Gay marriage in California

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gay people have the right to be just as miserable as us straight people. :p

But seriously, I think marriage is a great thing for two people in love that want to spend the rest of their lives together :rolleyes:. And it's worked great for straight people. Only 47% of first marriages end in divorce, and no one ever EVER cheats on their spouse. Marriage is clearly a hallowed institution, at the core of what makes America great.

Give me a break. Who really cares? Marriage has certain legal benefits that gays should have the right to if they want.

I also think that it is very hypocritical that the people who promote the stereotype of gays being promiscuous are the same people that want to keep them from getting married. At least then the "promiscuity" would be no worse than what the heterosexual people have been doing since time immortal. ;)
 
I personally do not believe in marriage for gays or straights. I do not see it as necessary for a committed relationship.
Click to expand...


BINGO!!!



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...

I agree, but if the law doesnt recognize it, certain things are denied to people who aren't "legally" recognized as being "together". Thats why as long as a union between two people has to be considered "legal", people will fight for recoginition in the eyes of the law outside of the "man-woman" marriage belief.
 
Out of sight does not address an issue.
Click to expand...
Preachin' to the choir, bud. :D
Nevertheless, it is my understanding that certain topics are off-limits and that this is one of those topics. Not sayin' I agree with it.
 
Nevertheless, it is my understanding that certain topics are off-limits and that this is one of those topics. Not sayin' I agree with it.
Click to expand...
Well, if it is I am sure it will be close. Everyone has been civil so if it gets closed there is no harm done.
 
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 completely agree with this premise. You summed this up perfectly.
 
Also, I'll tell ya why marriage is important: The welfare of the partners and the welfare of the children raised by the couple. Likewise, the legal aspects of dissolution needs to have an orderly process just like us 'straighties'.
Suppose one of 'em gets sick. The other doesn't have a legal right to visit the other in the hospital, or tend to their business by proxy, or weigh in on medical decisions.
Suppose one of 'em brings children into the relationship. Without marriage, the other cannot legally act as a guardian.
Suppose one of 'em dies. The other has no legal grounds to execute the estate, nor any right to keep the kids, nor any way to safeguard his/her ability to provide for them.
Suppose they decide to separate. Without any recognition of the fact that they were legally married, it is impossible to resolve property and custody disputes.

"Marriage" and "civil union" are not legally equivalent. I believe that they should be, but know that right now they are not.

If the Federal government confers all the rights and responsibilities of a contract for marriage to civil unions then the problem will go away.
 
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...

that makes way too much sense.

marriage as a religious institution should be seperate from government.as a legal contract...anyone who wishes to do so should have the right to enter into it.

the government should handle "civil unions"(or whatever you want to call them)...churches should handle "marriage".
 
I was gonna stop this thread, as I began reading, especially as I read the post by wpcexpert. I thought, "Here we go again!"

Depending upon what you believe, the decline (if that is what we are seeing/experiencing) of this nation can be attributed to many things. Religion (or lack thereof) is only one item that I see on the plate.

That is most emphaticly NOT what this thread is about.

The thread IS about Marriage and Civil Unions and whether or not the traditional One Man-One Woman Roman Catholic standard should be the only standard applied.
Playboypenquin said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think we can, also but... There are many who cannot divest themselves of the religious aspects of Marriage in general. I'm willing to give it a try, however.

First: The only way this thread can continue is if everyone divorces themselves of any religious aspects (other than as a corollary effect - PM me if you don't understand that concept).

Second: Any gay bashing, off-color statements, etc. will not be tolerated. The thread is not about what you think of homosexuality.

Lastly: Let's concentrate solely upon the legal and political ramifications.

Any off topic posts and they will disappear. If I have to "disappear" too many posts, the thread gets locked and the offender(s) will be banned from L&P. Possibly TFL itself.

These are the ground rules for this thread and they will be strictly enforced. As I cannot be online 24/7, I encourage everyone who sees someone else going off topic, to hit the report button... Even if it means by doing so, the thread will be closed. Your help and consideration in this matter will determine whether or not similar threads will ever be allowed.
 
I have no problem with Gay marriage. I actually openly support it. No body should be able to tell two people that love each other they can not get married. That is not the principle this country was founded on. It is scary that some people want the government to regulate marriage especially from people who say they support personal freedoms.
 
