Calfiornia Supreme Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban

Recommended Videos

Infiniteloop

New member
Jan 14, 2009
124
0
0
In the eyes of the government all marriages (i.e. "traditional") are only civil unions. Thus, everyone is already on equal footing. You cannot legislate social acceptance.
 

ucciolord1

New member
Mar 26, 2009
1,138
0
0
It's good that they got to keep their marriages, but WTF Cali? Why stop gays from getting married?
 

rekabdarb

New member
Jun 25, 2008
1,464
0
0
Totally sad face at this, i live in california... not gay... but still sad face about it
 

kawligia

New member
Feb 24, 2009
779
0
0
Thanatos34 said:
Actually, gay people, (and anyone, actually), can get married in this fashion, it's just not recognized by the Federal government. Nor are they granted any privileges of it.

The way to solve this easily, though it is not, perhaps, the morally correct way, is to make civil unions have the same rights as marriages. It is a compromise, but I think it would work.
As long as the government regulates marriage, all marriage will be unified. Fundamentalist Christianity (and perhaps other religions as well IDK) will not accept gay marriage or civil unions in any form because their form of marriage would be united with it and must (in a way) recognize it. That's what they don't like. (Or at least, that's a big part of it.)

Once there is no official sanction on marriage, a gay couple being "married" will not be any different than a gay couple living together as if they were married. They still won't like it, but I don't think they will be so actively against it since they are not required to "condone" it.

cathou said:
ok, but isnt that an hyper complicated thing, because you need to change the way we fill our tax at the end of the year, and everything thing else that is legal stuff but changed by the fact that the couple is married or not, and end up with the same exact thing that you just allow same-sex marriage but give the right to religious group to refuse to married them ?
Yes, there will have to be some changes in the law. I don't think it would be too bad though. The end result is that gays could be married, but there is an important difference as I described above.
 

manaman

New member
Sep 2, 2007
3,218
0
0
kawligia said:
MusicalFreedom said:
kawligia said:
Marriage only became a social institution when it adopted the religious institution. It was only in the last couple hundred years that secular government began to regulate marriage laws instead of the church.

Even in other cultures, marriage had its origins in religion.

Relax dude, under my non-regulation scheme, gays could get married as long as there was a religion, denomination, sect, or any other group that was willing to declare them "married."

But it wouldn't matter because there would be no tangible benefits for anyone to get married. Only the formal declaration of a "bond" between the people in question.
Well, regardless of the origins of marriage, marriage now is a social thing - not only religious. Marriage means a lot to most people, and not all of those people are religious. Saying that two peoples' marriage is fine if they can find a religion to marry them seems to leave out people who have no religion.

Should the state be allowed to marry people? I say yes, because the state is not supposed to be discriminatory towards minorities. My understanding of this at the moment is that the state can issue marriage licenses. I don't see why the state can't issue these licenses to same-sex couples

I just don't see this as a religious argument in any way.
If marriage is not regulated by the government, then the gay community can easily declare people married in their ceremony or whatever. I am saying that the government should stop caring whether people are "married" or not.

The government would not care whether someone was "married" any more than it cares whether someone is your girlfriend/boyfriend. It would be informal and unimportant in the eyes of the government, even if it remained formal and important in the eyes of religious OR SOCIAL institutions.
This is closer to what the whole situation is actually moving towards, as gay couples can have the same legal status as a marriage in most states, just not be married. I also stand with you that we cannot force a church to marry couples. However a large number of marriage ceremonies are carried out in court houses, and these is no reason to restrict those.

Your also right that it started as a religious ceremony, but it has become so ingrained in society that it is not longer seen that way.
 

Gamer137

New member
Jun 7, 2008
1,204
0
0
MaxTheReaper said:
I am disappointed in California and all those who live there.
Not all of us voted for Prop 8. Most of us teens who can't vote actually were against the prop in my area.
 

kawligia

New member
Feb 24, 2009
779
0
0
manaman said:
Your also right that it started as a religious ceremony, but it has become so ingrained in society that it is not longer seen that way.
You are right. That is a major problem.

