Same Sex Marriage Ban Overturned in California

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

You might want to mention to them that one of the first treaties the US signed as a country explicitly indicates that the nation ISNT Christian in basis ....

as i've mentioned before though marc - facts don't matter to these types. you could show them the actual treaty and they'd go off on a tangent about the "hidden intent" behind the words or some crazy nonsense.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

The plot thickens:

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM15...it_appeal.html

The Ninth Circuit Allowed the stay, but indicated that the people trying to appeal have a large uphill climb ahead of them.

Other thing is...if the Ninth denies the appeal on a standing basis, that would open up a whole 'nother can of worms, as SCOTUS could decline to step in at that point, but it wouldn't exactly be "settled law," either. It'd just be deferring the inevitable - that SCOTUS hears a case like this one.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Other thing is...if the Ninth denies the appeal on a standing basis, that would open up a whole 'nother can of worms, as SCOTUS could decline to step in at that point, but it wouldn't exactly be "settled law," either. It'd just be deferring the inevitable - that SCOTUS hears a case like this one.

Agreed. SCOTUS will likely use this as a way to avoid ruling on a controversial issue like they did with Newdow. However, when other circuits start giving conflicting opinions, that's when SCOTUS will have to step up.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Anthony

i've always wondered if we decided to throw out the Constitution and start over with an updated version that reflects todays sensibilities and thinking, what would the new Constitution look like?

I dropped by the thread to see if the indefinite hold update had been posted (no idea when it happened, I just saw it a few minutes ago myself) & saw your comment here.

I think the contents a new constitution might depend upon the process used to ratify it. I think we'd probably get a different document if states had to ratify it by popular vote versus by legislative vote on a state-by-state basis vs approval only by those on the drafting committee. The latter would be the most relaxed I imagine, as at some point the members would simply tire of the process & compromise however necessary just to have it completed. And what number would be needed for "ratification" or "adoption" (or whatever term applies to a new/replacement Constitution, I'm tired & it's late)
I'm having a hard time separating the process for Constitutional amendments from the notion of an entirely new Constitution, so I'm not really sure what standard of agreement would be applied.

With regard to this particular subject, I have a tough time imagining a looser definition of marriage in any document that could get approved, considering that 41 states have statues defining marriage as one-man/one-woman, 30 have defined it in their Constitutions, and all but three of those have done so since 1988. Not sure how much closer the states could get in expressing a majority viewpoint on the subject.

Truth be told though, I think your hypothetical do-over is almost a trick question. I see virtually no chance that any document with significant changes could be crafted that would get approval in, say, even 2/3rds of states and I'm not close to convinced that you could craft anything more than the most limited of documents that could get even 50% approval from the people actual governed by the document.

i was actually looking to reading more of Jon's thoughts on this. say what you want about him, but i always thought of his views as a more extreme version of mine. he's obviously holding back, i can only imagine what he really thinks.

I've actually commented on this before in some thread or another, to summarize here though, I'm actually primarily offended at the sheer absurdity of the notion of defining same-sex couples as "married" even moreso than I am by the moral depravity of it. It's the equivalent of having a court declare that the color formerly known as "blue" shall henceforth be known as the the color "red" or even the color "bumperguard". Basically my biggest outrage is at the affront to sanity or reason than as a religious/moral objection.

[larrymcg421]

BTW, I looked up the case the 9th circuit mentioned in their order - Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997). I don't see how Prop 8 proponents are gonna be able to argue they have standing based on this precedent:

(a) Grave doubts exist as to the standing of petitioners AOE and Park to pursue appellate review under Article Ill's case-or-controversy requirement. Standing to defend on appeal in the place of an original defendant demands that the litigant possess "a direct stake in the outcome." Diamond v. Charles, 476 U. S. 54, 62. Petitioners' primary argument-that, as initiative proponents, they have a quasi-legislative

