This was the scene this morning at the Civic Center in Laguna Hills when the first licenses were issued for same sex marriages. We feared protesters but there were none - all the crazies must have gone to Santa Ana.
The sun-drenched courtyard was filled with supporters with roses and good wishes, tearful, happy family and friends and newlyweds, one after another, young and old.
Rebel Girl and her little guy just stopped by to lend their support - only to discover - surprise, surprise - two people they knew poised to take the plunge.
Rebel Girl always cries at weddings. Today was no exception.
late afternoon update: Over thirty couples were wed. Rebel Girl was in good company in the courtyard with members of a local Unitarian Univeralist Church; together they formed a welcoming party. The rainbow flag stuck in the planter was a friendly signal. Some people were clearly apprehensive at what might await them.
A lone woman walked up shortly after noon and asked how it had been going. Fine, fine, they replied. "I mean," she said, "about the other side. Have they been here?" She was reassured that it had been peaceful. She returned a couple hours later and got married, posing with her spouse afterward, seated on the planter next to the flag. They'd been together for years, she said. Had a son who was 22.That's what was heard all day. The chorus of years: 45. 30. 7. 13. 10.
Never thought I'd live to see the day said one man.
59 comments:
No hate filled protestors?
Good news.
mazel tov!
How wonderful! A good day (and a good ruling) really stands out after the past 8 hideous years. Thanks for the report, Rebel Girl--most heartening.
I see. So the "crazies" are those who think that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
On the contrary, let me suggest that anyone who believes that marriage can be conceived as absolutely inconsistent with procreation is--all things being equal--closer to being crazy than an opponent of same sex marriage.
"Remember right-wingers, name-calling is not argumentation..."
But you left-wingers go right ahead applying terms like "crazies" and phrases like "hate-filled" to your opponents. I guess it counts as argumentation when you do it.
Judges are supposed to interpret the law, not create it as has occurred here.
When the people of California or its elected legislature enact a law allowing this then I will allow for the legitimacy of the behavior so favored by the court.
Right now we have rule by the court and the legislative and executive branches are showing just how weak they are.
Don't be surprised to see blowback from the people.
The judicial branch can and does intervene in order to protect the rights of the minority.
If we had to wait for people to vote to end segregation we would still be waiting.
Read the Constitution and some history books.
This is the a CIVIL RIGHTS issue. Civil marriage is a civil right. The court was right to see this and rule to protect the rights of the minority group.
This is what our courts are supposed to do.
I think Rebel Girl used the term "crazies" with somewhat affectionate, humorous accuracy. I mean, have you seen some of these people waving huge signs and screaming God Hates Fags? Have you stood there and listened to what they say? I have. They're crazy.
TB you are incorrect on this issue. Courts rule on the constitutionality of laws; say, if an ordinance was passed in a south OC town prohibiting Mexicans from driving past midnight (and it probably would be passed) the court would have the duty to strike it as unconstitutional. That's what's happened with the gays and lesbians--it's basic equal protection stuff.
And to this:
"On the contrary, let me suggest that anyone who believes that marriage can be conceived as absolutely inconsistent with procreation is--all things being equal--closer to being crazy than an opponent of same sex marriage."--are you saying, then, that heterosexuals who do not wish to, or cannot, procreate, should not be allowed to marry?
Come on, 1:27, confess--you do hate those fags and dykes, don't you? Your seething hatred is bubbling up all over--you can admit it, you're among friends here.
If you're paying attention, you'll notice that the evidence has been mounting for many years that homosexuality is a common phenomenon largely or entirely decided by genetics. Being gay, it appears, is like being left-handed, like being red-headed.
I appreciate Tucker Carlson's view on this issue: "I think, marriage has been a great thing for me, and I think it's a really civilizing force, and I think it would be a civilizing force for gay people too."
Not that gay people need much civilizing, in my experience.
Who defends torture?
There is no Constitutional or legal grounding for this. It is an "invented" civil right.
Actually, TB, all civil rights are invented.
Equal protection applies to all--your argument was used many years ago, against other people, to deny them their rights, and religion was at the base of it.
To arbitrarily deny gays and lesbians the same rights you have is arbitrary, malicious, and downright mean spirited.
Thanks for posting this.
This will not stand.
No Federal or State Constitution nor legislatively enacted law INTENDED this result. If the court had banned marriage outright would you be alright with that end?
The status of who may or may not be married is not the dangerous issue in this...it is the usurping of the peoples right to govern by a court that is infinitely more dangerous. You Dissenters surprise me in that you are numb to the danger.
For the record I am not pro marriage. It has it's roots in religion and I don't buy the mumbo jumbo. The practice of marriage is, to me, a form of chattel/property ownership. Married people have always taken advantage of my single status by acquiring monetary rewards and benefits in excess of what I receive for the same work performed. It's not fair at all to me...why should I welcome more people getting over on me? Of course I realize that I am not going to win this at the polls either. The majority get to screw the minority in an election. That is essence of democracy, screw the civil rights argument.
So since I too am a minority what goddamned judge is going to provide ME some judicial relief? Mmmmmmm? Since I don't have a spouse or kids how about kicking me that medical money I'm not costing the system?
