Le mariage homosexuel en Californie !!!

[Sarabi]

Celebrate! because this is incredbile!
Gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004. Four years later.........! (effective in one month)
36.5 million people live in California!
Compare this to the 6.4 million in Massachusetts. This is a great step yet!
Virtually nothing happened in the legalization of gay marriage since I came out to myself in November 2006, so this is really exciting for me.
What next? How many years do you think it will take before the U.S. legalizes gay marriage in full?
It took four years for one of the most liberal states to follow suit, so I give it ten years, fifteen max!
(I'd be more optimistic, but I figure those old geezers ruling our country are going to wait until the last minute... like my university.)

[Sisyphe]

What an exciting time to be in California!!! I turned CNN on yesterday morning about 10 in the morning and they said that they'd discuss the Supreme Court's decision after the commercial, and of course I couldn't wait to hear it. They said it so callously though - I figured the marriages issued in San Fransisco weren't valid. So exciting though!! Me and my friends all went out to celebrate, and I proposed (as a joke, of course) to my best friend, who is a straight guy. He was even more shocked because he didn't know it was legalized yet. And this weekend, we have the Pride, so it couldn't be better timing. For now, it's really cool, but I hope it will be written into the state constitution soon. There is already an initiative to redefine marriage on the November ballot as only between a man and woman, which I will be voting against, of course. I guessed 15 yrs for federal gay marriage...I'm not too optimistic about it, especially since it's taken Cali this long already. But I'm glad to be in California, which has always been at the forefront of forward-thinking politics.

But I came out four years ago, and this is definitely a positive step. I hope that gay Californian teens and other people who are coming out will find their environments more self-affirming ones. I don't think this alone will do that, but I think it reflects the progression of public opinion in California.

I've gotten 3 marriage proposals so far, by the way!

[Lazar Taxon]

I voted for 15-25 years. There are a lot of states where voters have approved gay marriage bans, and I think there are a lot of courts that wouldn't be very accepting of it. Nonetheless I find reason for hope in the future: a recent poll found that 56% of Americans aged 18-29 favor gay marriage. (Also encouraging, 62% of them support national health insurance.) Reactionism and parochialism run very strong in the United States, but I think they're on a gradual decline.

Or in the words of Theodore Parker, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

[0stsee]

Hi!

I'd say i'm about 70% gay, yet somehow the term "gay marriage" doesn't sound right to me.
For me, the word marriage in itself already contains "straight".
Many of you may find this weird, but I'm just sharing my personal opinion.

Salam,


MarK

[JackFrost]

Good for California! As the saying goes...

As goes California, so goes the nation.



Those bans won't work themselves out once Americans see that the "traditional" marriage didn't crash down by those same-sex marriages and that California hasn't been burnt by the fires of hell like many conservatives are droning about now. It took us this long to be accepting of civil unions, so acceptance of same-sex marriage will come eventually first along the eastern and western coast states before piercing in the heartland with the South being the last battleground for legalization of gay marriage. That is if the US Supreme Court hasn't said anything about it making banning of same-sex marriage as being against the US Constitution (I believe the Equal Protection Clause or Due Process Clause will be invoked). Or at least saying that it is unconstitutional for a state that bans same-sex marriage to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states (invoking the Full Faith and Credit Clause).

For me, the word marriage in itself already contains "straight".

Naturally it invokes a man and a woman in anyone's mind, but the word marriage exactly means an union between two consenting persons. It doesn't have to be straight or not.

[Lazar Taxon]

Ostsee: It's really an arbitrary definitional thing. One route, to make things clearer, would be to cast aside "marriage" as a legal term altogether: the state-sanctioned, legally recognized union (i.e. civil marriage) would just be called a civil union, and "marriage" would refer merely to religious ceremonies and custom (outside the purview of the secular state, like baptism). The latter would be carried out by houses of worship, and the former would be carried out by representatives of the state.

You see, I think the problem with the current arrangement is that the realms of state and religion are blurred, and religions feel (wrongly) that they have a stake in something that should purely be a matter of government policy. A court will say, "The legal rights of marriage ought to be extended to same-sex couples," and Religion X will say, "No, you can't do that, because it says in our scripture/doctrine that marriage is between a man and a woman!" So they want the state to adhere to their religious precepts. The cleavage between civil and religious marriage can already be seen in the Catholic prohibition on divorce. So why not just make things clear and simple by separating the legal and religious aspects completely? If you want the law to recognize your romantic partnership, then go to the registrar and get a state-sanctioned civil union. And if you want Religion X to recognize your romantic partnership, then have a ceremony at your place of worship and call it a marriage. The former will be provided to citizens without discrimination, in accordance with constitutional principles, and the latter will be provided at the caprice of the church, subject to whatever illiberal restrictions its deity ordains.

