California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[justjake]

In that case, black people got the legal right, but those who'd discriminated against them didn't suddenly magically view them as "equal", so I really don't see your point.[/QUOTE]

Because they didn't have any rights. in this case, in many states, including California which is where most of the controversy is, there is domestic partnership law. So they have the same rights, which a lot of conservative people have gone along with. They just don't have the word marriage.

 

[bodie54]

Because they didn't have any rights.

Sure they did. The 14th amendment saw to that. The problem was that local and state Jim Crow laws designated seperate but (theoretically) equal status to all non whites while mandating de jure segregation of all public facilities.

The 1954 Supreme Court case of Brown vs Topeka Board of Education ruled that "separate but equal is inherently unequal", and that therefore state-sponsored school segregation was unconstitutional. Even so, Jim Crow laws persisted until the Civil Rights acts 1964/65

Advocates for gay marriage argue that same sex unions that legally differ from hetero ones violate the "separate but equal is inherently unequal" doctrine.

So they have the same rights

No they don't. Domestic partnerships do not confer all of the rights marriages do. Here's a short primer outlining the differences

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html

 

[bustybbwlover]

Because law and religion are two seperate things, hence the seperation of church and state. Just because a religion does or doesn't condone some aspect of life, it doesn't mean that everybody should be able to do it. There are religions that condone polygamy, so should we be able to marry as many people as we want (at one time), just because there are religions that are ok with it?

:dunno:

you're ignoring the fact that law and religion aren't separate things. if a guy and a gal get married, by any recognized religious leader, it's recognized by the state.

 

[ChefChiTown]

you're ignoring the fact that law and religion aren't separate things. if a guy and a gal get married, by any recognized religious leader, it's recognized by the state.

Do you know what the seperation between church and state means? It means that government institutions are to be kept seperate from religious institutions in the sense of seperating the religious views from the legal views when deciding how our society should work (the rights that are given and the laws that will be enforced).

Example - According to the Ten Commandments, people aren't allowed to worship any other god than God, himself. There are no laws in the United States that prohibit anybody from worshipping more than one god.

Example - Some religions look down upon people who have pre-marital sex and consider it a sin. There are no laws in the United States that prohibit people from having pre-marital sex.

And, no...if two people get married by a recognized religious leader, it does not automatically mean that it is recognized by the state. You have to get a marriage license first, or else you won't be recognized as being legally married (according to US law). Also, the only reason that the state even recognizes religious marriage ceremonies is because the United States promotes religious freedom and won't ignore your marriage just because you followed a religious protocol. But, you still have to get a marriage license first, so you can be legally married, according to the state.

 

[Baill Inneraora]

Some people in this thread have said marriage should only be something between a man and a woman. Can anybody give me a well thought out argument (apart from tradition or religion) for this kind of thinking? How does a gay couple getting married affect society or you as a person in a negative way? And if you can't come up with a well thought argument against gay marriage why are you still against it? And again, leave tradition and religion out of it because that's just blindly following the hurd.

Because the next thing you know, those gays are going to try to turn all of our kids gay! Won't someone save the children?!

 

[Rattrap]

Because the next thing you know, those gays are going to try to turn all of our kids gay! Won't someone save the children?!

Considering our population growth, converting a bunch of the youth gay would be good for everyone. It would solve employment, space and energy problems down the line!

 

[bustybbwlover]

Do you know what the seperation between church and state means?

absolutely and yet that's not the case, true you do need a marriage license from the state but marriage is sanctioned by a religious official nonetheless. unless you're gay in which case the religious officiates sanction is not recognized, except in some states. do i believe marriage should only be sanctioned by the state? absolutely. then if someone wants to get it sanctioned by a clergy member so be it.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Some people in this thread have said marriage should only be something between a man and a woman. Can anybody give me a well thought out argument (apart from tradition or religion) for this kind of thinking? How does a gay couple getting married affect society or you as a person in a negative way? And if you can't come up with a well thought argument against gay marriage why are you still against it? And again, leave tradition and religion out of it because that's just blindly following the hurd.

