Human Right and Gay Marriage

Nanti-SARRMM · Post by **Nanti-SARRMM** » Thu May 15, 2008 4:12 pm

I know what the church's stance is regarding marriage and all, but I am now confused as to why California at it again.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody â€” not just in the state of California, but throughout the country â€” will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.

I an confused about what the big deal is. From what the news article suggests, gay couples in a domestic relationship had the same rights as married couples before the California Supreme Court went into action. Isn't it changing from an umbrella of one color to another differently colored umbrella of the same size and capabilities? Is it the novelty of being married even though it was possible to have all the rights before hand? I guess I am confused as to why it matters at all when all gay couples gain is a change of name, with the same rights they had before.

Imogen · Post by **Imogen** » Thu May 15, 2008 5:45 pm

it's because of the cultural significance and cache that name carries. gay marriage isn't just about rights. it's also about cultural recognition. it's no different than anti-miscegenation laws. people just want every aspect of their lives to be respected and protected legally and culturally.

Giovanni Schwartz · Post by **Giovanni Schwartz** » Thu May 15, 2008 8:49 pm

Honest question, as in, I really would like to know the answer: How is gay marriage cultural? I wouldn't think it had been around anywhere long enough to be part of a culture.

SWKT Parachuter · Post by **SWKT Parachuter** » Thu May 15, 2008 8:56 pm

Everything has culture, pal. Mormons have culture. Utah Mormons have culture. Your family has culture (do you have traditions? Things you do differently than any other family?).

Giovanni Schwartz · Post by **Giovanni Schwartz** » Thu May 15, 2008 8:57 pm

Okay, I understand that. However, what do gay people do that is culture? And how long has gay marriage been around? I didn't think it was long enough for it to have developed enough culture to become a cultural issue.

Fredjikrang · Post by **Fredjikrang** » Thu May 15, 2008 8:58 pm

I think Imogen was saying that the connotations of marriage are cultural, and that gay couples want to have that cultural stigma available to themselves.

Giovanni Schwartz · Post by **Giovanni Schwartz** » Thu May 15, 2008 9:00 pm

I don't understand what you mean by "cultural stigma". Can you explain?

Giovanni Schwartz · Post by **Giovanni Schwartz** » Thu May 15, 2008 9:00 pm

And honestly, I'm really trying to understand. I'm not just being antagonistic again.

Fredjikrang · Post by **Fredjikrang** » Thu May 15, 2008 9:03 pm

Meaning that being married has a certain things that are associated with it, some traditional examples being permanence, commitment, wholesomeness, family, respectability and so on. These are changing, but there are still these associations in most of the world.

Imogen · Post by **Imogen** » Thu May 15, 2008 9:12 pm

i think it's admirable to try and understand, giovanni.

fred is correct. when i say that marriage is cultural, i mean all marriage. anthropologically speaking, society deemed it "better" for two people to remain monogamous, and society created marriage. biologically, it actually makes more sense for people to have multiple partners so the gene pool stays nice and deep, but society has made most sexual relationships outside of marriage wrong. and once the state got involved in marriage and family planning, there were even more issues attached.

SO, homosexuals want the right to marry. not to be domestic partners. and they want this because our society sees marriage as a "legitimate" relationship, whereas "domestic partnership" is illegitimate which makes it unequal no matter what. it basically boils down to the "separate but equal" concept. separate is never equal. never. no matter what others may think.

also, most domestic partnership laws do NOT allow the exact same rights as marriage. this may not have been the case in california, but if gay couples had all the same rights, why not let them call it what it is, a marriage?

Giovanni Schwartz · Post by **Giovanni Schwartz** » Thu May 15, 2008 9:20 pm

Okay, so society says it's better to be together, but society also thinks that gay marriage is bad, for the most part, right? So while it's all well and good that gays want the same rights as "marriage", it's not the same thing. I was under the impression that marriage was between "man and wife" ("Man and Wife! Say Man and wife!" Great movie. sorry about the tangent.) Also, if marriage between two people is just marriage, then why is marriage between two of the same gender known as "same-sex marriage"? Why is there the distinction if they are supposed to be the same thing? I really am honestly trying to understand.

