California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[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.

[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.

[sigmadiva]

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

That really burned my cheese.

ewwww!! Burned cheese, yuck.

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

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

ewwww!! Burned cheese, yuck.

[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

[laylo]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

You're actually voting on whether gay relationships should be equated to straight relationships and whether the definition of "marriage" should be altered to include same-sex couples.

California already provided legal benefits, so gay marriage, when determined by a state court, has nothing to do with expanding that.

Do you mean that the only difference between domestic partnerships and marriage is the words on the documents? Are all of the rights the same?

[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.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by laylo

Do you mean that the only difference between domestic partnerships and marriage is the words on the documents? Are all of the rights the same?

I suspect this varies.

However, to my knowledge CA provided everything the state had power to grant. Thus, why are people still trying to be included under the "marriage" label?

Maybe I'm wrong, I'm sure someone knows more about CA domestic partnership law. But my point is that this isn't just about equal benefits, it is about semantics too (on both sides). I don't think the gay community would be satisfied by a national marriage equivalent which goes by a different name.

[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

[nate2512]

To me, I think it's a lot easier to educate children on the subject matter. I believe that the way they are doing it is the correct way, because those people who do not believe in gay marriage due to religious beliefs will be able to explain to their children about their beliefs and the differences much easier this way. I equate it to the geometrical principle of quadrilaterals, a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is a not a square. They have different properties, such the same as marriage is a civil union, but a civil union is not a marriage. A marriage is a civil union between a man and a woman, a civil union is a union between two people.

This all isn't to say I support being gay, because that a whole different issue entirely, but this is what I think about the terminology.

[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?

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

Ok, now my cheese is basically charcoal. Was just watching the news, and it was announced that in California, the gay marriage issue will be BACK on the ballot in November. I hope not too many states follow this lead. Not because I do not think the people should have a voice, but this will DIRECTLY effect the election AGAIN, and it is just bad news for Barack. I think he still has a good chance at winning California, BUT I hope not too many states follow with putting such an issue, because it IS the reason Bush won Ohio in 2004, and def. a way for McCain to win it again...

I need new cheese.