Scwarzenegger announces veto on Californian gay marriage bill

[arildno]

Ousted from the party?

I'm not aware of that ever happening. Rising through the party due to other politicians' approval of you? I don't know how that would manifest either.

Eeh?
Who choose a party's candidates to various positions?
That's an internal party process in just about any political party I know of.

 

[TRCSF]

And when did demanding the right to visit my dying lover in the hospital, irrespective the wishes of his blood-kin become forcing my sexuality down your throat?

Yeah, what is it with homophobes and their fantasies about homosexuals shoving things down their throats?

 

[Skyhunter]

This has already been done long ago for those who want it. Many people these days get married in civil ceremonies which have nothing to do with religion.

The idea behind marriage is to create the basis of a secure family unit which is believed to be the best environment to raise children in.

Some folk question whether a same-sex union is a good environment for children and so the state is reluctant to grant official status / approval to such relationships. The consequences of this for people in 'unsanctioned' unions are that they have inferior inheritance rights, tax rights and adoption rights etc..

Not to mention if their partner is in an accident they are not immediate family and would possibly not be allowed to visit them in the hospital, would have no say in the care they receive etc.

 

[Art]

And when did demanding the right to visit my dying lover in the hospital, irrespective the wishes of his blood-kin become forcing my sexuality down your throat?

It didn't, why on earth would you think that? IMO you'd have every right.

 

[arildno]

Not to mention if their partner is in an accident they are not immediate family and would possibly not be allowed to visit them in the hospital, would have no say in the care they receive etc.

But, inasmuch as you would like these rights to be conferred to gay couples by the state (from what I know, hospitals cannot deny a person the right to visit his wife, unless there exist strictly medical reasons for such a denial), then this would be an "interfering" from the state, whether you call the formalized co-habitation between the couple as a civil union or a marriage.
(As a note, gays in Norway can't marry, they may form an officially recognized "partnership")

 

[arildno]

It didn't, why on earth would you think that? IMO you'd have every right.

But that is one of the basic issues at stake here, and why so many gays want to have the possibility to get a formal recognition of their relationship.

 

[Art]

Not to mention if their partner is in an accident they are not immediate family and would possibly not be allowed to visit them in the hospital, would have no say in the care they receive etc.

Yes I agree. It would be better for all if some form of compromise could be reached. My personal opinion is I couldn't care less if gay people get married as I believe it is unfair for them to be penalised for their sexuality. My post just laid out the arguments for and against.

 

[pattylou]

Now, there's a long-standing tradition of 1 man and 1 woman as such a basic cell which doesn't even find its origin in religion but finds it in Darwinism:

Oooooh. I like this. This'll wind up the fundamentalists on the school boards here, for sure!

Thanks Vanesch!

 

[pattylou]

People used to make the same argument about kids when interracial marriages were illegal. "Oh, all those poor kids are going to be so confused.".

When were interracial marriages illegal??

This is news to me, but could be as useful as Vanesch's perspective, if I ever address the school board here.

Got a reference?

Edit: Slave days?

 

[2CentsWorth]

This is my suggestion.

Classify all government sanctioned marrriages as civil unions. Let the Churchs or whatnot add other labels if they like.

Personally this is my position too, and as you say there are many private sector restrictions such as hospital rules, medical benefits, etc., which discriminate against those not considered legally married.

This goes for heterosexuals living together, even under 'common law' too. Where I once worked my boss was diagnosed with liver cancer. Fortunately for her, when she reached the point where she could no longer work and qualify for her medical benefits, her boyfriend married her so she could be on his policy. But at least they had that option.

And now...in all fairness to Arnold...the majority of Americans are against making gay marriage legal. So it is not a popular position for any politician to take.

 

[Art]

And now...in all fairness to Arnold...the majority of Americans are against making gay marriage legal. So it is not a popular position for any politician to take.

Are there any polls you know of on this. I am curious to see the reasons people give for being anti gay marriage.

 

[2CentsWorth]

Very quickly, here is a site with results of different polls conducted on various current issues: http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm It shows the questions (wording, etc.), but I didn't see any analysis on the results (i.e., why people respond as they do).

 

[Art]

Very quickly, here is a site with results of different polls conducted on various current issues: http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm It shows the questions (wording, etc.), but I didn't see any analysis on the results (i.e., why people respond as they do).

Thanks for the link. It is interesting (and pleasing) to see there is a solid trend in favour of allowing official gay unions and a clear majority in favour of granting them equal rights with hetro couples. Presumably the differences between the first and second poll are due to religious beliefs. ie only 36% in favour of gay marriages but 53% in favour of gay couples having the same rights as married couples.

 

[edward]

When were interracial marriages illegal??

This is news to me, but could be as useful as Vanesch's perspective, if I ever address the school board here.

Got a reference?

Edit: Slave days?

Until 1967 many states had laws against interecial marriage. The supreme court banned the laws in a case known as Loving vs. Virginia.

 

[honestrosewater]

From the article in the OP:

A new poll, released on the weekend, shows that California voters are equally divided on the issue of same-sex marriage. The Public Policy Institute poll shows that 46 percent are in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry and 46 percent are opposed.

