Proposition 8 has been ruled unconstitutional.
Of course, this is going to get challenged and possibly overturned, but it's still awesome that the bill got kicked.
|
Yep. Ain't legal yet though-- because the panel that ruled 'Prop 8' Unconstitutional has still left the current prohibition on gay marriages in place until the appeals have gone through the next level. It's still one more good step towards ending religious bigotry on this issue, at least out here in California.
Can't happen soon enough IMO.
Of course, I live in Rhode Island which is completely surrounded by states which recognize gay marriage but does not itself, so don't ask me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yay freedom!, BUT:
Down with marriage!
Up with hawt promiscuous sex!
Goblins do it in the street!
Yep. Ain't legal yet though-- because the panel that ruled 'Prop 8' Unconstitutional has still left the current prohibition on gay marriages in place until the appeals have gone through the next level. It's still one more good step towards ending religious bigotry on this issue, at least out here in California.
Yea, and if the appeals succeed, it won't become legal at all. Still, it's great to see the foundation of such laws cracked, and hopefully it won't get appealed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again. Gay marriage is legal in Cali again. Well, soon anyway.
Then hopefully it doesn't get to the SC.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still fail to see why the US government feels it needs to interject itself into any religious ceremony. Whats next, redheads will be fined for being circumsized? Thats how ridiculious this all seems to me.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still fail to see why the US government feels it needs to interject itself into any religious ceremony.
... or why a religious ceremony or the equivalent is required to apply for partnership benefits. Divorce them (pun intended) completely, is what I'd advocate. You have a nice church wedding? Good, you're married, but that's not a legal partnership, and you don't get the legal benefits. You signed the partnership papers? Good, you have all the legal benefits, but you're not "married" in the religious sense. Most couples would end up doing both.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im with Kirth. The whole thing needs undone. Get government out of the marriage business completely. they should have more important things to do.
Im with Kirth. The whole thing needs undone. Get government out of the marriage business completely. they should have more important things to do.What do you mean by "Get government out of the marriage business completely."?
Too many of the things that go along with marriage are important things for government to do. All the legal implications of marriage are going to be handled by the government one way or another. There needs to be some legal process for taking 2 unrelated people and making them a family. Whether they call it marriage or civil union or call it nothing and make you fill out paperwork for each individual legal separately.
Not to mention the political and legal battles over any such change in marriage laws would be far bigger and more distracting than our current squabbles over gay marriage.
Im for calling it nothing. Fill out the paperwork and youre done. It's none of mine or anyone else's darn business who anyone wishes to pair up with. As an aside, I am not married. What exactly are the legal ramifications of marriage, that I may not be aware of?
The government gives married couples over one thousand different legal benefits, many involving economic or medical issues, such as tax breaks and hospital visitation rights.
After further research, it looks like ruling will end up fought out in the Supreme Court. This is bad, because the Supreme Court will almost certainly uphold Prop 8.
|
Well, the circuit (rather cleverly) narrowly defended their decision. They did not argue that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, but rather that, once gay marriage has been granted, it is unconstitutional to strip people of it. This means that it has almost no application outside of California, which may result in the SC denying cert.
Well, the circuit (rather cleverly) narrowly defended their decision. They did not argue that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, but rather that, once gay marriage has been granted, it is unconstitutional to strip people of it. This means that it has almost no application outside of California, which may result in the SC denying cert.
At the same time, the SC knows it's going to have to rule on this eventually, and the SC is currently pretty conservative. That might not be the case in the future. They know that if they rule within a couple years, they can put a massive wound in the pro-gay marriage movement.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Civil union needs to be the legal part (gay and straight) while Marriage needs to be the non-legal religious institution word. Others countries have done this to great effect.
Im for calling it nothing. Fill out the paperwork and youre done. It's none of mine or anyone else's darn business who anyone wishes to pair up with. As an aside, I am not married. What exactly are the legal ramifications of marriage, that I may not be aware of?
Off the top of my head:
Shared property. Hospital visitation and decision making rights. All the tricky stuff dealing with joint custody/guardianship of children. Tax benefits/penalties. Being "Next of kin". Inheritance. Can't be forced to testify against each other. Immigration. Family insurance plans. Even legal protections when you divorce.The fundamental point of marriage is becoming a family. Becoming related. If whatever you substitute doesn't do that legally and socially, it's not an acceptable substitute.