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, and I couldn't have said it better. This is for sure the most practical method, for the situations that GoSlash27 mentioned. Other than that, the details are not an issue for government involvemnet.
 
The obvious problem to gays who wish to live together in a state which does not have provisions for civil unions is that they have none of the traditional protections of marriage regarding property, medical decisions if one partner does not have the ability to choose or communicate regarding critical decisions, etc. In certain circumstances, next of kin can trump gay partners regardless of the wishes of the other partner.

Marriage is, at its heart, a contract. It is steeped in religious and other traditions, but carries the power of the state and a whole bunch of legal ramifications. Some states try to emulate the marriage contract through construction of a civil union, but the civil unions do not have the body of law behind them that marriage does: consequently, no one knows how the courts will rule when civil unions are put to the test. Allowing for gay marriages solves the problem, and gay people then have the rights of all other married people.

Another thing to consider is the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution: even states which do not allow gay marriage are obligated to recognize gay marriages performed in another state: a regular beehive of controversy.

While a lot of prejudiced people have sought over the years to oppose gay rights based on the characterization of homosexuality as a choice, recent medical studies have shown the brain structure of gay individuals is closer to that of the opposite gender (straight) than to straight individuals of their own gender. Other medical evidence of this has been available for years, and was explained quite well in a book called Brain Sex. Based on a biological basis for sexual preference, how can anyone reasonably justify denying gays the right to marry?
 
The homosexual marriage debate has been going on for along time, I personally don't see how it hurts society or myself, in fact more monogamous relationships within the gay and lesbian community would probably have a net positive outcome, but that aside.

I've seen several posters mention equality and perhaps even if civil unions had the same rights, privileges and benefits as traditional heterosexual marriage that it still would not quite be the same and would always seem or be deemed inferior.

So PBP my question to you is, would the gay and lesbian community be largely satisfied if your idea were implemented?
 
So PBP my question to you is, would the gay and lesbian community be largely satisfied if your idea were implemented?
Click to expand...
I honestly think they would, but you would still have a radical minority screaming their heads off.

I think you would be surprised at how small a percentage of gay couples would actually choose a civil union. I think marriage has been declining in this country and that more and more people are staying single. I think that would be mirrored in the gay community. At least with gay men. Lesbians would probably be a different story.
 
PBP is 100% correct about the radical minority screaming their heads off. It's that minority that wants - no demands - their wishes and is unwilling to accempt anything else. Unfortunately, this country is becoming more and more directed by vocal minorities. After all, they get the headlines.
 
Gays should have a right to form a union that is legally recognised. Incidentally religion does not have a monopoly on marriage- it is a civil or legal process, the religious aspect is merely an option.

In much the same way as I expect people to respect who I am- which includes gun ownership, shooting and hunting things, I can accept the right of someone who is not of my persuasion who wishes to commit to their partner.
 
I'm all for legalization.

On the surface it would seem to be a states rights issue but beyond that is the probability that it impinges on interstate commerce so laws such as the California law should be honored in other states. We've already been through this (thankfully before most of the readers here were born) with the rules requiring that interracial marriages had to be honored in the Jim Crow states as well as their original states. We've also been through this in regard to common law marriages.

Which is as it should be. Individual rights should trump states rights.

Hopefully sometime in the next few years this principle will be upheld in other areas of public debate, most especially RKBA. I'd love to have the chance to go shopping in D.C. or NYC, knowing that muggers would be met with my legally carried pistol and my universally recognized CCW. :D
 
Kind of an "I dunno" for me. I'm more or less a traditionalist I guess. I'm married with 3 kids and will stay that way. Marriage is one man and one woman and all that.

On the other hand, I really don't care what other people choose to do with their lives. As they long as they live up to their responsibilities (not leaving them to 'the state', i.e. me) and don't bother me, why should I? And why shouldn't gay folks have the same sort of contractual benefits (or whatever) that marriage or equally recognized civil unions afford?

The older I get the more I think (about a lot of things), what's it to me anyway?
 
I have some good friends who are gay and married. Big deal. live and let live.
but Im replying to this only to ask;

what does this have to do with guns?!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top