Gays in California now have the right to be miserable too.

[Super 8]

California lifts gay marriage ban

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7403547.stm

 

If the bible is true you Californians can expect that BIG earthquake you've been talking about for so long any time now.

 

Great! Now I gotta sit through another round of these at every stoplight...

I swear I'm going to start ramming people on purpose.

[Geoff Grace]

Anyone who believes in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness shouldn't seek to deprive gays of the freedom to be legally married. There's no "but only if we agree with you" following life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

A church sanctioned marriage, on the other hand, isn't up to a vote -- not if you believe in the separation of church and state.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[yermej]

Great! Now I gotta sit through another round of these at every stoplight... I swear I'm going to start ramming people on purpose.

 

Just call up the 700 Club and request at least three of the stickers. I told them they were for myself and family members. Then, with a little cut & paste:

 

[Mudcat007]

 

Why not go ahead and replace the second and third "=" with a couple more "+"?

[rscornutt]

Gays have always had the right to marry. If a gay man wanted to marry a woman, he was free to. If a gay woman wanted to marry a man, she was free to. What is being sought here is not making marriage "legal," but a redefining of what marriage is. Homosexuals already can do and have 99% of what heterosexual married couples can, so the whole "marriage" deal is nothing more than a waste of time and one grand example of an out of control judiciary.

 

No one is trying to deprive homosexuals of life, liberty, or the persuit of happiness. I find it quite odd that a group that is always so ready to point out the "flaws" of the Judeo-Christian tradition are so dogged to engage in something so tied to it.

 

Now, let's sit back and watch what comes next...

[UstadKhanAli]

This really belongs in the Political Forum.

 

My two cents, which lots of people will disagree with:

 

If people feel that gay marriage is important, who am I to stop them? This doesn't impact me, as a heterosexual, in any conceivable way. Why would I care? If you wanna eff up your taxes and belongings and complicate things when you divorce, I say great (just kidding!!!)!!

 

If people wish to protect the institution of marriage, they can look at banning divorce and infidelity.

[Billster]

Now, let's sit back and watch what comes next...

 

This is what happens next

 

It's a full-employment scheme for under-worked lawyers.

 

Can we just say that the government recognizes committed civil relationships for tax and insurance purposes, and if you want to say "marriage" you should get the blessing of the religious institution of your choice? Separation of church and state, all the gays get their tax break and partner's insurance benefits, religions are free to call their own rules.

 

Oops, wrong forum!

 

I also object to the title of this thread, implying that marriage somehow leads to being miserable.

[Guitzilla]

As a gay male that is in a 12 year relationship, I don't care if it is called marriage. I don't care if it is called civil union.

We need the following:

 

The ability to make medical decisions for each other if one of us becomes incapacitated.

 

Protection of our property if one of us should die. As it stands right now, his family, or mine, could contest the will. I've heard of instances that families have done this and won. We aslo shouldn't have to pay estate taxes on our shared property, when one of us dies.

 

I don't think that this is to much to ask. Is it?

[Wide]

Undocumented homosexual immigrants still cannot get legally married in California.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

I don't think that this is to much to ask. Is it?

 

 

No, it's not. I just don't see the problem with this at all. I really don't even see what the big deal about this is. It doesn't impact "the institution of marriage", heterosexuals, or really anything at all. I just honestly don't see what the big deal about this is at all.

[Super 8]

 

Gays have always had the right to marry. If a gay man wanted to marry a woman, he was free to.

 

 

Well this makes about as much sense as a straight man marrying another straight man. Kind of misses the point.

 

 

What is being sought here is not making marriage "legal," but a redefining of what marriage is.

 

 

And how is this really a "redefinition"? I've heard a lot about that, but I don't understand it. It doesn't redefine my marriage. It really doesn't affect me at all.

 

 

Homosexuals already can do and have 99% of what heterosexual married couples can, so the whole "marriage" deal is nothing more than a waste of time and one grand example of an out of control judiciary.

 

 

So making it legal for the lesbian couple across the street from me, who have a house and a child together, to actually enjoy the same benefits of marriage that my wife and I do is a waste of time? How is it a waste of time? It seems like an excellent use of time to me.

 

 

I find it quite odd that a group that is always so ready to point out the "flaws" of the Judeo-Christian tradition are so dogged to engage in something so tied to it.

 

 

Marriage has change quite a bit from the "Judeo-Christian tradition" you refer to. Women are no longer property. Having more than one wife or a concubine isn't allowed anymore. Much has changed over time. Gays being allowed to legally marry is a natural and logical progression.

[Billster]

 

No, it's not. I just don't see the problem with this at all. I really don't even see what the big deal about this is. It doesn't impact "the institution of marriage", heterosexuals, or really anything at all. I just honestly don't see what the big deal about this is at all.

