California Legalizes Gay Marriage

[darkatma]

I'm surprised this hasn't been created yet. (I did see a post about it in the Gay Smasher's thread, but I feel the topic warrants a thread of its own)

http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20080515150654709

BBSNews 2008-05-15 -- WASHINGTON (HRC) Today, the California Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision and ruled that same-sex couples have the same right to marry as opposite-sex couples under the state constitution. The court ruled that it is a violation of the state constitution to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, and that providing rights to same-sex couples through a separate system of domestic partnerships does not satisfy the state constitution.

"This is a historic day for the state of California, and a long-awaited day for the plaintiffs in this case and their families," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "The California Supreme Court has made clear that same-sex couples in committed relationships and their families deserve the same level of respect afforded to opposite-sex couples. The court did its job by ensuring that the state constitution provides the same rights and protections for everyone. This is a decision that strengthens California families."

Solmonese continued, "We congratulate and commend the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, the ACLU, Heller Ehrman, the Law Office of David C. Codell, Equality California, Our Family Coalition and, of course, the courageous plaintiff couples and their families who looked to the courts to defend their rights."

The court's decision involved several consolidated cases, collectively referred to as In re Marriage Cases. The cases were filed in 2004. In March 2005, a state trial court ruled that, under the state constitution, same-sex couples must be permitted to marry. In October 2006, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court in a 2-1 decision. The California Supreme Court's decision today overrules the Court of Appeal's decision.

A growing number of states are providing relationship recognition to same-sex couples. California joins Massachusetts to become the second state to recognize civil marriage for same-sex couples. Five other states provide same-sex couples with access to all the state level benefits and responsibilities of marriage, either through civil unions or domestic partnerships. Three other states and Washington, D.C. provide same-sex couples with at least some of the basic benefits and protections made available to married heterosexual couples. However, because of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex couples do not receive federal rights and benefits in any state.

Key results from the ruling:

* Same-sex couples in California will now be able to obtain a civil marriage license and receive the same respect and protections afforded to all married couples.

* Churches and other religious institutions will not have to recognize or perform ceremonies for these civil marriages. This ruling is not about religion; it's about the civil responsibilities and protections afforded through a government-issued civil marriage license.

* The court's decision does not entitle same-sex couples in California to receive the federal rights and benefits extended to married couples. The so-called federal Defense of Marriage Act discriminates against same-sex married couples by denying them over 1,000 federal rights and benefits, including social security benefits, the ability to file a joint federal tax return, and the right to petition for a spouse to immigrate.

* Other states may legally recognize the civil marriages of same-sex couples performed in California in the same way they recognize out-of-state marriages by different-sex couples.

* The court's decision today does not change the law in any other state, or federal law.

The Human Rights Campaign and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation signed onto an amicus or "friend of the court" brief in the consolidated cases to support and further explain the case for extending civil marriage rights to same-sex couples under the state constitution. A number of other civil rights organizations, religious groups, child welfare experts, law professors, family and legal historians and others also signed or filed briefs in favor of extending civil marriage laws to same-sex couples.

What are people's thoughts on this ruling?

For me, I was somewhat surprised when a friend announced in my 4th period class that Gay Marriage had been legalized in our state. (There was a small cheer from about half the class). . I was happy too, seeing as California finally decided to step up its human rights/equality standards.

After the initial shock factor though, and after reading more about it, I'm sort of dissapointed in the rulings that happened today. Apparently the vote was 4-3, and there were a ton of compromises involved..

I'm particularly dissatisfied with:

* The court's decision does not entitle same-sex couples in California to receive the federal rights and benefits extended to married couples. The so-called federal Defense of Marriage Act discriminates against same-sex married couples by denying them over 1,000 federal rights and benefits, including social security benefits, the ability to file a joint federal tax return, and the right to petition for a spouse to immigrate.

Because a marriage without federal rights is hardly more than a 'domestic partnership'. Sure they gained a title, but what about the rights? I mean, it's a nice step up, especially for a majority republican court, but still...


Anyways, more of my thoughts later

discuss.

