Same sex marriage in California

[marlin29311]

Its usually the Oxford Dictionary that adds words to the English language. Ratherly is already word though.

-1 for me on the day then...

[C-Kwik]

I am simply going by what californians had passed in the past, then the courts/politicians reversed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...ornia

Sure. But your post suggested this desicion was universally favored. In either case, I suppose if the majority voted it was okay to put African Americans back into slavery, then we should do it.

Not at all. I am saying gay males shouldn't because they can't procreate because they aren't suppose to(wow, that came out really wrong, but you get what I mean).

What if a gay male was to use his sperm with an egg donor through a surrogate?

It never did, but nature gave us seperate male and female organs, without the ability to give birth without the opposite sex. Us, human beings, made marriage.

Right. Its a HUMAN thing. The argument of nature's intention simply falls flat on its face.

This would solve alot of credit problems, and it might also save alot of mental anguish on the kids that rise from failed families.

How would it solve credit problems? I'm really confused as to where that argument is coming from or heading to.

Mental anguish on children? I can think of dozens of kids in single parent families that are doing quite fine. I can also think of kids in a typical nuclear family who are struggling with life.

Indeed it does, but I will love them regardless. I expect every parent to accept their child even when the child takes a job the parent doesnt like or disagrees with them on some subjects or lifestyles. You can only guide them so far, but the decision is the childs.

Good to hear.

I have and it is indeed enlightening. As for contagious, it might be to some aspect. It's the same way I believe a marriage should be between a man and a woman, its something I've always seen and accepted as "correct"

Society tells you its correct. Consider that the same things were told to homosexuals all their lives as well. In many cases, people were in the closet as a result. Many tried a hetero lifestyle. And despite it all, they were still gay. It is not something they ate. It is not a virus or bacterial infection. It is not a cancer. Its not a disease. Its who they are.

lol, naturally I do my Nico'ing at work, and don't have my old text/work books from college where I took a class on Christian Marriage. When I get home I'll scurry around for it and try to post the references I was talking about. The definition of marriage has not changed much since those times in terms how how the Church feels about marriage - however, it has been perverted by our culture and somewhat changed in the eyes of the general public. If you were to talk to a Christian theologian about what marriage is and what it means, you would get a completely different answer that what you might think - it's mostly along the lines of what I was brushing upon, but I stopped because I did not want to get into religion too much.

The problem is your limiting your view to what the church tells you. History of marriages throughout the world suggests otherwise.

This is my idea. Again, the problem is the wording - marriage is a religious term, and it is unfortunate that it has been sucked into the secular world and used here. We need to discuss "unions" or something the like - a word that does not contain religious connotations; something that is completely neutral - which is what the government should be. Anyone would be allowed to enter into a "union" with one another, and the word "marriage" would be preserved and used in a religious context - the way it was intended to be used. In older civilizations that had more theocratic overtones this was not an issue, as the religion and the state were closely intertwined, but in the civilization that we live in today, it is vastly different.

Here is your issue though (in addition to the one I pointed out above). This nation was founded on a principle of a separation of church and state. In other words, your religion (or any other for that matter) should have no influence on state policies. Imagine the uproar that would occur if we tried to pass a law that required a Muslim tradition be followed that would go against Christian practices.

People that get "married" in my idea are still considered a "union" by the state, just like anyone else. "Married" is simply a reference that connotates that a couple has been joined or bound by the theology of a religion. Everyone gets the same benefits from the state, and the sanctity of sacred religious traditions is upheld at the same time.

No religion or other body has rights to a word. A word is merely a way to communicate a thought ot idea. Consider that if one were to argue that this is a Christian word, one might consider that the bible was not written or thought out in English...

However, this removes the "glamour" of a wedding for many people. Why do women wear white at a wedding? It is supposed to represent purity and chastity - 2 things that almost no one has going into a wedding anymore. Women use it now as an excuse to wear a lavish gown that they pay way to much for and will only wear once. As I eluded to before, the notion of marriage has been perverted by our society (and the global society as well) to the point where the original purpose has changed in common society. When religions get irked at what's happening, they're doing it rightfully so - someone took their tradition and changed it into what they wanted it to be, not what it was supposed to be...

