I think the government should just get out of the marriage business entirely. If you want to get married, get married in a religious setting.
I think the government should just get out of the marriage business entirely. If you want to get married, get married in a religious setting.
Originally Posted by Raisor
I enjoy having my marriage legally recognized. We were married by a justice of the peace. My wife and I wouldn't have had it any other way.
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
We had all religious mentionables left unmentioned.
Yep. We specifically asked that God not be mentioned in the ceremony.
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
god god god, the bible, blah blah blah.
Big ol' girly man.Sacramento -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, under growing pressure from his conservative supporters, promised Wednesday to veto the gay-marriage bill passed less than a day earlier by the Democrat-led Legislature.
The Legislature's action trampled over Proposition 22, an initiative passed overwhelmingly in 2000 that banned same-sex marriage in California, said a spokeswoman for the governor.
"The governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action -- which would be unconstitutional -- but by a court decision or another vote of the people,'' said Margita Thompson, Schwarzenegger's press secretary. "We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails the vote. Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto AB849.''
Democrats said they weren't surprised by Schwarzenegger's announcement but were disappointed, especially by the speed of the decision.
"For a man who claims rather grandiosely to be 'following the will of the people' when he doesn't even allow the people to express his will to them as he does with every other bill is a deep disappointment to me," said state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica.
Condemnation from gay and lesbian rights activists was swift.
"Who's the girly man now?" said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "... Real courage and real leadership and real strength and real protection of those who are marginalized by the law should have come at hands of a governor who prides himself in his strength of leadership and his boldness."
While Schwarzenegger had hinted he would veto the bill, Wednesday's abrupt early evening announcement came as a surprise. "I'm not going to talk about that at all today,'' the governor said when he was asked about a possible veto at a morning meeting with Salvation Army volunteers in Sacramento.
At the same Sacramento stop, Thompson told reporters there was no hurry to make a decision on the bill. It would be handled the same as any other bill sent to the governor, she added.
But outside the Salvation Army warehouse, Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families talked about how important the bill was to the conservatives who recent polls show have become Schwarzenegger's strongest supporters.
"If the governor is going to keep his word and be the people's governor, he has to veto AB849,'' he said.
Schwarzenegger needs something to fire up his supporters heading into the Nov. 8 special election. With both his "Live Within Our Means" budget initiative and reapportionment revamp slipping in the polls, the governor can't afford to have any Republicans stay away on election day.
Conservative leaders such as Traditional Values Coalition lobbyist Benjamin Lopez already have suggested that if Schwarzenegger didn't veto the same-sex marriage bill, "many conservatives will stay home in protest."
By quickly promising the veto and accusing the Legislature of ignoring the wishes of Californians, Schwarzenegger could quickly find himself with plenty of supporters. While a Field Poll last week put the governor's approval rating at a record low of 36 percent, California voters were even less enamored with the Legislature, knocking its rating down to 27 percent.
"The governor can point out that he's the one person in Sacramento who's responding to what people said they wanted in a statewide election,'' said Kevin Spillane, a GOP consultant. "He can also talk about how the Legislature is more interested in same-sex marriage and driver's licenses for illegal aliens than it is in the meat-and-potato issues that affect the life of each and every Californian.''
It's a stand that could play well not only with Republicans but also with moderate Democrats and independents still unhappy at the idea of same-sex marriage and now angry that the Legislature has pushed aside their vote.
But Democrats are warning the governor that five years have made a big difference in the way Californians view same-sex marriage.
Two months before voters passed Prop. 22, a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that likely voters favored a ban on same-sex marriage by 57 to 38 percent. In a poll taken last month by the same group, likely voters were split evenly on the question, 46 to 46 percent, although nearly 70 percent of Republican voters continued to disapprove.
"The issue has become more partisan, but that's a pretty major shift in public opinion,'' said Mark Baldassare, the poll's director. "If it came to a vote today, it could be a very close election.''
Schwarzenegger can win back moderates because "it's a chance for him to make history and stand up for equality,'' said Gloria Nieto, a member of the Democratic National Committee's gay and lesbian caucus and executive director of the Lyon-Martin Women's Health clinic in San Francisco.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said he wasn't surprised at Schwarzenegger's announcement, but he said the governor had missed a "rare and unique" chance.
