WP: California Legislature Approves Gay Marriage

[NavyDave]

Nothing tricky at all.

Marriage is an union between a MAN and a Woman the people voted on it and liberals who can't win via the ballot box will look to undermine the will of the people.

Great move by Arnold to not let a long standing normal institution become morally corrupted

[stevenaa]

Well, Arnold will not be reelected to be governmor. He was one of my favorite politicians, but I think this is a bad move.

So doing the will of the people who elected him is going to prevent him from being re-elected. Kind of a twisted logic, don't you think?

[NavyDave]

The constitution is for the people by the people not for the legislature by the legislature.

[Ignatius J.]

stevenaa,

moderate democrats are the swing vote in california. You cannot win an election without them, and in california, moderate democrats are among the most ardent supporters of gay rights. They are a minority, but they are an important one.

The hard left here is not neccesarily so pro gay rights. You have swaths of the democratic party that are very socially conservative, but they believe that we should nationalize business, so they have no chance of voting for a republican. We also have a republican presence that is never going to vote democrat.

The reason arnold won is that he got the moderate democrats to line up behind him. In california, we have a LOT of moderate democrats. Not enough to be a majority but enough to be important. Arnold lost the ultra left voters, but gained a majority by pulling the moderate democrats over with the republicans.

If arnold had defied the popular thing, you think his republican base would vote for bustamante or anyone else the democrats put out there? not a chance. However, moderate democrats were already growing disillusioned over arnold's strong arming the nurses union, so this basically rules out thier support in the upcoming election. So, you have 2/3 of california voting against arnold, and about 1/3 that would vote for him, even though approx 2/3 don't like the bill.

It's how politics works.

that being said there's only one way I think arnold can get out of this alive. He comes out and declares that he wants to sign this bill. However, due to the gerrymandering that he wants to fix, the legislature has become unrepresentative. He can use this as a means to pass his gerymandering initiative to appoint judges to redraw the lines. He could come out and say that if a newly elected legislature from his new lines decides to pass this, he would sign it. That could help him score a victory in that battle and also mitigate the damage caused by this veto.

However, he might honestly be against gay marriage, in which case he shouldn't say that.

[Prosperity]

I see a lot of hypocrisy in this thread...

[Larry]

I see a lot of hypocrisy in this thread...

I've been wondering how many quotes I can find from ("conservative") people proudly announcing that "we live in a republic, not a democracy".

[Ancalagon the Black]

As for my personal views - I'm not going to support a restructure of the most basic unit in american life without having all the facts. Until the cause of homosexuality is proven and documented, it's just too early for this kind of move.

Are you referring here to the political cause or the biological/psychological cause? If the former, I have no idea what you expect to happen. If the latter, why is it relevant?

The most basic unit in American life is the individual. Who is restructuring this?

[NavyDave]

Why the concern from downunder?

No wonder the "sheilas " were so accomodating back in my young and single days

[Prosperity]

Why does the cause of homosexuality matter one bit?

[Larry]

Why does the cause of homosexuality matter one bit?

Because the #1 rationalle used to explain why it's OK for the majority to create entire volumes of law, and then mark those laws "off-limits" to a small, disliked, minority, is that "It's a choice" or "It's not genetic". (And therefore, discrimination is OK).

[Thiebear]

Why does the cause of homosexuality matter one bit?

I believe they matter because they're people and they depend on each other as we depend on the opposite sex...

I believe they matter because there are children that could depend on them in a loving and nuturing relationship...

For you doubters: Point to 3 relationships you know of without problems...

Just 3....

[jrockster21]

Ah-nold needs to veto this. The people spoke up and said no to this in 2000 and elected officials should respect the will of the people in the state of California. If they want gay marriage they should take the issue back to the voters that said "no!" very clearly and see if they've changed their minds.

As for my personal views - I'm not going to support a restructure of the most basic unit in american life without having all the facts. Until the cause of homosexuality is proven and documented, it's just too early for this kind of move.

This is just silly. How is it a restructure of the most basic unit in american life? It is two PEOPLE who love eachother very much and want to express that love through marriage. How in the hell does that concern you, pray tell? If Bob and Dave want to get married in San Francisco, why the hell do you give a flying f**k??? "The most basic unit in American life..." that is a bunch of bigoted bullsh!t.

Not supporting gay marriage is simple bigotry, plain and simple. It doesn't matter if gayness is a disease, if you are born gay or you have to be persuaded to be gay. It doesn't matter. This is america, and last time I checked it was the land of the free. You may not like it, but there's nothing you should be able to do about it. I think this most certainly belongs in the hands of the courts because it is a civil rights issue.

Its people like this:

"Marriage should be between a man and a woman, end of story. Next issue," insisted Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy (R-Monrovia). "It's not about civil rights or personal rights, it's about acceptance. They want to be accepted as normal. They are not normal."