Imogen · Post by **Imogen** » Thu May 15, 2008 9:34 pm

that's why it gets confusing. society can be hypocritical.

using another marriage example: back in the day it was illegal for two people of different races to marry. many of the same arguments used then are being used now (God says it's wrong, it's unnatural, it's bad for children, etc). it was actually still technically illegal in some states for my parents to get married (this was in the 80s). now, obviously this has changed. the law changed, and society has changed with it. that's not to say there aren't individuals who are still against it, but overall it's an accepted societal norm. (thanks to the lovings for making my parents' marriage and my existence possible.)

so what same-sex couples are trying to do is get their relationships recognized on a legal level. that can often be a first step to cultural acceptance. it's referred to as "same-sex marriage" partially because that's what it IS, but also because human beings need to categorize. we have limited understanding, and categories make life easier for us. when you meet someone, you automatically place them into categories based on your life experiences. the problem with that is we have pre-conceived prejudices with those categories, and it is sometimes assumed that "different" means "inferior," which simply isn't the case. ultimately, same-sex and heterosexual relationships are the same in the ways that matter. it's society that puts the difference on it.

gays want the right to marry because it means they have access to legal protection they don't have now, and it means that their relationships can stop being seen as "different" and stop being politicized so people can just live their lives. that's really all they want. to love who they want and marry them without the government or other people putting in their two cents. and i think that's everyone right, no matter who you love.

Imogen · Post by **Imogen** » Thu May 15, 2008 9:36 pm

oh! also, that is a great movie. one of my favorites.

Giovanni Schwartz · Post by **Giovanni Schwartz** » Thu May 15, 2008 9:56 pm

A biblical example: In the Bible, God smote Soddom and Gomorrah, right? The Bible says what is quoted in this link, Genesis 19:1-11. Not only according to my interpretation of it, but also according to Merriam-Webster, they were homosexuals (hence the origin of the term sodomy). According to my interpretation, this is why they were smitten and why Lot had to flee. Am I interpreting this correctly? I think I actually first heard this from my seminary teacher. And if I am interpreting this correctly, does it not seem that God frowns upon homosexuality?

Imogen · Post by **Imogen** » Thu May 15, 2008 10:01 pm

you are probably reading that correctly, but you must remember that christians aren't the only people in this country and shouldn't be making laws for everyone and placing religious morality in our laws. i'm not religious, so i don't buy into everything the bible says. my dad is muslim, so he has an entirely different set of moral standards on some issues from christians. what the LAW should do is what's best for people as a whole. why should christians decide what is best for all the jewish, muslim, buddhist, hindu, and atheist people living in this country? and if being married and having legal protection is what's best for society (which was decided centuries ago) than it is best for ALL couples, not just straight ones.

Fredjikrang · Post by **Fredjikrang** » Thu May 15, 2008 10:04 pm

Giovanni, I would agree with that.

I would point out though that there are some instances in the scriptures that could be interpreted as frowning on interracial relationships as well. While I think that there are really other reasons for this discouragement, many people will bring this up in arguments/debates similar to this one.

And remember that many people either don't believe in the scriptures, or profess to not believe in God, rendering your point moot in their eyes.

Giovanni Schwartz · Post by **Giovanni Schwartz** » Thu May 15, 2008 10:07 pm

Interesting thought: non homosexual couples are known as straight. Where is the origin of this term from? Like, how did it come to mean not gay? Could it have biblical origins? for instance the straight (well, strait) and narrow path, that is God's way? That is a good argument, and I see your point, however, it seems to me that most homosexual couples are white, unless my accidental drive though DuPont Circle and a certain part of San Francisco (It was actually my dad driving through DuPont circle) were not very good indicators of what is true. And if this is so, then most Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus, are not going to worry about homosexuality, seeing as th emajority of them are not white. I'm really trying to understand, I promise.

