PDA

View Full Version : State: Gay marriage to begin June 17 in California



ralph wiggum
05-28-2008, 11:33 PM
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - California counties can issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples beginning June 17, the state said in a directive issued Wednesday.

The state Office of Vital Records said it chose June 17 because the state Supreme Court has until the close of business on June 16 to decide whether to grant a stay of its May 15 ruling legalizing gay marriage.

Gay rights advocates and some clerks initially thought couples would be able to wed as early as Saturday, June 14—exactly 30 days after the court's ruling, when its decisions typically take effect.

But a group opposed to gay marriage has asked the court to stay its decision until after the November election, when voters are likely to face a ballot initiative that would once again define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Passage of the initiative would overrule the Supreme Court.

Under the Supreme Court's regular rules of procedure, justices have until the end of the day on June 16 to rule on the stay request, according to the memo sent by e-mail to the state's 58 county clerks. Lawyers involved in the marriage case have said previously the court could grant itself an extra 60 days to consider the stay.

The guidelines from Mark Horton, director of the California Department of Public Health, also contained copies of new marriage forms that include lines for "Party A" and "Party B" instead of bridge and groom. The gender-neutral nomenclature was developed in consultation with county clerks, according to the letter.

"Effective June 17, 2008, only the enclosed new forms may be issued for the issuance of marriage licenses in California," the directive reads.

LINK (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90URTC02&show_article=1)

On my birthday, of all days. We need a puke smilie.

LibraryLady
05-28-2008, 11:39 PM
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d83/iamanemofag/th8645a397.gif

ralph wiggum
05-28-2008, 11:43 PM
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d83/iamanemofag/th8645a397.gif

Thank you as usual, LL.

jendf
05-29-2008, 12:03 AM
I'm glad I don't live in California, although, I think Arizona may not be far behind with a similar measure.

We are becoming California-lite it seems.

Aklover
05-29-2008, 12:42 AM
I'm glad I don't live in California, although, I think Arizona may not be far behind with a similar measure.

We are becoming California-lite it seems.


Just ask your state rep to write a bill banning out-migrants from California.:D




If only that were legal.

jendf
05-29-2008, 12:51 AM
In '06, Arizona became the first state to NOT pass a resolution recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman. Our state legislature is trying to get it on the ballot again this November. I'm not holding out much hope that this one will pass either.

It saddens me.

Ron Paul
05-29-2008, 01:42 AM
In '06, Arizona became the first state to NOT pass a resolution recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman. Our state legislature is trying to get it on the ballot again this November. I'm not holding out much hope that this one will pass either.

It saddens me.

Why should it sadden you? This is the way the world works. The youth in america aren't really all that weirded out by gay people. It's only a matter of time before gays get the same rights that straights have. New ideas about social policies only rarely revert backwards in America.

Gay marriage doesn't make straight marriage any different. It should mean fewer gays with AIDS since fewer partners equals fewer STD infections. It should be good for the economy to have people sharing their resources, saving for retirement, etc. Gays tend to be better educated and commit less crime, and I think married gays will be decent citizens.

I guess I just don't see how it affects me negatively. I am open to suggestions.

Aklover
05-29-2008, 02:21 AM
Why should it sadden you? This is the way the world works. The youth in america aren't really all that weirded out by gay people. It's only a matter of time before gays get the same rights that straights have. New ideas about social policies only rarely revert backwards in America.

Gay marriage doesn't make straight marriage any different. It should mean fewer gays with AIDS since fewer partners equals fewer STD infections. It should be good for the economy to have people sharing their resources, saving for retirement, etc. Gays tend to be better educated and commit less crime, and I think married gays will be decent citizens.

I guess I just don't see how it affects me negatively. I am open to suggestions.

Some think Homosexuality is immoral. Touchy subject best to just leave it at that.

Wolsh two
05-29-2008, 09:18 AM
I heard this morning on the news that NY was going to recognize gay marriges performed in CA.

I wonder what happens when the law is overturned? Will those marriages remain valid?

du freeper
05-29-2008, 09:23 AM
Why should it sadden you? This is the way the world works. The youth in america aren't really all that weirded out by gay people. It's only a matter of time before gays get the same rights that straights have. New ideas about social policies only rarely revert backwards in America.

Gay marriage doesn't make straight marriage any different. It should mean fewer gays with AIDS since fewer partners equals fewer STD infections. It should be good for the economy to have people sharing their resources, saving for retirement, etc. Gays tend to be better educated and commit less crime, and I think married gays will be decent citizens.

I guess I just don't see how it affects me negatively. I am open to suggestions.

How about the people's will? They voted to ban gay marriage. Do you believe the courts should create law?

Perilloux
05-29-2008, 09:23 AM
It's only a matter of time before gays get the same rights that straights have.

Gays already have the same rights as heterosexuals.

LogansPapa
05-29-2008, 10:38 AM
As this supposed issue doesn’t really have any decernible effect on anyone other than those who love each other, I can’t bring myself to give a damn.

jendf
05-29-2008, 10:39 AM
As this supposed issue doesn’t really have any decernible effect on anyone other than those who love each other, I can’t bring myself to give a damn.

Welcome back, LogansPapa. :D

Space Gravy
05-29-2008, 10:42 AM
As this supposed issue doesn’t really have any decernible effect on anyone other than those who love each other, I can’t bring myself to give a damn.

Yep. I can't see how this is going to directly effect me one way or another.

LogansPapa
05-29-2008, 11:03 AM
Welcome back, LogansPapa. :D

Thank You. :) The new format looks great!

Full-Auto
05-29-2008, 01:00 PM
Gay marriage doesn't make straight marriage any different. It should mean fewer gays with AIDS since fewer partners equals fewer STD infections.

