California Assembly Passed a Bill to Legalize Same Sex Marriages
In a 41-35 vote, the California Assembly, late Tuesday night, passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriages. With no votes to spare, lawmakers became the first in the United States to act without a court order to sanction same sex marriages. No Republicans voted in favor of the bill. The bill, which would change the legal definition of marriage from 'a civil contract between a man and a woman' to 'a civil contract between two persons' now goes before governor Schwartzneger, who is expected to veto the bill.
We must recall the efforts by Bush last year to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as a contract between a man and a woman. This amendment was vetoed, and did not pass, primarily because an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a drastic measure which should not be taken lightly.
Here is the question of the day: Do you agree with California's new definition of marriage as a contract between two persons? If so, why and if not, why not? Do you believe that it is the responsibility of states to legislate morality between individuals?
Thank you for your minds.
We must recall the efforts by Bush last year to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as a contract between a man and a woman. This amendment was vetoed, and did not pass, primarily because an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a drastic measure which should not be taken lightly.
Here is the question of the day: Do you agree with California's new definition of marriage as a contract between two persons? If so, why and if not, why not? Do you believe that it is the responsibility of states to legislate morality between individuals?
Thank you for your minds.
41 Comments:
Do not forget, CA citizens (myself included) voted for a Referendum that specifically defined marriage as between a man and a women...given CA's referendum laws, this vote disenfranchises MILLIONS!
I completely disagree with it. I see it as a political ploy being used by the Democrats to, once again, undermine the Republicans and as Dag pointed out, the voters. This should be a legal matter; not some political tool to get some revenge against those darned evil "bible-thumping" Republicans. G-d, morals are so 1955!!
-OC
So, it must be said that you both feel that it is the business of our federal and/or state government to legislate morality?
Dag, I looked to see whether you have a blog, and you do not, but know that you come here when I post something that is of interest to you. Why do you not create your own blog, I am wondering?
Yes, of course I agree with the bill and same sex marriage. Good for the California Assembly! That's pretty impressive.
I didn't know your governor was against it -- I had the impression that he was more pro-GLBT than that. Too bad!
I don't understand why so many people want to vote on defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I really don't know how my legal marriage to another woman harms anyone (I live in Massachusetts).
Nothing has really changed about the nature of marriage here in the Bay State. All the heterosexuals (and their marriages) are just fine.
I don't know why some straight people feel that same sex marriage somehow detracts from their own marriages, or that it is some sort of threat. It really isn't.
Barb, I saw you on the Rock of Gallilee blog....I'd love to blog, but I dont have the time...I've been offered a weekly column on another high traffic blog....Im a PHD student and work full time...I have little time..I respond to blogs on my work breaks
I made no comment that indicated I felt government should legislate morality....I do think they should legislate issue that have overwhelming social consequences....I said that Californians like me voted for a proposition on this very issue..and the legislaure has disenfranchised us by their actions....
cant understand why the government went against its citizens
can you say communism?
I agree with this decision. It is not one's business whom I choose to marry or what I choose to do with my body.
Not sure,? but looks like I will be giving the first Homo opinion. Out of the context of religion, atheist can marry in a civil ceremony, people with no intentions of 'having kids' can marry, religiously or civil. Personally when my 'divorce' happened, I had to do everything that would have had happened under the laws of divorce,,, all without the law in place. ALONE, and civil as possible. For me it was better, I would have had to split everything in half, which would not have happened even with a 'real divorce'... even though the ex was a deadbeat, never paid bills, mortgage included, and so on, I forced him to sign a 'quit claim' and after three years of 'seperation' finally put him on a bus to MN. I could not have done that if we were married. So, at that time, I was happy not to have had the cumberance of 'law' sanctioned 'divorce'. Today, I would not 'marry' regardless, but understand the difficulty of situations such as what I created for myself. I don't want any special treatment. But given that a change where possible, I think Gay people should have the right to a civil marriage just like anyone else, we get ripped off and most likely will when/if it is instated. Prime example, I have no children, and you know the argument, why should I have to pay for Your Kids schooling? ... another blog.
One more, point, I know this is too long. When the Europeans,, 'discovered' America, they found Tribe after Tribe of Natives who joyously sanctioned Marriage between two men. I wrote an article once about a Monk who wrote back to the Pope In horror of the fact. I saw What was good enough for the inhabitants originally found here should be good enough today, Marriage between men, has been around just as long,, so don't give me that 'time honored tradition' and God sanctioned blah blah blah.. This is America,, I think ,,, and It is time we Progress for all Humans,, not just the religious and reproducing kind who want to keep marriage AND Adoption, just for theirselves.
