As a Liberal I'm celebrating with some reservations. As stated on another site: Marriage is a religious concept most often recognized by the state, but not always. Contract (legal union) is a state concept never recognized by the church. No matter how the State of California Supreme Court rules it is not a marraige unless recognized by the church. Which they were slowing doing years ago, untill it became a political issue. Im not sure if we are going foward or going back!
It's fabulous news, but already protests are being organized to overturn the over ruling. But for now there will be madness and celebrating in West Hollywood tonight.
@Lightfoot Letters: You're the second person I've seen to spout that exact bit of flawed rhetoric, worded exactly the same way. Who's providing your point of view for you?
Possibly the same site as you referenced? "As stated on another site," I thought was enough to indicate the thoughts were not original to me?? In fact they are not original to the last few hundred years. Marriage is a religious concept...the flaw is? Contract law is a state concept...the flaw is? Most organized religions do not want to change the concept of marriage...the flaw is? Slowly, without new laws, most religions have been changing their official position on women priests and gay marriage...the flaw is?
It will be interesting to see how this will affect same-sex couples' ability to qualify as 'married' on a federal level. More specifically things like taxes and gifts to spouse. All the 'marriage' stuff is nice and all, but until you can have tax-free gifts and inheritances to your spouse, it's kind of just window dressing. Powers-of-Attorney have enabled things like ER visitation / hospital rights, so the real leap will be equal treatment for the purpose of taxation at a federal level. Doesn't that sound romantic?
It will be interesting to see how this will affect same-sex couples' ability to qualify as 'married' on a federal level.
Agree here too. The state can't (and shouldn't) wrestle churches into an appearance of enlightenment, but it can (and bloody well ought to) guarantee human rights in law.
Doesn't that sound romantic?
"Oh honey...there's nothing like a 1040 with you in the springtime..." :-)
To the people who don't and maybe never will choose to get it. It's about choice. Being able to have a union that is equal in every way to the union of marriage. Especially legally. I'm married. I'm not of "a" religion of any kind though I live in a Christian society, I realize that whenever I look at who we trust. Even when I married I had no religion but loads of faith. Ya gotta have faith. But that's another post. And I'm done hijacking now. You either believe that gay married couples, some raising families, are equal to "us" in every way or you don't. /climbs off soapbox Go California!
One of the Australian territories legislated for gay marriage under the previous Federal Government. Because it was a territory and not a state, the Federal Government had the power to repeal the legislation. And it did. What is worse - a government failing to make positive change, or deliberating reversing someone else's attempts??? Hopefully this result will stick and spread - kind of like how the rednecks think you can catch homosexuality.
Call me crazy, but doesn't marriage have consequences beyond the confines of the church? Ever seen a widower from a gay couple struggle to access the superannuation of their deceased partner, after they had spent a lifetime together only to be left penniless as well as bereft? I'm pretty sure that the church isn't the body that's stopping that from happening.
Marriage has just as much of an impact under the law as under God. I'm not gay or looking for marriage, but (at the risk of misrepresenting the views of others) I'm fairly certain a lot of people aren't so concerned with putting the churches' noses out of joint as they are with not being legally recognised.
Comments
Yay for Cali-for-ni-a... !!!
*waits patiently in The Bible Belt for likeminded voters*
Emphasis on patient.
Ugh.
Now I'll really have some REAL celebrating to do at LB Pride this weekend!!
It's about freaking time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It will be interesting to see how this will affect same-sex couples' ability to qualify as 'married' on a federal level. More specifically things like taxes and gifts to spouse. All the 'marriage' stuff is nice and all, but until you can have tax-free gifts and inheritances to your spouse, it's kind of just window dressing. Powers-of-Attorney have enabled things like ER visitation / hospital rights, so the real leap will be equal treatment for the purpose of taxation at a federal level. Doesn't that sound romantic?
I agree. We'll get there!
Agree here too. The state can't (and shouldn't) wrestle churches into an appearance of enlightenment, but it can (and bloody well ought to) guarantee human rights in law.
"Oh honey...there's nothing like a 1040 with you in the springtime..." :-)
Are you coming tomorrow?
I can't wait to see you and catch up!
((hugs))
-case
To the people who don't and maybe never will choose to get it.
It's about choice.
Being able to have a union that is equal in every way to the union of marriage. Especially legally.
I'm married. I'm not of "a" religion of any kind though I live in a Christian society, I realize that whenever I look at who we trust. Even when I married I had no religion but loads of faith. Ya gotta have faith. But that's another post. And I'm done hijacking now.
You either believe that gay married couples, some raising families, are equal to "us" in every way or you don't.
/climbs off soapbox
Go California!
Call me crazy, but doesn't marriage have consequences beyond the confines of the church? Ever seen a widower from a gay couple struggle to access the superannuation of their deceased partner, after they had spent a lifetime together only to be left penniless as well as bereft? I'm pretty sure that the church isn't the body that's stopping that from happening.
Marriage has just as much of an impact under the law as under God. I'm not gay or looking for marriage, but (at the risk of misrepresenting the views of others) I'm fairly certain a lot of people aren't so concerned with putting the churches' noses out of joint as they are with not being legally recognised.