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

[Lord Stanley]

we should not forget that no-one is forced into the marriage process, either as a participant or a person perfoming a ceremony, no Minister/Pastor/Rabbi should ever have to perform a ceremony that flies in the face of their beliefs - but my take is that equality of all should simply allow same sex marriage to exist for those that dont share those same beliefs

 

[Boomer]

Same sexes shouldnt marry cause Jesus says its bad and jesus is ALWAYS right.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Same sexes shouldnt marry cause Jesus says its bad and jesus is ALWAYS right.

I never saw it this way, I totally agree!

 

[Boomer]

I never saw it this way, I totally agree!

See thar? Jesus shows the way. :nod:

 

[KpAtch3s]

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.

Ok, legally it can't be done because of the legal definition of a law. Call it civil union, allow them the same benefits, but don't call it marriage. A majority of people in the US see marriage as between a man and a woman, not between man and man or woman and woman. A majority of people in the US don't care if they want to be together either, but they don't want it to be called marriage. That is probably because nearly 80% of Americans are Christians.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Ok, legally it can't be done because of the legal definition of a law. Call it civil union, allow them the same benefits, but don't call it marriage. A majority of people in the US see marriage as between a man and a woman, not between man and man or woman and woman. A majority of people in the US don't care if they want to be together either, but they don't want it to be called marriage. That is probably because nearly 80% of Americans are Christians.

You can change the definition of a law.

I still don't think that is equality. Because the majority don't want to call it marriage for no reason either then religion, the rest can't?

 

[KpAtch3s]

Call it Civil Union. It is not marriage. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Okay, whatever. I'm good at widdling a debate down to the core, aren't I?

 

[SgtSpike]

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!!

Show me, exactly where in the Constitution does it say anything about separation of church and state?

I'm really VERY curious to see where it comes from.

 

[KpAtch3s]

Show me, exactly where in the Constitution does it say anything about separation of church and state?

I'm really VERY curious to see where it comes from.

I'll answer it for him.

Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. However, the phrase is often taken out of context. Jefferson wrote that the state cannot interfere with the churches teachings. He never said that the church cannot interfere with the state's laws.[3] The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878,[4] and then in a series of cases starting in 1948.[5] This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept.

Exactly what I said a few posts up

 

[JanieDough]

if they outlaw marriage then they should allow for some other form of civil union that carries the same legal rights as a marriage

i dont believe jesus ever said gays shouldn't have equal legal rights - (although I am sure SOME ONE is going to pull something outta their ass and tell me he did)

 

[Staci]

i personally do not believe in gay marriage. STOP and read on before you jump me

that being said i, as a christian, do not look down on anyone who is straight, bi-sexual or gay. if you have found someone who makes you happy, then great be with that person. i believe that a civil union would be in order for gay couples to have insurance, children, rights, and wills to be enforced when someone dies, but not a marraige. marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

[JanieDough]

i personally do not believe in gay marriage. STOP and read on before you jump me

that being said i, as a christian, do not look down on anyone who is straight, bi-sexual or gay. if you have found someone who makes you happy, then great be with that person. i believe that a civil union would be in order for gay couples to have insurance, children, rights, and wills to be enforced when someone dies, but not a marraige. marriage is between a man and a woman.

:clap really thank you for saying that


however - do you think a legal definition of our courts should differ from the religious defintion set out by the christian church?

and if so then what about the people who are atheists who get married outside the church? and what about the people who are buddhists, etc.?

 

[Goat Whisperer]

I think it's interesting that Atheists can get married, but Christian gays can't :ninja

 

[JanieDough]

exactly.

 

[Staci]

:clap really thank you for saying that


however - do you think a legal definition of our courts should differ from the religious defintion set out by the christian church?

and if so then what about the people who are atheists who get married outside the church? and what about the people who are buddhists, etc.?

one fundamental issue that gets aruged about it the effect same-sex marriage would have on defining marraige as an instution.

the legal defination of marriage is between a man and a woman. you cant take marriage, a social institution that developed over a very, very, very long period of time and redefine it out of existence.

again, allow same- sex couples to be joined together in a civil union, not marriage, and afford them most of the rights as a hetrosexual couple. not all people who get married (man and woman) did it in a church. fuzz and i were married by a jp. i would like to see where it says marriage is a religious defination by the christian church?

 

[Lord Stanley]

i would like to see where it says marriage is a religious defination by the christian church?

you raise an interesting point perhaps Chruches would be better served if they required all couples wanting to marry in God's house to be active and practicng members of the congregation - my sister had to lie to the local parich priest in England to persuade him to marry her in their local Church, she has never attended church, is not a practising Christian, yet the Chuch allowed her and her hubby to marry on some flimsy promise that they would attend and join in the fun, of course they never did...no doubt the Reverend knew this but was willing to accept their application Interestingly enough the application forced them to fess up some truths, they were both divorcees having committed adultry in their previous marriages - as this was a matter of public record, my sister did not hide this bit from the church, yet they were still allowed to wed - made a bit of a mockery of it IMHO yet she wanted her church wedding and she got it

 

[robdawg1]

I think it is rediculouse to squabble over words like this! what would the difference between a gay marriage and a gay civil union be....? would they have less rights than a married couple?
If the answer to these questions are no difference, just in what they are "called" than it is silly.
It is an absolutely valid point to bring up, mind you, that in this country we have freedom of religion, that is a first amendment right. So therefore the Christian church is not the only church that exists or has say so in this country! Wiccans believe in same sex unions, why shouldnt there views be recognised..


I go back to another point that "majority rules" has a system of checks and balances so when the majority is wrong and tries to actively seek out restricting a citizens freedom(i.e. denying them the right to marry whom they chose as long as they are consenting adults) the checks and balances should come into play and equalize the field!


regardless of your personal beliefs on the issue, denying gay people the right to marry is restrictive of their freedom, and wrong! Marriage and civil union is the same thing people, we are just arguing semantics!!

 

[All Else Failed]

seeing as how the government of America is inherently secular I don't see why we have to go with the Judeo/Christian concept of marriage.

 

[Staci]

Marriage and civil union is the same thing people, we are just arguing semantics!!

this is where i disagree with you. if you go back and look in history, the reason a man and a woman got married was to reproduce and multiply (not even basing this on religion, loving v virginia (1967)) and depending on what country you are from marriage and civil union are 2 different things.