Cali Gay Marriage Opinion to be Released Today

[billvon 2,400]

>if the homosexuals think that by changing the law they are going to all of
>a sudden be allowed have big massive church weddings they are dillusional.

Uh, dude? Here in California many gays DID have big massive church weddings. Down here the First Unitarian Universalist church (which is both massive and beautiful) held a lot of weddings.

>the catholic church or the protestant church or any other major division
>of christianity i can think of is not going to allow same sex marriages.

The Catholic Church? I agree; it will take them a while. Heck, they just apologized to Galileo back in 2000. At that rate they'll be OK with gay marriages sometime in 2410.

Christianity in general? Currently The United Church of Christ (1.3 million members) allows gay marriages. I expect others to follow suit as they begin losing parishioners to more enlightened churches.

>whats the problem with civil unions?

Nothing at all! Abolish marriage as a government institution and you're good to go. The only problem is governmental discrimination, where one group is allowed a right that another group does not have.

[okalb 78]

Quote

he is saying everyone should have the same rights under the law, isnt that what the homosexuals want?

Please take another look at his post. When I asked what he would think if civil unions for all was not an option and only marriage was his response was

***Well I still believe the word marriage should be reserved for a man and woman. I doubt my feelings about this will change, and it is unfortunate that that means others will be treated unequally because of it.***

That is the part that I was responding to.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

... I would prefer that he advocate making same-sex marriage legal at the federal level.

How would that be done? Create some kind of Federal marriage certificate?

I'm not sure. But I think that it may end up being something like the Loving v. Virginia SC case. Though it doesn't sound like the time is yet right for that.

Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act would be a good start though, and is something that Obama has expressed support for.

Quote

I'd much rather see the process devolved to the lowest level of government, rather than caught up in the ever-expanding juggernaut that is the federal government. If it was done at a county or city level, for example, it would be much easier for folks to travel to a permitting jurisdiction to get married.

That seems more complicated to me, and it wouldn't give same-sex couples the same federal rights that heterosexual married couples currently have.

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

that word is typically a religous idea,

Where the fuck does this idea come from?

Can anyone, anyone who is using this argument please demonstrate to me where the word 'marriage' has any specifically religious roots, particularly roots relating to any religion practiced in the present day?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wmw999 2,122]

Quote

if the homosexuals think that by changing the law they are going to all of a sudden be allowed have big massive church weddings they are dillusional. the catholic church or the protestant church or any other major division of christianity i can think of is not going to allow same sex marriages.

There are churches that will marry homosexuals, and if marriage is legalized then it'll start happening in church. The United Churches of Christ (UCC) left it up to individual congregations in a recent resolution.

Quote

LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Twenty-fifth General Synod calls upon congregations, after prayerful biblical, theological, and historical study, to consider adopting Wedding Policies that do not discriminate against couples based on gender;

UCC is a legitimate Protestant denomination.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

All people are allowed to marry anyone they choose just as long as that person is of the opposite sex. Straight or gay, it doesn't matter. A heterosexual may well wish to marry someone of the same sex (why, I don't know) but they can't anymore than a gay can.

Just like in the old days all people could marry anyone they wanted as long as they were the same colour.

And again you've contradicted your statement that you didn't want gays to have special rights.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DARK 0]

sorry bill you are right of course i completely forgot about all the denominations you have in america and how its not like here in ireland were its catholic and some protestants up the north :p

i still dont think the major branches will be advocating same sex marriage in the next 20 years

either way it has no bearing n me as im neither religous or gay i just think they are going to be sorely dissapointed if they are linking the law change to any sort of inevitable religous change but maybe im making that link up

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Yes, polygamists can use these arguments to support their cause, but they know that there is no chance of them getting laws changed, the general public isn't even close to supporting their right to marry more than one. However, same sex marriage advocates are close, and have in some places succeeded. After that, they can ride on the precedent.

I disagree. I don't think that allowing same sex marriage will create any more of a precedent regarding polygamy than the current marriage laws do. But it sounds like we're just going to have to disagree about that.

Quote

In the quest to remove the discrimination against some, I say we should not exclude the others.

OK, I'd probably agree with that (assuming we're just talking about polygamy here). But I think each issue needs to be considered separately. As I mentioned before, same-sex marriage would be pretty easy to incorporate into our current marriage laws. Allowing polygamy would introduce new complications (taxes, inheritance, etc.) that would need to be settled.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

$100,000 < $1,000,000 and i haven't even taken into account the amount of time it would take to change those 100 laws.

in a purely practical light, allowing the term "marriage" to apply to any two consenting adults is much more efficient and less costly than having to change ALL of the existing laws that concern marriage in the state.

But given that the two sides just spend at least $85M fighting over it, I don't think this argument is really going to be compelling for anyone.

