California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

[20thStDad]

Gay or straight, I think people take marriage way too lightly in this country. It should be way harder to get married and even harder to get divorced. Especially if benefits come with it and taxpayers have to pay for divorce court to be overbooked.

[MidtownCoog]

Even judges get it wrong now and then. These judges think they are legislators.

The timing of this will hurt the Dems come election time. Now one of the most useless issues of all time will distract the masses even more.

[Vertigo58]

There are many churches in this city that are so freaking strict about even getting a straight couple married people just say:

"To hell with it let's just live together".

The hardcore criteria they force on you is like "crap what do you want a couple of saints?" Whole new topic I know...

again, this is why many people turn away from church weddings.

[KinkaidAlum]

Yeah, applying the Constitution to invalidate a law really makes them activist...I guess the judges who struck down the ban on interraicial marriage in Loving v. Virginia were activist judges too???

I was being sarcastic.

Issues of equality should NOT be left up to the people to vote on. People who think this way should go back to school and take a history course.

[houstonmacbro]

There are many churches in this city that are so freaking strict about even getting a straight couple married people just say:

"To hell with it let's just live together".

The hardcore criteria they force on you is like "crap what do you want a couple of saints?" Whole new topic I know...

again, this is why many people turn away from church weddings.

If I ever get married, joined, hitched, partnered up in a civil ceremony or whatever-you-want-to call-it (doubtful at this stage in my life) it probably would not be in a church of any sorts.

[west20th]

The timing of this will hurt the Dems come election time. Now one of the most useless issues of all time will distract the masses even more.

Just a little off topic prediction. The GOP is toast come November. President on down. I'm a liberal Demorcrat and this worries me. I'm more aligned with the Demorcrats but one party having all the power is never good.

Back on topic with a definition of an "activist" judge: A judge you do not agree with. By the way, weren't 6 of the seven judges on the Calfornia supreme court GOP nominees?

[westguy]

Even judges get it wrong now and then. These judges think they are legislators.

The timing of this will hurt the Dems come election time. Now one of the most useless issues of all time will distract the masses even more.

All three candidates have expressed support for civil unions, so whichever two make it to the general election will have to defend themselves.

Anyway, this is good for anyone who claims to support religious freedom. Before, bigger churches were using the government to dictate to smaller congregations what constitutes a marriage. That definition is pretty flexible, no matter how much you argue its about "one man and one woman."

[jayshoota]

I was being sarcastic.

Issues of equality should NOT be left up to the people to vote on. People who think this way should go back to school and take a history course.

Sorry, I read stuff a little to literally sometimes!

[BryanS]

This should be voted on. Judges have too much power.

Civil rights should never go to the ballot box. We'd still have the confederacy, slavery, and segregated schools had we allowed the good citizens of those eras to vote on.

EDIT: Took out "vote and move on" quote...

[MidtownCoog]

Civil unions would be fine, or just call it non-traditional marriages.

I think Pope Benedict XVI has it right when he says "traditional marriage is an irreplaceable good for the entire society, and the union between man and woman is the "natural cradle" of life".

[H-Town Man]

I think the allegation of judicial activism stems from the court's arbitrary determination of who has a "right to marry" and who doesn't. They decided that two people of the same gender have this right, but that two people in the same family, or that more than two people of any gender, do not. Why draw the line where they did?

The court explained their decision not to extend the "right to marry" to incestuous and or polygamous relations on the basis that

"...the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment." p. 79 of majority opinion.

An interesting rationale, considering that many people think that same-sex relationships have a potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment. It's all a matter of what you consider to be "detrimental" and "sound family environment." I'm sure there are many different opinions on that, but the real question is, why is the court making this decision? What gives them insight into what is detrimental to a sound family environment that the general public doesn't have?

[TJones]

Comments like this annoy the crap out of me. It is another example of the double standards. Breeders is, by the context it is generally used, a deragotory term (it isn't inherently deragotory, just like every other word), but in this context, that is its intent. Double standards just annoy me.

That said, it isn't just far right that has a problem with gay marriage. I think the argument made by most that it affects the sanctity of marriage is idiotic, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't even close to being a right wing thing.

