Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

[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?

[Beskar]

Is Beskar tryna hit on me?

Depends on if you are secretly Pocahontas, or not.

[Megas Methuselah]

Big Sav has a song called "Pocahontas."

[Crazed Rabbit]

One part of the judge's ruling was that gender is no longer a defining part of marriage.

What makes him better able to decide that then the millions of voters who voted to pass prop 8?

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

One part of the judge's ruling was that gender is no longer a defining part of marriage.

What makes him better able to decide that then the millions of voters who voted to pass prop 8?

CR

Probably being qualified as an impartial Judge and having access to/utilizing during his deliberations sociology texts/doctorates detailing the changes in American society since the 1960s makes him a better shall we say...judge on the role of genders in America then 7 million Christians (not even close a majority of Californians who number around 37 million) shouting "JESUS SAYS MAN AND WOMAN, THAT'S HOW IT IS!"

[Askthepizzaguy]

One part of the judge's ruling was that gender is no longer a defining part of marriage.

A relief, considering that some people are born intersexed and have genetic aspects of one gender (or both, or even other combinations) while having the physiological aspects of another. If a person found out his wife was sterile because she was born with a genetic difference that made her that way, and is in all other respects female, but her genetics are atypical and not technically female, I would object to someone suggesting that their marriage should be made null and void.

Clearly if gender shouldn't be a defining part of marriage, then... it shouldn't be a defining part of marriage.

Some with ambiguous genders ask for or are given gender assignment surgery. Gender is clearly not binary concept, nor is it always a clear concept. Of course, these concepts are usually uncomfortable for people to talk about, and the people affected are a very small minority. In my view, the numbers don't matter, and democracy isn't always correct. Popular opinion does not always make right. To be consistent, we cannot suggest that gender is an absolute, defining aspect of marriage. Nor should genetics be.

What makes him better able to decide that then the millions of voters who voted to pass prop 8?

If he had made a ruling more in line with your viewpoint, I doubt you'd be suggesting he had no authority here. The role of a judge is not to rule in favor of whatever is popular.

What might make him better to decide Constitutional matters than the voting public, is that certain Constitutional rights CANNOT be infringed by the vote. It says so right in the Constitution itself. That means that certain unalienable rights cannot be taken away by the vote, and can be protected by those whose training and qualifications and held offices qualify them to rule on matters of constitutionality. If a voting majority passed a proposition stating that women didn't have a right to own cars, a judge could overturn that by ruling it unconstitutional, because of this matter of settled Constitutional law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...s_Constitution

Specifically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So when people make law by the vote which abridges the privileges of citizens of the United States, depriving them of due process, and equal protection and treatment under the law, that means they've made a bad, unconstitutional law. The judge in this case was upholding a key principle of the Constitution, that all men are created equal, and they deserve equal treatment, even if the majority does not agree.



Like I said, if the judge ruled in a different manner, favoring the other side, I would not be hearing one peep about whether or not he had the right and duty to rule on this matter.

[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).

[Vladimir]

How can social conservatives be against this? Like abortion, this will further reduce Democrat voting base. We don't need gay people pretending to be straight, having children, and raising them to be Democrats.

[Lemur]

We don't need gay people pretending to be straight, having children, and raising them to be Democrats.

This statement is despicable on multiple levels, and reflects poorly on you.

[Vladimir]

This statement is despicable on multiple levels, and reflects poorly on you.

It's interesting you quoted this instead of the abortion part. Anyway, not my words, and RVG is right.

But yes, onto SCOTUS. PJ's numbers are interesting but not entirely unexpected given the baby boomer vs. Gen X dynamic. I'm interested to see how that opinion changes over one's life.

[Lemur]

Anyway, not my words, and RVG is right.

Another counter-factual, nonsensical statement, although this time you manage to avoid slandering whole segments of the population, so we must be grateful for little mercies.

You posted what you posted.

Generally gay people pretending to be straight tend to be the most hardcore conservatives. Senator Larry Craig comes to mind.

Indeed. You speak truth. I feel sorry for people living in the closet, but that does not excuse them for the damage they inflict on others.

[rvg]

How can social conservatives be against this? Like abortion, this will further reduce Democrat voting base. We don't need gay people pretending to be straight, having children, and raising them to be Democrats.

Generally gay people pretending to be straight tend to be the most hardcore conservatives. Senator Larry Craig comes to mind.

