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

[MoonOwl]

I don't have a problem w/gay couples being allowed to "marry" or adopt children.

When I hear some politician whine that gay marriage is an affront to the sanctity of marriage I have to scratch my head and call bs. When it would cheaper for Poopa & I to divorce so that I as a single mom can afford healthcare, there is no 'sanctity' of marriage. At least not in the political sense.

Perhaps one day in the not so far future we will have put legal discrimination of minorities behind us? It's no skin off my nose if some gay couple wants to make it legal. It's the 21st Century afterall..... Everyone should feel as happily married as I do. Whatever your stripe.

jmho,
MO

 

[Goat Whisperer]

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

Another point to think of, what if there is a gay person that believes in religious abstinence, but they aren't allowed to get married?

Just throwing it out there. Marriage isn't just a different 'name'

 

[SgtSpike]

Wiccans believe in same sex unions, why shouldnt there views be recognised..

If Wiccans had created marriage in the first place, then sure, they would have a valid claim to what marriage means. I think that's what it all boils down to - Christianity feels as though it created marriage (as defined by a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman), and they want to hold on to that definition. The definition may not be important to you, but it IS important to me and many other people.

On the other hand, I agree with all of you that Christians are making too big of a deal about this. I think we're being selfish, and really only causing trouble for people and ruining the Christian name as loving people of God. Even though I personally believe that marriage should be between only a man and a woman, I think it would be way worth it to give that up as a legal definition and receive in return a less battered reputation for Christianity. The only thing I see happening today is people being pushed away from Christianity because of this.

What would have Jesus done, had he been up in this debate? I doubt he himself would have performed a ceremony for gay people, pronouncing them husband and husband, but I also doubt he would have said a word about it elsewhere, except within or among the church. It seems to me that the only place Jesus judged people was when they were in the church. But that's for another discussion...

Bottom line is, Christians aren't nearly as accepting as they should be, and it's a terrible shame. Something we (myself included) definitely need to work on. It's just most Christians are drawing the line for judgement in the wrong place. Judgement should only happen within the church between church members and from God to men. But church members are taking judgement to people outside of the church, which is wrong.

 

[JanieDough]

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?

you have a good point that it is a social definition that would be hard to change, but i think that most people's objections to it are not social, its religious

like people who say "i love gays, but a marriage should be between man and woman because that's what mu church says"

marriage and church should not be synonymous, and is not synonymous in today's laws
so why do marriages have to be between man and woman? because of social constraints? never thought of that angle...

 

[JanieDough]

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

Yes but wake up and smell the coffee, politics is probably mostly about semantics or is it symantics?

anyways - the way you label Bill passed in Congress determines a lot from what interest groups are going to be behind it to what message it sends to the public

An article in newsweek a few months ago talked about an abortion bill

You can work to limit abortions or you can work to prevent abortions...maybe the same thing, but not in the political sphere.

 

[Staci]

you have a good point that it is a social definition that would be hard to change, but i think that most people's objections to it are not social, its religious

like people who say "i love gays, but a marriage should be between man and woman because that's what mu church says"

marriage and church should not be synonymous, and is not synonymous in today's laws
so why do marriages have to be between man and woman? because of social constraints? never thought of that angle...

where specifically does it say the definiations are religious? again, who am i to judge? and by no means am i judging anyone in this debate. one of the great things about this forum is the diversity of people and opinions on here

 

[Staci]

Yes but wake up and smell the coffee, politics is probably mostly about semantics or is it symantics?

anyways - the way you label Bill passed in Congress determines a lot from what interest groups are going to be behind it to what message it sends to the public

An article in newsweek a few months ago talked about an abortion bill

You can work to limit abortions or you can work to prevent abortions...maybe the same thing, but not in the political sphere.

and how much money is being put into said pocket, on either side of congress. unfourtunally today money, greed, and power is what makes our laws not what the majority of the people want

 

[JanieDough]

where specifically does it say the definiations are religious? again, who am i to judge? and by no means am i judging anyone in this debate. one of the great things about this forum is the diversity of people and opinions on here

well that's what I am saying - all along I have thought that was the big hang up - but maybe it is because our brains are not progressive enough to accept such a social change in one generation

i do know that a lot of people's objections to marriage are based on their religion, but if those people accept everyone's marriage as long as it is between a man and a woman, then they are being hypocrites because not every man and woman's marriage is religion based.

