Eloping to California

[underworld]

slippery sloping to california

[jjd]

page-topping sickie baa

[rob]

Last!

[Hugh Conway]

Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted.

 

Quite recently (in the grand scheme of things), it was generally accepted that african-americans were inferior to whites. A century and a half ago, they were slaves!

 

Until 1967 there were still laws in place that required marriages to be between people of a similar race and opposite sex. See Loving v. Virginia and the Virginia trial judges quote:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix

[rob]

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix

 

 

Someday a history professor will dig this quote up and think we were a bunch of cavemen.

[tvashtarkatena]

quote: The Majority Opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles rejected any reliance upon the Loving case as controlling upon the issue of same-sex marriage, holding that:

 

“ [T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for centuries — at first by a few people, and later by many more — as a revolting moral evil. This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism's worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, the triumph of a cause for which many heroes and many ordinary people had struggled since our nation began. It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2). But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.

 

etc...

 

Judges can be wrong and ignorant of history, just like anyone else. A quick read of some of other quotes from our learned judges reveals that in spades.

 

No one knows how long homosexual unions have been recognized and accepted. The Cheyenne accepted them. The Greeks accepted them (with Alexander the Great being their prime example). England has been 100% gay for centuries. Historically, the U.S. attitude towards such may well be 'abnormal', not the other way around. The judges here are simply ignorant of history, no more.

 

 

[minx]

thanks all for the insightful discussion on telling two adults how they should/shouldn't be allowed to live their lives.

 

but what i'm really upset about is that i have not received an invite to the pending pink/kevbone nuptuals. they must have something planned in CA?

[AlpineK]

I don't normally like to use the word retarded, but in this case I will.

 

I can't believe that there are retards who try and post articles by retarded legislators against gay marriage.

 

If they want to get hitched they should be able to go right ahead.

 

On a side note: Pink and Kevbone just come clean with all of us and tell us that you have an upcoming wedding.

[Hugh Conway]

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix

 

 

Someday a history professor will dig this quote up and think we were a bunch of cavemen.

 

Read up on anti-miscegenation laws. Amazing how similar they sound to the anti-homosexuality troglodytes.

[jjd]

where's trask?

[Hugh Conway]

where's trask?

 

garglin butt-gravy, asseyes

[Stefan]

do you guys realize how much those blue states are going to lose out on gay weddings?

 

Those gay dudes know how to put on a party with lots of money spent.

 

This is a business!

[jjd]

garglin butt-gravy, asseyes

 

i've got a cup full of shower babies i salvaged for you, dickhead

[Hugh Conway]

garglin butt-gravy, asseyes

 

i've got a cup full of shower babies i salvaged for you, dickhead

 

last "catcher" boytoy left you his to drink out of?

[STP]

quote: The Majority Opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles rejected any reliance upon the Loving case as controlling upon the issue of same-sex marriage, holding that:

 

“ [T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for centuries — at first by a few people, and later by many more — as a revolting moral evil. This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism's worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, the triumph of a cause for which many heroes and many ordinary people had struggled since our nation began. It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2). But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.

 

etc...

 

Judges can be wrong and ignorant of history, just like anyone else. A quick read of some of other quotes from our learned judges reveals that in spades.

 

No one knows how long homosexual unions have been recognized and accepted. The Cheyenne accepted them. The Greeks accepted them (with Alexander the Great being their prime example). England has been 100% gay for centuries. Historically, the U.S. attitude towards such may well be 'abnormal', not the other way around. The judges here are simply ignorant of history, no more.

 

 

Ha, that's funny. I guess that's why they called it Merry Ole England.

 

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if you want to pack someone's fudge in the privacy of your own home.

 

Yeah, and for you inquiring minds, the reference for the judical quotes is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia.

 

The point is that everyone does not see the issues (race and sexual orientation) as it applies to marriage as equivalent. Some people do. Fine.

 

States will take different views on this and consequently, some states will not recognize same-sex marriage sanctioned by other states. That's all I'm pointing out. I don't believe it's a foregone conclusion that gay marriage will be federally sanctioned, no matter how you interpret the Equal Protection Clause. In the meantime, go ahead and fly your freak flag.

[Clavote]

Our divorce business is going to go up!

 

If heteros are any guide to the divorce rate, we can expect business to increase with the increase in gay marriages.

 

No more just walking out the door with all your shit. Now you have to go to court and pay a lawyer to get half your shit.

 

Thank you California Supreme Court!!!! I'm gonna get a new vacation home.

[TREETOAD]

Usually those entering a gay marriage already have their own shit packed..

[JayB]

The smoking ban comparison doesn't apply here, either. That is a public health issue (there is no fundamntal right to smoke, or use any other type of drug, for that matter), not a basic civil rights issue.

