Here I am, at this awesome mountain top of being the first person to comment in a green thread. And yet I have nothing. And yet, there is so much to make fun of, here.

*runs crying from thread*

fark that. Activist judges changing the traditional definition of civil union. Keep those bible-beaters out of my institution!

Stay Cool Babylon: Here I am, at this awesome mountain top of being the first person to comment in a green thread. And yet I have nothing. And yet, there is so much to make fun of, here.

*runs crying from thread*

I remember my first beer.

I watched a portion of the hearings on CSPAN and Theresa Stewart is incredible.

"They key here is changing social attitudes," said Rick Jacobs, co-founder of the Los Angeles-based Courage Campaign. "It would be nice if the Supreme Court comes out with a favorable decision, but we have to go do the work ourselves. That is the real lesson of this."

THIS. I'm down with the cause, but I wonder why it took so long for enough people to realize the wisdom quoted.

If this CA SC ruling Officially, Formally, and For Serious removes the state gov't from all "marriage" (as opposed to civil unions), I will compose a letter of thanks to the learned justices and make a donation or seven to the appropriate deserving foundations.

Also: suck it, nosy religious wankers.

ninjakirby: fark that. Activist judges changing the traditional definition of civil union. Keep those bible-beaters out of my institution!

LOL. Nice inversion.

Please oh please let this happen...

This sounds almost too perfect to be true!

/crosses fingers

Been sayin this for years.

You...you mean something LOGICAL might actually happen, and the justices seem to understand that, since there's no functional difference between 'marriage' and 'civil union' outside of religion, they might simply make it 'civil unions for all'? And remove a heavily-entrenched aspect of religion in the culture?

Hell, sign me up!

I hope so. My marriage was a religious ceremony between me, my wife and God. I have no problem going to the state to fill out forms to let us file taxes together, but getting permission to engage in a sacrament is asinine. Separation of church and state isn't just important to protect the state, but the church as well.

This would make me happy.

1. "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion..."
2. Marriage is, de facto, in most cases, at least in part a religious establishment
3. Therefore, the word "Marriage" should not appear in any law anywhere, nor should anything other than legal civil unions (regardless of the genders of the people involved) be recognized by the government.

That said, I predict an epic thread.

*grabs popcorn*

This should be federal.

Official Civil Unions between two people who wish to join their lives.

Marriages, with no legal implications, left to whatever religious (or non-religious) institutions want to perform them.

Things wouldn't change at all for the religious-types: Get married and have the courthouse prepare civil union paperwork for you.


Fun fact: Marriages are not Christian. They have existed for far longer than Christianity... but I guess it's the nature of religious nut-jobs to try to control something that isn't theirs.

I had a feeling something like this could happen when Prop 8 passed.

It would really piss off the fundies and that's always fun!

I should probably add that, while I think its a great idea, the California constitution, as amended, in no way supports this interpretation. Its pretty explicit on the point (and a ruling based on the US Constitution would be a long shot on appeal).

I'd absolutely vote for it though.

dmike: I had a feeling something like this could happen when Prop 8 passed.

It would really piss off the fundies and that's always fun!

I don't see why. Marriage becomes a entity completely controlled by various religions and the state deals only with documents of record joining two people legally.

It seems like a win-win to me.

Isn't symmetry beautiful? Thank you, Mormons, for funding the push that will lead to equality in relationship recognition for homosexuals and heterosexuals. You should follow up with a constitutional amendment that punishes marijuana use with summary execution.

I'm pretty drunk right now.

I'm a girl. I got married to a guy 6 months ago

Neither of us like that homosexuals can't marry.

Here's my thinking. I love my parents. But the man who is my husband is the person who I would want making decisions for me. It's morbid. But if I were to be in a car accident tomorrow, I know that I would want my husband by my bedside to support me and, if necessary, to make very difficult decisions on my behalf. I've shared this with my husband. I haven't shared this with my biological family. I can only imagine what a homosexual couple must be going through in a similar situation, but this time, the partners have no say in the welfare of their fellow partners.

Ideally, my husband and I would be civil partners in the eyes of the law and married in the eyes of the church. That's not the situation. But it should be for all couples, gay or straight, that care about and want to be involved in the lives of their loved ones for the rest of their lives.

