Gay marriage in CA

[Super_Donut_Man]

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/375705.aspx

 

Interesting. Though it would have come quicker

 

EDIT: working link inserted

[Kakona]

Won't last long - the state constitution will be amended in the upcoming election, I predict.

[t3ch]

the Defense of Marriage Act, or Proposition 22

 

 

"This is not a discrimination issue, it's a morality issue."

 

Oh go choke on a dick, pompous {censored}.

 

"The court of California is trying to legislate the morality of Californians who already voted against gay marriage," he added. "The people of California are wanting to go in a different direction, and that is clear from our voting procedure."

 

So just because more people vote on it makes it ok? What if the majority voted that stealing was legal? Or shooting people in the face was ok? Or that they could restrict your rights to purchase soup if you're wearing orange?

 

Marriage defense groups are working on a ballot measure for constitutional marriage amendment,

 

... Seriously? Aren't there like... ya know... wars we're being sucked into? And corporations {censored}ing every single person up the ass with gas prices? And famine? And hunger? No, the cause you choose to support is ANTI GAY MARRIAGE?! WOW!!! Congrats.

 

"A state marriage amendment is the only way to put Prop 22 safely from the reach of activist judges who cannot tell the difference between marriage and bigotry ," Brown said. "We call on gay marriage advocates to halt the divisive and intolerant rhetoric which cruelly and falsely labels millions of Californians as 'hate mongers' because we support marriage as the union of husband and wife."

 

Sorry, that's what it is. Now move along.

 

"The government should promote and encourage strong families," Lavy said. "The voters realize that defining marriage as one man and one woman is important because the government should not, by design, deny a child both a mother and father."

 

Lots of successful gay families out there. Just because you're man and woman doesn't automatically make you a strong family; checked out the divorce rates anytime recently?

 

Regardless of the ruling, it appears likely that an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court will occur. The nation's highest justices have never addressed the question of same-sex marriage.

 

And with good reason. Jesus christ. Why don't we ratify that blacks are only 1/2 of a person and restrict womens rights again, while we're at it. Some people need to wake the {censored} up and realize that while they may not agree with all the changes in the world, it IS changing, and they have no right to deny anyone anything because of personal beliefs.

 

Imagine that, something protecting everyones personal rights, yet also protecting everyones rights to have opinions on what people do with those rights. Almost like we had a constitution or something

[willsellout]

I don't see what the big {censored}ing deal is with the word "marriage". People of all races, sexes, and inclinations should get the same right to ruin their lives with the correct term:D

 

 

 

Dan

[t3ch]

Hey, someone ask me how I really feel.

[Thumper]

[In Absentia]

Government recognition of any marriage is ridiculous. Marriage is a religious institution, and I don't see why government recognition doesn't fall under church and state. But then again, I"m not a lawyer or a politician.

[fretless]

"I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman"

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Score 1 for Gay ! Go Cali !

[Wooj]

A few things:

 

What makes people think marriage is a religious institution?

 

Also, an anthropologist by the name of J.D. Unwin wrote a book in 1934 called "Sex and Culture" which makes a correlation between the rejection of monogamous heterosexual marriages and the rapid decline of such a society.

After taking a brief glance at it, it seems like one can make the argument against same-sex marriages from a culture-preserving standpoint rather than an ephemeral "moral" standpoint.

[King Kashue]

 

Government recognition of any marriage is ridiculous. Marriage is a religious institution, and I don't see why government recognition doesn't fall under church and state. But then again, I"m not a lawyer or a politician.

 

 

Indeed...

 

The government has an interest in regulating the civil relationship embodied in marriage, and the legal rights that relationship entails (next of kin status, inheritance, power of attorney, etc.)

 

Anything beyond that cannot be substantiated under the explicit tenets of the Constitution or the general responsibility of the Government to promote the general welfare...

[King Kashue]

 

A few things: What makes people think marriage is a religious institution? Also, an anthropologist by the name of J.D. Unwin wrote a book in 1934 called "Sex and Culture" which makes a correlation between the rejection of monogamous heterosexual marriages and the rapid decline of such a society. After taking a brief glance at it, it seems like one can make the argument against same-sex marriages from a culture-preserving standpoint rather than an ephemeral "moral" standpoint.

 

 

Have you actually read the book?

 

Or are you just quoting from the countless internet sites that quote from it as some sort of authoritative and earthshattering work without understanding the context of it's authorship or the often ridiculous nature of its thesis?

[lokidecat]

A true "Defense of Marriage Act" would ban divorce if it's so {censored}ing sacred.

[Wooj]

No I haven't, I've read summaries and reviews. I'm just saying the work is out there and IT SEEMS that an argument can be made from it apart from all the "morality" standpoints. I understand that it was written in a very conservative era and probably by a very conservative mind. Nonetheless, a it was still a scientist which drew correlations between decline of marriage-sanctity and decline of society across 80+ civilizations, so I imagine there has to be some credibility to it. geez KK why so hostile? Thanks for making my assumptions about the work for me! If anyone has read it I'd like to know though. Have you read the book which you so vehemently object to?

