"Cautious and Moderately Conservative"

[kyburg]

That's the term applied to the California Supreme Court this morning, after they came forward and said that you can't ban gay marriage. It's discriminatory.

Yeah, yeah. Tell me about the specific constitutional amendments other states have put into place against it. There used to be such things on the books banning interracial marriage too, once upon a time. They're gone, too. I strongly suspect those existing amendments will go that way as well - some day. This may not be that day - but it's pretty clear it's coming, neh?

Let's get one thing clear. (Straight? Is an orientation. Forward!)

Marriage, as defined in the legislature - is a legal matter. Not a religious one. Your faith can say whatever it will on the matter, and be completely valid.

But if you want a good example of the validity of "spiritual marriage" in today's world, with regard to the legislature, look no further than the current FLDS debacle in Texas. They perform marriages considered completely valid within their faith - the law has stepped in when it was done to children (defined by law), willful or no. Are they considered valid? Well - they thought it was.

When it involves minors, more definitive.

When it's between two consenting adults in their majority - up to them.

When it has to do with legal matters, there are rules - and they apply to everyone, just the same. Can't discriminate.

From the Los Angeles Times, and I'd get that down right now. Here's a PDF of the actual decision.

A 4-3 decision in a court made up of 6 Republican and 1 Democratic appointees. You tell me.

I'm not engaging in debate on this on any level other than this is a legitimate, gender-blind decision on a legal status. Your immortal soul, your faith, your doctrines...are not up for discussion here. I'm pretty Protestant in this regard - you go to God for instruction, not your church. Not their church. Not the other guy's - you get the drift.

It's up to you. And I'll say it here and now. Whatever you decide for yourself is fine with me. I trust you to make decisions for yourself.

I thought my head was going to separate from my shoulders. HA.

And I've said we can be as dumb as dead cats when it comes to politics here. We're also the ones who recalled our governor, remember? And ended up with a Hollywood actor instead? Yeah. We're those guys.

Today - we are AWESOME.

Comments

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

I'm so tempted to start reading OSC's column again just so I can revel in his head imploding.

[tomlemos.livejournal.com]

People just need to keep in mind that no one is forcing THEIR RELIGION to perform same-sex ceremonies.

This is the CIVIL marriage which is sanctioned by the state.

People seem to forget the separation of church and state when it comes to marriage.

Keep your religion, let me marry my boyfriend so we can raise a family someday.

[bitpig.livejournal.com]

As a Catholic, I obviously disagree with this ruling as being disordered with respect to the ontological, biological, and sacramental nature of marriage. A mere court ruling does not affect the way things really are. For example, despite the decision of a legislature of a given state to define pi as being exactly equal to three, pi itself remains as irrational, infinite, and independent of the decisions of man as it ever was. Likewise, the courts may rule that the combination of hydrogen and hydrogen creates water, but in reality water will always consist of the union of hydrogen and oxygen, no matter what the court says.

The original human being - the Adam Kadmon - was a unitary being; "male and female created He them". Later, God divided the primordial Man into complimentary parts, man and woman, in order to allow them to combine themselves into a complete whole by an act of their own will. The combining of man and woman into a unitary being is what we call "marriage". Just as U.S. v. Dred Scott did not change black people into subhumans, just as Roe v. Wade did not change human babies into subhumans, this court decision changes nothing. Marriage is what it is, and all the case law in the world will not affect its true nature.

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

I'm okay with that, within a given church. Churches can define it however they like, and marry whomever they want. That's a bit different from civil law. (Note that California doesn't legislate whether priests should be married. Greek Orthodox priests tend to be married. Catholic priests tend not to be.)

[mdlbear]

As long as your religion -- any religion -- doesn't get in the way of what the law defines as a civil contract between consenting adults, it can use a private definition of any word you like.

My religion defines "priest" differently from yours; so what? It defines "god" and "person" very differently. As long as you don't try to hoodwink the government into legislating your private definitions for the rest of us, I'm ok with it.

[bitpig.livejournal.com]

A civil contract between consenting adults is possible under current law. Marriage is an entirely different thing than a civil contract.

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

Why? A civil marriage, where there is no religious component, is marriage, recognized as such.

I'm asking this as a serious question. Why is it different?

[betnoir.livejournal.com]

Horse. Puckey.

I had a civil marriage.