I'm not married either. Much of my knowledge of this comes from gay couples I know attempting to duplicate marriage benefits through other legal devices, wills, powers of attorney, etc. You can do some, but it's much more difficult and expensive and you can't do everything.
There are horror stories of hospitals turning to homosexual's estranged parents and shutting out the partner of 20+ years. He's not related. Has no legal right to visit.
Thats pretty much what I thought. I see nothing here that would cause all of Western Civilisation to come to a screeching halt if we allowed people to do as they damn well pleased.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are horror stories of hospitals turning to homosexual's estranged parents and shutting out the partner of 20+ years. He's not related. Has no legal right to visit.
This. This breaks my heart. This is why I am pro-gay-marriage, or even something resembling marriage, for consenting adults. Because I can't imagine the situation that occurs. I would die inside if I couldn't guarantee my partner's wishes if they were dying. If it was left for their parents to decide. No. It makes me die a little on the inside to hear about this.
I wonder why the PnP-gamer community is, generally, united on the pro-gay front? I haven't yet met more than one gamer who is anti-gay marriage. (One out of many more than I can count). And, in my experience, it surpasses a generational gap. I've met gamers, young and old, who feel this way. Maybe it's because most of us come from a community that shuns us. "D&D!? You're a freak," Is that why? I'm curious. Or maybe it's just here in the Denver-Metro area.
|
|
The government gives married couples over one thousand different legal benefits, many involving economic or medical issues, such as tax breaks and hospital visitation rights.
After further research, it looks like ruling will end up fought out in the Supreme Court. This is bad, because the Supreme Court will almost certainly uphold Prop 8.
And if the Supreme Court does do that-- they will be wrong. They have a duty to uphold the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, not their personal convictions. It won't be the first time in American history that our Supreme Court has f***ed up, and unfortunately, it won't be the last time either.
(equally unfortunate is that our Congress will again be remiss in their duty to impeach a few Supreme Court (in)Justices, for stepping way beyond their jobs in putting their own judgement over the Constitution)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Civil union needs to be the legal part (gay and straight) while Marriage needs to be the non-legal religious institution word. Others countries have done this to great effect.
Yep, I think that would actually be the best solution, myself. Get religion entirely out of civil law.
However, the "defenders" of the "sanctity" of marriage will still be crying and whining, because there will still be 'gay marriages' conducted by those churches and faiths that believe gay marriage is appropriate-- and, as it should be, freedom of religion rights will keep those who disagree from dictating to others what their religious beliefs and sacraments are and are not.
I don't belive the SC will uphold prop 8. I don't even think there is a chance of it.
They will not give people the ability to vote away civil rights.
By using the words "Anti gay" and "the good guys are winning" is wrong b/c it incorrectly labels people who don't agree with you hateful, bigoted and bad or evil.
Please watch your rhetoric or you might be labeled anti heterosexual.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By using the words "Anti gay" and "the good guys are winning" is wrong b/c it incorrectly labels people who don't agree with you hateful, bigoted and bad or evil.
Please watch your rhetoric or you might be labeled anti heterosexual.
The thing is, I am heterosexual and male, so calling me anti-hetero is just foolishness.
I've been called so many insults, including the ones you mentioned, by the anti gay marriage crowd that I'm not going to worry about offending them. Offending anyone isn't my primary aim here, but it's certainly nothing I'm going to self-censor to avoid.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
By using the words "Anti gay" and "the good guys are winning" is wrong b/c it incorrectly labels people who don't agree with you hateful, bigoted and bad or evil.
Please watch your rhetoric or you might be labeled anti heterosexual.
With all due respect...
