California Supreme Court overturns ban on Gay marriage!

[dannyboy]

Yogi

First off, if that is the worst hurt in your life, then you have had a very sheltered life.

Secondly, marriage used to be more of a religious union than a civil union. As such, it flew contrary to main stream religion and their core beliefs. But as the world becomes more secular, and your desire to be more accepted as main stream, the laws will eventually get so watered down that you will get what you want.

As it has in religion. Instead of standing on principle, they have opted to be everything to everyone, and as a result, while popular to some, have become an institution that stands for nothing.

As I said, the difference between right and wrong is becoming so blured that there is not much of a line left. And as long as judges rule on their personal interpretation of the law, as in this case, the distinction will be even less visible.

d

 

[tourists24]

I can tell you that if the will of the majority decides to amend the constitution to make marriage just between a man and a woman than I will respect that decision. I don't agree with it and certainly feel it will be a setback in our evolution as a species.

Since when is this an example of evolution? Since I dont believe in evolution, I have my own beliefs on the matter. But isnt evolution supposed to be about the "survival of the fittest" type of genetic passage? How is allowing gay marriage to be the same as man/ woman evolution? Using this logic, wouldnt homosexuals extinct themselves out of evolution, since they cannot pass their genetic information onto the next generation unless male/female contact is made in one way or another?

Just curious also as to why the people of California voted on this thing in the first place if the vote winner's choice was not going to be accepted anyway? The anonymous poster seems very happy to be with their partner of 23 years, so why should you force your views on me and the 61% of Californians who dont believe you are second class citizens (just different)? As a christian, I am accused of doing this all the time, so why does some group other than a christian get a pass for doing exactly what they accuse us of doing?

 

[UPS Lifer]

Tourist,
I was not referring to "Organic Evolution" in the biblical sense. I was referring to the gradual change of a cultural nature within the human race.

As far as how this got started... and I may have some facts wrong (if so I apologize in advance). The San Francisco mayor decided to allow gay marriage and started the process. This created challenges in the court system which eventually led up to the CA Supreme Court decision.

 

[dannyboy]

Lifer

And that is just exactly my point. I wake up and decide that what I want is going to be, and then I have the power to make it so. And because I am in a position to legislate my will or preferences, I do so. Over the will of the people. To satisfy a minority.

As for the Anon poster, how is it that they feel less because they can not be "married"? It is their way of saying "see, we are normal, and our relationship is normal, because we got a peice of paper saying so" Well, a peice of paper does not make something wrong, right.

There is a legal document that states that OJ did not kill his wife. But does that make it so?

Anons personal life is his/hers alone. Its when they try to force the issue into the public sector that they begin to run into resistance. But like the kid that keeps nagging the parent over and over again, they will end up with their way. If not by nagging, then by judges that are intent on ruling contrary to established law or making new laws to satisfy their political bent.

d

 

[UPS Lifer]

Lifer

And that is just exactly my point. I wake up and decide that what I want is going to be, and then I have the power to make it so. And because I am in a position to legislate my will or preferences, I do so. Over the will of the people. To satisfy a minority.

As for the Anon poster, how is it that they feel less because they can not be "married"? It is their way of saying "see, we are normal, and our relationship is normal, because we got a peice of paper saying so" Well, a peice of paper does not make something wrong, right.

There is a legal document that states that OJ did not kill his wife. But does that make it so?

Anons personal life is his/hers alone. Its when they try to force the issue into the public sector that they begin to run into resistance. But like the kid that keeps nagging the parent over and over again, they will end up with their way. If not by nagging, then by judges that are intent on ruling contrary to established law or making new laws to satisfy their political bent.

d

Danny,
How is it that you feel (your marriage is) less if they are married?? Their relationship is a marriage they just can't claim it so. No one can make my marriage less sacred, no proclamation for the gay community or no divorce in the straight community.

 

[wkmac]

ImpactedTSG said: Where in the Bill of Rights does it say that same sex marriage is a right?

You are correct, it's no where to be found just as marriage period is nowhere to be found. Marriage was considered a private/religous institution and the best way to end the Homosexual debate is for gov't to return to past practice before the 1920's and get completely out of the marriage business. End tax subsidy by ending the income tax period.

