By Bill Mears, CNN
(CNN) - A complex legal fight over the constitutionality of same-sex marriage is back on track after California's highest court on Thursday allowed an appeal over a controversial ballot initiative to move ahead in federal court.
At issue is Proposition 8, a voter-approved measure that would recognize marriage only between one man and one woman. A federal judge had earlier struck down the law as a violation of equal protection, prompting an appeal to a higher court.
The sticking point was who would defend "Prop 8" in court, after the state's top officials– including the governor and attorney general– refused to do so. A federal appeals court had asked the California Supreme Court to weigh in and decide whether supporters of the law - called the "official proponents" - could take the place of state officials.
In its ruling Thursday, the state high court said yes.
"Neither the governor, the attorney general, nor any other executive or legislative official has the authority to veto or invalidate an initiative measure that has been approved by the voters," said the court's majority. "It would exalt form over substance to interpret California law in a manner that would permit these public officials to indirectly achieve such a result by denying the official initiative proponents the authority to step in to assert the state's interest in the validity of the measure or to appeal a lower court judgment invalidating the measure when those public officials decline to assert that interest or to appeal an adverse judgment."
The initiative was approved by voters in 2008.
What defines you? Maybe it’s the shade of your skin, the place you grew up, the accent in your words, the make up of your family, the gender you were born with, the intimate relationships you chose to have or your generation? As the American identity changes we will be there to report it. In America is a venue for creative and timely sharing of news that explores who we are. Reach us at inamerica@cnn.com.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertise with us | About us | Help | Advertising Practices
of cource this 100% the fault of religion (all of them). so a proposition to only accept REAL FACT as real, remove alll reference to god or religion from our laws, will instantly solve the problem. Religion is a illness, ans need to be treated as such.
I say AMEN to that
Pardon, I meant vocal MINORITY, obviously!
Look, this was already put to a vote, and the majority has spoken! Just because a vocal majority doesn't like the outcome, don't let the court system overrule what the people have indicated they want.
HOLD OUT CALI...
traditionally marriage was to create a contract between two adults. The "church" did not enter into the "custom" until oughly 150 years ago when the ability to receive a profit. Now I am not picking on any specific sect I just happen to know that unless you had a specific amount of money you were not going to be married by a catholic priest. ( I know how silly is it to have a celebate create a lasting "marriage" when the sole purpose is procreation?) I say let any fool who wants to enter into marriage do so...(and yes I am married and happily so)
You sound like a great mom with a great kid. Hugs for both of you.
as i wipe away my tears, thank you.
Who cares who you choose to be with as long as real love is present.
Meanwehile they've done the bidding of their banking, insurance, and oil interest puppeteers.
in a state were over half of the straight marriages fail i think the churches should "cure" their marriage "problem" before tackling and butting into a "problem" they know nothing about. churches love to butt into people's lives and make money from things they have proclaimed "problems"-
without the hate and strife they are able to stir up they would not have the money stream from the indignation they proclaim from the pulpit in the name of god. i am sure the real God is disgusted by their hypocrisy.
I always wondered why people would claim we have Equal Rights in this country, while at the same time, denying people equal rights in this country. Hypocrite, they name is United States.
Explain to me why a group of people who obviously are so proud to be different, will not use a different terminology? Is it that the only personal and private lives open to outside control are the Christian's?
In this day and age, marriage between any two individuals of any gender is pretty much a farce, since approximately half end in divorce. Then there is the celebrity "speed marriage" debacle, as demonstrated by Kim Karda$hian. It should be civil unions for all, since marriage falsely implies some kind of deep, religious conviction which few if any people have anymore. The ideology of "marriage" is outdated, and no longer relevant – for anyone.
Cupcake , this is all about money, taxes, insurance , wills and such. You are right nobody really views matrimony seriously today.
Cupcake – why are you pushing such a fascist agenda that requires only 2 people belong in a marriage?
Why not 3 or 4?
Why are you pushing your religious agenda on the rest of us.
I agree the Christian's always forget the Bible has marraige between 1 Man and his many wives, they always forget Solomon who had 700 wives, Abraham with his 2 wives, and his son Issaic who married 7 sisters in order to marry Racheal who he loved. If they are all consenting adults (age 18 or older), why the h3ll do people care what someone else is doing in their bedroom?
Interestingly enough, the person who authored DOMA is currently either on his third or his fourth marriage. I guess DOMA was meant to codify that marriage is between one man and one woman at a time. The straight community could learn something from the gay community about marriage and family: marriage should be more about what is in our hearts rather than what is between our legs....and that family is more about uniting people in a loving and nurturing relationship than uniting a sperm with an egg. If we could just learn THAT from this debate we should be eternally indebted to the gay community. Dostoevsky once wrote, "God knows the truth, but waits." Maybe this is a case of God just waiting until we were ready to hear this message!
Because all gay unions are for life? And involve only one partner at a time? What crack are you smoking?
Mine is. One spouse, partners for life.
Well....if you look at the statistics of those who have entered into gay marriages compared to straight marriages, the gay divorce rate is significantly less than ours! Maybe that will change in the future when it is considered the norm and they start taking it for granted like the rest of us. And we are the ones that are making this a gender/genital issue....the gays have been putting it in the context of love and commitment.
Since you all like to invoke god so much, please show were god says it is good to carnally love another of the same gender?
Which god says it's not? Oh, you mean the fairy tale, big man in the sky god?
Well, Jesus never condemned it at all! You would think if he thought it were that bad he might have mentioned it at least once. Oh wait.....He was the one that hung around 12 other guys one of whom was singled out as the "one whom Jesus loved" (hmmmmmm.....did he hate all the rest, or was there a "special" relationship there. Maybe he DID have something to say about the topic.
Prop 8 won by over 50% of the voters
Popular vote has rarely pushed civil right forward.....it has historically required legislation. With the increased approval rating over the last 1-2 years, this initiative will probably even win by popular vote soon.
oh, and btw, what I mean by "win" is that gay marriage is accepted on a federal level – not just in a few states.
Great point! This is one instance when the term "tyranny of the majority" applies.
I bet keeping segregation would have passed with over 50% of the vote in the mid 60's South. What is your point?
my point is exactly that......legislation, rather than the common vote, needs to grant equality to all.
What's the point of having a referendum if it can just be overturned by the legislature? They're basically saying "let the people decide! ... Actually, they didn't vote the way we wanted. Let the legislature decide!"
Why even put the issue up to popular vote if that's the way you're going to treat it?
totally agree Bob.....equal rights should never be optional. Therefore, it should never be up to the popular vote. We should always legislate justice.