JFB,
Well it matter if you are in a partnership with someone and there is property or benefits involved.
I think it's great. It was once considered radical to think of women having the right to vote (perhaps someone made a statement back then to the effect of, "What's next? First women get the vote, then dogs?"). I hope that in 50 or 100 years people look back at these times with bewilderment over this denial of rights based on sexual orientation. I have a hard time comprehending that women once did not have the right to vote, to continue with my earlier example. It is equally bizarre that two women or two men can't marry. So what if they couldn't before? Let's evolve, people.
I found the referendum by the citizens of California to be insulting and disenfranchising to the concept of "freedom and liberty," especially considering that the supporters of the anti-marriage and anti-family referendum mostly supported Bush and his "freedom and liberty" push in Iraq. So...freedom and liberty for other countries, but not for us. The hypocrisy is quite astounding. So, I'm glad to see the bill permitting gay marriage in CA being pushed through. I have yet to see a single rational reason to prohibit marriage between the persons of the same sex. In my opinion, every excuse to keep marriage a contract between a man and a woman is based in narrow-minded, religious-sounding dogma (and is always based on one-sided, man-created interpretations of the Bible, the same sort of interpretations that kept black slavery an active and legal part of American culture).
Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness should apply to all the people all the time. No one has the rights to interfer in how one desires to live, as long as they are not hurting anyone. The government should stay out of our bedrooms, and so should our neighbors, unless they are invited.
I don't agree with it, but not from a religious standpoint necessarily. From a practical one, it will introduce a vast increase of family law cases which will overtax an already burdened court system. I believe this because studies repeatedly show that homosexuals (on average) go through significantly more relationships than heteros do.
P.S. Note: I have friends who are gay, so this is NOT a slam against gays. I'm honest about my qualms about it, and they understand. In fact, some of them agree with me. They don't want to be pressured by their significant others to get married and if it becomes legal, they'll have to make a choice they'd rather not make.
Saurkraut, with all due respect, just because your friends don't want to make the choice of whether or not to get married doesn't mean that the same can be said for other people. Frankly, your friends should be intelligent and mature enough to make that decision themselves, not feel "pressured" simply because the option is available. That reasoning seems bizarre to me.
Marrage IS a contract between two people. That is ALL it is, as far as any state is concerned.
I recently got a job with Miami-Dade County. As a result, I will soon have helath insurance again. And guess what? If I want to include someone else in my insurance policy, I must produce a STATE ISSUED marriage certificate or a STATE ISSUED birth certificate. Church marriage certficates or hospital issued birth certificates do not count.
In other words, Dade County does NOT accept church weddings unless the couple applied for a marriage license first. Legally, you are hitched at the time the license is issued.
Personally, I think the whole deal about gay marriage is pointless. I do not see how allowing gays to marry is any more damaging to "conventional" marriages as long as divorce is legal.
And if the state is going to say that gay people can not enter into one type of contract, what type of contract will be next?
LI's point about insurance benefits is truthfully one of the reasons why this type of contractual relationship should be allowed, regardless of sexual orientation.
Meegen, I agree with you. If two people understand the consequences of marriage,and decide to enter into that type of contract, knowing what it entails, just like a hetrosexual couple, they should be allowed to do so, with all of its benefits, and possible consequences as well.
Saurkraut said... ....overtax an already burdened court system. I believe this because studies repeatedly show that homosexuals (on average) go through significantly more relationships than heteros do>>>>>
---- I was with my first HUSBAND, for 9 years. If we had been able to marry, we most likely would have, and maybe, we would not have been so causual about Ending it. (I mean 9 years is an investment, right), but since, divorce was similar to what happens in some Middle Eastern Countries, A Queer, well all we have to do, is Click our Red Ruby Slippers and Say I Divorce you, I Divorce you, I Divorce you... that is it... ..................
That must be a White Straight mans dream,,, at times, huh?
As a lesbian (you weren't the first "homo" to comment, Scott), I find these comments really depressing. Wow. I am in love with my wife. We're married. How is that hurting any of you?
And Saurkraut, PART of the reason that GLBT folks sometimes have more relationships is that we HAVEN'T had the option of marriage in the past. Marriage sure as heck slows down the break-up process, and makes you think twice and thrice about it. It adds stability to most relationships.
