Gay Marriage in California!

[Yue]

Congratulations!

Read how it went down. (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-CA-GayMarriage.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

[Lester C.]

Congratulations!

Read how it went down. (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-CA-GayMarriage.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

This is good news but it's a bit premature to celebrate. If this goes to the United States Supreme Court, and it might, expect it to be reversed by a 5 to 4 decision.:frown:

[Gilda Dent]

This is wonderful news. Almost makes me wish we were still there.

Disturbing, however, is the reaction; already there's organized opposition to make the gay marriage ban a constitutional amendment. The scariest part of that is that currently, registered domestic partnerships are according equal rights to marriage due to a series of upgrades over the last decade. Most of the time, such amendments include language barring the granting of rights similar to marriage even if they have a different name, which could potentially undo the progress already made.

Maybe the voters will be more sensible this time. Even better, maybe those who stayed home when the original law was on the ballot because they weren't affected, leaving the issue to those most passionate about it, meaning chiefly those strongly opposed, to decide things.

Hopefully people will be reluctant to enshrine discrimination into the state constitution.

[Yue]

This is wonderful news. Almost makes me wish we were still there.

Disturbing, however, is the reaction; already there's organized opposition to make the gay marriage ban a constitutional amendment. The scariest part of that is that currently, registered domestic partnerships are according equal rights to marriage due to a series of upgrades over the last decade. Most of the time, such amendments include language barring the granting of rights similar to marriage even if they have a different name, which could potentially undo the progress already made.

Maybe the voters will be more sensible this time. Even better, maybe those who stayed home when the original law was on the ballot because they weren't affected, leaving the issue to those most passionate about it, meaning chiefly those strongly opposed, to decide things.

Hopefully people will be reluctant to enshrine discrimination into the state constitution.

With any luck, I hope so. Most people inside called the decision "complex", which worries me a bit.

However, despite the amendment on the horizon, we do have Schwarzenegger on our side.

Having just uttered that last sentence, I think a small part of me just died.

[Gilda Dent]

With any luck, I hope so. Most people inside called the decision "complex", which worries me a bit.

However, despite the amendment on the horizon, we do have Schwarzenegger on our side.

Having just uttered that last sentence, I think a small part of me just died.

Schwarzenegger would have nothing to do with it. The referendum process involved would directly amend the California constitution, bypassing the legislature, governer's office, and court system. Such a change could then only be undone by either a subsequent referendum or a SCOTUS ruling.

[Yue]

Schwarzenegger would have nothing to do with it. The referendum process involved would directly amend the California constitution, bypassing the legislature, governer's office, and court system. Such a change could then only be undone by either a subsequent referendum or a SCOTUS ruling.

I forgot about that. Blame it on two hours of sleep. Good thing I decided against going into law, huh?

I'm watching the coverage on CNN of happy couples kissing, exchanging rings, and just all around cheering for the ruling. If the amendment passes, it's going to get really ugly. It's one thing to have the legal rights you never had put out your reach, but to have same-sex marriage passed than later revoked by narrow-minded bigots is cruel.

[TCJohnson]

That is extremely cool. Yay for personal freedoms!

[That JonoGuy]

This is excellent news. Of course, now the Anti Gay Marriage crowd are going to be coming out in full force trying to misrepresent what the ruling means.

[4PointOh]

It's very difficult for me to understand the homophobic (or racist or sexist or misogynist) point of view. I'm curious to know what exists in people that they can't rest unless they have successfully rendered another human being's legal rights null and void.

I know religion, particularly christan and muslim, play a huge role in homophobia, but still--to lump homosexuality into the same category as murder, rape, pedophilia, robbery, etc., seems just so utterly bizarre and uneducated to me. I try to understand homophobes, I really do. But I have to make so many twists and turns, leaps and bounds, assumptions and presumptions, stumbles and falls that I just can't make it a reasonable or palatable point of view--and that's whether I come up against people who use the faulty justification, "Homosexuality is unnatural given the purpose of sex," or crackpots who shout, "Hurricane Katrina is God's punishment for America accepting homosexuality."

Boggles my mind.

[Sally Sensational]

'Scuse me! I has a question about this quote . . .

"The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and instead legislating from the bench," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for the group Concerned Women for America, in a written statement.

Why is the policy director for cultural issues for CWA a MAN?

And this one:

"To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable."

WTF?

[Sally Sensational]

I know religion, particularly christan and muslim, play a huge role in homophobia, but still--to lump homosexuality into the same category as murder, rape, pedophilia, robbery, etc., seems just so utterly bizarre and uneducated to me.

Unfortunately, many religious people believe that literal interpretation of the Bible requires that one hold the belief that all sin is of the same severity and magnitude - that being great enough to separate man eternally from God and send him to whatever form of damnation exists.

Thus, the "sin" of homosexuality is - in their eyes - as severe and damning as the "sin" of murder or the "sin" of cheating on your taxes.

And, thought it may seem like splitting semantic hairs, is the problem really homophobia? Are we facing an issue of fear or an issue of hate? I know that most hate springs from fear, but I would think that homosexuality has become mainstream enough that a lot of people no longer fear us "queers", but do continue to hate us/believe that we should not have equal rights and protection under the law.

[4PointOh]

Unfortunately, many religious people believe that literal interpretation of the Bible requires that one hold the belief that all sin is of the same severity and magnitude - that being great enough to separate man eternally from God and send him to whatever form of damnation exists.

Thus, the "sin" of homosexuality is - in their eyes - as severe and damning as the "sin" of murder or the "sin" of cheating on your taxes.

And, thought it may seem like splitting semantic hairs, is the problem really homophobia? Are we facing an issue of fear or an issue of hate? I know that most hate springs from fear, but I would think that homosexuality has become mainstream enough that a lot of people no longer fear us "queers", but do continue to hate us/believe that we should not have equal rights and protection under the law.

I think it's fear. They don't understand why we just can't be heterosexual and I suppose the very idea that we can't makes them wonder if somewhere inside them lurks a latent f*g or d*ke. And that thought is just way too much for their feeble oppressive minds to bear. So, in an attempt to feel powerful, they outwardly hate and attack us. But really, it's just their shriveled, demented little egos hiding behind Allah and Jehovah in order to justify all sorts of atrocities and inhumanities.

I live a block away from the Utica Avenue subway station in Brooklyn where one such soldier of Allovah dismembered the young, gay Rashawn Brazell and threw his body parts onto the subway tracks.

Yet, we're the damned sickos.

Right.

[Linkara]

'Scuse me! I has a question about this quote . . .

"The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and instead legislating from the bench," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for the group Concerned Women for America, in a written statement.

Why is the policy director for cultural issues for CWA a MAN?

And this one:

"To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable."

WTF?

Well, I can certainly see why-

Wait, what?

[Stanlos]

And, thought it may seem like splitting semantic hairs, is the problem really homophobia? Are we facing an issue of fear or an issue of hate? I know that most hate springs from fear, but I would think that homosexuality has become mainstream enough that a lot of people no longer fear us "queers", but do continue to hate us/believe that we should not have equal rights and protection under the law.

Fear and Hatred are irrevocably linked.

[Dedagda]

This is good news but it's a bit premature to celebrate. If this goes to the United States Supreme Court, and it might, expect it to be reversed by a 5 to 4 decision.:frown:

No worries. It can't be appealed further.

California could change their state constitution through a ballot initiative, though.

[Slam_Bradley]

This is good news but it's a bit premature to celebrate. If this goes to the United States Supreme Court, and it might, expect it to be reversed by a 5 to 4 decision.:frown:


Extremely unlikely. The decision appears (and it's a bit hard to tell from the reports and I don't have time to read a 100+ page decision) to have been decided solely on the basis of California statutory and constitutional law. It is rare to the point of non-existence for the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule a state supreme court on issues solely dealing with state law.

[Gilda Dent]

Unfortunately, many religious people believe that literal interpretation of the Bible requires that one hold the belief that all sin is of the same severity and magnitude - that being great enough to separate man eternally from God and send him to whatever form of damnation exists.

Thus, the "sin" of homosexuality is - in their eyes - as severe and damning as the "sin" of murder or the "sin" of cheating on your taxes.

And, thought it may seem like splitting semantic hairs, is the problem really homophobia? Are we facing an issue of fear or an issue of hate? I know that most hate springs from fear, but I would think that homosexuality has become mainstream enough that a lot of people no longer fear us "queers", but do continue to hate us/believe that we should not have equal rights and protection under the law.

Yes, but the same section of the Bible that condemns homosexual sex between males (and it's the act, not homosexuality) also makes wearing blended fibers, eating pigs, rabbits, or shellfish, planting two crops in the same field, and working on the Sabbath against the rules, all things most mainstream and conservative Christian churches are fine with.

Also, homophobia isn't a clinical phobia in the sense that it literally means "fear of homosexuals". Literally, it means "fear of being homosexual", but common usage refers to any sort of prejudice against gays. We use homophobia because the typical mis- prefix doesn't work with homosexual, but -phobia does.

[Gail Simone]

hahahahhaha!

AWESOME!

[sk716]

. . .

Also, homophobia isn't a clinical phobia in the sense that it literally means "fear of homosexuals". Literally, it means "fear of being homosexual", but common usage refers to any sort of prejudice against gays. We use homophobia because the typical mis- prefix doesn't work with homosexual, but -phobia does.

Which is pretty fitting from my point of view. Amazing, the English language manages to bungle up a word badly enough that it's correct meaning is more appropriate than it's intended meaning.

[Sally Sensational]

Yes, but the same section of the Bible that condemns homosexual sex between males (and it's the act, not homosexuality) also makes wearing blended fibers, eating pigs, rabbits, or shellfish, planting two crops in the same field, and working on the Sabbath against the rules, all things most mainstream and conservative Christian churches are fine with.

Also, homophobia isn't a clinical phobia in the sense that it literally means "fear of homosexuals". Literally, it means "fear of being homosexual", but common usage refers to any sort of prejudice against gays. We use homophobia because the typical mis- prefix doesn't work with homosexual, but -phobia does.

Actually, Gilda, I was thinking of the New Testament - Paul's epistles. But, yeah, it's loads of fun to read all those old proscriptions and wonder why people only want to keep the ones that have to do with sex.

For giggles - and some very pointed commentary, I refer you to the classic "Why can't I own a Canadian?"

http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html

[Gilda Dent]

Actually, Gilda, I was thinking of the New Testament - Paul's epistles. But, yeah, it's loads of fun to read all those old proscriptions and wonder why people only want to keep the ones that have to do with sex.

For giggles - and some very pointed commentary, I refer you to the classic "Why can't I own a Canadian?"

http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html

That is fun. My favorite version of this is the one President Bartlett uses on The West Wing.

As for the New Testament passages on homosexuality, they don't really condemn homosexuality, and there's no question that stable, loving homosexual relationships are not even mentioned, let alone condemned anywhere in the Bible.

Cites:

http://www.jesusmcc.org/resource/notasin.html
http://www.whosoever.org/bible/

[Linkara]

That is fun. My favorite version of this is the one President Bartlett uses on The West Wing.

As for the New Testament passages on homosexuality, they don't really condemn homosexuality, and there's no question that stable, loving homosexual relationships are not even mentioned, let alone condemned anywhere in the Bible.

Cites:

http://www.jesusmcc.org/resource/notasin.html
http://www.whosoever.org/bible/

Yeah, Leviticus is a real fun book for the Bible, which is where most of the really stupid stuff attributed to my religion comes from. ^^;

[Sally Sensational]

That is fun. My favorite version of this is the one President Bartlett uses on The West Wing.

As for the New Testament passages on homosexuality, they don't really condemn homosexuality, and there's no question that stable, loving homosexual relationships are not even mentioned, let alone condemned anywhere in the Bible.

Cites:

http://www.jesusmcc.org/resource/notasin.html
http://www.whosoever.org/bible/

Sure, read the Bible for what it REALLY says and not what the Southern Baptists believe, while you're at it! :biggrin:

Best thing my dad ever told me was "read it for yourself".

[Sally Sensational]

Yeah, Leviticus is a real fun book for the Bible, which is where most of the really stupid stuff attributed to my religion comes from. ^^;

Are you Jewish, Linkara?

[Gilda Dent]

Yeah, Leviticus is a real fun book for the Bible, which is where most of the really stupid stuff attributed to my religion comes from. ^^;

Yeah, whenever someone tries to paint all Christians with the same broad brush, I want to scream "We're not all like that; don't lump me in with the bigots just because we share a religion."

[Paul McEnery]

"To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable."

WTF?

That's a very good point.

Used correctly, a guinea pig is an excellent tool for haruspication. But I find that small children wriggle too much when you saw them in half, the entrails go all over the place, and there goes your vision of the future.












Um, that was what he was talking about, right?

[Paul McEnery]

Extremely unlikely. The decision appears (and it's a bit hard to tell from the reports and I don't have time to read a 100+ page decision) to have been decided solely on the basis of California statutory and constitutional law. It is rare to the point of non-existence for the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule a state supreme court on issues solely dealing with state law.

Yeah, but the way it gets to the Supes is via the stupid referendum amendment.

[Crowley]

Which is pretty fitting from my point of view. Amazing, the English language manages to bungle up a word badly enough that it's correct meaning is more appropriate than it's intended meaning.

indeed... I think it's also due to a resistance by many men and women in the dramatic changes that are occurring in relation to gender politics. The old "when men were men" phrase is going the way of the dodo.

[Paul McEnery]

indeed... I think it's also due to a resistance by many men and women in the dramatic changes that are occurring in relation to gender politics. The old "when men were men" phrase is going the way of the dodo.

Not when the punchline is still "and the sheep were bloody terrified!"

[JeffreyWKramer]

Extremely unlikely. The decision appears (and it's a bit hard to tell from the reports and I don't have time to read a 100+ page decision) to have been decided solely on the basis of California statutory and constitutional law. It is rare to the point of non-existence for the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule a state supreme court on issues solely dealing with state law.

Personally - and feel free to correct me if I'm way off on legal grounds here, Slam - I feel if anything this decision could suggest that when the issue eventually gets to the US Supreme Court, precedent suggests a similar decision might occur there. Although this decision was based almost soley on California law, it's worth noting that a big chunk of the legal discussion centered around CA precedent against the practice of banning interracial marriage, and that precedent and the discussion used in today's decision closely mirrors a lot of the rationale by which the US Supreme Court struck down all laws banning interracial marriage (in Loving v. VA) way back when.

So, this decision gives me a bit more hope that this whole issue will go the right way when the issue eventually reaches the US Supremes.

Of course, the usual forces of intolerance, bigotry and hatred will do their best to keep standing in the way of equality, justice and progress until that time, but today's decision does seem to bring things closer to a just ending.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Breaking my week off simply to say.....

Me and my partner are getting married the first weekend we can! After 9 years, we can finally be legally married, and I'm absolutely giddy!

[Bo Bo]

Breaking my week off simply to say.....

Me and my partner are getting married the first weekend we can! After 9 years, we can finally be legally married, and I'm absolutely giddy!

WOOHOO! Congrats! :biggrin:

[TCJohnson]

Congratulations Maxine!!

[TCJohnson]

Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has twice vetoed legislation that would have granted marriage to same-sex couples, said in a statement that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080516/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage;_ylt=Aka.Y956qfbovD3ln7PfH9qs0NUE

[Gilda Dent]

Congratulations Maxine.

Kinda wish Em and I were still in SOCAL so we could make ours all legal and stuff. Or so that we wouldn't have to adopt our child twice.

[KevinTBrown]

This is great news!!!


But I look forward to the day when we don't need laws to allow 2 people who love each other to legally marry.....





And congrats Maxine!!

[Charles RB]

Me and my partner are getting married the first weekend we can! After 9 years, we can finally be legally married, and I'm absolutely giddy!

Congratulations!

[cedardryad]

This is great news, I hope it lasts. I would hate to see this over turned.

[Sally Sensational]

Breaking my week off simply to say.....

Me and my partner are getting married the first weekend we can! After 9 years, we can finally be legally married, and I'm absolutely giddy!

Yay for you two! They said on the radio today that there would be like a 30 day waiting period before it goes into effect!

So, guess what Maxie? You get to be a June bride!

[cedardryad]

Congrats Maxine! Can't wait to see pictures.

[Lester C.]

Extremely unlikely. The decision appears (and it's a bit hard to tell from the reports and I don't have time to read a 100+ page decision) to have been decided solely on the basis of California statutory and constitutional law. It is rare to the point of non-existence for the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule a state supreme court on issues solely dealing with state law.

By that logic they shouldn't have thrown down in the 2000 presidential election.

[Infra-Man]

This California Supreme Court decision is full of win.

[Crowley]

One thing's for sure... the California economy is going to one FABULOUS boost.

[Solaris]

Congrats to Maxine and everyone in CA!!!

I just hope and pray that the opposition doesn't get the voter referendum, or if they do, that the voters don't pass it. Argh. I'd love to see this stand.

[Samurai]

Congrats to Maxine and everyone in CA!!!

I just hope and pray that the opposition doesn't get the voter referendum, or if they do, that the voters don't pass it. Argh. I'd love to see this stand.

They already have more than enough signatures, it will be on the ballot. Whether it will pass with enough votes, I don't know. It passed with 61% of the vote back in 2000. Will it get more, less, or about the same this year? I'd guess that it will once again pass, though by a (possibly much) slimmer majority.

But I wonder what, if any, effect this might have on the Presidential race? It highlights the dangers of activist judges, and that has galvanized conservative voters in the past. Will it give a boost to McCain, as people become worried about the Democrat nominee appointing judges like this to the US Supreme Court? The court is precariously balanced right now, and a Democrat in office next term could appoint several radical liberal judges that could serve for decades, and result in terrible judgments like the Kelo decision and many others that then set a precedent.

[a. non]

Hooray Pinky!

[Dazzler]

I just got back from the Castro...San Francsico's roof has been blown off..

I am so happy to live in this beautiful state in this beautiful city with all these beautiful wierdos taking over the street and celebrating life and love.

I've never hugged that many people in my life that I didn't know.

--Dazz

[Evan Waters]

But I wonder what, if any, effect this might have on the Presidential race? It highlights the dangers of activist judges, and that has galvanized conservative voters in the past.

Yes, said "danger" being gay couples allowed to enjoy the benefits that straight couples can avail themselves of.

Equality is clearly the plague of modern society.

[Samurai]

Yes, said "danger" being gay couples allowed to enjoy the benefits that straight couples can avail themselves of.

