I abhor what the SC of CA did today. That said, I remain opposed to

[rateyes]

state recognized marriage for ANYONE. The state should recognize ONLY civil unions regardless of the gender of the two people applying for a Civil Union Certificate. Everyone is treated the same under the law.

Leave "marriage" to the church, synagogue, mosque, atheists, whomever wants to have a "marriage" ceremony and whomever is willing to perform the ritual.

But, I say keep the states the hell out of the marriage business.

That being said, in this twisting of the law the SC of CA did with the words "civil union" and "marriage," if the state is going to recognize any contract between two people as a "marriage" it should recognize all of them as such.

I just prefer, again, that the state not recognize any "marriage."

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

1. Whatever -- "marriage" is civil in the United States

We're not France.

[rateyes]

3. It has also been a sacrament of the Catholic Church for millenia.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

5. Your point is?

[rateyes]

14. My point is that the state doesn't recognize any marriage that

doesn't have a marriage certificate signed by either a civil authority or a member of the CLERGY. Ministers are the ones certifying to the state that a marriage has taken place. I say, get the church out of the "civil union" business.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

16. Marriage for everyone

I got married, by a minister, but it's legally only a "civil union." Meanwhile, my mom got married by the mayor, but she's "married."

It's bullshit. It should be marriage for everyone.

[rateyes]

24. In other words, your mom and her husband have the same relationship

as you and your spouse. The only difference is what the state calls it. Is that correct?

In your wishes, you want the STATE to recognize your RELIGIOUS marriage as a marriage, because it recognizes heterosexual couples' civil unions as "marriages."

In my scenario, your civil union is recognized by the state as such, and so is your mom's civil union.

My question is, seeing as how state and church are supposed to be separate in this country, why in the hell is the state recognizing any RELIGIOUS ceremony as a legal union?

I don't know, but, as long as people are treated equally under the law, meaning gay couples and hetero couples enjoy all the rights and privileges the others enjoy under the law---and all are looked upon by the law as having a "civil union," why should the courts give a shit what these couples call their relationship?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

26. Well, considering the separate but equal thing isn't working in NJ, it needs to be called marriage

We didn't need the ceremony to make it legal. We could have signed the license with the minister and not exchanged a single word.

Marriage is CIVIL in this country, which you are conveniently glossing over, but please, continue to dig your hole deeper.

:puke:

[rateyes]

30. I'm not glossing over anything. Of course marriage is CIVIL in this country,

when a marriage license is issued, a person with the authority to do so signs that license, and then records that license with the court. The problem is, the courts won't issue a license for same-sex couples in most states.

Marriage is also a RELIGIOUS SACRAMENT in this country, and it doesn't need the stamp of approval from the state before it can be called a "marriage."

As you say, you are married in the eyes of the church with which the minister who performed your ceremony is affiliated. However, unless you have been issued a marriage certificate that the minister signed and recorded with the state, you aren't seen as "married" in the eyes of the law. That's not fair. It's an injustice. It's abhorrant. But, it's the law.

All I'm saying is that your mom or any other hetero couple should not be treated any better than you are, under the law. I'm saying that "marriage" should not be a lawful recognized relationship. If "marriage" is "civil" then fucking call it "civil."

But, I've got news for you. "Marriage" is not a word that is confined to the realm of the law. It's also a religious word that describes a sacrament of the church. Keep church and state separate is my argument.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

33. I know it's also religious, but legally, it's civil

Basically, you're using a whole lot of semantics to say I should be happy with a civil union and straights should be happy having their marriages downgraded to civil union.

Neither are going to happen.

[rateyes]

36. You almost understand my point.

If, legally speaking, marriage is civil, then how can a "marriage" be "DOWNGRADED to a civil union?" In the eyes of the law, a "marriage" is NOTHING BUT a "civil union," in the eyes of the law. And, why should you, if you enjoy the same rights under the law as all hetero couples in the "civil union" called "marriage," by the state, then why do you need the STATE to recognize your civil union as a marriage in order to be "happy?"

As you say, you are "married" in your own eyes, and you have, in the eyes of the law, a relationship which is recognized by your state as equal to the civil union called "marriage."

So, who is the one upset over "semantics?"

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

39. No, I 100% understand your "point"

I just think it's bullshit.

[rateyes]

41. OK.

No skin off my nose.

[KittyWampus]

"down graded" LOL! How exactly does simply changing the WORD "down grade" something?

Provided that the same rights and liabilities that came with the original word are present with the new word at the top of the form?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

66. Your concern is noted.

Please let me know what you've done for civil rights lately.

