California Gay Marriage Ban Lifted

[ShadowsofHope]

Yes, divorces are ugly - but you act like all marriage ends with divorce.

"50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology" No, not all, but I've seen statistics from 40-50% for first marriages. Not exactly the best odds when you're risking everything to you name.

Interestingly so, the majority of divorce rate in the United States is from heterosexual unions. Imagine that, eh?

 

[Matt_LRR]

We need to find common ground, but the posturing and indignation makes it difficult. Live and let live, I say. That's a lesson for people at either extreme.

That's the rub, though, isn't it? the conservative side is saying "you can't marry, because it's wrong" and the progressive side is saying "our marriage doesn't affect yours".

Who's got the live and let live philosophy there?

If it were a matter of progressives trying to force religious institutions to perform and recognize same-sex marriages, that'd be one thing - but that's not at issue. What is at issue is one side of the debate actively attempting to deny a fundamental right to an entire segment of the population for no reason other than that they don't like it.

The debate here is between "our way or the highway" and "live and let live".

-m

 

[Yeslek Ssomllur]

I think thats totally irrelevant...marriage is commonly known as religous, religion rejects homosexuality, so gay marriage sounds like an oxymoron

If gay marriage were simply a religious thing, and not a set of judicial rights, I might see your point.

Oh... Wait... "religion rejects homosexuality?" Yeah, if you're only talking about PARTS of SOME religions. There are religions other than Judeo-Christian ones, and not every Judeo-Christian "rejects" homosexuality. Therefore, your opinion is drawn and quartered.

As a side note, I hate Christianity with a deep and fiery passion when people say shit like that.
Fucking Primitives...

 

[PhiMed]

I'm American, and while I generally dislike the Federal government telling the states what to do, I support this, as it was a breach of the constitution. Now, what's more important, is that people need to realize that any definition or tax breaks for marriage, by any government under the U.S. flag, is unconstitutional.

Ahh its a dark day for democracy.
Even worse since this already happened and Prop 8 had to come along to fix it.

yeah, that whole defence of the constitution thing, real bad news for democracy.

-m

I thought the law was a bad idea, but I have one question to ask. You both say it's a breach of the Constitution: which part? I don't think the Constitution or any of its ammendments have anything to say about marriage whatsoever. In fact, to the contrary, the Tenth Ammendment pretty specifically states that any power not specifically granted to the federal government defaults to the states or to individuals.

Where does the Constitution specifically give the federal government the right to dictate to whom states can grant marriage contracts?

I'm not being facetious. I think the law was a bad law, but I think it was perfectly Constitutional, so unless a federal law is passed to supercede the state law or the constitution is ammended, it should've been allowed to stand. Please explain to me why I'm wrong. Otherwise, I have to view the argument that it was unconstitutional as a slightly less defensible position than, "They shouldn't be able to be married because Jesus says so." At least people who say that can cite their sources.

The constitution includes all amendments.

I appreciate your lack of contribution. Please go bother someone else now.

 

[Verlander]

Yes, divorces are ugly - but you act like all marriage ends with divorce.

"50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology" No, not all, but I've seen statistics from 40-50% for first marriages. Not exactly the best odds when you're risking everything to you name.

Interestingly so, the majority of divorce rate in the United States is from heterosexual unions. Imagine that, eh?

I'd image that is because the vast majority of married couples are heterosexual. Although I do agree with what your saying

 

[Agayek]

Again, very problematic. Western civilization is far older than Christianity's influence on it. You separate out the "Eastern cultures" from this analysis, yet it is absolutely not true that the West just sprang into existence at the birth of Christianity. Christianity didn't even take root in the West for some time.

You are very right that marriage has evolved much throughout the years - if it can "evolve" to be defined by the Christian religion which took over Europe, and can evolve to include people from greatly different classes/religions/races intermarrying, it can also evolve to include same-sex couples. The marriage as a religious institution argument always seems to deny the West its history and existence beyond and before Christianity, which is really quite demeaning to it. Consider ancient Greece being classified as the cradle of Western civilization - the West has history stretching back long, long before "Christendom".

