California Gay Marriage Ban Lifted

Recommended Videos

AcacianLeaves

New member
Sep 28, 2009
1,197
0
0
Verlander said:
None of those things are specific to marriage, they could all be alloted. They are also country dependant. Tax breaks are a USA law, designed to encourage people into marriage! It's like blackmail, a large majority of people in America seem to think that marriage is a moral thing to do, and that your coutrys problems will somehow resolve themselves if people married (well, ok, that's a bit strong, but the general idea is there). I guess what else can you expect from a country founded by Christian puritans...

I'm glad you are married and happy, I think that's great. But in my country you don't have to be married to visit your partner in intensive care. I also understand how people want legal recognition in their decision to become life partners, but it shouldn't be necessery to NEED legal representation. The legal system should represent those who chose not to marry, a will should be a will, and a person should have the right to decide for themselves what should happen to themselves in the situation of death or permanent vegetative state. I have already planned for it. If someone is too young to have planned, the decision should be made by next of kin, family or partner. Marriage should be irrelevant.
Well then let's throw the term 'marriage' out and just call it 'legal kinship'. To me marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults that they would like to share their life. In order to realistically give your significant other certain rights that only they should have, there needs to be a legal contract involved.

Things like visitation rights, legally connected families, child custody, immigration status, disability, join filing of legal forms (taxes, bankruptcy), property transfer, bereavement leave from work, joint foster care, and so on and so forth. Either you could have several hundred legal forms to fill out if you want to be in a committed relationship, or you could just sign one form and say "yes, this person is my significant other".

Most of those are specific to the United States, but I would wager nearly every country has legal benefits to marriage.
 

Verlander

New member
Apr 22, 2010
2,449
0
0
Well fine. Obviously there is a midpoint where all of the negatives, such as the ones I pointed out, are removed, and all of the positives, such as the ones you point out are kept, and then you have a perfect situation. However, currently I see marriage as a predominantly negative thing, and I think that far to much legislation is based upon this "contract", which is signed between two people who are potentially very underqualified to make this decision. I don't like anybody other individual having any sort of rule on my life, which is legally recognised, when the relationship bewteen individuals can be tenable at the best of times. I don't see many positives in it, and I'm part of a growing group of people who agree.
 

Cryofthewolf

New member
Feb 28, 2008
414
0
0
I think that it is about time that this Proposition Hate was lifted. Gay couples deserve the rights that any couple deserves.
 

Dexiro

New member
Dec 23, 2009
2,977
0
0
I still don't think I've seen any reason against gay marriage other than "gays are icky" xD
 

johnman

New member
Oct 14, 2008
2,915
0
0
Buzz Killington said:
johnman said:
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.
 

Verlander

New member
Apr 22, 2010
2,449
0
0
johnman said:
Buzz Killington said:
johnman said:
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? :p
 

MrJohnson

New member
May 13, 2009
329
0
0
AMMO Kid said:
I'll just come right out with it. The founding fathers were, like it or not, Christians, and they would never have wanted this for our country. They would have shaken their head at it. So how is it unconstitutional? Now excuse me while I ready my defensive procedures.

[http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y171/warboss5/?action=view&current=its-a-trap.jpg]
The founding fathers were disillusioned Christians that were trying to found a nation based on the ideals of freedom for all. Which is why the American government started off in Philadelphia, the only city in America at the time full of Quakers who supported racial and religious freedom even back then.

Hence the whole "All men are equal" thing. They thought the American people would understand, but they didn't.
 

Boba Frag

New member
Dec 11, 2009
1,288
0
0
Woo! Excellent! Now gay couples can be miserable and unfulfilled like straight married people too! lol

We have civil partnership on the cards here in my country too. Honestly, I think it's ludicrous telling people how to have a relationship, who they can only have it with and they can only have one if they're straight.

What happens in a person's own private life, is their business alone.
 

ninjajoeman

New member
Mar 13, 2009
934
0
0
MrJohnson said:
Wooheee! Welcome to tha' futurement of civil rights California! Now you can join us pig rustlin', corn eatin', deep frying, farmers out here in the boonies of Iowa!

Fuck you California, and fuck your media. Way to portray us as stupid, ignorant, and intolerant when your state repealed gay marriage and we voted that it should be legal. Not to mention the fact that our literacy rates, and our high school and college graduation rates being much, much higher than yours.

