same sex marriage in california

[manu1959]

looks like california is saying no gay marriage again.....

[hjmick]

Wanna bet we'll see it on a ballot again?

[Yurt]

Wanna bet we'll see it on a ballot again?

yup

i voted against prop 8

[manu1959]

yup

i voted against prop 8

yep.....i don't vote on social issues....

[Yurt]

yep.....i don't vote on social issues....

because the state shouldn't have a say?

[manu1959]

because the state shouldn't have a say?

i don't believe the government should legislate social issues.....

[Yurt]

i don't believe the government should legislate social issues.....

i agree

that is why i voted no, but i see your principle

[gabosaurus]

As of 9:50 PDT, about 25 percent of the vote had been counted.

[Immanuel]

I voted for the amendment in Florida. Not because I want to cheat homosexuals out of the joy of having a sanctified relationship, but because I believe that marriage is a rite of the church and not a privilege of the state.

I believe that the state should get out of the marriage business altogether and I would fully support a civil union proposal even though I believe that homosexuality is a sin against God.

Immie

[avatar4321]

I voted for the amendment in Florida. Not because I want to cheat homosexuals out of the joy of having a sanctified relationship, but because I believe that marriage is a rite of the church and not a privilege of the state.

I believe that the state should get out of the marriage business altogether and I would fully support a civil union proposal even though I believe that homosexuality is a sin against God.

Immie

By definition they can't have a sanctified relationship, even if the gay marriages were allowed by law.

[Immanuel]

By definition they can't have a sanctified relationship, even if the gay marriages were allowed by law.

Forgive me and you are of course right, but I couldn't think of a good word for it as it is almost 1:30, 2:30 thanks to last weekend's time change and I'm tired but couldn't sleep because of the election. I think the meaning is conveyed though.

Immie

[LiberalNation]

This sucks but is not really a suprise. We are still a long way off when it comes to gay rights in this country.

California voters approve gay-marriage ban

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/ap_on_el_ge/ballot_measures;_ylt=AkYe0iudvM5mLcnBLxrPVjpvzwcF

LOS ANGELES – In an election otherwise full of liberal triumphs, the gay rights movement suffered a stunning defeat as California voters approved a ban on same-sex marriages that overrides a recent court decision legalizing them.

The constitutional amendment — widely seen as the most momentous of the nation's 153 ballot measures — will limit marriage to heterosexual couples, the first time such a vote has taken place in a state where gay unions are legal.

Gay-rights activists had a rough election elsewhere as well. Ban-gay-marriage amendments were approved in Arizona and Florida, and Arkansas voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. Supporters made clear that gays and lesbians were their main target.

In California, with 95 percent of precincts reporting Wednesday, the ban had 5,125,752 votes, or 52 percent, while there were 4,725,313 votes, or 48 percent, opposed.

[Yurt]

wonder what happens to those married since june

[hjmick]

The fact that Prop 8 passed isn't really all that amazing, especially if you consider the number of Hispanic voters in the state. With the majority of them being traditional Catholics, it should come as no surprise that Prop 8 garnered the support it did. I would almost be willing to bet that, should they break down the numbers, a good percentage of support for the proposition came from Blacks and Hispanics, two camps that traditionally frown upon homosexuality.

What is more interesting to me, the same people who would deny homosexuals the right to marry, think it is okay for a minor child to get an abortion without parental knowledge. Your fourteen year old can't take an aspirin to school, she can't get her ears pierced without parental consent, but she can undergo a major medical procedure without parental knowledge? Oh... And gays can't get married. This is one fucked up state.

[Hull]

Just heard on the radio that regardless of the vote, California is saying that it's too late to change gay marriage, so it will remain legal. (?) I guess it only works that way in California.

[April15]

I think we need to keep mexicans from marrying Native American Indians. That way it will keep marriage holy!

[Binky]

In Michigan, I voted for medical mariquana. Pot is a minor issue as far as I'm concerned. There are a lot of other things that deserve our attention and are far more important. And much worse drugs to worry about. Booze would classify as a much worse problem, for one.

[Sitarro]

This sucks but is not really a suprise. We are still a long way off when it comes to gay rights in this country.

California voters approve gay-marriage ban

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/ap_on_el_ge/ballot_measures;_ylt=AkYe0iudvM5mLcnBLxrPVjpvzwcF

LOS ANGELES – In an election otherwise full of liberal triumphs, the gay rights movement suffered a stunning defeat as California voters approved a ban on same-sex marriages that overrides a recent court decision legalizing them.

The constitutional amendment — widely seen as the most momentous of the nation's 153 ballot measures — will limit marriage to heterosexual couples, the first time such a vote has taken place in a state where gay unions are legal.

Gay-rights activists had a rough election elsewhere as well. Ban-gay-marriage amendments were approved in Arizona and Florida, and Arkansas voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. Supporters made clear that gays and lesbians were their main target.

In California, with 95 percent of precincts reporting Wednesday, the ban had 5,125,752 votes, or 52 percent, while there were 4,725,313 votes, or 48 percent, opposed.

Hey lib, 5 million voted to ban fake marriage, that's how our Democracy works, if you don't like it maybe you should think about moving to a country that fits your agenda better.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[LiberalNation]

I know that and yes it is how things work. I'm not going around like some here claiming I wont recognize it, the world is going to be destroyed, life as we know will end, blah, blah.

The people spoke. Marriage is and state issue and they have every right to change their constitution to reflect there views on it until such a time the SC rules gay marriage is covered under equal rights law which I doubt we'll see for many more years to come.

