Gay Married?

[madajb]

Apparently Not. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/nm/20040812/ts_nm/rights_gays_marriage_dc)
-ajb

[84rabbitchick]

geez.... America, land of the free... my ass

[paultakeda]

What the mayor of San Francisco did was illegal, but as a form of protest, quite effective.

Overturning the marriages is correct action at this time. They can, of course, be reinstated, once California's constitution has been revised. When it will be revised depends largely on California's population and its representatives.

[GTiGirl]

This decision is not about gay marriage really, it is about the actions of the Mayor. They ruled that he could not change the state constitution all by himself. It could have been anything. With that said, here is an important excerpt from the article:

"Until that constitutional issue has been finally resolved under the California Constitution, it is premature and unwise to assert, as the majority essentially does, that the thousands of same-sex weddings performed in San Francisco were empty and meaningless ceremonies in the eyes of the law," Judge Joyce Kennard wrote.

Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who fought against the San Fran Mayor in this case, is also quoted that he is not against gay marriage. And that he is expected to run for Governor in 2006. If this is part of his platform, he's got my vote!

[Valmont]

WTF is the point of gay marriage? another health benefit scam... jesus. If you are going to go against age old customs of marriage you better abolish "age of consent" while you are at it, both are bases on old values that don't apply in this country today, so if you want gay marriage, abolish "age of consent" laws too, i hate seeing famous people go to court for such things. You can legally drive at 16, but your not old enough to make your own decisions... strange...

[FunkTron]

WTF is the point of gay marriage? another health benefit scam... jesus. If you are going to go against age old customs of marriage you better abolish "age of consent" while you are at it, both are bases on old values that don't apply in this country today, so if you want gay marriage, abolish "age of consent" laws too, i hate seeing famous people go to court for such things. You can legally drive at 16, but your not old enough to make your own decisions... strange...


increase the minimum driving age.........I'm tired of seeing 16 year olds in S4s and the like. grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...........i'm jealous!!!!!!!! :mad:

[68TurboBug]

WTF is the point of gay marriage? another health benefit scam... jesus. If you are going to go against age old customs of marriage you better abolish "age of consent" while you are at it, both are bases on old values that don't apply in this country today, so if you want gay marriage, abolish "age of consent" laws too, i hate seeing famous people go to court for such things. You can legally drive at 16, but your not old enough to make your own decisions... strange...


The home of the free..... (ya right)

[GTiGirl]

WTF is the point of gay marriage? another health benefit scam... jesus. If you are going to go against age old customs of marriage you better abolish "age of consent" while you are at it, both are bases on old values that don't apply in this country today, so if you want gay marriage, abolish "age of consent" laws too, i hate seeing famous people go to court for such things. You can legally drive at 16, but your not old enough to make your own decisions... strange...

Ahh, the slippery slope argument... Keep in mind that the age of consent applies to different-sex and same-sex relationships, so I do not think you have a valid point on this one. Gay marriage is about equal rights and protection, something that might be a little more important that upholding "age old customs".

And if you "hate seeing famous people go to court for such things", then seeing lifelong partners discriminated against because of their gender should infuriate you.

Regarding the health benefit "scam"... it's more like next-of-kin and familial rights. Imagine your partner was in an terrible accident and you were barred from seeing them before they died just because of your gender. I know there are some long-term heterosexual couples (on this site even) that have endured such discrimination just because they weren't married. Same-sex couples don't even have the option (for now).

[Valmont]

its all just one giant can of worms!

[madajb]

With that said, here is an important excerpt from the article:

"Until that constitutional issue has been finally resolved under the California Constitution, it is premature and unwise to assert, as the majority essentially does, that the thousands of same-sex weddings performed in San Francisco were empty and meaningless ceremonies in the eyes of the law," Judge Joyce Kennard wrote.

You might note that that is a dissenting opinion of the majority vote that the marriages are null and void.
Judge Kennard essentially wanted the marriages already performed to be recognized even though they were granted under no legal authority. The logic for that escapes me.
-ajb

[paultakeda]

WTF is the point of gay marriage? another health benefit scam... jesus. If you are going to go against age old customs of marriage you better abolish "age of consent" while you are at it, both are bases on old values that don't apply in this country today, so if you want gay marriage, abolish "age of consent" laws too, i hate seeing famous people go to court for such things. You can legally drive at 16, but your not old enough to make your own decisions... strange...

Considering marriage as we know it is NOT an age old custom, I would refrain from using that as a reason to prohibit it today.

We prohibit it in this state because our consitutition was recently revised to prevent it....

As for age old customs, only the rich ever bothered to marry, as the poor never had any property in the first place. Marriage as an age old custom is primarily about property. Marriage for love is relatively recent.

[GTISurfer]

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.


To hell with flaming homosexuals.


*Disclaimer* - I do not hate all homosexual people. They can be free to do their thing in their own place on their own time. Its the reeeally gay ones that make a mountain out of a mole hill that should be shot.

[Valmont]

Considering marriage as we know it is NOT an age old custom, I would refrain from using that as a reason to prohibit it today.

