Life as we know it is about to be destroyed

[Dogger]

If you believe the far right, permitting gay marriage will destroy the very fabric of society, leading to a host of horrific consequences up to and including (or maybe not) man on dog sex. It's all very retro, and reminiscent of the days when equally appalling predictions were made for interracial marriage.

Brace yourselves. The California Supreme Court has overturned the state's gay marriage ban.

Despite all of the apocalyptical predictions, I believe a year from now people will be scratching their heads and wondering what all of the fuss was about. History does repeat itself. Again, and again, and again.

See, RGS’s Head Explodes!

 

[TopGunna]

Yeah, I have no idea why people care if the state recognizes these partnerships or not. If you're a member of a conservative church, these gay marriages aren't going to take place there anyway.

As a heterosexual male of average attractiveness, I only see gay marriage as a good thing for my prospects. (I'm going to generalize here) but if you remove the best looking men (gays) and least attractive females (some lesbians) from the hetero-pool, advantage me!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you believe the far right, permitting gay marriage will destroy the very fabric of society, leading to a host of horrific consequences up to and including (or maybe not) man on dog sex. It's all very retro, and reminiscent of the days when equally appalling predictions were made for interracial marriage.

Brace yourselves. The California Supreme Court has overturned the state's gay marriage ban.

Despite all of the apocalyptical predictions, I believe a year from now people will be scratching their heads and wondering what all of the fuss was about. History does repeat itself. Again, and again, and again.

See, RGS’s Head Explodes!

You will need to do more research dipstick. I am opposed to same sex marriage but not same sex unions. I am also opposed to COURTS thwarting the will of the people by illegally legislating from the Bench.

My position is that the US should get rid of Government marriage completely. In order to ensure the Constitution is not violated and to allow some states to allow same sex marriages and some not to, while ensuring that the requirement that all LEGAL acts of one State are recognized in another, Marriage should be an act performed by religious or non religious groups as they please. A Civil Union should be what the Government recognizes. This would ensure that if a couple States want same sex "marriages" and others do not that there is no attempt by idiots in Congress to claim One State can ignore another States legal acts.

The Religious would still be able to have their marriages in the Churches of their choice while denying the same to those types of couples they want. While the State would simple have to recognize Unions as legal and binding.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Didn't the people of California vote NO on gay marriage? Nice democracy in that state that had judges overturn the people's vote on the recent referendum.

 

[Abelian Sea]

My position is that the US should get rid of Government marriage completely. In order to ensure the Constitution is not violated and to allow some states to allow same sex marriages and some not to, while ensuring that the requirement that all LEGAL acts of one State are recognized in another, Marriage should be an act performed by religious or non religious groups as they please. A Civil Union should be what the Government recognizes. This would ensure that if a couple States want same sex "marriages" and others do not that there is no attempt by idiots in Congress to claim One State can ignore another States legal acts.

That makes a great deal of sense to me. There's already a degree of disconnect between legal and religious marriages; it'd be neater to stop pretending that they're the same. However, -

The Religious would still be able to have their marriages in the Churches of their choice while denying the same to those types of couples they want.

- I highly doubt The Religious would be satisfied with this, any more than "gay rights" advocates are satisfied with legal but non-"marriage" unions now. Each group wants both pieces - the legal standing of "union" and the social/cultural standing of "marriage."

I agree with your solution, though; neither group gets all they want but both get what is really proper to them. And for the average fairly religious hetro couple, nothing really changes; they still have a church ceremony and also have to get a legal certificate, just like now.

But I promise you'll hear proclamations of the apocalypse if anyone tries to take "marriage" out of law, no matter how sensible the change is. It may well be easier to institute full-blown gay marriage, even with the accompanying maelstrom. Objectors to the later see it as adding to an institution something they don't think belongs there; they would see the former as a sweeping and fundemental devaluation of religious marriage, kicking it out of the shrine of law and thus making it less "real."

