Gay marriage bill approved in California

[track2004]

God probably thought they were married when they first decided they wanted to be, even if the state didn't recognize it. I don't know about His divine plan, and I really doubt any person really does. I wasn't talking about The Church right then, just the state, it's hard for me to do both at the same time because of the nature of our government.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='track2004' date='Sep 7 2005, 03:37 PM']No I meant the first part.  And as the Catholic stance says, marriage must be open to having kids, and while two people of the same gender can't have kids together that doesn't mean they can't adopt or bring in kids from previous relationships.  Many Catholics (heterosexual Catholics) are unable to procreate for various reasons, but the Church doesn't not let them marry because of it.

I also think it's kinda funny that you'll say you're straight but won't allow for 'homosexuals', though I did use the word first.  Still funny though.

edit:  i can't spell...
[right][snapback]714556[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually, I do believe that those who are permanently infertile are barred from the sacrament of marriage. Can someone check that for me?

Either way, you most certainly did [b]not[/b] mean the first part. The first part refers to something that only a loving heterosexual relationship within the context of marriage with openness to conception can entail. If you remove any one of those, then you do not have what I described.

[quote]I also think it's kinda funny that you'll say you're straight but won't allow for 'homosexuals', though I did use the word first.  Still funny though.[/quote]

Please explain this, as I haven't a clue what you mean.

[track2004]

The Church won't refer to people as gay or homosexual because it identifies them as other than God's children and identifies them with something that is considered a mortal sin. For instance, I typically get repremanded here if I say I'm gay or so and so is gay, they say we're not gay, but that we have SSA. So you saying you're straight, also identifies you by your sexual preference. I just thought it was funny. I'm weird, it's okay if you don't get it.

[DeeDee]

Exactly, Track, on both counts. There are many legal benefits that homosexual couples who have been together for decades do not have unless they hire a lawyer and set up trusts, etc. If one dies, there is no right of inheritance for instance. If there are children involved it can get very messy just as in heterosexual divorce cases, even worse. A partner basicaly has no rights including as you say, the privilege of seeing a sick partner in ICU. The same goes for heterosexual couples who for one reason or another have chosen not to marry.

Then of course there is the whole emotional aspect of acknowledging their love for each other. I promised I wouldn't get into controversial postings ever again, but . . . . .

Peace, love, joy, all those good things!



[quote name='track2004' date='Sep 7 2005, 01:47 PM']Aight, I'll try to answer this question, but since I personally don't really want to get married (at least yet, I'm only 19) it may be a bit off.

First off, people want to get married as a public announcement of their love for each other.  The culture is such that marriage is that.  Also, without being married, no couple can share their lives as fully as possible.  For instance, if I was living with  (but not married to) someone I would not be allowed to have any say in their care in the hospital nor would I be able to see them in ICU.  I would also not automatically have things like inheritance rights, own a home with them, or share children and income with them.  This is a concern, albeit very secular, these are the benifits of civil marriage.  It joins two people into one entinity and allows one's spouse to have say in thier life and death. 

Along with the more spiritual aspects of marriage, marriage is about uniting two people in a union before God.  You're remarks that homosexuals are not religious or Christians is false.  Most of my gay friends are in fact Christians, and they struggle to fit their sexuality with their religion, but they know that Christ was sent here to save us.  They belive all the tenants of their religion, but find fault in the teachings about homosexuality.  A man named John J McNeill wrote a book called "The Church and the Homosexual", in it he describes very well the plight of gay people to come to an understanding of their homosexuality in the context of Catholicism.  He says that many feel as if God made them this way, or let them be this way, and as such they have to decide if a) God just wanted to make them miserable or b) the teachings they hear are flawed.  In marriage homosexuals desire happiness they feel called to, but that society is denying them.

If you want to know more PM me because I don't really want to start a Catholic vs. Cathoilc debate and cause some scandal (I cause enough already...)

