Holy cow!

[wbtravis007]

Holt-Dad said:

Of course, I also realize that there are some people who think that orientation is not a choice. Still, when the basis for the decision is not based firmly in fact but rather a judge's personal opinion, I find fault with that opinion. (Whether it is viewed as "liberal" or "conservative" in scope.)

It's hard for me to imagine how limited your life experience must be to say something that dumb.

It makes me wonder whether you have had to work at trying to be sexually aroused by women, and think that you have managed to overcome a natural inclination not to be. If that is something that you set out to achieve -- (to overcome a natural inclination to not be aroused by women) -- and you have accopmplished that, then I congratulate you. I also congratulate those who do not have that natural inclination and do not feel compelled to try to act like they do.

If you don't get aroused by the thought of getting cornholed, I don't think that's enough to support a conclusion that someone who does is choosing to.

[Bob78164]

In that the federal government will not recognize the marriage, and state governments do not have to recognize the marriage, plus state laws already gave gay couples essentially all of the rights of hetero married couples (as noted by the court), this appears to be an opinion of more flash than actual substance and legal reasoning.

By the way, I'm not entirely certain that other states won't have to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages that are valid in their state of origin. I'm aware that the federal Defense of Marriage Act says precisely that. I'm just not certain that portion of DOMA survives scrutiny under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. --Bob

[TheCalvinator24]

Jesus also said he had arrived to do away with the Law, period.

Did Jesus say that? I thought he specifically said he didn't want to do away with it.

Paul, otoh, pretty much negated all of Old Testament law... you know, no Jew or gentile, no man or woman... circumcised in his heart only (well, not his, but all the new recruits).

Personally, I think the government should be required to treat all adult citizens equally. That means gay marriage, and polygamy/polyandry.

All the evidence I need that homosexuality is not a choice is the knowledge that I could never choose it. It might be physically possible to engage in homosexual acts, but I would never EVER be attracted to another woman. I can only believe that a homosexual man feels basically the same way -- hard to imagine what else about being homosexual would make it worth choosing.

Also, to me, it would be very sad if partnership with someone I could never be attracted to were the only option available.

I think it's kind of funny that BiT thinks legalizing gay marriage will lead to polygamy, since actually that's where most of mankind comes from, and many societies are still there. It was certainly acceptable in the Bible

Christ said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

I think this verse says both less and more than many people think it does.

[NellyLunatic1980]

Jesus also said he had arrived to do away with the Law, period.

Did Jesus say that? I thought he specifically said he didn't want to do away with it.

Christ said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

I think this verse says both less and more than many people think it does.

Because Christ Jesus fulfilled the Laws lined out throughout the OT, we his people are no longer subject to OT Law. There is only one law that we should follow:

Luke 10:25-28

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

I'd be willing to bet millions to muffins that any single law you can think of has this law as its basis in some way.

[Sir_Galahad]

FWIW, I believe this whole issue revolves around what you believe and how you were raised. I was raised to believe that marriage is defined the legal union of one man and one woman. Period. It appears as if there are those that are attempting to change that definition. Am I comfortable with that? Ummm, not really. Homosexuality is not my preference and it turns my stomach because I wasn't raised that way and I do not have any such feelings. But, if that's what two consenting adults choose to do, who am I to say they can't. This is not about polygamy, bestiality or necrophilia. It is about two individuals that have chosen to live their life in a manner different from the majority. And, I believe that the vast majority of people were raised like I was.

Now, as to the legal aspects of it, I feel it is wrong for judges to overturn the will of The People. Legislating from the bench is wrong no matter what the issue, IMO. If The People vote to amend the constitution to add the clause that legal marriage is defined as above, then that's the end of it! The People have spoken. I could open up a whole 'nother thread about politicians forgetting who actually put them in office, but I won't. Suffice it to say that if The People vote to add this amendment in November, then that is what the law should be. If and when the will of the majority of The People change, that's when the law should be change - and not before. If you want to live your life with a "life partner" that's your business, but if the majority of the The People do not want that union recognized as a "marriage" then you are just going to have to accept that.

[hf_jai]

Because Christ Jesus fulfilled the Laws lined out throughout the OT, we his people are no longer subject to OT Law.