Boothbabe I have pondered your question for a while and think maybe I can give you at least a glimpse into how some may find such a thing objectional even without it being based on religion but tradition is possible.

Even as the person who started this thread and a long time atheist and is supportive of the courts decision I being very straight find homesexuality at least for me personally something I could never see myself drawn to and really to be honest find especially between men kinda repugnant.I guess I'm saying I do think man-woman is the natural thing.

I won't deny that may be just something ingrained in me at early age and am a homophobe lol.

But I do think that just because I and others may feel that way is not any reason to deny others the right to live their lives as they see fit and to see it differently.As lots have said if two men or two women wanna get married whats it to us? I don't think we are really threatened by allowing people to be different in such ways,I'm not at least.

Diifferent strokes for different folks is Ok by me.

 

[max0rz]

and now we have # 6 folks.
NH says yes to Gay Marriage
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ne.../04/30/gay_marriage_bill_passes_in_nh_senate/

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

The right has truly mastered the art of fear mongering, right down to the most strained, minute details. And all the while ignoring the fact our ex-president provided those folks with more perceived justification and propaganda fodder than they could have wished for in their wildest wet dreams.

I didn't quote anyone or paraphrase any particular ideology. I never listen to talk radio except occasionally NPR during the weekend and I definitely wouldn't categorize that as "The right." My opinions are formulated through my own observations and experiences dealing with Saudis, Iraqis and Kuwaitis.

The people over there don't particularly care who is in the white house. They're equal opportunity haters. They feared as well as hated both the Bush administrations as well as Reagan. When Clinton was in office the terrorists were encouraged to continue with their actions because they didn't have any fear of retaliation. When the WTC was attacked in 1993 there was no reprisal. Same with the bombing of the Komar tower and the attack on the USS Cole. Sure he fired a few tomahawks but there wasn't any response that let the terrorists know we weren't going to fuck around with them anymore. And that is just as good as encouraging them. I was off the coast of Somalia in 1993 when the "Blackhawk Down" incident occurred and every Marine I was with was seriously pissed off that we didn't go in there and whip some ass. Well that, and the don't ask don't tell bs.

They do see an opportunity to expand their extremism when they see the permissiveness and godlessness running through our country with no counter balance.

The same political correctness that pervades our schools and politics is ultimately going to be our downfall. Muslims are calling for a worldwide Caliphate. How fucked would open homosexuals be if we lived under Sharia law instead of our Constitution? Sure we should be sensitive to others, but by bending over backwards to accommodate a minority of any type at the price of the rights of the majority will allow certain groups to exploit a desire to not offend anyone. The fear of being seen as an islamophobe or for that matter, a homophobe causes people to waffle on their core principles. And yes I do see gay marriage as an infraction of my rights. It takes away a measure of the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage. It lessens the qualities that make the union special.

Merely being in residence is the basis for pride? What if you're gay and a large % of the other residents find your sexual orientation unacceptable, or even "abhorrent", in so many instances?

No. Service to my country and fighting for this country are my basis for my pride. I suppose I should have included that in my post so it wouldn't confuse anyone but most people who are familiar with me know of my love for this country and my desire to see it maintain a level of greatness.

 

[Rattrap]

And yes I do see gay marriage as an infraction of my rights. It takes away a measure of the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage. It lessens the qualities that make the union special.

I don't know that this could be any farther away from my values, observations, thoughts or philosophies.

So I will just ask: how?

