California Gay Marriage Ban Lifted

[BlumiereBleck]

Boooooo.

 

[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 Honestly, if I had a choice, any law passed or repealed would be by the will of the majority of the people.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 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.

If the only way the judge could NOT be biased in your opinion was for him to uphold Proposition 8, then the bias does not so much rest with him as with you. Judge Vaughn is considered an independent-minded conservative, and was nominated for the bench by Reagan.

In any case, placing white, heterosexual male Christians as the normal, non-biased 'centre' is incredibly demeaning to all other judges - the idea that judges cannot be impartial because they are Jewish, or black, or gay, or female, or whatever, is appalling.

 

[Agayek]

Um, because it's not part of religion anymore? It's a MARRIAGE licence. A church can marry you, but it's not recognized by the gov. until you get a licence. Therefor, it's not a religious affair anymore. Sorry, but I'd like you hear your response.

To be fair, Marriage is a religious institution. It just shares a name with the legal institution, and isn't much different in the definition. A legal marriage can be invalid according to the Church (or Mosque or whatever) and vice versa.

That said, the "marriage" homosexual couples want is the legal version. Very few people actually care about the religious version nowadays.

 

[Agayek]

I am assuming you mean this as sarcasm but the simple fact is that the constitution is bad news for democracy. The people voted against gay marriage. Lets not forget that the constitution also makes it legal for news stations to tell straight out lies.

Actually, no. Technically, you're correct in that the Constitution itself does not outright ban libel and slander, there is a large collection of common law and legislation preventing any media outlet from actual mistruths. They've managed to get around these laws using halftruths, exaggeration and showmanship, but they can't actually outright lie.

 

[HolyMoogle]

Um, because it's not part of religion anymore? It's a MARRIAGE licence. A church can marry you, but it's not recognized by the gov. until you get a licence. Therefor, it's not a religious affair anymore. Sorry, but I'd like you hear your response.

To be fair, Marriage is a religious institution. It just shares a name with the legal institution, and isn't much different in the definition. A legal marriage can be invalid according to the Church (or Mosque or whatever) and vice versa.

That said, the "marriage" homosexual couples want is the legal version. Very few people actually care about the religious version nowadays.

A few things - religions have come and gone, but marriage as a concept of uniting two people has endured. Religions adopt marriage, yes, but to say it is a religious institution is sort of saying the baby gave birth to the mother. And some homosexual couples DO want religious weddings - they are easily able to do that, they can do that now. As hard as it is for some to believe, there are churches which support same-sex marriages.

 

[Agayek]

As you said, it doesn't matter what they think. The only important thing is, to quote the Judge Dread movie, DAAAAAAAAAAAA LAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I move we have Judge Dread settle this debate.

All in favor?

 

[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.

If the only way the judge could NOT be biased in your opinion was for him to uphold Proposition 8, then the bias does not so much rest with him as with you. Judge Vaughn is considered an independent-minded conservative, and was nominated for the bench by Reagan.

In any case, placing white, heterosexual male Christians as the normal, non-biased 'centre' is incredibly demeaning to all other judges - the idea that judges cannot be impartial because they are Jewish, or black, or gay, or female, or whatever, is appalling.

You assume that I say its unfair because I don't agree with the ruling. One more time, shall we?

First of all, Vaughn was appointed during Bush senior, not Reagan. Second, he's one of two federal judges that is openly gay. Third, he's described as a libertarian. This guy was going to strike it for all the wrong reasons: Because he is what the law is restricting.

Conversely, I would oppose the ruling if the judge was Pro-Prop 8. I feel the only possible way this ruling would be fair is if the person reading it was a confirmed independent, NOT a Republican/Democrat/Libertarian.

Second, I never said that that was the norm. I merely said that if true social change is needed, the best way to do it is via federal Rights Bills, like the Civil Rights Bills of the 1960's.

As for my view of a normal judge, well, they don't use race, color, creed, sexuality, gender, or anything that could be discriminated against as the basis of their rulings: Rather, they use humanity.

 

[Agayek]

A few things - religions have come and gone, but marriage as a concept of uniting two people has endured. Religions adopt marriage, yes, but to say it is a religious institution is sort of saying the baby gave birth to the mother. And some homosexual couples DO want religious weddings - they are easily able to do that, they can do that now. As hard as it is for some to believe, there are churches which support same-sex marriages.

