Judge puts same-sex marriages in California on hold until Aug 18


The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

I strongly favor same sex marriage. If two adults who love each other wish to formalize their relationship, why not allow them to?

The moralist and Christians preach understanding, love and forgiveness, yet show little or no compassion and empathy for others. Despite the admonition from Jesus "ye without sin cast the first stone", they are all to eager to grab an armfull of stones and start attacking others.

I am a straight male and I find nothing at all wrong with gay marriage. It does not diminish my view of the institution of marriage. Nor does it in any way impact my life. It is a private issue for the couples involved and I think all the medling right wingers, moralists, christians and others should pay far more attention to their own affairs and let other people live in peace.

Everyone deserves to pursue happiness. I hope the Supreme Court will hear this case and vote favorably.

0 ( +0 / -0 )


Well said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This isn't about "marriage". A civil union is legal, and for all purposes, the same thing under the law. This issue is about forcing, under the law, acceptance of a lifestyle as mainstream. Acceptance has implications. The majority, who voted "no" to this, do not accept this infringement on their rights. Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

pamelot. How does the marriage of another couple, who you do not know, impose upon your rights? And why are your "rights" any more important or valuable than theirs?

Your view is self centered, needlessly conservative and insensitive to the rights of other people to live freely in the manner they deem fit.

Does your moral superiority come from religion? From tradition? Because the US is a secular state and your faith gives you no more rights than those who reject such superstitions. And tradition? Well it was once traditional to keep slaves in America, but that, like other intollerant and wrong traditions was banned.

Your definition of marriage is not the same as every other person's definition. Mine, for example is Marriage is a contract between two people who wish to share their lives both legally and idealistically. So why is your definition any heavier in weight than mine? I posit that both are valid interpretations. You are free to exercise your interpretation and I am free to exercise mine in tolerating the actions of two same sex individuals who wish to marry.

I for one am sick to death of the moralistic BS that so defines American thinking these days. These holier than thou people who ignore the primary tenants of their faith (love, forgiveness and understanding) in favor of the early Roman imposition of endless conservatism, superstition and fear added to early Christianity as a means of control. If these people understood the history of their faith, they would see the gap between the true teachings of that faith and the dark ages thinking that was later added by an overly political and ambitious church which quickly corrupted the patience and understanding taught by Christ.

And for the secular people who resist same sex marriage, they have no more ground to stand on invoking tradition. Human history has one absolution tradition and that tradition is CHANGE. It is time that the laws and practices reflected the reality of modern human culture. Straight, gay or abstinant people should all have equal consideration for rights and priviledges. If you can have a heterosexual marriage, then your gay tax paying neighbor should have equal right to have a same sex marriage.

And for those just intent upon imposing their thinking on others. Mind your own business. If you don't like gay marriage, don't have gay friends, don't go to their weddings and don't personally recognize their union. Get on with your own life and let others pursue their happiness in peace.

Moderator: Readers, this is a legal issue, not a religious one. Please focus your comments on what is in the story.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One more thought. As for mainstream. I don't think anyone expects the mainstream to fully accept many things. But in a free society the mainstream must tolerate many things. Otherwise freedom becomes meaningless.

The secular mainstream society tolerates religion for example. No one religion is a majority. There are many small branches of nearly every conceivable faith. And yet we are obligated to tolerate and even give tax breaks to religion.

Freedom for you to believe what you believe comes at a cost. And that cost is allowing others to live and believe as they wish. If you want marriage to be a holy institution for you and those who believe like you, then my obligation is to support you in that right. I must tolerate your religion, despite my personal views of it. I must grant you the right to have marriage defined as something mystical and holy, though I see such beliefs as archaic. I still have to grant and help protect your rights to believe the way you do.

But equally, you are obligated to allow others to live as they believe. If a loving gay couple wish to have a marriage and call it so, then they have as much right as human beings to that experience as you do. And you and I both have the obligation to protect that right and to tolerate it, no matter whether we disagree or not.