Thank you.

[rateyes]

72. That comment to Kitty was unfair.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

73. No, it's not

They have never once shown themselves to be an ally of the GLBT community in the slightest.

[rateyes]

88. Who is "they?" You made a comment to ONE PERSON.

And, how do you know that Kitty hasn't shown him/herself to be an ally of the GLBT community in the slightest? And, your comment was about "civil rights." There are many "civil rights" issues with which Kitty could be involved.

BTW, I am a member of a Gay-Straight Alliance in my community, as are my wife and my three daughters--all of us "straight" as far as I know.

So, yes, your comment was unfair.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

97. Thank you for the grammatical correction

They haven't shown themselves to be an ally of the GLBT community at all on DU. I would imagine that people who are supportive of GLBT (civil) rights in real life, would extend that to DU.

BTW, I'm really a Nigerian prince. See we can say anything we want on the internets. Doesn't make it true.

My comment was fair.

[rateyes]

102. You calling me a liar? nt

[rateyes]

109. Neither has Kitty shown to be an enemy

of gay rights. I don't post a lot in the GLBT forum, either. That doesn't mean I'm not for the civil rights of gays. And, you didn't ask what Kitty did for "gay rights" you asked what Kitty did for "civil rights."

1. You don't know what Kitty has or hasn't done for gay rights.

2. You don't know what Kitty has or hasn't done for civil rights.

Your comment was unfair.

And, I resent your implication that I am a liar.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

120. They haven't shown support on DU, that's what I'm basing it off of

I don't care how often people post in the GLBT forum. I wish a lot of people would post in there a lot less.

[rateyes]

123. And, it still doesn't give you justification to question Kitty's

work on civil rights.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

126. Then, let him/her come in and say what they do

Because they sure don't show it here.

[rateyes]

134. Why does Kitty have to justify him/herself to you?

And, on this day, all I see you doing for civil rights is type replies on a blog.

[tabbycat31]

62. I've contacted my legislators about gay marriage in NJ

but unfortunately they're Republicans.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

64. It's ridiculous

The majority of people in NJ support gay marriage, but we can't even get enough DEMS behind it.

[tabbycat31]

132. and Corzine favors it and would sign a bill supporting it

unfortunately he faces a very tough re-election campaign this year. I'm in one of the redder parts of the state, but my local group is trying to change it.

I gave our assemblywoman a dirty look at our Memorial Day parade.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

133. LostinVA and I are in a redder part, too

[sandnsea]

6. If a Catholic priest performs the sacrament

on a gay couple, does the civil system have a right to deny the legal document to record that sacrament? Does the state have the right to say which Catholic priest is Catholic, regardless of what Rome says?

[konnichi wa]

11. It doesn't matter. You can be married by a hundred priests, preachers,

shamans, rabbis or whatever...without a civil marriage license issued by the state, it's no good.

[rateyes]

25. And, the license isn't any good until it's signed by that priest, or

preacher, or rabbi, or shahman (one that has been licensed by the state to sign such a certificate.)

[Bluenorthwest]

70. Untrue

No religious clergy is needed to validate a marriage license. Sorry. What you are saying is false, and you keep saying it over and over again. No clergy is needed to make a marriage license valid. None at all, anywhere in the United States. Period.

[rateyes]

76. Read it again. I didn't say what you said I said.

I said "clergy" or ANY OTHER PERSON licensed or authorized by the state. And, that statement is true. If the ceremony is performed by member of the clergy who is authorized by the state to perform the ceremony, that clergyperson HAS to sign the marriage certificate to validate the marriage. If it's performed by a judge, then the judge has to sign the certificate for it to be valid. And, that's in EVERY state. Period.

If you aren't authorized by the state to perform a marriage ceremony, then your signature doesn't cut it to make a marriage legal.

[MineralMan]

119. Do you even know who is authorized to perform marriages

in your own state? If so, please inform us.

[rateyes]

124. Yes. In Georgia only clergy or a justice of the peace.

In Virginia, where I once lived, other officials could perform them, BUT, unlike some states, Virginia requires an officiant be bonded and take an oath to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth. Different laws for different states.

And, I'm telling you that, for many (not all), marriage is BOTH a civil ceremony AND a religious sacrament.

[rateyes]

21. The state does have the right to determine who is and who is not

a "priest" or "minister" when it comes to the signing of a marriage license. There has to be either an ordination of the church or a license to perform ceremonies, and the officiant of a marriage ceremony has to follow the laws of the state. A priest performing the sacrament for a gay couple in CA right now will do so without a marriage certificate in hand, because the state won't issue such a certificate. At this moment in time, yes, the state has the right you ask about.