 

[Staci]

well here would be another debate then. so we allow same sex marraiges and rule that legal. now are we gonna have people saying they want multi wives to be legal as well, how about underage marraige, or wait i want to marry my dog.

(i know a little extreme there, but where would the line be drawn?)

 

[robdawg1]

well here would be another debate then. so we allow same sex marraiges and rule that legal. now are we gonna have people saying they want multi wives to be legal as well, how about underage marraige, or wait i want to marry my dog.

(i know a little extreme there, but where would the line be drawn?)

Goes back to consenting adults doesn;t it?
That is where the line is drawn! Consenting adults, not with minors(who have no consentual rights) or with animals who have no consent...That is why this argument(generally) turns to the ridiculous!
The whole point of this argument is that to deny a tax paying us citizen equal rights and benefits and protection is very wrong! These people don't want to interfere with anyone's rights, they just want to be able to enjoy the same rights and privelidges as everyone else who is free! YOUR religious beliefs should not impinge on MY freedom and rights!!!!

By the way this discussion is coming on dr phil today...be interesting to see what they think!

 

[Tim]

I thought this was a good article that puts this discussion into perspective.

Interracial Vs. Gay Marriage: Are Miscegenation Laws Really a Thing of the Past?

February 26, 2007 by Summer Banks

It took nearly 300 years for interracial activists to finally convince lawmakers to repeal the widespread miscegenation laws adopted by our leaders in 1664. These laws refused interracial couples the legal right to marry and deemed all interracial sex as illicit. Statements such as these can only remind us of today's governmental fight against gay marriage.

With white supremacists leading America throughout the last three centuries, it is not hard to understand why laws against interracial marriages were drafted and adopted in 30 out of 50 states. The remaining states simply believed there was no need for new laws against the "unnatural" acts due to the ingrained knowledge of God's will to refute the mixing of races. After the white Southerners were defeated in the Civil War, states began passing new and stronger laws. The federal government tried to force the states to abandon these miscegenation laws through their Reconstruction effort. This effort only strengthened the southern states' support for the laws. The infamous black codes, as they were called, sited four arguments against interracial marriage. First, judges claimed the legality of interracial marriage was only enforceable by the states rather than the federal government. Second, they began to define all interracial relationships as illicit sex rather than marriage. Third, they set out to enforce God's will by claiming interracial marriage was deemed sinful by the Bible. And finally, fourth, they continued to refute the naturalness of the act.

As years turned into decades, the laws passed throughout the states began defining interracialty on a more encompassing scale. Marriages between any two "different" people were now considered unlawful. Included were Caucasians, Asian Americans, American Indians, Chinese, Kanaka, Hawaiians, and of course, African Americans. Between 1880 and 1950, miscegenation laws were at their peak of power and certain groups were convinced they could no longer allow the constitution 14th amendment to be so unlawfully broken.

Between 1950 and 1967, the Supreme Court heard many arguments against the miscegenation laws. The first significant courtroom victory was claimed by the Catholic Interracial Council of Los Angeles. Following there after were the ACLU, Citizens League and NAACP. Finally in 1967, the United States Supreme Court declared all miscegenation laws unconstitutional and the first interracial couple was allowed to be legally married.

The fight for equality in marriage has already been fought. And though historians tend to be uncomfortable comparing the 300-year battle against racial discrimination with the current battle against sexual discrimination, there are clearly similarities. The 14th amendment of equality is still being broken, "God's will" is still being used as a legal bargaining tool and states are still being left to write and enforce laws clearly demeaning the constitutional rights given to all persons. With the federal government playing such a big role in this war on equality hopefully we will not have to wait another 300 years for miscegenation laws to finally be a thing of the past.

 

[robdawg1]

thats a great article....very relevant to the conversation at hand....If they used the same argument then that they are using now....isnt it just as wrong in both scenarios...

