According to the AFP, the California Supreme Court today overturned the ban on same-sex marriage, calling domestic partnerships a poor substitute for marriage:In an opinion that analysts say could have nationwide implications for the issue, the seven-member panel voted 4-3 in favor of plaintiffs who argued that restricting marriage to men and women was discriminatory.
There's a precedent for California starting a domino effect. David Cruz, a law professor at the University of Southern California and an expert in constitutional law, says in the AFP article:
"In the 20th century California was the first state to strike down laws against inter-racial marriage. They did that 19 years before the US Supreme Court got around to it."
So, soon (er, in 19 years) we could be a nation that grants gay couples the same rights as straight ones. How does it feel?
Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 9)
46. I bet if the people opposing gay marriage on this message board were alive forty years ago they would have been the people who opposed interracial marriage or civil rights for african americans. Same old bigotry, new decade.
JK at 9:44AM on May 16th 2008
47. As a Hetero Male, I don't want to see men playing cuddle bunnies on
the curb.
That aside, I do think that civil unions should be allowed. Not
religious Marriage if the Holy text forbids it.
The reason why I think civil unions should be allowed are...
1. It promotes monogamy.
2. Life partners should be able to sit with their significant others
in the emergency room, and enjoy other similar benefits that married
people enjoy.
Gay people are that way for different reasons.
Trans genders have female wired brains in male bodies and vice versa.
I have known gay men that had no male role models but had very
beautiful Moms as role models. Some come from abused childhoods.
Some got tired of dating losers.
There are more reasons than that, but I don't feel like writing a
book right now. LOL
We as a society tend to lump things into one nice neat pile.
The problem is that life is far to complex.
Not all dinosaurs were big slow and stupid.
Not all Republicans are evil.
Not all Democrats sleep with interns.
Look at the world with open mindedness and you will be truely amazed
at how complex it is.
Scott at 9:53AM on May 16th 2008
48. I think one of the biggest things that bothers us about gay marriage besides re-writting holy text to make it o.k. is how to raise the children.
Often a child is gay by genetics.
Some though are gay by environment.
I think gay couples should raise their children with the concept that hetero is the way to go, but don't hate yourself if you aren't.
The secret is to be true to yourself and be a good person.
There are a lot of evil heteros and a lot of good gays.
Preference alone doesn't dictate a persons value in society.
One last thing...
I have had gay men try to initiate me into their lifestyle.
QUIT!
If you want us to accept you and allow you to be yourselves, you have to do the same for us.
Trying to mess with someones head just to get your jollies is WRONG!!!
Scott at 9:59AM on May 16th 2008
49. No one has been able to mount a cogent argument, even in the courts, to suggest that allowing ANY two people to marry (in the legal, if not religious sense)is in any way harmful to any other citizen. It is consistently overlooked that our present marriage customs, whether or not it is carried out by an ordained minister of any recognized religious faith, must, by law, be sanctioned by the state in which the wedding is held. This sanctioning is NOT by the church, but by the government of the locality in question. Thus, any legal or financial benefits that may accrue to a "married couple" under our laws are granted by the state (not the church) and are, threrefore, subject to the federal and/or state constitution in question. Religious views regarding the morality or appropriateness of such unions have, at the most, bearing upon whether or not the church sees fit to approve or accept such a union. This "right" is protected (for both sides in this controversy) in the Constitution under separation of church and state doctrines. Religions clearly have the protected right to declare homosexuality as forbidden by their beliefs and certainly have the right to exclude membership in their institutions to homosexuals, but that right clearly does not extend to prohibiting any otherwise lawful pursuits for these fellow citizens. The California courts have in no way limited the rights of Religions or individuals to practice their particular brand of customary "union"; at the same time, they have been unable to find any constituionally supported reason to restrict homosexuals from access to the same rights and privileges.
Harvey at 10:06AM on May 16th 2008
50. >>HOMOSEXUALITY IS DEPRAVED AND IMMORAL. In truth, homosexuality exists in nearly every observable animal species on earth, usually when said species are overpopulated.
Krys at 10:14AM on May 16th 2008
51. This is pure and simple. I am a christian and gay marriages or even lying with the same sex is against the word of God. The bible is the only true book ever written and re-written and to go against God's word is a sin. There is nothing normal about this type of relationship.
Ron Ross at 10:15AM on May 16th 2008
52. It is about time. If there is a God, and he is against these marriages, he will deal with it on d-day. The rest of the mortals that don't agree should just keep quiet. If you really believe in your religion you should know better than to judge. You aren't the last word.
Denise at 10:19AM on May 16th 2008
53. Harvey, you said that the California courts have been unable to find any constituionally supported reason to restrict homosexuals from access to the same rights and privileges.
