Gay marriage in California

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think marriage is a great thing for two people in love
Click to expand...
This is probably my biggest problem with "gay" marriage. If marriage cannot be limited to one woman and one man, how can it then be limited to only two people. Or two particular people, incestuous marriages, for example (assuming both, or all, are adults). Ironically, I've heard people who support gay marriage oppose other options.

I am fully aware that various judicial decisions do not have to be consistent, although they should be, with similar issues.
 
Last edited:
If marriage cannot be limited to one woman and one man, how can it then be limited to only two people. Or two particular people, incestuous marriages, for example (assuming both, or all, are adults). Ironically, I've heard people who support gay marriage oppose other options.
Click to expand...
Because those are simply non-analogous topics. They are denied to everyone despite sexual orientation for valid reasons. Trying to compare two loving adults to bestiality, incest, etc is a pretty scummy tactic and completely unjustified.
 
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 with that completely. But why shouldn't two adult siblings or cousins be able to form a civil union -- especially in their old age -- to take care of each other and allow for orderly passing of property when one of them dies? Is there some reason for the state to assume that civil unions are only about sex? Why is the state meddling in peoples' sex lives anyway?

[BTW, I think homosexuality is wrong (was going to use a stronger term, but don't want to offend poeple unnecessarily), but it is also none of my business what consenting adults do in private. I have enough sins of my own to deal with without worrying about yours or the poeple's next door.]

Here's where it gets sticky though: Social Security survivor's benefits, when the system is already in trouble.
 
I agree with that completely. But why shouldn't two adult siblings or cousins be able to form a civil union
Click to expand...
Because both civil unions and marriage imply a sexual relationship and there are legitimate medical reasons to ban such pairings.
 
My opinion is this, I believe that gay and lesbian couples should be entitled to all the legal benefit and consequences that heterosexuals are. Whether you wish to call it a marriage or civil union. While my faith frowns upon homosexuality, my view is that it is between the individual person, their partenr, and whatever god they choose to pray to (if any) and that it is not my place to pass judgement. So long as someones sexual preference does not infringe upon my rights, it's their business. If homosexual couples wish to be married, it does me no harm. My only fear with the legalization of gay marriage is that an affirmative action situation will develop and special benefits and/or special treatment will be given to homosexual couples. Legal equality means just that: equal. I think that Playboypenguin hit the nail on the head when he mentioned a radical minority. The majority of homosexual people that I've known do not ask nor want preferential treatment, they simply wish to be treated like everyone else and so long as the laws governing gay marriage stay along those lines, I take no issue with it.
 
Since as of today civil homosexual marriages are legal in California any bets on how long before the first divorce court case is filed? Just curious. :rolleyes:

In America, civil rights should be fair, equal and available to all citizens without exception. I think that just about covers all issues.
 
I think that Governmental recognition of gay unions is a bad idea for a number of reasons:

1.) It represents altering the basic family structure that has worked well for thousands of years. We are just now recovering from the effects of three similar massive Government sponsored experiments with the structure of the family, namely; welfare; liberalized divorce laws; and legalized abortion. Each has done exactly what gay marriage would do: replace the structure of the two parent (male + female) family unit. Should we be undertaking another such experiment given that the other three have had such disastrous effects on our society?

2.) Governmental recognition of gay marriage is not about marriage at all. Gays and lesbians can find many Churches that will perform a wedding ceremony for them. They don't need the Government for this. Instead, it is a thinly veiled attempt by gay rights activists to achieve a Governmental stamp of approval for their lifestyle. It is part of a larger campaign that includes propagandizing young school children about homosexuality as normal, healthy, expected, inborn, ect.

3.) Governmental approval of gay unions is not needed. Gay rights activists purport to want a marriage license to provide things like legal standing to make end of life decisions for each other, legal standing to inherit, legal standing to hold property jointly, legal standing to sue in cases of wrongful death of a partner, legal standing for guardianship of each other partner's children, adoption, etc. However, all of these can be easily achieved by other legal mechanisms not involving marriage.

4.) The process by which gay rights activists are winning, i.e., by extra-Constitutional judicial fiat, is very damaging to our system of checks and balances, and thwarts the expressed will of the clear majority of Americans.

The best example of this judicial activism is that of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. They had the arrogance to actually order the Massachusetts legislature to pass a bill legalizing gay unions. Instead, they should have been impeached and removed from the bench.

The Courts undertake to "manufacture" a new right that has never before been contemplated when they rule that Governments must recognize gay unions. This weakens our system of laws and is something that ought to be left up to the State legislatures.

5.) Where is the line to be drawn in terms of alternative marital arrangements? If gays have a civil right to marry, why not polygamists? immediate biological family members? adults and young children?
 
PBP

Well, if what you say is accurate, would not have lobbying the legislatures of the various states to pass civil union laws been a better course that seeking a remedy in the courts?
 
