<quoted text> It would seem that this issue has been flip-flopping a lot. "From the enactment of legislation in 1971 to replace gendered pronouns with gender-neutral pronouns, until 1977, California Civil Code § 4100 defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary." This definition was uniformly interpreted as including only opposite-sex partners, but, because of worries that the language was unclear, Assembly Bill No. 607 was proposed and later passed to "prohibit persons of the same sex from entering lawful marriage." The act amended the Civil Code to define marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary." Since 1994, this language is found in § 300 of the Family Code" "City officials in San Francisco claimed that although the 2004 marriages were prohibited by state law, the state law was invalidated by the Equal Protection Clause. The mayor echoed this view, permitting the marriages because he believed the state law was unconstitutional. However, legislators and groups opposing same-sex marriages quickly reacted, filing a suit and requesting a court order to prevent the city from performing the ceremonies. Additionally, the California state agency that records marriages stated that altered forms, including any marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples, would not be registered. The legal validity of the marriages was tested in the courts, and the marriages were ultimately voided by the state Supreme Court." "As of June 16, 2008, gay couples can get married in California. The change in California marriage laws is due to the 5/15/08 California Supreme Court ruling that "the right to marry in California extends equally to all, gay and straight alike." Source: Bob Egelko, "State's top court strikes down marriage ban" From differing sources. Please, do not assume that I have not read up on the subject. It makes you look silly. It has not always been legal, hence, it was illegal, and is being bandied about. So, these rights were not always present for the gays, making my statement correct. These "rights" have been granted, then removed again. now, it is in flux.
Thanks for the clarification. Big D r u still confused?
<quoted text> Thanks for the clarification. Big D r u still confused?
Im not confised at all, California currently does recognize 18,000 legal same sex marrages.
There seem to be some folks that lack that information, go look it up.
You can try and bring a court case to force California to stop recognizing those marrages, a case you make where the government will step into a legally married family and foce and annulment, but the tea party stil;e big governemnt is losing steam, I doubt you would even get republicans to agree with it, but Prop 8 will be toast before you would even get a hearing anyway so the question is probably moot.
<quoted text> Well, it would seem to me that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment SHOULD guarantee us the right to the protections and benefits of marriage throughout the country. Obviously, people disagree with this. But from where I stand, that's what it means to me.
That already exists. The equal protection clause doesn't change men into women or vice versa. Marriage, prior to 2004, and today in 32 states, is a union of a man and a woman, valid in all fifty states.
<quoted text> To wed someone in a religious ceremony is entirely different than to legally marry someone.
True,but both are marriage ceremonies none the less.
I'm sure that people who wish to have multiple partners can wed if they find a pastor willing to do this. They do so with the understanding that state and federal governments do not recognize plural marriage.
Same as with SSM in non legal SSM states.
Marriage is not defined the same in all fifty states. Eleven states and the District of Columbia recognize marriage between same-gender partners.
True, however an OSM is recognized in all fifty states.
Should same-gender partners be forced to leave the state of their residency and move to a state that allows them to legally marry?
No one is forced to marry, nor leave,their state of residency to do so.
And what of the federal benefits and protections that are afforded to legally married opposite-gender couples? Shouldn't couples who are legally married in the eleven states and D.C. also be given federal benefits and protections?
Should the federal government be forced to recognized every and any marriage sanctioned by a state?
Here's something to ponder... If the U.S. were invaded next week by a serious enemy and the federal government enacted the draft in order to fight, gay and lesbian citizens of the U.S. would be required to enlist. They would be forced to defend the country--putting their lives on the line to protect you, me, and every other person living here. Is it right that gay and lesbian service personnel be denied the federal benefits and protections of marriage, yet be called upon to defend the country?
A person who serves his/her country militarily either as a volunteer or draftee, doesn't get to choose which laws are fair or not simply on the basis of his/her service. It's not fair that an 18 yr old can serve, but not consume an alcoholic beverage in some states.
Openly gay service personnel are doing just that--even as I type. Yet their spouses; people who they have legally married in states that have passed same-gender marriage laws, cannot live on base with their active duty spouse, cannot shop in a base exchange for groceries, clothing, cannot receive family VA treatment, etc.--all due to the Defense of Marriage Act. How is this fair?
Is it fair to force the federal government to recognize a relationship it does not wish to recognize?
Is a gay person's service to this country different than a straight person's service? Do gay people die differently in combat than straight people?
Do Catholics die differently than Muslims, or Jews, Mormons, or Protestants?
Gay and lesbian people DESERVE equal rights. It's that simple.
They have EQUAL rights, same as any other man or woman. No more no less.
<quoted text> The question isn't what harm, it is, does it equate.
No, that wasn't the question. It's your bias.
A piece of paper equating a fake relationship to marriage isn't going to fix the lack of commitment..
Presumptive and Kunty.
<quoted text> ..or the deprivation of a child's parent.
In spite of your best spin, marriage (or Holy Matrimony, for those of us who marry in places like the UCC) isn't about children. I've participated in hundreds of weddings, and only one had the couple's children involved in the ceremony.
This isn't rocket science... Snicker.
No, it isn't rocket science, so why do you try to complicate it with your own biases? When you boil it down to what it really is, it's really quite simple. Why must you over-think it. Oh, that's right, you're merely trolling.
<quoted text> No, that wasn't the question. It's your bias. <quoted text> Presumptive and Kunty. <quoted text> In spite of your best spin, marriage (or Holy Matrimony, for those of us who marry in places like the UCC) isn't about children. I've participated in hundreds of weddings, and only one had the couple's children involved in the ceremony. <quoted text> No, it isn't rocket science, so why do you try to complicate it with your own biases? When you boil it down to what it really is, it's really quite simple. Why must you over-think it. Oh, that's right, you're merely trolling. Troll on, Kuntmary.
"You're a troll" Said the cyber-stalking troll creep.
<quoted text> Wrong there are over 120,000 legally married same sex couples in the US right now, some 18,000 are right here in California. You cannot equate to reality is the problem, same sex marriage is not a question, it is a fact. Smile.
But different. A sterile duplicate half of real marriage.