Thank the evangelical right and Mormon money for the well run campaign to take advantage of fear, ignorance, and bigotry. I am a straight male who will always remember who the narrow minded hate mongers are in our country.
Disrespectful! To god and self!
Let the 'mos get married. Who cares!!! With a 50% divorce rate, they're not going to screw it up anymore than it already is...
The bottom line is I do not want gays to marry. Marrage is between a man and a woman, end of story. And DADT should not have been overturned.
Well you may as well get over it because it will me a nation wide reality very soon and there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop it.
You are confused no one hates you ,We only hate that you have no respect for God, Marriage and self! Get over it you are trespassing and that's not cool! Stop trying to make it about you !
The majority of Americans now support allowing gays to marry and the repeal of DADT. Time to come into the 21st century!
Actually that is not true. In EVERY ballot initiative, gay marriage has been turned down. Only legislative movements have endorsed it. Time and again, the voters have said NO. Have your opinion, but at least state facts, not fiction.
Fine, then keep your religious marriage out of our government.
What you want is only relevant if it harms you. If you wanna make laws based on what you want, then I want to make laws to have people like you shot. You can see how the way you want to do things just won't work right?
The bottom line is I do not gays to marry. Marrage is between a man and a woman. And DADT should not have been overturned.
Is it possible to oppose gay marraige without opposing the existance of its practice? I think so. It's a moral issue for many and frankly that is ok. It is an issue of equal rights for others and that too is ok. Each decides for themselves. You can let this issue tear you apart or you can let it make you stronger in understanding.
Until those decisions infringe on rights. Then it becomes a legal issue.
What you are proposing is a basic separation of church and state, a principle on which our country was founded. Yes, I agree with that. I'm not going to try to dictate another person's theology, and people have no business trying to trample on other people's civil rights.
This has been posted for a week now... Does CNN not have enough reporters? Is there no other news to report? This is gettig annoying with this site.
Why would they take it off? It still seems to be stimulating conversation.....even from you.
Why bother to vote?
what do you mean? why would you think you get to vote on what other couples get to do while you get to enjoy that right? should i get to vote on whether or not you are allowed to get a job?
If the ability to restrict or define marriage is your sole reason for voting, yes, why bother?
Don't like gay marriage? Don't get gay married then.
Exactly. If gay marriage doesn't effect you and your personal life why waste time thinking about it. I have a lot of gay friends who I love so I support gay marriage because I want my friends to be happy. This whole issue is a farce to keep peoples eyes and minds off the fact that the American congress is screwing us sideways by not balancing the dang budget, letting companies with huge tax breaks go overseas, and dismantling our education system. Gay marriage is unimportant at this point. Let them marry. Let their combined income add to our economy. God knows at this point we need something to stimulate the economy.
!Good thing ending Slavery wasnt put on the Ballot it never would of passed with the Hate in the World
Sadly, you got that right
That's why the Greeks believed that a pure Democracy was an appalling form of government. See "Tyranny of the Majority" for much, much more on this very old topic.
It's also why the US and the rest of the West have republics or parliamentary forms of democracy: they actually work, without devolving into tyrannies.
You are so right Patrick!
Sad but true!
The problem with all of this is that there is no such thing as a "gay" person – there is only "gay" behaviour. So treating a behaviour as if it were a race of people is absurd – and impossible really.
People are correct when they say that comparing equality for gays to equality for black people is an unfair comparison.
Gays have had it a LOT worse.
PLEASE! You are obviously clueless as to the plight of others.
Gays currently have it worse because its legal to discriminate againts them.
I'm gay and completely disagree with that bold comment. I understand the comparison but in no way is it worse.
Ave, one must be careful with absolute statements.
Surely you jest,,,,
'He's serious. And don't call him Shirley.
Everyone in this thread has to be careful. No one can speak in absolutes because we don't walk in each others' shoes! Hate, ignorance and intolerance are all horrible, no matter to whom they are applied. In 2011, people of color are still discrimintated against....and even lynched. In 2011, LGBT folks still don't have legal standing with the federal government and in many states, meaning that LGBT folks don't have rights to marry, have a job, inherit, adopt children, etc. And, yes, in 2011 some LGBT folks are beaten and killed in the U.S. So, it is terrible all around.
Remember when gays were forced to pick cotton all day at the age of 9, were not allowed to learn to read or right, were hung if they ran away, were whipped if their owner felt like it, were bought and sold at auctions as children? Me niether. So I guess you are joking.
"one nation under God not the 9th Circuit" You bozo's who always say we are "one nation under God" do realize that the expression "under God" was only added in the 1950's 1954 to be exact, as a way to combat communism and make Americans more patriotic. The original pledge of allegiance to the flag did not include those words. Stop trying to make this a Christian nation when so clearly it is not. Full Disclosure, I'm a Christian. But i know enough to know that the founding fathers though some of them may have also been Christian's did not intend for this country to be a Christian Nation.
Excellent Post. And to back up your argument, this is a quote from a Thomas Jefferson letter which can be viewed on the Library of Congress website.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
Wanda Sykes said it best..."don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry a gay person." How simple is that?
Michelle Bachmann could've used that advice back in 70's.
HA!
Just have the gov giveout civil union licenses. this would solve the issue with the word "marrige", give them all the rights under the civil union license. everyone who wants these rights would have to get a civil union. If you want to be married go to your church, heck the gov could work with churches and give civil union licenses at the same time as the marrige licenses.
I am of the same mind there. I say marriage/unions shouldn't be a state thing at all. Why does the state have to approve who someone is with anyway? Joining should be a personal thing between two people and (only if they choose) some religion.
The state has to be involved because they are the final arbiter of the contract they grant through a marriage license. Just leaving the matter up to individuals can sometimes work, but more often than not becomes extremely messy when joint property, shared wealth and children are involved when the mutual understanding breaks down.
It doesn't work that way. Marriage by definition involves a host of legal and social services and behaviors. All peoples and societies need a strong, moral, foundation – irrespective of culture or religion. We defend traditional marriage because it helps to preserve that foundation. The Founding Fathers did not favor any established religion, but did stand on principle that there is a God and a divine mandate to preserve that which is good for the benefit of all in a free society. Traditional marriage and its' inherent good benefit all of us. Abraham Lincoln stated that the only way this country will fail is if it crumbles from within. We must defend marriage.
That's how it already is. When religious figures (priests, rabbis, ministers, etc.) perform marriage ceremonies, the are acting both as agents of their church (performing the sacrament known as "marriage), and as agents of the state (performing the civil union known as "marriage"). When a secular figures (justices of the peace, county clerks, ships' captains, etc.) officiate, they are only agents of the state. "Marriage" has long referred to both the sacrament and the civil union....but it's only now that anyone's had an issue with it.
