Jump to content
OtakuBoards
Sign in to follow this  
Shy

Gay Marriage Legalized in California

Recommended Posts

[quote=CNN][url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a much-anticipated ruling issued Thursday, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.

California's Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

Several gay and lesbian couples, along with the city of San Francisco and gay rights groups, sued to overturn state laws allowing only marriages between a man and a woman.

"There can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most consistent with our state's general legislative policy and preference," said the 120-page ruling.

It said that the state law's language "limiting the designation of marriage to a 'union between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples."

With the ruling, California becomes the second state to allow same-sex couples to legally wed. Massachusetts adopted the practice in 2004, and couples don't need to be state residents to wed there.[/url][/quote][size=1]So um... yeah. This was good news for me to wake up to this morning. Your thoughts?

-Shy[/size]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Shy'][size=1]Your thoughts?[/size][/QUOTE]
Congratulations to California, I suppose. My suitemate (San Francisco native) was delighted to hear about this. :)

Seems like the kind of thing that could end up in front of the federal Supreme Court, though, and I'm not sure if I want to see how the current court will address gay marriage... well, no point in worrying about that right now.

~Dagger~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Congratulations. Now all homosexuals can be just as miserable as the rest of us poor straight people.

On the other hand, I argue semantically against gay marriage. Of course this is moderately meaningless because until the Supreme Court of the United States makes a ruling to this effect, it isn't the law of the land. Get married, but stay in California. Or Massachusetts.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know, I can't say whether or not I agree with it. I guess it was inevitable, I've been against gay marriage for awhile...sadly enough not for the reason of "Gay is Evil" that floats around. I guess my thing is (at least where I'm from) every major company you work for recognizes gay couples for insurance.

My fiancee's cousin is gay. His life partner is on his insurance. They've only lived together for 6 months. And where together only 2 months before that. Meanwhile MY fiancee and I have been together for over 4 years. But I can't get her on my insurance because we aren't married?

I'm sort've getting sick of a lot of civil rights movments taking advantage of everything. Do I agree homosexuals have the right to marry? Yes, I do. But they, on top of every other civil rights movments, take a lot when you give thema little.......but that's a rant for another day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[font=trebuchet ms] My sister texted me the news, and I guess my initial reaction was: I don't care.

I know I sound evil, but honestly I didn't. Not because I don't care about gay rights, but because I think in my mind I have assumed that it was going to happen sooner or later, so I wasn't really going to fuss over it. Also, we were discussing the death tolls and situation in China/Myanmar in class when I got the text, and I guess it just seemed sort of insignificant at the time. [/font]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Drizzt Do'urden']You know, I can't say whether or not I agree with it. I guess it was inevitable, I've been against gay marriage for awhile...sadly enough not for the reason of "Gay is Evil" that floats around. I guess my thing is (at least where I'm from) every major company you work for recognizes gay couples for insurance.

My fiancee's cousin is gay. His life partner is on his insurance. They've only lived together for 6 months. And where together only 2 months before that. Meanwhile MY fiancee and I have been together for over 4 years. But I can't get her on my insurance because we aren't married?

I'm sort've getting sick of a lot of civil rights movments taking advantage of everything. Do I agree homosexuals have the right to marry? Yes, I do. But they, on top of every other civil rights movments, take a lot when you give thema little.......but that's a rant for another day.[/QUOTE]

Couldn't this be solved by exactly what this article is reporting? If all states legalized gay marriage, there would be no reason for life partnership clauses.

And insurance is hardly the only issue with gay marriage. I don't see how the movement pushing for equality in an industry when the only option beforehand has was previously illegal in 49 states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Morpheus']If all states legalized gay marriage, there would be no reason for life partnership clauses.[/quote]
[FONT=Arial]By contrast, racial discrimination is [B]il[/B]legal, and yet Affirmative Action is still necessary.

[CENTER]-----------------[/CENTER]
My reaction: okay. I may not agree with it, but if they want to do that, then I see no reason to stop 'em. If down the road it turns out that some deity or other reaches out of the clouds and pwns them for some Deic (is that even an adjective? :p) reason, then I suppose they had it comin'; if not, then I suppose no harm done.

(^_^)[/FONT]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]By contrast, racial discrimination is [B]il[/B]legal, and yet Affirmative Action is still necessary.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Since when is affirmative action necessary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Morpheus']Since when is affirmative action necessary?[/quote]
[FONT=Arial]Wizard's First Rule, bucko: people are stupid. (And [I]please[/I] don't try to derail this thread into pointless semantic blather. Blathering's my department, and I only do it when appropriate.)[/FONT]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR=DarkOrchid][FONT=Times New Roman]Congratulations. Now all homosexuals can be just as miserable as the rest of us poor straight people.

