California Legislature Approves Gay Marriage

[Eva121]

I understand it when you say it's not the right time now,or their are bigger issues now,but... for these people it's a huge issue, and is there ever a right time? there are always gonna be other problems and issues to deal with, you can't just keep pushing this back.

And I also understand Christians in this matter,but as long as they can't get married in church I don't see the problem. I think it's sad that so many gay couples would love to get married and can't, but straight couples can just go and get married in church,without even meaning it,just for the whole "show". Maybe it's not like that in the US,but it sure is over here (except that gay couples can get married

) That's why to me,marriage (in church) just doesn't seem so sacred anymore, it's a show for friends and family these days.

 

[Marisol]

Originally Posted by Joyeuux I admire you for this viewpoint girl_geek.
As for me, I support gay marriage.

Ditto on both counts!
Tony - I am glad that you posted this topic. I like the fact that we can post controversial issues that affect us all in one way or another and that we are able to discuss them like adults.

 

[girl_geek]

Originally Posted by Eva121 I think it's sad that so many gay couples would love to get married and can't, but straight couples can just go and get married in church,without even meaning it,just for the whole "show". Maybe it's not like that in the US,but it sure is over here (except that gay couples can get married

) That's why to me,marriage (in church) just doesn't seem so sacred anymore, it's a show for friends and family these days. Oh, I doubt it's much different here, the divorce rate even among Christians is 50% for one! However there are still some of us who view our own marriages as sacred if nothing else!

We said our vows in front of the officiant, guests, and God!

Quote:
I admire you for this viewpoint girl_geek. Thanks guys! I get annoyed when people of other viewpoints refuse to at least consider or acknowledge my side, so I figure I should be open to others as well!

Honestly if I wasn't a Christian I would probably have some different opinions on things!

 

[omegakitty]

I just wanted to chime in--i absolutely think gay marriage should be legal. I think it is an individual's right to marry who they want and live their own life according to their own belief system. JMHO.

 

[Laurs]

I'm not Christian. In fact, I just don't believe in religion at all.

I'm all for gay marriages being legal. I don't see why they shouldn't be. For the people who don't think it should be legal, who are you to say what other people can and cannot do? Who are you to push your religious beliefs on someone else?

I'm an extremely open-minded person, and I don't mind if someone disagrees with gay marriages; but it's the ignorant comments that I've heard from closed-minded people like, "Gay people should just die," "Can't they find someone of the opposite sex?" It's stuff like that that really gets to me.

Also, I don't see how the word "marriage" shouldn't be used. You have people like Britney Spears, Jennifer Lopez, Elizabeth Taylor, and everyday people running around getting married in a church like, ten times within five years (exaggeration, but you get the point). I think the word has lost the "sacred" meaning a long time ago when divorce was brought into the picture.

If a man all the way across the country gets married to another man, how in the world does that affect you personally? It doesn't. It just goes against your beliefs, which is fine 'cause they're your beliefs, but they shouldn't be pushed upon someone else.

I also feel the same way about gay people being able to adopt. Sorry, this topic gets me really heated.

 

[Geek]

Well, today I read that Arnold will VETO it bigtime.

Citing Prop. 22, Gov. Rejects Gay Marriage Bill

A day after California's Legislature became the first in the nation to pass a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced through an aide Wednesday that he would veto the measure "out of respect for the will of the people."

In a careful statement, Schwarzenegger press secretary Margita Thompson invoked the voter approval in March 2000 of Proposition 22, which said: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

"The governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action — which would be unconstitutional — but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state," the statement said. "We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote."

Key Statement:

"We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote."

The is how screwed up CA Legislature is. The PEOPLE of the state vote down a proposition and the legislature overturns it.

 

[Marisol]

Question that sort of relates to this topic - do you think Arnold will be re-elected?

 

[bluebee]

Sorry ladies but I have to agree with LilyinDavis on this one. How it affects me? One I am raising children in a society where to be gay is being considered "normal" and traditional. Where 15 yr olds are saying I've know I was gay or attracted to the same sex since I was 5. Come on now. Society is trying PUSH being gay an acceptable issue and that marrying or being in a relationship with somone of the same sex is a normal and as natural as a Sunday but it's not. Regardless, if you are religious or not. It is UNNATURAL. There's a man & woman, sun & moon, night & day that's just the way it is.