[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

[The Celtic Viking]

Yes, Rhyfelwyr. It isn't that I care about equality. It isn't that I can actually care about righting wrongs even when I'm not the wronged party. It's not that I honestly think that discrimination based on sexual preferences is just as wrong as discrimination based on skin colour... it's that I have a liberal agenda. (Cue spooky music.)

If you ask me, the ones who are "poking their noses into other people's business" are the bigots who support prop 8. They are the ones who look into what other people do in their own bedrooms, and think that they can decide that if they don't like what they see, they have the right to strip them of their equal rights.

I'm sorry, but... no. That plane has stalled, and it's just a matter of time before it completely crashes too. In time homosexuality in general and homosexual marriage in particular will be completely accepted, and then christians will start claiming they were the ones fighting for it. Just like they now claim they were the ones for the emancipation, or how they were the ones for equal rights for black people, or how they were the ones for women's rights, and any other such social issue, when in reality they were always the chief enemy of all of them.

[Fragony]

Who is kicking in who's door, don't have to make a point out of marriage, leave that to the people who value these traditions.

[Beskar]

Who is kicking in who's door, don't have to make a point out of marriage, leave that to the people who value these traditions.

Not really, since there are many establishments which don't stop gay marriage. This isn't about forcing a church who doesn't allow gay marriage, to do gay marriages, this is about allowing a church who believes in gay marriage to do gay marriages.

As I said, remove the legal status of marriages and the 'government social enginneering' and just allow the churches to decide for themselves. Seperate that State from those Churches.

[rory_20_uk]

Seperate that State from those Churches.

Oh, the irony...

[The Celtic Viking]

Who is kicking in who's door, don't have to make a point out of marriage, leave that to the people who value these traditions.

Is this in response to my post? Because... I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yes, Rhyfelwyr. It isn't that I care about equality. It isn't that I can actually care about righting wrongs even when I'm not the wronged party. It's not that I honestly think that discrimination based on sexual preferences is just as wrong as discrimination based on skin colour... it's that I have a liberal agenda. (Cue spooky music.)

Maybe you don't personally, but a lot of people do. There are people who seriously argue for forcing churches to perform gay marriages (usually more in the UK than US, since due to the fact we have established churches, it could be said to be a form of state-sanctioned discrimination).

If you ask me, the ones who are "poking their noses into other people's business" are the bigots who support prop 8. They are the ones who look into what other people do in their own bedrooms, and think that they can decide that if they don't like what they see, they have the right to strip them of their equal rights.

Getting a tax-break for marriage is a priviledge, or a little bonus, not a right. As I said earlier, if you want to go the route of arguing that getting this a state-recognised marriage is a basic right (and I don't see how it is), even if you extend it to homosexuals, what about asexuals or other people that won't/can't get married? They are in the exact same situation homosexuals have been in in California until recently.

I'm sorry, but... no. That plane has stalled, and it's just a matter of time before it completely crashes too. In time homosexuality in general and homosexual marriage in particular will be completely accepted, and then christians will start claiming they were the ones fighting for it. Just like they now claim they were the ones for the emancipation, or how they were the ones for equal rights for black people, or how they were the ones for women's rights, and any other such social issue, when in reality they were always the chief enemy of all of them.

It is hard to tell how exactly social values progress, the opposition I see to homosexuality here is usually not even on religious grounds.

Although I agree with what you say about Christians claiming all these breakthrought like the abolition of slavery for themselves, it is ridiculous. I wouldn't say they were their chief enemy either though, tbh religious views tend to express the views of the society they find themselves in, regardless of what the religion itself teaches. That is what Dawkins says in his God Delusion anyway, and I'm inclined to agree with him.

But yes, I imagine liberal Christians will in the future take credit for the progress of the gay rights movement, saying they fought for it to spread the loving example of Jesus or something like that. But I'm not one of them, I'm not going to bs you. I am secular though, and I don't like people to be discriminated against - so ban marriage outright, it's the only solution.

[The Celtic Viking]

Getting a tax-break for marriage is a priviledge, or a little bonus, not a right. As I said earlier, if you want to go the route of arguing that getting this a state-recognised marriage is a basic right (and I don't see how it is), what about asexuals or other people that won't/can't get married? They are in the exact same situation homosexuals have been in in California until recently.

Let me quote the US Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, 1967:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Emphasis added.

what about asexuals or other people that won't/can't get married?

If they won't get married, that implies that they have chosen not to. I don't think you can interpret anything I've ever said to mean that I want to force people to get married...

