Gay Marriage Ban

FiveB247x

Yesterday we were supposed to thank the armed forces for their deeds to our nation. Today we should lower the flag to half-mass and wonder what has happened to our senses. When religious discrimination is legitimized, freedom, justice and liberty are cast aside.

"If the advocates of apartheid had their wits about them they would claim - for all I know truthfully - that allowing mixed races is against their religion. A good part of the opposition would respectfully tiptoe away. And it is no use claiming that this is an unfair parallel because apartheid had no rational justification. The whole point of ... Read Morereligious faith, its strength and chief glory, is that it does not depend on rational justification. The rest of us are expected to defend our prejudices. But ask a religious person to justify their faith and you infringe "religious liberty". - The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins pg. 22 & 23

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage

polaris_x

i think iran also bans gay marriage ... :?

decides2dream

Justice Carlos Moreno wrote the dissenting opinion disagreeing that the proposition did not change the constitution's equal protection clause. He said the law denying same-sex couples the right to wed "strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution." He said it represents a "drastic and far-reaching change."

"Promising equal treatment to some is fundamentally different from promising equal treatment for all," said Moreno, who had been mentioned as a possible contender for the U.S. Supreme Court. "Promising treatment that is almost equal is fundamentally different from ensuring truly equal treatment."




well said.



sad to see in cali. there have been victories elsewhere, guess have to wait and see when the vast majority of the rest of the country does embrace true equality, my home state included.......

VINNY GOOMBA

The government should have no say in marriage anyway.

tybird

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

The government should have no say in marriage anyway.

yep....separation of church and state

jlew24asu

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

The government should have no say in marriage anyway.

tybird wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

The government should have no say in marriage anyway.

yep....separation of church and state

this has nothing to do with the church. but does have everything to do with the government and laws(rights) given to married people. by people I mean a man and woman. if you are a man and a man or woman and a woman, you aren't allowed the same rights. the laws do not apply to "them"

norm

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

The government should have no say in marriage anyway.

should have no say in practically everything



makes me sick to be a californian....and we're supposed to be the "left coast"....not so much when iowa is more liberal than us

decides2dream

jlew24asu wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

The government should have no say in marriage anyway.

tybird wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

The government should have no say in marriage anyway.

yep....separation of church and state

this has nothing to do with the church. but does have everything to do with the government and laws(rights) given to married people. by people I mean a man and woman. if you are a man and a man or woman and a woman, you aren't allowed the same rights. the laws do not apply to "them"

exactly.
marriage is a legal institution, and it may also be a religious institution....but in reality it should have nothing to do with the seperation of church and state b/c we are discussing legal marriages, not religious.....but i fear religion does play a big role here in denying rights to others.


i may be in the minority, but i "like"...for lack of a better term, the government being involved in marriage. it makes it 'easy' to legally declare my partner, my beneficiary, the person i want to speak on my behalf, etc, etc. it's a legal arrangement. obviously, it also is so much more than this to most of us.....but in the eyes of the law, that's what it's about....and i like that. i think the homosexual community would 'like' it too...thus why they fight for this same right. as down on marriage as many can and may be, there is a lot of convenience built into it.

Evil Merlin Part Deux

I was disappointed on November 4th, and I'm still just as disappointed, although I'm not as surprised this time. I somewhat expected this would happen but was still holding out for a miracle for our once great state. Gawd Bless Kahlifornia.

whitepants

I am so pissed that Prop 8 was upheld. It makes no sense that a state like California could harbor so many people who are ignorant about basic human rights and civil rights. Those who agree with Prop 8, simply do not believe in equal rights to gay people, and in essence, that's bigotry and discrimination.

So fucked up! :(

polaris_x

what is scary as the force behind the passing of proposition 8 will now focus their attention on another state ...

tybird

norm wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

The government should have no say in marriage anyway.

should have no say in practically everything



makes me sick to be a californian....and we're supposed to be the "left coast"....not so much when iowa is more liberal than us

The funny thing about Iowa is that by trying to squash gay marriage, they wrote a law that the courts overturned....it's not like the citizens of Iowa voted for gay marriage.

norm

tybird wrote:

norm wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

The government should have no say in marriage anyway.

should have no say in practically everything



makes me sick to be a californian....and we're supposed to be the "left coast"....not so much when iowa is more liberal than us

The funny thing about Iowa is that by trying to squash gay marriage, they wrote a law that the courts overturned....it's not like the citizens of Iowa voted for gay marriage.

you know what i meant

VINNY GOOMBA

Why not just have a will, or some other legal document declare who your beneficiaries are, or who can speak for you, and still keep government out of deciding who can marry and who can't?

decides2dream wrote:

exactly.
marriage is a legal institution, and it may also be a religious institution....but in reality it should have nothing to do with the seperation of church and state b/c we are discussing legal marriages, not religious.....but i fear religion does play a big role here in denying rights to others.


i may be in the minority, but i "like"...for lack of a better term, the government being involved in marriage. it makes it 'easy' to legally declare my partner, my beneficiary, the person i want to speak on my behalf, etc, etc. it's a legal arrangement. obviously, it also is so much more than this to most of us.....but in the eyes of the law, that's what it's about....and i like that. i think the homosexual community would 'like' it too...thus why they fight for this same right. as down on marriage as many can and may be, there is a lot of convenience built into it.

decides2dream

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Why not just have a will, or some other legal document declare who your beneficiaries are, or who can speak for you, and still keep government out of deciding who can marry and who can't?

decides2dream wrote:

exactly.
marriage is a legal institution, and it may also be a religious institution....but in reality it should have nothing to do with the seperation of church and state b/c we are discussing legal marriages, not religious.....but i fear religion does play a big role here in denying rights to others.