Oh I see, you only care about THEM getting a break.
So now I get to pay for something new. That's nice. Thanks for less.
Settle this at the polls or in the legislature and I'll be OK with it but not this way.
"THEM", tora bora?
How about "WE"?
TB, you seem to misunderstand the role of Constitutions. They are not democratic documents. Rather, they are, if anything, anti-democratic documents, for they place restrictions on what may be enacted democratically or otherwise.
The "people" may (who knows) want gays barred from marriage, but we have founded our civil society on a set of side-constraints or principles forbidding unfair and arbitrary discrimination (i.e., we embrace equal treatment). Thus it is right and proper for the courts to undo unfair discrimination against gay people, even if "the people" want that.
You misunderstand what is fundamental to our form of government.
8:20 How about "WE"?
'Cause it's not doing ME any good whatsoever. If I am able to take care of myself then I don't need you to help me. That is a good thing in my book.
I didn't get this clear enough for you perhaps.... Nobody gets a marriage license and all such unions are nullified...that would be fair to all.
And 9:02 if "unfair" is a standard where in the law is that? I've been unfaired my whole life. So what? What judge is going to square things with me over all the crap I've taken over not being married? How would you like it if you had to work a holiday so the married could be with their family? Or get sick days off because their family is sick? Or, as in my GI days, get paid LESS because I am not married.
If not then next up is polygamy. After all it is a civil right to marry who you want to now. And only a Neanderthal could be against civil rights. And YOU certainly ain't one of THOSE (are you?).
Right?
So I can "marry" 100 people and put them all on my taxpayer paid for medical plan? None of them are "really" my spouse, I just want to wreck the train. Because I'm such a nice guy I'll marry people with toothaches so they can get their teeth fixed for free, I'll marry people who need need glasses, I'll marry 6 million dollars worth of medical needs because I'm a great guy and that is all my medical will pay for in my lifetime. If all 150 people at my college do this we can collectively address $900,000,000 worth of desperately needed medical needs. Who could fail to act to help the needy when YOU don't have to pay for it?
See the problem here? All these people caring about other people are making ME pay for it without a vote of the people or the legislature.
Once again, shop this to the people. NO law or Constitution intended this result. This action is extra-constitutional and an act of rebellion against the people.
Watch this video:
God hates "fags"?
I do think in this case that talk of "crazies" is not name-calling. It's just a recognition that some people are beyond the pale.
I think TB should go elsewhere. He is speaking only to himself.
9:23 What, no rainbow flag for you? Perhaps an echo chamber should be on your wish list.
Oh, one other thing, there is a full moon out tonight. Enjoy.
You're hateful spiteful ugly man, tb - and you must know it, deep down. That's why you're so alone.
10:01 I see that moonglow has got you in a mood. Sorry you feel that way.
please don't feed the troll, folks - he just gets fatter.
Fact is, "same-sex marriage" is incoherent, like a "married bachelor." The only way to provide any coherence for it is to re-define marriage as nothing more than a contract, conceptually excluding procreation from marriage. That is semantically and historically...crazy.
As for the usual canard about heterosexual couples who cannot have children, which someone trotted out above: One can consistently be opposed to same-sex marriage while supporting marriage for infertile heterosexual couples because infertile heterosexuals can still live and relate to each other in a way that is consistent with the purpose of marriage and the purposes of their bodies. Such a relationship can still be consistent with the concept of marriage, even if the couple does not actually procreate.
As to the charge of hate: I do hate the idea of same-sex marriage for the reasons stated here and in my post above. I do not hate gays and lesbians any more than I would hate a man who wanted to marry the Statue of Liberty. I would just think that it is something that he should not do, and really could not do, and I wouldn't want to see our county clerk issue him a license to do so.
Hey, I agree with the dissenters, the ones on the California Supreme Court!
ah, yes, the arguments that use the terms "incoherent" and "re-definition" and "original purpose"...etc.
Consider how this langauge and approach was used during the Civil War in terms of how the Constitution originally defined African men, etc. Or women for that matter. O rchildren and labor rights. Native peoples. Etc.
Get over it people.
A change is gonna come.
yes, a change IS going to come. This is the change that is coming for this genration and our age and as usual, many people resist it, can't see it for what it is.
Me, I welcome it.
I think it's a done deal. They'll be the usual kvetching and perhaps a bit of ugliness but it's basically over. The U.S. has never retracted rights once they've been granted, right?
Actually, 11:43, marriage IS a contract and procreation is not a part of that contract. Procreation is part of the understanding between the marrying couple. So, it's reality, not crazy as you would have it.
And can you please translate this ambiguous comment: "One can consistently be opposed to same-sex marriage while supporting marriage for infertile heterosexual couples because infertile heterosexuals can still live and relate to each other in a way that is consistent with the purpose of marriage and the purposes of their bodies. Such a relationship can still be consistent with the concept of marriage, even if the couple does not actually procreate."
What on earth does "the pueposes of their bodies" and "the concept/purpose of marriage" mean? I assure you that many heterosexuals use their bodies in all sorts of ways not inconsistent with homosexual usage, and if you think that the purpose of marriage is procreation, then let's criminalize out of wedlock births.
And for you, TB, it's parents who seem to benefit at the expense of single, childless people. The travesty of the child tax credit, in which people are given $1,000 for each kid, is problematic. I suggest that childess people get a no child tax credit for not filling up the schoolrooms. Otherwise, some gays and lesbians getting married just means that they have a shot at happiness, and they do not affect you in any manner whatsoever.
Ah, yes, the sort of argumentation that begins with "ah, yes..." Smugness offered as evidence. Nice try, 6:18. (Posing as a Zen master, condescending to those who are still foolishly attached to rationality.)Go ahead and try to attach same-sex marriage to the coattails of the civil rights movement and see whether you can pull the wool over people's eyes that way.
Obviously, change can be for the better or the worse. Degeneration is change, too. Inevitable change could also still be bad. It was inevitable that those levees in the Midwest would break, and that "inevitable change" was destructive. Not all of the social, moral, and political changes that have occurred in this country have been improvements.
Your only consolation is that, if you can think of the change in the concept of marriage as inevitable, then you don't have to think about it anymore.
I'd love a definition of this: "change in the concept of marriage." If marriage is two people making a commitment to each other, then you should have no problem with gays and lesbians marrying.
I bet, though, that none of this will amtter, because you apparently are upset about people different from you being happy. How do you sleep at night?
11:26,
You assume that anyone who holds a different opinion from yours must be evil, and so should be unable to sleep at night. That's how you sleep at night.
What is sad is this... A majority of the voters of Califronaia voted to say what marriage is for. Man and Woman. And even though millions of voted stated this. $ liberalist egostical dumb@ss chose not to respect the people of California. Hope they all die of aids.
7:53 You are correct about the voters but wrong about wanting someone to get aids.
Disease is an enemy of all mankind. Regardless of your position on the behavior induced vector of a disease all diseases should be targeted by civilization for extermination. We can deal with the behavior as a separate issue.
It is the threat that disease in general poses to all that allows me to give some ground to a taxpayer funded health care plan. I just don't like the idea of a government RUN plan.
Don't be mean...wish the court a 2 ton block of polished granite falling on them instead.
I don;t think you're evil, 5:13, just a raving asshole.
You're the only person making sense, Tora Bora. Everyone else has so much emoitional connection to this issue they are blinded by their own bias. But one thing is for sure - no one will change their minds, so they simply will be defeated by the people when it becomes a issue of ammending our Constitution.
"Blinded by bias?" "Your Constitution?" Are you really this stupid, and so lacking in a sense of irony, or just saying that to troll for a response?
You should not be allowed to vote as all you have is motor function.
Calling me a "raving asshole" is just your way of conceding that you lost the argument. It's not a very gracious concession, but I'll take it anyway. So, thanks very much!
Q: What does a five-year old child say at bedtime in a household with "Two Daddies?"
A: "I want my Mommy!"
Q:What does a five-year old child say at bedtime in a household with "Two Mommies?"
A: "I want my Daddy!"
Q: What does a five-year old child say in the household of an adoptive same-sex couple?
A: "I want my Mommy and my Daddy!"
The pain and anguish that children experience in such situations is unimaginable to you if you've never lived without one or both parents, as I have. The same-sex couple may indeed be fine people and they may love the child, so, no, I don't hate them. But yeah, I do hate any policy that has that effect on children.
So, 7:05, you are quitting and annnouncing victory at the same time?
By definition, a narrow minded biggot is, per se, an asshole. Although the physiological asshole has some use, you just stink up the place.
Sure, 8:24, that's why all of the wonderful heterosexual reproducers make such marvelous parents. Not a bad apple in the bunch. No siree.
You bigots just keep on grasping at the same old straws.
The only trick in your book seems to be to compare relatively good same-sex parents with relatively bad traditional parents. Not quite fair, is it? Apples and oranges. But happily for you, I am still willing to school you, in spite of your obviousness viciousness.
Try comparing the situation of a child being raised by same-sex parents to the same child being raised by her own parents, all things being equal. Raised by her own parents, she can normally--not always, but normally--see herself as a direct result of her parents' love for one another. She sees her parents' love for each other as love for her too, because literally embodies her parents' love for each other. Her very being is an expression of their love. And that, my name-calling, Straw Man-committing friend (because you really are my friend)requires the heterosexual complementarity of her two parents, and her two parents' bodies.
That's nice and warm and fuzzy and all, but it's completely devoid of any facts, studies, or real examples.
And, comparing "good" same sex couples to "bad" heterosexual couples is far from "apples and oranges." Your take is consistently to paint same sex couples as infefficient, traumatizing, confusing, and just plain wrong, while the "traditional" family is a warm Norman Rockwell misty memory. That's just crap, and you should know that.
So, we'll wait for some sort of reliable evidence anbout this hypothetical traumatized child, all bereft at the lack of "heterosexual complementarity of her two parents, and her two parents' bodies," whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.
We'll wait patiently.
OK, 10:32, how about this rather basic fact: Sex is for having babies. