Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

[Wishazu]

Do people really care that much whether homosexuals can marry?

[Megas Methuselah]

Do people really care that much whether homosexuals can marry?

I guess? I only care because the gays have been hitch-hiking up to Canada for their marriage. For the past few years, I had to hold my tongue when a couple guys would emerge from a church, with one partner suddenly lustily eyeing me up and the more testosterone-induced partner getting angry.

It sucks where I live, but this is how it is. Plus it's really hard gettin' ahead in life when you have dark skin.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If only having marriages for heterosexual couples is unconstitutional, I don't see how allowing marriages for homosexuals as well can suddenly make marriage constitutional.

OK so homosexuals were denied the right to marry in the past, but what about asexuals* or people who can't get married for various reasons? How are they being discriminated against any less than homosexuals were?

* Yes, people will point out that asexuals can marry, but that is akin to the old argument that heterosexual-only marriage laws didn't discriminate against homosexual men, since they could still marry a woman like any other man!

[Crazed Rabbit]

What a crock of BS.

Who needs legislatures or constitutions anymore? We can just have judges declare what's a right and what isn't.

It's ridiculous that this judge could declare a part of the California Constitution unconstitutional.

This isn't justice. It's a judge deciding based on what he believes the law should be, not what it is.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

What a crock of BS.

Who needs legislatures or constitutions anymore? We can just have judges declare what's a right and what isn't.

It's ridiculous that this judge could declare a part of the California Constitution unconstitutional.

This isn't justice. It's a judge deciding based on what he believes the law should be, not what it is.

CR

Yes, it is ridiculous that a Federal judge can declare part of a state constitution, unconstitutional to the Federal constitution as if it is subservient to it. Which it is, which is also why America has been going downhill for the past 145 years.

[Beskar]

Homophobes can exit on the left, or come out of the closet.

[Husar]

I guess? I only care because the gays have been hitch-hiking up to Canada for their marriage. For the past few years, I had to hold my tongue when a couple guys would emerge from a church, with one partner suddenly lustily eyeing me up and the more testosterone-induced partner getting angry.

It sucks where I live, but this is how it is. Plus it's really hard gettin' ahead in life when you have dark skin.

Wow, you managed to mention your incredible sexiness and being discriminated against in one and the same post...

I don't know why people mind that much as long as you don't force priests to marry them.

[Megas Methuselah]

Wow, you managed to mention your incredible sexiness and being discriminated against in one and the same post...

Dat's how I roll.

I don't know why people mind that much as long as you don't force priests to marry them.

Yeah, I know. Who cares, provided it doesn't interfere in one's own personal life? Ok, yeah sure, it's akward when a gay guy hits on you, but life isn't perfect.

[Ice]

Do people really care that much whether homosexuals can marry?

Thread.

[PanzerJaeger]

I'm torn on this. While I agree with their sentiments, I share CR's concerns about their method. Prop 8 meant something - that a slight majority of Californians, buoyed specifically by blacks, are as ignorant as they are intolerant. Regardless, the people's will and the process should be respected.

Activists should be focused on changing hearts and minds, not winning court battles. Although I don't really blame them for using the courts as every other pressure group in America does, including the NRA.

I guess? I only care because the gays have been hitch-hiking up to Canada for their marriage. For the past few years, I had to hold my tongue when a couple guys would emerge from a church, with one partner suddenly lustily eyeing me up and the more testosterone-induced partner getting angry.

I didn't know you hung around church entrances so much. In any event, if you're that dead sexy to lure a newlywed away from his partner, you wouldn't think your skin color would be much of a problem.

[a completely inoffensive name]

What a crock of BS.

Who needs legislatures or constitutions anymore? We can just have judges declare what's a right and what isn't.

It's ridiculous that this judge could declare a part of the California Constitution unconstitutional.

This isn't justice. It's a judge deciding based on what he believes the law should be, not what it is.

CR

I'm torn on this. While I agree with their sentiments, I share CR's concerns about their method. Prop 8 meant something - that a slight majority of Californians, buoyed specifically by blacks, are as ignorant as they are intolerant. Regardless, the people's will and the process should be respected.

Well if you two so strongly believe in the majority's right to determine and interpret the laws, promote a Constitutional amendment to dismantle the courts and our republic form of government and have every single issue and challenge be handled by a pure democratic vote.