[manu1959]

This sucks but is not really a suprise. We are still a long way off when it comes to gay rights in this country.

California voters approve gay-marriage ban

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/ap_on_el_ge/ballot_measures;_ylt=AkYe0iudvM5mLcnBLxrPVjpvzwcF

LOS ANGELES – In an election otherwise full of liberal triumphs, the gay rights movement suffered a stunning defeat as California voters approved a ban on same-sex marriages that overrides a recent court decision legalizing them.

The constitutional amendment — widely seen as the most momentous of the nation's 153 ballot measures — will limit marriage to heterosexual couples, the first time such a vote has taken place in a state where gay unions are legal.

Gay-rights activists had a rough election elsewhere as well. Ban-gay-marriage amendments were approved in Arizona and Florida, and Arkansas voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. Supporters made clear that gays and lesbians were their main target.

In California, with 95 percent of precincts reporting Wednesday, the ban had 5,125,752 votes, or 52 percent, while there were 4,725,313 votes, or 48 percent, opposed.

first off... in california... they have all the same civil rights as anyone else.....

they simply can not use the term marriage....

now... if they put on the ballot "civil union" and asked for confirmation of all the same rights be granted to a civil union as that granted to a marriage thus achieving eqivilancy it would pass easy.....

but they want to force the issue beyond what the public wants....

[LiberalNation]

now... if they put on the ballot "civil union" and asked for confirmation of all the same rights be granted to a civil union as that granted to a marriage thus achieving eqivilancy it would pass easy.....
That would have been a lot smarter. Personally I don't care what you call it but don't mind giving conservatives the word as long as in the end civil unions grant the same rights as marraige to a couple.

[avatar4321]

This sucks but is not really a suprise. We are still a long way off when it comes to gay rights in this country.


Gays already have the same rights as everyone else. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous

[avatar4321]

wonder what happens to those married since june

my guess is automatic annulment.

[Little-Acorn]

Just heard on the radio that regardless of the vote, California is saying that it's too late to change gay marriage, so it will remain legal. (?) I guess it only works that way in California.

Better find a new radio station. In fact, it doesn't work that way in California. Prop 8 simply adds one line to the California state constitution, saying:

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.

Notice it doesn't say, "except same-sex marriages made in California between June and November 2008".

If you're two men, or two women, then you don't have a "marriage" in California. Period. Whether you had one earlier or not.

ON EDIT:
Limbaugh just pointed out something interesting. Among caucasian voters in California, Prop 8 was DEFEATED, 49 to 51. But among black voters, they passed Prop 8 by 70% to 30%... and that provided the margin of victory.

-------------------------

Actually, you didn't have one earlier, anyway. Suppose four judges announce that a garment worn from the waist down, that has two seperate cloth tubes, one for each leg, will be known as a "dress" from now on. Does that make the pair of pants you just bought, a dress?

Of course not. Just because a judge says it's so, doesn't make it true. Even if some judge issues the ruling above, does that turn the pair of Dockers you picked up the other day from Sears, magically into a dress? And four judges saying two men together form a "marriage", didn't make that true either. A marriage is man and woman, always has been.

Calif law says that the state has certain obligations in regards to "marriages". Yesterday's Prop 8 simply pointed out the obvious, in case anyone was so stupid as to think "marriage" could possibly include a same-sex pair. Including stupid judges.

Avatar4321 is right. Prop 8 causes automatic annulment.

[YamiB.]

This disgusts me, I really had hoped the American people and the people of California had gotten some kind of sense into their heads. This is just another addition to this continuing stain on our history.


Gays already have the same rights as everyone else. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous

In the same way that when interracial marriage was banned that everybody had the same rights to marry somebody within their own race?



first off... in california... they have all the same civil rights as anyone else.....

they simply can not use the term marriage....

Except for the federal rights that are given to married couples.


now... if they put on the ballot "civil union" and asked for confirmation of all the same rights be granted to a civil union as that granted to a marriage thus achieving eqivilancy it would pass easy.....

I'm not 100%, but I don't think it would be possible to create a separate institution from marriage and have it granted all of the same rights as marriage working only at the state level. If the civil unions are only happening at the state level then they are being excluded from the federal rights given to married couples. There is of course the question as well of how civil unions will be recognized in other states.

Civil unions are a step in the right direction, but they do not seem to be a solution unless it is changed so that everybody who is going to receive rights through their government gets a civil union. I'm okay with conceding on that point to the religious wackos and letting them pretend that they have some kind of ownership over the term marriage.

[LiberalNation]

I'm not 100%, but I don't think it would be possible to create a separate institution from marriage and have it granted all of the same rights as marriage working only at the state level. If the civil unions are only happening at the state level then they are being excluded from the federal rights given to married couples. There is of course the question as well of how civil unions will be recognized in other states.

Civil unions are a step in the right direction, but they do not seem to be a solution unless it is changed so that everybody who is going to receive rights through their government gets a civil union. I'm okay with conceding on that point to the religious wackos and letting them pretend that they have some kind of ownership over the term marriage.
I agree with you here but the country is not ready yet. Better to start small and get what you can get over riling people up and losing the small things you could have had.

[hjmick]

Good reading on the subject as it pertains to California:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California

[YamiB.]

I agree with you here but the country is not ready yet. Better to start small and get what you can get over riling people up and losing the small things you could have had.

