California SC overturns gay marriage ban

Damocles said:
You spend an inordinate amount of time fantasizing about me and SF together. Does it make your hands sweat and your mouth go dry when you picture man-love like it does me when I think of my wife?
Click to expand...

It's just Cypress's normal method of "debate". When he can't refute the message, he attacks and smears the messenger instead.

If he couldn't do that, he'd have nothing to say at all.
 
Little-Acorn said:
Because they want more than just "gay marriage".

If all they wanted was "gay marriage", civil unions already provide that.

But they want to change the fundamental definition of marriage for all of society... and force the rest of us to accept their aberrant lifestyle in our midst whether we like it or not.
Click to expand...

Bullshit, they just want equal protection under the law. They want the same status as stright couples. Just call them all civil unions, if you want a religous marriage reconised by a church, go to that church and get married under there rules.

If you want a state reconised marriage go to the government and follow those rules.

If you want both do both!
 
Superfreak said:
1) Marriage is a word. While I agree that under the current situation, it appears they are trying to force their views on others... they could accomplish the same thing by creating their own church, which allowed gay marriage. Then it wouldn't appear they are trying to force anyone to accept their views.

2) Fat, lazy people who refuse to eat well or exercise have an abhorent lifestyle. They drive up my healthcare costs, food cots, their fat rolls overhang my seat on the plane, they are quite disgusting to look at (especially when they feel they can pull off tight clothing). That is abhorent.

How is the sexual preferences of a gay couple going to effect you?
Click to expand...

Just because a church reconises a marriage, does not mean teh state will. This fight is about what the government will reconise as a marriage and who can get the rights afforded to married people from the government.

You can get married in any church you want, that does not mean the government will reconise that marriage. For the government to reconise it you must get a liscense from the state then have a notary perform the service.

I got married once at the courthouse to my wife. Then a couple weeks later, got married in a ceramony.
 
Little-Acorn said:
All rights for gays are already completely equivalent to those for heteros, including thse involving marriage. The problem is, gay advocated DON'T want to be treated equally - they want far more. Since they can't get what they want democratically, they resort to the courts to force their agenda on the rest of society. And extremely-liberals courts such as those in Calif., Mass., and Hawaii have been amenable to their demands, willing to go far beyond their assigned duties to invent new "rights" and definitions for them.
Click to expand...
And before Brown v. the Board, blacks had equivalent rights to an education, just not with White students, they were separate but equal, and before Loving v. Virginia, Blacks could get married, just not to white people, so they had EQUIVILENT rights. In this case, the California constitution requires SAMENESS not EQUIVILENCY. That is what so many don't see, separate but equal does not cut it.
 
Jarod said:
Just because a church reconises a marriage, does not mean teh state will. This fight is about what the government will reconise as a marriage and who can get the rights afforded to married people from the government.

You can get married in any church you want, that does not mean the government will reconise that marriage. For the government to reconise it you must get a liscense from the state then have a notary perform the service.

I got married once at the courthouse to my wife. Then a couple weeks later, got married in a ceramony.
Click to expand...

The government cannot choose which religious ceremonies they will recognize due to seperation issues.

My point from this thread is that the government should not be "recognizing" ANY marriages as a rationale for tax breaks, visitation rights, inheritance rights etc... Any couple that wants those should be required to get a cival union license from the government.
 
Superfreak said:
The government cannot choose which religious ceremonies they will recognize due to seperation issues.

My point from this thread is that the government should not be "recognizing" ANY marriages as a rationale for tax breaks, visitation rights, inheritance rights etc... Any couple that wants those should be required to get a cival union license from the government.
Click to expand...


The government just cannot infringe on exercising religious beliefs. The state cannot stop two gay people from getting married in a religious ceremony but the state has no obligation whatsoever to recognize that religious marriage as a legitimate marriage under state law if the religious marriage fails to conform with the requirements of civil marriage under state law.
 
Dungheap said:
The government just cannot infringe on exercising religious beliefs. The state cannot stop two gay people from getting married in a religious ceremony but the state has no obligation whatsoever to recognize that religious marriage as a legitimate marriage under state law if the religious marriage fails to conform with the requirements of civil marriage under state law.
Click to expand...
But the state must have a reason for NOT recognizing same sex marriages. What is the harm sought to be avoided. What damage does it do to the state. To put it in Jeffersonian terms, does it pick anyone's pocket or break anyones legs? If not then the government has no reason to regulate consentual ADULT relationships.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top