CA allows same sex marriage

meistereder

mammasan wrote:

The way I see it if a heterosexual or homosexual couple walks into their town hall/city hall the should be issued a civil union. Federal/state/local governments have no right getting themselves involved in marriages. If a couple wants to get married they should go to their mosque, temple, or church to do so.

But of course, that would be too logical. Then we couldn't reopen this issue every two years or so and use it as a litmus test for whether we agree with a certain politician.

angelica

meistereder wrote:

But of course, that would be too logical. Then we couldn't reopen this issue every two years or so and use it as a litmus test for whether we agree with a certain politician.

norm

"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.

"So-called 'same-sex' marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it's in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable."

i can't believe this type of ignorant thinking still exists.....two words for you matt - fuck off!!

VictoryGin

cutback wrote:

"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.

"So-called 'same-sex' marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it's in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable."

i can't believe this type of ignorant thinking still exists.....two words for you matt - fuck off!!

i'm going to go ahead and assume matt is a man. i find it funny he is a policy director for a group called concerned women for america. or rather find it suspect. if the women are so concerned, why aren't they the policy directors?

Cosmo

farfromglorified wrote:

On behalf of all heterosexuals, I'd like to welcome California's homosexuals into the world of emotional humiliation, sexual deficiency, financial chaos, and painful divorce!

...
I know... Why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us, right?
Let's see how long before that 'Gay' moniker gets dropped.

decides2dream

farfromglorified wrote:

On behalf of all heterosexuals, I'd like to welcome California's homosexuals into the world of emotional humiliation, sexual deficiency, financial chaos, and painful divorce!

nice!


one can have all that without marriage too - well except the divorce bit, but close enough. i think homosexuals are actually looking for the benefits associated with marriage more than anything though. perhaps a wee bit more 'public validity' to their relationships as well, and rightly so.

NMyTree

Does dis means I'ez can marry my goat and sheep?

Golly! I reckon I'ez gonna' be one happy hillbilly!!:D

Commy

NMyTree wrote:

Does dis means I'ez can marry my goat and sheep?

Golly! I reckon I'ez gonna' be one happy hillbilly!!:D

its up to the goat really.

Heineken Helen

Commy wrote:

its up to the goat really.

does the sheep not get a say? :mad:

Abookamongstthemany

decides2dream wrote:

nice!


one can have all that without marriage too - well except the divorce bit, but close enough. i think homosexuals are actually looking for the benefits associated with marriage more than anything though. perhaps a wee bit more 'public validity' to their relationships as well, and rightly so.

Why does one, whether homo/heterosexual, even need the public to make their relationship 'valid'?

baraka

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Why does one, whether homo/heterosexual, even need the public to make their relationship 'valid'?

When my husband and I made it official, it was a spur of the moment decision on Halloween to take a trip to the JP. It was, of course, non-religious, and actually very odd. ha ha......Anyway we had a small ceremony several months later, almost a year. It a marriage or a civil union? Are there more benefits from 'marriage' than 'civil union' other than the 'public validation?'

Heineken Helen

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Why does one, whether homo/heterosexual, even need the public to make their relationship 'valid'?

well thats a whole other thread . But why should some people be able to validate it and others can't?


Some people get married cos it's the thing to do or cos it's tradition or cos they like the idea of it or cos everybody else wants it or for tax reasons... nothing wrong with any of those reasons... others do it cos they believe in god and they want their union to become official under the eyes of god. I guess if you have no belief whatsoever it's hard to understand... but anybody with any ounce of faith, even if marriage is not their thing, would understand or at least accept that it's what others believe and what they want.

Heineken Helen

baraka wrote:

Are there more benefits from 'marriage' than 'civil union' other than the 'public validation?'

I think there are very few people who get married for the PUBLIC validation. I believe in God and therefore I see marriage as much deeper and more special than civil union... but that's cos I believe... if I didn't believe I probably wouldn't see any kinda big deal at all... but I don't expect everyone to have the same opinion as me

MakingWaves

I personally have no problem with gay marriage but my concern is this. Didn't the people of California vote against gay marriage a few years back? This sounds like the vote of the people being overridden by a few judges which bothers me.

Also, I heard that this topic will be on the agenda again come November in California so it will probably be voted down again by the people.

Abookamongstthemany

Heineken Helen wrote:

well thats a whole other thread . But why should some people be able to validate it and others can't?

I'm all for people getting married if that's what they want to do. I just don't understand the need, personally and was unclear about why one would seek 'public validity'.

Heineken Helen

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I'm all for people getting married if that's what they want to do. I just don't understand the need, personally and was unclear about why one would seek 'public validity'.

but I've just explained that that's not what it's about... it may be A reason... but for most it's more than likely the smallest reason! There are several reasons that come ahead of it... and that's just a nice bonus.

Abookamongstthemany

Heineken Helen wrote:

but I've just explained that that's not what it's about... it may be A reason... but for most it's more than likely the smallest reason! There are several reasons that come ahead of it... and that's just a nice bonus.

I understand the reasons you gave and am aware those reasons exist. I'm only questioning the reason I left in my reply.

Strangest Tribe

Why would anyone want to control someone else's life? Why would it ever matter if homosexuals got married? Enlighten me. If you are deeply religious, isn't it a sin to have sex out of wedlock? Now you don't want marriage? I'm confused. Maybe you should stop worrying about what other people do that doesn't harm you.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Why does one, whether homo/heterosexual, even need the public to make their relationship 'valid'?

I love you a little bit right now, abook.........nice post

Strangest Tribe

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Why does one, whether homo/heterosexual, even need the public to make their relationship 'valid'?

Just because they're homosexual doesn't mean they don't have religious values and deserve the same rights as heteros. There's millions of homosexuals that attend church as well