Prop 8 overturned!!

[Lost]

ahh, your right seamaiden. I just worke up, lol!

 

[Seamaiden]

It's hard NOT to get worked up when it comes to a whole group of people being denied a very basic right.
:)

 

[Seamaiden]

So, you been reading the happenings on this ruling? Judge Vaughn has now announced that he doesn't believe that Prop 8's backers have any legal standing to appeal his ruling! I spent part of an afternoon reading excerpts from his ruling the other day, too. He broke it down so well, really, and based on his notes I feel he really gave good thought and time to both positions.

Yee-fucking-HAW! God, I love the Constitution. Even the Magna Carta, but mostly the Constitution.

 

[slimjoint]

To me it seems gays have the most rights, power to over turn laws.

 

[Lost]

To me it seems gays have the most rights, power to over turn laws.

Really? Could you expand on this? What laws have been overturned?

 

[Illmind]

Economic crisis, record numbers of fatalities in the war on terrorism natural disasters tons unemployed and homes foreclosed but fuck all that gays need to be able to get married lol. Classic. More punanny for me ;)

 

[Lost]

Its the church that organized to take away a civil liberty away from a group. If these people would put the same effort into fixing the economy and getting this country back on track, we would be out of this crash already..

I mean seriously? We don't have bigger problems to deal with rather than to tell people what they can and cannot do with their lives?

I don't think I have heard one story of how a gay marriage did anything bad but piss of the homophobes.. and the right wingers.. and the bible beaters...

 

[Dirty White Boy]

Anyone who has a problem with a gay person for being gay, or wanting to get married, fuck you. Take your bible turn it sideways and shove that fucker right up your ass. Then take that cross, and work it up there too. If you feel that gay people should have less rights then you, i feel you should have rights stripped from you, or better yet, i hope your family is involved in a car accident, and when your at the hospital and they say we need someone to make a decision, I want that doctor to look you in your face, and say FUCK YOU! you dont have a choice, to decide wether to pull the plug or continue with a life saving procedure. Go eat shit you religious sack of fucking rotting shit. THEN, youll understand. All of you who feel that way are the real FAGGOTS, TEA PARTY FAGGOTS....and dont kid yourselfs god hates YOU! you self righteous shit eating backwoods inbred cracker assholes.

Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Buddhist, etc.=HATE, BIGOTRY,MENTAL RETARDATION. THINK FOR YOURSELF!!!!!!

 

[Lost]

Anyone who has a problem with a gay person for being gay, or wanting to get married, fuck you. Take your bible turn it sideways and shove that fucker right up your ass. Then take that cross, and work it up there too. If you feel that gay people should have less rights then you, i feel you should have rights stripped from you, or better yet, i hope your family is involved in a car accident, and when your at the hospital and they say we need someone to make a decision, I want that doctor to look you in your face, and say FUCK YOU! you dont have a choice, to decide wether to pull the plug or continue with a life saving procedure. Go eat shit you religious sack of fucking rotting shit. THEN, youll understand. All of you who feel that way are the real FAGGOTS, TEA PARTY FAGGOTS....and dont kid yourselfs god hates YOU! you self righteous shit eating backwoods inbred cracker assholes.

Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Buddhist, etc.=HATE, BIGOTRY,MENTAL RETARDATION. THINK FOR YOURSELF!!!!!!

Don't hold back this time, tell us how you really feel.. heheheh :)

 

[zoeronerer]

here is the problem i see ..... im all for gay union ..

another member of this site i know was raised catholic (so was i to a point)...

the churches are being forced to recognize something they view as a sin ....
the gays can get bonded in a gay church then it shouldent be forced to be recognized
by the catholic church .(or any other)... it goes against their fundamental views.

its like some of the gay homeys i know are trying to punnish the church ...

look if your gay and u love someone cool get your benifits for your partner get your ceremony on.

but leave the church alone it stands on its own ... you dont like the rules dont try and change them ...just look elsewere

part of the problem is the word married which points to the virgin marry ..... maybe another term would be a little more acceptable for the members of the church that do things by the book ...i think in some ways it hurts peoples view of their own faith.

if i see another priest with a rainbow hat on im gonna freak out .. hahah

i lived in sf for 10 years ... i have many friends high up in the gay community . im str8 ......

there are mixed feelings within this whole thing ....even in the gay community

the happiest gays i know think gay marriage being recognized in the eyes of the church is "some crazy fgs dream" to quote my gay grandparents they are the only gay or lesbian people i know that have been together 20 plus years .. they are very happy and they are not married ...

gay union rarely lasts its the nature of the whole lifestyle. hella makeup breakup get ready for that aspect of the whole thing as well .

my names chad i have been married 23 times jk...

