City of San Francisco sues State of California

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Changing the definition of marriage would also open a Pandora's Box and possible lead to something as frightening and disgusting as this.

 

While I generally dismiss the religious parts of the article, I can in no way dismiss or disagree with their position on this issue stated in the article.

Sorry I just don't buy it. We are talking two consenting adults vs. Child Abuse here.

And at the moment it is just that: a decision between consenting adults. My point, though, is that allowing for a broader interpretation of marriage will lead to just more than marriage between consensual adults. It will open the way for polygamistic and even pedophilic marriages. If there is no legal definition of marriage, then an adult could marry their offspring (even if an adult) and legally sue for the right to have that marriage recognized.

Pedophilia is not between consenting adults. So, no, gay marriage does not open the door to legalized pedophilia.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

How did male/female marriage ever get government recognition in the first place?

Marriage got state recognition when it was made a Sacrament.

 

If you truly favored Separation of Church and State, you would support the privatization of marriage and the use of civil unions for all.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

How did male/female marriage ever get government recognition in the first place?

Marriage got state recognition when it was made a Sacrament.

 

Ok....

 

If you truly favored Separation of Church and State, you would support the privatization of marriage and the use of civil unions for all.

 

I do support that. You got a politician who does, so I can vote for him/her?

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Honestly, I think Bush does but he doesn't want to lose his fundie money, so he's not saying anything specific. Shame.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I do support that. You got a politician who does, so I can vote for him/her?

 

Why would you care enough about the issue to vote based on it? Shouldn't something more important (like jobs) take precedence.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Also true.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Why would you care enough about the issue to vote based on it? Shouldn't something more important (like jobs) take precedence.

It was a rhetorical question, after all. I haven't heard of a politician that also supports that, at least not one that I've been eligible to vote for.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Why would you care enough about the issue to vote based on it?  Shouldn't something more important (like jobs) take precedence.

It was a rhetorical question, after all. I haven't heard of a politician that also supports that, at least not one that I've been eligible to vote for.

Oh... Never mind then.

[Styles 0]

I do support that. You got a politician who does, so I can vote for him/her?

 

Why would you care enough about the issue to vote based on it? Shouldn't something more important (like jobs) take precedence.

You pretty much nailed my true opinion on this and most other social issues. Foreign Policy and the Economy are basically the 2 issues that matter the most to me, everything else is really ireelevant until you have those squared away. Of course, the topic IS about gay marriage, so "I don't really give a damn" isn't a valid answer.

Honestly I think the President WOULD support Civil Unions (despite the cold hearted religious nut you try to make him out to be), but activist judges are making such a big stink about MARRIAGES that he really has no choice but to address that issue head on. He could either support gay marriage and go against the beliefs of well over half the nation or propose an amendment to stop activist judges from trying to impose their will on the people. (It really does set a dangerous precedent, if this was assault weapons or something it would get a whole different reaction). But, anyway since the President is now forced to confront this outright abuse of power and violation of the law, he is not given the oppurtunity to present a possibly solution like Civil Unions without looking like he's pandering or giving in.

This is also only hurting their cause. I have seen more than 1 editorial from gay writers calling for the marriages to stop since it makes gays look bad, creates more backlash and ultimately is just helping to fuel the possibility of anamendment. And when it happens, don't blame President Bush, blame the activist judges who defied the laws and caused a shitstorm that had to be addressed.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

activist judges are making such a big stink about MARRIAGES that he really has no choice but to address that issue head on. He could either support gay marriage and go against the beliefs of well over half the nation or propose an amendment to stop activist judges from trying to impose their will on the people. (It really does set a dangerous precedent, if this was assault weapons or something it would get a whole different reaction). But, anyway since the President is now forced to confront this outright abuse of power and violation of the law, he is not given the oppurtunity to present a possibly solution like Civil Unions without looking like he's pandering or giving in.

Not just civil unions for gay people. Civil unions for EVERYONE.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I don't even care if they call them marriages. I just want it made clear that state marriages are not the same thing as religious marriages.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

I consider myself liberal in many cases. And I do support Civil Unions at least between two gay people. I don't feel that this will bring the end of society as we know, as some Talking Heads are claiming.