See, as a Jew, I cannot understand this sentence at all. Especially since, in context, he supposed said that he does not come to abolish the Law. A person might "fulfill" some obligation but it doesn't make it go away. Unless you're using a different definition of "fulfill" than I'm familiar with.

FWIW, I believe this whole issue revolves around what you believe and how you were raised. I was raised to believe that marriage is defined the legal union of one man and one woman. Period.

Really? I'm a little older than you, but I don't remember it coming up at all. I certainly never heard homosexual marriage mentioned in Sunday school. My parents never brought it up either. I sort of doubt they ever thought about it.

I agree with you that most people have been raised with the belief that homosexuality is somehow wrong. But I also think the LEGAL aspects of the issue are not a matter of belief to which one was raised so much as a rationally arrived at means of forcing one's belief on other people.

Now, as to the legal aspects of it, I feel it is wrong for judges to overturn the will of The People. Legislating from the bench is wrong no matter what the issue, IMO.

As for whether the judges are "legislating from the bench" (a phrase most commonly used when someone disagrees with what the judges decide), I don't see that they have... or at least you haven't made the case that they have. If there is an amendment to the CA constitution passed in November, then I would think their decision would be overturned, but until then I would have to assume they know what they're doing.

That said, I totally disagree with you about the Will of The People. One of the purposes of the US Constitution, and I would assume the CA constitution is written similarly, is to protect the rights of the minority from what has been called the tyranny of the majority. And not just the "rights" but also the privileges. I don't know if the CA Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to enforce it, but the US Constitution is pretty clear in this regard (14th Amendment, emphasis added):

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Personally I think we might all be better off if the government got out of the marriage business all together, and left it to the church, synagogue, mosque etc. My religion allows two people of the same sex to marry, yours presumably doesn't, some people who "marry" want nothing to do with religion, and what business of the government is any of that?

[ToLiveIsToFly]

FWIW, I believe this whole issue revolves around what you believe and how you were raised. I was raised to believe that marriage is defined the legal union of one man and one woman. Period. It appears as if there are those that are attempting to change that definition. Am I comfortable with that? Ummm, not really. Homosexuality is not my preference and it turns my stomach because I wasn't raised that way and I do not have any such feelings. But, if that's what two consenting adults choose to do, who am I to say they can't. This is not about polygamy, bestiality or necrophilia. It is about two individuals that have chosen to live their life in a manner different from the majority. And, I believe that the vast majority of people were raised like I was.

Now, as to the legal aspects of it, I feel it is wrong for judges to overturn the will of The People. Legislating from the bench is wrong no matter what the issue, IMO. If The People vote to amend the constitution to add the clause that legal marriage is defined as above, then that's the end of it! The People have spoken. I could open up a whole 'nother thread about politicians forgetting who actually put them in office, but I won't. Suffice it to say that if The People vote to add this amendment in November, then that is what the law should be. If and when the will of the majority of The People change, that's when the law should be change - and not before. If you want to live your life with a "life partner" that's your business, but if the majority of the The People do not want that union recognized as a "marriage" then you are just going to have to accept that.

All of what you just said could have applied to interracial marriage in Virginia in the 1960s. Was the Supreme Court wrong for overturning that ban?

I was raised to believe that marriage is defined the legal union of one man and one woman. Period. ... And, I believe that the vast majority of people were raised like I was.

Thankfully, that's rapidly changing. Your children are growing up around gay people and realizing they're not monsters. In 20-30 years gay marriage will be legal throughout the land. These state constitution changes are rear-guard actions made by people who know the tide is turning, and that it'll take a little longer to change state constitutions.

And this isn't because the gays are out converting, either. It's because gay people are increasingly able to live their lives in the open without fear of physical violence and other persecution. And the more that the rest of us are exposed to them, the more we're going to realize that they're just people like the rest of us - no better than us, no worse than us, and no threat to us.

People in 50 years are going to view the people who are doing everything they can to block gay people from attaining full equality just like we view now people who 50 years ago who were doing everything they could to block people of color from attaining full equality.

[Rexer25]

Just a side bar on the "will of the people argument"...

from what I've heard, the CA SC ruled (narrowly, a 4-3 margin) that the law, as currently enacted, was in violation of the California constitution, a document that was presumably enacted by the will of the people.