..im starting a 5 minute gay divorce court in the stro.

mostly im joke n but its great news its just more complicated than the ruling itself..

the insurance companys fought this the hardest because their cheap asses dont want to pay up... that just sucks ..

whatever i aint catching the bouquet so i will just see you at the reception. yo

 

[Lost]

But marriage is not a church thing. Everyone says its a religious ceremony and in the past that may have been true (tho one can argue that people have been getting "married" for thousand of years predating modern religions, but anyway..), but today its merely the ceremony of two adults that have decided they want to spend their lives together. Its the church that is meddling in peoples private affairs once again trying to tell not only their followers but everyone else how they should think, feel, act, etc...

When I got married there was a priest there and a ceremony, but im atheist/agnostic. Just because im not a subscriber to a given religion does not mean my marriage was any less sacred compared to someone that goes to church.. There was a priest and a ceremony because that tradition (and my wifes family was religious, so we bowed to tradition). Not because some power from heaven come down to earth and made it possible..

Marriage is a contract between two people, religion has nothing to do with it :)

 

[Seamaiden]

The church isn't being forced to recognize anything. The state is. Marriage is no longer purely a religious construct in the US, it is now a legal contract. As such, it is inherently wrong to deny anyone who is adult and of right mind, who has committed no crime, the ability or right to enter into a legal contract.

I believe that the word itself, "marriage", is French in origin. But hold on, lemme take a look-see. Oh my goodness! A whole site dedicated to etymology. :)

Etymology of the English word marriage

the English word marriage
derived from the Old French word mariage

derived from the Old French word marier

derived from the Latin word maritare (marry, give in marriage)

derived from the Latin word maritus (husband, married man; lover; nuptial; of marriage; married)

derived from the Latin word mas (male; male; masculine, of the male sex)

Date
The earliest known usage of marriage in English dates from the 13th century.

Derivations in English
intermarriage, marriageable, mismarriage

Usage
Word found in Modern English

The only other solution to this problem is to get the state OUT of determining religious constructs to be legal contracts. Realistically speaking, that is not going to happen in my lifetime (and I plan on becoming very, very old). It's more likely that the government itself would collapse than give up the money and control from licensing marriages.

 

[zoeronerer]

your correct sea maiden and lost ... i dont speak latin and im way to lazy to research it but thats what a catholic friend had mentioned about the word itself .

... and i guess its basically in the eyes of the state or in the eyes of god ...



but i remember people in sf that wer talking about tying to push it through the church somehow ... "one day i will walk down the isle in this church " ... this was just little bits and pieces of things i remember at protests and things friends said in passing ...

or sipping mulled wine at the garden party .....

im only trying to explain how other people feel its not really my view...


i have 0 interest in politics or law for that matter i guess .... and i dont care who has sex with who its not shocking to me in any way .... not after ordering coffee at the gayest place on planet earth the castro starbucks ! im just joke n everyone. .

im all for people being happy together and being able to support their partner with insurance and equal benefits and for their taxes..

now can we do something about the rainbow pope hats please .. ahhah sorry

thanks for clearing that up sea maiden it made for a fun discussion and probably clears up what the far reaching effects of this ruling really are..

and language is always fun .....

aloha to my rainbow Homeys i wish i was in dolores park drinking spritzer'z !!!!!!

jeahhhhhhh boy.

 

[Seamaiden]

I don't speak Latin, either, but I do love my words. :)

Here's an interesting article on marriage.

Same-Sex Marriage Debate Has Roots Going Back Centuries

In the late 1700s, something disturbing happened to marriage in Western societies: It began to change. Young people had revolutionary new ideas about the institution and what it meant to them.

"People were terrified," said Stephanie Coontz, a historian at The Evergreen State College in Washington and author of "Marriage, A History" (Viking Adult, 2005). "Social conservatives of the day said, 'Oh my gosh, you're going to have the wrong people getting married.'"

The radical idea that had everyone so worried? The notion that people should marry for love, rather than for individual power, group survival, or any of a host of other historic reasons to bond.

Marriage survived, and so did society. But the fight over marriage continues, most recently with the judicial decision in California that ruled Proposition 8, a state ban on gay marriage, unconstitutional. On Thursday, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker lifted the stay on his earlier ruling, clearing the way for same-sex marriages in California to go forward beginning Aug. 18, pending a reversal by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case is likely on its way to the Supreme Court, but this latest victory for advocates of marriage rights for gay couples may be a natural next step in the long and emotional evolution of marriage, say historians. The ruling has already sparked anger in opponents of gay marriage, an anger that may be linked with fear of social change in general.