[Sisyphe]

I voted for 15-25 years. There are a lot of states where voters have approved gay marriage bans, and I think there are a lot of courts that wouldn't be very accepting of it.

Queen Ehlana pointed out to me in a discussion that in the state she's from, a federal ruling overturned a law against sodomy as late as 2003. And this is in Texas of all states - they're not exactly known for being the most tolerant people on earth.

For me, the word marriage in itself already contains "straight".
Many of you may find this weird, but I'm just sharing my personal opinion.

I didn't get that memo, sorry. Personally, I associate marriage with abstract concepts like 'commitment' and 'team-work', for example, rather than a picture of a couple...There are all kinds of heterosexual marriages even...tall with short, black with white, blond with brunette, and so on.

Good for California! As the saying goes...

As goes California, so goes the nation.

Cool! I've never heard that expression before...ironically. I just hope the expression isn't right with Clinton winning the primary, but I'm becoming less worried about that as time goes on...

[0stsee]

Ostsee: It's really an arbitrary definitional thing. One route, to make things clearer, would be to cast aside "marriage" as a legal term altogether: the state-sanctioned, legally recognized union (i.e. civil marriage) would just be called a civil union, and "marriage" would refer merely to religious ceremonies and custom (outside the purview of the secular state, like baptism). The latter would be carried out by houses of worship, and the former would be carried out by representatives of the state.

You see, I think the problem with the current arrangement is that the realms of state and religion are blurred, and religions feel (wrongly) that they have a stake in something that should purely be a matter of government policy. A court will say, "The legal rights of marriage ought to be extended to same-sex couples," and Religion X will say, "No, you can't do that, because it says in our scripture/doctrine that marriage is between a man and a woman!" So they want the state to adhere to their religious precepts. The cleavage between civil and religious marriage can already be seen in the Catholic prohibition on divorce. So why not just make things clear and simple by separating the legal and religious aspects completely? If you want the law to recognize your romantic partnership, then go to the registrar and get a state-sanctioned civil union. And if you want Religion X to recognize your romantic partnership, then have a ceremony at your place of worship and call it a marriage. The former will be provided to citizens without discrimination, in accordance with constitutional principles, and the latter will be provided at the caprice of the church, subject to whatever illiberal restrictions its deity ordains.

Makes sense.

[Ariki]

I'm sceptical about all of this because what about Polygamous and Polyamorous type relationships. Aren't they just as valid? This whole monogamous thing isn't everyone's cup of tea.

I see this whole so called "gay" marriage thing just as a poor clone of traditional Christian heterosexual marriage just like the status of de-facto is. It promotes that what heterosexual partners have in institutions ought to be mimicked by non-heterosexual partners as the norm.

I'm just trying to think outside of the square and pre-empt what other civil liberties are needed.

[Sarabi]

riki: Sure, speaking of outside the box, I actually no longer believe in gender, and I think I am going to be celibate for my entire life - for the better. However, I would like to raise a child perhaps, and that I wouldn't want to do alone. So I guess that will depend on whether or not I ever get married.

Anyway, I am actually a solitary person, and I wasted a lot of time trying to be normal and hang out with others when it displeased me greatly. So you make an interesting point, of course.

As for polygamy, I don't know about that. As someone interested in monastic life, I wonder about children being raised there. However, the stories I have read/heard have not been very positive. It seems from these cases that children just need one or two close people to be there for them and that polygamy would not be very helpful as far as raising children goes. Besides, even though polygamy might work for some, I think the divorce rate would be much worse than for monogamy - just from the people I've met interested in polygamy. That would be a legal nightmare. Not to mention than in many cases of societies involving polygamy, it is all about taking advantage of women.

[Arcane]

I think there are too many hardcore religious communities in the US and I don't believe full recognition will take place before the disintegration of the US.

[Zorba]

I'm sceptical about all of this because what about Polygamous and Polyamorous type relationships. Aren't they just as valid? This whole monogamous thing isn't everyone's cup of tea.

No legal system is stopping you living in those kind of relationships. Adultery is not illegal anymore; there is no law to stop you sharing your house or your bed with two women or two men or whatever takes your fancy. You can live in a sado-masochistic fivesome if you want under the current rules. You can live how you want providing you don't infringe the consent principle and many people do.

The gay marriage debate is therefore about the legal (and /or religious) recognition of relationships, not about whether or not they are "valid". In the eyes of the law, they became valid when homosexuality was decriminalized. Of course, this move alone did not mean that everybody accepted homosexuals. Attitudes take a long time to change. However, it is always difficult (impossible, I would say) to use the law to change attitudes.

