California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[gunslingingbird]

I think that California didn't have civil union before. I know that a lot of places don't and in some of those that do, it's not considered to be a legally binding contract and entail the same rights and responsibilities as marriage.

Oh, they did have that in California. I have quite a few coworkers that are fall under this category, and they all had civil union rights.

What bothers me is that marriage is the legal union of a couple for the purpose of procreation. How are two individuals of the same sex supposed to procreate? I don't mean adoption or artificial insemination with donated sperm. I'm talking about the natural process of conception. Yes, I can just hear somebody shouting right now about how normal couples aren't always fertile enough to have children, but they at least have the right genetic disposition to do so. Also, if a kid grows up with 2 dads or 2 moms, don't they think that it's gonna psychologically screw them up?

The last time this issue came up on ballots a few years ago some of the people against same-sex marriage were gays. They argued that marriage was the opposite of their lifestyle. Why would it be any different now?

 

[hothannah]

... if a kid grows up with 2 dads or 2 moms, don't they think that it's gonna psychologically screw them up?

I'd be more worried about growing up around people with narrow minded views.

I respect your right to have these views, but I think they potentially possess far more psychological and social dangers on young people being taught to think this way than having same sex parents.

 

[calpoon]

'Marriage' is a human made word. That means that the word can mean anything that human's decide that it means. And since law's in America are made, in the end, by the courts; then the courts have spoken (apparently) that the word 'marriage' in the state of California now means a union between gays and lesbians also.

This bears repeating.

The earth used to be flat and at the center of the Universe. Now the Vatican says there are Aliens. The times they are a changin'. Get used to it.

 

[Jagger69]

Good. It should be left up to the individual states to decide this issue. Like it or not, gays are human beings eligible for all of the inalienable rights that are assured to us all.

As some comedian said....."I'm all for gay marriage. Why shouldn't they have the opportunity to be just as miserable as the rest of us?".

 

[Rattrap]

What bothers me is that marriage is the legal union of a couple for the purpose of procreation.

I absolutely firmly reject this notion as one of the weak arguments against same-sex marriage (though to be fair, they all are). Considering most marriages end in divorce anyhow, I'd prefer they didn't produce children.

What was wrong with just a civil union ?

"Separate but Equal" ring a bell? Historically speaking, it isn't. And even if it was - even if civil unions offered all of the same benefits - nay, especially if they did - why not grant them that extra privilege of title? It hurts no one. It does nothing to the "sanctity of marriage" (a phrase that makes me laugh anyway). All it does is make some folks happy while pissing off some who haven't any business screwing with the formers' lives anyway.

We're still far from leaving behind our history of oppression. Remember when interracial marriage was illegal? Would you still support outlawing it now? Because you've just as much basis to support that as you do outlawing same-sex marriage.

Sorry if I sound rough. I'm all for being a bigot in one's own home, but as soon as it's put into legislation, it crosses a line (not pointing any fingers here - just on principle). Kudos to the court for knocking it down. That's what it's there for, after all.

 

[Facetious]

in any event, today's action defies the democratic process and the will of the majority open or closed mindedness notwithstanding

 

[gunslingingbird]

in any event, today's action defies the democratic process and the will of the majority open or closed mindedness notwithstanding

Bingo. This is the supreme court saying, "We know that you people have voted for something, but we don't give a rat's ass what all you peons think, so go fuck yourselves."

 

[YMIHERE]

in any event, today's action defies the democratic process and the will of the majority open or closed mindedness notwithstanding

Bingo. This is the supreme court saying, "We know that you people have voted for something, but we don't give a rat's ass what all you peons think, so go fuck yourselves."

Gentleman, one of the functions of the courts is to determine if a law is constuitional. Popular votes can not created a law that is unconstitutional. It would be like a popular vote to ban free speech. The courts found the law unconstitutional so the remedy would be to pass a constitutional amendment. The state constitution is the law of the land in its state not popular voted laws.

 

[Facetious]

Gentleman, one of the functions of the courts is to determine if a law is constuitional. Popular votes can not created a law that is unconstitutional. It would be like a popular vote to ban free speech. The courts found the law unconstitutional so the remedy would be to pass a constitutional amendment. The state constitution is the law of the land in its state not popular voted laws.

ahh, yes ! semantics !

off to wed my cat :nono: :tongue:

 

[YMIHERE]

ahh, yes ! semantics !

off to wed my cat :nono: :tongue:

I hope it's a female cat and make sure you get a prenuptial agreement.

 

[hothannah]

And I hope the prenup has got a get out "claws" ...... doh.

 

[slackerguy]

It's about fuckin time one of the states stood up to the increasingly popular ban on gay marriage. The whole "domestic partnership" thing is just stupid and why does marriage have to mean "1 man and 1 woman?"

Also, you can get ordained online and in some states that means you can preform the marriage ceremony just cause you printed out an ordination certificate w/ your name inserted. haha. So what's to stop me, or anybody for that matter, from going around preforming the marriage ceremony for gay couples? I think I went off on a tangent, and I forgot the point I was trying to make. oops. haha.

 

[darkwarrior3007]

I don't understand how two people of the same sex getting married affects anyone other than the two people getting married. Especially since we live in a country with a high divorce rate. People want to talk about the sanctity of marriage but Americans are getting divorced left and right, are having children out of wedlock and cheating on their spouses like it's going out of style. Where's the sanctity of marriage there? That argument holds no merit anymore. It wasn't that long ago that it was illegal for interracial couples to get married? Why can't two people who love each other get married. Is it harming you? In what way does it harm you?

 

[D-rock]

I don't have a problem with any two adults getting married. They should be allowed all the rights any other people have. The fact that's something is tradition, even an extremely long-standing one, isn't a good enough excuse to not give people equal rights. Neither is popular opinion for that matter.

I think the concept of marriage should have never been something recognized by the government in the first place. It should always have been left as a religious issue that everybody could decide what it meant for themselves. The government should have always just recognized civil unions of any type of couple.

 

[Facetious]

In what way does it harm you?

Stuff like this opens up a pandora's box of new bureaucracies, special activist groups etc. Who knows where it will lead ? To what ends will the progressivists take us !

It's a Mad Mad world ! Glad I'll be gone before it really gets creepy ! (i hope) :eek:


Oh ! The paranoid world overpopulation freaks - This is your day ! :nanner:

 

[marquis2]

I absolutely firmly reject this notion as one of the weak arguments against same-sex marriage (though to be fair, they all are). Considering most marriages end in divorce anyhow, I'd prefer they didn't produce children.



"Separate but Equal" ring a bell? Historically speaking, it isn't. And even if it was - even if civil unions offered all of the same benefits - nay, especially if they did - why not grant them that extra privilege of title? It hurts no one. It does nothing to the "sanctity of marriage" (a phrase that makes me laugh anyway). All it does is make some folks happy while pissing off some who haven't any business screwing with the formers' lives anyway.

We're still far from leaving behind our history of oppression. Remember when interracial marriage was illegal? Would you still support outlawing it now? Because you've just as much basis to support that as you do outlawing same-sex marriage.

Sorry if I sound rough. I'm all for being a bigot in one's own home, but as soon as it's put into legislation, it crosses a line (not pointing any fingers here - just on principle). Kudos to the court for knocking it down. That's what it's there for, after all.

Because marriage is DEFINED as a voluntary union between man and woman it should be possible to find a different description.

 

[Nomad 800]

This bears repeating.

The earth used to be flat and at the center of the Universe. Now the Vatican says there are Aliens. The times they are a changin'. Get used to it.

The Vatican says there are aliens? I didn't know that.

 

[Bigoldowls]

Here in the UK gay people can get "married". It's known as a 'civil partnership'.

 

[l.t.21378]

'Marriage' is a human made word. That means that the word can mean anything that human's decide that it means. And since law's in America are made, in the end, by the courts; then the courts have spoken (apparently) that the word 'marriage' in the state of California now means a union between gays and lesbians also.


BTW. Has anyone else noticed that gay male couples seem to usually be better looking humans then most lesbian female couples? Why is that?
Don't believe me? Watch a gay pride parade sometime. Even the highlights on the news; you will see what I mean.

Marriage was instituted by God, not man. Man is the one that has changed and perverted God's marriage laws. NO man can change God's laws, not one, the marriage laws have already been set and cannot change. The governments of the world can pass laws saying it's ok to divorce or get remarried, but those are just gross violations of God;s marriage laws. Human wisdom and morality is seriously flawed.

 

[dave_rhino]

Good for them, just as long as none of them adopt kids.