California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

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

I think this country lost its right to ban gay marriage when it allowed divorce. The idea of the "sanctity" of marriage is only being protected in terms of homosexual, not in the means of vegas quickies, or professional divorcees. How can you legitimately support a ban of marriage, and not push for a ban on divorce?

[nate2512]

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

I think this country lost its right to ban gay marriage when it allowed divorce. The idea of the "sanctity" of marriage is only being protected in terms of homosexual, not in the means of vegas quickies, or professional divorcees. How can you legitimately support a ban of marriage, and not push for a ban on divorce?

The murder rate in the country would go up exponentially.

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

Originally Posted by nate2512

The murder rate in the country would go up exponentially.

touche!

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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

[DSTCHAOS]

I'm kinda scared now.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I'm kinda scared now.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Don't be. It is agape' love.

[DaemonSeid]

Besides...she can't love you, I loved you first....

Which is it gonna be?

Me...or her?


**cue soap opera music**

[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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Besides...she can't love you, I loved you first....

Which is it gonna be?

Me...or her?


**cue soap opera music**

I was gonna cue Prince's Beautiful Ones.