California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage

[Narrock]

She used to work for Dukakis. OMFG.

AWESOME, she was my favorite chick in steel magnolias

hehe not that Dukakis (I like her as an actor too)... I meant this asshole:




Now I know who John Edward's role model is.

[dammuzis]

maybe it is just my libertarian mentality... don't see why its the states business to mandate who can marry who at all. heck the whole reasons we have marriage licenses was originally to prevent interracial mingling.

[Eziekial]

Because i believe the issue of marriage is not about wearing a wedding ring or getting to hyphenate your last name. It's about tax status and credit scores. Unfortunately, even though I believe that is an easy issue to correct with existing laws, the pro-gay movement has jumped the rail and tried to make it a social issue. They (the fags) are trying to push their social agenda by staging parades where they shout about injustice and call those that appose teaching gayness to 6 year olds intolerant. So rather than a discussion on whether or not we (the US) should be trying to shape behavior via laws and regulations and if that is constitutional or not (which I believe it is NOT btw) we have the superfags disrupting mass on Sundays in drag and mocking an institution that helps those in need through charity.

[brinstar]

and also rapes children

[Lueyen]

and also rapes children

Sorta like NAMBLA?

[Gypsiyee]

good gravy ziek, I have heaps of respect for you and usually can understand your arguments - I may not always agree with them, but you usually put them pretty eloquently and express your point.. but in this particular instance, it seems that you've just got your moral beliefs packed up and it's just mostly hatred toward people you were taught were 'icky.' it's seemingly just homophobic rage.

you keep saying "the fags" but we're talking about lesbians who want marriage rights, too, and you can't really refer to them as 'the fags.' I personally think it's sad that anyone thinks that marriage is only about tax breaks - there are still people in the world (including homosexuals, it makes no difference) who believe in the sanctity of marriage and feel it to be a representation of permanent loyalty to the person they love.

being gay doesn't mean that you don't believe in god, and if you honestly believe that 'superfags' are out to destroy mass on sundays or that everyone in church on a sunday is out to help the world, you're sorely mistaken. this is that naive mentality that says that all christians are good, and all non-christians are bad.. it's close-minded and untrue. not to mention, it has nothing to do with religion, really - you don't have to have a minister look over your ceremony, and there are plenty of religious homosexuals who sit in church every sunday. not every religion is the same, and some are more accepting than others.

I just don't understand why people are so opposed to it - how does it hurt you at all? at the end of the day, do you have to associate with them? you're clearly offended by the lifestyle, fine.. don't hang out with gay couples. you don't like them screaming for rights, fine - turn off the tv or don't read the article. but they're human, and they deserve to be treated as such.

replace every 'the fags' in your post with 'the blacks' and you put us back a hundred years where people were screaming the same exact stuff. black people were no less human then, and homosexuals are no less human now.

it's ridiculous to me that anyone has such a hateful mentality toward people that are different than them. people don't choose to be gay - if you actually had to watch the anguish they go through growing up and dealing with it maybe you'd understand that.

gay isn't some evil disease created to corrupt the masses. homosexuality has existed since the beginning of time, and it was inevitable that as our population grew, so would the number of homosexuals - just like the number of redheads, people with green eyes, etc.

[araby]

good gravy ziek, I have heaps of respect for you and usually can understand your arguments - I may not always agree with them, but you usually put them pretty eloquently and express your point.. but in this particular instance, it seems that you've just got your moral beliefs packed up and it's just mostly hatred toward people you were taught were 'icky.' it's seemingly just homophobic rage.

you keep saying "the fags" but we're talking about lesbians who want marriage rights, too, and you can't really refer to them as 'the fags.' I personally think it's sad that anyone thinks that marriage is only about tax breaks - there are still people in the world (including homosexuals, it makes no difference) who believe in the sanctity of marriage and feel it to be a representation of permanent loyalty to the person they love.

I agree that I was shocked at the use of "the fags" however...

being gay doesn't mean that you don't believe in god, and if you honestly believe that 'superfags' are out to destroy mass on sundays or that everyone in church on a sunday is out to help the world, you're sorely mistaken. this is that naive mentality that says that all christians are good, and all non-christians are bad.. it's close-minded and untrue. not to mention, it has nothing to do with religion, really - you don't have to have a minister look over your ceremony, and there are plenty of religious homosexuals who sit in church every sunday. not every religion is the same, and some are more accepting than others.

