• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

It's not equal.
For all intensive purposes couple relationships in California are Equal.

One other important thing. A domestic partnership is not transferrable to many other nations, or even other States, in the way that a marriage would be. Marriage licensing is "stronger" for this reason, or even civil unions which, as of now, are outlawed for gays.
A "marriage" of two people of the same sex is also not transferable to other states or even acknowledged by our own federal government.

Also, the term "marriage" is significant to a lot of people, such as gays who are religious. They should have the ability to get married in the church of their faith if that church is willing to perform the ceremony. As it stands, they cannot do that because the law makes the decision for all churches. IMO this also steps upon the religious freedoms of churches and their communities who are in favor of same-sex marriage, and there are many.

Yes they can. Any church can perform a marriage or other uniting ceremony for it's members without the consent of the government. Now it may not be acknowledged by the government but it's not illegal or criminal. IMO government acknowledging marriage at all steps on the religious freedom of everyone.

The bottom line is that Prop 8 is just smoke, mirrors and political fodder. It makes no difference in privileges granted to the couples involved whether Prop 8 exists or not.
 
But again, from a legal standpoint there is no inequality.

This is patently untrue. A certain relationship (a heterosexual marriage) amongst American citizens affords them legal and financial benefits not afforded to others. Any persons engaging in a relationship that does not meet the criteria set forth by "marriage" may not partake in these legal and financial benefits, thus there is indeed a legal inequality inherent to heterosexual marriage.

However, the point is that NO relationship should be afforded these types of restricted benefits, thus the idea that gay marriage is somehow a right is just as ludicrous as me saying heterosexual marriage is a right. No, you do not have the right to get special benefits and recognition from the government, gay or straight.
 
That was so far from the point....

Just re-read your post. My first reading left me thinking it was just another one of those old "blame whitey for keeping the black gay man down" :roll: routines.

I think I may have misintrepreted your comment. Perhaps I should have known more history on the "back-and-forth" dialog on this thread to properly intrepret what you were saying. My bad. :3oops: All apologies.

Did you mean to say that in your efforts to see both sides of the issue and walk the center line, that the anti-gm people still treat you like crap no matter what?

Is that a better intrepetation? If not, please explain in simpler terms for those of us over here on the short bus. :2wave:
 
This is patently untrue. A certain relationship (a heterosexual marriage) amongst American citizens affords them legal and financial benefits not afforded to others.
However homosexuals, at least consenting, adult ones, have equal legal ability to engage in these relationships.

What you mean is they don't have the ability to marry a consenting, adult of the sex they are attracted to. That is a far narrower definition than simply saying they don't have "equal rights". Generalised equality often doesn't isn't easily useful when it comes to specifics.

However, the point is that NO relationship should be afforded these types of restricted benefits, thus the idea that gay marriage is somehow a right is just as ludicrous as me saying heterosexual marriage is a right. No, you do not have the right to get special benefits and recognition from the government, gay or straight.
Actually a lot of the rights can be claimed by just having the state acknowledge that in some areas a marriage(of any kind.) is an irreducible unit. This is not necessarily conveying any benefits and is arguably less interventionist as the state recognises a social unit and does not try and split it apart, at least for the purposes of its contact with it, into atoms the individuals that make up this social unit.
 
A "marriage" of two people of the same sex is also not transferable to other states or even acknowledged by our own federal government.

Wait...what? Transferable? I was married in CA 9 years ago and I've never had to "transfer" my marriage.

Other states are required under federal law to recognize Domestic Partnership, but in no way does that mean anything is ever "transferred"....I don't even know what you mean by that. As a 7-year resident of SD, my marriage license is under the authority of Alameda County, CA.

Yes they can. Any church can perform a marriage or other uniting ceremony for it's members without the consent of the government. Now it may not be acknowledged by the government but it's not illegal or criminal. IMO government acknowledging marriage at all steps on the religious freedom of everyone.

The bottom line is that Prop 8 is just smoke, mirrors and political fodder. It makes no difference in privileges granted to the couples involved whether Prop 8 exists or not.

Gays can get a Domestic Partnership license, go down to the church and have a ceremony and call it "marriage". They can even call each other 'husband' or 'wife'.

There's nothing left to fight for in the courts.
 
Last edited:
Wait...what? Transferable? I was married in CA 9 years ago and I've never had to "transfer" my marriage...wtf are you talking about?

The poster was talking about DOMA.
 
The poster was talking about DOMA.

I read the posts and I still don't understand.

A marriage license is not like a driver's license where you have to have it transferred to your resident state within a given grace period of becoming a resident.

To reverse the analogy, it's like getting a CA driver's license and that license being good all over the country.
 
Last edited:
I read the posts and I still don't understand.

A marriage license is not like a driver's license where you have to have it transferred to your resident state within a given grace period of becoming a resident.

To reverse the analogy, it's like getting a CA driver's license and that license being good all over the country.

Maybe the poster worded it badly. A heterosexual marriage performed in CA will be recognized in any other state via the Full Faith and Credit clause in the US Constitution. The same can not be said of gay marriages because of the DOMA. BTW one can drive in any other state on a CA drivers license. One needs to change it when they claim residency in another state.
 
Maybe the poster worded it badly.

That demonstrates ignorance of the issue ;) A typo is one thing, but this shows a fundamental lack of knowledge.

