California Supreme Court Holds that Gay Marriage must be Allowed under the California Constitution
By
lawrocket, in Speakers Corner
QuoteIt doesn't matter if you or I or jesus think that it's wrong for two men to marry, or unnatural, or an abomination of God. Our laws and freedoms should not be based on Biblical morality. I harms nobody for a same-sex couple to marry. They should not be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation.
I agree with you. I dont believe anyone should be discriminated against ever. But this is a question of whether the courts decided that it is morally right, again, they hid it under the civil rights category. I understand how people could not see how it harms others around them, but it does. We are sending a message loud and clear to not only the world, but to our children as well, and their childrens children, that same sex marriages is ok. People truly believe that homosexual marriages is on the same plane as interacial marriages.
"We didn't start the fire"
jcd11235 0
QuoteWe are sending a message loud and clear to not only the world, but to our children as well, and their childrens children, that same sex marriages is ok.
Good. That is a message worthy of being sent loud and clear. Of course we're not the first country to acknowledge that same sex marriages are okay. Many, if not most civilized nations have already acknowledged that fact.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
Quote***They shouldnt be completely ignorant or naive to them though.
Ah, I see now. If one doesn't believe in the Christian moral, then he/she is ignorant and naive. Got to give it to Jesus. He sure knew how to teach his students to be egocentric!
I would be very interested to see what you believe to be right and wrong. I truly am sorry if you believe I am coming off as egocentric.
"We didn't start the fire"
Lindsey 0
Maybe the reason we're sending the message that same-sex marriage is okay is because it is.
--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail
Interesting claim considering you conveniently didn't answer my questions pertaining to god and homosexuality.
>>>>Ill get to that, but give me some time, I dont even remember what you asked.
>>>>I dont believe it is a civil rights issue, because it crosses into morality. Many dont believe that it is a moral issue at all. This is the core difference. Instead, they believe it is morally not right to restrict civil liberties based on sexual orientation. So, the core moral issue is hidden underneath a civil issue.
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. What law was passed?
>>>>No I dont know what law was passed. That is why I said earlier that I have overstepped my boundaries. I make it a point usually to not get involved with politics. Im a moral person, and my morals are bred from the righteousness of Jesus.
Just as I feel it is morally wrong to be a religious fundamentalist, but I don't believe that in itself justifies prison sentences.
>>>>Yes, I agree.
I have to call bullshit. I've lived in a few cities with higher than average GLBT populations, as well as being raised in the belt buckle of the bible belt. If anything, the diversity is good for kids. Being around gays doesn't make people gay any more than being around cancer victims causes cancer.
>>>>Strongly disagree.
So basically, you understand and acknowledge that being gay is not a choice (i.e. God made gay people gay, from a creationist perspective).
>>>>Ill get to that, but give me some time, I dont even remember what you asked.
>>>>I dont believe it is a civil rights issue, because it crosses into morality. Many dont believe that it is a moral issue at all. This is the core difference. Instead, they believe it is morally not right to restrict civil liberties based on sexual orientation. So, the core moral issue is hidden underneath a civil issue.
QuoteBut the law has taken a moral issue (with much of the country and the world) and covered it under a cival rights issue. On top of that, they passed a law making what they did ok.
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. What law was passed?
>>>>No I dont know what law was passed. That is why I said earlier that I have overstepped my boundaries. I make it a point usually to not get involved with politics. Im a moral person, and my morals are bred from the righteousness of Jesus.
QuoteIn my opinion, it should remain wrong, morally, whether or not people decide to do it is up to them.
Just as I feel it is morally wrong to be a religious fundamentalist, but I don't believe that in itself justifies prison sentences.
>>>>Yes, I agree.
QuoteFor those who beilieve this wont affect them or their children, I disagree. Homosexuality has brought shame to the hearts of many people who have been caught up in its lie.
I have to call bullshit. I've lived in a few cities with higher than average GLBT populations, as well as being raised in the belt buckle of the bible belt. If anything, the diversity is good for kids. Being around gays doesn't make people gay any more than being around cancer victims causes cancer.
>>>>Strongly disagree.
QuoteMost homosexuals I have talked to, always say they wish they werent this way.