Anyways, the other question is much more fun. Answer it.

[King Kashue]

Nonetheless, a it was still a scientist which drew correlations between decline of marriage-sanctity and decline of society across 80+ civilizations, so I imagine there has to be some credibility to it.

 

First of all, what a horribly erroneous assumption. There are books from that time and more recent, written by scientists educated at some of the finest universities on the planet that theorized about racial characteristics, eugenics, ethnic hygiene, and a dozen other ideas that wouldn't be considered credible in the slightest...

 

Second of all, Unwin was an anthropologist who attempted to apply Freudian ideas to a broad sexual survey. Unwin, despite the websites that tout his merits, was neither "noted", "renouned", nor "famous"...

 

The methodology and conclusions of Sex and Culture were derided and ridiculed when he published it, and that was at a time when his ideas were actually in vogue. There's a good reason why the only time he's mentioned it in gay marriage debates on the internet.

 

geez KK why so hostile?

 

There isn't a spec of hostility. I asked a question.

 

Most people who mention Unwin have read a limited reference on some website opposing gay marriage. That is almost universally the origin of references to his work.

 

I've yet to find a single person mention him who's actually read the book. Considering I was entirely correct about whether you had read the book or not, the assumption upon which I based my question proved rather reliable, yes?

 

Thanks for making my assumptions about the work for me!

 

I haven't made a single assumption regarding the work for you. (I haven't made an assumption regarding the work at all, I've read it, I don't need to assume)

 

I described the way in which websites use the quotes (it's often a lynchpin in a long diatribe about the deleterious effects of non-monogamous or non-heterosexual relationships).

 

They treat it as an important work because the conclusions are useful for their polemic...In the process, they've turned him into a scholar of a significance which he never had, and often make such basic errors regarding the work as giving his name incorrectly.

 

Do a google search on his name...Tell me how many websites mention him in a context other than discussing gay marriage.

 

If anyone has read it I'd like to know though. Have you read the book which you so vehemently object to?

 

As already mentioned, yes, I have.

 

And I agree with the reviews written at the time (and the treatment of the work since then). The arbitrary nature of his classifications and the slipshop methodology make his work quite supect...

 

His work is a rambling attempt to put Victorian morality within academic clothing and the premise upon which he builds his entire thesis, the equation of extra-marital sexual repression with "mental energy" is vague at best, gibberish at worst.

 

 

If you want a more detailed review, I'm happy to provide one.

[Wooj]

I've yet to find a single person mention him who's actually read the book. Considering I was entirely correct about whether you had read the book or not, the assumption upon which I based my question proved rather reliable, yes?

 

Your correctness on one assumption doesn't necessarily imply any degree of correctness on another one but since you have apparently come across this discussion about unwin before, I concede. I'm not going to argue a source I haven't myself read. But....! Do you think marriage is a religious institution and why?

[King Kashue]

Your correctness on one assumption doesn't necessarily imply any degree of correctness on another one

 

I didn't claim that it did.

 

Though I will note, I only made one assumption, that you had not read the book (and even that I asked to confirm)...

 

Do you think marriage is a religious institution and why?

 

As an abstract, not inherently. Marriage exists in many cultures without conception of religious character.

 

In the United States and Western Europe, most definitely. The institution of marriage is founded in centuries of Church practice, and it's only recently that it's been stripped of it's religious character in some conceptions.

 

 

The crux of the biscuit is that the authority of the government to regulate the behavior of the citizenry is founded in the principle of promoting the general welfare. A statute that governs a matter of 'moral hygiene' can only do so if the behavior represents a tangible harm to the citizenry (hence why adult drinking cannot be regulated, but driving while drunk can be)...

 

Unfortunately, this principle is applied in a most haphazard manner in the US, and is strictly adhered to in some cases, and conveniently ignored in others, often where a traditional value is in play (homosexual sex was illegal in many states until Lawrence v. Texas, anti-miscegination laws prohibited inter-racial marriage in many states until Loving v. Virgina in 1967, etc...)

 

 

I still have yet to hear what tangible harm to the citizenry is posed by gay marriage. Particularly since so many of the folks supporting a gay marriage ban are willing to offer the olive branch of a 'civil union' as appeasement...Since such a union would grant all the substantive rights present in marriage, then what possible harm could there be in calling it marriage?

 

In other words, if the exact same rights are acceptable when called 'a civil union', but not when called 'a marriage', then the objection doesn't lie within a substantive right, but in some property of the word 'marriage' itself...And if it's not a real, substantive property, then it's some ephemeral one (and I've yet to find anyone who can define it as something other than "tradition", which is effectively synonymous with "religious significance")...

[Bogster]

I adhere to the Stanhope philosophy on marriage regardless of gender:

 

NSFW.

