Gay Marriage in CA - Changes in Marriage?

[ChaliceThunder]

Google has just announced it is opposing Prop 8. Good corporate citizens are opposing a bad referendum. The misbegotten thing appears headed for defeat.

...and decent people everywhere shouted:


HALLELUJAH!

 

[jamielindas]

Marriage has been defined by God in the Bible.
I would not expect an atheist to understand because atheists deny the existance of God and the authority of the Bible.
I would not expect a United Methodist to understand this because they usually doubt the Scriptures as well. The Scriptures are not taught at many UM churches. In fact, Texas Lynn, I have never seen you turn to the Bible to back up your points on this board yet, so it's no surprise to me that you turn to mankind and not God for your guidance.

If I could make a request, I would still like you to make up your statement about the bill that was passed (SB777). How exactly does it require gay education? Please explain your interpretation of the bill (beyond what was stated in the news outlet you mentioned).

 

[Texas Lynn]

Diversity education merely states all should be treated as persons of dignity and worth. It is not appropriate, for example, for children to make fun of a schoolmates parents if the child has two moms or two dads or a parent is transgender. Some kids come from families where hatred of these types of parents is taught. The schools are rightfully acting to counter this. It's the same thing they do in combatting racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, etc.

 

[KCKID]

Marriage has been defined by God in the Bible.

Yes . . .so? I'm just not getting the point at this repetetiveness concerning marriage and the Bible as if it be carved into stone. The Bible does not and SHOULD not be used to tell people who they are to be attracted to and who they are to love. The Ten Commandments were, apparently, the only commands that were carved into stone by the finger of God. And, even THEY have been tossed out by many Evangelical Churches.

I would not expect an atheist to understand because atheists deny the existance of God and the authority of the Bible.

You come awfully close to worshiping the Bible, Dogbean. We are not supposed to do that. The Bible is a guide, not a book of rules and regulations. If we're using the Bible for that purpose then we are guilty of legalism.

I would not expect a United Methodist to understand this because they usually doubt the Scriptures as well. The Scriptures are not taught at many UM churches. In fact, Texas Lynn, I have never seen you turn to the Bible to back up your points on this board yet, so it's no surprise to me that you turn to mankind and not God for your guidance.

We don't need to turn to the Bible to get us through the day, Dogbean. I know right from wrong, I know reason from non-reason, I know how I need to treat my fellow man/woman. I don't need to get this information from the Bible. Do you use your Bible to get you through your day? If so, I find that somewhat strange ...even though it appears to give you kudos with God.

 

[Dogbean]

Diversity education merely states all should be treated as persons of dignity and worth. It is not appropriate, for example, for children to make fun of a schoolmates parents if the child has two moms or two dads or a parent is transgender. Some kids come from families where hatred of these types of parents is taught. The schools are rightfully acting to counter this. It's the same thing they do in combatting racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, etc.

Texas Lynn, I have stated this before, and I'll state it again for you since you either missed it or are ignoring it.

I agree with you that gay people should not be made fun of or discriminated against, just like on the basis of race, religion, gender, social status, etc. I agree wtih you that they should be treated as persons of dignity and worth. I have never stated otherwise, and I have never promoted gay bashing.

However, since God's Word tells us that homosexuality is a sin, I need to teach that to my kids because the Bible tells us to bring our kids up in righteousness, "training a child up in the way he should go," and "bringing our kids up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Just as when my kids are exposed to drugs, or smoking, or other bad things, they will come home with questions, and it's up to me as a parent to teach them right from wrong, in accordance with God from His Word, where He communicates His will to us. So my teaching kids that gayness is wrong is no different than my teaching my kids that using drugs is wrong, or that smoking is an extremely dumb thing to do. And I will tell them that if they encounter gays, to treat them well, just like hetero's.

I don't see how I can make this more plain to you.

 

[Dogbean]

Yes . . .so? I'm just not getting the point at this repetetiveness concerning marriage and the Bible as if it be carved into stone. The Bible does not and SHOULD not be used to tell people who they are to be attracted to and who they are to love. The Ten Commandments were, apparently, the only commands that were carved into stone by the finger of God. And, even THEY have been tossed out by many Evangelical Churches.

