[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.

[BRussell]

I'm all for gay marriage, as long as both chicks are hot and they post the vids on the internet.

[Kerrigan]

The funny thing is that we now have reason to suspect that a sizable portion of the Democratic party are racists, so it would not be unreasonable to assume that all of these Hillary "Anybody but a black man" voters will stay at home during the 08 election if the issue of gay marriage is nationalized. It's amusing how these things work.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I'm all for gay marriage, as long as both chicks are hot and they post the vids on the internet.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

What does that have to do with anything?

I don't care what 55% of Americans think.

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..

lol

Its an election year. If you think you're going to get anywhere with ranting you are in for a surprise. Your morality is as insignificant and unimportant as you are.

This is a legal issue. And even if the laws and referendums that will follow in opposition to this are overturned down the road they will still be on the ballots come the fall and that is all that really matters. You can bet your pro-gay rights ass that the DNC cringed the second this ruling came down. Its only bad news for them.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

lol

Its an election year. If you think you're going to get anywhere with ranting you are in for a surprise. Your morality is as insignificant and unimportant as you are.

So is yours.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

So is yours.

Good comeback.
The only problem for you is that I am right.

We live in a plurality system and putting issues like this on the table right before an election is going to draw out people who are opposed to it.

I chuckle a bit at the thought of this becoming one of the more discussed topics in the fall. What the hell is the black community going to do? They're quite possibly the most anti-gay leaning block in the nation. I wonder which base instinct is going to win out in those voting booths.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

lol

Its an election year. If you think you're going to get anywhere with ranting you are in for a surprise. Your morality is as insignificant and unimportant as you are.

This is a legal issue. And even if the laws and referendums that will follow in opposition to this are overturned down the road they will still be on the ballots come the fall and that is all that really matters. You can bet your pro-gay rights ass that the DNC cringed the second this ruling came down. Its only bad news for them.

All I know is that the strongest mover of public opinion--popular culture--has strongly shifted toward supporting gays and validating gay relationships. Gay men and woman are all over MTV, the major networks, and movies--and they are increasingly being portrayed in an ordinary and equal way. At this point, it really doesn't matter whether there is a republican or democrat in the white house--(though under a democratic president things may move a little more quickly). Has there ever been a position supported by popular culture that was completely reversed by the position of an administration? I'm not aware of any. If anything, its the other way around.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Of course, gay couples could already get the exact same rights.

This is quite obviously not true.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

This is quite obviously not true.

That is quite obviously not obvious to me. I admit that I'm not in a gay domestic partnership, but what specifically are you referring to?

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Good comeback.
The only problem for you is that I am right.

We live in a plurality system and putting issues like this on the table right before an election is going to draw out people who are opposed to it.

I chuckle a bit at the thought of this becoming one of the more discussed topics in the fall. What the hell is the black community going to do? They're quite possibly the most anti-gay leaning block in the nation. I wonder which base instinct is going to win out in those voting booths.

Actually, I agree with you, at least as far as gay rights issues dividing people along different lines than the two parties do. I suspect that you are against gay marriage, based on how snarky you get when discussing gay rights issues, so we're opposites there.

But there are a lot of issues out there that divide people in unexpected ways. I think there are a lot of evangelical Christians who keep voting Republican solely because they're against abortion, even though many of them are against a lot of other items on the Republican agenda (especially Iraq). What would make such peace-loving people vote for a warmonger? Abortion, apparently.

This story, though, is a flash in the pan. I don't think gay rights are going to flare up and become a major issue for more than a few days while the news networks play around with this story before dropping it. People are too busy getting all worked up about racism to think too much about homosexuality.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

All I know is that the strongest mover of public opinion--popular culture--has strongly shifted toward supporting gays and validating gay relationships. Gay men and woman are all over MTV, the major networks, and movies--and they are increasingly being portrayed in an ordinary and equal way. .

Oh, I didn't say that wasn't the case. But the balance is still against gay marriage. And even if its only by a margin barely in the double digits with respect to this election cycle it matters to both parties who have fought contests that ended in single digit percentage point victories.

Hey, I don't really care about this issue one way or the other. So long as tax laws are dealt with to account for these changes and don't operate with the old presumptions of who should qualify for tax breaks then I can live with it.