-track
[right][snapback]714618[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='track2004' date='Sep 7 2005, 05:19 PM']The Church won't refer to people as gay or homosexual because it identifies them as other than God's children and identifies them with something that is considered a mortal sin.  For instance, I typically get repremanded here if I say I'm gay or so and so is gay, they say we're not gay, but that we have SSA.  So you saying you're straight, also identifies you by your sexual preference.  I just thought it was funny.  I'm weird, it's okay if you don't get it.
[right][snapback]714659[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ah, I see. I haven't been in a debate with you yet, so I was unaware. I figured I'd use your terminology.

Homosexuality is a term, though, and one used in the Catechism...but it is defined as disorder, not as an identity, and so I think that's the distinction. Of course, one is a human person, not "a homosexual" at their core.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='DeeDee' date='Sep 7 2005, 05:24 PM']Exactly, Track, on both counts. There are many legal benefits that homosexual couples who have been together for decades do not have unless they hire a lawyer and set up trusts, etc. If one dies, there is no right of inheritance for instance. If there are children involved it can get very messy just as in heterosexual divorce cases, even worse. A partner basicaly has no rights including as you say, the privilege of seeing a sick partner in ICU. The same goes for heterosexual couples who for one reason or another have chosen not to marry.

Then of course there is the whole emotional aspect of acknowledging their love for each other. I promised I wouldn't get into controversial postings ever again, but . . . . .
[right][snapback]714666[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Just because our society is disordered doesn't mean that we should make it so that disorder isn't as messy as usual.

Divorce is wrong. I'm against all laws allowing it. What you're saying, however, is that despite this, I should not only allow it, but institutionalize it, so that it can be accessed more easily, with less strain or effort, and fewer consequences?

Murder is a problem, but we can't take the attitude of "well, it'll happen anyway, so we'd better not only legalize it, but sanction it in our legal system, establish legal means to have someone murdered, etc." just because we have difficulty eliminating it.

When evil confronts us, we should fight it, not legalize and sanction it!

As for acknowledging love...what love? The nearest thing to love I can find in homosexuality is a close friendship, loneliness filled with anything nearby, and a lot of confusion about temptations Satan sends.

I strongly recommend "The Courage to be Chaste" by Fr. Benedict Groeschel.

[jezic]

this whole debate doesn't sound good.

I don't think they shoudl allow gay marriage.

The feds can only do one thing against a state law, a constitutional amendment. (that basically trumps everything.)

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='track2004' date='Sep 7 2005, 03:47 PM']Aight, I'll try to answer this question, but since I personally don't really want to get married (at least yet, I'm only 19) it may be a bit off.

First off, people want to get married as a public announcement of their love for each other.  The culture is such that marriage is that.  Also, without being married, no couple can share their lives as fully as possible.  For instance, if I was living with  (but not married to) someone I would not be allowed to have any say in their care in the hospital nor would I be able to see them in ICU.  I would also not automatically have things like inheritance rights, own a home with them, or share children and income with them.  This is a concern, albeit very secular, these are the benifits of civil marriage.  It joins two people into one entinity and allows one's spouse to have say in thier life and death. 

Along with the more spiritual aspects of marriage, marriage is about uniting two people in a union before God.  You're remarks that homosexuals are not religious or Christians is false.  Most of my gay friends are in fact Christians, and they struggle to fit their sexuality with their religion, but they know that Christ was sent here to save us.  They belive all the tenants of their religion, but find fault in the teachings about homosexuality.  A man named John J McNeill wrote a book called "The Church and the Homosexual", in it he describes very well the plight of gay people to come to an understanding of their homosexuality in the context of Catholicism.  He says that many feel as if God made them this way, or let them be this way, and as such they have to decide if a) God just wanted to make them miserable or b) the teachings they hear are flawed.  In marriage homosexuals desire happiness they feel called to, but that society is denying them.

If you want to know more PM me because I don't really want to start a Catholic vs. Cathoilc debate and cause some scandal (I cause enough already...)