Because even the country bumpkins out here in Iowa (Iowa, not Idaho and I swear to god the fact that people somehow don't know where Iowa is blows my mind, it's the exact middle of the biggest natural floodplain in the world, and produces ,along with the rest of the Midwest, the majority of the food keeping us nice and fat) have at least a high school education.
high five for living in the mid west
 

HolyMoogle

New member
Aug 5, 2010
22
0
0
aquailiz said:
HolyMoogle said:
aquailiz said:
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.

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.
I think the fundamental problem with this is that you're reducing people's relationships to an academic analysis. Aside from a few vague references to 'conversing' or rooming with gay people, it doesn't appear to me as though you really know or understand any. Your statements about flaunting suggest a predisposition to homosexuality as it is presented by cable news networks; ie, reduced to colorful shots of parades with the underlying menace of an agenda out to draw ever more people into its web.

This post... it almost reminds me early and rudimentary exercises in anthropology where European scholars would analyze 'native tribes' and such from afar, exoticising them and feeling unduly dazzled/threatened/impressed/uncomfortable with any perceived difference. Then, once in a while, one would go off and 'live' with these tribes for a year to understand their ways, oblivious to the fact that they really didn't know the first thing about them.

From the outside looking in, anything can seem strange. Some gay people might 'flaunt', most will not. But beneath such veneers are... ordinary people. Ordinary, boring, wonderful people.
In part it is possible to say that I reduced people's relationships to an academic analysis. However, remember I took these ideas from experts in their field of society and psychology (I do not cite because it has been over 2 years since I did the work and I have forgotten all the names.) and they themselves have dedicated their lives to the academic study of human relationships, amongst other things.

On your second point, if you do think that I view homosexuality "from afar" and fear from delving into the human aspect of it, I would have to argue that you do the same thing yourself when you do not consider the other possibility that homosexuality could be a psychological issue. I have to admit I cannot say I understand completely homosexuality, I would have to be a homosexual or have to deal extensively with them. However, if you do not consider the other possibility and understand it and study it completely, then you cannot thoroughly dismiss it altogether, lest you incur in the same mistake you claim I reflected on my post. Surely, the idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder may seem strange, looking from the outside in...
Ahh, but whoever said I was on the outside. And until you are a) able to come forth with details about exactly who's work you are studying and b) take your analysis out of the realm of abstract academia and actually live, I'm afraid what you are saying really doesn't seem to have any credibility.

I maintain that you are viewing things from afar, exoticizing them, othering them. The desire to categorize difference into easily understandable disorders is a hallmark of early psychoanalytic research, and given that the American Psychological Association declassified homosexuality as a disorder in 1973, I have to say that the people you are studying sound outdated at best, or otherwise professionally suspect.

An in any case, I can 'take ideas' from somebody who has studied a foreign culture (whether or not it was studied well) but can I truly claim to have any real understanding? No. That sort of thinking is just a hallmark of an intellectual superiority complex.
 

Xojins

New member
Jan 7, 2008
1,538
0
0
aquailiz said:
Xojins said:
aquailiz said:
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.
Good point. However the same can be applied to homosexuals, they cannot give an unbiased opinion either. It would be even harder to deem bi-sexuals as an unbiased voice. Since they are both homosexuals and heterosexuals, they cannot express what it means to be either one or the other uniquely. Then, according to your argument, no one could give an objective or factual opinion.
The only difference is that homosexuals aren't trying to impose their idea of heterosexuals on the American population, or define what it is to be heterosexual. Yet, homosexuals are constantly stereotyped and discriminated against by the heterosexual population due to their biases. Yes, you could argue that homosexuals discriminate and stereotype heterosexuals, but they aren't the ones trying to restrict the freedom of heterosexuals.
 

Xojins

New member
Jan 7, 2008
1,538
0
0
AMMO Kid said:
I'll just come right out with it. The founding fathers were, like it or not, Christians, and they would never have wanted this for our country. They would have shaken their head at it. So how is it unconstitutional? Now excuse me while I ready my defensive procedures.
Because of that whole "separation of church and state" thing everyone likes to ignore, making gay marriage or homosexuality illegal for religious reasons is unconstitutional. If you can find a good reason that has nothing to do with religion whatsoever why gay people shouldn't get married, I'd like to hear it.