---

interest in defending the measure they successfully sponsored-is dubious because they are not elected state legislators, authorized by state law to represent the State's interests, see Karcher v. May, 484 U. S. 72, 82. Furthermore, this Court has never identified initiative proponents as Article-Ill-qualified defenders. Cf. Don't Bankrnpt Washington Committee v. Continental Ill. Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 460 U. S. 1077. Their assertion of representational or associational standing is also problematic, absent the concrete injury that would confer standing upon AOE members in their own right, see, e. g., Food and Commercial Workers v. Brown Group, Inc., 517 U. S. 544, 551-553, and absent anything in Article XXVIII's state-court citizen-suit provision that could support standing for Arizona residents in general, or AOE in particular, to defend the Article's constitutionality in federal court.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I dropped by the thread to see if the indefinite hold update had been posted (no idea when it happened, I just saw it a few minutes ago myself) & saw your comment here.

I think the contents a new constitution might depend upon the process used to ratify it. I think we'd probably get a different document if states had to ratify it by popular vote versus by legislative vote on a state-by-state basis vs approval only by those on the drafting committee. The latter would be the most relaxed I imagine, as at some point the members would simply tire of the process & compromise however necessary just to have it completed. And what number would be needed for "ratification" or "adoption" (or whatever term applies to a new/replacement Constitution, I'm tired & it's late)
I'm having a hard time separating the process for Constitutional amendments from the notion of an entirely new Constitution, so I'm not really sure what standard of agreement would be applied.

With regard to this particular subject, I have a tough time imagining a looser definition of marriage in any document that could get approved, considering that 41 states have statues defining marriage as one-man/one-woman, 30 have defined it in their Constitutions, and all but three of those have done so since 1988. Not sure how much closer the states could get in expressing a majority viewpoint on the subject.

Truth be told though, I think your hypothetical do-over is almost a trick question. I see virtually no chance that any document with significant changes could be crafted that would get approval in, say, even 2/3rds of states and I'm not close to convinced that you could craft anything more than the most limited of documents that could get even 50% approval from the people actual governed by the document.



I've actually commented on this before in some thread or another, to summarize here though, I'm actually primarily offended at the sheer absurdity of the notion of defining same-sex couples as "married" even moreso than I am by the moral depravity of it. It's the equivalent of having a court declare that the color formerly known as "blue" shall henceforth be known as the the color "red" or even the color "bumperguard". Basically my biggest outrage is at the affront to sanity or reason than as a religious/moral objection.

i call all of this insanity the "Will & Grace-ification of America". that show dressed up homosexuality in a cute little bunny costume and added a laugh track and POOF - we got Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, America's Next Top Model and all these displays of gay empowerment and now here i am, in the year 2010 and the government wants to tell me that my relationship with my wife, one that produces offspring that will go forth and populate the earth, is the same kind of relationship as two gay men/women. i'll give them their civil union, but marriage, nah, that i can't do. i know the song "American Idiot" is actually anti-homophobia, anti-redneck sensibilities, but i've always agreed with the line

"Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Where everything isn't meant to be okay."

i always focus on the "everything isn't meant to be okay" part. i truly believe that. not everything in life needs to be fair. not every group needs to be heard. its ok for certain segments of society to not have the same things as the normal majority. i don't think that was ever the purpose of our government to try to accomplish that. that's why i always shudder at the thought of what a new Constitution would look like if one day we decided to start over. some kook may one day convince the nation that we're trying to progress and evolve as a country but we're being held back by the sensibilities of rich white landowners who owned slaves hundreds of years ago. i'd truly hate to live in this country knowing the kind of sun-shiny utopia a new reformed Constitution would have this country look like. i'd say off the top of my head we'd tear down borders and let any Mexican waltz through and become a citizen. gay marriage probably become legit. and what about abortions? how close is the nearest Wal-Mart? guns? can't have 'em.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Anthony

i call all of this insanity the "Will & Grace-ification of America". that show dressed up homosexuality in a cute little bunny costume and added a laugh track and POOF - we got Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, America's Next Top Model and all these displays of gay empowerment and now here i am, in the year 2010 and the government wants to tell me that my relationship with my wife, one that produces offspring that will go forth and populate the earth, is the same kind of relationship as two gay men/women. i'll give them their civil union, but marriage, nah, that i can't do. i know the song "American Idiot" is actually anti-homophobia, anti-redneck sensibilities, but i've always agreed with the line

"Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Where everything isn't meant to be okay."

i always focus on the "everything isn't meant to be okay" part. i truly believe that. not everything in life needs to be fair. not every group needs to be heard. its ok for certain segments of society to not have the same things as the normal majority. i don't think that was ever the purpose of our government to try to accomplish that. that's why i always shudder at the thought of what a new Constitution would look like if one day we decided to start over. some kook may one day convince the nation that we're trying to progress and evolve as a country but we're being held back by the sensibilities of rich white landowners who owned slaves hundreds of years ago. i'd truly hate to live in this country knowing the kind of sun-shiny utopia a new reformed Constitution would have this country look like. i'd say off the top of my head we'd tear down borders and let any Mexican waltz through and become a citizen. gay marriage probably become legit. and what about abortions? how close is the nearest Wal-Mart? guns? can't have 'em.

eh...it's not even worth it. you're just looking for attention and to cause controversy like usual.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

eh...it's not even worth it. you're just looking for attention and to cause controversy like usual.

go bury your head in the sand you fucking ostrich. instead of meeting someone else's views with your own, you rather cover your eyes and pretend its just a troll talking. get some spine, son. not everyone thinks the same way you do. its called America.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Anthony

i call all of this insanity the "Will & Grace-ification of America". that show dressed up homosexuality in a cute little bunny costume and added a laugh track and POOF - we got Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, America's Next Top Model and all these displays of gay empowerment and now here i am, in the year 2010 and the government wants to tell me that my relationship with my wife, one that produces offspring that will go forth and populate the earth, is the same kind of relationship as two gay men/women.

So any marriage that doesn't produce offspring is invalid? I guess seniors shouldn't ever remarry then, right?

And nevermind the fact that gay couples can reproduce since there are plenty of willing donors out there to make it happen for them, or all the gay couples willing to adopt children that need a home.

It makes me happy knowing that your kind of bigotry against gays is getting less and less common with each succeeding generation, and sad that in a few decades from now our children will look back at our era and wonder what took so long for common sense to take hold in this country.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Anthony

go bury your head in the sand you fucking ostrich. instead of meeting someone else's views with your own, you rather cover your eyes and pretend its just a troll talking. get some spine, son. not everyone thinks the same way you do. its called America.

Originally Posted by dawgfan

So any marriage that doesn't produce offspring is invalid? I guess seniors shouldn't ever remarry then, right?

And nevermind the fact that gay couples can reproduce since there are plenty of willing donors out there to make it happen for them, or all the gay couples willing to adopt children that need a home.

It makes me happy knowing that your kind of bigotry against gays is getting less and less common with each succeeding generation, and sad that in a few decades from now our children will look back at our era and wonder what took so long for common sense to take hold in this country.

looks like dawgfan took care of basically what i would have said.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Remember, in HA's world.

Two gay people in love being recognized as marriage by the state = Horrible
Getting himself off to a 16 yr old in a bikini = A-OK!

You forgot "Fucking a sandwich = A-OK"

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Anthony

the government wants to tell me that my relationship with my wife, one that produces offspring that will go forth and populate the earth, is the same kind of relationship as two gay men/women. i'll give them their civil union, but marriage, nah, that i can't do.

If your relationship with your wife is so fragile that sharing its label with other people in a committed relationship is such a threat to you then you've got bigger problems in your relationship.

And if your relationship was really truly strong you wouldn't be threatened by how anyone else referred to their relationship.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Anthony

i call all of this insanity the "Will & Grace-ification of America".

