California Ruling on Same Sex Marriage

So what does everyone think about the new ruling regarding marriage in California? Do we think there will be an appeal to the US Supreme Court?

For that matter, how do y'all feel about the idea of gay marriage? I mean, I'm 100% for equal rights for all sexes, genders, and orientations, but I'm personally not so much into marriage (we reward people with governmental benefits when they are able to fall in love? Say what?), so I'm torn about supporting gay marriage, or just being anti state marriage in general. Thoughts? Reply

I'm a fan of alternative partnership models, like the idea of a 5-year contract (if you do feel the need to legally bind yourself to someone else). Then again, I also think the entire US tax system needs to be remodeled... sigh.

Also torn about the gay marriage thing. I eventually get to the point where I think that if whoever wants to get married should be able to, personal qualms with marriage aside. Perhaps if there were just a list of benefits that any couple could opt into on a case-by-case basis... Reply

yeah this whole thing is a tough one. i'm a big fan of the ancient druidic model. you'd get married for a year and a day and if that doesn't work out, you part. if it does- you get married again for 3 years, then 11, then for life. sounds like a good plan to me.

as a gay woman, i am all for complete equal rights for marriages between any two consenting adults (i really dislike the whole bipolar gender construct), but i'm not set on the word marriage. if they want to give us ALL rights/responsibilitie s (state and federal) then they can call it what they want because as much as i am for integration of the queer community, we're queer for a reason. i don't want to be normalized. we are different and that's not a bad thing so i'm okay with not being lumped in with het marriage. but that sentiment gets me in trouble with a lot of people.

but, whatever we do, we need to get this religion/state marriage thing cleared up. Reply

On the political note. I recently came across a video on the newyorker.com link The social and cultural psychologist Jonathan Haidt talks with Henry Finder about the five foundations of morality, and why liberals often fail to get their message across.(the 2007 New Yorker Conference.) This is revealing conference, the one that makes you think that something big has been discovered in ever illusive human nature. The point is, the Haidt’s theory might be applicable to the battles we see about sexes and gay marriages. Practical implementation of the morality theory to the gay marriage problem would be to come up with a compromise with the conservatives: “Do we really need to call the gay union a marriage?” Because, truly, it is all about “Don’t touch our god-blessed-sacred-man -and-wife-reproductive -centered live togetherness. - Just a thought… More of the mind blowing videos from the New Yorker 2007 conference here: link Reply

Saurou - I am totally all about hand fasting. Good call! Reply

As someone with a religious background, this is a topic that I can't talk about without getting darts thrown at me from one side or the other. But the root of a lot of the confusion is the lack of separation of church and state. I grew up in a culture where marriage was a sacred ritual. As I got older I realized that it was really more of a legal issue (but then why do so many marriages take place in churches, even if the participants themselves aren't religious?) As a legal matter, I don't see how they have any right to ban gay marriage. But as a religious matter, I can see how people want to protect their idea of sacred (even if sacred unions can't be threatened in a number of other ways that often go unnoticed).

We really dug ourself into a hole with this one as a culture. Marriage is the one major issue where religion and state are so intimately entwined. But because I don't have a time machine, I would prefer to have equal opportunities for both but call them separate things. I don't care what we call them as long as the rights are there. But some people want the semantics. They want to call it all marriage. I think there'd be a lot less controversy over it if it was called something else. Ah well.

I had mixed reactions about this and I'm a California resident, myself. Part of me was thrilled but it isn't the exact solution I want. At least it's change though. Reply

I second Happy Camper's idea of the convenient naming convention. However, being not gay myself, I am curious, if gay people would be offended by this? Anyone can eleborate please? Reply

Even growing up, I never understood why being "gay" was a "bad" thing. I grew up in a strict baptist family who, for the most part, only ended up being hyprocrites everytime they started preaching this or that. My great uncle is gay, and everyone knew it! But being gay was still wrong.. except for his case.

I'm now 22 years old and have come to terms with my own sexuality and frankly, I'm wondering if that's one of the biggest reasons marriages have problems in general. People are so insecure with themselves, no one different from them can be happy. People do whatever they can to disregard or hurt the people around them.

What I don't understand is this: Why do people push their own beliefs onto others? Someone being married to one of the same gender in California does nothing to the people in New York, and vice versa. No one can tell -me- I cannot be in love with a female, marry and raise kids with her. End of story. Anyone that tells me otherwise will be ignored.

People should not have to stress themselves out, worrying about what everyone around them thinks, or what they'll do to uphold their beliefs and shove them onto those others that just happen to not fit their standard of orthodox. Reply

Grizli-
as a gay woman, i can tell you that while i have a very hard time understanding why some people feel that the word "marriage" should not be applied to same sex unions- I am fine with a separation of naming on one condition. And i know this gets me in trouble with a lot of the GLBT community as many are offended by people who say that marriage is only a special word for M/F unions. and, really, it doesn't feel great to hear that, but i wouldn't say i was very offended.
really, if the government wants to say we have civil unions, gay unions, domestic partnerships, macaroni salad- i dont' care what it's called as long as it is 100% equal. not just at the state level either. it has to be equal on the federal level too just as marriage is or what good is it if i cross over the border to visit family and something happens and i can't see my partner in the hospital in ~that~ state. this is my problem with civil union policies to date.
i guess it boils down to, do i think that gay marriage is the ideal end? yes, i do. would i accept 100% equal civil unions? happily. but nothing is going to stop me from calling my partner my wife and not my civil unioned person. that's just silly. i could go on but, to get back around to your question- yes, most gay people would be offended by this at least mildly as it does insinuate a certain need to keep het love separate from other love that could be taken as a discrimination, but here are those like me, who understand that while we need to be equal, we ~are~ different and would be happy not to completely assimilate to the word "marriage".
hope that made sense! Reply

I don't like the train of thought that says marriage is for heterosexual people, and civil unions are for homosexual people. If the legal rights and everything are the same--why not just call it the same thing?

The only distinction of names that would make sense to me is if a "marriage" were something performed at a religious institution with a religious ceremony, and a "civil union" were something performed by a JP (or your local equivalent) with a non-religious ceremony. That's a distinction I could get behind. Reply