Consider the SOURCE gwilson, and you may not be so "annoyed". I will scream it from the highest mountain that I am a BREEDER. I liken this "derogatory" term to the N-word, apparently if you are one, you are entitled to use it ? I don't see anything wrong with the word Breeder. Double standards are just a part of life.

I agree with you about NOT just the far right that has a problem with gay marriage, but the far right Christians always get the blame, because they are the most vocal about it. Gay marriage is a problem in the Jewish religion, the Muslim religion, pretty much EVERY religion that abides by some sort of "Bible" if you will. I find myself a very religious person, but really have no problem with gay marriage, I am of the minority of Christians. What I have found hilarious is that some of the homosexuals that have joined in a civil union, now want a DIVORCE ! I guess they realized it ain't all it's cracked up to be.

[BryanS]

Civil unions would be fine, or just call it non-traditional marriages.

I think Pope Benedict XVI has it right when he says "traditional marriage is an irreplaceable good for the entire society, and the union between man and woman is the "natural cradle" of life".

...and just let them eat cake, too. And the Pope is right, for those that believe as he does. This isn't about the Pope, or the religious institution of marriage; it's about going to the courthouse and signing a civil contract. Civil Unions, by their nature of being an 1890

[sevfiv]

imo, it is scary that there are folks out there that put same-sex relationships on the same page as incestuous and polygamous ones. nice.

it is also scary to me that said folks devote SO much personal time to meddling in other people's relationships. DSM-IV, anyone?

[TJones]

I think I'd like my partner and I to have benefits (like health insurance, survivorship rights, etc.) but is 'marriage' the only way to obtain that ... even for straight people?

Yep.

[BryanS]

Consider the SOURCE gwilson, and you may not be so "annoyed". I will scream it from the highest mountain that I am a BREEDER. I liken this "derogatory" term to the N-word, apparently if you are one, you are entitled to use it ? I don't see anything wrong with the word Breeder. Double standards are just a part of life.

I agree with you about NOT just the far right that has a problem with gay marriage, but the far right Christians always get the blame, because they are the most vocal about it. Gay marriage is a problem in the Jewish religion, the Muslim religion, pretty much EVERY relion that abides by some sort of "Bible" if you will. I find myself a very religious person, but really have no problem with gay marriage, I am of the minority of Christians. What I have found hilarious is that some of the homosexuals that have joined in a civil union, now want a DIVORCE ! I guess they realized it ain't all it's cracked up to be.

It's not so funny when you can't get it undone! "We got married in Canada, we hate each other, and want a divorce." Well... we don't recognize gay marriage, so we can't give you a divorce - sorry you're gonna have to stay together. Talk about cruel and unusual punishment.

EDIT: Not only is gay marriage in the court system, but also gay divorce. There is a poor lesbian couple in RI they are having to sue the state... to get a divorce/dissolution of their relationship. It's been dragging through the court system for years now...

[TJones]

yep. And it irritates us straight unmarried couples to no end.

The only reason I see that me and the cap'n would get married was if one us no longer had access to benefits, or when we're much older, for the social security bennies. Domestic partner bennies should extend to straight couples as well-- But of the increasing number of companies that provide D.P. bennies, they are for same sex couples only--my own employer is one of these. Makes no sense.

How long have you two been together Crunch ? You are most likely considered common law in this state, and you actually may qualify for benefits, you need to call HR.

Bryan, you can't go back to Canada and get it undone ?

[MidtownCoog]

it's about going to the courthouse and signing a civil contract.

That's not what my marriage was about. I don't think you get it.

[cnote]

imo, it is scary that there are folks out there that put same-sex relationships on the same page as incestuous and polygamous ones. nice.

it is also scary to me that said folks devote SO much personal time to meddling in other people's relationships. DSM-IV, anyone?

I think the point about incest and polygamy is actually a good one, as it is tough to form a rational argument against them but for same sex...I think with incest you can base a ban on the genetic facts and high risk of birth defects and other complications in potential offspring.

As far as polygamy goes, I am not sure I care if people want to live a polygamist lifestyle either as long as they are not breaking the law by abusing children.

How can anyone take offense against being called a Breeder??? I am a breeder and proud of it, breeding was the highlight of my life! If there are people who want to turn that into a derogatory term, all I can do is laugh

[Jax]

How long have you two bween together Cruch ? You are most likely considered common law in this state, and you actually may qualify for benefits, you need to call HR.

