California Gay Marriage Ban Lifted

[Matt_LRR]

It means you and your rights are granted equal protection from infringement under the law as someone else, and that you are subject to the same laws as someone else, unless it can be demonstrated that a legitimate governmental purpose is served by distinguishing you from that other person along some classification. In this case it was found that sexual orientation was not a legitimate reason to distinguish, and so gays could not be denied their right to marry.

-m

I am impressed by how much thought you have put into these posts and the amount of citing you are doing. How long have you been following this?

Since the ruling was announced this afternoon.

edit: and thanks!

-m

 

[flakemunchar]

Good to see at least some progress for humanity.

 

[Dexiro]

someone to distance at every opportunity. I wouldn't be inviting them to "couples nights out with the mates" or over to my house for parties. I won't refer to their significant other as their "husband" or "wife". I won't even acknowledge them as being married, although I'm hard-pressed to come up with any scenarios where any of that would come up or even matter.

Just as gays prefer having sexual relationships with the same sex, can I not "prefer" not to associate with people who engage in things I do not believe in?

I'm not arguing against your opinion, i just think you're being a little harsh xD

Be honest, have you ever met a gay person? The majority are no different than anyone else.
You know your best friend, anyone you work with, the average passerby in the street, they could be gay without giving the slightest hint. It just seems a bit harsh that you'd suddenly distance yourself once you found out about a tiny harmless fact.

Imagine if your best friend suddenly cut off all communications with you just because you liked apples, it wouldn't be nice D:

 

[superbatranger]

Hopefully this will convince all the other states that think gay marriage should be illegal to rethink their positions. But, I get the feeling Texas will be the last one to make it legal.

 

[Sporky111]

the word you are looking for to describe what lordbuxton is espousing is "Eugenics."

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

I could of told you that. It's also known as social darwinism. America experimented with it in the 1930's

First: eugenics is in no way equivalent to Social Darwinism. Eugenics is enforced screening of procreation, typically controlled by the government. Social Darwinism is the theory that people will naturally choose the most genetically suitable mate to procreate with.

And second, if you really did believe in social darwinism you'd logically be just fine with gay marriage. I mean, if they're gay how are they going to reproduce?

Im off now. good luck with this thread.

B

That's a shame. You've given many an enlightened forum-goer a chuckle today, and many more a reason to facepalm.

 

[TheTurtleMan]

Well I'm not going to pretend that I actually care that much about this because I don't live in California and last time I checked I liked women. Not to say this isn't a good thing it's just that maybe something like this hits a little closer to home I'll be more enthused about it.

 

[KEM10]

Either way, gay marriage really only exists in the minds of the couple and the LAW.
Businesses will have to provide benefits, but they certainly don't have to HIRE gay people in openly gay marriages. We'll just start seeing more and more people quietly discriminating against gays they way they have done every other person that doesn't fit their ideal of "proper".

I am ok with this. Not because I have something against gays, but because of Gary Becker's discrimination theory.

Also, how much of that was a thought experiment and how much is you being, as you claimed it to be,

a complete and total bigot

 

[jaketheripper]

honestly? this country is based around religion, this is a step in the right direction, they are people too, they have feelings, so there was no excuse to have it banned in the first place, but i salute you california, for finally being that much less of a prick.

 

[TiefBlau]

I have a friend who happens to prefer not wearing pants when he's in his own house. the subjects uncomfortable, but I could care less what he wants to do in his own home.

I will say, however, that he's about as harmful as gay marriage. To anything.

Honestly, marriage isn't really that important a legal institution. It serves no purpose to America and only serves to provide benefits to people who are so confident in their love that they can sign a contract to bind them to it. I personally think that's just what marriage is--a glorified contract. To various religions, it means something different. To various people, it might mean something else. And that's fine. But to the government, it's a fucking contract. No different from any other. If you want to encourage starting families, give people more benefits for starting families. Marriage doesn't need benefits. It doesn't even need to exist. It just needs to sit there for the people to marvel, like a soccer-predicting octopus in an aquarium. Stop defending its "sanctity". There's no such thing in the law.

 

[joshuaayt]

This still doesn't make me feel better about the fact that it is a problem at all- My god, aren't we supposed to be in the future? Aren't we supposed to be looking at the bigoted bastards from yesteryear, smirking at their foolishness? As apposed to being said bastards ourselves?
Still. Small victories, humn?

