California Law Makers Segregating Gay Marriage

>"- you really should think about this. You're basing your ideas off of on one man's actions."
I understand that.

There's really no benefit to having a marriage license. The tax breaks are really not that much. and the severity of combining all your assets together legally, coupled with the divorce rate today, makes marriage a poor choice - financially and legally.
But if you want to make the whole thing 'proper' with the state, then I guess its got to be done legally.

eyvind wrote:

There's really no benefit to having a marriage license. The tax breaks are really not that much. and the severity of combining all your assets together legally, coupled with the divorce rate today, makes marriage a poor choice - financially and legally.
But if you want to make the whole thing 'proper' with the state, then I guess its got to be done legally.

I can't help feeling that you are missing the point. I didn't get married for the state, and the GWE and I have too few assets between us to worry about. We got married for us. I wanted to marry her so that she (and anyone else who cares) can see that I consider myself to have found my partner for life, and that I wish to devote myself to her: Make her happiness my happiness, and her problems my problems.

Absolutely. I totally agree.
but I cant help thinking things are a little different here in the U.S. If you get legally married here, you loose all your legal rights, meaning that this girl you married has all of your finances and if you are married for 10 years, alimony for the rest of your life! The laws are heartless here in California. at least to the husband. and I'm not even talking about child support. Spousal support would be enough of a burden, even without child support.

So, how about this:;

You can get married in the site of god(or whatever your belief) with a ring and a promise. And there are no deadly aftereffects of a state-contract 'marriage license'. albeit the common law of 7 years together means you are 'bound', I can't think of any reason why people here in the U.S. would choose to get a legalized 'marriage contract'.

eyvind wrote:

Absolutely. I totally agree.
but I cant help thinking things are a little different here in the U.S. If you get legally married here, you loose all your legal rights, meaning that this girl you married has all of your finances and if you are married for 10 years, alimony for the rest of your life! The laws are heartless here in California. at least to the husband. and I'm not even talking about child support. Spousal support would be enough of a burden, even without child support.

Perhaps the problem is your implicit assumption that the marriage will end in divorce.
Many do, of course, but not all.

Admittedly "til death do us part" does mean you are still expected to support your spouse and children, but in Britain we refer to that as "family life".

eyvind wrote:

So, how about this:;

You can get married in the site of god(or whatever your belief) with a ring and a promise. And there are no deadly aftereffects of a state-contract 'marriage license'. albeit the common law of 7 years together means you are 'bound', I can't think of any reason why people here in the U.S. would choose to get a legalized 'marriage contract'.

Whatever works for you, my friend.

Exactly that's why a lot of people here prefer to have their legal marriage first and after a couple of years when they see they are on solid ground they have their religious marriage

Here the religious marriage is legal.

So the GWE and I spent a decade living in sin to make sure!

KittyKat wrote:

The pamphlet: 61% of California voters said "yes" to marriage as a man and a woman.
4 San Francisco- based judges said "no."

Proposition 8 is the same 14 words California voters approved before, but this time it's put into our constitution:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

I wasn't paying attention to the proposition the "61%" was initially based on. I've been able to argue against prop 8 to my brother in law (and mind you he's not being an ass, he just happens to be catholic and prop 8 agrees with him) except when it comes to the point of protecting a law that was overturned by a supreme court despite it's popularity. If a law can be overturned by four judges why not protect it from happening again by making the law into an amendment to the state constitution? I don't know anything about the law that first went through or why the supreme court found it invalid, does anyone know where I can find a source for this?

THe neighborhoods surrounding my house have all starting growing Yes on 8 signs in their yards. I'm very tempted to go around spray painting "Hate Mongers" on them...and I'm almost drunk enough to do so (blue raspberry vodka rocks!)

KittyKat wrote:

THe neighborhoods surrounding my house have all starting growing Yes on 8 signs in their yards. I'm very tempted to go around spray painting "Hate Mongers" on them...and I'm almost drunk enough to do so (blue raspberry vodka rocks!)

They are entitled to their blinkered, stupid and narrow minded opinion, as you are entitled to your opinion, even if they are a stupid bunch of moronic wankers who haven't really thought about it at all, because that would tax their sparse crop of braincells too much

Unfortunately if you do vandalise their signs, they will simply decide that justifies their hatred even more.

