Gay Marriage Debate - Livermore, CA

Discuss the national Gay Marriage debate in Livermore, CA.

Do you support gay marriage?

Livermore opposes
Oppose
 
91
Support
 
75

Vote now in Livermore:

Comments
1 - 20 of 110 Comments Last updated -
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

“Think,does it help or hurt?”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

" Because logic tells us so "

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jul 27, 2010
 
Because it's the right thing to do ! Religion should be kept out of secular societal issues ! It is also the Constitutional thing to do ! 14th Amendment,separate but equal is not equal !
Anon

Livermore, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jul 27, 2010
 
Rubbish, it is the wrong thing to do, first because there is no such thing as gay "marriage". Marriage is the union of a man and woman in matrimony, by definition. And marriage began as a religious tradition. Civil marriages, on the other hand, are nothing but contracts and can be handled with existing contract law - there is zero need to call it anything else.

One possible answer to this "problem" is not to allow "gay marriage" but to get rid of the institution of marriage in all forms. It apparently serves no use, has no societal benefit, and is bereft of any "interest" the State might derive. When the State no longer has any "interest" in something, it generally has no authority to regulate or perpetuate it.

I defy anyone to describe what interest the state has in marriage.

Please take into account the divorce rate, cost of dissolutions, etc, in your reply.
naes

San Ramon, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jul 27, 2010
 
Who gives a crap what people do behind closed doors? I don't, why should anyone?

You can't give some citizens rights while denying others. It's really that simple. Married folks get a pretty good tax deduction to boot.

It comes down to people forgetting that they aren't God themselves. If in fact it is a religious tradition, who is anyone to dictate what anothers religious beliefs should be. There are a lot of archaic laws in the old testament that we seem to ignore these days as well. Leave the judgements to God and mind your own business. Who knows, maybe same sex couples would have a lower divorce rate?! And if not, let them enjoy the "joys" of marriage and divorce as well!
Fred

Dublin, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jul 27, 2010
 
Yes, I do
Anon

Livermore, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jul 27, 2010
 
naes wrote:
Who gives a crap what people do behind closed doors? I don't, why should anyone?
You can't give some citizens rights while denying others. It's really that simple. Married folks get a pretty good tax deduction to boot.
It comes down to people forgetting that they aren't God themselves. If in fact it is a religious tradition, who is anyone to dictate what anothers religious beliefs should be. There are a lot of archaic laws in the old testament that we seem to ignore these days as well. Leave the judgements to God and mind your own business. Who knows, maybe same sex couples would have a lower divorce rate?! And if not, let them enjoy the "joys" of marriage and divorce as well!
I think you're kind of over-generalizing the issue. There are many other instances where some people have "rights" others do not, and that's pretty consistent in most cultures, over time. There has never been an egalitarian society, that I'm aware of, and any attempts at creating one, have been miserable failures and they have required the use of coercive and oppressive forces to even attempt.

So I don't agree that you can't give special privileges to some people and not to others, as this seems to be the general desire and direction of society; we're at heart judgmental creatures, we're comfortable with hierarchy and uncomfortable with egalitarianism, etc.

As for religion, I'm a non-theist and believe that religion is and has always been an impediment to the forward progress of human civilization and enlightenment.
naes

San Ramon, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jul 27, 2010
 
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you're kind of over-generalizing the issue. There are many other instances where some people have "rights" others do not, and that's pretty consistent in most cultures, over time. There has never been an egalitarian society, that I'm aware of, and any attempts at creating one, have been miserable failures and they have required the use of coercive and oppressive forces to even attempt.
So I don't agree that you can't give special privileges to some people and not to others, as this seems to be the general desire and direction of society; we're at heart judgmental creatures, we're comfortable with hierarchy and uncomfortable with egalitarianism, etc.
As for religion, I'm a non-theist and believe that religion is and has always been an impediment to the forward progress of human civilization and enlightenment.
I over generalize because it should be that easy to understand. If you believe that religion does nothing but hinder societies progress than what are you basing your denial of marriage on exactly? There are plenty of stupid people out there for example, but that doesn't give ME the right to deny them the right to vote, pursue happiness or have kids.
We are judgmental creatures but does that excuse behaviour like human Slavery? Oppressing woman? Putting Japanese citizens in internment camps? At some point we will realize that being a free society means that everyone is included no matter what they look like or what makes them orgasm.
Allowing Gay people to get married is hardly going to drive the country into the ground like so many people seem to think. The Tools in government are managing that all by themselves without Ellens help.
Anon

Livermore, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jul 27, 2010
 
I explained it already: Marriage has no valid "interest" to the State, at least none which it has articulated. Something in which they have no interest should not be under its purview or regulation.