 

 

That's exactly what I'm saying in the post above Guitzilla's. "Marriage" in this context is a loaded word. Save "marriage" for the church and call it something else in matters of spousal rights such as insurance and taxation.

[wwwjd]

I don't care if it's legal or not.

I DO care about the re-writing of communication, language and society - which this is a symptom of.

 

At some point, our lives will be devalued to the point of worthlessness, and being human will be no more important than that speck of sand on the beach. This will be from the negation over generations and lost ability to understand things from the breakdown of communication. When "Bad" becomes GOOD, good has lost it's value. When Fat, Ill, Sick and Garbage are considered GOOD things, which is "bad" anymore? There isn't any. At that point life, death, murder, rape, molestation, abortion, marriage, all of it becomes meaningless and all black and white runs into a river of gray... where EVERYBODY is lost and ethics are individualised. It'll be pathetic, but I am glad I will be dead.

 

Websters used to say "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex" and now adds "SAME sex" to keep up with society. That's fair, but when words, actions and meaning ALL blur, they have no meaning in the end. Neither will our lives as it slowly and quietly get nullified.

 

I know this sounds like quite the stretch, but think about it.

 

Now, go back and re-read my very first sentance

[wwwjd]

I don't care if it's legal or not.

I DO care about the re-writing of communication, language and society - which this is a symptom of.

 

At some point, our lives will be devalued to the point of worthlessness, and being human will be no more important than that speck of sand on the beach. This will be from the negation over generations and lost ability to understand things from the breakdown of communication. When "Bad" becomes GOOD, good has lost it's value. When Fat, Ill, Sick and Garbage are considered GOOD things, which is "bad" anymore? There isn't any. At that point life, death, murder, rape, molestation, abortion, marriage, all of it becomes meaningless and all black and white runs into a river of gray... where EVERYBODY is lost and ethics are individualised. It'll be pathetic, but I am glad I will be dead.

 

Websters used to say "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex" and now adds "SAME sex" to keep up with society. That's fair, but when words, actions and meaning ALL blur, they have no meaning in the end. Neither will our lives as it slowly and quietly get nullified.

 

I know this sounds like quite the stretch, but think about it.

 

Now, go back and re-read my very first sentance

[Super 8]

This really belongs in the Political Forum.

 

But Ken, if we did that then I wouldn't have all of these insightful comments from you good folks to read and consider. It would just be page after page of shouting.

 

We can be civil here, can't we?

[Geoff Grace]

 

I don't care if it's legal or not. I DO care about the re-writing of communication, language and society - which this is a symptom of. When "Bad" becomes GOOD, good has lost it's value.

 

 

I don't know what you consider good and bad, but I believe love is good and hate is bad.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Jeff da Weasel]

This really belongs in the Political Forum.

 

Yup.

 

This doesn't impact me, as a heterosexual, in any conceivable way. Why would I care? If you wanna eff up your taxes and belongings and complicate things when you divorce, I say great (just kidding!!!)!!

 

Yup.

 

Still, I'm happy for some of my gay friends, who feel this is an ethical victory on the same level as allowing women and non-whites to vote. I'm proud that my state -- the most populous in the country, where more than 1 out of 10 Americans reside -- is continuing to lead in progressive change. As goes California, so goes the nation.

 

And finally, as Ken said, this should be in the Poli forum. Sorry, but that's what it's there for.

[UstadKhanAli]

But Ken, if we did that then I wouldn't have all of these insightful comments from you good folks to read and consider. It would just be page after page of shouting. We can be civil here, can't we?

 

 

And we have been civil, so good point...we just gotta keep it "clean".

[rscornutt]

 

As a gay male that is in a 12 year relationship, I don't care if it is called marriage. I don't care if it is called civil union. We need the following: The ability to make medical decisions for each other if one of us becomes incapacitated. Protection of our property if one of us should die. As it stands right now, his family, or mine, could contest the will. I've heard of instances that families have done this and won. We aslo shouldn't have to pay estate taxes on our shared property, when one of us dies. I don't think that this is to much to ask. Is it?

 

 

You already have it. Go to a lwyer, make out a will, living will, and sign power of attourney papers. Any will can be contested, so your point is not that strong.

[rscornutt]

 

Well this makes about as much sense as a straight man marrying another straight man. Kind of misses the point.

 

 

No, it makes the point quite nicely. I'll defer and finish my answer in dealing with this:

 

 

And how is this really a "redefinition"? I've heard a lot about that, but I don't understand it. It doesn't redefine my marriage. It really doesn't affect me at all.

 

 

Because marriage has always been between man and woman. This answeres both points.

 

 

So making it legal for the lesbian couple across the street from me, who have a house and a child together, to actually enjoy the same benefits of marriage that my wife and I do is a waste of time? How is it a waste of time? It seems like an excellent use of time to me.

