California Proposition 8 Case Re-Opening Online Petition

[Intense]

I understand where you are coming from, because I am Christian, and some of my closest friends are extremely devout to Christianity.
But, thankfully, churches are not forced to marry anyone in CA. Gay, straight, black, white.
If they were I could see a bigger issue, but because CA Law prohibits this, I don't think it should be too big of a deal when dealing with the church and gay marriages.

You have a few of your facts wrong, but could you please confirm this statement to me with a little proof of this. Id be happy to get the issue of whether or not a church institution would lose their tax exemption status under a gay marriage becoming legal resolved.

[Tyche]

You aren't really married in a church, there is a ceremony held in a church. You are still married at a court house by a clerk. Your pastor may sign the license as a witness or whatever, but the church doesn't acutally marry you.

[bombard]

How does gays marrying infringe on your religious beliefs? Do muslims worshiping in their own way infringe on them? How does any of this infringe on your rights? Your church or priest can still deny whoever they wish. This is an attempt to push a religious law onto an entire state, nothing else.

I'm sure something called a Bible might have something to do with it. Not sure though. There have been wars fought over religion for many many years, and will continue for many many years to come. Beliefs are beliefs, get over yourselves. If there was ONE right answer, there would be alot less conflict in the world, but there isn't. Reality sucks, but without conflict there would be no reason for progression.

[Tyche]

Easier way to say it, you get married in a church, a church doesn't marry you. There's a difference.

[Amastacia]

Perhaps the easiest thing to do is simply change a marriage license to be a "union license" or something, so that "marriage" can be a strictly religious ceremony with no attachments whatsoever to law.

It boggles my mind how much of the disagreement has to do with the word itself. Most people I've talked to who are against "gay marriage" agree at the very least that asking for the same legal protections is not unreasonable, but it's just the M word which gets them in a flutter.

Or do people really think it's okay to permit certain couples to exercise legal rights others cannot?

[Tristam]

I'm sure something called a Bible might have something to do with it. Not sure though. There have been wars fought over religion for many many years, and will continue for many many years to come. Beliefs are beliefs, get over yourselves. If there was ONE right answer, there would be alot less conflict in the world, but there isn't. Reality sucks, but without conflict there would be no reason for progression.

You'd be correct if the US was a theocracy, but it isn't. Explain to me how exactly gays marrying interferes with your ability to practice religion. And when was the last time the US fought a religious war?

If you want to explain to me why religion seems to want to control sexuality as well, cuz this is something that I think is absurd, then I'm all ears.

edit:did you seriously just advocate for religious war and equate war with progress? You can't possibly be that stupid right?

[Churchill]

This topic is stupid.

If you dumbasses really wanted to make a difference, you'd protest the fact that there shouldn't even be a vote on this due to the Constitution already granting gay people the same rights as straight people.

But no, be a dumbass like everyone else and pick a side, call them hicks while they call you fags or liberals or whatever, and perpetuate a process that you're never going to win while your rights are taken away from you.

[Intense]

This topic is stupid.

If you dumbasses really wanted to make a difference, you'd protest the fact that there shouldn't even be a vote on this due to the Constitution already granting gay people the same rights as straight people.

But no, be a dumbass like everyone else and pick a side, call them hicks while they call you fags or liberals or whatever, and perpetuate a process that you're never going to win while your rights are taken away from you.

This.

Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia yall.

[Tyche]

Also, @ Correction, churches "discriminate" against who they marry already. I cannot go to a catholic church and be allowed to marry there. I'm not catholic and there's a lot of progressions that have to be adhered to to be allowed to do that (at least here, I'd assume the same in other places, but I'm not real familiar with the catholic policies outside of my sister-in-law getting married in one and knowing what they had to do to have the ability to do so). Not everyone can pick any church or any priest they want.

[bombard]

You'd be correct if the US was a theocracy, but it isn't. Explain to me how exactly gays marrying interferes with your ability to practice religion. And when was the last time the US fought a religious war?

If you want to explain to me why religion seems to want to control sexuality as well, cuz this is something that I think is absurd, then I'm all ears.

edit:did you seriously just advocate for religious war and equate war with progress? You can't possibly be that stupid right?

I'm stupid for thinking war brings progress? wow, lol. Take a few history classes, pay attention or something while you're at it. I'm the stupid one though, look at all the innovations that have come from conflict and war. Then look at all the peace time innovations. WTF petrock comes to mind.

I was advocating nothing, just saying it's not going to end any time in the near future. Nice try to spin what I say into something that gets you in a frenzy though.

Why does sexuality want to control religion could be the other argument, of course I'm sure I'm an idiot or stupid for thinking that as well.

I wanna play in the NBA, but i can't since I lack talent. So i play basketball with my friends every saturday. I wanna be 'married' and accepted by the church. Civil Union is an option but damn it, I wanna be MARRIED, not union'd. wtf?

Marriage of a man and a woman has always been a religious belief. If religion doesn't want you to be married, find another way to do it and call it something else (which has already been said). Christ on a cracker already, enough is enough.

Tyche is correct. for some cross denominational marriages, you have to receive the blessings of both churches, in some cases do pre marital counseling, and in some cases one of the churches will not give blessing. What happens? Justice of the peace time. Never seen a lawsuit against a chuch because they wouldn't give their blessings on a cross-denominational union.

[Tristam]

I'm stupid for thinking war brings progress? wow, lol. Take a few history classes, pay attention or something while you're at it. I'm the stupid one though, look at all the innovations that have come from conflict and war. Then look at all the peace time innovations. WTF petrock comes to mind.

I was advocating nothing, just saying it's not going to end any time in the near future. Nice try to spin what I say into something that gets you in a frenzy though.