In the gay marriage debate, it is easy to see how we can introduce legislation that would allow for two people of the same sex to receive the same legal rights and benefits as people of the opposite sex. That is the crux of the gay marriage debate. The fact that it will also make society more tolerant may be an added bonus.

However, it is much to difficult to see how we could change the law to provide for polyamorous and polygamous relationships. What kind of legislation would you like to see and why?

I see this whole so called "gay" marriage thing just as a poor clone of traditional Christian heterosexual marriage

Why a "poor" clone? How is it inferior to "heterosexual" marraige?

What is traditionally "Christian" about marriage? Pagan Rome granted a legal status to heterosexual monogamous marriage, as did pre-Christian Germanic peoples.

What is "heterosexual" about Christian marriage? There is evidence to suggest that the Christian Church were blessing homosexual couples in the medieval period. Incidentally, there is also evidence that the state recognized homosexual unions in Medieval France.

just like the status of de-facto is.

I don't understand this.

It promotes that what heterosexual partners have in institutions ought to be mimicked by non-heterosexual partners as the norm.

What exactly does it promote? The only thing that I see it promoting is the idea of two people choosing to live together together and working together to provide for their children. What is wrong with society promoting this? Note that it is a choice: no-one is prescribing marriage for anyone or forcing anyone into marriage against their consent (unlike in other parts of the world).

I'm just trying to think outside of the square and pre-empt what other civil liberties are needed.

You haven't actually named any additional "civil liberties" that you believe you need.

[Ariki]

No legal system is stopping you living in those kind of relationships. Adultery is not illegal anymore; there is no law to stop you sharing your house or your bed with two women or two men or whatever takes your fancy. You can live in a sado-masochistic fivesome if you want under the current rules. You can live how you want providing you don't infringe the consent principle and many people do.

Of course no legal system is stopping me just as no legal system at this current time stopped anyone living in a monogamous homosexual relationship.

The gay marriage debate is therefore about the legal (and /or religious) recognition of relationships, not about whether or not they are "valid".

If the gay marriage debate is about the legal recognition of relationships then so far it is a pyrhic victory as it is a fairly narrow view of what a relationship can consist of (i.e. only two people living monogamously together).

However, it is much to difficult to see how we could change the law to provide for polyamorous and polygamous relationships. What kind of legislation would you like to see and why?

That anyone who enters into such a relationship and wants to be wed to all people involved receive all the same legal rights as a monogamous couple.

Why a "poor" clone? How is it inferior to "heterosexual" marraige?

It is a poor clone because all that's changed legally is whether or not two people of the same gender can be recognised by the state as a couple. It does absolutely nothing for people who may have more than one committed lover.

Why should relationships have to be monogamous in order for lovers to be wed?

For example, why can't I marry Sione, Manu and Seini because I love all three equally and we all want to save up money to buy a house together and have a family together. Why can't my three lovers be all recognised as my spouses? All four of us want to spend our lives together and be recognised as all being married to each other. All four of us are just as good as any monogamous couple why should we be discriminated against?

What is traditionally "Christian" about marriage? Pagan Rome granted a legal status to heterosexual monogamous marriage, as did pre-Christian Germanic peoples.

I said "traditional" Christian since that is the only tradition that most people in the West would be familiar with. I however come from a different tradition where marriage is perceived differently. Allowing myself to look at gay "Western" marriage there is absolutely very little that is different from the tradtional Christian marriage (e.g. monogamous relationships, how the ceremony is conducted etc etc).

What is "heterosexual" about Christian marriage? There is evidence to suggest that the Christian Church were blessing homosexual couples in the medieval period. Incidentally, there is also evidence that the state recognized homosexual unions in Medieval France.

I don't really care about the Christian church in the medieval period to be honest. I don't find that kind of view of marriage to be particularly enlightened either since it is a narrow view of how many people can participate in the relationship and what for.

What exactly does it promote?

That heterosexuality (including monogamous marriage) is the norm and everyone has to follow (even heterosexuals).

The only thing that I see it promoting is the idea of two people choosing to live together together and working together to provide for their children. What is wrong with society promoting this? Note that it is a choice: no-one is prescribing marriage for anyone or forcing anyone into marriage against their consent (unlike in other parts of the world).

That exactly mimics a heterosexual marriage.

You haven't actually named any additional "civil liberties" that you believe you need.

Actually if you read the beginning of my previous post before defending your pyrhic victory I mentioned two other types of relationships.

[Zorba]

If the gay marriage debate is about the legal recognition of relationships then so far it is a pyrhic victory as it is a fairly narrow view of what a relationship can consist of (i.e. only two people living monogamously together).

