California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

This leaves the following questions to be answered: Does marriage really belong to the Church and, if so, does it retain the right to give marriage to whom it chooses? Or, since marriage now has legal ties, can the government give it to whom it chooses? Does the GBLT community just want the equal rights or must the title of "marriage" come with the package? I don't know anyone who dreams about the day they get to be "civilly unified," but if legitimately equal rights are established, they might not care.

The way legal marriages in our society are currently defined, they have nothing to do with religion and therefore, it does not belong to the church. If heterosexuals can get married without religion, then homosexuals should be able to also.

ETA: I have two marriage licenses from two different marriages and neither of them have the word God on them anywhere.

[JonoBN41]

Atheists can get married and many have, so obviously marriage is not tied to religion. When and if same-sex marriage becomes legal, however, I would think it would be the prerogative of any particular church (or Church) to decline performing the ceremony, just as some won't marry a Christian and a Jew, for example.

BTW, AGDee's post (#104) is excellent. Thanks!

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

Yes, but that's not the only way to be married. What about courthouse marriages? Are those people not actually married?

Yes, they are.

Majority rule can be a very dangerous path.

Only if you are in the minority.

I wasn't referring to marriage specifically. I meant EVERYTHING about that religion controlling your life.

Some people live like that. Look at those polygamist women here in Texas. I would not choose to live like that but they do. I don't understand their choice but they made it and are willing to live it.

So...like it or leave? Dear Lord!

Yes. Is this not a part of the reason the American West was settled? People did not like life 'back East', so they picked up and moved. Well, that is the reason given of how Houston was settled anyway.

[Leslie Anne]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Only if you are in the minority.

My point exactly!

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Some people live like that. Look at those polygamist women here in Texas.

You're misunderstanding my question. I'll drop it for now. I find your response to "like it or leave" far more interesting:

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Yes.

Whoops! There goes the Civil Rights Movement. Oops. Women's suffrage too. Plenty of other things as well. That's a scary notion.

Hmm, wasn't it the great Dr. King who said, "I have a dream....that we should all just pack up and leave."

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

If I'm correct (and if I'm not, someone please interject), the act of marriage has a religious base--it is two people of the opposite sex coming together in the eyes of God.

Nope. Marriage was (is?) a contractual agreement within a community that solidified familial relationships, determined lineage and royalty, and perhaps most important to westerners, significantly impacted power and landownership. If you recall, women were traded for property, alliances and even peace.

Marriage cannot historically be separated from "religion" but you also have to remember that "religion" permeated every aspect of a community and drew it together. While the United States is affected by hints of Christianity, we are not directly governed by its precepts today as it was in the near past.

Denying gays their right to legal marriage undermines their value within our society. And, that's ultimately why they continue to be denied by the majority.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

But first, gays had been given the right to marriage and then the right wing got all up in arms and got the ban on the ballot. So they were fighting to get the right back. Why couldn't the right just have stood to begin with? Why is it ok that all kinds of political and legal maneuvering can go on because straight taxpayers are scared of something, but it's not ok when gay taxpayers need to also use political and legal channels to gain, maintain or protect their rights?

Why is it ok to use the gay taxpayers' money to enact legislative bans against them, but when gays use taxpayer money it's an affront to the rest of the country?

I don't think there is anything wrong with gay people trying to do that. Other than my personal objections to their lifestyle, I could care less if they decide to use legal channels to advance their cause. I hope they fail, but I don't object to them making the attempt (personal objections noted, of course).

I was quite simply refuting your point that this wasn't being driven by the gay community.

[christiangirl]

Jeni--thanx for the interjection, I'll look at that. I think I remember something about that in history (though I definitely forgot once the semester was over).

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I don't think there is anything wrong with gay people trying to do that. Other than my personal objections to their lifestyle, I could care less if they decide to use legal channels to advance their cause. I hope they fail, but I don't object to them making the attempt (personal objections noted, of course).

I don't know why that made me laugh so hard, but it did.

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

When and if same-sex marriage becomes legal, however, I would think it would be the prerogative of any particular church (or Church) to decline performing the ceremony, just as some won't marry a Christian and a Jew, for example.

Hmmm, I thought of that briefly. I guess it depends on the denomination and if it allows individual churches to do what would not be accepted by the whole (Mormons come to mind, for some reason).

Excellent discussion, guys. So, strictly for S&G, let's say gay marriage is legalized and could be performed at any courthouse, city hall, what have you. However, about 60-70% of America's churches refused to do the ceremony and would not recognize gay marriages and/or families. Would churches still retain the right to offer their services (pre-marital counseling, family ministry, etc.) as they please? I'm not asking if it would be morally acceptable for churches to deny these things to gay couples, just if you think they would still have the right to. Would the protests continue until churches were more open or would governmental rights be enough reason for everybody to go sit down and move on?