This is freedom and the price we pay for it. Tolerance, understanding and protecting the rights of others to believe, to live and to practice their lives differently.

If you take away one group's rights or diminish their freedom, you take away freedom from all of us and you diminish our society's capacity to protect the institution of freedom.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How is it that the people of California, who voted to ban same-sex marriage, can have their votes overturned by some judge?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@tkoind2: Your speech sounds like something from George Orwell... Institution of Freedom? At present, there are legal ceremonies in place for legal unions. The Institution of Marriage is a contract under God, reserved for men and women. I have no problems whatever with same-sex legal unions. What I object to is having it legally insisted upon that same-sex unions now be called "marriage," and thus be made mainstream. Implications of "mainstream" manifest in far too many facets of everyday life. This will go to the Supreme Court. The people of California have voted, and will not stand for one judge countermanding the outcome.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pamelot. Not everyone shares your faith. Many Americans are not relgious and do not recognize the existence, let alone authority of any diety.

Second. The recognition of marriage as a religous institution is a grant of rights by our secular society. Not the other way around. The law can and should define marriage in the most open and fair way. In that case a non-religious couple who do not believe in religious superstition can still have a marriage that is recognized under their definition and not under that of some faith they do not share.

Equally a gay couple should have similar legal protection and recognition. This is only fair.

As for the mainstream. My argument holds. The rights you enjoy to practice your particular sect of Christianty is a grant of rights from the so called mainstream who may not endorse or support your sect. If we define society in beige terms of mainstream, then what exactly does that end up meaning? Should we then force everyone into a neat middle box that excludes anything that fails the test of majority rule? So for religion we end up with only the one with the most votes being legal?

A society must protect the rights of all its people. We saw this when the mainstream desire to deny African Americans equal liberties was overturned. In that case the mainstream lost the fight to impose their morality and ideas upon the minority. The same will be true with gay rights in the not too distant future.

A society cannot have such double standards and still claim to be free and a place of liberty.

My advice to you is mind your own business. Define marriage as you wish. Live as you wish. But you MUST allow others to do the same. If your argument is true and civil union's already grant all the key rights, then what is the threat you are so afraid of? I would argue that the threat to the mainstream you perceive is your own moral and religious interpretation of the world and nothing more. You have the right to believe as you will, but not the right to repress others.

0 ( +0 / -0 )


Fine than lets change all legal "Marriages" to "Civil Unions". You can still use the term "Marriage" in term of religious ceremonies, etc.

That should everybody happy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge. On voting. For generations the people of the south voted to deny rights to minorities. It was even legal to put people in jail for using the wrong facilities. This was an injustice eventually put to an end by legal action.

The same applies to gay rights and marriage. If one person in California has the right to marry, all should. Voting against this does not overturn the fact that such disparity is wrong and unjust.

I believe the Supreme Court will eventually have to overturn such prejudicial voting in favor of protecting the civil liberties of all people and not just the mainstream.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zenny11. Good post!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pamelot, Zenny11 has basically said what I am going to say, but let me give you some extra detail. The government is NOT trying to change YOUR definition of marriage at all. If two people say they are married, you can STILL insist they are not in YOUR eyes or God's That is your right. You just don't get to discriminate against the couple in public matters. In private, you can discriminate where it does not break the law. For example, you have a party for married neighbors only. The gay couple knocks on your door and you turn them away because in your eyes, they are not married. That's fine. But they are still going to get the tax deduction on taxes they paid as a married couple. Deal with it.

Also, if your church refuses to marry gay people, that will also be ok. Nobody is forcing you to accept gay marriage. So long as you don't harrass anyone, you can protest gay marriage until you are blue in the face. Its not like you could have had anyone arrested for it before anyway, is it? You can still go ahead and try to convince everyone that its wrong and maybe gays will agree with you. Its all you can do. Its all you could EVER do.

The news raised hopes among gay couples that they soon will be able to tie the knot after years of agonizing delays.

