I knew that was going to come up. What at question then, wasn't the institution of marriage, but more so racial mixing. So what's to keep me and my lawn from getting married, and me filing taxes as "married filing jointly"?
Your lawn has no legal standing as it is incapable of giving consent. Same with your lawn jockey, your horse, and your favorite tie. You have to admit your example is a ludicrous example of the, "slippery slope," argument.
And what did gay/same-sex marriage in achieve????...after all love-is-love as someone stated. course I'm not sure what the "couples laws" were before. But... last I checked California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support. Huh??? So what was the big victory, to be defined sexually like a hetero couple... somewhat ass-backwards (pun intended)
Domestic partnership is not marriage despite the fact that California offers the same benefits. What you're arguing is a state of, "separate but equal," and that clearly violates the California constitution which states that all citizens are entitled to the exact same legal rights. That means if the state offers the contract of marriage to some of its citizens, then it must offer that contract to all its citizens. As it is right now, a gay couple can only ask for a domestic partnership license, not a marriage license. They are prevented, solely by dint of their sexual preference, from receiving that marriage license. Any straight couple can choose to get a marriage license OR a domestic partnership license. These California citizens are enjoying a legal state conferred by the state that other Californians cannot. That is the crux of the matter.
I'm not sure what this ruling does... shit on religion/culture? So be it. Fine.
No, it upholds the California constitution as the law of the land. This is a legally conservative ruling. It is not derived from bench law or some legal principle pulled from the asses of the majority judges. They specifically cite the long history of interpretation of the California constitution as why Prop 22 is unconstitutional.
This has little to do with inclusion (see some of the comments in here that are making it a non-religious vs religious argument). The Western Culture has advanced and survived via man/woman relationships for thousands of years, not from same sex partnerships... it's how we've survived and evolved as a species... and this is to do what??? Further that cause for that union, and call it marriage... because the Christians call it that and men/women call it that, and we feel left out? I don't get it.
No. The state calls it, "marriage." It doesn't matter what the Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, or Ramtha channelers call it. The state has an institution of social existence defined as, "marriage." Religion does not enter into at all and, indeed, it would be inappropriate if it did.
As I pointed out in another post, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that procreation is not a compelling reason for the protection of marriage. Otherwise we could legally deny marriage to anyone who is infertile due to injury, deformity, age, or personal choice and fertility has never been considered to be a condition of marriage at any time in American law.
It is important to note that the vacation of Prop 22 in no way argues that straight couples should not be allowed to be married. Allowing gays to marry does not stop straight couples from marrying and procreating or not.
Californians get the rights/privileges, and thankfully (as with my friend) the challenges and drawbacks. Is this the "left out of the country club" or "never joined a sorority/fraternity" feeling?.. I'm sure other states have it much worse, but California, Mass, NY.... come on.......
Other states do, but California's courts can only consider the law as it exists in California. Fraternal organizations and country clubs are private institutions, not public. A public institution, per California's constitution, must be open and available to any Californian who qualifies for that institution regardless of any personal factors.
If same-sex "marriage" will mainstream everyone, than great. We can then eliminate all the LGBT organizations that permeate our schools, corporations and daily life. Gays can be lawyers, neighbors, etc... vs having to be gay lawyers, gay neighbors... somehow I doubt it. The rights of the masses, yet the individuality. I think many heteros see "marriage" as part of their individuality, yet are all in favor of the same-sex partnership right prescribed in the State of California.
Same sex marriage only extends an existing right to a disenfranchised population within the state itself. It does not equate to social acceptance. The state may have to recognize homosexuals as equal before the law, but private individuals do not. The decision does not state that everyone has to believe that homosexuality is socially acceptable or moral. Because it does not do those things, indeed no decision could, there will still be a need for gays to work to defend their rights. Homosexuals are not asking for any privilege straight people do not already enjoy. They are simply asking for a right that straight people already enjoy. You do not have to like homosexuality or believe it is moral, but you do have to respect the right of individuals to live their private lives as they see fit and enjoy equal protection and equal consideration under the law.
I don't know... I just say leave the hetero marriage lifestyle be... since there's so much individuality and the rights are already afforded to same sex unions... someone can explain. Not purposely posing as ignorant. Same-sex relationships are different, just as hetero relationships are different. But I'm seeing this as more of a sucker punch on the establishment, vs. the actual rights of what they seek.
There is individuality because the law enshrines individuality as a right. If marriage were solely a religious institution then the state would have no right to intervene. Indeed, the state cannot force churches to marry anyone no matter what the laws are. Unfortunately, marriage is an institution of state even though it's derived from religion. Had marriage been the sole province of the churches then there would be no argument. Churches are private institutions.
If you believe hetero and homo relationships are different then you must acknowledge that there are differing standards within heterosexual marriages. What rules a marriage adheres to are up to the couple within the marriage. That means a marriage could allow multiple partners, separate habitation, or no sexual relations and still be a marriage even though such concepts do not meet the common definition of marriage. The point is that society leaves it up to the married couples to decide what is best for their marriage. Homosexual couples simply want the same thing.
I can propose eternal union with a cactus, do I need the state to recognize it? Is it discriminatory to then propose that we classify marriages in California as "straight marriages" vs "same-sex marriage"? Or what will surely boil some bubbles ...."pro-creation marriages" or "evolutionary superior marriages"... you get my point. Culture and religion are not synonymous. Perhaps in 10, no 5 years, we'll see a "Hetero Student Union" in a Berkeley high school. Imagine that? Or is doctrine that the minority is only subject to oppression? Folly.
You're very right in saying culture and religion are not synonymous. Again, unfortunately, marriage is perhaps the single most obvious case of government establishing a religious ritual as a legal institution. Short of the government dissolving all legal marriages and returning marriage to a purely religious institution, we have to recognize that so long as legal marriage exists, it must be extended to all citizens who seek to enter it because the cornerstone of our legal system is that all citizens are equal before the law. It's taken a long time to get to that point as the struggle of women, the disabled, and minorities has shown, but past error does not justify continued error in the body of law.
