California finally came to its senses - Page 4  

As I see it, and thanks to another poster for bringing it up, is that BOTH hetero AND homo couples would get a civil union license from the state. This civil union would be recognized as the legal instrument that provides equality under the law for all couples-related legal questions: other partner benefits, survivor's benefits, rights of property ownership, estates and probate, etc etc. Then churches would perform the marriage ceremony which unites a couple in the sight of their God. So you have the legal aspects covered by the state, and the faith and religious aspects covered by the church. Oh, I'm sure some churches will cater to the gay crowd by performing same-sex marriages. Fine. If it's a faith thing and same-gender sex isn't a moral wrong in their belief system, then fine, they can go ahead and do that.

Non-discrimination, equal protection, and equal rights are a desirable goal and can be achieved by a civil union. But you can not legislate morality. And as long as whether or not homosexuality is all right or is wrong rides fundamentally upon the issue of one's religious beliefs (or lack thereof), then forcing me to accept it as morally right by legislating state-sanctioned approval is discrimination against me and my beliefs. Furthermore, the Constitution says the government will make no laws regarding the establishment of religion. If marriage is a religious/beliefs issue, then making a law legalizing homosexual marriage is simply unconstitutional, because it's the state getting involved with setting religious beliefs.

I think a lot of people are arguing semantics, rather than substance.
Sorry, but I lead a bilingual life, being a U.S. citizen married to a German citizen of Hungarian descent, and having lived as a couple in both the U.S. and Germany, and having spent a considerable amount of time in Hungary, where we own property.

My husband and I married in Germany, and things were quite simple: We had to conclude a legal contract, i.e., have a civil ceremony, while a follow-up religious ceremony was optional. We had the latter due to his parents' religious beliefs. Both ceremonies were termed "Ehen" = marriages.

It's the civil contract that counts, as far as residence permits, taxes, pension benefits, inheritance taxes, etc., are concerned. Who cares about the terminology? It's the sections of the law that are important.

The Constitution of the U.S. is the "highest law", not the Bible, so I have to disagree with that interpretation. The U.S. isn't a theocracy, fortunately.

Would you accept a marriage between a gay man and a lesbian who got married for the tax break? It's between a man and a woman.

Tricia

Yay! Good for California!

Oh, man. I have a bunch of friends in California. I have a feeling I'm going to have alot of weddings to go to.

Ellen made an announcement on her show today. It was very moving and emotional. She made reference to the news, then paused and said, "So here's an announcement. I'm getting married!" She got pretty emotional, the audience came to their feet, and they showed Portia De Rossi in the audience, smiling and fighting back tears.

It was very cool.

Well one can only hope, that the People of calf, will force the judges to follow,
what they have had already voted on.

Who needs the will of the people, when u hvae crazy judges on do it for you.

Hooray for California!!!! What I can't understand is why so many Christians think that it's HOMOSEXUALITY that is the ENEMY of marriage, when ADULTERY is the most common reason for destroying a marriage....in fact, Adultery is the "one time" that Jesus Himself said that it was okay to get a divorce.
Jesus also warned men that checking out women & thinking about them lustfully was equivalent to doing the deed itself!!! So, IMO, Christian men have alot more soul-searching to do instead of worrying about what the homosexuals are doing with their lives

What is to stop any two people from entering into a legal contract to share property, tax responsibility, child rearing, etc??? Add in sharing of expenses for insurance needs, who gets buried where, how the kids education is paid for.

It's the insistence on changing the definition of marriage that gets people so fired up.

Just have your agreement made legal and be done with it. Don't keep trying to convince me and millions of others that we have to accept your lifestyle and be done with it. Shoving it down people's throats as if we will get tired of hearing about it and give up isn't helping anyone.

That was well stated. Since when did the only sole criteria for two individuals to be able to marry only involve their sex at that moment in time (I guess some can have sex changes and it be alright?) An individual in my old church always said but God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve If God had made Adam and Steve, the entire human race wouldn't have existed they said!
My parents set a good example for marriage. I am married happily as well; although I am uncomfortable with people of the same sex being "together" only since it seems strange to me and is out of my comfort zone, I do respect their rights to be just as happy as I am and don't mind the new California law.

All you need is a lawyer and something written and signed legally to make wills, give property, have power of attorney (in sickness). You don't need marriage to have that.