I hate this brainwashing crap! You can marry your sofa if you want to! There is no reason for any of these gay couples to wait! Its just that the government won't register the marriage. The government cannot tell us who can get married or not. It can only tell us who they will register. So don't buy this almighty government nonsense. They don't make our definitions for us.

Judge Walker's comments are right on the money. Especially his point about what causes harm and what doesn't. Harm is what everything boils down to. The government registering and recognizing gay marriage harms no one. The only harm is a product of their own heads and is their problem to cherish. Prop 8 harms California, as it is an attempt for the majority to literally rule, like a dictator, and deny others rights. It is a symbol of people trying to use the government and law to oppress others. I am sure it is great satisfying fun oppressing others, but its WRONG. Conservatives especially understand that fun, but they can't see what is so wrong about that sort of entertainment, and that is why they tend to disgust me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"For generations the people of the south voted to deny rights to minorities"

Please don't equate slavery with trying to keep intact the institution of marriage.

"You can marry your sofa is you want to!"

And it's this sort of logic that degrades the institution of marriage.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wiki on Marriage:

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Please don't equate slavery with trying to keep intact the institution of marriage.

The relationship I have with my wife and I isn't based on the fact that we are "married" but on the emotional bounds we share with each other. I could careless if two women or two guys get married, it won't lessen the bound I have with my wife. The institution of marriage is only as strong as who are married, if it isn't strong to handle to people of the same-sex getting married, then really, it's already broken. If your marriage breaks down because of who else is getting married, that what kind of relationship did you have in the first place?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't think that striking down laws against same-sex marriages would force people to accept this as mainstream any more than striking down laws against miscegenation forced people to accept that interracial marriages were mainstream. I think it would simply force them to accept that it was legal.

I have no problem with reserving the term "civil union" for same-sex marriages as long as those who are essentially branded by this term have all the legal and rights and benefits that are accorded to those who are allowed to have a "marriage". If it comes to that, however, it seems rather pointless to make a legal distinction.

If those opposed to same-sex marriage are willing to accept the existence of a "civil union", what then are the legal rights and benefits that they are so anxious to deprive same-sex partners of by seeking to continue to forbid them a "marriage"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I believe we're in the year 2010 - isn't it time we learned to be more tolerant and accepting towards such issues as same sex marriages?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge: "Please don't equate slavery with trying to keep intact the institution of marriage."

I stand by my comparison. Any time one group decides to repress another based on some prejudicial sentiment it is the same trampling of the founding ideas of our society. Freedom must be universal to all people. If one group can be free, all others should be regardless of race or status. Same applies to marriage, if one group is free to marry, the others must be granted equality under the law. This is the very definition of freedom and liberty.

Great post SezWho2. "what then are the legal rights and benefits that they are so anxious to deprive same-sex partners of..." Exactly the question.

I suspect the answer will include lots of "god this" and "god that" statements that have little to do with a secular society. Bottom line is this, call the unions whatever you want to, but legally they should be equally protected and valid. If the right are so concerned that the term marriage will be forever corrupted by this, then they can go back to ancient times and find an older term that describes what they want to protect and I am sure the rest of us will be hands off and let them have it to protect all they want.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good_Jorb said: If your marriage breaks down because of who else is getting married, that what kind of relationship did you have in the first place?

The conservative bond of exclusive club snobbery. Conservatives enjoy the suffering of others too much to let this go so fast. In the end they will let it go, but not before they have enjoyed the hell out of being oppressive. By then, they will have moved on to some other facet of blocking the bus of freedom and oppressing a whole other class of Americans. So yeah, this issue has a lot to do with segregation, because, at its heart, its just about feeling superior to someone. Even wolves have a hierarchy, and the lowest wolf gives the others great joy in his suffering. Conservatives are on their level.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maybe the solution is to get rid of marriage altogether.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I also have no problems with legal hook-ups between same sex couples. However, to call it "marriage" is just wrong. It is wrong because that is God`s Law, the Law of the Universe. It is also the moral law of practially every country on the Planet. Marriage is between one man and one woman, period. It is an institution for the proCREATION of the human species. Same sex couples naturally cannot and will not ever be able to do that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Marriage may be an aid to the procreation of the human species, but it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for procreation. I doubt that those who oppose same-sex marriage because same sex couples cannot presently conceive children would be willing to forbid marriage to heterosexual couples who cannot or do not wish to have children.