Besides, marriage doesn't have much to do with pursuing happiness. Which is kind of a nebulous term to start with. Voting is though, a good example of a limited privilege bestowed upon citizens (so it goes with who you are), beyond a particular age.

As for having kids, various societies have denied that "right" to people at times. Perhaps the government has no right to deny people this, but it surely has the right not to promote it, or pay for it.

You're getting into affirmative areas here, which touch upon what I see as going far beyond the function of Constitutional government. If you want to keep inventing new rights and entitlements, then its a slippery slope indeed. Rather if you want to stick with what the government is really chartered to do, regulating marriage wouldn't be in the list.

I just think the government should get out of the marriage business. It's divisive and is providing no benefits.
noname

Santa Clara, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jul 27, 2010
 
I don't need to explain my vote.
naes

San Ramon, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jul 27, 2010
 
Allowing gay marriage isn't allowing new rights or entitlemnts its allowing everyone to enjoy the benefits that are afforded to those who can "legally" get married.

Since you pay for a marriage license through a government agency, as a tax payer you cannot be discriminated against for getting one. I'm amazed at how people are so charged over this issue but don't raise a peep about issues that really effect them.

I agree that the government has no business being in the marriage business but that isn't the issue. The issue is that they are and until they aren't a law banning consenting adults the rights of other consenting adults based on their sexual preference is unconstitutional. Remember when bi-racial marriages were against the law?

I agree that the government has no business promoting social issues, like child birth, But there's a certian sect of folks who believe that if something is legal than everyone's gonna go out and do it and the whole country is gonna burn in hell. Their interests are the special interests that pump billions into canidates to promote the agenda they want. How much money do you think was contributed to both camps when prop 8 came up? Most canidates build their war chests by donations not working overtimne at their desk jobs.

I'm well aware of what the government should be taking care of and long for the day when States themselves get their power back.
Anon

Livermore, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jul 27, 2010
 
naes wrote:
Allowing gay marriage isn't allowing new rights or entitlemnts its allowing everyone to enjoy the benefits that are afforded to those who can "legally" get married.
But the criteria for what's "legal" is only derived from public opinion and consensus in the first place. It is society's judgement, the will of the people, so to speak. This is why there is no national definition of what constitutes unlawful sexual conduct. It is a state issue, because it is derived from community values. Like "age of consent" laws or laws setting a lawful drinking age.
naes wrote:
Since you pay for a marriage license through a government agency, as a tax payer you cannot be discriminated against for getting one.
That is hardly true. The State gets to decide who can legally drive, don't they? And we pay for that driver's license. You have to pass a test. Driving is a privilege. You pay for regular ID, too, but the government doesn't have to issue it to anyone who demands it. You have to qualify as a person who is eligible. You can use the court system, but you have to pay for that as well. These are all exercises of privilege, the license to affirmatively seek a particular status or action from the state. Like letting you drive on their roads, or use the authority of their identification scheme to impress others, or bring legal action against others. Marriage is a license, that's why it is called a Marriage License. License means the leave to do something, at the behest of the authority. Fishing license, right to fish under the terms and conditions of the license. Hunting license, same thing. Pilot's license. All the same idea.
naes wrote:
I'm amazed at how people are so charged over this issue but don't raise a peep about issues that really effect them.
I agree that the government has no business being in the marriage business but that isn't the issue. The issue is that they are and until they aren't a law banning consenting adults the rights of other consenting adults based on their sexual preference is unconstitutional. Remember when bi-racial marriages were against the law?
I don't remember it, but I am aware of the time period, yes.

However, the qualification for marriage has zilch to do with sexual preference, and is only concerned with gender. The law says that marriage is a union of a man, and a woman. This is what the voters have decided. Any man, and any woman, who meets the criteria, can avail themselves of this privilege. If it treated women differently from men, then it would be discriminatory on the basis of gender. If it treated gay men different from straight men, it would be discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation. However, everyone gets the same opportunity under the law, which is to marry a person of the opposite gender. Marriage is just a contract, so if you want to get married, get married. If you don't want, then don't. Knock yourself out.

