Originally posted by usmc7257The way I understand what happened was that the judicial ruling was not over the California statute regarding the definition of marriage, but over the actions of a local official over-stepping his bounds by ignoring the statute. The actual statute still needs to be reviewed by the supreme court. You are correct though in stating that the marriages have been voided.
the california supreme court just overruled the gov. san fran voiding the marraiges that were previously done there. what are your thoughts on this?
I'm not a lawyer, but that's the way I understand what transpired today.
Originally posted by usmc7257The California Supreme Court had no choice but to annull the gay marriages, as under current state law, marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
the california supreme court just overruled the gov. san fran voiding the marraiges that were previously done there. what are your thoughts on this?
Obviously, any two consenting adults who are in love and wish to make a life-long commitment to each other should have the right to marry. Therefore California, along with Congress and all the governments of the world urgently need to update their policies on this issue.
Over here in the UK, the governemt are trying to address the issue, but the route they are taking is meeting some resistance. They are trying to introduce a Certificate of Commitment, which applies not only to gay couples, but to carers and their wards. The idea is that people will have easier access to pentions etc. when their partner dies. They claim that those who enter into this covenant will be "as good as married". They seem to be missing the point though. Loving couples, gay or straight, who want to get married, want to actually get married. They don't want to sign an agreement, allowing them pention rights. They want to be married.
The main obstacle to the legalisation of gay marriage is the fear that votes will be lost, as the more conservative parts of society will be the most resistant to what they see as the erosion of traditional morals. Things will only change when attitudes change and the voting public actually ask political parties to make gay marriage a policy issue.
Just to clarify things, I myself am straight. I am married with children. I just feel that anyone who is as much in love with their partner as I am with my wife, deserves the right to marry if they so desire.
Originally posted by martin williamsAs long as two (or three...who the hell am I to judge?) can get the same rights as any other two people, I couldn't care less if it's called marriage or not.
The California Supreme Court had no choice but to annull the gay marriages, as under current state law, marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Obviously, any two consenting adults who are in love and wish to make a life-long commitment to each other should have the right to marry. Therefore California, along with Congress and all the gover ...[text shortened]... in love with their partner as I am with my wife, deserves the right to marry if they so desire.
Get the certificate (or whatever) and then have a non-binding marriage. If that passates the religious nutters and the conservaties, fine by me.
I think the mayor took a brave and just action. Most of us who support this thought that the marriages would be ruled void, as current law (two parts) specify that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is no surprise that the marriages were voided, but there will be further legal challenges to try to make gay marriages legal.
I think it is wrong to limit the legal benefits and the public statement of commitment for married couples to straight people. I have seen the lack of legal rights cause tremendous pain and inconvenience for gay couples in need of those rights. What possible value is there to society to have such a restriction? It strikes me that the only reasons are religious ones.
Having lived and worked in the San Francisco Bay Area for over 20 years, I have known many gay people well. I cannot find major differences between gays and straights (other than being gay itself), and think that most prejudice against gays comes from lack of knowledge and experience. The gay people I have known care about the same things as the non-gay people I have known. I have known many good gay people and a few not-so-good ones, just as in the general population.
I recently read an editorial in which the author proposed having civil unions that are open to all, and then let church services (marriages) continue to be as they are now. I think this is a solution that satisfies most people.
About half a year ago, I read an opinion piece by George Will (a popular conservative columnist) arguing that he could come up with no valid reason to restrict marriage to straights, and also (as shavixmir said above) between multiple partners. [I'm sorry, but I could not find this column online.]