This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

1246739

Comments

  • It should be obvious that any legal offering of a union between individuals should be available to all.
    I don't have a problem with the specific word "marriage", but this much is evident: if the religious insist on holding onto the term for dear life, then the concept of marriage should be entirely replaced with the "civil union".
    I guess since the association between religion and marriage is far too strong, replacing them entirely with civil unions is a necessity.
    I agree "marriage" is a religious term, but it was said that it is all the same to the government and the only people who seem to have a problem with it is your super conservative bible belt Christians.
  • How are these two things connected?
    Oh for fuck's sake. Doesn't their bible say that one should love one's fellow human beings? Oh wait, they're from the 'pick and pray' religion.
    The Bible says so much contradictory BS that pick and pray is a necessity.
  • How are these two things connected?
    Just another case of idiots in positions of power.
  • This will not end well
    In other words, "if faggots are gittin' married, nobody's gittin' married".

    I've been to Kern County. This isn't surprising at all.
  • This will not end well
    She made the announcement after learning she could not marry only couples of her choosing.
    What the hell is she doing in a position of 'power'?!
  • edited June 2008
    This will not end well
    Ann K. Barnett, County Clerk
    1115 Truxtun Avenue
    Bakersfield, CA 93301-4639
    Regular Office Hours 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM Mon-Fri
    Open To The Public 8:30 AM - 4:00 PM Mon-Fri
    (661) 868-3588
    Kern County Clerk Website

    Call, write, or show up.... make sure you annoy the crap out of the Clerk's office in protest.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • Call, write, or show up.... make sure you annoy the crap out of the Clerk's office in protest.
    You forgot 'punch in the face'.
  • I guess I just don't understand why the issue of gay marriage is even brought up in government.
    What ever happened to separation of church and state?

    I guess it was never really there though...

    I understand that if homosexuals are trying to get married in a Christian church, then that goes against the Christian religion. But if they're just filing for a marriage license from the federal government? What's the big problem? Going back to what Scott said, I think everyone should have the rights of the binding contract of marriage.
  • I guess I just don't understand why the issue of gay marriage is even brought up in government.
    What ever happened to separation of church and state?

    I guess it was never really there though...

    I understand that if homosexuals are trying to get married in a Christian church, then that goes against the Christian religion. But if they're just filing for a marriage license from the federal government? What's the big problem? Going back to what Scott said, I think everyone should have the rights of the binding contract of marriage.
    True. Sadly we have many people in government who take it upon themselves to become activists when an issue goes against what they personally think is right.
  • I guess I just don't understand why the issue of gay marriage is even brought up in government.
    What ever happened to separation of church and state?

    I guess it was never really there though...

    I understand that if homosexuals are trying to get married in a Christian church, then that goes against the Christian religion. But if they're just filing for a marriage license from the federal government? What's the big problem? Going back to what Scott said, I think everyone should have the rights of the binding contract of marriage.
    Eh, marriage is a legal thing. The only thing the church has to do with this issue is that they scream bloody hell at a volume of 11. In my opinion the church is the one forcing their will in state affairs. While the state should just decide whether they will give homosexual couples a certificate claiming they live together with all the legal stuff attached. The church should just not allow homosexual couples to marry in front of god if they are so violently against it.
  • Woah...

    What if there was no god, and the churches' claims were bullshit? That'd be wacky.

    Also, yes, nobody likes Kern county.
  • It's things like this that make me glad I became an atheist. I just can't comprehend how people could be so small-minded.
  • Question: In a State that does not recognize gay and lesbian marriages as legal what would happen if a male and female married, and then one of them had a sex change? Would their marriage still be recognized, even if they went through the entire process to have their gender legally changed? Also, if the same sex couple was still considered married, would that set a precedent for gay and lesbian marriage in that State?
  • Question: In a State that does not recognize gay and lesbian marriages as legal what would happen if a male and female married, and then one of them had a sex change? Would their marriage still be recognized, even if they went through the entire process to have their gender legally changed? Also, if the same sex couple was still considered married, would that set a precedent for gay and lesbian marriage in that State?
    Surprisingly, in Texas, this is perfectly legal.
    An opinion last year by the state 4th Court of Appeals in San Antonio said chromosomes -- not sex-change operations or outward gender characteristics -- determine a person's gender.
    Of course, this article is from 2000, so I can't tell if it is still current.
  • Connecticut follows California's example.

    I wonder if this will rally the right wingers for the election or it will be swallowed by the economy.
  • Connecticut follows California's example.
    Don't get too excited, California's about to ban it again.
  • Don't get too excited, California's about to ban it again.
    I doubt it. I have a strong feeling that Proposition 8 (I'm assuming that's what you're referring to) won't pass. Of course, I live in a hippy college town, so my perspective may be skewed.
  • Of course, I live in ahippy college town, so my perspective may be skewed.
    Yeah, I dunno. I keep hearing that Prop 8's up in the polls. I mean, we passed the first gay marriage ban only 8 years ago by a huge majority. Contrary to what most non-Californians think, outside of L.A. and some parts of northern California, the state is pretty much a conservative shithole.
  • edited October 2008
    Of course, I live in ahippy college town, so my perspective may be skewed.
    Yeah, I dunno. I keep hearing that Prop 8's up in the polls. I mean, we passed the first gay marriage ban only 8 years ago by a huge majority. Contrary to what most non-Californians think, outside of L.A. and some parts of northern California, the state is pretty much a conservative shithole.
    I live in an even more hippy college town, so my views may also be skewed, but I do think there is a lot of difference between the measure 8 years ago and the current one.
    A lot has changed in 8 years. Acceptance of gay marriage has come a long way since 2000, many people suspect a higher proportion of young voters will participate in this year's election, and gay marriage has been here for a while, hopefully allowing some of the people who are closer to the middle of the spectrum to see that it doesn't really bother them. A constitutional amendment like prop 8 is also somewhat 'more serious' than yet another new law.
    I wouldn't be surprised if prop 8 passed, but I wouldn't count on it either.
    Post edited by csrjjsmp on
  • I live in an even more hippy college town, so my views may also be skewed, but I do think there is a lot of difference between the measure 8 years ago and the current one.
    Berkeley? It's gotta be Berkeley. I live in an ordinary, lower-middle class Southern California suburb, and I gotta say, I'm not as optimistic as you guys. I really hope you prove me wrong.
  • If anybody's heard what's going on in Sacramento about this... wow. Student council issues have gone way over board, and may have even been behind some recent anti-gay violence in the area.