We prohibit it in this state because our consitutition was recently revised to prevent it....

As for age old customs, only the rich ever bothered to marry, as the poor never had any property in the first place. Marriage as an age old custom is primarily about property. Marriage for love is relatively recent.


THE AGE OLD CUSTOM OF MARRIAGE i was refering to was that it is for 2 people of the opposite sex. But i bet you didn't see that did you.

i would refrain from sodomizing someones post until you are damn skippy you know what was meant. :ha:

[GTiGirl]

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.


To hell with flaming homosexuals.


*Disclaimer* - I do not hate all homosexual people. They can be free to do their thing in their own place on their own time. Its the reeeally gay ones that make a mountain out of a mole hill that should be shot.

Maybe the reeeeeally heterosexuals that make a mountain out of a mole hill should be shot as well...

[GTISurfer]

Maybe the reeeeeally heterosexuals that make a mountain out of a mole hill should be shot as well...


Why not? :) How about the people in prisons too?

[mr_wrong]

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.


To hell with flaming homosexuals.


I hope you're joking. If not, your ignorance amazes me.



*Disclaimer* - I do not hate all homosexual people. They can be free to do their thing in their own place on their own time. Its the reeeally gay ones that make a mountain out of a mole hill that should be shot.

Who decides who's "reeeally" gay?

There's TONS of other people of different races, and religions, etc who make "mountains out of molehills" (BTW by molehill, do you mean proud?) Should they all be shot as well? It's seems to me that you're making a mountian out of a mollhill too. Should we shoot you? ;)

[mr_wrong]

A little off-topic, but Did you know that as late as the late sixties certain states would not recognize mixed race marriage? Imagine if they ammended the Constitution for that. I think divorce has done more to ruin the sanctity of marriage than same sex marriage could ever do.

I have no problem with gay marriage. Why shouldn't they be miserable too? ;)

[paultakeda]

THE AGE OLD CUSTOM OF MARRIAGE i was refering to was that it is for 2 people of the opposite sex. But i bet you didn't see that did you.

i would refrain from sodomizing someones post until you are damn skippy you know what was meant. :ha:

Marriage customs vary depending on time and place. Polygyny is a far more common custom, and marriage between two people of the opposite sex, while the most common form of marriage, is not the only one. Far older customs predating and concurrent with this policy exist.

Therefore, defining marriage as an age old custom primarily focuses on its use as a social contract or sanction for two or more people to be recognized as a household, and are entitled to all property and legal rights entailed by that definition.

Hence, your age old custom of marriage of two people of the opposite sex focuses on one age old custom among many customs of marriage; and as I most certainly know what you meant and also know your damn wrong (or if you wish, right so long as you ignore all the other age old customs of marriage), you can kindly sodomize this post yourself. :ha:

[Troike]

I support gay marraige for the same reason I support abortion ... population control :tup: :D

[madajb]

Marriage customs vary depending on time and place. Polygyny is a far more common custom, and marriage between two people of the opposite sex, while the most common form of marriage, is not the only one. Far older customs predating and concurrent with this policy exist.

Perhaps, but historically not in the U.S. which is all we really need to be concerned about. Hell, a whole series of laws were passed before Utah's statehood specifically to ban the "twin relics of barbarism," as it were.
-ajb

[paultakeda]

Perhaps, but historically not in the U.S. which is all we really need to be concerned about. Hell, a whole series of laws were passed before Utah's statehood specifically to ban the "twin relics of barbarism," as it were.
-ajb

That's just another qualification on the term "age old custom", as you have now limited it to, at the most, four hundred years, and if you include the laws mentioned, then you're reduced to the last 110 years. Age old it is not. Yes, this is what we as a nation should be concerned about -- our laws. Are they now outdated after 110 years? Should they be revised? This is where our discussion must lie -- not using excuses that "it is as it should be because it has always been".

So yes, discuss away. Same-sex unions for legal, personal matters? Marriage? We need to discuss this as relevant to today's concerns and not hide behind a set of words that, for all intents and purposes, are untrue.

The point I am trying to make is that people bandy words like "time honored", "age old", and the like without realizing that most traditions undergo constant change, however minute, through each passing generation. Sometimes it undergoes radical change when society undergoes a transformation. In today's complex geocultural world, with the clashing of many of these traditions, we are faced with a cultural upheaval that will perhaps be left to our grandchildren to normalize, and for us to have to live through with the simple understanding that all anyone ever wants is to be left alone to live in peace.

[madajb]

So yes, discuss away. Same-sex unions for legal, personal matters? Marriage? We need to discuss this as relevant to today's concerns and not hide behind a set of words that, for all intents and purposes, are untrue.

Well, if we are going to insist on complete historical accuracy, then we need to stop throwing the word "right" around.
Marriage is not, and never has been, a "right". It has been limited by age, by race, by wealth, by decree and yes, by sexual orientation. So calling it a "right" is disingenuous at best.


The point I am trying to make is that people bandy words like "time honored", "age old", and the like without realizing that most traditions undergo constant change, however minute, through each passing generation.