I am heterosexual. I still support the right of homosexuals to marry partners of their choice, regardless of sex/gender. I consider it a civil rights issue (Freedom of Religion, Equal Treatment before the Law, and Equal Protection under the Law). While I personally believe that marriage should be stripped from civil law entirely, I don't expect that to ever happen (for the reasons 'thejeff' listed right after my previous post was made). So long as we're stuck with a combined civil status and (to some) religious sacrament within civil law, it needs to be open and accessible to all, not something that has artificial restrictions imposed on it on religious grounds.Most of the people I've run into arguing in favor of proposition 8 are, well, to be blunt: bigoted and rather hateful, at least on this subject. Quite a few of them are otherwise decent people, so I'm not going to brand them inherently hateful people, or evil, or bad.... but on this issue, yeah, it's a display of bigotry and prejudice, and I will call it what it is. It's not an "anti-heterosexual" thing, it's an anti-discrimination thing.
PROP 8 results
Votes Percentage
Yes 7,001,084 52.24%
No 6,401,482 47.76%
Valid votes 13,402,566 97.52%
Invalid or blank votes 340,611 2.48%
Total votes 13,743,177 100.00%
Voter turnout 79.42%
Electorate 17,304,428
The population of California 37,691,912
Just b/c I agree to civil unions that does not mean the constitution can be used to change the definition of Marriage, a Sacrament in the Christian Church. Its a Sacrament not a right to get Married.
Saying most people who are for Prop 8 are hateful and bigoted is just wrong. It creates animosity for those you name call.
I don't belive the SC will uphold prop 8. I don't even think there is a chance of it.
They will not give people the ability to vote away civil rights.
Oh, I bet they will.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PROP 8 results
Votes Percentage
Yes 7,001,084 52.24%
No 6,401,482 47.76%Valid votes 13,402,566 97.52%
Invalid or blank votes 340,611 2.48%
Total votes 13,743,177 100.00%
Voter turnout 79.42%
Electorate 17,304,428The population of California 37,691,912
The majority also was against letting women vote and banning segregation.
Just b/c I agree to civil unions that does not mean the constitution can be used to change the definition of Marriage, a Sacrament in the Christian Church. Its a Sacrament not a right to get Married.
I don't care if it's a sacrament, because the church does NOT own the idea of marriage. I'm fine with letting individual churches decide whether or not they want to perform gay weddings, but I'll be damned if I'm going to tolerate them telling others whether or not to do so.
Saying most people who are for Prop 8 are hateful and bigoted is just wrong. It creates animosity for those you name call.
Fine. I won't call you names.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just b/c I agree to civil unions that does not mean the constitution can be used to change the definition of Marriage, a Sacrament in the Christian Church. Its a Sacrament not a right to get Married.Saying most people who are for Prop 8 are hateful and bigoted is just wrong. It creates animosity for those you name call.
I do not believe in the christian god. I renounce his existence now and forever.
Now, since we live in the United States of America, where part of my First Amendment right is freedom of religion, tell me why a religion I do not belong to should be used to determine my legal rights to pick a partner, which has legal ramifications (like hospital visitation rights, inheritance, insurance, etc).
I have served in the US military. If I was still active duty, tell me why this religious view should be imposed on me and prevent me from starting a family with any person that I choose? For example right now, if I were gay, I could serve openly, but I would not be allowed to apply for base housing with a male partner.
Wrong on so many things you are. I seriously hope you two get it one day. (Kelsey / Irontruth)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kelsey have I mentioned recently how much I love reading your posts? Thanks!
Wrong on so many things you are. I seriously hope you two get it one day. (Kelsey / Irontruth)
Could you explain which things I am wrong about?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wrong on so many things you are.
OH GREAT. Now even Yoda is anti-gay!
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
PROP 8 results
Votes Percentage
Yes 7,001,084 52.24%
No 6,401,482 47.76%Valid votes 13,402,566 97.52%
Invalid or blank votes 340,611 2.48%
Total votes 13,743,177 100.00%
Voter turnout 79.42%
Electorate 17,304,428The population of California 37,691,912
Just b/c I agree to civil unions that does not mean the constitution can be used to change the definition of Marriage, a Sacrament in the Christian Church. Its a Sacrament not a right to get Married.
Saying most people who are for Prop 8 are hateful and bigoted is just wrong. It creates animosity for those you name call.