And the fact that some churches are tossing out the ten commandments is just a sign of the times, of the decreasing morality of our age. It shows the increasing number of churches that are not teaching God's Word. Just because more and more are doing that does not make it right.

You come awfully close to worshiping the Bible, Dogbean. We are not supposed to do that. The Bible is a guide, not a book of rules and regulations. If we're using the Bible for that purpose then we are guilty of legalism.

In response to this, I show you one of my favorite passages in the Bible, Psalm chapter 1

Blessed is the man
who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners
or sit in the seat of mockers.
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.
3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water,
which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither.
Whatever he does prospers.
4 Not so the wicked!
They are like chaff
that the wind blows away.
5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous. 6 For the LORD watches over the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked will perish.

We don't need to turn to the Bible to get us through the day, Dogbean. I know right from wrong, I know reason from non-reason, I know how I need to treat my fellow man/woman. I don't need to get this information from the Bible. Do you use your Bible to get you through your day? If so, I find that somewhat strange ...even though it appears to give you kudos with God.

Again refer to Psalm 1. The Bible has life changing effects on all who truly love it. It's God's Word to us. The Bible has gotten me through my days, and it has gotten me through the darkest times, for example when my wife died and I really began to doubt God had anything good for me. God carried me through that time with the Bible. So if you find that strange, I'm sorry to hear that.

John 1:1-14 talks about how the truth came but sinful people did not understand it. That is what is happening here in these forums. The more you act the way you are, the more you back up the Bible you say you don't believe.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.
6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.[b]
10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. 14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

[KCKID]

And the fact that some churches are tossing out the ten commandments is just a sign of the times, of the decreasing morality of our age. It shows the increasing number of churches that are not teaching God's Word. Just because more and more are doing that does not make it right.



In response to this, I show you one of my favorite passages in the Bible, Psalm chapter 1


Again refer to Psalm 1. The Bible has life changing effects on all who truly love it. It's God's Word to us. The Bible has gotten me through my days, and it has gotten me through the darkest times, for example when my wife died and I really began to doubt God had anything good for me. God carried me through that time with the Bible. So if you find that strange, I'm sorry to hear that.

John 1:1-14 talks about how the truth came but sinful people did not understand it. That is what is happening here in these forums. The more you act the way you are, the more you back up the Bible you say you don't believe.

For now anyway, Dogbean, I really feel the need to ease up on you. I'm so sorry to hear about your wife. Obviously, I had no idea. If the Bible and God carried you through that tough time, then great. Best wishes.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Texas Lynn,

if the child has two moms or two dads

How can a child have two moms or two dads? Not possible, it takes sperm from a man and an egg from a woman to conceive a child.What you mean is you take the child created by a man and a woman and give it to two men to call parents an dads.
... and the more this nonsense is taught in school the more we are likely to have a society who knows neither who they really are but knows who they fancy.

Gay and lesbianism is one of the the biggest evils western soceity faces at present.

 

[jamielindas]

To Texas Lynn,
How can a child have two moms or two dads? Not possible, it takes sperm from a man and an egg from a woman to conceive a child.What you mean is you take the child created by a man and a woman and give it to two men to call parents an dads.
... and the more this nonsense is taught in school the more we are likely to have a society who knows neither who they really are but knows who they fancy.

Yes yes... we all know what she meant. We all know the biology. It's a phrase that we use that isn't entirely specific, but most people know what is meant. The difference is between who contributed to this child biologically and who gave this child the love and support to raise the child.
Do we refer to adoptive parents as non-parents?

Gay and lesbianism is one of the the biggest evils western soceity faces at present.

This is a good way to lead back into the topic of this thread...

As stated above.... HOW are gays and lesbians or gay and lesbian marriage the biggest evil in western society? What damage does it cause to society? Can you actually attribute the evils of society to homosexuality and or homosexual marriage?
<<let us remember that correlation does not equal causation people... don't make me post the Pirates vs Global temperature graph>>
I'm actually going to need to see some data that shows that homosexuality is actually harming society...

 

[KCKID]

To Texas Lynn,
How can a child have two moms or two dads? Not possible, it takes sperm from a man and an egg from a woman to conceive a child.What you mean is you take the child created by a man and a woman and give it to two men to call parents an dads.
... and the more this nonsense is taught in school the more we are likely to have a society who knows neither who they really are but knows who they fancy.