Is it fair or just? NO. But, that's not what you asked.

[sandnsea]

22. So if the UCC ordains ministers

then they have to be given the right to perform a marriage?

Or, if a Catholic priest has not been ex-communicated and performs a gay marriage, wouldn't it be legal?

[rateyes]

28. Yes, regardless of whom the UCC or any other church ordains,

they still have to get permission from the state to legally join a couple in marriage. If the minister isn't given that right, and he/she signs the marriage certificate--it's not a marriage in the eyes of the state. A certificate has to be issued to the couple, then the licensed minister has to sign it, and return the original copy of that certificate to the state.

If a Catholic priest has not been ex-communicated and peforms a marriage ceremony for a gay couple--it's only a "legal" marriage if a certificate has been issued prior to the ceremony to the couple, and the certificate is signed by that priest and recorded with the court.

[sandnsea]

32. Right, but if a gay couple

isn't legally entitled to get the document that allows them to fully participate in their religious ceremony, then their freedom of religion rights are being violated, right?

[rateyes]

35. Gay couples can not be disallowed the right to fully participate in

a religious wedding ceremony. That's up to the couple and the minister. They can go through the whole ceremony, and the law can't stop that. They can call themselves "married." And, the law can't stop that. So, I don't see where there is a violation of religious rights.

I do think that failure on the court's part to issue a document granting the rights that all couples have is a violation of their civil rights. That's why I said that if the state is going to call ANY civil union a "marriage," then the courts should call ALL civil unions "marriages."

If, however, the courts are going to deny calling ANY civil union a "marriage," then NO civil union should be called a marriage.

Since "marriage" carries with it not only civil, but also religious connotations, I would prefer that NO civil union be called a marriage, as far as the STATE is concerned. The couples can call their relationship anything they want to call it.

[sandnsea]

42. Actually, all that was denied is the word marriage

The court didn't deny the state the right to grant a document providing for the same equal protections marriage provides. But that legal document doesn't provide the legal right for a religious marriage, the exact same way it does for heterosexual couples, so it is still a denial of religious freedom. You kind of have to unwind the civil unions for everybody case you've been making, and that I supported for a long time -- and stop and think about the truth that gay couples are religious and really do deserve to have their religious beliefs respected and that includes religious marriage recognized by the state.

[rateyes]

50. I understand you, and am under no illusions that we're not

headed in that direction. I'm just a strict believer in the separation of church and state. Therefore, I don't like the state recognizing anything "religious,"--marriage or anything else.

"Religious marriage recognized by the state" is what this whole fuss is all about. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what the state thinks of my "religious ceremony."

It's semantics.

[sandnsea]

57. Whatever semantics gets to equality

I'm annoyingly pragmatic that way. If it's civil unions for all, fine. If it's fighting for the religious right for gay couples to marry, fine. Either way. I don't care.

[rateyes]

113. That's where I am with it. nt

[MineralMan]

74. That's just a crock.

In every state in this country, you can be married by a non-clergy person. In some states, it's only a judge, but in others, it can be the county clerk or a justice of the peace. You're incorrect in saying that only a religious person can perform marriages. Please correct that in future responses, so you don't appear to be ignorant of the facts.

[rateyes]

103. By "license" I mean someone authorized to perform marriages..

I didn't mean to say that only clergy could perform ceremonies.

[MineralMan]

116. Ah, but you see, you keep reiterating the meme

that only the religious can perform marriages. It is not now, nor has it ever been true.

Marriage has long been a matter for the state, not the religious. The state confers the benefits of marriage, not the church. No couple needs a religious leader to marry them. Not in any state in the union. Thus has it been for a long, long time.

Marriage is a state matter. Religion just tags along. You've been listening to the wingnuts too long, and paying too little attention to the facts, apparently.

Go to Vegas, where you can be married by an Elvis impersonator, for pete's sake. Or come here to Minnesota, where I can marry you. I'm an atheist, yet I can perform marriages. I do it very rarely, but I am legally allowed to do so. Just don't ask for any reference to any deities. If you do, I'll send you to some preacher for the ceremony.

[rateyes]

122. No, I don't. Believe me. I know who is and isn't allowed to

perform wedding ceremonies. Ministers, Judges, Admirals, et al.

[LostinVA]

10. Marriage is a legal term

[rateyes]

29. It is also a religious term.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

34. Do you have a macro set up for that?

[rateyes]

37. I don't understand your question. nt

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

40. I guess that answers that

You should really just set up a macro. It'd save a bunch of typing time.