Aretas--
I believe that those of you who are in the Christian Church have the legal right to 'Freedom of Religion', which means that you do have the right to define a Christian marriage (within your sect of Christianity, anyway) as your faith sees fit (including to require that marriages within your faith are strictly between a man and a woman).However- you do NOT have the right to dictate to other people, of other faiths, what their religious sacraments will (or will not) be-- so, others are free to define 'marriage' as a sacrament of their faith, as they see fit-- and if their faith accepts and approves of marriages between a man and a man, or between a woman and a woman-- it is NOT your right to tell them they cannot do that, because that would be interfering with their freedom of religion.
"Christian" marriages are not the only form of marriage. Matter o' fact, "marriage" existed before the Christian Church, so you really don't have any right to claim that "christian" marriages are the only possible kind.
Also, so long as marriage is a 'civil' sacrament, you have no right to define it on religious terms-- which is what you, and everyone else, who tries to insist on what you've already admitted is the "Christian" definition of marriage, are trying to do. As a civil status, and as conducted by a 'Justice of the Peace', it is not a "christian sacrament", it's a civil right.
Regarding the votes you cite? Meaningless. The reason we have guaranteed rights in the Constitution is to protect the rights of unpopular minorities from the "tyranny of the majority". This, is a classic example of why we need those guarantees-- because it's not the first time that a majority of voters have acted in an ignorant, prejudiced and bigoted fashion to oppress a minority's rights. We don't need Constitutional guarantees to protect majority rights-- simple votes can do that.
I do not, as I said before, necessarily think that everyone who is for Prop. 8 is doing it out of hate. However, the act is an act of prejudice, bigotry against those who do not share your faith, and a failure to understand the concept of 'separation of church and state'. It is an overt effort to insist that the rules of your faith should be imposed on everyone, whether they belong to your faith or not-- and it's wrong.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cultures and faiths other than Christianity have the concept of marriage.
Some of those roll with the idea of same-sex marriage.
Some Christian traditions roll with same-sex marriage.
Those against it don't own the concept of marriage.
No one should force those that don't want to perform such marriages to do them. But those that don't want to do them should not be blocking those that do.
OH GREAT. Now even Yoda is anti-gay!Wrong on so many things you are.
LOL.
PROP 8 results
Votes Percentage
Yes 7,001,084 52.24%
No 6,401,482 47.76%Valid votes 13,402,566 97.52%
Invalid or blank votes 340,611 2.48%
Total votes 13,743,177 100.00%
Voter turnout 79.42%
Electorate 17,304,428The population of California 37,691,912
The majority also was against letting women vote and banning segregation.
Just b/c I agree to civil unions that does not mean the constitution can be used to change the definition of Marriage, a Sacrament in the Christian Church. Its a Sacrament not a right to get Married.I don't care if it's a sacrament, because the church does NOT own the idea of marriage. I'm fine with letting individual churches decide whether or not they want to perform gay weddings, but I'll be damned if I'm going to tolerate them telling others whether or not to do so.
Saying most people who are for Prop 8 are hateful and bigoted is just wrong. It creates animosity for those you name call.Fine. I won't call you names.
You cannot compare civil rights and womans suffrage to same gender marriage b/c homosexuality is condemned in the Bible and the other issues are not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You cannot compare civil rights and womans suffrage to same gender marriage b/c homosexuality is condemned in the Bible and the other issues are not.
You must hate freedom.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That's the text in the Bill of Rights. It says that the government shall not establish a religion. My religion does not have anything against homosexuality. Therefore, if the government denies freedoms to homosexuals, it is favoring your religion over mine. If you approve of this, you hate freedom.
PROP 8 results
Votes Percentage
Yes 7,001,084 52.24%
No 6,401,482 47.76%Valid votes 13,402,566 97.52%
Invalid or blank votes 340,611 2.48%
Total votes 13,743,177 100.00%
Voter turnout 79.42%
Electorate 17,304,428The population of California 37,691,912
Just b/c I agree to civil unions that does not mean the constitution can be used to change the definition of Marriage, a Sacrament in the Christian Church. Its a Sacrament not a right to get Married.
Saying most people who are for Prop 8 are hateful and bigoted is just wrong. It creates animosity for those you name call.
