California: Ban on Same-sex Marriage?

One of the most debated initiatives that got attention in this year's California's General Election is the following, Proposition 8:



So it's a really brief initiative, which would amend the state constitution to say, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Now note, that California has already passed a similar initiative that has the exact same wording embedded now in our Family Code 300 and 308 that state this (Proposition 22, voted in favor for by 61% of the state voters in March 2000). This was just overturned on May 15th, 2008, by 4 Supreme Court Judges on the basis that it was unconstitutional against the state constitution.

In my opinion, Prop 8 initiative is sort of a "okay, so we fucked up, here's how we fix that, let's amend the state constitution so that the people's will and votes would remain legal" type of response.

Personally, I don't think it's constitutional to deny liberty of anyone wishing to get married, whether they are gay or not. However, even if gay marriage does become/stay legal in the state of California, presently it will not be recognized on a national level because the same motive as this one has already been embedded in the national constitution. Note: California has a Family Code law that gives/allows mostly all the same benefits, privileges and responsibility as a married couple to same-sex unions under a domestic partnership.

I thought I'd like to see the response / opinions of people from other states / countries on this. This is a pretty radical initiative in a sense that it does not allow for people to make a decision without letting their traditional/religious/moral values get in the way with their rational thinking. The main question on hand is that legally, should we ban couples of the same-sex from getting "married?" Should "marriage" be something that's defined by law? What are your thoughts on this? Do you think it will affect your state in the future if California votes on this measure either way?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I think it's asinine to create a law trying to ban whom people can marry. It wasn't too long ago that there were laws created against interracial couples. Other than destroying your narrow view of what marriage is, is there any other legitimate reason that could warrant a ban on same sex marriage?

Some people have argued that it would destroy the sanctity of marriage. What sanctity? Married people are now out numbered by single people, which includes divorcees. I'm fairly certain that those are all heterosexual marriages.

The argument that gay marriages will destroy families? As far as I can tell, gays don't need to help out heteros in that department. They do a pretty fine job fucking up families what with abandonment, divorces, child abuse and just unfit households.

This petty issue is sadly some of the issues that drives a deep wedge between people.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I support gay civil unions, but "marriages" are traditionally a religious union between a man and a woman.

So I'd vote yes on that prop.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Zephyrin

I support gay civil unions, but "marriages" are traditionally a religious union between a man and a woman.

So I'd vote yes on that prop.

Exactly. Why do the fags think that everything can change in a couple of years. Women also had to fight a couple of centuries for equal rights (placeholder for rolleyes-emoticon, since I can't find it right now)

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Zephyrin

I support gay civil unions, but "marriages" are traditionally a religious union between a man and a woman.

So I'd vote yes on that prop.

Typically most couples get married for the tax write off and such, it really has nothing to do about religion except where the location is you get married.

I mean for some religious nuts they are all about being SEEN as God's children united, but pretty much if you've boned before you've married, you've already broken the sanctity of marriage as it is.

So the big question is, why can't the fudge farmers and carpet munchers get the same tax rights as us straighties?

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Zephyrin

I support gay civil unions, but "marriages" are traditionally a religious union between a man and a woman.

So I'd vote yes on that prop.

What does tradition have to do with it? Specifically - traditionally marriage in this country was between two people of the same race. Gay marriage is the new miscegenation as far as I'm concerned.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I didn't say they couldn't/shouldn't have tax benefits, etc.

Just sayin'. I keep my pickles on my hamburgers, not my burritoes.

FELIPE NO

Here's an easy solution:

Create a same-sex union whereby, people are granted the same sort of rights attributed to marriage. You can call it whatever you want... gay fuckers union... homosexual union...

This gets all the "but marriage is between a man and a woman" people off your back. To those who say that homosexuality is unnatural, then why do animals in nature have homosexual sex occasionally?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Nehmi

To those who say that homosexuality is unnatural, then why do animals in nature have homosexual sex occasionally?

Clearly they are chipmunks from hell.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Zephyrin

I support gay civil unions, but "marriages" are traditionally a religious union between a man and a woman.

So I'd vote yes on that prop.

What about the religions that recognize gay marriage? Why shouldn't those ceremonies have the same legal significance as ceremonies performed by other religions?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Zephyrin

I didn't say they couldn't/shouldn't have tax benefits, etc.

Just sayin'. I keep my pickles on my hamburgers, not my burritoes.