Maybe people started realizing that gay people don't affect their lives in any way and there's nothing wrong with it. It's not a disease you're going to catch. You can even shake their hands and not catch the gayness.

Originally Posted by Anthony

in the year 2010 and the government wants to tell me that my relationship with my wife, one that produces offspring that will go forth and populate the earth, is the same kind of relationship as two gay men/women. i'll give them their civil union, but marriage, nah, that i can't do.

The hangup is really word? This sounds like the same bullshit reasoning bigots are using over the mosque that would kinda-sorta be in the vicinity of the WTC site. "I don't have anything against them, I just want to treat them different than everyone else".

Originally Posted by Anthony

and what about abortions? how close is the nearest Wal-Mart?

This comes from the same person that once posted;

your mother is an idiot for not shoving a hanger up her rotten vaginal canal to abort you.

Obviously abortion is a touchy subject that you care deeply about.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

If your relationship with your wife is so fragile that sharing its label with other people in a committed relationship is such a threat to you then you've got bigger problems in your relationship.

And if your relationship was really truly strong you wouldn't be threatened by how anyone else referred to their relationship.

there is no threatened. i simply don't want certain relationships being considered the same as mine.

this is all an excercise in futility. no one is gonna change anyone's views with a few posts in a text sim website. i hang with likeminded ppl as i'm sure you also do. we'll do just fine operating in our respective circles. i've spoken my mind, you've let other speak yours for you, its all good. kumbaya and handjobs for everyone.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Anthony

this is all an excercise in futility. no one is gonna change anyone's views with a few posts in a text sim website. i hang with likeminded ppl as i'm sure you also do. we'll do just fine operating in our respective circles.

Which is why I haven't bothered to make much in the way of appearances in this thread. It's not as though more than a handful of us actually encounter each other outside of here anyway, I knew this thread would be largely a kumbaya knitting circle so posting much seemed rather pointless.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Anthony

i simply don't want certain relationships being considered the same as mine.

This actually gets to the nub of it. HA believes this. And he won't change our mind and we won't change his. And HA has every right to vote based on his beliefs and, more fundamentally, the right to believe what he believes.

The actual question at issue is whether the fact that about half the country agrees with HA provides the state with a rational basis for discriminating against individuals with respect to a fundamental right (marriage). I don't think that it does. "Some people don't like it" has, historically, not been enough to support state-sanctioned discrimination vis a vis fundamental rights.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I've actually commented on this before in some thread or another, to summarize here though, I'm actually primarily offended at the sheer absurdity of the notion of defining same-sex couples as "married" even moreso than I am by the moral depravity of it. It's the equivalent of having a court declare that the color formerly known as "blue" shall henceforth be known as the the color "red" or even the color "bumperguard". Basically my biggest outrage is at the affront to sanity or reason than as a religious/moral objection.

That's almost as absurd as using the Constitution as a dictionary.

The idea of granting homosexual couples all the same rights and privileges but making the official designation be called a "civil union" instead of a "marriage" is possibly the dumbest political stance I've ever heard.

What will the marriage defenders do when a gay civilly united couple calls themselves "married" in conversation? Call the cops?

"They used the wrong word, officer. They said *gasp* - MARRIED!"

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

The idea of granting homosexual couples all the same rights and privileges but making the official designation be called a "civil union" instead of a "marriage" is possibly the dumbest political stance I've ever heard.

I think you're confusing me with HA re: civil union. I don't support any formal recognition of the relationship, that was him (in the last page or so of the thread anyway).

I said that the misappropriation of the word was the most offensive thing about it to me, not that it was the only offensive thing.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Anthony

there is no threatened. i simply don't want certain relationships being considered the same as mine.

this is all an excercise in futility. no one is gonna change anyone's views with a few posts in a text sim website. i hang with likeminded ppl as i'm sure you also do. we'll do just fine operating in our respective circles. i've spoken my mind, you've let other speak yours for you, its all good. kumbaya and handjobs for everyone.