And taxing the system.... geez. So heterosexuals should be allowed to tax the system, but not homosexuals?
What are you all so afraid of?
This is suppose to be a free country....You should be able to marry whom ever you want....To me this is not a big deal....I don't have a problem with it....There is alot of bigger issues that need attention from the goverment...not if 2 people that are in love can get married or not!!!
I am a strong supporter of homosexual marriage. All Americans should enjoy the same rights. No exceptions.
The dog argument is absurd and only demonstrates the irrationality of the fear that drives this attitude. AP3 is right, it doesn' hurt anyone and it certainly doesn't harm the institution of marriage. If anything it would make our society stronger by helping to foster understanding of those who are different from ourselves.
Of course I support Gay Marriage. Because it's FAIR. We have U.S.Senators who have had SEVERAL hetro marriages, and all their ex-wives can draw Social Security on their accounts. ALL their ex-wives. And some of you people think that GAY marriage will TAX the system? Excuse me while I laugh.
Do I believe that it is the responsibility of states to legislate morality between individuals? When I was a child, the states ruled that just being a homosexual was a crime. Does that sound odd now?
I do not believe that two consenting people over the age of 21 (or whatever) should have the state explaining their morality to them.
Barb, it's not a question of morality so much as the legal ramifications of marriage. Marriage is a legal matter; not just a moral one. If it wasn't, why would you need to get a civil license before you got married? The Ketuba, in Judaism, is seen today as a beautiful picture that you hang up in your house, but it is, in fact, just a legal numptual document. So, your assertention from what I said would be incorrect. But, in essense, the government is given the job of deciding what is in the best interest of this nation. A state is ensured with the responsibility to decide what's in the state's best interest. I believe that I remember seeing that phrase placed in many decisions and opinions regarding Supreme Court decisions. Am I wrong?
OK, ap3 and jewishbi and all the rest who want to use "If they're in love, then they should be allowed to get married..." argument, let's take that a step further. If we're using that logic, why can't I marry my brother? If I'm in love with him, and I'm not hurting anybody else, why can't I marry him? What about marrying my mom or my dad? What's wrong about incestual marriage? I'm not hurting anyone, so why can't I marry another member of my family? Why not being able to marry one of my children? You might want to use the argument that it would be a grave health risk if I marry inside my family. But, there are no laws against people with genetic diseases such as Down's Syndrome, Sickle-Cell Anemia, etc from getting married and procreating when their chances of passing on the disease is high. People who test positive as carriers of genetic diseases are not forbidden from marrying another carrier, even with the risks involved. Even people with AIDS are not forbidden, by law, from procreating or from getting married to another person with or without AIDS. So, that health risk is out of the question. So, why can't I have an incestual marriage? Going to the next level, why can't I marry my dog? We're in love. Or, my farm animal? I'm from down south. We LOVE our pigs down here. Cant we get married? We're not hurting anyone by it. We've outlawed polygamy. Why? Why can't a man have more than 1 wife? He's not hurting anyone. I think we should bring back polygamy.
This is why we can't argue rationally about same sex marriage. First of all, when someone says that they're against it, they're called a homophobe or a biggot, racist, whatever. There is no such thing as honorable discourse in this country anymore. Second of all, the "But, we're in love" argument is b.s. and has no legal or logical basis. The only way to discuss this rationally is to get away from all the emotional and political bullsh*t and get down to the crux of the matter. Which, are completely within the realm of the law.
There are many things that we want to do, but society dictates that we can't. What if I wanted to kill and rape within the privacy of my own home? I'm not hurting you, so who the hell are you to tell me that it's not allowed? So, yes, there many aspects of life, if you want to play symantics and call it morality fine, that the government has been elected to dicatate for us. That is why we put them there. As P.J. O'Roarke so elequently puts it, "Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy, the whores are us".
-OC
Tan Lucy made a good point about overtaxing the system. As an example, I look at some of my neighbors, who are ex-cops, with families, children, and see them collecting their retirement early, buying boats, and living a good life, while WE the tax-payers are paying for them. I see a war going on that it not truly our business, that we are paying for, the American taxpayer, in the form of billions of dollars...Now to me, that is not only over taxing the system, but unnecessary expenses for Americans to endure.
And one should not forget, as liquid plastic brings up, and Lucy, that government USED to be inside of our bedrooms, where some forms sexual behavior, including oral and anal sex in states were considered to be crimes, punishable by incarceration. Going to jail for sexual behaivor?