I don't want to harass you too much about it, but it's something I hear a lot. I even heard this in the VP debates. If you're okay with giving gay couples full civil rights, why are you unhappy with calling them marriages? Personally, I don't like having marriages and civil unions separated by sexuality because our country has a problem with separate but equal institutions. I wouldn't have a problem with civil unions being performed by judges and marriages being performed by priests.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Also, can somebody explain the religious significance of common law marriage? tia

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Nehmi

Here's an easy solution:

Create a same-sex union whereby, people are granted the same sort of rights attributed to marriage. You can call it whatever you want... gay fuckers union... homosexual union...

This gets all the "but marriage is between a man and a woman" people off your back.

Maybe you didn't read my post.. California already does have a domestic partnership law in place that allows for most of the same rights given to married couples. As far as domestic partnerships go in California, they get everything short of Federal Tax benefits (because gay marriage is not recognized federally) and a marriage license. And yet we still have quite a bit of people opposing to this initiative.

Originally Posted by a lurker

If you're okay with giving gay couples full civil rights, why are you unhappy with calling them marriages? Personally, I don't like having marriages and civil unions separated by sexuality because our country has a problem with separate but equal institutions. I wouldn't have a problem with civil unions being performed by judges and marriages being performed by priests.

This is pretty much spot on with the questions arising from the opposing side of this initiative, and also what the "yes" side seems to have problems answering.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I think "marriage" has this religious meaning to it. And let's face it, in most places, religious ceremonies are accompanied by legal papers regarding marriage.

I've never agreed with religion, so it should come as no surprise that I think all "marriages" are equal, since they're only a legally-binding contract to me.

From the religious perspective, I'll never understand it. "Tradition" isn't an acceptable point, as Lurker pointed out. Traditionally, men rule (and essentially OWN) their wives. I'm pretty sure the majority of this nation at least does not follow that stupid "tradition" anymore.

Two consenting adults should have every right to be both married in a civil union AND marriage, but ha ha, no one listens to atheists on the matter! What do THEY know about marriage!? Heathens. (But somehow, we can call ourselves "married" if we wanna)

I may not be coherent here as it's late and I am short on sleep.

Most amazing jew boots

Proper traditional marriage was between a man and a virgin though, right? That's all that white dress and pure maiden symbolism thing. So the whole "gay people can't marry because it's against the symbolism of our ceremony harbl" excuse has gone out the window many a moons ago.

FELIPE NO

To me marriage as a word is dead. It should be replaced with something more accurate that doesn't remind me of the word 'merry'. Like 'forcibly making the community reckognize your parity by forging a pact that magically makes your relationship more important but dull and romance doomed to die out'-age. I don't know why some gay people even desire that for the sake of just that.

They might have other more practical things in mind like adopting people or making a health insurance plan together, though.

Originally Posted by Qwarky

Proper traditional marriage was between a man and a virgin though, right? That's all that white dress and pure maiden symbolism thing. So the whole "gay people can't marry because it's against the symbolism of our ceremony harbl" excuse has gone out the window many a moons ago.

So THAT'S why Rat's not putting out before the wedding. Puttin' on dat pretty white dress.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Come on people, the answer is really simple, why is there such a debate about this in the first place? Leave Marriage to Religion as a ceremony of bonding, the special discounts (Tax Breaks, etc.,) normally afforded to Marriage should just all put into the 'Civil Union' legal agreement. Those who want to get married and the restrictions placed upon who can and cannot get married should be solely decided by their Religion and Religious leaders. Those who want a Civil Union need to file the proper paper-work.

Now, if you want to be in a Civil Union and be Married, well then just go to a Priest / Rabbai / Imam / Etc., one day and then go to your State's Government offices the next.

I suppose I'd be called a strong supporter of the separation of Church and State, but the answer seems really obvious in this case.

--Edit--
In fewer words: Marriage is a religious ceremony and has no business being regulated or officiated by State Government.

Most amazing jew boots

That argument doesn't fly, though, because there are plenty other religious ceremonies that are regulated by the federal/state government. The SPCA would want to have a few words with me if I performed an animal sacrifice, for example. And forget wanting to do a shamanistic ritual involving psychotropic drugs.

On the lighter side, I find this rant quite humorous. Give it a listen guys~ http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/Rants...y_marriage.mp3

There's nowhere I can't reach.

