I haven't read the decision. Is it based on the California Constitution?
It's about time we are all treated as equals. (I'll admit it. I'm a heterosexual woman married to a heterosexual man, and I'm a lawyer. Never could figure out what somebody else's marriage had to do with my own.)
For what it's worth, my personal belief is that marriage is a private institution between two persons. The government should stay out of it, whether it's heterosexual or homosexual. However, if government gets into it, it must do so fairly and with no regard for race or sex.
The government should not be involved in marriage.
Well, they kinda have to be. You see, marriage is a pretty important contract. Lots of things flow from responsibilities and benefits of a contract. Marriage is a legal agreement. A license to drive a car is a legal matter. Only those who have passd the necessary requirements can do that. Same with marriage: you need a license to do it, and you need a court to get out of it so that the contract can be fairly determined. You have responsibilities when you are married. You also have benefits when you are married. People can bring religion into marriage if they wish to do so, but religion should not be required as part of a legal agreement to be married. For example, when married, you can file a joint tax return. When married, one spouse can, in certain situations, be responsible for the debts of the other. One spouse cannot encumber the other without agreement. If a spouse is disabled, the other spouse can be responsible for decisions. If a spouse dies, one can get Social Security benefits. Spouses can own real property as tenants by the entireties. If you are legally married, you can't just run off and marry someone else until the marriage is ended. That's because, as noted above, marriage is a contract. We can't have chaos in those very important relationships, or our society as a whole will suffer. If people want to be married, they should be able to be married, and enjoy all the rights and responsibilities it entails.
And being married gives a lot of joy, too. My husband and I bought a house together before we were married. I didn't think being married would feel any different. Well, somehow it did, and it does, and I'm very happy to enjoy it. That right should not be taken from anybody. So, Jack, put on your red shoes and celebrate.
as a married straight male, let me welcome you and your man to the land of reason.
Serious question. Do most civil unions legally have the same consequence as a marriage? If so, then the only difference would be the words used.
Serious answer. I don't think they do have the same consequences. For example, people in a civil union would not be able to file a joint tax return. Words have serious consequences.
Pearl, I could not disagree with you more and I challenge you to think outside of the box. The only reason marriage "matters," as you argue, is because of the current laws that make it matter. However, you can easily accomplish most of your examples even today, and the ones you couldn't only require a few revisions of the tax code and other laws.
"We can't have chaos in those very important relationships, or our society as a whole will suffer." I find this silly. You must not be paying attention to divorce statistics. Whether marriage is a government recognized legal contract is not going to affect the strength of a couple's marriage. It's all on them (and their God if they are religious).
Wow... I don't know why we don't let the California Courts make all of our nation's laws. They certainly seem to know what their doing.
I don't really understand the importance of a marriage license. I have heard the idea was to discourage interracial marriages. Do other countries require them ?
My solution:
Forget the license.
Let churches write the contracts and decide who they will or will not marry. Ministers and priests already have the right to refuse to marry couples. The parent church could write a general contract with guidelines as to possible modifications on the parish/congregational level.
Put the first line of contract nullification/cancelling/breaking (divorce)into the hands of the churches and free up the courts a bit. This might also improve the tone of some divorces and work out more beneficially for any kids involved.
Uh, Quim, not everybody goes to a church. More later. Law is rearing its ugly head and demanding my time today.
A) Congratulations!
B) I think you have to wait 30 days first.
C) Let's see the ring.
Horray!! I know so many have waited for so long. Congratulations to the Gay and Lesbian community!!
No one can choose who they love. And if you choose to dedicate yourself to another, it should be with all of your convictions. I believe that family is never defined by blood or paper, just by love.
They've already started talking. Most of them have shrugged it off as no big deal.
Pearl,
I am curious as to your views on polygamy. Polygamy is currently illegal in every state. But surely people engaging in polygamous marriages aren't _directly_ affecting you. So do you think it should be legal then and recognized by the government?
So why should the government interfere with adults that choose to live in polygamous relationships and wish to marry? Afterall other cultures surely permit a man to have numerous wives.
What about polygamy Pearl? Help me understand the difference between that and homosexuality from your viewpoint as I want to see if it is logically consistent. I strongly suspect it isn't.
What about drug dealers pearl? They aren't directly affecting you, right? Surely theres nothing wrong if they aren't _directly affecting Pearl_.
What about murderers? They surely haven't directly affected you, evidenced by the fact that you are still able to type on this blog. As the life the vast majority of them took likely has nothing to do with your life why do we spend billions every year keeping these murderers incarcerated? Lets save that money! I could never figure that one out.
For a lawyer your definitely fail on logic, Pearl. You have logical fallacies smattered all over your bankrupt idealogy of secular humanism.
coming from a (conservative/libertarian) heterosexual male:
Why not remove the word marriage from all legal documents and replace it with "civil union." If you want to say you're married, you're married; but there wouldn't be any legal consequence unless a civil union contract/license is filed.
I have no problem with homosexuals getting married, but it seems like a big problem that many people have with the situation is that "marriage" have been turned into a religious word and concept (regardless of how the wedding takes place), and there are a lot of people out there who get offended when someone with a different belief system says something that disagrees with their individual belief structure.
My solution seems to me to be a simple compromise, in which all parties are granted equal rights. Please let me know if I'm missing some other part of this argument.
Commenting by HaloScan