 

[Jian-Li]

I can't believe their is even a debate on whether gay marriage should be allowed or not. The U.S is a secular country with a government set up by people fleeing religious oppression. Unfortunately religious authorities still tried to get a grip on the U.S. and managed a few times (Christian Right A.K.A Republican Party). From what I've studied every secular country has advanced far past the fundamentalist ones. This is because that secular countries allow free inquiry, scientific study, and have much higher moral standards (i.e. no state sponsored genocide). This evidence can also be found in today's world where all the major countries are secular and the most unstable ones are fundamentalist. And I suppose you could argue that Communist Russia is an example of godless government. WRONG. I've studied communism and I've found it to be a religion in everything but name (The practice of messiaism, bone worship, and even dogma based on science (I'd like to mention that there can be no dogma in the scientific world because scientific knowledge is an evolving thing and it's constantly being proven wrong))

 

[Trogdor1138]

I feel sorry for Lord Buxton, he has no idea...

Anyways, I am happy that this has happened, I live in Australia but I'm a supporter of gay rights so ofcourse I care.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

Either way, gay marriage really only exists in the minds of the couple and the LAW.
Businesses will have to provide benefits, but they certainly don't have to HIRE gay people in openly gay marriages. We'll just start seeing more and more people quietly discriminating against gays they way they have done every other person that doesn't fit their ideal of "proper".

I am ok with this. Not because I have something against gays, but because of Gary Becker's discrimination theory.

Also, how much of that was a thought experiment and how much is you being, as you claimed it to be,

a complete and total bigot

It's a thought experiment. I have nothing against gay people. I won't say that I find homosexuality something I'd like to engage in, but what other people do is their own business. I'll WILL take a particular interest however when things begin to affect society in unpredictable and disruptive ways.
Like I have stated, a major concern of mine is what happens NEXT: what will those who feel slighted by the law or that they have no recourse in their minds but to ACT on their own, as they essentially did when someone created the entire Prop 8 situation to begin with. People voted for it, by a majority... thing is, it would have been one thing if it was voted down by the people. Being overturned just strengthens the resolve of very bitter people. That becomes an issue because we've seen what people do when they feel they have to take matters into their own hands, and I have no desire to see a rise of such wonderful group activities we've had in the past here in America, like Lynchings and burning things. You might make gay marriage legal, but it is and has never been easy. No change ever truly is I suppose, but unfortunately change is usually accompanied by periods of disappointing violence. Especially civil rights and suffrage issues. Look at history. You'll see how these things have a cycle.
I'm afraid of the part of the cycle that will have people out in the street harming innocent and decent people for being or associating with homosexuals, and before you say it won't happen, I would direct you to look at states like Mississippi and what STILL goes on there when it comes to race issues.

As far as the complete and total bigot comment, I'd warn about assigning labels to people because that ostensibly closes the door on EVER changing that person's mind. Attack words, attack labels don't help a situation and shut down the possibility for compromise and change and eliminate the option of conversation. Just look at the whole "red team" vs. "blue team" nonsense that is going on in our politics in America these days where One side will never ever believe that someone from the other side can do a SINGLE thing right, and the other side reciprocates that sentiment by never ever believing someone from the OTHER side can do anything right, so it just draws a line in the sand. Nothing ever changes in that environment.

And in the end, we don't have to agree with other people's opinions, but we DO have to respect them.

 

[Danpascooch]

US district judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the ban on gay and lesbian marriage imposed by the Proposition 8 referendum in 2008 violated the right to equal protection under the US Constitution.

The trial hinged on the civil rights question of whether California's voters had a right under the US Constitution to make a moral judgment by discriminating against sexual orientation

Gee, I can't believe someone was able to figure out that unbelievable puzzle of constitutional issues here.

The fact that it took this long is absolutely appalling, and it makes me ashamed of my country frankly.

I'm a bit ashamed to say that homosexuals do make me a bit uncomfortable, but they should definitely be allowed to do their own thing, who the fuck are we to say otherwise?

 

[Danpascooch]

I can't believe their is even a debate on whether gay marriage should be allowed or not. The U.S is a secular country with a government set up by people fleeing religious oppression. Unfortunately religious authorities still tried to get a grip on the U.S. and managed a few times (Christian Right A.K.A Republican Party). From what I've studied every secular country has advanced far past the fundamentalist ones. This is because that secular countries allow free inquiry, scientific study, and have much higher moral standards (i.e. no state sponsored genocide). This evidence can also be found in today's world where all the major countries are secular and the most unstable ones are fundamentalist. And I suppose you could argue that Communist Russia is an example of godless government. WRONG. I've studied communism and I've found it to be a religion in everything but name (The practice of messiaism, bone worship, and even dogma based on science (I'd like to mention that there can be no dogma in the scientific world because scientific knowledge is an evolving thing and it's constantly being proven wrong))

huh...usually a third post looks something along the lines of "Hi, my name is ______"

lol, welcome to the Escapist, nice to see you're diving right in.