Why don't you want them being considered the same: Because that makes you feel insecure? Because you think it makes your relationship less special? What's your reasoning for not wanting it?

*yawn* I'm sure that was supposed to be some veiled insult that you spoke your mind and i wanted for someone else to take up my side of the argument, but i look at it as "i've only got so much time to spend on FOFC...i'd rather not spend it rehashing my POV everytime I get into a conversation with someone."

[Marc Vaughan]

I've actually commented on this before in some thread or another, to summarize here though, I'm actually primarily offended at the sheer absurdity of the notion of defining same-sex couples as "married" even moreso than I am by the moral depravity of it. It's the equivalent of having a court declare that the color formerly known as "blue" shall henceforth be known as the the color "red" or even the color "bumperguard". Basically my biggest outrage is at the affront to sanity or reason than as a religious/moral objection.

I've never quite understood the 'moral outrage' by some Christians about gay marriage to be honest.

Bear in mind in early church life women had never to no say (if any) in who they married or at what age it occurred, in medieval England daughters were married off (with the church's blessing) for political/business convenience from the age of 6 sometimes ..... today that would be thought horrific to allow.

As such if the Christian church can adapt from that to todays 'standards' of marriage (and acceptance of equality for women in 'most' things) I really don't see the huge deal about them accepting gay marriage.

[JPhillips]

Marc: I think you missed the part in the Bible where Jesus said,

"Let the children come to me so that I might marry them off to cement my political and business relationships."

That makes it okay.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I think you're confusing me with HA re: civil union. I don't support any formal recognition of the relationship, that was him (in the last page or so of the thread anyway).

I said that the misappropriation of the word was the most offensive thing about it to me, not that it was the only offensive thing.

Didn't mean to imply that was your stance in particular, although I recognize that my post reads that way now that I look at it again.

Just highlighting the absurdity of that argument.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I think you're confusing me with HA re: civil union. I don't support any formal recognition of the relationship, that was him (in the last page or so of the thread anyway).

I said that the misappropriation of the word was the most offensive thing about it to me, not that it was the only offensive thing.

my stance on civil union is me throwing a bone to them. the Greeks have managed to penetrate Troy, can't pretend things haven't changed. again, another case where you have more extreme views of mine.

[RendeR]

Frankly this comes down to the Right wing bible thumpers not having a legal leg to stand on and fighting tooth and nail to hold on to archaic self-important opinions of how they think the world should be for everyone. See the equal rights movement, women's suffrage, interracial marriage and oh...slavery? for examples of the same problem throughout history.

Those who get offended that gays want to use the word Marriage have every right to be offended. This is America, you have the right to feel however you want to about any given subject.

Lucky for everyone that you don't have the right to legislate bigotry into law though. All those states mentioned before, who voted in statutes and constitutional definitions? This is just the first brick in the removal of all that crap too.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Remember, in HA's world.

Two gay people in love being recognized as marriage by the state = Horrible
Getting himself off to a 16 yr old in a bikini = A-OK!

I'm sure if they were two really HOT women he wouldn't mind though, especially if they wanted to play with him...

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

I'm sure if they were two really HOT women he wouldn't mind though, especially if they wanted to play with him...

Look, he already said he was throwing a bone to them, what more do you want?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Anthony

there is no threatened. i simply don't want certain relationships being considered the same as mine.

Of course you're threatened and that is why you don't want it considered the same as yours. I would suggest not basing your marriage on a piece of paper the State gives you though to determine it's strength and meaning.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

I'm sure if they were two really HOT women he wouldn't mind though, especially if they wanted to play with him...

what, you gonna be the one to break this up??!?:

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Of course you're threatened and that is why you don't want it considered the same as yours. I would suggest not basing your marriage on a piece of paper the State gives you though to determine it's strength and meaning.

why are gays so threatened about their relationship that they need to have their relationship validated by a piece of paper? heck, we can play this game all day.