Aretas--
I believe that those of you who are in the Christian Church have the legal right to 'Freedom of Religion', which means that you do have the right to define a Christian marriage (within your sect of Christianity, anyway) as your faith sees fit (including to require that marriages within your faith are strictly between a man and a woman).However- you do NOT have the right to dictate to other people, of other faiths, what their religious sacraments will (or will not) be-- so, others are free to define 'marriage' as a sacrament of their faith, as they see fit-- and if their faith accepts and approves of marriages between a man and a man, or between a woman and a woman-- it is NOT your right to tell them they cannot do that, because that would be interfering with their freedom of religion.
"Christian" marriages are not the only form of marriage. Matter o' fact, "marriage" existed before the Christian Church, so you really don't have any right to claim that "christian" marriages are the only possible kind.
Also, so long as marriage is a 'civil' sacrament, you have no right to define it on religious terms-- which is what you, and everyone else, who tries to insist on what you've already admitted is the "Christian" definition of marriage, are trying to do. As a civil status, and as conducted by a 'Justice of the Peace', it is not a...
You know Paizo mafia moderators have your back. Are you going to flag my reply to stifle opposition to your social engineering experiment as hateful & bigoted?
Thats pretty much what I thought. I see nothing here that would cause all of Western Civilisation to come to a screeching halt if we allowed people to do as they damn well pleased.No probably not.
I'm not sure what you mean by "do as they damn well pleased"?
Do you mean no marriages at all? Churches can use the term but it has no legal status? Something else entirely?
I am saying that the state should not concern itself at all with whom one wishes to marry. (outside of making sure they are of age and not being forced into it against their will.) Call it marriage. Or dont. Does it matter?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You cannot compare civil rights and womans suffrage to same gender marriage b/c homosexuality is condemned in the Bible and the other issues are not.
I'm going to say it again, in case you haven't gotten it the first several times:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
What don't you understand about that?
Now, since maybe you're not familiar with the United States Constitution, including Amendments, here are the two that matter in this particular discussion:
the 1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I've bolded a section above. No law respecting an establishment of religion = if marriage is a religious sacrament, then every marriage ever conducted in the United States is legally void, because the law authorizing it is, by definition, a law respecting an establishment of religion. No law prohibiting the free exercise thereof-- means you are not allowed to tell other religions that they cannot conduct their religious sacraments, including their sacrament of marriage, as they see fit. So, the Federal "Defense of Marriage Act" is Unconstitutional, because it is explicitly a law "respecting an establishment of religion". And, the marriage laws we are talking about, so long as they are Constitutional at all, must be talking about a civil status, called "marriage", not the religious sacrament called "marriage"-- I realize it's confusing that we use the same word to mean two entirely different things. One of those is up to your faith to define for you (and for other people's faiths to define for them), the other (the civil status called "marriage") is part of civil law-- it's not up to your church or any other religious group to try to enforce a religious definition for it.
Now, you might be confused, because the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make...", which is where the 14th Amendment comes in-- this is section 1 from it:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Again, I've added bold text to a particular part-- "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"-- that means, among other things, that the rights granted against Congressional action in the 1st Amendment, are also protected against any State action-- and because local governments derive their authority from the States, are protected against local government action.
The 14th Amendment also reinforces the requirement that everyone in the United States must be given equal protection of the laws-- means you can't have a law that singles out one particular group for special, separate treatment. It's not that hard for most people to understand.
Considering that yes, I can go to the Bible and build a case that the Bible approves of slavery, condemns woman's suffrage, condemns democracy altogether, condemns treating women equally, approves unequal treatment based on race.... and that, in order to excuse the condemnations I've just mentioned, you must excise and refuse to acknowledge the books and chapters in the Old Testament that are also the source for making any condemnation of homosexuality. Oops! Since you say you are bound by the Bible-- which is it? Homosexuals are okay? or women must know their place and quit speaking out before men? 'Fraid the only thing you get by telling me the Bible condemns homosexuality but does not condemn those other things you say are okay-- is the label 'hypocrite'-- because you 'cherry-pick' the parts you want to believe and ignore those other inconvenient parts, and do not consistently follow your own book, which I have read, btw.
Good thing I'm not your variety of Christian, so I don't have to worry about the clear and blatant contradictions in your religious documents.