CA allows same sex marriage

Pacomc79

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'.

It's purely in this sense about being able to do the same things as everyone else. File taxes jointly, be treated as a family member at the hospital. Very basic legal processes we take for granted. Yes in the most basic form it's absolutely insane that we have all these ridiculous rules and laws... kind of like 0 tolerance policies but this kind of thing is necessary for them to live like the rest of americans by the laws on the books.

That's the primary reason, to be treated as married people are in the legal sense, it really has nothing at all to do with religion or really validity. Yeah I'm with you though is there really a need for validation? Not particularly but there is something to be said about making a solid commitment if you take it seriously.

meistereder

MakingWaves wrote:

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.

The court is not in place to weigh the will of the people. The court is in place to abide by the constitution. If the people of California voted to ban the right of African Americans to marry (as was once the law), the court would step in and override that. Sometimes the majority rules aren't the end all be all when it comes to constitutional issues. In fact, the courts' job, as upholder of the constitution, is to protect discriminated minorities, of course.

NMyTree

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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

They don't.

A piece of paper, the approval of the Federal Goverment (and some religious icon); means absolutely nothing. It's just a way of keeping track of people and their mating habits.

Now, there's some very valid and wise reasons to keep track of who's breeding with who. You know, like incest. Or accidental incest.

But none of that proves one's love and depth of commitment and loyalty.

And let's not forget that "Marriage" became BIG MONEY for a lot of different types of businesses. Churches, Reception halls, Caterers, Florists, Taliors/clothing, bands and liquor companies:D

Two Birds

I am all for more civil rights for all!! If it doesn't really affect myself or my family who the hell cares. If people want to have it on paper so be it....let it be. OH....and I just have to say "when is PJ coming to Ontario again"??????? Listened to a little "Barrie 98" in my car on the way to work...

MakingWaves

meistereder wrote:

The court is not in place to weigh the will of the people. The court is in place to abide by the constitution. If the people of California voted to ban the right of African Americans to marry (as was once the law), the court would step in and override that. Sometimes the majority rules aren't the end all be all when it comes to constitutional issues. In fact, the courts' job, as upholder of the constitution, is to protect discriminated minorities, of course.

Good point and that makes sense.

I'm curious as to what will happen come this November and the people vote to ban it if the court will again overturn that.

farfromglorified

MakingWaves wrote:

Good point and that makes sense.

I'm curious as to what will happen come this November and the people vote to ban it if the court will again overturn that.

The vote will likely be to ammend the Constitution, and I don't think that could be overturned by the state Supreme Court. Hopefully the population of California comes to its senses before that vote.

mammasan

farfromglorified wrote:

The vote will likely be to ammend the Constitution, and I don't think that could be overturned by the state Supreme Court. Hopefully the population of California comes to its senses before that vote.

I believe that Arnold stated that he would not allow a measure to amend the state's constitution to be placed on the ballots in November.

farfromglorified

mammasan wrote:

I believe that Arnold stated that he would not allow a measure to amend the state's constitution to be placed on the ballots in November.

Intruiging. Can Arnold actually stop it from being on the ballot if they gather enough signatures? Or can he only veto it once passed? I need to do some research...

mammasan

farfromglorified wrote:

Intruiging. Can Arnold actually stop it from being on the ballot if they gather enough signatures? Or can he only veto it once passed? I need to do some research...

I was thinking the same thing.

decides2dream

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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

they don't.

if you reread my post, i did NOT say they need/want 'validity'.....just that they might need/want 'public validity'...they are not one and the same thing, no? from a relationship/personal level i am sure EVERY couple, regardless of sexual, or any other, orientation...considers their relationship 'valid.' seeking 'public validity' refers to the benefits of a legal marriage...such as a heterosexual couple may have without issue. i thought the whole point of homosexuals WANTing the legal right to marry to be completely linked with that. i for one am happy to see, slowly, homosexuals being granted these rights just as heterosexuls, and just i think is right for all. from a LEGAL perspective, i have always fully believed hetero or homo-sexual, all are entitled to these rights. from a religious perspective, i leave that up to the religions....


aha, yes...thank you:

Pacomc79 wrote:

It's purely in this sense about being able to do the same things as everyone else. File taxes jointly, be treated as a family member at the hospital. Very basic legal processes we take for granted. Yes in the most basic form it's absolutely insane that we have all these ridiculous rules and laws... kind of like 0 tolerance policies but this kind of thing is necessary for them to live like the rest of americans by the laws on the books.

That's the primary reason, to be treated as married people are in the legal sense, it really has nothing at all to do with religion or really validity. Yeah I'm with you though is there really a need for validation? Not particularly but there is something to be said about making a solid commitment if you take it seriously.

exactly what i meant by 'public validity.'

Abookamongstthemany

decides2dream wrote:

they don't.

if you reread my post, i did NOT say they need/want 'validity'.....just that they might need/want 'public validity'...they are not one and the same thing, no? from a relationship/personal level i am sure EVERY couple, regardless of sexual, or any other, orientation...considers their relationship 'valid.' seeking 'public validity' refers to the benefits of a legal marriage...such as a heterosexual couple may have without issue. i thought the whole point of homosexuals WANTing the legal right to marry to be completely linked with that. i for one am happy to see, slowly, homosexuals being granted these rights just as heterosexuls, and just i think is right for all. from a LEGAL perspective, i have always fully believed hetero or homo-sexual, all are entitled to these rights. from a religious perspective, i leave that up to the religions....


aha, yes...thank you:





exactly what i meant by 'public validity.'

Equal legal rights should most definitely be given to all. I don't see that as having the same meaning as 'public validation'. But if that's how you meant it then I agree, most couples probably want the same legal rights and should have them.

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

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

Aww:)

decides2dream

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Equal legal rights should most definitely be given to all. I don't see that as having the same meaning as 'public validation'. But if that's how you meant it then I agree, most couple probably want the same legal rights and should have them.

yep, that is what i meant by it.
to me, being able to have a legal marriage is giving 'public validation' to homosexual relationships, the same as heterosexual relationships, that was all. the good, the bad and the ugly...rights for all.

meistereder

In many ways, it's very similar to the "separate but equal" doctrine that was overturned in Brown v. Board. Separate is inherently unequal. Even though the civil union laws gave some benefits, it's a separate thing.

The rule of law evolves with public sentiment. There was a time when an African American was not considered a whole person. That sentiment changed slowly, and the courts eventually made some landmark decisions. Similaryl, it seems that we are on the dawn of a new sentiment that the concept of marriage should include gays and lesbians. I have a cousin in Europe who is gay and is married to another man. Everything is recognized just as if he were a heterosexual. It's amazing how normal his life is, compared to all of this controversy in the US.