CA Supreme Court OKs Gay Marriage

[AustinHoya03]

apnews.myway.com/article/20080515/D90MB7SO0.html

www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

Note that CA has no residency requirement to apply for a marriage license, so gay couples across the United States can, at least for the time being, be married in California.

It will be interesting to see how the presidential candidates react to this development. Here's hoping we won't get the same, old, predictable dialogue.

[The Stig]

So now the gays get to share in the misery

In all seriousness, our divorce rate is a far bigger threat to the sanctity of marriage than gay couples wanting to tie the knot.

[EasyEd]

Among consenting adults why shouldn't a man be able to marry three wives? Or one wife and one gay partner?

[Elvado]

In a related development, the Duke basketball team has asked to play its home games in Sacramento.

[Boz]

May 19, 2008 14:37:40 GMT -5 Elvado said:

In a related development, the Duke basketball team has asked to play its home games in Sacramento.

Well done, 'vadi.

;D

[kchoya]

May 19, 2008 13:02:10 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Among consenting adults why shouldn't a man be able to marry three wives? Or one wife and one gay partner?

Exactly, what's the distinction?

[The Stig]

The difference is that gay marriage is still between two people - in other words, each partner is (theoretically) completely devoted to the other, and there's no split loyalties.

Changing the numbers in a marriage has a completely different effect than changing the genders involved.

EDIT: The ad at the top of the thread now shows two dudes dancing with each other....

[kchoya]

May 19, 2008 15:55:54 GMT -5 The Stig said:

The difference is that gay marriage is still between two people - in other words, each partner is (theoretically) completely devoted to the other, and there's no split loyalties.

Changing the numbers in a marriage has a completely different effect than changing the genders involved.

EDIT: The ad at the top of the thread now shows two dudes dancing with each other....

I say marriage is between two people of opposite genders. If we're allowed to modify the gender aspect, why aren't we allowed to modify the numerical aspect?

I think it's totally arbitrary to say one is different than another. If we can say two people who are in love with each other and totally committed to one another and their family, isn't it equally as plausible to make the same argument as to a husband and two wives?

I still fail to see the significant distinction. All the arguments being made for gay marriage I can being made with equal weight for polygamy.

[kchoya]

May 19, 2008 15:55:54 GMT -5 The Stig said:

EDIT: The ad at the top of the thread now shows two dudes dancing with each other....

Jessica Alba
Pam Anderson
Scarlett Johansson
bikinis
victoria's secret

[Bando]

May 15, 2008 20:51:23 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

apnews.myway.com/article/20080515/D90MB7SO0.html

www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

Note that CA has no residency requirement to apply for a marriage license, so gay couples across the United States can, at least for the time being, be married in California.

It will be interesting to see how the presidential candidates react to this development. Here's hoping we won't get the same, old, predictable dialogue.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Tables, you need to cancel your wedding. This development threatens your marriage in a vague but frightening way. You're better off not getting married at all then living married in such a world where your marriage is under assault!!!!!

</snark>

For those decrying the slippery slope, there's plenty of reasons to keep polygamy illegal, namely the tons of negative repercussions that result every time it's instituted that aren't shared by gay marriages.

[Bando]

May 19, 2008 16:30:53 GMT -5 kchoya said:

May 19, 2008 15:55:54 GMT -5 The Stig said:

The difference is that gay marriage is still between two people - in other words, each partner is (theoretically) completely devoted to the other, and there's no split loyalties.

Changing the numbers in a marriage has a completely different effect than changing the genders involved.

EDIT: The ad at the top of the thread now shows two dudes dancing with each other....

I say marriage is between two people of opposite genders. If we're allowed to modify the gender aspect, why aren't we allowed to modify the numerical aspect?

I think it's totally arbitrary to say one is different than another. If we can say two people who are in love with each other and totally committed to one another and their family, isn't it equally as plausible to make the same argument as to a husband and two wives?

I still fail to see the significant distinction. All the arguments being made for gay marriage I can being made with equal weight for polygamy.

