Fed Judge overturns CA ban on gay marriage

[ATOMonkey]

Here's my off the wall thought.

If marriage is legally defined as being between a man and a woman in order to be registered as married by the state, shouldn't someone be verifying that people are indeed male and female?

 

[mrjarrell]

The main supporters and funders of prop 8 were the mormon church. They pushed hard for its passage. Why was that, I wonder? Could it be their longtime views on gays? The fact that they are bigoted where gays are concerned? Did either of you actually read the ruling?

 

[henktermaat]

The main supporters and funders of prop 8 were the mormon church. They pushed hard for its passage. Why was that, I wonder? Could it be their longtime views on gays? The fact that they are bigoted where gays are concerned? Did either of you actually read the ruling?

There's no way the Mormon church was responsible for the majority of 7,000,000 votes.

I categorically don't agree with judging people on how they might think or feel.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The main supporters and funders of prop 8 were the mormon church. They pushed hard for its passage. Why was that, I wonder? Could it be their longtime views on gays? The fact that they are bigoted where gays are concerned? Did either of you actually read the ruling?

Can you cite any nation or society where same-sex marriage has been codified instead of tolerated? Do you think there may be a reason that hasn't happened?

Since the gays have chosen to exercise their political franchise to elect and pressure politicians favorable to their cause, why should the fact that those dreaded Mormons decided to exercise their political franchise to further their beliefs have any negative weight? Are the Mormons somehow less worthy than the gays because their beliefs are different?

 

[ATOMonkey]

What about pre-Op trannies? Where do they fall in all of this?

 

[88GT]

The main supporters and funders of prop 8 were the mormon church. They pushed hard for its passage. Why was that, I wonder? Could it be their longtime views on gays? The fact that they are bigoted where gays are concerned? Did either of you actually read the ruling?

You mean their long-time view on homosexuality?

I suppose my opposition to murder as a sin makes me bigoted against murderers under your "logic."

 

[henktermaat]

You mean their long-time view on homosexuality?

I suppose my opposition to murder as a sin makes me bigoted against murderers under your "logic."

They don't use logic... just smile, nod, and move on while you can

 

[mrjarrell]

You mean their long-time view on homosexuality?

I suppose my opposition to murder as a sin makes me bigoted against murderers under your "logic."

Nope. Murder is an objective harming of one individual by another. Gay people loving each other harms no-one. The only ones harmed in this case were the gays and lesbians who were denied their rights, with the blessing and financial backing of the mormon church.

 

[Roadie]

There are two intertwined issues here. First is the issue of constitutionality of a law defining marriage. Under constitutional law, all that is needed is a rational basis for a law such as Prop 8. Morality is and has continued to be a rationale basis for making laws whether we like it or not. Thus, prop 8 is constitutional. Marriage isn't even an enumerated right like the 2nd Amendment. Thus, rational basis, not strict or intermediate scrutiny is all that is necessary to pass muster. Either Prop 8 should stand or all laws based on morality must fall. Prohibitions against polygamy, prostitution, pedophilia, beastiality are all have a basis in morality as their rationale and its the morality of the majority. These prohibitions must also fall if Prop 8 falls. And to be clear, this is not a commentary on my own moral beliefs.

The second issue is whether the government should play a role in determining legitimate marriages, and more importantly, should the gov't be giving benefits for entering a marriage. I don't think the government should be involved in marriages as its a religious thing. Let churches decide who they will marry and who they wont. The sticking point is then, that all the benefits that come from traditional marriage must be stripped. Remove the privileges that come from traditional marriage and the government no longer has a dog in the fight because nobody will care other than those who actually profess to love one another. Then they can find whatever church or institution that agrees with their morality and then get married.

THIS is my concern. If gay marriage is approved, will churches that refuse to perform gay weddings be in violation of law by doing so?

My other question is, would those opposed to gay marriage, be in favor of Civil Unions?

 

[88GT]

Nope. Murder is an objective harming of one individual by another. Gay people loving each other harms no-one. The only ones harmed in this case were the gays and lesbians who were denied their rights, with the blessing and financial backing of the mormon church.

