California Supreme Court overturns ban on Gay marriage!

[UPS Lifer]

I can't vote in California anymore. It will probably hit the November ballot. I like what Arnold says ...we have more important things to worry about like healthcare etc.

Just for fun - I looked up marriage in the dictionary - and it did define a union between same sex partners. Would I have been able to find that comment in the dictionary 10 years ago? It never would have appeared there.

Walk a mile in someone else's shoes... I believe that our society is becoming more tolerant to Gay or Lesbian marriage. You can make an argument that media is partially responsible for this change. (Movies, television shows and news coverage) . The media is very liberal and "tolerant" in portraying views for us to "soak" in. Remember - television in the '50's & '60's? Married couples were not allowed to be shown in the same bed. Things change.... times change...

Here is another thought.... there are more folks in the closet who smoke pot than there are who are Gay or Lesbian. Some are afraid to come out because of their job or the possible loss of reputation. Society is beginning to see things differently on this subject as well.

We may try and spin this away by talking about beastiality or plural marriages but the truth of the matter is that our society overwhelming disapproves of these acts (or marriages) as perverse. So there is no argument - The majority of us disapprove. I guess that is what spinning is all about! Connect these issues with Gay & Lesbian marriage and you have a common thread to make an argument. Sorry - it does not work any more. The California Supreme Court says so.

We all have our own views on the subject. Do you really feel that you have a right to impose your views on those who believe and act differently than you?

I believe that only a higher power than man has the power to define what marriage should be.

It is not my right to judge others!

 

[tourists24]

But your definition of a marriage is not what everybody's is. And, again, why should you be the judge for someone else?

and why should you get to impose your idea of marriage on the rest of us? You want to see two consenting adults, and I say why stop there? Why do you get to make those rules. If the side you agree with wins, you will be judging the ones who dont. See, no matter who gets to decide, they will be judging someone else.

If the vote in November goes anything like the polls just released it will be voted down by a 49% against, 48% in favor and 3% undecided. Those 3% will be heavily lobbied. I just think marriage is between two adult, consenting people and shouldn't be legislated by the government. I believe we are taking a step backwards if this vote goes through against gay marriage.

 

[tourists24]

We may try and spin this away by talking about beastiality or plural marriages but the truth of the matter is that our society overwhelming disapproves of these acts (or marriages) as perverse. So there is no argument - The majority of us disapprove. I guess that is what spinning is all about! Connect these issues with Gay & Lesbian marriage and you have a common thread to make an argument. Sorry - it does not work any more. The California Supreme Court says so.

We all have our own views on the subject. Do you really feel that you have a right to impose your views on those who believe and act differently than you?

I believe that only a higher power than man has the power to define what marriage should be.

It is not my right to judge others!

You are making my point more valid here, because you are contradicting yourself here. You say the law could be changing because we as a society are starting to accept more of these types of behaviors and thus, should be allowed. But then you turn around and say that anyone who opposes this is trying to IMPOSE their views on those who believe differently. But isnt that exactly what would be happening if the court is allowed to overturn the other point of view? That's why it is not "spin" to bring in even a more permissive view of marriage. Other people with views of polygomy or beastiality may want to get married also. Why should you or 49% of the voting public be able to judge them. The numbers may be smaller, but it's still judging.

You see, when you take this approach, you muddy the waters and dubb down the meaning of marriage. If society overwhelmingly wants to redifine marriage, then ok. But dont sit there and say you're doing it because no one should be able to force their view on someone else; that's exactly what you are being guilty of yourself

 

[browndevil]

If the voters turn it down then it will go back to the courts and the court will rule the proposition unconstitutional. Same sex marriage will be legal in every state within 10 years. AS California goes, so goes the country. As I said before our Pottery Barn deliveries will double. We can use the new business.

 

[dannyboy]

We may try and spin this away by talking about beastiality or plural marriages but the truth of the matter is that our society overwhelming disapproves of these acts (or marriages) as perverse. So there is no argument - The majority of us disapprove. I guess that is what spinning is all about! Connect these issues with Gay & Lesbian marriage and you have a common thread to make an argument. Sorry - it does not work any more. The California Supreme Court says so.

Funny aint it. Disagree with what is popular, and the truth becomes spinning.

Point I was trying to make is that same sex relationships were frowned on for many years, not to mention recorded history. The fact that some liberals dressed in robes say something isnt so, does not make it that way. (please remember, these robed people are LAWYERS, and of course we know how lawyers have improved things in our country.)

