Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's fruitless to go beyond the context of what the law recognizes. Currently, the law recognizes marriage between two people and the 14th Amendment protects any two people from being excluded based on race, religion or gender. It's really not that complicated. Regardless of what anyone's personal views or religious convictions are, this is a civil matter having to do with civil law. What this means is that gay couples cannot be denied the same protections and rights that heterosexual couples are afforded under the law.

If enough voters tried to pass a ban on gay marriage, it would be no more constitutional than passing legislation that bans anyone other than white people to marry.

[Marc and Olga 0]

As I said all along...this is a societal and cultural issue, not a constitutional or civil rights issue some make it out to be. Homosexuality is not illegal and they are free to be homosexual. However, the issue is that they want the state seal of approval and societal acceptance that marriage conveys. The courts should not be legislating from the bench or imposing societal norms on society at large. That's the way I see it.

No it's not...it's equal protection under the law. Either the state of California discontinues recognizing marriage between two people or it allows any two adults to marry...simple as that.

They could change it to reflect the original intention of marriage, a union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman.

You can try to take the religion out of marriage but then don't you actually loose the spirit of marriage and it merely becomes a legal contract?

I mean weren't marriages first religious then civil?

I suppose they could also define marriage as union between two ivory colored people also. By what standard shall we exclude the right to and still satisfy our Constitutional Rights?

that suppose to be funny, Steven? I asked you a similar question (Where do you draw the line) and your response was merely where you don't want to draw the line...so where do you?

Brothers and sisters allowed to wed? aunts and nephews? why can Warren Jeffs (for example) not have 12 wives, individually he and each wife are merely 2 people that (it seems by your definition) should be allowed to marry.

Another question that came to me while reading the recent replies, what if a gay/lesbian couple want a catholic wedding and are denied based on that religions view of homosexuality, in our sue for everything culture would they not then be allowed to sue the catholic church for denying them their "right" to be married?

I personally believe marriage = 1 unmarried man and 1 unmarried (and unrelated) woman, I do base my definition on the ability to procreate naturally, ignoring desire and fertility.

I also believe that homosexuals should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of having a long-term relationship and perhaps there should be a civil union allowed (I'd be ok with that as well) but to call it marriage imho is not acceptable. And isn't that what we are calling it?

Let me remind you of the thread you are in:

Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban

emphasis added

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

interesting votes so far.......

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...e=show&st=0

[Niels Bohr 72]

Geezes. Gay marriage is not the same as immediate relative marriage. Not by a long shot. Its these people who do not know when to draw the line. In other words, its those who brings up the topic of immediate relative marriage.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As I said all along...this is a societal and cultural issue, not a constitutional or civil rights issue some make it out to be. Homosexuality is not illegal and they are free to be homosexual. However, the issue is that they want the state seal of approval and societal acceptance that marriage conveys. The courts should not be legislating from the bench or imposing societal norms on society at large. That's the way I see it.

No it's not...it's equal protection under the law. Either the state of California discontinues recognizing marriage between two people or it allows any two adults to marry...simple as that.

They could change it to reflect the original intention of marriage, a union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman.

You can try to take the religion out of marriage but then don't you actually loose the spirit of marriage and it merely becomes a legal contract?

I mean weren't marriages first religious then civil?

I suppose they could also define marriage as union between two ivory colored people also. By what standard shall we exclude the right to and still satisfy our Constitutional Rights?

that suppose to be funny, Steven? I asked you a similar question (Where do you draw the line) and your response was merely where you don't want to draw the line...so where do you?

Brothers and sisters allowed to wed? aunts and nephews? why can Warren Jeffs (for example) not have 12 wives, individually he and each wife are merely 2 people that (it seems by your definition) should be allowed to marry.

Another question that came to me while reading the recent replies, what if a gay/lesbian couple want a catholic wedding and are denied based on that religions view of homosexuality, in our sue for everything culture would they not then be allowed to sue the catholic church for denying them their "right" to be married?

I personally believe marriage = 1 unmarried man and 1 unmarried (and unrelated) woman, I do base my definition on the ability to procreate naturally, ignoring desire and fertility.

I also believe that homosexuals should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of having a long-term relationship and perhaps there should be a civil union allowed (I'd be ok with that as well) but to call it marriage imho is not acceptable. And isn't that what we are calling it?

Let me remind you of the thread you are in:

Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban

emphasis added

Read the judge's comments - he compared the ban on gay marriages to the laws which used to ban mixed marriages - a relevant argument. Why is it so difficult to understand that equal protection under the law doesn't equate to 'anything goes'? Discrimination based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation is unconstitutional, however, that doesn't mean we can't discriminate against other unions (siblings, goats, etc) or restrict the definition marriage as between 2 consenting adults.