Oh yeah I agree that it is unfortunately more reasonable to except same-sex couples to be given equal access to marriage in incremental steps. I was just pointing out that though civil unions are nice they're not going to be enough.

[hjmick]

Except for the federal rights that are given to married couples.

To my knowledge, the federal government does not recognize same sex marriage. You can thank Bill Clinton for that. DOMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act)

[Immanuel]

Oh yeah I agree that it is unfortunately more reasonable to except same-sex couples to be given equal access to marriage in incremental steps. I was just pointing out that though civil unions are nice they're not going to be enough.

And why, pray tell, are civil unions not going to be enough?

Immie

[YamiB.]

And why, pray tell, are civil unions not going to be enough?

Immie


I'm not 100%, but I don't think it would be possible to create a separate institution from marriage and have it granted all of the same rights as marriage working only at the state level. If the civil unions are only happening at the state level then they are being excluded from the federal rights given to married couples. There is of course the question as well of how civil unions will be recognized in other states.


I think this brings up some practical problems with civil unions. Even without these I would expect some to push to be given the same institution as heterosexuals because they consider themselves equal and see not need for a separate institution.



To my knowledge, the federal government does not recognize same sex marriage. You can thank Bill Clinton for that. DOMA

Yes, this is another thing that needs to be overcome by gay rights advocates. If I had been actively following politics when Clinton made this idiotic move I would have heavily criticized it for it's discriminatory nature and because it seems to be unconstitutional.

[avatar4321]

This disgusts me, I really had hoped the American people and the people of California had gotten some kind of sense into their

It disgust me that people have no problem with Judges doing the job of legislatures. It disgusts me that people have no problem having government forcing changes on people. It disgusts me that people are giving government totalitarian power and naively think the government isnt going to screw them an everyone else.

This disgusts me. And the difference between you and me is I have a legitimate complaint.

[avatar4321]

And why, pray tell, are civil unions not going to be enough?

Immie

Because it frustrates the ultimate goal: Attack religion.

[YamiB.]

Because it frustrates the ultimate goal: Attack religion.

:rolleyes:

Edit: The enemies of religious freedom on this issue are certainly not the proponents of same-sex marriage, rather it is those who wish to ban it so that everybody must live by their religious laws.



It disgust me that people have no problem with Judges doing the job of legislatures. It disgusts me that people have no problem having government forcing changes on people. It disgusts me that people are giving government totalitarian power and naively think the government isnt going to screw them an everyone else.

This disgusts me. And the difference between you and me is I have a legitimate complaint.

I guess I think that courts should be allowed to do part of their job and evaluate the constitutionality of a law. I didn't realize it was the legislature's job to provide a check against themselves to make sure that the laws they were passing were constitutionally sound, it must work differently in California.

I also recognize that the majority can make decisions that go against the idea of majority rule with minority rights which is integral to our government.

I don't know about you, I think Loving v. Virginia was a good decision. It was better to grant people equal rights that deserved as soon as possible rather than waiting for the racists to come around.

[Yurt]

civil unions is still not equal rights...you will not get many federal rights

[April15]

Better find a new radio station. In fact, it doesn't work that way in California. Prop 8 simply adds one line to the California state constitution, saying:

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.

Notice it doesn't say, "except same-sex marriages made in California between June and November 2008".

If you're two men, or two women, then you don't have a "marriage" in California. Period. Whether you had one earlier or not.

ON EDIT:
Limbaugh just pointed out something interesting. Among caucasian voters in California, Prop 8 was DEFEATED, 49 to 51. But among black voters, they passed Prop 8 by 70% to 30%... and that provided the margin of victory.

-------------------------

Actually, you didn't have one earlier, anyway. Suppose four judges announce that a garment worn from the waist down, that has two seperate cloth tubes, one for each leg, will be known as a "dress" from now on. Does that make the pair of pants you just bought, a dress?

Of course not. Just because a judge says it's so, doesn't make it true. Even if some judge issues the ruling above, does that turn the pair of Dockers you picked up the other day from Sears, magically into a dress? And four judges saying two men together form a "marriage", didn't make that true either. A marriage is man and woman, always has been.

Calif law says that the state has certain obligations in regards to "marriages". Yesterday's Prop 8 simply pointed out the obvious, in case anyone was so stupid as to think "marriage" could possibly include a same-sex pair. Including stupid judges.

Avatar4321 is right. Prop 8 causes automatic annulment.

No ex post facto laws.

[Immanuel]

I think this brings up some practical problems with civil unions. Even without these I would expect some to push to be given the same institution as heterosexuals because they consider themselves equal and see not need for a separate institution.



Yes, this is another thing that needs to be overcome by gay rights advocates. If I had been actively following politics when Clinton made this idiotic move I would have heavily criticized it for it's discriminatory nature and because it seems to be unconstitutional.

My personal opinion, and this is nothing more than opinion, is that the State does not belong in the Marriage business. Marriage is, and has always been since before the Americas were discovered a religious rite. The State should not interfere with religion by either promoting it or preventing it.

Civil union laws should be adopted by all states as contract law. Anyone, gay (if the state cares to recognize gay unions) or straight should be eligible for a civil union contract. Civil unions would give the full benefit that the law guarantees for today's marriage. Marriage should continue to be the realm of the church. A "married" couple would not have the benefits of a civil union unless they also applied through the state for a civil union. One caveat: anyone who is currently married would be grandfathered into a Civil Union.

There are some churches that will "marry" gay couples. It is within those churches rights to continue to do so.

Immie

[YamiB.]