Ironically, these are the same arguments for the government getting out of the marriage game all together, which is a position I'm sympathetic to. Why do you hate marriage, Stig? ;D

[moe09]

May 19, 2008 16:30:53 GMT -5 kchoya said:

May 19, 2008 15:55:54 GMT -5 The Stig said:

The difference is that gay marriage is still between two people - in other words, each partner is (theoretically) completely devoted to the other, and there's no split loyalties.

Changing the numbers in a marriage has a completely different effect than changing the genders involved.

EDIT: The ad at the top of the thread now shows two dudes dancing with each other....

I say marriage is between two people of opposite genders. If we're allowed to modify the gender aspect, why aren't we allowed to modify the numerical aspect?

And I say marriage is between two different species and that's it. If we're allowed to modify the gender i.e. allowing two different sexes to get married why can't we allow two different species to get married? In fact, not just two different species, but even between an inanimate object and a living one, or two inanimate objects.

Ready? Explain rationally why two people of the same sex can't get married... Annnnnnd go!

[AustinHoya03]

May 19, 2008 17:18:47 GMT -5 Bando said:

these are the same arguments for the government getting out of the marriage game all together, which is a position I'm sympathetic to.

I'm sympathetic to this position as well. I'm getting married in August, and I'll consider myself married based on what happens inside a church in front of my (and my future wife's) friends and family. The state of Texas (or any state, for that matter) can call my union whatever the hell it wants as far as I'm concerned. I really don't care if state governments allow both gays and straights to be "married," or if they allow everyone to be "civil unionized," but I'm fine allowing same sex couples to do whatever I can do.

As for ed's question above, it's a question similar to "why can a 17 year old consent to sexual activity, but not a 14 year old?" Lines such as these are usually drawn in this county by state governments, which enact the will of the people. If there's a story here, it's that the CA Supreme Court has engaged in a bit of judicial activism in this case. I agree with the result, but not the manner in which it was reached.

[Bando]

May 19, 2008 18:16:04 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

May 19, 2008 17:18:47 GMT -5 Bando said:

these are the same arguments for the government getting out of the marriage game all together, which is a position I'm sympathetic to.

I'm sympathetic to this position as well. I'm getting married in August, and I'll consider myself married based on what happens inside a church in front of my (and my future wife's) friends and family. The state of Texas (or any state, for that matter) can call my union whatever the hell it wants as far as I'm concerned. I really don't care if state governments allow both gays and straights to be "married," or if they allow everyone to be "civil unionized," but I'm fine allowing same sex couples to do whatever I can do.

As for ed's question above, it's a question similar to "why can a 17 year old consent to sexual activity, but not a 14 year old?" Lines such as these are usually drawn in this county by state governments, which enact the will of the people. If there's a story here, it's that the CA Supreme Court has engaged in a bit of judicial activism in this case. I agree with the result, but not the manner in which it was reached.

I don't know if you can pull the "activist judges" canard here. First off, 6 of the 7 judges were appointed by Republicans. Second, the California legislature passed gay marriage twice, only to be vetoed by Gov. McBain each time. Schwartzenegger then specifically asked for the state supreme court to decide the matter.

[kchoya]

May 19, 2008 17:16:57 GMT -5 Bando said:

May 15, 2008 20:51:23 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

apnews.myway.com/article/20080515/D90MB7SO0.html

www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

Note that CA has no residency requirement to apply for a marriage license, so gay couples across the United States can, at least for the time being, be married in California.

It will be interesting to see how the presidential candidates react to this development. Here's hoping we won't get the same, old, predictable dialogue.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Tables, you need to cancel your wedding. This development threatens your marriage in a vague but frightening way. You're better off not getting married at all then living married in such a world where your marriage is under assault!!!!!

</snark>

For those decrying the slippery slope, there's plenty of reasons to keep polygamy illegal, namely the tons of negative repercussions that result every time it's instituted that aren't shared by gay marriages.

And what are these "tons" of negative repercussion you speak of? And please, differentiate between polygamy as practiced in isolated compounds in Texas and Arizona and polygamy in mainstream communities.

[The Stig]

I'm also sympathetic to separating marriage from the state. I wouldn't say I wholeheartedly support it (would atheists be allowed to say that they're married, or just civil unionized?), but I wouldn't oppose it if it was on the table.

On the numbers vs. gender makeup of marriages: The way I see it, a well-functioning gay marriage really isn't different from a well-functioning straight marriage. Each person is wholeheartedly devoted to one other person. There's no split devotions, no divided loyalties. The only difference outside of the bedroom is that the gay couple can't have their own kids.

A polygamist marriage is a different story. In that arrangement each person can't be entirely devoted to the other, since there's more than one person to be devoted to. The dynamics are completely different.

Ultimately, I think it's an issue of equal rights. As long as there are legal benefits to marriage, it is wrong to deny it to certain parts of the population just because of their sexual orientation. If you don't want to call it marriage, fine. Make them civil unions for all I care, as long they're equal to marriage in the eyes of the law.

First ad on the bottom: Duke Basketball Ticket

[Bando]

May 19, 2008 18:28:48 GMT -5 kchoya said:

May 19, 2008 17:16:57 GMT -5 Bando said:

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Tables, you need to cancel your wedding. This development threatens your marriage in a vague but frightening way. You're better off not getting married at all then living married in such a world where your marriage is under assault!!!!!

</snark>

For those decrying the slippery slope, there's plenty of reasons to keep polygamy illegal, namely the tons of negative repercussions that result every time it's instituted that aren't shared by gay marriages.

And what are these "tons" of negative repercussion you speak of? And please, differentiate between polygamy as practiced in isolated compounds in Texas and Arizona and polygamy in mainstream communities.

Women are almost universally treated as chattel. Polyandry seems to never exist. Boys are shunned, as they're viewed as competition with the older men. Child rape is common.

Where is this polygamy in mainstream communities you speak of? Maybe you're talking about swingers or some such?

As I said, I'm sympathetic to the end of state-sponsored marriage, including the decriminialization of polygamy inherent in such a move. Authorities would have to work to take on such negative externalities directly if such a shift were to occur.

[afirth]

I forget which politician pointed this out, but one counterargument to the "if two people of the same sex can get married, why not polygamy?" is the financial burden on the government. the government could decide that they would only grant tax benefits in a marriage of two people. not three, or four, or a person and their dog. if people had to start claiming 5 wives on their tax returns, things could get financially complicated real fast. and the government could easily refuse to give benefits to more than two people. otherwise, a man could just try to get more tax breaks for more wives.

I think it's sensible to make it legal for any two people get married, and not have polygamy be legal. As for whether the government would only start using the term "civil union" for everyone, I feel like couples would continue to refer to themselves as "married" anyway, even if they didn't have a church ceremony.

[hoyatables]

Trying to argue that there's no difference between legalizing gay marriage and legalizing polygamy is cutting off your nose to spite your face if you really believe in the importance of the institution of marriage and the concept of true love.

Why are the concepts of a trinity of agape, eros, and philia reserved only for a man and woman? Why couldn't two men or two women find that they can love each other on all three levels such that they would want to spend their lives together?

Gay marriage may threaten the texts of the Bible, but it doesn't threaten the underlying concepts of love, devotion, monogamy, and commitment that are what are truly important. And just as the Bible is clearly a product of its time vis a vis its comments on gender roles (do we REALLY think that wives are supposed to be subject to their husbands?), isn't it possible that its references to marriage as between a man and a woman reflected those biases, too?

[TBird41]

May 19, 2008 19:52:45 GMT -5 Bando said:

May 19, 2008 18:28:48 GMT -5 kchoya said:

And what are these "tons" of negative repercussion you speak of? And please, differentiate between polygamy as practiced in isolated compounds in Texas and Arizona and polygamy in mainstream communities.

Women are almost universally treated as chattel. Polyandry seems to never exist. Boys are shunned, as they're viewed as competition with the older men. Child rape is common.

Where is this polygamy in mainstream communities you speak of? Maybe you're talking about swingers or some such?

As I said, I'm sympathetic to the end of state-sponsored marriage, including the decriminialization of polygamy inherent in such a move. Authorities would have to work to take on such negative externalities directly if such a shift were to occur.

What if it's one woman and two men? Or two women and four men? Would the boys be competition then? Or would the women be chattel?