No church. No mention of ghod. Nope nope nope. When the JoP asked what I wanted for the ceremony, I replied "I want the state of California to be satisfied that I am legally married."

Which they did.

I have a piece of paper that states, in the eyes of the state of California, my marriage is legal and valid.

Which is all that matters.


And I am.

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

I think it's a fine and dandy thing if the Catholic Church keeps to their own sacraments. Hey, that's what churches DO, define religious articles of faith.

How does that affect ME? Not Catholic. Never was, no desire to be, really unlikely to be. Not gay either, and about as likely to be gay as Catholic. But I'm a strong believer in equal rights.

The history of marriage proves that "Marriage is what it is" depends on a very mutable meaning of "is" -- it's primarily, in the civil sense, a legal contract that involves property rights and decision making ability. Ideally, there is love, but it's not required.

And all the canon law in the world will not affect it's true nature.

[vampireanneke.livejournal.com]

I'm a Roman Catholic, I've been confirmed and all. I'm also lucky that my church/priest has always preached 'Love' as being the final law of god. Not 'sex', or 'marriage', or whatever else. If two people LOVE each, regardless of their gender, nothing else matters. But I guess you would support Brittany Spears three hour marriage before you ever supported a gay marriage.

[bitpig.livejournal.com]

If two people LOVE each, regardless of their gender, nothing else matters.

Jesus never said that. The Church does not teach that. Sorry.

[vampireanneke.livejournal.com]

The Church teachs LOVE, Jesus taught LOVE. Jesus NEVER taught against homosexuality, or that Marriage was only for a man and a woman.

You try to hide behind the Church for your justification of your hatred and fear of a group of people.

If a person changes gender, what then? When the physical shell means so little now, how can one discriminate against it.

[betnoir.livejournal.com]

Roe v. Wade did not change human babies into subhumans

Well...no.

Roe v. Wade codified at what point the state is legally obligated to intervene in a private decision between patient and physician.

Not morally obligated. *Legally*.

And for the purposes of that discussion -- and as for one of what role the government should play in regulating marriage -- that is all that is relevant.

You may hold whatever religious definitions of marriage you wish. Nothing stopping you.

But you do not get to *legally* define same. That's not your job, unless you happen to sit on the Supreme Court.

[the-paulr.livejournal.com]

As much as you might want to, you do not speak for all Catholics any more than you speak for all religions.

As someone else pointed out the definition and meaning of marriage has changed many times in recorded history. "Marriage is what it is," you say, and I agree, but it hasn't always been what it "is" nor will it always be what you want it to be.

In short, you're wrong.

[unclejimbo.livejournal.com]

But one important thing to remember:

No matter where you are 'married', church, temple, synagog or mosque, the final refrain is always the same...

"By the power vested in me by the State of insert state here I now..."

Marriage is defined by law as a civil contract between two people.

If your church does not wish to perform same-sex marriages, it does not have to. Other churches have already stated they will be happy to.

[bitpig.livejournal.com]

For a more in-depth explanation of the Catholic view of same-sex marriage, please see this document from Catholic Answers.

[vampireanneke.livejournal.com]

Wow that's the biggest load of tripe.

As someone said to me recently, 'Yes Homosexuality is just a phase, one I've been for 83 years'.

My favorite quote is, 'God doesn't make crap'. If we are made in his image and people are homosexual from birth/made that way. Then there is nothing wrong with them.

Homosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals47 and 3½ times more likely to commit suicide successfully.
- Because they get treated with HATE instead of Love from people who believe such tripe.

[bitpig.livejournal.com]

Some people are child molesters from birth. Should they be allowed to indulge their urges just because "God made them that way"? Some people are born with the urge to drink too much booze. Should we as a society sanction their alcoholism just because "God made them that way"?

And who said anything about hating anybody?

I'm not going to waste Donna's bandwidth arguing this point. I only wanted to express a different point of view on this topic. That accomplished, I exit. Please feel free to visit my own LJ or my website if further debate is desired.

[vampireanneke.livejournal.com]

Should we allow them to be child molestors, YES. As long as they are not harming another person (which is when they get in trouble with the law). I have a friend who like looking at Lolita stuff. We are more then happy to keep him to comics and manga, where no one is getting hurt from how he was. He has no desire to harm others either.

You can drink as much as you want in the safety of your own home, but when your out in society, where you can hurt someone else, there are laws. So try again.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout.

There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices--to be found in the minds of men.

For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own--for the children and the children yet unborn.

And the pity of it is that these things cannot be confined to the Twilight Zone. -- Rod Serling

[yasha-chan.livejournal.com]

There should be something like Godwin's Law every time someone equates homosexuality with child molesters and pedophilia. Seriously, that's the most ridiculous argument ever, I can't even be offended about it anymore.

This effects you 0. You are not homosexual. You're not going to be forced at gunpoint to marry a dude. You may disagree on whatever grounds, but that's your PERSONAL opinion and I'll be damned if everyone should follow the tenants of your religion just because you believe in it. You can think whatever you want, but the line is drawn when it starts effecting others.

[vampireanneke.livejournal.com]

And he refuses to believe that the religion does allow for it, despite their heresy. Because the rule of 'love' is above all other laws. I know this as I was raised a catholic, same as him. To bad he got bogged down in all the other rules and regulations.

[yasha-chan.livejournal.com]

I know tons of Catholics that have no problem with homosexuals and I've seen people from many other religions react the same way this guy is. The thing I see most in common with this attitude is that no one these people know and love dearly are homosexual. My girlfriend's step-father was like that until people he cared about came out, and it challenged his attitude and thoughts.

It used to make me mad this kind of attitude, but now it just makes me vaguely sad and disappointed in humanity in general. From what I understand from religious people, and what I learned from my own teachings was that humans can't judge each other-- that's God's territory. Don't throw stones in glass houses and such. Ah well, some people just have to be angry for no reason.

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

My Catholic lesbian sister would thank you. ;)

[miwasatoshi.livejournal.com]

And who said anything about hating anybody?

You're comparing homosexuality to child molesters and alcoholics. Child molesters betray the consent of children. Alcoholics deprive themselves of control over their actions. Neither of these apply to homosexuality.

But then, you're so blindly convinced this is Wrong due to tenets laid down in long-ago cultures. Modern-day homosexuality is not Greek-style pederasty, it is not an issue of power or control, and it is not an issue of reproductive conflict, not like it was when people wrote the Scriptures.

Your words are not full of love. You ask people to blindly accept your words without true understanding on either end.

Keep living as you are, it is the best path for you -- but it is not the best path for everyone, and we have every God-given right to disagree with you.

And if you feel people should be condemned and ostracized for the "sin" of homosexuality, then I feel equally justified to condemn you for your sin of pride.

[unclejimbo.livejournal.com]

Also, point of order, the vast majority of child molesters are heterosexual, not homosexual.

It seems the other way around because the corporate media blows the stories out of proportion for the purpose of ratings.

Argument is tenuous at best. And when you say that some group should be excluded, that is hate. That is divisive and it is not Christian.

[cahwyguy.livejournal.com]

We're also the ones who recalled our governor, remember? And ended up with a Hollywood actor instead?

As well as the ones who replaced a very successful democratic governor (responsible for much of our highway system) with a Hollywood actor, which spurred said actor on to higher elective office.

[dandelion-diva.livejournal.com]

Well said. :)

Not as happy, but I know you were following this news as well

[djdig.livejournal.com]

Woman indicted in Missouri MySpace suicide case: http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20080515/Internet.Suicide/

Re: Not as happy, but I know you were following this news as well

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

I saw! ALSO MADE OF AWESOME.

[yasha-chan.livejournal.com]

I'm far too lazy to go find my sources for the history of marriage, but suffice it to say it was only in the 1700's or so that it became a "religion thing". Marriage has been secular for far longer, pretty much since we started grouping together in big colonies.

I don't care what anyone's religious or personal thoughts are, so long as people realize that their mileage may very and that there are no one group of rules that can govern every single person on this planet. Hopefully sooner than later people will learn to separate their religious beliefs from law.

It seems almost like one step closer to actually being able to marry the person I love and have lived with for 5 years. If we were opposite genders, no one would give a damn, and no one but our families should give a damn now. It's no one else's business but our own.

[luscious-purple.livejournal.com]

While I am heartened by today's ruling, part of me is holding my breath. There's a pending same-sex-marriage-BAN referendum already submitted for the November 2008 ballot in California, and as the LA Times reports it, the voters COULD overturn today's ruling a few months from now.

I am all for civil marriage as a civil right. So is my religious denomination. But I will reserve the highest levels of happiness for the day when that civil right becomes as bulletproof in California as it is in Massachusetts.