If marriage is God's Law--which I much doubt--separation of Church and State should get our government out of the marriage business altogether. I think those people who want to have their marriages consecrated in their churches have every right to do so. But that does not include the right to dictate what churches may or may not hold sacred.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I cannot wrap my head around why people are so upset about the choices others make that have no direct impact on them.

Gays marriage doesn't affect my life at all. Why wouldn't I want someone else to be happy? I just don't get it.


0 ( +0 / -0 )

pamelot: Better recheck your facts. Legal civil union and marriage are NOT the same. for one, civil unions are only recognized in the state that it was performed. Second, since civil unions are not recognized by the federal government, these couples do not get any of the tax breaks that married couples get. And on top of that, being married has societal status. (I know I certainly noticed a difference in reactions between telling people--I live with my boyfriend--and I'm married--, even though our relationship hadn't changed at all from what it was before we 'made it official'. Suddenly we were recognized as a serious couple!) What should gay people say--This is my civil union partner?! Doesn't quite have the same ring to it as 'husband' or 'wife' does it?

Agree totally with tkoind2!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is wrong because that is God`s Law. The moral law of practically every country on the planet. Marriage is between one man and one woman, period.

This ruling has nothing to do with religion but with a legal description of a union between two people who want to have the same rights as two 'married' people - tax benefits, pension benefits, inheritance taxes, health care benefits et cetera. And it may well become the law of the state of California.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I cannot wrap my head around why people are so upset about the choices others make"

Same sex marriage further weakens the traditional family values so important to our society.

0 ( +0 / -0 )


How does same sex marriage weaken traditional family values? (A legitimate question, by the way.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

borscht, according to traditional family values, marriage is between a man and a woman. What is so difficult to understand about that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )


Thanks for the rapid answer. By 'traditional' do you mean Judeo-Christian or some other definition of traditional?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

borscht, by "traditional" I mean the core values of our society.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I've already answered your questions, Wiz.

0 ( +0 / -0 )


Thanks again for the fast response.

One of the core values my father taught me - and he was a veteran of WWII - is to respect the wishes, hopes, and dreams of other people. He refused to buy a house once because it contained a 'traditional' clause that forbade him from selling it to 'anyone not of the white race.'

So I guess I don't see why two people being legally 'married' is going to disturb our core values (honesty, hard work, respect, defending freedom.) I think the Supreme Court ruling stating that corporations are humans is going to have a bigger impact.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

borscht, my father was also a veteran of WW2. If we allow people of the same sex to be legally joined in marriage, what's next, people to be legally joined in marriage to their pets or their sofas, as someone here who supports same sex marriage suggested? I have no problem with two guys or two women living together/having sex. But it's not marriage. What is so hard to understand about that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

by "traditional" I mean the core values of our society.

Correct me if I am wrong but are the core values the US not

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Interesting core values; I don't see All men(excluding gays) are created equal, it doesn't mention of specific god, just a creator and it's seems an unalienable right is the pursuit of Happiness.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Interesting core values; I don't see All men(excluding gays) are created equal, it doesn't mention of specific god, just a creator and it's seems an unalienable right is the pursuit of Happiness."

Lack of education or latent homosexuality through homophobia. There is no other valid explaination I can see.

0 ( +0 / -0 )


what's next, people to be legally joined in marriage to their pets or their sofas

If 'marriage' is defined as two consenting adults agreeing to be legally joined together, then marriage to one's pet isn't possible (a pet can't 'agree' to the marriage).

But my question was more to the impact same-sex marriage would have on core values. How does same-sex marriage change core values? Are married gay partners undermining hard work? honesty? respect? more than unmarried gay partners? Possibly, but it is hard for me to understand how.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Lack of education or latent homosexuality through homophobia. There is no other valid explaination I can see."

And you seem very well versed on the subject matter so who am I to disagree :*) cheers !

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We'd probably all have to agree on what marriage is before we can decide who it's made for. There is the family concept, and I buy into that, especially with pro-creation, but it's not like that's going to end with a tiny percentage of gay marriages. There's the religious angle with weddings, which I mostly ignore. There's also the legal rights that come with marriage. Then there's the whole "I love you and want to make a commitment to you" angle.

I've never been too keen on supporting marriages just for the sake of getting married, but I do support gay marriage for the legal aspect such as visitation rights at hospitals, the tax issues that others get, shared benefits such as health insurance for spouses, etc.

In the end, if you support gay marriage, I don't think your best plan of attack will be by hitting opposers over the head with blunt objects and getting up on soap boxes. Focusing on things such as shutting a partner out of a hospital room because technically he's not family is something that people will have a hard time coming to terms with. It's just not right. Focus on the things that the other side will be forced to agree with and take it from there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Man and woman marriage is not a core anything of America, especially not a core value.

Where is it written? Who said so? It's sure not in the Constitution.

This is about small minds who just want the world to always go their way.

They are really sad, actually.


0 ( +0 / -0 )

Interesting. It appears that prop. 8 proponents may not have the legal standing to appeal Judge Walker's decision. Perhaps all that Supreme Court specultion was premature.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What benefits does same sex marriage bring to society that a heterosexual marriage brings? First and foremost remember that the US government wants taxes to be paid as we have a debt to pay that extends even to future generations. Tax deductions usually go to hetero married couples because they are more likely than not to naturally produce children (or future citizens... oops I mean tax payers as the government sees it.)

Roughly about 27% of homosexual couples adopt, but in such cases where the biological parent decides or is fully capable of taking care of their child and asks for their child back the courts usually rule in their favor. Same goes for a homosexual parent that is biologically related to their child from a previous hetero relationship, if things go bad between them and their partner should the non-biological parent have any rights over the split taking into consideration that they're more than likely a 3rd wheel between biological mother and father?

Corporations such as insurance companies deny the right for a homosexual couple to apply for family benefits together. Why? Simplest conclusion is that there is absolutey no genetic bond between them since they are incapable of having children together. Most companies are not willing to support 2 people if they are both capable of working and creating their own income. They'll only be willing to sign up any dependents (even adopted) but not the spousal relation since they're afraid of fraudulent claims (not like they'll help anyone anyway if they have a valid claim). Not to mention people who claim to be bi-sexual may dig in and claim 2 spouses one male and one female. There are a lot of legal problems and issues that are going to arise from this.

The only benefits approving same sex marriage does is identify 2 people of the same sex to society as spouses and identify them legally to be relatives through spousal union (Which the government doesn't like if they expect tax deductions). And calling it marriage isn't a necessity for that. A large majority of people against same-sex marriage put up the civil union idea (Remember the word comprimise), which gave the same idea since people don't like confusion (especially the elderly) between a hetero married couple and homosexual married couple. i.e. someone says, "I'm married..." and one will have to follow up with, "To a man or a woman?" But apparantly the gay rights activists weren't satisfied with "civil union" and wanted .

While homosexuality does exist naturally in nature it never produces offspring since it's impossible. So how can the "gay gene" be passed on if no offspring are produced unless one has a heterosexual relationship?

Simply put sexual identity is just natures way of encouraging all creatures to mate and reproduce (thats why it feels good xD), would anyone want to reproduce if it was miserable and painful? Certain sights and smells attract each species to each other. Just some creatures are attracted to a dead end in the reproductive cycle and it pretty much stops their genes from being passed on unless they're an asexual or hermaphrodite species.