Well, if what you say is accurate, would not have lobbying the legislatures of the various states to pass civil union laws been a better course that seeking a remedy in the courts?
Click to expand...
In my opinion it would, but no one asked me. Unfortunately, the more radical minority in any group tends to steer policy.
 
I am very religious (I am a young pastor.), and I agree with your original post. I will make a note on marriage as far as religion and state go. I am a pastor, but currently I am not legally allowed to perform marriages. I cannot perform a marriage until I am ordained either by my church or by the state. Once I am ordained (think of it like an accountant becoming a CPA) the state recognizes me as legitimate, and I can perform the marriage. Thus, in reality, it is our government that certifies marriage, and you don't have to go to a pastor to get married at all.
At this point in time, I have not made up my mind completely and feel I should look into the subject more. Though I don't see how it would be detrimental to our nation. Though, I think people may bring up such things as polygamy and such which you already adressed, but I still think it could happen.
 
Though, I think people may bring up such things as polygamy and such which you already adressed, but I still think it could happen.
Click to expand...
People can also say that we should not be allowed to own guns because if we own guns we will also want to own slaves. They are just about as analogous as the previous arguments. :)
 
Quoted by miboso:
This is probably my biggest problem with "gay" marriage. If marriage cannot be limited to one woman and one man, how can it then be limited to only two people. Or two particular people, incestuous marriages, for example (assuming both, or all, are adults). Ironically, I've heard people who support gay marriage oppose other options.
Click to expand...

Response quoted by PlayboyPenguin:
Because those are simply non-analogous topics. They are denied to everyone despite sexual orientation for valid reasons. Trying to compare two loving adults to bestiality, incest, etc is a pretty scummy tactic and completely unjustified.
Click to expand...

I must bring miboso's topic back into discussion, PBP. I believe that the mantra (albeit justified) that I continually see on just about every forum on TFL is that members want complete and full separation of the government from their private lives. What I mean is, whatever happens in their own home, whether smoking marijuana to not wearing a motorcycle helmet, the government should not intervene.

If taken to heart, then I also have a problem with gay marriage. I think it's a stepping stone to legal Polygamy. I honestly think the human race knows no bounds and continually rationalizes their own thoughts/beliefs to be the standard bearer of society. Where does it end?

Look at it this way. Where can you tell me by support of federal law that should allow homosexuals to be married, yet a pair of adult sisters can't?
 
I think it's a stepping stone to legal Polygamy.
Click to expand...
Polygamy has already existed and fallen under it's own weight for it's own reasons. Allowing TWO same sex people to join does not open the door for THREE or more persons to join any more than traditional marriage of TWO people opposite sex persons.
 
Close Relatives?

Marriage between close blood relatives is frowned upon. There is the whole issue of in-breeding and genetic diseases. Now with two people of the same sex getting married the offspring question is moot. So, will two brothers or a mother and daughter be allowed to marry?
 
The Courts undertake to "manufacture" a new right that has never before been contemplated
Click to expand...
Not true. You'll find if you look that there is a long tradition of what is now called "nontraditional marriage" in native American cultures. For instance the Lakota people have a centuries old formalization of the male-to-female transgendered role, the berdache. Although berdaches were persecuted and suppressed by white missionary pressure they have continued in the Lakota culture to the present time.

In the last 300 years a number of very influential communities had traditions of "nontraditional marriage". These included the Oneida, the Shakers, the original LDS and the hundred or thousand of racially mixed couples who were not allowed to marry in the 19th century.

Think about this. With the stroke of a pen they could take away your RKBA and in fifty years your grandchildren would think and act like those British sheep who are afraid of pictures of guns. They'd say gun rights were manufactured rights that had never been contemplated wouldn't they?
 
While i have a little heartburn with gay marriage, i must admit that it is a red herring issue much like flag burning and prayer in schools. The issue of gay marriage brings out the ultra conservatives and the ultra liberals. The two political parties could care less about the rest of us.

It bothers me that a few red herring issues like gay marriage causes the government of this country to switch poles every four or eight years.
 
Personally I see no reason for the government to define marriage at all. Call them all "civil unions" (or whatever). You go to the courthouse, get your civil union paperwork, it's not official until it's signed (and notarized) and returned to the courthouse. Then allow religious officials to notarize them. Done. Then you are free to have just as religious or secular a "marriage" as you choose, with any other consenting adult.

Hell, I don't see much reason you shouldn't be allowed to enter into such a contract with any other consenting adult, provided we could divorce the slate of rights and privileges afforded by a legal marriage from the sexual/family aspect. Because really, that's all a legal marriage is...a contract allowing for certain benefits and responsibilities. Call it something other than marriage, and allow for a person to enter into that contract with any single other party they choose (limited to one due to some of the benefits provided...allowing legal polygamy comes with its own fiscal problems, even ignoring societal problems).


