California Supreme Court Strikes Down Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Is this another discussion about Pork? Where is DallasThomas?

 

wake me up when the celebrity honeymoon sex tape websites add the lesbian section.

 

QUESTION: Can Polygamy be next? I still don't understand why Polygamy is 'wrong'. 3,4,5,6,etc consenting Adults. . . .why is that wrong?

Rocket River

 

It is not illegal for them to live together and do whatever they do, but imagine the headache it would cause. Taxes for one. Social Security payments for another. Healthcare paid for by an employer. Custody battles.

The list goes on.

 

UPDATE:

Sorry if someone posted this update already, but I could not find it. The argument in support of Prop. 8 strikes me as really, really crappy, on a legal basis. The judge seems like he can't believe that the lawyer is actually saying that the institution of marriage is important to the procreation of the species and that same sex marriage would threaten the species accordingly.

Link:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/16/BAHO1E0CIM.DTL&tsp=1

This leads me to wonder if the lawyer is intentionally setting this up to be set afire, in sort of martyrdom cause sort of move (?)

 

That's ridiculous. As if those who can conceive do so with regards to keeping humanity and the population growing. Those weren't my first thoughts when I had my two children. There are plenty of unwanted children that can be adopted by couples of the same sex and they will love them and care for them.

Same sex couples should be allowed to marry by sheer fact that it is unconstitutional to deny them. The church is the one who has the big issue with homosexuals marrying, the government shouldn't. The legal bindings of a marriage can be so important.

Say if a couple gets together and adopts a child, one is the "legal and proper" guardian. If something happened to that legal guardian, things can occur and the living spouse could lose the child. Or money. Or property. Etc.

 

Still waiting on them to get the government out of the MARRIAGE BUSINESS PERIOD!!

Rocket River

 

Are we doing what is 'right' or are we doing what is 'easy'?

Rocket River

 

For the first time ever, I both comprehend and agree with one of your posts.

The government has no business in marriage - that's the church's call. Accordingly, any church can marry whoever they want. The state should ambivalently stand by and hand out whatever benefits it deems appropriate to those married couples equitably.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

 

Humanity seems to thrive pretty well without special designation.

Actually, people that don't expand the population should probably be encouraged.

 

I'm not sure if your question is worth responding to or just your typical pointless prose.

 

The latter, without a doubt - thus my shock above.

 

Rhad, I already repped you today so stop posting!

That's why the solution is just civil unions for everyone. The church can marry whoever they want in front of God and then you can file papers to validate that as a civil union recognized by the gov. Gay couples can go to a church that performs those ceremonies if they so choose or just file the paperwork. Either set of couples can perform the standard outside of church ceremony if they want and have a licensed officiant perform a civil union and call it whatever they want at the service.

But the "stay out of marriage!!!" line is silly. How many people who say stay out of marriage are volunteering to give up their income tax benefits?

 

The problem is that it is a gov't and church issue. If it was just a church issue then we'd not need licenses. A long time way back when all you needed was someone from your church/tribe/etc to bless your union and that was it. Now it's different and those who don't affiliate themselves with a church wish to be married and go with either a judge or an officiant. Why can't homosexuals do this as well?

 

Yeah, I kind of think we hashed and rehashed the basic issue in these many threads.

I was more wondering if people were as awestruck as I was at the legal strategy of attaching marriage to procreation of the species. As a married person who does not have and will not have children, I just found that kind of astounding and weird. And again, I'm wondering if this is intentionally obtuse, to set the "activist courts" against the "will of the people."

 

I vote for South Park's solution to same sex-marriage. It should please both sides


<br><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:southparkstudios.com:155043" width="480" height="400" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window" flashVars="autoPlay=false&dist=http://www.southparkstudios.com&orig=" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" allownetworking="all" bgcolor="#000000"></embed><br><b><a href="http://noolmusic.com/south_park/south_park_butt_buddies_the_governor_tries_to_redefine_gay_marriage.php">South Park Butt Buddies The Governor Tries To Redefine Gay Marriage</a> via <a href="http://noolmusic.com">Noolmusic.com</a></b><br>

 

We disagree on some issues before but I definitely agree with you and Rocket River here.. govt needs to get out of the marriage business. Agree the church has the right to marry whoever they want.

 

So to be clear, you believe the federal government should amend the income tax code to no longer allow any marital benefits? You believe the government should rescind Federal COBRA laws granting COBRA rights to spouses? You believe that the government should rescind all community property laws? You believe that the government should rescind laws requiring employers to offer insurance to spouses? You believe the government should end the recognition of spousal privilege in the court systems?

These are interesting positions you are taking. I'd like you and Rocket River to explain your fascinating ideas further.

 

I don't understand, if the government was to get out of the marriage business like some of you are proposing, how would a non-religious couple be married or receive marital benefits?

 

I presume that SunsRoxFan, like myself, does not feel this way, but thinks that the government has no business defining a "religious" function. If they want to grant special privileges to those folks in a "union" (marriage or otherwise) that's cool - but it has to be done equitably. This way, the state is appropriately ambivalent to what constitutes marriage but can apply benefits without prejudice.

I have no idea what the heck Rocket River wants.