California voids Gay/Lesbian Marriages

[Cyber Wolf]

Well I guess we can toss California into the same smelly pit Missouri went into a couple of weeks ago.

Can't catch a break

[slang]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

Well I guess we can toss California .........Missouri....

Do you really think the two are of the same political makeup? I don't. California is the most liberal state in the union. There must be a reason for the ruling.

" The seven justices on Thursday all said Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to issue the licenses and perform the ceremonies violated a 1977 state law that defines marriage as a union between a man and woman."

But on the other hand, we all know this isn't over.

" The court focused its ruling on the limits of local government authority, and did not resolve whether the California Constitution would permit a same-sex marriage. That question will have to wait as a flurry of lawsuits and countersuits over the gay weddings rise through the state's courts."

I think I'm the only one here that opposes gay marriage. I think civil unions would be better. Yes, this is a can of worms.

I think we spent about 40 pages on it a few months back.

[Cyber Wolf]

Regardless of CA's political make up, there's something just not right about doing that to those people. CA can go sit in the corner until its courts can fully explain.

[slang]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

.......not right about doing that to those people.

Now, I think I know where you stand on this but you have to understand, there are many people that just don't think that denying same sex couple's legal marriage is a crime. I am one of them.

I think that eventually it will pass, but I don't think we're ready for gay marriage. I'm not convinced that it's a civil liberties violation.

But then again, who am I. Just some hillbilly. Just one of millions, I guess.

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

Regardless of CA's political make up, there's something just not right about doing that to those people. CA can go sit in the corner until its courts can fully explain.

The explanation is pretty simple. A Marriage license is a state issued document. A city official doesn't get to make up the rules about who gets one.

Your mayor can't decide to start issuing driver's licenses to 13-year-old kids. The state gets to set the rules. And in California, they have. The voters approved a referendum that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The court recognized that a single city official doesn’t have the authority to violate that statute. Isn’t that the courts job, to make sure that the actions of our civil servants conform to the guidelines set for them by the people they represent?

-sm

[slang]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

The voters approved a referendum that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

That will most certainly be overturned in the long term. I think eventually it will be changed and gay marriage will be legal.

And then it will be changed some more, and then I'll be able to marry my dog. And then some more......and .....maybe it would make more sense with all the divorces to have a gang of married people into one union.

Once this passes everything will be different for polygamist and everyone else.

[slang]

I thought that would bring at least one comment from those I see on the board right now.

Look at the bright side Cyber Wolf, there are a considerable number of people that see things as you do. There are most certainly a majority on the board here that do.

That doesn't mean there isn't an opposing viewpoint though.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

The voters approved a referendum that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Didn't the voters do the same in Missouri, essentially banning gay marriage in the state? Or did I miss something? In this case, how does that make California any different? Back to the pit!

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by slang

Look at the bright side Cyber Wolf, there are a considerable number of people that see things as you do. There are most certainly a majority on the board here that do.

That doesn't mean there isn't an opposing viewpoint though.

Oh yes, I'm well aware. And if there weren't opposing view points, the energy I spend thinking about and debating them would get spent doing something much more destructive

[elSicomoro]

My challenge from November still stands: I challenge anyone who opposes gay marriages to present non-religious amoral reasons as to why they should not be allowed.

Okay Slang...I'll bite...how do you figure that gay marriage will lead to marriage between man and beast and polygamy? This oughta be good.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by sycamore

My challenge from November still stands: I challenge anyone who opposes gay marriages to present non-religious amoral reasons as to why they should not be allowed.

Because marriage is a state of union whereby a man and woman can procreate and then teach the boys to belch and fart, and teach the girls to bitch and whine for jewelry. :p

[slang]

I can't even remember if I brought this up.

There are tangent issues that have nothing directly to do with religion that may come into play.

Would you agree that there are people that would like to isolate themselves from gay marriage? Would you agree that there are large number of these people? Would you agree that a significant number of these people have kids?

Would you agree that if they were to home school or take their kids out of the public school that it would influence the total?

Home schooling is becoming more popular, is it not? In which of the two situations would tolerance and acceptance be more likely......home schooling, where the kids are basically not dealing with any kids outside of the parent's circle of friends.......or the public school?

[slang]

Originally Posted by sycamore

Okay Slang...I'll bite...how do you figure that gay marriage will lead to marriage between man and beast and polygamy? This oughta be good.

Let me field one of your challenges at a time.

[Radar]

The mayor who gave the marriage certificates is wrong, but so is the court for annuling these marriages. There are several cases pending regarding the legality of homosexual marriage. These marriages should have remained valid until those cases are completed.

[Skunks]

Are people who argue for "gay rights" specifically pushing for the term "marriage", or do people mostly want the rights and authenticity associated with marriage, regardless of what term is slapped on it?

I ask because I can understand where people who want to keep marriage separate are coming from (isn't it a fairly fundamentally religious institution?) What I don't understand is any opposition to an otherwise identical legal bond. I was going to go on one of my rants-against-an-enemy-who-doesn't-exist, but in rereading it sounded as though I was pushing a 'separate-but-equal' agenda as a middle ground.

I'm not sure such a compromise is good, both because it probably doesn't change the fundamental issue of bigotry towards homosexuals and because it starts us down a more probable slippery slope than any that end in marriage between man and dog. "Separate but equal" and such. Would it be justified in this case, because there are more tangible differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships than there are between blacks and whites, to keep them separate?