I can agree on this. No government marriage licenses, period. You can get married in a church if you want to, but it will have no legal standing. Want the rights, everyone (gay or straight) has to go to the court house. I'm okay with this.
God made Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve-- so say the Christians.....but Eve screwed it up big time for all of us, seems like Adam should have explored other options.......
And it's not like their kids were much to brag about...
You do understand that if the Adam & Eve story is true,
we all came from incest.
Of course. But you should read some of the rationalizations folks put out about that being OK.
I absolutely support gay marriage. I myself am gay. HOWEVER – the court made the correct legal decision in this matter. Even though i would like nothing better than the executive branch to toss out the law – legally they cannot. Executives do now have the power to selectively decide which laws they support and which laws they do not. They must enforce all laws without bias. Even though i think prop 8 is a disgusting hateful law, and i'm confident it will get tossed out in a higher court, it needs to be done through the correct channels.
Now, I have to point out that this is the big difference between a liberal and a conservative. A conservative would NEVER defend the interests of a liberal, even if their side acted illegally. I've never once seen a conservative say "hey, even though i disagree with you, my side is violating your rights." They're far too small minded and bigoted for that form of higher judgement.
I completely agree with what you've said. However, I have seen numerous examples of liberals doing the same thing. They will prattle on and on about free speech then say we need to curtail what is said on AM radio, for example. Conservatives are all about small government until they want the government to dictate marriage and abortion laws. The only common sense left is quasi-libertarianism, but there just too many people who want a handout or government involvement in whatever it is they have special interests for it to work. So on we go, status quo. Wrangling over stupid things like who can marry who,as if it mattered to anyone personally (except in the case of children, of course, where consent doesn't apply).
What you consider disgusting and hateful is the will of the people to live under the will of God. God designed marriage between a man and a woman, and anything else is morally wrong. It is morally wrong to live the way you're living and you need to repent of your sins and get right with God. You need to ask the Lord Jesus Christ to come into your life and heal you. It is only through Jesus that our sins are forgiven. All sin leads to death, and without His pardon for your sins, you will be found guilty on judgement day and sentenced to hell. God doesn't want that to happen to you, so seek out Jesus. Don't wait, because there is no guarantee on our lives; tomorrow may be too late. God bless.
What part of marriage is between a man and a woman don't you understand. And how dare the Gov and AG go against the will of the people of the great state of California who approved Prop 8 over 50% and not support those us who voted yes on Prop 8 and defend it even though they disagree with it. It is their sworn duties.
So, according to your logic: Blacks still shouldn't be able to marry whites, schools should be segregated by race, and there should be "white" and "colored" drinking fountains. None of those were done away with by a 50+% popular vote. Or are you so ignorant you don't know your basic facts about how people got their rights in this country? Moron.
The time will come when people will look back at our time with disdain for all of these people who oppose gay marriage. They will face-palm and shake their heads over the galactic absurdity of refusing to let gay people marry as most of us do today over people who had opposed inter-racial marriages. There is no rational reason not to let them wed; just prejudice, non-sense and hate. Grow up America.
Will we also laugh in absurdity that since marriage is an "economic union" that a man cannot marry his mother to form an economic union? Or does biological mating somehow come back into the picture now? Will we also laugh in absurdity that a man can't have 3 husbands and put them on his benefits as a civil right? Will we also laugh in absurdity that since marriage has nothing to do with biological mating that a man can't marry his sister to share benefits, retirement, and clear inheritance rights?
Since marriage is only about Love, committment, and economic union, how DARE you deny the civil rights of two brothers who need this union, based on your belie they don't have certain feelings of lust that somehow are still a requirement.
The comparison between gay marriage and interracial marriage is absurd. A black and white have the consequences of mating to consider, that very likely they will create a family, because they are mates. Thus it is important for the individuals, the couple, potential children, extended families, and society as a whole that these two unite.
Love is the key and there are no consequences to letting two gay people marry. Your "argument" or implication are that this would mean to close relatives producing children with sever birth-defects is a monument to absurdity. Gay marriage harms nobody nor produces children so afflicted. There is no difference between the bigotry of prohibiting inter-racial marriage and prohibiting gay marriage. The only reason that you and your ilk are against it is prejudice and your "reasons" are mere excuses in a vain effort to conceal that fact.
I love you said the mouse for that. From this woman to that man.
It looks like a bunch of self-righteous, self-anointed gods are making anti-gay posts on this board.
Might there be a surprise trap door for them at the Pearly Gates?
great post-i agree
I can hear the Freakbasher's protests already. "I'm not supposed to be here – I hated them just like you told me to, Lord!"
The Bible also says God hates divorce, yet no one seems to be fighting to illegalize that. Checkmate.
Listen buddy, I thought I finally had someone to blame my divorces on. You're telling me now that gay people are NOT to blame? Shoot. Time to look for another scapegoat!
Divorce is a result of people that are looking for superficial satisfaction of the moment that will not sustain the relationship beyond the attraction of the superficial.
No, hmmmm. While that sometimes is the case, it often isn't. So please stop trying to diminish an often difficult decision just because you feel like being superficial yourself.
The key here is that God did not pen the Bible, men did.
Men wrote the Bible, but it was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit is God, so in a sense God wrote it using humans as His instrument. Thus sayith she.
@Iroy: gods are imaginary, man-made myths, and man has invented LOTS of them (there are over 120,000 religions CURRENTLY in practice). There's no proof that they exist, therefore they don't. (You can't prove that something doesn't exist, therefore you have to prove that it does to know that it exists.)
Dave – while you were typing that, did your eyes spin in circles in opposite directions while "Pop Goes the Weasel" was playing inside your head? I'm just curious.
And from the book they wrote they decided they have the right to tell everyone else how to live and believe!!
Who do you think opened the door for legalized divorce? Secularists. The 'Church has always maintained divorce to be wrong.
Yet the church is happy to allow divorcees to remarry. Some baby mamas make a career out of it.
Not true.. Who does benifit from divorce? Lawyers, therapists, child psycologists, Prisons, and liberals
@mark
You forgot the devoiced. Then again maybe my mother should have stayed married to the man that beat her until she was hospitalized. Surely had she stayed your sky fairy would have intervened at some point. On an unrelated note…. How is that end of days thing coming? It’s been about 2000 years and he was supposed to return within the apostils life time.