When a single person decides that blacks can't eat in his restaurant because they are "physically inferior due to their breed" he is discriminating and it is wrong.
When the majority of a couple million voters decides that gays can't marry in their state because they are "morally inferior due to their defiance of 'my' God's laws", it is Democracy and it is right.

[PanzerJaeger]

Well if you two so strongly believe in the majority's right to determine and interpret the laws, promote a Constitutional amendment to dismantle the courts and our republic form of government and have every single issue and challenge be handled by a pure democratic vote.

What will you say if the 9th deems it constitutional, or more likely, the Supreme Court?

When a single person decides that blacks can't eat in his restaurant because they are "physically inferior due to their breed" he is discriminating and it is wrong.

It may be wrong but it shouldn't be illegal.

When the majority of a couple million voters decides that gays can't marry in their state because they are "morally inferior due to their defiance of 'my' God's laws", it is Democracy and it is right.

Discrimination is a wholly subjective concept. That is why sexual orientation didn't make it into the civil rights of the '60s. I believe that changing people's minds about the nature of homosexuality is important. That's really all I was saying.

Best way is to drop a goodwin. If they wanted to bring back the holocaust via a vote majority, does it make it right?

Because that is basically the issue.

No. It isn't. The issue is a legal delineation that grants people certain tax and hospital benefits.

[Whacker]

I'm torn on this. While I agree with their sentiments, I share CR's concerns about their method. Prop 8 meant something - that a slight majority of Californians, buoyed specifically by blacks, are as ignorant as they are intolerant. Regardless, the people's will and the process should be respected.

One of the many purposes of law is also to protect minorities from majorities, specifically the ignorant and intolerant ones.

[Beskar]

One of the many purposes of law is also to protect minorities from majorities, specifically the ignorant and intolerant ones.

Indeed.

Best way is to drop a goodwin. If they wanted to bring back the holocaust via a vote majority, does it make it right?

Because that is basically the issue.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think the threshold for constitutional ammedments in California is simply too low (50% +1). Requiring a 2/3s or even a 60% would make a clearer statement about the will of the people on a given constitutional issue. Constitutions address issues of personal rights and governance -- they should not be subject to the whims of a paper-thin majority. That too can be a form of tyranny.

Marriage, for me, is more than a civil union. It is a sacrament of my faith. As such, the term holds religious and spiritual connotations as well as denoting all of the civil rights and responsibilities. Though my church opposes same-sex marriage, I have stated before in these threads that I would have little or no objection to ALL persons declaring "civil union" status via the civil authorities and letting my church handle the sacrament of matrimony as it sees fit among its own.

I doubt that will be allowed to happen, however, since it appears clear that the purpose of the same-sex marriage movement is not just to establish unions that have all the normal rights and privileges thereunto appertaining, but to specifically co-opt the term "marriage." Should the churches change it to "matrimony," the same-sex marriage movement will become the "same-sex matrimony" movement. The goal is to FORCE acceptance of their lifestyle as normal, equal, and worthy -- reserving no terms, appelations, or concepts of any kind to same-sex unions and lifestyles.

I'd like to think that, were I gay, I would be more concerned over establishing equal treatment under the law and less concerned about trying to re-section the entire culture at a pace that it never accepts. On the other hand, it's easy to see how -- already part of a relatively rare minority -- I might become particularly adamant about attempting to force such change.

All in all, I wish we'd get some unquestionable research as to being gay being a "nature" issue and not "nurture." This would force some re-thinking that would probably be useful.

Constitutionally, the Constitution of the U.S. contains provisions noting that state costitutions cannot contravene the U.S. Constitution and that states should extend full faith and credit to those decisions made by another state pursuant to its Constitution. However, the power to issue licenses (including marriage) as well as to establish constitutional provisions regarding voter age etc. are reserved to the states. There are arguments to be made from either perspective.

[PanzerJaeger]

All in all, I wish we'd get some unquestionable research as to being gay being a "nature" issue and not "nurture." This would force some re-thinking that would probably be useful.

It really doesn't matter. What matters is that it is not a conscious choice, and if you've ever known a gay person you know that is the truth.