I am surprised that you are not willing to address this comparison. I might even accuse you of being closed-minded for thinking that there is some fundamental difference between a 'right to join in holy matrimony in a place of God' and a 'right to smoke.' Or did you mean to imply that the government's restriction on a church's freedom to marry who they please is even less legitimate than its restriction on indoor smoking, because there is not even a health issue involved? No, probably not.

 

Businesses enjoy an secure operating environment provided by the state: police, fire, roads, etc. The state has every right to regulate them for the public good, and prohibiting discrimination falls squarely in that category for an enlightened, just society.

...except for the freedom of religion part. You didn't really address the idea that forcing a church to accommodate the marriage of someone that they don't want to is a denial of that church's freedom of religion. I am just thinking fairly here--if we are talking about constitutional rights, this is fair game. As much as I despise the hand of religion in politics and government, I think it is important that we do not over-correct.

 

Just thought I'd chime in to say that I think that Justin is dead -on here, and it's reassuring to see someone on the political left making these arguments.

 

 

[ashw_justin]

To be honest I'm not really sure what 'left' is supposed to mean, but say it means advocating the protection of the weak and oppressed from the strong and empowered, then maybe I am being totally consistent with leftist principles by arguing in defense of the side that is apparently being soundly defeated (churches), whether or not they actually deserve it. But I guess did refer to those rights thingies too. These are the canaries.

[Hugh Conway]

Uh... Churchs aren't being forced to do anything.

[Sherri]

OK, let's here it: how many of you are planning a nuptual sojourn to California in the near future?

 

The VW bus barely gets 20mpg, we don't have the dogs' tuxes finished, and the Indigo Girls are playing in Seattle next weekend, so we're going to have to take a pass on this one. Thanks anyway.

 

2A2Jt4WOxN8

 

 

 

 

[ashw_justin]

Uh... Churchs aren't being forced to do anything.

Uh... that sure is the impression that has been given in this thread, particularly by the poster with whom I was debating. ps. I will argue about pretty much anything that sounds interesting, whether or not you think it is an issue.

[tvashtarkatena]

Churches that enjoy state support through their tax exempt status should appropriately be forced to give up their anti-gay disciminatory doctrines and practices, just as they were forced to give up their racial discimination during the civil rights era.

 

In several of the court cases I alluded to, churches who disciminated against gays regarding the use of their public facilities for weddings appropriately lost their tax exempt status.

 

In effect, churches that wish to hold on to a doctrine that violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, as well as many state anti-discrimination laws, should lose their tax exempt status and become private, members only clubs. Otherwise, the state is complicit in a churche's disciminatory practices, in clear violation of the Constitution's equal protection clause.

 

The establishment clause was never meant to give religion carte blanch to violate the fundamental civil rights of its members. It has limitations, as it should. Non profit status may be appropriate for some churches, who, after all, occasionally perform good works and do not exist to make a profit (which, in so many cases, is complete and utter bullshit, but that's another issue), but only those who agree to comply with the highest law of the land.

[Hugh Conway]

Uh... Churchs aren't being forced to do anything.

Uh... that sure is the impression that has been given in this thread, particularly by the poster with whom I was debating. ps. I will argue about pretty much anything that sounds interesting, whether or not you think it is an issue.

 

Yes, well, those posters are morons.

 

The issue is whether California can grant marriage licenses to same sex couples; once said license is granted churchs can choose whatever they want. Catholic churchs require marriage counseling before a service with questioning regarding such issues as premarital intercourse.

[Clavote]

Uh... Churchs aren't being forced to do anything.

Uh... that sure is the impression that has been given in this thread, particularly by the poster with whom I was debating. ps. I will argue about pretty much anything that sounds interesting, whether or not you think it is an issue.

 

Yes, well, those posters are morons.

 

The issue is whether California can grant marriage licenses to same sex couples; once said license is granted churchs can choose whatever they want. Catholic churchs require marriage counseling before a service with questioning regarding such issues as premarital intercourse.

 

A lot of Catholics in CA get married in a non-Catholic church after meeting with their parish priest for "counseling".

Their policies actually have the effect of pushing people away from marriage in a Catholic church.

 

I don't think marriage is the business of any religion or state.

You can easily shack up and reproduce, but you don't get the tax benefits and legal whatnot of state sponsored marriage.

 

Now, AK knows how to marry, straight, people. 3 day waiting time for a license. No questions asked (for all intents and purposes), and then any person who is the officiant (an it is easy to get a judge to make you one), can marry you.

 

Most of the gay people I know who have had a marriage ceremony, before and after the court ruling, have done it outside a religious organization and have hired a non-denominational minister to do it.

 

Now if you want to get married in the building of the organization that frowns on gay marriage and are willing to fight for that, well that is a pretty rough road to take and I wish you the best of luck. You will certainly be opening doors for those to follow.

 

I still think it's a lot harder to get a divorce than to get married.