Historic Day in California Today

[Steph Laberis]

I am so freaking proud of where I live today. Let's hope it passes on the ballots in November.



Amazingly, only 3 of Phelps' cronies showed up to protest. They were so sorely outnumbered :

[Ashtonw]

I love my state right now!

[Izi]

good for them, let's keep it that way...

[James Kei]

Rejoice!

I drove by City Hall this morning, and there were about 12 news vans out in front.
It was great to witness this historical event.

[Izi]

lets all marry girls to celebrate

and then divorce them

freedom!

edit:

oh i thought this was the girl forum, my bad...

[0kelvin]

Sweet. California scores one for human rights.


Eric

[S.C. Watson]

about damn time.

I just hope the rest of the Union catches up soon.

~Oreg

[Ilaekae]

Damn! Next time I get married, now I'll have to check TWO g'damn genders to find somebody dumb enough...

[Mirana]

I am so freaking proud of where I live today. Let's hope it passes on the ballots in November.

Funny, I was never so disgusted of MY state as when they passed an amendment to ban gay marriage.

How does that logic work anyway? "Separation of church and state" REALLY? Even if you were opposed to gay marriage, SURELY there are bigger issues to spend time and money on than passing law to to interfere with our citizens PRIVATE lives in something that makes them happy (theorically, anyway ;D) and does no harm to anyone else.

I think we should pass an amendment banning marriage for everyone so it can be fair. At least then you'd be sticking with your mate for reasons OTHER than legal ones.

[Elwell]

I am so freaking proud of where I live today. Let's hope it passes on the ballots in November.

I think the odds of that are good, and why it was so important that the courts let this go ahead, rather than granting a stay for appeals etc. There's a natural conservatism which is the basis for most anti-marriage equality feelings. But once this happens without gravity failing and the earth spinning off its axis, that same conservatism isn't going to let most people tell thousands of couples that they can't be married anymore.

So, congratulation to all the handsome brides and lovely grooms!

[Aly Fell]

Yay! Good for California!

[bluefooted]

Funny, I was never so disgusted of MY state as when they passed an amendment to ban gay marriage.

How does that logic work anyway?

I was arguing with some dickbag on another forum about this, and his argument was that gays already have the right to marry: a gay man can marry a woman anytime he wants, or a gay woman can marry a man. Seriously. That was his argument as to why the ban doesn't violate separation of church and state and there's no discrimination against gays.

Oh, and you should read this hilarious (yet terrifying) screed against gay marriage (I'm linking to a blog discussing the article, rather than the site that hosts it): http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2...alifo.php#more

Basically, his argument is that if we allow gay marriage, all women will choose to become lesbians

Anyway, I'm very happy for my home state

[Duq]

Its about time, well done

[Matsign]

wtg California. I understand how important this is to a lot of couples.

Marriage is personally nothing I'm concerned about of. Maybe one day when I find the right girl/boy.

[Blaz]

Aww, I expected the worlds biggest marshmallow or something similar.

[Costau D]

That is so gay. In a good way. I'm not gay though I just think it's good... *ehem*

[Vhan Juju]

Sorry, I can't agree with this. Marrige is for a man and a woman, I really can't believe that what they have is really "a marrige"...

[B u r l]

I think this is great. Love is love.

[egerie]

Lawyers are quivering with trepidation. The money and drama of those divorces!

Bluefooted : ahahhaahaha what???

I was wondering how long (or how much guts) it would take for detractors of the motion to comment in the thread. I’m not disappointed Vhan Juju!

Anyway back on topic, I'm suprised it took this long for California. I'm happy to see that ideas are evolving and that society (mostly) adjusts to it. Our values are changing and I'm really curious on how future generations (say, 500 years from now) will look at this. It's a bit like how we look at values from the middle ages compared to now on law, value of life, etc.

[Steph Laberis]

Vhan: Well, my parents hardly had a real "marriage" as well (you're supposed to actually love each other, they say that's part of it, right?), but I guess it's obvious where I stand on it being the thread's author and all

Egerie: Agree on all counts (especially the divorce, hate to say it but nothing screws a marriage more than rushing into one!). Not to cheapen the significance of the day as well but we were all reminded on the news last night that the state is in a financial crisis and an estimated $64 million in revenue will be brought in by this ruling. I mean, I know there were other motives to this event but let's not overlook the "practical" ones :/

[mwillustration]

the problem with this is that the courts in this case created legislation which constitutionally is only for congress to do, plus they went over the heads of the people by going against how they VOTED.
when a select few who are appointed and not elected start to make law, freedom and the will of the people begin to fade.

regardless of whether you believe in same sex marriage or not, this case is bad for liberty because the people's decision doesn't matter and it's sets a precedent that will only continue on to other issues. the next case of judges making law might not be one where you like the outcome.