Ridicule and snappy come backs thats all you got Ground Fairy? neener neener..... Come on grow up
Besides Sean divorce wont solve a man beating his wife. Law would solve that. Just becouse you get a divorce doesnt mean that you are protected from abuse now does it.
The Church has been divorcing people for years. Except they call it annulment and you have to pay for it. Just the usual hypocrisy.
@Sean
"That would make you an exception. As we all know exception does not make the rule. So please stop expecting people to do otherwise." Your words not mine Exception doesnt make the rule
Uh – just wrong. No church utterly forbids divorce or declares it to be universally wrong without exception. Not one.
No Mark, but divorcing an abusive spouse can help get you out of that situation with no legal bindings left to hold you in some sort of relationship with the abuser.
If you don't want to face the even slightest potential for divorce, then don't get married. Because, if you *do* get married, then divorce is no longer only up to you.
Mark: I find you naïveté both charming and amusing. Secularists invented divorce? Hilarious. Tell that to Henry the eighth who cut off the heads of his wives when he got tired of them.
The Bible also endorses slavery, but I don't see the fundamentalists campaigning for that.
There's a whole industry built around getting married and an equally large industry developed around dissolving the marriage. Making divorce illegal would likely cause a precipitous drop in marriages. That would indirectly crush Church interests, "family" lawyers businesses , pschiatrists, wedding planners and wedding venues....the list goes on and on. It would be too economically detrimental to ever be considered.
Does that mean California can declare any measure shoved through our legistature by a church based in Utah illegal, too? Or should we just declare war?
War!
You give the Mormon church way too much credit... A belief that they somehow got Catholics, Evangelicals, and African Americans to do their bidding defies all logic and reason. They are simply too small to have that kind of influence. They are just the convenient whipping boy here. The hard truth is simply that those who wish to preserve marriage and family in its traditional form won a politcal contest over those that don't. Finding a "bogeyman" to blame the loss on simply delays the debate over the merits of the issue.
Actually, you can lay a fair amount of blame at the mormon church's feet. Its ok, they knew what they were doing, and so did everyone who voted for it. They are proud of what they did, and therefore nobody should feel remorse in placing blame where it belongs.
Actually Cypress that is incorrect. What we call marriage today is not its original form. Marriage was originally a contract between two men. Marriage normally involved the giving of a daughter to another man but not always. Women did NOT have rights and there for could NOT enter into a contract.
Your assumption (and mistake) is that it's OK to vote away the rights of a certain class of people because you don't like how they live their lives.
What's true is true.
Aren't we all looking for that?
We're working together on that I hope.(trying to be mutually encouraging)
Guys! Just come to Canada? We've got this whole thing figured out, and the crazies are just a small minority! Come!
Absolutely. Spend your tourist dollars. Eat in our restaurants. Stay in our hotels. Buy things. Vancouver is a lovely place for a wedding.
Yes....please go to Canada.
Getting a visa can be a bit of a challenge, though. Not much use to go up to Canada to get married if your marriage won't be recognized when you come home.
Finally a well written statement of intellect that is clear, concise and informed. Not something we usually see here in this forum. Thank-you Timmy.
You're welcome
i like your statment timmy!!!!
Last time I read in the Bible, a Biblical marriage was a polygamist marriage. There are many men in the Bible that had many wives. Also remember, girls in their early adolescents were the ones with these men. So if gay marriage is a sin, polygamy and pedophilia shouldn't be because it was a practice in the Bible. Is that what these Christian are preaching? Wow....
Obviously none of you have read the bible in its entirety. You confuse people's examples with God's commands. From the beginning God commanded one man and one woman, not polygamy. The bible is not a book about perfect people, but of a perfect God reconciling an corruption people to Himself.
And the Christians are the ones who hate?? One only needs to read comments on CNN to see that atheists are steeped in hatred of Christians.
andrew, can you cite the specific verse that actually forbids having more than one wife? As far as the atheist's hating christians, we have ~2000 years of christian hate to catch up on.
"From the beginning God commanded one man and one woman, not polygamy."
I see we have a Biblical revisionist among us.
MAN wrote the bible, not god. Those are man's words, not god's.
@ andrew.peter
Atheists are not the only ones who oppose Christians yet you go straight to them. Why is this? As far as Christian hate versus Atheist hate. You suggest reading the CNN forum. I accept your challenge and have one for you. Read a history book. Rick is correct in his comment of 2000 years of catching up to do.
In this argument alone Christians (in general) are fighting to prevent the equal rights of their fellow human beings. Atheists are fighting to extend equal rights. Who hates? I believe it’s clear.
@andrew.peter:
As an athiest, I have no ill will towards any person who has been duped into believing in things that do not exist. My problem is with the people who try to push their religion/religious beliefs on the rest of the people. Issues such as abortion, gay marriage, etc. Just because they believe it to be wrong, does not believe others feel that way. This is why western countries have a thing called choice!
I don't hate you for being a Christian. I hate you for being a self-absorbed, irrational moron.
Then where did Steve come from? He's obviously exists because he is trying to get married in California.
It is true that polygamy was commoin in the Bible. Of course back then, if that Biblical nonsense is believed, some folks could live 900 years. Why many people buy into these childish an inane myths of the bronze age will always be a mystery to me.
"...court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know — and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know." ~Sonia Sotomayor. I think that about says it all.
The sticking point was who would defend "Prop 8" in court, after the state's top officials– including the governor and attorney general– refused to do so.
Now THAT says it all. Even they know its wrong.
But the leaders should uphold and support the law, whether they agree with it or not, if they don't agree with it then they should be on the road to changing it not just ignoring it and hoping the courts will make it go away. But I guess letting the courts decide gives them a pass saying its not their fault the law is in place, or wasn't nullified, because they didn't make it a law, cowards.
I'm sure that has more to do with politics than a sense of right and wrong. If I supported Prop 8, and I was a politician in a position to defend it in court, I'd be pretty shy about doing it, too. The arguments defending proposition 8 aren't anything that I'd want on my political record, particularly considering how dramatically the USA has warmed up to gay people over the past decade.
Democracy is not a farce as is evidenced by the Greek empire prior to the Roman Empire; its existence is punctuated by its marvelous, elegant and grand public works and its expansion of unified governance under Alexander the Great. However, just as striking is the total collapse of this once massive nation that extended from, present day, Afghanistan to India to Egypt to the Balkans with the death of one man (Alexander the Great) who in essence was the de-facto structure of the Greek Empire. When democracy has no structure under which it operates it is fleeting and eventually devolves into chaos, or economically weak totalitarian and or autocratic governments. The Roman Empire existed much longer because the law and rules of the city of Rome and the Etruscans framed the law by which the Roman Empire operated, until that law was structurally weakened and changed. Which resulted in what is now call the dark ages where there was almost no rule of law and the weak and sensitive were not protected nor did they have a place of regress to turn and were easily oppressed.
