just wondering if a steady diet of something like that would change our reaction to a real-life situation...i.e., we see something similar in real-life and our reaction is not shock and revulsion, but more of a blase, shrug-your-shoulders, sh*t happens kind of response. It's all about the slippery slope. :)

And, if some kid has never thought about robbing, or killing someone...and plays a game like Grand Theft Auto...where the violence is more gritty and realistic...and not over-the-top and cartoony like other games...it certainly opens a whole new range emotions and experiences for that kid. And sometimes all it takes is a nudge or push to cause some people to start going in the wrong direction.

[RainMaker]

You're crossing the line here. I should know, since I've crossed it many times before. :)

You extol the rights of gays and deride gay bashers, yet you have become a religious basher by calling someone's beliefs fairy tales. That's pretty harsh.
The term fairy tale was probably over-the-line. But I am not the one that brought up the issue of religion. He said it's bad in "God's eyes". This argument is used by social conservatives as well.

If you're going to use a particular religion for the basis of a legal argument, then their religion is fair game. If a Scientologist believes psychology should be outlawed based on their religious beliefs, isn't their religious beliefs now part of the argument? If your basis for outlawing something is based on the word of a particular God, I believe it is only fair to argue whether such God exists.

[QuikSand]

Hey, looks like you fellas have this whole thing just about ironed out - just let us know, k thx.

[SFL Cat]

You'll be the first to get a PM, sir. ;)

[RainMaker]

What do birth defects have to do with anything? Someone can make the argument that a much higher level of AIDS infections occur in homosexual relationships (yeah I know the argument is marriage, but it was simply accepting gay sex 20 years ago). Also, birth defects and severe mental and physical retardation are linked to genetic history (even in non-incestuous scenarios) as well. We are not stopping people who continue to have high rates of ratarded children from having babies. The brother / sister or father / daughter, etc. example fits the argument perfectly. Either accept the freedom to do as consenting adults want or don't. That also means youthenasia when consenting, etc.
I understand what you're saying, and I personally don't care if a brother and sister want to marry. I'm just saying that one of the arguments is that incestous children are at a much higher rate for fatal defects. There marriage in affect may hurt others in this scenario, while a gay marriage hurts no one.

I agree with you though, just saying that comparing incest to gay marriage seems flawed in my eyes.

As for the "eyes of god", we have laws being crafted today based upon the old argument that some races were not as talened as others. Since we all know that all races are equal, even black and white (add any other race you want) and the civil rights war was fought and won in the 1960's, can we stop creating laws around affirmitive action and race based policy? That fairy tale should not be driving policy today.

I agree with you here too. Although I don't feel that these policies are based on saying that one race is better than the other, and instead based on trying to root out racism and helping minorities catch up to the majority race. That has nothing to do with biology or genetics either, it has to do with the fact a particular race was opressed for hundreds of years in this country and need a hand catching up.

[st.cronin]

I don't really want to get drawn into this, but my personal point of view is that there is an ideology behind gay marriage which insists that men and women are completely interchangeable, that they simply have different genitals, and that is the extent of their differences. I believe this is completely incorrect.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I don't really want to get drawn into this, but my personal point of view is that there is an ideology behind gay marriage which insists that men and women are completely interchangeable, that they simply have different genitals, and that is the extent of their differences. I believe this is completely incorrect.

Well, when that "ideology" is, you know, the Constitution, I think you kind have to accept it as true in this debate.

[st.cronin]

Where in the Constitution does it say men and women differ only in respect to their genitals?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Where in the Constitution does it say men and women differ only in respect to their genitals?

Constitution doesn't even go that far. We're all equals under the law, regardless of your genitals.

[Drake]

Oh, my genitals are more than equal, and I want that recognized.

[st.cronin]

"Equals under the law" is not the same thing as interchangeable for all purposes.

[Honolulu_Blue]

"Equals under the law" is not the same thing as interchangeable for all purposes.

When you're deciding wether something is legal/constitutional (e.g., gay marriage), it pretty much is or, if not, certainly should be.

[JPhillips]

From the Federalist Papers:

"wherever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former."

[clintl]

I didn't think that this was the first time this law has been reviewed by the CA Supreme Court. Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought this had previously passed judicial scrutiny.

In the bigger picture, the Civil Union in CA provides all of the benefits of marriage that the state can provide. So I don't see that the law is truly discriminatory.

They ducked the question of whether the law was constitutional the last time around. What they ruled on was whether the marriage licenses that had been granted were legal under the law.

And, by the way, the constitutional amendment the anti-gay-marriage groups are putting together would also ban civil unions.

[Anthony]

And, by the way, the constitutional amendment the anti-gay-marriage groups are putting together would also ban civil unions.

"Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars"

[clintl]

"Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars"

That's a bad thing if you're on a spaceship with just enough supplies to get to the moon and back.

[Groundhog]

Gambia has a solution:


http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23745361-23109,00.html

Gambia President Yahya Jammeh threatens to behead gays

ECCENTRIC Gambian President Yahya Jammeh has threatened to behead gays unless they leave the country, according to reports.

"The Gambia is a country of believers ... sinful and immoral practices (such) as homosexuality will not be tolerated in this country," the president told a crowd at a political rally on May 15, local journalists said today.

He went on to say he would "cut off the head" of any gay person caught in The Gambia.

The anti-gay campaign continued in the Gambian pro-government media this week with the Daily Observer publishing a virulent editorial.

"We have said it before and we will say it again. This is a Muslim and Christian country. Both the Koran and the holy Bible condemn homosexuality - pure and simple," the paper wrote on Monday.

British gay rights group Outrage today said the Gambian leader's comments came as no surprise.

"Jammeh has a long history of homophobia," spokesman Peter Tatchell said.
"If he tries to carry out these threats, international aid donors are likely to withdraw their support, and foreign tourists will stay away in droves, thereby damaging the Gambian economy," he added.

The tourism industry is vital to Gambia's economy as the West African nation lacks other natural resources.

Mr Jammeh drew condemnation from African AIDS groups after he claimed in January to have found a "miracle" treatment for HIV/AIDS.

I think "eccentric" is perhaps a little too light a term to throw at a country's leader who has just said he'll decapitate around ~10% of his population.

[SFL Cat]

No controversies over same-sex marriages there....

[flere-imsaho]

No controversies over same-sex marriages there....

Hey, if the U.S. gets too liberal for you, SFL Cat....

[Tekneek]

I've got the perfect solution for all of this madness. Let's just roll back the clock 50 years and it will be solved. The inevitable slide began when segregation was thrown out, despite a majority of people in the south wanting it to stay that way. The Loving v Virginia decision also needs to be undone. Very similar arguments were used against interracial marriage as the ones used today against gay marriage, so we've got to fix that as well.

Hell, for that matter, let's just go back 150 years so women cannot vote and we can still have slaves. Conservatism will rise again! Tyranny of the majority is a great thing! There shouldn't be any rights that are not subject to the vote of the majority! Let's put everything up for a vote and majority rules! That's DEMOCRACY after all!