As for states recognizing civil unions for homosexuals and marriages for heterosexuals, in theory that could probably work. I'm not a huge fan of "separate but equal," but with a legal arrangement (like civil union/marriage) it is possible to make actually make them perfectly equal (aside from social stigma, of course). If they provide the exact same rights and responsibilities, it's something that might not be entirely unacceptable. At least from a utilitarian standpoint.

Then again, especially based on how the civil union thing has worked out in some states that have implemented it, it seems that the main motivation for keeping civil unions and marriages separate is so that the former can offer less benefits. So "separate but (not so) equal" lives on anyway.

While i have a little heartburn with gay marriage, i must admit that it is a red herring issue much like flag burning and prayer in schools. The issue of gay marriage brings out the ultra conservatives and the ultra liberals. The two political parties could care less about the rest of us.

It bothers me that a few red herring issues like gay marriage causes the government of this country to switch poles every four or eight years.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that gay marriage (or the banning thereof) has more "real" effect on more people than flag burning or prayer in schools. As in, actual legal and financial effect. It may not seem like a "real" issue to you, because it doesn't affect you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not saying that arguing of polygamy and other such unions are a reason to argue against the marriage, I am just saying that it will follow. Actually, I have already heard it being talked about in relation to the recent court ruling. Like I said, I don't know enough and currently don't see a reason against gay marriage because I see it as an institution that falls under the state. I do not support same sex unions nor do I oppose them at this point in time.
 
I really don't care if two adults want to engage in a homosexual relationship and get married. They're adults, and they should be free to do this if they wish.

I can't say that I'm all that crazy about how this is coming about (through the courts). Then again, I don't necessarily think that the rights of a minority should be subject to a vote of the majority. That's why we have the Constitution, to protect the right of the individual from the wishes/whims of the majority.

I wish that liberals and conservatives would be a little more consistent in their thinking. Conservatives need to realize freedom doesn't just apply to rights/things that don't offend you. You don't get to outlaw homosexuality/pornography/etc. just because you don't like it.

Liberals need to realize that freedom is not just about freedom to suceed/excel at something or being able to do what you want. When you have freedom, you have the freedom not only to suceed at something (career/money), but you also have the freedom to fail (poverty/starvation). If you want TRUE freedom, you can't expect the government to bail you out whenever your plans don't work out for you. This strikes me in much the same manner as the young adult that keeps moving back in with their parents when they lose a job or their plans change. If you want to be a REAL adult, you can't keep falling back on mommy and daddy when things go bad.
 
1.) It represents altering the basic family structure that has worked well for thousands of years. We are just now recovering from the effects of three similar massive Government sponsored experiments with the structure of the family, namely; welfare; liberalized divorce laws; and legalized abortion. Each has done exactly what gay marriage would do: replace the structure of the two parent (male + female) family unit. Should we be undertaking another such experiment given that the other three have had such disastrous effects on our society?
Click to expand...

The thing is, it is impossible for two people of the same gender to reproduce. Now, the right of homosexuals to adopt children is another issue which I think should be scrutinized to the same degree that a single person trying to adopt is as they both represent a significant deviation from the traditional family unit (for that matter, I think that a great deal of scrutiny should be applied to anyone who wishes to adopt a child).

2.) Governmental recognition of gay marriage is not about marriage at all. Gays and lesbians can find many Churches that will perform a wedding ceremony for them. They don't need the Government for this. Instead, it is a thinly veiled attempt by gay rights activists to achieve a Governmental stamp of approval for their lifestyle. It is part of a larger campaign that includes propagandizing young school children about homosexuality as normal, healthy, expected, inborn, ect.
Click to expand...

See Playboypenguin's comments about a radical minority. It is a fact that there are certain legal and finacial benefits to marriage and I think that the majority of gays petitioning for marriage simply wish to be able to enjoy those benefits just like everyone else. While I don't believe in propagandizing shcool children, I believe that homosexuality should be handled like sex, faith, or any other number of sensitive issues: the facts (not opinions or views) presented and the children allowed to rely on the guidance of their parents.

4.) The process by which gay rights activists are winning, i.e., by extra-Constitutional judicial fiat, is very damaging to our system of checks and balances, and thwarts the expressed will of the clear majority of Americans.

The best example of this judicial activism is that of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. They had the arrogance to actually order the Massachusetts legislature to pass a bill legalizing gay unions. Instead, they should have been impeached and removed from the bench.
Click to expand...

On this point I must agree with you. Judicial Activism is a problem but it is not limited to the issue of gay marriage and is really a separate issue in and of itself.

5.) Where is the line to be drawn in terms of alternative marital arrangements? If gays have a civil right to marry, why not polygamists? immediate biological family members? adults and young children?
Click to expand...

Polygamy, Incest, and Pedophilia cause a myriad of problems that are fundamentally moral, biological and physical that legalized gay marriage, if properly instituted, would not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top