Who were shouting "get your nig**r hands off my daughter" before interacial marriages were legal, believe that.

[jrockster21]

Great move by Arnold to not let a long standing normal institution become morally corrupted

Are you serious?? The divorce rate is above 50 percent. Adultery is rampant. But these things are perfectly moral?? Give me a break! The morallity of marriage is non-existent. Marriage, as it is defined by the government, has nothing to do with morals. Moral marriage is defined by religion, WHICH should have no place in government.

Let me ask you this; if the gay-marriage divorce rate was found to be significantly lower than the straight marriage one, would you still oppose?

[jrockster21]

The constitution is for the people by the people not for the legislature by the legislature.

So the constitution has never had any errors in it before? How about when black people counted less than white people? Are you saying that the legislature made a mistake in saying black people were just as important as white people? Because now you're saying gay people aren't as important as straight people, whether you know it or not.

[jrockster21]

Why the concern from downunder?

No wonder the "sheilas " were so accomodating back in my young and single days

Its comments like these that betray your underlying homophobia as the reason you don't support this. You and the rest of the homophobes can continue to trot out the moralities of marriage and the family unit until you're blue in the face. You're still a bigot.

[portisizzle]

This is just silly. How is it a restructure of the most basic unit in american life? It is two PEOPLE who love eachother very much and want to express that love through marriage. How in the hell does that concern you, pray tell? If Bob and Dave want to get married in San Francisco, why the hell do you give a flying f**k??? "The most basic unit in American life..." that is a bunch of bigoted bullsh!t.

Not supporting gay marriage is simple bigotry, plain and simple. It doesn't matter if gayness is a disease, if you are born gay or you have to be persuaded to be gay. It doesn't matter. This is america, and last time I checked it was the land of the free. You may not like it, but there's nothing you should be able to do about it. I think this most certainly belongs in the hands of the courts because it is a civil rights issue.

So when the first person shows up to say they want to marry their dog, are you going to be cool with that??

Marriage is a religious experience between a man and a woman, only. Do gays have the right to been see in the eyes of our government as a bound couple? Yes, it is call civil unions. Not marriage.

The thing to do is to put this to a vote of the American people. You OK with that champ?

[Goodlifer]

So when the first person shows up to say they want to marry their dog, are you going to be cool with that??

Marriage is a religious experience between a man and a woman, only. Do gays have the right to been see in the eyes of our government as a bound couple? Yes, it is call civil unions. Not marriage.

Love the dog comment, I always love it when someone throws it up in the gay marriage debate. Basically, marrying dogs is a completely separate issue requiring its own thread on the PETA board.

Good second point, it illustrates the problem when church and state are combined. But at this point, the connection is so deeply ingrained that separation isn't likely.

The gays won't accept anything less than marriage because they believe they are entitled to the same rights as everyone else; which doesn't make any sense to me because why would you want the rights granted by the church, who sees your behavior as deviant.

[Prosperity]

So when the first person shows up to say they want to marry their dog, are you going to be cool with that??

Marriage is a religious experience between a man and a woman, only. Do gays have the right to been see in the eyes of our government as a bound couple? Yes, it is call civil unions. Not marriage.

The thing to do is to put this to a vote of the American people. You OK with that champ?

What a retarded post, what should I fix first?

"So when the first person shows up to say they want to marry their dog, are you going to be cool with that??"

You really don't deserve a response for this, but I am feeling generous. How does a dog=a person? Can a dog give consent? Are you equaling gays to dogs? Or is this your everyday GOP spoonfed slippery slope falacy propaganda.

"Marriage is a religious experience between a man and a woman, only. Do gays have the right to been see in the eyes of our government as a bound couple? Yes, it is call civil unions. Not marriage. "

If it is a religious experience then there WILL be some church or temple or whatever out there doing it, AND the government has no right to regulate it. Duh...

"The thing to do is to put this to a vote of the American people. You OK with that champ?"

What a bunch of collectivist bull crap. I bet you still consider yourself a conservative after posting this. What a shame, atleast real conservatives used to recognize even the People's power had to be limited. sigh...

The American people can vote on what they want but unless they get rid of equal protection under the law, there will be the protected right for gays to marry. And since when did the GOP become the People's party? This isn't the People's Republic of America. We have founded this country under the goal of protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You can get sheep to vote however you want, but that won't change our natural rights.

Personally I don't want the government involved in marriage out of principle. There should be no positive or negative effect on marriage and married people from the government. It is a personal/religious thing leave it alone, stop trying to regulate every facet of life.

[Destino]

Are you referring here to the political cause or the biological/psychological cause? If the former, I have no idea what you expect to happen. If the latter, why is it relevant?