I'm not sure how you can justify this statement. Are you suggesting that married people are less likely to have multiple partners? Do you think a document like a marriage license will turn someone who cheats on their partner into someone who won't?

That's seems exceptionally naive to me.

Rebel Yell
05-29-2008, 01:19 PM
I know a certain daytime talk show host who has a honeymoon coming up.:D
http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii59/Cane_Nation/scissor-1-1.jpg

Eyelids
05-29-2008, 03:34 PM
Ron Paul (despite him being crazy) has the point pretty down pat. Young Americans arent scared of gays or homosexuality, because we arent ignorant and do not fear whatever we dont understand. Gay marriage will become legal in the USA by the end of this decade. All these "family research councels" are going to do nothing to change that.

edit- Rebel Yell's sig quote is hilarious... because thats the exact opposite of what the movie was trying to say.

biccat
05-29-2008, 03:42 PM
I'm glad you've decied to bring your particular brand of stupid back to this board Eyelids. I've missed your willful ignorance and contemptuous disregard for honesty and consistancy.

wilbur
05-29-2008, 03:44 PM
Some think Homosexuality is immoral. Touchy subject best to just leave it at that.

Politicians are immoral too... when can we outlaw them?

wilbur
05-29-2008, 03:47 PM
Gays already have the same rights as heterosexuals.

Depends where you live.. not when it comes to things like power of attorney and visitation rights in hospitals, taxes etc etc.

Either way, I'm with logan on this one. It's not important in the scheme of things.

Let some ignorant folks stew in their homophobia and get all worked up over something ridiculously and utterly inconsequential.. just makes them look like fools.

Rebel Yell
05-29-2008, 03:59 PM
Ron Paul (despite him being crazy) has the point pretty down pat. Young Americans arent scared of gays or homosexuality, because we arent ignorant and do not fear whatever we dont understand. Gay marriage will become legal in the USA by the end of this decade. All these "family research councels" are going to do nothing to change that.

edit- Rebel Yell's sig quote is hilarious... because thats the exact opposite of what the movie was trying to say.

Is this better for ya? I thought about your kind when I heard this Tuesday.

Burnett: I was told it might be possible to rent your boat. We'd like to do that. Is that possible? We need to get up river.
John J. Rambo: Where are you going?
Burnett: Into Burma.
John J. Rambo: Burma's a warzone.
Burnett: Well, that's what people call it, but it's more like genocide than war. Anyway, this will be my fifth trip in, so we are aware of the risks.
John J. Rambo: I don't go that far north.
Burnett: Let me explain our situation - our church is part of a Pan-Asian ministry, located in Colorado. We are all volunteers, who around this time of year bring in medical supplies, medical attention, prayer books, and support to the Karen tribes people. People say you know the river better than anyone.
John J. Rambo: They ain't lying.
Burnett: So what I'm asking is that we compensate you for a few hours of your time that will help change people's lives.
John J. Rambo: Are you bringing any weapons?
Burnett: Of course not.
John J. Rambo: You're not changing anything.
Burnett: Well, it's thinking like that that keeps the world the way it is.
John J. Rambo: [walking away] Fuck the world.

biccat
05-29-2008, 04:02 PM
Depends where you live.. not when it comes to things like power of attorney and visitation rights in hospitals, taxes etc etc.
Actually gays do have the same rights as heterosexuals in this area. A gay man has hospital visitation rights to see his wife if she is in the hospital. He can file a joint tax return with his wife. In fact, he can enjoy every advantage that a straight man can enjoy.

The fact that fags don't enjoy the right to marry other men isn't discrimination. As a straight male, I don't have the right to marry another man either.

Could you please explain what 'rights' pillow biters do not enjoy?

Rebel Yell
05-29-2008, 04:05 PM
Actually gays do have the same rights as heterosexuals in this area. A gay man has hospital visitation rights to see his wife if she is in the hospital. He can file a joint tax return with his wife. In fact, he can enjoy every advantage that a straight man can enjoy.

The fact that fags don't enjoy the right to marry other men isn't discrimination. As a straight male, I don't have the right to marry another man either.

Could you please explain what 'rights' pillow biters do not enjoy?

Thank you. I would like to add that you can make anyone your power of attorney. If Adam wants Steve to be his Power of Attorney, then he needs to do the paperwork. If Adam gets in bad shape without making Steve his Power of Attorney, that's not discrimination, it's piss poor planning.

biccat
05-29-2008, 04:18 PM
I didn't want to touch the power of attorney stuff because I don't know the extent of the overlap between power of attorney and marriage. You're right that you can give power of attorney to whomever you want tho.

I used to support gay marriage. Then the decision came down in Massachusettes and I realized what a mistake I was making. Gay marriage is not about providing 'equal rights' to homosexuals, it is about social acceptance of perversion and depravity. There really is a homosexual agenda, and it really is out to destroy our society. These people are the fringe of our society, and they are being granted special treatment in the guise of "human rights." It is only a matter of time until polygamy, beastiality, and eventually pedophilia become the next talking points for 'equal rights.'

The Left is never content with the status quo. Conservatives need to draw a line in the sand and say "no further." Equal treatment for blacks and women, Conservatives said "You're right, we need to fix this." Then liberals wanted social acceptance of promiscuity, and Conservatives said "OK, we'll stay out of your bedroom." Acceptance of recreational drug use, destruction of the family through welfare, abortion, decreasing the role of religion in public life...these are all areas where Conservatives were willing to give a little bit.

Lilberals are trying to destroy our society and Capitalism one step at a time, and too many people are content to say "OK, we will let you take this step, but not the next one." In 10 years when NAMBLA is having government sponsored recruiting fairs at the local elementary school and the Marines are prohibited from setting foot within 100 yards of a high school, are you going to say "Well, OK" and let them take yet another step? Or will you finally stop and say "hang on, that is too far?"

