California Legalizes Gay Marriage

Good.  This is going to be an issue that is resolved within the next 10 years.  The era of people caring what others are doing in their private lives is coming to an end.

Comments

[Rowhey]

I seriously doubt that this issue will be resolved in the next thirty - let alone ten years.

The regulation of marriage is primarily a state issue. So, this issue will likely be thrown back to the voters of California in the form of a constitutional amendment.

These marriages will not be recognized in most states. So, you will see a whole host of court battles and election fights. In the end, it will be no different than abortion. Both sides will become further entrenched, inside the beltway hacks will raise money every year so that they can continue working in do nothing jobs, and not much will change.

This has nothing to do with what people do behind closed doors. We're not talking about sodomy laws or anything like that. Marriage is a public institution. The public has a right to deny it to non-traditional arrangements just as they have done with polygamy. I know that this dampens your vision of Virginia turning into a Socialist utopia, but the amendment passed overwhelmingly in 2006. If a same-sex couple wants to get married, they should just move to San Francisco.

[Pete in Williamsburg]

The "I- want-to-run-your life" wing of the GOP dominates Republicans at the moment. Heck, Falwell and Robertson blamed American for 9-11 and the GOP dared not reprimand them. I agree that it will take more than 10 years for Dobsonites to abandon the Sacred Church of Homophobia.

[Social Conservative]

Interesting. Advocates for same-sex marriage say they just want to be "treated equally." Yet in California, they were. Domestic Partnerships gave same-sex couples all the rights and benefits of marriage. But that wasn't good enough. They want government recognition of their lifestyle (legal marriage) because they assume that will bring about public acceptance of homosexuality.

My guess is that they have it backwards. If they stopped pushing so hard on marriage, they'd get their way. The public is gradually becoming accepting of any type of sexuality, homosexual or otherwise. The backlash against same-sex marriage has led to marriage amendments all over the country not because people don't like gays, they just aren't ready to admit they don't like gays. Less than a decade and this will all be over.

In the meantime, they pushed too hard too fast.

[t]

Lev.20
[13] If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

[Rowhey]

Pete,
States regulate marriage and have throughout the history of the republic. What about this is "I want to run your life"? In contrast, anti-sodomy laws are "I want to run your life."

In essense, you are asking states to change the legal definition of marriage.

If you want gay marriage legalized, get the voters to agree with you. We live in a democracy -- don't we?

Love it t. LOVE IT.

[Sam]

The states shouldn't be regulating marriage at all. There are reasons to have civil unions, and to keep them limited to two people, be it one man and one woman, or two men, or two women. But I don't think the government should be making any judgments at all about what is and isn't a marriage. That should be left to churches and synagogues. If your church wants to only marry straight couples, fine by me.

[Dan]

t,

Are you advocating the murder of homosexuals?

That is truly sick. You are truly warped.

[Interested Observer]

I see this as a Republican wedge issue in the fall. Thanks CA. Not.

[Dan]

Interested Observer,

That was my first thought. The Republicans get to use the anti-gay dodge one more time and avoid talking about their abysmal record. I don't think they get another trip to that well.

This year they will be held accountable for the cost to the country for what they have done. I think voters are focusing on what is wrong and who is responsible for the damage.

[Dan]

Where is the post about the Steel Workers endorsing Obama?

[Pete in Williamsburg]

Seat-belt laws, rules for the temperature of dishwater in restaurants, and regulation of marriage are far from the "Stop the Gay Menace" "Run your life" message of Republicans.

Also, I do not believe in changing the definition of marriage. Marriage is controlled by a religious definition. What should be legal are civil unions for same-sex couples to ensure the legal and economic recognition that married couples enjoy.

And, t, those Bible quotes will come back to bite you: Deuteronomy 22-23 says kill a rape-victim if she doesn't cry out for help. Exodus 21-20 says if you beat your slave to death, you're not in trouble if he hangs on for a day or two until he dies. Exodus 21-7 says selling your daughter into slavery is A-OK.

