California Gay Marriage Ban Lifted

[Harrowdown]

While I'm not for a gay marriage ban (I'm a Christian, but our beliefs [and it's not that clear cut, by the way] shouldn't be made law), the fact that a judge can overturn a majority-voted policy bothers me. Have majorities been wrong in the past? Hell yes. But it's one of the core principles of American democracy. A judge (or a few judges) shouldn't override the majority.

America isn't actually a democracy, as many here have already pointed out. It's a Republic. The constitution exists to ensure that all people are protected, even those not in the majority. The civil rights movement was hugely unpopular with the majority of voters, but that doesn't mean that black rights were bad. If the majority had been allowed to continue the segregation and oppression of blacks, you'd have what's called a tyranny of the many, in which the rights of the minority are effectively ignored. That's precisely what happened when prop 8 was voted into law, and it's that sort of thing that the constitution is supposed to prevent.

 

[One of Many]

A victory for human rights! Hurrah!

But what of the human rights of the majority that voted to live in a state without gay marriage?


Anyways, I really don't care about the so called "Gay Marriage" or any marriage really. The government should keep their nose out of marriage and simply have people sign Civil Partnership Licenses, to provide legal protection and tax brakes.

Whether or not to oppress a large group of people isn't something to be voted on in the first place.

Oppression you say? Was there a clause that would allow the police to arrest homosexuals for being homosexual? Or to force them to wearing identifying badges on the fronts of their shirts? You know, I think we have laws that punish people for attacking or harassing homosexuals (or other minorities).
So you believe in denying millions of Americans the right to marry the person they love simply because it's not tradition... Forgive me for being so blunt, but go fuck yourself. If you were to sympathize with the millions of gay Americans who want equal rights for just one minute, you'd embrace the idea of ending such bigotry.
No what I think we have here is a population which does not want to change the definition of a legal institution (first from church law to civil law) that has existed for thousands of years. This change could be good or bad but the population does not want it.

You know, I hear a lot of people complain about gay marriage "changing the definition" of marriage. Why exactly is that a problem? Because we'll have to teach our children new things? Considering 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, it's not that holy of a union to begin with. Oh, and the definition of marriage has already been changed. Other states and other countries allow same sex marriage, and the number is rising. Stop clinging to tradition and come to the 21st century. Get with the times. And yes, denying homosexuals the right to marry the person they love because of their sexuality is certainly oppression, just as it would be if someone was denied marriage over their race.

Indeed, let us throw out all the traditions of the past.

The United States of America seems to have a tradition of voting for leaders and representatives in the government, this should be stopped.

Many families seem to have a tradition of holding large gatherings, called family reunions, where the far flung branches get to meet and mingle, this should be stopped.

Couples that love each other seem to have this tradition of getting married, we've seen it since before recorded history began. It must be the most antediluvian or archaic tradition of them all, it should be stopped.



As you yourself said, the definition of marriage has changed in other states and countries but the population (that being the people of California) doesn't wish to change it in their home area and that is their right.

Like I said before, the government should keep it's nose out of marriage and issue Civil Partnership Licenses that would provide the same legal protection to a couple (any couple) and tax breaks that that current marriage license does.

So you believe in denying millions of Americans the right to marry the person they love simply because it's not tradition... Forgive me for being so blunt, but go fuck yourself. If you were to sympathize with the millions of gay Americans who want equal rights for just one minute, you'd embrace the idea of ending such bigotry in a heartbeat.

Your thick, aren't you or are you willing ignoring my proposal to replace all marriage (in the legal sort of way, seeing as the church and state are separate and can not force the other to do anything) for everyone?

And I don't sympathize with anyone. This world sucks, get over it.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

Like I said before, this issue is being made larger by groups that benefit from such debates.

The reality is, it's all pointless. Anybody who doesn't agree doesn't have to acknowledge the marriage. Honestly, I don't see why it is such a big deal to "be married" in the first place.
Remove the tax benefits for ALL marriages and just be done with it. That'll even the score all around and everyone will be happy.

But either way, I don't care if gay guys get married because I'll just simply refuse to accept it in my mind. I won't say "Is this your wife?" or "ah, you must be John's husband."
You can forget about me sending any Anniversary cards or coming to any wedding ceremonies.
So oh well. That's life. Big deal, cry me a river. People are different.