Frankly, the glamour of a gay marriage probably due to the fact that it is seemingly unobtainable. Ironic isn't it? It also wouldn't garner nearly the attention it does if it wasn't such a big issue. Which religion though? Last I checked, there were religions other than those based around God that have marriages. Why not go after them?

While I honestly could care less if the Gov called it dog ****, there are people who have a traditionalist meaning to the term marriage (Traditionalist /=historic). So while there is no impact to you or to the gays or to some others, there is an impact to these people who feel they are being forced to accept and adapt when they don't want to.

There is an impact to these traditionalists? How? Its not like they are being forced into homosexual marriages. There are plenty of marriages out there that people don't approve of or find socially less acceptable. But they are given the right as a matter of law to get married as two consenting adults? Its only a matter of religion and tradition because people make it so. But all tradition starts somewhere. And many are altered with time. Even the church has changed and adapted. The Bible's interpretations have as well...

[HashiriyaS14]

While I honestly could care less if the Gov called it dog ****, there are people who have a traditionalist meaning to the term marriage (Traditionalist /=historic). So while there is no impact to you or to the gays or to some others, there is an impact to these people who feel they are being forced to accept and adapt when they don't want to.

But they could still be "married", at least through their religion. They would just have a "union" in the eyes of the law.

What they CAN'T have, and what they inevitably WILL be *forced* to relinquish, is the hold on the term "marriage" in the realm of the state as something that pertains to heterosexual marriages only.

So they can keep the term "married" in their religious sphere, and they can deny the term "married" to the gays in the public sphere, but what they cannot do is have some sort of monopoly on the term in the public sphere.

The first desire is perfectly reasonable. The second is unreasonable but understandable, so it will be satiated. The third desire is absolute malarkey, and if that's what they're really on about, then they deserve a little progressivism shoved in their faces, because it means they're only out to deny someone else something rather than protect their own rights.

And there is no ongoing "crusade against Christmas". We live in a heterogenous society, nothing about Christianity is "official" in regards to the goings-on of the United States government. No one is telling anyone they can't celebrate their religious holidays, pray in public, or be married in their own churches. Anyone who believes otherwise is paranoid and delusional.

EDIT: Now GO respond to my States' Rights question in the other thread.

[audtatious]

But they could still be "married", at least through their religion. They would just have a "union" in the eyes of the law.

What they CAN'T have, and what they inevitably WILL be *forced* to relinquish, is the hold on the term "marriage" in the realm of the state as something that pertains to heterosexual marriages only.

So they can keep the term "married" in their religious sphere, and they can deny the term "married" to the gays in the public sphere, but what they cannot do is have some sort of monopoly on the term in the public sphere.

The first desire is perfectly reasonable. The second is unreasonable but understandable, so it will be satiated. The third desire is absolute malarkey, and if that's what they're really on about, then they deserve a little progressivism shoved in their faces, because it means they're only out to deny someone else something rather than protect their own rights.

Reasonable to you with your viewpoint. I don't see the gays who are having a fit wanting that. They want their "union" to mean the same thing as a "marriage" so simply saying everything is a union does not get them what they want.

And there is no ongoing "crusade against Christmas". We live in a heterogenous society, nothing about Christianity is "official" in regards to the goings-on of the United States government. No one is telling anyone they can't celebrate their religious holidays, pray in public, or be married in their own churches. Anyone who believes otherwise is paranoid and delusional.

Then they are delusional and paranoid with no cause other than that far-right wing beating them in the head. For the most part I could really care less if every holiday was revoked as each one offends someone, somewhere.

[yelnatsch517]

I am against Prop 8. The US Government has no place in a religious debate. Prop 8 attempts to impost judeo-christian values to the whole. While i ascribe to those values, that does not mean i have the right to take away the rights of my neighbor.