 

[Mugquomp]

Well, I don't normally pay attention to California's politics, but it's great to see another state move towards ending this type of discrimination. Back closer to home for me, same sex marriage has been legal for a couple of years in Massachusetts, and civil unions are legal in most of the rest of New England, although that's not quite the same thing.

Although where I'm living right now, gay sex was only decriminalized in 1998. I think same sex marriage might be ways off for Chile still.

 

[sugarpoultry]

Personally, I'm against gay marriage. I mean, I'm married myself, to a man (I'm a girl). That is still the majority of what the world does and finds acceptable.

 

[Chris Lionheart]

I'm sickened by the whole thing... its disgusting.

Same sex couples should not have the right to marry. What they do is not something that they can't control (race or gender). They choose to violate the laws of nature and the human body. There are serious moral and religious issues behind it as well.

Frankly, no state should have the right to make such a decision. It should be a federal decision (and frankly I would be sickened by that to.) Why should any government have the right to meddle in something that has been good and natural since... idk the beginning of our country.

 

[Crimson King]

You two are both seriously stupid.

There is no indication that homosexuality is a choice, and to cite my favorite argument by Mediocre, if being gay is a choice, find someone of your sex attractive, right now. Find a man attractive, Chris. I cannot.

Secondly, what's the big to letting gay people have the same human rights as other humans? Children? Sterile couples don't get this much ****, and neither do extremely old couples. Both those instances show couples that cannot produce children, leaving the only possible argument-religion.

Here's something: Separation between Church and State. Marriage is a legal institution, and the state has no valid reason to bar people from marriage.

 

[Xsyven]

I'm sickened by the whole thing... its disgusting.

Same sex couples should not have the right to marry. What they do is not something that they can't control (race or gender). They choose to violate the laws of nature and the human body. There are serious moral and religious issues behind it as well.

Frankly, no state should have the right to make such a decision. It should be a federal decision (and frankly I would be sickened by that to.) Why should any government have the right to meddle in something that has been good and natural since... idk the beginning of our country.

I'm not sickened by this whole thing. I think it's a good step towards a better America.

Same sex couples should have the right to marry in every state. What they do is something they can't control-- it's not like they CHOOSE to violate the laws of the human body. It's just nature that they're gay. Though some religions frown upon it.

Frankly, I think every state should make such a decision. It should be better if it were a federal decision. I don't see why the government even has restrictions in something that's good and natural since... idk, the beginning of time.






Dude, you've never been gay, yet you say everything as if you know what it's like to be gay. Are you not a fan of equal rights? Do you honestly think that every man shouldn't be treated equal? I like guys, yet you claim that I'm choosing to violate the laws of nature and the human body? I didn't choose anything. If I had a choice, I'd choose to be straight. But I'm not. How dare you think I'm an abomination, and a lesser fellow American.

 

[Crimson King]

I totally disagree that this should be a federal matter. By having the federal government make a decree on it, you are forcing all the people to believe in it, which as shown in microcosm with this topic, some people do not agree. I prefer having a state vote. Now, a federal vote would work too if it was strongly unanimous, I guess, I just prefer to let the states decide. [/libertarian rant]

Best quote of the topic:

If I had a choice, I'd choose to be straight.

That is heartfelt and pretty powerful right there.

 

[Cashed]

Personally, I'm against gay marriage. I mean, I'm married myself, to a man (I'm a girl). That is still the majority of what the world does and finds acceptable.

What's even the point to being against something that doesn't even affect you? I've never understood why people are against gay marriage. If you're straight, great, you can already get married to whoever you want of the opposite sex, marriage is all set and simple for you. If you're gay, not so much. For some odd reason, there's all these people against you and your partner being able to get married because it stomps all over their holy matrimony.

 

[Xsyven]

I can see why people aren't for gay marriage. It's an extremely sacred thing for some religions. I was actually against gay marriage for a while, and I'm gay. It's just that when homophobes think they know what it's like to be gay go around telling us that we're disgusting people that shouldn't be treated equally. That's what bugs me.

 

[Ganon007]

Personally, I'm against gay marriage. I mean, I'm married myself, to a man (I'm a girl). That is still the majority of what the world does and finds acceptable.

So your straight because your a conformist? WOW i would hate to be you.