What we are dealing with now is change. The way you seem to promote change is that change is always good. Sorry, I can not agree with that ideal. Right and wrong will always be right and wrong. You can put whatever spin you want on it, but the basic truths of life dont change.

I agree, someone's personal lifestyle is non of my business. Where they make it my business is when they try to force me into recognising their relationship in a sexual union as normal. Sorry, that I can not do. Live your life to suit you, but dont force me to accept your lifestyle as not only normal, but preferable.

As for other acts, sex with your dog is not illegal in many states but yet marrage to more than one woman is? Having sex with multitudes of women or men is not against the law (unless for money and therefore not taxable), but yet you can not be legally married to more than one at a time? So why the push? Why is it so important for those that choose to live an alternative lifestyle feel the need to have themselves declared as normal by our court system?

Which brings me back to what started the ball rolling. The word discrimination. A bad word these days. But without which we dont know the difference between right and wrong, good or bad.

d

 

[moreluck]

When we say "someone has discriminating tastes", isn't that a good thing?

But we can't discriminate.......Our English language is really "friend 'ed" up !!

 

[dannyboy]

Let me comment on one more aspect of this thread

It has been mentioned that the majority should rule the vote. The problem with this reminds me of a converstion many years ago.

There was an Island with 8 men and two women. The men wanted sex, the women did not. But since the men outnumbered the women, they were able to force the women under their will.

Now, since the majority ruled, did it make it right? Or were there laws broken? Laws that were meant to protect us from ourselves and others that are not law abiding citizens. Now, just because the majority ruled to change the laws, is that right or wrong? And since they declared it normal and right, does that behaviour now become accepted and right?

When I comes to relationships, there have been laws on the books for many years. And for good reason.

The reason for no laws against same sex marrages on the books is that it was so ridiculous an idea in past decades.

And it goes back to the pushing of the extreme. Since there are no laws actually forbiding this exercise, then it must be allowed, condoned and expanded upon. And we dare you to try to block our freedoms by telling us this is not legal and normal.

d

 

[UPS Lifer]

Maybe I didn't write my thoughts down clearly enough.... I will give it another shot!

Marriage is a very personal thing. Any relationship or marriage is only as sacred as two individuals hold it to be. You can't define what is right for me and I can't define what is right for you. How we think about each other's values does not make one better than the other or more right or more wrong!

No matter what we believe and value, there is a norm that society holds to. Outside that norm there is a grey or muddy area that society may not agree with but it tolerates. Every society (micro to macro) has it's own value system or set of what it believes or holds to be normal.

As we move into the future, value systems will change. Our "tolerance" to smoking has diminished over the years. There are more and more laws and taxes on tobacco with every year that passes. In the future, if you do not act environmentally friendly (thinking green) will not be tolerated by society as a whole. Cell phone etiquette is changing every day. There is less tolerance and more laws! Maybe in China, having more than one child is not tolerated any more? I don't know!

But I do know that 5 - 10 - 20 years from now society will hold a different view on many, many issues - Gay & Lesbian marriage has been and will be one of those issues.

Discrimination is not a bad word. It is what we do to make choices. Every decision we make is some sort of discrimination.

I will choose to be non-judgmental when it comes to someone else's relationship or marriage. It boils down to what two (maybe more LOL) consenting adults do behind closed doors. Why is it my business??? Why is it California's business?

 

[helenofcalifornia]

I am continually amazed at how personal this issue is for people that are not directly affected by gay marriage. People get outright hysterical, crazy mad and non-sensical
when it comes to this specific marriage issue. I find it interesting to see how many times Schwarzenegger has flip-flopped on this subject. He recently said that the only amendment he would like to see passed is one that would let non-American born citizens run for president. I will vote to support the California Supreme Court on this issue.

 

[over9five]

"Why is it my business??? Why is it California's business?"

Because the consenting same sex couples having sex behind closed doors have this need to be accepted as normal people. So they MAKE it everybodies business by forcing the issue upon the normal populace.

So activist judges end up setting a standard that the majority can not abide and will not accept. They can tell us it's normal, but we know it is not. They can make it legal, but they can't make it right.

I better stop here........

Back to lurk mode.

