California Gay Marriage Ban Lifted

[Sovvolf]

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

But it isn't an oxymoron because marriage has nothing to do with religion. Just because it's commonly known as religious doesn't make it so. Facts aren't decided by popular vote.

Also it's completely relevant because you stated that marriage is religious and has always been religious when I've just proven that it wasn't and isn't.

 

[MrFluffy-X]

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

Marriage is a civil contract between spousal partners for legal and tax reasons.
It's commonly known as religious because that's how it's been twisted.
Regardless, marriage can't be a purely religious institution in America and be in the hands of the government because that would be a violation of the establishment clause in the First Amendment.
Not that other violations such as "Under God" added to the pledge in 50s or "In God We Trust" aren't allowed to stand. But bigots denying people the right to marry and see each other in a hospital room/take care of legal affairs affects people far more than having to read the word "God" on something most people don't recite/read anyway.

Doesnt matter if it has been twisted...it still could be seen is an oxymoron. Thats not the reason why I dont believe gay marrage is right.

 

[Fallen-Angel Risen-Demon]

Who's that on the horizon?
*squints*
Oh damn! It's the west boro baptist church!
OT: This is very good for equal rights. Are gay marriages allowed in Britain (or england). Can't remember.

 

[ReincarnatedFTP]

Once again, one judge overrules the will of the people. What a great world this is.

I bet you were just as upset when those damn judges said slavery and segregation and anti-miscegenation laws were wrong.
Damn activist judges and their refusal to stomp on the rights of the minority because the majority feels like it.

 

[Alex Cowan]

Winston Churchill once said that "The best argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter", and to be honest this is fairly true. People are stupid, and no amount of democracy can change that. This is a victory for the state of California as a whole, despite the "majority" disliking it. Remember that the Civil Rights movement was practically despised, and this hate came from the majority of voters.

 

[ReincarnatedFTP]

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

Marriage is a civil contract between spousal partners for legal and tax reasons.
It's commonly known as religious because that's how it's been twisted.
Regardless, marriage can't be a purely religious institution in America and be in the hands of the government because that would be a violation of the establishment clause in the First Amendment.
Not that other violations such as "Under God" added to the pledge in 50s or "In God We Trust" aren't allowed to stand. But bigots denying people the right to marry and see each other in a hospital room/take care of legal affairs affects people far more than having to read the word "God" on something most people don't recite/read anyway.

Doesnt matter if it has been twisted...it still could be seen is an oxymoron. Thats not the reason why I dont believe gay marrage is right.

"It could still be wrongly seen as an oxymoron" is more accurate.
There was a time where marriage between a black man and a white woman was seen as an oxymoron.
The far right and the bigots lost that fight too.

 

[lonelydays17]

I'm so glad they repealed this shit. Personally, I was beginning to lose hope California had any brains left. A great day and a great step forward towards full equality.

 

[Dags90]

*squints*
Oh damn! It's the west boro baptist church!
OT: This is very good for equal rights. Are gay marriages allowed in Britain (or england). Can't remember.

As far as I recall the UK decided to give full rights via civil unions, but was too squeamish to actually use the word marriage.

 

[SimpleChimp]

This is the second time this has happened in California, i being a member of this Back-asswards state (seeing as how half the state prides itself on being so liberal and on the cutting edge of civil rights) am appalled that it has come to this again. We should have never had the second vote, after the California supreme court decided it was unconstitutional it should have fucking stayed legal.

I am not a fan of the California voters. I've been behind this since i was old enough to realize that people are people no matter who they give it to in bed.

 

[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.

 

[Outright Villainy]

Well, this is certainly good news.
I find it odd how so many posters are decrying it as ignoring the will of the majority, when all the majority was doing in the first place was stepping on the minority. It wasn't even something that affected them.

 

[MrFluffy-X]

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

But it isn't an oxymoron because marriage has nothing to do with religion. Just because it's commonly known as religious doesn't make it so. Facts aren't decided by popular vote.

Also it's completely relevant because you stated that marriage is religious and has always been religious when I've just proven that it wasn't and isn't.

What are you talking about? words change/add meanings all the time take the word gay for example, i admit i shouldnt have said always, i was wrong there.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

Woooo! Take that bigotry! (Wait, that is the term... right?) Well, let's just see if this one sticks now...

 

[Arkhangelsk]

I'm glad. This is a great day for the individual rights. If homosexual people want to get married, let them. Although I hope it won't turn into a fight for the gays to have the right to get married in church, cause that's something I'm a bit skeptic about.

 

[Sinisterspider]

I'm so glad i don't live in the states. not with all the bile everyone seems to be swimming in over there.

 

[ReincarnatedFTP]

I'm glad. This is a great day for the individual rights. If homosexual people want to get married, let them. Although I hope it won't turn into a fight for the gays to have the right to get married in church, cause that's something I'm a bit skeptic about.

I don't think gays have a right to force a church to marry them.
I do believe they have right to being allowed to marry in the civil sense and that if a church wants to marry gays they should be allowed to.

 

[Furious Styles]

Although I hope it won't turn into a fight for the gays to have the right to get married in church, cause that's something I'm a bit skeptic about.

I agree, i think that's got to be the church's decision. State and church are separate in the US after all, so the government really can't force them.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

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.

Please keep in mind that there wouldn't be racial equality in the US without the courts. Any civil rights legislation would more than likely have been defeated in a popular vote. It's a problem with democratic governments; finding a balance between majority power and protecting the rights of minorities. Besides, how could a court expanding civil rights to more people possibly be a bad thing?

OT: Hurray for equality, civil rights, and all the other good stuff! I must admit, I hate the concept of marriage, a flawed idea that more often than not ends in failure, but why not let more people partake in this bizarre human ritual?

 

[warboss5]

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.

I believe the references to a "constitution" were references to the CALIFORNIA constitution, which is what Prop 8 amended in the first place to specify marriage as being between a man and a woman.