My line in the sand is here. I wonder where it is for the some of the gay marriage supporters.

Rebel Yell
05-29-2008, 04:23 PM
I didn't want to touch the power of attorney stuff because I don't know the extent of the overlap between power of attorney and marriage. You're right that you can give power of attorney to whomever you want tho.

I used to support gay marriage. Then the decision came down in Massachusettes and I realized what a mistake I was making. Gay marriage is not about providing 'equal rights' to homosexuals, it is about social acceptance of perversion and depravity. There really is a homosexual agenda, and it really is out to destroy our society. These people are the fringe of our society, and they are being granted special treatment in the guise of "human rights." It is only a matter of time until polygamy, beastiality, and eventually pedophilia become the next talking points for 'equal rights.'

The Left is never content with the status quo. Conservatives need to draw a line in the sand and say "no further." Equal treatment for blacks and women, Conservatives said "You're right, we need to fix this." Then liberals wanted social acceptance of promiscuity, and Conservatives said "OK, we'll stay out of your bedroom." Acceptance of recreational drug use, destruction of the family through welfare, abortion, decreasing the role of religion in public life...these are all areas where Conservatives were willing to give a little bit.

Lilberals are trying to destroy our society and Capitalism one step at a time, and too many people are content to say "OK, we will let you take this step, but not the next one." In 10 years when NAMBLA is having government sponsored recruiting fairs at the local elementary school and the Marines are prohibited from setting foot within 100 yards of a high school, are you going to say "Well, OK" and let them take yet another step? Or will you finally stop and say "hang on, that is too far?"

My line in the sand is here. I wonder where it is for the some of the gay marriage supporters.


I couldn't have said it better myself.

wilbur
05-29-2008, 04:23 PM
Actually gays do have the same rights as heterosexuals in this area. A gay man has hospital visitation rights to see his wife if she is in the hospital. He can file a joint tax return with his wife. In fact, he can enjoy every advantage that a straight man can enjoy.

The fact that fags don't enjoy the right to marry other men isn't discrimination. As a straight male, I don't have the right to marry another man either.

Could you please explain what 'rights' pillow biters do not enjoy?

What a class act.

You have a right to visit your partner in the hospital. In some places, homosexuals do not, even though some may have a level of commitment not even present in the 50%+ of straight marriages that fail. They are being denied their rights in those places, period.

It makes you wonder though, if allowing gay marriage might improve the overall marriage failure statistics? Would that be "harming the institution" of marriage?

But hey.. Support social conservatism! It puts the "homo" back in homophobia!

biccat
05-29-2008, 04:36 PM
What a class act.
Thank you.


You have a right to visit your partner in the hospital. In some places, homosexuals do not, even though some may have a level of commitment not even present in the 50%+ of straight marriages that fail. They are being denied their rights in those places, period.
Actually no, I don't have the right to visit my partner in the hospital. If I were not married (maybe to avoid the responsibility), I wouldn't have any right to visit my 'partner' in the hospital, male or female. If I were married and having an affair, I similarly wouldn't have any right to visit my 'partner' in the hospital.

Since the rest of your points depend on this basic assumption, the rest of your post is nonsensical.


It makes you wonder though, if allowing gay marriage might improve the overall marriage failure statistics? Would that be "harming the institution" of marriage?
So we should destroy marriage on speculation that gays may not get divorced as much as straights? You can hopefully see how absurd this is.

A quick google search turned up this website (http://www.narth.com/docs/sweden.html):
"Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples."

If "lowering the divorce rate" is the stated goal, then legalizing gay marriage would be disastrous towards this goal. Nice try again.


But hey.. Support social conservatism! It puts the "homo" back in homophobia!
I never said I was afraid of homosexuals. On a less linguistic note, what the hell does "homo" have to do with Conservativism? You might as well say "Liberals, putting the 'late' back in belated!" :rolleyes:

Rebel Yell
05-29-2008, 04:40 PM
Thank you.


Actually no, I don't have the right to visit my partner in the hospital. If I were not married (maybe to avoid the responsibility), I wouldn't have any right to visit my 'partner' in the hospital, male or female. If I were married and having an affair, I similarly wouldn't have any right to visit my 'partner' in the hospital.

Since the rest of your points depend on this basic assumption, the rest of your post is nonsensical.


So we should destroy marriage on speculation that gays may not get divorced as much as straights? You can hopefully see how absurd this is.

A quick google search turned up this website (http://www.narth.com/docs/sweden.html):
"Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples."

If "lowering the divorce rate" is the stated goal, then legalizing gay marriage would be disastrous towards this goal. Nice try again.


I never said I was afraid of homosexuals. On a less linguistic note, what the hell does "homo" have to do with Conservativism? You might as well say "Liberals, putting the 'late' back in belated!" :rolleyes:

All this from someone called bicat?:D

jendf
05-29-2008, 04:44 PM
I didn't want to touch the power of attorney stuff because I don't know the extent of the overlap between power of attorney and marriage. You're right that you can give power of attorney to whomever you want tho.

I used to support gay marriage. Then the decision came down in Massachusettes and I realized what a mistake I was making. Gay marriage is not about providing 'equal rights' to homosexuals, it is about social acceptance of perversion and depravity. There really is a homosexual agenda, and it really is out to destroy our society. These people are the fringe of our society, and they are being granted special treatment in the guise of "human rights." It is only a matter of time until polygamy, beastiality, and eventually pedophilia become the next talking points for 'equal rights.'

