California High Court Rules Against Gay Marriage, Except Those Already Done

[robdawg1]

This is a breaking story:
SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld same sex marriages that were already performed but upheld voters' rights to ban gay marriage through the state constitution.
An estimated 18,000 gay couples tied the knot before the law took effect. The ruling suggests that gay couples can be afforded equivalent rights to heterosexual married couples but perhaps under a different name.
Gay rights demonstrators flooded the courthouse before the decision and immediately started protesting the ruling. Supporters of gay marriage had argued that the Legislature should have approved the change to the California constitution because of the vote's impact on the equal protection clause.



Isn't this a slap in the face to peoples right to be treated equally....? Why not let people have the right to marry eachother when it has no effect or bearing on anyone else nor does it infringe on anyone elses right!! Kudos to the 18000 couples that get to stay married.

 

[Tim]

The only people standing in the way of gay marriage is the religious coalitions... and religion has no place in law.

They just need to get out of the way, it is only a matter of time until marriage is granted to all couples.

 

[DawgsWife]

now that's a thread starter

 

[robdawg1]

The only people standing in the way of gay marriage is the religious coalitions... and religion has no place in law.

They just need to get out of the way, it is only a matter of time until marriage is granted to all couples.

absolutely!! :clap:clap:clap

 

[BlackCherry]

This is a breaking story:
SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld same sex marriages that were already performed but upheld voters' rights to ban gay marriage through the state constitution.
An estimated 18,000 gay couples tied the knot before the law took effect. The ruling suggests that gay couples can be afforded equivalent rights to heterosexual married couples but perhaps under a different name.
Gay rights demonstrators flooded the courthouse before the decision and immediately started protesting the ruling. Supporters of gay marriage had argued that the Legislature should have approved the change to the California constitution because of the vote's impact on the equal protection clause.



Isn't this a slap in the face to peoples right to be treated equally....? Why not let people have the right to marry eachother when it has no effect or bearing on anyone else nor does it infringe on anyone elses right!! Kudos to the 18000 couples that get to stay married.

:clap:clap:clap

I also think it's ridiculous to say that you can be grandfathered into it making it ok for some but not for others. "Well, we recognize the people that already did it, but for those of you that want to...erm...nuh uh." That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[KpAtch3s]

:clap:clap:clap

I also think it's ridiculous to say that you can be grandfathered into it making it ok for some but not for others. "Well, we recognize the people that already did it, but for those of you that want to...erm...nuh uh." That makes no sense whatsoever.

Sure it does. The marriages done before hand were legally done. Now gay marriage is not legal.

 

[BlackCherry]

Sure it does. The marriages done before hand were legally done. Now gay marriage is not legal.

That in and of itself is a double standard, is my point. I get that it's not legal now, but it's kind of a silly double standard to do that.

 

[KpAtch3s]

That in and of itself is a double standard, is my point. I get that it's not legal now, but it's kind of a silly double standard to do that.

It's not a double standard. Because they were legally done prior to this they have to be honored. There has to be a cutoff date somewhere.

 

[robdawg1]

It is fortunate for those that the marriages they entered into were legal at the time so they will continue to remain legal...the assinign part of it is that they overuled anyone elses right to get married

 

[KpAtch3s]

It is fortunate for those that the marriages they entered into were legal at the time so they will continue to remain legal...the assinign part of it is that they overuled anyone elses right to get married

Well I don't know what the laws specifically stated before, but marriage is defined as between a man and woman. That therefore states they have no right to get married.

Everyone can get all pissed off about this, but this country was founded on Christian principles and therefore this is a Christian country. That means we need to uphold those morals.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

God wouldn't it suck to hav been planning a wedding and have them make it illegal? Or what if a gay friends couple got married right before the ban, but your too late? I say that if some people are going to be allowed to be married--all should be. It's not fair for one thing, and for another isn't the word 'marriage' tainted by one gay couple getting married? After that who cares about how many do...

 

[BlackCherry]

Well I don't know what the laws specifically stated before, but marriage is defined as between a man and woman. That therefore states they have no right to get married.

Everyone can get all pissed off about this, but this country was founded on Christian principles and therefore this is a Christian country. That means we need to uphold those morals.

I hate to burst your bubble, but the verbiage in the legislation wasn't changed to "between a man and a woman" until the 70's. That was something that was more recently changed and not "founded" that way for starters. Secondly, there is also a thing called separation of Church and state so that no one religion could influence the laws...Christian "law" should have no bearing on what the state does or does not do.

PS: Christian morals and ethics were the ones burning witches at the stake as well...should we still be upholding that?

If religion dictates marriage should be between a man and a woman, so be it...keep it in the Church. But the state should make its decisions free and clear of that.

Not only that, but if you're telling a group of people they are wrong by there very nature, then we haven't progressed beyond Jim Crow laws...what's next, seperate but equal water fountains?

 

[robdawg1]

Well I don't know what the laws specifically stated before, but marriage is defined as between a man and woman. That therefore states they have no right to get married.

Everyone can get all pissed off about this, but this country was founded on Christian principles and therefore this is a Christian country. That means we need to uphold those morals.

there is a constitutional seperation of church and state and THAT is what we need to uphold!!!
There is a freedom of religion constitutionaly meaning there is freedom from religion as well!!!

There are people in this country who are homosexual and choose to enter into partnerships with the same gender! These people are adults entering freely into these arrangments which has no detrimental effects oin anybody elses right to life liberty and pursuit oof happiness, and there is absolutely no reason they should not have the same freedoms as everyone else in this country!!!!!

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Well I don't know what the laws specifically stated before, but marriage is defined as between a man and woman. That therefore states they have no right to get married.

Everyone can get all pissed off about this, but this country was founded on Christian principles and therefore this is a Christian country. That means we need to uphold those morals.

Hate to break it to you, but this country doesn't have an official language, race, or religion. Because it was founded on freedom and rights. There is no religion that reins supreme over any other religion, therefore the Christian religion can't tell the Aethiest religion who they are allowed to marry and vice versa. That is why we keep church and state separate.

 

[KpAtch3s]

I hate to burst your bubble, but the verbiage in the legislation wasn't changed to "between a man and a woman" until the 70's. That was something that was more recently changed and not "founded" that way for starters. Secondly, there is also a thing called separation of Church and state so that no one religion could influence the laws...Christian "law" should have no bearing on what the state does or does not do.

PS: Christian morals and ethics were the ones burning witches at the stake as well...should we still be upholding that?

If religion dictates marriage should be between a man and a woman, so be it...keep it in the Church. But the state should make its decisions free and clear of that.

Not only that, but if you're telling a group of people they are wrong by there very nature, then we haven't progressed beyond Jim Crow laws...what's next, seperate but equal water fountains?

I wasn't able to confirm when the definition was changed. If you can find a source, I'd like to see it. (I'm not saying you are wrong, but I couldn't find it.)

Christian morals and ethics would also say that what happened with witches was murder. I have the believe that the were using Christianity as an excuse to do as they will.

Telling somebody they are wrong by their very nature has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws. Simply segregated the population. I do not see how finding somebodies lifestyle to be wrong has anything to do with that.

there is a constitutional seperation of church and state and THAT is what we need to uphold!!!
There is a freedom of religion constitutionaly meaning there is freedom from religion as well!!!

There are people in this country who are homosexual and choose to enter into partnerships with the same gender! These people are adults entering freely into these arrangments which has no detrimental effects oin anybody elses right to life liberty and pursuit oof happiness, and there is absolutely no reason they should not have the same freedoms as everyone else in this country!!!!!

Hate to break it to you, but this country doesn't have an official language, race, or religion. Because it was founded on freedom and rights. There is no religion that reins supreme over any other religion, therefore the Christian religion can't tell the Aethiest religion who they are allowed to marry and vice versa. That is why we keep church and state separate.

You all pretty much repeated each other so I'm just going to combine the rest of my response in one reply.

They want to be together? Fine, but don't call it marriage and allow them to have the same tax breaks. The legal definition may have only recently been changed to say between one man and one woman, but the Bible has had it defined that way for thousands of years. Like it or not, this country is founded on Christian morals. I imagine if you 3 had things your way we would remove all references to God from our currency, pledge of allegiance, and among other things.

Now I am curious, if you are willing I would like to know what your religions or lack there of are.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

I wasn't able to confirm when the definition was changed. If you can find a source, I'd like to see it. (I'm not saying you are wrong, but I couldn't find it.)

Christian morals and ethics would also say that what happened with witches was murder. I have the believe that the were using Christianity as an excuse to do as they will.

