California legalises Gay Marriage

[CptStern]

A sharply divided California Supreme Court today legalized same-sex marriage, a historic ruling that will allow gay and lesbian couples across the state to wed as soon as next month and inflame the social, political and moral debate over gay unions.

In a 4-3 ruling written by Chief Justice Ronald George, the Supreme Court struck down California laws that restrict marriage to heterosexual couples, finding that it is unconstitutional to deprive gays and lesbians of the equal right to walk down the aisle with a marriage license in hand.

hooray for joining the 21st century ...however this person had a good point:

all this means is that there will be a ballot initiative in November to amend the state constitution, which will bring the Republicans out to vote for John McCain. look for this to happen in a lot of states actually, as a way to drive the R's to vote.

nothing makes Republicans vote faster than fear of the queers.

same thing helped Bush get elected in 2004

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_9269719?nclick_check=1

 

[Iliketobenaked]

This was needed.

 

[The Monkey]

Good for them.

 

[Nitre]

Good for them.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Ubik]

yaaaaaaaaaaaaayy

Now I have three choices of where I can move when I am older: Canada, Massachesetts, and now California.

 

[Eejit]

yaaaaaaaaaaaaayy

Now I have three choices of where I can move when I am older: Canada, Massachesetts, and now California.

He's a gay! The trapped worked! Get him!

 

[Ubik]

He's a gay! The trapped worked! Get him!

oh noes! every forum I go to there's a homo trap!

 

[Nemesis6]

oh noes! every forum I go to there's a homo trap!

And we're all professional queer-baiters!

 

[Tagaziel]

Come on people, let Ubik live...

You self-loathing homos...

 

[Nemesis6]

Come on people, let Ubik live...

You self-loathing homos...

I don't hate myself, I love myself!... Oh crap...

 

[JNightshade]

About damned time

 

[CptStern]

I don't hate myself, I love myself!... Oh crap...

is this you coming out of the closet? ...you do know that right wing peeples usually hate teh gays right?

 

[Tyguy]

He's a gay! The trapped worked! Get him!

i had a nice chuckle over that one...i award you 4 points

 

[mastag]

is this you coming out of the closet? ...you do know that right wing peeples usually hate teh gays right?

50 pages later...

 

[Dan]

I agree with Ron Paul on this one. Marriage as defined by the state should just be called civil union and have nothing to do with marriage as defined by religion.

 

[Ubik]

I agree with Ron Paul on this one. Marriage as defined by the state should just be called civil union and have nothing to do with marriage as defined by religion.

I'm basically okay with that. As long as there are equal rights between marriages and civil unions (which right now there aren't) I'm okay with gay marriage not being officially defined as marriage, and instead being defined as civil unions.

However, I'm still more fond of being completely equal and therefore I am in favor of gay marriage over civil unions that have the same benefits. Besides, there are still some religious gays and some churches that accept gays.

 

[Dan]

I'm basically okay with that. As long as there are equal rights between marriages and civil unions (which right now there aren't) I'm okay with gay marriage not being officially defined as marriage, and instead being defined as civil unions.

However, I'm still more fond of being completely equal and therefore I am in favor of gay marriage over civil unions that have the same benefits. Besides, there are still some religious gays and some churches that accept gays.

That isn't what I said. I said that marriage, should be left to the churches. There should be no legal consequence of marriage. Civil union is what the government should concern itself with.

 

[Ubik]

That isn't what I said. I said that marriage, should be left to the churches. There should be no legal consequence of marriage. Civil union is what the government should concern itself with.

okay. what I said still stands though. As long as the civil union is a strong one (equally as strong as marriage), I am okay with what you said.

 

[theotherguy]

I agree with Ron Paul on this one. Marriage as defined by the state should just be called civil union and have nothing to do with marriage as defined by religion.

Agree, but it should also come with the association that religious marriage should provide no legal benefits whatsoever, and priests should not be allowed to perform civil unions.