[Beskar]

It really doesn't matter. What matters is that it is not a conscious choice, and if you've ever known a gay person you know that is the truth.

Not totally... it is more that "homosexual" feelings are natural in all of us. Deciding to follow through with our desires are our choice, having those desires exactly aren't.

You have male role-models and idols. There is 'Guy Love'. There are males in the media and other places which you can sit there and go "They look attractive". Perhaps you are fond of a male posters posts on this forum, perhaps a giggly feeling of joy when Lemur, Strike for the South, etc decide to post? Even on the basic level, loving your father is loving a man, and having strong emotions towards a male.

Having such feelings doesn't mean you want to grab the nearest pot of vasaline. It is just natural feelings that we all have.

It doesn't actually need to be directed towards members of a sex. There are pets, objections and random things. Even for those who actually have sexual behaviours in the forms of paraphillia, such as sexual attractions to objects. Does this mean that having a foot fetish means you have a sexual attraction to feet gene?

Ultimately, we all have preferences, they are shaped through our life based on experiences and emotions, and situation. Why do some people prefer chocolate to coffee, and others prefer coffee to chocolate? Why can some people not stand them at all? These are all things which shape our preferences and end up resulting in who we are. Are we Republican or Democrat based on genes? Is the strong distaste for the other because of genetic factors?


If anything, the churches strict code for male and female, and on top of that, only one male with one female, for life, is a very adnormal and unnatural system. It is far more natural to be sexually curious and interest in multiple partners, then never to have intercourse untill you courted this one person for a long period of time, till you decide to 'tie the knot'.


If you want to be really blunt and honest about this entire issue, you can simply get rid of 'Marriage' all together. All it is, is glorified social enginneering in a form of a tax cut. If you keep 'marriage' to the churches, and it is up to the church itself if two people are now marriaged before the lord, it is their choices. It doesn't have to have any relationship to the law of the land itself. For issues such as Wills and Children, you simply do what we do anyway, with birth certificates and wills, which are themselves a contract stating wishes or having responsibility of a child.



tl;dr, only thing unnatural in this thread is the act of marriage itself, and especially the legal enforcement of social enginneering, while it should be left alone to the churches themselves, if the two people before them are 'marriage before the lord' or not.



( "homosexual" in the quotes means attraction to a male member of society [or female if you are female], it doesn't mean it is a sexual one. )

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think the threshold for constitutional ammedments in California is simply too low (50% +1). Requiring a 2/3s or even a 60% would make a clearer statement about the will of the people on a given constitutional issue. Constitutions address issues of personal rights and governance -- they should not be subject to the whims of a paper-thin majority. That too can be a form of tyranny.

Marriage, for me, is more than a civil union. It is a sacrament of my faith. As such, the term holds religious and spiritual connotations as well as denoting all of the civil rights and responsibilities. Though my church opposes same-sex marriage, I have stated before in these threads that I would have little or no objection to ALL persons declaring "civil union" status via the civil authorities and letting my church handle the sacrament of matrimony as it sees fit among its own.

I doubt that will be allowed to happen, however, since it appears clear that the purpose of the same-sex marriage movement is not just to establish unions that have all the normal rights and privileges thereunto appertaining, but to specifically co-opt the term "marriage." Should the churches change it to "matrimony," the same-sex marriage movement will become the "same-sex matrimony" movement. The goal is to FORCE acceptance of their lifestyle as normal, equal, and worthy -- reserving no terms, appelations, or concepts of any kind to same-sex unions and lifestyles.

I'd like to think that, were I gay, I would be more concerned over establishing equal treatment under the law and less concerned about trying to re-section the entire culture at a pace that it never accepts. On the other hand, it's easy to see how -- already part of a relatively rare minority -- I might become particularly adamant about attempting to force such change.

All in all, I wish we'd get some unquestionable research as to being gay being a "nature" issue and not "nurture." This would force some re-thinking that would probably be useful.

Constitutionally, the Constitution of the U.S. contains provisions noting that state costitutions cannot contravene the U.S. Constitution and that states should extend full faith and credit to those decisions made by another state pursuant to its Constitution. However, the power to issue licenses (including marriage) as well as to establish constitutional provisions regarding voter age etc. are reserved to the states. There are arguments to be made from either perspective.