"He missed a golden opportunity to stand on history and do what is noble and right," he said.
Democrats pledged to continue battling until Schwarzenegger actually signed the veto message.
Kuehl said supporters, including those in Hollywood, would continue to put pressure on the governor.
"There will be people he calls his friends who will call and try to influence him," she said. "A lot of people in the industry know this is the right thing to do and understand there is no reason loving couples shouldn't be able to be married in the state."
Regardless of what happens now, the fight for same-sex marriage is not over, added Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, the author of AB849.
"The more the public becomes familiar with the issue, they move in our direction," he said.
What happens when that religious setting won't do it? And an overwhelming majority of them won't due to the plain, literal decrees in the Bible which guides most church doctrine.
I belong to a church - and alot of churches follow this thinking - that won't marry two heterosexuals if the are living together prior to marriage.
Alot of people want that nice church wedding. But they just don't want to have to adhere to church teachings in order to get it. And when that is the case - let them go to a secular source.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.
and if you're not religious, then what?
*Some* people think religion, any religion, is downright silly and want no part of it.
Knowing Chip - I think he was trying to be somewhat sacastic and humorous. Don't take it so hard.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
Sure, there's likely only one Truth, but I'm 100% positive you couldn't be farther away from it. Far as I'm concerned you're absolutely morally wrong on this.
Now I fully understand you have the same take on my position and that's fine. We don't have to agree. That's why I made the point that this isn't a theocracy. Frankly, neither one of us should be hostage to other's morality.
That's why gay marriage should be treated as a matter of law, which is supposed to be blind on matters of race, religion and sex.
And, again, apparently we haven't reached any sort of decadent tipping point here in Massachusetts. Haven't had orgies in the street or people deciding that the institution of marriage has lost all meaning. Like, I said it's like gay people started getting married and the only people it affected was them. Everybody just went on with their lives. Wow, it's like live and let live in action.
The only boogeyman in the closet with this is that of the people who think their morality/religion/fear/intolerance should dictate the laws that guide everyone else. I don't see why that should matter as a point of law as it's patently unamerican.
Last edited by M2; 09-11-2005 at 05:14 PM.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
The only boogeyman in the closet with this is that of the people who think their morality/religion/fear/intolerance should dictate the laws that guide everyone else. I don't see why that should matter as a point of law as it's patently unamerican.[/QUOTE]
This is the argument that several thousand people in Utah are going to use if Gay Marriage is adopted nationwide. They will say, "your morality/religion/fear/intolerance should not dictate the laws that guide us. You allow gays to marry, under that say law you must allow multiple marriage." If you apply the equal protection clause of the Constitution to Gay Marriage (which is their claim in the courts), then you must apply it to Polygamy. If you don't you are discriminating against them and not being very tolerant.
1st pick of the 2023 baseball amateur draft
To which they'll get the reply that our legal system is built around two-person unions and the property, inheritance, divorce, child-rearing issues involved make polygamy completely inapplicable to the American legal system.
Legally speaking, polygamy doesn't have a leg to stand on. The main problem is that it violates the equality fundamental to our current marriage laws. It's nothing more than a red herring in the gay marriage debate. The one sets no precedent for the other.
Last edited by M2; 09-11-2005 at 06:47 PM.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
What if my morality says it's ok to kill people? Why do you impose your morality on me, which says I'm not allowed to kill people? The imposition or morality argument fails to recognize that both sides of any issue espouse a morality of some type. Some people's morality is derived from religion, other's aren't. The US Constitution has stated that the Congress shall pass no laws establishing any specific religion from which our laws will derive their moral compass. This doesn't mean individuals cannot use a relgious justification for wanting to pass a type of legislation. In fact, many of our laws have such justification, it's just that so many people agree with it, that it's not an issue.
Somebody is going to have their morality upheld, and some other people aren't. The moral imposition arguement is pure BS.
If you go out and kill another person, then you have infringed on their Constitutional right to "Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness."
Homosexual marriage does not infringe on any rights of any individuals outside of the marriage.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