Nope, murder is a sin that happens to be codified in law as prohibited. Christians still see homosexuality as a sin. Even if all the crimes in the world were suddenly legalized, they would still be viewed as a sin, and therefore wrong, in the eyes of God and Christians.

My issue is not with your stance on the gay union (I agree). My issue was your (deliberate?) error in labeling the target of Mormon opposition as the people rather than the act. I know it makes it easier to call them bigots that way, but a little honesty in the debate would be nice.

 

[mrjarrell]

Nope, murder is a sin that happens to be codified in law as prohibited. Christians still see homosexuality as a sin. Even if all the crimes in the world were suddenly legalized, they would still be viewed as a sin, and therefore wrong, in the eyes of God and Christians.

My issue is not with your stance on the gay union (I agree). My issue was your (deliberate?) error in labeling the target of Mormon opposition as the people rather than the act. I know it makes it easier to call them bigots that way, but a little honesty in the debate would be nice.

There was no error involved 88. The mormon church supported, backed and funded prop 8 due to their dislike of gays and lesbians. That's just a plain and simple fact. They poured millions into getting the unConstitutional prop passed. Are they bigoted? Perhaps not EVERY mormon, but the stance of their church certainly is. They are not immune from criticism for their bigotry. Fortunately, all of their time, effort and money was wasted now. This case was decided on Constitutional grounds and will have to work it's way up the chain, where it will likely be upheld.

As for murder...it's a crime. I don't particularly care what some religion decides it is. We're not a theocracy and don't punish people in courts for sinning.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Nope, murder is a sin that happens to be codified in law as prohibited. Christians still see homosexuality as a sin. Even if all the crimes in the world were suddenly legalized, they would still be viewed as a sin, and therefore wrong, in the eyes of God and Christians.

My issue is not with your stance on the gay union (I agree). My issue was your (deliberate?) error in labeling the target of Mormon opposition as the people rather than the act. I know it makes it easier to call them bigots that way, but a little honesty in the debate would be nice.

Sorry, honesty in the debate isn't in the cards; note the fallback to a previous positon, e.g. 'bigot'. That's the ole standby.

Side Note: If homosexuality is such a wonderful thing, why hasn't evolution supported it by allowing homosexuals to breed? If homosexuality were an evolutionary plus, wouldn't it have been codified into marriage long since? Or were all those generations of people back through history just morons who didn't realize what a great contribution homosexual couples would make if only they were married?

 

[88GT]

THIS is my concern. If gay marriage is approved, will churches that refuse to perform gay weddings be in violation of law by doing so?

Only if they open the door to allowing the state to regulate the practice of religion. But you can bet they'll try. Unless the "church" happens to me a mosque.

My other question is, would those opposed to gay marriage, be in favor of Civil Unions?

Not I. Marriage is a religious covenant between the man, the woman, and God. A secular civil union for the purposes of legal benefits and testate succession issue is completely independent of that.

Two people can be married in the eyes of God and not in the eyes of the state. On the flipside, two people can be married (perhaps 'joined' would be a better word????) in the eyes of the state and not in the eyes of God. Heck, you can even take the Christian aspect out of it. Two people can commit to each other and be "married" to each other out of their own sense of commitment and devotion and still not be legally married in the eyes of the state.

What makes them "legally" married is wholly unrelated to what makes them relationally married.

 

[Jar_Head]

Civil Unions vs. Marriage is the issue, and what the State you live in defines Marriage as. Most states define marriage as between a man and a woman and the definition is a legal point or issue. I think more than one state define it in their constitution but others are not so clear. This is not discrimination it's just not recognized just like marriage between a man and a dog or a woman and a horse are not recognized. If someone wants a civil union for say medical and work related benefits then that needs addressed. I think most folks feel calling a relationship between a man/man, woman/woman marriage is simply foreign. I don't think calling it marriage is okay but people will do what ever they want, government simply needs to stay out if it when the majority of the people vote on something overwhelmingly.

 

[88GT]

There was no error involved 88. The mormon church supported, backed and funded prop 8 due to their dislike of gays and lesbians. That's just a plain and simple fact. They poured millions into getting the unConstitutional prop passed. Are they bigoted? Perhaps not EVERY mormon, but the stance of their church certainly is. They are not immune from criticism for their bigotry. Fortunately, all of their time, effort and money was wasted now. This case was decided on Constitutional grounds and will have to work it's way up the chain, where it will likely be upheld.