 

But I do believe in the power of the people. And Californias voted to keep gay marriages illegal. So I feel that Newsome, who has much guts and some balls, should be arrested for breaking California law. As society grows more accecpting of Homosexuals, we are still a good ways away from fully accepting that there will always be homosexuals, many good people, and that is two people love each other, like a man and woman. that there should be the same type of benefits as a traditional marriage. That will happen eventually, but for now the people of California have spoken, and what Newsome is doing is wrong, no matter how much I agree with what he is doing, he is breaking the law, and should face the music.

 

So, this should be put a stopped to. But seeing how many people have been made so happy by being allowed to marry, makes this a bitter pill to swallow. It's one those things that I support, but know that it is breaking the law, and Newsome should face the music on this matter.

 

We just can't go breaking laws becuase we disagree with them in theory. Some order must be obtain, but hopefully one day people will come tot he reason that homosexuality is not a choice (why would anyone choice to be gay?) but a condition that many are born with. Of course this is a new century. and hopefully man can grow more tolerant of the things that we fear, or has been told is a sin by 2000 year old men, who thought the earth was flat, the central of the universe, and that by giving a man a good bleeding would help drain all the evil beings out of a sick person.

[C Dubya 04 0]

We just can't go breaking laws becuase we disagree with them in theory. Some order must be obtain, but hopefully one day people will come tot he reason that homosexuality is not a choice (why would anyone choice to be gay?) but a condition that many are born with. Of course this is a new century. and hopefully man can grow more tolerant of the things that we fear, or has been told is a sin by 2000 year old men, who thought the earth was flat, the central of the universe, and that by giving a man a good bleeding would help drain all the evil beings out of a sick person.

I think that we should break laws that we disagree with in theory. Civil disobediance should be a last alternative, but it is sometimes needed to progress. Without Civil disobediance, who knows how long this country would have had segregation. If you believe strongly enough in something to risk the legal repercusions, then I admire you for doing it.

[Styles 0]

We just can't go breaking laws becuase we disagree with them in theory.  Some order must be obtain, but hopefully one day people will come tot he reason that homosexuality is not a choice (why would anyone choice to be gay?) but a condition that many are born with.  Of course this is a new century. and hopefully man can grow more tolerant of the things that we fear, or has been told is a sin by 2000 year old men, who thought the earth was flat, the central of the universe, and that by giving a man a good bleeding would help drain all the evil beings out of a sick person.

I think that we should break laws that we disagree with in theory. Civil disobediance should be a last alternative, but it is sometimes needed to progress. Without Civil disobediance, who knows how long this country would have had segregation. If you believe strongly enough in something to risk the legal repercusions, then I admire you for doing it.

Fine, in civil disobediance though you accept the punishment for your action. The major should be removed from his post and possibly jailed.

[C Dubya 04 0]

I agree with that and hope that the mayor was prepared for such things to happen. Although, I don't think that this merits jail time. He brought his agenda to the national spotlight, but I don't think he did his job as an elected government official and I definitely would not object to him being removed from office.

[teke184 0]

The mayor damn well knew what was involved when he did it and is grandstanding by making thousands of gay marriages. If he wanted to practice civil disobedience, he would have done a single one in front of a camera crew from CNN in order to have a test case.

 

I personally have no objections to civil unions, which are marriages in all but name, but pushing for true gay marriages is asking for trouble at this day and time because it pisses a LOT of people off who would at least be tolerant, if not sympathetic, of civil unions.

 

This is going to be one of those moments that gay activists will look at years from now, and they may end up saying "MAN they fucked things up by going too fast" because it appears to be causing a significant backlash towards gay marriages in particular and the gay lifestyle in general.

[Guest MikeSC]

But I do believe in the power of the people.  And Californias voted to keep gay marriages illegal.  So I feel that Newsome, who has much guts and some balls, should be arrested for breaking California law.

Honestly, how much guts does it take to grandstand in support of gays in San Francisco?

 

It's as gutsy as being for ethanol while campaigning in Iowa.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Fascinating. I guess he was just setting me up for a fall when he put my nomination before the Senate. He's told me I'm doing good work at least ten times but I see now that he was looking for a way to fire me. And the three or four times he gave me a hug and the two dozen or more times he shook my hand, he must've thrown up as soon as I left the room...

Did he give you a nickname?...

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

I personally have no objections to civil unions, which are marriages in all but name, but pushing for true gay marriages is asking for trouble at this day and time because it pisses a LOT of people off who would at least be tolerant, if not sympathetic, of civil unions.