But what do I know. I've been drinking

vartian: dmike: I had a feeling something like this could happen when Prop 8 passed.

It would really piss off the fundies and that's always fun!

I don't see why. Marriage becomes a entity completely controlled by various religions and the state deals only with documents of record joining two people legally.

It seems like a win-win to me.

The state no longer forcibly sanctions their particular religious views as public policy. For some strange reason, religions seem to have a problem with that.

I think they'll overturn Prop 8. There's simply no interpretation that's other than "overturn it or invalidate everyone's marriages" that won't run afoul of the 14th Amendment. Or make any sort of logical sense.

/on the other hand, maybe DOMA will get ruled unconstitutional because of this.

Judges in March: "Fine. Down with marriage."

First line of TFA
The California Supreme Court could decide that there are two kinds of same-sex couples: those who can't get married, and those who already did.

Redin comprenshun. its yur frend

In a proper democracy, the people don't get to vote on what minority should be discriminated against. The basic rule is that everyone has equal rights. That being said, this idea might be the most intelligent solution out there for now.

I got me the title of Reverend from some dubious American website, so I can marry anyone "religiously" where I live (Germany), but it's not legally recognized (only if I'd wed them in the US and they came back - nobody I tell that believes me), because there's a clear distinction between the two kinds of "unions". Churches should be allowed to discriminate, but without any legal consequences.

As a turtle-farker, how will this ruling affect me?

Marriage is a term, found quite often in law codes. Also used by religions. To say it is the realm of one but not the other is silly. To say the law should be changed to remove it, is just asking for time to be wasted. And since writing entirely redundant, nevermind unjust, civil union legislation for gay couples, is also a waste of time, well then there's one thing to do. Let gays get married. Takes just one or two quick changes to existing law, and you're done.

Remove all Republicans: Equality under the law means no one is allowed to judge others on the basis of religion.

That legal concept doesn't apply to private institutions, never has.

Since marriage will now become a purely legal contract - and since legal contracts can be entered into by more than two people, functional legal polygamy is now within reach. Those prop 8 Mormons are sneaky farkers!

TFA hit on why this is a terrible idea, and why marriage should be legal for heterosexuals and homosexuals: In reality, though, service providers, employers and public agencies still have a hard time regarding domestic partners as the legal equivalent of married spouses, said Tobias Wolff, a University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor. The confusion is especially great when such couples visit states without similar categories, Wolff said.

Okay, now put the happy couple in another country. Now the public agency (perhaps the one that decides whether or not to deport some members of the family, or hunt down the parents of lost children?) has no idea of what a "civil union" and doesn't much care because the visiting couple aren't citizens. "You're not married? Then no, you can't see your friend's child in the hospital. Or union member, or whatever she is. Piss off."

Oh, sure.
Fantastic idea.

Remove all Republicans: No they shouldn't. If two gay men want to get married in a Catholic church, the church has no right to deny them that right. Equality under the law means no one is allowed to judge others on the basis of religion.

Even by your standards, that's a pretty crappy troll. Put more effort into it next time.

Loucifer: Since marriage will now become a purely legal contract

That's what it already is. The formality of the setting of the actual consummation of the contract, is immaterial to it. It doesn't matter if you do it at city hall or a cathedral. The exchange of vows and the signature of a witness(es), seals the deal. Setting has nothing to do with it as far marriage goes.

Not so fast there.

If anyone can have a civil union, whats to stop legal citizens from 'civil unioning' with non-citizens simply to give them citizenship, and then quickly un-unionizing to do it all over again with another person?

There could be a civil union industry starting up in California.

Anyway, besides this unlikely scenario, I'm all for getting rid of the state's control over marriage.

themindiswatching: I think they'll overturn Prop 8. There's simply no interpretation that's other than "overturn it or invalidate everyone's marriages" that won't run afoul of the 14th Amendment. Or make any sort of logical sense.

/on the other hand, maybe DOMA will get ruled unconstitutional because of this.

Don't count on it. The only reason this is up for debate in California is that the California Constitution is worded differently than the U.S. one.

