Same Sex Marriages vote overturned

It isn't the gay or lesbian marrying that is an issue with me, it's the fact that California voted against it but was overturned by The Supreme Court.
Why have a vote on it to begin with?
I have seen it happen through the decades with insurance, property taxes, it gets voted on then it gets turned around being deemed unconstitutional (believe that one was by the insurance companies) :confused
Said it before and I say it again, "your vote does not count" unless your indecently wealthy.

signed :cool

 

Its similar to the laws on cannabis,its legal in California but illegal under federal law so the local police don't stop cannabis prescriptions for patients but every so often the federal boys raid the outlets.

I'm surprised they voted against it I didn't think Californians would care what other people did as much as who was going buying the munchies :-D

 

True, my confusion is about the voting process, why ask if they are not going to uphold what the majority wants?

 

yer exactly right on that one

it used to be a law that certain people couldn't vote, supreme courts changed that, that's how it work's, if the state supreme court didn't overturn it, the case could have been taken to the Fed. supreme court, because like rikky was saying, Fed law trumps state law.

( these are the kind of threads where GT shined )

 

No I did not vote one way or the other.
I remember those days where certain governors were trying to keep black children from integrating the white schools. What brave children they were. Yes and some no doubt feel the same way today. Sad.
I'm rushing at the moment here and am not getting across what it is I am trying to say.
Excluding people, the process it self is redundant, in my thoughts.

 

Not to hijack this thread, but you are so right Scorcer. His intelligence and putting it in words everyone could understand taught me a lot.

I miss him.

 

No Laura I wasn't even registered, I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to politics and government.
I'm still trying to figure out The Electoral College.

Rikky made another point. Why vote in something you could end up doing time for.
OK, now I'm sorry I started this mess, LOL

 

yes, there was, a while back the mayor of san fran said it was OK, people started getting hitched, so to stop it, there was a vote, it passed or failed depending on which way you look it


@ Gal1998, yes, if the world of sci-fi were real and you could 'download' someones knowledge, GT's mind would have been worthy

 

There is a difference between a statute and a law.....

 

Here ya go, this was at a news site I go to, it has a part about the questions in this thread

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/16/samesex.couple/index.html

here is a piece,,

"In 2004, San Francisco officials allowed gay couples in the city to wed, prompting a flood of applicants to the City Hall clerk's office. The officials chose Lyon, then 80, and Martin, then 83, to take the first vows.

The state Supreme Court voided those unions. Lyon and Martin, however, joined more than 20 other couples as plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the state's marriage laws.

The California Supreme Court on May 15 struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, paving the way for Lyon and Martin and other same-sex couples to marry in the state as soon as the ruling takes effect Monday evening."

I thought we had voted on it, guess I was wrong,,, not the first time, won't be the last

 

Same sex marriages? sorry, but I will say what many people think but will not or do not have the cojones to say.. Flat out NO!!

 

I am curious as to why you do not agree, myself being a gay man in a civil partnership.

 

I say down with Political same-sex marriage. I didn't need 32 news agencies, 100 other couples in Central Park, and the ACLU to tie the knot, I did it on my own, with my wife and our families. Unfortunately the legality is an issue, but if all men are created equally, same sex marriages should no doubt not be a legal issue.

Was there ever an issue about a black marrying a black? wasn't that the last group of people looking for equal rights?

I'm not really being sarcastic, I seriously wonder if those opposed to equal rights ever argued "They're already marrying each other, before you know it, they'll be everywhere."

Is that not what they think about gays?

I see nothing wrong with a quiet ceremony, like mine.

 

Same sex marriages was a poor example for me to use I see that now but it was the latest in voters being out ruled by courts. Didn't mean to stir up controversy about gay issues

 

In US, we are free to pursue the possesions (white picket fence syndrome) we want, but not free to pursue the love we want?

I am neither for or against the subject, it's none of my business, just like who I chose for a "life partner" (wife) isn't anybody else's business. As far as it ruining the sanctity of marriage, I call "shenanigans", DIVORCE ruins the sanctity of marriage. Being married for 20 yrs, to the same person, allows me to feel that way.

I'll shut up now rolleyes

 

You made a good point comparing it to the civil rights movement which has a soft spot in my heart, Being brought up in San Francisco had no idea there was still intolerance going on elsewhere, Makes more sense to me now Thanks

 

Just a clarification on the 'Law'.

'Law' is divided into two main types: Case, (Common) law and Statute law.

Common Law is the customary established law of the land, as enunciated by its courts over the years. Statute law consists of the laws passed by Parliament (or state legislatures, or US Congress).

I think the main issues here are not so much a matter of discrimination, or limitation of personal choice issues. More relevant to the official recognition and legal status implications with regard to the said state and nation when concerning such relationships.

 

I will attempt to answer your question with tact and it represents my opinion at most. I do not speak for anyone else here.

