What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

California supreme court overturns gay marriage ban

  • Thread starter Clint
  • Start date
Why would states ban this anyway?? I don't see how it's ANY of their business who people marry! It's disgusting that they would discriminate like that and I hope the other states will soon realize that. :nono:
 
Heh, yeah he is, PK!

Anyway, even our Republican governor, "The Governator", has come out in support of the decision and said that he will not support any effort to change the Constitution away from the concept of equal rights and protection under the law. I think this time it's going to stick, and be a model for the rest of the nation.

Anyway, I consider this very, very good news, and an important decision for all of us in that it affirms that we are all equal citizens. Even as a non-gay California resident, this is an important day for us, since if some of us aren't considered equal citizens, NONE of us are safe.

Capslock
 
Why would states ban this anyway?? I don't see how it's ANY of their business who people marry! It's disgusting that they would discriminate like that and I hope the other states will soon realize that. :nono:



Some people think marriage is only between a man and a woman. It's fine if they want to think that, but saying what I can and can't do isn't really their business. Why they're obsessed with what we do behind closed doors is beyond me. Today, marriage is a legal document, not some holy spiritual union to the vast majority of people. There is no "sanctity" in marriage anymore when the divorce rate is 50%, we have drive-through ceremonies, and Britney Spears can get married for 55 hours. People are fighting for tradition out of fear, hate, and ignorance. The only way we can move forward as a country is via social liberalism, because that's moving forward and making progress. Right-wing values can do nothing but keep us where we already are at best, and regress our society by regulating morality at the worst. I guess, to be fair, the conservative could say the same.... but their view is limiting freedom, ours is expanding it.

As for Ahhrnaahhld, he was bound to realize you can't be a popular governator in the gay Mecca and support a ban. Besides, people only voted for him in that circus of an election because he's Ahhrnaahhld. This is supposed to be the land of the free, where we can do whatever we want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. I can't see how putting "Marriage" instead of "Civil Union" on a piece of paper will affect your neighbor. The benefits are the same, it's just the word we want. Civil unions, like segregation, are separate but equal for now.
 
All your base are belong to us‼
 
Well said everybody! Separation of church and state is a GOOD thing. People need to realize that most of these type of laws regarding personal freedoms are based on religous mores (i.e., Bible dictates that marriage is between a man and a woman).

As long as people are in consentual relationships that are not harming anyone...who cares.

Yay for California for having some common sense. :)
 
People need to get over this stupid gay marriage crap. its not that big a deal that a (wo)man wants to marry another (wo)man. and like was mentioned several times i dont see what right the govt has to regulate and discriminate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes! That makes two states where gay marriage isn't banned! I don't think there are any states except Massachussetts and California that have lifted the ban, right? I'm not sure.
Great news! Hopefully other states will follow the example.
 
  • #10
I honestly think that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage whatsoever, whether gays are or not allowed to marry. Marriage is not an institution made by the government, it is an institution that was made by God (or religion for those who don't acknowledge God). The government should only be able to handout civil-unions and Marriages should be handed out in Church where they belong.

JLAP said:
Some people think marriage is only between a man and a woman. It's fine if they want to think that, but saying what I can and can't do isn't really their business.
Why they're obsessed with what we do behind closed doors is beyond me.

It has nothing to do with what you do behind closed doors. It has to do with gays changing the meaning of an institution of God. Gays already had the same rights yesterday as they do today in California. Today they just distorted what the term marriage means in an attempt to "mainstream" their lifestyles with the rest of the country.

JLAP said:
Today, marriage is a legal document, not some holy spiritual union to the vast majority of people. There is no "sanctity" in marriage anymore when the divorce rate is 50%, we have drive-through ceremonies, and Britney Spears can get married for 55 hours.

I disagree. Statistics say that this country is still majority-wise practicing Christians. To say that their marriages are nothing but a legal document is belittling. Homosexuals will also have the same divorce rates, because they too are inappropriately taking the term marriage and distorting it into something that it isn't, a legal document.