 

 

:D

[Wooj]

I'll agree, it's tradition, and although there are marriage laws in the bible (which, grant me if you may, is the main religious text of western society), there is absolutely nothing in it establishing marriage as a religious institution. People equate marriage with religion simply because so many are performed (traditionally) in churches and/or is performed by a priest. This from a Christ-believer! (me)

[King Kashue]

I'll agree, it's tradition , and although there are marriage laws in the bible (which, grant me if you may, is the main religious text of western society), there is absolutely nothing in it establishing marriage as a religious institution.

 

There's loads and loads of Western traditions founded in Christianity that are found nowhere in the Bible...

 

In fact, the majority of historical Church practice is found nowhere in the Bible...does that mean that it's not religious in character?

[Emprov]

There's loads and loads of Western traditions founded in Christianity that are found nowhere in the Bible... In fact, the majority of historical Church practice is found nowhere in the Bible...does that mean that it's not religious in character?

Those are two fairly nebulous statements. Care to define them a bit more narrowly?

[King Kashue]

Those are two fairly nebulous statements. Care to define them a bit more narrowly?

 

What's unclear about what the statements are claiming?

 

 

I can provide loads of examples though: The entirety of Canon Law, liturgical practice, the sacraments, relics, veneration of saints, icons, the list is nearly endless...

 

Tons of stuff, all traditional practice, all religious in nature, none of it mentioned in the Bible...Therefore, the fact that marriage is not established in the Bible as a specifically religious institution does not necessitate that it is not a religious institution (which is what Wooj claimed)...

 

Because if something not being mentioned in the Bible was evidence that it didn't have a religious character, then none of the traditions of the Church I just mentioned could have a religious character (and they obviously do)...

 

 

 

Of course, his claim is a bit odd to begin with...He's referencing the laws in an inherently religious text to show that those religious laws don't say the institution they establish has a religious character ("God's laws establishing marriage don't say it has a religious character" http://ebassist.com/forum/images/smilies/dunno.gif[/img])...Wobbly, to say the least

[Emprov]

)...Wobbly, to say the least

I've actually never looked at Western marriage as it applies to the Bible, my guess though would be that it's mainly pulled from Mark 10. I'm pretty wiped out right now though so I refuse to look it up or have anything resembling support for anything that I say tonight. I'll just sum up by feelings on the matter by calling you a poopy head.

[Wooj]

Actually, I said that there are no biblical laws establishing marriage as a religious institution. There are religious laws which apply to the institution, but that doesn't mean the institution is an establishment of religion.

 

EDIT: I say this having read the (entire) bible.

 

ReEDIT: Before I sign out, I'd just like to add that I really don't like it when christian churches (or any church) call something they're own that's not biblically supported. If the bible is the authority of God then they go out of line when they do that. It's no wonder people are so confused and conflicted....:sigh:

[PiotreX]

Mark 10, 1-12 to be exact. nice find. I forgot about that one

I cannot agree that the Sacraments are just traditional practice. It is repeated many times in the Acts of the Apostles, that people gathered to pray and break bread as Jesus taught them. Sure, you can call that a tradition that Jesus started, but I'll call it a Sacrament.

 

We were talking about gay marriages though. I think its morally wrong, but we have free will to do anything we could possibly think of. But doesn't the Pledge of Allegiance say:

"One Nation under God"?

So screw him, screw the Nations fundamentals, we can divide by zero, we just have to change the meaning of "zero". Marriage was always an act between man and woman. When guys liked guys I guess they were pitied but tolerated. Now it's all "I'm gay, look at me." I don't like that. We're not meant to be that way. The meaning of love has been changed, stomped, reduced to feelings. When love is an act of mind and will. Love is forever. The divorce rate is a function of the fact that people forgot how to love.

 

That's enough rambling from me. I'm deeply concerned with the way civilization is headed. It's destroying itself.

[82Daion]

We were talking about gay marriages though. I think its morally wrong, but we have free will to do anything we could possibly think of. But doesn't the Pledge of Allegiance say: "One Nation under God"? So screw him, screw the Nations fundamentals, we can divide by zero, we just have to change the meaning of "zero". Marriage was always an act between man and woman. When guys liked guys I guess they were pitied but tolerated. Now it's all "I'm gay, look at me." I don't like that. We're not meant to be that way. The meaning of love has been changed, stomped, reduced to feelings. When love is an act of mind and will. Love is forever. The divorce rate is a function of the fact that people forgot how to love.

 

I find it hard to put much faith in something that was tacked onto the pledge more as a means of differentiating America from the Communist countries during the Cold War than as an explicit statement of national faith.

 

 

The meaning of love has not changed; rather, the accepted means of its expression in our society have. Homosexual behavior has been going on since long before Christianity was invented-in fact, it was accepted practice in ancient Greek society, for example. It went far beyond tolerance and "pity."

 

That's enough rambling from me. I'm deeply concerned with the way civilization is headed. It's destroying itself.