EDIT: You already said it. Basically, Marriage should be an informal religious tie, while civil unions should be recognized by the state and should allow unions between two people.

 

[Nemesis6]

is this you coming out of the closet? ...you do know that right wing peeples usually hate teh gays right?

Well, I'm not a right winger! I despise most of what the right wing has to say about morals, etc. I feel they let down the common citizens. Our liberal government is doing that, too, and I'm personally feeling the pressure from their so-called welfare reforms that completely screwed up the (well-working) system in place, so obviously I have to be a libertarian if this is the kind of stuff you can expect from liberals. But then again I have not tried living under a conservative/right wing government, but still I know the kind of stuff they stand for, so that pushes me into the middle where you have no idea who to vote for because you have to choose between bad and worse. If the conservatives or whatever they wanna call themselves today can fix people just being ignored by the state, I'll gladly overlook their homophobia, faux Christian morals, etc, because as far as beaurocracy goes, they cannot possibly be worse than the sort of liberals and socialists we have in Denmark.

To give an example - Woman loses both her legs, is kept waiting for 3 years to get an electric scooter to even be able to move. Instead, she's offered foot therapy. Add to that the fact that the municipality at one points believes her dead, then delivers a letter to her son calling on him to deliver any aid borrowed from them back. That can happen with both you might say? Exactly, again, squeezes me into the middle because I hate both.

Now back to the topic -- A seperate, non-religious marriage would indeed be the way to go.

 

[ríomhaire]

I think that there should be no such thing as a legal marriage. Have marriage as just a set of vows that two people can take if they so chose that has no legal effect. Take all the laws (or at least the ones that make sense) to do with marriage and make them into civil union laws.

*looks up* Oh. Everyone has already said the same thing...

 

[CptStern]

Agree, but it should also come with the association that religious marriage should provide no legal benefits whatsoever, and priests should not be allowed to perform civil unions.

EDIT: You already said it. Basically, Marriage should be an informal religious tie, while civil unions should be recognized by the state and should allow unions between two people.

what's the use of having it equal if it's not the same thing? equal but separate is still discrimination ..and no religious institutions should not have a monopoly on marriage. why should we redefine what it means to be "married" just because religious groups dont want hetero marriages and same sex marriages in the same grouping? ..they had no problem when people without faith were married, hell you could get married by Elvis while parachuting ffs ..all of the sudden we need a "redefinition"? what's the point of giving them equal rights? to give it religious significance to marriage when there's aboslutely no consensus between faiths or marriage tradition this late in the game is just giving the religious groups what they want: ownership of marriage ,,which they didnt have to begin with. Religious groups should keep their noses out of other people's business, no one is forcing them to change their marriage tradion or even to start performing same sex marriages ..this decision does not affect their status quo, so really they have no say in the matter

 

[Mr Stabby]

I agree with Ron Paul on this one. Marriage as defined by the state should just be called civil union and have nothing to do with marriage as defined by religion.

This.

 

[Solaris]

'Will you unite with me in a civil partnership of mutual agreement?'

Doesn't have the same ring.

 

[CptStern]

because it's not the same thing ..I for one dont believe we should redefine marriage for the sake of placating homophobic religious groups ..they can go **** themselves

 

[Solaris]

Agreed

 

[CrazyHarij]

because it's not the same thing ..I for one dont believe we should redefine marriage for the sake of placating homophobic religious groups ..they can go **** themselves

But it's politically correct and appeals to a lot of people with money, I'm pretty convinced we'll be seeing that separation for quite some time

 

[CptStern]

perhaps in countries where they dont take equality seriously ..they can allow themselves to discriminate despite the obvious contradiction . Thankfully not all nations see it that way; some dont let religious special interest groups speak for the rest of the country at least in issues of equality

 

[Mr Stabby]

marriage is a religious concept.

 

[CptStern]

which religion?

Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends or religious beliefs concerning the origins of marriage

catholicism for example only made it a ritual to be married in front of a priest in 1566 ..marriage predates that


various cultures throughout history have similiar marriage rituals despite the fact that they never intermingled; obviously there is no consensus, therefore there is no one marriage ritual

 

[Absinthe]

I'm not really sure what religious body has the authority to define what marriage is supposed to mean. It's not like theists are uniform on this. Just like Christians who support abortion rights or the teaching of evolution, there are many people and churches who don't view homosexuality or same-sex marriage as sinful. We allow adulterers and the divorced to remarry, even though those are supposed to be big no-no's among some religious circles. This isn't even including other religions and their respective offshoots.

We're pretty willing to accomodate a lot of personalized (or liberalized) religious preferences when it comes to marriage, so I don't see why we can't here. I'm not really clued into the legalities or technicals of the debate, but I don't see any problem with allowing a gay couple to adopt a religious concept. If people think it's an intolerable abheration, they can simply not participate in them. I imagine that's a pretty simple task if you're straight.

 

[Mr Stabby]

That quote from wikipedia even suggests marriage is a religious institution. It's certainly far more a part of religion than it is the affairs of the state, marriage only became state regulated about 150 years ago.

A civil-union (carried out by the state) is equal to a marriage in legal terms, so why the insistence on calling it marriage, when it has no religious part.

If a church did perform a same sex marriage in a church endorsed by their religion, then it would be a marriage but I'm not aware of any church that does that.

 

[CptStern]

That quote from wikipedia even suggests marriage is a religious institution.

yes only if you omit the other part:

Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends or religious beliefs concerning the origins of marriage

and again, which religion? which tradition? which ritual?

It's certainly far more a part of religion than it is the affairs of the state, marriage only became state regulated about 150 years ago.

and a religious tradition much later than that for some newer religions ...so does the fact that it was state regulated before the religion came into being does that somehow validate it as a non religions event? simply saying that state controlled marriage is recent does not make it a religious tradition ..because there is absolutely no consensus between religions, therefore none of them has the "correct" definition

A civil-union (carried out by the state) is equal to a marriage in legal terms, so why the insistence on calling it marriage, when it has no religious part.

why not? what does religion have to do with it? i wasnt married in a religious ceremony ..I no more consider myself to be in a civil union than I consider myself religious ..up until same sex marriage religious groups had absolutely no propblem with this ..this new movement to redefine marriage is just fear of the gay nothing more

If a church did perform a same sex marriage in a church endorsed by their religion, then it would be a marriage but I'm not aware of any church that does that.

there are several ..the United Church for example ..so should they be considered civil unions and not "true marriage" as well because christians dont recognise female clerymen or the United Church's legitimacy as the true christian religion for that matter? who would ultimately decide which religious tradition is ok and which isnt? the christians? NO religious group has a monopoly on marriage so they need to shut up

 

[Mr Stabby]

yes only if you omit the other part:



and again, which religion? which tradition? which ritual?

Religion in general, most religions follow similar marriage formula, so similar that the state was able to copy it.

and a religious tradition much later than that for some newer religions ...so does the fact that it was state regulated before the religion came into being does that somehow validate it as a non religions event? simply saying that state controlled marriage is recent does not make it a religious tradition ..because there is absolutely no consensus between religions, therefore none of them has the "correct" definition

Show a form of marriage that is neither religious or carried out by the state. It's been a religious practice much longer than it's been a state practice. Since atheism only emerged about 130 years ago I doubt you'll find many secular marriages before state civil-unions.

why not? what does religion have to do with it? i wasnt married in a religious ceremony ..I no more consider myself to be in a civil union than I consider myself religious ..up until same sex marriage religious groups had absolutely no propblem with this ..this new movement to redefine marriage is just fear of the gay nothing more

That's their problem, not mine. Although a civil union carried out by the state isn't really a marriage, and strictly speaking should be defined as such but no one seems to care.

there are several ..the United Church for example ..so should they be considered civil unions and not "true marriage" as well because christians dont recognise female clerymen or the United Church's legitimacy as the true christian religion for that matter? who would ultimately decide which religious tradition is ok and which isnt? the christians? NO religious group has a monopoly on marriage so they need to shut up

What? You've turned this into an anti-Christianity rant.