JLAP said:
People are fighting for tradition out of fear, hate, and ignorance. The only way we can move forward as a country is via social liberalism, because that's moving forward and making progress. Right-wing values can do nothing but keep us where we already are at best, and regress our society by regulating morality at the worst. I guess, to be fair, the conservative could say the same.... but their view is limiting freedom, ours is expanding it.

I'm sorry JLAP but after all the discussions we've had to suggest that people are fighting for the institution of marriage out of fear, hate or ignorance is just bewildering. You are obviously the one who is still blind to what marriage means to the majority of the country, and people like me who keep telling you it is more than a legal document.

Faith, morality and traditional family values are what have made this country so great and what have preserved this country. Total social liberalism will do nothing but destroy the core of America and that is the traditional family.
 
  • #11
While in theory allowing allowing homosexuals to marry will/shall open pandora's box. Once it becomes legal for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry another woman you will have to allow all other forms of 'untraditional relationships' the right to marry. What if a mother really loves her son should they be allowed to marry? What if a man really loves 4 women should they be all allowed to marry? How about a man really loving his dog??? Once the door has been opened it shall be very difficult to close.
 
  • #12
While in theory allowing allowing homosexuals to marry will/shall open pandora's box. Once it becomes legal for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry another woman you will have to allow all other forms of 'untraditional relationships' the right to marry. What if a mother really loves her son should they be allowed to marry? What if a man really loves 4 women should they be all allowed to marry? How about a man really loving his dog??? Once the door has been opened it shall be very difficult to close.

Very good point wolf9striker, but this is what JLAP was talking about in terms of social progression. I'm sure he's fine with incestual/polygamist marriages and would advocate for their "rights" too.
 
  • #13
Hehe, the majority doesn't really mean much at all, outsiders. Not when you forget that you can be secular AND Christian at the same time. Not when you forget that most gays are Christians, and so are all of the celebrities who are such bad examples. The majority are secular Christians, not just Christians. I understand what marriage is. In the eyes of the law, which is what we are talking about, it's nothing more than a legal document. We are not talking spiritually, we are talking legally. Huge difference. While we agree that the government has no business with marriage, the truth is that it's not going to butt out. Until it does, it's only fair, in a legal and secular perspective, that we are allowed to marry.

Comparing homosexuality to incest, polygamy and bestiality is pretty offensive and a far stretch. There is no Pandora's box. Social progression does not equate bestiality and incest, just like the social progression of legalizing MJ and stem cell research does not equate legalizing meth and paying women to harvest their fetuses. I do not care if a man marries multiple women or visca versa. That doesn't bother me what so ever. I do not advocate incest, and I'm pretty offended that you would say I would. It negatively affects the gene pool, and besides.. gross.


I can totally understand you saying we're trying to change the meaning of an institution created by someone we can't see; you can believe what you want, but MY argument is that it is a tangible legal document in the modern, secular world. We have just as much of a right to have the word "Marriage" on our documents as you do, because for now they are not spiritual documents, they are legal. And you talk about the word "Marriage" like it's exclusive and you have the sole right to it. It's not even the original word.
 
  • #14
Comparing homosexuality to incest, polygamy and bestiality is pretty offensive and a far stretch. There is no Pandora's box.

What gives you the right to discriminate those kinds of relationships? They should be entitled rights to marriage as well.
 
  • #15
Homosexuality is not the same as incest, or bestiality, or even polygamy, for several important reasons. First, animals (or children) are not capable of consenting to a relationship, so that's a completely different situation. Further, incest is usually exploitative in the same way, and biologically dangerous to any progeny for genetic reasons. And it is not an "orientation" that limits the possible marriage to that category like it does with gay people. So the comparisons are not appropriate.

Gay couples and families have existed from the beginning of time. The ONLY question is whether we continue to single them out for legal and financial discrimination. Notwithstanding the question of WHY we'd single them out for the denial of legal and financial protections, it is simply against the law to do so, since equal protection under the law is guaranteed by the state Constitution in California.

Marriage is, in this context, solely a legal right and set of protections given by the state. It has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. In fact, it is, and has always been, legal for a church to "marry" gay couples - they just don't get state benefits. It is likewise legal, and always has been, for a church to elect not to marry any two people. Churches get to do what they want, and rightfully so. Gay "church" marriage is already legal. So this really is ONLY about the state benefits.

