Author Topic: Gay Marriage Banned in California  (Read 6754 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline niceties

Gay Marriage Banned in California
« on: November 06, 2008, 04:15:02 PM »
Gay marriage has been banned in California (a place I thought was supposed to be a bit more enlightened than most, in the USA)

How has this been allowed to happen?  It would be unthinkable in England.  Then again, England is less religious than the USA.

I think the reason it happened was due the Christian belief system and the simple fact that there are so many Christian voters in the USA.

Are there any Christians who could provide any other reasons why this backwards decision was made?
Chef! What would a priest want to stick up my butt?

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2008, 04:21:14 PM »
Gay marriage has been banned in California (a place I thought was supposed to be a bit more enlightened than most, in the USA)

How has this been allowed to happen?  It would be unthinkable in England.  Then again, England is less religious than the USA.

I think the reason it happened was due the Christian belief system and the simple fact that there are so many Christian voters in the USA.

Are there any Christians who could provide any other reasons why this backwards decision was made?

Hate to break it to you mate but I live in the UK and we don't have gay marriage either. Gay people have civil unions that carry the same benefits as marriage but are not "marriage" as perceived by the church. It is the same as heterosexuals getting married by a registrar.
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Offline niceties

Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2008, 04:23:30 PM »
oh!

so they have civil partnerships there?

no probs then ... doh!  :(

thanks 4 shooting me down so politely!   ;D
Chef! What would a priest want to stick up my butt?

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2008, 04:26:57 PM »
oh!

so they have civil partnerships there?

no probs then ... doh!  :(

thanks 4 shooting me down so politely!   ;D

Check this thread out.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=2087.0
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Offline hickdive

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
  • Darwins +32/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2008, 04:33:04 PM »
'Marriage' is apparently a 'Very Special Word'tm and if you allow same-sex 'marriage' then the entire world will spin off its axis and we'll all die. So we must use 'Civil Partnership' or something similarly sterile and legalistic to avoid this very real danger.

Some people might view the word 'marriage' simply as shorthand for the legal union of two people who love each other but they're the kind of dangerous folk who open their boiled eggs at the wrong end and who must be defeated at all costs.
Stupidity, unlike intelligence, has no limits.

Offline Irish

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3152
  • Darwins +18/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Moraxella catarrhalis on BA
Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2008, 04:34:43 PM »
I think the reason it happened was due the Christian belief system and the simple fact that there are so many Christian voters in the USA.

You would be correct.  Marriage is defined by, and only by, the church.  Their attitude is, "If you don't like it, tough, my holy book says this..."
La scienze non ha nemici ma gli ignoranti.

Offline niceties

Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2008, 04:37:09 PM »
so they still have the same rights as straight couples? its just not called marriage?

Is that the case?

If it is, I can see why christians would vote for it, if they truly belive the teachings of the bible.

i just don't know why on earth gay people would WANT to get married (under god, as it were) when they are so villified in the bible, religious communities etc...?

I thought they would be amongst the FIRST to reject christianity.  I imagine it will become unilaterally accepted by the church one day, when enough people become civilised enough to believe that its wrong to exclude gay people, and start to take exception to the church's stance on the subject.

cheers for the link
Chef! What would a priest want to stick up my butt?

Offline Disciple of Christ

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1122
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • "The LORD is my shepherd." - Psalm 23
Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2008, 04:41:11 PM »
Gay marriage has been banned in California (a place I thought was supposed to be a bit more enlightened than most, in the USA)

How has this been allowed to happen?  It would be unthinkable in England.  Then again, England is less religious than the USA.

I think the reason it happened was due the Christian belief system and the simple fact that there are so many Christian voters in the USA.

Are there any Christians who could provide any other reasons why this backwards decision was made?

I don't approve of homosexuality, but if Gay people want to get married, just keep it out of the Church of God.

This decision was made probably because it went in front of a panel of Supreme court judges, and we all know those old timers are God fearing men that still display the 10 Commandments in their Courtroom.
Luke 7:22 - "Go on your way, and tell John what things you have seen and heard; How that the Blind see, the Lame have walked, the Lepers are cleansed, the Deaf hear, the Dead are raised, to the Poor the Gospel is preached." - Jesus Christ 33 A.D.