[rateyes]

43. Peace.

:hi:

[LostinVA]

44. It's a legal term co-opted by religious institutions

And yes, you do have a macro, don't you?

[rateyes]

56. Really?

Actually, I believe the word first showed up millenia ago in religious law.

As far as your other question, I don't know if I'd call what I have "macro," but I would call it "large." :evilgrin:

[Gormy Cuss]

101. Yes, and each defines it differently.

In fact, each faith may define it differently from other faiths, each state differently from the other states. When Loving v. Virginia was decided the majority of states had no restriction on interracial marriage, for example.

[sipping radicchio]

111. My parents' marriage was anything but...n/t

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

131. *yawn*

[MineralMan]

2. Marriage is a civil function, and has always been in the US.

So you're way off base. Instead of removing marriage from state law, I suggest taking religion out of the entire marriage issue.

If it were a religious issue only, atheists could not marry. Since they can marry, it is not a religious institution.

[rateyes]

9. Did you read what I wrote? The whole argument of the SC of CA

is that gays can have state recognized civil unions with all the rights as a married couple (including the 18000 gay marriages that were allowed to stand).

The law in the state has come down to the nuance between a "civil union" (which you rightly state is a civil matter according to law) and a "marriage" (which, like it or not, is one of the sacraments of the church--and, good luck trying to get that changed).

When ministers perform marriage ceremonies they have to abide by the laws of the state. However, in most states, on marriage certificates issued by the state, there is a question on the application whether the marriage ceremony will be a "religious" or a "civil" ceremony. And, the "marriage" is not valid UNTIL the person performing that ceremony is licensed by the state and puts his/her signature on the certificate and mails it back to the courts.

IOW, the CLERGY, for most marriages, are the ones certifying marriages.

My position is, once the court issues the certificate the couple should be considered legally united under the law...not needing a minister or another officiant to sign the certificate.

[LostinVA]

12. Except civil unions can never be equal -- it's not legally the same as marriage

[rateyes]

38. How is a "civil union" not legally the same as "marriage?"

In the eyes of the state, a marriage is nothing BUT a civil union. If you don't believe me, visit a divorce court. The courts don't give a shit whether or not you had a religious ceremony. It's all about the "stuff" as far as the law is concerned. Nothing more. It's a CONTRACT between two people.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

46. "Marriage" bestows about 1,400 separate legal rights.

"Civil unions" only have a fraction of that number.

[sandnsea]

49. In California, they will have to be 100% equal

That is also in that opinion. See page 7.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/15825222/Prop-8-Decision-California-Supreme-Court

[Starbucks Anarchist]

51. But only for the 18,000 already-married gay couples.

[sandnsea]

54. No, for everybody

"it is only the designation of marriage - albeit significant - that has been removed by this initiative measure."

Page 7
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15825222/Prop-8-Decision-California-Supreme-Court

[rateyes]

58. And, how would making every couple's relationship a

"civil union" and bestowing the same rights to all a problem?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

59. Do you actually think millions of straights will downgrade?

:banghead:

[rateyes]

65. "Downgrade?" Downgrade to what?

And, no, I have no illusions that my opposition to state recognized marriage will become law.

[LostinVA]

47. Beacsue it isn't the same legally -- the legal standing and term is "marriage"

It is not called a "civil union." people aren't "civil unioned." You know this, so quit being willfully ignorant.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

18. Marriage is civil in this country

[rateyes]

79. Yours might be civil...

I know many that aren't. :rofl:

[MineralMan]

20. That is honored in the breach more often than in the

observance. In California, anyone can be a minister. I'm a minister of the Universal Life Church, and have married couples. No religions nonsense every was exchanged. And yet, those couples are legally married.

The requirement is that someone officiate the marriage and sign the marriage license. The religious thing isn't in play, since judges can do it as well as "ministers."

I agree that you should be able to simply make out the marriage license, be asked by the clerk if you both agree to the marriage and that it would be finalized at that point. Those who seek a religious ceremony or a non-religious ceremony would be welcome to do that, but it would not be a requirement.

Where I draw the line is upon the word "marriage." Marriage is the name of the civil institution, and must be offered freely to all who wish to engage in it.

Screw the religious creeps who want to hold onto their grip on the name.

[rateyes]

60. And, my solution would require them to release that grip.

[rateyes]

31. Marriage is only a civil function for many. It's also, for many others,

both a civil and a religious function. It's one of the sacraments of the church. And, you not recognizing that fact doesn't mean it's not so.