The Left is never content with the status quo. Conservatives need to draw a line in the sand and say "no further." Equal treatment for blacks and women, Conservatives said "You're right, we need to fix this." Then liberals wanted social acceptance of promiscuity, and Conservatives said "OK, we'll stay out of your bedroom." Acceptance of recreational drug use, destruction of the family through welfare, abortion, decreasing the role of religion in public life...these are all areas where Conservatives were willing to give a little bit.

Lilberals are trying to destroy our society and Capitalism one step at a time, and too many people are content to say "OK, we will let you take this step, but not the next one." In 10 years when NAMBLA is having government sponsored recruiting fairs at the local elementary school and the Marines are prohibited from setting foot within 100 yards of a high school, are you going to say "Well, OK" and let them take yet another step? Or will you finally stop and say "hang on, that is too far?"

My line in the sand is here. I wonder where it is for the some of the gay marriage supporters.

Well said, biccat!

biccat
05-29-2008, 04:48 PM
All this from someone called bicat?:D
:(

I need to find some pictures of my cat who's name is Bic (like the pen, not the razor).

wilbur
05-29-2008, 04:48 PM
I didn't want to touch the power of attorney stuff because I don't know the extent of the overlap between power of attorney and marriage. You're right that you can give power of attorney to whomever you want tho.

I used to support gay marriage. Then the decision came down in Massachusettes and I realized what a mistake I was making. Gay marriage is not about providing 'equal rights' to homosexuals, it is about social acceptance of perversion and depravity. There really is a homosexual agenda, and it really is out to destroy our society. These people are the fringe of our society, and they are being granted special treatment in the guise of "human rights." It is only a matter of time until polygamy, beastiality, and eventually pedophilia become the next talking points for 'equal rights.'

The Left is never content with the status quo. Conservatives need to draw a line in the sand and say "no further." Equal treatment for blacks and women, Conservatives said "You're right, we need to fix this." Then liberals wanted social acceptance of promiscuity, and Conservatives said "OK, we'll stay out of your bedroom." Acceptance of recreational drug use, destruction of the family through welfare, abortion, decreasing the role of religion in public life...these are all areas where Conservatives were willing to give a little bit.

Lilberals are trying to destroy our society and Capitalism one step at a time, and too many people are content to say "OK, we will let you take this step, but not the next one." In 10 years when NAMBLA is having government sponsored recruiting fairs at the local elementary school and the Marines are prohibited from setting foot within 100 yards of a high school, are you going to say "Well, OK" and let them take yet another step? Or will you finally stop and say "hang on, that is too far?"

My line in the sand is here. I wonder where it is for the some of the gay marriage supporters.

This is quite similar to the rhetoric used in the south in support of miscegenation laws, which persisted for most of this countries history, making it illegal for interracial couples to marry. It was thought of as 'immoral', and 'unnatural'.

Would you mind explaining your logical connection between gay marriage and polygamy? More to the point.. do you actually have a solid argument against gay marriage that stands on its own merits without resorting to the slippery slope polygamy non sequitur?

Rebel Yell
05-29-2008, 04:51 PM
This is quite similar to the rhetoric used in the south in support of miscegenation laws, which persisted for most of this countries history, making it illegal for interracial couples to marry. It was thought of as 'immoral', and 'unnatural'.

Would you mind explaining your logical connection between gay marriage and polygamy? More to the point.. do you actually have a solid argument against gay marriage that stands on its own merits without resorting to the slippery slope polygamy non sequitur?


Yes, I do. I'm disgusted at the thought of a man wanting to get doo doo on his tallywhacker.:D

LogansPapa
05-29-2008, 04:53 PM
Yes, I do. I'm disgusted at the thought of a man wanting to get doo doo on his tallywhacker.:D

And you really expected something more coherient, wilbur?:cool:

wilbur
05-29-2008, 04:54 PM
Yes, I do. I'm disgusted at the thought of a man wanting to get doo doo on his tallywhacker.:D

That happens to straight people on occasion to ya know... that is at least if you get a proper woman :).

biccat
05-29-2008, 05:03 PM
This is quite similar to the rhetoric used in the south in support of miscegenation laws, which persisted for most of this countries history, making it illegal for interracial couples to marry. It was thought of as 'immoral', and 'unnatural'.
You're right, it is. I agree with rights based not on skin color, or on sex, or on alienage, or on religious beliefs, etc. But how far are you willing to go? If homosexuals can successfully argue that man-man love is socially equivalent to man-woman love, then how far are we from pedophiles arguing the equivalence of man-boy love?


Would you mind explaining your logical connection between gay marriage and polygamy? More to the point.. do you actually have a solid argument against gay marriage that stands on its own merits without resorting to the slippery slope polygamy non sequitur?
Marriage is the union of one man and one woman in marriage. The theory of eliminating the "man and woman" requirement, and rewriting it as "two persons" is no stronger than eliminating the requirement of "one" (of each sex) or "two" (without specifying sex). In fact the terms "man and woman" themselves imply the term "adult," which could easily be removed. By redefining marriage to "two persons" then you're eliminating the implicit modifier "adult."

Want more? With a sweep of the pen I can allow a man to marry a corporation and sell shares of his wife if you'd like.

Argument against gay marriage on its own? How about utilizing the legislative and republican form of government to enact change, rather than judicial activisim? Were women granted the right to vote by judicial interpretation, or was it through the systems incorporated into our system of government? How about equal rights in voting and representation?

Can you give a coherent argument, in light of Amendments 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 23, and 26 to the US Constitution, for gay marriage?

LogansPapa
05-29-2008, 05:19 PM
You're right, it is. I agree with rights based not on skin color, or on sex, or on alienage, or on religious beliefs, etc. But how far are you willing to go? If homosexuals can successfully argue that man-man love is socially equivalent to man-woman love, then how far are we from pedophiles arguing the equivalence of man-boy love?