Gay marriage, or indeed heterosexual marriage, is not meant to provide a moral imperative, or - as you put it - "a view of what a relationship can consist of". It is about the legal recognition of a certain type of relationship. You are confusing the two.

Other types of relationship are equally valid, but there is no obvious way in which the law can recognize them without running into serious problems. In the case of polygamy, for example, there are issues regarding the wealthy being able to choose several partners for themselves, leaving less wealthy people with no partners to choose from.

In liberal democracies, freedom is often defined negatively (see Isaiah Berlin and Judith Shklar). This means that laws exist to regulate our behavior only when necessary; where the law is silent, we are free to behave as we want. This is currently the case with polyamory, S&M and other types of relationships. The law does not prevent them; the societal prejudice that does exist against these kind of relationships cannot be overcome though establishing a specific legal status for them.

all the same legal rights as a monogamous couple

Which, specifically?

It is a poor clone because all that's changed legally is whether or not two people of the same gender can be recognised by the state as a couple. It does absolutely nothing for people who may have more than one committed lover.

Surely the fact that it operates the same way as "heterosexual" marriage means it is a very good clone? (i.e. it has been 'cloned', or 'reproduced' very accurately). What you are really driving it is that you believe marriage shouldn't have been cloned at all...

Why should relationships have to be monogamous in order for lovers to be wed?

They don't. If you and your wife have an agreement that you will sleep around - let's say you each take a lover every Tuesday night - no government official will check what you're up to and annul your marriage.

For example, why can't I marry Sione, Manu and Seini because I love all three equally and we all want to save up money to buy a house together and have a family together. Why can't my three lovers be all recognised as my spouses? All four of us want to spend our lives together and be recognised as all being married to each other. All four of us are just as good as any monogamous couple why should we be discriminated against?

The problem with polygamy is that in those societies which practice it, there tends to be a large concentration of wives among the very wealthy and no women left over for poorer men. This leads to a lot of frustrated testosterone-laden men.

Allowing myself to look at gay "Western" marriage there is absolutely very little that is different from the tradtional Christian marriage (e.g. monogamous relationships, how the ceremony is conducted etc etc).

Even a cursory look at the history of the family in Christianity and the West shows that it has never been so straightforward or unchanging.

I don't really care about the Christian church in the medieval period to be honest.

If you want to make comments about the "Christian" view of marriage and expect them to be taken seriously, don't you think you should take an interest in what the "Christian" view of marriage is?

That heterosexuality (including monogamous marriage) is the norm and everyone has to follow (even heterosexuals).

1. Marriage doesn't promote heterosexuality if it is extended to same-sex couples, it is in in much of Europe and now California.

2. Where is it said - or even implied - that "everyone has to follow"? No government officials are knocking on my door trying to drag me down to the church or the registry office: are they coming to yours?

Of course, there is a societal expectation that, as a man, I will live in a monogamous relationship with one woman. For example, my mother would be much happier if I got married in a church to Varislintu than if I lived in a sadomasochistic foursome with Sisyphe, Linguamina and JackFrost. However, I can't imagine that society, or my mother, would change their opinion on this matter even if there was a legal agreement that Sisyphe, Linguamina, JackFrost and I could all sign down at the local registry office.

I repeat, the role of the law is not to change people's attitudes or prescribe what these attitudes should be.

That exactly mimics a heterosexual marriage.

I asked you what was wrong with it.

Actually if you read the beginning of my previous post before defending your pyrhic victory I mentioned two other types of relationships.

Yes, but the problem is that I can't imagine any easy way for the law to provide recognition of them. How exactly would you like the law to cater for them?

By the way, this is quite a serious question, I'm not necessarily against the legal recognition of other "types" of relationships and I recognize that there are some limitations to the 'marriage' model. However, I have never seen a good proposal for how the law could recognize these other "types" of relationship without actually infringing the civil liberties of others.

[JackFrost]

For example, my mother would be much happier if I got married in a church to Varislintu than if I lived in a sadomasochistic foursome with Sisyphe, Linguamina and JackFrost.

I DO NOT WANT THAT KIND OF PICTURE IN MY HEAD!!!!

[Tenebrarum]

if I lived in a sadomasochistic foursome with Sisyphe, Linguamina and JackFrost.

Not that I'm complaining, but that is kinda graphic

[loqu]

May I join? I'd love to!!

[JackFrost]

You can take my place. I'm not joining.

[Zorba]

Fine, you're out on your ear. No legal benefits of civil foursome partnership for you then.

[Sisyphe]

Sounded like a decent celebration of gay marriage in my state to me! xD