Traditionally for Western countries (ie, anywhere whose culture originally spawned from or was a part of Christendom), Marriage is a religious institution. The Church decided who was allowed to marry whom, who was allowed to divorce (there was even a schism in the Church over that one, lolEngland), and what it meant. It originally started as the fairly standard "Here's your mate, go reproduce" thing that essentially all mammals, or simians at least, have encoded in their DNA, but it has evolved much through the years.

Nowadays the important bits are almost all governmentally controlled, but there is still an important, to many people, religious aspect to it.

Obviously, none of this applies to Eastern cultures, but very few people on the Escapist fall into that category.

 

[Xojins]

I believe gay marriage is wrong, that is just my opinion, Its just sounds like an oxymoron to me

Fair enough, care to elaborate?

[http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y171/warboss5/?action=view&current=its-a-trap.jpg]

hehe, sorry, couldn't help myself =P

HAHA i dont doubt that its a trap.

Well marriage has always been when two people 'come together' under the responsibilities of a religion, and we know that religions tend to reject homosexuality.

So why call it 'marriage' which has always been religious.

Because marriage hasn't always been religious. It wasn't until the 16th century AD that marriages needed to be sanctioned by the church.

 

[HolyMoogle]

A few things - religions have come and gone, but marriage as a concept of uniting two people has endured. Religions adopt marriage, yes, but to say it is a religious institution is sort of saying the baby gave birth to the mother. And some homosexual couples DO want religious weddings - they are easily able to do that, they can do that now. As hard as it is for some to believe, there are churches which support same-sex marriages.

Traditionally for Western countries (ie, anywhere whose culture originally spawned from Christendom), Marriage was a religious institution. The Church decided who was allowed to marry whom, who was allowed to divorce (there was even a schism in the Church over that one, lolEngland), and what it meant. It originally started as the fairly standard "Here's your mate, go reproduce" thing that essentially all mammals, or simians at least, have encoded in their DNA, but it has evolved much through the years.

Nowadays the important bits are almost all governmentally controlled, but there is still an important, to many people, religious aspect to it.

Obviously, none of this applies to Eastern cultures, but very few people on the Escapist fall into that category.

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".

 

[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.

 

[Xojins]

Personal opinions now... 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.

I am a person who has studied and even given hour-long talks and informational sessions about the concept of homosexuality. I'll have to admit it is quite easy for the public to speculate and generate opinion about the matter by listening to what the media says and what "leading" opinion-makers discourse, gay people included. I would even say the general public does not a concrete, solid idea on what the matter really deals with. I have read probably too many scientific articles and research papers on the matter. I have spoken and conversed with gay people, I have dealt with them and even recently had a gay roommate. I read and studied the works of psychologists, sociologists, and doctors who specialized in defining what homosexuality really is, and I'll have to admit it is easy to spot others who do not have a broad depth of knowledge on the subject.

What I intended with the previous paragraph was to show that I am not just blabbering off with my opinion. I try to keep my thoughts as unbiased as possible on this matter, mostly because some people can be sensitive towards it, and because in order to fully understand a debatable subject, you have to know both sides of the story.

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. From what I have studied, it is a deeply intricate problem of the human psyche; which has been recently worsened by society. Do note that even though a problem does not interfere with a person's ability to perform well in society, this does not mean the problem itself is not there. Of course the APA declared it was not a mental disorder, but the circumstances and history surrounding that council are sketchy at best. In recent times, numerous sociological processes began to exacerbate the condition. It became a statement to be gay. Gay people were persecuted, incriminated, and martyred. However, during the modern era of telecommunications and globalization, these processes were not controlled in the least, but rather exaggerated. It is through society that being gay has become a problem, and because of the kind of society that we live in, it has become a problem to even try to revert it. 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.

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

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. 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. 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.

In conclusion, I would have to remind (and thank) any kind reader who actually finished reading my post, that this is my opinion. I think it is an educated opinion due to the amount of background that I have personally studied and dealt with. I would also like to say that this is an issue that deals with more areas than the ones presently discussed. I would also encourage people to educate themselves and study this subject further and deeper before formulating opinions of their own, and to search the truth within this topic rather than listen to the media and society and generate opinions from it.

The problem with this is that no matter how much you study, observe, research homosexuals and homosexuality, you will never be able to define what homosexuality is because your thoughts and findings are inherently biased if you are heterosexual. So I'm sorry but your opinions are in no way objective or factual.