 

[dannyboy]

I am continually amazed at how personal this issue is for people that are not directly affected by gay marriage. People get outright hysterical, crazy mad and non-sensical
when it comes to this specific marriage issue

Helen, why do they feel the need to force this union of theirs into the word marriage? What purpose does it serve to actually be married? Why do they have that overwhelming need to force something like this down the throats (no pun intended) of the general population? When the majority of the population would agree to allow that special relationship all the rights that marriage has without the word marriage? Why push? Its their push to get it force by that is causing the problem and increasing the resistance by those "not directly involved".

d

 

[helenofcalifornia]

OK, I understand your point, to a point. Would you agree that people are "born gay," and not "turn gay" (With a few exceptions). I kinda of equate this with slavery in the early American lifestyle. It was an accepted lifestyle for people to "own" other people until society changed. In a very, very, generalized way, the new attitudes were forced on slaveowners by others. And if I am not mistaken, a gay domestic union does not get all your privileges that a traditional hetero one would.
Now, don't beat up on me, because I am NOT a debater by any means. And more often than not, I have a definite case of "foot in mouth" disease. Just my thoughts on gay marriage. Again, why this disturbs people it doesn't directly effect is beyond me. Really, again, WWJD? He would not object to it I believe.

 

[dannyboy]

No I do not agree with the statement that you are born gay, no more than what I would agree to the statement that you are born an alcoholic. It is something you might have some tendency for, but it is still your choice.

That being said, I used to work in an OR many years ago, and there are those that are born with portions of both sex set ups. These people are born neither male or female. But yet over all, from what statistics I have seen on these people very few are gay.

As far as "unions" go, I dont have a problem in giving the same rights to a good friend as you would a husband or wife. Property rights, insurance etc etc etc. Not one problem. Where the problem lies is with the redefinition of the institution of marriage that has been demanded by those seeking to destroy that which has been a great tradition for centuries. And the media, politicians, and those in the legal profession have seen to it that that mission has been advanced far greater than would have been other wise possible. Even to the point of infecting religion.

If you take the time to study those greatest civilizations in history, when they degrade themselves to the point we are seeing the USA sinking to, the civilization is nearing the point of collapse. We are fast becoming a second hand society, following in the footsteps of france.

While I wish otherwise, I believe it is already too late.

WWJD? He would not object to it I believe.

The problem with the whole WWJD movement is that the whole premise is faulty. That allows you to place your values on what you think he would do. Instead of what would he do, read up on what he actually did instead and let that be a guide.

d

 

[tieguy]

I don't get what business it is of other people to decide what is best for them as long as no one gets hurt. I am 100% behind gay marriages. WWJD? What would Jesus do? I believe that he would have recognized that people are different and react accordingly. People are born gay, it is not a choice that most sane people would take upon themselves. I think it will be a close vote in November when this initiative is on the ballot and the Republicans will now have a reason to come out to vote. It is going to get dirty and ugly. I just don't get what the big deal is. WWJD? He sure as heck wouldn't be campaigning against it. I will now get off my soapbox.

I think the bible is pretty clear on what jesus would do and he would not support gay marriages.

Me personlly I have no problem with gay partnerships or unions. I do have a problem with gay marriages. The marriage has always been defined as a union between man and woman. Don't desecrate the act of marriage.

 

[dannyboy]

Helen

Your post about being born gay, ie without the ability to choose ones lifestyle or path in life brings up the concept of predestination. Something that the Bible as well does not teach.

Each person is born with free will. The ability to choose the path down which to travel in life. That being said, some have struggles with certain aspects of life that others dont seem to have.

Like killing someone. For the largest majority of people, killing someone is so far wrong that we would never consider it. To a very small group, it is no different than going to the bathroom. Were they born that way?

I do find that your posts are very interesting. On one hand, you post

People are born gay, it is not a choice that most sane people would take upon themselves.

leading one to believe you think those that choose this lifestyle are not sane.

But then you pull religion into it to defend the lifestyle with WWJD?

Ever heard of Sodom and Gomorah? Now, then see if you can find any passage that Jesus spoke where He or His Father change. I think you will find many passages where the opposite is true. There are absolutes. They dont change. If you read the bible, homosexuality is wrong, just like stealing etc. And it was wiped out when ever it was found, to keep it from spreading.

He sure as heck wouldn't be campaigning against it.

When you get a chance, look up the temple and money changers story. Then tell me he would not be very vocal on the subject. But then again, he was only interested in speaking to those that were interested in listening to the truth. There were many that were not, and because he spoke the truth, that was very uncomfortable to many, they ended up killing him.

