California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[laylo]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I think it depends on how the individual views marriage. Some have expressed in this thread that they view it as purely a legal definition - thus there are no religious and/or moral connection for them. Some people see marriage strictly in a religious sense. Me? I fall somewhere in between. I see the legal and the moral/religious issues, but I tend to favor more towards the moral / religious side.

I just mean what's being decided in court, which is the legal definition. According to my beliefs marriage is indeed a spiritual union, but no one is voting on whether or not people can go through a spiritual ceremony, have a sexual relationship, or share a life as one. All that you would be voting against is legal benefits.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by laylo

I just mean what's being decided in court, which is the legal definition. According to my beliefs marriage is indeed a spiritual union, but no one is voting on whether or not people can go through a spiritual ceremony, have a sexual relationship, or share a life as one. All that you would be voting against is legal benefits.

You're actually voting on whether gay relationships should be equated to straight relationships and whether the definition of "marriage" should be altered to include same-sex couples.

California already provided legal benefits, so gay marriage, when determined by a state court, has nothing to do with expanding that.

[laylo]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

You're actually voting on whether gay relationships should be equated to straight relationships and whether the definition of "marriage" should be altered to include same-sex couples.

California already provided legal benefits, so gay marriage, when determined by a state court, has nothing to do with expanding that.

Do you mean that the only difference between domestic partnerships and marriage is the words on the documents? Are all of the rights the same?

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by laylo

Do you mean that the only difference between domestic partnerships and marriage is the words on the documents? Are all of the rights the same?

I suspect this varies.

However, to my knowledge CA provided everything the state had power to grant. Thus, why are people still trying to be included under the "marriage" label?

Maybe I'm wrong, I'm sure someone knows more about CA domestic partnership law. But my point is that this isn't just about equal benefits, it is about semantics too (on both sides). I don't think the gay community would be satisfied by a national marriage equivalent which goes by a different name.

[nate2512]

To me, I think it's a lot easier to educate children on the subject matter. I believe that the way they are doing it is the correct way, because those people who do not believe in gay marriage due to religious beliefs will be able to explain to their children about their beliefs and the differences much easier this way. I equate it to the geometrical principle of quadrilaterals, a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is a not a square. They have different properties, such the same as marriage is a civil union, but a civil union is not a marriage. A marriage is a civil union between a man and a woman, a civil union is a union between two people.

This all isn't to say I support being gay, because that a whole different issue entirely, but this is what I think about the terminology.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by laylo

I just mean what's being decided in court, which is the legal definition. According to my beliefs marriage is indeed a spiritual union, but no one is voting on whether or not people can go through a spiritual ceremony, have a sexual relationship, or share a life as one. All that you would be voting against is legal benefits.

I'm sure that you are right. But, as I've said, people will base their votes on their beliefs. If they truly believe that gay marriage goes against their moral / religious / ethical beliefs, and yet, the issue of gay marriage on the ballot is purely a legal terminology issue, then for them to vote against gay marriage anyway still meets their objective in terms of voting against something they don't beleive in.

That is why legislators are very clever when issues come up for public vote. They will attach a "rider" - like, if you want to vote to increase the amount of money students can take out on a student loan, then you also have to vote to approve the legal definition of gay marriage. See what I mean?

Some people view mariage in a number of different ways. Some view it as you do, some view it as a means out of, or as a means into a current situation. Historically marriage was viewed simply as a business transaction, there was no idea or concept of true love being involved in a marriage. Hence, all those arranged marriages and girls with doweries (?sp).

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

That is why legislators are very clever when issues come up for public vote. They will attach a "rider" - like, if you want to vote to increase the amount of money students can take out on a student loan, then you also have to vote to approve the legal definition of gay marriage. See what I mean?

TOTALLY sidenote... they also attach anti-gay marriage bills to the ballot in key states like Ohio and Florida so that people remember that one candidate is for it and one is against, basically ensuring a win for the republican party. More people said they showed up in Ohio to vote for the gay marriage ban then the president!!!!!!! That really burned my cheese.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

That really burned my cheese.

ewwww!! Burned cheese, yuck.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

ewwww!! Burned cheese, yuck.