In short, to state this was an act of judicial legislation, is not accurate. You can argue about the morality of same-sex couples, pre-marital sex, polygamy, etc., but to say the will of the people has been ignored is not a valid argument.

[PlacentiaSoccerMom]

[
And this isn't because the gays are out converting, either. It's because gay people are increasingly able to live their lives in the open without fear of physical violence and other persecution. And the more that the rest of us are exposed to them, the more we're going to realize that they're just people like the rest of us - no better than us, no worse than us, and no threat to us.

People in 50 years are going to view the people who are doing everything they can to block gay people from attaining full equality just like we view now people who 50 years ago who were doing everything they could to block people of color from attaining full equality.

Some of Maddie's best friends are gay guys. When she first started talking about them, I was amazed at how openly gay they were, because when I went to high school, I didn't know any openly gay guys.

Admittedly she is involved in theater and I was not.

The first thing that she said to me when she got into the car on Thursday was that gays now had the right to marry in California. She was happy for her friends that they would have the right to settle down if they chose to.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

[
And this isn't because the gays are out converting, either. It's because gay people are increasingly able to live their lives in the open without fear of physical violence and other persecution. And the more that the rest of us are exposed to them, the more we're going to realize that they're just people like the rest of us - no better than us, no worse than us, and no threat to us.

People in 50 years are going to view the people who are doing everything they can to block gay people from attaining full equality just like we view now people who 50 years ago who were doing everything they could to block people of color from attaining full equality.

Some of Maddie's best friends are gay guys. When she first started talking about them, I was amazed at how openly gay they were, because when I went to high school, I didn't know any openly gay guys.

Admittedly she is involved in theater and I was not.

The first thing that she said to me when she got into the car on Thursday was that gays now had the right to marry in California. She was happy for her friends that they would have the right to settle down if they chose to.

Good for her.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

Chicago Tribune says gay marriages will begin June 17.

[Bob78164]

A Field poll (a widely respected California polling organization) released today found that 51% of the California populace now supports same-sex marriage. --Bob

[Bob78164]

Chicago Tribune says gay marriages will begin June 17.

The decision issued May 15. Ordinarily, it would become final 30 days later, or June 14. But that's a Saturday, so the Court has until the next business day, or June 16, to modify the decision.

The Court has one other option. If it acts by June 16, it can give itself as much as 60 additional days before the decision becomes final. I'll be shocked, though, if the Court does anything other than allow the decision to become final as scheduled. --Bob

[Ritterskoop]

Without reading back the whole thread.....

My understanding is that the court reversed the ban.

Some states outlaw same-sex marriages but many have not taken a position.

Doesn't this ruling return California to the neutral ranks until someone enacts a law making the marriages legally binding?

[Bob78164]

Without reading back the whole thread.....

My understanding is that the court reversed the ban.

Some states outlaw same-sex marriages but many have not taken a position.

Doesn't this ruling return California to the neutral ranks until someone enacts a law making the marriages legally binding?

No. The Court held that California cannot, consistently with the California Constitution, offer the institution of marriage to opposite-sex couples without also offering the institution to same-sex couples. The only other possible remedy would have been to hold that no one can get married in California. Unsurprisingly (and correctly), the Court selected as the appropriate remedy an expansion of marriage rights to same-sex couples. --Bob

[kusch]

A Field poll (a widely respected California polling organization) released today found that 51% of the California populace now supports same-sex marriage. --Bob

At Margaret's family reunion we will be seeing her cousin and his partner that started their relationship about the same time as Margaret and I did some 30 years ago. I am sure this subject will be talked about. I have no problem with same sex marriage. Sam's (her cousin) partner wrote a book about their adoption of their first of two children. It has been many years since I read the book, but what I remember is that I enjoyed reading about their story.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1883647045

[mellytu74]

Some of Maddie's best friends are gay guys. When she first started talking about them, I was amazed at how openly gay they were, because when I went to high school, I didn't know any openly gay guys.

Admittedly she is involved in theater and I was not.

I think I mentioned in another thread that I went to a Catholic girls HS (most of the Catholic HS in the Philadelphia archdiocese were "brother" and "sister" schools, a couple blocks from each other).