i may be in the minority, but i "like"...for lack of a better term, the government being involved in marriage. it makes it 'easy' to legally declare my partner, my beneficiary, the person i want to speak on my behalf, etc, etc. it's a legal arrangement. obviously, it also is so much more than this to most of us.....but in the eyes of the law, that's what it's about....and i like that. i think the homosexual community would 'like' it too...thus why they fight for this same right. as down on marriage as many can and may be, there is a lot of convenience built into it.

if it was so easy as just having a will, why would the homosexual community be fighting for this right? that is only one of many intrinsic 'benefits' to legal marriage. the government is already involved in marriage, i've not seen good reason for that to end, personally. only the government can offer legal rights to marrige, not a church or people on their own....so yea...it takes more than simply drwaing up a will to do so, and why would i want to have to pay for a bunch of legal documents to be drawn up, when i simply can get a marriage license for what, $25?...and it's all set. i think simply allowing homosexuals to marry is the last step in true equality/access to marriage.

btw - i know of many couples, heterosexual and not, who have gone thru the legal paperwork to protect their assets, their loved ones, etc......and it IS a lot of work, and nice amount of $$$ to spend, when if one got married....viola...it's done. marriage makes that 'easy'.........that's all.

VINNY GOOMBA

decides2dream wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Why not just have a will, or some other legal document declare who your beneficiaries are, or who can speak for you, and still keep government out of deciding who can marry and who can't?

decides2dream wrote:

exactly.
marriage is a legal institution, and it may also be a religious institution....but in reality it should have nothing to do with the seperation of church and state b/c we are discussing legal marriages, not religious.....but i fear religion does play a big role here in denying rights to others.


i may be in the minority, but i "like"...for lack of a better term, the government being involved in marriage. it makes it 'easy' to legally declare my partner, my beneficiary, the person i want to speak on my behalf, etc, etc. it's a legal arrangement. obviously, it also is so much more than this to most of us.....but in the eyes of the law, that's what it's about....and i like that. i think the homosexual community would 'like' it too...thus why they fight for this same right. as down on marriage as many can and may be, there is a lot of convenience built into it.

if it was so easy as just having a will, why would the homosexual community be fighting for this right? that is only one of many intrinsic 'benefits' to legal marriage. the government is already involved in marriage, i've not seen good reason for that to end, personally. only the government can offer legal rights to marrige, not a church or people on their own....so yea...it takes more than simply drwaing up a will to do so, and why would i want to have to pay for a bunch of legal documents to be drawn up, when i simply can get a marriage license for what, $25?...and it's all set. i think simply allowing homosexuals to marry is the last step in true equality/access to marriage.

btw - i know of many couples, heterosexual and not, who have gone thru the legal paperwork to protect their assets, their loved ones, etc......and it IS a lot of work, and nice amount of $$$ to spend, when if one got married....viola...it's done. marriage makes that 'easy'.........that's all.

A great answer.

decides2dream

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

A great answer.

aha, so it was a trick question all along eh?

i just see many so *against* marriage...and i really don't get it. if one doesn't want to get married...cool........but to be 'against' it i truly don't understand. yes, getting out of a marriage can be difficult, and costly.....but i also think, why should it be easy? there are soooo many *benefit* to being married, benefits that one can easily acquire, simply by getting a marriage license, going to a courthouse, having your vows witnessed, and then done.....easy. it would take sooo much to get *all* those benefits without marriage, and even then don't know if you can get them all...or if you should. i know especially with healthcare, many do offer domestic partner insurance for same-sex couples....but it IS a lot of documentation. on the one hand, rightly so...b/c if one is offering this benefit, the paperwork, etc, if it changed regularly would be momumnetal work all on it's own. right there, with gay marriage...problem solved. now i know even within the heterosexual community there are those who want the 'rights of marriage' but without the marriage......and idk, just seems like having your cake and eating it too? how can you garner all the benefits, and none of the pitfalls if it does demise? even without marriage, if you own property together, or have children together...it can be quite nightmarish, i've seen it with a few friends. still can be nightmarish even with marriage, but at least there are laws, and recourse, etc. and as i said....just the overall intrinsic benefits, from day one of getting married...to me, from a legal standpoint, just make it so *worth it* to keep marriage and government relations together. and thus....yes....exactly why homosexuals rightly fight for the right to legal marriage.

*disclaimer - this is not to say one should not have a will, or a health care proxy, etc - b/c these things ARe important. just saying that, in essence so many legal rights are afforded simply by getting married....and sure, even withdeath and no will.....sure, can be contested, but property is usually deeemed to the survivor spouse if no will, etc.

tybird

norm wrote:

tybird wrote:

norm wrote:

should have no say in practically everything



makes me sick to be a californian....and we're supposed to be the "left coast"....not so much when iowa is more liberal than us

The funny thing about Iowa is that by trying to squash gay marriage, they wrote a law that the courts overturned....it's not like the citizens of Iowa voted for gay marriage.

you know what i meant

Yep....but it seems that a lot of folks do believe that Iowa actually voted for gay marriage.

norm

tybird wrote:

Yep....but it seems that a lot of folks do believe that Iowa actually voted for gay marriage.

this is america....we have the right to be completely uninformed and ignorant....hell just read the moving train! :P

jlew24asu

norm wrote:

tybird wrote:

Yep....but it seems that a lot of folks do believe that Iowa actually voted for gay marriage.

this is america....we have the right to be completely uninformed and ignorant....hell just read the moving train! :P

:evil:

norm

jlew24asu wrote:

norm wrote:

tybird wrote:

Yep....but it seems that a lot of folks do believe that Iowa actually voted for gay marriage.

this is america....we have the right to be completely uninformed and ignorant....hell just read the moving train! :P

:evil: