same sex marriage ban is unconstitutional

[Scruit]

According to an appeals court in California.

U.S. Supreme Court next?

[Sapphy]

According to an appeals court in California.

U.S. Supreme Court next?

That would be my guess. I think the religious fascist will not stop till they get their way.

Edited February 7, 2012 by Sapphy
typo

[Cheech]

I eagerly await the social conservative derp-storm to follow. 30 years from now this is going to read exactly like the Civil Rights demonstrations of the 60's.

[Bad324]

Not that I really care either way but my thoughts are if the gays wanna ruin the one good thing they have by not getting married, being miserable and then losing half their shit when the other bitch inevitably cheats well then let themselves shoot their own foot

[John]

i have yet to hear a valid, non-religious argument against same-sex marriage.

[mello dude]

They should call it - garriage... or they dont get married, they get garried.....

Then marriage stays man/women and gariage is same sex..

Goofy thought for the day......

Edited February 7, 2012 by mello dude

[Scruit]

i have yet to hear a valid, non-religious argument against same-sex marriage.

Because "Marriage" is a religious institution? That's why people get married in churches.

To clarify, before the flame storm...

I don't think that we should force CHURCHES to bestow the RELIGOUS rights and resonsibilities of marriage on people that they don't want to.

However, the concept of a monogamous relationship was NOT invented by any religion. I 100% support that all couples should have access to the SECULAR benefits and responsibilities of marriage (joint taxes, next-of-kin rights, joint/marital property, spousal benefits for insurance).

[Cheech]

Because "Marriage" is a religious institution? That's why people get married in churches.

To clarify, before the flame storm...

I don't think that we should force CHURCHES to bestow the RELIGOUS rights and resonsibilities of marriage on people that they don't want to.

However, the concept of a monogamous relationship was NOT invented by any religion. I 100% support that all couples should have access to the SECULAR benefits and responsibilities of marriage (joint taxes, next-of-kin rights, joint/marital property, spousal benefits for insurance).

And those secular benefits and responsibilities are at the heart of this issue. Religion can do whatever they want, however they can't foist their beliefs on the business of the state, which is exactly what happened.

[John]

Because "Marriage" is a religious institution? That's why people get married in churches.

marriage is a SOCIAL institution, not strictly a religious one.

people get married in all kinds of places, not just churches. you can get married at the courthouse, on the beach, in your house, in a park or in a neon chapel in vegas with a guy dressed like elvis officiating.

i agree with the rest of your post. if church X doesnt want to condone gay marriage, they dont have to. if they dont want to condone inter-racial marriage, they dont have to do that either. if they say that they only marriage their religion recognizes is between a man and a woman of the same height and the sum of their birthdays is greater than 175 they can do that too.

but thats a moot point i think, becasue no one is pushing for that in the first place. no one is saying that churches have to accept it, people want the secular civil benefits.

Edited February 7, 2012 by John

[redbarron77]

just to add fuel to the fire....

With a true separation of Church and State, our Government should only be concerned about who is in a "Union" with whom for census reasons.

This would allow for any form of "Marriage", regardless of sex or number, i.e. - pluralistic marriages.

The US does not allow for plural marriages, but "sexual oriented" marriages are okay?

[Cheech]

I find it really telling that the more vocal anti-gay conservatives on here aren't chiming in. I said it before on the "social conservative" thread, you guys are on the wrong side of history on this one.

[jblosser]

i have yet to hear a valid, non-religious argument against same-sex marriage.

Not that I really care either way but my thoughts are if the gays wanna ruin the one good thing they have by not getting married, being miserable and then losing half their shit when the other bitch inevitably cheats well then let themselves shoot their own foot

There's one for ya.

Don't care, as long as both chicks are hot.

:malechauvinistpig:

Honestly, I don't care if two like-gendered people want to be "married" or have a state-sanctioned "same-sex union" - doesn't impact me at all.

[DrewsBrews]

I have no problems with the whole marriage thing. Some of the happiest people I know are in a same sex relationship.

However, maybe I'm wierd, but I find it depressing to see hot lesbians.

Edited February 7, 2012 by DrewsBrews

[redkow97]

I'm as pro equal-rights for gays as you can get, but this is NOT good for that cause.