[LostinVA]

48. No, marriage is a civil functiona nd a legal term

[rateyes]

68. For the last time, I KNOW that marriage is a civil function and a legal term.

What you fail to recognize is that "marriage" is also a RELIGIOUS FUNCTION and a RELIGIOUS TERM for many people.

These are the seven sacraments for Catholics:

Baptism
Eucharist
Reconciliation
Confirmation
Marriage
Holy Orders
Anointing of the Sick

[Starbucks Anarchist]

52. What don't you understand here?

Marriage is a legal term. Houses of worship perform many marriages, but them doing so has no effect on the legal rights of the married people.

[rateyes]

69. I understand that you don't understand that marriage

is a FUCKING SACRAMENT in the CHURCH for many people---it's one of the REQUIREMENTS for getting into heaven, in their view, as well as a LEGAL TERM that describes a "civil contract" between two people. What I'm saying is that the state should not put it's stamp of approval on a ceremony that, for many, is a RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE.

Do you think that the state is going to force a minister to perform a marriage for a same-sex couples if doing so violates that minister's religious beliefs?

I'm saying that because the word "marriage" carries with it, for more than half the citizenship of this country, RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE, that the state should quit recognizing a RELIGIOUS SACRAMENT as a "legal contract."

[Starbucks Anarchist]

75. Religious. Sacraments. Don't. Deal. With. Legal. Rights.

A marriage license is a civil contract. A religious ceremony, while a sacrament to many, has no bearing on the legal rights of married people.

A couple married at City Hall has the exact same legal rights as a couple married in a church.

[rateyes]

80. I know.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

86. Clearly, you do not.

What I'm saying is that the state should not put it's stamp of approval on a ceremony that, for many, is a RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE.

The state does not put its approval on a religious ceremony. A couple married at City Hall has the same rights as a couple married in a church. Both couples are "married," both in the word itself and in the accompanying legal rights.

The religious ceremony is an optional one which confers no extra rights on the married couple.

[rateyes]

114. Clearly, I do, since I am authorized to perform marriage ceremonies.

Do you know that on many marriage licenses, the person peforming the ceremony has to mark whether the ceremony was civil or religious?

I said that "FOR MANY" (not for all) marriage is a religious ceremony, and the state recognizes that ceremony, and the clergyperson's signature as valid. The license requires NO civil authority's signature to make it valid. In this case, the minister IS the civil authority.

[MineralMan]

117. Are you still on about this?

The simple fact that atheists may marry in this country, and in every state in this country, simply gives the lie to what you are saying. So what if it is a sacrament in some churches? That has no relevance whatsoever. Ministers are allowed to sign marriage licenses for recording by the local jurisdiction. So am I, an atheist. Means nothing, except that the government allows ministers to perform marriages, along with others.

There is no requirement under the law that anyone complete a "sacrament" to marry. None. You may, if you wish, but that sacrament carries no weight whatever.

I attended a Hmong wedding about three months ago. The Hmong naturalistic shaman performed the ceremony, which invoked all sorts of things. It was in the Hmong language, so I understood little of it. Afterwards, a small ceremony consisted of the shaman signing the marriage license. It was that ceremony that made the wedding official.

In my state, I am not even required to submit my name to the state to perform marriages. I simply have to sign the license. Either I or the couple can file it with the local authority.

You do not, my fellow DUer, know what you are talking about. Yet, you go on and on with your inaccuracies.

[rateyes]

136. I know the truth of everything you said. What you don't seem to

understand is that when more than half of the people of this country talk about the "marriage ceremony" they are speaking about a religious ceremony, not a civil contract.

That's why so many people are opposed to the state recognizing a gay marriage as a marriage---they, wrongfully yes, but nevertheless, believe that the state is meddling in religion.

For Baptists, for example, the marriage ceremony is a symbolic act with no bearing on one's eternal destination. For Roman Catholics, however, marriage is a SACRAMENT, meaning that it is necessary for their "salvation." It's right up there with "mass," and "confession."

And, I think that the gay community would get a long way in this country in gaining equal rights for themselves and their spouses if the state would get out of the business of using what is, for many, religious terminology to describe a civil function.

I look at the ruling in California. It allows civil unions for gay people, and it says the state cannot deny any of the rights to gays in civil unions that it confers upon people who have marriages.

The ONLY thing that is different is what the two relationships are called.

The whole damned fight in CA is now over a damned WORD, and it's because that word, for more than half of the citizens of the state of CA carries, in their minds, religious significance.