Such small-mindedness and bigotry in the guise of Christianity. Shameful.

Gay and lesbianism is one of the the biggest evils western soceity faces at present.

As above. Such trash. However, you DO have the opportunity to present biblical 'evidence' for having made such an outlandish statement. Can you do so?

 

[Dogbean]

For now anyway, Dogbean, I really feel the need to ease up on you. I'm so sorry to hear about your wife. Obviously, I had no idea. If the Bible and God carried you through that tough time, then great. Best wishes.

Thank you KCKID. This is a very polite post, showing a mature attitude. It also shows that you can't make blanket statements about how the Bible affects people because everyone has different experiences with it. For myself, and all other true believers, the Bible has life-changing effects. But it is not the physical book, it's God speaking through it. It's foolishness to unbelievers; it says that all over the place in the Bible. Isn't it ironic that people disbelieving the Bible are only proving it's accuracy?
Best wishes to you as well, KCKID.

 

[jamielindas]

Thank you KCKID. This is a very polite post, showing a mature attitude. It also shows that you can't make blanket statements about how the Bible affects people because everyone has different experiences with it. For myself, and all other true believers, the Bible has life-changing effects. But it is not the physical book, it's God speaking through it. It's foolishness to unbelievers; it says that all over the place in the Bible. Isn't it ironic that people disbelieving the Bible are only proving it's accuracy?
Best wishes to you as well, KCKID.

I'm not sure this makes sense to me. When a book describes something that is true or partially true... that makes the entire book correct/accurate?

The Harry Potter books mention that most muggles don't believe in magic and they won't ever. It uses the names of some real cities in england too. Does this make the Harry Potter series an accurate and truthful account of life as a teenage wizard?

It isn't a far stretch or an point for legitimacy for the text if something that sounds fantastic or outrageous is expected to be reacted to as fantastic or outrageous.

Even a fool can say the sky is blue...

 

[pgp_protector]

...snip...
[*]How has marriage changed for straight people in California?

It hasn't

[*]How has California changed since gays could now marry legally?

More Political Strife, But that would of happened either way

[*]How has your heterosexual marriage changed?

It hasn't

[*]How do you as a heterosexual feel about marriage now that I(we) can enjoy it as well?

The Same.

[*]Do you see marriage differently?

No.

[*]How will taking away the right to marry change things if the couples that have gotten married between June and Nov are still legally valid? (Legal analysts and the CA AG has said that even if prop 8 passes, it would not work retroactively)
....snip....

It might cause some legal problems down the road with things like divorce / other rights, but I've no honest Idea actually.

 

[jamielindas]

It might cause some legal problems down the road with things like divorce / other rights, but I've no honest Idea actually.

I was actually thinking it might clear up legal problems because now we can utilize all the precedent set forth by existing marriage laws rather than have to do everything as new under the domestic partner heading.

Also... i wonder if it would help alleviate legacy/lingering sexism that still exists in any of our marriage laws or rulings.

 

[pgp_protector]

I was actually thinking it might clear up legal problems because now we can utilize all the precedent set forth by existing marriage laws rather than have to do everything as new under the domestic partner heading.

Also... i wonder if it would help alleviate legacy/lingering sexism that still exists in any of our marriage laws or rulings.

The possible problem I see is something along this line.
1) Same Sex Couple is Currently Married according to the law
2) Prop 8 Passes, they stay married as they are grandfathered in.
3) Paper work changed back to bride / groom , he / she ect.
4) Couple brakes up looking for a divorce.
5) Given there marriage is not under the current definition, none of the active paperwork may legally cover their divorce. Causing a new round of legal problems.

 

[Brennin]

Who defines the correct definition of marriage? What exactly makes a marriage correct? Sex? Gender? Children? Potential for children? Love? Companionship? Religion?

... i'll leave this open for discussion.

What happens when two parts of your governing text conflict? Which one is correct? Who decides?