For our shows, we borrowed guys from the local Catholic boys HSs, as they did with us for their shows.

I was a sophomore when I was a wife in The King and I and had a mad crush on the boy who played Sir Edward.

During the post-closing party, we had an intense discussion of Broadway musicals and how much we loved them. I proposed a toast to Gertrude Lawrence. We toasted.

He got into the hippie scene in center City Philadelphia after HS. He told me years later it helped him come out.

He said he never realized in HS that he WAS gay.

Of course, he added, with 20/20 hindsight, I should have realized it when you and I toasted Gertrude Lawrence at that post-closing party.

[earendel]

Having read through this thread and the same arguments that have been presented on both sides before, let me offer a suggestion (which I have offered before).

Let the word "marriage" be reserved for religious ceremonies, defined however the religious institution sees fit. Let couples engage in all the pomp and ceremony and ritual, etc. But that's all "marriage" would be - a religious ceremony. In order to receive all the legal benefits of marriage the couple would have to enter into a civil compact (contract). This, it seems to me, provides several benefits.

1. It allows religious individuals to preserve the term "marriage" and define it however they choose.

2. It would allow senior citizens who might not be able to marry because of the effect it would have on their benefits to be "married" without risking those benefits, and provides "benefit of clergy" to their union so they would no longer be "living in sin".

3. Perhaps most important of all it separates the religious and civil aspects of marriage, which seems like it would resolve a lot of the issues presented in this thread.

[BackInTex]

AmIright?OrAmIRight?

[Jeemie]

AmIright?OrAmIRight?

No...you're not right.

You obviously didn't read that story all the way through.

[silverscreenselect]

AmIright?OrAmIRight?

The man was convicted on 13 counts of sexually molesting his stepdaughters by forcing them to engage in relations with animals. The one count that he was acquitted on was bestiality because the court went back to strict reading of the criminal statute, which had been on the books since the 1950s and apparently never became an issue before this case. Suffice it to say that there will undoubtedly be some new laws passed in Canada very soon expanding the types of acts that can be considered cruelty to animals.

This actually parallels what happened in this country a few years back in cases in which men were acquitted on rape charges for forcing women to have various sex acts other than intercourse. The reason was the same: a strict reading of some criminal statutes did not prohibit what they did. So, now we have another class of crimes called sexual battery that closed that temporary loophole.

In neither case was the court loosening morals. In Canada, bestiality, like most crimes, is defined and prohibited by federal statute, while here in the U.S., it's a matter of state law. I checked Georgia's law and it's worded broadly enough so that what that man did would have resulted in a bestiality conviction here in Georgia.

[Bob Juch]

AmIright?OrAmIRight?

The man was convicted on 13 counts of sexually molesting his stepdaughters by forcing them to engage in relations with animals. The one count that he was acquitted on was bestiality because the court went back to strict reading of the criminal statute, which had been on the books since the 1950s and apparently never became an issue before this case. Suffice it to say that there will undoubtedly be some new laws passed in Canada very soon expanding the types of acts that can be considered cruelty to animals.

This actually parallels what happened in this country a few years back in cases in which men were acquitted on rape charges for forcing women to have various sex acts other than intercourse. The reason was the same: a strict reading of some criminal statutes did not prohibit what they did. So, now we have another class of crimes called sexual battery that closed that temporary loophole.

In neither case was the court loosening morals. In Canada, bestiality, like most crimes, is defined and prohibited by federal statute, while here in the U.S., it's a matter of state law. I checked Georgia's law and it's worded broadly enough so that what that man did would have resulted in a bestiality conviction here in Georgia.

About half the states have no bestiality laws at all.

[Bob78164]

I'm still waiting for HoltDad (who took the position that sexual orientation is a choice) to let us know when he chose to be straight. --Bob

[SportsFan68]

What a difference eight years makes.

Somebody quoted something saying same-gender marriage would be the law of the land in 50 years, somebody predicted 20-30, and here it is eight! Somebody else said it could become an issue in the Presidential election -- not then, and not now.

It doesn't seem that long ago, but that wave of nostalgia can't be denied. All those missing voices . . . Oh well, times change.