As for asexuals not being able to, why? I've never heard of any law forbidding them from doing it - if so, I would be against that too for the very same reason. I don't see your point.

It is hard to tell how exactly social values progress, the opposition I see to homosexuality here is usually not even on religious grounds.

Perhaps not here on this forum (I wouldn't know since I hardly spend any time here anyway), but outside I must say it is almost exclusively on religious grounds.

The reason why I'm so sure that this will change too is that, well, take a look at the polls. I don't have them at hand, but the percentage of people among the younger generations who accept homosexuality is higher than that of the gen pop. It's been like that for a long, long time now. It's just how society rolls.

Although I agree with what you say about Christians claiming all these breakthrought like the abolition of slavery for themselves, it is ridiculous. (...) But yes, I imagine liberal Christians will in the future take credit for the progress of the gay rights movement, saying they fought for it to spread the loving example of Jesus or something like that. But I'm not one of them, I'm not going to bs you.

I appreciate that.

tbh religious views tend to express the views of the society they find themselves in, regardless of what the religion itself teaches. That is what Dawkins says in his God Delusion anyway, and I'm inclined to agree with him.

Yes, but it is exactly this that usually puts religion as the opponent to change. When the change starts to happen, the previously held views are challenged - but those are supposed to be the views of god... and believing that god agrees with you has in my experience never been a sign of a willingness to change your mind.

I am secular though, and I don't like people to be discriminated against - so ban marriage outright, it's the only solution.

That is a solution, though allowing everyone to marry is probably a better one.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As for asexuals not being able to, why? I've never heard of any law forbidding them from doing it - if so, I would be against that too for the very same reason. I don't see your point..

What about two co-dependant asexuals who want their non-sexual, mutually supportive, relationship to have the same legal protection as a sexual one? Should they be forced to have sex in order to consumate their "marriage"?

That seems just as much an infringement, and a potentially more crual one, than only having "Civil Partnerships" for homosexuals.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Let me quote the US Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, 1967:

I have to disagree with that ruling then. While I appreciate it is very relevant to the OP, I have been talking about the idea of homosexual marriage more in general, not specifically for California.

If they won't get married, that implies that they have chosen not to. I don't think you can interpret anything I've ever said to mean that I want to force people to get married...

As for asexuals not being able to, why? I've never heard of any law forbidding them from doing it - if so, I would be against that too for the very same reason. I don't see your point..

I never took you as saying people should be forced to marry, my point is a minority will be denied what is being termed a 'right' for the majority.

Asexuals probably won't want to marry because of their natural condition, and so saying they can still marry like anyone else is akin to saying that heterosexual-only marriages don't discriminate against homosexual men, since they can still marry women.

Perhaps not here on this forum (I wouldn't know since I hardly spend any time here anyway), but outside I must say it is almost exclusively on religious grounds. The reason why I'm so sure is that, well, take a look at the polls. I don't have them at hand, but the percentage of people among the younger generations who accept homosexuality is higher than that of the gen pop. It's just how society rolls.

I realise it may be different in the USA and Sweden, but here the homophobia I have seen has been almost exclusively from non religious, working class people. I've said in the past there is a class element to it, middle-class people tend to be much more liberal. Working class people are also much more likely to be sectarian, racist etc.

Also, I would say young people tend to be more polarised on these things. Older people tend to be maybe conservative and traditionalist, but the young people are either very liberal or pretty radical/extreme in their 'bigotry'. For homophobia, I know some Evangelicals my age that make me look like a beacon of tolerance for understanding. For racism, a lot of BNP supporters are young working-class people. For sectarianism, look at the rise in Scotland in recent years of the Orange Order or groups like Republican Sinn Fein, it's all young people.

We seem to be living in an increasingly polarised world.

Yes, but it is exactly this that usually puts religion as the opponent to change. When the change starts to happen, the previously held views are challenged - but those are supposed to be the views of god... and believing that god agrees with you has in my experience never been a sign of a willingness to change your mind.

This assumes that the more committed religious folk have been happy with the status quo, and the fact is they rarely have been throughout history. Almost all religious uprisings have been radical in their political outlook as opposed to conservative. If you think about it, there's nothing conservative about the religious nuts in the USA, it's not like the country has ever been a theocracy.

That is a solution, though allowing everyone to marry is probably a better one.

This presumes everyone would want to marry another individual, and yet those that don't will always be denied the state-granted privileges of the majority. Asexuals probably won't want to marry because of their inherent nature, so to offer privileges for marriage is surely to discriminate against these people?