STORM2K

California Supreme Court orders halt to same-sex marriages in S.F. -

It's about time

That's a shame. Looks like it will be a long road towards this crucial step in the road towards a fair and equal American society, but it was to be expected... look at how long it took for slavery and segregation to be eliminated from the time they were first raised as political issues.

bfez1 wrote:California Supreme Court orders halt to same-sex marriages in S.F. -

What a surprise

Whether right or wrong is irrevelant... IMHO, why shouldn't two people that are in love have the right to marry, no matter what the gender? If that's what they choose to do, why not let them?

This to me seems really no different than the FCC pressure to have ClearChannel pull Howard Stern off of 6 major networks ... JMHO ...

Censorship and more government ...

SF

The issue for most I think boils down to the definition of marriage as a religous institution first and foremost. The courts have no rights to redefine marriage. With the current polls running 2-1 against it. What is curious is that the "civil union" has much broader support.

*moving head side to side, side to side, over and over and over again*

I've never been a fan of tennis...and this just keeps going on and on and on.

Can we please deal with kicking Osama bin Laden's arse of the face of the earth first?

mf_dolphin wrote:The issue for most I think boils down to the definition of marriage as a religous institution first and foremost. The courts have no rights to redefine marriage. With the current polls running 2-1 against it. What is curious is that the "civil union" has much broader support.

Marriage is not strictly a religious institution; first and foremost, it is a legal union between two people in this country... how religion factors into it is up to the individuals involved. Many men and women are currently receiving marriage licenses without Church approval... surely these unapproved heterosexual marriages are just as wrong to you Christians as a gay marriage that is not approved by the Church.

For you to think you have the right to inject religious beliefs into a legal institution that, even as it stands currently does not require or inherently imply a religious connotation, is absurd and defies logic. If you choose to partake in a religion that condemns gay marriage, then feel comfortable knowing that this government gives you the right to be in that group and to be wed in churches that prohibit homosexual marriage. At the same time, there is the LEGAL and PRACTICAL aspect of marriage that has to be considered independent of the RELIGIOUS aspects... and those are the areas many homosexuals are concerned about.

Could this problem be solved by civil unions that are in every way equivalent to marriage? I believe so, as I have repeatedly said. The mild discriminatory factor and analogy to "separate but equal" is still there, because society and government would still be using a separate term for the union and implying a preference towards heterosexual unions, but it would be a hell of a lot better than the open discrimination and denial of civil rights occurring as we speak.