Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban

[eekee 182]

I saw Gavin Newsom speak about this on CNN, and what he said was that the city of San Francisco sued because there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting gay marriage, and thus banning gay marriage through the courts is legislating from the bench. Until the Marriage Amendment is pushed through the courts, there is no constitutional support for a ban.

If gay marriage bothers you, don't have one, don't go to any gay weddings. I am personally all for it and have grown up around married gay couples, whether (recently) legal or just symbolic, and if I have never understood this insecurity about the sanctity of marriage. Cheating, divorce, etc. are certainly far worse for the sanctity of marriage than a sincerely committed gay couple. The slippery slope argument is the exact same argument that people used to use against interracial marriages. It's homophobia and prejudice, plain and simple.

[almaty 19]

I saw Gavin Newsom speak about this on CNN, and what he said was that the city of San Francisco sued because there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting gay marriage, and thus banning gay marriage through the courts is legislating from the bench. Until the Marriage Amendment is pushed through the courts, there is no constitutional support for a ban.

If gay marriage bothers you, don't have one, don't go to any gay weddings. I am personally all for it and have grown up around married gay couples, whether (recently) legal or just symbolic, and if I have never understood this insecurity about the sanctity of marriage. Cheating, divorce, etc. are certainly far worse for the sanctity of marriage than a sincerely committed gay couple. The slippery slope argument is the exact same argument that people used to use against interracial marriages. It's homophobia and prejudice, plain and simple.

i agree...good post

[Amby 490]

Well said!

[Sister Fracas 5]

If gay marriage bothers you, don't have one, don't go to any gay weddings. I am personally all for it and have grown up around married gay couples, whether (recently) legal or just symbolic, and if I have never understood this insecurity about the sanctity of marriage. Cheating, divorce, etc. are certainly far worse for the sanctity of marriage than a sincerely committed gay couple. The slippery slope argument is the exact same argument that people used to use against interracial marriages. It's homophobia and prejudice, plain and simple.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is not just a religious issue IMO.

It mostly is though. But for the sake of arguemant, I can take the religious elemant out, and the point is the same.

"If you follow the intentions for marriage between a man and a woman then cheating would be illegal- or at least it wouldn't happen as often and divorce would be illegal." People don't treat marriage between a man and a woman the way it was intended.

I agree its mostly religious - and that the Church is grasping at straws to take back the institution of marriage which it never exclusively owned in the first place - given that we already have civil ceremonies which are not in anyway dissimilar or of lesser legal standing than those carried out in churches.

[Jack and Barbara 0]

I believe a homosexual couple is capable of loving each other just as much as I am capable of loving my fiancee and most members are of loving their SOs here on this site. A major difference, however, is the difference in being able to naturally procreate, an arguement used by those against same-sex marriages.

[Sister Fracas 5]

I believe a homosexual couple is capable of loving each other just as much as I am capable of loving my fiancee and most members are of loving their SOs here on this site. A major difference, however, is the difference in being able to naturally procreate, an arguement used by those against same-sex marriages.

But who says marriage is about procreating?

[Alex & Rachel 78]

But there are plenty of married couples who are sterile, infertile, too old to have children or who don't wish to have children. Should marriage be prohibited for those couples, too?

[eekee 182]

I believe a homosexual couple is capable of loving each other just as much as I am capable of loving my fiancee and most members are of loving their SOs here on this site. A major difference, however, is the difference in being able to naturally procreate, an arguement used by those against same-sex marriages.

But who says marriage is about procreating?

yes, what about couples who cannot or have no desire to have children? should they not be allowed to get married?

[Sister Fracas 5]

EEEEK, hubster and I must be living in sin then....

on second thought....

[Niels Bohr 72]

If people want to marry the person of the same sex, they are not going to kill me or something just to do it. I think it's good.

[Jack and Barbara 0]

I believe a homosexual couple is capable of loving each other just as much as I am capable of loving my fiancee and most members are of loving their SOs here on this site. A major difference, however, is the difference in being able to naturally procreate, an arguement used by those against same-sex marriages.

But who says marriage is about procreating?

yes, what about couples who cannot or have no desire to have children? should they not be allowed to get married?

Maybe I wasn't clear because I agree with everyone posting. I said that a major difference between homosexual and heterosexual couples is that the former cannot naturally procreate. Is there any dispute to this claim?

I then said that this arguement has been used by those against same-sex marriages. Again, this is a true claim.

I do not agree or support that it is a good arguement for not allowing same-sex couples to get married, as I support them (first sentence in bold)

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As I said all along...this is a societal and cultural issue, not a constitutional or civil rights issue some make it out to be. Homosexuality is not illegal and they are free to be homosexual. However, the issue is that they want the state seal of approval and societal acceptance that marriage conveys. The courts should not be legislating from the bench or imposing societal norms on society at large. That's the way I see it.

No it's not...it's equal protection under the law. Either the state of California discontinues recognizing marriage between two people or it allows any two adults to marry...simple as that.

They could change it to reflect the original intention of marriage, a union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman.

You can try to take the religion out of marriage but then don't you actually loose the spirit of marriage and it merely becomes a legal contract?

I mean weren't marriages first religious then civil?

I suppose they could also define marriage as union between two ivory colored people also. By what standard shall we exclude the right to and still satisfy our Constitutional Rights?

[eekee 182]

Maybe I wasn't clear because I agree with everyone posting. I said that a major difference between homosexual and heterosexual couples is that the former cannot naturally procreate. Is there any dispute to this claim?

I then said that this arguement has been used by those against same-sex marriages. Again, this is a true claim.

I do not agree or support that it is a good arguement for not allowing same-sex couples to get married, as I support them (first sentence in bold)

Couples who are infertile can also not naturally procreate.

[Alex & Rachel 78]

We don't really know whether marriages were originally religious in nature at first or not, as marriage predates recorded history. But marriages have certainly not always been religious in nature. Many marriages throughout history have had an economic or societal basis, especially in those periods of time when women had fewer rights and were not able to own property or work. Even when the institution of marriage was tied to religion unions were often not about love but about finding someone who could provide and care for your family.

Also, marriage predates most, if not all, of the world's current religions, and is celebrated in nearly every religion - so why should non-religious couples be excluded?