California voids Gay/Lesbian Marriages

[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.

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally Posted by slang

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.

The Constitution assures all citizens the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....all men are created equal (under the law) and have this right. By denying marriage, nay, changing laws so as specifically to deny marriage, to a group of people merely because the religious majority, or anyone else, does not agree with their lifestyle, the government is engaging in discrimination--like making black people sit at the back of the bus, or not allowing women to vote because they're female.

Gays aren't asking for MORE rights, just EQUAL rights, and that includes the right to marry the person they love, just like a straight, and including all of the legal perks that go with that piece of paper.

What goes on in someone's bedroom between them and another consenting adult isn't my business, your business, or the government's business. Denying rights due to lifestyle is denying someone liberty and the pursuit of happiness, in re the Constitution, and thus is violating their civil rights.

I mean, what does it matter who sleeps with whom, so long as it doesn't negatively affect YOUR ("your" in the general sense) life? Gays being able to legally marry doesn't change the price of tea from China. It won't make me lose my job. It affects me ZERO. It's purely a religious objection, and religion has no place in politics.

Churches wanna get into politics, then they should be taxed just like everyone else. Otherwise, keep the preaching and bigotry in the pulpit.


Sidhe

[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 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

[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!

[Griff]

Originally Posted by slang

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.

You bring up an interesting part of this discussion to me anyway. Modern liberalism and conservatism are at fault here. We have the collision of two statist mindsets with this and many other issues. The same kind of thinking that prevents Slang from leaving his pistol in his glovebox when driving into NY, finds a role for government in marriage beyond enforcing the contract. It's more wide open in California because CA, moderate Republican governor not withstanding, has more statist extremists of both camps than other states. This is what the LP needs to take advantage of. Once we get people to respect each others rights and preferences the Libertarian Party suddenly looks like the home of moderation.

[elSicomoro]

Originally Posted by Griff

Once we get people to respect each others rights and preferences

And this is the most difficult part of the problem...and I don't think it's possible...ever.