Obama: Court must end California gay marriage ban

[Gerald]

A California ban on gay marriages should be overturned by the US Supreme Court, the Obama administration says.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-con...itedStates.pdf filed ahead of arguments scheduled for late March, the justice department says the ban - known as Proposition 8 - is unconstitutional.Outlawing same-sex marriage while offering marriage-like rights under law contravenes the right to equal protection under law, the brief says.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on two same-sex marriage issues.

As well as Proposition 8, the nine justices will consider the Defense of Marriage Act, a Clinton-era piece of US federal legislation that defines marriage as solely being between a man and a woman.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21629876

Obama,have a lot of work on his desk now, budget and gay marriage etc.etc.

Note: 1 March 2013 Last updated at 12:23 GMT

[vienna]

What was particularly galling for GOP ultraconservatives was Clint Eastwood once again making a very public display of his more Libertarian sentiments by signing a Supreme Court brief filled in opposition to the gay marriage ban in California. He was one of about 100 GOP members to sign the brief filled in conjuction with the Obama administration brief. But, hey, what could the GOP far right expect from Clint? After all, he is known for talking to empty chairs...

<O>

[GoldenRivet]

1. What respect does BO have for "the law"?

2. Can we just let the Gays get married already? Jesus



and yes... im a big bad, money hungry, racist bigot, kitten killing republican

[vienna]

2. Can we just let the Gays get married already? Jesus

Amen to that. As Clint put it in an interview, the country's got better and more important matters to attend to than who marries who. If the GLBT want to indulge in the miseries of marriage and divorce, more power to them...

and yes... im a big bad, money hungry, racist bigot, kitten killing republican

..and from Texas on top of it all...

<O>

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by vienna

..and from Texas on top of it all...

<O>

most importantly

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

and yes... im a big bad, money hungry, racist bigot, kitten killing republican

You forgot Communist hating

HunterICX

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

You forgot Communist hating

HunterICX

And weapon hoarding.

[Ducimus]

I can't say I think much of California, but, shouldn't this be a state's right issue that Obama should be staying out of? I find the meddling of Obama's administration into individual state issues way overbearing.

[Armistead]

I am totally against gay marriage, why I never married a gay, but I don't care what other people do.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Armistead

I am totally against gay marriage, why I never married a gay, but I don't care what other people do.

If you don't care what other people do, then why are you totally against it?

Personally, i think its ok for gays to have civil unions. But formal marriage? I don't see how that is possible. Marriage in and of itself is a religious ceremony, ususally conducted by a member of a church of some kind. I think most (if not all) religions have a negative view of gay marriage. Legislating gay marrage in this capacity, is a asking people to change the views of their religion just to accommodate few select individuals, via legislation from the state, and to me that's the rub.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

If you don't care what other people do, then why are you totally against it?

Personally, i think its ok for gays to have civil unions. But formal marriage? I don't see how that is possible. Marriage in and of itself is a religious ceremony, ususally conducted by a member of a church of some kind. I think most (if not all) religions have a negative view of gay marriage. Legislating gay marrage in this capacity, is a asking people to change the views of their religion just to accommodate few select individuals, via legislation from the state, and to me that's the rub.

The religion argument is a red herring. No one is going to force churches to perform same-sex marriages. However, if a straight couple can go to the court house and have their union called marriage, then why can't a gay couple do the same thing? We tried the whole seperate but equal thing before, and it wasn't equal.

[Ducimus]

I don't see how the involvement of religion is a red herring. Personally, I don't appreciate anyone forcing their religous views upon me. Likewise, I can appreciate how one might take similar offense by having someone elses views being forced upon their faith. Marriage in and of itself, I fail to see how you can separate religion from it. On the other hand, i think that's already been done, and is called a civil union, which as i already stated, think they should be able to have.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

But formal marriage? I don't see how that is possible. Marriage in and of itself is a religious ceremony, ususally conducted by a member of a church of some kind.

Does that mean that people who go to a Justice Of The Peace aren't really married? The reality is that for the ancient Greeks true love could only be had between members of the same sex, and marriage was to guarantee lineage. In fact, even early Christians married by declaring that they were so. The Chuch got involved early on, but very late when compared with the whole of history. The idea of marrying for love is fairly recent, and the definition of "marriage" has changed many times. One more won't hurt a thing.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/artic...rriage-history
http://theweek.com/article/index/228...over-centuries

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Personally, I don't appreciate anyone forcing their religous views upon me. Likewise, I can appreciate how one might take similar offense by having someone elses views being forced upon their faith.

How exactly does making same-sex marriages legal force anything on you? Will you be forced to marry another man? Will churches be forced to perform gay marriages? In both cases the answer is "no".

Marriage in and of itself, I fail to see how you can separate religion from it. On the other hand, i think that's already been done, and is called a civil union, which as i already stated, think they should be able to have.

As I said, going to a JP removes religion from the equation. The point of marriage is twofold. First is to guarantee that the children will have two parents, one of each sex. In that context it can be argued that marriage, and sex, need to be between a man and a woman. But no one marries for that reason anymore, just as no one has ever had sex just to make a baby. The main benefit of marriage today is to guarantee inheritance. If you die your wife inherites everything, and doesn't have to pay an inheritance tax. That benefit does not apply to "civil unions" as far as I know.

The point is that the definition of "marriage" has never been just religious, and tha definition has changed many times over the millenia. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, why should you care if a man marries another man? It neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg.

[Platapus]

No one has yet made the point that allowing gays to marry will, in any way, adversely affect heterosexual marriages.

Will married heterosexuals somehow feel "less" married once gays are allowed to marry?

If gays are allowed to marry, will the heterosexual marriage divorce rate skyrocket to 40-50%? (http://www.divorcerate.org)

If gays are allowed to marry, will the average length of heterosexual plummet down to 8 years? (http://www.families.com/blog/average...h-of-marriages)

Hmmm seems to already be happening in heterosexual marriages.

So how exactly is gay marriage going to adversely affect the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage?