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

[HottyToddyChick]

I'm not going to get into that. I don't agree with gay marriage, but at the same time I see where you are coming from, and I agree with everyone being equal, but I just can't agree with the marriage thing.

 

[robdawg1]

But there is a way to make sure that freedom is equal to everyone! Thats why checks and balances exist!
It is ok not to agree with someone but when you restrict there rights that becomes a problem! when you do it with laws based on religious princepals thats an even bigger problem!!

 

[DawgsWife]

this is my thing...
I am Christian, and what I have been taught is to love one another as equals and not judge others.
So, when it comes to marriage, either gay or straight, who am I to say to people in love cannot be legally married, THEY do not affect me nor my beliefs. I could care less if Jane and Sally marry or Charles and Sanford marry... they are in love, it is their life, and I don't have to answer to any of it... even if it was Charles and Sally who marrried and then divorced......

Good gravy people! Why are there so many people against it when it doesn't even affect them??????????

Christians should love all and not judge!!!!! And like I said, I AM a Christian....

 

[HottyToddyChick]

this is my thing...
I am Christian, and what I have been taught is to love one another as equals and not judge others.
So, when it comes to marriage, either gay or straight, who am I to say to people in love cannot be legally married, THEY do not affect me nor my beliefs. I could care less if Jane and Sally marry or Charles and Sanford marry... they are in love, it is their life, and I don't have to answer to any of it... even if it was Charles and Sally who marrried and then divorced......

Good gravy people! Why are there so many people against it when it doesn't even affect them??????????

Christians should love all and not judge!!!!! And like I said, I AM a Christian....

I don't know. I know it shouldn't matter to me, because it doesn't affect me, at all, period, ever, but it's just something that I don't agree with deep down. :dunno:

 

[Goat Whisperer]

I don't know. I know it shouldn't matter to me, because it doesn't affect me, at all, period, ever, but it's just something that I don't agree with deep down. :dunno:

not that any of ya'll really know this, but my mom is bisexual, so it does effect me personally...

 

[robdawg1]

I don't know. I know it shouldn't matter to me, because it doesn't affect me, at all, period, ever, but it's just something that I don't agree with deep down. :dunno:

thats the thing it isnt about whether we agree with the lifestyle or not, it is about letting people have the freedom to live their own life!!!

I don't agree with alot of people's beliefs but they have the freedom to exercise them right?

 

[HottyToddyChick]

I can see why you are so passionate about it, then.

I'm not trying to argue anything, really. Was just throwing my opinion out there.

 

[alibaba]

Religion should be kept well away from state business as far as I am concerned.
Our government bowed to the Church for years and allowed them to look after our schools and "care" facilities for years and the Church abused their powe and systematically abused children both sexually and physically.
The religious beliefs of anyone should be of no consequence to the law, everyone is equal and therefore deserves the same rights as anyone else, marriage included.

I also believe that people in long term relationships who don't marry should be given some of the benefits especially regarding children and property.
I am with my partner 10 years and we have 2 children together, I can not see us marrying in the near future, but if I was to die, he would not be guaranteed custody of his own children and he would also not be automatically entitled to stay in our home, as the mortgage is in my name. Things like this need to be changed also.

 

[Lord Stanley]

this is my thing...
I am Christian, and what I have been taught is to love one another as equals and not judge others.
So, when it comes to marriage, either gay or straight, who am I to say to people in love cannot be legally married, THEY do not affect me nor my beliefs. I could care less if Jane and Sally marry or Charles and Sanford marry... they are in love, it is their life, and I don't have to answer to any of it... even if it was Charles and Sally who marrried and then divorced......

Good gravy people! Why are there so many people against it when it doesn't even affect them??????????

Christians should love all and not judge!!!!! And like I said, I AM a Christian....

nice post

utmost respect for you and Mr Dawg

 

[KpAtch3s]

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!!

Ok, here is the legal definition of marriage from Marriage legal definition of Marriage. Marriage synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.

I don't think morals should have to do with laws. I think that as long as all parties involved in an action are consenting and no one is being effective in a life threatening or physically/emotionally dangerous way, the government has no reason to get involved.

Who the fuck is to tell me what is wrong and what is right unless if I am effecting someone else anyways?

Laws and morals are tied together. Laws are in place because of what people to believe is morally right. You remove morals and then you end up with a lawless country.

And morals and religion are not mutually exclusive!! They don't always go hand in hand.

Morally persecuting people who dont believe as you do is wrong, some religions call for it including christianity!!

morally damning everyone who desnt belive what you believe to purgatory to "pay for sins" tey werent aware they were comtting is wrong, religion advocates this as well.....

this list goes on,

Morals dont mean religion, and morally the wrong thing is refusing people equal rights...
morally allowing 2 people to make their own decision and allowing them to recieve equal privelidges as everyone else is the right thing to do!!

This is really a new topic that needs it's own thread.

well said

Sorry, but do you ever have your own input on any topics? I just always seeing you praising everyone else's view.

There are a few things I need to point out to you.

1. This country was not founded on Christian morals
2. "In God we trust" was not added to our currency until congress passed legislation on January 18th, 1837 after pressure from religious groups. If it was the intention of our founding fathers, don't you think they would have added it from the beginning?
3. God was never mentioned in the pledge of allegiance until 1954. From 1892 to 1954 the words "Under God" were not part of the pledge of allegiance. So for the first 62 years God was never mentioned, those words have only been in the pledge for the last 55 years...

So if you want to keep things like they always were, then take "Under God" back out of the pledge and remove "In God we trust" off of all the US currency. Go back to the way our founding fathers envisioned America, where church and state were separate.

