California high court upholds gay marriage ban

[Sophist]

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top? ... -330254982

[goddessoflubbock]

While I'm glad they didn't undo the marriages that already happened, I'm actually quite shocked that the state that invented palimony is so far behind the times, while states in the normally conservative northeast have caught on.

[Charlie]

This is where the UK is ahead of them in terms of compromise. Same sex marriages are legal here, but are not officially marriages (as this has to be between a man and a woman). Instead they are called "civil partnerships" but afford the same legal status as a married couple, so to all intents and purposes it is "marriage". This at least appeased some of the religious arguments.

[Sophist]

I don't quite see the point since in the eyes of most traditional religions, a marriage is between a man and a woman. If somebody wants to just have a civil service, it shouldn't matter what sex(es) the couple is (are). It's not like opening up the door to gay marriage in all 50 states means the Catholic Church is suddenly gonna start having same sex ceremonies.

So stupid.

[goddessoflubbock]

The Catholic Church has very strict rules on sex between partners of the same sex. One of them must be a priest. Ba dum dum......

Seriously however, there is quite a large *active* lesbian contingent among the sisterhood.....

[adhocisadirtyword]

This is where the UK is ahead of them in terms of compromise. Same sex marriages are legal here, but are not officially marriages (as this has to be between a man and a woman). Instead they are called "civil partnerships" but afford the same legal status as a married couple, so to all intents and purposes it is "marriage". This at least appeased some of the religious arguments.

Many of our states offer this as well - and I believe California has the most rights allowed for civil unions than other states. However, this isn't actually a decent compromise for those of us who believe religion shouldn't have say in our laws. Beyond that, there are some great articles written by gays lately that define why the word "marriage" is so important to them. I would look to Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic as one who really stands out to me.

As others have stated, nobody is forcing religious institutions to hold marriage ceremonies for anyone. I didn't get married in a church. And "god" was never mentioned in my ceremony. There's plenty of ways to get hitched these days.

[Sophist]

The Catholic Church has very strict rules on sex between partners of the same sex. One of them must be a priest. Ba dum dum......

***writes that one down***

Seriously however, there is quite a large *active* lesbian contingent among the sisterhood.....

The number of nuns with butch-like haircuts can't be a coincidence.

This is where the UK is ahead of them in terms of compromise. Same sex marriages are legal here, but are not officially marriages (as this has to be between a man and a woman). Instead they are called "civil partnerships" but afford the same legal status as a married couple, so to all intents and purposes it is "marriage". This at least appeased some of the religious arguments.

Many of our states offer this as well - and I believe California has the most rights allowed for civil unions than other states. However, this isn't actually a decent compromise for those of us who believe religion shouldn't have say in our laws. Beyond that, there are some great articles written by gays lately that define why the word "marriage" is so important to them. I would look to Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic as one who really stands out to me.

As others have stated, nobody is forcing religious institutions to hold marriage ceremonies for anyone. I didn't get married in a church. And "god" was never mentioned in my ceremony. There's plenty of ways to get hitched these days.

It really is ironic though that Iowa currently has more sense than California. Whoda thunk it?