It's been an unspoken rule in the gay rights community for decades now; "don't challenge anything like this in the supreme court until a couple more conservatives are replaced by more liberal justices."

They're setting themselves up for a 5-4 vote that bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional, and an EPIC majority opinion by Scalia that will be so precise in its logic, gay intellectuals across the country will feel like their heads are going to explode.

sure, there will be outrage (and rightfully so), but Scalia's no dummy. His logic will be airtight. I really hope the court either rejects the argument, or the party withdraws. The only 'good' thing that might come of this is John will probably get several answers to his question regarding a logical, non-religious argument against gay marriage. (hell, they can invoke the commerce clause and rationalize just about anything...)

[crb]

i have yet to hear a valid, non-religious argument against same-sex marriage.

Firstly the orgins of marriage are purely religious! Marriage predates the united states, and the constitution! The states and federal government have NO business regulating marriage. Secondly I am against legalization of gay marriage because its in natural in a scientific way. That being said that is my personal view! If you take the power back away from government, then they can't decide who can marry. Meaning if two men want to marry and a minister will marry them, I can't stop it. The fact you have to cone terms with is marriage is a religious function!

[crb]

just to add fuel to the fire....

With a true separation of Church and State, our Government should only be concerned about who is in a "Union" with whom for census reasons.

This would allow for any form of "Marriage", regardless of sex or number, i.e. - pluralistic marriages.

The US does not allow for plural marriages, but "sexual oriented" marriages are okay?

Please show me the seperation of church and state" can I find it in the bill of rights or the constitution?

[crb]

marriage is a SOCIAL institution, not strictly a religious one.

people get married in all kinds of places, not just churches. you can get married at the courthouse, on the beach, in your house, in a park or in a neon chapel in vegas with a guy dressed like elvis officiating.

i agree with the rest of your post. if church X doesnt want to condone gay marriage, they dont have to. if they dont want to condone inter-racial marriage, they dont have to do that either. if they say that they only marriage their religion recognizes is between a man and a woman of the same height and the sum of their birthdays is greater than 175 they can do that too.

but thats a moot point i think, becasue no one is pushing for that in the first place. no one is saying that churches have to accept it, people want the secular civil benefits.

You are absolutely wrong. Marriage is a religious concept not a secular. Secular has taken over marriage, but it was originally a religious concept.

[redkow97]

The states and federal government have NO business regulating marriage.

I agree with you to a point. I believe what you really mean is that a legal marriage and religious definitions of marriage are vastly different.

With that said, I would agree with the spirit of your post, and say that the government has no business calling anything "marriage." I would personally advocate for "civil unions" between any two consenting adults, gay, straight, related, etc.

But as the law currently stand, legal marriage affords spouses certain rights that have nothing to do with religion whatsoever. Rights of inheritance, hospital visitation, social security survivor benefits, etc.

None of that has anything to do with religion, and to give it to some couples while excluding others is (in my estimation) not the kind of equal protection the constitution had in mind.

By the same token, religious marriage vows are about devotion, love, and fidelity. It's a totally separate concept from legal marriage.

But legal unions have just as much of a place in our society as "marriage."

Call it whatever you want, but if the government has a monopoly on it, it's usually a fundamental right. I can get married without doing so in a church. I cannot get married without getting a license from the government. Who really has more control over "marriage?" But as I said, I would agree with you that legal marriage is a misnomer.

[crb]

I agree with you to a point. I believe what you really mean is that a legal marriage and religious definitions of marriage are vastly different.

With that said, I would agree with the spirit of your post, and say that the government has no business calling anything "marriage." I would personally advocate for "civil unions" between any two consenting adults, gay, straight, related, etc.

But as the law currently stand, legal marriage affords spouses certain rights that have nothing to do with religion whatsoever. Rights of inheritance, hospital visitation, social security survivor benefits, etc.

None of that has anything to do with religion, and to give it to some couples while excluding others is (in my estimation) not the kind of equal protection the constitution had in mind.

By the same token, religious marriage vows are about devotion, love, and fidelity. It's a totally separate concept from legal marriage.

But legal unions have just as much of a place in our society as "marriage."