So basically, you understand and acknowledge that being gay is not a choice (i.e. God made gay people gay, from a creationist perspective).
>>>>Of course. The question that I originally asked was sincere to everyone, but what I found is exactly what I said, Only the person who is gay knows the answer to whether or not it is a choice. It is no different from an addict. They dont wish they were that way, but it seems they made descisions back down the way...descisions that I dont judge.....that led them down that path. I dont believe God made anyone an addict, but we have seen that people are influenced both genetically and by their enviornment. It shows that the decisions we make in life do not only affect us. But again, I am open to this coversation and fully aware that I dont have the answers. I understand some will have opposite opinions, that is perfectly ok, but still, the core issure, is the morality of homosexual marriages and whether we believe it is right to allow it. It is not a morality issue of having the same civil liberties, though that is exactly how people are taking it.
"We didn't start the fire"
Quote
QuoteI have to call bullshit. I've lived in a few cities with higher than average GLBT populations, as well as being raised in the belt buckle of the bible belt. If anything, the diversity is good for kids. Being around gays doesn't make people gay any more than being around cancer victims causes cancer.
>>>>Strongly disagree.
nice evidence.
Being around gays makes people gay tolerant. Which I'm sure you find just as horrible.
Somehow we survive in San Francisco. Just a few miles from the Castro, straight people are hooking up every night at the Marina Safeway.
Royd 0
Hmm..You ever heard of 'The wrong side of the tracks'?QuoteI have to call bullshit. I've lived in a few cities with higher than average GLBT populations, as well as being raised in the belt buckle of the bible belt. If anything, the diversity is good for kids. Being around gays doesn't make people gay any more than being around cancer victims causes cancer.
How many 'enlightened' parents don't want their kids hanging around with the poor rednecks down, around the corner?
I believe we see this same kind of judgmental crap going on right here in SC.
Hicks, rednecks, bumpkins, Neandrethals....same story, different chapter.
airdvr 200
Personally, I don't have a problem with the ruling. I have a problem with the SC over riding the voters of CA. 60% of Californians voted against same sex marrige.
It looks like, once again, majority rule isn't worth a damn when the courts get involved.
It looks like, once again, majority rule isn't worth a damn when the courts get involved.
Please don't dent the planet.
Destinations by Roxanne
Destinations by Roxanne
Johnh 0
QuotePersonally, I don't have a problem with the ruling. I have a problem with the SC over riding the voters of CA. 60% of Californians voted against same sex marrige.
It looks like, once again, majority rule isn't worth a damn when the courts get involved.
You know what a constitution is for, right?
jcd11235 0
QuoteI dont believe it is a civil rights issue, because it crosses into morality. Many dont believe that it is a moral issue at all. This is the core difference. Instead, they believe it is morally not right to restrict civil liberties based on sexual orientation. So, the core moral issue is hidden underneath a civil issue.
No more so than racial, sexual or religious discrimination.
QuoteNo I dont know what law was passed.
A court decision is not a law.
QuoteStrongly disagree.
With what do you disagree? Are you saying you believe that being in close proximity with homosexuals can turn people gay? Or do you think it's bad to teach children tolerance and acceptance of those not like themselves?
QuoteThe question that I originally asked was sincere to everyone, but what I found is exactly what I said, Only the person who is gay knows the answer to whether or not it is a choice. It is no different from an addict. They dont wish they were that way, but it seems they made descisions back down the way...descisions that I dont judge.....that led them down that path.
You claim that you don't judge, yet you judge homosexuality to be immoral. Which is it? You can't judge and also claim not to judge.
QuoteI dont believe God made anyone an addict, but we have seen that people are influenced both genetically and by their enviornment.
Don't creationists believe that God is behind their genetics, and placed kids in their environment?
QuoteI understand some will have opposite opinions, that is perfectly ok, but still, the core issure, is the morality of homosexual marriages and whether we believe it is right to allow it. It is not a morality issue of having the same civil liberties, though that is exactly how people are taking it.
The court's opinion, and make no mistake, their opinion is the only one that matters, is that is about civil liberties. There's no reason to consider homosexuality immoral. That's like claiming that it's immoral to have blue eyes.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
jcd11235 0
QuoteHmm..You ever heard of 'The wrong side of the tracks'?
