California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[JonoBN41]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

Civil unions aren't enough? Why do gays (and all their supporters) feel the need to change the definition of marriage?

Definitions are changed and added to all the time. A pen is no longer a quill dipped in ink, phones need not be connected by wires, and automobiles aren't necessarily powered by internal combustion engines. But we didn't take up petitions to ban ball-point pens, cellphones, and electric or hybrid cars just because they didn't fit the existing definition. And who would propose banning online bulletin boards such as Greek Chat simply because it's not an actual board attached to a wall? When women were elected to the House of Representatives, they weren't "congressmen", they are called congresswomen. Things change. We progress.

When has mankind - oops humankind - ever constrained itself from experiencing something new out of fear of a definition?

The terms "married" and "spouse" are written into innumerable policies including insurance coverage, probate laws, tax laws, and trying to find out someone's condition at a hospital, just to name a few. Civil union might sound as if it's good enough, but is not the same thing.

[summer_gphib]

The courts have too much power, and have had too much power for far too long. For me, personally, I don't really care. I don't see that there are that many tax benefits for average people, but hell most of my tax customers lie about their marital status anyway, especially if children are involved, it is monetarily beneficial to claim head of household. Illegal if you are married and have not been separated, but very common. Of course it all depends on the tax bracket. I deal with more EITC customers than the higher-tax bracket clients.

Anyway, I'm getting way off course.

I would like to see a nation-wide vote. What has happened to democracy in this nation? It is ruined by an outdated electoral-college system, and a court system that is out of control. Oy vey. I'm on my soap box.

I have often wondered what would happen if the very concept of judicial review were challenged, going back to Marbury vs. Madison.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

Definitions are changed and added to all the time. A pen is no longer a quill dipped in ink, phones need not be connected by wires, and automobiles aren't necessarily powered by internal combustion engines. But we didn't take up petitions to ban ball-point pens, cellphones, and electric or hybrid cars just because they didn't fit the existing definition. And who would propose banning online bulletin boards such as Greek Chat simply because it's not an actual board attached to a wall? When women were elected to the House of Representatives, they weren't "congressmen", they are called congresswomen. Things change. We progress.

God my generation sucks.

[Thetagirl218]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

Definitions are changed and added to all the time. A pen is no longer a quill dipped in ink, phones need not be connected by wires, and automobiles aren't necessarily powered by internal combustion engines. But we didn't take up petitions to ban ball-point pens, cellphones, and electric or hybrid cars just because they didn't fit the existing definition. And who would propose banning online bulletin boards such as Greek Chat simply because it's not an actual board attached to a wall? When women were elected to the House of Representatives, they weren't "congressmen", they are called congresswomen. Things change. We progress.

When has mankind - oops humankind - ever constrained itself from experiencing something new out of fear of a definition?

The terms "married" and "spouse" are written into innumerable policies including insurance coverage, probate laws, tax laws, and trying to find out someone's condition at a hospital, just to name a few. Civil union might sound as if it's good enough, but is not the same thing.

Definitions do change, but I don't think the examples you gave can be used as a proper analogy to gay marriage!

All of things you listed were terms or objects created by man, yet the main point in this whole issue is that those against gay marriage (like myself) believe that the ideal of marriage was created by God or a higher power.

I get sick to my stomach when people compare gay rights to suffrage or civil rights! They are not the same! The latter two dealt with people groups that were purposefully not given Constitutional rights because of a predisposed condition at birth, whether it be skin color or gender.

There are many who say gay and lesbians were like this from birth, but I disagree. I think in the end one has a choice what lifestyle there are going to live, and this applies to many things not just sexual orientation.

I do believe that people can have predisposed features that many be more feminine or masculine, but again there is still the choice factor.

As for the court case in CA, it really didn't surprise me! California is always very liberal in decisions like this, but I have a feeling that if the referendum passed than a amendment will also pass come fall.

I feel that this is an issue for legislation not the courts though I do understand the reason for the decision given the checks and balances.

[JonoBN41]

Originally Posted by Thetagirl218

There are many who say gay and lesbians were like this from birth, but I disagree.

Then I read your signature. "A Kappa Alpha Theta isn't something you become, its something you've always been!"