California Overturns Gay Marriage

A Can of Man

A Can of Man

Je suis aware
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4A454K20081105
(REUTERS)



By Peter Henderson and Jim Christie
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California and two other states voted in Tuesday's elections to ban same-sex marriage, dealing a blow to gays and lesbians in the left-leaning, trend-setting state months after they won their case in state court.
But in an indication of the complex cultural map drawn by the elections, voters also rejected limits on abortion in South Dakota and Colorado in a loss for social conservatives as the country elected its first black president, Barack Obama, a Democrat.
Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council which worked for the passage of the anti-gay marriage measures, said the wins on same-sex marriage bans signaled Obama's mandate is for economic policy, "not one to implement a radical social policy."
"What lost last night was the Republican Party, but it was not a rejection of traditional or moral values, because you have two states that voted for Barack Obama -- Florida and California -- that also passed the marriage amendments," Perkins told Reuters in a telephone interview.
California's Supreme Court had declared same-sex marriage a right in May, unleashing a flood of weddings, but the state's voters changed the Constitution to rescind the right after one of the most expensive ballot campaigns in history.
Florida and Arizona joined California in Tuesday's elections, adding to the list of dozens of states banning same-sex marriages with similar laws.
Obama, a U.S. senator from Illinois, won California and Florida. Rival Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain won his home state of Arizona, which in 2006 rejected a ban on same-sex marriage.
CLOSELY WATCHED
Of the three measures to ban gay marriages, California's was the most closely watched as the state is the most populous and is perceived as a political and cultural leader.
With 96.4 percent of precincts reporting, the California proposition -- which came about half a year after the state's highest court opened the way to gay marriage -- was ahead by more than 4 percentage points.
In San Francisco, where Mayor Gavin Newsom initiated gay marriages in City Hall and launched the legal battle resulting in recognition of same-sex unions, Obama's victory and message of change consoled proposition opponents.
"We have Obama," Noelle Skool, 29, said as she checked identification at a popular lesbian bar in San Francisco's Mission district. "It's small steps. Eventually they'll warm up to the fact that, hey, we're all equal."
Los Angeles attorney Gloria Allred said she planned a lawsuit to challenge California's new gay-marriage ban on behalf of two lesbian clients involved in the earlier suit that reached the California Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, in one of the most emotionally-fought U.S. social issues, abortion rights advocates declared victory in two states.
Colorado voters rejected a measure that would have made abortion the legal equivalent of murder by defining human life as beginning at conception.
South Dakota defeated a ban on abortion that, if passed, had been expected to spark a court battle leading to the Supreme Court.
"We defeated it here, and it won't spread to other states," said Sarah Stoesz, president of the local Planned Parenthood chapter. "And now we've started a counter movement in a very conservative part of the country."
In other state ballots, Michigan voted to allow medical use of marijuana, Nebraska ended affirmative action, or policies to help minorities, and Washington voted to allow doctor-assisted suicide.
(Reporting by Peter Henderson, Alexandria Sage, Jim Christie and Ed Stoddard, editing by Vicki Allen)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

As much as I'm not a fan of homosexuality I think they should have the right to get married.
I guess my sentiment comes from knowing what it's like to be told that I do not have the right to do certain things. Many things which were and are important to me. If this is that important to them, I say let them.
 
Don't those social conservatives realize that we won't need as many abortions if we allow gays to marry?

In any case, good news across the board. Gay couples should be extended all the same rights as straight married couples, but it really can't be called marriage. It's not like they can't just get some civil union papers, hold a ceremony, and call it a marriage and tell all their friends it's a marriage. And no government should have a say in what goes on inside your body, unless you're living in the Brave New World.
 
I think if ultimately being legally called marriage is the issue, the homosexuals really need to yield in that case. By being legally recognized as a legitimate couple, they're getting a lot more than most people in the world could ever hope for.
After a generation or two maybe if society is ready for it, it can be called marriage or whatever.
 
When gays are "supposedly" able to procreate, without outside interference, I'll recognise it as marriage. Until then, they are no more than two same sex people living in the same house. I used ti flat with half a dozen blokes, does thatt mean we should have been entitled to be recognised as married? Or is marriage recognised only among those who have sex with one another. It seems to me, that that these laws are framed by Eric Cartman.

It's all Politically Correct BS.
 