That's another thing - if "civil union" will grant the same exact rights as a hetero marriage, then what is the point of an Amendment? Just to stop people from calling it a marriage?

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I personally have no objections to civil unions, which are marriages in all but name, but pushing for true gay marriages is asking for trouble at this day and time because it pisses a LOT of people off who would at least be tolerant, if not sympathetic, of civil unions.

That's another thing - if "civil union" will grant the same exact rights as a hetero marriage, then what is the point of an Amendment? Just to stop people from calling it a marriage?

Yes.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

And, really, isn't that the best reason to amend the Constitution?

[Firestarter 0]

And, really, isn't that the best reason to amend the Constitution?

How about saving taxpayers millions, possibly billions of dollars in subsidies for an "alternative lifestyle" with no commensurate need homosexuals can demonstrate? Married heterosexual couples use the money they save on tax breaks to feed, clothe, and educate their children. In most homosexual couples both partners earn a salary and neither has children. Tax breaks? Government-sanctioned benefits? Societal gratitude, approval, and endorsement? Why? How have they earned it, any of it? What exactly are they giving to the community by getting married?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

So we shouldn't let gays get married because we give tax breaks to married couples? What a load of nonsense. Take away the tax breaks then. You can't deny citizens rights guaranteed to them by the 14th Amendment because it would inconvenience the the present tax system. That's a load of crap.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

And, really, isn't that the best reason to amend the Constitution?

How about saving taxpayers millions, possibly billions of dollars in subsidies for an "alternative lifestyle" with no commensurate need homosexuals can demonstrate? Married heterosexual couples use the money they save on tax breaks to feed, clothe, and educate their children. In most homosexual couples both partners earn a salary and neither has children. Tax breaks? Government-sanctioned benefits? Societal gratitude, approval, and endorsement? Why? How have they earned it, any of it? What exactly are they giving to the community by getting married?

Married homosexuals can use the money to better their own lives (i.e. new car, nice home, nicer vacation, go back to school, etc. - the same way that hetero couples do). There are plenty of hetero couples in which both earn a salary and/or don't have children. Why not take away their tax breaks? Force them to pop out a few kids to earn those breaks. And, while their at it, force the woman to give up her career.

 

How have they earned it? I dunno, being productive members of society? Going to work every day? Paying taxes? Doing work in the community? Donating to charities?

 

So, heaven forbid, at some point something serious happens to your wife, putting her in the hospital. You'd be perfectly OK with doctors not consulting with you on decisions because you're not family?

[Firestarter 0]

So, heaven forbid, at some point something serious happens to your wife, putting her in the hospital.  You'd be perfectly OK with doctors not consulting with you on decisions because you're not family?

Can't happen. Like most intelligent homosexuals, I have power of attorney and full rights to determine her medical treatment if she's unable to express her wishes. Like any intelligent person of any sexual orientation, she also has a living will. Try again.

[NoCalMike 0]

About the people of CA voting against gay marriage. I heard on some radio show that it wasn't exactly THAT, that CA voters voted for, it was a bill that would not acknowledge gay marriages from other states if the couples moved to CA. I am not sure if this is true or not. Anyone willing to look it up?

[Guest Brian]

So the difference is ownership of potential energy? Might as well reduce it down to Matrix terms.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Acceptance of gay marriage growing in state

 

Half of California voters oppose same-sex marriage, but even more don't like President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment to ban such unions, according to a Field Poll released Wednesday.

 

The poll also showed that over the past quarter-century, support for granting gays and lesbians the right to marry is steadily increasing, with the Bay Area leading the way.

 

The statewide poll found that 50 percent of those surveyed disapproved of same-sex marriage, while 44 percent are in favor. When the Field Poll first asked the question 27 years ago, only 28 percent voiced approval and 59 percent were opposed. In the years since, there has been a steady but slow rise in acceptance, polls have shown.

 

"I can foresee the day when there will be majority support for same-sex marriage. That's the way the wind is blowing long term,'' said the Field Poll's Mark DiCamillo.

 

But that day is not likely to come quickly, said Barbara O'Connor, a political communications professor at California State University Sacramento.

 

"This is one of those issues that really is bipolar -- an issue of absolutes,'' she said. "Opinions can change over time, but not quickly because it's all caught up in psychological, sociological and cultural backgrounds. Those values are central to your self-esteem and don't change quickly.''

 

O'Connor speculated that as more gays and lesbians come out of the closet to their neighbors, co-workers and relatives, people will become more accepting of their lifestyle and the idea of same-sex marriage.