No. This is exactly why democracy doesn't work. Ignorant people who have no idea what they are talking about spouting off and confusing people which dominoes into more ignorant people voting for something they don't understand.

Prop 8 has nothing to do with religion, it merely defines what marriage is. Stop pushing your religious agenda where it doesn't belong. Marriage in the United States is non religious and always has been. Separation of church and state forces this. This is why people can have different types of weddings.

What Prop 8 really does it defines marriage as a union between a man and a women. This does not outlaw civil unions or anything like that. It does not take anyone's rights away. What it DOES do is PREVENT hate crimes. If this prop does not pass, church and state will mix, exactly what you don't want. If this prop does not pass, people can file lawsuits against priests who refuse to participate in a gay marriage. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

TL;DR Vote yes on Prop 8 to maintain separation of church and state!!

[heliochrome85]

another thread, another instance of you failing.

read.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...(2008)

if you want to vote yes, go ahead. you wont be voting for the reasons you just said.

[yelnatsch517]

another thread, another instance of you failing.

read.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...(2008)

if you want to vote yes, go ahead. you wont be voting for the reasons you just said.

... It's exactly what I said. I think you are misunderstanding the proposition simply based on who and who doesn't support it. Obviously religious institutions are going to support it for their own reasons, but that does not mean the proposition is religious oriented.

You need to look beyond simply what is stated and think about what will happen if it does not pass. Because marriage has ties with religion, but is non religion based in the United States, anyone opposing gay marriages can legally be sued if the proposition does not pass.

Example:Gay couple goes to a priest to get married. The priest denies them because the priest is against gay marriage. The priest can be sued just as if he denied a couple because of race, nationality, etc.

When things like this run rampant, then the **** will really hit the fan.

[mcheddadi]

I have this weird theory in my head that the only purpose of every living thing is to reproduce, otherwise the race dies and disappears.

pretty basic but the only certainty in life is that we all have a start and an ending and that to only way for the race to live on is to reproduce faster than we die.

homosexuality and people that don't have childrens are kinda lame, because it's like they are skipping the responsibility of continuing the whole human race and just thinking about their own pleasure. damn selfish people...

yeah I know millions of children are dying around the world. anyways...on the subject of marriage of same sex people. yeah i'm for it because marriage is only to obtain legal status and rights. they already live together anyways so why no give them the same right as a husband and wife if they decide to be together "forever"

go same sex marriage! wouhou! they are already gay, so why make their life harder? tee he he!

[audtatious]

lolz

[barrigas14]

While I do agree with this 100%, this is not the case 100% of the time. Some people become gay because of a trauma that had happened to them. Molestation, rape, incest, so on and so forth. Besides, there is no "gay gene." Some people are born with a XXY or XYY chromosomes, but that's the closest that that statement will ever be to coming correct.

Just wanted to say that you need to do more research. Your understanding of the subject and subject matter is very limited.

Also to the people that state "well since they can't reproduce..." argument.

What about older people who have passed their prime? Can't get married? What about a young couple in which one is infertile? Can't get married?What about if I got a vasectomy? I can't get married?

They all can't reproduce, so all can't get married?

Now onto another point.

If the government gives out certain benefits, tax breaks, etc. The government can NOT in no way discriminate who and who doesn't get those benefits. I agree that the catholic guy above who mentioned the separating of words so that whoever wants the benefits gets them, and whoever wants the language gets them as well. BUT they are not dependent on each other.

Also wanted to point out real quick about the lesbian couple that sued the church in NJ, and in which NJ revoked their tax exempt status.

If you read the article it even states that...oh wow they edited that article already....

Lesbian Couple Files Complaint against Church for Refusing Civil Union Ceremony

Forgot to mention:

New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws currently forbid those who "offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public" from "directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual" on the basis of sexual orientation.--------Methodist Camp Meeting Association Sues New Jersey for Civil Union Investigation

The Camp then sues NJ because NJ does this: -----------U.S. Christian Camp Loses Tax-Exempt Status over Same-Sex Civil-Union Ceremony

"...the camp held tax-exempt status on its entire boardwalk property under a New Jersey program that gives tax-breaks to organizations that open up their property to the general public."