P.S. And really think hard about your response because the overwhelming majority of reasons I've heard have roots in religion at the very least.
 

Heeman89

New member
Jul 20, 2009
242
0
0
HG131 said:
Heeman89 said:
I support equal rights for all but I'm personally disgusted by this, the people of California voted to make this legal and now it gets overturned, just goes to show that no matter what "We the People" say, if someone wants it legal, they'll find a way
Just because people think it's right doesn't mean it is. If that were true, blacks would be slaves, women would be second class citizens and people would be punished for being raped.
I honestly don't think we would have fought a war against ourselves if EVERYONE thought that was blacks should be slaves, you seem to forget that people died in this country because of that, with women's rights, it failed the first time and what happened "We the People" voted all the people who voted against it and it came about to pass the next year. Your third point there is an interesting one as is I've never heard of it on a national scale (but of course I could have just missed it) only place I've heard of that is in church politics which really doesn't apply to the discussion at hand. My point is, in this country, where we have the option to put things to a vote, so the people get a say in how things are done, and the people vote to change their constitution in one way (which whether it be right or wrong) they chose it to be that way so thats the way it is. Now, when everything can be overturned in courts...why bother voting on anything at all? If a select group of people don't like it they'll just take it a court that sees it their way and get it overturned. Should we just abolish voting for things all together just because the people "may think something is right but it might not be?"
 

Decabo

New member
Dec 16, 2009
302
0
0
One of Many said:
Decabo said:
One of Many said:
Decabo said:
One of Many said:
Decabo said:
One of Many said:
AndyFromMonday said:
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.
All right, it's clear I'm not going to get anywhere arguing with an unsympathetic asshole such as yourself, so I won't waste my time. Oh, and if you're going to call someone thick, you may want to learn the difference between "your" and "you're."
 

McMarbles

New member
May 7, 2009
1,566
0
0
All I can say here is "score one for the good guys".

Now, I do hope this goes to teh Supreme Court. We have the votes. Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan'd probably rule in favor of the judge, and Kenneddy's pretty good with civil liberties despite being a Bush the Elder (or was it Reagan?) appointee. Sotomayor's the wiild card, but I have a feeling she'd rule the right way.
 

ShadowsofHope

Outsider
Nov 1, 2009
2,623
0
0
AcacianLeaves said:
ShadowsofHope said:
The point to the animal or inanimate object thing is that they cannot consent and they obviously cannot voice their "love" for you. Any human being can, with enough knowledge and maturity to do so, though in case of sex and marriage we are talking about adult individuals. We are talking about those individuals here simply wanting the rights that have been forced away from them by a bigoted majority, and on the path to hopefully succeeding.

In a nutshell.
Also note that marriage is a LEGAL contract, and animals can't enter a legal contract (whether or not they have the ability to consent). The same goes for minors or inanimate objects or imaginary creatures or whatever other smokescreens are put up as 'slippery slope' fallacies.

.. Exactly my point?

Also, your image isn't working?
 

Steve Butts

New member
Jun 1, 2010
1,003
0
0
Arguments against "legislating from the bench" are a double-edged sword. Yes, this ruling invalidates a decision made by the electorate, but the checks and balances in our government rely on the oversight and intervention of other branches when and where it's appropriate. Now, whether this intervention was appropriate is clearly debatable, but the pity is that the debate sinks to ad hominem attacks where people on both sides simply shouting "My opinion makes me better than you" at each other.

The problem is that we're discussing a relationship that means different things to different people. To some, it's a social contract born out of habit. To others, it's a civic convenience offered by the state. To others, it's a religious covenant with profound spiritual implications. Where we get into trouble is in trying to set which of those priorities ought to be the most important to other people.

Conservatives have a responsibility to argue against extending marriage beyond their own definitions, but not to the extent that they disregard the priorities of other people, or deny them the legal and financial conveniences that marriage offers. Supporters of gay marriage have a legitimate claim to equality under the law, but shouldn't assume the objections of others are always motivated by hate or fear.

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.
 

Cody211282

New member
Apr 25, 2009
2,892
0
0
zehydra said:
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.
Agreed this is one of the rare times that the feds have needed to step in to secure individual freedoms.