My personal opinion, and this is nothing more than opinion, is that the State does not belong in the Marriage business. Marriage is, and has always been since before the Americas were discovered a religious rite. The State should not interfere with religion by either promoting it or preventing it.

Civil union laws should be adopted by all states as contract law. Anyone, gay (if the state cares to recognize gay unions) or straight should be eligible for a civil union contract. Civil unions would give the full benefit that the law guarantees for today's marriage. Marriage should continue to be the realm of the church. A "married" couple would not have the benefits of a civil union unless they also applied through the state for a civil union. One caveat: anyone who is currently married would be grandfathered into a Civil Union.

There are some churches that will "marry" gay couples. It is within those churches rights to continue to do so.

Immie

I disagree that marriage has clear enough origins and a linear enough history to say that it was always a religious rite, but like I said before that's not really important to me. I would be perfectly fine with what you proposed. My main concerns are that homosexuals receive equal treatment under the law and that churches are allowed to govern themselves, but not the law of the land.

[Yurt]

No ex post facto laws.

it is not ex post facto...that is criminal law, not civil

[Abbey Marie]

See, every dark cloud has a silver lining.

[YamiB.]

See, every dark cloud has a silver lining.

The silver lining being denying equal treatment to a minority as would be in line with the principles of our country?

[Abbey Marie]

The silver lining being denying equal treatment to a minority as would be in line with the principles of our country?

You are not searching for fairness, or civil unions would be fine. You are really searching for respectability, and that cannot be legislated.

The silver lining is that the will of the people has prevailed, and in a state infamous for not often following it.

[YamiB.]

You are not searching for fairness, or civil unions would be fine. You are really searching for respectability, and that cannot be legislated.

The silver lining is that the will of the people has prevailed, and in a state infamous for not often following it.

Fairness is giving people a union that in past cases has been treated inferiority to the institution it is supposed to be equal to and even in the best cases doesn't provide the federal rights as the institution it imitates? Fairness it not being treated as a lower undeserving group because people like to see you as sinners or just gross rather than as actual equals. What my side wants is tolerance and equal treatment other the law.

The people's will shouldn't be followed when their will is to unjustly discriminate.

[manu1959]

Fairness is giving people a union that in past cases has been treated inferiority to the institution it is supposed to be equal to and even in the best cases doesn't provide the federal rights as the institution it imitates? Fairness it not being treated as a lower undeserving group because people like to see you as sinners or just gross rather than as actual equals. What my side wants is tolerance and equal treatment other the law.

The people's will shouldn't be followed when their will is to unjustly discriminate.

who gets to decide that other than the people....it isn't like we are living in iran where being gay gets you jailed or killed....

[Abbey Marie]

Fairness is giving people a union that in past cases has been treated inferiority to the institution it is supposed to be equal to and even in the best cases doesn't provide the federal rights as the institution it imitates? Fairness it not being treated as a lower undeserving group because people like to see you as sinners or just gross rather than as actual equals. What my side wants is tolerance and equal treatment other the law.

The people's will shouldn't be followed when their will is to unjustly discriminate.

Let's see some links to examples of how civil unions are "inferior" to marriage.

The people's will should always be followed. It's called democracy. Who are you to decide for the rest of us what is unjust?

[manu1959]

Let's see some links to examples of how civil unions are "inferior" to marriage.

The people's will should always be followed. It's called democracy. Who are you to decide for the rest of us what is unjust?

a guy that did not get what he wanted so the world is unjust....

[YamiB.]

Both of you seem to be taking issue with me saying that the will of the people should not always be followed, I would say usually the way to overturn this is through the courts assuming that whatever the will of the people was is contradictory to their state's constitution of to the US constitution. Taking a similar example from our history it was the will of the people in some states to ban marriage between interracial couples. The case of Loving v. Virgina found that the laws violated the equal protection guaranteed by the US constitution and thus invalidated the laws despite the will of the people. In my opinion this decision was perfectly reasonable, followed the principles of our government, and was way to secure justice in this case.

What are your thoughts on this case? Should the will of the people simply been followed and interracial couples would have just been out of luck until racist attitudes in their areas changed?


Let's see some links to examples of how civil unions are "inferior" to marriage.
http://www.gardenstateequality.org/civilunionsdontwork/1stInterimReportCURC.pdf

Here is a report from NJ about how they have found their civil unions law there inadequate in providing equal treatment to same-sex couples. They make comparisons to MA and say that some of the problems they are having in NJ and VT, another state with civil unions, were avoided in MA were they offer marriage to same-sex couples.

Right now it is impossible to tell if civil unions would have more trouble being recognized in other states and receiving federal rights because DOMA currently prevents this for married same-sex couples as well. It seems though that if DOMA were repealed, which it should be, that there would be some trouble in these areas with a institution that only exists within that particular state.

[YamiB.]

a guy that did not get what he wanted so the world is unjust....

I think it is pretty fair to say that denying somebody equal treatment under the law based on their belonging to a minority group without any valid reasoning is unjust. I guess justice to you means whatever the majority wants it to mean and to hell with the minority.

[Little-Acorn]

Both of you seem to be taking issue with me saying that the will of the people should not always be followed,

I'm not. I'm basically ignoring you, since you're just trying to change the subject.

My point was that if four judges announce that two men can form a mariage, that doesn't make it true. Just as if four judges announced that a pair of pants was now a "dress", that doesn't turn a pair of pants into a dress. It's still a pair of pants, and the judges are merely wrong.

