Scwarzenegger announces veto on Californian gay marriage bill

[cronxeh]

Exaclty...

Religion belongs in the Churches/etc, and to those who use it I have to say this: "go back to Church and don't come out until Jesus returns"

Seperate but equal? That didn't work.

Call it marriage, if it's the same legal thing you can call it the same thing.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.

How do you not get this? I don't care what you think

 

[TRCSF]

Religion belongs in the Churches/etc, and to those who use it I have to say this: "go back to Church and don't come out until Jesus returns"

How do you not get this? I don't care what you think

What about churches that want to marry gays?

Oo, somebody's getting a little upset. I must have hit a nerve.

 

[Art]

Not a bad idea...

Taking the religious aspect out of it is a good start.

This has already been done long ago for those who want it. Many people these days get married in civil ceremonies which have nothing to do with religion.

The idea behind marriage is to create the basis of a secure family unit which is believed to be the best environment to raise children in.

Some folk question whether a same-sex union is a good environment for children and so the state is reluctant to grant official status / approval to such relationships. The consequences of this for people in 'unsanctioned' unions are that they have inferior inheritance rights, tax rights and adoption rights etc..

 

[vanesch]

Why shouldn't we accept bigamy? Why does a person's personal life have to be socially acceptable?

Oh, but I didn't have anything a priori against bigamy either. The point is that the civil marriage gives certain rights to a group of (2 ?) people ; it is in fact the only reason to subscribe to a civil marriage.
They are essentially 2-fold:
1) financial aspects, like lower taxes on heritage when one of the partners dies
2) co-parentship when (one of the?) females in the couple gives birth.

Now, there's a long-standing tradition of 1 man and 1 woman as such a basic cell which doesn't even find its origin in religion but finds it in Darwinism: promote the chances of transfer of the genes to the future generation. The optimal team is then of course a man and a woman, because their kin has 50-50 gene content, so this man and this woman will optimize the transfer of their genetic material to the future (will care best for their kin).
All other combinations will do less good. In a situation of one male with several females, the females who didn't give birth to certain children will have of course all advantage to care more about their own children than of the children of the other spouses of their male ; on the other hand, the male would like to see ALL its children cared for (he has 50% of the genetic material in all of them). So this situation is only advantageous if the male is very dominant over the females. In fact, what males hate the most are unfaithful women because then they are caring about kin that has NOT their genetic material - hence the usually very harsh conditions that are put traditionally on adulterous women by a male-dominated society.
See, all tradition (cast into iron by religious traditions) have to do with optimal gene transfer to the next generation, and marriage is one of those traditions, and explains why those traditions have a strong preference for the 1man-1woman situation.
From the moment you leave that reason (such as gay marriages) you can relax in fact all conditions, and have a general kind of contract between members of a group.

 

[arildno]

The government currently grants marriage rights to people.

Correct, and that is the basic issue here.
The same rights that are granted couples married in a church are also granted to those couples who merely go to the public registrar (or whatever his title is).
So no, marriage between a man and a woman is NOT a solely religious matter.
What type of unions a religious sub-community chooses to celebrate, is basically their own affair.

The debate over whether or not the state ought to confer benefits (judicial&fiscal, mainly) to any particular union, or if all such benefits should be withdrawn, is another matter.

However:
By extending these rights to gay couples by no means reduce these rights to straight couples (i.e, the majority), so a woolly argument against "special" privileges to small groups simply doesn't hold.

 

[Townsend]

The idea behind marriage is to create the basis of a secure family unit which is believed to be the best environment to raise children in.

I don't think the government knows what is best for me or my kids...(I don't actually have any kids but if I did..)

So far the American government has not impressed me with their wisdom and I really don't care for their wisdom on how to best raise kids.

I think we can all agree that the governments job is not to micro manage people's personal lives.

 

[Smurf]

I completely agree Townsend. I don't trust the government to pave roads. Why would I trust them to raise my kids?

 

[TRCSF]

The issue really isn't about raising kids.

It's about pandering to homophobes.

People used to make the same argument about kids when interracial marriages were illegal. "Oh, all those poor kids are going to be so confused."

Baloney. Those people didn't want interracial marriages because they hated black people. Pure and simple. Arguments about kids were just a deflection. A phony excuse.

Same thing here.

 

[arildno]

The idea behind marriage is to create the basis of a secure family unit which is believed to be the best environment to raise children in.

Some folk question whether a same-sex union is a good environment for children and so the state is reluctant to grant official status / approval to such relationships. The consequences of this for people in 'unsanctioned' unions are that they have inferior inheritance rights, tax rights and adoption rights etc..

So why are these rights granted to heterosexual couples where the female is past her menopause at the time of the marriage ceremony, then?
(Tens of thousands such marriages happens every year in the US, if not hundreds of thousands, so this is no silly hypothetical example)
There won't be any children in these unions..

 

[arildno]

I completely agree Townsend. I don't trust the government to pave roads. Why would I trust them to raise my kids?

If they disappoint you; vote them out of office.

 

[Art]

I completely agree Townsend. I don't trust the government to pave roads. Why would I trust them to raise my kids?