This country was built on Christianity; its' rules, its' laws, its' society and the social norms. Marriage, even though there is a separation of church and state, was still based upon the Christian sacrament of marriage where a man and woman wed in matrimony, not man and man or woman and woman. In this sense gay marriage was not meant to be. That's my .02 when it comes to the religious pov.

Now, I also think about humanity and how the progression of the species requires a man and a woman to procreate. In that sense, we as humans are naturally (keyword) drawn by our biology to the opposite sex so that we can procreate (all intricacies of relationships aside; lowest common denominator etc.) Considering this statement, one MUST by all logic conclude that the normal way that humans work is for man and woman to procreate and all other variations of this are not normal; they are aberrations and one can only blame biology.

Now, I combine the two thoughts; one of man and woman to join so that they can procreate in the manner which corresponds to both religion and biology. In my opinion, same sex marriages go against Christianity and humanity and I stress the humanity part.

Now listen, I had family members that were gay (they are also no longer with us as a result of their own stupidity) so I understand what it was like to have gay family and the only result of their orientation was destruction of the family unit. Homosexuality is not normal by the rules of biology. If it were, we wouldn't be here. As a result, many of us, who are heterosexual, find same sex marriages to be out of the norm and should not be allowed.

Now, if you're a gay man or gay woman, and you find yourself offended by my statement, then it is because you seek to be and nothing more. You can choose to just say 'Ok, that's your opinion and move on' or you can seek to be offended and pour your rage, and anger out in a post to me but you'd be pouring your rage out to someone who, quite frankly, doesn't care what you think because.
1. you don't know me and I don't know you.
2. You'll (99% chance) probably never meet me in real life so why bother replying in the first place.
3. I have to go be constructive with my life instead of reading hate posts directed at someone's opinion.

Thank you.

 

In short, its Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

No, I don't have an opinion either way. I just wanted to throw that particularly useless, but clever phrase in, as I don't get to use it often

 

I love you.. really

 

Yeah, don't be hatin' on the Kodo :mad




rolleyes
:-D

 

Just my opinion, personally think same sex marriages should be legal. I don't believe it's a life choice but a genetic outcome. Sad it was overturned, thought we were finally seeing the light of day on this issue.

Every gay person I know has a good job, pays taxes, owns property, contributes to society and therefore should be allowed the same rights under the law.

Religion is a belief, homosexual population is a fact. Don't think that we have to worry about a small percentage of the population changing the fact that heterosexuals will continue the progression of the species, the majority has that covered.

An interesting issue is what groups are lobbying and $$ involved:

“Human Rights Campaign's calculations, the nation's major gay rights groups had a combined budget of $51.4 million in 2003

“Christian groups such as Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America reported spending $247 million.”

That was in 2003 and only the major groups… think the churches could find some needy Christians to help with those funds instead of wasting our donations fighting a fact of life, look at history, there has always been a gay population an will always be so, so why can’t we just accept it and move on.

Maybe I accept it because I’m from a city that has a gay pride parade, fair and other social events that most of the community enjoys, even our Mayor gets involved. We could have taken the billion or so that has been spent on this issue and done something constructive with it or had a big parade better use of funds.

http://prideparadechicago.com/public/content/dosanddonts.aspx

*stats were from the Washington Post

 

I haven't been able to find the right words to say what I felt on this issue.
(I didn't want to offend anyone or start a heated discussion)
Now I see they have been said for me.

 

Isn't there a law in the USA that states that everyone is entitled to persuit of happiness? I believe that same sex marriages should be not be excluded from this law.

 

Now see, the gay pride parades, to me anyway, are not about celebrating something like Thanksgiving or Christmas or the 4th of July. Those kinds of parades have a theme that everyone can share in. The gay pride parades are almost a "rub it in your heterosexual face" display... ya .. we know you're there, ok? your existence is rhetorical. We know you're there but do HAVE to ALWAYS acknowledge it? Maybe we should have a black & white "rainbow" parade to "parade" our heterosexuality. Now wouldn't that just go over like a ton of bricks..

 

The pursuit of happiness is not the same as obtaining happiness. In other words. You can try but there are no guarantees.

 

I'm unsure here. Unsure if I should be amazed, amused, horrified or stupified. As a straight male, I am offended by your post.

I guess the only way to take it on is one argument at a time.

1)Legal issue: Fortunately, the modern supreme courts seem to be better at determining the will of the majority than the governments. A more modern example is the numerous Video Game bans that have been enacted then quickly over turned. (Quickly being a relative term in relation to the continental speed of most legal proceedings.) I'm glad that the Supreme Court was able to use it's Judicial newspaper to say no, bad legislature.

2)Religious Issue: This is a non-issue. Saying the country was founded as a Christian one, deny's the truth. The country came to be because of people who wanted out from under the tyranny of Christianity. I'm sad to see it has such a dictatorial stranglehold now.

At current there are 6 BILLION plus people on the planet. If 85 percent suddenly turned GAY, we still have enough left to keep going for CENTURIES. I do thank you for not throwing any biblical quotes in. People tend to look the other way when I have to tear apart 'holy' books.

