Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban

If you had been paying attention, FO, you would know that I don't oppose "gay marriage." I opposed the law being involved with the business of marriage, gay or otherwise. The law should draw a line after civil unions and stay out the business of marriage. Then everybody and their pets can get married if they choose to, and I don't have to be a part of it.Does the law regulate things like religious confirmations, Jewish circumcisions, and whether or not you get an artificial Christmas tree? Does the law regulate what sex you have to be to be Queen of the Rose Bowl Parade? Does the law regulate inter-stall shoe tapping in airport restrooms? (Well, maybe it should.) So why does the law need to regulate marriage?And most of all, why would gay people want the government to marry them, anyway? It's the same government that kills innocent families in their beds just because they happened to be at home in Baghdad? Civil unions”isn't that the issue where the law ought to be concerned? Legal protection”isn't that it? Or do they just want to fuck with the minds Mr. and Mrs. Jones who would never think for a moment of tapping someone else's shoe in the stall next door for anything but toilet paper?”HM

CS, it's a little late”two days ago”but did you happen to participate in the Larry Craig Bobblefoot Day? I couldn't afford the gas it takes to get out to SeaTac airport for the celebrtations.”HM

Yeah! Fuck it right up the Hershey Highway!

It didn't? They must have written the Constitution before I came to this forum as "Hoot Mon." Fortunately, the women I married didn't require me to get a sex change. Furthermore, I could never find a man to marry who was sexy enough for me to want to whack off my unit. But the men I met in airport restrooms were all losers. It might have been different if Rock Hudson had shown up.”HM

Exactly! But we have posters on this thread who say: "Fuck tradition!"This silly flap is over a single word, "marriage." And no one has yet come forward to explain why "marriage" should NOT be used exclusively to define a civil union between members of opposite sexes. Sorry, but that's just how is was intended by the lawmakers. Gays don't qualify for that "marriage," of course, and for a very obvious reason. But that shouldn't prevent them for having civil unions with each other to protect their legal rights and interests. Who wants to make them suffer that way?The gay crowd cannot explain why the word "marriage" needs to apply to them, especially when they already can, in certain states, get civilly united under the law. But, OH, NO, that ain't enough! For them to insist on changing the historical meaning of the word "marriage"”The Sacred Covenant”is a reverse form of bigotry.But then you have to ask: Why does the law need be involved with Sacred Covenants?”HM

As it should NOT, according the First Amendment. Wish I understood what you are saying here. When does the government ever "dissolve" a religious ceremony? And why should it? You seem to be making my case for me. Why not? They're the ones demanding it. They can? So then you agree with me that the State should have no legitimate role in the "marriage" business, that it should restrict its jurisdiction to civil contracts. I haven't presented a "Preserving the Family" argument. So was the horse. Should we defy tradition and call it a "cow"?”HM

Happy belated birthday! This must mean that you and the Larry Craig Bobblefoot have the same astrological sign.btw: I like your new avatar.”HM

1. Did you happen to notice that I said "should" in my statement. It's my opionion that is shouldn't.2. Are you as redundant in real life? Most marriages”you know, the real ones between a man and woman”involve three stops: 1. The blood test, 2. the marriage license, 3. and the church. WHAT? The modern horse was a human creation by way of interbreeding. Humans deliberately manipulated horsy genes to fit their various needs and purposes. Thought you knew that. Ah...well...no, not exactly.”HM

Your point underscores the prevailing myth of this entire discussion. Silly people seem to think that the government ought to regulate their emotions.”HM

But, Rrhain, the opinion of the vast majority is that "gay marriage" is not the same thing as marriage between a man and a woman. How could it be? The parts don't fit together. Please be specific about the law you are quoting. Ooooohhhhh, this is getting tedious! Gay people have EXACTLY the same rights as I do. Please explain to me why they don't. No, I never said anything of the sort. I don't care who gets married, so long as the law stays out of it. What affects me is that I, via the law, have to be a party to it. I'm not objecting to civil unions between gays. But I object to anything that conflates government with religion, as is prohibited by the First Amendment. I believe you are under the right impression. Well, I'm an atheist, and I've been married three times. I'd say atheists would do well by staying out of churches.”HM

Is this a word puzzle? No, you said "Deja ve.” Don't you have a spell checker? Your literary penetration is less effective than a mosquito's. I'd work on those similes if I were you. I wouldn't think of screwing up your spell checker. We haven't even been properly introduced.”HM

I certainly do agree with you (and I'm a liberal on most other matters). Reminds me of that old '60s bumper sticker: "NUKE THE GAY WHALES FOR JESUS!"”HM

Do you believe this? If so, you're deluded. Straight men don't try to have sex with other men. Straight women don't try to have sex with other women. Do these count for anything? Wrong! NOTHING prohibits them from marriage, so long as they do it with members of opposite sexes. What ever happened to "Don't ask. Don't tell."? Are you saying then that gays can do a lot of this that straights can't do? Fundamental flaw: Race and sexual orientation are two entirely different things. For you to imply, by way of your assertion, that a black man's plight in our culture is equal to that of a gay man then you are a bigot of the highest order. Have you forgotten that our government is constituted to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people"? This put ME right in the middle of what my government does. The problem is that the state needs to get out of the business of "marriage" and restrict its jurisdiction to civil unions. There are no valid arguments for why the state should do the business of the church. In fact, the First Amendment strictly prohibits it.”HM

No, I didn't choose to be heterosexual either. Do you know for sure that gay people do not choose to be homosexual? I don't believe that science even knows whether or not they choose to be gay or they get that way naturally.But, for the sake of deeper analysis, let's suppose science discovers the cause of homosexuality”maybe a gene, maybe a nutrient deficiency, maybe a flap somewhere that needs to be repaired. And let's suppose that science discovers a cure for it: gene therapy; dietary supplements, surgical procedures. Now, given a real chance to reverse their homosexuality, would gay people choose to be cured?This is not a far-fetched scenario. There are already claims of therapies being available for correcting sexual orientation (see NARTH). But I know of no therapies for correcting heterosexuality. Most people don't think it needs to be corrected.My guess is that homosexuals don't feel the need to be cured because they are quite happy being gay. And so we're back to square one. We're suppose to change the law because of choices people make for themselves.”HM

You make a good point, DrJones*. Those laws do protect peoples' religious choices and prohibit religious-orientation discrimination. Following on from there, many states have laws prohibiting sexual-orientation discrimination. NOLO says:

quote:

---

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have laws that currently prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in private employment: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Some of these states also specifically prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. (In addition, six states have laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in public workplaces only: Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Michigan, Montana, and Pennsylvania.)

---

This certainly does give them a foothold to take their homosexual cause all the way up to legalizing "gay marriage." I happen to think that "marriage" was intended to apply only to civil unions between members of opposite sexes. Gays can't get "married"; that's silly. But they ought to be civilly united if they wish, so as to get their equal rights under the law.Hey, why can't we invent a new word for civil unions between same sexes? We need a dignified word that honors their special arrangement. I submit the word "garriage" to serve as an efficient replacement for "gay marriage.""I heard Herb and John got garried the other day. It was a delightful garriage ceremony. And did you know that Ralph and Sarah got married last Saturday? Well, their cerimony was as lovely as Herb and John's. Gosh, aren't marriage and garriage wonderful things!"Would you go for that, Dr?”HM