You are absolutely 100% correct on your first paragraph. I have nothing else to say about that.

You second paragraph though bothers me. Just because you want a particular service to not be serviced to a particular group, no matter what significance such service has to you doesn't mean it is allowed. Treat marriage as we do with businesses and other services, if it's something you can't help, don't discriminate if it is, then change your attitude or GTFO. Homosexuality is not something you can change any more then skin color. Also by having their own "separate but equal" civil union while you have your marriage, you are repeating history all over again.

The purpose of the same-sex marriage movement has been to be treated the same as heterosexuals in America, including having access to the same services under the same name. Again, having "hetero marriages" and "homo civil unions" is not different then "white drinking fountains" and "black garden hoses" you can say that both the fountain and garden hose provide the same water but you can't say that this is how a society based upon equality and unlimited opportunity is structured.

Your third paragraph puzzles me. The point of repealing Prop 8 is to establish equal treatment under the law, that was the main point brought by the judge, that the proposition violated the "Equal Protection" clause. They are not attempting to force society accept them, they are forcing government to accept them under the law as equals and the bigots who think differently are attempting to force the government to not accept them.

Gay is a nature thing, not a nurture thing. I know this, every gay knows this.

The power/ability to reject marriage licenses from other states is a violation of the Full Faith Clause and it would certainly be struck down by the Supreme Court or any Federal judge if it were ever challenged. The Constitution makes no clause giving marriage licenses an exception to the rule.

It really doesn't matter. What matters is that it is not a conscious choice, and if you've ever known a gay person you know that is the truth.

PJ is absolutely right here. Wait, did I just say that?

[Whacker]

I think the threshold for constitutional ammedments in California is simply too low (50% +1). Requiring a 2/3s or even a 60% would make a clearer statement about the will of the people on a given constitutional issue. Constitutions address issues of personal rights and governance -- they should not be subject to the whims of a paper-thin majority. That too can be a form of tyranny.

Marriage, for me, is more than a civil union. It is a sacrament of my faith. As such, the term holds religious and spiritual connotations as well as denoting all of the civil rights and responsibilities. Though my church opposes same-sex marriage, I have stated before in these threads that I would have little or no objection to ALL persons declaring "civil union" status via the civil authorities and letting my church handle the sacrament of matrimony as it sees fit among its own.

I doubt that will be allowed to happen, however, since it appears clear that the purpose of the same-sex marriage movement is not just to establish unions that have all the normal rights and privileges thereunto appertaining, but to specifically co-opt the term "marriage." Should the churches change it to "matrimony," the same-sex marriage movement will become the "same-sex matrimony" movement. The goal is to FORCE acceptance of their lifestyle as normal, equal, and worthy -- reserving no terms, appelations, or concepts of any kind to same-sex unions and lifestyles.

I'd like to think that, were I gay, I would be more concerned over establishing equal treatment under the law and less concerned about trying to re-section the entire culture at a pace that it never accepts. On the other hand, it's easy to see how -- already part of a relatively rare minority -- I might become particularly adamant about attempting to force such change.

All in all, I wish we'd get some unquestionable research as to being gay being a "nature" issue and not "nurture." This would force some re-thinking that would probably be useful.

Constitutionally, the Constitution of the U.S. contains provisions noting that state costitutions cannot contravene the U.S. Constitution and that states should extend full faith and credit to those decisions made by another state pursuant to its Constitution. However, the power to issue licenses (including marriage) as well as to establish constitutional provisions regarding voter age etc. are reserved to the states. There are arguments to be made from either perspective.

I most respectfully do not agree. I do not see this as part of a "homosexual agenda" to have other's lifestyle's socially accepted. Perhaps it is a case of a few ruining it for the many, but my overall perceptions and in talking to my gay and lesbian friends gets me the same response, every time. It's about being able to have the same rights and privileges under the law for things such as inheritance, family matters, healthcare, and the myriad other things that we all take for granted. And no, these are not things that can be easily fixed with available legal instruments, nor should they in my opinion when the law should treat all equally.

As for the religious aspects, I could give less than a crap. There's a reason for separation of church and state. Withholding the same right to a "civil union" is wrong. How the churches deal with this, I don't give a hoot, nor is that a legal or civil matter at all and the religious institutions should be free to view it however they please.