There was a controversy in the UK a few years back when a left wing authority in a borough of London insisted the schools under it's control use readers for the very young with titles such as "Tom lives with Dick and John."

As the title suggests the book was intended to show children being brought up in a homosexual family unit as being a normal everyday event. Many parents with children at these schools were (in my view understandably) livid.

At christmas this same authority advertised for a black, lesbian Santa Claus.

The point being whilst homosexuality is fine and the vast majority of people have no problem whatsoever with what 2 (or more) consenting adults get up to together they still represent a small but very vocal minority of the population and most people would prefer if they were to stop forcing their sexuality onto everybody else.

 

[arildno]

The point being whilst homosexuality is fine and the vast majority of people have no problem whatsoever with what 2 (or more) consenting adults get up to together they still represent a small but very vocal minority of the population and most people would prefer if they were to stop forcing their sexuality onto everybody else.

And when did demanding the right to visit my dying lover in the hospital, irrespective the wishes of his blood-kin become forcing my sexuality down your throat?

 

[Skyhunter]

Why shouldn't we accept bigamy? Why does a person's personal life have to be socially acceptable?

Gay couples don't harm me, heterosexual couples don't harm me, what people do with their personal lives should be up to them.

I say the government has NO business involving itself in the institution of marriage, what so ever. Why should two (or more) people need a license to get married?

Besides all of that, isn't marriage a religious institution? What business does the government have with the regulation of religious practices?

Originally government involvement in the US was simply to record the marriage.

I agree with Townsend. If people want to be married, all they should need to do is commit to one another using whatever vows or church or rituals they deem appropriate. And there sex or numbers should be of no ones concern but the consenting adults. I do have a problem with arranged marriages, especially when they involve children.

The idea that society would be harmed by allowing gay couples to enjoy the same rights as hetero couples is ludicrous.

I didn't vote for Arnold. I was not happy with Davis, he seemed to spend more time fund raising than governing. I voted against the recall, and for the porn queen (don't remember her name). I did argue that we needed to support him because he took on a tough job and needs support to be effective. However he has shown himself to be just another pandering politician. This veto is just another example.

 

[Skyhunter]

How many gay people are there in the United States?
How many straight people are there in the United States?

http://www.newdirection.ca/a_10per.htm

Apparently not that many. So why should the government support the ~2% at all times - be they the filthy rich ones or the extremely homosexual ones?

Extremely homosexual?

What does that mean?

I that like extremely pregnant?

 

[Skyhunter]

Well if its an issue of discrimination then perhaps they should institute a civil union with same rights and tax codes as for marriages, but not call it a marriage

This is my suggestion.

Classify all government sanctioned marrriages as civil unions. Let the Churchs or whatnot add other labels if they like.

 

[arildno]

Ousted from the party?

I'm not aware of that ever happening. Rising through the party due to other politicians' approval of you? I don't know how that would manifest either.

Eeh?
Who choose a party's candidates to various positions?
That's an internal party process in just about any political party I know of.

 

[TRCSF]

And when did demanding the right to visit my dying lover in the hospital, irrespective the wishes of his blood-kin become forcing my sexuality down your throat?

Yeah, what is it with homophobes and their fantasies about homosexuals shoving things down their throats?

 

[Skyhunter]

This has already been done long ago for those who want it. Many people these days get married in civil ceremonies which have nothing to do with religion.

The idea behind marriage is to create the basis of a secure family unit which is believed to be the best environment to raise children in.

Some folk question whether a same-sex union is a good environment for children and so the state is reluctant to grant official status / approval to such relationships. The consequences of this for people in 'unsanctioned' unions are that they have inferior inheritance rights, tax rights and adoption rights etc..

Not to mention if their partner is in an accident they are not immediate family and would possibly not be allowed to visit them in the hospital, would have no say in the care they receive etc.

 

[Art]

And when did demanding the right to visit my dying lover in the hospital, irrespective the wishes of his blood-kin become forcing my sexuality down your throat?

It didn't, why on Earth would you think that? IMO you'd have every right.

 

[arildno]

Not to mention if their partner is in an accident they are not immediate family and would possibly not be allowed to visit them in the hospital, would have no say in the care they receive etc.

But, inasmuch as you would like these rights to be conferred to gay couples by the state (from what I know, hospitals cannot deny a person the right to visit his wife, unless there exist strictly medical reasons for such a denial), then this would be an "interfering" from the state, whether you call the formalized co-habitation between the couple as a civil union or a marriage.
(As a note, gays in Norway can't marry, they may form an officially recognized "partnership")

 

[arildno]

It didn't, why on Earth would you think that? IMO you'd have every right.

But that is one of the basic issues at stake here, and why so many gays want to have the possibility to get a formal recognition of their relationship.

 

[Art]

Not to mention if their partner is in an accident they are not immediate family and would possibly not be allowed to visit them in the hospital, would have no say in the care they receive etc.

Yes I agree. It would be better for all if some form of compromise could be reached. My personal opinion is I couldn't care less if gay people get married as I believe it is unfair for them to be penalised for their sexuality. My post just laid out the arguments for and against.

 

[pattylou]

Now, there's a long-standing tradition of 1 man and 1 woman as such a basic cell which doesn't even find its origin in religion but finds it in Darwinism:

Oooooh. I like this. This'll wind up the fundamentalists on the school boards here, for sure!

Thanks Vanesch!

 

[pattylou]

People used to make the same argument about kids when interracial marriages were illegal. "Oh, all those poor kids are going to be so confused.".

When were interracial marriages illegal??

This is news to me, but could be as useful as Vanesch's perspective, if I ever address the school board here.

Got a reference?

Edit: Slave days?

 

[2CentsWorth]

This is my suggestion.

Classify all government sanctioned marrriages as civil unions. Let the Churchs or whatnot add other labels if they like.

Personally this is my position too, and as you say there are many private sector restrictions such as hospital rules, medical benefits, etc., which discriminate against those not considered legally married.

This goes for heterosexuals living together, even under 'common law' too. Where I once worked my boss was diagnosed with liver cancer. Fortunately for her, when she reached the point where she could no longer work and qualify for her medical benefits, her boyfriend married her so she could be on his policy. But at least they had that option.

And now...in all fairness to Arnold...the majority of Americans are against making gay marriage legal. So it is not a popular position for any politician to take.

 

[Art]

And now...in all fairness to Arnold...the majority of Americans are against making gay marriage legal. So it is not a popular position for any politician to take.

Are there any polls you know of on this. I am curious to see the reasons people give for being anti gay marriage.

 

[2CentsWorth]

Very quickly, here is a site with results of different polls conducted on various current issues: http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm It shows the questions (wording, etc.), but I didn't see any analysis on the results (i.e., why people respond as they do).

 

[Art]

Very quickly, here is a site with results of different polls conducted on various current issues: http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm It shows the questions (wording, etc.), but I didn't see any analysis on the results (i.e., why people respond as they do).

Thanks for the link. It is interesting (and pleasing) to see there is a solid trend in favour of allowing official gay unions and a clear majority in favour of granting them equal rights with hetro couples. Presumably the differences between the first and second poll are due to religious beliefs. ie only 36% in favour of gay marriages but 53% in favour of gay couples having the same rights as married couples.

 

[edward]

When were interracial marriages illegal??

This is news to me, but could be as useful as Vanesch's perspective, if I ever address the school board here.

Got a reference?

Edit: Slave days?

Until 1967 many states had laws against interecial marriage. The supreme court banned the laws in a case known as Loving vs. Virginia.

 

[honestrosewater]

From the article in the OP:

A new poll, released on the weekend, shows that California voters are equally divided on the issue of same-sex marriage. The Public Policy Institute poll shows that 46 percent are in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry and 46 percent are opposed.

That's Californians, the people who Arnold works for.

Until 1967 many states had laws against interecial marriage. The supreme court banned the laws in a case know as Loving vs. Virginia.

And I'm sure that you all want to know why:

Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

hmmmm...

 

[pattylou]

Until 1967 many states had laws against interecial marriage. The supreme court banned the laws in a case know as Loving vs. Virginia.

Wow! thanks. http://www.ameasite.org/loving.asp

 

[pattylou]

hmmmm...

Thanks for the link - here's an excerpt:

In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court [388 U.S. 1, 3] of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:


"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

I find that really interesting.

 

[honestrosewater]

Thanks for the link. It is interesting (and pleasing) to see there is a solid trend in favour of allowing official gay unions and a clear majority in favour of granting them equal rights with hetro couples. Presumably the differences between the first and second poll are due to religious beliefs. ie only 36% in favour of gay marriages but 53% in favour of gay couples having the same rights as married couples.

Wouldn't that be nice, but the question didn't say the same rights:

"Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples?"

Not equal. As an old friend used to say, 'this ain't horseshoes,' which I think means that close doesn't count.

 

[honestrosewater]

I find the arguments given by the state court most interesting (and eerily familiar):

In upholding the constitutionality of these provisions in the decision below, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia referred to its 1955 decision in Naim v. Naim, 197 Va. 80, 87 S. E. 2d 749, as stating the reasons supporting the validity of these laws. In Naim, the state court concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride," obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy. Id., at 90, 87 S. E. 2d, at 756. The court also reasoned that marriage has traditionally been subject to state regulation without federal intervention, and, consequently, the regulation of marriage should be left to exclusive state control by the Tenth Amendment.

Replace race and blood with family and traditional values...

 

[CJames]

Frankly I don't think the government has any business handing out special tax deductions to people just because they are lucky enough to get married. Get rid of the whole thing, marriage, civil unions, all of it. Those unlucky enough, either because they are gay or poligimous or just plain can't find a spouse, or don't believe in marriage, shouldn't have to pay higher taxes or be excluded from benefits. They should just lower the overall tax level. Where the money goes after somebody dies should be up to the person that dies. Who gets to visit somebody when that person is dying should also be up to the person that is dying. Frankly, why do doctors ever tell anybody that they can't visit? Limiting it to just a few people at a time who know him/her should be enough. Whether or not two people stay together shouldn't have anything to do with government recognition. Fear of divorce ruins so many lives. Of course an organization that recognizes marriage or any other contract is fine, but why government?