Two people living together can have all those rights. Gays don't need marriage to have legal rights.

And civil unions ARE marriages by law. Marriage is between a man and a woman - was that way from the beginning. Marriage was NEVER intended in any other way. Even in the Old Testament when the people had more then one wife it was NOT God's plan at the beginning - in the beginning it was only marriage between the man and the women - Adam and Eve never had other wives or husbands - one male/one female!

You haven't answered my question about how homosexuals are harrassing you by getting married... but I suppose the answer is that they are "shoving it down people's throats." How is it being shoved down your throat? You don't even live in California. Who is "shoving it down your throat" and how?

And as I said before, you don't have to like it. No one is forcing you into a same-sex marriage/union/legality/whatever you want to call it. Dislike it all you want.

they are shoving it down people's throats of majority of your state that voted aganist it.
we can only hope that the people of calf raise up and take there goverment back.
remind them that power of the goverment comes with the consent of the people

Bruce, you said back a few pages, in 2000 61% of Calif. people were against gay marriage. That was 8 years ago....a lot can change since then!

I know little to nothing about marriage & what goes with it, I don't care. What I want to know, though....are there not certain "benefits" that go along with being legally married?

then call for a vote again. They have no business doing what they did.

Yes, that is why this is so important to gays. There are certain benefits that are bestowed if legally married compared to a civil union. That is why this is such a huge battleground for many states.

That's what I wondered.....by not being able to get married there are "things" that they are not entitled to.

nothing that some legal paperwork wont already do

When Californians don't like something about the government, we protest it. (Recall the recall of Gray Davis, among other things)

neetanddave does not live in California, but claims the issue is being shoved down her/his (sorry, I think you might be female and will refer to you as such.) throat and that the homosexuals should leave other people alone. I really don't see this as being the case, especially as she has not offered support on these claims (in spite of chiming in several times regarding her position).

I don't know where that came from; I don't maintain that homosexuality is the enemy of marriage; I certainly agree about adultery. However, it's apples and oranges. Adultery is a threat to marriage. Legalized normalization of homosexual marriage is a threat to society.

What jcat describes as the way things are done in Germany is exactly what I'd like to see done here. But as for semantics and terminology, it's important to persons of religious beliefs who see homosexuality as immoral equated with marriage, which they see as sacred. To these people, the highest law is indeed the Bible. When there's a conflict between the Bible and the law, their beliefs are in conflict. To be true to their beliefs, they would have to follow the Bible and disregard the law.

Then that's addressed by merely changing the law so those benefits accrue to a civil union as well as marriage. It's not necessary for the state to sanction gay marriage. All of the concerns about equal rights and so forth can be addressed without that. But, as I stated in an early post, it's not just about gays wanting the right to get married by the state. There's more to it than that. And so they won't be satisfied with just addressing their concerns about rights and benefits they see lacking in civil unions.

ok, another state does not have recognize a marriage in another state.
normaly its done just to be nice

so people from Calf move to my state or neet state, they break up.
they try up are courts system with stuff that other stats dont even see as legal. that just one example.

they are wasting my time and money.

i think the issue many religious [myself included] have w/this is that it is a matter of discrimination... to some extent, people who believe that this is a sinful way of life are having their beliefs belittled.
while i agree there need to be some reforms, i don't see that this is the optimum solution. personally, i think that the tax benefits given to married people are inequitable. in essence, those of us who can't or haven't married are being penalized... that includes single by choice, single [like me] due to lack of finding a life partner, or single because the current society doesn't recognize same sex marriage.
altho if same sex marriage becomes legally recognized across, the US, what about the other non-marrieds?
perhaps reforms in taxation... also, allowing singles to designate a person to receive other rights - inheritance, etc. w/o having to pay a lawyer [or, at least, not pay any more than those getting married pay for that ceremony] is needed. i know i'd prefer having that option - what if i never marry at all?

I agree with you there. I'm not married, as there's no common law marriage in California (although, we do recognize common law marriages formed in other states). If tax benefits are given to 'married' homosexual people there will still be unmarried homosexual people who do not receive tax benefits (just as you or I do not receive tax benefits).

I understand that people can be offended because homosexual marriage (or whichever word you prefer) is immoral in the context of their religious beliefs. However, the legal recognition of homosexual marriage does not obligate the offended to participate in such or to change their beliefs. If the problem is with the word marriage used to describe a non-religious homosexual union, then by all means make the distinction.