[Anthony]

keep in mind, being anti-gay marriage is not the same as being anti-gay. well, i'm not pro gay, but far be it for me to police 2 consenting adults. i'm all for protecting the sanctity of a traditional relationship, modern new age sensibilities be damned. i don't push my beliefs onto gays and don't deny their right to exist as equal individuals, i just want to keep sacred the things that mean a lot to me.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Anthony

why are gays so threatened about their relationship that they need to have their relationship validated by a piece of paper? heck, we can play this game all day.

Why are blacks so threatened that they'd need to have their existence validated by being allowed to sit where they want on a bus? Why are women so threatened that they need to be able to vote?

Gay marriage isn't about validation by a piece of paper, it's about receiving the same legal rights that you receive through your marriage. If them being able to file their taxes jointly has that big of an impact on your marriage, than I'd believe the issues are bigger than the gays.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Anthony

keep in mind, being anti-gay marriage is not the same as being anti-gay. well, i'm not pro gay, but far be it for me to police 2 consenting adults. i'm all for protecting the sanctity of a traditional relationship, modern new age sensibilities be damned. i don't push my beliefs onto gays and don't deny their right to exist as equal individuals, i just want to keep sacred the things that mean a lot to me.

Define traditional relationship. Because in this country, our form of marriage is not traditional in any way. In fact, our form of marriage has changed dramatically in just the last 100 years.

Arranged marriages are traditional. Having one family "sell" their daughter to another for social and financial reasons. That has been around much longer than what we have. That is traditional marriage, what we have now is just a piece of paper that gives you some legal benefits.

[Kodos]

They should probably have two kinds of marriage: 1. a legal one that confers legal rights onto the married couple; and 2. a religious marriage that confers legal rights plus whatever religious meaning your particular brand of religion wants to add.

Kinda like buying a car, only the religious version has mudflaps.

[Marmel]

Originally Posted by Anthony

why are gays so threatened about their relationship that they need to have their relationship validated by a piece of paper? heck, we can play this game all day.

A couple of examples for ya:

Let's say a guy has a partner for 30 years. He is the breadwinner in the family. He dies suddenly one day. His partner, without that piece of paper, has no rights to anything. To make matters worst, the family of the dead man, who has shunned him since he came out, now comes forward and claims all of his assets as next of kin.


Two ladies in a long term committed relationship. One gets laid off in this economy and loses her health benefits. Without that piece of paper, he partner is not able to add her to her health benefits.

[JediKooter]

I say the only valid/legal marriages should be the ones performed by a government entity/employee.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I say the only valid/legal marriages should be the ones performed by a government entity/employee.

i agree with this. and the ones that aren't valid/legal can be performed by this guy:

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Anthony

why are gays so threatened about their relationship that they need to have their relationship validated by a piece of paper? heck, we can play this game all day.

it's not about validating their relationship - it's about the legal and financial benefits afforded by the word "marriage."

As others, including myself, have said in the past, there are 2 solutions:

1) Make everything a "civil union" in the eyes of the government. Rewrite all of the laws and rules and regulations so that they say "civil union." Religions can still have their "marriages," but unless people who are married also have a "civil union" (and obviously you make it automatic for existing married couples, no need to get a new civil union license) they don't get any of the legal/financial benefits.
2) Allow gays to be "married."

That's the result of the fact that through intellectual laziness, the government is in the business of "marrying" people, and uses that word in documentation.

I don't even care which way it comes to pass frankly.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Anthony

keep in mind, being anti-gay marriage is not the same as being anti-gay. well, i'm not pro gay, but far be it for me to police 2 consenting adults. i'm all for protecting the sanctity of a traditional relationship, modern new age sensibilities be damned. i don't push my beliefs onto gays and don't deny their right to exist as equal individuals, i just want to keep sacred the things that mean a lot to me.