But friend, the entire concept of a life-long contract between sexual partners emerges from the necessity of raising the children that result from the sexual activity. There is no other basis for such a contract to exist at all.
The state has no interest in contractualizing mere loving friendship, nor does it have any interest in contractualizing non-reproductive orgasms. Instead, the state has an interest in protecting the orgasms that create the citizenry of which it is comprised.
preteristvision at 10:19AM on May 16th 2008
54. "To Maria and FL Chick, if "marriage" is a love contract, can you marry your mom and dad? Can you marry your pets? And what happens when love disappears after a few years? Does that end the contract? Of course not. The contract exists primarily because of the long-term project of child rearing. Sex produces kids; kids have a right to long-range nurture and education; thus the adult partners that produced them are contractually obligated to fulfill that project under penalty of law. The state has no interest whatsoever in contractualizing mere affections and loving friendships."
Preteristvison, perhaps you do not understand what love truly is. Then you would know the differences between two people who passionately love each other as opposed to say a man who loves beer. If the love ends between marriage partners then yes the contract can end, it's called divorce.
As I've said before the comparison of gay marriage to bestality doesn't work since animals aren't legally bound or aware of contract such as marriage. Two humans are aware of what they're doing by entering marriage....a pet is not.
And before you also throw in the slippery slope argument of polygamy let me say that many cultures do allow a man to have more than one wife, but homosexual acts are scandalous and punishable by death to them.
Marriage is not only for pro-creation, neither is sex. My husband and I do not plan to have any children...should we not have been married? Or is my marriage any less valid than someone who does have children? What about single parents? Should they be frowned upon for not having the children in wedlock?
maria at 11:19AM on May 16th 2008
55. Wow, Trixie? You need to think about changing meds...
We all know that our nerves about this subject are a religious holdover. You can't fault the courts for ruling against the "will of the people" - they ruled for what was constitutionally RIGHT. The "will of the people" got Germany in trouble in the thirties, remember? And America has had her share of majorities whose wills were not compatible with justice. Just ask any minority or woman.
No society ever "fell" due to homosexuality. Traditional marriage is NOT under attack because gays are "assaulting" it. Nothing will change about traditional marriage - it's just that gays get to be happy now, too. With the world population at about 6 billion and growing, I don't think there is an issue about not being able to produce more little conservatives.
Children don't automatically become gay when they come into contact with gay people. Neither are gay people all ravening perverts with a penchant for children. An overwhelming amount of sociopaths are NOT gay, if you know what I mean...
So really, what you lot are saying is "I can't live with my squeamishness over this issue, and you make me uncomfortable. So, if I make out that you are committing an unforgivable crime, you'll be too embarrassed to bring this back into the public eye and make me uncomfortable again.
My advice to you is: GROW UP! Do the HONORABLE thing, even if you have to expend a little brain tissue to figure it out.
Lionruby at 11:22AM on May 16th 2008
56. JK-"I bet if the people opposing gay marriage on this message board were alive forty years ago they would have been the people who opposed interracial marriage or civil rights for african americans. Same old bigotry, new decade."
JK, I feel you may be onto something here. I think certain people want to feel that they're superior to someone of a different race or orientation. To them, being different is wrong so to have rights that are granted to them but not to anyone who's different makes them feel good about themselves.
People we are all human here...let's live like it.
maria at 11:24AM on May 16th 2008
57. I thought marriage was about love??? If you love someone you should be able to marry them and live a life full of love? I am straight but see no issue with gay people finding love in their lives.
Michelle at 11:27AM on May 16th 2008
58. I'd like to ask all the people who use the bible as a tool lash out against gay marriage to make like a colonic and cut the crap. According to the bible, God didn't want us to shave, eat hamburgers or have vegetable gardens. Quote one, quote them all.
secrtagtmn@aol.com at 11:51AM on May 16th 2008
59. First of all, Samantha, your post gives me hope for the future. The increasing acceptance of gays in high school and college is a sign of progress.
Second of all, the "taboo" of being gay has stigmatyzed these folks for many many years, especially in our puritan US society.
It is time for the taboo to lift! What I see from most people is a visceral distaste for gays that they justify with their ancient book, which, by the way, is meaningless to me (and to some others).
As we learn to understand and live with gays who are finally safe enough to be out in the open, this knee-jerk reaction will continue to subside, and I predict that in 20 years, gay acceptance will be the norm.
At least, that's my hope.
Linda at 12:23PM on May 16th 2008
60. preteristvision:
"the state has an interest in protecting the orgasms that create the citizenry of which it is comprised."
============================================================
LMAO AND ROFL...........................................
This poster must be a male, or a frigid female
because
only the male needs to orgasm for procreation (for the most part)
Really funny stuff.
Aren't all orgasms sacred?? I know Godless Heathen Brian would say so........
Linda at 12:29PM on May 16th 2008