 

[Goldberg]

The right for same sex union/marriage had to happen eventually, a lot of people don't realize that having the right to something doesn't mean it must be done.

Does anyone have the right to tell people who to like and who to marry?

 

[Ganon007]

The right for same sex union/marriage had to happen eventually, a lot of people don't realize that having the right to something doesn't mean it must be done.

Does anyone have the right to tell people who to like and who to marry?

I agree. Some gay people don't even want to get married. IN FACT, who would willingly get married to ANYONE? I know i wouldn't lol.

 

[Mini Mic]

Am I the only one without an opinion on this issue?

 

[darkatma]

Personally, I'm against gay marriage. I mean, I'm married myself, to a man (I'm a girl). That is still the majority of what the world does and finds acceptable.

Wait. Because you are married happily, you say that others don't have the RIGHT to? Remember, the majority of the world is straight, and no one is saying that allowing gay marriage makes straight marriages unacceptable. Your logic boggles me.

I'm sickened by the whole thing... its disgusting.

Same sex couples should not have the right to marry. What they do is not something that they can't control (race or gender). They choose to violate the laws of nature and the human body. There are serious moral and religious issues behind it as well.

Frankly, no state should have the right to make such a decision. It should be a federal decision (and frankly I would be sickened by that to.) Why should any government have the right to meddle in something that has been good and natural since... idk the beginning of our country.

Okay, YOU'RE disgusting.
WHERE did you get the idea that gay people CHOSE to be gay? Mediocre's quote is pretty good, but I remember DoH's post: "Why would I choose a life of discrimination?" Honestly, try liking a man some time, see what it's like (Oh wait, you can't, because you weren't born gay).

You seem to think that allowing gay marriage bans straight marriages and encourages you to be gay?

--
Back on topic:

I'm really glad I live around educated people that choose to question the doctrines they've been taught. Even my ultraconservative friend can see why gays deserve this right, even if he's uncomfortable around them.

 

[orintemple]

Wait. Because you are married happily, you say that others don't have the RIGHT to? Remember, the majority of the world is straight, and no one is saying that allowing gay marriage makes straight marriages unacceptable. Your logic boggles me.




Okay, YOU'RE disgusting.
WHERE did you get the idea that gay people CHOSE to be gay? Mediocre's quote is pretty good, but I remember DoH's post: "Why would I choose a life of discrimination?" Honestly, try liking a man some time, see what it's like (Oh wait, you can't, because you weren't born gay).

You seem to think that allowing gay marriage bans straight marriages and encourages you to be gay?

--
Back on topic:

I'm really glad I live around educated people that choose to question the doctrines they've been taught. Even my ultraconservative friend can see why gays deserve this right, even if he's uncomfortable around them.

First of all, good job sticking it to those guys. And I am in the same boat. I like being around educated people that realize being gay isn't wrong and are fine with going against what their religion might say. People seem to think religion isn't something just made up by humans to explain naturally occuring events, but that is off the point. There is no proof that being gay is wrong, therefore it isn't wrong. It is not harming anyone.

I like being in college where people are generally accepting of gays. I am not gay myself, so I may have no right to say this, but I have many gay friends and I feel that is good enough of a reason for me to stand up for them when they are not around.

 

[Miharu]

Marriage is a word with inherent ties to religion and whatnot.

If the process of "marriage" were to be changed to be just a civil union under the government systems for all couples, gay or not, and the issue of actual marriage were to be left to a religious institute, most people would tend to care less about whether gay marriage happened or not. I.E., have all couples apply for a civil union, and have it give all the rights/benefits that being legally married gives as of now, and let those couples who want get married do so at their own leisure.

Funny how much two words can actually matter.

And I'm in the same boat as others regarding the fact as to why some disapprove of gay marriage when it doesn't even AFFECT them in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Mediocre]

Marriage is a word with inherent ties to religion and whatnot.

I often hear people say this, and I'm not really sure what their point is.

Sure, it has ties to religion. It also has ties to government. For a long time, religion and government were so tightly entwined that it would be difficult to distinguish one from the other, and therefore almost impossible to clearly attribute marriage to either one.