I think you need to sign some forms before you're considered common law in Texas. I don't think you can be common law just by living together like you can in other places.

Texas calls it an "informal marriage," rather than a common-law marriage. Under

[TJones]

That's not what my marriage was about. I don't think you get it.

Midtown, I think most like the IDEA of marriage, but as soon as the honeymoon is over.........

[BryanS]

That's not what my marriage was about. I don't think you get it.

Enlighten us...

[cnote]

That's not what my marriage was about. I don't think you get it.

In the eyes of the state that is all marriage is, a church and the actual choice to live together and share a life is different, a church should be able to deny a ceremony to whomever they wish.

Is the church really afraid that if you allow same sex marriage, straight, church going people are going to turn gay and fall out of the congregation?

[MidtownCoog]

It seems the best argument gays can provide for being married is having access to benefits and bank accounts.

That in itself shows me a need for recognized civil unions. We don't have to call is marriage becuae it is not.

And TJones, were you asleep or durnk during your vows? Did you forget the "for better or for worse" part?

[TJones]

It seems the best argument gays can provide for being married is having access to benefits and bank accounts.

That in itself shows me a need for recognized civil unions. We don't have to call is marriage becuae it is not.

And TJones, were you asleep or durnk during your vows? Did you forget the "for better or for worse" part?

I am referring to the idea of marriage for gays. I have been with my wife 11 years. I know what it takes to make a marriage work. I love her just as much today as when we were standing on the beach at sunset in Maui !

[MidtownCoog]

That makes sense. And it took a Breeder to explain it to me.

[crunchtastic]

How long have you two been together Crunch ? You are most likely considered common law in this state, and you actually may qualify for benefits, you need to call HR.

Under the same roof, just 2 years. I always understood common law in Texas to be as simple as considering yourself as husband and wife. I actually had never heard of the form Jax was talking about.

[BryanS]

I think the allegation of judicial activism stems from the court's arbitrary determination of who has a "right to marry" and who doesn't. They decided that two people of the same gender have this right, but that two people in the same family, or that more than two people of any gender, do not. Why draw the line where they did?

The court explained their decision not to extend the "right to marry" to incestuous and or polygamous relations on the basis that

An interesting rationale, considering that many people think that same-sex relationships have a potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment. It's all a matter of what you consider to be "detrimental" and "sound family environment." I'm sure there are many different opinions on that, but the real question is, why is the court making this decision? What gives them insight into what is detrimental to a sound family environment that the general public doesn't have?

The public has the same insight as the courts on this matter. There was a long list of amicus briefs filed with this case that addressed family structures, impacts on children, etc, etc, etc. And almost all of these briefs were from professional medical, legal, etc. associations.

Many so-called "family" organizations out there, that are hostile to gay rights, are doing more damage to their families than they realize. Their advocating, and writing into the constitutions of their states, policy that will affect their own gay children, when they grow up; effectively governing their children, in a harmful way, from the grave.

[cnote]

It seems the best argument gays can provide for being married is having access to benefits and bank accounts.

That in itself shows me a need for recognized civil unions. We don't have to call is marriage becuae it is not.

And TJones, were you asleep or durnk during your vows? Did you forget the "for better or for worse" part?

I don't think that is why they want to get married per se, but it highlights the difference between being able to be legally married and not. I think when they ask for those things, they are asking for equality in the eyes of the law...

[BryanS]

It seems the best argument gays can provide for being married is having access to benefits and bank accounts.

That in itself shows me a need for recognized civil unions. We don't have to call is marriage becuae it is not.

And TJones, were you asleep or durnk during your vows? Did you forget the "for better or for worse" part?

OK. So civil unions for everyone then. And then get married in your church... Right? No arguments there.

And no, its not all about bank accounts, and benefits - but providing a recognized, legal framework around a loving, committed relationship, between two people. Either civil unions for everyone, or civil marriage for everyone - but not two systems. Solemizing your union in a church is a personal matter.

Under the same roof, just 2 years. I always understood common law in Texas to be as simple as considering yourself as husband and wife. I actually had never heard of the form Jax was talking about.

If this helps...

Texas calls it an "informal marriage," rather than a common-law marriage. Under