 

While many Californians may not like the idea of same-sex marriage, the Field Poll also found that many voters were even more uncomfortable with Bush's proposal for a constitutional ban on such unions. The poll showed 54 percent of voters opposed to amending the Constitution and 41 percent in favor.

 

In the Bay Area, opposition to Bush's proposal ran nearly 2-1.

 

"For a lot of people it's a states' rights issue, and they don't think it's somewhere the federal government should go,'' said O'Connor.

 

The debate over same-sex marriage has surged onto the national stage, first with the Massachusetts high court ruling that excluding gays and lesbians from marriage rights is unconstitutional, followed by Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to grant same-sex couples the right to marry in San Francisco, and now Bush's endorsement this week of a constitutional ban.

 

The poll was conducted Feb. 18-22 -- after San Francisco began issuing same-sex marriage licenses but before Bush made clear his resolve to go forward with a constitutional ban -- and surveyed 958 registered voters in California. There was a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.3 percentage points.

 

The poll shows deep divides along age, political, religious and geographic lines.

 

Among those most opposed to same-sex marriage are conservatives, regular churchgoers and born-again Christians, Protestants, Republicans and people living in the Central Valley and the Southern California communities outside of Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties.

 

Those most in favor are liberals, Democrats, voters with no religious preference or who are affiliated with religions other than Catholic and Protestant, Bay Area residents and people with a post-graduate education.

 

Most notable, however, may be the split between older voters and younger ones. The 65-and-older crowd opposes gay and lesbian marriages, 66 percent to 26 percent. The younger set, ages 18 to 29, approve of the idea 58 percent to 38 percent.

 

"You have to look at the younger voters to see what the future will hold, '' DiCamillo said.

 

While voters generally tend to become more conservative as they age, that trend applies more to fiscal issues than social ones, DiCamillo said. He pointed to the acceptance of interracial marriage as an example.

 

And while younger voters appear more accepting of the notion of same-sex marriage, so does the Bay Area, traditionally a liberal pocket with a history of tolerance and a live-and-let-live attitude. It is the only region in the state that showed majority approval for same-sex nuptials, with 57 percent in favor. The next closest were Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties.

 

"The Bay Area is very different from the state on most of these issues,'' DiCamillo said. "It's the most socially progressive region, not just in California but perhaps in the country.''

 

The Bay Area also is the only region in California in which the majority in the survey supported Newsom's decision to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples -- despite a voter-approved California statute that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Newsom believes the prohibition on gay and lesbian marriage violates the state constitution's equal protection guarantees.

 

The battle is headed to court, with several lawsuits already filed. Meanwhile, more than 3,100 gay and lesbian couples have tied the knot in San Francisco since Newson's edict went into effect Feb. 12.

 

But statewide, a substantial majority -- 55 percent to 40 percent -- oppose Newsom's action, the Field Poll showed. Eight in 10 Republicans and 4 in 10 Democrats said it was the wrong thing to do.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGOR58L2F1.DTL

[C Dubya 04 0]

And, really, isn't that the best reason to amend the Constitution?

How about saving taxpayers millions, possibly billions of dollars in subsidies for an "alternative lifestyle" with no commensurate need homosexuals can demonstrate? Married heterosexual couples use the money they save on tax breaks to feed, clothe, and educate their children. In most homosexual couples both partners earn a salary and neither has children. Tax breaks? Government-sanctioned benefits? Societal gratitude, approval, and endorsement? Why? How have they earned it, any of it? What exactly are they giving to the community by getting married?

So, if a married couple doesn't intend to have children, they shouldn't be considered married?

 

I have no intentions of having kids but will be getting married in a couple of years, should we be filling out special forms since we're not giving back to society?

 

Also, just because you were smart enough to have power of attorney and a living will, does that mean every gay couple was? I don't think it's just for the laws of society to punish stupid gay couples, but not stupid straight couples who are in the same situation.

[Guest Cerebus]

Most notable, however, may be the split between older voters and younger ones. The 65-and-older crowd opposes gay and lesbian marriages, 66 percent to 26 percent. The younger set, ages 18 to 29, approve of the idea 58 percent to 38 percent.

 

And how many more of the 65-and-older crowd vote than the 18-29 crowd?

 

Btw, the question is rhetoric, older people vote in FAR greater numbers than their younger counterparts.