I'd like to answer my own question here...
The CA constitution is the government document and all other laws should be checked with this for legitimacy. Our government (thank you founding fathers) has a system in place to compare enacted laws against the government document. This process deemed that the enacted law (Prop 22) was not in line with the CA constitution which has been updated multiple times to eliminate discrimination and ensure equality. (Saying that two men can't get married because one of them is a man is short description of the gender discrimination mentioned in the ruling).
Furthermore, the way to fix this is amend the constitution, which clearly is what is happening now.

However, that still leaves us in a weird legal position because one part of the document talks about equality and non-discrimination and the other part clearly discriminates. It would necessitate further review.




Alas, we're a relatively liberal state so I'm not that surprised by our representative government.

As far as I know, the text you cite is modeled directly on the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately for the bogus argument you cite, that amendment has nothing to do with gender/sex equality. If it did, then the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution would have been superfluous. That is why the socio-historical context in which a constitution is written, ratified, and amended must be taken into account. Judges do not have the authority to make stuff up as they go, the desire of liberals to subvert our representative democracy via an activist judiciary notwithstanding. If you want "marriage," then it is up to you to pass an amendment; nothing in the federal or state constitutions entitles you to it.

 

[jamielindas]

As far as I know, the text you cite is modeled directly on the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately for the bogus argument you cite, that amendment has nothing to do with gender/sex equality. If it did, then the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution would have been superfluous. That is why the socio-historical context in which a constitution is written, ratified, and amended must be taken into account. Judges do not have the authority to make stuff up as they go, the desire of liberals to subvert our representative democracy via an activist judiciary notwithstanding. If you want "marriage," then it is up to you to pass an amendment; nothing in the federal or state constitutions entitles you to it.

Hum... I'm not entirely sure I understand where you're going with this.

What text did I cite that was modeled after the 14th amendment? I was referring to the CA constitution, not the US constitution.

Futhermore, if you were talking about the 14th ammendment. I'm not sure that analogous. The rights laid down in the US constitution, unfortunately, only applied to 'free persons.' Thus the inequality was written into the constitution and thus law was consistent with the constitution. To fix this, the constitution had to be changed. Thus requiring an amendment to fix this error.

As far as I know, though I haven't read the whole thing (it is SOOOO long), there isn't anything in the CA constitution that specifically leaves out gays and lesbians from marriage. In fact, because the CA constitution has been amended several times to INCLUDE statesments that reinforce equality of rights regardless of sexual orientation the 'activist' judges rightly concluded that prop 22 conflicted with these reinforcements.

Thus keeping the law consitent with the constitution at the time. Since the right for same sex couples to marry seems to be consitent with the constitution, to REMOVE that right, an amendment must be added.

Then the sticky situation... no law acts retroactively as far as i know... so how do we reconcile the fact that some same sex couples have a legal marriage and others can not?

It will end up having to go back to the Supreme court to rule on which part of the CA constitution has precedent; the equality part or the amendment.

 

[Crazy Liz]

So... as a gay Californian, I am very pleased about the fact that I currently have the right to marry another man and enjoy the legal rights/benefits/conveniences and responsibilities that come along with that.

However, I KNOW that there are many Californians that feel that I(we) should not have this right.

My questions are...

• How has marriage changed for straight people in California?
• How has California changed since gays could now marry legally?
• How has your heterosexual marriage changed?
• How do you as a heterosexual feel about marriage now that I(we) can enjoy it as well?
• Do you see marriage differently?
• How will taking away the right to marry change things if the couples that have gotten married between June and Nov are still legally valid? (Legal analysts and the CA AG has said that even if prop 8 passes, it would not work retroactively)

things I want to state up front before

-no one is ever going to legally force any religious institution to perform or recognize these marriages. They are secular in nature and it is up to an individual religion's doctrine to accept or reject them just as it would be for marriage performed by another religion or in a courthouse/city hall/etc.

-The GLBT community only makes less than 10% of any population (even here in the bay area folks). Being gay is never going to be the norm or the majority (like being left handed) but it is always going to be present (like being left handed!)

-Not every gay person wants to be married... just like not every straight person wants to be married.

-If you're going to argue for the protection of children keep in mind two things : 1) it is currently legal for anyone of any religion or relationship status to adopt. 2) You need to actually cite evidence or studies that support anything you're going to say about the well being of children.

The things you list don't stop the fear mongers from buying ad time on TV to tell exactly those lies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-pSye9W7FY