California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

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

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

For me it was an innate 'decision' - I just always liked boys.

Let me see if I can explain - the concept stems from the fact that God would not create a sinner on purpose, one from birth. The thought is that we are all born being good and righteous in the eyes of God, free from sin. During life, God gives us the chance to decide how we want to live. Whether we want to be good or bad, right or wrong. Since for some, homosexuality is a sin, then people can not be born gay. It is something they decided to do during their lives.

I know this is a few pages back, but I have not been on since and this was too good of a response to let go. Bravo sigma, you made my night, I have not laughed harder in a while.

This goes right with the logic that the earth is the center of the universe. However there is proof that there is a lot outside our tiny galaxy... or that evolution does not exist, however there is proof that in a way, an evolution of some sort at least exists. Oh, yeah evolution is just a theory... like gravity.

The law can not be religious, at least not in America. That is kind of the point of America, and therefor your argument is not valid in regards to if the Supreme Court of Cali should of legalized gay marriage. Oh, but of course, I went through years of depression and suicide attempts and being hospitalized because I CHOSE to be gay. Yes, that is it, because I want to be labeled a sinner and be an outcast, and be raped, and put myself in a minority, and I wanted to make high school oh so much harder, and I actively CHOSE to have to deal with bigots and bible thumpers who think I am an abomination.

[sigmadiva]

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

I know this is a few pages back, but I have not been on since and this was too good of a response to let go. Bravo sigma, you made my night, I have not laughed harder in a while.

Why thank you. I do that and sometimes I don't even try.

however there is proof that in a way, an evolution of some sort at least exists.

I agree with this.

The law can not be religious, at least not in America.

I agree with this. The law in and of itself should not be religios. But, you have to realize that people are more than likely going to vote and campaign on issuses based on their religious beliefs - like it or not.

That is kind of the point of America, and therefor your argument is not valid in regards to if the Supreme Court of Cali should of legalized gay marriage.

Yeah, and is this the same court that legalized marijuana ?

Oh, but of course, I went through years of depression and suicide attempts and being hospitalized because I CHOSE to be gay. Yes, that is it, because I want to be labeled a sinner and be an outcast, and be raped, and put myself in a minority, and I wanted to make high school oh so much harder, and I actively CHOSE to have to deal with bigots and bible thumpers who think I am an abomination.

I'm sorry that you had to experience this in your life. Really I am. But for me, I personally have no issue as to whether people are gay or not. But, do I think gay people should get married, no, I don't. End of story.

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

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I agree with this. The law in and of itself should not be religios. But, you have to realize that people are more than likely going to vote and campaign on issuses based on their religious beliefs - like it or not.

I know, that is the beauty of the law and the supreme court. It is not to uphold the majority, but to protect the minority

Yeah, and is this the same court that legalized marijuana ?

Yes, and at the risk of losing my credibility, I think it should be legalized. You speak of drawing lines and we draw lines at alcohol and cigarettes. Which is funny, because it must be a jagged messed up line to then cancel out marijuana, but this is totally another discussion.

I'm sorry that you had to experience this in your life. Really I am. But for me, I personally have no issue as to whether people are gay or not. But, do I think gay people should get married, no, I don't. End of story.

So, you will let them live like they are married and do everything like they are married, but you will not let them have a word? Wouldn't, in the eyes of God, the actions of a gay couple living their life together be considered a union? Like, a couple that lives together for the rest of their lifetime, whether is listed on their good or sin list, that would be a married couple in the eyes of God. God does not get semantic over a word. I mean, seriously, allowing someone to live their life with someone else is basically allowing them to marriage. The only thing you are denying is them term, married. Secondly, the issue is not whether the church recognizes the marriage. Sigmadiva, it really is not that hard to get a preacher who will marry a gay couple. Whether that marriage is recognized in heaven is a different discussion, but spiritually, gays get married all the time. What is being stopped is the legal part, not the spiritual part.

Oh, side note, and a lot of people do not think of this, BUT... If Gay marriage is legalized, this does not mean that a church has to marry them. All churches have the right to deny partitioners for various discriminating reasons, and are protected to do so by the constitution.