I actually doubt it will be overturned, because the CA SC had the opportunity to pull it off the ballot--and didn't.

Not to mention Jerry Brown, the attorney general of CA who puts forth a theory about "liberty" that he has no legal precedent for, and says in his brief that the attorneys' theories about Prop 8 being a major revision and illegal are wrong.

Go get 'em, Governor Moonbeam. With friends like that, who needs enemas?

I'm all for this, but I wonder: Does taking all religion out of marriage, making it "civil" only, mean that the evangelically-run states would cease giving "full faith and credit" to marriages performed in California?

Be interesting to see California getting even everyone else, should that happen. . . .

Remove all Republicans: Wolframkerngeschoss: Churches should be allowed to discriminate, but without any legal consequences.

No they shouldn't. If two gay men want to get married in a Catholic church, the church has no right to deny them that right. Equality under the law means no one is allowed to judge others on the basis of religion.

The Catholic church is no public service provider. You could make the argument that even private businesses have to, say, serve gay (or black) people food, but I think that's a different category.
Anyway, I'd prefer churches getting out of business altogether, so I kinda hope they don't change their rules and we can get rid of them in any meaningful way in the long run. Let them shoot themselves in the foot if they want to.

Gunther: Remove all Republicans: No they shouldn't. If two gay men want to get married in a Catholic church, the church has no right to deny them that right. Equality under the law means no one is allowed to judge others on the basis of religion.

Even by your standards, that's a pretty crappy troll. Put more effort into it next time.

Seriously, that was bad. That's almost like saying all couples have the right to be married in the oval office by Obama himself. No one is FORCED to marry anyone (more or less), get over it. shiat at least make the qualification that both gay men were baptized Catholic otherwise they wouldn't even get a pinky toe in the door before being laughed away.

Remove all Republicans: Of course, the Mormons would say that their Church leadership which once argued for polygamy is the one who now know what is the right way for marriage to be done.

I wrote an essay on that subject, back while I was the most upset with the aftermath of Prop8.

During the Mormon churches fight to have polygamy recognized, the Republican party swore to "rid the nation of the twin relics of barbarism, slavery and polygamy", while democratic senators spoke on the floor on the topic, taking the view that the legality of polygamy was not up for constitutional protection, as it was "a great moral issue".

Brigham Young, as the leader of the church when it settled in Utah, is recorded as stating "Marriage is a civil contract. You might as well make a law to say how many children a man shall have, as to make a law to say how many wives he shall have."

The parallels are rather stunning
- a minority group wishing to practice marriage in their own way.
- the opposition's rhetoric focusing not on legality, but on morality
- the defense stating so unequivocally that marriage is purely a legal institution.

What I have found is that due to a peculiar twist in the LDS theology, arguments from past teachings are ineffective, as they believe in a form of special revelation whereby old teachings are ipso facto overwritten by the proclamations of the current Prophet (as he speaks for God to a large degree). "Listen to me now, ignore what I said then" is the refrain you hear occasionally.

Additionally, much of the rhetoric from Brigham Young that I have available to me from that time comes from his Journal of Discourses, which is a collection of teachings which are not considered canonical.

Remove all Republicans: If two gay men want to get married in a Catholic church, the church has no right to deny them that right.

A private organization can do whatever the hell it wants, so long as it doesn't receive government aid. No church should be forced to perform a marriage it doesn't want to.

Gunther: Remove all Republicans: No they shouldn't. If two gay men want to get married in a Catholic church, the church has no right to deny them that right. Equality under the law means no one is allowed to judge others on the basis of religion.

Even by your standards, that's a pretty crappy troll. Put more effort into it next time.

No, no. I've seen worse from him. He said the abstinence only education which was a result of Bush being given the 2000 election by SCOTUS caused Octomom to get knocked up.

/not a W fan by any stretch of the imagination

Wii.Tard: If anyone can have a civil union, whats to stop legal citizens from 'civil unioning' with non-citizens simply to give them citizenship, and then quickly un-unionizing to do it all over again with another person?

You mean like people have done with marriage for decades now?

Gunther: Remove all Republicans: No they shouldn't. If two gay men want to get married in a Catholic church, the church has no right to deny them that right. Equality under the law means no one is allowed to judge others on the basis of religion.

Even by your standards, that's a pretty crappy troll. Put more effort into it next time.

I agree. he should have said something about banning churches and giving the state more power.

Justices on the high court appear hesitant to overturn Proposition 8, while also reluctant to invalidate same-sex marriages performed before it passed, legal observers agreed Friday.

If Prop 8 had said "Stop those goddamn ni(*BONG*) from marrying decent white Christian women" none of them would have batted an eyelash before overturning it. They're hesitant because they know that gays (along with atheists) are among the last groups that large parts of America consider it to openly hate and discriminate against (see just how much the haters spent to get that prop passed).

/Seperate legal union from marriage and everyone will be happier
//Want to merge your property and major life decisions with those of another consenting adult? Good for you!

erik-k: If Prop 8 had said "Stop those goddamn ni(*BONG*) from marrying decent white Christian women" none of them would have batted an eyelash before overturning it. They're hesitant because they know that gays (along with atheists) are among the last groups that large parts of America consider it to openly hate and discriminate against (see just how much the haters spent to get that prop passed).

Pretty spot-on. Were I a resident of California, I would've been out the next day collecting signatures for a ballot initiative that defined marriage as a union between a non-Christian man and a Christian woman or a Christian man and a non-Christian woman.

Occam's Chainsaw: You mean like people 1 man and 1 woman have done with marriage for decades now?


FTFY

Two men and two woman would be the new instance.

log_jammin: I agree. he should have said something about banning churches and giving the state more power.

What's wrong with banning churches?

Wii.Tard: FTFY

Two men and two woman would be the new instance.

So? Why would people entering sham marriages civil unions suddenly do so when they have the additional option of a homosexual fake spouse? What stopped them when their fake spouse had to be of the opposite sex?

Britney Spear's Speculum: What's wrong with banning churches?

say it with more anger.

GWSuperfan: 2. Marriage is, de facto, in most cases, at least in part a religious establishment

So is the consumption of food, but that doesn't mean it is a religious thing to do. Marriage, or an equivalent form of relationship, has existed longer than organized religion. Letting a handful of Abrahamic religions claim they own it and its definition would be the worst form of pandering to the whackadoodle religious wankers.

log_jammin: say it with more anger.

What's wrong with BANNING CHURCHES?


/better?

PoopStain: I never understood why this wasn't the treatment in the first place.

Because it assumes something that has never been the case in any society, that marriage is born from religious practices rather than irreligious social ones.

erik-k: Justices on the high court appear hesitant to overturn Proposition 8, while also reluctant to invalidate same-sex marriages performed before it passed, legal observers agreed Friday.

If Prop 8 had said "Stop those goddamn ni(*BONG*) from marrying decent white Christian women" none of them would have batted an eyelash before overturning it. They're hesitant because they know that gays (along with atheists) are among the last groups that large parts of America consider it to openly hate and discriminate against (see just how much the haters spent to get that prop passed).

/Seperate legal union from marriage and everyone will be happier
//Want to merge your property and major life decisions with those of another consenting adult? Good for you!

They're hesitant because it was a constitutional amendment approved by voters legally through appropriate means and thus it is now the law of the land. The judges duty is to interpret the law, starting with the constitution as the base. Democracy in action, whether you like it or not.

Murkanen: etting a handful of Abrahamic religions claim they own it and its definition would be the worst form of pandering to the whackadoodle religious wankers.

not really.

when you think about it, why do people get married?

they wanna fark but they're afraid god might smite them if they're not married.
they believe they will be together forever so they make this "marriage" contract so they can get tax breaks and have access to each others stuff.

so just make it so that everyone is taxed equally and so they can give access to their stuff to whomever they choose.

Occam's Chainsaw: So? Why would people entering sham marriages civil unions suddenly do so when they have the additional option of a homosexual fake spouse? What stopped them when their fake spouse had to be of the opposite sex?

Well, I'm assuming that the civil union would be a fast-tract to citizenship. It might not be if they changed the civil union to cover everybody.

It might increase the rate of people fast-tracking themselves to citizenship. Not like this country needs any more people than it already has. I blame everyone for that problem. Especially those who can't close their legs.