While I do not agree with the "Proposition 8". I must agree with the "rule of law". It is not the position of elected officals to "pick and choose" what they wish to enforce, it is left up to the voters to decide what they believe is "right"...This is why we have a Democracy....It should be neither pro-left nor pro-right.....just fair.
Actually, the fact that it's a republic, a representative government, rather than putting everything to a mass democratic vote, means that they DO get to pick and choose. You don't like it, vote for different politicians next time, or have another recall. But in the meantime, they were elected by you to, among other things, pick and choose which laws they are going to prioritize.
Don't you know the lawyers are just overjoyed and counting their money already.
I find it interesting that a nation, such as the USA, that considers itself the great protector of rights, can't even see fit to extend equal rights to all members of its populace. It's not about gay marriage or lesbian marriage, it's about equal marriage. Give all your citizens the right to share equal protection under the law. It's the 21st century, USA> Wake up or head the way of the dinosaurs.
GadFlie,
You do not know of what you speak. Read all of Luke 12 before you start quoting the scripture.
Thou shall not judge!!!! obviously you only read what you want from the bible!!!
Using fiction (Bible) as proof does not prove your point.
TC – your book contradicts itself constantly.
It's a fallacy. Join the modern world.
You hypocrite, take out the log in your eye before you berate your neighbor about the speck in his.
I find it both sad and amusing that in a day and age where people like Kim Kardashian and Brittany Spears get married for days and hours, then get a divorce....for the entertainment of the rest of the sheeple....it is morally disgusting that John and Jeff get married? Seriously, isn't there something just a little twisted about that?
I've got an idea....who cares! If two guys or two girls want to get married, what business is it of ours? Worry first about your own home, and leave someone elses home alone. They aren't committing a crime, folks. They are loving each other. When did we start punishing people for that?
I agree with your comment, The Guy.
My concern is that we're continually force-fed this garbage every 3 or 4 days, – as if it's something natural and necessary for normal people to understand. Frankly, I don't care at all what gays do – but, I do become annoyed at the almost daily news coverage of this crap.
Your welcome to be annoyed, Jim. I'm equally annoyed at seeing KK's ugly face, or hearing about some stupid celeb getting off the hook for stealing, or driving drunk, or beating on people, or whatever. Unfortunately, it is what defines our society at this moment in time....just like the marriage of gay people is defining our society at this time.
I strongly suggest you do what I do. Change the channel.
Ji, No one is making you read this. There's always FOX News for you.
What you are saying is very true in this particular instance, but is there a line that cannot or will not be crossed? Who sets that line? What are the parameters used to establishing that line? Is it democracy? Is it the law or the vote? In this case a democratic vote established this law? Should be under the law? Should we be governed at all by a federal system, state or local system? Why?
Should the rights of a minority be put up for popular vote?
And what about the gays that will marry and divorce quickly?
It'll happen.
Then it'll be two strikes against marriage.
The Christian Cavalcade of Hate! Tony Perkins of the hateful Family Research Council is thrilled.
I want to convert to Judaism and eat pork.
Why limit that to Judaism why not become a Muslim they don't eat pork either? Are you afraid to go there?
Man oh man, whatever happened to separation of church and state? Why don't we just oust all the government officials and replace them with a congregation of strict Christian believers? Woo!
Too late!
Haha you got that right! Maybe I should become a narrow minded Christian and I'll get elected.
As many people voted NO on prop 8 as did YES. why does less than a 1% difference have to be the 'majority'? lol, such BS. cmon christians, you need to protect your kim kardashians and britney spears' marriages cuz they sure as hell meant more than 2 men or 2 women who love each other right? ....morons.
Vote in California was 52.24% to 47.76% a 4%+ difference. even if the ones thrown out were all no you still were down by 2%.
Excellent news. This was the only sticking point that put the ruling at risk of only affecting California. Now we're virtually certain to see it get before SCOTUS, where Perry is likely to be upheld and settle this question, nationwide, once and for all.
I just want to be a fly on the wall when opponents realize what the effect of SCOTUS upholding Perry will be. Every state law and amendment banning this, nationwide, will go *pouf* at the same time.
..."Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."...
Luk 23:34
they know exactly what THEY're doing
the real question is why do YOU care??
SO TRUE, GOD BLESS THEM.
Please explain to me, how is "being gay" a sin....what litmus test are you using? Please provide some scientific proof that validates your claim “it’s a sin”.
Stephen F Roberts: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
Atheism is not a religion nor is it a belief.
Don't be so hard on yourself. I'm sure God forgives you for all your ignorance, hate, and selfishness.
How will his life be any different if your mythical sky creature forgives him?
Yes, Proponents of Prop 8 certainly DO need to be FORGIVEN for trying to use Majority Rule over human rights, something they obviously do not understand or care to understand about! It is dangerous when a majority tries to inject their prejudicial rule into a minority's standing. Very dangerous! Pray they are forgiven before they do further damage to otherwise good basic human beings who go to church, pay their taxes, and yes, even raise their own children.!
Father (that imaginarty and invible guy in the sky with a ledger book on all your good and bad deeds) ...are we speaking of Gawd or Santa Claus?
It's amusing to me how people use, for a moral guide, a book that does NOT think it is a sin to beat your slave so badly that he dies of his wounds the following day but DOES it a sin to love someone of the same gender.
One of the comandments "thow shall not kill"
Actually, no. It gave instructions not to murder. But, slaves were property, not people. They obviously didn't count. Read Exodus 21:20-21 for full instructions.
And yet 'Christians' like to throw around Leviticus 20:13 – you know, 'Kill any Gay men you find'.
To Gadfly- So because the Bible says that they were considered property they were?? I mean, you DO realize that they were ACTUAL human beings right?? Old Testament= Jewish Supremacy, Hate and Oppression. Does it really seem logical to base your philosophy on an archaic book that has been rewritten and revised a hundred times???
Try reading for comprehension sometime. Get some help with the big words if you need them. My original post was what is consider irony or sarcasm. It was making a very specific argument that the Bible ranks pretty damned low as a moral guide.
Facepalm.
The book you are referring to is the bible, and you don't know it well or wwouldn't make such an uneducated statement about it. There are two testaments, the Old and the New, in the Old, there were men who got married and had concubines and also had slaves because that was society back then, but then Jesus was born and so was the New Testament, and Jesus wiped away the old covenent and made a new one. One were you turn the other cheek, not an eye for an eye, and one where you love others as you love yourself. Don't talk about the bible if you don't know it
Lisa, I am willing to bet that I know the Bible better than you do. For example, Jesus himself clearly approved of severely punishing slaves. See Luke 12:47-48 for details. So, I am going to give you back your own advice. "Don't talk about the bible if you don't know it"
LOL. Enter the Christian on queue "you don't REALLY know the Bible." Has to be one every single time. Well my dear, I can assure you that I have read the Bible cover to cover, and I'm fairly certain I know more about it than 99.999% of all Christians out there. I can also assure you that if YOU actually read the whole Bible, and paid any attention, both the old and new testament are filled with acts of utter barbarism and disgustingly primitive moral sanctions. It's a book of fictional garbage written by barbaric goat herders 2000 years ago and if you take it seriously the only thing it's good for is a hearty laugh.
So... God lied?
Sadly, it appears to me that the Bible has created more divisiveness, hate, erroneous "facts", and problems than solutions and true love.....The first 5 books of the Old Testament - also referred to as The Torah (Jewish scriptures). They are poorly written, addressed to the social and mental climate of the day, and a mixture of metaphor, analogies, and poor interpretations. In the world there are 5 main Jewish denominations. But in the Christian "world", there are about 38,000 denominations - all with their unique differences, interpretations, power, and "Truths"........If there is a God, He is way too big for one religion or one book......Smarten up people. Get rid of your hang-ups. Affirm the humanity of all people. Stop living in a world of dogma and political bs and open hearts; open minds......
there is a simple test to weed out the contradictions, if it comes from love it may come from god
EVERY thing else comes from man
O
It amuses me at how human beings strive to obtain everything that matters most to them...and yet...I observe that while one set of humans already have what they need, the others lack it. I feel as though that this unacceptable divide in all of human society is what disrupts the very meaning, no, foundation of what matters to everyone. I have been questioning this divide for a while. That is my philosophy.
Human beings strive for what matters most for them. Unfortunately, most human being do not strive for what is good for them and others.
I do not quite understand by what you mean when humans do not strive for what is good for them and others.
Translation: Humans strive for what they think is important, what they want, but that's usually not what is best for them to have. I want chocolate, so I strive for it. I should eat broccoli.
How about if I live my life and you live your life?
wait, you mean that if I don't like the way your living your life I can just pay attention to my own and not worry about it??
that DOES sound kinda..... american, WOW! problem solved
you should have said something sooner
I really can't understand how people can be so divided on this issue because we are talking about civil rights, which is something everyone should have, regardless of race, orientation, age, disability, religion, etc. My question is: What is wrong with being different from others?
If different is what they want, then call it something different. I think most would be okay with that. Win-win situation.
Separate but equal. Yep, that worked out so well the first time.
So what should we call interracial marriage? It's different after all.
'Separate-but-equal' Civil Unions, right? Win-win? Too bad that every state that has offered CUs has had the same hate-fueled groups trying to keep them from happening... see Washington State, Rhode Island, Hawaii.
I find it interesting the chatter about marriage being about love. History shows that couple's were encouraged to marry and procreate to better strengthen the communities at large with labor. Also, most cultures had, at one point, arranged marriages which still occur in the 3rd world today. Where is the love part?
I just don't see the state having any vested interest in marriage. We live in an overpopulated world, with varied cultures and traditions. How do we decide what is "right" under the law?
One thing though, if you use an individuals right to love whomever they want and marry, how can you still prevent polygamist marriages, brother and sister to marry, age restrictions, etc.
Outside religion, I just don't see a need for marriage.
Some might argue that laws were founded upon religious based values. And others might argue that love (between a man and woman) was the real reason for marriage in the first place. Thanks for suggesting that religious people can continue to be married.
Marriage is first a civil contract. One cannot be legally married in most states without having both a license from the civil authority and someone with the legally recognized authority issued by the civil authority to conduct a marriage, which essentially consists of taking the oaths of both parties.
In order to marry a couple, a priest must have a license issued by the local civil authority to do so.
A judge or even a notary public may marry a couple in most states.
Religious ceremony is never required to make a marriage contract legally binding on the couple who have exchanged oaths before the person authorized to witness those oaths completing the marriage contract.
I for one, wonder why we even tolerate "big religion". For decades in this country, it has been used as a tool of division and moral grandstanding...pandering to a voter demographic who refuses to engage in honest dialogue about ANYthing. Religion=Hate, Division, & Superiority Complexes... We should start occupying evangelical churches...
Now there's a loving comment. Wow.
Your point? Do you actually have anything to say? I mean, something more substantial than the equivalent of a meaningless facebook update.
Careful not to confuse wolves in sheep's clothing with the truth. There is a *BIG* difference and you are accountable for the truth whether you believe it or not.
Evangelical churches are taxpayer-subsidized anti-American schools of violent, ignorant radical politics. Occupy, shut down, burn to the ground.
subsidized? so is wells fargo, bank of america, chrysler, general motors, wall street, pakistan...
Ask the native Americans (both N and S America) which religion killed the most people throughout history...
What?
Which religion killed the most people through history? Hmm, I'd have to go with the "Church of Saying You're A Christian But Just Hate Lots of People." Which means, y'know, just about anyone who was both Christian and politically powerful. But barring that, it's probably the "Church of Me," aka the human race.
SOPORIFIX, I know a church that is not tax subsidized.
i agree 100%
Any now, some use their religion to justify their acts of violence against others.
Protests mean nothing, your vote means nothing...
If people are going to insist on defining 'marriage' in religious terms, it should be removed from all federal law and policy as a violation of church and state.
I thought the 9th amendment said that no one can have more or less rights than others regardless of who they are...
**** ???
I thought the 9th amendment said that no one can have more or less rights than others regardless of who they are...
-------------------------------------------------------
True, but the Christians want to put an asterisk (*) behind it and add.....unless you are gay.
It never ceases to amaze me how some people give a damn about what happens in somebody else's bedroom. They are probably the ones who say govt is too much in our lives. Pick a side.
This isn't about what happens in one's bedroom. If it were, no one would care. It's what about what happens in public that has us concerned.
You're concerned about what happens in public? You must be talking about all of the tongue kissing with more than half naked people on straight television just about each and every day, including during prime time when children can be watching! So, if you want to talk about concern for morals in public, you hypocrite, you can simply start there!
What is it you're afraid of tem doing in public? Will they not do this if they aren't allowed to marry?
Even better, why do you care what they do in public? If they knew what a bigot you are, I don't think they'd want to see you either. But they will at least deal with it.