[sigmadiva]

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

I know, that is the beauty of the law and the supreme court. It is not to uphold the majority, but to protect the minority

But then, I think this speaks to another issue others have brought up - where should this issue be decided - in the courts, in the legislature, at the state level or at the federal level.

Yes, and at the risk of losing my credibility, I think it should be legalized. You speak of drawing lines and we draw lines at alcohol and cigarettes. Which is funny, because it must be a jagged messed up line to then cancel out marijuana, but this is totally another discussion.

Dude, relax. Sometimes you gotta get sarcasm.

So, you will let them live like they are married and do everything like they are married, but you will not let them have a word? Wouldn't, in the eyes of God, the actions of a gay couple living their life together be considered a union? Like, a couple that lives together for the rest of their lifetime, whether is listed on their good or sin list, that would be a married couple in the eyes of God. God does not get semantic over a word. I mean, seriously, allowing someone to live their life with someone else is basically allowing them to marriage.

Heterosexuals live together all the time. I think in Texas if a heterosexual couple lives together for at least 10 years, carries on like they are married and presents themselves to the public like they are married then for all intensive purposes in the eyes of the law they are married.

As I understand it from God's point of view his view of marriage is pretty cut and dry - one man, one woman that have stated vows / made a commitment in his eyes. There are some very specific versus in the Bible that define marriage. I don't have my Bible in front of me to give them to you.

The only thing you are denying them is the tax breaks. So, in my eyes, you can either ban homosexuals in general, or allow them to get married.

That's been tried before in the history of man. I don't think we want to re-visit that again. Very messy.

Oh, side note, and a lot of people do not think of this, BUT... If Gay marriage is legalized, this does not mean that a church has to marry them. All churches have the right to deny partitioners for various discriminating reasons, and are protected to do so by the constitution.

Yeah, but the very idea of a gay marriage irks some people.

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

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

But then, I think this speaks to another issue others have brought up - where should this issue be decided - in the courts, in the legislature, at the state level or at the federal level.

THE STATES! I am totally liberal, HOWEVER, I am all about state rights. I think having this legal in California is great, and having it illegal in Mississippi is just fine. I do think however that a marriage initiated by one state should be recognized by all. I think that with gay-marriage or not.

Dude, relax. Sometimes you gotta get sarcasm.

I know you were sarcastic, but that was just a hot button for me. Something else that really gets my goat.

Heterosexuals live together all the time. I think in Texas if a heterosexual couple lives together for at least 10 years, carries on like they are married and presents themselves to the public like they are married then for all intensive purposes in the eyes of the law they are married.

Yup, a common law marriage

As I understand it from God's point of view his view of marriage is pretty cut and dry - one man, one woman that have stated vows / made a commitment in his eyes. There are some very specific versus in the Bible that define marriage. I don't have my Bible in front of me to give them to you.

I was not saying it is condoned by God, I merely saying, they are living their life together like any other couple. I do not think God cares about how the law defines it. God probably sees it as a marriage, at least the act of marriage, and yes, if God is anti-gay marriage, then I am sure God is pretty upset about it. You see what I am saying?

MY MERE POINT is... Spiritually, gays can have the ceremony and get the preacher to unite them, and we won't REALLY know how burnt God's cheese is until we ascend on to Heaven (or to descend). As far as earth term's are concerned, the spiritual marriages are happening in churches and tacky beach resorts across the country. The issue is with being recognized by the law, not the religion.

That's been tried before in the history of man. I don't think we want to re-visit that again. Very messy.

Phew... although, I do not mind moving to Canada!!!

Yeah, but the very idea of a gay marriage irks some people.

Yes, I know, but the people it irks, it doesn't effect... so this irks me. However, acceptance has come along way in the last 30 years (thanks to AIDS ) and so hopefully 30 years from now it will be that much more accepting

[sigmadiva]

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

The issue is with being recognized by the law, not the religion.

Some people can not / will not / are not going to separate their religion from how they view the law. For them law = religion and religion = law.