Call it whatever you want, but if the government has a monopoly on it, it's usually a fundamental right. I can get married without doing so in a church. I cannot get married without getting a license from the government. Who really has more control over "marriage?" But as I said, I would agree with you that legal marriage is a misnomer.

You put it more eloquently than I did, but yrs that's my point. A true atheist would not call it a marriage. The state shouldn't issue licenses at all or dictate who can marry. The government should not givespecial benefits to "married" people then a simple contract is the equivalent to "marriage"

[C-bus]

It always amazes me that the same limited government conservatives want the government to interfere in personal matters of the heart. Liberty is liberty and by its nature, people are free to do things others may not like.

[crb]

It always amazes me that the same limited government conservatives want the government to interfere in personal matters of the heart. Liberty is liberty and by its nature, people are free to do things others may not like.

If you are referring to me you missed my poiny which is the government has no business in marriage. While I think homosexuality is unnatural, you wont see me asking for laws TCP outlaw it. I am entitled to believe its unnatural, and I'm not forcing my beliefs on you. I don't understand why homosexuals want to force me to accept homosexuality as normal. FYI I will never feel its normal even if the government allows them to marry. While on the topic the public schools have no business in trying to normalize homosexuality either or normalizing being straight for that matter!

If homosexuals want the "right" to marry why not get on the libertarian band wagon? No the want a new law "normalizaling" it. Fight to get the government out of it all together. Liberty in my opinion is minimal government laws and interference.

Why is it the governments place to say brothers and sisters, brothers, sisters, cousins, etc can't "marry"?

Why does the government need to tell me how many spouses I can have?

****FYI I am not advocating incest, or polygamy only making a point. ****

Edited February 8, 2012 by crb

[Sapphy]

If you are referring to me you missed my poiny which is the government has no business in marriage. While I think homosexuality is unnatural, you wont see me asking for laws TCP outlaw it. I am entitled to believe its unnatural, and I'm not forcing my beliefs on you. I don't understand why homosexuals want to force me to accept homosexuality as normal. FYI I will never feel its normal even if the government allows them to marry. While on the topic the public schools have no business in trying to normalize homosexuality either or normalizing being straight for that matter!

If homosexuals want the "right" to marry why not get on the libertarian band wagon? No the want a new law "normalizaling" it. Fight to get the government out of it all together. Liberty in my opinion is minimal government laws and interference.

Why is it the governments place to say brothers and sisters, brothers, sisters, cousins, etc can't "marry"?

Why does the government need to tell me how many spouses I can have?

****FYI I am not advocating incest, or polygamy only making a point. ****

What does "normalizing it" mean? Do you really know? Do you know in this state a gay person can loose there job, be denied housing, be denied service at a restaurant for appearing gay? The significant other of 20+ years can be blocked from the death bed of their partner. Is that ok to you? IS that normal for you? Getting Married has jack shit to do with your cult, or any other cult. You do not have to believe in an invisible man in the sky to get married. The fact of the matter is the Act of getting Married has a hell of a lot to do with legal issues of the state. Wills, next of kin, insurance, ect.

And on the subject of "Schools Normalizing it" have you been keeping count of all the young teens we have lost in recent years because parents teach that it is OK to demonize and persecute someone they THINK is gay. What if that was your child? If parents can't teach their children not to act like bigots, then yes the school needs to step in.

[Cheech]

The government should not givespecial benefits to "married" people then a simple contract is the equivalent to "marriage"

This is where your argument falls apart. The government does give special benefits to married people. Tax status, next-of-kin status, everything that's already been mentioned in this thread. Why, IN THE EYES OF THE STATE ONLY, is it permissible to give these benefits or allow that simple contract to be created between a man and a woman and deny it to a same-sex couple?

THAT is the question being asked here, and one that no one is willing to answer without invoking religion, because there IS no answer without invoking religion.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Cheech

[Cheech]

Please show me the seperation of church and state" can I find it in the bill of rights or the constitution?

You're fucking kidding me, right?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" US Constitution, 1st Amendment.

Separation of Church and State upheld:

Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - John Adams:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Everson v. Board of Education, 1947

Seriously man, 5 minutes of research.

[redkow97]

I have to remind even some of my most conservative friends, "the government does not GIVE you rights. The government only restricts existing rights, or takes them away completely."