Equality is clearly the plague of modern society.

Activist judges don't stop at the limits YOU might agree with, which is why I mentioned the Kelo decision. They take power to create and decide laws for themselves, rather than upholding the constitution as it's written, and that can become extremely dangerous.

[Dazzler]

Activist judges don't stop at the limits YOU might agree with, which is why I mentioned the Kelo decision. They take power to create and decide laws for themselves, rather than upholding the constitution as it's written, and that can become extremely dangerous.

BLAH BLAH BLAH!

In this case, the "activist judges" made their decision based on the constitution TO THE LETTER.

FUCK THIS SHIT,

I'm dancin'! Pick another parade to rain on.

--Dazz

[Samurai]

BLAH BLAH BLAH!

In this case, the "activist judges" made their decision based on the constitution TO THE LETTER.

FUCK THIS SHIT,

I'm dancin'! Pick another parade to rain on.

--Dazz

Point out for me how the traditional "marriage = 1 man and 1 woman" is unconstitutional.

And if you were to somehow manage that, point of for me how the constitution then allows "Marriage = 2 people of either gender" but does NOT allow any other combinations, such as 3 or 4 people, etc. WHERE in the freakin' CONSTITUTION does all that get spelled out, exactly and precisely, huh?

This was the completely WRONG way to go about this, and if the US Supreme Court doesn't overturn it, I'm considering voting for the constitutional amendment even though I was opposed to it before this. I still don't think this should be part of the constitution, but now we're down to no other options...

Just not sure what I'm going to do yet.

[Dazzler]

Point out for me how the traditional "marriage = 1 man and 1 woman" is unconstitutional.

And if you were to somehow manage that, point of for me how the constitution then allows "Marriage = 2 people of either gender" but does NOT allow any other combinations, such as 3 or 4 people, etc. WHERE in the freakin' CONSTITUTION does all that get spelled out, exactly and precisely, huh?

This was the completely WRONG way to go about this, and if the US Supreme Court doesn't overturn it, I'm considering voting for the constitutional amendment even though I was opposed to it before this. I still don't think this should be part of the constitution, but now we're down to no other options...

Just not sure what I'm going to do yet.

To reply, I can only say:

NANNY.

NANNY.

BOO.

BOO.

--Dazz

[Samurai]

To reply, I can only say:

NANNY.

NANNY.

BOO.

BOO.

--Dazz

I'll try to remember to quote that if the constitutional amendment does pass in November...

[Dazzler]

I'll try to remember to quote that if the constitutional amendment does pass in November...

You do that, baby.

You do that.

--Dazz

[BnL]

Point out for me how the traditional "marriage = 1 man and 1 woman" is unconstitutional.

And if you were to somehow manage that, point of for me how the constitution then allows "Marriage = 2 people of either gender" but does NOT allow any other combinations, such as 3 or 4 people, etc. WHERE in the freakin' CONSTITUTION does all that get spelled out, exactly and precisely, huh?

This was the completely WRONG way to go about this, and if the US Supreme Court doesn't overturn it, I'm considering voting for the constitutional amendment even though I was opposed to it before this. I still don't think this should be part of the constitution, but now we're down to no other options...

Just not sure what I'm going to do yet.

Well, at least you didn't jump to, "what if someone decides they want to marry their goat next!"

What's so terrible and detrimental about multiple spouses anyway?

[Dazzler]

Well, at least you didn't jump to, "what if someone decides they want to marry their goat next!"

What's so terrible and detrimental about multiple spouses anyway?

Oh, you know how it is, B. You start losing the ability to control the personal lives of one group of people, then terrible things like others being able to mind their own business and going after "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" begins to gain popularity.

Terrible thing that.

Wanna dance, by the way?

--Dazz

[Evan Waters]

Point out for me how the traditional "marriage = 1 man and 1 woman" is unconstitutional.

You do realize we're talking about the California state constitution, and not the U.S. constitution, right?

[BnL]

Oh, you know how it is, B. You start losing the ability to control the personal lives of one group of people, then terrible things like others being able to mind their own business and going after "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" begins to gain popularity.

Terrible thing that.

Wanna dance, by the way?

--Dazz

Gosh, I never thought it that way. Knowing what horrible things might possibly maybe happen as a result of my obtaining equal rights, I'll gladly resume my position as a second class citizen. That sounds like solid thinking to me!

Now I must warn you, I'm terrible dancer. Don't panic. I'm not ACTUALLY having a seizure, it just looks that way.

[section 8]

i personally believe all marriage is wrong.

[Samurai]

Well, at least you didn't jump to, "what if someone decides they want to marry their goat next!"

What's so terrible and detrimental about multiple spouses anyway?

Wow, that didn't take long... gay marriage ruling is less than a day old and already we have "what's so bad about polygamy?" Maybe that tangled mess of the polygamist cult will have the whole thing legalized before they even have to go to court.

[Dazzler]

Gosh, I never thought it that way. Knowing what horrible things might possibly maybe happen as a result of my obtaining equal rights, I'll gladly resume my position as a second class citizen. That sounds like solid thinking to me!
Solid thinking there! I respect your decision to live off the scraps of society and roll over and play dead. If you don't mind, I think I'll join you. :biggrin:

Now I must warn you, I'm terrible dancer. Don't panic. I'm not ACTUALLY having a seizure, it just looks that way.
My dear, seizure dancing is all the rage in the world of Dazz right now, so I say let it all hang out. I'll shepherd the people rushing at you with spoons for you to bite gently out of the way.

--Dazz

[Dazzler]

Wow, that didn't take long... gay marriage ruling is less than a day old and already we have "what's so bad about polygamy?" Maybe that tangled mess of the polygamist cult will have the whole thing legalized before they even have to go to court.
You know, I think what you really need is a stiff drink or twenty and to loosen up a bit.

--Dazz

[Evan Waters]

Wow, that didn't take long... gay marriage ruling is less than a day old and already we have "what's so bad about polygamy?" Maybe that tangled mess of the polygamist cult will have the whole thing legalized before they even have to go to court.

And you've yet to raise the smallest coherent argument against either.

[BnL]

Wow, that didn't take long... gay marriage ruling is less than a day old and already we have "what's so bad about polygamy?" Maybe that tangled mess of the polygamist cult will have the whole thing legalized before they even have to go to court.

How did I know immediately you'd jump right to the cult.

So, disregarding that sensationalist example of an abusive cult, is there any legitimate reason that polygamy is wrong? Because you know, there are plenty of abusive and/or generally unhealthy heterosexual marriages out there. Gotta be some kind of serious dysfunction driving that 50% divorce rate. So does that mean heterosexual marriage is bad and harmful by definition, and should be illegal?

[Samurai]

You do realize we're talking about the California state constitution, and not the U.S. constitution, right?

Yes. here's the California Constitution:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html

[Evan Waters]

Well, there is the whole "equal protection" thingy.

[BnL]

Solid thinking there! I respect your decision to live off the scraps of society and roll over and play dead. If you don't mind, I think I'll join you. :biggrin:


My dear, seizure dancing is all the rage in the world of Dazz right now, so I say let it all hang out. I'll shepherd the people rushing at you with spoons for you to bite gently out of the way.

--Dazz

No need to shepherd them out of the way, just inform them that spoons do no good, but if they have a fleshy appendage they could offer me to bite gently on, that would be much appreciated.

You know, the hot ones, I mean.

[Dazzler]

No need to shepherd them out of the way, just inform them that spoons do no good, but if they have a fleshy appendage they could offer me to bite gently on, that would be much appreciated.

You know, the hot ones, I mean.

HA! <3

Well, if you're depending on ME to pick out the "hot ones" for you, I hope you're prepared for a steady stream of bear daddies to bound to your aid.

--Dazz

[Samurai]

Well, there is the whole "equal protection" thingy.

The law was equal. It said "People have the right to marry 1 individual of the opposite sex, of the appropriate age, who is not already married to someone else." And that has been constitutional for a very long time. The judges just decided to create a new law, even though that isn't supposed to be part of the Judicial Branch's power. But if 1 part of that equation has been arbitrarily declared "unconstitutional", why does the rest of it still stand?

The very institution of Marriage, as well as the rule of law, has suffered a blow today. I hope it can be repaired soon, before it's too late.

[BnL]

HA! <3

Well, if you're depending on ME to pick out the "hot ones" for you, I hope you're prepared for a steady stream of bear daddies to bound to your aid.

--Dazz

Hmm...I could get into that. Just not the really fat ones.

[Crowley]

Point out for me how the traditional "marriage = 1 man and 1 woman" is unconstitutional.

And if you were to somehow manage that, point of for me how the constitution then allows "Marriage = 2 people of either gender" but does NOT allow any other combinations, such as 3 or 4 people, etc. WHERE in the freakin' CONSTITUTION does all that get spelled out, exactly and precisely, huh?

This was the completely WRONG way to go about this, and if the US Supreme Court doesn't overturn it, I'm considering voting for the constitutional amendment even though I was opposed to it before this. I still don't think this should be part of the constitution, but now we're down to no other options...

Just not sure what I'm going to do yet.

Where was all this Constitutional outrage when torture and wiretaps were approved? or the suspension of Habeas Corpus? Or the declaring war without Congress? Or when the President referred to it as "Just A Goddamned Piece Of Paper."

NOW you're suddenly all for the Constitution?

