High court takes no action on Proposition 8 Comments on Stories, posted by Editor, Danville Weekly Online, on Dec 4, 2012 at 6:37 am
The U.S. Supreme Court took no action Monday on Proposition 8, California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. The court also took no action on several related cases concerning the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, December 3, 2012, 11:18 AM
Posted by Bill, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 6:37 am
Who cares if gay folk want the same rights as straight people? I do as I see no reason why this should not be the law of the land if the law is to protect all people. I can see nothing but a right wing myopic attitude on this. This will harm no one's religion or church, it will not impact marriage between a man and a women so who cares? Anyone opposed to this has some sort of quirky hidden agenda. If you bring the Bible into this then you have violated your own premise of keeping a separation of church and state. Those opposed to gay marriage don't have much of an argument.
Posted by George, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 9:55 am
So I'm curious and welcome responses...
Where do we see this ending? There is a lawsuit going on in Utah to allow polygamy again. Personally I don't see a problem with multiple spouses (harems anyone?) but I think that will be next. Then come the more radical issues. It wasn't that long ago that young women were promised to older men. If we allow someone to marry someone else of their choice, and if all parties are okay with it, what about a 13 year old young girl or boy being allowed to marry an older adult male (or female)? and then of course what about the pedofiles? Surely we can't keep an adult female or male from carrying on a relationship and marrying a young person - we'd be violating their rights - wouldn't we? After all it hasn't been many years since the last anti-sodomy laws were removed from the law books. Can anyone say that 20 years ago they saw anti-discrimination laws on the books for people who wanted to cross dress and ultimately change their sexual preferences (physically and/or mentally)? Perhaps those who shout down, harass and name call the anti-gay marriage supporters should now focus their sights on the anti-pedofilers and anti-polygamists. And let's not forget all of those animal lovers out there who leave their fortunes to their pets when they die. Some prefer their pets to their friends and might consider wanting to "marry" their pets. Why would you say no to that? One might consider you a discriminating person if you did - denying someone the basic right to their pursuit of happiness. Just saying that this might someday, maybe not for a couple or more decades, become a VERY slippery slope...
Posted by danville grandma, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 10:56 am
If you have any experience with polygamy, you have to know the pain and suffering it causes family. I have a great grandmother who along with her sister were married to the same man in polygamy. I have the formal photo of them. My grandmother suffered enormously in this family situation. There were 16 children. To think of the possibility of polygamy becoming legal is horrifying. Please don't even try to dismiss this possibility!!! It has already happened in America. I don't care about the consenting adults. I do care about the children they bring prolifically into this world. I do care about the women who are "culted" into this lifestyle and spend a lifetime of subservient treatment. Fewer and fewer families even reflect marriage between one man and one woman with the divorce rates and adultery becoming the standard, young people (mostly women) not even wanting to be married. The laws already make raising a child alone financially advantageous. Let consenting adults sign legal contracts to protect their rights but leave marriage alone. If you are one of the rare ones who comes from a family with a loving mother and father who stick together and raise their children with love, respect and dignity, you are lucky. I was lucky. I see the shattered lives of young people who juggle holidays with multiple parents and demands, who have suffered through their parents bad behavior and have so little to look at as a good example. This is becoming the norm for our society. Do you think that is good for children? Why don't we all put our efforts into improving the lives of our children and grandchildren and society? Why don't we quit being so self centered and think about the type of world we're leaving for our heirs?
Posted by dean, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 12:07 pm
The issue here is the use of the word "marriage". When I got married, it was understood that a man could only marry a woman. Redfine the word, and now I have to define "which" type of marriage I have. Why do I need to tell people about my sexuality? Do they care? I am now being "outed".
More important than the definition of a word is the issue of giving gay couples, bound by a civil union, the same rights as married couples. This is the piece of the law that we need to address. Gay couples can already adopt children and have other similar rights, but they do not enjoy all of the benefits which are available to married couples. Let's make the same rights available to ALL legally-bound couples, but don't do it by redefining a word that has meant one thing for centuries. Let's call it a civil union, an institution sanctioned and recognized by government, and then get on with making sure that all people who have made a commitment to each other have access to the same rights.