I don't think it's right that people try to make it seem as if you can love anyone, it's your choice/right to love whom you want ect ect.. there are moral issues here folks b/c then if that's the case then 12 year olds should be allowed to marry 50 yr olds, mothers should be allowed to marry their sons, fathers to daughters ect and it shouldn't be frowned upon.

It's not my business whom choices to marry whom but it is my business to teach my children that homosexuality is not acceptable regardless who is is doing it. Before anyone asks the famous "what if your child tells you he/she were gay". My answer I respect my child's adult decision for their lifestyle (as it is my child) however, I will not accept the behavior.

@Eva—The question is why do gays/lesbians have to be married in a church. If one knows the church is unacceptable to the idea. Make other arrangements. If they bill is passed why can’t they have weddings in other places with a judge.

@Lorus—For the people who do think it should be legal, who are you to say what other people can and cannot think? Who are you to push your nonreligious beliefs on someone else? If a man all the way across the country gets marries a 8 year old girl, how in the world does that affect you personally? It doesn't. It just goes against your beliefs, which is fine 'cause they're your beliefs, but they shouldn't be pushed upon someone else.<O

</O

@Geekgirl—Agreed. The divorce rate among Christians is 50% but if gays/lesbians were allowed to get married in time it the numbers would be just as high.

To each is their own for their life choice but please don't try to say to those that are not on the "gay bandwagon" we are closed or narrow minded because we don't agree with it or choose to stick with traditional beliefs and values.

 

[bluebee]

P.S. My hubby recently had a HR meeting at his company about new health/life insurance policies from his company. The new updates were a person that worked for the company could put his/her life partner on insurance if they'd been together (co-habitating) for longer than 6 months.

He has a subordinate that's getting married this December and his fiancee is a full time grad student that graduates next May. So that means those of you who are co-habitiating boyfriends he would not be allowed to put you on his health insurance plan unless you got married regardless if you are dating or co-habitating for a year or even in engaged.

 

[Geek2]

I totally agree with you Bluebee. I think we have to draw the line of "free" society somewhere. Marriage is between a man and a woman (that's why a man is called a husband and a woman is called a wife) and that's how I'm going to raise my child. If my son were to say someday as an adult that he is gay and only wants to be with men, of course I would love him and support his decision but I still don't think it gives him any special rights in life. I don't understand why people have to push gay/lesbian lifestyle everywhere. You see gay marches etc. Do you ever see heterosexual marches anywhere? Just because someone is lesbian or gay why should they be treated differently (meaning have special rights)? Who they love is up to them and should not be judged by anyone based on that but I don't think it gives them the right to ask for special treatment from the society. Why should a life partner have a right for health insurance through their partner at work when a man and a woman living together without being married can't be on the same health insurance? I think gay/lesbian couples are different from the norm and unfortunately that's the way it is. I don't think a child should be raised in a home of a 2 men or 2 women. It's just not right for the child. Imagine the child having to tell at school that he or she is not coming from a family of a father and a mother. Even divorced parent's kids at least have a mother and a father even though they are not living in the same household. What people choose to do in their bedroom is up to them and that does not affect me nor concern me however I don't want that to be pushed everywhere as a normal thing to do (I don't want to see 2 men kissing publicly or on TV for example). I'm sorry sex between 2 men or 2 women is not "normal". If people choose to do it for their own preference then that's one thing. There is a reason a man and a woman is build with different body parts and can only reproduce a certain way. I believe that people choose a gay or lesbian lifestyle due to different reasons and there is nothing bad about that. It's just something that brings them happiness and works for them and that's fine. Maybe something dramatic happened in their life that made them this way. For example a horrible mother son relationship may result in a man being attracted to other men because he feels that a woman can't be worth loving and trusting nor sexually attractive or a sexually abused girl ends up being attracted to only women later in life because she carries the horror of sexual abuse and can't imagine being attracted to nor living with a man. I just don't believe that a child is born either gay or lesbian. I'm listening to my 4-year old boy talk and ask about kissing and girls already because of his own curiosity. It's normal part of a child's development. I can't imagine him talking or wondering about 2 men kissing nor him coming home from school telling me that such and such boy is cute. I seriously doubt that a 5 year old can be gay. It's been proven that sexuality and curiosity about it starts at a very young age. Many toddlers play with their body parts etc and that is very normal. Sexuality is a very delicate thing because life experiences (both good and bad) shape people's sexuality and their sexual behaviour and it all starts from home and parenting at a very early age.

