Jump to content

California bans same-sex marriage - ban overturned


Recommended Posts

There are only about two states which recognise gay marriage. Two states out of 50.

 

We dont want decadent European liberal ideas here. The people who pushed for gay marriage in California are a bunch of white elitists in San Francisico.

 

They do not represent the ideals of the rest of the people in this state.

My bold

 

But that doesn't mean the laws can't accommodate people who don't conform to the "ideals of the rest of the people" does it?

 

After all, I'm sure that the majority of people in the Southern States were against civil liberties in the 1960s - but that didn't make segregation right or acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marriage complicates the ending of a relationship, that is certain, whether we are talking about a gay or heterosexual couple. I always thought after the end of my marriage that I would never want to marry again in the legal sense.

 

But then......I met the perfect fellow and want to get married again.

 

Again, it is about showing commitment to the person that you love and declaring it before family and friends. And legal marriage has those economic benefits as well.

 

I didn't always feel this way about gay marriage. In fact, I was almost repulsed when it first came up but I know several gay men quite well and I know that they didn't choose to be this way. It is just how they are so why not allow them to have the same benefits that a man and woman can have through marriage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought not be able to marry was one of the few advantages to being gay. Although I am pro-choice, I can't understand why anybody would want to get married :huh:

 

Sheer practicality. I was with my partner for 34 years, but she died a few months before Civil Partnerships were introduced. Because we weren't officially together, I didn't get any of her pension. If I'd been with her for a single day, but we'd had a Civil Partnership, some of her pension would have passed to me.

 

As we head towards a situation where the State Pension is either going to be so miniscule as to be not worth bothering with, or disappear altogether, pension rights for surviving partners are going to become more important.

 

The same applies to unmarried heterosexual partners - unless the Government gets round to making "common law" marriage a reality and not just the figment of a lot of people's imaginations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder whether 'gay marriage' in California was 'marriage' per se, or a civil partnership of the kind we have in the UK.

 

I can see why some people might object to gay marriage on religious grounds (even though I don't agree with them) but I can think of no reason why they should object to civil partnerships

 

It was marriage per se. Civil partnerships are legal here, I imagine just like what you have in the UK. In fact, when I was signing us all up for benefits for 2009 during open enrollment (through husband's employer) there was a section for "domestic partners". Anyone choosing this option for their family is entitled to the exact same benefits as are offered to other employees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was marriage per se. Civil partnerships are legal here, I imagine just like what you have in the UK. In fact, when I was signing us all up for benefits for 2009 during open enrollment (through husband's employer) there was a section for "domestic partners". Anyone choosing this option for their family is entitled to the exact same benefits as are offered to other employees.

 

Thanks for this Sierra, very interesting. Those on this forum who are berating the California decision should realise that we don't have 'gay marriage' per se in this country either. We have 'civil partnerships', despite the fact that a CP couple I know refer to themselves as married.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bold

 

But that doesn't mean the laws can't accommodate people who don't conform to the "ideals of the rest of the people" does it?

 

After all, I'm sure that the majority of people in the Southern States were against civil liberties in the 1960s - but that didn't make segregation right or acceptable.

 

Dont equate civil rights struggles of the sixties with the agendas of a bunch of perverts.

 

I can just see a future scenario taking place in any one church in California had the marriage ban failed. The loving couple (dike or gay) standing at the altar with big smirks on their faces as some hapless priest has to perform a marriage ceremony or he and his church having to face a lawsuit.

The newly married couple afterwards mincing out of the church and giving the one finger salute to the priest and the all the normal church members.

"We're here to stay... so F you all" They shout

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.