As for murder...it's a crime. I don't particularly care what some religion decides it is. We're not a theocracy and don't punish people in courts for sinning.

You love to spin, don't you? You also love to ignore the intended message and move along with your own version.

Is what you're saying that the ONLY reason Mormons (where do other Christians fall in this, by the way?) oppose gay marriage is because they hate the gays? It's got nothing to do with the fact that homosexuality is a sin and they oppose behavior that they see only only accepts, but condones a sinful act? Are you also saying that because they are Mormon, they are incapable of distinguishing between the person and the act? It's all the same to them?

One final question: aren't you somewhat guilty of the same thing? Disliking and labeling Mormons in a derogatory manner for their position instead of disliking their position?

 

[$mooth]

My big beef is really that marriage is a legal thing. I got married to my wife under God, not under the state of Texas. I shouldn't have needed their "blessing", only my minister's.

Now, this is for my education, is homosexuality really a sin? I know parts of the bible say lying with another man . . . is a sin; but is wedding another man a sin? Is just being attracted to them a sin? I really don't know. What goes on behind closed door is their business, and quite frankly, I don't want to know.
But along those lines, aren't certain bedroom acts between an man and woman sins as well?

 

[henktermaat]

The judge is a homosexual. Conflict of interests.

This is about one single man forcing his own viewpoint, complete with biased personal judgement, against the will of Californians who voted twice.

What people think, is it a sin, is it not a sin, do they "hate" or not "hate," etc is all besides the point. Or at least it should have been until the judge decided to base a ruling on his perceptions of what goes on inside of 7,000,000 people's minds.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

My big beef is really that marriage is a legal thing. I got married to my wife under God, not under the state of Texas. I shouldn't have needed their "blessing", only my minister's.

Now, this is for my education, is homosexuality really a sin? I know parts of the bible say lying with another man . . . is a sin; but is wedding another man a sin? Is just being attracted to them a sin? I really don't know. What goes on behind closed door is their business, and quite frankly, I don't want to know.
But along those lines, aren't certain bedroom acts between an man and woman sins as well?

The two issues to the whole "gay marriage" thing, as far as I can see, are:

1. Homosexuals who live together want the same property, next-of-kin, and inheritance rights as married couples. In this, I think they are justified and should have a legal remedy.

2. The main thing they seem to want, though, is to have their sexuality made co-equally moral in the eyes of society. They are proceding with this goal on multiple fronts, assisted by the NEA in putting their view of morality in the schools (while Christianity is forbidden), and by aggressively pursuing the "normalization" of their sexuality through the institution of marriage. Although they want to live their lives as they see fit, they don't seem willing to accord the rest of society, which doesn't agree with them, the same courtesy.

 

[E5RANGER375]

anyone should be able to marry anyone else they want. this is religion interfearing with govt. thank goodness this judge saw it right!

if 2 gay people wanna get married then thats cool with me. it doesnt make my marriage to my wife any less signifigant. Theres no place in this country for people to try and shove their religious beliefs on others! try to tell me i can do something to my own body because your bible says its wrong, and watch what happens to your nose.

if your religion tells you not to do something then dont do it, but dont try to tell other people they cant do it. how would you like china coming in here and telling you how many kids you need to have? Christians are supposed to not judge others less they be judged, but that all I ever see and hear supposed christians doing, is judging and sentencing others. practice what you preach. and people wonder why im not religious??? maybe because i hate hypocrytes

 

[hoosiertriangle]

Marriage is a state issue, not a federal issue. If California doesn't want gay marriage and Maine does, let them have their choices. Oh wait, we did that already. There is no enumerated right to marriage in our federal constitution, thus strict scrutiny cannot be applied. As has been done before, the restriction only needs a rationale basis which was provided for by the majority of voting Californians (and many other states) who decided it was morally wrong. Let's have this discussion about what is really going on, and that is the wholesale withdrawal of morality as a basis for the law. If that is so, we must deal with those repercussions, but not hide behind derogatory names like bigot for those who have different moral frameworks.