Guess it's a good thing you didnt go out last night kat.

Early this week, a man wearing a "No on 8" button was beaten with a "Yes on 8" lawn sign in Torrance, CA.

Police are characterizing the assault as a possible hate crime.

The beater, 23-year old Joseph Storm, is scheduled to appear in the Torrance Superior Court today, Wednesday, for arraignment on a felony charge of a hate crime assault and a misdemeanor count for interfering with another's exercise of civil rights.

Authorities did not identify the victim.

However, it was mentioned that Storm had known the victim since junior high.

In the attack, Storm allegedly knocked the victim down with the Yes on 8 sign, then punched him in the face and choked him. He also called the victim a 'derogatory name for homosexuals' during the beating.

So sad.

Say NO to H8te!!!

Speaking of prop 8 there was a nasty little hitchhiker on this forum just now in the banner section, a "Vote Yes on Prop 8" ad.

What I just heard, seems that the ban is on.

Quoting another forum I was commeting on politics:

Quote :

As expected, Los Angeles County, San Bernadino, San Diego, all of SoCal is coming out big in favor of the ban. The Bay Area is strongly favoring a no vote, but i don't think it's going to be enough.

Exit polls indicate a huge yes vote from African Americans, again, no surprise. The Obama turnout, which I thought would help defeat it, may have the unintended consequence of helping to pass it.

Florida voted overwhelmingly in favor of a gay marriage ban. Again, no surprise.

I do have to interject into the conversation (simply because I think it's interesting) that no society I'm aware of ever considered a homosexual coupling a "marriage." I mean, homosexuality was perfectly commonplace in ancient Greece, but a Greek considered his gay lover to be his gay lover, not his "wife."

All societies consider marriage as a sacred bond between man and wife - religious societies see this as being ordered by a higher power, and I would think that atheistic ones would see it as a natural result of evolution that the marriage bond between man and woman has evolutionary and survival benefits that the bond (of whatever degree or type) between a woman and a woman lacks.

Whether homosexual union is right or wrong is an entirely different discussion from whether it's "marriage" strictly speaking. You can plug a microchip into a watermellon and call it a computer, but it won't be. The underlying question is not about whether homosexuality is licit or not. The question is what the word "marriage" means.

Historically speaking, it's the sacred union between man and wife.

Biologically speaking, it's a mating for life of a male and female human being.

Why does a gay union need to be called a "marriage" when it's never been called that before?

And if the answer really and honestly does include the word "tax," that's probably the last word of the argument I'll hear, because that's just really shallow. I didn't marry Anemia for taxes. I'm sure even if the tax breaks in England were "decent" EHE wouldn't have married for tax reasons, either. If I'm opposed to defining marriage as "the loving union between two women," I'm a billion times more opposed to reducing the definition of marriage to "a tax incentive."

As it was explained to me while the federal government does not recognize anything other than marriages of men with women, they will recognize a state's right to do so and permit that marriage to be valid where ever the couple should go inside the the U.S. With that comes federal benefits that a couple would not normally receive with just the civil union contract that applies in California. You would also receive with a marriage the ability to naturalize a foreign citizen, collect survivors benefits, I vaguely remember this one but be allowed to be buried with your husband or wife in a national cemetery who served in the military, right not to have to testify against your husband or wife, and more than a few other little privileges granted only with marriage.

Seems that is official, Prop 8 has been approved.

Ironic that on the day the country elects a black guy President California tells gays to sit at the back of the bus.

Gomez wrote:

I do have to interject into the conversation (simply because I think it's interesting) that no society I'm aware of ever considered a homosexual coupling a "marriage." I mean, homosexuality was perfectly commonplace in ancient Greece, but a Greek considered his gay lover to be his gay lover, not his "wife."

And I know a few men who consider their female lovers to be their female lovers, not their wives. Lovers and spouses are very different things. Lovers are temporary partners, taken for pleasure (in more ways than one!). One does not expect a lifetime commitment from a lover.

Gomez wrote:

All societies consider marriage as a sacred bond between man and wife - religious societies see this as being ordered by a higher power, and I would think that atheistic ones would see it as a natural result of evolution that the marriage bond between man and woman has evolutionary and survival benefits that the bond (of whatever degree or type) between a woman and a woman lacks.