It depends whether one is being denied for a legitimate reason I guess. Criminals are denied their freedom for good reason, stupid legislation denies people their rights on occasions, but we have to look at whether their "Rights" are actually rights or priveleges. The way I see it two poofs can live together if they wish to, and do not break any other laws. That to me is a privelege not a "right", as it does actually offend a great proportion of the public and is unnatural.

I'm sure I don't have to explain the birds and the bees to anyone here. Procreation is a right, (if it's not we are all doomed) self gratification is a privelege, no different than other means of enjoyment.
 
That's my view on many so called "rights" actually.
They are in fact privileges of living in countries that honor peoples' freedoms. Societies that value a level of logic and reason.
Which is why it's important to defend them.
 
Whether gays marry or not has no effect on my life. I dont buy for one iota the arguement that gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage. Its already legal in many countries and as I am getting married in May -so far no effect. To me that old arguement is not anti-gay marriage, thats simply anti-gay. I am a strong believer in "live and let live" and since Adam and Steve getting married as recognized by the state has no bearing on me, -why should I care what they do? I am not in the habit of sticking my nose in other people's business where I have no concern.

Marriage by the church is a different subject because most religons don't recognize homosexuality. Unless the church were to change its view on this I dont see how gays could get married in church.
 
The state provides benefits for married couples because they take society forward, (they are society). Homosexuals live together for gratification, they don't have a claim on any benefits, the same as I could not claim marriage benefits if I was sharing a house with one or more straight friends.

One is a natural part of life, the other is merely for sexual gratification. There's no similarity and therefore no consideration needs to be given.

The state of marriage and "religion" have nothing to do with one another, other than the fact that one can be married under the auspices of the church. The fact that some cars have four wheels does not mean that everything with four wheels is therefore a car. Nothing to do with it whatsoever.

I'll leave it at that, as to go further and tell the whole truth in this Politically Correct world would probably lead to my being banned from this site.
 
The reproduction matter DOES need to be answered though. And as for homosexual parents having adopted children, I just don't know.
 
A great leap backward for America.

Only in America is everyone equal provided they are heterosexual. Only in America can a couple who has no right to raise a child because they are cruel get handed one while two people who have nothing but love to give and are more responsible are turned down because they aren't straight or "married"
America, the land of the free... for some maybe.
 
Last edited:
senojekips said:
The state provides benefits for married couples because they take society forward, (they are society). Homosexuals live together for gratification, they don't have a claim on any benefits, the same as I could not claim marriage benefits if I was sharing a house with one or more straight friends.

One is a natural part of life, the other is merely for sexual gratification. There's no similarity and therefore no consideration needs to be given.

The state of marriage and "religion" have nothing to do with one another, other than the fact that one can be married under the auspices of the church. The fact that some cars have four wheels does not mean that everything with four wheels is therefore a car. Nothing to do with it whatsoever.

I'll leave it at that, as to go further and tell the whole truth in this Politically Correct world would probably lead to my being banned from this site.
Click to expand...


You know the more I read your argument the less I agree with it.

I really don't care whether gays want to get married or not it is their choice and although the thought creeps me out it really isn't any of my business and I do not believe my world will suddenly come to an end because a gay couple 3 miles down the road will get the same 10% tax break I do.

Do you stop and check the firefighter, policeman, waiter, coworker or anyone else who may be involved in your daily life for "Gayness" and send the ones that fail back?

I can see it now:
"Hello Emergency services how can I help you"
"Yeah hi I rang earlier about the home invasion, at the time they had just threatened to shoot the kids"
"Yes we have dispatched a squad car"
"I know but the one that showed up rated a 7.2 on my gayometer so I sent him away, can you send a straight one and please hurry".

I also think what needs to be determined is why marriage has the power it seems to have, if your argument is that marriage is for the sole purpose of procreation do you believe the world fall over tomorrow if the institution was done away with, would the birth rate plummet?

As I have said previously I find the whole gay thing to be somewhat creepy but then I find 90% of the worlds religions and about 1/3 of the people I meet each day to be "somewhat creepy" but it doesn't matter as I only deal with most people for a certain purpose, I am not going to stop buying bread because the guy selling it to me has a lazy eye or a limp.
 