Why can't you? You just ain't right in th head.
oh believe me I don't want to know what goes on in the bedroom (barf) and if you didn't notice I'm clearly defined!
Last time I checked, God did not write California laws, so it seems silly to claim [your view of] God's wishes as the basis to go by. Of course, if we did go by God's law, shouldn't we not be the ones writing it down and deciding on it, and also shouldn't that mean we should accept and celebrate people for their differences as long as they are not harming others? Maybe it's just me, but I didn't think God liked us judging other people so much. –> Mind your own beeswax and stop trying to dictate how other people live their lives.
Good comment. I couldn't have said it better myself!!
hey Mess we are jumping off the cliff tomorrow, come join us? lol
Does this mean we can rob, cheat and steal too?
Clearly you missed the part where he said "not harming others." Don't you come from a state where they teach second grade english comprehension?
I guess you're exempt from the speed limits and from the laws that prevent murder, incest, rape and battery? Fail logic.
The only FAIL here is your reading comprehension. '...as long as they are not harming others...' I saw that in the post – pity you chose not to.
There is not a single argument against gay marriage based on logic. Not ONE. The "will of the people" has NO standing on civil rights issues. The people thought slavery was cool. Traditional marriage was about political alliances and dowries for the vast majority of its existence, along with the ALSO popularly-supported marital rape. Archaic babbling has no place in a secular country in the 21st century. And it will not stand.
Not one step back.
Correct. The basic issue here, religious zealotry aside, is whether there is any government interest in saying that it's OK for Jim and Jane to marry, but not Jim and John. I think not. It can't be reproductive interests: no one is compelled to have children (well, Mississippi tried, but I digress...) and infertile couples, those too old to reproduce, or others who just choose not to reproduce are free to marry. Defining marriage as between persons (in the government sense, it's really all about interpersonal legal issues anyway, and a sheep can't enter into a contract) cuts out the usual "slippery slope to bestiality rubbish, and polygamy is easily dispensed with as well because of the legal complications that can ensue with parental rights, inheritance, and other legal concerns of marriage. I think the government could articulate an interest there. Even the religious would presumably, when presented with a proposed marriage between a closeted gay man and gay woman, apply the plumbing check and come away satisfied that all is well. So is disparate plumbing really all that matters? Pretty lame standard, and again, why should the state care? Keep the religion in the churches where it belongs, and out of the law – where presumably all of God's children are equal.
Those of us who are married realize that men and women think in vastly different ways. This dichotomy is necessary for raising healthy children.
EQUALITY FOR ALL!
The only question that should be asked about Gay marriage is "Who Cares"?
Why do conservatives demand that we have little to no government intrusion into our lives with the exception of their religious dogma?
Opinions should NOT become law.
This Conservative shares your opinion entirely, and would like to point out that the expansion of government power over lifestyle violates every core principle of Conservatism, which values small, non-intrusive government. There are still a lot of us Goldwater-style Conservatives around who are dismayed by the hijacking and perversion of the term by bigoted evangelical theocrats.
I miss Bill Buckley, too.
I may disagree with your conservative views, but I sure do wish you and others like you would take back the GOP from the fright-wing nut jobs. At least your views are thoughtful and logic-based.
@Six Degrees......I believe everything is decided by the Silent Majority. You know those people who IT doesnt really effect so they say nothing. While I appreciate your true conservative stance I do question this...Are you registered Republican and if so what have you done to let your Republican Representatives know that their stance on gay marriage contrary to yours? Or are you among the silent majority that is letting them get away with it? Regards.
opinions are all people have. it is impossible not to pick a side. if you think opinions should not be laws, by you thinking gay marriage is OK, then that's an opinion!
we're human, we're FLAWED. who are we to say what is right and wrong. if it was up to us, we would have it backwards. but a loving God decided to give us directions.
Wait...why are rights being voted on?
Can we have a vote on allowing women to vote?
How about blacks?
What is wrong with you people? EVERYONE should have the SAME rights as the man/women standing next to them.
No questions asked.
They do. Men can marry women and vice versa. that's pretty mucht he same.
"They do. Men can marry women and vice versa. that's pretty mucht he same."
Then it's gender discrimination. I can think of no other similar legal contract that is so restricted by gender. It's discrimination, and it needs to go.
So, you want to marry Goats or children next?
If you can find a goat or a child that can enter into a legal contract, I guess so...
As long as we are voting who may be allowed to marry and form a family, may I preemptively vote that Dave not be allowed to procreate? Stop spreading the hate...
This is good news for the gay community because if the court had ruled a different way then only CA would have gay marriage. Now when 9th Circuit rules against Prop 8 every state under it's jurisdiction will have to allow gay marriage and if this hits the Supreme Court then every other state would be included. Anyone who followed the trail knows the Prop 8 backers do not have any legal argument against gay marriage.
This is also the right decision. Whatever one thinks of Prop 8 (or Prop anything) the governor can't just overturn it. The court is the right final arbitrator – just like the court is the final arbitrator for any law.
Following that reasoning we could not determine that a man could not legally have 100 wives and 1000 children also.
You think there is a law against having lots of children?
So if a majority of the people vote slavery as being legal that would be ok? What happened to all people being created equal with equal rights under the law? Gay, Straight, bi-curious, orange or purple...it shouldn't matter.
So if the majority voted that a black man could not marry a white woman that would be OK? Because that's what the majority of Americans felt up to about 1990. When SCOTUS overturned Georgia's law against interracial marriage about 80% of Americans were opposed to inter-racial marriage–a super-majority.
First, supermajority or not, the public has no right to deny a class of people the same rights that others enjoy.
Second, when exactly did a majority of people "vote" to uphold interracial marriage?
I find it Odd that just after approving gay marriage they banned it
. . .
They didn't ban it. They simply said that the voteers (who passed the law) have a right to challenge their ruling (by the California supreme court). So the case moves on–it won't be settled till it reaches the supreme court of the US.
Isn't that currently controlled by democrats ;o?
I am all for gay rights for EVERYTHING including marriage and adoption etc, but I wish the people on the front line wouldn't dress like clowns to make a point. How can we take anyone serious wearing that junk in the picture? Let's be adults and let's be serious!
Yes I am gay. Now get back to work
Well said, Levi. Can't take someone seriously when they dress up in clown costumes.
So when actual clowns go on protest dressing as 'clowns' it's serious right? When they dress in a tuxedo then go on out to protest for their rights as clowns they're making an a-s-s of themselves?
The clowns are dressed that way because they ARE clowns.