-track
[right][snapback]714618[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

hey thanks for replying. i would just like to say that all that stuff about union and god and love and whatnot has nothing whatsoever to do with the government, and the governments clasification of two people. marraige in the eyes of the governement isnt some stamp that says "yes, they two ARE in love".

personally, i dont get why marraige is in the government at all. everyone cries seperation of church and state and yet marraige persists. the only place such a justification of love and union can occur is in a church.

I dont understand why homosexuals dont seem to get this. they dislike the governement (and those running it) for not letting them get married, but at the same time want the governments approval of their union. why dont homoesexuals fight for changes in the benifit structure so its not based on marraige at all? this only seems more logical. and this way you dont end up with two hereosexuals getting married to get a tax break or people "falling in love" with lamp posts and whatnot. (dont think that wont happen - ILL do it). plus, as was mentioned, homosexuals arnt the only ones that suffer under these guidlines.

track this wasnt just directed at you, its just my general ramblings on the subject.

[cappie]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Sep 8 2005, 02:55 AM']Actually, it was "California girls"....
[right][snapback]714424[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I know It was just a touch of Aussie Irony :

[Norseman82]

Track,

For a marriage to be complete it must be [i]ratum et consummatum[/i], the [i]consummatum[/i] obviously being the consummation act. The only way that a same-sex marriage can be comsummated is through an act that the Church considers gravely sinful. I hope that helps explain the opposition to same-sex marriage.

[track2004]

[quote name='Sirklawd' date='Sep 7 2005, 09:16 PM']hey thanks for replying. i would just like to say that all that stuff about union and god and love and whatnot has nothing whatsoever to do with the government, and the governments clasification of two people. marraige in the eyes of the governement isnt some stamp that says "yes, they two ARE in love".

personally, i dont get why marraige is in the government at all. everyone cries seperation of church and state and yet marraige persists. the only place such a justification of love and union can occur is in a church.

I dont understand why homosexuals dont seem to get this. they dislike the governement (and those running it) for not letting them get married, but at the same time want the governments approval of their union. why dont homoesexuals fight for changes in the benifit structure so its not based on marraige at all? this only seems more logical. and this way you dont end up with two hereosexuals getting married to get a tax break or people "falling in love" with lamp posts and whatnot.  (dont think that wont happen - ILL do it).  plus, as was mentioned, homosexuals arnt the only ones that suffer under these guidlines.

track this wasnt just directed at you, its just my general ramblings on the subject.
[right][snapback]714921[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I agree with you on the govt and religion interaction with marriage actually. Personally I think they government should acknowledge that in their own eyes marriage is nothing more than a contract, so any two people should be able to get it. Or the government should wash their hands of it and give no benefits (they did this in Rome actually). As it is though, most gay people are fighting for the first part. I really do think that marriage, as I see it, is under God and that through Him people really find love.

I didn't think it was just picking on me or anything. I really apperciate that you're asking these questions instead of just saying it's wrong and being done.

Norse,
I understand why the Church thinks it's wrong. I've read the literature, I've looked through the Bible, I've talked with my friends and adult leaders. I know why they say it's wrong, but I disagree. There are a bunch of reasons why I tend to disagree, but like I said earlier, I want to avoid the public Catholic vs Catholic debates, so PM me and I'll try to explain as best I can.

-track

[White Knight]

Its a good thing Arnold Vetoed it. I need a link to back this up but I heard on the Local Fox News Hour about this.

[Didacus]

If the foundation of a marriage is a lie or a sin, the marriage cannot last nor be pleasing to God.

Same sex marriage is based on a grave sin and disorder (disorder against the natural, God's law) thus cannot be pleasing to God.

You can claim the facade you want, saying it 'looks like a duck, smells like a duck, acts like a duck' but you know what, 'it ain't a duck'.