If you guys were smart and wanted to end homosexuality as a visible and viable practice you'd take say Hawaii and make it a gay paradise that is completely open to the lifestyle. Help all those folks move there and in one generation they would all die off and as they say, the gene pool would be cleansed!

You guys really aren't as evil minded as you would like to think you are!

Dannyboy siad: To override the will of the majority on issues is contrary to the constitution

Hmmm. You mean if "ALL" the folks living around you (organized political community) decided to pass a law that said you could have NO gun period, that you could NEVER speak again or NEVER worship the God of your choice that this type of "DEMOCRACY" should stand under any and all circumstances? That "NO JUDGE" under any pretext of law should override the "Will of the Majority"?

I never realized until now that the founding fathers were so ignorant and ill informed! You're brillant D'Boy!

 

[moreluck]

Leave Hawaii alone....I vacation there a lot. Take Palm Springs.....it's already a designated gay/lesbian destination resort.(with casinos)

 

[Jones]

Just saw this today:
First-ever majority favors gay marriage

Should be interesting come November...

 

[moreluck]

Hey, that's a CA. paper. I'm a Californian and no one asked
my opinion. I'm sure there are plenty of people who weren't asked. Just have to wait for the actual voting. There are plenty who render opinions, but have never voted in their lives.

 

[dannyboy]

Interesting read. And it shows plainly what many have said before. You can take a poll, be totally truthful about the results, but you can skew the poll to say exactly what you want.

Interesting that the other poll mentioned showed the opposite of the headline, but yet did not make headlines?

So, you have two statewide polls. Now, it also said that the bay area was more pro gay, with other parts of the state being against gay marriage. So you do a state wide poll with slightly more bay area voters being polled, and the other less. So what you have are two polls, state wide, with opposite results.

But the one that got the press time was the one that furthered their agenda.

I guess the media out there only reports evenly the news, or are they interested in making the news?

Mac

Glad to see you back at the wheel again. As for the will of the majority, if it goes against the constitution, then no.

But then again, how many times has that stopped the government from doing things their way, in spite of the rights of individuals?

But as I said, it might not be in my lifetime, but they will have the legal right to marry. It is only a matter of time.


d

 

[browniehound]

I don't get what business it is of other people to decide what is best for them as long as no one gets hurt. I am 100% behind gay marriages. WWJD? What would Jesus do? I believe that he would have recognized that people are different and react accordingly. People are born gay, it is not a choice that most sane people would take upon themselves. I think it will be a close vote in November when this initiative is on the ballot and the Republicans will now have a reason to come out to vote. It is going to get dirty and ugly. I just don't get what the big deal is. WWJD? He sure as heck wouldn't be campaigning against it. I will now get off my soapbox.

Helen my friend, I hear where you are coming from in regards to doing something that only affects you and doesn't hurt anyone else.

My only contention about gay marriage is how it will affect the child of the gay couple. The gay couple could be the best, most lovable, well intentioned parents. This gay couple could be in the top 2% of any parents availible, but I would choose to live with any other heterosexual couple everytime just to avoid the ridicule at school that would come with gay parents.

That being said, I happen to agree with you in regards to gay marriage. It doesn't bother me nor does it affect me, so why should I care?? Quite frankly, I don't care either way.

I can see both sides of the argument and believe they each have their own merit. Only time will tell and my guess is time will favor the practice of gay marriage in many of the 50 states for "better or worse"

 

[browniehound]

Let me comment on one more aspect of this thread

It has been mentioned that the majority should rule the vote. The problem with this reminds me of a converstion many years ago.

There was an Island with 8 men and two women. The men wanted sex, the women did not. But since the men outnumbered the women, they were able to force the women under their will.

Now, since the majority ruled, did it make it right? Or were there laws broken? Laws that were meant to protect us from ourselves and others that are not law abiding citizens. Now, just because the majority ruled to change the laws, is that right or wrong? And since they declared it normal and right, does that behaviour now become accepted and right?

When I comes to relationships, there have been laws on the books for many years. And for good reason.