The California gay marriage lawsuit shouldn't even be heard by the courts, because there isn't any cause of action, no discrimination. The plaintiffs don't even have standing. You don't have to be straight to be married. It might make it more complicated or challenging for you, personally, but there is no test to screen you out specifically that applies only to you and not to everyone else, there are no government imposed hurdles to clear. Just qualify and you're married.

naes wrote:
I agree that the government has no business promoting social issues,
So on which basis do you approve of them regulating marriage at all, if not for these social issues?

What is the basis for your insistence on marriage and its subsequent extension to everyone?
naes wrote:
I'm well aware of what the government should be taking care of and long for the day when States themselves get their power back.
I don't think you are.
naes

San Ramon, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jul 28, 2010
 
Again,“societies judgement “ and “the will of the people” is not always right or fair to everyone within it. It is a State issue I agree, so there was no need for the Federal Government to pass the In Defense of Marriage act was there? Unfortunately or fortunately,“Section 3 of the law—the part that defines marriage for federal purposes as the union of a man and a woman—was ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court judge in July 2010”. Are the laws against polygamy federal? I'm not sure.

All of those licenses you mentioned are not restricted by gender. The issue here is what the criteria is that makes the marriage license obtainable. When I got my marriage license my wife and I didn’t have to take a test. I don’t take a test for my fishing license either; I just put some personal info on it and bam I have one. If I go to the DMV fill out my paperwork, hand them $15 and ask for an ID they can’t deny me one if I’m a woman, right? I’m well aware of what the rules are for obtaining a Marriage license but my point is that it isn’t a fair. I’d also argue that using the court system is a right and not a privilege and when I drive around the state I’m on my roads, not the States.

On the surface it only deals with gender but it’s critieria does discriminate by gender and sexual preference. Like you said it is just a contract between two consenting adults so what is the big deal really?

I’m comfortable with the State issuing a certificate and the processing of that certificate- that is it. I’d actually be fine with it being done on a county level too.
Married people are given credits and discounts when it comes to income tax as well as on Health and other Insurance policies. It doesn’t seem right to deny a gay couple willing to make the same commitment a straight couple would make the same privileges. I don’t think gay folks getting married is going to ruin marriage as we know it- heterosexual couples have done a great job at that all by themselves!

Based on my position regarding gay marriage I am not aware of what government should be doing? That’s pretty open minded of you.
bryler

San Francisco, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jul 28, 2010
 
Yes!!! Let life be equal and fair...if marriage is so sacred ban divorce!
Anon

Newark, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jul 28, 2010
 
It ain't right!
Anon

Livermore, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jul 28, 2010
 
naes wrote:
Again,“societies judgement “ and “the will of the people” is not always right or fair to everyone within it. It is a State issue I agree, so there was no need for the Federal Government to pass the In Defense of Marriage act was there? Unfortunately or fortunately,“Section 3 of the law—the part that defines marriage for federal purposes as the union of a man and a woman—was ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court judge in July 2010”. Are the laws against polygamy federal? I'm not sure.
I'm not familiar with the ruling so I can't comment on the reasoning, but there is certainly nothing unconstitutional about defining marriage to be whatever people want it to be. You could apply what I'm guessing is the same argument to rule that age of consent laws are unconstitutional as well, or to argue that having bathrooms that say "Men" or "Women" on them are unconstitutional. I'd have to examine the ruling but it doesn't sound like it would be logic that is particular to marriage. There isn't anything special about marriage.
naes wrote:
All of those licenses you mentioned are not restricted by gender.
True, but we already have many gender specific laws. You gonna invalidate them all with the argument that such restrictions are inherently "unconstitutional"?
naes wrote:
The issue here is what the criteria is that makes the marriage license obtainable. When I got my marriage license my wife and I didn’t have to take a test.
In some states the test is a blood test, I believe. In any case, you pay for it, so its a privilege, not a right. We don't pay for our rights in this country. Think about that. Do you have to go buy a "free speech" license? You wanna go hang with your buddy, do you need a "freedom of association" permit? Nope.
naes wrote:
I don’t take a test for my fishing license either; I just put some personal info on it and bam I have one.
True, but you're still buying the privilege. You don't have the right to fish. You have a *license* to fish. Who decided it was fair that you can't just fish where you want, when you want?
naes wrote:
If I go to the DMV fill out my paperwork, hand them $15 and ask for an ID they can’t deny me one if I’m a woman, right?
Well, when you go to get a marriage license they can't deny you one because you aren't a licensed driver, so I guess its even?
Anon