That's Californians, the people who Arnold works for.

Until 1967 many states had laws against interecial marriage. The supreme court banned the laws in a case know as Loving vs. Virginia.

And I'm sure that you all want to know why:

Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

hmmmm....

 

[pattylou]

Until 1967 many states had laws against interecial marriage. The supreme court banned the laws in a case know as Loving vs. Virginia.

Wow! thanks. http://www.ameasite.org/loving.asp [Broken]

 

[pattylou]

hmmmm....

Thanks for the link - here's an excerpt:

In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court [388 U.S. 1, 3] of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:


"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

I find that really interesting.

 

[honestrosewater]

Thanks for the link. It is interesting (and pleasing) to see there is a solid trend in favour of allowing official gay unions and a clear majority in favour of granting them equal rights with hetro couples. Presumably the differences between the first and second poll are due to religious beliefs. ie only 36% in favour of gay marriages but 53% in favour of gay couples having the same rights as married couples.

Wouldn't that be nice, but the question didn't say the same rights:

"Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples?"

Not equal. As an old friend used to say, 'this ain't horseshoes,' which I think means that close doesn't count.

 

[honestrosewater]

I find the arguments given by the state court most interesting (and eerily familiar):

In upholding the constitutionality of these provisions in the decision below, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia referred to its 1955 decision in Naim v. Naim, 197 Va. 80, 87 S. E. 2d 749, as stating the reasons supporting the validity of these laws. In Naim, the state court concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride," obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy. Id., at 90, 87 S. E. 2d, at 756. The court also reasoned that marriage has traditionally been subject to state regulation without federal intervention, and, consequently, the regulation of marriage should be left to exclusive state control by the Tenth Amendment.

Replace race and blood with family and traditional values...

 

[CJames]

Frankly I don't think the government has any business handing out special tax deductions to people just because they are lucky enough to get married. Get rid of the whole thing, marriage, civil unions, all of it. Those unlucky enough, either because they are gay or poligimous or just plain can't find a spouse, or don't believe in marriage, shouldn't have to pay higher taxes or be excluded from benefits. They should just lower the overall tax level. Where the money goes after somebody dies should be up to the person that dies. Who gets to visit somebody when that person is dying should also be up to the person that is dying. Frankly, why do doctors ever tell anybody that they can't visit? Limiting it to just a few people at a time who know him/her should be enough. Whether or not two people stay together shouldn't have anything to do with government recognition. Fear of divorce ruins so many lives. Of course an organization that recognizes marriage or any other contract is fine, but why government?

 

[edward]

It is not just a religious issue. Marriage between a man and a woman is an institution that has been observed for thousands of years. Among ancient primitive tribes there were marriage ceremonies long before the written word. It is the basis of the strength of the family unit and without that strong family bond there would be no modern man.

They/You can call it whatever they/you want but leave the word marriage out of it.

All of the talk about not being able to see a gay partner in the hospital is not accurate. Many states recognize gay unions, and allow all the benefits and rights of survivorship etc that marriage allows.

In light of the fact that ,unions, life partners, and other terms give the same legal benefits as the term marriage, why is it then necessary to use the sacrosanct term marriage??

 

[arildno]

It is not just a religious issue. Marriage between a man and a woman is an institution that has been observed for thousands of years. Among ancient primitive tribes there were marriage ceremonies long before the written word. It is the basis of the strength of the family unit and without that strong family bond there would be no modern man.

False.
The vast majority of European common folks choice of co-habitation prior to the 19th century was NOT a religious or officially recognized MARRIAGE.
That is one of the main reasons why church officials denounced the "lower classes" for "living in sin".

Marriage in the Europe has mostly been an upper/middle-class phenomenon, more to do with property transactions and political alliances among the families than "love".
These are also the major reasons behind marriage-similar institutions within "primitive tribes" as well.

 

[honestrosewater]

I have an idea. Let's call all women second-citizens. They can have all of the other rights that male citizens have. But we all know that women were not historically citizens. Only men were citizens. So let's not ruin the name citizen by letting it apply to women. What's a name? (Don't ask this second-citizen)

It's a matter of law. The US is a nation of laws. No one else is talking about the laws. It looks like the people trying to ban gay marriage want an unconstitutional law. Does our Constitution not matter to those of you who are trying to ban gay marriage? Do you want to throw away equal protection?

Whatever, I'm stopping. I'm gonna be sick. :yuck:

 

[Art]

While looking up the history of marriage I came across this;

From the 1690s to the 1870s, “wife sale” was common in rural and small-town England. To divorce his wife, a husband could present her with a rope around her neck in a public sale to another man.

Makes one positively nostalgic for 'the good old days' :rofl: :rofl:

 

[honestrosewater]

If it's so difficult to recognize the difference between the actions of the government and the actions of other institutions, call them all civil unions or whatever - just call them all the same thing. Calling one set of rights 'marriage' and another set of rights 'unions' is not equal. And you can't say that the name is insignificant - just look at the change in the polls between approval of "marriages" and "unions".