And there’s any wonder FoxNews has been #1 forever?

Making a corilation between these two things is astoundingly ignorant.

Gingersnap
05-29-2008, 05:49 PM
Society really does have vested interested in the creation of heterosexual families. Children (of any sexual inclination) need both male and female adult role models. That many heterosexual couples fail to provide for this is no reason to add more potential failures to the pool.

In countries where gay marriage (or something identical to it) has been tried, marriage rates drop. There is probably a perception that viewing marriage as another social right extended to everybody devalues the status of marriage and makes the obligations more burdensome. There is a corresponding increase in shack-up couples and a damaging effect on children who are forced to live with their parents' current sex interest. This leads to higher rates of child abuse.

But even if we are all happy about that, there really is no denying that same-sex marriage does open the door to other types of marriage. How can it not? If there is no moral objection to two women marrying each other then there is no moral objection to three women marrying one man or one man marrying three other men.

I would prefer to see some kind of contractual arrangement that would provide benefits to people who live together (any people - roommates, elderly siblings, parent and grown child). Leave marriage to the religious communities. You file your mutual contract with the State but you can only apply for a marriage through your own church and that church can certainly deny you.

Some fake churches may be created to offer nontraditional "marriages" but I doubt it would be much of any issue.

Junebug68
05-29-2008, 06:12 PM
LINK (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90URTC02&show_article=1)

On my birthday, of all days. We need a puke smilie.

My birthday too! Grrrr to them!

everyman68
05-29-2008, 06:36 PM
If you look at survey data an overwhelming amout of young adults (18-29) favor gay marriage...It is about 2-1 in support...This suggests it's only a matter of time before gay marriage is legal in the United States.

Odysseus
05-29-2008, 08:54 PM
Why should it sadden you? This is the way the world works. The youth in america aren't really all that weirded out by gay people. It's only a matter of time before gays get the same rights that straights have. New ideas about social policies only rarely revert backwards in America.

Gays already have the same rights as straights. No one is saying that a gay man cannot marry a woman, or that a lesbian cannot marry a man. What the law did not recognize was a relationship between two people of the same sex, regardless of their sexual orientation.


Gay marriage doesn't make straight marriage any different. It should mean fewer gays with AIDS since fewer partners equals fewer STD infections. It should be good for the economy to have people sharing their resources, saving for retirement, etc. Gays tend to be better educated and commit less crime, and I think married gays will be decent citizens.
I guess I just don't see how it affects me negatively. I am open to suggestions.

First, judges who unilaterally overturn the law through creative reinterpretations of the constitution, either state or federal, are a menace to the liberty of all citizens. The same judicial hubris that permits judges to create new rights allows them to take them away.

Second, the radical redefinition of marriage to encompass "alternative" lifestyles has led to fewer marriages in those countries in which it has been implemented. Dutch marriage rates, for example, have dropped steadily since gay marriage was legalized.

Third, the function of marriage is to provide a stable family structure in which to raise children. Gay couples are, by definition, incapable of reproduction without the intrusion of extraordinary practices. This is not to say that marriages that do not produce children should be dissolved (although one of the constant threads throughout most cultures is that a marriage may be dissolved or annulled due to the inability to produce children). Adoption, surrogates and turkey basters are not a substitute for fathers and mothers, and those who claim that they are lack an understanding of the critical roles that parents play in the raising of children.

Ultimately, this is not about marriage, but about elevating the immediate desires of an influential pressure group above the longterm stability of society. If you consider that harmless, then take a look at the European states where these "new ideas about social policy" have been implemented, with imploding birthrates, disintegrating culture and collapsing societies. Perhaps that does not seem very menacing to you, but it scares the hell out of me.

wilbur
05-29-2008, 10:22 PM
You're right, it is. I agree with rights based not on skin color, or on sex, or on alienage, or on religious beliefs, etc. But how far are you willing to go? If homosexuals can successfully argue that man-man love is socially equivalent to man-woman love, then how far are we from pedophiles arguing the equivalence of man-boy love?


The first irreconcilable difference that renders this other non-sequiter completely silly, is the fact that a minor is involved, recognized by law as too young to offer consent. How often do we let a 30 year old skeezy guy marry a 12 year old girl, and vice versa? Apples to oranges here in a major way.



Marriage is the union of one man and one woman in marriage. The theory of eliminating the "man and woman" requirement, and rewriting it as "two persons" is no stronger than eliminating the requirement of "one" (of each sex) or "two" (without specifying sex). In fact the terms "man and woman" themselves imply the term "adult," which could easily be removed. By redefining marriage to "two persons" then you're eliminating the implicit modifier "adult."


As above, utterly silly. Who is saying we have to use the verbage "two persons" anyhow? Two adults is fine with me. Straw-man



Want more? With a sweep of the pen I can allow a man to marry a corporation and sell shares of his wife if you'd like.


:rolleyes:



Argument against gay marriage on its own? How about utilizing the legislative and republican form of government to enact change, rather than judicial activisim? Were women granted the right to vote by judicial interpretation, or was it through the systems incorporated into our system of government? How about equal rights in voting and representation?


By this logic we cant ever evaluate or modify portions laws because someone might make an argument for an even more extreme and silly situation. Even if you grant the slippery slope argument, who cares? Just about every thing in this world is a slippery slope, we have much expertise in walking them. Polygamy, bestiality, marring a corperation have enough issues themselves, they can be easily quashed and dismissed with or without gay marriage, by their own right.



Can you give a coherent argument, in light of Amendments 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 23, and 26 to the US Constitution, for gay marriage?