Of course certain things like running a red light are very clear cut. But when it comes to moral and ethical issues people are going to base their thoughts, and thus actions, in their beliefs.

Yes, I know, but the people it irks, it doesn't effect... so this irks me.

Not directly, but they feel it affects their way of life. People like living in communities where everyone is pretty much the same. It gives them comfort. If a difference is perceived in the community, they either don't want in their community, or if it is there, they don't want it at all. Not fair, but that is how people are.

However, acceptance has come along way in the last 30 years (thanks to AIDS ) and so hopefully 30 years from now it will be that much more accepting

Good luck with that! There are some people today who are still angry that the South lost.

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

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Some people can not / will not / are not going to separate their religion from how they view the law. For them law = religion and religion = law.

Of course certain things like running a red light are very clear cut. But when it comes to moral and ethical issues people are going to base their thoughts, and thus actions, in their beliefs.

Not directly, but they feel it affects their way of life. People like living in communities where everyone is pretty much the same. It gives them comfort. If a difference is perceived in the community, they either don't want in their community, or if it is there, they don't want it at all. Not fair, but that is how people are.

LOL, I know this is how people are, and I never for a second thought that they weren't... still doesn't make it right? Can't we all just get along!!!

Good luck with that! There are some people today who are still angry that the South lost.

I know, its disgusting, however, they are entitled to their opinions, I am just glad their opinions are not in effect.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Heterosexuals live together all the time. I think in Texas if a heterosexual couple lives together for at least 10 years, carries on like they are married and presents themselves to the public like they are married then for all intensive purposes in the eyes of the law they are married.

So, does Common Law apply to gay couples as well?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

So, does Common Law apply to gay couples as well?

No, and in many states you can't form a common law marriage no matter how long you live together and hold yourselves out as married.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

then for all intensive purposes in the eyes of the law they are married.

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

So, does Common Law apply to gay couples as well?

Originally Posted by MysticCat

No, and in many states you can't form a common law marriage no matter how long you live together and hold yourselves out as married.

Even if I have really intensive purposes?

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

So, does Common Law apply to gay couples as well?

No. Here are some websites:

http://www.co.travis.tx.us/dro/common_law.asp


Q: What makes a common law marriage?

* A: Three elements must be present to form a common law marriage in Texas.

First, you must have "agreed to be married."
Second, you must have "held yourselves out" as husband and wife. You must have represented to others that you were married to each other. As an example of this, you may have introduced you partner socially as "my husband," or you may have filed a joint income tax return.
Third, you must have lived together in this state as husband and wife.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/commonlaw.htm

[shinerbock]

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

I know, that is the beauty of the law and the supreme court. It is not to uphold the majority, but to protect the minority





Yes, and at the risk of losing my credibility, I think it should be legalized. You speak of drawing lines and we draw lines at alcohol and cigarettes. Which is funny, because it must be a jagged messed up line to then cancel out marijuana, but this is totally another discussion.



So, you will let them live like they are married and do everything like they are married, but you will not let them have a word? Wouldn't, in the eyes of God, the actions of a gay couple living their life together be considered a union? Like, a couple that lives together for the rest of their lifetime, whether is listed on their good or sin list, that would be a married couple in the eyes of God. God does not get semantic over a word. I mean, seriously, allowing someone to live their life with someone else is basically allowing them to marriage. The only thing you are denying is them term, married. Secondly, the issue is not whether the church recognizes the marriage. Sigmadiva, it really is not that hard to get a preacher who will marry a gay couple. Whether that marriage is recognized in heaven is a different discussion, but spiritually, gays get married all the time. What is being stopped is the legal part, not the spiritual part.

Oh, side note, and a lot of people do not think of this, BUT... If Gay marriage is legalized, this does not mean that a church has to marry them. All churches have the right to deny partitioners for various discriminating reasons, and are protected to do so by the constitution.

For many, it really is semantics. Some might think it is stupid, but a lot of people have a problem with expanding marriage to include homosexuals. Not only is it historically irrational, it is government equating traditional marriage with homosexual unions, which many would personally object to.