Gay marriage in California

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Playboypenguin

Moderator
Note to all: Before you even think of hitting the "reply" button, you had better have read this thread until you get to my post, here. - Antipitas.

This is all over the news today and is liable to be an issue in the upcoming election.

I would like to hear the opinions of some of the forum members on this topic.

I personally have never been a supporter of gay marriage since I feel marriage is a religious union and not the affairs of the government. I am a supporter of civil unions for those that wish to enter into them...gay or straight. I personally have the option of civil union here but have not opted for it after 16 years together.

My ideal conclusion to this subject would be for the states to recognize that marriage is a religious institution and allow individual religions/churches to decide upon who they chose to bestow the privilege. Then the states would offer civil unions as an alternative to marriage for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. Then mandate that marriage and civil unions be equally protected under the law. That way everyone has the same options when it comes to legal rights and churches retain the right to recognize who they wish.
 
My views are exactly the same as Playboypenguin's. He said it perfectly. Unfortunately politicians can't see fit to deal with the 'issue' that way.
 
Its going to be short lived as a constitutional amendment is in the works for november. Sulu should enjoy it while it lasts.
 
Its going to be short lived as a constitutional amendment is in the works for november. Sulu should enjoy it while it lasts.
Click to expand...
That does not answer the question. It simply sounds like sour grapes. Besides, the last polls I saw showed that the amendment only had about a 20% chance of passing if it even reaches the voting stage. In fact, I was watching a California feed of an NBC affiliate the other day and they were having a hard time finding a single supporting view for a constitutional amendment while doing street interviews.
 
Or we can just leave marrage the way it was intended, Man and Woman. The same very beliefs that this country was founded on. This country is turning more and more to the likeness of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Hell in a rocketship.
 
Or we can just leave marrage the way it was intended, Man and Woman. The same very beliefs that this country was founded on. This country is turning more and more to the likeness of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Hell in a rocketship.
Click to expand...
How does civil union damage this country? Feel free to answer in a pvt message.
 
It's always been my opinion that marriage had nothing to do with religion but was a legal device used to tie property and assets together. Civil Unions, from what I understand of them, are the same thing in the eyes of the law. It's only the ceremony used that seems to bestow a religious connotation. A religious ceremony is not necessary for a legal marriage (to the best of my knowledge this is true of the whole US, please correct me if I'm wrong).
 
Feel free to answer in a pvt message.
Click to expand...

I'm not affraid to voice my opinions. However, I understand the reason you sugested the option. Getting into religous discussions is not permitted in the forum, nor should it. But that being the reason of my comment. There was a clear decline in society the day that religion was removed from schools. Folks are protesting the "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. It's not even recited anymore in most schools. But once again, these are my beliefs about my religion and where the country's problems lie due to the lack of it.

But I'm not going to get into a religious debate on the internet, public or private. It won't benifit either side.
 
That does not answer the question. It simply sounds like sour grapes.
Click to expand...

Sour grapes is a bunch of unelected judges overturning the will of the people without any constitutional justification.

And as far as the amendment is concerned, when the proposition was passed, its was only a few percentage points shy of the necessary threshold for an amendment which wasn't necessary for passing the proposition.
 
Or we can just leave marrage the way it was intended, Man and Woman. The same very beliefs that this country was founded on. This country is turning more and more to the likeness of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Hell in a rocketship.
Click to expand...


And what beliefs are those??? Freedom and the belief that ALL people are equal?? Or is this just a backdoor way of saying were a "christian" nation.:rolleyes:


My ideal conclusion to this subject would be for the states to recognize that marriage is a religious institution and allow individual religions/churches to decide upon who they chose to bestow the privilege. Then the states would offer civil unions as an alternative to marriage for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. Then mandate that marriage and civil unions be equally protected under the law. That way everyone has the same options when it comes to legal rights and churches retain the right to recognize who they wish
Click to expand...
.

I agree to an extent with PlayboyPenguin. But what about gay couples that are religious?? Should'nt they too want or be entitled to a religious marriage??

Im neither gay or religious. My views on marriage have always been simply that a "marriage" is simply an agreement between two people who wish to spend their lives together. If you want to add the religious aspect to it, more power to you. However, the less the law is involved the better.
 