And two men together are not a marriage, no matter how many judges say they are.

Prop 8 merely points this out, and takes the judges out of the "argument" by making the fact, part of the CA constitution that the judges can't change.

Game, set, match.

[YamiB.]

I'm not. I'm basically ignoring you, since you're just trying to change the subject.

Okay, and I said that you were?


My point was that if four judges announce that two men can form a mariage, that doesn't make it true. Just as if four judges announced that a pair of pants was now a "dress", that doesn't turn a pair of pants into a dress. It's still a pair of pants, and the judges are merely wrong.

Of course this depends on what particular definition of marriage you are using. A judge of course could effect the legal definition of marriage if the definition that was put froward by a law was unconstitutional. Again this can be seen in the example of Loving v. Virginia where some judges changed how marriage was legally being defined in certain states.



And two men together are not a marriage, no matter how many judges say they are.

I disagree, but your opinion isn't really what's important on this matter. What does matter is that the legal definition one should be one that ensures equal treatment under the law.


Game, set, match.

Not even close.

[manu1959]

Both of you seem to be taking issue with me saying that the will of the people should not always be followed, I would say usually the way to overturn this is through the courts assuming that whatever the will of the people was is contradictory to their state's constitution of to the US constitution. Taking a similar example from our history it was the will of the people in some states to ban marriage between interracial couples. The case of Loving v. Virgina found that the laws violated the equal protection guaranteed by the US constitution and thus invalidated the laws despite the will of the people. In my opinion this decision was perfectly reasonable, followed the principles of our government, and was way to secure justice in this case.

What are your thoughts on this case? Should the will of the people simply been followed and interracial couples would have just been out of luck until racist attitudes in their areas changed?


http://www.gardenstateequality.org/civilunionsdontwork/1stInterimReportCURC.pdf

Here is a report from NJ about how they have found their civil unions law there inadequate in providing equal treatment to same-sex couples. They make comparisons to MA and say that some of the problems they are having in NJ and VT, another state with civil unions, were avoided in MA were they offer marriage to same-sex couples.

Right now it is impossible to tell if civil unions would have more trouble being recognized in other states and receiving federal rights because DOMA currently prevents this for married same-sex couples as well. It seems though that if DOMA were repealed, which it should be, that there would be some trouble in these areas with a institution that only exists within that particular state.


you seem to have missed that the courts did overturn this.....so it went on the ballot for the third time....and the people overturned the court....

[avatar4321]

No ex post facto laws.

I didn't realize anything was criminalized.

[avatar4321]

The silver lining being denying equal treatment to a minority as would be in line with the principles of our country?

They've been given equal treatment. They still have the same damn rights the rest of us have.

[YamiB.]

They've been given equal treatment. They still have the same damn rights the rest of us have.

Yes, just in the same way that those who wished to marry somebody of the other race was given equal rights under anti-miscegenation laws. The fact is that heterosexuals are allowed to marry their partners and homosexuals are denied their equality in this area for no good reason.



you seem to have missed that the courts did overturn this.....so it went on the ballot for the third time....and the people overturned the court....

Yes, and because of this it seems like there is little recourse for those who are trying to do what is right. I suppose they could try taking it to the US Supreme Court, unfortunately I have my doubts that the courts would go with justice and would go more the route of Pace v. Alabama rather than Loving v. Virginia.

My point in the first place is that something being the will of the majority does not make it right. It was the will of the majority for many years in this country that people be held in a system of slavery mostly based on their race, this doesn't mean that such an event was justified.



I find it funny that this talk about how I considered the will of the people being unjust immediately preceded my reading of Martin Luther King talking about just and unjust laws in his letters that I was just reading for homework.

[manu1959]

Yes, just in the same way that those who wished to marry somebody of the other race was given equal rights under anti-miscegenation laws. The fact is that heterosexuals are allowed to marry their partners and homosexuals are denied their equality in this area for no good reason.
Yes, and because of this it seems like there is little recourse for those who are trying to do what is right. I suppose they could try taking it to the US Supreme Court, unfortunately I have my doubts that the courts would go with justice and would go more the route of Pace v. Alabama rather than Loving v. Virginia.
My point in the first place is that something being the will of the majority does not make it right. It was the will of the majority for many years in this country that people be held in a system of slavery mostly based on their race, this doesn't mean that such an event was justified.
I find it funny that this talk about how I considered the will of the people being unjust immediately preceded my reading of Martin Luther King talking about just and unjust laws in his letters that I was just reading for homework.

you seemed to have missed that a brief was filed in court today to overturn the will of the people .....

you really worry too much.....a liberal california judge will rule that the people were wrong...again.... and gay marriage is right....and as gavin newsom said whether you like it or not....you get to like it....

[YamiB.]

you seemed to have missed that a brief was filed in court today to overturn the will of the people .....

you really worry too much.....a liberal california judge will rule that the people were wrong...again.... and gay marriage is right....and as gavin newsom said whether you like it or not....you get to like it....

Well the people were wrong.

[hjmick]

you seemed to have missed that a brief was filed in court today to overturn the will of the people .....

you really worry too much.....a liberal california judge will rule that the people were wrong...again.... and gay marriage is right....and as gavin newsom said whether you like it or not....you get to like it....


Newsom's an ass.

[manu1959]

Newsom's an ass.

i have met him....he is a pompous ass.....

by the way two friends of mine got civil unioned this past weekend......

when one of there friends got all you should be able to be married....he told her to shut up and just go fill out the paperwork....marriage is between a man and a woman.....several of my gay friensds all say the same thing.....

