California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

Good that means that Texas will do this in 5 years and Oklahoma will do it in 10 years.

I will be interested in seeing how this plays out. Despite California's "uber liberal" reputation among the other states, the gay marriage ban was approved by voters in 2000. Proposition 22, the outlawing of gay marriage, passed by a margin of 61-39% (and the only place it failed was the Bay Area). So this is clearly an instance of the court overturning the will of the voters.

Don't get me wrong - I believe in the right to gay marriage, and agree with the decision. However, for the reasons above, the response will certainly be worth following.

People forget that California isn't just a big long beach. There are a lot of more rural agricultural areas that are more conservative.

Married? Nobody gets married anymore. Thats so last generation. This is America, people just live together. 🙄

Gosh, California has officially lost every strain of respect I had for it. Not meaning to flame any gays, but I find same sex marriage to be quite repulsive. Once again, no hard feelings meant.

Well, seeing as how nobody's forcing you to gay-marry, I think that works out quite nicely.

russadwan wrote:Gosh, California has officially lost every strain of respect I had for it. Not meaning to flame any gays, but I find same sex marriage to be quite repulsive. Once again, no hard feelings meant.

Wait, so you're saying that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry on the grounds that it makes you feel icky?

Way to fail!

I'm glad the court is shoving this down the throats of prejudiced religious people.

DarkDragoonX wrote:Wait, so you're saying that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry on the grounds that it makes you feel icky?

Way to fail!

russadwan wrote:I could go into more detail, but I'm trying to refrain from offending anyone. But, in my opinion, marriage is the bonding of a man and a women, not of a man and man or woman and woman.

russadwan wrote:I could go into more detail, but I'm trying to refrain from offending anyone. But, in my opinion, marriage is the bonding of a man and a women, not of a man and man or woman and woman.

russadwan wrote:I could go into more detail, but I'm trying to refrain from offending anyone. But, in my opinion, marriage is the bonding of a man and a women, not of a man and man or woman and woman.

Explain why everyone should base their lives off of your opinion? We do not live in a dictatorship where some kid gets to decide how everyone lives.

russadwan wrote:I could go into more detail, but I'm trying to refrain from offending anyone. But, in my opinion, marriage is the bonding of a man and a women, not of a man and man or woman and woman.

Which means you're falling back to the classic My God Says So excuse, which in the end basically boils down to "it makes me feel icky," or alternatively, "I'm a jackass and I'll prove it." On the extremely unlikely chance that religion is somehow not involved, it still comes down to one of those two reasons.

First and foremost, how can you say with a straight face that you aren't trying to be offensive? Your first post in this thread can be summarized as "I really fucking hate gay people." Then you try to cover it up by saying "no offense meant," which stands in stark contrast to what was actually said. The fact that you felt the need to cover your ass with a "no offense" statement indicates that you already knew it was offensive.

If two men decide to bone each other in the privacy of their own home, they aren't hurting anybody. If they decide to get married, they aren't hurting anybody. In fact, the only two people involved are doing quite the opposite of hurting each other (barring a fetish for leather and whips, of course).

Furthermore, where the fuck do you get off deciding that just because you and your religion don't like it, people should stop? Are you trying to say that everybody should bend over backwards just to make you and your church happy? Don't be so damn arrogant. There isn't a single logical or moral reason to disallow gay marriage. The only possible two arguments are the "feel icky" and theological arguments. And I can confidently say that both will inevitably fail on the grounds of being either:

A. Stupid.
B. Bigoted.
C. Really stupid.
D. All of the above.

So in the end, there are only two possible reasons for the sentiments you have expressed:

1. You have a remarkable lack of cognitive thinking abilities.

2. It makes you feel weird, and/or/because your church says it's bad, displaying a remarkable level of bigotry.

Take your pick.

Oh, and no offense meant (you see how that works?).

Well, in my opinion, Christians should be required to wear diapers and t-shirts that say "I'm annoying and delusional." That doesn't mean it gets passed into law. Just because you have an equally fucked up opinion doesn't mean you get to dictate how other people live.

Beldaran wrote:Well, in my opinion, Christians should be required to wear diapers and t-shirts that say "I'm annoying and delusional."

Sounds like a constitutional amendment in the making to me.

I don't like the idea of homosexual unions. It goes against my religious beliefs and personal beliefs I held before I adopted the religious beliefs.

That said, the Constitution's opinion on this issue is very clear to me: it's wrong to discriminate against a human for any reason. Marriage laws may fall under the jurisdiction of the states, but I would hope they would mind the spirit of the Constitution.

I don't really have a problem with legal homosexual unions so long as religions maintain the right to have a different opinion. There's two parts to marriage to me: the legal portion that involves a certificate and more interesting tax options, and the spiritual union. As far as I'm concerned, the government can recognize whatever it wants as marriage so long as churches still retain the right to hold on to what they feel is proper. Some churches recognize these as equivalent to traditional marriages; I won't be attending any of those but they have the right to decide what their religion is about.

If I had to vote on such an issue, I'd feel wrong voting to ban same-sex marriages because I feel such a ban is against the Constitution. Whether I think it's a sin or not, I have enough problems of my own to work out before I have the right to start bothering other people about theirs.

AtmaWeapon wrote:I don't like the idea of homosexual unions. It goes against my religious beliefs and personal beliefs I held before I adopted the religious beliefs.

That said, the Constitution's opinion on this issue is very clear to me: it's wrong to discriminate against a human for any reason. Marriage laws may fall under the jurisdiction of the states, but I would hope they would mind the spirit of the Constitution.