As for civil unions - I actually think that states and the Federal should get out of the business of recognizing marriage because of it's religious connotations, which I believe are the main reason why people get excited over this issue. Civil unions should be the only thing that government recognizes and leave marriage up to the different religions to define.

Edited May 16, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I said all along...this is a societal and cultural issue, not a constitutional or civil rights issue some make it out to be. Homosexuality is not illegal and they are free to be homosexual. However, the issue is that they want the state seal of approval and societal acceptance that marriage conveys. The courts should not be legislating from the bench or imposing societal norms on society at large. That's the way I see it.

No it's not...it's equal protection under the law. Either the state of California discontinues recognizing marriage between two people or it allows any two adults to marry...simple as that.

They could change it to reflect the original intention of marriage, a union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman.

You can try to take the religion out of marriage but then don't you actually loose the spirit of marriage and it merely becomes a legal contract?

I mean weren't marriages first religious then civil?

I suppose they could also define marriage as union between two ivory colored people also. By what standard shall we exclude the right to and still satisfy our Constitutional Rights?

that suppose to be funny, Steven? I asked you a similar question (Where do you draw the line) and your response was merely where you don't want to draw the line...so where do you?

Brothers and sisters allowed to wed? aunts and nephews? why can Warren Jeffs (for example) not have 12 wives, individually he and each wife are merely 2 people that (it seems by your definition) should be allowed to marry.

Another question that came to me while reading the recent replies, what if a gay/lesbian couple want a catholic wedding and are denied based on that religions view of homosexuality, in our sue for everything culture would they not then be allowed to sue the catholic church for denying them their "right" to be married?

I personally believe marriage = 1 unmarried man and 1 unmarried (and unrelated) woman, I do base my definition on the ability to procreate naturally, ignoring desire and fertility.

I also believe that homosexuals should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of having a long-term relationship and perhaps there should be a civil union allowed (I'd be ok with that as well) but to call it marriage imho is not acceptable. And isn't that what we are calling it?

Let me remind you of the thread you are in:

Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban

emphasis added

Do you think there is a line to draw?

We have a mainstream debate regarding one very specific issue. Whether or not you can draw similarities with other things is irrelevant if there isn't a public debate going on to give it impetus.

Edited May 16, 2008 by Number 6

[Jack and Barbara 0]

interesting votes so far.......

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...e=show&st=0

I take it that poll was made as a type of joke. After all, there is no option to be a USC or non-USC male or female who supports gay marriage without ever having had sex with a gay person.

Edited May 16, 2008 by Jack and Barbara

[Jenn! 918]

interesting votes so far.......

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...e=show&st=0

I take it that poll was made as a type of joke. After all, there is no option to be a USC or non-USC male or female who supports gay marriage without ever having had sex with a gay person.

Anyone who supports gay marriage must have had a homosexual experience....yuk, yuk, yuk

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

interesting votes so far.......

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...e=show&st=0

I take it that poll was made as a type of joke. After all, there is no option to be a USC or non-USC male or female who supports gay marriage without ever having had sex with a gay person.

it's styled after a few polls vj troll made. still, the results are interesting......

[Amby 490]

leave the gays alone they didn't do anything to you!

now everyone hug & kiss and make up

[mawilson 2,133]

ZOMG all the straight people are gonna start marrying their friends so they can get tax breaks and insurance!

Question: can a married same-sex couple file a joint Federal tax return if same-sex marriages are not recognized under Federal Law?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

ZOMG all the straight people are gonna start marrying their friends so they can get tax breaks and insurance!

Question: can a married same-sex couple file a joint Federal tax return if same-sex marriages are not recognized under Federal Law?

Good question. I would think they would have to honor the state's recognition of marriage unless someone at the IRS wants to take the issue all the way to the Supreme Court.

[mawilson 2,133]

ZOMG all the straight people are gonna start marrying their friends so they can get tax breaks and insurance!

Question: can a married same-sex couple file a joint Federal tax return if same-sex marriages are not recognized under Federal Law?

Good question. I would think they would have to honor the state's recognition of marriage unless someone at the IRS wants to take the issue all the way to the Supreme Court.

At least they can file joint state returns, right?

What about health insurance? If it's a state thing, it should be possible to add a same-sex spouse to your policy.

[Amby 490]

good point. I know a gay guy that is married to a lesbian just because of the tax benefits

[dalegg 143]

ZOMG all the straight people are gonna start marrying their friends so they can get tax breaks and insurance!

Question: can a married same-sex couple file a joint Federal tax return if same-sex marriages are not recognized under Federal Law?

Good question. I would think they would have to honor the state's recognition of marriage unless someone at the IRS wants to take the issue all the way to the Supreme Court.

At least they can file joint state returns, right?

What about health insurance? If it's a state thing, it should be possible to add a same-sex spouse to your policy.

Yes, at least here in California same Sex Domestic partners are entitled to everything married couples are. My employer will even help pay the costs of Adoptions by same sex couples.