How many 'enlightened' parents don't want their kids hanging around with the poor rednecks down, around the corner?
I believe we see this same kind of judgmental crap going on right here in SC.
Hicks, rednecks, bumpkins, Neandrethals....same story, different chapter.
I suppose you believe a white person's skin tone will change if they have black friends with whom they hang out often, too, right?
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
Royd 0
Hmm..You ever heard of 'The wrong side of the tracks'?
How many 'enlightened' parents don't want their kids hanging around with the poor rednecks down, around the corner?
I believe we see this same kind of judgmental crap going on right here in SC.
Hicks, rednecks, bumpkins, Neandrethals....same story, different chapter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many 'enlightened' parents don't want their kids hanging around with the poor rednecks down, around the corner?
I believe we see this same kind of judgmental crap going on right here in SC.
Hicks, rednecks, bumpkins, Neandrethals....same story, different chapter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not at all. I'm pointing out the hypocracy of people who choose to embrace every manner of foolishness, just to throw a wrench in the works, wouldn't let their kids hang out with the poor, roughhewn rednecks, down the block, because they are afraid it might contaminate the more finely tuned sensibilities of their precious children.QuoteI suppose you believe a white person's skin tone will change if they have black friends with whom they hang out often, too, right?
jcd11235 0
QuoteNot at all. I'm pointing out the hypocracy of people who choose to embrace every manner of foolishness, just to throw a wrench in the works, wouldn't let their kids hang out with the poor, roughhewn rednecks, down the block, because they are afraid it might contaminate the more finely tuned sensibilities of their precious children.
Ah, I see. You were creating a strawman argument.
Most tolerant people I know are just that, tolerant. They aren't likely to forbid their kids from associating with poor folks, redneck or otherwise. Their kids, OTOH, might be intelligent enough to not want to hang out with other kids who spew hatred and bigotry learned from their elders, whether those kids are rich or poor, black or white, Christian or non-religious, etc.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
base428 1
Comparing homosexual marriage to the interracial marriage issues in the 1900's is like comparing apples to oranges. Is it just me, or do some people (Bill) find a way to interject race into as many threads as possible?
I am against homosexual marriage because I feel it is morally (not necessarily "biblically") wrong, it is unnatural, it is a financial burden on our government (taxes, social security, medical, and other benefits paid to the "spouse"), and it devalues traditional heterosexual marriages. In addition, I feel the increased acceptance of homosexuality does increase the likelihood of young adults choosing that lifestyle, especially those with identity issues.
I am willing to bet there are many more like me, as 61% of Californians voted against homosexual marriage a few years ago. We all have our opinions, but I still respect the opinions of others who disagree with me.
I am against homosexual marriage because I feel it is morally (not necessarily "biblically") wrong, it is unnatural, it is a financial burden on our government (taxes, social security, medical, and other benefits paid to the "spouse"), and it devalues traditional heterosexual marriages. In addition, I feel the increased acceptance of homosexuality does increase the likelihood of young adults choosing that lifestyle, especially those with identity issues.
I am willing to bet there are many more like me, as 61% of Californians voted against homosexual marriage a few years ago. We all have our opinions, but I still respect the opinions of others who disagree with me.
(c)2010 Vertical Visions. No unauthorized duplication permitted. <==For the media only
jcd11235 0
Quote… it is unnatural …
Why is homosexuality so widespread throughout the animal kingdom?
Quote… it is a financial burden on our government (taxes, social security, medical, and other benefits paid to the "spouse") …
No more so than opposite sex marriages.
Quote… it devalues traditional heterosexual marriages. …
How does it do that? Do you think Billvon, lawrocket or any other guy with a female spouse are suddenly going to love their wives less because of this court decision? (Not trying to pick on Billvon or lawrocket, just using them as examples of married men in California)
QuoteIn addition, I feel the increased acceptance of homosexuality does increase the likelihood of young adults choosing that lifestyle, especially those with identity issues.
Did you choose to be attracted to the sex your attracted to? I know I never made a conscious decision to be attracted to females, but I've been attracted to them all my life.
QuoteI am willing to bet there are many more like me, as 61% of Californians voted against homosexual marriage a few years ago. We all have our opinions, but I still respect the opinions of others who disagree with me.