 

[Mercsenary]

While I'm not for a gay marriage ban (I'm a Christian, but our beliefs [and it's not that clear cut, by the way] shouldn't be made law), the fact that a judge can overturn a majority-voted policy bothers me. Have majorities been wrong in the past? Hell yes. But it's one of the core principles of American democracy. A judge (or a few judges) shouldn't override the majority.

America isn't actually a democracy, as many here have already pointed out. It's a Republic. The constitution exists to ensure that all people are protected, even those not in the majority. The civil rights movement was hugely unpopular with the majority of voters, but that doesn't mean that black rights were bad. If the majority had been allowed to continue the segregation and oppression of blacks, you'd have what's called a tyranny of the many, in which the rights of the minority are effectively ignored. That's precisely what happened when prop 8 was voted into law, and it's that sort of thing that the constitution is supposed to prevent.

Which is why the Judiciary branch has the power to strike down laws. Its the checks and balances system. The legislative draws up the law and in CA's case puts it to the populace, the executive enforces it and the judiciary gets to look at it and either say "Its all good." or "lolwtf is this gais. NO WAI." and strike it down.

 

[One of Many]

Like I said before, the government should keep it's nose out of marriage and issue Civil Partnership Licenses that would provide the same legal protection to a couple (any couple) and tax breaks that that current marriage license does.

In which case the entire uproar would be over a word. Marriages for straights and civil unions for gays, both with equal rights and benefits. Keeping that hollow distinction to appease the crazies is idiotic. But since it materially achieves the same thing, it could be a good first step. Too bad any move on the slippery slope will be fought tooth and nail.

There should only be civil unions, as defined by law. It is a marriage if private citizens chose to call it a marriage. Churches chose whether or not to recognize it as a marriage, but all legal status is determined by the civil union license. All religious meaning is tacked on to the legal document through proper sacraments.

That pretty much what I was saying, except that Civil Unions carry this stigma of being unequal to Marriage. There for do away with both terms and create a new one that covers both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Couples that love each other seem to have this tradition of getting married, we've seen it since before recorded history began. It must be the most antediluvian or archaic tradition of them all, it should be stopped.

He did not say anything remotely like that, nor make any statement that could be construed as having that view or consequence. That was an extraordinarily dishonest argument and you should be ashamed of yourself. And you know it.

Hey, it was Decabo that said to "stop clinging to tradition", I just brought up some others we could get rid of as well. My straw man was legit and I'm ashamed of nothing.

 

[Baby Eater]

This thread's still going on?

Has Queen taught you nothing!?

 

[Gezab]

CIVIL UNIONS AND MARRIAGES ARE NOT THE SAME THING
THEY DO NOT GRANT EQUAL RIGHTS TO PEOPLE

Lets lay out the differences just so people aren't really herps about this:
-Civil Unions aren't recognized state-to-state. Marriages are.
-People with Civil unions cannot sponsor an immigration of their spouse. People with marriages can.
-Marriages have around 1400 legal rights civil unions do not provide.
Source: http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm

 

[HolyMoogle]

I'll play Devil's Advocate. How does marrying an animal cause harm or infringe on rights?

"Consenting" is probably a main part of that.

Is that an issue when something doesn't understand what consent is? Well, I guess it's kind of like screwing someone in a coma, which is infringing on rights. Still, if a dog is humping your leg, I think it's given consent.

But this is getting kind of silly.

Purely for the sake of clearing up the idea of consent: If a living creature does not understand consent, that is the same as understanding it and not giving it. Hence; animals, people under the age of majority, etc. As for your amorous dog, unless you want to take him to court for violating your leg, I'm afraid you're on your own.

 

[x434343]

I'll say this: I'm disappointed in a LOT of things that happened.

I'm disappointed the judge was not an Independent; rather, he is a gay libertarian who didn't agree with the law. It was doomed there.

I'm disappointed that the measure was passed in the first place.

Most of all, I'm disappointed that the will of the majority was suspended because the minority didn't like it and didn't have the sense to put a new proposition on each consecutive ballot that repeals prop 8. Honestly, if I had a choice, any law passed or repealed would be by the will of the majority of the people.

Here's hope that this mess is fixed. (President won't fix it, he's anti-gay marriage but pro-gay rights. Go figure.)