Yes, we are denying a minority fundamental rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness based on tenuous unsupportable myths and misgivings of a homophobic majority. All because the homesexual way of life makes them feel icky.

You know what a country with gay marriage is going to look like? Pretty much like the USA as it is right now.

wilbur
05-29-2008, 10:40 PM
...

[b]Second, the radical redefinition of marriage to encompass "alternative" lifestyles has led to fewer marriages in those countries in which it has been implemented. Dutch marriage rates, for example, have dropped steadily since gay marriage was legalized.

...

Ultimately, this is not about marriage, but about elevating the immediate desires of an influential pressure group above the longterm stability of society. If you consider that harmless, then take a look at the European states where these "new ideas about social policy" have been implemented, with imploding birthrates, disintegrating culture and collapsing societies. Perhaps that does not seem very menacing to you, but it scares the hell out of me.

OK, this is the third or fourth time these types of facts have been presented in this thread. I just gotta say.. put your thinking caps on people. What possible mechanism for causation is gay marriage going to have on marriage rates and childbirth? There is none, unless you start invoking irrational religious dogma about God punishing us (ala Westboro Baptist) or completely speculative sermons and platitudes about the "sanctity of marriage". No facts though..

These are bogus facts, despite what despot idiots like O'Reilley say. If you read studies on the matter, you will find that gay marriage has had little or no impact on the countries in which they are allowed, and some have even met with moderate improvements in childbirth out of wedlock rates, and heterosexual marriage rates. I don't really buy that gay marriage can claim any credit for this increase, but it certainly shows it has negligible effect. In short.. no wrath of God, no society in chaos, no moral degradation.. just a few (very few) people getting to partake in the same institution most of us have the luxury to take for granted.

The countries where you see "declining rates" of marriages had steady rates of decline and "recognized cohabitation" before gay marriage was enacted! It's a gross misrepresentation to suggest gay marriage was the cause of an already steadily declining marriage rate, along with an increasing divorce rate. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop Christian press, and right wing extremist press from preaching the opposite. Go figure.

du freeper
05-29-2008, 11:05 PM
What a class act.

You have a right to visit your partner in the hospital. In some places, homosexuals do not, even though some may have a level of commitment not even present in the 50%+ of straight marriages that fail. They are being denied their rights in those places, period.

It makes you wonder though, if allowing gay marriage might improve the overall marriage failure statistics? Would that be "harming the institution" of marriage?

But hey.. Support social conservatism! It puts the "homo" back in homophobia!

If you're not a "pillow biter" it shouldn't offend you. :p

Thanks for a new word to add to my vocabulary Biccat!! :D

Odysseus
05-29-2008, 11:14 PM
The countries where you see "declining rates" of marriages had steady rates of decline and "recognized cohabitation" before gay marriage was enacted! It's a gross misrepresentation to suggest gay marriage was the cause of an already steadily declining marriage rate, along with an increasing divorce rate. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop Christian press, and right wing extremist press from preaching the opposite. Go figure.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Is the implementation of gay marriage a symptom of a culture that erodes the value and importance of marriage, or is it a cause? The cultures that allow gay marriage do so as part of an overall attack on the institution. The European states that have enacted gay marriage are states in which the dominant ethos is immediate gratification, rather than investment in the future. It's reflected in ruinous welfare benefits and social programs that benefit the current generation at the expense of future ones, collapsing birthrates and a supine posture in the face of aggression.

Once again, my point is that this is an elevation of the immediate desires of members of a pressure group over societal stability through an attack on one of the fundamental building blocks of society, by a small group of elitist judges. A nation that doesn't care about its future can afford to experiment with its primary institutions. A nation that wants to have a future has to be more careful, but since those who express concern about the longterm consequences are dismissed as bigots, superstitious rubes or troglodytes by elite opinion makers (and in the case of the courts, decision-makers), that debate will either not be held, or will be so acrimonious as to make rational discourse impossible.

wilbur
05-30-2008, 01:37 PM
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Is the implementation of gay marriage a symptom of a culture that erodes the value and importance of marriage, or is it a cause?

It is neither a symptom nor a cause. If anything it seems to offer a very slight relief from other symptoms of a culture that lost some of the "sanctity of marriage".



The cultures that allow gay marriage do so as part of an overall attack on the institution. The European states that have enacted gay marriage are states in which the dominant ethos is immediate gratification, rather than investment in the future. It's reflected in ruinous welfare benefits and social programs that benefit the current generation at the expense of future ones, collapsing birthrates and a supine posture in the face of aggression.


Well, if you think there is a strong correlation between birthrates and gay marriage, they seem to be the opposite of what you envision here. The cultures that, as you put it, "erode the value and importance of marriage" have actually seen both birthrates and marriages in a slight upswing.

I also have to take issue with the attempt to tether gay marriage to all kinds of unrelated social positions. Gay marriage has nothing to do with welfare, social programs or the people who support them, conservative agenda, liberal agenda etc. It has nothing to do with 'ethos of immediate gratification'.



Once again, my point is that this is an elevation of the immediate desires of members of a pressure group over societal stability through an attack on one of the fundamental building blocks of society, by a small group of elitist judges.


Maybe the way the judges in CA have handled it was right, maybe wrong, I haven't really followed it closely. I am arguing for the position of gay marriage itself, not what these judges have done.



A nation that doesn't care about its future can afford to experiment with its primary institutions. A nation that wants to have a future has to be more careful, but since those who express concern about the longterm consequences...


Fortunately, we now are in a position to look at empirical data from other countries who have modified that institution and are able to measure the affects. Some have had gay marriage for over 20 years now.



are dismissed as bigots, superstitious rubes or troglodytes by elite opinion makers (and in the case of the courts, decision-makers), that debate will either not be held, or will be so acrimonious as to make rational discourse impossible.