I don't really have a problem with legal homosexual unions so long as religions maintain the right to have a different opinion. There's two parts to marriage to me: the legal portion that involves a certificate and more interesting tax options, and the spiritual union. As far as I'm concerned, the government can recognize whatever it wants as marriage so long as churches still retain the right to hold on to what they feel is proper. Some churches recognize these as equivalent to traditional marriages; I won't be attending any of those but they have the right to decide what their religion is about.

If I had to vote on such an issue, I'd feel wrong voting to ban same-sex marriages because I feel such a ban is against the Constitution. Whether I think it's a sin or not, I have enough problems of my own to work out before I have the right to start bothering other people about theirs.

If only this were the kind of Christianity that dominated America.

russadwan wrote:I could go into more detail, but I'm trying to refrain from offending anyone. But, in my opinion, marriage is the bonding of a man and a women, not of a man and man or woman and woman.

I wipe my ass with your opinion. 😃

---

This is NOT "General Bitching" y'all. IF you wish to turn it into that type of thread go start your own thread there...

Please and thank you...

Beldaran wrote:If only this were the kind of Christianity that dominated America.

Don't lump us all into those bigots.

As for my opinion, why not just call it civil unions and give them the same rights as married couples? I mean seriously. "BUTT BUDDIES"!

This post - http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2008/05/californichuset.html - explains much better than I would be able to why I disagree with the concept of homosexual marriage. It has nothing to do with bigotry or prejudice, and everything to do with what marriage is.

I've said before - I would prefer that the government get out of the marriage business altogether. Let the government sponsor civil unions, for gay people, straight people, multiple people, whatever. Let churches and religious institutions sponsor marriages, again, between whomever they choose to recognize. Everyone wins.

The problem is that the government took over the marriage business over a hundred years ago. Now, when they do not expand the definition of marriage to include a union between two men and two women, they are seen as intolerant. The problem is not that the government does not recognize gay marriage, rather it is that the government is involved in marriage in the first place.

...

Now that I've said all that, I expect several things. First, nobody will read the link I posted. Second, people will accuse me of bigotry and hatred. Please prove me wrong.

Excellent post, Starkist. It's quite unfortunate that the judges are abusing their athuority and acting against the will of the people.

Goddamnit Starkist - I actually fully agree with you that all government-sanctioned marriage should be abolished. But do you have to be such an ass? I mean, it's like, nothing in your post was controversial, but then at the end you just had to throw in that bit about how no one will understand you in an attempt to antagonize people.

I see where the author is coming from, but I can clearly see how denying gay couples equal access to marriage rights could fall under denying them the pursuit of property (the intended meaning of the term in that context, I'm not talking about land).

The truth of the matter, however, is that currently there is no division between marriage as a spiritual and religious union and marriage as a legal and personal, but secular union. Marriage brings with it a lot of legal rights, but it does also have a very important connotation for personal relationships - among religious, atheists, homosexuals, and heterosexuals alike. Yes, marriage as defined in many religious groups has many spiritual components. However, plenty of people have a person and legal union, which they call marriage, without caring about any of the spiritual aspects. Should atheists be forced to have a "civil union" because they don't accept the religious associations of marriage? Should a couple who does not bear children have to have a civil union because they aren't raising a family - the supposed purpose of marriage? In my view, absolutely not. And I think the same applies to homosexual unions.

I am not dismissing the importance of marriage as a religious institution. I think religious people should still be able to get married in their churches, and still be able to deny marriage in the church to anyone. Only the state should be required to marry homosexuals. But for the government to deny people equal access to an important legal and social institution, that goes far beyond the walls of any church, is discrimination.

rock_nog wrote:Goddamnit Starkist - I actually fully agree with you that all government-sanctioned marriage should be abolished. But do you have to be such an ass? I mean, it's like, nothing in your post was controversial, but then at the end you just had to throw in that bit about how no one will understand you in an attempt to antagonize people.

I disagree. I think that's totally unfeasable. Right now marriage serves a lot of important legal purposes, in terms of liability, child custody, taxation, inheritance, who has legal right to make decisions when their significant other is in critical condition, etc... You might be able to make a decentralized, convoluted, and inefficient set of laws to deal with the void filled in these areas if state-marriage was abolished, but it wouldn't be fun.

-----------

Edit: I was reading an article on the new initiative constitutional amendment that will be put on the ballot here in November, and I thought it was worth adding this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080516/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

Groups from across the nation already are pledging resources to defeat or support the measure, similar to gay marriage bans enacted in 26 other states. Colorado-based Focus on the Family and the Democratic Congressional Committee both donated funds during the signature-gathering phase.

Personally, that kind of offends me. I understand that this has become a national issue, but this is something that should be addressed by California voters, not massively funded by some group in Colorado. We have separate states for a reason; I would prefer these interest groups let Californians decide what's good for California and mind their own business.

mighty_darknut wrote:I wipe my ass with your opinion. 😃

I'll just say that if I were a child of two men or two women, I'd likely shoot myself. The nonconformity to the common, accepted definition of "marriage" in this thread is making me puke. And it's not the Chinese food I ate a few hours ago, either. (Or is it?) :sick:

Marriage should be the union between a man and a woman. Eat that statement, live with it, breathe it, wash your hands with it, shower with it, make love with it, whatever. And no, my religion isn't making me say this, considering I am not a theist.

Oh, grow up, you Puritanical prude!

rock_nog wrote:Puritanical prude

Them's fightin' words! [SIZE="1"](Sorry Archibaldo, but it was appropriate.)[/SIZE]

Bah then: "No way, you deluded egomaniac whose premonition dispels outspoken proverbial intrusion!"