Fredjikrang · Post by **Fredjikrang** » Thu May 15, 2008 10:08 pm

Imogen wrote:you are probably reading that correctly, but you must remember that christians aren't the only people in this country and shouldn't be making laws for everyone and placing religious morality in our laws. i'm not religious, so i don't buy into everything the bible says. my dad is muslim, so he has an entirely different set of moral standards on some issues from christians. what the LAW should do is what's best for people as a whole. why should christians decide what is best for all the jewish, muslim, buddhist, hindu, and atheist people living in this country? and if being married and having legal protection is what's best for society (which was decided centuries ago) than it is best for ALL couples, not just straight ones.

Most major religions frown on homosexual activity, at least according to what I know.

Also, it is faulty logic to assume that because it is best for society to have heterosexual marriages, it is also better to have homosexual marriages. This very issue is what the entire debate is about in the US right now. Is it better to have homosexual marriages or not? And society will decide, of that I am sure, but it is going to take a while for people to make up their minds.

Imogen · Post by **Imogen** » Thu May 15, 2008 10:19 pm

Giovanni Schwartz wrote:Interesting thought: non homosexual couples are known as straight. Where is the origin of this term from? Like, how did it come to mean not gay? Could it have biblical origins? for instance the straight (well, strait) and narrow path, that is God's way? That is a good argument, and I see your point, however, it seems to me that most homosexual couples are white, unless my accidental drive though DuPont Circle and a certain part of San Francisco (It was actually my dad driving through DuPont circle) were not very good indicators of what is true. And if this is so, then most Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus, are not going to worry about homosexuality, seeing as th emajority of them are not white. I'm really trying to understand, I promise.

whoa! back that train up, friend. you are entering dangerous territory here.

most couples in GENERAL are heterosexual. homosexuals, like blacks and hispanics, etc, are a minority. but they still have rights. the reason it may seem to you that most homosexual couples are white is because most people in the country are white. but there is homosexuality in all religions and races and species. also, san fran (love that city. such an amaaaaaazing place) tends to have people of a higher socio-economic status. and most people of high socio-economic status are white. again, that's not true across the board, but it's mostly true. so in an EXTREMELY wealthy city like san francisco, most of the people will be white, because mostly white people have the money. but my brother is gay, and he's definitely not white. and neither are his gay friends. (who are amazing, btw. i just wanted to sing their praises a bit)

basically, being a homosexual has nothing to do with race, religion, or gender.

Imogen · Post by **Imogen** » Thu May 15, 2008 10:23 pm

Fredjikrang wrote:
Imogen wrote:you are probably reading that correctly, but you must remember that christians aren't the only people in this country and shouldn't be making laws for everyone and placing religious morality in our laws. i'm not religious, so i don't buy into everything the bible says. my dad is muslim, so he has an entirely different set of moral standards on some issues from christians. what the LAW should do is what's best for people as a whole. why should christians decide what is best for all the jewish, muslim, buddhist, hindu, and atheist people living in this country? and if being married and having legal protection is what's best for society (which was decided centuries ago) than it is best for ALL couples, not just straight ones.
Most major religions frown on homosexual activity, at least according to what I know.

Also, it is faulty logic to assume that because it is best for society to have heterosexual marriages, it is also better to have homosexual marriages. This very issue is what the entire debate is about in the US right now. Is it better to have homosexual marriages or not? And society will decide, of that I am sure, but it is going to take a while for people to make up their minds.

it may be better to not have marriage at all. i think it's better for the government to stay out of people's love lives and family planning. did you know, you can get a religious marriage in the catholic church, and it's totally legit to them, but you're not required to get a lisence? this is just a catholic thing as far as i know. it's great for older couples. they're married in the eyes of the church, but don't have to deal with all the legal stuff.

honestly, i think we should let churches decide if they want to marry gay couples. the state should marry anyone who goes to a justice of the peace, but no church should be forced to hold a ceremony for anyone they don't want for whatever reason.