To be blunt, a large portion of gay marriage opposition is just that: bigoted and superstitious. Thats not exactly a good foundation for rational discourse either. Some are well meaning bigots, but bigots all the same. There just isn't any credible data to suggest gay marriage has negative consequences on the institution of marriage or a society's well being.

Ultimately the arguments against gay marriage rely on trying to transpose all the problems of polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, and any other unrelated social ills one could possibly dream up as characteristics of gay marriage. There are no arguments against gay marriage itself, based on anything rational, or empirical.

LogansPapa
05-30-2008, 01:41 PM
To be blunt, a large portion of gay marriage opposition is just that: bigoted and superstitious. Thats not exactly a good foundation for rational discourse either. Some are well meaning bigots, but bigots all the same. There just isn't any credible data to suggest gay marriage has negative consequences on the institution of marriage or a society's well being.

Ultimately the arguments against gay marriage rely on trying to transpose all the problems of polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, and any other unrelated social ills one could possibly dream up as characteristics of gay marriage. There are no arguments against gay marriage itself, based on anything rational, or empirical.

Best retort so far in the new forum! Outstanding.

Odysseus
06-01-2008, 12:34 AM
There are no arguments against gay marriage itself, based on anything rational, or empirical.

Then there's really no point talking to you about it, is there?

wilbur
06-01-2008, 01:23 AM
Then there's really no point talking to you about it, is there?

Not necessarily... I'm open to listen to real arguments against it.. I just haven't seen any.

The hard data suggests that it has little or no effect on any overall marriage statistics in the nations where it has been implemented, so thats out.

The whole argument that suggests it will lead to polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia etc is just silly. All these other things have plenty of unique underlying problems in their own right, none of which could be ignored just because we legalize gay marriage. If you asked anyone for reasons pedophilia should remain illegal, I'm sure they would give you a whole host of good solid reasons without ever finding it necessary to connect it to gay marriage. Same for polygamy, and for goodness sake bestiality. So why do we have to connect gay marriage to these other things, when asked why it should remain illegal?

Then most of the other remaining arguments, aside from above two, are usually nothing more than superstitious pontifications about the nations 'favor with God' or 'moral decay' or whatever. Those can be dismissed out of hand because they are nothing but rhetoric.

I really haven't seen any arguments that arent one or some combination of the above tactics. They all fail.

Perilloux
06-02-2008, 09:16 PM
Initiative to ban gay marriage qualifies for California ballot (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9457886?source=rss)
Associated Press
Article Launched: 06/02/2008 05:43:10 PM PDT

SAN FRANCISCO - The Secretary of State says an initiative that would again outlaw gay marriage in California has qualified for the November ballot. California Secretary of State Debra Bowen says a random check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough for it to be put to voters.

The measure would amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union "between a man and a woman."If it is approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 4, it would overturn the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state.

California public health officials already have amended marriage license applications and told local officials to start issuing them to same-sex couples on June 17.

So who gets the final say? Voters or Judges?

noonwitch
06-03-2008, 09:24 AM
June 17 would be my parents' anniversary, had they chosen to stick it out and not resort to a divorce after the kids moved out and they no longer had anything to talk about.

biccat
06-03-2008, 12:06 PM
Not necessarily... I'm open to listen to real arguments against it.. I just haven't seen any.
Here's a real argument that you haven't addressed.

In California there has been a historic definition that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. Even without the 2000 initiative, no gay marriages had been granted legal status in California. The 2000 initiative to clarify this distinction in statute was struck down by the California Supreme Court.

Please provide a reason why you feel that the Court has the power to initiate gay marriages in California or any other state over the demands of the legislature and the people.

The California Supreme Court overstepped its limits, and the voters of California in November will pass the state gay marriage amendment in full force.

Even (and especially) gay marriage supporters should oppose the California Supreme Court's decision.

linda22003
06-03-2008, 12:10 PM
Please provide a reason why you feel that the Court has the power to initiate gay marriages in California or any other state over the demands of the legislature and the people.


Um, for the same reason the Supreme Court struck down miscegenation laws in Loving vs. Virginia? The people and legislature of Virginia "demanded" that interracial marriage shouldn't be legal, and the Court said "too bad".

biccat
06-03-2008, 12:34 PM
Um, for the same reason the Supreme Court struck down miscegenation laws in Loving vs. Virginia? The people and legislature of Virginia "demanded" that interracial marriage shouldn't be legal, and the Court said "too bad".
The Court said that the definition of marriage so as to prohibit interracial marriage stepped on the guarantees of the 13th amendment by preserving the incidents of slavery. Further, because race is a protected class, legislation distinguishing between choices based solely on racial means are unable to meet the appropriate standard under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

In the realm of homosexual behavior, first homosexuals are not considered a protected class. Second, even if they are a quasi-protected class, there is an important government interest in protecting and preserving the integrity of the family unit. Because there is sufficient evidence for legislatures to rely on that homosexual couples do not advance society's interest, such laws should be allowed.

The bottom line is that heterosexual couples provide a benefit to societies that homosexual couples do not. Race based distinctions on marriage tend to further separation of the races, removing such a ban has elimited that barrier. The ban on homosexual marriages does not further separation of homosexuals from heterosexuals.

A proper analogy would be a law that prohibited blacks from marrying eachother. Such a law would be struck down under the provisions of the 14th Amendment, because it would be a race-based distinction in marriage rights.