On the other hand, I argue semantically against gay marriage. Of course this is moderately meaningless because until the Supreme Court of the United States makes a ruling to this effect, it isn't the law of the land. Get married, but stay in California. Or Massachusetts.[/FONT][/COLOR][/quote]
[FONT=Arial]wow, that wasn't just a little offensive, that was [I]immensely [/I]offensive.

it's sad you think marriage implies misery, but at least same-sex couples now have a [I]choice [/I]in how they can be 'miserable.'

I say it's about ****ing time that more is being done to give gays and bisexuals more rights (at least somewhere). this shouldn't even be an issue in the first place, you know, an adult wanting to marry another adult in a church-separated-from-state country.
[/FONT]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Wizard's First Rule, bucko: people are stupid. [/FONT][/QUOTE]

The complete version: "People are stupid. People will believe a lie either because they want to believe it's true or because they are afraid it might be true."

Back on topic, it really is inevitable that gay marriage will be made legal. I give it 15 or 20 years, but it really is inevitable. The state's might as well just make it legal now, and save the supreme court the trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='amibasuki'][FONT=Arial]wow, that wasn't just a little offensive, that was [I]immensely [/I]offensive.

it's sad you think marriage implies misery, but at least same-sex couples now have a [I]choice [/I]in how they can be 'miserable.'

I say it's about ****ing time that more is being done to give gays and bisexuals more rights (at least somewhere). this shouldn't even be an issue in the first place, you know, an adult wanting to marry another adult in a church-separated-from-state country.
[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]That was sarcasm at it's finest dear. And let's consider your response. Youbelieve me to be sincere in my belief that marriage will lead to unhappiness. You have no idea what I really believe and look around you, turn on a tv. How many happily married couples do you see? I see Bill and Hillary. A divorce rate going through the roof. On and on and on until you could puke.

Sure, marriage sometimes leads to true happiness but the point is that I was being both facetious and ironic. But that's my choice. And seriously folks, let's think about it. What makes you think gay couples that are married will be any happier than same sex couples that are married? As for why you mentioned bisexuals in an article that didn't mention them anywhere is utterly beyond me.

An adult wanting to marry another adult? Marriage was originally a construct of the church. And while the church is separated from the state, you've conveniently forgotten the free exercise clause. The government can not limit the free exercise of any religion. The glib "separation of church and state" line might get you somewhere with stupids, but it won't fly with everyone. Save that line for later. But on the other hand, I, like Shy, believe it is a state's rights issue and as such, the Supreme Court will most likely not lift a finger to do a thing about it. And considering the way the court is tilted at this particular moment, we'll be waiting for awhile for the conservative justices to die before any legislation is passed on a federal level.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adding on why you shouldn't use separation from church and state as an excuse for anything: that phrase was never once used in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, or any other country founding document for that matter. It was first used by Thomas Jefferson in a personal letter to a church, assuring them that the government will in no way interfere with the religious matters of the church (as in, say what can or can't be worshiped).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Lunox'][font=trebuchet ms] My sister texted me the news, and I guess my initial reaction was: I don't care.

I know I sound evil, but honestly I didn't. Not because I don't care about gay rights, but because I think in my mind I have assumed that it was going to happen sooner or later, so I wasn't really going to fuss over it. Also, we were discussing the death tolls and situation in China/Myanmar in class when I got the text, and I guess it just seemed sort of insignificant at the time. [/font][/QUOTE]Ditto. It is the equivalent of someone eating a 12-pound steak in a minute, and then watching a bigger guy eat 12-pound steak in a minute. Newsworthy first time around, "meh" and predictable second time around.

SiChuan, right? Some of those photos are really hard to swallow...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]Every time I hear the debate over Gay marriage the first sarcastic thought that crosses my mind is "OMG it's the end of the world!" And then tomorrow still happens, life goes on and nothing really changed at all, so the big fuss is really just that, a silly fuss over nothing.

Why people care who someone else is married to never made any sense to me and still doesn't. I mean, so what if they are the same gender... Seriously. Personally I think the days of dictating to others who they can't marry is long over and people need to quit fighting over it. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]Marriage was originally a construct of the church.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Actually, the church borrowed marriage at some point. Prior to that, marriage was exclusiely related to land ownership and the assets of two families merging together - it took on a religious connotation [i]much[/i] later in history.