Howard Dean on the other hand is pounding his head into the wall right now.

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

I suspect that you are against gay marriage, based on how snarky you get when discussing gay rights issues,

lol, do a search Chachi
I've posted my thoughts on this before in much better detail
Cali and today's ruling are about November to me

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That is quite obviously not obvious to me. I admit that I'm not in a gay domestic partnership, but what specifically are you referring to?

There are many, many things (including the 1,138 rights given married couples under federal law). For one, immigration. A heterosexual US citizen has the right to apply for a visa for their heterosexual spouse. Gay couples could do no get the exact same right.

[design219]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

This story, though, is a flash in the pan.

Exactly right. This year, people are rightly worried about the economy and the war. Conservatives who think gay rights and abortion are going to decide anything this year are deluded.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

There are many, many things (including the 1,138 rights given married couples under federal law). For one, immigration. A heterosexual US citizen has the right to apply for a visa for their heterosexual spouse. Gay couples could do no get the exact same right.

That's federal law. We're talking about California here. As far as I'm aware, domestic partnerships get the same protections under state law that marriages do.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Good comeback.
The only problem for you is that I am right.

We live in a plurality system and putting issues like this on the table right before an election is going to draw out people who are opposed to it.

I chuckle a bit at the thought of this becoming one of the more discussed topics in the fall. What the hell is the black community going to do? They're quite possibly the most anti-gay leaning block in the nation. I wonder which base instinct is going to win out in those voting booths.

So your theory is that McCain, despite opposing the federal marriage amendment, is going to win CA, and he's going to do it with the black vote. Don't give up your day job - or, if you do as bad in it as you do with political punditry, maybe you should.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

lol, do a search Chachi
I've posted my thoughts on this before in much better detail
Cali and today's ruling are about November to me

****, I forgot, you're always snarky about everything. But I guess everyone in this forum is. It's really annoying... why can't people hold debates instead of resorting to name calling. Chachi? Sheesh. I don't even know what that means.

I think you're just excited that there's an issue that could potentially hurt Democrats. I understand the sentiment—I feel the same way when an issue crops up that may hurt Republicans. But I don't think it'll have much of an impact on the election. Hardly anyone, even reasonably politically informed people, could tell you who the most "pro-gay" candidate is, and people who are homophobic enough for it to have a real effect on their vote are too stupid to delve into the subject at all.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That's federal law. We're talking about California here. As far as I'm aware, domestic partnerships get the same protections under state law that marriages do.

Ah, your comments were about rights. If you are talking about the small subset of rights that the State confers without including the Federal ones, you may have a point. I don't think many people would think that that's a very relevant point though.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

So your theory is that McCain, despite opposing the federal marriage amendment, is going to win CA, and he's going to do it with the black vote. Don't give up your day job - or, if you do as bad in it as you do with political punditry, maybe you should.

Cute. Is that what I said? Did I even mention California and blacks in the same sentence? Or is that just your weak ass attempt to project your words on me?

Hell, I don't think the black vote in California shows up in a significant enough number to change much of anything statewide. Furthermore they are not of the church going moral issue variety crowd you find in the South.

If it gets talked about enough gay "rights" issues would erode margins in every area and to start to hurt democrats. You bet the issue would draw a certain group of bible toting blacks away from the more morally liberal candidates. And in areas of their concentration it would matter.
It wouldn't come up as a federal amendment issue. It would surface as a local referendum here and there just like it did in 04. That bolsters numbers in opposition votes which tend to be conservatives who while they are already there would vote for the GOP candidates.

Idiots seem to discount the statistical minority of people who vote on single issues. Gay rights, gun control, immigration, and abortion only need to string along 3 maybe 4 percent of votes in some areas to throw the race to the other guy. You can try claim the effect is minimal but all you have to do is look to the last two presidential elections to see how your underestimation of those voters cost the democrats.

[Rumor]

Back in the day, marriage was a religious ceremony for a man and a woman to begin a life together.

Things changed over the years.

Now, marriage (for the most part) is a pseudo-religious, law ridden ceremony for a man and a woman to begin a life together with tax breaks.

