California overturns ban on same-sex marriage

[Sean]

I'm sure many of you have already heard about the fact that California's Supreme Court has overturned a ban against same-sex marriage. It's a great step forward that I personally feel is long overdue.

And today, the Pope reiterated the church's stance that "only unions between a man and a woman are moral". As far as I'm concerned, there was a time and place for advocating only male-female marriages, but it's looooong gone. I tend to look at these things from an evolutionary point of view, and while in the distant past it was a necessity for human survival that we procreate, we really don't face any threat of extinction from dwindling numbers at this point in human history. So marriage between a man and woman that's centered around the idea of populating the planet with our species has rightly evolved to be much more of a social foundation in which procreation is no longer necessary for survival. In fact, there are probably too many people on the planet as it is, so if anything, we could do with a little less baby-makin'. In my opinion, this is one of those issues where the church will end up clinging to the mindset of the past loooooong after the practicality of that mindset has gone bye-bye - like when they executed people who said things like the earth wasn't actually at the center of the universe.

In this current reality, I think that what's important to marriage's survival is more that it be between people who love each other, and who are willing to take on the commitment that pledging your companionship to someone for a lifetime requires. It's an institution that helps us mature as a society by teaching us the importance of being responsible for someone and something other than ourselves, being faithful to them by honoring our publicly stated commitments, and being there to support each other through difficult times. These values are absolutely essential to our positive survival as a society, but are not unique to a heterosexual relationship the way that creating a baby is.

So bravo to my home state of California, and let's hope it catches on.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

I kind of feel all pressured now to be committed. Isn't that an oxymoron(s)(s)?

[cacophony]

i actually forgot that california had a ban. it seemed like such a gimmie for equal rights for gays since so many of the equal rights laws were already in place.

i have no doubt that christian conservative states like georgia and alabama will follow up with homophobic tightening of legal language forbidding such sin.

[Deckard]

I don't fully understand the way laws are passed and overturned over there, but is there any way that the Supreme Court's decision might be reversed, making same-sex marriage illegal again?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Deckard

I don't fully understand the way laws are passed and overturned over there, but is there any way that the Supreme Court's decision might be reversed, making same-sex marriage illegal again?

There's always that chance.

"A conservative group said it would ask California's Supreme Court to postpone putting its decision legalizing gay marriage into effect until after the fall election. That's when voters will likely have a chance to weigh in on a proposed amendment to California's constitution that would bar same-sex couples from getting married."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

[Sarcasmo]

The Governator has said he'd fight any proposed changes to the California Constitution.

[Skie]

Originally Posted by Sean

In this current reality, I think that what's important to marriage's survival is more that it be between people who love each other, and who are willing to take on the commitment that pledging your companionship to someone for a lifetime requires. It's an institution that helps us mature as a society by teaching us the importance of being responsible for someone and something other than ourselves, being faithful to them by honoring our publicly stated commitments, and being there to support each other through difficult times.

I think over the passed few decades this concept has be run into the ground. You need not look far in heterosexual relationships to see that marriage often means nothing more than having to pay someone alimony. Government recognition is really nothing more than a cheaply priced legal contract to ensure the family unit stability, e.g. the children are taken care of. But, family stability is a thing of the passed, making me wonder why anyone would be clambering to belong to the defunct "marriage" group.

Not to mentioned there are more financial benefits to be non-married than to be married. You can really buck the tax system with one itemizing the house and the other being able to utilize standardized deductions. Which will work out great unless you're in a common law state.

I also find it ironic that there's no one on the bandwagon asking for polygamy marriages (in all it's forms) to be "official". Because, we know they've been doing it for a long while now just as non-government sanctioned marriages. If a man and a woman is OK, a man and a man is OK, a woman and a woman is OK, why is adding another person (or more people) to the mix a taboo? If you're going to open it up, you might as well open it up so any consenting adult can marry as many consenting adults as they choose.

This doesn't even touch on the fact how throughout history societies that embraced polygamy tended to do very well. With the damn near requirement for dual-income households, wouldn't it be good to embrace a third "stay-at-home" counterpart to actual raise the kids. Then again, society would probably spontaneously combust if raising children ever became a focus. We've gone from "Children should be seen and not heard," to "Children should be; not seen and heard."

[Deckard]

Interesting Skie.

I have no moral problem with polygamy as a construct. If anything I have a bigger problem with the sexism that it can entail, though I'm not convinced that sexism is inherent to polygamy, rather it's a reflection of the cultures within which polygamy has, until now, been seen to flourish.

How about incest, what do you think (morally) about that? Every now and again I read some story about a brother and sister somewhere asking to be left alone to continue their relationship (hey, I live in Wales!), and it's hard not to feel some sympathy for them. I think my only moral problem with it comes from the increased probability of unhealthy offspring. I wouldn't try to pass off my sense of "Urgh, that's icky!!" as a moral justification, which I suspect a lot of people are inclined to do.

Re. gays and marriage - I'm aware that there are lots of people looking on in utter bemusement at why so many otherwise sane gay people would want to chuck themselves into an institution whose purpose "seems to be" aimed at keeping straight people in a straitjacket. It's not a view I share (for many of the reasons given by Sean earlier) and I rather resent the accusation that it's just selling out to straight society in a bid for social acceptance. But I can see how marriage is not going to be to everyone's taste.

I think often, part of the problem with the marriage debate is that when you try to explain what you think it offers (companionship, lifetime committment, etc), some people can read that as saying that those things aren't possible outside of marriage. Well of course they are. I don't doubt there are lots of unmarried couples that are more stable and more committed than many married ones. Just as there are lots of single mothers doing a damn better job than many two-parent families.

I think the issue is really likelihood, the likelihood that, if you've thought about and are willing to enter a contract like marriage, then you're more likely (but not guaranteed) to feel that those things are worth something in life, and that growing old with someone can be beautiful and rewarding, even if it can also be tough and involve personal sacrifice.

That doesn't mean I think that if you choose not to get married, that you automatically don't or can't feel that same degree of commitment to your partner, or won't spend your whole life with them. But I think having some formal framework upon which people can focus (and to which they can strive) is no bad thing.

I'm writing this clumsily at the moment, and probably not putting in enough caveats. There are side issues like monogamy and religion, which I'm not covering. But essentially, I think marriage (even when taken as a secular institution, which many say it's not) definitely has its strengths and plays a mostly positive role in society.

That said, I've often looked at the direction our western societies seem to be heading in terms of marriage and sex, and (without wishing to get all Daily Mail) wondered in all seriousness if marriage is destined to be a thing of the past?

[cacophony]

oh god not the "slippery slope" argument again.

IF YOU LET A HAPPEN THEN SURELY YOU HAVE TO LET Z HAPPEN!!!!!

[Deckard]

Well no, it's not really a slippery slope argument (edit: or at least not a fallacious one). I'm not using it to advocate or assert anything, just pointing out a trend and wondering whether that will continue; whether marriage may become old fashioned and die out. Seems a reasonable thing to wonder.

Or were you referring to something else?