It seems that noone would want to say "i don't believe in interracial marriages, i think they should be allowed civil unions only" for fear of appearing racist...
but being biggoted against homosexuals is socially acceptable and therefore more people are willing to admit and defend it

 

[robdawg1]

edited ^^^^

 

[Tim]

[vbtube]m9r017WqYwY[/vbtube]

 

[robdawg1]

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.

1.I think the foundation of that concept is rediculous. Let them enjoy the same freedom but, don't call it the same thing to keep the religious right happy...oy

2. I think that you will find that that group of americans don't want to see them have these partnership rights at all! thats why there is such a debate in the first place. If the Majority actually wanted to grant Gays and Lesbioans civil unions then they would exist! they don't, because they have been voted down time and again on an issue that should not even come to vote! Why should I have a say whether 2 consenting adults can enjoy equal protection under the law! If it were up to a vote there would still be slaves, women would still not be equal citizens, japanese and german citizens would still be in concenttr...er..i mean "work" camps, and if you were not a white male property owner you would not be counted as a full person!

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 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.

What is the difference??? If a civil union is the same thing as marriage, than why not just call it marriage...change the defintion to " a union of 2 consenting adult parties" why does the religious aspect fight so hard to protect the "sanctity of marriage" by not calling gay unions married but still say "but civil unions are ok....?

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,

The reason a man and woman got married was for the transferral of property rights, and the perpetuation of nobility/family name for power transfers to stay within the same bloodright!






If the religious sect wants to fight so hard to "protect the sanctity of marriage" then spend more time protesting the legality of DIVORCE and leave people who actually want to get married alone!!

 

[JanieDough]

What is the difference??? If a civil union is the same thing as marriage, than why not just call it marriage...change the defintion to " a union of 2 consenting adult parties" why does the religious aspect fight so hard to protect the "sanctity of marriage" by not calling gay unions married but still say "but civil unions are ok....?

well its similar to a "common law marriage" which are two people living together for seven years
and a marriage where people actually get a marriage certificate, etc.

legally the common law marriage carries with it legal definitions even though it isn't really a marriage.

religiously the common law marraige is living in sin, and it still gets legal recognition

socially the concept of living with a guy and having sex with him before marriage has become respected even though it once wasn't

see a pattern? two people who love each other and who are family should get the same legal rights whether they are opposite sex or same. people should agree with this unless they think gays don't deserve even the basic civil rights as the rest of us in which case their opinion is as much respected as a racist's opinions

so if two people who love each other and who are family should get the same legal rights whether they are opposite sex or same, then the law should provide for this in some way and if the major beef is with religious or conservative groups worried about the label of marriage being applied to gays, then call it something else and appease those people

just give gays some rights.

 

[robdawg1]

thats my point i don't think we should appease those people! just like i don't think that the "jim crow" laws were kept to appease racist whites! we can't give in to bigotry and make any US citizen seem or feel second class!

 

[JanieDough]

yeah but are you the one being denied the right of marriage?

i wonder if gays would accept it under any name?

 

[DawgsWife]

yeah but are you the one being denied the right of marriage?

i wonder if gays would accept it under any name?

I can answer that one.... no

However, we have friends and family who are being denied such right!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[DawgsWife]

well its similar to a "common law marriage" which are two people living together for seven years
and a marriage where people actually get a marriage certificate, etc.

legally the common law marriage carries with it legal definitions even though it isn't really a marriage.

religiously the common law marraige is living in sin, and it still gets legal recognition

socially the concept of living with a guy and having sex with him before marriage has become respected even though it once wasn't

see a pattern? two people who love each other and who are family should get the same legal rights whether they are opposite sex or same. people should agree with this unless they think gays don't deserve even the basic civil rights as the rest of us in which case their opinion is as much respected as a racist's opinions

so if two people who love each other and who are family should get the same legal rights whether they are opposite sex or same, then the law should provide for this in some way and if the major beef is with religious or conservative groups worried about the label of marriage being applied to gays, then call it something else and appease those people

just give gays some rights.

Common Law Marriage was disolved in Georgia (where we live) January 1, 1997.... wonder why???