Would racial segregation be okay if it were voted in by the people?
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
And I respect your opinion as well, Jason. It's what you think, and frankly, I have little problem with those who own up to their opinions - though they may be un PC.
Plenty of people agree with you. Plenty of people don't. One thing I DO like about the decision is that it was mentioned that if the polity did not like it, they could amend the California Constitution.
What? Amending the Constitution to make changes instead of having judges do it? Gee. What a concept!
p.s. - the biggest issue right now as far as dissolution of domestic partnerships has to do with federal recognition of orders relating to federal retirement. We are having huge problems out here trying to deal with retirements of gays and lesbians in dissolutions. Perhaps this case will ease these problems with the definition of "marriage."
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Plenty of people agree with you. Plenty of people don't. One thing I DO like about the decision is that it was mentioned that if the polity did not like it, they could amend the California Constitution.
What? Amending the Constitution to make changes instead of having judges do it? Gee. What a concept!
p.s. - the biggest issue right now as far as dissolution of domestic partnerships has to do with federal recognition of orders relating to federal retirement. We are having huge problems out here trying to deal with retirements of gays and lesbians in dissolutions. Perhaps this case will ease these problems with the definition of "marriage."
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteThe question when it comes to homosexuality is, is it a choice or not?
YEah. Just like religion. A law cannot discriminate against Catholics in favor of Jews, yet a person can change religions easily.
It shouldn't matter whether it is a choice or not. It should simply be what it is, and should we be saying that gays don't get the same treatment as straights.
I don't think so.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
rehmwa 2
QuoteWhat tax break? Dual income couples with similar pay an average of over $1100 more in taxes than if they were single.....
the tax break is significant only when you have a single income - it's on purpose to encourage having children with a stay at home parent - not really in issue in this thread except for special cases
if both couples work, then it's a penalty as the incomes add up and can put both people in a higher tax bracket vs if each is single
On topic -
I don't care much either way about gay marriage - it doesn't affect me much. I'm more on the lines that the gov should stay out of it and if they want to encourage having children in a hetero-2-parent-family, then they should be very explicit in that benefit(s) and only give benefits to those that fit the category they want to encourage. No inferences - you have a kid before ANY of the benefits accrue. (but my default is the government just plain stay out of the business of giving ANY special privilege to anyone).
My only question is process - was this a judicial or a legislative issue? Was it handled correctly or did the judicial usurp what the legislature should have dealt with. (I believe the Cali leg would have revised existing law to come to the same conclusion). I worry about right and left wing judicial activism.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
See my post above.
If we take the government OUT of the marriage business entirely, the moral issue becomes a moot point. No need for an argument.
If we take the government OUT of the marriage business entirely, the moral issue becomes a moot point. No need for an argument.
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
QuoteWas it handled correctly or did the judicial usurp what the legislature should have dealt with. (I believe the Cali leg would have revised existing law to come to the same conclusion). I worry about right and left wing judicial activism.
This was my biggest concern. But, I think the judiciary handled it appropriately.
Several years ago, Prop 22 was passed that changed the language regarding marriage. But - it changed the statute. The California Constitution is BROADER in its rights than thr federal Constitution, so this is not a Federal issue.
The court found that under the California Constitution, the state cannot discriminate against gays and lesbians - that they are a suspect class. (By "suspect" I mean that any law relating to them is suspect). The court interpreted the CA Constitution to invalidate the language on the statute - EXACTLY what court should do.
So there will be the issue of Amending the California Constitution. Should that happen, then it will be whether gays are a suspect class under the Federal Constitution.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteThis decision will of course be punished by GOD with an earthquake of great magnitude as he did to New Orleans with Katrina because there was going to be a Gay Pride parade.
Just wanted in first with the prophecy
Hey you know why God made homosexuality a sin?
...
... Cause his boyfriend thought it would be hot.
(Who's going to burn in hell with me?)
BillyVance 34
Hey you know why God made homosexuality a sin?
... Cause his boyfriend thought it would be hot.
(Who's going to burn in hell with me?)
I'll join ya!"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban
Ah, I see now. If one doesn't believe in the Christian moral, then he/she is ignorant and naive. Got to give it to Jesus. He sure knew how to teach his students to be egocentric!
www.skydivethefarm.com