[Elwell]

Our values are changing and I'm really curious on how future generations (say, 500 years from now) will look at this. It's a bit like how we look at values from the middle ages compared to now on law, value of life, etc.

One doesn't have to go back very far at all to see how profoundly attitudes can change. From the wikipedia article on anti-miscegenation laws:

Most white Americans in the 1950s were opposed to interracial marriage and did not see laws banning interracial marriage as an affront to the principles of American democracy. A 1958 Gallup poll showed that 96 percent of white Americans dissapproved of interracial marriage.

[Mr.Otsredir]

what i dont like is that marriage is a religious ceremony between a man and a woman. and in most religions, homosexuality is considered wrong. when looking at it that why, gay and lesbian marriage shouldnt be allowed.


now the problem lies in that marriage gives the couple benefits. to withhold the same benfits from gay and lesbian couples is wrong, so they should be able to get that. i just dont believe it should be considered marriage.


but in the end, this is such a small issue to me that i really dont care. theres more important issues we need to be looking at.

[Elwell]

when a select few who are appointed and not elected start to make law, freedom and the will of the people begin to fade.

Although California Supreme Court justices are appointed, they must be confirmed by a retention vote at the next general election and every twelve years thereafter.

The electorate has occasionally exercised the power not to retain justices; because Chief Justice Rose Bird and Associate Justices Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin opposed capital punishment they were removed in 1986.

You say "freedom and the will of the people" as if they were automatically congruent, whereas they sometimes are in direct conflict. Our system of government, with written constitutions and a separation of powers, was set up precisely do deal with such situations.

[fukifino]

From Wikipedia:

The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples also occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared that same-sex marriage to be illegal. In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodoisus and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be burned alive in front of the public.

So the ban on it due to religious reasons is relatively new. Indeed, religion itself hasn't always even had a part in the joining of a couple.

From About.com:

The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).

and

There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, and of procreation.

There's also some interesting information about the history of marriage here if you'd care to take the time to read it.

Modern marriage doesn't hold much, if anything, in common even with marriage at the supposed time of Christ. Using religion as a basis for banning same sex marriage is narrow minded and ignorant.

[Flake]

what i dont like is that marriage is a religious ceremony

Not necessarily, over here you can have completely "religion free" ceremonies that are just as official.

We're a bit behind on the same sex thing though.

[fukifino]

Not necessarily, over here you can have completely "religion free" ceremonies that are just as official.

We're a bit behind on the same sex thing though.

Indeed, I'm getting married in a few months. And there will be no church involved.

[mwillustration]

Although California Supreme Court justices are appointed, they must be confirmed by a retention vote at the next general election and every twelve years thereafter.


You say "freedom and the will of the people" as if they were automatically congruent, whereas they sometimes are in direct conflict. Our system of government, with written constitutions and a separation of powers, was set up precisely do deal with such situations.

my problem with this is that the people of california already voted to ban same sex marriage and these judges didn't seem to think that that mattered much. the next election cycle this'll come up on the ballot again and probably have the same outcome. people vote to ban it, judges decide to allow it.

when something that is voted on by the people is taken away by a very few, my freedom feels very threatened. it's like them saying "sorry we know this is what you wanted, but we know better than you do."
when that happens this fails to be a country of, by and for the people.

[Elwell]

when something that is voted on by the people is taken away by a very few, my freedom feels very threatened. it's like them saying "sorry we know this is what you wanted, but we know better than you do."
when that happens this fails to be a country of, by and for the people.

You might have felt differently if you were living in the south fifty years ago.

[wassermelone]

my problem with this is that the people of california already voted to ban same sex marriage and these judges didn't seem to think that that mattered much. the next election cycle this'll come up on the ballot again and probably have the same outcome. people vote to ban it, judges decide to allow it.

when something that is voted on by the people is taken away by a very few, my freedom feels very threatened. it's like them saying "sorry we know this is what you wanted, but we know better than you do."
when that happens this fails to be a country of, by and for the people.

Its less that the judges are saying 'we know better than you do' and more that they are checking to see if the law was illegal in the first place. What with constitutions and all.