The most basic unit in American life is the individual. Who is restructuring this?

I was definitely referring to the biological reasons. I have a problem with making policy shifts as significant as this without having all the facts. Especially when one considers that the will of the people in this country is without a doubt very much against allowing gay marriage. I can’t justify ignoring the people of the country in order to push something for which I don’t even understand fully. With blacks and women there was not question because they were no different, racism and sexism were rooted in the fear of losing power. Power over blacks and power over women. I don’t see the same motivations here and thus the question for me is entirely different.

Also I disagree that the basic unit is the individual. However I don’t think this is the proper place to argue family versus individual thinking. It has a lot to do with perspective and background.

[Destino]

Why does the cause of homosexuality matter one bit?

Because not all behavior should be sanctioned by the government and in fact made beneficial. The government is to some extent a reflection of the people, and the people in this country in large part view homosexuality with uneasy indifference. Most feeling that they can do what they like, but just don’t involve me. This is also a fair description of the government’s stance since the anti-gay laws were challenged and defeated. They can do whatever they want but the government is not going to sanction it legally.

It would help greatly if the question of “what causes homosexuality” were to be answered. If it comes down to anything less then genetic or biological, the question becomes one of accepted moral behavior, like it or not.

[portisizzle]

You really don't deserve a response for this, but I am feeling generous. How does a dog=a person? Can a dog give consent? Are you equaling gays to dogs? Or is this your everyday GOP spoonfed slippery slope falacy propaganda.

I did not take long for someone to marginalize the point of my post. :laugh:

My point is "marriage" is a religious term with biblical significance. It is the joining of a man and woman in HOLY matrimony.

If the position of a gay person is they want the same rights afforded to a married person, then I am all for it. It is called civil unions. But do not pretend that two gay joining are either "holy" or marriage. No more than if a person decided to one day go marry a dog.

Woof.

[portisizzle]

Personally I don't want the government involved in marriage out of principle. There should be no positive or negative effect on marriage and married people from the government. It is a personal/religious thing leave it alone, stop trying to regulate every facet of life.

That is a very interesting point. And one worth considering....

[Destino]

This is just silly. How is it a restructure of the most basic unit in american life? It is two PEOPLE who love eachother very much and want to express that love through marriage. How in the hell does that concern you, pray tell? If Bob and Dave want to get married in San Francisco, why the hell do you give a flying f**k??? "The most basic unit in American life..." that is a bunch of bigoted bullsh!t.

Not supporting gay marriage is simple bigotry, plain and simple. It doesn't matter if gayness is a disease, if you are born gay or you have to be persuaded to be gay. It doesn't matter. This is america, and last time I checked it was the land of the free. You may not like it, but there's nothing you should be able to do about it. I think this most certainly belongs in the hands of the courts because it is a civil rights issue.

You may find this to be “silly” but I don’t. This is a serious issue that I try to think about logically. You claim that it is not a restructuring but your claim is entirely false and poorly thought out. Allowing gay marriage would be the first major redefining of what a family is in the US. Most people agree the line has to be drawn somewhere. Some, like you have, say it should be limited to “two people” and favor homosexual marriage, straight marriage, but not polygamy. Others have no problems with polygamy but can’t stand homosexuality. Some people wouldn’t look down upon marriage within the family itself…which is of course, entirely disgusting.

Now this is not to say I believe in the slippery slope argument pushed by our compassionate friends who claim allowing gay marriage will force us all to allow bestiality. That’s nonsense. The line will be drawn somewhere, the question right now is only where shall that line be drawn. Without the facts I see no reason to go against the will of the people.

Who were shouting "get your nig**r hands off my daughter" before interacial marriages were legal, believe that.

The root causes of racism was power, or rather fear of losing it. Can you say the same thing is the cause of this debate? I dont' see it but I'm open to new ideas, so share yours with me if you like.

[Prosperity]

It would help greatly if the question of “what causes homosexuality” were to be answered. If it comes down to anything less then genetic or biological, the question becomes one of accepted moral behavior, like it or not.

Again, why is it better if someone is genetically predisposed to homosexuality than if they got it from the environment. Do you find the origin of every controversial behaviour to see if it is genetic or environmental. For what it is worth studies on indentical twins have shown that almost exactly 50% of personal traits are genetic.

As for accepted moral behavior, well whether it is accepted or not is also irrelevant in my eyes. The government is supposed to protect life liberty and the pursuit of happines not enforce morals.

[Prosperity]

The root causes of racism was power, or rather fear of losing it. Can you say the same thing is the cause of this debate? I dont' see it but I'm open to new ideas, so share yours with me if you like.

I can, at least part of this is the fact that people fear losing their power to control and enforce morality by using coercion through the facade of government legitimacy. They call it moral decay, I call it liberty.