Anyway, I suppose I am in agreement with some people here who aren't too concerned. Yes, it's a landmark decision, but I also did kind of expect it as an inevitability at some point.

So, good for California. Now those who want to have their relationship legally recognized can do so. It's logical and it's due.

And now that there's that equality, everyone can just get on with their lives. :catgirl:[/font]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR=DarkOrchid][FONT=Times New Roman]That was sarcasm at it's finest dear. And let's consider your response. Youbelieve me to be sincere in my belief that marriage will lead to unhappiness. You have no idea what I really believe and look around you, turn on a tv. How many happily married couples do you see? I see Bill and Hillary. A divorce rate going through the roof. On and on and on until you could puke.

Sure, marriage sometimes leads to true happiness but the point is that I was being both facetious and ironic. But that's my choice. And seriously folks, let's think about it. What makes you think gay couples that are married will be any happier than same sex couples that are married? As for why you mentioned bisexuals in an article that didn't mention them anywhere is utterly beyond me.

An adult wanting to marry another adult? Marriage was originally a construct of the church. And while the church is separated from the state, you've conveniently forgotten the free exercise clause. The government can not limit the free exercise of any religion. The glib "separation of church and state" line might get you somewhere with stupids, but it won't fly with everyone. Save that line for later. But on the other hand, I, like Shy, believe it is a state's rights issue and as such, the Supreme Court will most likely not lift a finger to do a thing about it. And considering the way the court is tilted at this particular moment, we'll be waiting for awhile for the conservative justices to die before any legislation is passed on a federal level.[/FONT][/COLOR][/quote]

[FONT=Arial]first off, what does “that’s my choice” have to do with this? it’s your choice on how to write your posts? obviously. and it’s my “choice” to interpret your intent based on how you wrote it. I don’t get where you’re going with that particular point.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]as far as the married gay couples being compared to married same-sex couples, I’m going to have to suppose you were comparing straight couples to gay/bi couples, since the other way is redundant and it was probably a typo. I don’t know how that would even be a question. what, gay couples can’t be as happy as straight couples? what would keep them from being [I]less[/I] happy relationship-wise? whether or not marriage ends well isn’t the issue on gay marriage anyway (btw, the marriage issue [I]does [/I]legitimately involve bisexuals in the event that a bi person would want to marry someone of their same sex). [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]as far as us “stupids” go concerning church and state (which, if you don't think you were offensive before, you pretty much just undid yourself, “choice” of yours or not -- call it a “choice” of mine to call you out on it), separation of church and state IS in fact a part of the Constitution, and it doesn’t have to be stated in that specific phrase to be so. I don’t know how you not-stupid people don’t get that.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]what do you think the First Amendment refers to? [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]meaning yeah, the government can’t tell people they’re not allowed to practice their specific religions, but that it likewise can’t push religion(s) (including beliefs/opinions) on people in the form of laws either (which is what separation of church and state means in the first place). [/FONT][FONT=Arial]the free exercise of religion [I]can be [/I]limited when it infringes on the rights of others, the same as for free speech.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial]it’s one thing if laws are considered out of logical societal human decency, but the main argument for something being “my religion prohibits it” shouldn’t be a factor when making laws that all people (including people who don’t believe in whatever religion happens to be the majority at the time) are supposed to follow. you can give good reason for murder being morally bad without a religious reasoning behind it. you can’t justify gay marriage as being morally bad without a religious reasoning other than “it’s just not natural,” which is a tremendously weak argument.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]and even if you were right about marriage’s original beginnings, you can’t discount how marriage has evolved to be what it is now. take it to be a bad thing or not, but you can marry someone for just about anything, whether it’s for someone’s money, or for love, or for having a steady ****-buddy – but only if you’re straight, of course. you don’t have to love the person you’re marrying or anything; you just have to sign some papers and say you’re willing to legally be with your partner. and with that going on, a woman can’t marry another woman for love when this other guy just did it for the sake of having a trophy wife to keep up his reputation. that’s a really classy double-standard. if people want to talk about keeping the ‘wrong’ people from getting married (if you’re striving for marriage to be held in an idealistic light), try getting people like that banned from marriage instead.
[/FONT]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FONT="Georgia"][COLOR="DarkOliveGreen"][SIZE="1"]I personally believe that the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" (or in this case, replace it) goes for f-buddies too. Don't need a contract to keep him...or them. Just saying. ^_^[/SIZE]

On topic:

Separation of church and state is implicitly stated in some countries' declarations of independence, especially those which were once colonies under regimes overindulgent towards religious orders (case in point, my Philippines). Since this [i]laissez faire[/i]-ish clause holds both ways, any religious organization can only stand as an arbitrary magnet to the people's moral compass.