"I think a lot of the opposition comes from people who are looking at all these changes, and they are disruptive, unsettling changes," Coontz said. "People are frightened by the idea that there are no strict roles. ... Same-sex marriage has become a stand-in for all the other things that make them anxious about contemporary marriage."

What is traditional?

Marriage has never been quite as simple as one man, one woman and a desire to procreate. Across cultures, family structure varies drastically. Early Christians in the Middle East and Europe favored monogamy without divorce. Some Native American tribes practiced polygamy; others, monogamy with the option to dissolve the union. In some African and Asian societies, Coontz said, same-sex marriages, though not seen as sexual, were permitted if one of the partners took on the social role of the opposite gender.

Inuit people in the Arctic formed co-marriages in which two husband-wife couples could trade partners, an arrangement that fostered peace between clans. In some South American tribes, a pregnant woman could take lovers, all of whom were considered responsible for her child. According to "Cultures of Multiple Fathers: The Theory and Practice of Partible Paternity in Lowland South America" (University of Florida Press, 2002), 80 percent of children with multiple "fathers" survived to adulthood, compared with 64 percent of kids with just one dad.

Increasing globalization has erased many of these traditions, but some persist. In America, Mormon splinter groups practice polygamy. In Hui'an China up until the 1990s, many married women lived with their parents until the birth of their first child. And in the Lahaul Valley of India, women practiced polyandry until the most recent generation, marrying not just one man, but all of his brothers as well. The tradition kept small land holdings in the hands of one family and prevented overpopulation in the remote valley.

The Western Ideal

For much of human history, marriage was a way to spread resources between families, Coontz said. When societies develop into the haves and the have-nots, marriage usually changes, becoming a way to hold on to power and land ¾ thus the predilection toward incest in royal families across the globe.

But the first drastic redefinition of marriage in the Western world came from early Christians, Coontz said. At the time, a man could divorce his wife if she failed to bear children. Early Christians disavowed the practice. God had joined the couple together, they said, and a lack of offspring was no excuse to dissolve that bond.

This was "unprecedented," Coontz said. "It was actually Christianity that first took the position that the validity of marriage did not depend on the ability to reproduce."

It took hundreds of years for the Church to enforce this pronouncement, and even then, local parishes would often find reasons to let divorce slide. As it stood, the early Christians weren't sold on marriage, anyway. Saint Paul famously said that celibacy was the best path, but grudgingly added, according to the King James Version of the Bible, "If they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."

Still, marriage was not a matter of love. Too much affection in a marriage was seen as a distraction from God. In the Middle Ages, people went so far as to argue that love in marriage was impossible. The only way to true romance, they said, was adultery.

First comes love

The disconnect between love and marriage wouldn't change until the late 1700s, when Enlightenment thinkers argued that the older generation had no business telling the younger generation who to marry. From there, things snowballed relatively rapidly: In the early 1900s, sexual satisfaction became a criterion for marriage. Then, in the 1960s and 1970s, people began to question the laws that made men the legal overlords of their wives. Suddenly, the idea that marriage was a partnership between two people with different gender roles began to dissolve.

"My argument would be that it was heterosexuals who revolutionized marriage to the point where gays and lesbians began to say, 'Oh, this applies to us now,'" Coontz said. "First love, then sexual attraction, and then, finally and not until the 1970s, the idea that marriage could be gender-neutral."

With every change comes controversy, Coontz said. People sniffed at the idea of marrying for love, frowned upon the sexually liberated flappers of the 1920s, and fought against the Women's Liberation movement of the 1970s.

Emotion and ideology

Some of those ideological debates still echo in today's debate over same-sex marriage, but research shows that there is no scientific reason to deny marriage rights to gays, said Sharon Rotosky, a psychologist at the University of Kentucky. A June 2008 study, published in the journal Pediatrics, found that children with lesbian parents actually did better on many measures than children of straight parents. Other studies have shown very similar outcomes between kids with gay parents and kids with straight parents.

Rotosky has found that even putting marriage rights up for debate harms gay and lesbian individuals. In a 2006 study, she and her colleagues surveyed people living in U.S. states with anti-gay-marriage amendments on the ballot and compared the results with states without such an amendment.
"We found that LGB [lesbian, gay and bisexual] people who lived and stayed where there was an amendment on the ballot were more stressed and saw more negative messages in the media," Rotosky said. "Marriage amendments do increase stress and do increase depressive symptoms."

The Proposition 8 case could be decided by the Supreme Court within two years, which could mean more stress ahead for gay and lesbian couples. But, said Rotosky, the outcome could be worth it.
"[Extending marriage rights] wouldn't end discrimination," she said. "But it would help relieve the chronic form of stress that couples have to endure every day."

I just got edumacated. :)