"It is clear that the pavilion is not open to all persons on an equal basis," DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson, wrote to the camp on Monday, in announcing the DEP's decision to revoke the camp's tax-exempt status.

[C-Kwik]

No. This is exactly why democracy doesn't work. Ignorant people who have no idea what they are talking about spouting off and confusing people which dominoes into more ignorant people voting for something they don't understand.

Hmm? So who determines who is ignorant? What are the standards? Perhaps we should relent such things to those who have the knowledge and gredentials to do so. Last I checked, the California Supreme Court decided. I would speculate, they are the least ignorant as a matter of a law's constitutionality. Yet here we are...

Prop 8 has nothing to do with religion, it merely defines what marriage is. Stop pushing your religious agenda where it doesn't belong. Marriage in the United States is non religious and always has been. Separation of church and state forces this. This is why people can have different types of weddings.

I agree that religion should have no place in this, but the reality is that most of the sentiment of anti-gay marriage comes from religious groups. Instead of letting their god deal with it appropriately, they try to invoke their belief's into law.

What Prop 8 really does it defines marriage as a union between a man and a women. This does not outlaw civil unions or anything like that. It does not take anyone's rights away. What it DOES do is PREVENT hate crimes. If this prop does not pass, church and state will mix, exactly what you don't want. If this prop does not pass, people can file lawsuits against priests who refuse to participate in a gay marriage. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

How would this law being passed prevent or even reduce hate crimes? Homosexuals aren't exactly the ones perforing such hate crimes. Frankly, the law was against gay marriage before and hate crimes againt homosexuals still existed.

[

B]TL;DR Vote yes on Prop 8 to maintain separation of church and state!!

Frankly, the way I see it if this law passes, it will be a huge step away from the separation of church and state. The argument you pose about states getting sued may be valid. But all this does is puts the discrimination onto the state rather than the churches. Its still discrimination. That said, I don't think its reasonable to expect a church that is against homosexual marriages as a matter of their beliefs to marry a homosexual couple. As such, if I were to ever sit on the jury for a discrimination trial of this nature, I would find no fault with such a church.

[sensibleS13driver]

.

[audtatious]

Do those who cite religious grounds for opposing gay marriage not feel off about using your religion as justification to remove the rights of fellow Americans when your fore bearers created this nation because their rights were being stripped by another religious body?

What is the traditionalist view of marriage? Taking away religion from the equation, what is the traditionalist view of marriage? They are the same. Bringing up what the fore fathers did or didn't do in regards to this issue is moot as they did not have to deal with it.

Are we really reverting, in 2008, back to a separate but equal mentality?

You mean we have previously moved to not-separate but equal? In what regards? Maybe I'm missing your point.

Prop 8 says "there is a right that some Americans should have, and others should not, based on personal traits beyond their control."

The last three words is what can be argued by some. AFAIK they never found a "gay gene". Don't get me wrong, I fully understand and agree that some people are born more masculine or effeminate than others. Others are simply that way due to sexual preference. Hell, I don't know how many people I have worked with that were "everyday Joe's" at the workplace but dressed, walked and talked differently after hours. This could be due to "closeting" at work or it could be due to preference, who knows. Let me ask you this, if someone is bi-sexual do you feel that is choice or nature?

And certain people in this thread deride the notion that we can always be improving and spreading the right to pursue happiness because it's just part of "their" "delusional" agenda. Kind of like those uppity blacks trying to push their agenda 50 years ago?

Ahhhh....comparison to the Civil Rights movement.....I was wondering when I would see that. Those who have a physical difference and were being suppressed due to color is the same as those with a sexual tendency?

[sensibleS13driver]

I don't quite get the first argument. I feel you are dodging the analogy. Where are marriages traditionally performed? You are wearing blinders if you take religion out of the equation of "traditional" marriage, or the parties at play in this instance.