It might work out in the end though. How long did it take to finally get the "Blue Laws" off the books? Centuries because they were so ingrained as well. Hell we still have some of them in some places.
 

manaman

New member
Sep 2, 2007
3,218
0
0
ucciolord1 said:
It's good that they got to keep their marriages, but WTF Cali? Why stop gays from getting married?
What happened is easy to understand. Painfully obvious even. There was a large number of gay men and women supporting allowing gay marriages. Yet the margin was still very close when it was allowed in the first place. With gay marriage legal they all got the marriages they wanted, and the support died out a bit. Without the original fervor in favor it gone, the ones against it where again in the majority and it was banned. They then tried to circumvent the ban by taking the issue to the courts and attempting to the judges to legislate from the benches.

I am glad they did not, and as you can read from my other posts on this issue do not support the ban at the same time.

I just do not believe in any way it is the judges position to overturn any law, unless violates the states constitution or the federal constitution. Yeah I realize not all states have a constitution, but all of them have a charter or other document that is basically the same thing.
 

cathou

Souris la vie est un fromage
Apr 6, 2009
1,163
0
0
kawligia said:
Thanatos34 said:
Actually, gay people, (and anyone, actually), can get married in this fashion, it's just not recognized by the Federal government. Nor are they granted any privileges of it.

The way to solve this easily, though it is not, perhaps, the morally correct way, is to make civil unions have the same rights as marriages. It is a compromise, but I think it would work.
As long as the government regulates marriage, all marriage will be unified. Fundamentalist Christianity (and perhaps other religions as well IDK) will not accept gay marriage or civil unions in any form because their form of marriage would be united with it and must (in a way) recognize it. That's what they don't like. (Or at least, that's a big part of it.)

Once there is no official sanction on marriage, a gay couple being "married" will not be any different than a gay couple living together as if they were married. They still won't like it, but I don't think they will be so actively against it since they are not required to "condone" it.

cathou said:
ok, but isnt that an hyper complicated thing, because you need to change the way we fill our tax at the end of the year, and everything thing else that is legal stuff but changed by the fact that the couple is married or not, and end up with the same exact thing that you just allow same-sex marriage but give the right to religious group to refuse to married them ?
Yes, there will have to be some changes in the law. I don't think it would be too bad though. The end result is that gays could be married, but there is an important difference as I described above.
yeah but face it, marriage is essential for some legal things, like if i die without a Will, but i'm married, all my stuff goes to my wife/husband. if i'm not it goes to my parents. Same thing with the insurance. And my heath insurance will cover my wife, not only the person i live with. If i want to divorce, the marriage laws have mechanism to dictate what goes to who.

If you remove all legal signification of marriage, what will dictate all that stuff ? people will need to get married and goes to courth to settle the legal thing ?
 

manaman

New member
Sep 2, 2007
3,218
0
0
kawligia said:
manaman said:
Your also right that it started as a religious ceremony, but it has become so ingrained in society that it is not longer seen that way.
You are right. That is a major problem.

It might work out in the end though. How long did it take to finally get the "Blue Laws" off the books? Centuries because they were so ingrained as well. Hell we still have some of them in some places.
I see the point your are trying to make, but that is a bit of a different story. As society changed they no longer felt the need to enforce many of the more ridiculous laws. The Blue Laws still exist almost everywhere. Anyplace where they will not sell alcohol after a certain time of the night, and where Sunday morning is also a no-no has a blue law that has become an accepted thing in the peoples lives, they do nothing about it because that is the way it has always been, and is not a major inconvenience.
 

Xan Krieger

Completely insane
Feb 11, 2009
2,918
0
0
That Dude With A Face said:
Yes!!!! Go California!!! I though for sure that they would give in to the ignorant masses and let the gays get married. Thank God that there are still SOME people with brains in the US.


I thought for sure that all hope was gone when Obama was elected...
I also support the judges and am not a homophobe.
 