[Megas Methuselah]

Is Beskar tryna hit on me?

[Fragony]

I'd like to think that, were I gay, I would be more concerned over establishing equal treatment under the law and less concerned about trying to re-section the entire culture at a pace that it never accepts.

Agreed, they shouldn't want it in the first place. I still feel that way, it's intrusive. But society does keep up so I am no longer against it.

[rory_20_uk]

I think the threshold for constitutional ammedments in California is simply too low (50% +1). Requiring a 2/3s or even a 60% would make a clearer statement about the will of the people on a given constitutional issue. Constitutions address issues of personal rights and governance -- they should not be subject to the whims of a paper-thin majority. That too can be a form of tyranny.

Marriage, for me, is more than a civil union. It is a sacrament of my faith. As such, the term holds religious and spiritual connotations as well as denoting all of the civil rights and responsibilities. Though my church opposes same-sex marriage, I have stated before in these threads that I would have little or no objection to ALL persons declaring "civil union" status via the civil authorities and letting my church handle the sacrament of matrimony as it sees fit among its own.

I doubt that will be allowed to happen, however, since it appears clear that the purpose of the same-sex marriage movement is not just to establish unions that have all the normal rights and privileges thereunto appertaining, but to specifically co-opt the term "marriage." Should the churches change it to "matrimony," the same-sex marriage movement will become the "same-sex matrimony" movement. The goal is to FORCE acceptance of their lifestyle as normal, equal, and worthy -- reserving no terms, appelations, or concepts of any kind to same-sex unions and lifestyles.

I'd like to think that, were I gay, I would be more concerned over establishing equal treatment under the law and less concerned about trying to re-section the entire culture at a pace that it never accepts. On the other hand, it's easy to see how -- already part of a relatively rare minority -- I might become particularly adamant about attempting to force such change.

All in all, I wish we'd get some unquestionable research as to being gay being a "nature" issue and not "nurture." This would force some re-thinking that would probably be useful.

One church should not be there to enforce its narrow views on everyone else. most churches probably don't see other marriages as binding - so what? I hope we're above letting such nonsense rule our societies.

Society never accepts any change to start with. If we did change as slow as society could deal with South USA would be either owning slaves or certainly having secregation. Being against change always is fine for those with what they want already.

I can't cite, but I'm sure I've read research that shows animals of many different types act "gay" - male animals trying to mount others etc. BUT I'm sure it'd be argued that this eas down to Nurture - unnatural stresses in the group or somesuch.

I agree with the sentiment that monogamy and marriage is probably a more unnatural state than being gay, and has been enforced over the years to the detriment of millions of women, children and men who have put up with unfulfilling, loveless and often violent relationships as the alternative was either religiously sanctioned exile or even death.

[Husar]

I think this is a government decision, if the government wants to allow them to get tax benefits and use the same family name, then it can tell its servants to act accordingly, and give them legal marriage status.
If they do however want to get a church marriage from a priest who, according to his religious beliefs, thinks that homosexuality is a sin and does not want to marry them, then it becomes ridiculous(I think we discussed such a case here a few years ago).

[Rhyfelwyr]

If you want to be really blunt and honest about this entire issue, you can simply get rid of 'Marriage' all together. All it is, is glorified social enginneering in a form of a tax cut. If you keep 'marriage' to the churches, and it is up to the church itself if two people are now marriaged before the lord, it is their choices. It doesn't have to have any relationship to the law of the land itself. For issues such as Wills and Children, you simply do what we do anyway, with birth certificates and wills, which are themselves a contract stating wishes or having responsibility of a child.

This would be the perfect solution, I don't know why they won't go through with it already. The liberal folk will have their equal treatment, and the religious right-wingers will have less government involvement in people's private lives. I've noticed on some evangelical boards recently that a lot of people have been questioning whether they should even get a government recognised marriage, as opposed to just having one through their church, because they are opposed to the idea of the government playing any sort of role in social engineering.

I doubt that will be allowed to happen, however, since it appears clear that the purpose of the same-sex marriage movement is not just to establish unions that have all the normal rights and privileges thereunto appertaining, but to specifically co-opt the term "marriage." Should the churches change it to "matrimony," the same-sex marriage movement will become the "same-sex matrimony" movement. The goal is to FORCE acceptance of their lifestyle as normal, equal, and worthy -- reserving no terms, appelations, or concepts of any kind to same-sex unions and lifestyles.