Offline hideousmonster

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #8 on: November 06, 2008, 04:42:08 PM »
It's a democracy. When you spit on the will of the majority, you get burned. The more the courts go over the head of the voters, to apply their own worldview to law, the more despotic our governments will become.
If a tree fell in a forest, and the people around to hear it were not scientists conducting a controlled audio experiment... did it make a sound?

Offline niceties

Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #9 on: November 06, 2008, 04:47:45 PM »
i dont think i could have been more wrong if i tried!

i thought it was a public vote!

thats despicable!!!! how is that allowed?

i think maybe us brits should police america for the good of their people (like we do together for the good of other people around the world ... and NOT their oil)
Chef! What would a priest want to stick up my butt?

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #10 on: November 06, 2008, 04:55:59 PM »
It's a democracy. When you spit on the will of the majority, you get burned. The more the courts go over the head of the voters, to apply their own worldview to law, the more despotic our governments will become.

So when the majority whites were oppressing the minority blacks. That's ok because it's what the "majority want.
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Offline niceties

Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #11 on: November 06, 2008, 05:00:35 PM »
i suppose its a grey area

i think its awful that the government can go over the heads of the majority.

sometimes its necessary though I suppose.

Its just the thought that religion could play a part in some of those decisions that gets me.

only way to get rid of religion's influence in these cases i suppose, would be to have an all-atheist panel.  cant ever see that in the USA tho

square one :(
Chef! What would a priest want to stick up my butt?

Offline Backspace

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1226
  • Darwins +47/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • IXNAY
Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #12 on: November 06, 2008, 05:09:57 PM »
Now let's see, Jesus died on the cross for the sins of humanity; homosexuality is a sin in the eye of the church; ipso facto, homosexuals are forgiven of their "sin".

Problem solved!
There is no opinion so absurd that a preacher could not express it.
-- Bernie Katz

Offline niceties

Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #13 on: November 06, 2008, 05:13:36 PM »
if only u said that before the law was passed! :)

u could have sorted it all out without spunking 38 million dollars!
Chef! What would a priest want to stick up my butt?

Offline Sota

Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #14 on: November 06, 2008, 05:42:35 PM »
It's a democracy. When you spit on the will of the majority, you get burned. The more the courts go over the head of the voters, to apply their own worldview to law, the more despotic our governments will become.

So when the majority whites were oppressing the minority blacks. That's ok because it's what the "majority want.

What sort of government do you think works the best?

Offline hideousmonster

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #15 on: November 06, 2008, 05:45:32 PM »
So when the majority whites were oppressing the minority blacks. That's ok because it's what the "majority want.
As far as the government should be concerned, yes, of course it was. It's okay until the majority changes it's mind. The civil war, for instance, wasn't a war between the north and south, as the winners would have us believe. It was a war between the local and central government. That's where the true mason dixon line was. First time around, I would have voted in favor of homosexual marriage. But then the California Supreme Court - not the voters - not the democratically elected legislators - came along, and actually changed the wording in the California constitution.  I'm sorry, but that issue if far more important than homosexual marriage. Would you want the Presidentially appointed US Supreme Court to rewrite the US constitution however they deem just and sophistocated?  I sure as hell wouldn't. To me, the homosexual community is collateral damage in a war defending democracy against despotism. The real tragedy is that homosexuals so willingly let the courts try to use them as a crow bar, to pry power out of the hands of the people.
If a tree fell in a forest, and the people around to hear it were not scientists conducting a controlled audio experiment... did it make a sound?

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #16 on: November 06, 2008, 05:51:53 PM »
hideousmonster,

Okay.  I'll see your post.  I presume you've read the entire decision by the CA Supreme Court, then?  Please be more specific about the "changing" of the state Constitution.  I am guessing that you actually mean that you feel their interpretation was a wild stretch, but maybe you actually mean they edited the state Constitution.  Please elaborate.