 

[Gunny]

If you believe the far right, permitting gay marriage will destroy the very fabric of society, leading to a host of horrific consequences up to and including (or maybe not) man on dog sex. It's all very retro, and reminiscent of the days when equally appalling predictions were made for interracial marriage.

Brace yourselves. The California Supreme Court has overturned the state's gay marriage ban.

Despite all of the apocalyptical predictions, I believe a year from now people will be scratching their heads and wondering what all of the fuss was about. History does repeat itself. Again, and again, and again.

See, RGS’s Head Explodes!

You believe wrong, and your left-wing spin comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage is intellectually dishonest. Race is defined factually by genetics. Aberrant sexual behavior is defined only by the behavior.

Rather than give equal rights under the law; which, gays already have, a ruling specifically for a group defined solely by its behavior gives that group unequal rights under the law.

Despite your attempt to paint those who oppose gay marriage as fearmongering alarmists, the truth is more along the lines of opposing special laws that cater solely to minorities and their idiosyncracies and/or legislating from the bench to circumvent and usurp the power of the legislature and the will of the majority.

If you want to talk apocalyptic, I'd say when we're so fucked up in the head that the aberrant minority can always find a court that will allow it to enforce its will on the majority, that something is DEFINTELY ass-backward arond here.

 

[midcan5]

Once again we need to take off our hats to the founding mothers and fathers of this nation, minorities have equal protection under the law.

 

[rayboyusmc]

You believe wrong, and your left-wing spin comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage is intellectually dishonest. Race is defined factually by genetics. Aberrant sexual behavior is defined only by the behavior.

If I am born a certain race, what is different than if I am born straight or gay. There is no proof that being gay is not a factor of genetics, so your right wing spin my be just a intellectually dishonest.

I believe the original statementis referring to some of those on the right who are actually stating that this will lead to the dissolution of normal marriage, was made with some sarcasm in mind.

What a bunch of bullshit. Gays will continue to be gay and straights will continue to screw each other in or our of marriage.

 

[Annie]

The court overstepped, most likely the legislature will change the ruling:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_05_11-2008_05_17.shtml#1210878732

[Eugene Volokh, May 15, 2008 at 3:12pm] Trackbacks
"Did the California Supreme Court Just Do John McCain an Inadvertent Favor?"

Rick Hasen (Election Law Blog) notes that "it seems very likely an initiative overturning the decision through a constitutional amendment will qualify and appear on the November ballot" (see here) and opines:

This helps John McCain because those conservative voters may not have come out in great numbers for him, but they will come out now to vote for this amendment, and they are more likely to vote for McCain than for the Democrat once they are already voting. That's not to say that California will go red, but it is to say that the Democratic nominee will have to devote more resources to this very expensive to campaign in state.​

 

[jillian]

The court didn't overstep. And any amendment to the cali constitution will fail. But they absolutely did McCain a favor because now all the radical righters will go out to vote in droves.

You'd think they'd have learned from what happened last election season.

 

[Glori.B]

My position is that the US should get rid of Government marriage completely. In order to ensure the Constitution is not violated and to allow some states to allow same sex marriages and some not to, while ensuring that the requirement that all LEGAL acts of one State are recognized in another, Marriage should be an act performed by religious or non religious groups as they please. A Civil Union should be what the Government recognizes. This would ensure that if a couple States want same sex "marriages" and others do not that there is no attempt by idiots in Congress to claim One State can ignore another States legal acts.

The Religious would still be able to have their marriages in the Churches of their choice while denying the same to those types of couples they want. While the State would simple have to recognize Unions as legal and binding.

i like it!

 

[Ravi]

RGS, if there are no state sanctioned marriages would you object to gays calling their civil unions marriages like straights do?

Other than that, your post seems sensible to me.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RGS, if there are no state sanctioned marriages would you object to gays calling their civil unions marriages like straights do?

Other than that, your post seems sensible to me.