T, in keeping with the teachings of Leviticus:

Lev 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Do you then support state or federal laws that punish children for speaking ill against their parents? The punishment is the same as that which you cited earlier, so by your argument wouldn't it be acceptable to believe that those "sins" are thus equal in seriousness as well?

[Rowhey]

Sam,
I guess you are in favor of letting 12 years marry then? Or, perhaps, you are in favor of polygamy?

Regulation of marriage is a state function. And, it always has been.

[Social Conservative]

Sam, What are "the reasons" for limiting it to two people? Sounds like you are discriminating against threesomes.

A few more for that crazy "t" character:

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. Lev.25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev.11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev.11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/15/16543/8651/223/516431

[Sam]

rowhey - The state is free to restrict such civil unions for obvious reasons. If a church wants to sanction such marriages, that's the church's problems. Doesn't change the fact that almost every single activity associated with the marriage (sex, forced moving, custody changes) are illegal, and easily enforceable by the state in that way. Changing states' roles to only regulating civil unions would change nothing about the current status of such marriages. They're not legally sanctioned now, and they're actively illegal now, they wouldn't be legally sanctioned then, and unless the marriage was "in writing only" they'd be equally illegal then, under basically the same set of laws that make them illegal now.

Social Conservative - study after study has shown detrimental impacts on children born into such families, as well as frequency of abuse and other serious problems. Additionally, allowing civil unions between more than two people would create tremendous tax disparities as to put those in traditional families at an actual financial disadvantage.

[Pete in Williamsburg]

Row,

C'mon, there's gotta be more to your position than that "a man and a dog will get married" schlock. Reasonable regulation of marriage and civil unions is a must in order to protect minors and ensure no abuse of the status. All we're talking about is same-sex.

[Not An Anonymous Conservative Concern Troll]

In 2020 we will see Mitt Romney leading campaigns for gay marriage at this rate.

[Sam]

Pete,

I believe you have stated my own opinion a bit better than I have. I am more concerned that creating separate categories of "marriage" and "civil union" that have the same legal meaning seems silly. Marriage seems to be a religious term, and we are a secular government. My concern over regulations, then, is more semantic. Why not just call everything in the legal realm a civil union, and leave the "marriage" debate to the churches? This still allows us to make all of the necessary reasonable regulations, and the "a man and a dog will get married" argument is just as absurd.

I might point out also that today, there is absolutely nothing preventing a man and a dog from getting married if he can find a church to sanction it. It just would not be a legally recognized union, and so there would be no legal right generated. As this is also clear animal abuse, it is also rightfully illegal, and will remain such.

As a rule of thumb idiots who post like this should be taken away in the paddy wagon!

[Sean Holihan]

I just like being treated like a human being. Same as everybody else. It kinda sucks knowing that you don't have the same basic right to marriage that others do, just because of who you are.

You wanna know some differences? Here ya go:

Dissolving a Civil Union v. Divorce:

Vermont has no residency requirement for Civil Unions. That means two people from any other state or country can come there and have a civil union ceremony. If the couple breaks up and wishes to dissolve the union, one of them must be a resident of Vermont for one year before the Civil Union can be dissolved in family court. Married couples can divorce in any state they reside, no matter where they were married.

Immigration:

A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.

Taxes:

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.

Benefits:

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

Here are some of the legal rights that married couples have and gays and lesbians are denied:

Joint parental rights of children
Joint adoption
Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
Crime victims recovery benefits
Domestic violence protection orders
Judicial protections and immunity
Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
Public safety officers death benefits
Spousal veterans benefits
Social Security
Medicare
Joint filing of tax returns
Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
Child support
Joint Insurance Plans
Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
Estate and gift tax benefits
Welfare and public assistance
Joint housing for elderly
Credit protection
Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

[t]

Isa.3
[9] Their partiality witnesses against them;
they proclaim their sin like Sodom,
they do not hide it.
Woe to them!
For they have brought evil upon themselves.

Isa.13
[19] And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms,
the splendor and pride of the Chalde'ans,
will be like Sodom and Gomor'rah
when God overthrew them.

Funny how so much of modern-day conservatism revolves around freaking out about what other people are doing with their willies and their wonkas.