It seems to me that the only motivation for denying legal benefits like inheritance, hospital visitation rights, and child custody protections to gay people is sheer cruelty, and maybe coupled with a curious impression that one's restrictive church doctrine ought to apply to non-adherents of that church - a bizarre and unsupportable position to hold.

Capslock
 
  • #16
I don't care about polygamy. I shouldn't have typed that. They can marry as many people as they want because it will never affect me.

Nice playing the sarcasm game. I do think it's gross, but if you want a scientific reason it's because incest would negatively affect the human gene pool, and that affects everyone by weakening us as a species. As for bestiality, the scientific answer would be that animals lack the cognitive faculties to make a decision to marry, thus it would not be consensual.

Happy?

EDIT: Max said it!
 
  • #17
Most people reply to your post instead of editing their post over and over ;)

Comparing homosexuality to incest, polygamy and bestiality is pretty offensive and a far stretch.

Why? If homosexuals and heterosexuals are allowed to get married and have equal rights, why can't other non-traditional couples have the same rights?

There is no Pandora's box. Social progression does not equate bestiality and incest, just like the social progression of legalizing MJ and stem cell research does not equate legalizing meth and paying women to harvest their fetuses.

That maybe your definition of social progression but I bet there are people out there who are in love with an animal, or are brother and sister and our in love or that are mother/father in love with son/daughter that would like to get married and have the same rights as heterosexual/homosexual marriage.

I do not care if a man marries multiple women or visca versa. That doesn't bother me what so ever. I do not advocate incest, and I'm pretty offended that you would say I would. It negatively affects the gene pool, and besides.. gross.

Aren't you the one who said:

"Some people think marriage is only between a man and a woman. It's fine if they want to think that, but saying what I can and can't do isn't really their business. Why they're obsessed with what we do behind closed doors is beyond me."

Kind of contradicting...

Why not let it be a free-for-all, if we have two consenting adults or one adult and animal let them get married!
 
  • #18
Sigh.... Read the two posts above. Animals can not make the decision to get married. Show me one that has the capacity to make a decision like that, and I'll concede to your sarcasm. If a hyper intelligent crocodile or ape was discovered TOMORROW that was as smart as a human, had the capacity to love like a human, and could make decisions like a human, I'd say let it marry, because I would not consider it to be at the same level as an animal. I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon, outsiders.

I'll repeat. Happy? Is this explanation satisfactory to you? Even if it's not, I'm not going to repeat it a third time. The fact that I'm typing this is absurd.

And I edit because if I did not, I would post several times in a row. Look at that, I'm editing again to say "Read the two pentultimate posts above".
 
  • #19
Homosexuality is not the same as incest, or bestiality, or even polygamy, for several important reasons. First, animals (or children) are not capable of consenting to a relationship, so that's a completely different situation.

Not all incestual relationships have to deal with children. You can have 18 year old brothers and sisters or parents with 18 year old children. If they're both consenting to marriage, why not? How can the animal consent? If it can't consent then consent shouldn't be needed.

Further, incest is usually exploitative in the same way, and biologically dangerous to any progeny for genetic reasons. And it is not an "orientation" that limits the possible marriage to that category like it does with gay people. So the comparisons are not appropriate.

Homosexuals don't add to the gene pool either.

Gay couples and families have existed from the beginning of time. The ONLY question is whether we continue to single them out for legal and financial discrimination. Notwithstanding the question of WHY we'd single them out for the denial of legal and financial protections, it is simply against the law to do so, since equal protection under the law is guaranteed by the state Constitution in California.

Then every other non-traditional couple deserves the SAME protection as a homosexual couple. To not give them the same rights is discrimination.
 
  • #20
If it can't consent then consent isn't needed? Jesus Christ. I guess it's OK to marry braindead people. They can't consent, but it's not needed, right? You're arguing without reason, just for the sake of arguing.

EEEEHHH wrong. We can add to the gene pool just as much as you can via in-vitro fertilization. I am just as capable of having a biological kid as you
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top