...

Freedom of religion is a wonderful thing. If a thing is wrong in one religion, it may not be in another- eating certain animals, using contraceptives, etc. But people, as individuals, should be given the option of choosing what is right for them... as long as it does no harm to others. I would not prevent someone from an action based on my own beliefs. (Imagine a Muslim person trying to tell a Catholic person that it should be illegal for them to eat pork.) Not all laws are based on morals (If it's illegal to do a U-turn in a certain area, it's not necessarily immoral), and not all morals are enforced by law. (I find lying to be immoral, but it is certainly not illegal.)

...

Bruce, I see your point about the courts. On a related note, people who were married under common law in other states could break up in California and tie up the courts here. Were the homosexuals all heterosexual, or married to someone of the opposite sex (for who knows what reason), they could still divorce in other states and tie up the court system. But yes, the fact that other states do not recognize same-sex marriage at all is a bit more complicated.

I've answered this at length, repeating it in two separate posts. Perhaps you missed them. I don't see any need to repeat it again.

And perhaps I will be arrested if homosexuality becomes the societal norm and the law of the land. Because I'm not, never will be, and never will believe that it's not immoral, regardless of what society says.

But you still don't understand if you think I'm discriminating if I say it's immoral. Stealing, killing, committing adultery, etc are also immoral. No more so nor less so. I believe they're all equally wrong. I'm an equal-opportunity moralist. And since they're all wrong, and I'm guilty of many of them myself, I'm no better, nor am I any worse, than any homosexual. We're all sinners, all in equal need of forgiveness. But once recognizing that, the response God wants to see is not, I don't think, petitioning the state Supreme Court to sanction in law immoral behavior, whatever it may be.

Naturally, I don't expect those who don't think it's immoral behavior to agree with me. And it's their free will to believe it's not immoral. I acknowledge their freedom to believe that way and disagree with me. All I'm asking is the same. The freedom to believe what I believe. But if the contrary is written into law, then what I believe will be against the law. And that harms me and discriminates against me for my beliefs. And so.......oops, I do believe I sorta answered the question yet a third time.

I still favor "don't ask don't tell."

SAME feeling here ...

I have no issue with giving the rights like to health insurance and stuff but marriage is a MAN and a Woman

Would this mean that gay Californian widowers or widows would be able to collect survivor's benefits and dependent-of-a-permanently-disabled benefits from Social Security?

That's an interesting question, as Social Security is not controlled by the state!

I can imagine people who are opposed to gay marriage might object on the grounds that they would now have to support people they would otherwise not have to support. However, if every one of the married gay people were in a heterosexual marriage there would be just as many people collecting SS.

No, I don't have any objection to that myself. If the goal is equality, then homo partners should have the same rights and benefits as hetereo partners. Expanding civil unions to include all the same rights and benefits would satisfy this goal. But as I explained earlier in this thread, I think the gay lobby is after more than just equality for gay partners.

Incidentally, Social Security Disability benefits are administered by the individual states, so yes, they do control that particular benefit, though the requirements for same are set by the Federal government, so whether gay partners in California will be eligible for spousal benefits is an interesting question yet to be answered.

When I got married I had to go to the county courthouse to obtain a marriage license not to a church. It is a legal document with legal ramifications. It is not a religous document and should not be based on the bible which I and many other people in this country do not recognize as binding law. And if we made it a sacred and religous coupling what religous law should it be modeled after? There are some religions that recognized same sex couples. There are some that are discrimitory against women. Considering marriage a sacred union is the slippery slope to me.

The instant I got married a myriad of legal ramification happened. He automatically was covered under my health plan, he automatically was the beneficary of my 401(k), we recieved tax breaks on our tax return. His debts became my debts. There are currently over a 1000 federal rights, protections and benefits associated with marriage. Many of them not covered under civil unions. I don't think denying these rights based on sexual preference is not discriminatory.

If marriage was like baptism and conveyed no legal ramification at all I would have no problem with the religous communities decided who could and could not marry. I might not want to be part of the community but that would be an individual choice that affected no one.

So to my mind good for California. Let them be the beacon that paves the way for other states. Let them show the nation that same sex marriage is not going to erode or demolish society as we know it. It is not a bad thing.