The religion of Christianity does not support the gay community. It clearly speaks against it in the Bible. Anyone can calls themselves "Christian" if they wish, but like they say, just because you park your car in the garage doesn't mean you're home. No one is perfect, but when you take something like homosexuality which is *clearly* an abomination according to God, and try to say that it isn't, religiously speaking, there are tons of Christians who will not accept it. They're just not going to. One thing a lot of people do in these modern times we live in, is redefine what Christianity is, so that what *they* do wrong is actually acceptable, based on social issues and there are a lot of Christians out there who aren't going to bend the rules for them. It doesn't make those Christians wrong, because that would make the Bible wrong. What's wrong, is when you treat them differently.

Just because the Bible says it's wrong, however, doesn't mean you should be mean to those people. They should be embraced, according to the Bible, because ultimately, the goal is to help them realize they are doing wrong and change to become more like Jesus, which is what is taught in the Bible.

I just don't understand why people are so opposed to it - how does it hurt you at all? at the end of the day, do you have to associate with them? you're clearly offended by the lifestyle, fine.. don't hang out with gay couples. you don't like them screaming for rights, fine - turn off the tv or don't read the article. but they're human, and they deserve to be treated as such.

You're right about association, and I agree that too often what other people do tends to affect our own lives a little too much. We should be at peace with what we have, what we know and forgive/forget the rest. Yet, our freedom of speech and individual belief systems tend to give us big mouths, in turn, resulting in protests of all kinds, forum wars, arguments on the streets, etc..some people love to push buttons. Some mind their own business.

Let's say someone wanted to change the laws of marriage, so that it is lawful to commit adultery. You (Ashley) might have a serious problem with that, based on your views of what a marriage means. People that oppose homosexuality have a reason for it. Some are haters, some are basing their feelings on religious values, and in this country we don't protect haters, but we do protect religious values. I personally believe most of the folks in this country that oppose homosexuality are doing so out of a personal belief system, either based on religion or their own code of morale.

replace every 'the fags' in your post with 'the blacks' and you put us back a hundred years where people were screaming the same exact stuff. black people were no less human then, and homosexuals are no less human now.

good point. I agree, and will have to say again as I've said before, when people put up an argument there comes a point where the credibility can simply be lost based on the delivery, and unfortunately ezeikial kinda went there.

it's ridiculous to me that anyone has such a hateful mentality toward people that are different than them. people don't choose to be gay - if you actually had to watch the anguish they go through growing up and dealing with it maybe you'd understand that.

It's not proven that people are born gay. It's not proven that they aren't born gay, either. This is still an opinion until something is proven.

gay isn't some evil disease created to corrupt the masses. homosexuality has existed since the beginning of time, and it was inevitable that as our population grew, so would the number of homosexuals - just like the number of redheads, people with green eyes, etc.

Christians would argue this point, based on their belief in the Bible and God's clear instruction to not be homosexual. God didn't kill the jews, a man did, and he did that based on their hair and eye color. God did, however, according to the Bible, bring his wrath upon the folks at Sodom and Gomorrah.

[Arlos]

Yeah, but if you ever actually READ the story of Sodom, what god punishes them for is an abrogation of the rights of guests. There were certain supposedly inalienable rights proper guests had from their hosts, and the people of Sodom were demanding that Lot break those laws. That's the offense the sodomites commit in the story, and what they're getting punished for.

As for homosexuality, did you know that the place in the bible where it condemns homosexuality is the same place that has all the dietary restrictions that christians don't follow? Yes, in that section it says that homosexuality is an abomination. Guess what, it says that eating lobster is an "abomination" as well. (or crab too, actually). So that's right, if you've ever eaten a crab cake, you've committed an act the Bible holds to be just as evil as homosexuality. What, you don't follow those rules? Well gosh, aren't YOU "changing the bible", hmm? Those rules are in there, they're part of the bible, why don't you follow them? Too inconvenient for you?

There are many christian churches that are not anti-gay. Hell, the Anglican church just appointed a gay woman as a Bishop. Yeah, they must be SO against it, right? Not all christian denominations follow the same dogmas as you'll find in southern christian churches, like are found where you live.