[Lester C.]

The law was equal. It said "People have the right to marry 1 individual of the opposite sex, of the appropriate age, who is not already married to someone else." And that has been constitutional for a very long time. The judges just decided to create a new law, even though that isn't supposed to be part of the Judicial Branch's power. But if 1 part of that equation has been arbitrarily declared "unconstitutional", why does the rest of it still stand?

The very institution of Marriage, as well as the rule of law, has suffered a blow today. I hope it can be repaired soon, before it's too late.

This post is not an attack. I just want to make that clear because you are having a rough go of it right now. I was wondering if you can clarify the too late aspect of your post as most are wondering what’s the harm about having two adults of the same sex marry, especially when you’ve had posters such as yourself argue for civil unions.

[Dazzler]

The very institution of Marriage, as well as the rule of law, has suffered a blow today.

Oh, I'm sure the institution of marriage is going to be suffering a HELLUVA lot of blowing real soon, thank the Lord.

--Dazz

[Dazzler]

Hmm...I could get into that. Just not the really fat ones.

Size queen. :wink:

--Dazz

[Samurai]

Where was all this Constitutional outrage when torture and wiretaps were approved? or the suspension of Habeas Corpus? Or the declaring war without Congress? Or when the President referred to it as "Just A Goddamned Piece Of Paper."

NOW you're suddenly all for the Constitution?

Good lord, not those myths again. :rolleyes:

3 terrorist leaders were waterboarded, excuse me for not shedding a tear.

The wiretaps were perfectly legal, even the FISA court said so, and the Congress was kept informed.

Habeas Corpus was never suspended.

The US Congress approved the use of force in Iraq.

That quote was made up by a partisan leftist blogger, who claims to have 3 phantom sources that he can't name. That's his only evidence. No mainstream news source has reported on this, and I'm sure they'd be jumping all over it if they had any hope at all that it was a true quote. It's BS. An urban legend.

[BnL]

The law was equal. It said "People have the right to marry 1 individual of the opposite sex, of the appropriate age, who is not already married to someone else." And that has been constitutional for a very long time. The judges just decided to create a new law, even though that isn't supposed to be part of the Judicial Branch's power. But if 1 part of that equation has been arbitrarily declared "unconstitutional", why does the rest of it still stand?

The very institution of Marriage, as well as the rule of law, has suffered a blow today. I hope it can be repaired soon, before it's too late.

Oh, I know! Just like much of the racial equality our nation has reached has been established by judicial decisions. Terrible, horrible blow to our nation and whatnot, that was.

[section 8]

i'm sure what lester means is this possibly creates a loophole, and that it should be adressed before it is exploited,

if thats not wht lester is saying then i apologize

[section 8]

i'm sure what lester means is this possibly creates a loophole, and that it should be adressed before it is exploited,

if thats not wht lester is saying then i apologize

[That JonoGuy]

The very institution of Marriage, as well as the rule of law, has suffered a blow today. I hope it can be repaired soon, before it's too late.

Yes, heaven forbid gay people enjoy the protections of a civil marriage. Wouldn't want people to be happy. :rolleyes:

[That JonoGuy]

The very institution of Marriage, as well as the rule of law, has suffered a blow today. I hope it can be repaired soon, before it's too late.

Yes, heaven forbid gay people enjoy the protections of a civil marriage. Wouldn't want people to be happy. :rolleyes:

[That JonoGuy]

The very institution of Marriage, as well as the rule of law, has suffered a blow today. I hope it can be repaired soon, before it's too late.

Yes, heaven forbid gay people enjoy the protections of a civil marriage. Wouldn't want people to be happy. :rolleyes:

[Dazzler]

Okay, I've had my fun and my buzz is wearing off, so I have to ask:

What do you even care, Samurai? What's your PERSONAL stake, hm?
What is gay marriage going to do to undermine YOU?
What is gay marriage going to do that's so unfathomable that you are angry and disgusted at its inception?

How is gay marriage going to do ANYTHING to undermine the sanctity of your already given ability to marry someone you love and live out your life? How is gay marriage going to even remotely affect YOU personally, unless YOU are going to enter into a gay marriage?

What is it any of your business?

People are getting rights, so what?! It's fun for me and a whole mess of other people, but from what I can tell, honestly, to you and all the people like you, it's not going to ACTUALLY affect you in any way, shape, or form, anyway, so what do you even care?

I'm legitimately curious, and I'd like something other than a meaningless link to somewhere else or a bunch of stupid statistics.

Just tell me straight up. What's your personal stake in this?

--Dazz

[BnL]

forum hiccup.

[BnL]

and again.

[Evan Waters]

The law was equal. It said "People have the right to marry 1 individual of the opposite sex, of the appropriate age, who is not already married to someone else."

And you don't see how this illusory equality kind of doesn't work for gay people?

As Anatole France said, the law in its "majestic equality, prohibits rich and poor alike from begging on the streets and sleeping under bridges".

[king mob]

Samurai is being a homophobic facist! What a shocka!!

[Kyuubi]

"Plaque is a figment of the liberal media and the dental industry to scare you into buying useless appliances and pastes. Now, I've heard the arguments on both sides, and there is nothing to convince me of the need to brush your teeth."



I'm sorry, is this not the bullshit argument thread? Sammy has me a little confused.

[That JonoGuy]

Why are conservatives so bent on having gays and lesbians ruin peoples lives. I mean, they don't want us to have the right to get married unless it is with someone of the opposite sex. Why would they want to subject people to such a harmful relationship. Do they hate people that much.

Are gays and lesbians just supposed to live lonely lives just so others don't feel uncomfortable. It's ridiculous.

Good on California for bringing some more freedom back into the land of the free.

[That JonoGuy]

Why are conservatives so bent on having gays and lesbians ruin peoples lives. I mean, they don't want us to have the right to get married unless it is with someone of the opposite sex. Why would they want to subject people to such a harmful relationship. Do they hate people that much.

Are gays and lesbians just supposed to live lonely lives just so others don't feel uncomfortable. It's ridiculous.

Good on California for bringing some more freedom back into the land of the free.

[BnL]

Size queen. :wink:

--Dazz

I deny nothing. :tongue:

[That JonoGuy]

Why are conservatives so bent on having gays and lesbians ruin peoples lives. I mean, they don't want us to have the right to get married unless it is with someone of the opposite sex. Why would they want to subject people to such a harmful relationship. Do they hate people that much.

Are gays and lesbians just supposed to live lonely lives just so others don't feel uncomfortable. It's ridiculous.

Good on California for bringing some more freedom back into the land of the free.

[section 8]

HA! <3

Well, if you're depending on ME to pick out the "hot ones" for you, I hope you're prepared for a steady stream of bear daddies to bound to your aid.

--Dazz
the bear is my totem clan, i really wish those guys had picked a different animal, now i cant get the tatoo i wanted.

[That JonoGuy]

Why are conservatives so bent on having gays and lesbians ruin peoples lives. I mean, they don't want us to have the right to get married unless it is with someone of the opposite sex. Why would they want to subject people to such a harmful relationship. Do they hate people that much.

Are gays and lesbians just supposed to live lonely lives just so others don't feel uncomfortable. It's ridiculous.

Good on California for bringing some more freedom back into the land of the free.

[That JonoGuy]

Why are conservatives so bent on having gays and lesbians ruin peoples lives. I mean, they don't want us to have the right to get married unless it is with someone of the opposite sex. Why would they want to subject people to such a harmful relationship. Do they hate people that much.

Are gays and lesbians just supposed to live lonely lives just so others don't feel uncomfortable. It's ridiculous.

Good on California for bringing some more freedom back into the land of the free.

[Lester C.]

i'm sure what lester means is this possibly creates a loophole, and that it should be adressed before it is exploited,

if thats not wht lester is saying then i apologize

I think you're confusing me with Samurai. I have no problem with this verdict, but do fear that the United States Supreme Court will overturn it in a 5-4 decision due to the politics of the Justices.

[Lester C.]

i'm sure what lester means is this possibly creates a loophole, and that it should be adressed before it is exploited,

if thats not wht lester is saying then i apologize

I think you're confusing me with Samurai. I have no problem with this verdict, but do fear that the United States Supreme Court will overturn it in a 5-4 decision due to the politics of the Justices.

[Samurai]

This post is not an attack. I just want to make that clear because you are having a rough go of it right now. I was wondering if you can clarify the too late aspect of your post as most are wondering what’s the harm about having two adults of the same sex marry, especially when you’ve had posters such as yourself argue for civil unions.

I believe were are/were on a precarious balance. While the majority of the country still strongly opposes gay marriage, they were coming around to the idea of equal legal rights under a different name. I'm afraid this ruling will spark the nastier elements on both sides of the isle, leading to one of 2 outcomes:

a) a massive religious backlash and the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (and most likely the wording will include civil unions too). This will be much harder to overturn than the current law was.

b) gay marriage passes, and before long leads to more "forms of marriage" being legalized, until the concept of marriage is almost worthless. It becomes "1 or more people living together", with no meaning or solidarity, no tradition or power or prestige. In short, it become nothing special at all, and divorces become even more frequent, children either out of wedlock or from multiple partners becomes even more common place, and the entire concept of a strong, cohesive family unit of mom, dad, and kids vanishes.

IMO, the mom, dad, kids family unit is the single best one, bar none. That nuclear family structure is the bedrock of our entire culture, and it is being eroded like a sand castle at high tide. And the forces doing the erosion will not stop at tinkering with "marriage", they have lots of other concepts and laws they'd like to change, scrap, or overhaul too (such as curtailing free speech or broadening eminent domain or charging people with thought crimes like "hate speech"). I really don't want to see that happen.

I know you probably don't like these "what if" scenarios, and slippery slope arguments. But if you think of this as a battle, then the attackers have just breached the left flank and taken some high ground. Looked at by itself, you might say "so what, it's a fairly worthless hill." But that high ground can be used by snipers to shoot into foxholes, rain mortar fire a farther distance than before, and eventually might require either a shifting of the front and a strategic withdrawl to a more defensible position, or a bloody, all out effort to retake the lousy hill. Either way, it points to rocky times ahead...

[Lester C.]

i'm sure what lester means is this possibly creates a loophole, and that it should be adressed before it is exploited,

if thats not wht lester is saying then i apologize

I think you're confusing me with Samurai. I have no problem with this verdict, but do fear that the United States Supreme Court will overturn it in a 5-4 decision due to the politics of the Justices.

[section 8]

yeah that plus i'mhaf asleep and dozing. i tried to correct it but something isnt right here the only way i can see th latest posts is to hit the 'reply' button and scroll down.

[section 8]

yeah that plus i'mhaf asleep and dozing. i tried to correct it but something isnt right here the only way i can see th latest posts is to hit the 'reply' button and scroll down.

so again, sorry man didn't mean to misqote

[Samurai]

This post is not an attack. I just want to make that clear because you are having a rough go of it right now. I was wondering if you can clarify the too late aspect of your post as most are wondering what’s the harm about having two adults of the same sex marry, especially when you’ve had posters such as yourself argue for civil unions.

I believe were are/were on a precarious balance. While the majority of the country still strongly opposes gay marriage, they were coming around to the idea of equal legal rights under a different name. I'm afraid this ruling will spark the nastier elements on both sides of the isle, leading to one of 2 outcomes:

a) a massive religious backlash and the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (and most likely the wording will include civil unions too). This will be much harder to overturn than the current law was.

b) gay marriage passes, and before long leads to more "forms of marriage" being legalized, until the concept of marriage is almost worthless. It becomes "1 or more people living together", with no meaning or solidarity, no tradition or power or prestige. In short, it become nothing special at all, and divorces become even more frequent, children either out of wedlock or from multiple partners becomes even more common place, and the entire concept of a strong, cohesive family unit of mom, dad, and kids vanishes.

IMO, the mom, dad, kids family unit is the single best one, bar none. That nuclear family structure is the bedrock of our entire culture, and it is being eroded like a sand castle at high tide. And the forces doing the erosion will not stop at tinkering with "marriage", they have lots of other concepts and laws they'd like to change, scrap, or overhaul too (such as curtailing free speech or broadening eminent domain or charging people with thought crimes like "hate speech"). I really don't want to see that happen.

I know you probably don't like these "what if" scenarios, and slippery slope arguments. But if you think of this as a battle, then the attackers have just breached the left flank and taken some high ground. Looked at by itself, you might say "so what, it's a fairly worthless hill." But that high ground can be used by snipers to shoot into foxholes, rain mortar fire a farther distance than before, and eventually might require either a shifting of the front and a strategic withdrawl to a more defensible position, or a bloody, all out effort to retake the lousy hill. Either way, it points to rocky times ahead...

[BnL]

Damn, lots of forum hiccups tonight. Say, maybe it's God's wrath at the California marriage decision!

[Samurai]

This post is not an attack. I just want to make that clear because you are having a rough go of it right now. I was wondering if you can clarify the too late aspect of your post as most are wondering what’s the harm about having two adults of the same sex marry, especially when you’ve had posters such as yourself argue for civil unions.

I believe were are/were on a precarious balance. While the majority of the country still strongly opposes gay marriage, they were coming around to the idea of equal legal rights under a different name. I'm afraid this ruling will spark the nastier elements on both sides of the isle, leading to one of 2 outcomes:

a) a massive religious backlash and the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (and most likely the wording will include civil unions too). This will be much harder to overturn than the current law was.

b) gay marriage passes, and before long leads to more "forms of marriage" being legalized, until the concept of marriage is almost worthless. It becomes "1 or more people living together", with no meaning or solidarity, no tradition or power or prestige. In short, it become nothing special at all, and divorces become even more frequent, children either out of wedlock or from multiple partners becomes even more common place, and the entire concept of a strong, cohesive family unit of mom, dad, and kids vanishes.

IMO, the mom, dad, kids family unit is the single best one, bar none. That nuclear family structure is the bedrock of our entire culture, and it is being eroded like a sand castle at high tide. And the forces doing the erosion will not stop at tinkering with "marriage", they have lots of other concepts and laws they'd like to change, scrap, or overhaul too (such as curtailing free speech or broadening eminent domain or charging people with thought crimes like "hate speech"). I really don't want to see that happen.

I know you probably don't like these "what if" scenarios, and slippery slope arguments. But if you think of this as a battle, then the attackers have just breached the left flank and taken some high ground. Looked at by itself, you might say "so what, it's a fairly worthless hill." But that high ground can be used by snipers to shoot into foxholes, rain mortar fire a farther distance than before, and eventually might require either a shifting of the front and a strategic withdrawl to a more defensible position, or a bloody, all out effort to retake the lousy hill. Either way, it points to rocky times ahead...

[Samurai]

i'm sure what lester means is this possibly creates a loophole, and that it should be adressed before it is exploited,

if thats not wht lester is saying then i apologize

Not sure about Lester, but yes, I agree. A court ruling like this is very messy, and leaves loopholes the size of a Kenworth. It didn't definitively define marriage, it said "the old definition is unconstitutional, so the 1 example we have before us at this moment (gay marriage) is now legal. Any other instances will be considered as they come before the court, but nothing is ruled out at this point."

[Samurai]

i'm sure what lester means is this possibly creates a loophole, and that it should be adressed before it is exploited,

if thats not wht lester is saying then i apologize

Not sure about Lester, but yes, I agree. A court ruling like this is very messy, and leaves loopholes the size of a Kenworth. It didn't definitively define marriage, it said "the old definition is unconstitutional, so the 1 example we have before us at this moment (gay marriage) is now legal. Any other instances will be considered as they come before the court, but nothing is ruled out at this point."

[BnL]

(filler post to force the next page to appear)

[section 8]

the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence

i'm calling it a night i cant hang, gay dudes i'll vote for whatever just give us back the bear. if cheyne shot me in the face i would have soo bled all over his shirt his shirt

[BnL]

(and again...)

[Yue]

"Activist" judges, huh?

Bullshit.

Lorri L. Jean of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center couldn't have said it better:

The California Supreme Court had the integrity and the courage to do its job and say that ALL Californians are entitled to equal protection of the law. This is not an activist court, this is a moderate court. Republican governors appointed all but one of them! And today that moderate Court did exactly what it is supposed to do—it applied the law fairly.

Anyway, congrats Maxine! Any decisions on cake? :tongue:

[BnL]

(tiresome, ain't it?)

[Yue]

"Activist" judges, huh?

Bullshit.

Lorri L. Jean of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center couldn't have said it better:

The California Supreme Court had the integrity and the courage to do its job and say that ALL Californians are entitled to equal protection of the law. This is not an activist court, this is a moderate court. Republican governors appointed all but one of them! And today that moderate Court did exactly what it is supposed to do—it applied the law fairly.

Anyway, congrats Maxine! Any decisions on cake? :tongue:

[Yue]

"Activist" judges, huh?

Bullshit.

Lorri L. Jean of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center couldn't have said it better:

The California Supreme Court had the integrity and the courage to do its job and say that ALL Californians are entitled to equal protection of the law. This is not an activist court, this is a moderate court. Republican governors appointed all but one of them! And today that moderate Court did exactly what it is supposed to do—it applied the law fairly.

Anyway, congrats Maxine! Any decisions on cake? :tongue:

[Lester C.]

I can no longer see any new posts on this thread so I can't edit my redundent posts in this thread. I'm really starting to hate the server. Am I the only one with this problem?

[BnL]

(any day now would be good)

[Linkara]

Samurai, while I of course love it when you call out BS (such as with the "ZOMG our government is being so eeebil!!!11" stuff on the last page), I've got to say - I'm not particularly upset that they're changing a law that was wrong to begin with, traditional history or not. As was brought up, constitutions, be they state or federal, are not the absolute moral authority. Once upon a time it was illegal to purchase or sell alcohol (dear lord, just imagine if Cam lived in the United States during that time?), just as it was perfectly legal to consider some individuals only a percentage of a human being and furthermore illegal for people of different races to marry. Said laws were then changed because the courts said they were wrong. This is just the next step.

[Lester C.]

I deny nothing. :tongue:

I still can't read anything past this post. I think pirates must have hacked into my computer or something.

[section 8]

no lester i'm right there with you.

i cant sleep tomorrows gonna suck

[section 8]

hey it's back!

[Crowley]

Samurai, while I of course love it when you call out BS (such as with the "ZOMG our government is being so eeebil!!!11" stuff on the last page),
Well except that he's wrong about what he "called out" which isn't BS. The administration has violated the constitution numerable times during the last 8 years.

Which is why Kucinich brought articles of impeachment about 9 months ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmc60JmaLbE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHJIAonAImg

[section 8]

ok well im gonna give sleep another shot

see you in hell

(ps. do somethin' bad so i can see you in hell)

[Yue]

I still can't read anything past this post. I think pirates must have hacked into my computer or something.

I wish. It's just the fuckery of servers. I had the same problem for about an hour and a half.

[Gilda Dent]

Point out for me how the traditional "marriage = 1 man and 1 woman" is unconstitutional.

And if you were to somehow manage that, point of for me how the constitution then allows "Marriage = 2 people of either gender" but does NOT allow any other combinations, such as 3 or 4 people, etc. WHERE in the freakin' CONSTITUTION does all that get spelled out, exactly and precisely, huh?

This was the completely WRONG way to go about this, and if the US Supreme Court doesn't overturn it, I'm considering voting for the constitutional amendment even though I was opposed to it before this. I still don't think this should be part of the constitution, but now we're down to no other options...

Just not sure what I'm going to do yet.

From the CA Constitution:

(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.

From the ruling:

Under the strict scrutiny standard, unlike the rational basis standard, in
order to demonstrate the constitutional validity of a challenged statutory
classification the state must establish (1) that the state interest intended to be
served by the differential treatment not only is a constitutionally legitimate
interest, but is a compelling state interest, and (2) that the differential treatment not
only is reasonably related to but is necessary to serve that compelling state
interest. Applying this standard to the statutory classification here at issue, we
conclude that the purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and
same-sex couples embodied in California’s current marriage statutes — the
interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage —
cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal
protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.

A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of
same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in
order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are
enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to
the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and
will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex
couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties
that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the
traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate
and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose
appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such
couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely
to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples
enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the
widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the
more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of
marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed
relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex
couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for oppositesex
couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex
couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now
emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples
are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated
differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex
couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the
traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest.
Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory
provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are
unconstitutional.

[Lester C.]

My theory is that conservatives are secretly happy with this ruling. It can be argued that Bush won the 2004 presidency due to states passing same sex marriage bans that rallied the core conservative base. Well you can bet that they are going try to get history to repeat itself, because let’s face it with McCain calling for four more years in Iraq they are going to need all the rallying they can get.

[Gilda Dent]

I believe were are/were on a precarious balance. While the majority of the country still strongly opposes gay marriage, they were coming around to the idea of equal legal rights under a different name. I'm afraid this ruling will spark the nastier elements on both sides of the isle, leading to one of 2 outcomes:

Wait, you mean the nasty elements on the side of "treat everyone equally"? Marriage for both gay and straight couples is the dead center middle position on this issue. Marriage only for straights is at the right end. The opposite end would be, if anyone were campaigning for this, marriage only for gays, but not for straight couples. Nobody is arguing this because it would be a stupid thing to argue in favor of. The only group that's on "one side" is the anti-gay marriage crowd. Those of us favoring it are in the middle. We only seem like we're on the other side because the anti crowd is so far off in the distance.

a) a massive religious backlash and the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (and most likely the wording will include civil unions too). This will be much harder to overturn than the current law was.

I share your fear here. If you do genuinely fear this, how about joining us in vocally and actively opposing it.

b) gay marriage passes, and before long leads to more "forms of marriage" being legalized, until the concept of marriage is almost worthless. It becomes "1 or more people living together", with no meaning or solidarity, no tradition or power or prestige. In short, it become nothing special at all, and divorces become even more frequent,

Please. Read the decision. It refers to couples, repeatedly, and only to couples.

children either out of wedlock or from multiple partners becomes even more common place,

Are you aware how many children are currently born to single mothers? The horse is already out of the barn on this one.

and the entire concept of a strong, cohesive family unit of mom, dad, and kids vanishes.

Oh please. There are already families headed by gay couples, and have been for decades. The strong, cohesive family with opposite sex parents and kids still exists. This is just plain illogical. The presence of more people being married and held to the same standards and given the same rights denies traditional marriages nothing, it affects them in no way whatsoever, to any degree. They can still get married, they still have the same rights and responsibilities, their situations have not changed one bit.

IMO, the mom, dad, kids family unit is the single best one, bar none. That nuclear family structure is the bedrock of our entire culture, and it is being eroded like a sand castle at high tide.

You are wrong on the evidence here. All of the existing evidence coming from studies of children raised by same-sex couples indicates that they come out substantially the same as those raised by opposite sex couples.

Every major mainstream medical and psychological organization in the US has come to the same conclusion on this issue: There is no evidence that being raised by gays harms kids, and a good body of evidence that they come out about the same.

And the forces doing the erosion will not stop at tinkering with "marriage", they have lots of other concepts and laws they'd like to change, scrap, or overhaul too (such as curtailing free speech or broadening eminent domain or charging people with thought crimes like "hate speech"). I really don't want to see that happen.

So fight those things as those issues come up. Those issues aren't this issue. On some of those I entirely agree with you and I'll join you in your opposition. I'm generally in favor of more freedom. As in, giving everyone the right to marry the person they love.

I know you probably don't like these "what if" scenarios, and slippery slope arguments. But if you think of this as a battle, then the attackers have just breached the left flank and taken some high ground. Looked at by itself, you might say "so what, it's a fairly worthless hill." But that high ground can be used by snipers to shoot into foxholes, rain mortar fire a farther distance than before, and eventually might require either a shifting of the front and a strategic withdrawl to a more defensible position, or a bloody, all out effort to retake the lousy hill. Either way, it points to rocky times ahead...

No, I absolutely don't consider this a worthless battle. I consider it damn important, and not for what it represents in some broader culture war but because this affects my daily life and that of the woman I love and our child, and it doesn't affect those in opposition to it in any way whatsoever except that they don't like the idea that gay people might be recognized as equal.

My family consists of three adults, all women, and three children. My mom, me, my half brother and half sister (the three of us having three different fathers), my wife and our child. We're one of those families you seem to think are going to end up destroying traditional marriage. But hey, so far none of the traditional families in our nice upper-middle-class neighborhood have disintegrated as the result of our presence.

[BnL]

Way to lay the smackdown, Gilda. :biggrin:

[4PointOh]

Get 'em, Gilda honey!

And I love your MLK quote.

[stamen]

I would point out that according to the ruling, this was just as much an issue of semantics as it was rights. The justices admit in their ruling that domestic partnership laws already grant same-sex couples access to the same rights that heterosexual couples have. There seems to be a lot of chatter about homosexuals now having equal rights under the law. These already existed.

The ruling is more about whether the semantic difference between a domestic partnership and the word marriage have built into them a latent inequality... that being deemed "domestic partners" even though having all the same rights afforded to married couples, might implicitly imply that homosexuals are second class citizens.

The ruling also admits that there are many supporters of equal rights for homosexuals under the law, but who simultaneously don't view marriage as anything other than one man - one woman in relationship.

Many conservatives that I know argue that "rights" hasn't really ever been the issue, that even with equal rights, gay couples will still want to lay claim to the terminology. For many of them, it's not a matter of rights, since those can be afforded in other ways, it is about protecting the ever popular phrase -- "santicty of marriage." I'm afraid that their fear will be confirmed for them in the ruling since the courts pretty much admit this won't be granting same-sex couples any additional "rights" in the legal sense.

Others, and even one person mentioned here, that such a ruling would allow for any type of relationship. On the one hand, the courts ruling indicates a "two person" relationship, so much of that fear is misplaced. On the other hand, the courts argued the case from a "right to marry" perspective, which does open the door for a person to further argue their case that they have the "right to marry" in any way they see fit.

[4PointOh]

I think the country has previously come to the legal conclusion that "separate but equal" was inhenrently UNEQUAL.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Many conservatives that I know argue that "rights" hasn't really ever been the issue, that even with equal rights, gay couples will still want to lay claim to the terminology. For many of them, it's not a matter of rights, since those can be afforded in other ways, it is about protecting the ever popular phrase -- "santicty of marriage." I'm afraid that their fear will be confirmed for them in the ruling since the courts pretty much admit this won't be granting same-sex couples any additional "rights" in the legal sense.

Yeah but.......
.....uh.......

....they don't and never did have a lock on the term 'married'.

I get that they'll be incensed, but really? There's no reason that we should treat the word as if it's been their sole domain from the beginning of time.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Gilda, sometimes I love you.

[Agent Helix]

Many conservatives I know argue that Mexicans, legal and illegal, should be kicked out, and Muslims should be put in camps.

Should we give a dick what they think, too?

Because THAT'S the "slippery slope" that I find worrisome, not where two dudes are putting their cocks.

[KevinTBrown]

You know, PISS on anyone who thinks this is a bad thing. Unless I'm wrong, and I know I'm not, the US Constitution says: ALL People are created equal. Not "some", not "a few", not "just the straights and not the gays", not "only the whites, but not blacks". ALL.

Besides, IMO, we don't need a fucking law to tell us who to marry. Including poly relationships.

As I said before, I look forward to the day when anyone can marry whomever they choose. Period. Regardless of sexual orientation.



By the way, lest people forget, there were laws on the books not too long ago that prevented blacks and whites from marrying. That was just as idiotic as any other law limiting marriage.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Because THAT'S the "slippery slope" that I find worrisome, not where two dudes are putting their cocks.

Between each other's slippery slopes?

[Agent Helix]

I was trying not to be uncouth.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I was trying not to be uncouth.

I have no problem what with the uncouthness. Also, random sex jokes.

[bringthenoise]

On the other hand, the courts argued the case from a "right to marry" perspective, which does open the door for a person to further argue their case that they have the "right to marry" in any way they see fit.

So long as there are safeguards in place to ensure that those getting married are of age and are giving a full, informed and free consent, I don't have problem with that either, to be honest. An animal can't consent, so you can't marry an animal. A child can't consent, so you can't marry a child (that means you weird polyagmist cults marrying 12 year olds). And if you threaten someone into marriage, it's null and void. Sure, some will slip through the cracks on that third one - but that happens already with straight marriages.

[4PointOh]

So long as there are safeguards in place to ensure that those getting married are of age and are giving a full, informed and free consent, I don't have problem with that either, to be honest. An animal can't consent, so you can't marry an animal. A child can't consent, so you can't marry a child (that means you weird polyagmist cults marrying 12 year olds). And if you threaten someone into marriage, it's null and void. Sure, some will slip through the cracks on that third one - but that happens already with straight marriages.

Thank you for proving it's not hard to be reasonable.

[bringthenoise]

Thank you for proving it's not hard to be reasonable.

I'd love to take credit, but that was mostly paraphrased from far wiser people on other message boards (I added the pot shot at polyagmist cults, w00t!).

[Gilda Dent]

I would point out that according to the ruling, this was just as much an issue of semantics as it was rights. The justices admit in their ruling that domestic partnership laws already grant same-sex couples access to the same rights that heterosexual couples have. There seems to be a lot of chatter about homosexuals now having equal rights under the law. These already existed.

The ruling is more about whether the semantic difference between a domestic partnership and the word marriage have built into them a latent inequality... that being deemed "domestic partners" even though having all the same rights afforded to married couples, might implicitly imply that homosexuals are second class citizens.

The ruling also admits that there are many supporters of equal rights for homosexuals under the law, but who simultaneously don't view marriage as anything other than one man - one woman in relationship.

Many conservatives that I know argue that "rights" hasn't really ever been the issue, that even with equal rights, gay couples will still want to lay claim to the terminology. For many of them, it's not a matter of rights, since those can be afforded in other ways, it is about protecting the ever popular phrase -- "santicty of marriage." I'm afraid that their fear will be confirmed for them in the ruling since the courts pretty much admit this won't be granting same-sex couples any additional "rights" in the legal sense.

Others, and even one person mentioned here, that such a ruling would allow for any type of relationship. On the one hand, the courts ruling indicates a "two person" relationship, so much of that fear is misplaced. On the other hand, the courts argued the case from a "right to marry" perspective, which does open the door for a person to further argue their case that they have the "right to marry" in any way they see fit.

There is no "sanctity of marriage" involved. None. Sanctifying marriages is not what the government does; that's a matter entirely left to churches. If that is indeed the issue, then it's far, far too late for that as gay couples have been entering marriages that have been sanctified by a variety of churches, temples, and other religious organizations.

The issue is civil marriage. Civil marriage is a contract between two people that is ratified/registered by the states and federal government granting certain state and federal rights. There is no sanctity involved. It's a contract. The state has no power to recognize it as sacred, only as legal or illegal.

[Corrina]

On the 'traditional' two-parent household...

The reason it's deemed stable is because there are two people involved: two ways to split up the work, two people to love and care for the child, and a back-up in case something happens to one of them. In our current society, that also generally either means two incomes or one larger income with the other partner taking on more of the bulk of the work with the children and keeping the home together.

All these advantages are there in a gay or lesbian marriage as well. If anything, this adds to a *more* stable society, encouraging and blessing more long-term partnerships, which can only benefit the raising of children, not harm it.

I don't know if we'll get to the point where there's federal approval allowing gay marriage. But with a number of states allowing civil partnership and now two allowing gay marriage, I do see, in a generation or so, the family courts in nearly all states treating gay partnerships as a de facto marriage in regards to property rights, custody rights, etc.

[Timberoo]

As a gay man, I think it's great Californians will have the option to get married if they choose.

To anyone opposed to gay marriage, I say don't marry someone of the same sex.

[stamen]

You know, PISS on anyone who thinks this is a bad thing. Unless I'm wrong, and I know I'm not, the US Constitution says: ALL People are created equal. Not "some", not "a few", not "just the straights and not the gays", not "only the whites, but not blacks". ALL.

Kevin, as much as I really like you and agree with you, it's this sort of thing that makes the issue worse than it has to be. First of all, three of the justices themselves came down against it in a split decision. Do we just piss on them for their decision?

Let me set the record straight here from my perspective. Tennessee recently voted and passed legislation here defining the term "marriage" as being between a man and woman. It passed 80/20. I voted against amending the constitution, meaning I'm in your camp and the camp of so many other people who frequent this board.

I want to be very clear on the above paragraph.

I am not, and will not be insensitive to people who see it different. All that does is fuel the division. I actually can appreciate where many conservatives are coming from. I can respect the idea that sexuality is sacred to them and that the term marriage is a sacred term, belonging to their respective traditions. I can be sensitve to rational people who have ferreted out a world view like this provided they also believe in equal rights for homosexuals under the law. I can actually accept these sorts of people, eat dinner with them, and consider many like to be my friends. It is possible for me to be sensitive to the idiot hick who never really thought it through, but much more difficult to associate with him/her.

Pissing on them is exactly the sort of thing that just doesn't help. It increases their resolve, causes them to push harder to be understood, and ultimately divides people further.

[JeffreyWKramer]

But I wonder what, if any, effect this might have on the Presidential race? It highlights the dangers of activist judges,

Yeah, darn those judges that respect and embrace the revolutionary and radical concept of equality.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Point out for me how the traditional "marriage = 1 man and 1 woman" is unconstitutional.

Loving v. VA established that marriage is a basic liberty. Nowhere in the decision is the male + female equation mentioned. Nor is any other civil liberty restricted or established with gender as a factor.

[KevinTBrown]

Kevin, as much as I really like you and agree with you, it's this sort of thing that makes the issue worse than it has to be. First of all, three of the justices themselves came down against it in a split decision. Do we just piss on them for their decision?
My comment was more of a reaction to one particular person within this thread....

[KevinTBrown]

Hmmmm, I wonder what John McCain feels about this.....?

Let's find out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clfqfl9Bs-0

[Corrina]

I have been reading the U.S. Constitution this morning. Pretty readable, for a legal document. And I could still sing the preamble.

I didn't see anywhere in there that 'all people are created equal.'

The Declaration of Independence (which doesn't have any legal standing, much as we love that document) does say that "all men are created equal."

And the Constitution over the years has added amendments which have banished slavery and given women the right to vote, and lowered the voting age to 18, and various other rights but it doesn't state "all people are created equal."

It does start with "We the People," which has been an important element over the years in the question about state's right because it indicates the Union was formed by 'people,' but by the governmental entities known as 'states.'

Yes, yes, being a pain in the ass stickler.

[Alex L]

Point out for me how the traditional "marriage = 1 man and 1 woman" is unconstitutional.

And if you were to somehow manage that, point of for me how the constitution then allows "Marriage = 2 people of either gender" but does NOT allow any other combinations, such as 3 or 4 people, etc. WHERE in the freakin' CONSTITUTION does all that get spelled out, exactly and precisely, huh?

This was the completely WRONG way to go about this, and if the US Supreme Court doesn't overturn it, I'm considering voting for the constitutional amendment even though I was opposed to it before this. I still don't think this should be part of the constitution, but now we're down to no other options...

Just not sure what I'm going to do yet.

Point out how the state defining the government definition of marriage (not the religious version) as "man + woman" is constitutional.

Personally, I'd rather the government get rid of the term "marriage" completely since that seems to be the cause of the whole thing.

Call hetero, homo, transgender couplings civil unions, personal partnerships, dual togetherfuls, call them whatever you want to call them but NOT marriage.

The law was equal. It said "People have the right to marry 1 individual of the opposite sex, of the appropriate age, who is not already married to someone else." And that has been constitutional for a very long time. The judges just decided to create a new law, even though that isn't supposed to be part of the Judicial Branch's power. But if 1 part of that equation has been arbitrarily declared "unconstitutional", why does the rest of it still stand?

The very institution of Marriage, as well as the rule of law, has suffered a blow today. I hope it can be repaired soon, before it's too late.

And the law is now still equal. You can now marry a person of the same gender, just like anyone else. :smile:

[KevinTBrown]

I have been reading the U.S. Constitution this morning. Pretty readable, for a legal document. And I could still sing the preamble.

I didn't see anywhere in there that 'all people are created equal.'

The Declaration of Independence (which doesn't have any legal standing, much as we love that document) does say that "all men are created equal."

And the Constitution over the years has added amendments which have banished slavery and given women the right to vote, and lowered the voting age to 18, and various other rights but it doesn't state "all people are created equal."

It does start with "We the People," which has been an important element over the years in the question about state's right because it indicates the Union was formed by 'people,' but by the governmental entities known as 'states.'

Yes, yes, being a pain in the ass stickler.

Duh. You're right. *slaps forehead*

[stamen]

There is no "sanctity of marriage" involved. None. Sanctifying marriages is not what the government does; that's a matter entirely left to churches. If that is indeed the issue, then it's far, far too late for that as gay couples have been entering marriages that have been sanctified by a variety of churches, temples, and other religious organizations.