[manu1959]

Well the people were wrong.

what about my gay friends that all voted yes and marriage is between a man and a woman and a civil union affords them the same rights ....

[YamiB.]

what about my gay friends that all voted yes and marriage is between a man and a woman and a civil union affords them the same rights ....

They were wrong too.

[manu1959]

They were wrong too.

yes only you and what you believe in are correct

[YamiB.]

yes only you and what you believe in are correct

I don't think that the sexuality of a person matters on if they or right or wrong on this issue. If a black person supported pro-segregationist legislation I would call them wrong too.

[manu1959]

I don't think that the sexuality of a person matters on if they or right or wrong on this issue. If a black person supported pro-segregationist legislation I would call them wrong too.

no one is calling for gay people to be segregated......

if gay people are saying civil unions are equal legally to marriage and provide all the samerights....and they say that marriage should be for a man and a women....and a majority of the population agrees with this posistion......where is the issue here....

[Yurt]

no one is calling for gay people to be segregated......

if gay people are saying civil unions are equal legally to marriage and provide all the samerights....and they say that marriage should be for a man and a women....and a majority of the population agrees with this posistion......where is the issue here....

what if the majority of the population said slavery was ok...would it be?

[manu1959]

what if the majority of the population said slavery was ok...would it be?

well taxing my ability to make money at a hire rate than those that can't and givingmy money to the poor an incompetent is a formof slavery and 50 million people just voted to do it......so yes i guess so....

[Yurt]

haha

my prediction is this is headed to the SCOTUS. our beloved AG jerry moon brown says that all the existing the gay marriages will remain valid. that why i was wondering about the impact of this on current marriages... i think avi is probably right, but is there case law for granting a marriage and then the voters changing the constitution to say that there is no gay marriage.

my thinking is, one would look at existing contracts and then an amendment to a constitution and its effect on those contracts

[avatar4321]

haha

my prediction is this is headed to the SCOTUS. our beloved AG jerry moon brown says that all the existing the gay marriages will remain valid. that why i was wondering about the impact of this on current marriages... i think avi is probably right, but is there case law for granting a marriage and then the voters changing the constitution to say that there is no gay marriage.

my thinking is, one would look at existing contracts and then an amendment to a constitution and its effect on those contracts

It would be one way, but then marriage has never been treated as a normal contract issue.

[YamiB.]

Before I read any of the replies since I last posted. I'll apologize for the blunt and combative tone that I used in some of my last posts. I don't really want to seem pig-headed and make it seem like I haven't considered both sides of this issue. I may be strongly for same-sex marriage now, but at one time I was against it. I changed my mind after finding that the argument I had against it didn't really hold up. Year later after discussing it many many times I haven't found any other reason against it that really hold up to reason.

When I said that people were simply wrong if they supported this proposition or support the banning of same-sex marriage in general this is the thought process I used.

1) There is no valid reason for banning same-sex marriage.
2) The people voted to ban same-sex marriage.
3) The people were wrong.

We know that point 2 is true in many states, I think that 3 logically follows if 1 and 2 are true. So I suppose the major point of contention would be 1, I am very sure that it is correct after seeing various people argue for a long time against same-sex marriage and finding their argument to be failures. The only one I can think of that doesn't completely fail under reason is the religious argument, which seems to be the most common. This argument though runs into the problem of using ones own religious laws as the laws of the land and thereby violating the religious freedom of everybody who doesn't follow your religious beliefs. Many who use this argument also apply it unevenly, they don't call for laws banning the worshiping of gods other than theirs which is considered a sin in most religions. There are other examples where they don't try to have something they consider a sin prohibited through law, but I think that first example is the best one.

I'll read through the rest of the thread now and edit this post if there is anything to reply to.


no one is calling for gay people to be segregated......

if gay people are saying civil unions are equal legally to marriage and provide all the samerights....and they say that marriage should be for a man and a women....and a majority of the population agrees with this posistion......where is the issue here....

My argument was that a person's sexuality doesn't make their argument right. I'm sure you could have found some black people in American history who thought segregation was good enough compared to their previous situation or that separate but equal was a fundamentally okay idea, but being black wouldn't have made their argument right. A person should have their argument evaluated on the basis of their argument not on the basis of whatever racial, religious, gender, sexuality, etc. that they may belong to.

People are calling for people to have a separate but equal institution for marriage, so I would say that they want them to segregated in this one area. I of course would never think that any but an extremely small minority would currently think that we should have widespread segregation in this country based on sexuality or racial standards. I was making a comparison on the point of the group one belongs to not making their argument right, not a direct comparison between the two situations. I this case as I have stated before the comparison would be between the banning of interracial marriage and the banning of same-sex marriage, not between racial segregation in general and the banning of same-sex marriage.

The issue is that despite what your few gay friends may think there is not a widespread consensus among the gay rights community saying that civil unions are good enough or that marriage should be only between a man and a women. I can't say anymore about your the statement of your friends until I know how well they have looked into civil unions and their failings in the past or their reason why they think that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

[Immanuel]

People are calling for people to have a separate but equal institution for marriage, so I would say that they want them to segregated in this one area. I of course would never think that any but an extremely small minority would currently think that we should have widespread segregation in this country based on sexuality or racial standards. I was making a comparison on the point of the group one belongs to not making their argument right, not a direct comparison between the two situations. I this case as I have stated before the comparison would be between the banning of interracial marriage and the banning of same-sex marriage, not between racial segregation in general and the banning of same-sex marriage.