 

[CptStern]

Religion in general, most religions follow similar marriage formula, so similar that the state was able to copy it.

that's not true ..they copied the ritual aspect not the religious ..and the ritual is the same throughout many religions ..so it's the chicken and the egg thing:

the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history

Show a form of marriage that is neither religious or carried out by the state. It's been a religious practice much longer than it's been a state practice. Since atheism only emerged about 130 years ago I doubt you'll find many secular marriages before state civil-unions.

aethism has been around as long as there's been religion ..not everyone is stupid you know

and again just because religious tradition predates the state tradition does not make it religious ..the ritual is non religious ..it's the religious part that they add to it that makes it different


so again which religion, which ritual and which version of marriage should we be following?

That's their problem, not mine.

ok then spell out why exactly you think gays shouldnt be married? or that there should be a distinction

Although a civil union carried out by the state isn't really a marriage,

look you're getting hooked up in technicalities ..what's the different between a justice of the peace and a religious person ..is a marriage by either any different than the other? fundamentally speaking ..I dont know a single married couple who refers to their marriage as a civil union despite the fact most were not married in a church

and strictly speaking should be defined as such but no one seems to care.

no one seems to care until it's the gays, then all hell breaks loose ..really chrisitians need to stfu about this issue they have no right to say anything ..a guy at work believes in chriatian marriage only ..his bitterness when talking about gay marriage is stiflying ..although I usually like this person I want to kick him in the groin for trying to push his idiotic ideals on the rest of us ..this is what bothers me

What? You've turned this into an anti-Christianity rant.

it's on topic and makes a point about the ownership of marriage ..not my fault they stick their noses where it doesnt belong

 

[Mr Stabby]

that's not true ..they copied the ritual aspect not the religious ..and the ritual is the same throughout many religions ..so it's the chicken and the egg thing:

Still copied from the religious practice of marriage.

aethism has been around as long as there's been religion ..not everyone is stupid you know

Until a naturalistic explanation of life and the universe emerged, religion was used to explain those things. Atheism is almost not existent until very recently in human history. Also there are very intelligent religious people and some very stupid atheists.

and again just because religious tradition predates the state tradition does not make it religious ..the ritual is non religious .It's the religious part that they add to it that makes it different

It kinda does. The concept of union before God is the original basis for marriage, it served no other purpose until our modern legal system emerged.

so again which religion, which ritual and which version of marriage should we be following?

It's up to the religion what marriage they follow, but the state is secular.

ok then spell out why exactly you think gays shouldnt be married? or that there should be a distinction

Civil union = secular, marriage = religious.

look you're getting hooked up in technicalities ..what's the different between a justice of the peace and a religious person ..is a marriage by either any different than the other? fundamentally speaking ..I dont know a single married couple who refers to their marriage as a civil union despite the fact most were not married in a church

Well I'd say they're wrong to do so, not that it matters how people personally view it. The definition only matters on a legal/religious level

no one seems to care until it's the gays, then all hell breaks loose ..really chrisitians need to stfu about this issue they have no right to say anything ..a guy at work believes in chriatian marriage only ..his bitterness when talking about gay marriage is stiflying ..although I usually like this person I want to kick him in the groin for trying to push his idiotic ideals on the rest of us ..this is what bothers me

You want to impose your marriage views on him and vice versa. Ron Paul position is the most logical.

it's on topic and makes a point about the ownership of marriage ..not my fault they stick their noses where it doesnt belong

Marriage is a religious institution, so they can legitimately object to the state undermining their religious beliefs. They don't have a legitimate case against secular civil-unions though.

 

[CptStern]

Still copied from the religious practice of marriage.

which religion? source please

Until a naturalistic explanation of life and the universe emerged, religion was used to explain those things. Atheism is almost not existent until very recently in human history. Also there are very intelligent religious people and some very stupid atheists.