Not founded on Christian morals? You do realize that the reason people immigrated to North America was because of religious persecution. Christians were not able to freely practice their religion. Christianity was widespread among the pilgrims. Our forefathers were also Christians and they wanted freedom of religion and separation of church and state because of those persecutions and control the European govts exerted. The separation of church and state was intended to keep government out of the church, not religious morals out of the government. You are free to worship whatever god you choose, but this country is founded on Christian beliefs and morals.

Yes the references to God were not originally there. They are however a reflection of what this nation is.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Ok, here is the legal definition of marriage from Marriage legal definition of Marriage. Marriage synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.

So we can have the definition changed. Big deal. In fact having it changed is basically what this thread is about.

Laws and morals are tied together. Laws are in place because of what people to believe is morally right. You remove morals and then you end up with a lawless country.

Ya but you need to have more reason then 'It's morally wrong' to make a law. With that logic I could just say 'It's morally wrong to talk against the church, therefore, it is not against the law to make any negative commentss against the church' murder is illegal because, yes it is morally wrong, but more so because a person in killed in a non-consensual way. Murder is illegal because it harms people, not because the bible says it's bad.

Not founded on Christian morals? You do realize that the reason people immigrated to North America was because of religious persecution. Christians were not able to freely practice their religion. Christianity was widespread among the pilgrims. Our forefathers were also Christians and they wanted freedom of religion and separation of church and state because of those persecutions and control the European govts exerted. The separation of church and state was intended to keep government out of the church, not religious morals out of the government. You are free to worship whatever god you choose, but this country is founded on Christian beliefs and morals.

Yes the references to God were not originally there. They are however a reflection of what this nation is.

This country, for the last time, was not founded on god damn religion. This shit can piss me off when you say that :mad I happen to be kind of patriotic, and I say America was founded on the idea of freedom, not on the idea of running away from a church or god. It might have been founded because of religion, but it was not founded on religion. There is a HUGE difference.

 

[HottyToddyChick]

He's not saying it's founded on religion, but on religious morals. Most people gets their morals and "rights and wrongs" from religious beliefs.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

He's not saying it's founded on religion, but on religious morals. Most people gets their morals and "rights and wrongs" from religious beliefs.

Ya but you can't just say "My religion says that's wrong, therefore it is illegal" because MY religion doesn't say it's wrong. And if you allowed people to make laws that way, then virtually any law could be made as long as it goes along with the major religion in a country or region.

So christians say it's a sin to masterbate right? Well if Christians make up the majority of Americans, I geuss they can just go ahead and make porn and tube socks illegal.

Christians don't like it when you say gods name in vain? Well since they make up the majority, and we were founded on their religions morals, they can just go ahead and make that illegal too.

 

[HottyToddyChick]

It's not illegal because things get voted on. I can't just walk up to Congress and be like, I founded my own religion and believe it's wrong to have a bird as a pet, so let's just make that illegal.

Laws are in place to make sure that, to the best of our (collective) ability, we can keep people civilized and, for the most part, happy.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

It's not illegal because things get voted on. I can't just walk up to Congress and be like, I founded my own religion and believe it's wrong to have a bird as a pet, so let's just make that illegal.

Laws are in place to make sure that, to the best of our (collective) ability, we can keep people civilized and, for the most part, happy.

This is why the majority can't rule. I say the MAJOR religion in an area, because if 60% of the population is christian, then all they have to do is say it's against their religion and take it to a vote. I think they need more reason then 'it's against my religious morals' because then the major religion can have complete control over the laws as long as it has enough followers.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Laws are in place to make sure that, to the best of our (collective) ability, we can keep people civilized and, for the most part, happy.

It's not about making people happy. It's about making people equal and free in the eyes of the law. That is what America is all about.

Edit: if it was about making the majority happy, Africans would still be enslaved and women would have no rights.

 

[Lord Stanley]

Sorry, but do you ever have your own input on any topics? I just always seeing you praising everyone else's view.



.

no need to apologise mate, I often find others have said what i would have said, so i keep my posts brief - would not want to repeat the same message

 

[KpAtch3s]

Ya but you can't just say "My religion says that's wrong, therefore it is illegal" because MY religion doesn't say it's wrong. And if you allowed people to make laws that way, then virtually any law could be made as long as it goes along with the major religion in a country or region.

So christians say it's a sin to masterbate right? Well if Christians make up the majority of Americans, I geuss they can just go ahead and make porn and tube socks illegal.

Christians don't like it when you say gods name in vain? Well since they make up the majority, and we were founded on their religions morals, they can just go ahead and make that illegal too.

There is a process to the legal system for how laws are made to keep things of this nature from becoming law. Not to mention that making laws for something you can't truly control is completely pointless.

As far as saying the Lords name in vain, yes it is a sin from the Christian point of view, but this country also has other rights, such as freedom of speech.

Those of course are extreme examples you've provided, but the bill of rights protects us from a lot of this stuff.

 

[KpAtch3s]

no need to apologise mate, I often find others have said what i would have said, so i keep my posts brief - would not want to repeat the same message

No problem, I'd just like to see some more input. Bring new to the table, come on!

 

[Goat Whisperer]

There is a process to the legal system for how laws are made to keep things of this nature from becoming law. Not to mention that making laws for something you can't truly control is completely pointless.

As far as saying the Lords name in vain, yes it is a sin from the Christian point of view, but this country also has other rights, such as freedom of speech.

Those of course are extreme examples you've provided, but the bill of rights protects us from a lot of this stuff.

Okay, so for what other reason either then 'it's against my religious morals' is banning gay marriage a law?

It doesn't harm anyone against there will, it doesn't effect anyone in a physically negative way, in fact all it effects are the gay people in question-- and they are usually quiet consenting and happy when getting married.