1) I don't think you have been offensive in other posts.

2) If you were speaking about me in the quote, I don't think you understood what I meant. I did not mean that there should be a separate but equal institution. I said that the state should not be involved in the institution of marriage at all. Everyone gay or straight who want the legal benefits of a union should be required to fulfill the contractual process of a "civil union". Beyond that, if they desire to go through the "marriage" ceremony at a church, which offers no legal benefits, they can do that.

My church, as do many others, has a rite called confirmation. The state has nothing to do with it. Baptism is another religious rite that the state has nothing to do with. In the same manner, the state should have nothing to do with the institution of marriage, but a married couple would not have any state sanctioned benefits unless they also went through the process of filing for a civil union.

Immie

[manu1959]

dude ... have at ....no offense taken.....

let me ask you this.....

lets assume that gay marriage is legalized.....

will a church be able to refuse to perform a gay marriage .... under the new "law" .....



Before I read any of the replies since I last posted. I'll apologize for the blunt and combative tone that I used in some of my last posts. I don't really want to seem pig-headed and make it seem like I haven't considered both sides of this issue. I may be strongly for same-sex marriage now, but at one time I was against it. I changed my mind after finding that the argument I had against it didn't really hold up. Year later after discussing it many many times I haven't found any other reason against it that really hold up to reason.

When I said that people were simply wrong if they supported this proposition or support the banning of same-sex marriage in general this is the thought process I used.

1) There is no valid reason for banning same-sex marriage.
2) The people voted to ban same-sex marriage.
3) The people were wrong.

We know that point 2 is true in many states, I think that 3 logically follows if 1 and 2 are true. So I suppose the major point of contention would be 1, I am very sure that it is correct after seeing various people argue for a long time against same-sex marriage and finding their argument to be failures. The only one I can think of that doesn't completely fail under reason is the religious argument, which seems to be the most common. This argument though runs into the problem of using ones own religious laws as the laws of the land and thereby violating the religious freedom of everybody who doesn't follow your religious beliefs. Many who use this argument also apply it unevenly, they don't call for laws banning the worshiping of gods other than theirs which is considered a sin in most religions. There are other examples where they don't try to have something they consider a sin prohibited through law, but I think that first example is the best one.

I'll read through the rest of the thread now and edit this post if there is anything to reply to.



My argument was that a person's sexuality doesn't make their argument right. I'm sure you could have found some black people in American history who thought segregation was good enough compared to their previous situation or that separate but equal was a fundamentally okay idea, but being black wouldn't have made their argument right. A person should have their argument evaluated on the basis of their argument not on the basis of whatever racial, religious, gender, sexuality, etc. that they may belong to.

People are calling for people to have a separate but equal institution for marriage, so I would say that they want them to segregated in this one area. I of course would never think that any but an extremely small minority would currently think that we should have widespread segregation in this country based on sexuality or racial standards. I was making a comparison on the point of the group one belongs to not making their argument right, not a direct comparison between the two situations. I this case as I have stated before the comparison would be between the banning of interracial marriage and the banning of same-sex marriage, not between racial segregation in general and the banning of same-sex marriage.

The issue is that despite what your few gay friends may think there is not a widespread consensus among the gay rights community saying that civil unions are good enough or that marriage should be only between a man and a women. I can't say anymore about your the statement of your friends until I know how well they have looked into civil unions and their failings in the past or their reason why they think that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

[YamiB.]

1) I don't think you have been offensive in other posts.

2) If you were speaking about me in the quote, I don't think you understood what I meant. I did not mean that there should be a separate but equal institution. I said that the state should not be involved in the institution of marriage at all. Everyone gay or straight who want the legal benefits of a union should be required to fulfill the contractual process of a "civil union". Beyond that, if they desire to go through the "marriage" ceremony at a church, which offers no legal benefits, they can do that.

My church, as do many others, has a rite called confirmation. The state has nothing to do with it. Baptism is another religious rite that the state has nothing to do with. In the same manner, the state should have nothing to do with the institution of marriage, but a married couple would not have any state sanctioned benefits unless they also went through the process of filing for a civil union.

Immie

Yeah the separate but equal comment was aimed at people who think that civil unions should be given to same-sex couples, while other couples continue to get marriage as a legal institution. Like I said before I disagree with the idea that marriage is only a religious institution, but I think that giving civil unions to all through the government which will give all the legal rights currently attached to marriage and having no legal rights attached to marriage is a fine solution.

[YamiB.]

dude ... have at ....no offense taken.....

let me ask you this.....

lets assume that gay marriage is legalized.....

will a church be able to refuse to perform a gay marriage .... under the new "law" .....

Of course, just like churches are now allowed to refuse marriage to couples based on their religion even though the state is not allowed to do this. I don't have the sources on hand, but I do remember about hearing of some current isolated churches in the US that still refuse to marry interracial couples and I think there is of course nothing illegal about that. I believe in the Separation of Church and State, and it goes both ways legal decisions should not effect how matters are handled in the church excluding of course extreme situations like bodily harm to minors.

[manu1959]

Of course, just like churches are now allowed to refuse marriage to couples based on their religion even though the state is not allowed to do this. I don't have the sources on hand, but I do remember about hearing of some current isolated churches in the US that still refuse to marry interracial couples and I think there is of course nothing illegal about that. I believe in the Separation of Church and State, and it goes both ways legal decisions should not effect how matters are handled in the church excluding of course extreme situations like bodily harm to minors.

are you aware of case law where gay couples have sued churches and pastors for not marrying them .....

