California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[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.

[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.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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

I thought so. General, perhaps. I just don't think that gays getting to marry has the same magnitude / social impact as Women's Sufferage and Civil Rights, IMHO.

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

I disagree, but that is a different thread.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I thought so. General, perhaps. I just don't think that gays getting to marry has the same magnitude / social impact as Women's Sufferage and Civil Rights, IMHO.

Yes, general.

Other than that, I agree with you because the magnitude and social impact are both objective and subjective measures. They can be measured quantitatively and qualitatively.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I disagree, but that is a different thread.

It isn't a different thread because you said it in this thread.

You can't effectively compare the relocation of whites to the suburbs, because their neighborhood surpassed the racial tipping point, to saying that homosexuals should "get over it or go away" if they feel that they aren't afforded the same rights that heterosexual citizens are. Sure, homosexuals can technically choose to relocate if they want certain rights, as some homosexuals have done. But to act like that's the only other alternative is as silly as the Americans who became Canadian citizens when Bush got re-elected (which was still a choice versus telling Americans "you tax payers don't like where America's headed? It's a hopeless cause so move to Canada for all we care. This is how it is. Get over it. Tax payers.").

[AGDee]

I will repeat.. the Bible is a moral guide, not a societal legal guide. Those who choose to follow it to the letter can feel free to do so. Those who do not, do not have to. I'm glad that the Bible isn't the source of all of our laws because I wouldn't want to live as described in Leviticus.

Does anybody have any reason OTHER THAN RELIGION to deny people their ability to legally vow their unending love to each other?

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I will repeat.. the Bible is a moral guide, not a societal legal guide.

Does anybody have any reason OTHER THAN RELIGION to deny people their ability to legally vow their unending love to each other?

First sentence: True.

Second sentence: One of the best comments/questions I've read on GC in a very long time.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

First sentence: True.

Second sentence: One of the best comments/questions I've read on GC in a very long time.

Morality is the basis for a substantial portion of American law. Also, didn't CA already allow people to legally profess their love for each other via civil unions?

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I will repeat.. the Bible is a moral guide, not a societal legal guide. Those who choose to follow it to the letter can feel free to do so. Those who do not, do not have to. I'm glad that the Bible isn't the source of all of our laws because I wouldn't want to live as described in Leviticus.

Does anybody have any reason OTHER THAN RELIGION to deny people their ability to legally vow their unending love to each other?

First comment: I agree too. But, remember, the New Testament "replaced" the laws of the Old Testament. So, in a sense while people may read and study the Old Testament, we are to live under the New Testament. That is the way it is explained in my Church. We consider ourselves New Testament Christians.

Second Comment: Another reason other than religion is a biological one. Species live to propagate their genomes. In order for us humans to do that we have to find the opposite gender who we feel will can produce more fit offspring - i.e., have stronger genetic traits than the parents, or hybrid vigor. Of course this can only happen with a male and a female.

For homosexuals, there is no possibility for them to "add" their genes to the gene pool. Two males and / or two females can not produce offspring that contains both of their genes. While one person can make a contribution, the other can not. Therefore, it is biologically impossible to produce the most fit offspring from a homosexual coupling. In essence the species would become genetically weaker and eventually die out, or become extinct.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

First comment: I agree too. But, remember, the New Testament "replaced" the laws of the Old Testament. So, in a sense while people may read and study the Old Testament, we are to live under the New Testament. That is the way it is explained in my Church. We consider ourselves New Testament Christians.

Second Comment: Another reason other than religion is a biological one. Species live to propagate their genomes. In order for us humans to do that we have to find the opposite gender who we feel will can produce more fit offspring - i.e., have stronger genetic traits than the parents, or hybrid vigor. Of course this can only happen with a male and a female.

For homosexuals, there is no possibility for them to "add" their genes to the gene pool. Two males and / or two females can not produce offspring that contains both of their genes. While one person can make a contribution, the other can not. Therefore, it is biologically impossible to produce the most fit offspring from a homosexual coupling. In essence the species would become genetically weaker and eventually die out, or become extinct.

There are no words to express how circular this discussion is.

[doogur]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Second Comment: Another reason other than religion is a biological one. Species live to propagate their genomes. In order for us humans to do that we have to find the opposite gender who we feel will can produce more fit offspring - i.e., have stronger genetic traits than the parents, or hybrid vigor. Of course this can only happen with a male and a female.

For homosexuals, there is no possibility for them to "add" their genes to the gene pool. Two males and / or two females can not produce offspring that contains both of their genes. While one person can make a contribution, the other can not. Therefore, it is biologically impossible to produce the most fit offspring from a homosexual coupling. In essence the species would become genetically weaker and eventually die out, or become extinct.

Marriage does not require even straight couples to reproduce. Many don't. My brother and his wife are unable to have children. By your logic they should not been allowed to marry?

Of course not. It's interesting that you make this "requirement" is made *only* for gay couples.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Does anybody have any reason OTHER THAN RELIGION to deny people their ability to legally vow their unending love to each other?

That's why I like Massachusetts' approach in that the prohibition on marriage flunks the rational basis test.

California's SC came off as being extremely activist in its decision. Not only did they say that sexual orientation discrimination was the same as race in the requirement that such classifications be subject to strict scrutiny (which would have been enough), they also said that the right to marry someone regardless of gender was a fundamental liberty interest, therefore protected by the 14th Amendment substantive due process doctrine.

I think the court has usurped the legislature here. I read most of the opinion (it's 170-something pages). While I don't really see why states are in the business of marriage in the first place, I do think these sorts of things ought to be left up to the legislative process, not the whims of four justices.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

It isn't a different thread because you said it in this thread.

You can't effectively compare the relocation of whites to the suburbs, because their neighborhood surpassed the racial tipping point, to saying that homosexuals should "get over it or go away" if they feel that they aren't afforded the same rights that heterosexual citizens are. Sure, homosexuals can technically choose to relocate if they want certain rights, as some homosexuals have done. But to act like that's the only other alternative is as silly as the Americans who became Canadian citizens when Bush got re-elected (which was still a choice versus telling Americans "you tax payers don't like where America's headed? It's a hopeless cause so move to Canada for all we care. This is how it is. Get over it. Tax payers.").

I only gave the white flight example because in previous posts Leslie Anne made some comment that if people don't like what is happening in their community / area then why should they leave. (I think that is the point she was trying to make ?). I gave her two examples of where people moved because they did not agree with the current social / economic situation they were in. The first example I used was an indication to the founding of the US. I said something to the effect that the Founding Fathers left England because they did not agree with British rule.

Leslie Anne then came back and re-stated the issue of why should people leave where they live. The second example I gave her was how Houston was founded - people from back east wanted to live in a more tropical "paradise". Note: paradise in quotes because Houston was a humid, roach and mosquito infested dock on the banks of the Buffalo bayou....

Leslie Anne continued to press the point about why should, or why do people leave then I gave her the white flight example.

Now, the connection Leslie Anne was trying to make between homosexuals getting married and people leaving an area I did not know.

[nate2512]

Precious Jeni - that quote wasn't Aristotle it was Socrates.