That's at least one reason why I voted against the "sanctity of marriage" constitutional amendment in my state. I personally think it is misplaced to think the government has any really say-so over what I or any other person considers sacred. Religious people willing to lay that power at the feet of the government must also then be willing to admit that the government can take away the power as they see fit. I don't think most religious people think that far ahead, assuming that they "think" at all. Seems like this debate has 20 years of "emotional" history attached to it.

[stamen]

So long as there are safeguards in place to ensure that those getting married are of age and are giving a full, informed and free consent, I don't have problem with that either, to be honest. An animal can't consent, so you can't marry an animal. A child can't consent, so you can't marry a child (that means you weird polyagmist cults marrying 12 year olds). And if you threaten someone into marriage, it's null and void. Sure, some will slip through the cracks on that third one - but that happens already with straight marriages.

I admit I only read the first twenty or thirty pages of the ruling (I hope to finish it tonight), but I totatlly agree. I think the phrase "two consenting adults" probably ought to the standard for the civil recognition of a union. Then leave it to individual religious entities to determine the level of affilation they wish to generate with regards to the term "sacred."

[Solaris]

Point out how the state defining the government definition of marriage (not the religious version) as "man + woman" is constitutional.

Personally, I'd rather the government get rid of the term "marriage" completely since that seems to be the cause of the whole thing.

Call hetero, homo, transgender couplings civil unions, personal partnerships, dual togetherfuls, call them whatever you want to call them but NOT marriage.



And the law is now still equal. You can now marry a person of the same gender, just like anyone else. :smile:


Actually, I'll quibble a bit with you on this... because the law is not equal until adults may marry whom they choose---and for a few of the folks out there, that really *does* include more than one person. So even though the rights of gay couples are answered by this law, the rights of those who wish to be part of a multiple marriage are still unanswered.

And yes, I know that group marriages have been villified in our country for centuries, and that before laws were passed against group marriages, there were abuses by certain persons of the group marriage concept. That doesn't invalidate the concept; it merely points to ways in which the laws of the time didn't address the rights of various partners in the marriage as being equal, with equal protections under the law. Basically, you had situations where women (and/or children) were being forced into marriages, were being suppressed, abused, etc. (As we've seen recently with that current case in Texas, too.) Then again, those problems have also existed in heterosexual monogamous marriages over the years----so pinning it totally on group marriages is unfair.

The reality is, everyone in a marriage, whether it's gay or straight, monogamous or poly, needs to be granted the same rights, privileges, and protections under the law, and have said rights, privileges, and protections enforced. At that point the government's role ends, IMO.

(And honestly, the biggest headache for govt. in terms of group marriages, all other things being equal (rights, protections, etc.) is that in a group marriage, it makes legal disputes over things like custody, property ownership, etc. a bit more complicated---but that's no reason not to allow such marriages in the first place. After all, any divorce is complicated, or inheritance disagreement... and somehow our system is still willing to cope with, and arbitrate, sorting all that out.)

Further, just as "not every gay couple will want to marry," not every polyamorous person will want to marry... but it's nice to have the right to do so, if one wishes such a committment.

In a lot of ways, our society is in it's teen-aged growing pains, in coming to terms with our own identity over what we see as being legally permissible. I hope that we weather it okay, that we don't get *stuck* in our teen years, and that eventually, adults are allowed to make the legal arrangement they choose, with all parties having the same rights and protections. Right now though, we have far too many people who insist that the society must be "black or white---shades of color and variance cannot exist" because they fear what it will say about themselves and their own choices, as if somehow the woman down the street's decision to marry her lady sweetheart, or both her sweethearts, will by some mysterious contagion, make the neighborhood a contaminated place, and make this other neighbor's life questionable.

When you boil it all down, a lot of it comes from the chicken syndrome: peck to death any chicken who has spots, instead of being the same color as the rest of the flock.

Hopefully, we'll outgrow our chicken thinking within this century.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Point out for me how the traditional "marriage = 1 man and 1 woman" is unconstitutional.

Don't have to.
Our state supreme court did it for us.

Glory, hallelujah!

[Solaris]

Point out for me how the traditional "marriage = 1 man and 1 woman" is unconstitutional.


Sam, slavery was allowed under the consitution for years; women were kept as second class citizens without the right to vote for years---that didn't make those things *right.*

Our Constitution was never meant to be "The Ten Commandments Carved In Stone"---it was meant, and designed, to be a living, breathing entity that would grow and change with the peoples it represents and protects. There were many issues (like slavery) that the framers simply didn't address at the time, because they *had* to get something drawn up, but knew if they included those issues in the initial document, it would never be approved by their current generation's representatives. So instead, they built into it processes for amending the document in future generations, in the hope that their grandchildren and beyond *would* be up to recognizing certain ills in society and amending the document to address those ills... and in general, to give us a document that would grow as we grew.

[Alex L]

Actually, I'll quibble a bit with you on this... because the law is not equal until adults may marry whom they choose---and for a few of the folks out there, that really *does* include more than one person. So even though the rights of gay couples are answered by this law, the rights of those who wish to be part of a multiple marriage are still unanswered.

And yes, I know that group marriages have been villified in our country for centuries, and that before laws were passed against group marriages, there were abuses by certain persons of the group marriage concept. That doesn't invalidate the concept; it merely points to ways in which the laws of the time didn't address the rights of various partners in the marriage as being equal, with equal protections under the law. Basically, you had situations where women (and/or children) were being forced into marriages, were being suppressed, abused, etc. (As we've seen recently with that current case in Texas, too.) Then again, those problems have also existed in heterosexual monogamous marriages over the years----so pinning it totally on group marriages is unfair.

The reality is, everyone in a marriage, whether it's gay or straight, monogamous or poly, needs to be granted the same rights, privileges, and protections under the law, and have said rights, privileges, and protections enforced. At that point the government's role ends, IMO.

(And honestly, the biggest headache for govt. in terms of group marriages, all other things being equal (rights, protections, etc.) is that in a group marriage, it makes legal disputes over things like custody, property ownership, etc. a bit more complicated---but that's no reason not to allow such marriages in the first place. After all, any divorce is complicated, or inheritance disagreement... and somehow our system is still willing to cope with, and arbitrate, sorting all that out.)

Further, just as "not every gay couple will want to marry," not every polyamorous person will want to marry... but it's nice to have the right to do so, if one wishes such a committment.

In a lot of ways, our society is in it's teen-aged growing pains, in coming to terms with our own identity over what we see as being legally permissible. I hope that we weather it okay, that we don't get *stuck* in our teen years, and that eventually, adults are allowed to make the legal arrangement they choose, with all parties having the same rights and protections. Right now though, we have far too many people who insist that the society must be "black or white---shades of color and variance cannot exist" because they fear what it will say about themselves and their own choices, as if somehow the woman down the street's decision to marry her lady sweetheart, or both her sweethearts, will by some mysterious contagion, make the neighborhood a contaminated place, and make this other neighbor's life questionable.

When you boil it all down, a lot of it comes from the chicken syndrome: peck to death any chicken who has spots, instead of being the same color as the rest of the flock.

Hopefully, we'll outgrow our chicken thinking within this century.

I'm not really looking at this in terms of "marriage is for love" as much as "this union is an economic partnership."

Because we're talking about government recognition of a unit. Tax breaks, Green cards (where applicable), sharing of work-related health benefits, that sort of thing. Three, four, five people allowed to exist as one?

At this point, in this discussion, I'm not talking about amorous feelings at all.

[Gilda Dent]

That's at least one reason why I voted against the "sanctity of marriage" constitutional amendment in my state. I personally think it is misplaced to think the government has any really say-so over what I or any other person considers sacred. Religious people willing to lay that power at the feet of the government must also then be willing to admit that the government can take away the power as they see fit. I don't think most religious people think that far ahead, assuming that they "think" at all. Seems like this debate has 20 years of "emotional" history attached to it.

Just to clarify, just in case it sounded as if I were sniping at you, that wasn't my intent. There are certain phrases that tend to get on my nerves in debates of this sort and "sanctity of marriage" is one of those.

My hostility is towards those who attack gay marriage on that basis, not you. If it seemed otherwise, I apologize.

[cactusmaac]

How did I know immediately you'd jump right to the cult.

So, disregarding that sensationalist example of an abusive cult, is there any legitimate reason that polygamy is wrong? Because you know, there are plenty of abusive and/or generally unhealthy heterosexual marriages out there. Gotta be some kind of serious dysfunction driving that 50% divorce rate. So does that mean heterosexual marriage is bad and harmful by definition, and should be illegal?

Societally it leads to bad outcomes. You end up with rich, older men monopolising available females with the result that younger males go without. That leads to a rise in crime and violent behaviour as younger men vent their frustration on the world around them.


Many conservatives I know argue that Mexicans, legal and illegal, should be kicked out, and Muslims should be put in camps.

Should we give a dick what they think, too?

Because THAT'S the "slippery slope" that I find worrisome, not where two dudes are putting their cocks.

http://jontangerine.com/media/418-strawman.jpg

[Agent Helix]

http://jontangerine.com/media/418-strawman.jpg

You could at least try and find a less shitty cartoon if you're going to try and convince me that appeasing bigots is okay.