 

[Oilerfan92]

I can't believe their is even a debate on whether gay marriage should be allowed or not. The U.S is a secular country with a government set up by people fleeing religious oppression. Unfortunately religious authorities still tried to get a grip on the U.S. and managed a few times (Christian Right A.K.A Republican Party). From what I've studied every secular country has advanced far past the fundamentalist ones. This is because that secular countries allow free inquiry, scientific study, and have much higher moral standards (i.e. no state sponsored genocide). This evidence can also be found in today's world where all the major countries are secular and the most unstable ones are fundamentalist. And I suppose you could argue that Communist Russia is an example of godless government. WRONG. I've studied communism and I've found it to be a religion in everything but name (The practice of messiaism, bone worship, and even dogma based on science (I'd like to mention that there can be no dogma in the scientific world because scientific knowledge is an evolving thing and it's constantly being proven wrong))

Exactly. America is supposed to be secular. It's inhabitants and leaders can be religious but they can't let that influence them.

Yes, the country was found by religious men. But that doesn't mean the non-religious don't get an equal say. I'm sure none of them had green hair, were over 6'3, or were non-white. But do we not let people with poor fashion sence, tall people or minorities have an equal say ? Why does this change for religion.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

I'm not arguing against your opinion, i just think you're being a little harsh xD

Be honest, have you ever met a gay person? The majority are no different than anyone else.
You know your best friend, anyone you work with, the average passerby in the street, they could be gay without giving the slightest hint. It just seems a bit harsh that you'd suddenly distance yourself once you found out about a tiny harmless fact.

Imagine if your best friend suddenly cut off all communications with you just because you liked apples, it wouldn't be nice D:

I wouldn't like it, but wouldn't I have to accept it? I certainly wouldn't want to be forced to suddenly eating apples just to appease him. So its his perogative. He can cut communications and I'll go on disliking apples, which is one solution that resolves the situation. It is probably the most peaceful of solutions as well, because the alternative would be to either force me to like apples, or force him to be my friend, and forcing anybody to do anything they don't like isn't right no matter what side you find yourself on.

 

[Danpascooch]

They can call it whatever they want, but marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and will always be.

Look in the dictionary
"marriage |ˈmarij|
noun
1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
? a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex."

Its right and ethical and fair for anyone of age to marry whomever they love. To hell with anyone who thinks otherwise.

Ethical and fair by your standards? How much is that really worth? You're just a human being, how can you make such a bold statement? I never said "gay marriage" was right or wrong, nor did I say they cannot got married under state law. I don't pretend to have the authority to judge people on what they do. The fact remains though, it will never be marriage. It's a universal truth.

Interesting that you point out that his standards don't apply since he is "only human" and then call your opinion a "universal truth".

Welcome to the Escapist, blatant narcissism will make it a short stay, try to be logical in your arguments.

 

[Ziggy the wolf]

love is love. if you are human, you are intelligent enough to know what you love and if it is the same gender then love it and carry it on to marriage. let god pick until then shut the hell up and let it roll

 

[Danpascooch]

They can call it whatever they want, but marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and will always be.

Look in the dictionary
"marriage |ˈmarij|
noun
1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
? a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex."

Its right and ethical and fair for anyone of age to marry whomever they love. To hell with anyone who thinks otherwise.

Ethical and fair by your standards? How much is that really worth? You're just a human being, how can you make such a bold statement? I never said "gay marriage" was right or wrong, nor did I say they cannot got married under state law. I don't pretend to have the authority to judge people on what they do. The fact remains though, it will never be marriage. It's a universal truth.

Apparently not, since the judge in this case explicitly said,

The marital bargain in California (along with other states) traditionally required that a woman's legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband's upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage
now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as a union of equals. FF 26-27, 32. As states moved to recognize the equality of the sexes, they eliminated laws and practices like coverture that had made gender a proxy for a spouse's role within a marriage. FF 26-27, 32. Marriage was thus transformed from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and women as equals. Id. Yet, individuals retained the right to marry; that right did not become different simply because the institution of marriage became compatible with gender equality. The evidence at trial shows that marriage in the United States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples. The evidence suggests many reasons for this tradition of exclusion, including gender roles mandated through coverture, FF 26-27, social disapproval of same-sex relationships, FF 74, and the reality that the vast majority of people are heterosexual and have had no reason to challenge the restriction, FF 43. The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an
institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. FF 21. Rather,the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed. The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. FF 19-20, 34-35. Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage. FF 33. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses' obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.

-m

LOGIC BOMBED!

(or clusterf--ked, either one works)

It's always nice to see someone actually cite something.