Posted by Citizen Paine, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 10:27 pm
Common: anyone who has been married is aware that the human intimacy of that relationship far transcends sex or sexuality. Why do you so crudely focus on those particular rituals, which are available to all, and practiced by many, regardless of their commitment to each other, or their sexual orientation?
Kindly quit fixating on the prurient, and understand the pain. And the injustice. Thanks.
Posted by citizen who, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Dec 5, 2012 at 8:29 am
max paine, you just don't get it. It's offensive to take a word that has historically been used to signify union between man and woman. Additionally, a man and woman are the only union that, unassisted, can create new human life. Can't you just leave the word alone out of respect for that God-given miracle? Or must you insist on equality at all costs?
People like you are so close-minded that it becomes ridiculous at times. get over yourself.
Posted by Citizen Paine, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Dec 5, 2012 at 9:29 am
1 -- Assuming your "history" is correct (which it isn't), why is that history more important than current legal rights denied to a significant part of our population? And why, oh why, is it "offensive" to you that gay Americans demand full and equal rights? Does that diminish Your rights? If so, How?
2 -- If the purpose of marriage is reproduction, then why allow sterile people to marry? Oldsters? Folks who just don't like kids? Make 'em second-class civil unions and pretend you've been "tolerant."
No, I cannot leave "that word" alone, precisely because of all it connotes in this society. The CA Supreme Court recognized that when it noted that civil unions connote second class status in a culture that reveres the institution of marriage as the fundamental family unit. Have you Ever seen a heterosexual couple opt for a civil union instead of a marriage? Does it occur to you that they don't because it just isn't as good?
You accuse me of "close-minded"-ness, but there's only one of us who refuses to consider something new or different, or understand why it's important -- here's a hint: it's not me.
Posted by Danville Grandma, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Dec 5, 2012 at 11:22 am
What does marriage mean? It is different in every state etc. When I married at age 24, I did not sign anything that informed me of all the laws that would be applied to me as a result that step in my life. What if there is a divorce, what if, what if, what if. It IS already a civil union dictated by the changing laws of the place you live. I think a contract should be signed by both parties in a relationship, whether it's heterosexual or homosexual outlining the legalities of THEIR relationship or union so you know the rules up front and politicians & courts should not be allowed to change those rules that can be applied retroactively or negated in other localities. I don't understand why "gay" couples want the present arrangement of marriage. It's married people who should have demanded a clarification of the meaning of "marriage" at the time of the event. If you're so caught up in the moment that you don't take time to consider how it will affect your whole life, you shouldn't get married. Let's work on providing a civil union for all couples and then if they want to get married with family and religious services, it should not be a legal event. Let's get the lawyers out of our pockets. BTW, I have been married for many years, never divorced but have plenty of people in my life that have gone through horrific divorces, child custody contentious legal hassles etc. they never thought they would have to face.
Posted by Marrushi, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Dec 5, 2012 at 11:47 am
Marry to love. Do not marry simply to procreate. The fact that a man and a woman can procreate does not make their marriage natural. Rather, it is their love for each other that makes their marriage natural. A marriage between any two people is natural if they love each other. Love is a God-given miracle that knows no sex, no gender, and no boundary. Same-sex marriage will be legalized in the United States; it has already begun.
Posted by citizen who, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Dec 5, 2012 at 1:45 pm
max paine - there you go again. Who said the purpose of marriage is to procreate? Not me, you'll need to (as usual) read it again. Open your closed mind. you suggest trying something new. Why should I? What right do you have to impose your idea, that I disagree with, on society? You're right, absolutely none. Same sex "union" is not a marriage, and never will be, in many peoples' minds, and you can't force it. You're not omnipotent with your stupid little laws.
Posted by Citizen Paine, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Dec 5, 2012 at 3:29 pm
I thought that was you. True colors coming out, and they are dark, indeed.
For the record, I do not care about your beliefs, however cruel or small they may be, as long as they are privately held. The problem here is that the "stupid little law" in the form of Prop 8 currently conforms to those beliefs, and so denies others their fundamental civil rights under the 14th Amendment.