You are 100% right, the West definitely has history from long before Christianity first reared its head.

That doesn't matter though. Marriage as we know it was solely a religious institution for hundreds of years, with the Church having complete control over it. It wasn't until relatively recently that governments began exerting some level of influence over it.

I'm not really saying anything about the history of marriage or anything else. I probably said it poorly, but what I was trying to get at is that right now, marriage in Western culture still retains much of the religious significance that it once held. As such, it is still a religious event/institution for many people.

 

[arcade109]

Awesome, It's a good day for civic liberties. People who say gay marriage is wrong make me sick.

 

[khaimera]

Hooray. Its about damn time. Stupid religious conservatives.

 

[Steve Butts]

The debate here is between "our way or the highway" and "live and let live".

-m

You make a fair point, Matt. Still, the fundamental claim of both sides is "Your definition of marriage is wrong" and I don't think the antagonism helps to move us forward towards any sort of satisfying reconciliation of the two views.

The whole thing hangs on our failure to acknowledge the objections of our opponents because we're too busy criticizing them for not acknowledging our own objections. Of course, this is a larger problem in American politcal discourse and bigger than just this issue.

 

[Matt_LRR]

The debate here is between "our way or the highway" and "live and let live".

-m

You make a fair point, Matt. Still, the fundamental claim of both sides is "Your definition of marriage is wrong" and I don't think the antagonism helps to move us forward towards any sort of satisfying reconciliation of the two views.

The whole thing hangs on our failure to acknowledge the objections of our opponents because we're too busy criticizing them for not acknowledging our own objections. Of course, this is a larger problem in American politcal discourse and bigger than just this issue.

You are right on both counts, of cuorse. Antagonism, at least to the extent that it amounts to ad hominem attacks does nothing to bridge the gap between worldviews, but I would argue that in cases of civil rights, one sometimes has to force the issue.

I would debate the extent to which this issue actually hinges on the conservative definition of marriage being "wrong", because again, the progressive side is asking only that the state recognize and endorse same sex marriage, not religious institutions or even individuals per se. It's not like gays, once given right to wed, are going to beat down the doors of every conservative christian in the country and inform them that "NO, your marrige is wrong! You are only allowed to marry someone of your own sex!"

If to one person, marriage is a union between a man and a woman, that's great, that's awesome, more power to him. To others it's a union between two consenting adults, and how they define their marriage has no bearing whatsoever on how he defines his. But the moment he starts telling other people that they have to define their marriages according to his concept of what it means, then there's a very serious problem, and that problem needs to be adressed - and reasonable discourse only stretches so far as the involved parties are being reasonable.

-m

 

[Steve Butts]

You are right on both counts, of cuorse.

-m

I salute your shrewd and reasonable appraisal of my comments. Let us build a bridge of understanding from the girders of mutual respect and the cement of tender man-hugs.

 

[cervantess1]

Calling the opinion of supporting gay marriage enlightened is presumptuous, still, I'm happy knowing there are some happy couples out there now.

Still, I've always had an issue with Judges just being able to deem shit people have voted on as unconstitutional, be the masses wrong or right.

Well the simple fact is that if they didn't we would have a very very racist government right now because stuff like old Jim Crow would still be around and institutionalized discrimination would be the norm so while it may seem bad it is necessary lest we let the fearful few run out of control.

 

[johnman]

Thank god I live in England where all our politicians may be boring old farts, but they dont try and whip up a mass frenzy of misinformation and hate.

Nick Griffin and the BNP would like a word...

Nobody takes the BNP seriously, and they have no power. While In america they are currently running an election campagin (I cannot remeber which state) where the canadiates destory each other with slander and half truths and politics takes a back seat.

Isn't that all politics, everywhere?

To an extent yes, but from what I have seen and heard America takes it further than any other European country.

 

[Verlander]

Thank god I live in England where all our politicians may be boring old farts, but they dont try and whip up a mass frenzy of misinformation and hate.

Nick Griffin and the BNP would like a word...