Telling somebody they are wrong by their very nature has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws. Simply segregated the population. I do not see how finding somebodies lifestyle to be wrong has anything to do with that.





You all pretty much repeated each other so I'm just going to combine the rest of my response in one reply.

They want to be together? Fine, but don't call it marriage and allow them to have the same tax breaks. The legal definition may have only recently been changed to say between one man and one woman, but the Bible has had it defined that way for thousands of years. Like it or not, this country is founded on Christian morals. I imagine if you 3 had things your way we would remove all references to God from our currency, pledge of allegiance, and among other things.

Now I am curious, if you are willing I would like to know what your religions or lack there of are.

Just because our country has christian morals, it doesn't mean it can have christian laws. Morals mean that you choose to go against them with consequences from god, laws mean you choose to go against them with consequences from the government. Therefore, laws about morals shouldn't be made, because that's gods job right?

Even if this country was founded on Christianity and it was our national religion, that still wouldn't change the fact that church and state are separate. Period.

I am agnostic, I don't believe in religion, but there might be a god. I figure that if I live a good life with basic morals, god isn't going to send me to hell for choosing the wrong religion.

Also, have you never heard of a little thing called change? Our country was also founded on slavery and no rights to women you know...

 

[HottyToddyChick]

I don't agree with gay marriage. Marriage to me is a religious thing, and should be between a man and a woman. I've got nothing against civil unions, which give them the same rights, don't they? (Seriously asking, not being smart.) If you want to have a private ceremony, by all means, go ahead, but weddings and marriages are sacred and based in religion.

 

[KpAtch3s]

Just because our country has christian morals, it doesn't mean it can have christian laws. Morals mean that you choose to go against them with consequences from god, laws mean you choose to go against them with consequences from the government. Therefore, laws about morals shouldn't be made, because that's gods job right?

Even if this country was founded on Christianity and it was our national religion, that still wouldn't change the fact that church and state are separate. Period.

I am agnostic, I don't believe in religion, but there might be a god. I figure that if I live a good life with basic morals, god isn't going to send me to hell for choosing the wrong religion.

Also, have you never heard of a little thing called change? Our country was also founded on slavery and no rights to women you know...

Without morals there would be no laws, because without morals there is no right or wrong. When morals and ethical standards are not met the population tends to push for things to become law as a knee jerk reaction. It's just the natural way things work. What has happened in California is a great example of that. The majority of people, myself included find same sex marriage wrong.

There is a separation of church and state, but I think you can also find that this has to do with more than just religion.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

I don't agree with gay marriage. Marriage to me is a religious thing, and should be between a man and a woman. I've got nothing against civil unions, which give them the same rights, don't they? (Seriously asking, not being smart.) If you want to have a private ceremony, by all means, go ahead, but weddings and marriages are sacred and based in religion.

Except not all religous people think that marriage should be between a man and women. Therefore legally they should be allowed to get married. There are such things as religious gay people--as crazy as it may seem

 

[robdawg1]

They want to be together? Fine, but don't call it marriage and allow them to have the same tax breaks. The legal definition may have only recently been changed to say between one man and one woman, but the Bible has had it defined that way for thousands of years. Like it or not, this country is founded on Christian morals. I imagine if you 3 had things your way we would remove all references to God from our currency, pledge of allegiance, and among other things.

Now I am curious, if you are willing I would like to know what your religions or lack there of are.

If they want to be married thats fine call it what it is "marriage" the union of 2 parties for the proper transferral of property rights INCLUDING ALL RIGHTS AND BENEFITS THEREIN(LIKE TAX BREAKS)! Marriage as defined by the government should be just that...if the religious ceremony that usually accompanies said union wants to balk...well thats why there is a justice of the peace....

Why is that? Because there is a CONSTITUTIONAL SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE Marriage as defined by the government is about property transferral only!

the religios part of it is personal to the couple involved.. Are you saying that couples married under the jewish/ muslim/hindu faiths in this country are also illegitimate because this country was founded by christians? that is as ludicrous as saying that people who marry the same sex have illegitimate relationships...
i go back to again that they are consenting adults that are not affecting anyone elses rights, AS WELL AS THEM BEING TAX PAYING CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY, they deserve equal treatment as every citizen recieves!!


finally my religious beliefs are of no consequance to the discussion due to the fact that this was a legal decision made by the courts, wherein religion should not have been a factor!!