[Zeeb]

This clears the way for it to become the second state to legalize gay marriage. I hope the concept of equality spreads to other states. Whatever you may think about whether gay marriage or even just being gay is valid--this leaves an individuals' personal choices up to him or her--and not up to some groups arbitrary religious beliefs.

link:

California ban on same-sex marriage struck down - CNN.com

[Dakar the Fourth]

I just caught this. It's not over yet, they collected signatures so there's the possibility of Californians voting to amend the state constitution to prevent this come november (IIRC)

[Zeeb]

True, but at least Governor Schwarzenegger/Terminator said he would not support an amendment to overturn the ruling.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Just say the Governator.

[Chuckit]

Of course, gay couples could already get the exact same rights, so this is basically a victory in name only. Still, I look forward to some interesting conversations in the coming months with my Mormon relatives.

I still think this is a move in the wrong direction. I want everybody barred from marriage, so that the personal religious ceremony is a separate thing from the legal mumbo-jumbo of a civil union.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I still think this is a move in the wrong direction. I want everybody barred from marriage, so that the personal religious ceremony is a separate thing from the legal mumbo-jumbo of a civil union.

I agree with your final goal, but I have the feeling only by infuriating people by using the term marriage equally will they demote everyone to civil union equally.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I agree with your final goal, but I have the feeling only by infuriating people by using the term marriage equally will they demote everyone to civil union equally.

Oooooh.

That's goooood.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Of course, gay couples could already get the exact same rights, so this is basically a victory in name only...

Is this true for all states, though? I know I've seen a few gay marriage bans kicking around that explicitly ban "separate but equal" civil unions, making it impossible for gay couples to get all the same rights as straight ones (even if they aren't technically "married"). But perhaps I'm mistaken.

[alex_kac]

I don't really want to start anything, but I don't understand what you guys have against the holy matrimony of marriage? Study history. Countries that had strong marriages were strong countries. Once they went weak, they collapsed.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by alex_kac 

I don't really want to start anything, but I don't understand what you guys have against the holy matrimony of marriage? Study history. Countries that had strong marriages were strong countries. Once they went weak, they collapsed.

I guess the U.S. is awfully weak then...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

Is this true for all states, though? I know I've seen a few gay marriage bans kicking around that explicitly ban "separate but equal" civil unions, making it impossible for gay couples to get all the same rights as straight ones (even if they aren't technically "married"). But perhaps I'm mistaken.

No, but this decision only applies to California.

[subego]

Originally Posted by alex_kac 

I don't understand what you guys have against the holy matrimony of marriage?

If there aren't laws about it, do the holy marriages that exist somehow contribute less to the strength of the country?

Do less laws about marriage it make it less holy?

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by alex_kac 

I don't really want to start anything, but I don't understand what you guys have against the holy matrimony of marriage? Study history. Countries that had strong marriages were strong countries. Once they went weak, they collapsed.

If you want to put marriage on such a high, sacred pedestal, move to Chile, where divorce is illegal. Of course, a lot of people there just end up separating and shacking up with someone else. That's just as bad as this country's 50% divorce rate, right? It's human nature to not always get into perfect marriages the first time around. I'm not sure why some people consider same-sex marriages an attack on traditional marriage.

EDIT: Chile legalized divorce a few years ago. But Malta and the Philippines still outlaw it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by alex_kac 

I don't really want to start anything, but I don't understand what you guys have against the holy matrimony of marriage? Study history. Countries that had strong marriages were strong countries. Once they went weak, they collapsed.

I have studied history. I don't recall gay marriage being a major factor in the downfall of Greece, Rome, Mongolia, Egypt or pretty much any other empire.

[sek929]

Welcome to 2003 in Massachusetts.

[Kerrigan]

Yea, I don't think homosexuality is either a necessary or sufficient condition of civilizational decline. Homosexuality, and acceptance thereof, is manifested in everything from the height of a civilization (cf. Socrates's homosexual ramblings about the gymnasium) to the most primitive and barbaric societies. There are a confluence of events that bring about the collapse of states --barbarian invasions, relative military or economic decline, natural disasters, just to name a few-- but I cannot see how acceptance of homosexuals, who comprise at most 5% of our society, could bring about the fall of society. Nor do I see how such a thing serves as a bellwether or indicator of the state of morality.

Furthermore, the argument that broadening the legal scope of marriage will lead to the weakening of marital bonds overstates the role that legislation plays in our moral life. After all, it is not a legal requirement in the US that people attend church, but they continue to do so in large numbers out of a self-imposed sense of duty.

[BRussell]

It seems to me that the more backwards the society, the less accepting they are of homosexuality. Iran. The Soviet Union. Mississippi. The list goes on.

[Captain Obvious]

Good job.
Give the 55% of the US population who oppose gay marriage an issue to go to the polls for in November.

Its funny, people don't seem to remember that it wasn't Bush or Kerry who wanted to give attention to the issue in 2004 it was gay activists who brought it to the forefront and forced them to address it and it probably led to an increase of conservative voters showing up to vote that year.

Its like the democrats are masochists.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Of course, gay couples could already get the exact same rights, so this is basically a victory in name only. Still, I look forward to some interesting conversations in the coming months with my Mormon relatives.

I still think this is a move in the wrong direction. I want everybody barred from marriage, so that the personal religious ceremony is a separate thing from the legal mumbo-jumbo of a civil union.

My thoughts exactly. "Marriage" in the eyes of the government should be nothing more than a legal contract recognizing joint cooperation between two individuals for the primary purpose of tax and asset appropriation.

Religious marriage is something entirely different and has no place in government.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Good job.
Give the 55% of the US population who oppose gay marriage an issue to go to the polls for in November.

Its funny, people don't seem to remember that it wasn't Bush or Kerry who wanted to give attention to the issue in 2004 it was gay activists who brought it to the forefront and forced them to address it and it probably led to an increase of conservative voters showing up to vote that year.

Its like the democrats are masochists.

What does that have to do with anything?

I don't care what 55% of Americans think. 55% of Americans are idiots (not necessarily the same ones who oppose gay marriage, but I'm sure there's a big overlap). Actually, way more than 55% of Americans are idiots.

A lot of Americans would support a lot of things that are against their own best interests, mostly because they've been tricked into it by someone or something.

I do not care what the majority of people think. The issue is a moral one, and banning same-sex marriage makes absolutely no sense on moral grounds. It doesn't help anyone to ban it, it only hurts people.