[Sirklawd]

it smells of elderberries. the only understanding i can come to on homosexuality is that their source of love is distorted. it seems to them that they have genuine, honest to goodness love, but its clearly a love that cannot produce any fruit. but worse it seems that to them, nothing is wrong - its how they are. i can only be one of the worst possible crosses to ever bare. i can see how some homosexuals can blame god, and think its some cruel joke. thats not the case. everyone has their own stuff they have to deal with. we all must encourage eachother to not give into what our bodies may want, and follow God,


and hug eachother alot
and eat tacos, so very tasty and good for you,
and smile
and love God, because even though we are imperfect and have all these distorted urges and temptations he still loves us

Edited September 8, 2005 by Sirklawd

[cappie]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Sep 8 2005, 06:29 PM']Its a good thing Arnold Vetoed it. I need a link to back this up but I heard on the Local Fox News Hour about this.
[right][snapback]715208[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

From CNN.com
SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Wednesday he will veto a bill that would have made California the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through its elected lawmakers.

Schwarzenegger said the legislation, approved Tuesday by lawmakers, would conflict with the intent of voters when they approved an initiative five years ago. Proposition 22 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."

In Massachusetts, recognition of gay marriages came through a court ruling.

Massachusetts voters could get the chance to change that. A proposed 2008 ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage passed a key hurdle Wednesday when the state attorney general ruled it could be permitted if supporters gathered enough signatures. A separate proposal to ban gay marriage but create civil unions faces a vote in the Legislature next week. If approved, it would go on the ballot in 2006.

In California, gay rights advocates accused Schwarzenegger of betraying the bipartisan ideals that helped get him elected in the 2003 recall.

"Clearly he's pandering to an extreme right wing, which was not how he got elected," said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, one of the bill's sponsors. "He got elected with record numbers of lesbian and gay voters who had not previously voted for a Republican, and he sold us out."

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said Schwarzenegger missed "a golden opportunity to stand on history and do something that was noble and appropriate."

Newsom, a Democrat, sanctioned same-sex marriages in the city in 2004, but the state Supreme Court later voided the unions.

"It disappoints me greatly, and it will disappoint literally hundreds and hundreds of thousands of San Franciscans, not to mention millions of people across the country," Newsom said.

The governor has until Oct. 9 to issue the veto.

Despite his promise to do so, Schwarzenegger "believes gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationship," Thompson's statement said. "He is proud that California provides the most rigorous protections in the nation for domestic partners."

The Republican governor had indicated previously that he would veto the bill, saying the debate over same-sex marriage should be decided by voters or the courts.

A state appeals court is considering appeals of a lower court ruling earlier this year that overturned Proposition 22 and a 1978 law that first formally defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Meanwhile, opponents of same-sex marriages are planning ballot measures similar to that proposed in Massachusetts to ban gay marriage in the state Constitution.

Schwarzenegger's announcement dampened a celebratory mood among the bill's supporters, who only the night before cheered, hugged and kissed as the state Assembly narrowly sent the bill to the governor's desk.

Democratic Assemblyman Paul Koretz had called bans on gay marriage "the last frontier of bigotry and discrimination."

The bill passed the Legislature through the persistence of its author, Assemblyman Mark Leno, a San Francisco Democrat and one of six openly gay members in the California Legislature.

Leno's original bill failed in the Assembly by four votes in June, but he linked it to another bill in the Senate and it won approval last week. The Assembly passed it Tuesday by a bare majority, with the winning margin provided by four Democrats who didn't vote on the measure in June.

Leno said he requested a meeting with the governor Wednesday to argue his case but said Schwarzenegger's office did not respond.

"The Legislature has done the hard work of picking up the issue of the day, holding public hearings, having public debate and making a decision," Leno said. "(A veto) would be an enormous disregard for the deliberation of both houses and the millions of people who wish him to sign the bill."

The vote that sent the bill to the governor made the California Legislature the first legislative body in the country to approve of same-sex marriage. As in Massachusetts, civil unions in Vermont were granted through court rulings.

"I'm encouraged that the governor is going to stop the runaway Legislature, and he's going to represent the people," said Karen England of the Capitol Resource Institute, a Sacramento group that lobbied against the bill.

"I think Assembly member Leno wanted to rally everyone on his side and he's done exactly the opposite. He's forced his agenda on the rest of us," she said. "But in California the votes of the people do matter."