Why does sexuality want to control religion could be the other argument, of course I'm sure I'm an idiot or stupid for thinking that as well.

I wanna play in the NBA, but i can't since I lack talent. So i play basketball with my friends every saturday. I wanna be 'married' and accepted by the church. Civil Union is an option but damn it, I wanna be MARRIED, not union'd. wtf?

Marriage of a man and a woman has always been a religious belief. If religion doesn't want you to be married, find another way to do it and call it something else (which has already been said). Christ on a cracker already, enough is enough.

Yeah so you have a middle school understanding of social studies. I'll just wait for Iraq to launch it's first space shuttle and I'm sure the cure for cancer is coming out of darfur any time now.

The point remains, the US has never fought a religious war, we are not a theocracy, and you have yet to show how gay marriage infringes on your rights. And as was pointed out earlier, marriage between a man and a woman, or man and multiple women, or group marriage, or man and man, for most of history was not a religious belief.

[Seraph]

Marriage of a man and a woman has always been a religious belief. If religion doesn't want you to be married, find another way to do it and call it something else (which has already been said). Christ on a cracker already, enough is enough.

I think this issue also boils down to the difference of 'being married in the eyes of the state' and 'being married in the eyes of God'.

People view them differently. I think the fear among religious is the idea of changing the second one. I personally really don't care that gay people want the same living situation as other people. It's fine with me.

The real _problem_ is that people use the same word to have two different meanings; "Marriage." Personally, if they redefined all non religuous pairings as 'civil unions' I think most of this problem would go away. If you are joined in a church of some kind, you are married, otherwise you have a civil union. There, everyone gets fair treatment, and religious don't feel threatened.

I bet people still wouldn't be happy with a compromise like this, because people... [Spolier Alert!]

Spoiler: show

...are assholes.

[zoobernut]

Marriage is the state of promoting a woman to motherhood and is a sacrament. Yes I know I'll get flamed for that but oh well.

1627 The consent consists in a "human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other": "I take you to be my wife" - "I take you to be my husband."126 This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two "becoming one flesh"

1631 marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;

- Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children;

- Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses);

- The public character of the consent protects the "I do" once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it

1652 "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."

This being said, I too agree that hey, if you want to have a same sex union, fine. Get your Joint tax forms and whatever legal rights are afforded, but don't call it marriage because it is not that.

I am two pages late but I had to comment on this and many of the other arguments against gay marriage. Marriage is now a legal term recognized by the state and federal government. Gay couples want to marry in the legal term not the religious term. There is nothing stopping them from marrying in the religious sense right now. How does it hurt marriage if you add in the legal rights?

Two straight completely 100% agnostic or atheist people can go and get married in a 100% non religious way and it will be a legal marriage. How hard is it for people to understand marriage does not belong to the churches anymore it is not yours to protect. Allowing gay marriage will have no impact on your idea of what marriage is with regards to your church or religion. If you do not want to allow gay marriage then you should want to outlaw atheist marriage too.

Edit: Seraph put it very well above me too. Also Civil Unions do not work because "separate but equal" does not work.

[Tristam]

There's also a very important point to be made that Civil Unions ARE NOT the same as marriage. The most important distinction is that a civil union in one state is NOT recognized in another state.

[Penthesilea]

If marriage is a function of church then it's unconstitutional and should not be recognized by any governing agency.

Which personally is what I support...the government should not recognize marriage...period, if we consider it to be a religious institution, and all unions should be civil unions which do not discriminate against *anyone*.

This is my take on it. When you go to get married, either as a hetero or homosexual, you should be applying for a standardized and non-religious contract. Your marriage is only recognized legally once you've got your "marriage" license, so changing it so that everyone has to apply for a Civil Union License is the answer. Afterwards, it's up to you if you want to proceed with special ceremonies and whether your Church will allow them to happen there.

[Seraph]

Edit: Seraph put it very well above me too. Also Civil Unions do not work because "separate but equal" does not work.

It totally works. If you are 'married' in a church you are just married _and_ in a civil union. 'Marriage' would grant no legal benefit, only the civil union you also took part in. So, by extension, all the gay people also getting civil unions are legally on par with you. You might not be able to be married in a church, but that isn't a right, so who cares?

Like I said, people are shitheads, defined things poorly early on, and now there is mass confusion and hate.

[zoobernut]

The sad part is whenever I have heard that point brought up to anyone who is against gay "marriage" they have no valid or good counter argument, it just seems to be ignored.

[bombard]

Middle school understanding, LOL. Right. Innovations come from more than technology there chief. Not only that, but most items you take for granted everyday came as side effects from a result of necessity from various conflicts.

US has never fought a religious war? wait a minute ... then why is one of the first amendments freedom of religion? England was doing what to people who didn't share the churches views? So it wasn't the underlying factor, but it was a major factor indeed.

Stop calling me stupid, when you don't even take the time to do proper research. I could really care less if a woman marries a donkey to be honest. But trying to justify gays having the right to get married when EVERYONE VOTED (gays, straights, Trisexuals, Transexuals, "Uncle Zeke", Master P) and the majority said no is a crock of shit.

Keep trying, keep spreading your beliefs -- but doing so while mocking others' beliefs is a crock.

[Churchill]

Here is a point: You're protesting the wrong thing, enjoy your fail.

[bombard]

There's also a very important point to be made that Civil Unions ARE NOT the same as marriage. The most important distinction is that a civil union in one state is NOT recognized in another state.

Then be an advocate for national recognition of Civil Unions.

This shit reminds me of the 'no girls allowed' clubhouse. If a group of people do not want to accept you, you shouldn't force them (in before public Vs. private debates). Make a new group, and invite more open minded people to it. Nothing is more irritating than a whiner who has other options yet chooses not to take them.