Do you know what the most striking thing was about the Prop 8 trial? It was how little the defenders had to go on, in terms of support for their "beliefs." Even their so-called expert witness recanted his prior statements, when it came to having to make them under oath. It became utterly obvious that Prop 8 was simply motivated by fear of difference, and anti-gay animus -- and one of the clearest things in American law is that edicts like that eventually fail, under scrutiny of the Constitution.
Kind of like the way you make statements about how "offensive" you believe same-sex marriage is. You need more than those tender sensibilities to support a decree that withholds fundamental rights from those who deserve them as Americans. You're a dinosaur -- apparently a deeply committed dinosaur, but a doomed reptile nonetheless -- and you can ride your "beliefs" straight to extinction.
Posted by JRM, a member of the Vista Grande Elementary School community, on Dec 5, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Live and let live, folks...homophobia is a thing of the past. Those of you who invest time in hating are in need of moving on. Simply put. If you are educated you remember history tells us at one point catholics could not marry protestants and blacks could not marry whites. As Clint Eastwood said on this issue...."just leave me alone"....stop trying to tell us what is right or wrong based on your view. I am straight so do not have a dog in this fight other than an interest in social justice. I know some say this will enable the Mormons to revert to Polygamy as some of them wish but I say SO WHAT? Let the do what was a fundamental tenet of their founding. I could care less if that is their predeliction.
Live and let live....gay or straight. Get married and stay together as that has proven to be the most stable and productive framework.
Posted by homelessinDville, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Dec 7, 2012 at 2:43 pm
I am happy tht danvil is so progressiv. I live as a gypsy in dville usualy under the brige and use the libary to internet and wash myself inthe bathrum. I hope since obmaa was elected that we are all treated equl to one anothur. i heard section 8 houses go up near el pntado and el serro so i hope to move there soon. my partnr and i liv together so i hope im naybors with you all soon. we shud all be equl, no matr where we com from.
Posted by Citizen Paine, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Dec 8, 2012 at 10:34 am
And Common, so do You have that right. Since you are repeating your earlier post, we'll have to assume that's all you've got -- an adolescent-stage reference to an irrelevant set of sexual practices that are open to everybody, but that you may find icky. The irony is that for all your pubescent arrested development, You have the right to marry in this state.
Kindly return to the kids' table. You and Homeless have a lot in, uh, common.
Posted by Sylence Dugood, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Dec 8, 2012 at 8:42 pm
HopelessDville, it is the decree of our land that "...with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Go find your happiness. It is your right. I could careless where you homestead.
Posted by GG, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Dec 8, 2012 at 9:53 pm
I supported Prop 8. I do not believe in Homosexual marriage, Polygamy or Incest. I'm weary of the "we just want the rights everyone else has". Well let's just make it fair for everyone. Polygamists who are consenting adults who just want to be able to have the rights of marriage, no matter how many spouses. And what about incestious adults who can even ensure they will not procreate and compound genetic problems for offspring. After all brother and sister, or parent and child would want to have the right to marry if they so desire. Where does it stop? The answer in the State of California was the passage of Prop 8. Time will tell the rest.
Posted by Diane, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Dec 9, 2012 at 9:14 am
To imply the allowing of same gender couples who are in a committed relationship to marry is a slippery slope toward parents marrying their offspring is absurd. One could certainly back up and say "if opposite gender couples were allowed this marriage thing, then the door is open to same gender couples...then parents can marry their kids, etc."
With Proposition 8 being put to popular vote, we allowed a majority to affect the rights of a minority. When we have a majority who dwell on a sexual act that they deem "perverse" rather than recognizing a committed relationship, and who goes on to believe that we all choose our orientation though I doubt they remember choosing (I sure as heck don't) then we have a civil rights issue.
I can't imagine how same gender couples who are in a loving, committed relationship being given the right to marry somehow downgrades that union for the rest of us. Maybe we can get our minds out of each other's bedrooms and look at the commitment between consenting adults as the basis for whether marriage should be an option.