Simon left in time... :)

[ebs001]

Poopdeck, the judges told the people of California that what they want is illegal. In fact the California Supreme Court did find that the state LAW banning same sex marriages was unconstitutional. So the government was involved. I think it was on "Law and Order" but someone said "The Bill of Rights is not a technicality" or you can do as Cam suggests and change the Constitution anytime it doesn't meet with your approval.

[Valiente]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

Marriage is a religious ceremony between a man and a woman and government has no business getting involved. Civil unions can ensure that the legal rights of all Americans are equal without trampling on the religious beliefs of the majority for the sake of the activist part of that 3% of our population that might care to engage in civil unions.

I would tend to agree with you on principle, but the reality is that angry sky hebrew (and other angry sky deities) may "sanction" marriage, but 50% of them still go keel-to-the-sky, where one presumes any self-respecting thunderbolt-tosser would notice and commence smiting.

My solution personally was to have a civil union the week before my wedding. My wife and I aren't conventionally spiritual and short of calling in a Unitarian, we'd have logistical difficulties having a "legal wedding". So we did the legal deed and promptly forgot about it. A week later, we had a morning ceremony with friends in a good pal's backyard followed by a catered breakfast. Later that day, we threw a big party in a warehouse where I sang to my new bride from a stage filled with our musically gifted friends.

Needless to say, while our "legal" anniversary was the week previous, the date we actually note was the date we had the "un-marriage".

My solution in this case is similar: Abolish all marriage. Make civil unions the only form of legal partnership and open it to all who wish to ride that occasionally Teflon-coated slope.

Still want to get married? Great. Hire a priest, guru or fellow with a tin hat and do it in a church, stretch of beach or while parachuting. Keep it between you and your friends, family and, if so inclined, mysterious celestial foreskin-collector.

The state can collect its fee on the civil union (which could, after all, happen in a church) and the "sacred sacrament" can stay in a slightly mistier realm, where it belongs, with related mysteries of the faith, etc.

[artbyjody]

Personally, marriage should just be outlawed. If one wants the "experience" of the event then issue a certificate that also includes "But one get one free" coupon for an IHOP breakfast.

If this was done then - consider the revenue that would go back into the tax base if such was not a societal institution. Without those tax breaks it sure would make some folks think of having a child for the sake of saving a marriage, or popping out another so that can save some money.

I think even civil unions are wrong as it does exactly what the laws (or intends to do) what constitutes legal representation of sorts by a significant other, all which could documented in a living will. For insurance, and all other matters, forms should just be modified - and living wills be used as the legal aspect to give whatever coverage etc.



Thinking of additional positives - we no longer would have "divorce courts" as such, dissolving and getting into another relationship easy, even child custody cases would be better in the long run I imagine, and there would be no such as polygamy...

Whew that varnish must of gotten to me today...

[poopdeckpappy]

Originally Posted by ebs001

Poopdeck, the judges told the people of California that what they want is illegal.

No, there is nothing in the state constitution regarding same sex marriage, they wanted to amend the constitution to allow same sex marriage and the people of California said, without hesitation " NO ". and when you're talking 60+ % the people said " HELL NO."

What the people want was/is not illegal, as there was/is no legislation allowing same sex marriage to begin with and 60+% of California want to keep it that way.

There is already enough signatures to amend the constitution to ban SSM,but that is going to be fought also, so this whole thing mean nothing towards achiving legalized gay marriage,as it will be in court for years,if not decades.
The only thing SCJ's did accomplish, was to spit in the face of the California voter,yet again

[sailaway21]

Wobbly's up to his usual old piffle again, I see. The poofters already have the right to civil union's in virtually all of the US, it is specifically marriage that is the issue. They are not content with just a civil union, it has to be marriage. That the very definition of marriage then becomes meaningless is not without consequences. The right for polygamists to have their own defintion of marriage would be just as permissable as "gay marriage" under any broadening of marriage's definition and the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

It's rather nice and all that our resident atheists are so willing to allow us religious nuts have our religious or spiritual marriage left intact, but it's a misplaced concern-although appreciated. The poofter movement wants marriage, Catholic marriage, Jewish marriage, et al.. and once the state mandates that what they have is, in fact, "marriage" the law suits against religious organizations will begin.

This is just the latest in the on-going diatribe of the limp-wristed in their demands to be pronounced normal. Since that point is statistically absurd on the face of it, the only alternative is to then change the definition of normal along with a slew of other previously quite servicable words.

Do not mistake this movement for an argument about human rights, it's much less than that.

[Stillraining]

Nicely put Sway..wish I so eloquent

[camaraderie]

This will all be overturned by the voters in November in California since only a simple majority is required to change the constitution of the state. There are already 1.1 million signatures to get it on the ballot. The net result will be to get out the social conservative vote in November...help McCain and hurt Obama...while restoring the true meaning of marriage in the state.

[bestfriend]

You're not suckering me into this one SD. Nope, nope, nope, I keep me thoughts to me self.

[chef2sail]

Will of the people does not apply when it collides with "unaleinable rights granted to people even when they are not a majority"

Although I do not agree with judiciary writing or making law...I beleive in the Constitution

Had the will of the people still bee enforced segregation would still be the law of the land. That is not the correct argument in this case.

Dave

[tdw]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Wobbly's up to his usual old piffle again, I see. The poofters already have the right to civil union's in virtually all of the US, it is specifically marriage that is the issue. They are not content with just a civil union, it has to be marriage. That the very definition of marriage then becomes meaningless is not without consequences. The right for polygamists to have their own defintion of marriage would be just as permissable as "gay marriage" under any broadening of marriage's definition and the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

It's rather nice and all that our resident atheists are so willing to allow us religious nuts have our religious or spiritual marriage left intact, but it's a misplaced concern-although appreciated. The poofter movement wants marriage, Catholic marriage, Jewish marriage, et al.. and once the state mandates that what they have is, in fact, "marriage" the law suits against religious organizations will begin.

This is just the latest in the on-going diatribe of the limp-wristed in their demands to be pronounced normal. Since that point is statistically absurd on the face of it, the only alternative is to then change the definition of normal along with a slew of other previously quite servicable words.

Do not mistake this movement for an argument about human rights, it's much less than that.

Oh Sway, you're just upset cos of what I said about xxx. Now settle down and behave yourself. This will do your blood pressure no good at all and if you're not careful you'll go all faint and topple off your high horse.

In the long run the churches will end up allowing gays to marry in their churches cos they get paid for doing so and there is nothing a church likes more than money in the bank. Collection plates can be more jangle than visa card docket and those damn pillow biters do tend to have disturbingly high disposable incomes.

I cannot for the life of me figure out what use a shirt lifter has for a church , other than as a collection point for choir and alter boys but then hypocrisy and the church have gone so well together over the millenia, havn't they ?

The sad reality is that this is a BS argument based on nothing more than homophobia and an inate hatred of a group of people who choose to live an alternative lifestyle to yours.

btw - have you seen this before ? You probably have but even I got a chuckle out of it.

YouTube - Best one liner ever

Totally off topic I know.