After we’ve been hearing for years that gays need to be married, and how only marriage gives them the legal protections and all that, now we’re being told that everybody should just be in a domestic partnership?
We’ve been told that domestic partnership / civil union type laws aren’t enough, that it has to be marriage.
Why are the same people who are hell bent on forcing homosexual marriage on society, now saying that they want to do away with marriage for everyone?
So, my question to gay activists, was marriage the goal in the first place? Is marriage still a goal, or is it equally acceptable to you to just do away with marriage entirely?
\
To paraphrase zero, “We won, get over it.”
And what will be the legal status of traditional married couples in California if that passed? Federal law defines marriage as 1 man and 1 woman only. But, does federal law only recognize marriage if their state also recognizes marriage?
This is opening a legal can of worms that doesn’t need to be opened. If we want to debate homosexual marriage, that’s one thing. But to just say, we won’t have marriage as a legal status anymore, just because it’s not open to homosexuals, that’s carrying things way too far.
I’ve been thinking this is a good idea for a long time apart from the gay issue. What business does the government have sanctioning a marriage? That is a private affair between two people and (if applicable) a church.
“At California’s historic hearing on Proposition 8 earlier this month, Supreme Court Justice Ming Chin....”
....Ming Chin!???.....gawd, what is happening to this country....more and more I think of California as street scene straight out of “Blade Runner”
Anything to thwart the will of the electorate.
This is the losers taking there bat and ball and going home instead of the mature option of doing what the pro-8 folks did, you know, work hard, honestly discuss the issues and let the people vote.
Won’t happen of course.
For Catholics, if the marriage didn’t take place in a Catholic church, it’s not a valid marriage. If a marraige ceremony does take place in a Catholic church, it is a valid marriage.
California can label their partnerships anyway they want, but a Catholic marriage will always be a sacrament that will always be labelled a Catholic marriage.
This answer is total b.s.
The people have a right to representation on the issues of sexuality and marriage. To take government out of the marriage business is to say that the people do not have that right.
The leftwing is trying to use the Court to force people to treat homosexuality as being equal to heterosexuality. People had better stand up for their right to representation on the issues of sexuality and marriage or else we will lose that right and the state wil then just dictate right and wrong on these issues to us.
So the government will get out of the marriage business, but the CASC will still force employers and private citizens and private organizations to offer benefits and/or accomodation to homosexuals?
That being said this once again proves that the argument for gay marriage has always been one based on semantics. Civil unions are essentially a contract and if such a contract was such a basis for all "unions" then this farce would be relatively over.
I know many here would see this as an assault on marriage but as of now, with the divorce rate and number of children out-of-wedlock, the concept of marriage as a union of love would be seperated from the legal mumbo-jumbo of visitation rights, property rights, etc. And maybe alimony laws would be put in a more fair orbit.
It looks like Christians are going to have to start getting married underground again.
Saint Valentine anyone?
I’m not certain that this has not been an acceptable plan “B” all along...
I can’t even be certain that this was not plan “A” all along...
And, you could argue that it is none of the government’s business. I agree that the traditional definition of marriage should remain unchanged. I do not think that the meaning of words should be shaped by law. I do not think that a person should have a reasonable expectation that the government should force everyone to say that “blue” is “green” in order please “blue.” This does not deny them equality. It simply preserves the integrity of language. And, the integrity of language is –very- important in order to communicate clearly. A left and a right shoe together are a “pair.” Two left shoes nor two right shoes together are not a “pair.” Either ought to be able to do as they please, but neither is a pair. No amount of legislation can change that reality. It can only obscure that reality by destroying the meaning of the word, “pair.”
The government should not tell us how to live, what to eat, whom to marry, how long to sleep, what kind of car we should drive, etc.
Moral issues are not a matter of the state. It ought to be plain to see that we do –not- want the government to be the arbiter of what is moral and what is not. Freedom of conscience is no small thing. We cannot champion freedom of conscience while simultaneously surrendering the moral domain to the government. We must claim morality as our own, independent from the state. Our Constitution depends on the morality of the people. You can’t legislate morality. We should not try to do so, except where legislation is necessary to protect another person (of any age, from conception to natural death) from harm.
We cannot insist on our rights while insist that the rights of others be restricted. There are better places to focus our efforts.
JMHO
How can a partnership be limited to two people? That seems illogical and discriminatory, not to mention at odds with general partnership law.
In any event if California gets out of the marriage business it won’t be able to prosecute anyone for bigamy/polygamy any more.
Not slouching towards Gomorrah, as Robert Bork wrote, but galloping.