Anyways, enough rambling. I'm just putting up thoughts and opinions for people to look at and maybe think a little bit more about the situation beside "Yes they should!" or "No they shouldn't!"

The question is, "What benefits does allowing same-sex marriage bring to society?"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One other thought I wanted to put on the table. The majority of elderly senior homosexual's whose partner has passed on find themselves completely alone with no blood-relatives willing or able to look after them. His/her partner's relatives don't see any reason to take care of someone that would be considered outside their family, and their own relatives may either be too old, have moral issues, or even their relative's offspring see no reason to take care of someone not in their immediate family. "Why take care of an uncle or aunt when we can take care of our mother/father/sister/brother?" This is a problem that needs a solution as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is a problem that needs a solution as well.

Wouldn't that also be a problem for those who choose to be single throughout their lives or widow/ers who choose not to have children. Beside that, considering that having two males in a house usually equates to two bread-earner incomes plus generally a life with no children, they can probable afford to pay for homecare, or assisted living housing. Well planned retirements should entirely avoid the problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Good Jorb I know that logic is sound (two women can be as equally productive in the work force until one of them decides to become either a natural mother/adoptive parent if at all), but apparantly this is a large problem among the gay community since apparantly a large majority don't plan out their retirement all that well or the relatives/other people in the retirement community ostracize them (most have gone back into the closet around the older generations). As I said, some of their relatives like a sister or brother may not support them due to their own moral perspectives.

Widows/widowers usually have their deceased spouse leave them something like life insurance etc. Homosexual couples run up on a brick wall with insurance companies on that very issue. Also I've yet to hear anything about homosexual couples where one of them is disabled and unable to work.

Another thing that is bizarre is how a person can leave all their worldly gains to a pet dog or cat (Even excluding all their own relatives), and a gay couple can't leave supposedly leave all their gains to their partner in a will. Are they just not utelizing the law or is there a law that specifically states that a homosexual couple can't do this? Gay rights activists are either trying to make it seem like things are worse than they are, or things really are that bad and needs change. The next question is what laws specifically need to be changed? I don't think same-sex marriage would be on the front of that priority list until certain other issues have been dealt with. I'm not trying to argue or debate on this all that much just bringing up thoughts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What benefits does heterosexual marriage bring to society? Are those real benefits or presumed benefits?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Man and woman marriage is not a core anything of America, especially not a core value"

"What benefits does heterosexual marriage bring to society?"


0 ( +0 / -0 )

Honest Dictator,

bizarre is how a person can leave all their worldly gains to a pet dog or cat (Even excluding all their own relatives), and a gay couple can't leave supposedly leave all their gains to their partner in a will.

You are correct and make an important point: everyone should make a will.

Anyone, gay or not, can leave anything to anyone in a will. However, if a husband or wife dies unexpectedly and without a will (intestate), the inheritance is doled out in the following order:

• spouse,

• children,

• parents,

• brothers and sisters,

• half brothers and sisters.

A legal designation of the same-sex partner as 'spouse' would ensure that he or she gets the inheritance - legally - in the same way as 'married' couples do. If none of the above are alive, the inheritance goes to the government, non-ironically called escheats. Most people (75%) die intestate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Viceversa, mate!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@SezWho2 you missed my note about the ability and exceptionally high chance of propagating future taxpayers eh? xD Thats the single most beneficial thing as far as the government is concerned. Birth rate= future workers= more taxes being paid (assuming they don't go into organized crime) xD amirite? All you did was reverse the question but could you at least try to answer the question I posed before that? What BENEFITS does same-sex marriage do for society as a whole? The majority of married people make babies and those children are a permanent bond between their parents even if they get divorced. Heck, people don't even have to be married to have children too! Ditch the idea of marriage and people can just breed with whoever they feel like breeding with right? Gay couples can always have an emotional and physical bond just like everyone else without having marriage, so why is same sex marriage needed? Why is heterosexual marriage needed in that case? They'll never be bound genetically to the other person by way of children, so no child support issues there. Remove the issue of marriage altogether and what is the benefit?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The parts don't fit", "Don't mix up my skin with your sin.", Nature's way is visible for all to see. C'est tout. However, it is not my business what goes on between two consenting adults. Let God be the judge. Any people dependent on each other should be able to have some kind of claim to benefits be it marriage (just a group of platonic folks is fine by me) or whatever. You should not have to be homo or hetero to apply.