Even independent of this, marriage has been around for so long that nobody is really sure where it comes from. Sure, various religions try to lay claim to it, and say it belongs to them, but I've never seen any evidence to back this statement up.

That said, I'm not against the concept of everyone being allowed to have civil unions, and marriage becoming a purely religious/spiritual concept. I just don't understand why people are so willing to believe the claims of the various churches that they own the institution of marriage.

EDIT: On the actual topic, I think it's great that California chose to recognize the rights of gays. Now I just hope that the ruling doesn't get overturned, and that more states eventually follow suit.

 

[Miharu]

Hmm, you make a good point there, but I'm just stating as a possible hypothesis (and a possible solution as well) as to why people are so finicky over gay marriage.

 

[Kitten]

I'm sickened by the whole thing... its disgusting.

Same sex couples should not have the right to marry. What they do is not something that they can't control (race or gender). They choose to violate the laws of nature and the human body. There are serious moral and religious issues behind it as well.

Explain the homosexuality exhibited in many other animal species (most notably the bonobo).

There is no such thing as a 'law of nature'. It's just some bull**** you made up to justify your irrational prejudice.

On the original topic, it seems like a pretty lame decision. All you get is the name of being married, and none of the benefits.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

I just think they should avoid the word "marriage." They should stick to calling it civil unions or something else. IMO, It would get less flak if people didn't have preconceived notions of the word that they are using.

I generally stay out of these debates, though. I find that if anybody is arguing against gay rights or homosexuals in general, then its not even worth arguing. They usually have closed-minded ideals that make no sense (see: Chris Lionheart's post) and no amount of logic will convince them of the truth. Not my sort of debate.

 

[Daysoo]

I could care less if they call it a "Marriage", a "Civil Union", or "Butt Buddies".
Just tack on the same rights that would go along with a straight marriage.
As far as I'm concerned, the end result is what really matters, not the label.

Oh, and go California~! XD

 

[Blackadder]

This threads posts from the homophobics have actually offended me. And I don't get offended easily at ALL, man!

As far as I'm concerned, homophobia is like being racist. Both are fully unjustified and over tiny tiny things.
I bet all of you against same sex marriage in this thread would gadly tell me that racism is repulsive and stupid.

Now stand back for a second. Think on it. Homophobia is hate against someone because they like the same sex. Whoopdey doo. It's as trivial as someone's skin.

Homophobia = silly. I really think people need to get over it.



... I'm ranting now. ANYYYWAAYS!! It's about time another state made it legal. I'm all for it, it's good news. Grand news.

 

[Mokai]

Am I the only one without an opinion on this issue?

Most definately not, but judging by your location description I'm guessing you're an Aussie. That's probably why it doesn't matter much to you.

But there are a number of people in America who are indifferent. Many strait Americans who aren't against gay marriage don't decide to actively go pro-gay marriage unless they personally know somebody who is gay and is affected by the issue. It's a bit disheartening how people don't really care unless it hits home for them but I suppose that's human nature in general.

Crimson King, I know it can really feel stressful when you come across someone who holds opinions like Chris Lionheart's, but calling them "Seriously stupid" isn't exactly the best approach at trying to get them to view the issue at a new angle.

Changing the way someone feels about any important issue requires a lot of patience, the ability to both speak and listen and the willingness to understand why someone feels the way they do. Unfortunately all of it takes careful wording, hard work and a bit of luck. Thus people tend to take the shorter route of telling someone they're wrong with flat-out insults. This is the reason we're so divided, and this is the reason while it'll likely remain that way for some time.

 

[Mini Mic]

Ok I do kind of have some thoughts on this. America is a liberal state, as such it guarantees freedom of the individual to its citizens, furthermore gay marriage passes the "harm principle" which basically states that something should be legal if it doesn't harm you or others (which gay marriage doesn't).

Take what you will from that.

 

[Kitten]

Changing the way someone feels about any important issue requires a lot of patience, the ability to both speak and listen and the willingness to understand why someone feels the way they do.

This is why we prefer to be cynical and insulting.

 

[Mokai]

Ok I do kind of have some thoughts on this. America is a liberal state, as such it guarantees freedom of the individual to its citizens, furthermore gay marriage passes the "harm principle" which basically states that something should be legal if it doesn't harm you or others (which gay marriage doesn't).