I think that the concept you are confusing WWJD with is the statement that Jesus loves the sinner and hates the sin. A statement that is born out by the Bible. But that He would condone and support gay marriage is a real stretch.

So Helen, please dont think I am "beating you up". I just think that you have some basic concepts that are a bit flawed. Kinda like doing a math problem without all the information. How can you get the answer right if you dont have all the correct information to arrive at the correct answer.

d

 

[moreluck]

I think they are born that way also. When they look back on their life, they can recall feelings of "being different" when they were very young.......before the 'age of reason'.

No decision making involved when it's before the age of reason....it just is !

As far as serial killers & such......I think they have something misfiring in their brains. Something physical that creates a sociopath or psychopath......ever watch Dexter?? Dexter fights his demons all the time trying to appear 'normal', but he had killing problems since he was very young. I know it's just a TV program, but I believe there are people like that.

 

[over9five]

"I am continually amazed at how personal this issue is for people that are not directly affected by gay marriage. People get outright hysterical......"

I think that is because good Americans are revolted to their core by this kind of behaviour. They see this as part of the downfall of this country.

I think most Americans view homosexuality the same way they view pedophilia. Pedophilia is worse only because it involves an innocent child with the deviant. But it's the same brain malfunction, or whatever.

I forsee a time, maybe 20 years from now, where we will no longer be able to prosecute pedophiles. After all, it's not their fault they were born that way, right?

It is without a doubt, the world in decay.



(Thought you were going to lurk, Over! OK, OK)

 

[dannyboy]

I think they are born that way also. When they look back on their life, they can recall feelings of "being different" when they were very young.......before the 'age of reason'

More

I remember being very different when I was younger. But does that clear the path for me to be gay?

I believe that you have been sucked into the "I cant help what I do because I am not in control of my life" syndrome. Nothing like that type of excuse for bad behavior, and behavior that is not normal. Any one can use it. For any type of behavior that you want to exhibit. And it is a bunch of hogwash.

You control behavior. And even before the "age of reason" you know the difference between right and wrong. As a child, you know that to steal is wrong.

The problem with what we are seeing today is the "well what do you think the answer should be to 2+2?" And when the answer given is 5, we praise the child for being so creative, and allow them to continue so no child is left behind. One of the very reasons we are no longer in the top 15 educated nations. Instead of standing for absolutes, we waiver to let anybody say and do anything they want, and you better not tell them they cant.

IT is also, while off a bit, very interesting to note that the very people that were marching against "big Brother" getting into our lives, are now the big brother themselves, and trying to get into our lives even more than ever before.

Crazy world we live in, aint it?

d

 

[dilligaf]

My turn to wade in. There are many benefits to being married. Ins, Taxes, etc but far more than that. The need to feel part of society, not an out cast, is a very powerful. Marriage is an accepted part of our society. You can use whatever term you want. Marriage or union. As our society becomes more tolerant, of course issues like this are going to be brought out to the forfront. Is it right or wrong? I'm not sure that is the issue. It will be right for some and wrong for others. For me personally I would support the law if the vote was in AZ.

The USA has always, from the get go, been a melting pot. We have all walks of life, all religions, all beliefs. And for bad or good they are here to stay. We are in the middle of a war right now to protect our way of life. Does that mean that we should not allow people from the Middle East here. NO!. Does that mean we should not allow them to practice their religious beliefs here? NO!.

Polygamy has been in the news alot lately, especially here in AZ. Do I approve of polygamy? NO!. Why? Because of the way it is portrayed in the news. These women have no rights. Is that actual or just percieved? I cannot answer that.

We are a democracy, majority rules. If the CA vote goes against gay marriage, it will come up again. And it will continue to come up until the vote goes the other way. Eventually the vote will be in favor of gay marriage.

 

[over9five]

"As our society becomes more tolerant..."

Oh, how I hate that word tolerance! That sentence automatically translated (for me) to "As our society decays..." Tolerance IS decay!


"If the CA vote goes against gay marriage, it will come up again. And it will continue to come up until the vote goes the other way. Eventually the vote will be in favor of gay marriage."

I agree with that. People can only get hit over the head about it so much. The people voting against it will tire, and stop going to vote. It's the same with Prop 2 1/2 overides. When they don't pass, they do it again and again till it does.