 

[max0rz]

An excellent piece here, from the right leaning website hotair, which discusses the whole sanctity of marriage issue.
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/04/22/let-gays-have-marriage-were-not-using-it/

 

[Rattrap]

An excellent piece here, from the right leaning website hotair, which discusses the whole sanctity of marriage issue.
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/04/22/let-gays-have-marriage-were-not-using-it/

I enjoyed this article. My favorite excerpt:

Gay marriage is going to be a fact of life. So is polygamy, because the arguments for gay marriage easily carry over to support it. That’s already coming to a court in Canada. Given a bit more time, society will accept it, and a court will find a reason to allow it, first in Canada, then here. In London, they can’t even bestir themselves to fight against forced marriage in any serious way. In a multi-cultural society, marriage means whatever people want it to mean, and complaining about that is “intolerant.”

Where we need to focus our attention at this point is making sure that newly created “human rights” don’t overtake our right to speak and act as we please. We need to make sure people are free to refuse work on same sex ceremonies unlike this New Mexico Christian photographer who was required to pay an over $6600 fine. We need to make sure that American pastors can’t be subjected to show trials, forced to renounce their faith and suffer big fines for repeating what the bible says. In short, we need to get busy making sure that dissent WILL be tolerated.

What?! Live and let live?! ...who does that anymore?

 

[Boothbabe]

And yes I do see gay marriage as an infraction of my rights.

http://www.uploadhouse.com/viewfile.php?id=4080357&PHPSESSID=7327be68b172db2e5ef4a8c516313e5f

You still have the right to get married so stop talking out of your ass.
And isn't it funny how those of you who see gay marriage as somehow attacking your rights are just conveniently forgetting that it's you who have always tried and are still trying to deny gay people the right to get married. There's a word that describes what you are.....a hypocrite.

 

[Baill Inneraora]

http://www.uploadhouse.com/viewfile.php?id=4080357&PHPSESSID=7327be68b172db2e5ef4a8c516313e5f

You still have the right to get married so stop talking out of your ass.
And isn't it funny how those of you who see gay marriage as somehow attacking your rights are just conveniently forgetting that it's you who have always tried and are still trying to deny gay people the right to get married. There's a word that describes what you are.....a hypocrite.

I don’t know that he is legitimately being a hypocrite as much as he is just using phrases and arguments to try and justify his prejudice, open hostility and hate. I believe there is a special place in hell for people like that.

 

[ChefChiTown]

http://www.uploadhouse.com/viewfile.php?id=4080357&PHPSESSID=7327be68b172db2e5ef4a8c516313e5f

You still have the right to get married so stop talking out of your ass.
And isn't it funny how those of you who see gay marriage as somehow attacking your rights are just conveniently forgetting that it's you who have always tried and are still trying to deny gay people the right to get married. There's a word that describes what you are.....a hypocrite.

So, if someone is against marriage between cousins, mothers and sons or fathers and daughters, but feels as though they (as an individual) should be allowed to get married themselves, does that make them a hypocrite too?

:dunno:

I think you have to look at it this way...

You have your beliefs and other people have theirs. Your beliefs aren't going to be exactly like everyone else's and vice versa.

Just as you believe that you, as a homosexual, should have the right to get married and are dead-set in your reasoning for how you feel, other people believe that you, as a homosexual, shouldn't have the right to get married and are dead-set in their reasoning for how they feel. Your reasons as to why you feel that homosexuals should be allowed to get married will be ignored and invalidated by the people who believe that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married, just as the reasons as to why other people feel that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married will be ignored and invalidated by you.

Unfortunately, that will never change. People aren't going to change their beliefs just because somebody raises their voice about it.

:2 cents:

 

[Boothbabe]

So, if someone is against marriage between cousins, mothers and sons or fathers and daughters, but feels as though they (as an individual) should be allowed to get married themselves, does that make them a hypocrite too?

You're now comparing marriage within a family to gay marriage, that's just silly.

I think you have to look at it this way...

You have your beliefs and other people have theirs. Your beliefs aren't going to be exactly like everyone else's and vice versa.

But there's one major difference in the case of gay marriage. If my girlfriend and I get married it doesn't affect the personal lives of those who are against gay marriage in any way nor will it ever. However, those who try to stop gays from getting married are trying to directly affect the personal lives of gay couples who want to get married.

The question is, if it doesn't affect them in any way on a personal level (and it also doesn't affect society as a whole, the world isn't going to dramatically change if gay marriage is legalized worldwide) why are they still against it? Because someone once taught them it's wrong. It's just learned behaviour, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[D-rock]

And yes I do see gay marriage as an infraction of my rights. It takes away a measure of the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage. It lessens the qualities that make the union special.

I'm not intending to be mean here, but that might be the most nonsensical thing I have ever read on Freeones, and that's saying something.

I could also pretty much use a slight variation of that rationale as an excuse to ban pretty much anything in reality I didn't like, even if it didn‘t really effect me in any practical way. I could see people doing it now, "That religion shouldn’t be allowed because it's existence diminishes the quality and specialness of my religion. That ethnic group shouldn’t be allowed because it diminishes the specialness of my own group. That political stance shouldn’t be allowed because it diminishes the sanctity of my own views. That activity shouldn't be done because it diminishes the quality of my own activities." The fact that the quality and sanctity of your own spiritual beliefs depends on people actions that have nothing to with you seems sad. The fact you would then use that as an excuse to infringe on them seems very pathetic.

People might have spiritual beliefs and other opinions that are different from yours, boo hoo, that's life. At least all the gay marriage people out there aren't forcing you to marry somebody that's the same gender because heterosexual marriage isn't what they believe in.

 

[Boothbabe]

I'm not intending to be mean here, but that might be the most nonsensical thing I have ever read on Freeones, and that's saying something.

I could also pretty much use a slight variation of that rationale as an excuse to ban pretty much anything in reality I didn't like, even if it didn‘t really effect me in any practical way. I could see people doing it now, "That religion shouldn’t be allowed because it's existence diminishes the quality and specialness of my religion. That ethnic group shouldn’t be allowed because it diminishes the specialness of my own group. That political stance shouldn’t be allowed because it diminishes the sanctity of my own views. That activity shouldn't be done because it diminishes the quality of my own activities." The fact that the quality and sanctity of your own spiritual beliefs depends on people actions that have nothing to with you seems sad. The fact you would then use that as an excuse to infringe on them seems very pathetic.

People might have spiritual beliefs and other opinions that are different from yours, boo hoo, that's life. At least all the gay marriage people out there aren't forcing you to marry somebody that's the same gender because heterosexual marriage isn't what they believe in.

I do believe johnnystyro just got owned Rep points for you D-rock :bowdown:

@ johhnystyro: I want you to stop posting here because your posts deminish the specialness of my posts

 

[ChefChiTown]

You're now comparing marriage within a family to gay marriage, that's just silly.

But wouldn't it still be hypocritical?

But there's one major difference in the case of gay marriage. If my girlfriend and I get married it doesn't affect the personal lives of those who are against gay marriage in any way nor will it ever. However, those who try to stop gays from getting married are trying to directly affect the personal lives of gay couples who want to get married.

The question is, if it doesn't affect them in any way on a personal level (and it also doesn't affect society as a whole, the world isn't going to dramatically change if gay marriage is legalized worldwide) why are they still against it? Because someone once taught them it's wrong. It's just learned behaviour, nothing more and nothing less.

You could say that about any two people who want to get married though. Gay, straight, bi-sexual, trans-sexual, pedophile, rapist, murderer, cousins, etc.

If a man wants to marry his daughter and she wants to marry him, their potential marriage wouldn't effect you or I in any way, shape or form (which is your own argument), but that's just "silly", right? Believe it or not, the way that you feel my example of inter-family marriages is silly is the same way some people feel about gay marriage. There is nothing I, or anyone else, can say that will change how you feel about the sillyness of inter-family marriages, just as there is nothing you, or any other homosexual, can say that will change how some people feel about the sillyness of homosexual marriage.

The point I was making is that people are set in their ways. If somebody doesn't agree that two homosexuals should be allowed to get married, nothing is going to change their mind (and vice versa).