I personally have never understood the hatred so many people have for them. Yeah, they're "different". So the hell what? I thought humanity had supposedly risen above hating people for no better reason than that they're "different". Gypsiyee is right, too. You replace the word "gays" in those diatribes with "blacks", and you'll have exact copies of the old race hatred rants. Indeed, the court decision that sparked this entire discussion was based on their decision regarding interracial marriage. They ruled that this is the same sort of thing, and I agree with them.

-Arlos

[leah]

"You know what they say. If you can't say something nice, come sit by me."

heee, steel magnolias was on the other day and i cried pretty much the whole way through--from the time shelby was getting her hair done and had a diabetic episode to the time annelle went into labor. MAN i love that movie.

[Gypsiyee]

The religion of Christianity does not support the gay community. It clearly speaks against it in the Bible. Anyone can calls themselves "Christian" if they wish, but like they say, just because you park your car in the garage doesn't mean you're home. No one is perfect, but when you take something like homosexuality which is *clearly* an abomination according to God, and try to say that it isn't, religiously speaking, there are tons of Christians who will not accept it. They're just not going to. One thing a lot of people do in these modern times we live in, is redefine what Christianity is, so that what *they* do wrong is actually acceptable, based on social issues and there are a lot of Christians out there who aren't going to bend the rules for them. It doesn't make those Christians wrong, because that would make the Bible wrong. What's wrong, is when you treat them differently.

Just because the Bible says it's wrong, however, doesn't mean you should be mean to those people. They should be embraced, according to the Bible, because ultimately, the goal is to help them realize they are doing wrong and change to become more like Jesus, which is what is taught in the Bible.

I agree with you to a point, but you said it yourself - people have re-defined Chrisianity over the years to accomodate their own lifestyles. The churches who scream God hates fags are the same churches who condone hate, judgment, and spitting in the face of your fellow man because you believe him to be less than you; assuming that these actions are okay is certainly part of the re-definition of Christianity over the years, and if those people can call themselves Christians, then certainly good people who are morally sound and reach out helping hands to people can worship in any way they choose and call themselves Christian in spite of their sexual preference. I assume you're familiar with Andrew Sullivan, for example - he's a practicing Catholic; very intelligent, very well written, very educated, and very gay. Also, just as people have re-defined Christianity, the bible is up to interpretation by man, and has thus been re-written.. so opposing the bible or not, true Christianity I believe is founded on more than just the written word; it is in teachings passed down from generation to generation. Christianity is a set of morals, like anything else - it's just a little more outlined and specific.

Let's say someone wanted to change the laws of marriage, so that it is lawful to commit adultery. You (Ashley) might have a serious problem with that, based on your views of what a marriage means. People that oppose homosexuality have a reason for it. Some are haters, some are basing their feelings on religious values, and in this country we don't protect haters, but we do protect religious values. I personally believe most of the folks in this country that oppose homosexuality are doing so out of a personal belief system, either based on religion or their own code of morale.

I think that in essence this is a great example, especially considering I'm highly opposed to infidelity and it's definitely a sore spot with me and I'd certainly be highly opposed to an amendment that permitted it.. but my opposition would be based on the fact that it unprotects people, rather than protects them. This particular instance is different, imo, because if this were the case it would be explicitly allowing people to abuse each other and take advantage - it would completely obliterate the entire purpose of marriage - commitment, a union of two people binding them together. If you don't want to be with one person, why get married? Homosexual marriage, though, is completely different - it's a hot topic issue because these people want to celebrate their commitment to each other, and they want to be protected just like every other couple in the world.

It's not proven that people are born gay. It's not proven that they aren't born gay, either. This is still an opinion until something is proven.

There's more proof every day on this, though, and that won't be an issue for much longer. I think it was Tikker who posted a research article not too long ago on it? Science has proven, in so many words, that it is not a learned behavior. It just hasn't been explicitly proven yet; it will be in time, though.

Christians would argue this point, based on their belief in the Bible and God's clear instruction to not be homosexual. God didn't kill the jews, a man did, and he did that based on their hair and eye color. God did, however, according to the Bible, bring his wrath upon the folks at Sodom and Gomorrah.