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

Jeni--thanx for the interjection, I'll look at that. I think I remember something about that in history (though I definitely forgot once the semester was over).


I don't know why that made me laugh so hard, but it did.


Hmmm, I thought of that briefly. I guess it depends on the denomination and if it allows individual churches to do what would not be accepted by the whole (Mormons come to mind, for some reason).

Excellent discussion, guys. So, strictly for S&G, let's say gay marriage is legalized and could be performed at any courthouse, city hall, what have you. However, about 60-70% of America's churches refused to do the ceremony and would not recognize gay marriages and/or families. Would churches still retain the right to offer their services (pre-marital counseling, family ministry, etc.) as they please? I'm not asking if it would be morally acceptable for churches to deny these things to gay couples, just if you think they would still have the right to. Would the protests continue until churches were more open or would governmental rights be enough reason for everybody to go sit down and move on?

Of course churches have the right to do what they want in that regard, just as they do now. Technically, you could probably be married in the eyes of the church but not in the eyes of the law (like the polygamists), just as you can be married by law but not in the eyes of the church (like a Catholic who has been divorced, didn't have that marriage annulled and didn't marry the second time in the church) Churches get to do what they want.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

Whoops! There goes the Civil Rights Movement. Oops. Women's suffrage too. Plenty of other things as well. That's a scary notion.

Hmm, wasn't it the great Dr. King who said, "I have a dream....that we should all just pack up and leave."

????????

I don't inderstand the point / connection you are making here? Are you saying that the strides of the Women's Sufferage Movement and Civil Rights are similar to homosexuals getting the right to marry?

And yes, when people don't like living in an area they just pick up and leave. There was actually a term for it in the mid to late 60's - it was called 'White Flight'. This occurred when Whites felt that there were too many Blacks moving into their (the White's) neighborhood, so Whites would just move, usually out to suburbia.

[Taualumna]

I'm sure someone has already brought this up, but gay marriage has been legal in Canada for a few years. No church is required to perform a ceremony if it goes against their beliefs/teachings. I'm pretty sure if a person who is legally allowed to perform a civil marriage is not comfortable doing so, he/she can find someone who is. You shouldn't be forced to do something you're not okay with.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

????????

I don't inderstand the point / connection you are making here? Are you saying that the strides of the Women's Sufferage Movement and Civil Rights are similar to homosexuals getting the right to marry?

She's saying they are similar in a general civil rights sense.

Despite the inequalities that still persist in society, think back to when race and gender inequalities were even more overt and strict. There are people who said blacks should "get over it or go back to Africa," even if most blacks weren't voluntary immigrants in the first place. Women were told that "this is how it is."

We have a society of norms and laws. But as taxpayers we do have a voice and a right to challenge these norms and laws that deny groups of people what are perceived to be basic rights. These aren't pedophiles who want to legally have sex with children or people who want the right to walk around naked every Friday while snorting cocaine and smacking people in the face. Instead, these are generally law abiding citizens who want the right to be legally married and enjoy the rights, responsibilities, and privileges therein.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

And yes, when people don't like living in an area they just pick up and leave. There was actually a term for it in the mid to late 60's - it was called 'White Flight'. This occurred when Whites felt that there were too many Blacks moving into their (the White's) neighborhood, so Whites would just move, usually out to suburbia.

You are completely misapplying the concept of "white flight" (and "capital flight"). Please stop.

[DaemonSeid]

I just stuck my head back in here today....


Wow....tailspinning to oblivion.....

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

I just stuck my head back in here today....


Wow....tailspinning to oblivion.....

It's a massive head explosion.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

Excellent discussion, guys. So, strictly for S&G, let's say gay marriage is legalized and could be performed at any courthouse, city hall, what have you. However, about 60-70% of America's churches refused to do the ceremony and would not recognize gay marriages and/or families. Would churches still retain the right to offer their services (pre-marital counseling, family ministry, etc.) as they please? I'm not asking if it would be morally acceptable for churches to deny these things to gay couples, just if you think they would still have the right to. Would the protests continue until churches were more open or would governmental rights be enough reason for everybody to go sit down and move on?

Um, churches already decline to marry certain couples. Some won't marry interfaith couples, some won't marry a couple that hasn't been baptized, many won't marry couples that don't first go through premarital counseling, some won't marry couples they just don't feel should be married (after meeting with them), and some won't marry couples that have lived together. Most also have rules regarding dress, music and decorations if you want to get married in their church, if you want to get really specific. Our society in no way mandates that churches must marry any couple, or that couples must get married in a church, and couples that do marry in a church do not receive any special legal rights as a result. Marriage is a contractual relationship, not a religious state.

[Tom Earp]

I love reading PlayBoy/Penthouse about this type of relationship.