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

Hate to tell ya bud, but you're dead wrong on both.

Guess again. Your question was "Can you show me when marriage has ever been seperate from government?" The purpose of me showing you the Declaration and the Constitution was to show you that when our government was established marriage was separate. You asked me if I could show you if there was ever a separation and I did. Marriage was not addressed until the late 1700's and the first government marriage licenses were in the mid 1800's.

Quote

Dude, that is petty as hell.

Funny how you really think that you are wiser than the millions that think that it is not "petty". I always find it sad when people like you lack respect and resort to persecution and name calling when others view is different than yours.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[Belgian_Draft 0]

How dare you argue with the boy?
He has, after all, read all about it.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

sorry bill you are right of course i completely forgot about all the denominations you have in america and how its not like here in ireland were its catholic and some protestants up the north :p

i still dont think the major branches will be advocating same sex marriage in the next 20 years

either way it has no bearing n me as im neither religous or gay i just think they are going to be sorely dissapointed if they are linking the law change to any sort of inevitable religous change but maybe im making that link up

It may be different for you. But I think the Irish are more Catholic than most American Catholics are. Enough so that there are still fighting between Catholics and Protestants...that stopped a long time ago here.

It's not just the UCC and Unitarians - the Methodists and Baptists are in deep turmoil over the question of gay members, gay pastors, and gay marriage. These are Protestant divisions comprising of over 100M Americans. It may well be that many of them split in the near future, one embracing gays, one not. When San Francisco allowed marriages, both in 2004 and last year, there were churches that were willing to perform. And for those states that have moved forward, I'm sure there will be people of faith ready to welcome their gay fellows. The better religions, at least.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Quote

In fact I am OK with same sex marriage, but think any redefinition of marriage will inevitably allow polygamy and incest.

I don't think anyone is making a case for either. I have never in my entire life seen ANYONE try to even suggest legalizing either. Never. Not once.

I suggest that we legalize all possible marriages by simply having the government get out of the business of marriage.

I see no reason why consenting adults should not be allowed to enter into polygamous or incestuous (or both) marital relationships, so long as all parties are consenting adults.

Now you've seen it.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

> If it was done at a county or city level, for example, it would be much easier
>for folks to travel to a permitting jurisdiction to get married.

But much harder for anyone to travel after they were married. Imagine the byzantine regulations if each of the tens of thousands of towns and the cities in the US had to decide on a case by case basis if your marriage was valid within their city limits.

They wouldn't. Full Faith and Credit means they have to honor the marriages performed in other jurisdictions. They don't have to perform any ceremonies they don't want, but they'd still have to honor those performed elsewhere.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Quote

I'd much rather see the process devolved to the lowest level of government, rather than caught up in the ever-expanding juggernaut that is the federal government. If it was done at a county or city level, for example, it would be much easier for folks to travel to a permitting jurisdiction to get married.

That seems more complicated to me, and it wouldn't give same-sex couples the same federal rights that heterosexual married couples currently have.

Yes it would. Full Faith and Credit means that any marriage, performed anywhere in the nation, would have to be recognized. You wouldn't have to force any jurisdictions to perform ceremonies they didn't like, but they'd all have to recognize the acts of other jurisdictions.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

That seems more complicated to me, and it wouldn't give same-sex couples the same federal rights that heterosexual married couples currently have.

Yes it would. Full Faith and Credit means that any marriage, performed anywhere in the nation, would have to be recognized. You wouldn't have to force any jurisdictions to perform ceremonies they didn't like, but they'd all have to recognize the acts of other jurisdictions.

Perhaps, if the DOMA was repealed.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

would rather see others denied rights that you have just because you don't agree with them. It would be nice if others here had the balls to do the same.

I didn't read the whole chain, but this looks like it originated in a statement that civil partners (gay or straight) should have the same rights.

Assumption - 1 group has legal rights that accrue to them that the other group doesn't

3 ways to make it equal:

a - ADD the rights to the group getting fewer rights
b - DELETE the rights to the group getting more

(c - of course, one could delete all the rights and give each individual the same rights as someone not in a civil union - which would be most 'equal')

I don't see any 'meanness' in any of these results. I see the most cost effective means for us all would be to delete any non-common rights period.

I do find it interesting that the some people, the only way to make things fair is to add benefits to a group rather than to just establish an equal footing for all.

I'm a fan of "c" - use this as an opportunity to reduce overall spending in way we can

Edit: I don't really care what they call it, but to just use a different name that applies to all would cause the least heartache (though Andi has a good point about rewriting all the standard laws out there for the semantics fix would co$t)

...
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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I suggest that we legalize all possible marriages by simply having the government get out of the business of marriage.

ABSOLUTELY

no special benefits should accrue to anyone in a 'special' arrangement of any kind. Treat all individuals.....individually

...
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

[billvon 2,400]

> Full Faith and Credit means that any marriage, performed anywhere
> in the nation, would have to be recognized.