Last edited:
My argument here is purely about their eligibility for the benefits of married couples. It's a money grab and they are not entitled. After all, that is what this notion of Homosexual "marriage" is all about.
 
Last edited:
senojekips said:
My argument here is purely about their eligibility for the benefits of married couples. It's a money grab and they are not entitled. After all, that is what this notion of Homosexual "marriage" is all about.
Click to expand...


But surely that would depend on your definition and purpose of marriage.
I think it is a very narrow definition to say that marriage is for the sole purpose of procreation (which is the only thing unavailable to gay couples).

Through out history procreation has been only one aspect of marriage, it was also for uniting families, economic purposes, political reasons etc. if we are to argue that procreation is the sole identifier for marriage then should childless married couples be given the benefits?
 
I think married couple that don't have children should not be elegible for many of the benefits that those who do have children get (which I'm not sure at this point.)
And so far it seems psychologists are very reluctant to give the nod for gay parents adopting children.
If the two want legal recognition as next of kin and have their money ripped off if they have a divorce then fine.
 
Bigoted hypocritical losers ........

The Other Guy said:
A great leap backward for America.

Only in America is everyone equal provided they are heterosexual. Only in America can a couple who has no right to raise a child because they are cruel get handed one while two people who have nothing but love to give and are more responsible are turned down because they aren't straight or "married"
America, the land of the free... for some maybe.
Click to expand...
TOG ........
Boy-o-boy can I ever agree with your comments.

You have hit the nail right on the head. This is one of the reasons I have such a heart-on for so-called Christians who's doodoo don't stink. They can crucify others (because others don't share their extremist religious beliefs), then turn around and tell you they are "born again" ... "consecrated in the blood of the lamb" ... Cristian practioners. Talk about bigoted hypocritical losers. This is just one of the reasons I left the church.

Why gays can't enjoy the same rights and guarantees that I (as heterosexual) enjoy ... is beyond me. I am secure in my own sexuality, don't feel threatened by any gay person ... and ... can't understand how any "Christian" person can judge someone else.

As far as I am concerned, these kind of bigots can serve a life sentence in the nether regions that they call purgatory.
 
MontyB said:
But surely that would depend on your definition and purpose of marriage.
I think it is a very narrow definition to say that marriage is for the sole purpose of procreation (which is the only thing unavailable to gay couples).
Through out history procreation has been only one aspect of marriage, it was also for uniting families, economic purposes, political reasons etc. if we are to argue that procreation is the sole identifier for marriage then should childless married couples be given the benefits?
Click to expand...
My point has little to do with the definition of marriage but the reason the government give benefits to married couples My argument being that the reason the Government give benefits to Married couples is that they are normally helping the country by breeding and raising children which is very expensive. The reason that it is not paid to two or more people merely living together is that, this is usually cheaper than living on one's own, through shared rent and services etc.

I won't ever go near the reasons that same sex couples should not be allowed to raise children other than to say I see it as a form of perverse cruelty and will lead to people with very confused ideas about life. This is going to lead to a whole new class of litigation in the future as these people suffer as a result of their abnormal upbringing and want compensation from the Government for lack of Duty of Care.
 
Last edited:
I guess my argument is also close to Spike's but as for legal recognition and all sorts of other matters that aren't there because of reproduction, I'd say it should be legal.
 
senojekips said:
My point has little to do with the definition of marriage but the reason the government give benefits to married couples My argument being that the reason the Government give benefits to Married couples is that they are normally helping the country by breeding and raising children which is very expensive. The reason that it is not paid to two or more people merely living together is that, this is usually cheaper than living on one's own, through shared rent and services etc.

I won't ever go near the reasons that same sex couples should not be allowed to raise children other than to say I see it as a form of perverse cruelty and will lead to people with very confused ideas about life. This is going to lead to a whole new class of litigation in the future as these people suffer as a result of their abnormal upbringing and want compensation from the Government for lack of Duty of Care.
Click to expand...

But Governments also give benefits to single people with children so if for example two single people of the same sex lived together but one of them had a kid then there would still be government benefits going into the household, I don't think we are achieving anything by denying the reality of a situation.

Back while I was living overseas just the fact that we were married secured a sizable tax write off and I think it is this recognition gay couples are looking for (and I support), as far as the kids side of things go well I probably lean more toward your argument in that instance but that is a seaparte debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top