If you want to get more into the philosophy of Constitutional interpretation, I am unaware of any collective rights which have been recognized under the Constitution. No group is protected, only individuals are protected under our Constitution. While marriage law may discriminate against homosexuals as a group, they would not have legal grounds to challenge such laws because marriage is an individual right, not collective.

wilbur
06-03-2008, 01:06 PM
The Court said that the definition of marriage so as to prohibit interracial marriage stepped on the guarantees of the 13th amendment by preserving the incidents of slavery. Further, because race is a protected class, legislation distinguishing between choices based solely on racial means are unable to meet the appropriate standard under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

In the realm of homosexual behavior, first homosexuals are not considered a protected class. Second, even if they are a quasi-protected class, there is an important government interest in protecting and preserving the integrity of the family unit. Because there is sufficient evidence for legislatures to rely on that homosexual couples do not advance society's interest, such laws should be allowed.


Actually as I have mentioned before, there is a wee bit of casual evidence that shows in societies that adopted gay marriage, in wedlock child births rose, and heterosexual marriage rates took a slight upswing. The assertion that everyone seems to take for fact around here without question, that gay marriage 'hurts the family unit', is completely baseless. If you want to look at it the other way, it appears to actually benefit heterosexual marriages for whatever reason. Thats evidence that says it is in the interest of society, if you think heterosexual marriage is good for society.



The bottom line is that heterosexual couples provide a benefit to societies that homosexual couples do not. Race based distinctions on marriage tend to further separation of the races, removing such a ban has elimited that barrier. The ban on homosexual marriages does not further separation of homosexuals from heterosexuals.


You make marriage sound like a leftist PC integration scheme, like school bussing. Gay marriage may not provide much of a benefit to the state or collective so... individual rights be damned! How about the idea that laws against interracial marriage violated the rights of the two individuals who wanted to marry?

Just what is this benefit provided by heterosexual marriage that isn't possible for homosexual couples? Having children? I guarantee you there are more heterosexual couples who can't or don't have children because of sterility, personal choice (contraception, vasectomy etc) than there ever will be homosexual married couples. Why arent we denying marriage licenses to these people since they are only taking advantage of the benefits we provide to married couples, expressly to encourage the raising of children?

I would think, stable household's with two people able to look after each other throughout their lives, with all the reliefs and benefits provided to married couples help make for stable neighborhoods and contributes to the overall well being of society, gay or straight. Sorry, I think the onus is on the anti-gay marriage side to demonstrate why it would harm or put strain on society. I think I have shown pretty well most of those demonstrations to be misrepresentations.

linda22003
06-03-2008, 01:22 PM
Just what is this benefit provided by heterosexual marriage that isn't possible for homosexual couples? Having children? I guarantee you there are more heterosexual couples who can't or don't have children because of sterility, personal choice (contraception, vasectomy etc) than there ever will be homosexual married couples. Why arent we denying marriage licenses to these people since they are only taking advantage of the benefits we provide to married couples, expressly to encourage the raising of children?

That's an argument that's always puzzled me - that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because marriage is for the purpose of having children. My husband and I married without intending to have children, and we never did. That's worked just fine for us, and no one seems to mind except John C. Calhoun (who, blessedly, hasn't rejoined us since the site came back up).

biccat
06-03-2008, 01:37 PM
Actually as I have mentioned before, there is a wee bit of casual evidence that shows in societies that adopted gay marriage, in wedlock child births rose, and heterosexual marriage rates took a slight upswing. The assertion that everyone seems to take for fact around here without question, that gay marriage 'hurts the family unit', is completely baseless. If you want to look at it the other way, it appears to actually benefit heterosexual marriages for whatever reason. Thats evidence that says it is in the interest of society, if you think heterosexual marriage is good for society.
Actually you keep repeating this, but still have yet to provide any evidence. I already showed evidence that gay marriages have extremely high divorce rates (even compared to straights), so lets see yours.

Also, there's evidence that gay marriages are more likely to be promiscuous, violent, and detrimental to child development. Lets include that in the mix as well, shall we?


You make marriage sound like a leftist PC integration scheme, like school bussing. Gay marriage may not provide much of a benefit to the state or collective so... individual rights be damned! How about the idea that laws against interracial marriage violated the rights of the two individuals who wanted to marry?
That's the purpose of state involvement in marriage, to provide a benefit to society. All marital benefits are intended to increase the number of marriages. If marriages didn't benefit society, then it would be a purely religious agreement.


Just what is this benefit provided by heterosexual marriage that isn't possible for homosexual couples? Having children? I guarantee you there are more heterosexual couples who can't or don't have children because of sterility, personal choice (contraception, vasectomy etc) than there ever will be homosexual married couples. Why arent we denying marriage licenses to these people since they are only taking advantage of the benefits we provide to married couples, expressly to encourage the raising of children?
First, heterosexuals raise children and provide a stable family. A number of married couples having families provide a community.

Sterile couples might choose to adopt, couples might choose to have families later in life, but the overwhelming element of married heterosexual couples is the potential to have a family which provides a stable environment for a child and contribute to the community and the furtherance of the community ideals. Homosexual couples never have such a potential. They can not breed, they can not provide a stable environment for children, and they will not increase the size of the community nor ensure its survival.


I would think, stable household's with two people able to look after each other throughout their lives, with all the reliefs and benefits provided to married couples help make for stable neighborhoods and contributes to the overall well being of society, gay or straight. Sorry, I think the onus is on the anti-gay marriage side to demonstrate why it would harm or put strain on society. I think I have shown pretty well most of those demonstrations to be misrepresentations.
Nope, you haven't. You are just making assertions that gay marriage is good and everyone else is wrong.

I have enumerated several points where gay marriage should not be encouraged by the government. Feel free to contradict them if you think it will help your case.

Finally, I have yet to hear a valid argument for allowing a few politically immune individuals to determine what is best for society in this area.