Furthermore, please address the matter of a simple majority being able to change the state Constitution, while tax increases require a 2/3rds majority.  If a simple 50%+1 majority can change the state Constitution, why should ANY ballot measure be written as a state law (and thus subject to challenge through the state courts) when making the same proposition an amendment to the state Constitution puts it out of reach of state courts?  I'd like you to expound on this subject, if you don't mind.

Offline bahramthered

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3140
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #17 on: November 06, 2008, 06:17:21 PM »
The reason Gay couples want to marry is that there is over 300 seperate benifits to marriage under US law that a couple autimatically receive.

Here's how it should be in my opinion;

Marriage is a relgiouys ceremony that should have no place in the law. It's there and not going any where. Okay. Well now we have to look at this litle fact. Chrisitians are trying to challenge this under their god/relgion. Well they don't have the right to enforce their relgion on everyone and people other than chrisitians get married under the existing laws of this country.


So eventually this make it to the supreme court and they'll have to decide all these constituational changes are illegal under the federal constituation. Then I don't know what happens.

And if the courts knock this bigotry out it will be back to the individual churches to decide if they want to do the rituals. Just like a chrisitian church dosn't have to marry jews or muslims.

Offline hideousmonster

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #18 on: November 06, 2008, 06:41:27 PM »
hideousmonster,

Okay.  I'll see your post.  I presume you've read the entire decision by the CA Supreme Court, then?  Please be more specific about the "changing" of the state Constitution.  I am guessing that you actually mean that you feel their interpretation was a wild stretch, but maybe you actually mean they edited the state Constitution.  Please elaborate.

Furthermore, please address the matter of a simple majority being able to change the state Constitution, while tax increases require a 2/3rds majority.  If a simple 50%+1 majority can change the state Constitution, why should ANY ballot measure be written as a state law (and thus subject to challenge through the state courts) when making the same proposition an amendment to the state Constitution puts it out of reach of state courts?  I'd like you to expound on this subject, if you don't mind.

Oops. Did I say changed the wording, i mean they treated the ban on gay marriage as though it were prohibited by the state constitution, even though it was not. Either way, they went over the heads of the majority, and in doing so, deserved a backlash from the voters.

Further I agree... it makes more sense to make constitutional amendments instead of state laws with that form of government. Normally, I would say that it makes more sense to require a 2/3 majority to change the constitution, but in this case, California has a supreme court that pretends the constitution says things that it doesn't.  If it were up to me, the california constitutional amendment process would require at least 2/3, but the court would need to have the same kind of majority to reach a decision that overturns a voter-approved law. This ban, for instance, was overturned by a 4-3 decision.

Also, I like this 2/3 tax hike voter approval idea.  I wish we had that in the federal government.
If a tree fell in a forest, and the people around to hear it were not scientists conducting a controlled audio experiment... did it make a sound?

Offline JTW

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1983
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #19 on: November 06, 2008, 06:48:43 PM »
My bet, people are incredibly up in arms because the most liberal state in America vetoed gay marriage. So it can't be just a knuckle dragging, southern state bigotry vote any longer.

Oh the humanity!!!

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #20 on: November 06, 2008, 06:58:55 PM »
Oops. Did I say changed the wording, i mean they treated the ban on gay marriage as though it were prohibited by the state constitution, even though it was not.

Hideousmonster, please don't dodge the questions.  Have you read the decision?  Yes or no?  I will admit that I have not and don't likely intend to.  Since you're taking a stand on this, and making a specific claim, I will ask you to back it up.  Your reasoning is intriguing, but before we discuss that any further, I request that you provide the facts to back up your characterization of the decision.  Already you've amended your statement once, so now I'm more concerned and insistent on this point than I was before.

Further I agree... it makes more sense to make constitutional amendments instead of state laws with that form of government. Normally, I would say that it makes more sense to require a 2/3 majority to change the constitution, but in this case, California has a supreme court that pretends the constitution says things that it doesn't.  If it were up to me, the california constitutional amendment process would require at least 2/3, but the court would need to have the same kind of majority to reach a decision that overturns a voter-approved law. This ban, for instance, was overturned by a 4-3 decision.

C'mon.  This is hardly what I asked for.  You have reasserted your claim here, but failed to back it up for a third time.  Please outline the decision for us and explain how you have come to so strongly disagree with the reasoning.