Christians might argue that point, but in the past several centuries no one has seen anyone get stricken down by any wrath, so that argument could go on for ages. A man killed the jews, but God allowed it.. it's just passing the buck when it's convenient. When bad things happen, it's man - but when people die for a reason, it's God. It's silly business.

Now mind you, I'm not some Christian hater - I just don't agree with the beliefs. I was just talking to a friend the other day from school - he's actually becoming a priest. I'm happy for him, it's what he's pursued since we were kids. I'd say about 40-50% of my friends and acquaintances are moderately to very highly religious. One of my best friend's father baptized me (by choice) when I was 13. I've since changed my views, but I certainly wouldn't chastise them for theirs. I find it reprehensible that anyone, as imperfect as we all are, condemn anyone else for what they believe in, but I will admit - I find it even more deplorable that people who explicitly state their moral superiority in the form of Christianity cast down their peers and request them to have less rights simply because they're different. That, to me, is the complete opposite of Christianity and what it means to be a true Christian. You don't have to agree with someone else and you may feel it's wrong, but to talk down to them and force your beliefs upon them is much different.

In this case, one might say these people are forcing their beliefs on others, but I disagree - they are not asking anyone to be gay, they are simply asking for the rights that any human being deserves.

[araby]

Arlos, when you say "you" are referring to me? or "you" as in the general Christian population?

As for reading Sodom and Gomorrah, I have. The story is related to sins that include gluttony, greed, incest and homosexuality. Like any story, it is open to interpretation. I mentioned that story, not specifically because of homosexuality, but because according to that story, the city was destroyed by God based on immoral behavior. It was a contrast/comparison to my comment about the Jews being killed, which was related to Ashley's comment about homosexuality being no different than having different color hair or eyes.

[Arlos]

And I repeat: Go read Levicitus. In there you will find eating shrimp, crab and lobster referred to as "an abomination", and thus condemned in exactly the same language as homosexuality.

So, if you are going to condemn people based on that, why do you not condemn them for having prawns or a lobster roll? Same section, same language.

And my point was that if you actually READ the story of Sodom, it doesn't actually discuss what their crime was. They are called wicked, yes, but what their sin is is NEVER mentioned. The bible never says one word specifically that they are being punished for homosexuality, that is an INTERPRETATION. Remember, way before the angels go to Lot, god has already decided to nuke the towns, but it's over issues of hospitality and guest-rights, not homosexuality. Christian fundamentalists just interpret it as anti-gay because it helps their otherwise baseless arguments.

-Arlos

[Evermore]

Arlos as a note here there is more then one place in the bible that denouces homosexuality

[Arlos]

You can find just about anything you want to in the bible. Including a law that a brother has a legal obligation to have children with his brother's wife if his brother dies suddenly and before he has any kids with her. How about the one requiring you to stone to death any child that argues with its parents?

Hell, in the story of the virtuous Lot's family, his own daughters (who, given that they were unmarried, were probably about 12-14 years old, tops) get him drunk and fuck him. Some virtue, eh? Given that he's the specially virtuous man, specifically saved from Sodom, and he's doing this, doesn't this mean that the bible is promoting sex with your own adolescent daughters? Sure looks like it.

Plus, go read all of the actual words and command of Jesus himself. As I recall, not once does he ever even mention homosexuality, much less condemn it. He certainly didn't mention it when he gave HIS list of the important laws to follow, correct?

I repeat: The only place in the bible whatsoever that calls homosexuality an "abomination" also calls eating shrimp/crab/lobster "an abomination". Same language. Therefore, crab cake = homosexuality on the forbiddenness scale.

If I may quote here from Leviticus 10-12:
"10: And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12: Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. "

Heck, it spends 3 lines calling crab, etc. abominations. It only spends 1 calling homosexuality one. So I guess really, if you want to have a strict reading of the bible, crab cake = 3 * homosexuality on the badness scale.