I just dropped in to give you the old two thumbs up. You are a good person.
Thank you, snake!
Olea, I think I should move to Israel, I see, because it would feel great to be surrounded by so many people with differing opinions!
We live in the 21st century. Things change. We evolve. It is as simple as that. But there have always been people afraid of things they don´t know or understand that makes evolution more slow. But that is alright to, because we will move on eventually.
Women´s rigths, convictions of rape-offenders and child molesters are rather new concepts in the grand scheme of evolution and I am glad they are there.
I really don´t know why gay and lesbians are still an issue...they are people and as such they have human rights.
A rapist has the right to marry!
from a legal point changing marriage to "between two persons" makes sense. my partner is still fighting to get her home back from the brother of her deceased "spouse". since gay marriage is not allowed in connecticut, it's been a fight for her. they were "married" in a church -- their families supported them. they lived together as a couple for 15 years. now because the deceased brother got divorced and his ex-wife got his house, he feels it's fair to take my partner's house and belongings because they were "roommates" and it's been 5 years of them going through probate court to not settle anything yet. how would it be if heterosexual couples were treated the same way -- even common-law couples are not. no one would think to take a widow's home she bought and lived in for years because her husband died -- that would be an outrage, right? but when you're gay or lesbian you basically have no rights to your own property and belongings. that's why marriage would help. not to mention the moral part and being able to be recognized as a committed couple.
The subject of marriage always gets everyone going, doesn`t it?!
If you take the original concept of marriage, whereby it`s only between men and women and it is about the business of producing children....then what are we saying about people who choose not to have children in their marriage?
It`s really about ownership and property rights when it comes down to basics.
I personally believe that if two people love each other, it is a wonderful thing whether they are opposite or same sex couples.
If they have decided that they wish to devote the rest of their lives to each other in a marriage contract, then who are others to deny them this and all legal rights which they should be entitled to.
I think it is fundamental right for two people in love.
I wish I didnt have to say this over and over again to liberals, you do NOT use the exception to prove the rule! Marriage is an instituition codfied to facilitate the positive upbringing and raising of children. Are there couples that chose not to have children? Certainly, but the vast majority of hetro couples either have children OR are suffering from infertility, a fact that causes the much consternation.
I am unsure why people think that beacuse an idea is new, or "progressive" is is better then old ideas... that is case by case question, some things are better others are not.
I always complain when pro abortion supporters offer what about rape and incest as an answer to the moraity of abortion...the exception does not prove the rule...you deal with individual problems such as insurance, etc without changing the fundamental buidling bloc of all of humankind.
And I did vote in CA Prop 22...the legislature in cali spat on me and all those who voted in that election, that is the only crime here!
I am not going to debate the human animal question, but one must ask..do you support marriage between brother and sister? A brother and sister were recently jailed for years in Milwaukee because of their marraige....will you go protest on their behalf? Will you call that decision a violation of human rights? Can a wife have 3 husbands? Why is prostituion illegal?
And a note, "Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" has exactly 0 force of law..
In essence not allowing women or blacks to vote was discrimanatory, and prohibted by the 14th Amendment..there is no discrimnation in regards to marraige at all...every male in america has the same rights to marry I do..every female the same rights as my wife...what you are asking for are SPECIAL rights.
Quite a dialogue! I'll repeat a comment I made on another blog because I'm lazy. Why do we need marriage laws? I think what screws up our conversation about all this is confusion between what it means to be civilly married and what it means to be in a committed relationship, with or without a religious meaning. We could have no civil marriage. People could make any commitment they want to each other, get married in a house worship or not and pay the same taxes I do.
Dag, the birth rate is falling in many countries in Europe, as many couples CHOOSE not to have a family, for all their own varied reasons.
I CHOSE not to have a family, as did a few others among my friends.
It isn`t a rare thing, you know!
Anyway, the world is horrendously overpopulated!
Birth control is no bad thing!
No-one is saying that gay people marrying is anything comparable with incestuous marriages, except you my dear. There are good genetic reasons why incestuous marriages should be forbidden.
It is a different subject altogether, and isn`t in the least bit comparable
to gay relationships.
If gay people want to marry, then let them marry, life is just too short.
Hi, B! Checking back here today, and I see you've got a juicy one. Your Arnold is one helluva politician. Not to get all ad hominem here, but he's said in the past that he has no problem with homosexuality, so this is a plain grab for influence in his party.