Perhaps the traditional family is unique after all, right children? We can at least help the children as a people because they ARE dependent on us and really are the most vulnerable. I think we can all agree on this point. How big is this pot of benefits anyway? Where is my slice? I personally prefer that the children have their needs taken care of first by helping the traditional is normal for most of the world's peoples. Something to keep in mind...Children first.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Marriage is not the same as it was 30 or 40 years ago. There is no 'traditional' family anymore. Some couples just live together, some married couples don't have kids. Many couples split up and there ends up being a single parent family with kids.

Honestly I don't really know why gay people want to get married in the first place. It seems to me they have a much better life style than many straight couples. I think some heteros are just afraid that if more homosexuals start getting married, they will change what marriage means. Well, marriage has already changed and if you ask me, what a marriage is should depend only on the two people who have made that commitment to each other.

What benefits might gay marriages bring? Well, maybe it will open the eyes of some of the conservative heteros out there and bring new insight as to what being married means. Obviously with the divorce rate as high as it is in many places, the straight people aren't doing so well. Give gay people a shot at it. Why not?! It may or may not have any benefits to society but it certainly isn't going to do any harm.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

off to pride parade!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HonestDictator said: What benefits does same sex marriage bring to society that a heterosexual marriage brings?

That is not even a valid question. May as well ask what benefits handicapped people bring to society, or sterile women. It probably should not come as a surprise that someone asking such a question has the handle of dictator. Sorry, the purpose of the people of America is NOT to enrich you or anybody else.

The only valid question is what harm could there be, as Judge Walker has pointed out and society will not be harmed by gay marriage any more than by people who choose to remain single. Or would you like to crack down on them too to gain a benefit?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib said: In the end, if you support gay marriage, I don't think your best plan of attack will be by hitting opposers over the head with blunt objects

In the end, it sounds like the only untried option left. It would not be the first time violence was necessary to do what was right over the heads of those in favor of oppression. HD asks "What benefit is there to me?" How about, not getting clubbed over the head like a baby seal?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Come on everyone, the rational debate thing is pointless. Its obvious those against gay marriage are just spouting semblences of rational debate to cover the simple fact that its all designed to justify their hatred of gays. In fact, that is why people voted for prop 8, and as such, they voted in bad faith over a question they never should have been voting on: a human rights question.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard: Its obvious those against gay marriage are just spouting semblences of rational debate to cover the simple fact that its all designed to justify their hatred of gays.

I don't think it's that simple, unless you feel the majority of people in California hate gays. It's a complex issue with a lot of moving parts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Don't know why it should be more complex than in other countries and places where same-sex marriages have become accepted.

None of those had those lengthy battles and issues.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The hurdle is more than just about marriage, but the legal implications of it. As I said if we just remove the word "marriage" from this topic all together all thats left is what should gay/lesbian couples have allowances for as far as legal issues concerning each other? What degree of decision making power should each partner have over the others business, medical, family, and government affairs. These are the laws and issues that need to be enacted first.

I've lived with 5 gay male room-mates over my lifetime and worrying about having same-sex marriage was the very least of their concerns. All of them didn't see any point to it. All that mattered to them was living with the person they loved, not being discriminated against at work (or the ability to get a job), being harrassed on the street for their sexual identity(not that one could always tell they were gay by looking at them). They were all in concensus that the only thing that was important to them was being identified as a couple, and they didn't need a state sanctioned marriage to do that. Taking on another persons credit card debts, loans, or other financial baggage. HAH! Alimony in case they split up, blah blah blah... Interesting to know that not all gay and lesbians support everything the activists stand for. Interesting that they have differing opinions too hmm?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge, to say that a question (or the asking of it, for your terseness really isn't very specific) is unbelievable is not the same thing as answering it. My question continues with another--whether the benefits that you seem to think are so obvious are real benefits or presumed ones. With the response you've mustered so far, it looks as if they fall in the presumed column.