3)The moral issue: I'll use MA's quote to start.

I know how you intended this comment. Would you like to know the problem with it? It's the people who are 'for' marriage who are trying to force the lifestyle on other people. It's like being married to a woman for ten years then finding out she's infertile. Then someone comes knocking and informs you that the law has divorced you because you cannot procreate.

It is stupid in a manner that cannot be accurately described.

 

Like I said.. if you're offended it's because you want to be.. and that's ok, you're entitled to be so.

But I do disagree with #2. Yes, they wanted out from tyranny...to pursue their own religious beliefs, but their religion was still based in Christianity. Our laws are heavily rooted in the 10 commands.. that's a fact. Sorry.

 

One of those is "thou shall not kill",,, didn't stop us from wipe out the natives

@ darlene, sorry for hi jacking your thread

 

What about morals, instead of laws, Laura?

Playing devil's advocate, here.

 

I don't disagree, but it seems like it has turned into a moral debate more than anything.

Fuel for the fire, perhaps?

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815538,00.html?cnn=yes

 

My bad, this was like handing someone a box and saying, "don't open it" rolleyes

 

Indeed.

But it does make for good debate, regardless. Staying on topic becomes rather hopeless, though.

Maybe, if it can be confirmed that there is a mental issue here, that it should be looked at as to why new laws should be created for those with a brain abnormality?

Once again, playing devil's advocate. I don't take nicely to attacks these, days, so if you don't want a voodoo doll in your likeness with razor blades going through it, don't flame me

 

But the root of our laws are founded in Christianity. The ethics and morals follow suite as well. What do you think the lawmakers bring with them when the make these laws? they bring their biases with them. Where do you think much of that comes from? their up-bringing and if there was any religion in that, chances are you've got the church defining our laws by proxy; through it's participants. You cannot escape religion as the foundation for law because law is what we use as our boundary indicator for morality and ethical issues.

So these laws, which are more often than not, created to set our social norms are rooted in social morality. The lowest common denominator for them is a set of guidelines that pretty much everyone on the planet follows to some degree and agrees upon for the most part. When those boundaries that our law sets are crossed, those who crossed the line are considered criminal.


@Adryn,
I read that article and I was also lucky enough to be in school for neurology when the first research was published on correlations between the structure of the brain and being gay. We had a great time with this research as it was fascinating. Of course, me being me, I blurted out in class one day during one of our discussions saying something to the tune of:

...and boy did the roasting start. The context of my comment is grossly out context here because you don't have the back-story to where that came from our class discussions, suffice it to say that when I asked them what one does with something that is broken, the class remained silent, and I quietly said.. "you either try to fix it or you throw it away... and clearly we can't fix this...yet"...

and no one liked anything that I had to say; but I'm sorry.. I don't like bandwagoning with the crowd and I'm not afraid to speak up and question people's motives and reasons for thinking the way think.

That being said, I'm well aware that there is a significant gay population. I .. we know you're there, but, do we have to be reminded of the obvious every time we turn around (so to speak). Enough.. we get it, you're gay, I'm happy for you.. I can't change that fact but like MA said.. I don't have to accept it; and to me, allowing gay's to marry is forcing acceptance and I'm not willing to concede to a broken humanity.

 

laws, schmaws, what we need is a good old fashioned inquisition rolleyes

 

As few people have said, there is a world of difference between non-discrimination and non-interference with a particular lifestyle and set of choices, (which is what being straight/gay is, as I believe relatively few people are born so mismatched that they have little or no choice in the matter), and official recognition by Nation/state as just as valid, with all the legal implications, as regular heterosexual marriages.

Minority groups may indeed have equal rights as to their life-style choices, but so do the majority of people with their respective choices, without having other groups lifestyles shoved down their throats. Freedom of choice and thoughts include acceptance, or at least non-interference of others, but it also includes other's rights to approve or disapprove of any others way of life, i.m.o.

You don't have to like or agree with the way I think and live, nor I you. But I am adamant about our freedom to do so, without pressures from either noisy minorities, or majority groups.



@ Sorcer:- http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g309/Zobor/spanish.gif

 

The inquisition.. What a show
The inquisition.. here we go

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5McSEU48Y8

 

I never said that the church makes our laws or governs our people, but I did state that the teachings of the church are found in our lawmakers who make those guidelines for our society. I think you grossly mis-understand my point of view here.

And I would have to partially disagree with your belief that Christianity has conformed. Perhaps certain sects, but certainly not Catholicism The pope has actually back tracked a 100 years.. well, he's older than dirt anyway and quite frankly I think the Catholic church is the most anti-progressive establishment ever. But that's another topic entirely.

.. summary.. the church has a heavy influence, nothing more.

 

:-D I was waitin for that one, didn't want it to be from me :-D

@ Kodo & Phantom- way to hit the ball boys!!!

sorry phantom but Kodo hit the bullseye