Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban

Civil marriage is a contract. The duties of party A can be fulfilled by either a male or female, and the same with the duties of party B. A can not be distinguished from B. There is nothing, excepting your expectations, that two males or two females can not fulfill.The question that leaves me is: As you are not party to the contract: what is your compelling interest that deserves consideration by the State of California or the federal government? If I want to sign a purchase and sales agreement with my neighbor do I need to consult you? Sorry to break it to you pal, but I don’t think gay folks give you too much thought. They were more likely thinking something along the lines of, “I’m an American citizen; why should I not be free to pursue happiness?” Do straight couples get married to make you happy? Or aren’t they thinking about you either?And why do you think gay people would be happy to be second class citizens with the civil union if it didn’t cheese you off for them to be equals?Seeing two guys kissings gives me the heebie-jeebies, but so does watching someone eat a tomato as if it were an apple. But I’ll take the heebie-jeebies any day over the feeling I get when I’ve got a government that thinks it has that power over peoples lives to make illegal their peaceful desires.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

You may have a good argument that government pay no heed to religious ceremonies honoring only the civil contract. I’d not argue with that. Have private sector weddings and separate registration of civil commitments. That would instantly turn me into a bastard in the eyes of the state, but that’s nothing compared to what I call them.If that is the case then gay couples can get married any time they want in a religious marriage now. If you’ll take a gander you’d notice there are all kinds of churches willing to marry gay couples. It is the lack of parity with straight couples in the eyes of the government ” the government of, for and by gay and straight alike ” that is the problem.As far as consummation goes, I again fail to see where your compelling interest lies, but even there you’re wrong. Unless you’re going to narrowly limit the meaning of the word sexual in sexual intercourse. Think Ol’ Bill was telling the truth about poor Monica?

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

I know what would be in it for me. If we all stop butting into other peoples business maybe we can turn those garish Gay Pride parades into humdrum Gay So What parades. I hate parades.And skate boarders deserve it.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

I am so ok with that that it's ridiculous.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

Actually, people made marriage a legal issue by getting divorced and asking the courts, a governmental function, to step in to clean things up. The government needed to establish a standardized contract so that it might have a starting point. Could you for a second imagine if the courts had to use the rules of the thousand different churches to resolve dissolved marriages?Edited by lyx2no, : Supply URLEdited by lyx2no, : Supplied wrong URL.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

It's a constitutional republic. It was so constructed that's we might avoid the tyranny of the majority.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

You're a bigot because you believe your personal standards are universals to be enforced on others.You're also misinterpreting the establishment of religion clause. The government is not establishing a religion by recognizing the existence of religions equally. Not only has the government recognized religion in this case, they have recognized the need for a secular method of marriage as well. Quite frankly, it, the governmental establishment of the marriage contract, is one of their best balancing acts.Your protestations that you think gay folks should have all the rights as straight folks ring hollow when you suggest the best method for getting there is to abolish the government's sanctioning of marriages. How can you not know your plan will never fly? If you think religious folks are hollering now about gays gaining the right to marry, wait till you hear the noise when they find they are losing it.By the bye, the best way to pull the rug out from under militant gays demonstrating for equal right it marry is to give it to them. Always shuts them up.AbE: Unless you are suggesting that if gay marriage is legalized that a gay person is going to force you to marry them, then no, gay folks aren't pushing their standards upon you.Edited by lyx2no, : beat him to the punch

---

KindlyA mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

It stops being an opinion when the force of law is applied.If you try to rob me and I try to stop you, are we on equal moral footing? I am, after all, trying to impose my will on you.Edited by lyx2no, : Finish what I was saying.

---

KindlyA mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

You're kidding, right? One of the primary duties of government is to enforce contract law. If the less then happily married couple do not agree on the conditions of the contract they have the right to bring civil suit. The government is looking out for their own best interests when they standardize the contract; not the interests of the litigants.And you're kidding yourself if you think de-cohabiting couples with joint real assets aren't in court every bit as often as divorcing couples.

---

KindlyA mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

Good plan. What would you bet that within a month everyone would be calling the civil unions "marriages" followed by "Oh damn! Civil union."

---

KindlyA mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

The three requisite elements of a contract are offer, consideration and acceptance. Sheep are unable to comply with any of them.