If a Religion or what ever wants to call a union a marriage I have no problem as long as the State does not recognize it or force other groups to call it that.

The State ( Government) has to stay in the business end, so as to ensure property rights and other rights. A Civil Union appeases neither side but is a good compromise in my opinion.

 

[Ravi]

If a Religion or what ever wants to call a union a marriage I have no problem as long as the State does not recognize it or force other groups to call it that.

The State ( Government) has to stay in the business end, so as to ensure property rights and other rights. A Civil Union appeases neither side but is a good compromise in my opinion.

I'm going to have to rep you for this. I'm in total agreement.

 

[Annie]

The court didn't overstep. And any amendment to the cali constitution will fail. But they absolutely did McCain a favor because now all the radical righters will go out to vote in droves.

You'd think they'd have learned from what happened last election season.

I disagree about the court, this gay male says it better than I could:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/golden-state-gay-marriage-ban-struck-down/

...Going over the opinion, I appreciate the majority’s recognition that marriage is more than a right. It also involves the granting of state privileges while imposing certain responsibilities on the partners in the union. But the court overstepped its bounds in redefining (for purposes of state law) an institution which has long been limited to monogamous relationships between individuals of different genders. In a democracy, the people and their elected representatives should make decisions of this magnitude.

It’s not just the court’s bypassing the people’s will that troubles me, it’s also some things the court said about marriage. The court refuses to rely upon the “historical” understanding of marriage, noting that “prohibitions on interracial marriage” are also part of the historical record. What it neglects to mention is that those laws were statutory creations, while the historical understanding of marriage as a union between one man and one woman goes back for millennia.

The court sees marriage as “a substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own.” But marriage has long been more than just a loving relationship. Such a definition would suggest that two friends — or even siblings — could marry.

The court goes on to make much of the notion of dignity:

One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple’s right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect.​

Unless I missed it, the court did not cite the constitutional provision according such dignity.

Recognizing marriage has not — at least not until recently — been about according dignity to any couple in any loving relationship. It has long been a social institution joining together two individuals of different genders in a monogamous bond to promote a stable environment for the raising of children. Indeed, as I pointed out in a recent post, in all cultures (up until the present day) that recognize marriage, sexual difference has been “the defining aspect of the institution.” To be sure, some cultures allowed for same-sex marriages, but, in those cases, one of the partners had to live in the guise of the opposite sex in societies far more sexually stratified than our own.

All that said, I do believe marriage can evolve to include same-sex unions. Indeed, that evolution is already taking place. As gay and lesbian couples meet the obligations traditionally assigned to marriage and live together in monogamous relationships that are more than just loving, then we will find these unions treated as marriage.

But this evolution should happen naturally and not be imposed by a court. Advocates need to defend the merits of the institution rather than focus on the rights they believe are their due. Unless these advocates make their case to the people, they will find the people blocking the evolution of marriage beyond its traditional definition.

...

 

[Zoomie1980]

Once again we need to take off our hats to the founding mothers and fathers of this nation, minorities have equal protection under the law.

There were no founding "mothers"....all the authors were male....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I guess Dogger has no comment since his personal attack on me failed so miserably. ( He was on and responded to numerous threads so spare me the whine about he didn't have time to see it)

 

[rayboyusmc]

I guess Dogger has no comment since his personal attack on me failed so miserably.

From the Master of Personal Attacks?

GAFL

And I actually agree with most of what you said on this topic.

 

[jillian]

And I actually agree with most of what you said on this topic.

That might well wreck his day.

 

[Dogger]

I guess Dogger has no comment since his personal attack on me failed so miserably. ( He was on and responded to numerous threads so spare me the whine about he didn't have time to see it)

If I don't respond to something you wrote, it's either because I skipped over it or didn't think it merited the effort of a response. I can only roll my eyes so much, so expect me to ignore you frequently.

If your fragile ego needs a response, try less insult and more reason. Given your limited reasoning abilities, I'm willing to settle for less insult.