It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Californians cleared to vote on same-sex marriage ban

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 10:11 PM

Californians cleared to vote on same-sex marriage ban

SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- The California Supreme Court has cleared the way for Californians to vote in November on whether to ban same-sex marriages in the state.

The court on Wednesday denied a petition to remove the initiative from the state's general election ballots. The unanimous decision was handed down without elaboration.

Hundreds of marriage licenses have been issued to same-sex couples since mid-June, a month after the court overturned the state's laws against such unions.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 10:11 PM
I'm not sure where I stand on same-sex marriage. On the one hand, I believe that homosexuals and lesbians have the right to marry, but on the other hand, it may infringe upon other people's rights. Sometimes I think that half of them are serious and genuine about marrying, but the other half of them are marrying just to cause commotion.

Your thoughts?
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 10:16 PM
I don't understand gay marriage at all. Only the divorce lawyers will win.

Was this not one of the (few) advantages of dorking your buddy? All the milk you wanted without buying the cow. Marriage will crash the party. As it is, if two tampers have a spat, and decide that they've had their fill, parting ways is easy. Pack up the cloves, grab your K.Y. and leave. No lawyers, no squabbling over pensions, no alimony, no child support, no mumps, no pregnant daughters, no nagging wife. Just good, filthy fun.
So now they want to ruin their own party? How dumb can you get?

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 10:21 PM
reply to post by jerico65

Although I know some couples are in it for the "safe" sex, there are some that really do want to get married for personal reasons beyond that. However, there are some that want to get married just so that they have the extra benefits, so it's hard to balance the two.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 10:26 PM
Im Just happy to be able to vote on it.

The State overturned it by VERY questionable means...

This is a good thing...

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 01:33 AM

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
On the one hand, I believe that homosexuals and lesbians have the right to marry, but on the other hand, it may infringe upon other people's rights.

On the one hand it is hard to fathom the idea that gay marriage could somehow infringe on the rights of anyone else, unless you are worried about being forced into a shotgun marriage with a same-sex partner.
On the other hand it is very obvious whose human rights are being infringed. Denying gays the right to marry is unconstitional.

For what it's worth, I am a bisexual female. At the present time I have no desire to marry but when that time comes I should have the right to marry the one I love. The general public has no right to dictate to me whom I can or cannot marry, nor should they have the right to dictate what sex my partner shall be.

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 02:12 AM
I think there should be no restriction on marriage, marry whomever or whatever you want. I also don't see how preventing certain people from getting married is protecting someone's rights. Please explain what rights are being violated when gays get married. The right for someone to control other peoples lives? You are looking upon gays as if they are subhuman creatures who need to earn the rights you take for granted, it is pathetic and utterly disgusting.

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 02:22 AM
Ridiculous, we live in a secular nation and there is no sound secular opposition to gay marriage. They are only avoiding the inevitable.

, it may infringe upon other people's rights.

Gay marriage does not affect straight couples. It only allows gay couples the same privileges. This would be a non-issue if the government did not involve itself in marriage in the first place and gave some rights only to married couples.

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 02:47 AM
Let us examine the arguments against gay marriage,


Why in a secular nation should anyone be held accountable to someone else’s belief system? This is the worst. Remember we also have a SEPERATION of church and state.

It would destroy our country and morality-

It has yet to do so in several countries. Including Scandinavian countries where civil unions and marriage has been legal among same-sex couples for years. Anyway this is poor reasoning because gay couples in general have not been proven to have an adverse affect on society what so ever, to assume marriages would with no basis is astounding.

Taxes cuts awarded to straight couples because they raise families should not be awarded to gay couples-

1. Gay couples raise families as well.
2. There are many married people in our country who do not nor do they wish to have children. The simplest solution is to not give the tax breaks to those who do not have children or abolish them altogether, duh.

It will change the tradition of marriage-

The tradition of marriage has been changed through out our history, this is why women are not men’s property and blacks can marry whites. Our current tradition is an already tampered version of marriage, so there is no reason why we should not change it again to include gay couples; especially since it does not affect straight couples in any way.

If you think a majority possibly being against gay marriage makes denying this right to people okay you are DEAD WRONG. The majority has been for segregation and slavery in our country previously, this does not make something constitutional. This is why this issue should not be put to a vote, if the integration of schools what put to a vote we may still be educationally segregated, it is our politicians responsibility to see through our nations bigotry and injustice.

Also it can not be ignored that our countries health system has declared that homosexuality is not a choice, that “ex-gay” methods fail, and that to be a healthy, fully function adult one must accept their sexuality. Also it has been concluded that children raised by homosexuals are at no disadvantage. What is wrong with this country? It’s infuriating.

And for anyone who would like to spout any other BS argument against gay marriage: (NOTE: I did not write these counter arguments, this is from the site by Scott Bidstrup)

Marriages are for procreation and ensuring the continuation of the species. The proponents of this argument are really hard pressed to explain, if that's the case, why infertile couples are allowed to marry. I, for one, would love to be there when the proponent of such an argument is to explain to his post-menopausal mother or impotent father that since they cannot procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings and sleep in separate bedrooms.

Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right. Since ninety percent of the population already have the right to marry the informed, consenting adult of their choice, and would even consider that right a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, since when does extending it to the remaining ten percent constitute a "special" right to that remaining ten percent? As Justice Kennedy observed in his opinion overturning Colorado's infamous Amendment 2 (Roemer vs. Evans), many gay and lesbian Americans are, under current law, denied civil rights protections that others either don't need or assume that everyone else along with themselves, already have. The problem with all that special rights talk is that it proceeds from that very assumption, that because of all the civil rights laws in this country that everyone is already equal, so therefore any rights gay people are being granted must therefore be special. That is most assuredly not the case, especially regarding marriage and all the legal protections that go along with it.

Why This Is A Serious Civil Rights Issue

When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters of civil justice, which often can be quite serious - and can have life-damaging, even life-threatening consequences.

-we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency.Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may have been estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and can and frequently do, totally ignore our wishes regarding the treatment of our partners.If a hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in most states. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results consciously intended to be as inimical to the interests of the patient as possible! Is this fair?

-Upon death, in many cases, even very carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's hospital bed or grave. As survivors, estranged families can, in nearly all states, even sieze a real estate property that a gay couple may have been buying together for many years, quickly sell it at the largest possible loss, and stick the surviving partner with all the remaining mortgage obligations on a property that partner no longer owns, leaving him out on the street, penniless. There are hundreds of examples of this, even in many cases where the gay couple had been extremely careful to do everything right under current law, in a determined effort to protect their rights. Is this fair?

-If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do.

-These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws by legislation or court precedent over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and even consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a serious civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony, whether it is performed in a church or courthouse or the local country club, or whether an announcement about it is accepted for publication in the local newspaper.

****One of my sources, The American Psychological Association

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 11:51 AM

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
Why This Is A Serious Civil Rights Issue...

Another important issue here is taxation. Members of the LGBT community are taxed without full representation or consideration of their civil and human rights by the government. On the other hand the goverment gunuflects to the psychopathic worldview of the church and other religious groups yet they pay no taxes whatsoever. This must change. If there shall be no taxation without representation then there should be no representaion without taxation either.

new topics

top topics


log in