Take what you will from that.

It's a solid opinion, though the conservative side would be quick to drill holes into your argument. One of the more popular examples they like to draw up when an opinion like yours is stated is something along the lines of:

"So by your logic it would be perfectly legal for a man to marry is pet dog or a woman to marry her horse. Don't try to argue otherwise, because your views for allowing two men to marry also allow for interspecies union. If we allow gays to marry than what will keep the latter from being demanded next?"

This is why we prefer to be cynical and insulting.

Exactly.

 

[Mini Mic]

No, an animal cannot give consent.

 

[Mokai]

Yup yup. That's the common rebuttal from the other side, but that's also about the time that the anti-gay just plug their ears and go "Huh? What? I'm sorry, I can't seem to hear you. Can you speak up?" There's some part of their logic that counters your counter argument, though I can't seem to recall what it is at the moment. Perhaps if there's a member here who holds that viewpoint and would like to share thier thoughts on the matter it'd be much appreciated.

Despite playing devil's advocate with you, I do completely agree with your viewpoint.

 

[Mini Mic]

And that's what people get for voting republican

 

[GhostAnime]

Personally, I'm against gay marriage. I mean, I'm married myself, to a man (I'm a girl). That is still the majority of what the world does and finds acceptable.

this kind of logic that would keep blacks from having equal rights.

conformists suck.

 

[Mic_128]

Most definately not, but judging by your location description I'm guessing you're an Aussie. That's probably why it doesn't matter much to you.

We seem to be less 'anti-gay' and more 'we can't be arsed doing anything about it'

EDIT: Specifically in reference to the government.

EDIT2: Just like to say, the google ads are brilliant. So many on marriage services and gay dating sites, heh.

 

[Crimson King]

Don't get me wrong, they can have their opinions; it's just closed-minded, wrong, and stupid opinions. It's like racists. Want to be racist? Fine with me. I will put you pretty low on my respect list and pretty much automatically invalidate anything you say, but as long as you don't publicly act on it, I can't stop you.

 

[Mokai]

Don't get me wrong, they can have their opinions; it's just closed-minded, wrong, and stupid opinions. It's like racists. Want to be racist? Fine with me. I will put you pretty low on my respect list and pretty much automatically invalidate anything you say, but as long as you don't publicly act on it, I can't stop you.

I understand that, but if we want to see the results that we seek we need to work to change the attitudes of people, not insult them. It's easy to say "I don't give a **** about you think, it's stupid. You go on thinking that but you'll get nothing from me" but in truth these are the same people who go out to vote. It's no secret that the anti-marriage folks have a leg up on the pro-marriage throughout most of the country. A chunk of homophobic people are the way they are because they don't have anyone they care about who's homosexual. For them, there's no human face to attach to the issue.

What gay people like myself can do is to try to attach that human value for them. Make every effort to get along and befriend them without any ulterior motives. No need to talk politics or religion; just simply be there and be kind. I expect nothing in return, though I do hope in time they decide for themselves once and for all what their own believes are. A number of these people have done nothing wrong, instead having only learned their morals and beliefs from their parents. We have the power to show them a new perspective that they havn't been offered before, we can change attitudes.

Sorry if this is a bit muddled; it's about 9am here in Ohio and I still haven't slept yet. XD

 

[GhostAnime]

i dont think being nice to them'll work either. usually religious beliefs are impossible to change. i can understand homophobics changing but not religious nuts.

 

[Mokai]

We seem to be less 'anti-gay' and more 'we can't be arsed doing anything about it'

Whoops! Sorry, I should clarify. I didn't mean that he didn't have an opinion on gay marriage because he's Australian, but rather he doesn't particularly feel strong about the issue because it's an American issue. ^^;

i dont think being nice to them'll work either. usually religious beliefs are impossible to change. i can understand homophobics changing but not religious nuts.

It's possible, I'm one of 'em. XD I was Catholic all throughout my childhood, I even went to a Christian middle school. It wasn't until my senior year in high school that I began to question by own beliefs.