A heterosexual marriage performed in CA will be recognized in any other state via the Full Faith and Credit clause in the US Constitution. The same can not be said of gay marriages because of the DOMA.

Sure, I agree with that, but Domestic Partnerships are recognized in every other state, so there's no problem.

BTW one can drive in any other state on a CA drivers license. One needs to change it when they claim residency in another state.

I thought I said that :doh :2wave:
 
Wow, bro if you think marriage is about being free....man you don't understand the issue at all.

When I was married, I used to think of it in terms of a set sentence. On my tenth anniversary, my husband toasted to "another ten years" and I started crying, and told him I was pretty sure I couldn't do it that long.

That kind of truthfulness isn't healthy for a marriage, btw.
 
Last edited:
When I was married, I used to think of it in terms of a set sentence. On my tenth anniversary, my husband toasted to "another ten years" and I started crying, and told him I was pretty sure I couldn't do it that long.

That kind of truthfulness isn't healthy for a marriage, btw.

What is it with women and their inability to follow through with commitments?

What part of "until death" didn't you understand?
 
When I was married, I used to think of it in terms of a set sentence. On my tenth anniversary, my husband toasted to "another ten years" and I started crying, and told him I was pretty sure I couldn't do it that long.

That kind of truthfulness isn't healthy for a marriage, btw.

:rofl Now THIS, is a :funny
 
What is it with women and their inability to follow through with commitments?

What part of "until death" didn't you understand?

Why do people, men or women, stay in relationships they've found thoroughly unrewarding? When the answer is "children," have studies shown that children grow up better adjusted when their parents stay together even when their relationship is dysfunctional over children that grew up with separated parents? Just asking.
 
Why do people, men or women, stay in relationships they've found thoroughly unrewarding? When the answer is "children," have studies shown that children grow up better adjusted when their parents stay together even when their relationship is dysfunctional over children that grew up with separated parents? Just asking.

Answer my question first :2razz:

Children do better in 2 parent homes so long as the couple can remain civil, which is usually the case.
 
Last edited:
What part of "until death" didn't you understand?

I understood it. I was just afraid that honoring that vow was going to require me to break the 6th commandment. Kind of a rock/hard place scenario.

And then, there were his repeated violations of the 7th commandment.
 
Last edited:
Answer my question first :2razz:

Children do better in 2 parent homes so long as the couple can remain civil, which is usually the case.

More often than not, yes. But since gays can raise children and single parents can raise children, what does this have to do with gay marriage?
 
I understood it. I was just afraid that honoring that vow was going to require me to break the 6th commandment. Kind of a rock/hard place scenario.

And then, there were his repeated violations of the 7th commandment.

You gave the impression that he was honoring his vows.
 
What is it with women and their inability to follow through with commitments?

What part of "until death" didn't you understand?

In my girlfriends case the guy was mentally abusive. He would do things like take the door knobs off the bathroom so she could not get in. He was hiding his herpes medication from her and also being an ass. Yes she has been tested. The last straw was when he put out an Amber alert on her when she was in CA. This happened after he had dropped her and the child off at the airport knowing fully that she was visiting her family in CA. The police in CA did not arrest anyone nor made anyone come back to Texas.
 
Answer my question first :2razz:

Shrug, okay. Girls grow up surrounded at all times by the idea that they're supposed to grow up and get married to a perfect man on a splendid white horse, and to not do so makes them failures. This is seen in the toys they are given to play with to the roles they play on tv every day. So they get married, often quite young, when their own ideas of self and purpose are still pretty half baked. "Unfortunately," they grow, and realize they didn't have to accept that future written for them while they were children, and seek something that satisfies their roles as human beings instead. Also unfortunately, they were also raised with the idea that they need to have children, complicating things all the more.

It's why I think most people would do well to get married after they're 30. They'd have a much clearer idea of who they are and what they'd need in a partner.
 
You gave the impression that he was honoring his vows.

That's interesting. I didn't see that insinuation whatsoever in her post. Why did you see that?
 
More often than not, yes. But since gays can raise children and single parents can raise children, what does this have to do with gay marriage?

It wasn't my question, so I have no idea. People ask questions sometimes and I have no problem giving an answer. There's no harm.

My question regarding divorce relates to how the divorce rate is used by pro-gm to show that heteros don't really care about things like 'the sanctity of marriage'.

But, did you know that women initiate the vast majority of divorces?

It's not a "heteros don't care" issue, it's a "woman aren't happy" issue. Married women typically are significantly less satisfied than married men.

So, why should I believe the typical lesbian couple will be any more satisfied?
 
Shrug, okay. Girls grow up surrounded at all times by the idea that they're supposed to grow up and get married to a perfect man on a splendid white horse, and to not do so makes them failures. This is seen in the toys they are given to play with to the roles they play on tv every day. So they get married, often quite young, when their own ideas of self and purpose are still pretty half baked. "Unfortunately," they grow, and realize they didn't have to accept that future written for them while they were children, and seek something that satisfies their roles as human beings instead. Also unfortunately, they were also raised with the idea that they need to have children, complicating things all the more.

It's why I think most people would do well to get married after they're 30. They'd have a much clearer idea of who they are and what they'd need in a partner.

I'm completely on board with you here.
 
Back
Top Bottom