And, if you can tell those people that "you can have your religious marriages recognized by the church, but the for the purposes of the state it is going to be called a 'civil union' so that gays can have the same rights as you have," the gay community will go a long way in getting their relationships recognized by the state with all of the rights that everyone else has, not only in California, but EVERYWHERE.

But, hey, you don't have to actually THINK about what I write. Just keep knee-jerking, and keep getting slapped down at the ballot box. Georgia's constitution was amended to outlaw gay marriage--amended by popular vote---and, it's because of RELIGION. But, no one is protesting here. Why? Is California the only state that matters in this fight?

[sandnsea]

4. Aren't gay people religious?

Don't they have a right to practice their religion, including marriage? Just like everybody else.

[rateyes]

81. Yes, they do.

And, if a minister wants to perform a marriage ceremony, then they can get married in any state in this union.

Not all states, however, recognize it as a "legal contract." I say, as far as the state is concerned, call all such contracts "civil unions," and let the couples call their relationship whatever the hell they want to call it.

[xchrom]

7. under the law marriage is NOT religious.

when will people stop this nonsense.

[LostinVA]

13. Beacuse they like to make them feel better about their stance against marriage equality

[xchrom]

17. oh i know -- it's irritating though.

i'll be better when i come back as genghis kahn -- i'll be fabulously dressed in fur and chop everyone's head off.

[rateyes]

82. You seem to have a very difficult time with reading comprehension.

Like I said, the ruling of the court today is abhorrent. As long as the state is going to call ANY civil union a marriage, then they should ALL be called marriages. Or, did you just miss that part of the post?

[LostinVA]

143. Actually, I don't -- I understand you perfectly

[Chovexani]

8. That is not the system we have in place, it will never be the system we have in place

Your "outrage" is duly noted though.

[Xithras]

19. Don't be sure. There's a proposition gathering signatures now to do just that.

It's still in the signature stage, but there's an amendment out there, angling for a 2010 ballot position, that will eliminate the legal term "marriage" in the state, replace it with "civil unions", make those unions available to everyone, and require every state agency to rewrite their rules to be gender and orientation neutral.

If it gets enough signatures, it could happen.

[Chovexani]

23. Keep on tilting at windmills Don Quixote

If you really think the same hetero supremacist fascists who voted to protect their hetero privilege will even let that pie in the sky bullshit reach the ballot I have a bridge here in Brooklyn to sell you. Y'all really are trying to destroy marriage, you make their arguments for them.

Meanwhile I am here in the real world where it is easier to open an existing system rather than completely overhaul it.

[Xithras]

27. There are 36 million people in Ca. Only 694,000 need to sign it to get it on the ballot.

It could get those signatures in LA and SF alone, ESPECIALLY in the wake of this ruling.

As for voter response, Prop 8 was passed by less than 30% of the voters in the state. Overturning their will is not a pipe dream.

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. WHERE DO I SIGN THAT? Sorry fer the loud voice

but yes, I will sign it in a heart beat

[rateyes]

85. Too bad I don't live there. I would sign it.

[rateyes]

84. Well, thank you for patronizing me. nt

[Lone_Star_Dem]

15. When you go down and file for a marriage license you do it at town/city clerks office

Not at a synagogue, church, mosque, etc. The record of the union is on file in the vital records department as are the records of births and deaths in that state. Not a religious facility.

The only religious aspect of a marriage that I'm aware of is that many clergy/ministers/spiritual leaders are allowed to perform the ceremony. However, there are also many, many, many non clergy/ministers/spiritual leaders who are able to legally marry a couple.

Really, the only ones who keep insisting it's a religious ceremony are those who think gays marrying might sully their religion somehow. Which to me implies their religion must be pretty freaking fragile if something not related to it could tarnish it so easily.

[rateyes]

87. I know all of that, and agree with you.

However, the record of the union is on file AFTER the person performing the ceremony signs the record and has it recorded in the courts.

For many, marriage IS both a legal contract and a religious sacrament. It's not either/or. It's both/and.

[bluedawg12]

45. Marriage is the term used in society to confer rights and duties to a couple

and that is the word that should be applied equally under law.

If some want to do away with concept of civil marriage - have at it.

Just leave the gay community out of it, as the prevailing gay movement is for marriage equality not CU equality.

[KittyWampus]

53. It's Civil Unions for everyone. And it solves the issue of the word 'marriage having BOTH

civil and religious applications.

But HEY, if some people want to cling to the word "marriage" rather than solve the problem the way Europe did, that's their problem.

People are understandably pissed off but rather than solve the problem...