We are not living in the past and I see no reason that a same sex couple could not share the same benefits of an opposite sex couple. Does the fact that they are of the same sex make them any less devoted to each other or love each other any less?

[mduell]

Why is the government even involved in marriage in the first place?

Let people enter into contracts under contract law.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Back in the day, marriage was a religious ceremony for a man and a woman to begin a life together.

Things changed over the years.

Now, marriage (for the most part) is a pseudo-religious, law ridden ceremony for a man and a woman to begin a life together with tax breaks.

We are not living in the past and I see no reason that a same sex couple could not share the same benefits of an opposite sex couple. Does the fact that they are of the same sex make them any less devoted to each other or love each other any less?

It just means they choose to remove their chromosomes from the gene pool. Which is a shame b/c a lot of gay men have really good body/bone structure.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Why is the government even involved in marriage in the first place?

Let people enter into contracts under contract law.

Exactly.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Why is the government even involved in marriage in the first place?

Let people enter into contracts under contract law.

Because it is one of the many archaic ideals that stemmed from the days when government/rulers and religion strode hand in hand.

[OldManMac]

Great news! One more small step forward!

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Cute. Is that what I said? Did I even mention California and blacks in the same sentence? Or is that just your weak ass attempt to project your words on me?

Hell, I don't think the black vote in California shows up in a significant enough number to change much of anything statewide. Furthermore they are not of the church going moral issue variety crowd you find in the South.

If it gets talked about enough gay "rights" issues would erode margins in every area and to start to hurt democrats. You bet the issue would draw a certain group of bible toting blacks away from the more morally liberal candidates. And in areas of their concentration it would matter.
It wouldn't come up as a federal amendment issue. It would surface as a local referendum here and there just like it did in 04. That bolsters numbers in opposition votes which tend to be conservatives who while they are already there would vote for the GOP candidates.

Idiots seem to discount the statistical minority of people who vote on single issues. Gay rights, gun control, immigration, and abortion only need to string along 3 maybe 4 percent of votes in some areas to throw the race to the other guy. You can try claim the effect is minimal but all you have to do is look to the last two presidential elections to see how your underestimation of those voters cost the democrats.

This court decision has no impact outside of California, so if you're not saying Republicans are going to win CA, then what you've said makes even less sense. I've learned from reading a few of your posts in the past, though, to set my expectations very low.

[BRussell]

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've read some commentaries on this decision that say the court left that open as a possibility. The decision says that if they're going to recognize marriage, it must recognize gay marriage too.

Apparently that's Obama's position on the matter, to just get government out of the marriage business altogether. But I don't think think there's any chance that people are going to go with that. Many people are against gay marriage, but can you imagine the uproar if they tried to get rid of straight marriage? It just wouldn't fly, I don't think.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Ah, your comments were about rights. If you are talking about the small subset of rights that the State confers without including the Federal ones, you may have a point. I don't think many people would think that that's a very relevant point though.

Uh…this thread is about California's marriage laws. How on earth are California's marriage laws not relevant?

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I've read some commentaries on this decision that say the court left that open as a possibility. The decision says that if they're going to recognize marriage, it must recognize gay marriage too.

Apparently that's Obama's position on the matter, to just get government out of the marriage business altogether. But I don't think think there's any chance that people are going to go with that. Many people are against gay marriage, but can you imagine the uproar if they tried to get rid of straight marriage? It just wouldn't fly, I don't think.

I would pay to see a presidential candidate actively campaign against marriage. I've never seen a politician chased by a pitchfork-carrying mob before, but I imagine it would be entertaining.

[Wiskedjak]

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.

Perhaps we should ban all unholy marriages, including all those heterosexual marriages not performed by a religious representative?

[olePigeon]

I think we should get rid of the concept of marriage if it's going to be governed by state and federal government. If it's a "holy matrimony," then it has no business being maintained at any level of government. If laws are going to be passed based solely on religious dogma, then it's unconstitutional.

A civil union should be between two people.

[Eug]

Heh. Reminds of this story from 2004.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Canada gets 'first' gay divorce
Lesbian couple seeking country's first same-sex divorce

The two women, identified only as M.M. and J.H., were married in Ontario on June 18, 2003, a week after Ontario's Court of Appeal legalized same-sex marriage.

They separated five days later.