Those people are idiots. But unfortunately, they also vote, so you'd best get used to refuting those arguments. =)

-ajb

[paultakeda]

Well, if we are going to insist on complete historical accuracy, then we need to stop throwing the word "right" around.
Marriage is not, and never has been, a "right". It has been limited by age, by race, by wealth, by decree and yes, by sexual orientation. So calling it a "right" is disingenuous at best.

Marriage according to the law is not a right, you are correct. Social contracts are agreed upon and legally upheld; they can also be revoked, revised, or reinforced. The debate is on whether the current laws concerning marriage as a legal union are relevant today.
For myself, the only concern I have is probably semantics. Jonelle is correct in that the entire problem is when a person is prohibited access to his/her partner because he/she is not the next of kin. There are enough ways for a gay couple to cover their property through wills and the like, and many are willing to forego the benefits of a legal union such as tax and insurance breaks. Perhaps the law concerning marriage is not so important as the laws governing policies during these situations -- a same residence policy of some sort should be established so as to prevent the ridiculous situations of prohibiting anyone but the next of kin (and as Jonelle pointed out, it sucks for live-in heterosexual couples as well, so this should be a win-win proposition).
As for the symbolic union in a marriage ceremony, having such a ceremony is most certainly a personal right. It's not legal, and frankly, I'm sure a lot of the couples married in San Francisco knew it probably would not be upheld (for now), but hey, they got to go before a justice and have a ceremony -- for some, that's enough.

Perhaps we should just revise laws concerning "next of kin" instead? This might be an easier route to achieve a similar goal (in terms of practicality).



Those people are idiots. But unfortunately, they also vote, so you'd best get used to refuting those arguments. =)

Heh.

[madajb]

The debate is on whether the current laws concerning marriage as a legal union are relevant today.

They appear to be relevant for the majority of people, if the various propositions and ballots across the country are a measure.


For myself, the only concern I have is probably semantics. Jonelle is correct in that the entire problem is when a person is prohibited access to his/her partner because he/she is not the next of kin. (and as Jonelle pointed out, it sucks for live-in heterosexual couples as well, so this should be a win-win proposition).

Personally, were I unmarried yet cohabitating, I'd just lie if a situation like that arose.
Obviously, for homosexual pairings, that option isn't available. Though, as you point out a power of attorney or other relevant document should take care of that. Is there a legal way to register "next of kin" status? You'd think there would be, if not, creating one would certainly a solution to many problems.


As for the symbolic union in a marriage ceremony, having such a ceremony is most certainly a personal right.

No one is stopping homosexuals from having ceremonies, replete with horse and carriage, cake cutting, and fighting in-laws. You just can't do it with a marriage license.


Perhaps we should just revise laws concerning "next of kin" instead? This might be an easier route to achieve a similar goal (in terms of practicality).

It would be, but that does not seem to be the goal of the vocal minority.
Myself, I would use this as a case to reaffirm states rights, leaving the recognition, or lack thereof, to the _voting_ public of the state in which they reside.
That means not courts deciding, no Federal law deciding, and certainly no braindead(though I appreciate the reasoning behind it) Amendment.
-ajb

[paultakeda]

They appear to be relevant for the majority of people, if the various propositions and ballots across the country are a measure.

Reactionary voting is a sad, sad thing.


No one is stopping homosexuals from having ceremonies, replete with horse and carriage, cake cutting, and fighting in-laws. You just can't do it with a marriage license.

To be sure. I pointed it out just to state that marriage ceremonies are a right, though it is not a right to have such a marriage allow the union to be legally binding.



It would be, but that does not seem to be the goal of the vocal minority.
Myself, I would use this as a case to reaffirm states rights, leaving the recognition, or lack thereof, to the _voting_ public of the state in which they reside.
That means not courts deciding, no Federal law deciding, and certainly no braindead(though I appreciate the reasoning behind it) Amendment.
-ajb

True enough. The fact that our current administration was determined by the Supreme Court rather than having the House decide was a travesty as well. ;)

[madajb]

Reactionary voting is a sad, sad thing.

I see it as proactive. Voters deciding for themselves before being forced by the courts.


True enough. The fact that our current administration was determined by the Supreme Court rather than having the House decide was a travesty as well. ;)
Speaking of, did you see
this? (http://www.socaleuro.com/forum/showthread.php?t=720&highlight=%7Bpolitics%7D)
-ajb

[paultakeda]

I see it as proactive. Voters deciding for themselves before being forced by the courts.

Speaking of, did you see
this? (http://www.socaleuro.com/forum/showthread.php?t=720&highlight=%7Bpolitics%7D)
-ajb

Yep. A nice theoretical exercise -- not gonna happen. ;)

[madajb]

Yep. A nice theoretical exercise -- not gonna happen. ;)
All of democracy is a theoretical exercise, since the country is run by the corporations and the Illuminati, dontcha know?
=)
-ajb

[paultakeda]

On November 19, we will all know. Heh. (http://nationaltreasure.movies.go.com/main.html)