 

[Eva121]

I understand all the opinions posted above.

However,the traditional "family" almost doesn't exist anymore,people get divorced,people have children without being married,people get married again and create "new families". Is it "normal" for a child when his parents get divorced when he's 5 and his parents each get new partners every once in a while and he has to adjust to this situation everytime? It's not,but straight people can do whatever they want.

That's what bothers me,I totally respect your opinions, but I don't like the fact that straight people can just do what they want and gay people can't.

I understand you want to hold on to tradition and (your) values, but surely what some straight people do must be against those beliefs and values as well.

I'd rather see a kid being raised by 2 loving parents from the same sex that are a strong,good couple, than a kid being in a "normal family" but not being raised well and lovingly.

So all I'm saying is, I understand you guys,but I feel that straight couples can get away with things that I think are a lot worse than a kid being raised by gay people.

 

[Andi]

I`m 100% for gay marriage. I´m glad to see many of you here are with me on that topic. what I just don´t understand: why should there be a different word for this (civil union I guess) when it´s 100% the same thing. going to church and having your wedding there doesn´t change a thing in the relationship of 2 people. they won´t love each other more or less, it´s just an official tradition for religious people. and it won´t lower the value of marriage since I believe this has been happening over the last few years already. people are getting married for various reasons, sometimes for no real reason, sometimes not having known each other for more than a few hours, getting married for a green card, for a better life, for having a father for their child....whatever there is. look at how many people get divorced!!! marriage has lost it´s value and this is making me so sad. that´s why I don´t get it when people say marriage is sacred and should be kept to straight couples. what is there sacred about marriage anymore?

although I was born a catholic I don´t consider myself religious anymore, I never felt the need to believe in god, I DO believe that if 2 people get married and have thought about their decision for a good deal of time and are totally committed to each other and have a good marriage without lying, cheating and all that bad stuff.....this is something sacred in my opinion. sacred in the means of-this is somehing we should look up to. but marriage itself is not sacred for most people anymore

I think you should be able to choose where you want to get married and how, but WHY should there be a different term for this? just because the word marriage is grounded on religion? if some of us can accept gay people having relationships, then why can´t we accept that they get "MARRIED"? what´s the big deal about using this word? it´s JUST a word!!!

on another point: I can´t understand why Arnold Schwarzenegger is going to veto on this. if it´s the people´s decision he should keep his thoughts to himself and let them have their will. I hope he´s not being re-elected (in fact I wonder WHY he even got elected in the first place. and keep in mind that I´m Austrian too, and in my country not many people think that he was the right person to become governor anyway although we are proud that he has come so far in his life and obtained his VIP status, being a fellow countryman)

 

[bluebee]

@Eva--Do you not think if same sex marriage were allowed those same theories wouldn't apply to them? Do you think gays/lesbians wouldn't get divorced, lesbiands won't have children without being married (or gays in relationships parenting children), or get married again and create "new families"?

Is it "normal" for a child when his parents get divorced when he's 5 and his gay parents each get new partners every once in a while and he has to adjust to this situation everytime?

@Arielle--I wasn't married in a church, I got hitched in Vegas. If gays want to get married quit pushing the church issue and marry in Vegas as you stated it doesn´t change a thing in the relationship of two people as they won't love each other more or less. Why try to force an issue when you already know the outcome? It's like an miniority walking into a KKK rally asking for acceptance.

Ask why would a gay/lesbian couple want to use the word "marriage" if it's grounded on religion. A religion that says that homosexuality is wrong. It would appear to me that using the prefer to use a word that doesn't condemn what you want to achieve. Use another word. Also, if marriage isn't sacred for most people anymore wouldn't gays want to steer clear of that terminology to represent their parternship/union especially if sacred in your defintion is not lying, cheating, and other bad stuff in the relationship?

 

[Andi]

Originally Posted by Elise What I DO think is unnatural is being a virgin until you are married. Of course people are free to stay virgin for as long as they like and I certainly think no less of them but it is still UNNATURAL. Being faithful to one person is also unnatural. It just doesn't happen a lot in nature. Also according to this logic, the decision not to have any children is unnatural. Should we try to cure them of such an unnatural decision? So this arguement that it isn't natural because people of the same sex can't reproduce just doesn't mean anyhting to me. well said, Elise. I think we should never accuse gays as not being "normal" and explain this by saying "there is no such thing in nature". all the things you listed above explain why this is a wrong thing to say. who are we to say what is normal and what isn´t.
people who have that opinion should try to think about how it would be if they were in those people´s shoes. how it would feel to be called not normal although you´re probably a nice person and don´t hurt anybody with the way you live your life, you´re just different than other people and that´s what makes your way of life unnatural and wrong ???? doesn´t seem fair to me to push your standards on everybody else

 

[Laurs]

I'm not pushing non-religious beliefs upon anyone, and for the record, my name is Laurs--not Lorus.