I always thought that a traditional relationship was two people that loved each other and are committed to each other. No one is taking anything away from you.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Kodos

They should probably have two kinds of marriage: 1. a legal one that confers legal rights onto the married couple; and 2. a religious marriage that confers legal rights plus whatever religious meaning your particular brand of religion wants to add.

Kinda like buying a car, only the religious version has mudflaps.

But no one is stopping religions from having their own "accepted" marriage. Why does the government need to get involved in religious marriages? The government should only be worrying about the legal marriage of two adults who wish to give each other the legal rights that government has determined are allowed via marriage.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Kodos

They should probably have two kinds of marriage: 1. a legal one that confers legal rights onto the married couple; and 2. a religious marriage that confers legal rights plus whatever religious meaning your particular brand of religion wants to add.

Kinda like buying a car, only the religious version has mudflaps.

We already have that. Our legal form of marriage has nothing about religion in it at all. The religious stuff is just optional for people. The government treats the person who has a giant wedding in a Church the same as a couple who goes to City Hall one sunny afternoon.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We already have that. Our legal form of marriage has nothing about religion in it at all. The religious stuff is just optional for people. The government treats the person who has a giant wedding in a Church the same as a couple who goes to City Hall one sunny afternoon.

Exactly. The problem arises because the government uses a word that it coopted from religion.

Well let me clarify - I'm sure there woul still be bigots against it even if it was called "civil unions," but the primary cause of the problem is that the government coopted a religious word for legal purposes.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Exactly. The problem arises because the government uses a word that it coopted from religion.

I would love to see proof that the word marriage was taken from religion. So which came first the government involvement or the religious involvement?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Exactly. The problem arises because the government uses a word that it coopted from religion.

The word and act of marriage does not come from religion.

[DaddyTorgo]

Well then religion coopted the word.

Whatever. Point being, the word has strong religious connotations to some, and yet enjoys legal status as well.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Marc: I think you missed the part in the Bible where Jesus said,

"Let the children come to me so that I might marry them off to cement my political and business relationships."

That makes it okay.

Even if we want to talk religious justification - I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't say anything about gay marriage or homosexuality. But he did like to hang out with prostitutes, and that pissed everyone off. From the little we know about that "person/fictional character" (as described in the gospels, I'm not making any statement about any real-life Jesus), I'm sure he wouldn't take part in anything that treated people differently or oppresed anyone. I don't think you can read the gospels any other way. The gays of today, are, in some circles, the prostitutes of Jesus' time.

Jesus loved to piss of the religious elite and I don't think there's any doubt where he'd stand on the gay marraige issue, and I don't think there's any doubt how he'd react to fundamentalist Christianity in the U.S.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Anthony

i agree with this. and the ones that aren't valid/legal can be performed by this guy:

As long as Justin Timberlake wears that mustache the whole time.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Even if we want to talk religious justification - I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't say anything about gay marriage or homosexuality. But he did like to hang out with prostitutes, and that pissed everyone off. From the little we know about that "person/fictional character" (as described in the gospels, I'm not making any statement about any real-life Jesus), I'm sure he wouldn't take part in anything that treated people differently or oppresed anyone. I don't think you can read the gospels any other way. The gays of today, are, in some circles, the prostitutes of Jesus' time.

Jesus loved to piss of the religious elite and I don't think there's any doubt where he'd stand on the gay marraige issue, and I don't think there's any doubt how he'd react to fundamentalist Christianity in the U.S.

From TeaPartyJesus, the greatest blog eva:

[JPhillips]

Same sex marriage passed in the NY Senate. Will be signed by the Governor shortly. Marriage consultants all over NYC are going to be very busy.

[PackerFanatic]

*standing ovation*

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by PackerFanatic

*standing ovation*

Sad to me that such an obviously correct move, both morally and logically, legitimately evokes this response.

This should not be a debate. We should not be celebrating miniscule victories. Gays should be allowed to marry and there shouldn't be fanfare about it. There is no discussion to be had, it should just be.