Exactly. Although I do not think this moralistic crusade being led by the liberal left is really the fault of homosexuals themselves. When I've read about things like churches beginning to allow gay marriage, the homosexual rights groups might say they are happy about it, but they never drive the change themselves.

The people who are really working an agenda are the liberal left. It's like Fragony says with the Muslims, its not the Muslims themselves that drive all the pc nonsense and try to ban Christmas (or things to that effect, I don't want to debate that one again!), it's always the liberal left. Well it's the same with homosexauls. The leftists need a cause, and gay rights will do nicely, and then they will poke their nose into everyone's business until they achieve their righteous cause. The sort of people that do this are the same sort that think skin-whitening creams in India are racist.

The difference between these leftists-with-a-cause, and actual gay people campaigning for rights, is that while the latter just want legal equality, the leftists have to make sure everyone agrees with them, because being morally opposed to something that other people do is INTOLERANT and not acceptable these days apparently. These people won't rest until every church is legally bound to allow gay marriage, and every school teaches kids that not liking homosexuality is morally wrong.

And yes you will all say I am paranoid, but this will happen. Starting with the established churches here in the UK. They will hit the Anglican Church first, especially if the Anglo-Catholics split, followed by the Church of Scotland. Should probably happen within the next decade.

[Fragony]

You do understand that we will have to get married now

[Beskar]

This would be the perfect solution, I don't know why they won't go through with it already. The liberal folk will have their equal treatment, and the religious right-wingers will have less government involvement in people's private lives. I've noticed on some evangelical boards recently that a lot of people have been questioning whether they should even get a government recognised marriage, as opposed to just having one through their church, because they are opposed to the idea of the government playing any sort of role in social engineering.

Indeed. Whatever the church, may it be Mormons, Hindu, Muslim, Fundamentalist, they decide who marries what. So if a church doesn't recognise another churches marriage of homosexuals, then that is up to them, however, if Christian Homosexuals wanted to get and married and they did, allow a christian group who are homosexual friendly to do it.

I really dislike this enforced social enginneering, David Cameron is doing it too, by wanting to give married couples a bigger 'tax break' so they 'stay together'. Kind of depressing when couples stay together in a loveless marriage, simply because they get a tax break. No one benefits from it.

[Goofball]

I'm torn on this. While I agree with their sentiments, I share CR's concerns about their method. Prop 8 meant something - that a slight majority of Californians, buoyed specifically by blacks, are as ignorant as they are intolerant. Regardless, the people's will and the process should be respected.

Activists should be focused on changing hearts and minds, not winning court battles. Although I don't really blame them for using the courts as every other pressure group in America does, including the NRA.

Well said PJ. Good to see you're still here. You're right. This fight will never be completely won by the courts having to overturn hateful legislation time after time. The haters will still keep hating, no matter how many judges tell them they're idiots. Having said that, sometimes activists have no choice but to use the courts to protect against bigotry in the short-term. When a patient has a heart attack, the doctor tells them to change their lifestyle, eat healthier, and quit smoking. But he also performs surgery to make sure the patient lives to benefit from this healthier new lifestyle.

[Centurion1]

The fight against gay marriage is a losing one. All you need to do is look around. Look at PJ an ardently conservative member or myself. We are both young and more importantly highly conservative. My generation feels radically differently regarding gay marriage compared to previous generations. However chruches should not be forced to marry gay couples.

[Megas Methuselah]

If you guys are ardent conservatives, then the world is moving forward to a better place.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Here are some pertinent questions we were kicking around the office today:

Is discrimination permissable if a majority of voters approve it?

Can fundamental rights be submitted to a vote?

Do domestic partnerships confer second-class status?

Is the discrimination inherent in that second-class status harmful to gay men & women?

Is there a compelling state interest in banning same-sex marriage?

My conclusion: Prop 8 is just a moral view that there is "something wrong with same-sex couples." I don't believe that alone should be a permissable reason to legislate against same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in their ability to form successful marital unions and provide a stable environment for raising children.