I'm just saying that limiting other people to your beliefs or someone else's beliefs is just wrong, IMO. It's isn't physically harming anyone, threatening anyone's life, etc. Therefore, if someone wants to get married to someone of the same-sex, I think it should be allowed. I know that 95% of the reason that people don't want them to be able to get married is because of religion; well, I firmly believe in the separation of State and religion. If it's legal to for homosexuals to get married, you can teach your child the other way--your way. After all, it is your child.

I've noticed that the saying is true: history repeats mistakes. Or something along those lines. /emoticons/[email protected] 2x" width="20" height="20" /> Way back when African-Americans and white people were not allowed to marry 'cause everyone viewed it as wrong, immoral, blah, blah, blah--you get the picture. They were being discriminated against because of their skin; now you have people being discriminated against because of their sexuality.

And, no, you cannot help who you love. Trust me, I've been in the situation--just not with a girl.

And actually, there's a study somewhere (I can Google it if you like) that states that even wild animals are homosexual. My friend talked to me about it and showed it to me. So if homosexual tendencies "isn't natural," then why are animals in the wild homosexuals?

 

[Geek]

Originally Posted by Arielle

I`m 100% for gay marriage. I´m glad to see many of you here are with me on that topic. what I just don´t understand: why should there be a different word for this (civil union I guess) when it´s 100% the same thing. going to church and having your wedding there doesn´t change a thing in the relationship of 2 people. they won´t love each other more or less, it´s just an official tradition for religious people. and it won´t lower the value of marriage since I believe this has been happening over the last few years already. people are getting married for various reasons, sometimes for no real reason, sometimes not having known each other for more than a few hours, getting married for a green card, for a better life, for having a father for their child....whatever there is. look at how many people get divorced!!! marriage has lost it´s value and this is making me so sad. that´s why I don´t get it when people say marriage is sacred and should be kept to straight couples. what is there sacred about marriage anymore?
although I was born a catholic I don´t consider myself religious anymore, I never felt the need to believe in god, I DO believe that if 2 people get married and have thought about their decision for a good deal of time and are totally committed to each other and have a good marriage without lying, cheating and all that bad stuff.....this is something sacred in my opinion. sacred in the means of-this is somehing we should look up to. but marriage itself is not sacred for most people anymore

I think you should be able to choose where you want to get married and how, but WHY should there be a different term for this? just because the word marriage is grounded on religion? if some of us can accept gay people having relationships, then why can´t we accept that they get "MARRIED"? what´s the big deal about using this word? it´s JUST a word!!!

on another point: I can´t understand why Arnold Schwarzenegger is going to veto on this. if it´s the people´s decision he should keep his thoughts to himself and let them have their will. I hope he´s not being re-elected (in fact I wonder WHY he even got elected in the first place. and keep in mind that I´m Austrian too, and in my country not many people think that he was the right person to become governor anyway although we are proud that he has come so far in his life and obtained his VIP status, being a fellow countryman)




Andrea, sorry to say that you are misinformed on Arnold Schwarzenegger and I hope you can read up on it and not speculate.

The people of California voted on a proposition (22) to prevent recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries. The People voted on it! If the people pass a proposition and the law makers ignore that, what kind of democracy is that? Arnold Schwarzenegger is protecting the people of CA of thier powers, that is his job. The CA legislature is fucked and very left sided. That is not what democracy is about
Here is a quote:

Schwarzenegger said the legislation, given final approval Tuesday by lawmakers, would conflict with the intent of voters when they approved an initiative five years ago. Proposition 22 (search) was placed on the ballot to prevent California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

"We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote," the governor's press secretary, Margita Thompson, said in a statement. "Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto (the bill)."

Proposition 22 stated that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The bill to be vetoed by Schwarzenegger would have defined marriage as a civil contract between "two persons."

 

[bluebee]

@Elise--Being faithful to one person is also unnatural. It just doesn't happen a lot in nature---To this I have to say really, how so? Please enlighten me.