[YamiB.]

are you aware of case law where gay couples have sued churches and pastors for not marrying them .....

Not off the top of my head, that doesn't mean that they have a valid case. I realize that some idiots may think that getting the legal right to marry means they can force any church to marry them, I oppose this as strongly as I oppose the banning of same-sex marriage in the legal realm. Same-sex marriage in the churches can only be gained through convincing people or by founding your own churches, both of which have already been achieved by some. I do believe there was something on this board not to long ago about a court case against God.

In other words we don't ban idiots from eating at McDonald's even though the end result will be some lawsuits because they got fat form eating the food there.

[Immanuel]

Yeah the separate but equal comment was aimed at people who think that civil unions should be given to same-sex couples, while other couples continue to get marriage as a legal institution. Like I said before I disagree with the idea that marriage is only a religious institution, but I think that giving civil unions to all through the government which will give all the legal rights currently attached to marriage and having no legal rights attached to marriage is a fine solution.

I would say that the state has usurped the institution of marriage. In fact, there was a time... before liberals got so sophisticated... that although the Separation of Chruch and State existed... church and state actually worked together. The State wanted to encourage marriage because of the social benefits it provided and that is why the State now licenses and encourages marriage.

But, now liberals want to change the meaning of the word. They want to take it away from the church completely and make it say what they want it to say. Personally, it is a word and if homosexuals what to call their unions "marriage" I don't really give a crap... they are still not married without a church blessing.

The proposal I mentioned would simply be to bring about a solution to the issue.

Immie

[manu1959]

Not off the top of my head, that doesn't mean that they have a valid case. I realize that some idiots may think that getting the legal right to marry means they can force any church to marry them, I oppose this as strongly as I oppose the banning of same-sex marriage in the legal realm. Same-sex marriage in the churches can only be gained through convincing people or by founding your own churches, both of which have already been achieved by some. I do believe there was something on this board not to long ago about a court case against God.

In other words we don't ban idiots from eating at McDonald's even though the end result will be some lawsuits because they got fat form eating the food there.

well once you make gay marriage a equal rights discrimination issue which is what this legal battle is about.....a church will have to marry them or face a civil rights lawsuit.....same as if a church refuses to marry handicapped or interracial couples....

[YamiB.]

well once you make gay marriage a equal rights discrimination issue which is what this legal battle is about.....a church will have to marry them or face a civil rights lawsuit.....same as if a church refuses to marry handicapped or interracial couples....

Can you find me cases about interracial couples forcing churches to marry them?

Of course gay marriage is about discrimination and equal rights, but it is about being denied those by the government. Similarly it would be discrimination to deny atheist couples the right to marry from the government, but churches are allowed to do so. Do you not agree that there is a clear analogy between these two situations?

[manu1959]

Can you find me cases about interracial couples forcing churches to marry them?

Of course gay marriage is about discrimination and equal rights, but it is about being denied those by the government. Similarly it would be discrimination to deny atheist couples the right to marry from the government, but churches are allowed to do so. Do you not agree that there is a clear analogy between these two situations?

google it.....pick your case.....

the government alreday grants their form of marriage....it is called a civil union....you go to the courthouse and you sign papers....

the government co-opted marigage from the church then wants to dictate back the terms under which a church has to behave....that is a clear violation of church and state....

[bullypulpit]

well once you make gay marriage a equal rights discrimination issue which is what this legal battle is about.....a church will have to marry them or face a civil rights lawsuit.....same as if a church refuses to marry handicapped or interracial couples....

California law contained provisions shielding churches from such action.

[bullypulpit]

google it.....pick your case.....

the government alreday grants their form of marriage....it is called a civil union....you go to the courthouse and you sign papers....

the government co-opted marigage from the church then wants to dictate back the terms under which a church has to behave....that is a clear violation of church and state....

Marriage is not solely the purview of churches. My wife and I were married in a judge's chambers. So, are we married or is it a civil union? The judge pronounced us "man and wife".

[YamiB.]

google it.....pick your case.....

the government alreday grants their form of marriage....it is called a civil union....you go to the courthouse and you sign papers....

the government co-opted marigage from the church then wants to dictate back the terms under which a church has to behave....that is a clear violation of church and state....

The government does not do this otherwise churches would be forced to marry people regardless of the religion they belong to. Do deny that atheist couples are given marriage by the government as required by law and that churches are allowed to deny these couples marriage in their church? If this is the situation what reason do you believe that it will be different with same-sex couples?

I tried googling for churches being forced to marry interracial couples and didn't find anything, it is your responsibility to provide cases that you refereed to.

It is not a violation of church and state for them to use the same term, it is a violation of church and state when either side tries to force the other. If the government wanted to violate church and state in the realm of marriage they could already do this by forcing churches to marry any couple regardless of their religion.

[Immanuel]

Marriage is not solely the purview of churches. My wife and I were married in a judge's chambers. So, are we married or is it a civil union? The judge pronounced us "man and wife".

Please don't take offense at this, but, to my knowledge most churches would not consider you married. My wife and I were married in a "marriage factory" in Reno. Most likely not considered married by the church either, but that's just tough.

Immie

[Abbey Marie]

:)
Marriage is not solely the purview of churches. My wife and I were married in a judge's chambers. So, are we married or is it a civil union? The judge pronounced us "man and wife".

When were you married? It's been the more egalitarian "Husband and Wife" for a long time.