-Arlos

[araby]

I agree with you to a point, but you said it yourself - people have re-defined Chrisianity over the years to accomodate their own lifestyles. The churches who scream God hates fags are the same churches who condone hate, judgment, and spitting in the face of your fellow man because you believe him to be less than you; assuming that these actions are okay is certainly part of the re-definition of Christianity over the years, and if those people can call themselves Christians, then certainly good people who are morally sound and reach out helping hands to people can worship in any way they choose and call themselves Christian in spite of their sexual preference. I assume you're familiar with Andrew Sullivan, for example - he's a practicing Catholic; very intelligent, very well written, very educated, and very gay. Also, just as people have re-defined Christianity, the bible is up to interpretation by man, and has thus been re-written.. so opposing the bible or not, true Christianity I believe is founded on more than just the written word; it is in teachings passed down from generation to generation. Christianity is a set of morals, like anything else - it's just a little more outlined and specific.

There are Christians who don't redefine the belief system, though. That was what I meant, really.

Let's say someone wanted to change the laws of marriage, so that it is lawful to commit adultery. You (Ashley) might have a serious problem with that, based on your views of what a marriage means. People that oppose homosexuality have a reason for it. Some are haters, some are basing their feelings on religious values, and in this country we don't protect haters, but we do protect religious values. I personally believe most of the folks in this country that oppose homosexuality are doing so out of a personal belief system, either based on religion or their own code of morale.

I think that in essence this is a great example, especially considering I'm highly opposed to infidelity and it's definitely a sore spot with me and I'd certainly be highly opposed to an amendment that permitted it.. but my opposition would be based on the fact that it unprotects people, rather than protects them. This particular instance is different, imo, because if this were the case it would be explicitly allowing people to abuse each other and take advantage - it would completely obliterate the entire purpose of marriage - commitment, a union of two people binding them together. If you don't want to be with one person, why get married? Homosexual marriage, though, is completely different - it's a hot topic issue because these people want to celebrate their commitment to each other, and they want to be protected just like every other couple in the world.

The Bible specifically says homosexuality is a sin. Ultimately, Christians are protecting others by discouraging that behavior. It's no different than discouraging adultery, if you're a Christian and follow the Bible's instruction.

It's interesting too, when we start to discuss the types of sins that are outlined in the Bible, because I understand, that according the Bible, no sin is greater than another. A lie, is just as much of a sin as a murder, and it is the law of man that has created the gap and consequence between.

Christians would argue this point, based on their belief in the Bible and God's clear instruction to not be homosexual. God didn't kill the jews, a man did, and he did that based on their hair and eye color. God did, however, according to the Bible, bring his wrath upon the folks at Sodom and Gomorrah.

Christians might argue that point, but in the past several centuries no one has seen anyone get stricken down by any wrath, so that argument could go on for ages. A man killed the jews, but God allowed it.. it's just passing the buck when it's convenient. When bad things happen, it's man - but when people die for a reason, it's God. It's silly business.

Well, it's a story in the Bible and according to that story, God destroyed that city for a reason, just like when He flooded the earth. As far as this statement goes:

in the past several centuries no one has seen anyone get stricken down by any wrath, so that argument could go on for ages.

Christians will argue that hurricanes, earthquakes, illnesses, etc, are all the wrath of God. That's what they believe, whether we agree or not. Christians do believe that we have free will and that God allows us that, it's what the religion is based on. As people, we have the free will to decide to come to Jesus Christ, or not. Christians believe God allows everything to happen, because He gave people the right to decide.

Now mind you, I'm not some Christian hater - I just don't agree with the beliefs.

This is interesting, and I'm not being disrespectful when I say this, but if you don't agree with the beliefs, then I can see why you have no interest in protecting their beliefs. My point, all day, is that Christians do want to protect their beliefs.

[Gypsiyee]

I'm gonna go ahead and skip to the bottom of your post, Ash, because I think we've both said all we can on the subject, and as far as religion goes, Arlos is far more well-versed than I am and I know he can say it 10x better.

This is interesting, and I'm not being disrespectful when I say this, but if you don't agree with the beliefs, then I can see why you have no interest in protecting their beliefs. My point, all day, is that Christians do want to protect their beliefs.

It has nothing to do with having no desire to protect their beliefs, really; everyone's beliefs should be protected, but they should be protected as just that - beliefs.

the fact of the matter is, this is about the constitutional rights of all people, not of just Christians. You don't need to be a Christian to get married - if marriage was a union celebrated only by Christians, I could see, and perhaps agree with, your point.. but you do not need to be Christian, you don't even need to know a Christian. I'd certainly be offended if I was told 'sorry, you're not a Christian, no wedding for you.' Would that be an issue for you, if non-Christians were told they were not allowed to marry? Essentially, this is the same thing.