How about the middle aged evangelical housewife who weighs 250 lbs., has a male's close shaved haircut and dresses in a robe? I rather objectively read the message, than review the fashion sense of the messenger.
hi Levi. i have a son (15) who is gay, and i (we) have to agree with you. Lets be serious about this, it isn't a matter for clowns. Even my son thinks it is weird and wonders why they dress up like that.
Then we have an idiot in Texas – Rick Perry that is messing with New Hampshire's marriage laws. He is driving gay couples and lots of major money out of the state with his greater than thou holly high and mightyness.
How does the governor of Texas have any say-so in New Hampshire's laws?
Finally a ruling from the California State Supreme Court. Now the case can continue. I really don't see how Prop 8 survives. Prop 8 is violation of equal protection not to mention equal treatment under the law. If you listened to arguements that the "official proponents" made, they simply don't stand up. Nothing they've argued is valid. I expect that Prop 8 will be struck down and rightfully so.
It doesn't matter anyway. Prop 8 supporters will lose this lawsuit. They simply don't have a single solid legal argument.
There is no such thing as "legal arguement" in this matter. America is land of the free which many leaders have lost sight of. It's time for another revolution and no not just because of this. We have lost too much power over time.
Who's ...we?
What power have you lost? You mean the power to deny a class of people access to the same rights that you have?
If gay and lesbian couples want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us, then let em !!
Rod,
Haha, You are right.
you mean equality...ok
Wow. That's so original.
A majority of people in southern states approved slavery/discrimination laws and those were all eventually overturned ;p.
A lot of the things blacks went through gays are currently going through. Its only a matter of time till someone does something stupid however.
The majority of the people in the US may think someone on trial is guilty of a crime, but the jury is the body that gets to decide. And no, we don't get to vote on rights of minorities. Where would that take us? Very soon white people will be a minority in the US, so should the majority get to decide what rights they will have?
Yes...you're confused.
Correction, rape can and does pertain to men also. It doesn't happen often, but it has. As for the draft, no where does it say you cannot draft women, it ONLY says that the draft consist of males. Given the actions of females in hostile zones the last two decades, IF the draft was ever reinstated, women will probably be able to opt for being included.
...therefore?
Dude – this law applies to men AND women. Think things through...
Huh?
Hahaha! Thanks Mollyringwald! That was great! Made my day!!!
Kinda sounds like nonsensical babbling to me, but it still made me laugh!
The law was overturned in court. The administration may have had an obligation to defend it, but has no obligation to appeal the decision.
California voters also voted to legalize marajuana. It's still illegal. Why? Because the federal law trumps the state law. And marriage has different rights than a domestic partnership and thus to restrict who has access to those rights is illegal.
why do you even care? You gay?
Because separate but equal worked out so well in the past?
Actually marriage has NOT always been defined as one man and one woman as you claim. Certain ceremonies were performed to join Roman soldiers as "husbands" and other cultures have defined similar relationships. This has been extensively studies by historical socialogists. Just because your bible says that it's so, doesn't mean it always was.
So if you're an Atheist you're not allowed to get married... Um, OK.
Because money is involved.
The legal definition of marriage grants special status to spouses, like tax benefits, or the right to visitation in the hospital. There are many other rights of course, which have been listed ad nauseum in this ongoing debate.
Michael, my point is that the government has no right to tell a gay they shouldn't get married. The government should tell anyone who is married and who it not–it's not their business. Why do we need the government involved in this at all?
It becomes a government or rather legal matter because a marriage can define ownership of various properties and custody of children. This is why even though a person can choose a religious marriage as part of their faith, legal papers must still be signed and certified by the state.
Actually, that's rubbish- marriage predates Christianity by thousands of years. The concept of marriage exists in both legal and religious practice in most cultures, completely independent of "the sacrament of marriage"- which is not even recognised as a sacrament by all Christians. Marriage comes in way more varieties than the author is willing to admit.
Actually people marry quite easily without the church being involved every day. Marriage was secular and done outside of the religion before Christianity. Up until very recently, marriage was strictly a business proposition.
If your an atheist you don't need to get married. Its a joining of two people. You could find anyone to annouce your joined. The government shouldn't regulate marriage at all–between any two or more people. It's not their business.
btw, may I just point out this is exactly the level of arguments used in court by the anti-gay klan and this is exactly why you lose every time you go into court.
Debbie, Please remember it was not just the Mormon Church but the catholic church as well that pushed for Prop 8. The Mormon Church does not support polygamy. Both the States of Utah and Arizona as well as the Mormon communities are doing what they can to end polygamy and the tax costs to the citizens of those states. Both Churches, rightfully concerned that they will be forced to perform gay marriages, fought and won this round. Such is Politics. Next round will go for Gay Marriage/ whatever is used to replace the word marriage to make it more palatable to everyone, or a better worded Prop letting the churches off the hook in performing ceremonies they do not wish to perform.
I would also like to point out that after Prop 8 passed, In SLC the domestic partner's rights, such as hospital visitation rights , came before the SLC city council. The head of the mormon church came out and stated that the ordinance should pass because it was the right thing to do.
Attack any religious group where it is at fault. ( and they are all wrong in my opinion). But recognize the point and wording of the arguments for Prop 8, and don't falsely accuse support where it doesn't exist in support of polygamy. Utahans, Arizonans, and the Mormon community, esp in those two states, see and feel the pain and suffering the FLDS has caused. Esp to the young male population of places like Colorado City.
If the government gets out of the marriage business, then the tax benefits would be eliminated for married couples. You'd have to be ok with that to do away with legal marriage, along with all other married couples in the land.
No. The correct answer is that marriage in this country is a legal definition. It deals with inheritance rights, power of attorney, benefits, etc. It is NOT defined by a religion (in the eyes of the law) or else atheists (lr Hindu or Muslims or Shintoist) could never get married in the U.S.. If you actually knew human history, you would know that legal marriage actually precedes religious ceremonies of marriage. Churches want yet another revenue source by inserting them into what was traditionally a legal contract.
Tex,
You're right the government shouldn't be involved, but they're involved for tax purposes. However, the fact remains that right now, the federal government only recognizes a marriage between a man and a woman. Can you provide a secular reason why the federal government shouldn't recognize marriage between two consenting adults?
Firstrul, I don't want the federal government to extend the tax break to gay couples. I want them to stop recognizing marriage entirely. It's not their business to decide who's married and who is not. No tax breaks. No special priviliges. There is no compelling reason for the state to involve themself in the coupling and uncoupling of it's citizens.
I'm not part of the majority. You are familiar with the latest hollywood fad aren't you? "It's in to be out." Out of the closet that is–hey, lets all try gay, see if it 'fits.'