(For Arnold's pre-politico statements about homosexuality, see The Smoking Gun archives.)
States legislate morality all the time. You can't starve your kids to death, you can't attack your neighbor with a chainsaw, you can't flash little girls on the subway, you can't lie about what's in your potted meat product, you can't have sex with minors, etc. That's not the issue. What's at issue is marriage. I rather sympathize with people who are against gay marriage, even if I don't agree with them, because they're onto something. They're lamenting the end of an idea of marriage that's been dying for a long time. The whole fact that atheists who never plan to have children can get married is an abomination already to some people. Gay marriage is just the last straw.
But for people like me, who are for gay marriage, it makes sense legally and culturally. Legally because it bundles together certain privileges extended only to the married, which gay couples can only approximate through a tangle of legal contracts. If you're gay, and your life partner is dying in the hospital, your partner's family could still exclude you from the hospital room. The compromise known as domestic partnership is a good start, but it still has the separate-but-equal stigma.
And by the way, Arnold relies way too much on California's stupid Proposition system. It's a completely insane way of making law. I don't know how the legislature even operates with this totally other legislative system in place. It means any populist demagogue with money for an advertising campaign can make law. Even when I lived in California, when I was in high school, it seemed like a cockamamie idea.
Zepp...if that is a change in having children, it is a sad change...but not at all surprising for Europe
now if the only reason you forbid incestous relationships is b/c of genetics, what other people with genetic "problems" will you forbid from marrying? Those with mental disorders in theri family tree? How about heart disease or breast cancer?
And if you do go that route, I could claim that with the incidence of AIDS in the gay male community gay sex needs to be made illegal beacuse of aids.....are you willing to say that? There are, after all, good health reasons for that...
In essence incest and homosexuality are the same in a moral sesne
Tania, Arnold relies on the system b/c thats the law! He was 100% right to veto this on prop 22 grounds
DAG,
Since you choose to pontificate in a satimonious and rather aloof manner, let me speak to you like W would, simply.
If you call a horse a duck, it is still a horse, no matter what label you put upon it. Got that, Dag?
To me, Arnold, who is surrounded by gay friends from the movie industry, is more worried about his political career now than anything. Telling people what types of realtionships will be sanctioned by the state, is a form of legislating morality, especially for the relgious right.
Dag, please get a blog so that you can post since you do seem to have some very strong feelings about these issues, and you have come here at least 3 times to air them.
Even though you are busy, it will serve you well, even if you live in this good ol' proposition state where Arnold hangs his hat!
Tania,
Good to see you, and like the points you and Zepp have made about marriage and children. I agree that individuals should be able to have the choice to marry, and that all rights and priviledges should extend accordingly.
Dag, incest is still a crime in this state, unless you would like it to be excluded from that category. Having oral and anal sex in the privacy of one's bedroom used to be a crime in some states as well. Maybe you would like that behavior to be defined criminally as well. Criminal behavior is clearly distinguishable from permited civil contracts, at least the last time I checked!
Barb, I am not sure what you are trying to say with the horse and duck line....do you think I am identifying things in manners other then they exist.....Barb, I dont even go to many blogs....I just liked yours, esp after seeing you at The Rock
Now I remember, Dag! What even happened to the Rock's blog?
Well.....Here goes....I believe that a marriage is between one man and one woman. It's just my opinion.
Zeppalina, again, your mode of argument is completely baseless. You say that there are good genetic reasons for why brother and sisters or moms and daughter, and other incestual relationships should not end up in marriage. It is absolutely not a different subject. Again, if you will read my previous post, going by that argument then the law should forbid a person with AIDS from marrying and/or procreating with someone else with or w/out AIDS. People who are carriers of genetic diseases are not legally forbidden from marrying another carrier of the same genetic disease, even with the higher risks. Therefore, your line of argument is completely baseless. When you attempt to use "but if they're in love and not hurting anyone" argument, you're only being nearsighted and viewing where that argument actually goes. By that argument, anybody who's in love, brother and sister, mom and kid, man and his dog, man and 8 wives, etc should be allowed to marry, "if they're in love". You want to have a rational coversation about this kind of subject, start acting like dag and look at it from a logical and legal perspective. B/c that's all it comes down to.
-OC
Well, it seems as if this hot subject is in fact very much alive and kicking.
On that note, I will remain silent.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home