True, but those ceremonies don't involve a union between two people. I'm only talking about those, I don't mean other kinds of religious practices which might conflict with existing federal laws.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

All these arguments about how marriage is a religious ceremony would be well and good except for the fact that they just aren't. You go back through history and marriage was initially a recognised bonding of two people by the society at large. It wasn't sanctioned by the angry volcano god, it was sanctioned by the populace. And it still is.

A priest marries you, but do you sign papers for the church that make it legal? Nope. That's the state. You're signing legally binding documents, not saying a prayer. A church can claim the ceremony--and lord knows they will try and act like that's the important part--but they can't claim marriage. Marriage is a state of being recognised by the state for tax and census purposes. The church did not invent the word. Hell, look up the etymology far enough back and you find it had ties to animals and fruit in the latin. And no, I'm not running for the etymological fallacy, I'm just pointing out how asinine it is to say the church has some claim on marriage. They don't. The church doesn't have to marry gay people, but they have no right to say gay people can't get married because only the church can claim the word MARRIAGE.

It's idiotic and the fact it's even being discussed speaks volumes of how otherwise intelligent people are easily derailed by intellectual fluff spawned from absolute morons. Does it really have an effect on your life, one way or the other, if Mike and Tom are married just like you and your wife, Zeph? Are they going to be somehow less functional? Will they put a bad spin on marriage? Will they somehow hurt the institution? Because last I checked, most gay couples I know haven't had one partner arrested for domestic abuse. Gay couples didn't make the divorce rate above 50%. If you're looking for something that will cheapen marriage, take a look at people who get married young because of pressure not to have a child out of wedlock, or because they can't fuck before marriage without going to hell. People who get married for stupid reasons. Not at people who happen to like the same genitalia they were born with.

There's no solid ground for the anti-gay marriage group to stand on, and it gets more obvious whenever someone tries it. There's no logic, no rationality behind it. It's just "man, gays make me feel ookie." Too fucking bad, people. That's not a good enough reason.

How ya doing, buddy?

Good evening all!

My view of homosexuality and heterosexuality is dependent on the aetiology. Heterosexual men love submissive women, and heterosexual women love dominant and violent men. What homosexual men and women have in common is a strong dislike of violence, barbarism, and the status quo. Only lesbian women are staunch advocates against violence against women. Every other woman is shouting "Violence! Domination? Give me more!"

What differs between the homosexuals and the heterosexuals is the extent to which they are ruled by their animal instincts. Dr Paul MacLean, like Darwin, gives himself little credit for his brilliant invention of the Triune Brain Theory, yet in it we can see and desolve the intolerable conflicts between the sexes; man-hater vs misogynist, homosexual vs the law; Real Man's love of Real Woman vs political correctness and 'sexual harassment in the workplace'.

Denicalis talks about the anti-gay lobby having no logic. Yet the reptilian part of the Triune brain of every living human has a logic of it's own. That logic is that men should dominate women, that women should submit to the dominant man, and that that which reproduces is more valuable than that which does not. Forgive me if I am wrong.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Shape-shifter

Good evening all!

My view of homosexuality and heterosexuality is dependent on the FART SOUND FART SOUND POOP POOP FART SOUND POOP VOMIT POOP VOMIT FART SOUND

The Christ was that?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Hi Brady!

I remember ya since you were licking arse trying to get mod position since way back. Never liked ya then. Don't like ya now. The only thing I like about you is a mutual dislike of Ralph Nader. Do you have any decent arguments for me or are you gonna keep posting shit like the above?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Shape-shifter

Good evening all!

My view of homosexuality ... [STUFF]

Forgive me if I am wrong.

Well, for all I know, you may actually be correct - on some level, anyway. To me, it reads off like a first year sociology student who is quoting random snippets from his 101 textbook in an attempt to appear informed; but I'll concede that I cannot technically prove you wrong.

However, you're basically trying to explain the Atlantic Ocean by describing squid.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Deni, while I agree with your argument as far as anti-marriage is stupid, I don't think you can build the case by saying gay marriages are somehow better.

For one gay divorce rates barely exist since so the few of gay couples who can get married in the first place and then only recently. Then you consider that out of those, not all of them are legally able to get divorced.

Similarly domestic abuse between two people of the same gender, I mean, I imagine that could get misclassed pretty easily.

Jam it back in, in the dark.