    As with many issues, the problem for me is that I just don't understand the other side of the issue. In sweeping terms perhaps, "traditional ideals" and stuff like that, but I have not been able to really internalize how somebody's personal feelings and desires, even IF you believe that it is a choice, has such a socially profound sociological impact that it must be legislated upon!

    :: sad Fox ::
  • People have a natural desire to not want their kids to be gay, and are afraid of that happening if homosexuality becomes more mainstream.
    Also, many people are offended by it personally.

    The first reason I used to think was pretty ridiculous, but this morning in the newspaper, I saw this article about a public school first grade class attending their teacher's gay wedding.
    Hard to say now how important this event may become, but it just seems like a colossally bad idea unless you're actively trying to promote proposition 8.
  • People have a natural desire to not want their kids to be gay.
    Justify, man.
  • Hard to say now how important this event may become, but it just seems like a colossally bad idea unless you're actively trying to promote proposition 8.
    I dunno, man. It's San Francisco. I have a friend who's a lesbian school teacher in San Francisco, and before that, she was a child care provider. When she and her partner got "married" (I guess technically, it was a commitment ceremony, as gay marriage wasn't legal in CA yet) all of the kids she cared for were present, and one of them was the flower girl. If there's one place in the US where this isn't an issue, it's SF.

    Oops, upon reading the rest of the article, I see that it was actually a school-sponsored field trip. That's definitely more questionable, and possibly harmful, considering the "gay marriage will be taught in schools" attack we've been hearing lately. People in San Luis Obispo or San Bernardino will take issue with this. People from SF won't bat an eye.
  • The more I explore the topic, the more I believe homophobes are simply terrified of their own latent homosexual tendencies, and project their insecurity on others in the form of hate.
  • edited October 2008
    People have a natural desire to not want their kids to be gay.
    Justify, man.
    If your children are gay, they will not continue your bloodline by producing grandchildren for you. I don't mean to imply that it is either conscious or universal, simply natural.
    Hard to say now how important this event may become, but it just seems like a colossally bad idea unless you're actively trying to promote proposition 8.
    I dunno, man. It's San Francisco. I have a friend who's a lesbian school teacher in San Francisco, and before that, she was a child care provider. When she and her partner got "married" (I guess technically, it was a commitment ceremony, as gay marriage wasn't legal in CA yet) all of the kids she cared for were present, and one of them was the flower girl. If there's one place in the US where this isn't an issue, it's SF.

    Oops, upon reading the rest of the article, I see that it was actually a school-sponsored field trip. That's definitely more questionable, and possibly harmful, considering the "gay marriage will be taught in schools" attack we've been hearing lately. People in San Luis Obispo or San Bernardino will take issue with this. People from SF won't bat an eye.
    You're right; from the article, it definitely seemed like the kids were happy. Their parents might be fine with it too. It's the fear of things like this coming to their own local schools that will cause people to see this article and think seriously about supporting a gay marriage ban.
    Post edited by csrjjsmp on
  • edited October 2008
    The more I explore the topic, the more I believe homophobes are simply terrified of their own latent homosexual tendencies, and project their insecurity on others in the form of hate.
    Ted Haggard
    Larry Craig
    Mark Foley
    Bob Allen
    Richard Curtis
    Glenn Murphy Jr. -- No Wiki, but 33 year old chairman of the Young Republicans who blew a 22 year old straight guy while he was sleeping.

    The evidence is clear. All republicans are gay.
    Post edited by Funfetus on
  • People have a natural desire to not want their kids to be gay.
    Justify, man.
    If your children are gay, they will not continue your bloodline by producing grandchildren for you.
    Does a homosexual automatically become incapable of reproduction? I think not. There are places you can go to find a surrogate willing to help gay couples conceive. A gay couple might also have a friend who would be willing to do this as well.
    I don't mean to imply that it is either conscious or universal, simply natural.
    Then why issue a blanket statement like that?
  • People have a natural desire to not want their kids to be gay.
    Justify, man.
    If your children are gay, they will not continue your bloodline by producing grandchildren for you.
    Does a homosexual automatically become incapable of reproduction? I think not. There areplacesyou can go to find a surrogate willing to help gay couples conceive. A gay couple might also have a friend who would be willing to do this as well.

    I don't mean to imply that it is either conscious or universal, simply natural.
    Then why issue a blanket statement like that? The claim that this a "natural" rings false to me. It seems much more like an imposed social construct. Personally, I could not care less if my child was gay, straight, bi-sexual, transgendered, or ever reproduced. A parent's goal should be to raise their children to be happy, healthy, kind, and inquisitive. If a parent wants to control their child beyond that or plan out their life, then they need dolls - not children.
Sign In or Register to comment.