[araby]

I agree with what you said. I'm back to my initial post, however, which was that in my opinion, most of the people who disagree with allowing homosexuals to be married, are doing so out of protection of their beliefs, many of which are Christian. I think it's the minority that are the haters.

[Jay]

I don't think 2 people who are of same sex fit the criterion of "marriage" since it has been defined for thousands of years as a union of a male and female. Dictionary definitions aside, I think any person should be able to decide who they financially want to tie themselves to. Whether you wanna call it a "gay marriage", "civil unions" or whatever the case may be. People who live by the word of the bible have every right to denounce it as a marriage but to deny it legally is unconsitutional.

Also, I spoke with Mindia and he mentioned that the whole "gay marriage" thing was overturned despite majority vote of Californians on the issue and that its unfair that we voted yet the law went through anyways. I don't know what the facts are EXACTLY, but I do know that between San Francisco, LA, Marin and everything in between there are way too many gay people for that to be true. If it is true however, there's always that majority rules, minorty rights thing. Remember, at one point in time the majority of us believed in slavery.

[Arlos]

And the decision on which this one was based overturned a law the majority passed that banned marriage between blacks and whites. The court considered this the same sort of issue. So, if the law the majority passed banning black/white marriages was unconstitutional, they decided that a basically identical law, just banning marriage between 2 people of the same sex, was likewise unconstitutional.

I don't think most any of us here would argue against that first decision about overturning the popular law banning black/white marriages, so why the upset over the modern decision, when in the eyes of the court, it is really the same decision for the same reasons yet again?

-Arlos

[Kramer]

yeah, i pretty much think that the only thing marriage means to the govt. is tax status, so why the Phock does the govt. care who wants to do it?

the same people who don't want gay marriage to be legally binding are the same people that believe that this country was founded by magical god-fearing super christians and that they wanted everyone to be ultra-conservative protestants.

these are people who think that society will somehow be saved or upheld by things like this when obviously more than half the heteros that get married dont value it worth a shit in the first place and jump in and out when they please.

surely keeping gay couples from entering legal unions like heteros will maintain the squeaky clean moral trajectory of the united states and all of its eternal concubines that it rules on the planet.....

its tantamount to expending enormous time, energy and money to keep prayer in schools because forcing kids to vocalize specific words will somehow save the nation and the world.

[Eziekial]

My posting got interrupted by the Cavs/Celts game and I was trying to distinguish between individuals who have a different sexual preference than I do (homosexuals) who are simply looking for parity and those that may or may not even be homosexuals (fags and superfags) that are pushing a moral and political agenda that is actually distracting and divisive. Look on the bright side, it kick-started this thread.

[Gypsiyee]

My posting got interrupted by the Cavs/Celts game

that's certainly a justified reason to pause your posting. yay pauly! i lubbers him, going to leave jonathan and go make oreo babies with paul pierce

for real.

[Eziekial]

speaking of oreo babies, someone just sent me a link to the kim kardashian sex tape with jj. Damn that girl is hot but she's got mediocre skill in the sack.

[Gypsiyee]

she's one of those pretty girls that the attitude and caked on makeup just kind of kills it. haven't seen the video, but she's just another paris hilton to me really. agreed she's really pretty.. til she talks

[Lueyen]

I support civil unions, but I have a problem with comparisons of gay marriage to civil rights movements of the past. Homosexuals are not denied anything that heterosexuals are granted, the laws regarding marriage apply to everyone equally. Anyone is free to have a legally recognized union with someone of the opposite sex, and with relatively recent exception no one is allowed to have legally recognized unions with someone of the same sex. Of course this doesn't cater to homosexuals personal tastes, but that is hardly a civil rights issue as long as the same laws apply to everyone equally. Apply the same logic to tobacco and marijuana. If you can't stand the smell of tobacco, but love smoking pot, you are not suddenly joined in the ranks of people who by virtue of physical characteristics were denied equal treatment by the law. Personal taste does not a civil rights issue make as long as the law applies equally to everyone.