 

[ALuckyChance]

I'm not so sure about gay marriage, honestly. I mean, Hell, I'm gay myself, but the concept seems to open rather uncomfortable problems with religion. I might be an Atheist, but it doesn't take a quantum physicist to see that when you put "Gay" and "Marriage" together, some person, somewhere, will immediately explode because marriage is just somehow incompatible with homosexuality altogether.

Then there's the people who are stupid enough to say it defies the "sanctity" of marriage, because marriages totally never existed before any current religion ever, guys.

I mean seriously, marriages have existed since the babylonians in 1700BC. It was apparently all business even back then.

 

[Dexiro]

I'm not so sure about gay marriage, honestly. I mean, Hell, I'm gay myself, but the concept seems to open rather uncomfortable problems with religion. I might be an Atheist, but it doesn't take a quantum physicist to see that when you put "Gay" and "Marriage" together, some person, somewhere, will immediately explode because marriage is just somehow incompatible with homosexuality altogether.

You realise the reasons why people support gay marriage though right? xD You make it sound as though we're just doing it to make people rage.

 

[HolyMoogle]

I'll say this: I'm disappointed in a LOT of things that happened.

I'm disappointed the judge was not an Independent; rather, he is a gay libertarian who didn't agree with the law. It was doomed there.

I'm disappointed that the measure was passed in the first place.

Most of all, I'm disappointed that the will of the majority was suspended because the minority didn't like it and didn't have the sense to put a new proposition on each consecutive ballot that repeals prop 8. Honestly, if I had a choice, any law passed or repealed would be by the will of the majority of the people.

Here's hope that this mess is fixed. (President won't fix it, he's anti-gay marriage but pro-gay rights. Go figure.)

What is and is not an Independent judge is a massive call for one person to make. And in any case, putting the rights of a minority to majority vote does not make for a just society. Surely you know more about American history than what you're demonstrating?

America is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.

 

['The Eel']

A lot of people here don't seem to get that this is what the Judiciary branch is for in the first place: preventing a tyranny of the majority by striking down laws that violate constitutional protections.

 

[x434343]

I'll say this: I'm disappointed in a LOT of things that happened.

I'm disappointed the judge was not an Independent; rather, he is a gay libertarian who didn't agree with the law. It was doomed there.

I'm disappointed that the measure was passed in the first place.

Most of all, I'm disappointed that the will of the majority was suspended because the minority didn't like it and didn't have the sense to put a new proposition on each consecutive ballot that repeals prop 8. Honestly, if I had a choice, any law passed or repealed would be by the will of the majority of the people.

Here's hope that this mess is fixed. (President won't fix it, he's anti-gay marriage but pro-gay rights. Go figure.)

What is and is not an Independent judge is a massive call for one person to make. And in any case, putting the rights of a minority to majority vote does not make for a just society. Surely you know more about American history than what you're demonstrating?

America is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.

The judge was biased going in the case. That doesn't feel right.

As for minority versus majority, either the president enacts an executive order or pushes a rights bill through Congress, or this Gay Marriage idea is gonna be a bicycle of local opinion.

 

[ALuckyChance]

You realise the reasons why people support gay marriage though right? xD You make it sound as though we're just doing it to make people rage.

Of course I do; I just don't think the payoffs would be worth it. Either you don't have marriage rights, or you do and you piss off so many religious people. Not that I'm saying practicers of religion can't be tolerant, it's just the ones that aren't get so much more attention.

What the goernment really needs to do is make up a fancy, political-speak term for marriage that has all the benefits of real marriage, but without the evangelist rage. Or they could just make civil unions better, I guess.

Of course, then there's gonna be Republicans and Westboro Baptist Church people (If you can really call them 'people') that'll immediately call the Democrats out on it. Jerks.

 

[Kortney]

This is exactly the view I have on the subject. Personal opinions aside, I believe gay people go out of their way to draw attention on themselves sometimes.

Of course they do, every minority group does. When women were being oppressed in the early 20th century they drew attention to themselves. When black Americans were sick of the oppression in the 1960s they drew attention to themselves. Minority groups, particularly those who are legislated against are always going to draw attention to themselves. It's about being proud and about voicing beliefs.

And what about the heterosexual couples who draw attention to themselves? I see that every time I walk down the street. But when heterosexual couples draw attention to themselves it is called "them expressing their love for one another" or "sweet" but when homosexual couples do it, it is labelled "attention seeking" and "inappropriate". There exists a huge double standard.