MGT-Orion

New member
Mar 16, 2009
14
0
0
Wait, wait, wait... The state courts found the previous gay marriage ban unconstitutional, that's why Prop 8 was created. I LIVE in California, and I will tell you some of the arguments I heard for Prop 8: we need to "protect our children", it's a slippery slope (next thing you know, people will want to marry animals), and because the Bible said it's bad. The issue comes down to this: conservative Christians are shaking in their boots because legalizing gay marriage would somehow undermine their precious religion. And it's true!! They are scared to death, and I love it. They are so insecure about the changing world that they will fight tooth and nail for anything they see unfit for their God. Well, the God I know taught us to love, be kind, and treat our fellow man with respect. Christians go out of their way to twist words and try to keep things "the way they used to be".
Well you know what, I'm tired of it. Stop the bigotry and hate, and allow gays and lesbians to get married. Don't be spoon-fed by the church and have them tell you what to think and believe. Don't be stuck in the past and look forward to the future.
 

kawligia

New member
Feb 24, 2009
779
0
0
manaman said:
kawligia said:
manaman said:
Your also right that it started as a religious ceremony, but it has become so ingrained in society that it is not longer seen that way.
You are right. That is a major problem.

It might work out in the end though. How long did it take to finally get the "Blue Laws" off the books? Centuries because they were so ingrained as well. Hell we still have some of them in some places.
I see the point your are trying to make, but that is a bit of a different story. As society changed they no longer felt the need to enforce many of the more ridiculous laws. The Blue Laws still exist almost everywhere. Anyplace where they will not sell alcohol after a certain time of the night, and where Sunday morning is also a no-no has a blue law that has become an accepted thing in the peoples lives, they do nothing about it because that is the way it has always been, and is not a major inconvenience.
I disagree. Consistency in the law is important but nothing should stay the same simply because it's the way it has always been. Otherwise we would still have slaves and women wouldn't be allowed to vote and there would certainly be no gay rights.

Even though the day-to-day effects of blue laws may be small, it attacks the idea of the separation of church and state. If that sort of thing is allowed to continue, we could wind up with a theocracy on our hands. Even if you are a profoundly religious person, you should understand the danger in that. If the government can enforce your religion today, then tomorrow it could enforce another religion on your kids that you strongly oppose.



cathou said:
yeah but face it, marriage is essential for some legal things, like if i die without a Will, but i'm married, all my stuff goes to my wife/husband. if i'm not it goes to my parents. Same thing with the insurance. And my heath insurance will cover my wife, not only the person i live with. If i want to divorce, the marriage laws have mechanism to dictate what goes to who.

If you remove all legal signification of marriage, what will dictate all that stuff ? people will need to get married and goes to courth to settle the legal thing ?
You could draft a will to dictate where your property will go when you die. Drafting a will is not very difficult and would take less time and effort than even getting a marriage license.

Private insurance allows you to name a beneficiary. Even for work related insurance plans or health insurance, without an official marriage regime, they would have to simply allow you to declare someone to fill the role of spouse.

The reason we have laws deciding who gets what after divorce is BECAUSE we have regulated marriage. Without it, there would be no need for those laws! Basically, (this is not exactly how it goes, but it's easier to understand this way) when you get married, its like forming a corporation. All property you acquire after marriage belongs to that corporation and each spouse owns half of the corporation. So when the corporation is dissolved, you have to distribute everything the corporation owned.

Without an officially regulated marriage system, we would simply bypass the whole corporation mess. Whatever property you earn, is yours. Whatever property the other spouse earns is that spouse's. If you both own a single thing like a house, then it will be divided up the same way that we do it when a dead parent leaves a single thing to 2 children: Either agree on how to split it yourselves, cut it in half, or sell it and split the proceeds.

Divorces would be much easier without the community property regime.
 

SilentHunter7

New member
Nov 21, 2007
1,652
0
0
megapenguinx said:
Ah my mistake, I guess I meant to say they are supposed to check that laws are constitutional (aka the right or not argument). I keep forgetting this is an amendment to an amendment (so shouldn't it still be up for review?). I still think it odd that they permitted it back in May and now they don't accept it. I still blame them, the voters who voted for it, and all the out of state influence that was brought in.
I don't know. Laws are weird, and make my brain hurt when I think about them for too long. :)

Either way, I'm waiting to see if it goes to the Supreme Court. If it does, how they rule on this issue will affect the entire country.