Besides, you don't have to change someone's religion to change their attitudes. My mother's a former nun who left the convent only because she wanted to start a family and my father's also deeply religious. They're both completely supportive of me and my mother is completely pro-gay marriage.

As for the religious ones that are far, far off to the right field... You may be correct about the older ones, but I still feel it's possible to reach the younger ones like the teenagers. Again, they only hold the beliefs they do through the family environment.

If you say attitudes are impossible to change then sure, let's all just be cynical and discourteous to the other side. There's no point in being civil since the dividing lines in America will never change, and gays will never have the equal rights of strait Americans.

... Can you imagine how things would be different today if Martian Luther King Jr. had felt that way about African American rights?

I like to have dreams sometimes, too.

 

[Crimson King]

No offense, but Catholicism is considered one of the weaker Christianity branches. Proof? I am a confirmed Catholic.

Catholics openly accept gays and do not persecute them, but any homosexual actions, which I still disagree with but it's a positive step.

"Real" Christians like Baptist, Protestants, etc are a bit harder to show how they are wrong because their beliefs are MUCH stronger.

 

[Lucrece]

Well, Crimson, Catholics are characterized for being pretentious around the Church. Yes, we go to mass and listen to the Pope's rants, but we pick and choose what we want to follow.

I just realized I talked as if I still identified as a Catholic, when I'm an atheist. Anyways, I think it's your particular circle of Catholics that is more forgiving. The Pope himself released a decree stating that gay marriage is an obstacle to world peace; that itself is pretty intense.

However, seeing as how of all heavily religious countries, only a Catholic one provides marriage (Spain), you could have some argument that Catholics may be SLIGHTLY more capable of acceptance.

As for the semantics discussion, the word marriage comes from the Romans before the state's culture was supplanted by Christianity through Constantine. It was a civil contract. Same-sex marriages existed and were valid in Rome, the origin of the very word. Don't dare to claim that the word has religious connotations or origin. It was a communal institution before it was a religious one.

I also think that people should learn to distinguish between marriage on civil connotations, and marriage on religious connotations.

Seriously, think about it: In the U.S, gay people could go from unrecognized, to civil union'd, to domestically partnered, to mutually committed. How would you feel if people juggled with your marriage and lowered its dignity and value by juggling with its titles. Would you like it if people called your wife/husband your "friend/partner"? That's infinitely insulting to me. Partner sounds so frivolous to me, like some business associate. Why do you feel entitled to degrade my special one by calling him something other than "husband", while reserving the title only for heterosexual males who get married?

I often come to the conclusion that sometimes we gay people can be very dumb in terms of what we allow others to do to us. If priests and other people went trying to tell straight people that they are not worthy, or that they cannot have a family, or that they couldn't divorce, straight people would quickly give them the finger. It's all a matter of switching places and seeing how you would feel; spare us any inflated sense of entitlements; I'll be the first to tell bigots "you're not as special as you may think".

 

[Chris Lionheart]

I just think they should avoid the word "marriage." They should stick to calling it civil unions or something else. IMO, It would get less flak if people didn't have preconceived notions of the word that they are using.

I generally stay out of these debates, though. I find that if anybody is arguing against gay rights or homosexuals in general, then its not even worth arguing. They usually have closed-minded ideals that make no sense (see: Chris Lionheart's post) and no amount of logic will convince them of the truth. Not my sort of debate.

Oh I'm sorry.. I didn't realize that having an actual anti- opionion was A BAD THING. Apparently this is a one-sided discussion. Apparently logic need not apply.

 

[Xsyven]

Oh I'm sorry.. I didn't realize that having an actual anti- opionion was A BAD THING. Apparently this is a one-sided discussion. Apparently logic need not apply.

No, logic does apply. We're mad because you didn't have any.

 

[Crimson King]

Oh I'm sorry.. I didn't realize that having an actual anti- opionion was A BAD THING. Apparently this is a one-sided discussion. Apparently logic need not apply.

It's hilarious that you think you are on the side of logic. Honestly, how could you think anyone would CHOOSE to be gay? I cannot remember time in my life where I said "I think want to be straight," I just never found men attractive. I really would like to see your side of it instead of just an all out attack.