In theory, that would be fine and dandy, but when your country's legislative body is mostly of one religious denomination, its beliefs will mirror that of said denomination. That's why up until now, same-sex unions aren't recognized by our government (but a certain "left-wing" movement does, and it's awwwright!).

So, hurray for California![/COLOR][/FONT]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COLOR="Indigo"][quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]And now that there's that equality, everyone can just get on with their lives. :catgirl:[/font][/QUOTE]If only that were true... Now we just need this to be in all of the states instead of just a select few. [/COLOR]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='amibasuki][FONT=Arial']first off, what does ?that?s my choice? have to do with this? it?s your choice on how to write your posts? obviously. and it?s my ?choice? to interpret your intent based on how you wrote it. I don?t get where you?re going with that particular point.[/FONT][/quote]
[FONT=Arial]This is Raiha's point: --------------->
This is your head : [COLOR=#EDEDED]space[/COLOR]O

And [I]this[/I] just ain't your day. :p

Moving onwardly.....
[quote name='amibasuki][FONT=Arial']as far as the married gay couples being compared to married same-sex couples, I?m going to have to suppose you were comparing straight couples to gay/bi couples, since the other way is redundant and it was probably a typo.[/FONT][/quote]
I think you're right. :animesmil However, [I]again [/I]one flies over the cuckoo's nest, so lemme clear that up.
You said:[QUOTE][FONT=Arial][I]I don?t know how that would even be a question. what, gay couples can?t be as happy as straight couples? what would keep them from being [I]less[/I] happy relationship-wise? whether or not marriage ends well isn?t the issue on gay marriage anyway.[/I][/FONT][/QUOTE]
This isn't a commentary on why homosexual couples shouldn't have marriage rights. It is instead this statement here:

[CENTER][IMG]http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/funny-pictures-unimpressed-cat.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

We cool?


To be honest, the parts of her post that weren't laughing at you for blundering straight into her were the basic sentiments of that picture. You're tryin' to argue with a wall, my friend. She just don't care.

And this isn't so much about homosexual couples wanting to be able to "marry" as it is about them being officially recognized as a family unit. Since (for some reason beyond my ken) the act of marriage requires the State's approval (again, o_O), crying or [I]de[/I]crying anything about religion seems rather pointless.

So us Christians may not like it. So what? Our precepts do not tell us to forcibly subjugate the governing laws to our purposes, but tells us how to conduct our own business. If the laws where we live do not line up with our beliefs, either we deal with it or we leave, unless we're being unfairly oppressed, and I don't see that happening here.

Final note:
[quote name='amibusaki][FONT=Arial']and even if you were right about marriage?s original beginnings, you can?t discount how marriage has evolved to be what it is now. take it to be a bad thing or not, but you can marry someone for just about anything, whether it?s for someone?s money, or for love, or for having a steady ****-buddy[/FONT][/quote]
Ehh, no, it's pretty much always been that way. No evolution about it; us humans are surprisingly sot in our ways. We don't change, we just find different ways of saying it. :p[/FONT]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SIZE="1"]*Joins the indifference camp*

Not to be cruel or anything about this, because I'm sure it's means a lot to the gay population of California, but the legalisation of gay marriage is something I've developed a severe indifference to at this point. While I'm not going down D'Ann's "yay let's all be miserable together" line, it's something which has no effect on me whatsoever, so I have no real opinion whether positive or negative on it. The debates will still rage, both for and against, and I'll still be there in the middle yawning and feeling mighty bored.[/SIZE]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FONT="Tahoma"][quote name='Raiha][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Congratulations. Now all homosexuals can be just as miserable as the rest of us poor straight people.[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]I think you need your own special tag, like that Kuja one, only in your case it would mean... take note! Raiha is being sarcastic, facetious and ironic like always! :p

Anyway... even though religiously I should or rather my religion seems to think I should object... I think it's not my place to make that decision for others. So though I'm not for it and won't vote to get something like that passed... I won't vote against it either. [/FONT]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][quote name='Sabrina'][FONT="Tahoma"]I think you need your own special tag, like that Kuja one, only in your case it would mean... take note! Raiha is being sarcastic, facetious and ironic like always! :p[/FONT][/QUOTE]Raiha tags... that would be pretty hilarious actually. Heh. :D

And yes Indi... It would be nice if those who object would just stop the bickering, make it legal across the entire US of A and finally find something else to grip over. Or better yet, actually find something productive and useful to do instead of worrying about other's marital status/state. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×