Nobody takes the BNP seriously, and they have no power. While In america they are currently running an election campagin (I cannot remeber which state) where the canadiates destory each other with slander and half truths and politics takes a back seat.

Isn't that all politics, everywhere?

To an extent yes, but from what I have seen and heard America takes it further than any other European country.

I see what you're saying, but I reckon its just that there's more coverage. More people are globally interested

 

[cervantess1]

14th amendment, affirmative action, civil rights, pursuit of happiness, ect...

 

[Blueruler182]

This "poisoned country" is pretty damn good, especially compared to the conditions so much of the world is living in.

Pleased to meet you as well.

I understand this idea, but I also don't see the need to sell ourselves short. This sentiment you present, to me, has always been odd. Sure there is no usefulness is bitching for the sake of it, but we are not above constructive criticism, great country or not. It can only help us get better, and the way things are going, I think we just might need it.

Sometimes us Canucks are just too proud for our own good. We do have good beer though. Anyway, my two off-topic cents.

That's the thing though, isn't it? Constructive criticism is only constructive if it's given to someone who can make that change. There's a phrase I picked up in a book a while back that I've kept with me. Change what you can, accept what you can't. If you have a way of changing the country for the better, go out and do it, but if not, just accept the way things are. Makes things a lot less stressful.

 

[Matt_LRR]

You are right on both counts, of cuorse.

-m

I salute your shrewd and reasonable appraisal of my comments. Let us build a bridge of understanding from the girders of mutual respect and the cement of tender man-hugs.

how the shit did I spell "course" wrong?

*tender man hug*

-m

 

[Dags90]

I see what you're saying, but I reckon its just that there's more coverage. More people are globally interested

It's pretty terrible here. The "news" networks will usually just find two people on opposing sides and have them go at it on national TV. The whole idea of objective facts aren't as important as impassioned speakers. Some networks are better than others.

I really would like to see more about exactly what rights and benefits aren't given to gays, the benefits that won't be given because they're federal, some statistics on how many gay couples there are who would like to get married, etc.

Here's an example of Fox News more or less making things up with editing and clever quoting: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4303703/obama-disagrees-with-himself-on-gay-marriage

Obama's position on gay marriage has pretty much been the same since his election campaign, 'As a Christian I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. But I don't believe in restricting the rights of others, and support full benefit civil unions.' He also disagrees with amending Constitutions to 'restrict liberties'.

 

[Chewster]

This "poisoned country" is pretty damn good, especially compared to the conditions so much of the world is living in.

Pleased to meet you as well.

I understand this idea, but I also don't see the need to sell ourselves short. This sentiment you present, to me, has always been odd. Sure there is no usefulness is bitching for the sake of it, but we are not above constructive criticism, great country or not. It can only help us get better, and the way things are going, I think we just might need it.

Sometimes us Canucks are just too proud for our own good. We do have good beer though. Anyway, my two off-topic cents.

That's the thing though, isn't it? Constructive criticism is only constructive if it's given to someone who can make that change. There's a phrase I picked up in a book a while back that I've kept with me. Change what you can, accept what you can't. If you have a way of changing the country for the better, go out and do it, but if not, just accept the way things are. Makes things a lot less stressful.

I think that is a fair opinion, but I don't think we'd be the country we are if people didn't complain sometimes. Sure you have to complain en masse to get things done (such as join a protest or campaign for certain candidates and the like) and empty complaining is useless, I agree, but we still need it to improve. Otherwise, the world would grow stagnant. Remember: at least some people who complain do it because they see the country they love and think it could be even better.

I think the biggest problem in politics today (in this country especially), is the fact that too many people have resigned themselves tot he latter of the categories you gave us. People say "well, same old politics" and then vote strategically (which I loathe) and then wonder why nothing improves. Time was, people were civic minded, payed attention to this stuff and took action when they could. Now all people want is three meals, a steady pay check and some television and beer. In any case, I try to not complain too much personally, but I don't get stressed about stuff I can't change either. I just think saying "it could be worse" is setting the bar a bit low, is all.

Besides, what would this country come to if we weren't allowed to complain about the weather?

Anyway, that is all for now.