For 100 years we had institutionalized segregation wherein two public entities were equal, so long as the letter of the law was the same. This was deemed unconstitutional unanimously by the SC (an extremely watered down analysis of Brown v. Board of Education, 1954).And this I'll combine with your last paragraph. A white drinking fountain was equal to a black one because they gave the same right to drinking water. A marriage license, and a domestic partnership license may serve the exact same purpose to the signers, but they are still -obliged against their will to use one and not the other- because of a personal trait beyond their control.

Let us digress and assume for the sake of argument that it is a choice to "do dudes". However socially compelled the person is to do so, it is a creed that they choose to follow. No different than that of a Catholic who is compelled to choose straightness (may I assume that you consciously chose straightness? ) . No matter how large and withstanding the Catholic Church is, and no matter how small and insular the Church of Doing Dudes is, the states grants the followers of one a different, albeit equal, right than the other. Why?
Modified by sensibleS13driver at 11:30 AM 11/2/2008

[audtatious]

I don't quite get the first argument. I feel you are dodging the analogy. Where are marriages traditionally performed? You are wearing blinders if you take religion out of the equation of "traditional" marriage, or the parties at play in this instance.

I was referring to the word itself as this seems to be the main issue as civil union has been offered but declined.

For 100 years we had institutionalized segregation wherein two public entities were equal, so long as the letter of the law was the same. This was deemed unconstitutional unanimously by the SC (an extremely watered down analysis of Brown v. Board of Education, 1954).And this I'll combine with your last paragraph. A white drinking fountain was equal to a black one because they gave the same right to drinking water. A marriage license, and a domestic partnership license may serve the exact same purpose to the signers, but they are still -obliged against their will to use one and not the other- because of a personal trait beyond their control.

So what? You cannot compare racial segregation with supposed gay segregation. Two completely different issues. One was skin color and the other is preference of who to have sex with.

Let us digress and assume for the sake of argument that it is a choice to "do dudes". However socially compelled the person is to do so, it is a creed that they choose to follow. No different than that of a Catholic who is compelled to choose straightness (may I assume that you consciously chose straightness? ) . No matter how large and withstanding the Catholic Church is, and no matter how small and insular the Church of Doing Dudes is, the states grants the followers of one a different, albeit equal, right than the other. Why?

Gay people can marry all they want. They just can't marry another dude or chic. Just like I could not marry some dude if I wanted to. They have the same rights that I do. You are for allowing it and calling it the same and I'm for allowing it and calling it something different. That's like calling a crew cab truck a sedan simply because it is a vehicle and has 4 doors.

[sensibleS13driver]

So what? You cannot compare racial segregation with supposed gay segregation. Two completely different issues. One was skin color and the other is preference of who to have sex with.

But you would not agree with segregation based on religion I assume. Religion is far more ambiguous than sexual orientation or race, and spans all colors as well. By separating sexual orientations with two types of certificates, enforcing different drinking fountains, even with a check-box on a form, the government is taking account of a personal trait which they have no business knowing, and making them inherently unequal.

[audtatious]

What are you talking about, segregation of religion? You have me lost on that one. Realize you are not talking to someone who is highly religious in the least so if your direction is that of me being some fanatical bible thumper you would be WAY off course.

Until it is determined, instead of theorized, that "gay" is hereditary/physical/genetic then it's a personal choice. Again, all the arguments are supposed to be concerning having similar "benefits" whereas the truth is they want to change the traditional use of "marriage" to mean something else as a way to feel more accepted. You want to spin this as an issue similar to the civil rights movement and that pig don't fly.

[sensibleS13driver]

You don't have to accept them, but the state has to which is why this Prop is such a Snafu, and the CA system is stupid for letting the people override the Court and amend the constitution on a political whim.

The religion example is a trait which is clearly a choice which has no genetic signifier, yet it is not right for the government to define certain institutions for followers of different religions, or even keep account of who follows what group, even if the substantive rights are equal.I can't imagine you disagree with this.

