Breaking: California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage

Thank you for making my point. The info on religion and age is mostly what I was talking about. Also issues that involve a specific persons occupation might help in how to answer a question or even if you want to answer the question.

How can someone that is anonymous ever be menaced by others on the internet?

I believe that the reason they got around this statute is the fact that they gave the same legal rights to SSC with the title of “union” thus negating the necessity of consummation. So one regulation made the other moot. Laws and regulations can not conflict.

This is why I said before that there should be no Civil Unions. Legal remedies for any persons that want to become a partnership understate law yes. Just not Marriage under another name with no consummation required.

Just conceding that someone might take the info they gather from the profile and use it against that person. If my profile were to say that I am Catholic and someone were to desire to cyber-flog me for it, then that would be an example of the “witch hunt” that Strummer alluded to.

Well I don’t know what cyberflog is.:confused: Information given about oneself should not be something anyone can make you feel bad about. Not everyone might like what you say about yourself but it is what you said and thus not something to be ashamed or hurt by.

Cyberflogging…a word I just made up. :stuck_out_tongue: It’s just a demonstration of someone in the forums attacking your posts.

I’ve seen folks on these forums dig through other peoples profiles to chastise them. “You SAY you’re Catholic, but you sound like an atheist/protestant/secularist/”, or whatever. Or there’s the “You’re too young to get it.” Or “Oh no wonder…you’re from California!”

Okay…I’m all done hijacking the thread. Carry on please… :rolleyes:

In talking about some of the issues mentioned above last night, a friend and I came up with a quandry:
A man gets married to another man in California. He moves with his spouse to Oklahoma. The man seeks a divorce, but such isn’t possible there. Instead, lawyers sort out a division of their joint assets. Then he marries a local woman. He and his new wife move back to California.
Does the state[LIST=1]
*]Recognize as valid the new marriage
*]Recognize the old marriage as still valid
*]Arrest the man for polygamy
:hmmm: :smiley: [/LIST]

Wow, that’s a good question!

And it gets even more complicated since California is a community property state. Let’s suppose that after all this, our fictional man dies. If the state recognizes only the first “marriage,” then the first “spouse” would have all rights to the entire estate, since no divorce occurred. But if he married the woman in another community property state, and that state recognized only the second marriage, what then? The wife was legally married to him, so she should have all rights to the entire estate.

I can see this creating all kinds of legal nightmares.

This is exactly why I think this issues must be taken up at a federal level. It is an interstate “commerce” (for the lack of a better word) issue.

And why the legalization of gay marriage should be made the law of the land in all 50 states.

Avoiding difficulties is not a reason why we should change society.

Or, perhaps why it should be banned in all 50 states.

I wasn’t saying it should be. It is my prayer that if the federal government takes it up they would side with not allowing gay marriages.

After a few days away, I have finally made it through the 621st post on this thread, and would like to go back to #551 posted by Kay Cee.

Did I miss a response to this, or is there not yet one? I find this line of reasoning the truest of the lot, and would like to see more comment along this line, if anyone is willing.

Thank you. I too would like to see a response to this.

Your wish is my command.

This falls under the exceptions don’t make the rule I’m sure, but I’d much rather be cared for by a loving same sex couple that understands me than a heterosexual one that is confused by me to the point of distancing themselves to the point of seeming like aliens.

How about marriage is simply about two people who love each other who wish to raise children? Two is ideal even in a same sex relationship for many reasons, because it allows for constant contact with the children, and the possibility of a breadwinner/caregiver split just like the traditional family. Any more than two just causes problems, ‘too many chiefs’

Is the traditional family prefered? Sure, but with a 50% divorce rate not even the children of straight parents get to see it all that often.

This is why I would prefer some sort of civil union. I think the government should completely remove itself from marriage. It can setup civil unions, and a marriage can also count as a civil union ceremony legally speaking, this means that it is impossible for the government or the ‘gay agenda’ to ever force marriage on a church, because it won’t even be in the business of marriage at all, only in the business of civil unions. Marriage will remain where it matters, as a religious ceremony and vocation.

I don’t care about the word ‘marriage’ being attached to my partner and I’s relationship. I just want to be able to visit him in the hospital when he’s in a coma, I just want to be able to share my insurance with him, and vice versa, I just want to be able to do our taxes together. All of our money, spending, income, savings, retirement is all jumbled together. It is absolutely a nightmare come tax time.