Provided that was implemented well, I'd be fine with that.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

I suggest that we legalize all possible marriages by simply having the government get out of the business of marriage.

ABSOLUTELY

no special benefits should accrue to anyone in a 'special' arrangement of any kind. Treat all individuals.....individually

It might be a good idea, but I think the reality is that it's just not going to happen. I don't see any serious effort or proposition to do away with legal marriages.

So, as long as we do have government in the business of marriage, I think it needs to be as fair as possible.

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

Quote

Imagine being told by a hospital that your partner, someone who you had shared your life with for 30 years, was dying - but you couldn't see them because you weren't immediate family.

That argument is totally fallacious. It just doesn't work that way in the real world, unless someone is intentionally trying to set up a court battle. No doctor or hospital is going to deny visitation in that situation.

When it comes back to the subject of gay rights, I wish you were right, but...
Google search "gay partner denied visitation rights" seem to contradict your post. More search terms include "hospital visitation rights for gays"
Some of these are partners together for -- yes -- decades.

It happened far more often in the past. I've seen newspaper articles about denied visitation rights from before the Internet boom days too, so it's probably all over microfilche in the libraries too.

Although many hospitals now permit gay partners visitation rights, it hasn't always been that way. In the last 10 years, I have personally read local newspaper articles of partners being denied visitation rights.

That said, one could argue you don't need marriage in order to be given visitation rights -- just simple rights. Fortunately, nowadays, all of Canada's hospitals, to the best of my knowledge, are now required to give visitation rights. (Though there might be a renegade or two left in Alberta or Nunavut that I'm not aware of) That's even if you're an unmarried gay, so while useful for visitation rights, one could argue marriage really is moot for this argument.

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

50 years ago nobody had ever heard of gay marriage. So there.

There were same-sex marriages, or similiar unions, in ancient greek, and in ancient rome, at least in certain parts for some time period. Also at some point in history, small parts of China and small parts of Africa also sanctioned same sex unions identical to gay marriage. Fascinating research available in books, on the Internet, and in recent university papers, and some very old texts that manage to survive. Then laws were made to ban gay marriage -- there's a legislation in 342 A.D. banning gay marriage or unions, pratically ending the sometimes loosely-interpreted rights that had apparently existed prior to around that time. Right near the boundary of the early Middle Ages. See, the debate is not new...

While not widespread, or consistent throughout a particular empire, there are some pretty amazing history that's been covered up by centuries of extreme forms of various religions and the former taboo-ness of the subject...

[lewmonst 0]

Quote

All people are allowed to marry anyone they choose just as long as that person is of the opposite sex. Straight or gay, it doesn't matter. A heterosexual may well wish to marry someone of the same sex (why, I don't know) but they can't anymore than a gay can.

Your argument is painfully redundant and vacuous.

If you cannot grasp that withholding the rights of gays to marry whom they choose as discrimination, grasp this; denying gays the right to marry is gender discrimination. If the law allows a man to marry a woman, then a woman should be allowed to marry a woman. That would be equal rights. Otherwise, it's discriminating against the woman. And vice versa, women can marry men, therefore men should be allowed to marry men.

What if the law only allowed same sex marriage. You, according to your spin, would have equal rights in that you were allowed to marry someone of the same sex just like anyone else is allowed to marry someone of the same sex. Would you then go gay because the law is written that way, or would you speak up against discrimination against your preference?

Discrimination is a manifestation of fear and insecurity. What is it about giving all humans equal rights that abhors you so much?

http://www.exitshot.com

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Discrimination is treating one group of people different than another because of a trait, not because of a free-will choice. We choose who to love and who we want to marry, it is not somethig that is forced upon us or that we have no say in.
When blacks were not afforded equal rights it was because they were black. Gays are not being discriminated against in any way because of any traits. Nobody here has shown any law that specifically denies any person the right to marry because of their sexual orientation. Show me anywhere in the law where it says "Homosexuals are not allowed to marry" and I will agree with you 100% that they are being discriminated against.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Guess again. Your question was "Can you show me when marriage has ever been seperate from government?" The purpose of me showing you the Declaration and the Constitution was to show you that when our government was established marriage was separate.

But, like I said, the Constitution and the Declaration are not the sole repositories of law in the US. That's not what they're for, it's not what they do.

You also don't seem to have accepted my suggestion that you actually find out where the word marriage comes from, since your whole argument seems to hang on the definition and origin of that word.

Quote

Funny how you really think that you are wiser than the millions that think that it is not "petty".

Because it is. You're happy to deny rights to people that you would otherwise be happy for them to enjoy, simply because you don't want the government to use a particular word in a particular way. It's really, really petty.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?