Gay Marriage Legal in California

[TankRizzo]

Originally Posted by 7960

women have sued and won the "right" to be allowed in mens' only private clubs.
men have sued and won the "right" to be allowed in womens' only private clubs.

is it a stretch to believe gays may sue to be allowed to marry in what amounts to a straight-only private club?

being a religious group gives them a little more clout than just a club, and forcing them to marry gays would infringe on their beliefs.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by 7960

the court's job is also to protect the minority from the majority. the majority should not be able to vote on "all men are created equal."

they only recently have done that, how do you look at the history of what courts have done in the past.

[7960]

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

being a religious group gives them a little more clout than just a club, and forcing them to marry gays would infringe on their beliefs.

forcing mens' clubs to allow women infringes on their beliefs, too.

I'm not saying they'd win but would it be a surprise if they tried?

[7960]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

they only recently have done that, how do you look at the history of what courts have done in the past.

the court's job is to make sure laws aren't unconstitutional. the idea that "it should be decided by voters" means a group could potentially vote another group's rights away.

is that ok with you? is it ok if we vote slavery back in?

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

I don't see why or how it could, but then again, it is California.

I mostly said that because it's california, actually

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by 7960

forcing mens' clubs to allow women infringes on their beliefs, too.

I'm not saying they'd win but would it be a surprise if they tried?

Wouldn't surprise me at all. But it would be some vocal idiot minority of the gay community that would make them all look bad in the eyes of many people.

[IminWonderland]

Why would a gay couple want to get married in a church they don't go to, or doesn't want them there?

I don't see this arguement as viable, because if a couple wants to get married at an elite rich country club, but they are poor and can't afford it, they book the public golf course instead. Wouldn't it be the same thing in finding a minister to perform the wedding? I'm sure people get turned down for marriage ALL the time, for reasons other than sexuality...

That aside, I am elated the court made this decision.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by 7960

forcing mens' clubs to allow women infringes on their beliefs, too.

I'm not saying they'd win but would it be a surprise if they tried?

7960,

How is it that a private club like the University Club of San Francisco, which used to be "men only" but because of a city ordinance passed by Feinstein in 1987, has to include both men and women is forced to do so?

I'm aware of the Boy Scouts winning the case to not allow gays or girls as members because it is a private organization, yet they receive government funds and public funds.

From the research I did in a few minutes, the "issue" seems to be whether the organization is "privately" funded versus any "public" funds that go to the coffers of the organiztoin, but it's contradictory in the case of the Boy Scouts (who have good legal counsel).

Can anyone else confirm this as the issue?

If this is the issue, then how can "Curves" be a women's only organization?
And on another note, why don't women have to register for the Selective Service?

Just asking...

Fed Up

[JaJae]

Gay marriage opponents vow to fight Calif. ruling
Gay marriage opponents are looking to fight the ruling. I say good. I'd rather them do it through the proper legal channels. I hope the court upholds their decision. And if any judge decides to not marry a gay couple to make an activist statement of their personal political beliefs I'm gonna go apeshit.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

7960,

How is it that a private club like the University Club of San Francisco, which used to be "men only" but because of a city ordinance passed by Feinstein in 1987, has to include both men and women is forced to do so?

I'm aware of the Boy Scouts winning the case to not allow gays or girls as members because it is a private organization, yet they receive government funds and public funds.

From the research I did in a few minutes, the "issue" seems to be whether the organization is "privately" funded versus any "public" funds that go to the coffers of the organiztoin, but it's contradictory in the case of the Boy Scouts (who have good legal counsel).

Can anyone else confirm this as the issue?

If this is the issue, then how can "Curves" be a women's only organization?
And on another note, why don't women have to register for the Selective Service?

Just asking...

Fed Up

All of your questions lead to the point I was making............private or not, it won't surprise me when gay people sue to be allowed to marry in a church on the grounds that (even though it's private) it's discriminatory to allow heteros to marry in a church and not gays.

I'm not saying they'll win. I'm saying I won't be surprised when they sue.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by JaJae

This kinda bites people who don't support separation of church and state in the ass because now they have to open it up to everyone.

I really, really, really hate that people think legalizing gay marriage makes "everything equal" or "opens the door to everyone." People that support legalized gay marriage are bigots and can't claim to be supporters of minority rights.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I really, really, really hate that people think legalizing gay marriage makes "everything equal" or "opens the door to everyone." People that support legalized gay marriage are bigots and can't claim to be supporters of minority rights.

huh?

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I really, really, really hate that people think legalizing gay marriage makes "everything equal" or "opens the door to everyone." People that support legalized gay marriage are bigots and can't claim to be supporters of minority rights.

wait, what? Can you elaborate?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I really, really, really hate that people think legalizing gay marriage makes "everything equal" or "opens the door to everyone." People that support legalized gay marriage are bigots and can't claim to be supporters of minority rights.

Wait, I'm the bigot because I think the government shouldn't pass laws restricting certain groups? The government shouldn't be in the business of officiating marriages. And since they are they shouldn't discriminate because of someone's religious views. There are other religions out there that are fine with gay marriage. You want the government to not support their minority rights? Are we picking and choosing which religions the government should protect and which ones they should obstruct?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Wait, I'm the bigot because I think the government shouldn't pass laws restricting certain groups? The government shouldn't be in the business of officiating marriages. And since they are they shouldn't discriminate because of someone's religious views. There are other religions out there that are fine with gay marriage. You want the government to not support their minority rights? Are we picking and choosing which religions the government should protect and which ones they should obstruct?

It seems to me that you were implying that by legalizing gay marriage, marriage is now opened up to everyone. Is that what you're saying?

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

It seems to me that you were implying that by legalizing gay marriage, marriage is now opened up to everyone. Is that what you're saying?

Before you guys argue, could you clarify what you meant so that we don't get lost in a pointless argument for what I suspect has to be a miscommunication?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

It seems to me that you were implying that by legalizing gay marriage, marriage is now opened up to everyone. Is that what you're saying?

What I'm saying is two consenting adults should be allowed to enter into the legal contract of marriage. As long as California is offering "marriage" they shouldn't discriminate based on race, gender, age, sexuality, etc.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by JaJae

What I'm saying is two consenting adults should be allowed to enter into the legal contract of marriage. As long as California is offering "marriage" they shouldn't discriminate based on race, gender, age, sexuality, etc.

I have a feeling polygamy is going to be introduced to this discussion in t-minus 10 minutes and counting

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by 7960

huh?

Originally Posted by thewise1

wait, what? Can you elaborate?

Do you think that polygamous, group, and incestuous marriages should be recognized by the State? If not, why? If so, can you explain the legal logistics of each of those?

[7960]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I have a feeling polygamy is going to be introduced to this discussion in t-minus 10 minutes and counting

ding ding ding