I am neither religious, nor gay, but I can respect this paradox as it applies to both. Remember this is still working under the assumption that it is a choice.The race comparison is important because it is where we derive the nearly-undeniable doctrine that separate in any case is inherently unequal. The cases need not be identical for this to apply.

[audtatious]

You don't have to accept them, but the state has to which is why this Prop is such a Snafu, and the CA system is stupid for letting the people override the Court and amend the constitution on a political whim.

You are really losing me here. Accept "them"? I don't have to accept gays?

The religion example is a trait which is clearly a choice which has no genetic signifier, yet it is not right for the government to define certain institutions for followers of different religions, or even keep account of who follows what group, even if the substantive rights are equal.I can't imagine you disagree with this.

Religion is a choice as is what music you listen to and what show you decide you like to watch. Trying to associate this kind of choice with that of "gay choice" is a huge stretch. I don't see where this direction has anything to do with changing the traditional definition of a word to help make others feel better about their choices.

I am neither religious, nor gay, but I can respect this paradox as it applies to both. Remember this is still working under the assumption that it is a choice.The race comparison is important because it is where we derive the nearly-undeniable doctrine that separate in any case is inherently unequal. The cases need not be identical for this to apply.

OK, let's say we adjust and change marriage to mean "any consenting adult" to make gays feel their choices are acceptable (even though the people who do not accept it never will), does it end there? What about bigamy? Every time I bring that up I'm accused of "slippery slope" and that it won't happen because it is not acceptable, but the fact remains that we just changed the definition of marriage to accept gay rights thus wouldn't the same issue then be holding back those who wish to marry multiple partners? Both are choices that consenting adults make, why not?

[themadscientist]

I am a big watcher for slippery slopes and bigamy is the next step. Where do draw the line, how many times will it be erased and redrawn before the line becomes a joke and chaos is the order of the day?

[sensibleS13driver]

You are really losing me here. Accept "them"? I don't have to accept gays?

Religion is a choice as is what music you listen to and what show you decide you like to watch. Trying to associate this kind of choice with that of "gay choice" is a huge stretch.

So long as you aren't a federal judge, I don't really care who you accept. But California has f'd itself with this system where the people hold the last word on constitutional amendments.

The second statement is extremely telling. I'm not sure what to think of that.

Bigamy is a CRIME. Decriminalizing something is entirely different from, and inconsequential to, removing a right.

[themadscientist]

Bigamy is a CRIME. Decriminalizing something is entirely different from, and inconsequential to, removing a right.

Sodomy is a crime, you were attempting some kind of a point?http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/286.html

hehe, "penal code"

[sensibleS13driver]

.

[themadscientist]

Try reading your own post, you contradict yourself in one paragraph. If you mean buttsechs it's covered in the first entry

Sodomy is sexual conduct consisting of contact between thepenis of one person and the anus of another person. Any sexualpenetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime ofsodomy.

That going to cut into your friday nights?

[sensibleS13driver]

.

[themadscientist]

awww, didum get hiz widdle panties all in a bunch?

It would seem that the specific entries are minimum sentencing requirements for those acts as they go above and beyond the base offense. The standard, never thought I would say this "garden variety sodomy" is likely punished as the presiding judge sees fit.

[skylndrftr]

So long as you aren't a federal judge, I don't really care who you accept. But California has f'd itself with this system where the people hold the last word on constitutional amendments.

I have but one comment to you sir

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

our constitution can be ammended just the same. In fact, it only takes 34 senators (just over a third) to get the process started!

[skylndrftr]

Sodomy is sexual conduct consisting of contact between thepenis of one person and the anus of another person. Any sexualpenetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime ofsodomy.

That going to cut into your friday nights?

So guess the Supreme Court disagreeing with you is irrelevant. Those damn legislate from the bench nutters...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/Quote »the decision appeared to strike down most laws governing private sexual conduct, [/quote]Its not illegal...your readings wrong on both a textual level and a factual level.

[sensibleS13driver]

.

[themadscientist]

No, that would be sick, JDM schoolgirls on the other hand