[sandnsea]

55. I think that's what the court just did

Or that's how it will end up being implemented if people get it together before the opposition has a chance to put through two separate licensing documents.

[KittyWampus]

61. That is exactly the issue, there will be a movement to start two seperate licensing documents

with one having LESS rights etc.

[sandnsea]

67. Not if people understand the decision

Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases — that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage” (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 829). Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
By clarifying this essential point, we by no means diminish or minimize the significance that the official designation of “marriage” holds for both the proponents and opponents of Proposition 8; indeed, the importance of the marriage designation was a vital factor in the majority opinion’s ultimate holding in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757, 845-846, 855. Nonetheless, it is crucial that we accurately identify the actual effect of Proposition 8 on same-sex couples’ state constitutional rights, as those rights existed prior to adoption of the proposition, in order to be able to assess properly the constitutional challenges to the proposition advanced in the present proceeding. We emphasize only that among the various constitutional protections recognized in the Marriage Cases as 8 available to same-sex couples, it is only the designation of marriage — albeit significant — that has been removed by this initiative measure.

[rateyes]

89. Thank you, Kitty.

:hi:

[ScreamingMeemie]

63. I propose we take back the word marriage from the religious.

Marriage for all, should they so desire.

[rateyes]

71. I agree.

But, why does any "marriage" have to be recognized by the STATE?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

77. You just contradicted yourself:

From your OP:

Leave "marriage" to the church, synagogue, mosque, atheists, whomever wants to have a "marriage" ceremony and whomever is willing to perform the ritual.

So how is that taking the word "marriage" away from religion? :crazy:

[rateyes]

90. Well, if you want to get technical about it,

then how do you propose "taking the word marriage back from the religious?"

[Starbucks Anarchist]

91. I think everybody, gay or straight, should have the right to be MARRIED.

:eyes:

[rateyes]

105. And, how do you propose taking it from the religious folk?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

129. How can I "take" what wasn't theirs alone to begin with?

A religious ceremony is not necessary to ordain a marriage, plus non-religious people get married all the time.

Everybody -- gay and straight -- should all enjoy the exact same benefits of marriage, including the word itself -- none of this separate but equal bullshit.

[MineralMan]

78. Because it is the benefits given to married couples that

is at stake. The state grants the rights and benefits. You are being either dense or annoying. Perhaps both.

[rateyes]

92. The ruling today stated that people with "civil unions" have the

same civil rights as those who have "marriages" as both are recognized by the state. The difference is only in the "word."

So, what the hell difference does it make what the relationship is called? My solution has all of them called "civil unions" and gets the state away from recognizing what for many is a RELIGIOUS SACRAMENT as well as a legal contract.

"A rose by any other name...."

[Starbucks Anarchist]

96. So a word doesn't make a difference to you?

What were those black people complaining about? They still got to drink water. :sarcasm:

[rateyes]

104. In that sign, the word

"drinking" doesn't make a bit of difference to me. It could have read "water fountain," and the policy would have been just as offensive.

On this issue, my sign would read: "Civil Union Licenses," and would have no separate lines for gay or straight.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

128. You think "drinking" is the word I'm pointing out?

:banghead:

I was pointing out the words "White" ("Marriage") and "Colored" ("Civil Union") -- separate but "equal."

[rateyes]

137. I know what you were pointing out. But, your analogy doesn't fit.

In your analogy "drinking fountain" would be "marriage." "White" and "Colored" would be "Gay" and "Straight." I would propose a sign that said, "Water Fountain" (civil unions), and an arrow pointing to the fountain where ALL could drink.

[Behind the Aegis]

121. DING! DING! DING!

You nailed it!

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

99. Civil unions don't work

They don't work in NJ, why would they work in CA?

But instead of simply having marriage for all, you think the best bet is to rewrite everything to say civil union. A whole bunch of money spent rewriting all the laws/codes mentioning marriage, in a state that's bankrupt, just to avoid having marriage for all.

Bloody brilliant!

:eyes:

[MineralMan]

115. Because the MANY don't have the right to

deny rights to the FEW. It is, my fellow DUer, that simple.

That you do not understand that is an indication of how far you are removed from progressivism.

[Gormy Cuss]

83. "Marriage" is the word used in state constitutions to define the union. Religions don't own it.

A marriage performed by clergy and not recorded properly in the municipal jurisdiction is not a civil marriage. Clergy in the U.S. are free to marry groups of people and recognize them all as married within the faith. The state on the other hand doesn't recognize it.

Creating a new designation to appease the obtuse thinkers who believe that 'marriage' only applies to their own sacred context is dumb.

