California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[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?

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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?

With emphasis on the "substantial portion." Not the entire structure of American Law.

The decision here is not on civil unions, but marriage.

Right?

A quick comment on the New Testiment replacing the Old -- from the Christian viewpoint. Not everyone is Christian.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

With emphasis on the "substantial portion." Not the entire structure of American Law.

The decision here is not on civil unions, but marriage.

Right?

A quick comment on the New Testiment replacing the Old -- from the Christian viewpoint. Not everyone is Christian.

No, not the entire structure, but a very substantial portion. I'm not advocating that we should reference the Bible when states determine that they desire to continue the tradition of marriage being between one man and one woman.

You're right, the decision here is on marriage. However, people are complaining about gay couples not having equal access the things that accompany marriage, but in CA...they did. So what does that mean? Equality isn't sufficient unless they're allowed to force their way into an establishment they traditionally haven't been a part of?

This argument is about semantics for a lot of people, but the continued efforts of the gay community, even when receiving something mirroring marriage, provides valuable insight to the goals of their movement.

So to liberals and gay persons, would nationwide civil unions, if not called marriage, be sufficient?

[RU OX Alum]

probably not, marriage is marriage, if someone is gay and christian they would want the same sacrement:

but here is my question

couldn't the catholic church sue anyone who calls it "marriage" since they were the ones who made it a sacrement?

seriously, shouldn't everyone who is not catholic call it something else?

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

probably not, marriage is marriage, if someone is gay and christian they would want the same sacrement:

but here is my question

couldn't the catholic church sue anyone who calls it "marriage" since they were the ones who made it a sacrement?

seriously, shouldn't everyone who is not catholic call it something else?

They made it a sacrament for Roman Catholics only. They don't have power over anybody else. However, since marriage existed prior to that, then no, they couldn't sue. They don't own the term marriage or else no other religions would be able to use it either.

If you're going to call it a civil union for everybody who doesn't get married in a church, then fine. Or should I say, doesn't get unioned in a church? Why create more red tape and bureaucracy when we already have such a thing, called marriage? Why do we want to continue to inflate our government? Double the forms, double the requirements, etc. For what? Seems like a waste of resources to me.

And, if you're going to use the biological argument that the only purpose of marriage is procreation then you better ban it for everybody who is sterile too, whether by choice or by nature. "Oops, sorry, you had the mumps when you were 10 and are sterile now? No marriage license for you!"

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

You're right, the decision here is on marriage. However, people are complaining about gay couples not having equal access the things that accompany marriage, but in CA...they did. So what does that mean? Equality isn't sufficient unless they're allowed to force their way into an establishment they traditionally haven't been a part of?

This argument is about semantics for a lot of people, but the continued efforts of the gay community, even when receiving something mirroring marriage, provides valuable insight to the goals of their movement.

So to liberals and gay persons, would nationwide civil unions, if not called marriage, be sufficient?

This is so not an argument about semantics. This was discussed I thought really well a few pages ago, but to re-visit the question, NO, civil unions or domestic partnerships ARE NOT nearly the same as marriage. Read here: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html for full info. Prime points below:

Definitions

“Same-sex marriage” means legal marriage between people of the same sex.
* Massachusetts issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples (since 2004). On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. When the ruling goes into effect in June 2008, California will be the second state to legalize same-sex marriages.

“Civil union” is a category of law that was created to extend rights to same-sex couples. These rights are recognized only in the state where the couple resides.
* Vermont (since 2000), Connecticut (since Oct. 2005), New Jersey (since Dec. 2006), and New Hampshire (since 2007).

“Domestic partnership” is a new category of law that was created to extend rights to unmarried couples, including (but not necessarily limited to) same-sex couples. Laws vary among states, cities, and counties. Terminology also varies; for example, Hawaii has “reciprocal beneficiaries law.” Any rights are recognized only on the state or local level.
* Statewide laws in California, Hawaii, and Maine, Oregon, Washington, and district-wide laws in the District of Columbia, confer certain spousal rights to same-sex couples.

What's the Difference?

The most significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.

[shinerbock]

I think it is often an argument about semantics. A lot of conservatives feel this way, me being one. I really don't care if gays are given treatment similar to married couples. However, I will resist efforts to include homosexuals under the label of "marriage," because in my mind and the minds of millions of Americans, they simply don't meet the definition of the term.

Hence me asking about nationwide civil unions (meaning federally recognized).

Of course, many on my side of this argument will say they shouldn't be given equal benefits because the same motivations aren't present. I think their argument is valid, I just don't care enough to fight for it.

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

This is so not an argument about semantics. This was discussed I thought really well a few pages ago, but to re-visit the question, NO, civil unions or domestic partnerships ARE NOT nearly the same as marriage. Read here: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html for full info. Prime points below:

Definitions

“Same-sex marriage” means legal marriage between people of the same sex.
* Massachusetts issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples (since 2004). On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. When the ruling goes into effect in June 2008, California will be the second state to legalize same-sex marriages.

“Civil union” is a category of law that was created to extend rights to same-sex couples. These rights are recognized only in the state where the couple resides.
* Vermont (since 2000), Connecticut (since Oct. 2005), New Jersey (since Dec. 2006), and New Hampshire (since 2007).

“Domestic partnership” is a new category of law that was created to extend rights to unmarried couples, including (but not necessarily limited to) same-sex couples. Laws vary among states, cities, and counties. Terminology also varies; for example, Hawaii has “reciprocal beneficiaries law.” Any rights are recognized only on the state or local level.
* Statewide laws in California, Hawaii, and Maine, Oregon, Washington, and district-wide laws in the District of Columbia, confer certain spousal rights to same-sex couples.

What's the Difference?

The most significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

A quick comment on the New Testiment replacing the Old -- from the Christian viewpoint. Not everyone is Christian.

We said this a few pages back.

[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.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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

I wub you.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I wub you.

This is the right thread to express that feeling....hehehehehe

[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.