I agree to an extent with PlayboyPenguin. But what about gay couples that are religious?? Should'nt they too want or be entitled to a religious marriage??
Click to expand...
People, gay or straight, choose to follow a particular religion. If you choose to continue to support a religion that denies you full benefits that is a decision you make fully informed. It also does not legally or politically affect your rights as a citizen to be denied religious recognition and I feel the state has no right to make a religion offer benefits that go against it's religious convictions.
 
I am a supporter of gay marriage. I would gladly settle for a civil union, but my feeling is that if gay marriages were only called civil unions, it would be made fun of by the general population, and there would be a feeling that a gay civil unioin wasnt 'equally important' as a marriage.


I've been with my partner for nearly 4 years now. Neither marriage or civil union is an option to us right now, but I hope that one day we will be able to be legally married.

There was a clear decline in society the day that religion was removed from schools. Folks are protesting the "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance
Click to expand...
I'm not going to debate religion with you. You are free to belive what you wish, but I would like to inform you of some historical fact.

We do have a seperation of church and state in this country. That includes religion in schools. A religious child can pray whenever they wish. Even at school. You only need prayer in school if your goal is to make non religious children pray. Also "Under God" was written into the Pledge during the 1950's, not to show this counties alegiance to the christian god, but to anger the comunists in the USSR.
 
Exactly the reason for the non religious posts. I was neither pushy nor beligerant, and yet I get the "fanatic...this country is Christian...blah. Like it or not, this country was founded on what it was. But wrong is wrong, I was simply comparing the lack of religion and the decline of society. Doesn't have to be Christianity. Any religion, all religions, the lack there of is the problem. The fact that the rights of many that have been infringed upon the few.

What is the big deal with Gay union anyway. What, they want it "legal" so they can file joint on the their taxes? When they get divorced, so they have to divide property and go thru a legal battle? What are the great benifits to it? I don't know, so I'm asking.
 
Speaking of 'short lived', I thought this subject was verboten on this forum?

I'm all for civil unions for whoever wants 'em. The sanctity of marriage is a clearly a religious issue, thus out-of-bounds of government regulation. If a church is willing to marry 2 women, that's their business. Likewise, if a church is not willing to marry 2 people that's also their business.

The civil union, otoh, should be treated just as any other contract by the government.
 
People, gay or straight, choose to follow a particular religion. If you choose to continue to support a religion that denies you full benefits that is a decision you make fully informed. It also does not legally or politically affect your rights as a citizen to be denied religious recognition.
Click to expand...


Yeah....I agree Playboy.....I didnt really think about it that way.

Can't very well have the government telling the church how to do business. That would be hypocritical...:rolleyes:
 
What is the big deal with Gay union anyway. What, they want it "legal" so they can file joint on the their taxes? When they get divorced, so they have to divide property and go thru a legal battle? What are the great benifits to it? I don't know, so I'm asking.
Click to expand...
To some it is a matter of recognition and equality. I personally do not believe in marriage for gays or straights. I do not see it as necessary for a committed relationship.
 
Sour grapes is a bunch of unelected judges overturning the will of the people without any constitutional justification.
Click to expand...
I seem to recall something in there about 'freedom of religion'. Also somewhere in that Constitutional law class you claim to have taken you should recall that 'freedom of marriage' is a fundamental human right.

The Constitution is abundantly clear on this matter.
 
If it's not MY Tab "A" or Slot "B", why should I care either way? People who get exercised about what OTHER people do with themselves need to find another hobby.
 
Speaking of 'short lived', I thought this subject was verboten on this forum?
Click to expand...
It is a valid political issue. I am not aware of it being forbidden. if it is I am sure the thread will be closed. I would not think it would be a forbidden topic since it is a valid and socially relative subject. The only reason I could see to ban such discussions would be to mask the bigotry of forum members. I would hope this forum would not be that short sighted. Out of sight does not address an issue.

No one is looking to debate the religious aspects of the topic but instead the legal and political side. The fact that government should not be able to tell churches how to conduct business and the way government treats legal unions is the issue.
 
I find it nauseating that the proponents of the CA court decision argue individual rights and freedom there but completely ignore it in 2A rights matters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top