And please take another crack at a real discussion of the 50% +1 bar for a change to the state Constitution.  What you just offered was pathetically simpleminded.  I am open to being swayed by your position, but you're going to have to do a LOT better than this.

Also, I like this 2/3 tax hike voter approval idea.  I wish we had that in the federal government.

Why?  If 50% +1 is all it takes to change a founding document, what would be the point of a 2/3rds vote on taxes?  50% +1 could vote a change in the Constitution to eliminate the 2/3rds bar, so what's the point?  Do you have a cohesive position here?  If so, you'd better elaborate and clarify, because your position looks silly right now.

Offline hideousmonster

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #21 on: November 06, 2008, 10:55:53 PM »
Hideousmonster, please don't dodge the questions.  Have you read the decision?  Yes or no?  I will admit that I have not and don't likely intend to.  Since you're taking a stand on this, and making a specific claim, I will ask you to back it up.  Your reasoning is intriguing, but before we discuss that any further, I request that you provide the facts to back up your characterization of the decision.  Already you've amended your statement once, so now I'm more concerned and insistent on this point than I was before.

I've read enough about it to know that it was not constitutionally sound. Here's the gist: The voters passed a law prohibiting homosexual marriage. The court ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage violates a clause in the constitution which guarantees a right to privacy. Yet marriage is a publically officiated institution, which results in a change in how the government recognises the people involved. There is nothing in the constitution which even vaguely indicates that marriage is a privacy issue.  Essentially, they pretended there were statements in the constitution which technically not only didn't exist, but which were in conflict with how the government had been treating marriages for generations.

Quote
C'mon.  This is hardly what I asked for.  You have reasserted your claim here, but failed to back it up for a third time.  Please outline the decision for us and explain how you have come to so strongly disagree with the reasoning.
Not only does the constitution not address homosexual marriage, but it doesn't even address who can marry who in a heterosexual marriage. Not to say that it's private or anything. There is nothing linking marriage to privacy. If there were, how could you pass laws requiring the government to grant marriage licenses?

Quote
And please take another crack at a real discussion of the 50% +1 bar for a change to the state Constitution.  What you just offered was pathetically simpleminded.  I am open to being swayed by your position, but you're going to have to do a LOT better than this.
There's nothing pathetic about simple. The more complicated an explanation, the more easily loopholes can be found and abused. Sir, I don't care how open you are to being swayed. I am simply expressing an opinion. How you react to it is not my concern. When the court adds completely unrelated meaning to constitutional language, just so it can subject a population to laws not favored, I find that threatening to democracy. And I believe the homosexual community deserves to have this amendment added to the constitution, for resorting to those sorts of tactics. Is it wise to allow the constitution to be amended with a simple majority? I don't believe so, but the voters approved that system, too, so who am I to argue?

Quote
Also, I like this 2/3 tax hike voter approval idea.  I wish we had that in the federal government.
Why?  If 50% +1 is all it takes to change a founding document, what would be the point of a 2/3rds vote on taxes?  50% +1 could vote a change in the Constitution to eliminate the 2/3rds bar, so what's the point?  Do you have a cohesive position here?  If so, you'd better elaborate and clarify, because your position looks silly right now.
Because it makes it that much more difficult to raise taxes. They would have to amend the constitution, and then go back and have another vote to raise taxes. Besides, I said I wish we had that tax-approval standard for the federal govornment. In the federal government, you need a lot more than 50% to amend the constitution. Unfortunately we hardly need anything to raise federal taxes.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2008, 11:00:28 PM by hideousmonster »
If a tree fell in a forest, and the people around to hear it were not scientists conducting a controlled audio experiment... did it make a sound?

Offline Disciple of Christ

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1122
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • "The LORD is my shepherd." - Psalm 23
Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #22 on: November 07, 2008, 08:16:10 AM »
'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban
'Burn their f---ing churches, then tax charred timbers'
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220

"Burn their churches?" I don't know about you, but that is a bit extreme because America shall not tolerate two gay people being married.
Luke 7:22 - "Go on your way, and tell John what things you have seen and heard; How that the Blind see, the Lame have walked, the Lepers are cleansed, the Deaf hear, the Dead are raised, to the Poor the Gospel is preached." - Jesus Christ 33 A.D.

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #23 on: November 07, 2008, 11:23:05 AM »
I've read enough about it to know that it was not constitutionally sound. Here's the gist: The voters passed a law prohibiting homosexual marriage. The court ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage violates a clause in the constitution which guarantees a right to privacy. Yet marriage is a publically officiated institution, which results in a change in how the government recognises the people involved. There is nothing in the constitution which even vaguely indicates that marriage is a privacy issue.  Essentially, they pretended there were statements in the constitution which technically not only didn't exist, but which were in conflict with how the government had been treating marriages for generations.

Okay.  So I guess I was asking for a little too much to hope you actually had any real understanding of this issue yourself.

I am simply expressing an opinion.

You were expressing your opinion as fact.  So much so, in fact, that the words you originally typed claimed that the CA Supreme Court actually physically revised the state Constitution; that's how convinced you were that your opinion was unquestionably correct.  The truth is that you don't know jackshit about even the basics of this decision and what you are doing is talking out your ass.  If the Supreme Court had truly wildly exceeded its authority by pulling an entirely novel and spurious interpretation from thin air, then your reasoning might have been valid.  The problem is that you don't have the knowledge base to state that that is the situation here, so your reasoning fails because you don't have the facts to back up your interpretation of the situation.  If you base your reasoning on a particular fact set (like an entirely preposterous Supreme Court decision), you can't go back and claim that the fact set was you expressing your opinion.  You haven't even read the decision, so labelling the decision as outlandish is an opinion you can't even have.  It's like saying you didn't like a book that you never read a single page of.  You don't get to declare an decision completely meritless without even reading the opinion.  For all you know, the decision could be very solidly backed up by extensive legal precedent.  You haven't read it.  Jesus Christ, what a total waste of space.  You've just lost a lot of respect from one of the few people on this forum that had any for you.

When the court adds completely unrelated meaning to constitutional language, just so it can subject a population to laws not favored, I find that threatening to democracy.

YOU DON'T KNOW THAT THAT HAPPENED.  YOU HAVEN'T READ THE DECISION.  SHUT YOUR MOUTH.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2008, 11:47:41 AM by Davedave »

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #24 on: November 07, 2008, 11:55:01 AM »
I just want to re-emphasize how horribly, HORRIBLY irresponsible it is for you to impugn the integrity of the California Supreme Court without even reading their decision.  In case no one told you, courts are provided for in the Constitution too.  They are an important part of our democratic system and that they have the power to overrule a 50% +1 vote by the citizens is well-established and considered a valuable check within the system.  To level a charge against them for "threatening democracy", well, those words are bordering on revolutionary and that you dare to use them without having even read their decision is the height of reckless ignorance, the exact sort of reckless ignorance that encapsulates WHY we have courts - to distinguish democracy from mob rule.  You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2008, 12:10:20 PM by Davedave »

Offline AFadly

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1609
  • Darwins +0/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Islam is the ONLY proven religion
Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #25 on: November 08, 2008, 01:49:48 AM »
Glad that it is banned
I hope they ban Gays from living as well

Offline Irish

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3152
  • Darwins +18/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Moraxella catarrhalis on BA
Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #26 on: November 08, 2008, 01:58:57 AM »
I hope they ban Gays from living as well

You would say that.  Your religion endorses the killing of others.  There is no human dignity in your religion.  Freedom is just a word.
La scienze non ha nemici ma gli ignoranti.

Offline Sota

Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #27 on: November 08, 2008, 05:05:44 PM »
Glad that it is banned
I hope they ban Gays from living as well

I usually laugh at things you say, but this is just shit.

Tell me AFadly, what have gay people ever done to you?

Offline liveandletlive

Re: Gay Marriage Banned in California
« Reply #28 on: November 08, 2008, 05:13:09 PM »
Glad that it is banned
I hope they ban Gays from living as well

You know, as much sh*t as I have to put up with people like you, go ahead....you wanna bring it down to the physical level, then kill me.  At least then, my hell will be far better than your heaven. :)