Rush Limbaugh gets to be dismissive because he controls the microphone and has listeners who applaud his bullying. He isn't participating in a forum of ideas. But you'll have to do better than that--such as naming a few of the more important benefits that government-sanctioned marriage brings to our society.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HonestDictator, why would you assume that I missed your argument about marriages contributing taxpayers? Rabbits do not marry in any legal sense, yet still they propagate. We will propagate fine without marriage.

Some countries which do not legally sanction same-sex marriage even have declining populations. Heterosexual marriage is neither a guarantee of more taxpayers nor a necessity for creating taxpayers. If you want more taxpayers, open the borders.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HonestDictator has some very good points.

"In the end, it sounds like the only untried option left. It would not be the first time violence was necessary to do what was right over the heads of those in favor of oppression." MistWizard

You would force the moral majority to act to protect themselves. They have been very tolerant. That could change through violence of any kind. Looking like the victim is the better route.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't think violence is going to solve this. On the other hand, if "the moral majority" would stop and think about history, they might be chastened. Escaping the doctrinaire Church of England, itself escaped from the moral rule of the Pope, the City on the Hill folks established their own morality in the New World. Whereupon vast disagreements as to God's word ensued and Christianity fragmented into tiny little pieces.

There are now churches which recognize the sacrament of marriage between same-sex partners. Clearly, this is not a matter of God's word. This is a matter of what is good for society and if there is "an honest moral majority" it needs to find cogent reasons why committed life partners in same-sex marriages should be denied the legal rights, protections and benefits of marriage. Absent a showing of harm, the objections of "the moral majority" are simply prejudicial.

That's the burden of democracy. Democracy falters when that burden is not taken up. And it fails when a majority, armed only with its prejudices and its vague claims to having the ear of God, tramples on a minority.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is traditional marriage today, and there is dreams of traditional marriage in a lot of kids. While the gay community has highlighted the importance of marriage, there is very few males or females that can understand that. Is not the difference between male and female obvious? Nobody answers that question either. I cant understand why male and female homosexuals are on the same page either? Im willing to understand, but only if traditional, or more the meaning of marriage, is accepted too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Interestingly enough one point that gets never raised is that in a homoesexual relationship there are clear definitions for the male and female in there.

One person will always be the female as they see/feel themselves as the female and one will be the male.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib said: I don't think it's that simple, unless you feel the majority of people in California hate gays.

If I over-simplified anything it was probably the word hate. I used it to encapulate discomfort, dislike, desires to hide, etc. along with hate in one word "hate". But honestly, I cannot be bothered splitting the hair of whether some people just don't like gays or actually hate them.

So what reason could there possibly be to be against gay marriage that does not boil down to at least a dislike of gays? I have seen contrived bull about tax money here and worries about society imploding. But those are obvious smokescreens.

About the only other thing I can see is just enjoying the fight. But that would certainly mean they don't like gays enough to part with that sick desire.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OneForAll said: Looking like the victim is the better route.

Gays have been victims for a long, long time now.

You would force the moral majority to act to protect themselves.

Well, I don't mean to just attack anyone in opposition. Destroying the car of an anti-gay legislator might be the right kind of pressure though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Homosexual marriage, adoption,... has been legalized in my country for years. Unlike America, nobody makes a big deal about it... Not even the catholic or Muslim community seems to mind. Why not let those people be happy. They don't hurt anyone by getting married.

Tbh... we would laugh at our politicians who would make a big deal out of this. Or saying idiotic things like 'allowing them to do so takes away our freedom (from what??)'.

Just let those people get married, have a happy life... and focus on more important things.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites