Simon left in time... :)

[sailingdog]

It's a good thing Simon left when he did... see this article here... poor BF...









Bad, bad, bad doggie..

[poopdeckpappy]

This sickens me too no end, this is the thrid time the people Calif. have voted for the morality and/or the security of the state, only to have the will of the people of Calif. overturned by the F'n parasites in our Superme Court.

[L02314564]

The people that took this to court are the people that complained that Bush won the presidential election. They are the same people that complained of voter disenfranchisement (SP). And now the court as overturned the will of the people. We are definitely going to hell in a hand basket.

Can I declare my boat to be a country and move onto it? Could I get federal aid because I can't grow my own crops out in the middle of the ocean? A couple of million a year would do...



Edward
Fair Winds and Following Seas
S/V Other Woman
1976 Catalina 27 #2684

[tdw]

I always have trouble with this one.

On the one hand I have no problems with same sex "marriage" if marriage is used in the sense of a legally binding partnership giving couples of any sexual persuasion the same rights as male/female marriages, in other words a civil union.

On the other hand , despite my atheism, I believe that marriage is a religious sacrament and it is my belief that all the major religions believe homosexuality is against the will of God and inherently wrong. Personally I think that is really stupid but then I think religion is really stupid. However if you want to believe in sky pixies then you do need to abide by the sky pixies laws. (notwithstanding the fact that the bible has instances of apparent homosexuality by people who are considered some of the greatest personalities of the Judeao - Christian faith. Perhaps the churches condemnation of homosexuality is merely a selective reading of scripture.)

So while not agreeing with the idea of a church wedding for gays I do believe that a civil union should be a matter that concerns no one but the couple themselves. If it is not illegal to be a practicing homosexual why on earth should they not have the same legal rights as straights ?

[erps]

I personally don't think the state should be in the marriage business anyway but it will be interesting to see if brothers can start marrying sisters. Maybe those folks in Texas can use case law like this to marry 10 year old girls? Seems like once the judicial branch steps in and tells the legislative branch that they can't use a simple definition like a union between a man and a woman, what other enforceable definition can they use that won't discriminate against somebody else?

And is it discrimination when a gay guy has just as much right to marry a woman as any other guy, but chooses not to because of personal reasons?

[camaraderie]

TDW...in this case CA already allows civil unions to confer full legal rights on gay partnerships. The case was specifically about "marriage" which the voters of California have rejected several times.
It is my understanding that it is fairly easy to change the constitution of California so I would expect an amendment now to be offered and fought over since activist judges seem to have found words in the constitution that DO enshrine gay marriage but do not confer similar rights on polygamists etc.
This issue helped Bush in the last general election..hopefully it will help McCain over Obama as well since they are 180 degrees apart on this issue and thanks to the California Supremes it is once again on the radar screen!

IMO...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.

[sailingdog]

I'd have to agree with Cam:

IMO...Marriage is a religious ceremony between a man and a woman and government has no business getting involved.

[ebs001]

If the government bans gay marriage they are involved. With so many important issues it would be a terrible travesty if the president of the United States is elected on the basis of his or her belief on gay marriage. For someone to imply that the California decision is a good thing because it will help one candidate win over another is irresponsible. The electorate of the United States have an obligation, not only to their people but the whole world, to elect the president who can best handle the internal and external affairs of the country and not whether or not they believe in gay marriage and/or abortion.

[tdw]

Cam - I appreciate the clarification, thanks.

I should also clarify that when I spoke of marriage in my previous post I should have emphasised religious marriage.

The problem really is that marriage isn't what it used to be is it ? Oh I know the biblicals will prattle on about holy union between man and woman instigated by god blah blah blah but many western societies already recognise both civil and common law marriages as well as religious marriages.

The fact that some feel the church wedding is the only valid ceremony is of no interest to those of us who consider the church and it's teachings to be a load of old tosh. If civil marriage is legal, and it is in many countries around the world, then the law has recognised that marriage is not by necessity a religious event.

I fail to see why it is that anyone other than the two people involved should have input as to the legality of their civil marriage . If homosexuality is not illegal , then why should civil homosexual marriage be barred ? The argument that this opens the gate to polygamy or underage marriage is an utter nonsense.

The only other issue is therefore the question of religious marriage and surely that is a matter for the individual church. Again, I fail to see what it has to do with anyone outside the church. If e.g. The Church of England concludes that homosexuality is against the will of God then the C of E should have every right to bar homosexuals from marrying in one of their churches.

For me to say that churches should allow gay marriages is once again a nonsense. I have no right to tell the church what it can or cannot do , no more so than said church has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do. the only restriction should be that neither the church nor I are behaving in an illegal manner.

It does however seem to me that while I freely admit to the fact that I have no right to meddle in the affairs of any church of which I am not a member the churches themselves have no compunction in trying to force me to abide by their rules.

[poopdeckpappy]

ebs, it's not the goverment banning gay marriage, the people of California ( over 60 % of 6 million ) voted against making gay marriage legal, and 4 of 7 Supreme Court Judges are telling 6 million to go piss off.

The same thing happened over illegal aliens the majority of Calif voted for cracking down and the SCJ over turned the vote and you can see what that got us..........total FUBAR

It's not about the gay marriage issue, it's about state goverment telling the people of California to FO, that their wishes,their demands, their vote, doesn't mean squat.