I disagree ..so long as their has been blief there's been non belief ..one cannot exist without the other ..perhaps as a concept or a s a movement but to say no one but modern man didnt believe in fairy tales is ridiculous

It kinda does. The concept of union before God is the original basis for marriage, it served no other purpose until our modern legal system emerged.

says who? it was a means of proerty distribution within families ..to say it was a union between man, woman and god is jst false ..it may hold true to christianity but marriage predates christianity or any modern religion

It's up to the religion what marriage they follow, but the state is secular.



Civil union = secular, marriage = religious.

according to whom? I am married, I'm not bonded in holy civil union. My marriage license says "Marriage license"

..I dont need a priest to get married, much like a jew doesnt need a priest or a buddhist or a pastafarian ..I only need a priest if I'm to be married in their church

Well I'd say they're wrong to do so, not that it matters how people personally view it. The definition only matters on a legal/religious level

only as they see fit to define it, again they have NO ownership of marraige ..it's as much a tradiotnal ritual as it is a religious ceremony ..they have every right to call themselves amrried because that's what it says on their marriage certificate

You want to impose your marriage views on him and vice versa. Ron Paul position is the most logical.

no, I want him to stop being a ****ing hypocrite ..I couldnt care less who marries whom ..however I dont like some special interest group dictating what I can call something

Marriage is a religious institution, so they can legitimately object to the state undermining their religious beliefs.

nope it is not a religios institution, just because you say it is does not make it so, they have no right to co-opt something that isnt there's to begin with ..they have monopoly on ttheir religious traditions, NO ONE ELSES

They don't have a legitimate case against secular civil-unions though.

they dont have a case on who can or cant be married, they do not own the practice, they can no more determine who is suitable or not ..only within their own tradions ..and I have no problems with that: they can remain steeped in ignorance for all I care: it's their perogative ..they just need to stfu about what other people do because it DOESNT AFFACT them in any way

 

[Mr Stabby]

which religion? source please

Well in the west, Christianity as it's the mainstream religion but Christianity copied it off it's predecessors. Source for what, that marriage was religious long before the state got involved, or that the state didn't invent marriage?

I disagree ..so long as their has been blief there's been non belief ..one cannot exist without the other ..perhaps as a concept or a s a movement but to say no one but modern man didnt believe in fairy tales is ridiculous

Only in a metaphysical sense, in practical terms God is as old as civilization, and until science was able to explained life and the universe God was invoked to do so.

says who? it was a means of proerty distribution within families ..to say it was a union between man, woman and god is jst false ..it may hold true to christianity but marriage predates christianity or any modern religion

But Christianity's views on marriage and women are quite similar to the religions it was created from.

according to whom? I am married, I'm not bonded in holy civil union. My marriage license says "Marriage license"

Well, heterosexuals get away with it, even if it isn't strictly correct.

..I dont need a priest to get married, much like a jew doesnt need a priest or a buddhist or a pastafarian ..I only need a priest if I'm to be married in their church

If your definition of marriage is the same as that of a secular civil union.

only as they see fit to define it, again they have NO ownership of marraige ..it's as much a tradiotnal ritual as it is a religious ceremony ..they have every right to call themselves amrried because that's what it says on their marriage certificate

Well maybe in Canada, but in the UK it's civil partnerships only, and in America there is certainyl a distinction, even Hillary and Obama support civil unions and not marriage becuase marriage is religious and religious people wouldn't like it.

no, I want him to stop being a ****ing hypocrite ..I couldnt care less who marries whom ..however I dont like some special interest group dictating what I can call something

He could be annoyed at 'secular progressives' undermining the religious significance of marriage by equating marriage and civil unions as the same.

nope it is not a religios institution, just because you say it is does not make it so, they have no right to co-opt something that isnt there's to begin with ..they have monopoly on ttheir religious traditions, NO ONE ELSES

It is religious, the type of union performed by a church has a god bit in it, the union performed by a state doesn't. They are not the same.

they dont have a case on who can or cant be married, they do not own the practice, they can no more determine who is suitable or not ..only within their own tradions ..and I have no problems with that: they can remain steeped in ignorance for all I care: it's their perogative ..they just need to stfu about what other people do because it DOESNT AFFACT them in any way

True, but liberal progressive should also stop imposing their atheistic view on marriage on religious people. I don't understand why they can't except civil unions, the only difference between the two is the God part.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Secularism 1, Fundies 0.

BTW, does this mean that in some states homosexuals cannot marry? Christ.

 

[CptStern]

Well in the west,

you're trying to pigeon hole it into something you can defend regardless if it's answering my question or not ..you made a statement that marriage is a religious institution, I asked which religion and you try to narrow it down to christianity when that isnt the question being asked

Christianity as it's the mainstream religion but Christianity copied it off it's predecessors. Source for what, that marriage was religious long before the state got involved, or that the state didn't invent marriage?

no source for your statement that:

..copied from the religious practice of marriage

Only in a metaphysical sense, in practical terms God is as old as civilization, and until science was able to explained life and the universe God was invoked to do so.

are you saying that p until the 20th century people believed god was the source of everything ..that's one hell of a monumental statement to prove ..but I'm going to have to ask for a source

btw no:

Although the term atheism originated in the 16th century, based on Ancient Greek ἄθεος "godless, denying the gods, ungodly"[1] and open admission to positive atheism in modern times was not made earlier than in the late 18th century, atheistic ideas and beliefs, as well as their political influence, have a more expansive history.

The spontaneous proposition that there may be no gods after all is likely as old as theism itself [I am correct, Stern] (and the proposition that there may be no God as old as the beginnings of monotheism or henotheism). Philosophical atheist thought appears from the 6th or 5th century BCE, both in Europe and in Asia.

But Christianity's views on marriage and women are quite similar to the religions it was created from.

and? the azrtecs also had a marriage ritual ..as did the hopi indians ..the bushmen of the kalahari had/have one too ..you're not suggesting that Christianity is the source of marriage because they're relatively young in comparison to most

Well, heterosexuals get away with it, even if it isn't strictly correct.

religious institutions do not own the title of marriage:

Amoing most Bushmen (of the kalihari), a wedding is a private event between the Bridegroom and the Bride. Only in exceptional cases may a guest be invited, but there is no celebration or other ritual as we understand it, only a private "ceremony" or agreement between the two people involved.

notice how they call it a wedding and not a civil union despite the lack of ****ing jesus?

http://abbott-infotech.co.za/tribes in the kalahari.html

If your definition of marriage is the same as that of a secular civil union.

so only christian marriages are marriages, all else are ..something else?

Well maybe in Canada,

we're based on british traditions

but in the UK it's civil partnerships only, and in America there is certainyl a distinction, even Hillary and Obama support civil unions and not marriage becuase marriage is religious and religious people wouldn't like it.

I dont care one bit what Hilary or Obama support it's completely meaningless ..and are you saying that unless you're married by a minister it's a civil union? all married jews are not really married, they're in a civil unon?

He could be annoyed at 'secular progressives' undermining the religious significance of marriage by equating marriage and civil unions as the same.

please, what the hell does that have to do with them? if it's not part of their traditions why would they care?

It is religious, the type of union performed by a church has a god bit in it, the union performed by a state doesn't. They are not the same.

yes they are ..a justice of the peace can and will use god in the ceremony ..in fact one of my friends who was married by a MINISTER even though there was no mention of god and neither tthe bride nor the groom were part of the minister's faith


again there is only ONE reason why this is an issue: homophobia

True, but liberal progressive should also stop imposing their atheistic view on marriage on religious people.

you're wrong, not a single person is forcing them to perform same sex marriages ..this is the misunderstand that the majority of christians believe in

I don't understand why they can't except civil unions, the only difference between the two is the God part.

"separate but equal is still discrimination"

is a pretty good start