The California Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.
The state high court’s 4-3 ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, while the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.
The long-awaited court decision stemmed from San Francisco’s highly publicized same-sex weddings, which in 2004 helped spur a conservative backlash in a presidential election year and a national dialogue over gay rights.
Overdue.
I am very happy for you Mr. Mustard. š
Oh no! What about the defense of marriage act! I can already feel my marriage falling apart because gays are getting married. LOL
Honestly, who cares if two women or two men want to get married (besides fundies and hicks)?
I’m glad this ban was overturned.
With all the ills in this country (war, recession, housing market in the dumpster), why do moronic self-righteous people feel the need to press their antiquated moral ‘values’ on the rest of the population?
Live and let live, people. What people choose to do with their personal lives is none of your damn concern.
If those opposed to gay marriage do so to protect the ‘sanctity of marriage’, then why don’t they go and propose to ban divorces? That seems a hell of a lot more threatening to the ‘sanctity of marriage’ than gay marriage does.
>>I am very happy for you Mr. Mustard. š
Ahhh, a homophobe. Nice, “J”.
The obvious solution will never happen. The state has no business endorsing a marriage of any kind. Its a civil contract, and to the state thats all it should be. As long as both parties are consenting adults and legally able to enter a contract, then a license is granted.
The license makes it legal with the state. Let it be up to your pastor if its legal with God. Never the twain shall meet.
The California supreme court just handed John McCain the Presidency.
This will unite all the republican factions under the banner of John McCain and seriously defeat Obama come November. I assume that the November Ballet adding a constitutional amendment Banning same sex marriage will also pass
Well, I’m against it–for historic, cultural, and linguistic reasons. “The Court” has no business overturning 3-4 thousand years of settled law. Marriage is between man and woman. Sometimes plural, but not same sex.
I’m all for gay unions with all the same rights as marriage. That being the case, I won’t lose sleep over terminology other than to mourn the loss of precision in our language AND the obvious violation of boundaries committed by the Court. Such social engineering should come from the legislature.
# 4 Mister Mustard
“Ahhh, a homophobe. Nice, āJā.”
Not hardly! lol Funny you thought I was attacking gays. I sincerely thought you had said once that you were “gay”. Why do you think I put the smiley face?
Sorry if I was wrong. It is telling in the way you interpreted it. Do you consider it an insult that someone thinks you might be gay?
BINGO! #5 tec3, you beat me to it.
Marriage is a religious institution which the state should have left alone. The state can conduct a “civil union”, while a church conducts a marriage.
Therefore if a couple is married in a church, that church recognizes the marriage as a religious union. At the same time the state recognizes the marriage as a civil union.
Make the states, all of them, recognize the same standard of civil union, by making all civil unions obey a it a federal statute so that one civil union in one state carries to any other state. Include same sex couples. Include that the benefits of one partner carries to the other. Make the civil union universally applicable to all adults of legal age and non-discriminatory.
Therefore, if a same sex couple marries in California under the Anglican church and then moves to Texas, they will still be a couple under the law with all the same benefits they enjoyed in California.
Problem solved.
That’s the weakest argument I have ever heard regarding gay marriage bobbo.
Until someone presents empirical evidence that gay marriage harms society, I can’t see opposing it.
bobbo wants to make it a semantic argument. LOL
>>Do you consider it an insult that someone
>>thinks you might be gay?
Only you, “J”, only you.
I don’t believe I’ve ever said I was gay, just as I don’t believe I ever said Jews have big noses. You must be confusing me with some other libertine.
[A certain person has been posing as Mister Mustard… but no more. – ed.]
>>Marriage is a religious institution.
Uh, not quite. Marriage licenses are authorized by the civil government. You can be married in every church in town, but if you don’t have a secular marriage license, you’re not married. By the same token, if you have a marriage license, it doesn’t matter if you are the Anti-Christ, you’re still legally married (in the eyes of the court, and most of society).
Ever hear of a Justice of the Peace marrying people? Or a ship captain offshore?
Except for the ingrained need of religion to stick their nose into a civil matter, marriage has nothing to do with religion.
A SIGN OF THE APOCALYPSE:
“The California Supreme Court has six Republican appointees and one Democrat. Scholars have described the court under the leadership of chief justice George as cautious and moderately conservative.”
A Republican dominated court voted FOR same sex marriage!!!
“āThe Courtā has no business overturning 3-4 thousand years of settled law.”
I’m hoping you were being sarcastic, Bobbo, because this is pretty backwards thinking. The civil rights movement post the 1850s proved pretty efficiently that “separate but equal” does not equate to equal.
The power of law is entirely in words. If you suddenly decide to start differentiating words, you hand the law more power. To hold a position that “you can have something that’s exactly like a marraige except you can’t call it marriage” is, while logically not a bad notion (I myself held this position for a while), legally, intrinsically, failed – because the differentiation is created in the definition.
To put it in simpler terms, X != X is a mathematical/logical fallacy. The solution is to say X = Y (+ the term “marriage”), which in turn denoted inequality between X and Y, thus leading to further inequalities, and so on and so forth.
“Only you, āJā, only you.”
Not at all! Have you attended any gay weddings? I have and they were great!!!! I even cried.