The reason for no laws against same sex marrages on the books is that it was so ridiculous an idea in past decades.

And it goes back to the pushing of the extreme. Since there are no laws actually forbiding this exercise, then it must be allowed, condoned and expanded upon. And we dare you to try to block our freedoms by telling us this is not legal and normal.

d

D,
Very interesting post but I happen to think your argument is flawed.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but are you against the democratic process?

The example you gave dealt with a sample size that was extremely small and an action that has been programmed in man for millions of years.

If there are 10 people (8 men and 2 woman), on an isolated island, then the woman will be having sex without their consent. Of course this is not right, but this is also a highly unlikely situation for any society.

We live in a country of millions of people with roughly the same amount of men and woman. I think a vote in this scenario would be against the unconsentual sex.

Finally, you mentioned laws on the books against same-sex marriage. I'm not trying to argue either way here when I disclose these facts, I'm just trying to inform you and remind myself how bizzare we once were.

Now, I could be 100% incorrect as what I'm about to write is based on a law class I took in high school 17 years ago. I apologize in advance if I'm mistaken or offend anyone.

There are no laws on the books here in Massachusetts prohibiting same-sex marriage, but there are some really weird laws on the type of sex people can have.

There is still a law on the books in Massachussets outlawing sodomy. Obvioulsy these laws aren't inforced, but same-sex sex is rooted in sodomy, isn't it?

 

[browniehound]

"I am continually amazed at how personal this issue is for people that are not directly affected by gay marriage. People get outright hysterical......"

I think that is because good Americans are revolted to their core by this kind of behaviour. They see this as part of the downfall of this country.

I think most Americans view homosexuality the same way they view pedophilia. Pedophilia is worse only because it involves an innocent child with the deviant. But it's the same brain malfunction, or whatever.

I forsee a time, maybe 20 years from now, where we will no longer be able to prosecute pedophiles. After all, it's not their fault they were born that way, right?

It is without a doubt, the world in decay.



(Thought you were going to lurk, Over! OK, OK)

Over,
I follow you here, but wouldn't equate homosexuality with pedophelia. One is criminal behavior and the other is not. But I agree with your line of thinking. If something is not hurting anyone else and we should be able to marry who we wish, then following that logic, me and my sister should keep our wedding plans for next weekend?

 

[tieguy]

From Merriam Webster:

1 a union representing a special kind of social and legal partnership between two people <some religions consider marriage a sacrament>

Last I heard Marriam webster was not confused with Jesus Christ and could therefore have occasionally been found wrong.

I think in this case Webster softened the true definition of marriage. The common definition and the definition that has always been overwhelmingly applied by the majority has been a religious bond between a man and woman.

Those who espouse the principles of tolerance tend to try to steer us to accepting their own individual definitions while then steering us away from our own core beliefs. Websters defintion has clearly attempted to steer us away from what has always been a strong belief in the principles of marriage.

Those who speak of tolerance should theirselves learn to tolerate our strong beliefs in the sanctity of marriage and thus find their own way of expressing a union.

 

[UPS Lifer]

Earlier this week, the governor of New York stated that New York will move forward to recognize Gay & Lesbian marriages that were performed in other parts of the country or in the world. He is sure to get a fight on this. New York currently does not allow marriage of Gay or Lesbians. He is sure to get a fight.

He is trying to take advantage of a loophole in the law. He will probably get a fight. This will be interesting to see how things develop. He said that he is trying to eliminate the possibility of potential lawsuits that could arise in the future thus eliminating a major expense to the tax payers of New York!

 

[tourists24]

hmmm... if gay marriage is allowed I think I will bring my father out to California and marry him. I love him very much and his health insurance isnt so great. Mine is good and as he gets older he may need that insurance as things start giving out on him.

 

[Channahon]

I know sometimes a link is not used, however, based on this thread, I found a lot of interesting information regarding same sex marriage. May be worth reading from a global perspective, along with the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Debates_over_terminology

 

[Storm723]

FYI........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

Marriage is a personal union between people. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is called a wedding and the status created is sometimes called wedlock.
Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are sanctioned with governmental, social, or religious recognition. It is often created by a contract or through civil processes. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the land.