Livermore, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jul 28, 2010
 
naes wrote:
I’m well aware of what the rules are for obtaining a Marriage license but my point is that it isn’t a fair.
What is "fair"? What does that even mean? It means you don't like it, it seems to me. But it doesn't mean anything besides that. What is to stop someone from arguing that it isn't "fair" that there is a speed limit, or that their 15 year old girlfriend isn't "legal"? Is it fair that raising and smoking certain species of plants is illegal? Fair is just a word for what people have formed opinions about. That's all it is.
naes wrote:
I’d also argue that using the court system is a right and not a privilege and when I drive around the state I’m on my roads, not the States.
Using the court system costs money, it is not your right. You have a right to pay the court to hear your complaint, but you don't have a right to use the courts for free. The courts exist to enforce contracts. If you don't enter into contracts then you have no reason to use the courts. As for torts, your court costs are reimbursable by the defendants, if you win.
naes wrote:
On the surface it only deals with gender but it’s critieria does discriminate by gender and sexual preference. Like you said it is just a contract between two consenting adults so what is the big deal really?
What criteria? How does it discriminate by gender? It gives everyone exactly the same license. Just because some people don't feel the license is applicable to their situation, doesn't make it discriminatory.
naes wrote:
I’m comfortable with the State issuing a certificate and the processing of that certificate- that is it. I’d actually be fine with it being done on a county level too.
Married people are given credits and discounts when it comes to income tax as well as on Health and other Insurance policies.
I'm pretty sure there is no break on taxes. But, don't hold me to that, I'd have to check. So this is just about the bennies? Is that what I'm hearing?
naes wrote:
It doesn’t seem right to deny a gay couple willing to make the same commitment a straight couple would make the same privileges.
Well, on that basis what's wrong with my 15 year old girlfriend? Or two or three wives? Perhaps I can make the same commitment to all of them. No, that doesn't fly at all. The fact is, just like "underage sex" and polygamy, society doesn't like it and doesn't care about the level of commitment. So it has said it isn't legal. It is what it is - an opinion.
naes wrote:
I don’t think gay folks getting married is going to ruin marriage as we know it- heterosexual couples have done a great job at that all by themselves!
I never thought that was a valid argument either. I was quite surprised to hear that the Prop 8 folks were going to lead with that one. The State has never articulated it has any "interest" in marriage, so why would it accept an argument that there is a societal interest in marriage? There isn't even any case law about marriage having any benefit to the State at all, whatsoever. Not one case.

In my opinion what the Prop 8 folks should instead have led with is that the law is not discriminatory, because it gives everyone the same deal. That's the argument.
Anon

Livermore, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jul 28, 2010
 
naes wrote:
I’d also argue that using the court system is a right and not a privilege and when I drive around the state I’m on my roads, not the States.
I wanted to ask you about this comment, because I didn't understand it. What do you mean by it?
DONT OVERTURN MY VOTE

San Ramon, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jul 29, 2010
 
ITS BETWEEN A MAN + WOMEN. institution OF FAMILY
naes

San Ramon, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jul 29, 2010
 
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
I wanted to ask you about this comment, because I didn't understand it. What do you mean by it?
So eveyone that goes through the court system is paying? Parolee's and folks picked up for breaking te law have to swip the ir atm card before they go before a judge? Did they stop appointing Attorneys as well?
Anon

Livermore, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jul 29, 2010
 
naes wrote:
<quoted text>
So eveyone that goes through the court system is paying? Parolee's and folks picked up for breaking te law have to swip the ir atm card before they go before a judge? Did they stop appointing Attorneys as well?
In a sense, yes. As I said, people who use the civil court system pay for that privilege. And of course when the government drags you into its own courts over some criminal matter you don't pay, although defendants of both kinds are often ordered to pay fines and fees imposed to cover court costs. You haven't spent much time in court, eh?
Anon

Livermore, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jul 29, 2010
 
But what I really didn't get is this comment "and when I drive around the state I’m on my roads, not the States." What do you mean by it?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 6
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Livermore Discussions

Search the Livermore Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Reviving Stivers Academy? (May '11) 4 hr Jim horn 36
gangs in livermore (Nov '08) 7 hr Ssophiiee 66
Complaints about Livermore PD... (May '12) Wed Nick 71
Drop a Word ~ Add a Word (Nov '11) Wed texas pete 4,635
Word Association Game... (Oct '12) Wed SUG here 1,328
Last Post Wins (Dec '11) Wed Concerned_American 3,879
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Jul 22 Ronald 2,251

Livermore Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]