“I donāt believe Iāve ever said I was gay”
Maybe you didn’t. I said I “thought” you had. Sorry for the mistake. Not that I think it is all that big of a deal.
“just as I donāt believe I ever said Jews have big noses. ”
You believe a lot of things that are not true.
[This ‘certain person’ has posed as other user too. – ed.]
>>Well, Iām against itāfor historic, cultural,
>>and linguistic reasons.
Bobbo, I think you’re beginning to crash and burn.
I’m going to have to side with JulieB on this one.
#10–Julieb==yes, and it IS a semantic argument which is why the gays want marriage and not civil unions.
Words are important because they have meaning going into the collective subconscious as well as the cultural and historic meaning of personal relationships.
When you argue the other side of the coin, you are still arguing about the coin.
Calling marriage a religious ceremony doesn’t change the central gravamen either but it makes a fine point which I forgot until posted by #5. Until the recent wave of GLT activism, civil union/license by statutute would only be issued to men and women of age. That statute can be amended by the legislature as wished and it is that statute that the court should not be overturning thru their own activism.
Actually, marriage (in Europe) started out as a secular contract, where an oath of loyalty was made between two individuals. With the rise of the Christian church in Europe, all oaths were sworn in front of priests who, as representatives of God , were the best people to swear oaths in front. Often these oaths were sworn outside of churches, with the priest standing in the door. It wasn’t until later (12th century I think) that the oath swearing was moved inside and adopted into church liturgy. At least that is why my medieval history professor told in the mid 1990s, so unless some new research has come to light, I’ll assume it is true….
So really, Christianity has no more right to define marriage than it does birth, death, breathing or anything else that has been done since the beginning of time.
I say if individual churches want to define who can get married in their institutions, then that is up to them, but in modern society we really should try to continue the trend of separating church and state. Its better for religion and its better for government that way.
“Judicial activism” is the worst phrase invented in the early oughties, a coward’s clarion call that’s not even in spirit with what conservatives are supposed to believe. (After all, when it’s done by state judges, it’s judicial activism – when Scalia does it, it’s strict interpretationism.)
Apellate judges are there to protect the rights of the people under the Federal (and State, for state judges) Constitution. Good for them for doing their job.
>>Not at all! Have you attended any gay weddings?
No, because not all states allow gay marriage. However, I have friends that went to Canada or MA to tie the knot.
>>You believe a lot of things that are not true.
Maybe. As do you. However, if you have any proof of me saying that Jews have big noses, speak now or forever hold your peace. I never even really thought about the size of Jews’ noses until you started berating me for being a racist by claiming that. I guess the guy who played the nut on M*A*S*H was Jewish and had a big nose, but most of my Jewish friends have regular-sized noses. They’re all pushy, though š
If the people who oppose such rulings then divorce should be outlawed. And Pynchon blogged.
Why is it necessary to obtain permission (marriage license) from the state in order to get married? I thought this was a free country?
#14–Alex==yes, thats valid “if” you think the right to same sex is a constitutional right like the right to be recognized as human.
So, as a hierarchical matter, the issue of gay marriage is subordinate to those other constitutional “natural” rights.
Further, the notion that you need a license goes against the “constitutional right” analysis. Things licensed are things privileged and can be regulated as wished.
Then there is the history of the matter. 3-4 thousand years is the record and it should be “respected.”
Would you be satisfied if marriage licenses were indeed now called “civil unions” and thats all anyone got==with marriage to be dispensed as different non-governmental agencies allowed as set forth at #5? No. You want the social approval of 3000 years of history==an approval that was never given. Words should retain the power to make distinctions. When words are homogenized over time, a slow dysfunction sets in.
Thank you, Uncle Ben, for more eloquently stating the point I was trying to make.
“in modern society we really should try to continue the trend of separating church and state. Its better for religion and its better for government that way.”
Currently, the government can mandate the parameters of the Civil Unions while they have a much more difficult time with marriage. A couple recognized as a same-sex marriage in the Anglican church is not recognized in the Catholic church.
So, the government making any mandates on marriage is overstepping the separation of church and state because the government is making mandates on doctrines and practices in practically every religion in America.
Just curious…
If a Muslim male who is legally married to more than 1 woman in his home country moves to the US, is his marriage to wife #2,3… recognized?
If so, then there is no argument for other states refusing to recognize a California gay marriage. After all, bigamy is illegal in the US. Both types of marriages are out of bounds as far as most Christian Fundies are concerned.
the reality is that gay relationships almost never last.
State granted privileges are by definition discriminatory, or else they wouldn’t be privileges.
So, how many men can a guy be “married” to at the same time and why does the government have the right to regulate that?
# 28 BillM
“So, how many men can a guy be āmarriedā to at the same time and why does the government have the right to regulate that?”
Because of property laws and equality. No one is allowed to marry multiple people. There is no inequity.
Tickles, have you got some data to back that up? Thats a pretty harsh and unfounded generalization.
Besides since when has the heterosexual community been a bastion of marital fidelity and permanence? Whats the divorce rate again?
So I guess most hetero relationships dont last either.
Try a different argument, bigot. That one doesn’t hold water.