 

 

Because any moron knows you can go to your lawyer and have papers drawn up that give the same rights.

 

 

Marriage has change quite a bit from the "Judeo-Christian tradition" you refer to. Women are no longer property. Having more than one wife or a concubine isn't allowed anymore. Much has changed over time. Gays being allowed to legally marry is a natural and logical progression.

 

 

Nice list, but that has nothing to do with what I said. I sais it is odd that a lifestyle that often promotes the ridicule of anything close to that tradition would want to have anything to do with it. It was an observation and, given that homosexuals can already have what they claim they can not have, it seems odd to me.

[fetishfrog]

 

As a gay male that is in a 12 year relationship, I don't care if it is called marriage. I don't care if it is called civil union. We need the following: The ability to make medical decisions for each other if one of us becomes incapacitated. Protection of our property if one of us should die. As it stands right now, his family, or mine, could contest the will. I've heard of instances that families have done this and won. We aslo shouldn't have to pay estate taxes on our shared property, when one of us dies. I don't think that this is to much to ask. Is it?

 

 

Nope, not too much at all. Equal protection under the law is a right guaranteed by the 14th amendment, and a gay couple deserves that protection every bit as much as a straight couple.

 

 

No one is trying to deprive homosexuals of life, liberty, or the persuit of happiness. I find it quite odd that a group that is always so ready to point out the "flaws" of the Judeo-Christian tradition are so dogged to engage in something so tied to it.

 

 

I couldn't disagree more. A number of Judeo-Christian organizations (in the name of God, ironically enough) protest the very thought of gay marriage, and are, in effect, actively attempting to deny gay couples equal protection under the law. And besides, the instituion of marriage (in a variety of iterations) has existed outside the Judeo-Christian tradition for much longer than the Judeo-Christian has existed so how does the Judeo-Christian tradition even factor into this, except for the fact that may of its followers are upset about something so completely benign.

 

I have to say, there are a lot (read: all) of opponents of gay maggiage who really need to find some productive things to do.

[Hard Truth]

The best thing about the court's decision is that it pisses off all the right people, much to my amusement.

[franknputer]

 

Because any moron knows you can go to your lawyer and have papers drawn up that give the same rights.

 

Actually, no. There are plenty of instances where same-sex partners are not considered "family" in the eyes of various institutions, and are thus shut out from receiving consideration. That's what it's really all about.

 

"Marriage" in the eyes of the state (which is what this really is) is completely different from "Marriage" in the eyes of a church. Otherwise, people could not legally marry in front of a judge, with no church involvement whatsoever. The whole argument is about granting the same civil rights to same-sex couples that are granted to man/woman couples.

 

It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with some perceived "value" of "Marriage" in general. This is a red herring, designed to jerk peoples' emotional chains. The fact is that my marriage is not affected by this at all. If the state chose not to recognize my religion, that would not make me suddenly "unmarried" so long as I choose to recognize the union myself. It would, however, create tangible legal problems between me & my wife, & possibly my children - and THAT is why same-sex couples are demanding the same rights that the rest of the tax-paying citizenry enjoy.

[rscornutt]

 

I couldn't disagree more. A number of Judeo-Christian organizations (in the name of God, ironically enough) protest the very thought of gay marriage, and are, in effect, actively attempting to deny gay couples equal protection under the law. And besides, the instituion of marriage (in a variety of iterations) has existed outside the Judeo-Christian tradition for much longer than the Judeo-Christian has existed so how does the Judeo-Christian tradition even factor into this, except for the fact that may of its followers are upset about something so completely benign. I have to say, there are a lot (read: all) of opponents of gay maggiage who really need to find some productive things to do.

 

 

Conversing would be so much easier if people would address what was actually said. From this it is quite clear you disagree with something, but as of yet, I have no clue what.

 

frankenputer, the legal system assures us that, unless we are not of sound mind, when we name beneficiaries, executors, etc., it is binding. They have have the same rights. They have always had the same rights, even if the avenue of approach was a little different. Also, what institution would you be referring to? Just curious.

[Jeff da Weasel]

 

Because marriage has always been between man and woman.

 

 

Sure.

 

And at one point, slavery had always been legal, and we fixed that.

 

And at one point, women weren't allowed to vote, and we fixed that.

 

And at one point, people believed the Earth was flat, and the church declared you a heretic for claiming otherwise, and we fixed that.

 

The problem with saying that something was "always" one way doesn't make that thing right. We are capable of recognizing our mistakes, and making moves to correct them. This is called progress. It's seeing something as an injustice, and taking steps to rectify the problem.

 

Nothing about the legality of gay marriage will bring harm to people who aren't gay, and may bring great joy to those who are. Happiness is something the world -- everyone in the world -- should be able to experience, and I see nothing wrong with extending that basic human right to people of every nationality, religion, sexual orientation, race, and otherwise.

 

Let people be happy.