---

KindlyA mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

I'm sure I wouldn't know; however, getting them to state as much or to sign a paper to that effect is problematic.AbE: And as a nod to the topic: For your logic to hold that gay men already have the same rights to marry as do you, for women to have rights equal to and not beyond men, they too should only be allowed to marry women. For a man to have the same rights as a women, he must be allowed to marry a man.Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

---

KindlyA mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

I’m having several problems with your standard of “exactly the same as mine.”One ” and this I find truly amazing ” is that in my perusal of the Constitution your name never came up even once. They seemed to be referencing one citizen in regard to other citizens in general, not you.Two, did you have to have a sex change before you got married? I’m getting confused because I’m unsure of what the rules are for selecting which word to play semantics with. If you could clarify this point it would be truly helpful.There are others, but I have to get past these before I can frame the others suitably.

---

KindlyA mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

The law isn't involved with sacred covenants. Go to a church and have your ceremony and don't bother to file the certificate. You'll find the "sacred covenant" doesn't mean squat to Uncle Sam.Uncles Sam is looking out for his own interests: not those of the couple or religion. Marriage is contract law, and the government has no compelling interest other than to standardize adjudication of property upon the desolation the contract; therein, dissolving a civil ceremony in exactly the same way as it does a religious ceremony. The "gay crowd" is not required to explain why the word "marriage" needs to apply to them. They can go to any of a dozen different U.S. Government recognized religious institutions and get their "sacred covenant" certified, i.e., married. In cases of the free exercise of religion the State is required to show the strongest of compelling interests as to why they should interfere. The State does not have one.There isn't an attorney worth his salt who'd dare argue that the State has a compelling interest in preserving the family in regard to marriage, the definition of the word "marriage", the reprinting of forms, or no business recognizing "sacred covenants" It'd be a rout compelled by snickers. ( A clue: our representatives can and will say anything that strikes their fancy when arguing to enact a law, but wouldn't dare offer the same argument to a court. Try finding the "Preserving the Family" argument in regard to marriage in case law.)Tradition, like the sabbath, is made for man.Edited by lyx2no, : I lost the second quote somehow.

---

KindlyA mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

I’m finding it difficult to believe you’re not being perverse. You seem to be taking umbrage that the government shouldn’t and isn’t involved simultaneously. And have you found anyone arguing in this thread that the government should take on a religious bent?News flash! The United States Government has performed civil ceremonies called “marriages” for 230 years. My statement was really quite clear. In the case of a divorce ” a dissolution of the contract called marriage ” the government treats civil and religious marriages in exactly the same way. The government dissolves religious ceremonies called marriages five days a week. That’s because the government treats civil and religious marriages in exactly the same way. That’s because the government has no compelling interest other than to standardize adjudication of property upon the desolation of the marriage. To whom else could you go to get a divorce in the U.S.?I agree that the State should not involve itself in religious affairs, but The United States Government has performed civil ceremonies called “marriages” for 230 years. I’m sorry, the “why not” is now in yellow. I figured that because the reason followed on the heels of the statement you’d be able catch it yourself.And yes, the Unitarian Universalists for one will marry gay couples. Uncle sam won’t recognize the ceremony, but the church will. Hey! Isn’t that the solution you called for? Private sector marriage. Then the gay couple can also get a civil union to complete the package: just in two steps instead of one. What a dumb ass idea that is.In case you haven’t noticed, The United States Government has performed civil ceremonies called “marriages” for 230 years. The United States Government has performed civil ceremonies called “marriages” for 230 years. It is treated as contract law rather then as a sacred covenant. Also, the government dissolves religious ceremonies called marriages five days a week. That’s because the government treats civil and religious marriages in exactly the same way. That’s because the government has no compelling interest other than to standardize adjudication of property upon the desolation of the marriage. Hey cool! Deja ve. You made the same mistake earlier with the Constitution, this paragraph also doesn’t mention you. The horse was made for the benefit of the horse itself not for man, but if it will help liberate my fellow man ” even if he is a sissy ” I’ll call it a cow and eat it too.And one more thing, the United States Government has performed civil ceremonies called “marriages” for 230 years. You now want to change the name of these civil ceremonies to “civil unions”. It’s the gay folks who want to keep the old definition.Edited by lyx2no, : Spelling

---

KindlyA mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.