I married and have never cheated on my spouse and I'm assured others on the board are in relationships and have never cheated on their SO's also.

However, I don't think I mentioned not having children is unnatural as their are women w/ husbands who cannot have children for one reason to another so why would I consider not being able to produce children as unnatural. You came to that conclusion or rather logic, not me. Better yet REREAD my post(s) in it's entirety before responding as a responded to others post in which I reference.

BTW, same rights should be a man/woman who are in a long term relationship (fiancee) and he being able to put her on his health insurance but he can't because he's not married. However, his gay counterpart can put his domestic partner on his health insurance after being together for 6 months. Now who's being discriminated.

@Arille--If being gay is so normal, then why isn't heterosexuality in the miniority and we are fighting for our rights to marry the opposite sex?

p.s. Why is homosexuality normal besides the average response of two people love each other?

@Laurs--The interracial cope out doesn't hold stance for me because the union was still betwen A MAN & A WOMAN. This argument is utter rubbish to me. One is unable discriminate on one's sexuality (unless I'm told) but skin color is quite obvious. I can look and see that a man is a black man as his skin color is apparent, I can't look at a man skin color and say oh he's gay. Give me a freak'in break.

ps. Which wild animals are homosexual?

Anywho--Funny, because one doesn't agree with gay marriages they are considered homophobia because they don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle. Wow-Again, I don't condemn other lifestyles but I won't be pressured to believe that's its ok or acceptable. My children are taught to respect all walks of life and people but homosexuality is not deemed appropriate. No matter how you try to flip the twist and make it seem that "we" are all close or narrow minded. Like you, I won't be pushed nor push my beliefs on anyone. I'm stating how I feel about the situation. As I stated previously, society is trying to make being gay seem traditional and a normal way of life when it isn't. However, to each his their own with the lifestyle they choose. I believe in freewill unless you have a physical or mental handicap being gay isn't either of those to me but rather choice so there is no reason to "cure" anyone who has made a consceince decision in picking their mate.

 

[Laurs]

Assuming that the comment was directed towards me, I'm not closed or narrow-minded. I respect all walks of life, and if you're a Christian, Jew, Muslim, what have you, I don't mind. Knock yourself out--that's your way of life. However, I don't think people should be limited to others' beliefs. The country/world is so diverse that there's more than just Christian people out there, so they should be taken into consideration as well. I never said you were closed or narrow-minded. I have no idea where you got that idea. And I never said you were a homophobe. Please keep in mind this is just assuming that those comments were directed towards me, and if not, then I'm sorry.

If you don't think it's appropriate, then that's great. That's your opinion, but you can teach your children the Christian way of life and that you don't think homosexuality is an appropriate way of life.

Just because you can tell if someone is gay just by looking at them or not doesn't justify judging someone solely on their sexuality. It doesn't matter if you have to be told or not; I view it as wrong to judge someone solely on their sexuality when they could just as well be a wonderful person.

 

[Eva121]

Originally Posted by bluebee @Eva--Do you not think if same sex marriage were allowed those same theories wouldn't apply to them? That's exactly my point. And there would also be couples that stay married for their whole lives. The same theories would apply, so why can't the same rules apply for gay couples?Today,marriage isn't what it was so many years ago,family isn't as traditional anymore. You can have a traditional family, but times change,values change,traditions don't last forever. Marriage is about telling eachother,your friends and family that you love each other,why can't gay people do that?

Quote:
If being gay is so normal, then why isn't heterosexuality in the miniority and we are fighting for our rights to marry the opposite sex? That's the whole problem,there should be no minorities, it should be about people loving eachother,not men/women.

 

[Andi]

Originally Posted by Tony(admin) Andrea, sorry to say that you are misinformed on Arnold Schwarzenegger and I hope you can read up on it and not speculate.

The people of California voted on a proposition (22) to prevent recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries. The People voted on it! If the people pass a proposition and the law makers ignore that, what kind of democracy is that? Arnold Schwarzenegger is protecting the people of CA of thier powers, that is his job. The CA legislature is fucked and very left sided. That is not what democracy is about ah...I get it now. I thought you said that the people in CA voted FOR gay marriage and Arnold put a veto on that....I didn´t understand all the words in your post and I was too lazy to look them up

so in that case you´re absolutely right, if it´s the majority´s choice then they should get their way.