We simply can’t do things that people take for granted. Loans don’t work right, even simple things like shopping for a car, or a house turn into debates and paperwork flying back and forth with lawyers involved, thousands of dollars wasted just because there is no official recognition of our eight year relationship.

Love is not the only factor, although it is of course important. Children should have both a male and a female role model, in a loving marriage. That would be ideal, and shouldn’t the law strive to create the ideal situation for children, instead of legally establishing a less than ideal situation?

How about marriage is simply about two people who love each other who wish to raise children? Two is ideal even in a same sex relationship for many reasons, because it allows for constant contact with the children, and the possibility of a breadwinner/caregiver split just like the traditional family. Any more than two just causes problems, ‘too many chiefs’

A doubt those in a polygamous cult would agree with you. They would probably say more parents allow for more contact with the children.

Is the traditional family prefered? Sure, but with a 50% divorce rate not even the children of straight parents get to see it all that often.

How does this relate to gay marriage? If heterosexual marriages are having problems, shouldn’t we be working on that instead of redefining marriage?

This is why I would prefer some sort of civil union. I think the government should completely remove itself from marriage. It can setup civil unions, and a marriage can also count as a civil union ceremony legally speaking, this means that it is impossible for the government or the ‘gay agenda’ to ever force marriage on a church, because it won’t even be in the business of marriage at all, only in the business of civil unions. Marriage will remain where it matters, as a religious ceremony and vocation.

Well, good luck with that. You’ll be told you’re not allowing equal protection under the law. I imagine atheists would squawk at this, claiming they can’t get married since they don’t believe in religion.

I don’t care about the word ‘marriage’ being attached to my partner and I’s relationship. I just want to be able to visit him in the hospital when he’s in a coma, I just want to be able to share my insurance with him, and vice versa, I just want to be able to do our taxes together. All of our money, spending, income, savings, retirement is all jumbled together. It is absolutely a nightmare come tax time.

We simply can’t do things that people take for granted. Loans don’t work right, even simple things like shopping for a car, or a house turn into debates and paperwork flying back and forth with lawyers involved, thousands of dollars wasted just because there is no official recognition of our eight year relationship.

Sorry you have problems, but redefining marriage will create another set of legal nightmares, as pointed out in posts above. Personally, I don’t have a problem with anybody, gay or straight, legally establishing another person as a beneficiary, a person to oversee medical care, a person to jointly own property, etc. I do have a problem with calling it a marriage.

BTW, you didn’t address my point about incestuous marriage at all. That was my main argument! Marriage has to mean more than just two people in a committed, long-term relationship, or else why not allow incestuous ones?

I don’t have much of an argument for polygamy, because I don’t actually think it could be prevented. It goes on right now, look at the FLDS cult in the news. If it was so illegal, why can’t we just arrest them all for polygamy? No one has done so. Why? Because we don’t want to trample their religious beliefs.

If people want to try to keep that many wives/husbands happy, then by all means let them try! For legal purposes though, you could only have one spouse, why? Because you would be abusing the tax system, abusing the network that the government has setup by having a lopsided relationship.

As for incest? I did address it, but not directly. I think even with same-sex relationships the goal should be for raising children. My partner and I will adopt eventually. I have worked with children all my life, just because they did not come from my barren body does not mean I cannot be a good mother, nor my partner a good father.

Incest is known to be unhealthy both genetically speaking and psychologically speaking. There is no ethical, legal, or financial reason why a government should recognize such a situation.

If we are not dealing with a traditional or union, at what level of consanguinity and on what basis would you suggest prohibiting unions on the basis of incest? Should we allow a union of first cousins? Second cousins? Brothers-in-law? An uncle with his nephew?

Because the basis of the union is for raising children, whether it is same-sex or opposite-sex.

The individual’s activities must not clash with the framework of the Community and must be for the common good.

That is why it is just to have a law against homosexual marriage.

In addition, in the West, we have 1,500 years of tradition, custom, and law which proscribes homosexual marriage.

Is it just that a Gang of Four Judges changes the very fabric of the Community in a few paragraphs???

And because these Judges ruled that way, that does not mean that their decision is either a correct decision or a just decision.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.