I'll grant you that. From an evolutionary standpoint heterosexuality clearly seems the way to go.
It must be noted, however, that not all individuals seem to have decided to do their bit for evolution, and homosexual behaviour has been observed in several species other than man.

Gomez wrote:

Whether homosexual union is right or wrong is an entirely different discussion from whether it's "marriage" strictly speaking.

There is the crux of the matter. I don't really care if committed gay couples can use the word "marriage" or not, only that they can enjoy the same rights, and endure the same responsibilities, as committed heterosexual couples.

Gomez wrote:

You can plug a microchip into a watermellon and call it a computer, but it won't be. The underlying question is not about whether homosexuality is licit or not. The question is what the word "marriage" means.

Historically speaking, it's the sacred union between man and wife.

That appears to me to be a circular argument, since she is only a "wife" because they are married.

Gomez wrote:

Biologically speaking, it's a mating for life of a male and female human being.

I would argue that the word "marriage" has no place in biology. Do Jackals marry? What about lions?

Gomez wrote:

Why does a gay union need to be called a "marriage" when it's never been called that before?

I'll agree it doesn't need to be, but will you agree that there are gay couples prepared to make a lifetime commitment to one another, whose love for one another is as deep as a married couple? And would you accept that such a commitment perhaps ought be legally recognised?

Gomez wrote:

And if the answer really and honestly does include the word "tax," that's probably the last word of the argument I'll hear, because that's just really shallow. I didn't marry Anemia for taxes. I'm sure even if the tax breaks in England were "decent" EHE wouldn't have married for tax reasons, either. If I'm opposed to defining marriage as "the loving union between two women," I'm a billion times more opposed to reducing the definition of marriage to "a tax incentive."

Amen to that, there is little more despicable than a marriage of convenience.

darkwave_71 wrote:

Ironic that on the day the country elects a black guy President California tells gays to sit at the back of the bus.

More ironic is that most of the voters of Prop 8 where Black and Latinos, meaning that pretty much the ones that helped to Obama to become president also helped to Prop 8 to pass.

...I really need more time for stuff...

EvilHippyEmperor wrote:

I'll grant you that. From an evolutionary standpoint heterosexuality clearly seems the way to go.
It must be noted, however, that not all individuals seem to have decided to do their bit for evolution, and homosexual behaviour has been observed in several species other than man.

I agree with the statements as they stand, out of context. My only caveat is that I hope there isn't an implication here that abnormal behavior is acceptable as long as there are animals that practice it.
Animals practice fratricide. Some ceremonially. There are also psychotic, schizophrenic, and chronically depressed animals.

EvilHippyEmperor wrote:

Gomez wrote:

You can plug a microchip into a watermellon and call it a computer, but it won't be. The underlying question is not about whether homosexuality is licit or not. The question is what the word "marriage" means.

Historically speaking, it's the sacred union between man and wife.

That appears to me to be a circular argument, since she is only a "wife" because they are married.

Yeah, in hindsight, I really have no idea what that was about. Don't you hate it when you write something, come back later, and say, "now what was I trying to say here?"

EvilHippyEmperor wrote:

Gomez wrote:

Biologically speaking, it's a mating for life of a male and female human being.

I would argue that the word "marriage" has no place in biology. Do Jackals marry? What about lions?

Well... hmm... this is a fun little sticky wicket. I don't know anything about jackals, really, but lions do mate for life, polygamistically, but heterosexually. I wouldn't be opposed to saying lions marry. So do penguins. Many animals do not. Dogs don't, so probably jackals don't. Deer and most herd animals don't. They have more of a slave system.

Granted, applying human terms to animals may sound awkward, but I don't see as it's logically flawed. Animals are capable of murder, and the ones with more developed societies usually see this as undesirable... some societies have lifelong mates I would call husbands... Hmm...

EvilHippyEmperor wrote:

Gomez wrote:

Why does a gay union need to be called a "marriage" when it's never been called that before?

I'll agree it doesn't need to be, but will you agree that there are gay couples prepared to make a lifetime commitment to one another, whose love for one another is as deep as a married couple? And would you accept that such a commitment perhaps ought be legally recognised?

Religiously, I don't think it's licit, but I can actually set that aside long enough to say that legally, yes, I can see that it ought to be legally recognized.