[rateyes]

93. The word "marriage" is not in any state Constitution that I know of...

or at least wasn't until Prop 8 and similar measures were passed. How would my suggestion appease the "obtuse thinkers who believe that 'marriage' only applies to their own sacred context?

I think my proposal would, more than likely, piss them off.

[Gormy Cuss]

98. Laws under the constitutions ( my mistake in using that shorthand description.)

Your proposal appeases the obtuse thinkers because they can continue to believe the word marriage has only sacred meaning. It's a secular term as well as a sacred term. The only sticking point is whether the secular meaning can evolve further away from the sacred meanings. No one is going to force any faith to recognize civilly married people as married within a faith, in spite of the pro-Prop. 8 ads that suggested just that.

The opposition to gay marriage here was funded largely by religious groups who believe homosexuality is morally aberrant. Changing the term to "civil unions" for all won't cut it with these same groups nor with the voters who are adherents of these groups. They'd just scare up another excuse to make it illegal.

[Vinca]

94. I totally agree with you. Civil unions for everyone and marriage

can be decided by the couple. I was married by a JP 36 years ago. Those in attendance included the old man performing the ritual, his wife and their dog. All accomplished in a matter of minutes in the living room of a rural, Vermont farmhouse (and no, I wasn't preggers). It wouldn't have mattered if it was called a civil union or a marriage.

[rateyes]

106. Congrats on such a long lasting

civil union. :D Good to see you, Vinca. :hi:

[a la izquierda]

95. My marriage to my husband was a civil union

because we both think church marriages are dumb. But it is NOT the same as civil unions among homosexual people, because he and I have rights as a "married" couple, and homosexual couples do not.
IT IS FUCKING BULLSHIT AND WRONG.
**I say this as a daughter of a gay mother and a loving niece of a gay uncle-my heart aches today.*

[rateyes]

108. Since we're making disclaimers: I have a gay brother,

a great uncle who was gay and died of AIDS, and a gay friend who also died of AIDS at the age of 20. I am a member, along with the rest of my family--a wife and three daughters---of a Gay-Straight Alliance on a college campus where my wife teaches.

My proposal would grant equal rights to everyone.

[a la izquierda]

118. Sorry, I wasn't venting at you...

I'm just venting. I'm steaming pissed off. I live in Oklahoma, and therefore have zero hope of ever seeing gay marriage legalized. I thought so much better of my fellow humans in California, a place I lived for a while and consider my second home.

[sipping radicchio]

100. I'll do you one better...

I oppose any contract for relationships. I just am against the act of signing a promise to stay with another person forever.

Having said that, I fully support LGBT community's fight for justice!

[rateyes]

107. I'll go along with that. nt

[fascisthunter]

110. So, When do we get to vote on everybody else's Civil Rights?

Like have a vote on the right for a Mormon Church to even exist. According to California, all is open to a vote, even Civil Rights. Unbelievable.

[rateyes]

112. Every civil right in the Constitution was voted on. Having said that,

I understand what you are saying. Again, what the court did today was abhorrant.

[Garbo 2004]

130. Constitution & amendments were not voted on by popular vote. nt

[rateyes]

135. Yes, I know. They were voted on by the legilatures of the states.

The leglislators were voted on by popular vote. And, amendments to Constitutions in a lot of states are voted on by the people.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

139. Not quite the same.

And the state amendments people vote on (popular vote) generally don't have to do with civil rights, per se.

[rateyes]

140. Gay marriage was outlawed in GA by Constitutional amendment

approved by the voters.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

141. Since you're such a fan of splitting hairs, I said "generally."

:eyes:

But on the topic, if GA wants to legally discriminate against gay people, why the hell would you think they'd be willing to "civil-union" themselves in order to (allegedly) help gays?

[rateyes]

142. Because, I would prefer that the issue be settled at the federal level.

I propose an amendment to the US Constitution: "The states cannot deny any citizen an individual right it confers upon another citizen."

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. You are making a distinction usually lost on Americans

South of the border you get a civil union, marriage, what have you by the state, but the religious one is separate. And this is the way it is in many other countries where a true separation of church and state is present

I will say... the US has slacked quite a bit from that absolute separation and yes, I have no problem with that, but I get it. It is the role of the state to adjudicate civil contracts and religious figures should not even have the authority to marry anybody for the state. That was practical a hundred years ago... not any more. You want to get married by the state, go down to city hall.

By the way, in this ignorant country people will see this as an invasion of civil rights... as you are seeing.

[rateyes]

138. Thank you. At least a couple of people on this thread get it. nt