[redqueenofevil.livejournal.com]

Here here! And as a fellow UU, I couldn't agree more.

I'm really worried about this ballot issue too. I hope it will fail, but I hoped the same with Amendment 2 in Colorado the year it passed. At least Amendment 2 was overturned, but if this passes, it's going to be a whole can of worms.

[bitpig.livejournal.com]

The expression is "Hear, hear" — meaning "listen, everyone!" — not "here, here", which means nothing and makes no sense. "Hear, hear" originated in the British parliament in the 18th century as a contraction of "hear him, hear him". [Source]

??

[redqueenofevil.livejournal.com]

Thanks for interrupting my train of thought. As kyburg and some others know, I do not conform to the idea of making sense. So I reject your notion that I should bother to ask people to listen to me, and rather should point to the very place I pointed to.

I also reserve the right to march to my own tempo, and use my own drum to provide the beat, be it in 3/4, or 5/4 time, rather than the conventional 4/4. If you dislike my idiomatic gestures, then perhaps you should gripe about it on your own journal.

You may be correct with the "hear hear" saying, but with all due respect, I did not ask you for the facts. If you wish to snark my nonsensical phrasing, then go to a grammar community.

Further, while I chose to remain tacet about it earlier, I should chime in that I disagreed with your argument with other lj users about gay marriage. It is odd that you should compare a non heterosexual individual with that of a child molester or an alcoholic. I will add that followers of the Roman Catholic faith are diverse in their beliefs just as followers of the general Christian religion tend to be. So while I can respect that you find disagreement with the CA supreme court, I find your claims of religious representation to be disrespectful.

I hope you realize that just because you follow the Roman Catholic way does not make you a representative for all Roman Catholics. Although I am a UU, I never claimed to represent all UU members, as that's a rather presumptuous action.

Further, the decrees of the Roman Catholic Church are not law, and many within the denomination and outside will argue that the church has misinterpreted the teachings of Jesus, and the Torah.

This response was sponsored by 5/4 time, congas, and the letter 'Q.'

[mdlbear]

Luckily, it looks as though the decision was written in a way that would make it difficult for an amendment to overturn. Basically, the ruling states that marriage and domestic partnership are equivalent in all but name, and that calling them something different, especially when one term is associated with an oppressed minority, is contrary to the equal protection clause. Separate-but-equal is not equal.

[nagasvoice.livejournal.com]

Yaaay!

[7leaguebootdisk.livejournal.com]

For some nice details on the ruling: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/15/california/index.html

The court went on for 121 pages about the California State Constitution and previous decisions regarding marriage, before going into how it applies to this case, so it is clear that only a constitutional amendment will fly. They did leave room for the state to only have civil unions though, and leave marriage up to churches and such.

thank you!

[nagasvoice.livejournal.com]

(throwing confetti and dancing!!)

[featherquill.livejournal.com]

Yes we ARE awesome. And we will continue to fight to stay FREE. !!! :D

"Do you hear the people sing?
Singing the song of angry men
It is the music of a people
Who will NOT be slaves again!"

"Will you join in our crusade?
Who will be strong and stand with me?
Beyond the barricade
Is there a world you long to see?
Courfeyrac:
Then join in the fight
That will give you the right to be free!"

-Les Miserables

w00t! w00t!

[nagasvoice.livejournal.com]

**standing up in the audience clapping wildly!!**

[featherquill.livejournal.com]

:D!!!! Les Miz seriously needs to make its way back here.

*twitches with withdrawls*

[miwasatoshi.livejournal.com]

Does anyone else find themselves singing everyone's parts in different voices when they sing along to "Red and Black" then "Do You Hear the People Sing"? :D

[featherquill.livejournal.com]

I totally do. In fact, I've been doing that since I was about ten years old. How the heck ELSE are you supposed to sing "Little Fall of Rain" when there are no other Mizers around? :D

Actually, upon further review, it's all the songs in Les Miz that work this way. :)

[nagasvoice.livejournal.com]

What I found so amazing about seeing the show on its first run through my town was that the tremendously conservative little old ladies in diamonds were standing up and clapping too. They were right there with the rest of us plebes. They kind of gave themselves a little shake afterward and stepped back out of the proletariat, but for about twenty minutes, they were right there too.
Anything that can do that? Priceless.