I'm also sickened by the many other people who title themselves as superior because their views agree with the current progressive thinking. Not only so, many other people even undermine and denigrate the idea of rejecting gay marriage. Surely, rulings such as these determine progress towards certain viewpoints, however, these viewpoints are not necessarily the most beneficial. Progress towards a direction does not always mean progress towards the correct direction. I believe many people here that post would receive a great deal of moderation if they even dared to call a "bigot" someone who openly supported gay marriage. Nevertheless, gay marriage supporters put down negative comments like these against the "public" that does not support their ideas. I don't believe in conservative and liberal ideologies, certainly, all differing ideas are just that, different.

The reason the gay marriage supporters are allowed to take the moral high ground is because they aren't the group of people who are trying to deny opportunities to others. They aren't the group of people who are trying to legislate against people expressing themselves. Yes, gay marriage supporters can be equally as close minded as people who reject the idea - but the fact still remains that one group wants to restrict and the other doesn't.

Homosexuality, in my opinion, is not normal. It is natural, if by natural you mean that nature "allows it" and that it occurs in nature. In addition, it is not close to being the majority.

Completely correct. Homosexuality is natural because it occurs, yet it is not normal because most people aren't homosexual. That's all fine.

But, what's wrong with that?. Since when did it become imperative to be "normal"? Everyone has aspects of themselves that aren't normal. I am a 17 year old girl who hates shopping and hates chocolate. That's really not normal, but it's not seen as a bad thing. Why does it have to come to sexuality until "normal" starts being a bad thing?

Now gay people who try to become straight are persecuted! Gay people now hear that they must embrace their condition and accept it; they must flaunt it, even if it is discreetly. If they have homosexual urges, they must be true to themselves and choose to follow them. Of course there is a lot more to this, but that is the main idea.

Maybe because homosexual people shouldn't have to feel ashamed at who they find attractive. Maybe because in today's Western society homosexual people do not have to live a life of deception where they are forced to pretend to be straight. Forced to pretend that they enjoy having sex with their wife. Forced to pretend to their children that they are straight.

Basically, to me, someone who considers himself a homosexual is no different as a person as someone who has ADD.

Oh, what a coincidence! I was just about to start my "SAY NO TO ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER MARRIAGE" campaign. Then, I'm going to get some friends together and we are going to find people with A.D.D and beat the shit out of them. Then, if we catch anyone with A.D.D we will make them pretend that they don't have it, because its not normal. And, if they don't listen to us we will stone them to death. Should take off rather well.

Joking aside, what you just said was incredibly offensive. "No difference". Ha. Mate, I don't care how many hour long seminars you give - you sound like a knobhead right now.

I also find it pointless to declare that gay people are more successful, productive, competitive, safe, open, intelligent, and more beneficial to society. Why? Because nothing less is expected. Just because they are gay they should not receive any spotlight or special attention.

God. The reason that is said is to try to show the idiots who claim gay people are sick morons that they are productive members of society too. Homosexual people do not want any special attention. They'd like to be able to walk down the street holding hands with their partner without being stared at.

They should be as good members of society as everyone else is. They are not crippled in any way, they are not physically ill in any way, they are not handicapped in any way (from being homosexuals), and thus, they should perform as well or better than any other member of society.

DUH! And they are. Your writing, especially in that paragraph, sounds incredibly clear that you are against homosexuality. I apologise if you aren't, but throughout your response you sound incredibly anti-gay. "They should be good members of society like everyone else is". Right. By the sounds of things, you would rather gay people to take more notice of "everyone else" and what they do, wouldn't you?

Many people approach the issue and set up "Gay vs. Straight" comparisons, but I'm sure if they had looked far enough, they would have found even more straight people that perform just as well or better than gay people.

Keep on stating the bleeding obvious. I hope this part wasn't included in your lectures. Really wise one? It doesn't matter what sexuality someone is - they should be judged on their own merits and their individual talents and shortcomings? My goodness! This is groundbreaking stuff.


You keep on with your lectures and your academic anaylsis of homosexuality (which I must say, is rather funny because not one point you made sounded academic at all to me) - maybe along the way you might realise that what you are talking about is human emotion. Love. And no scientific opinion or academic study is going to change the way people feel for each other.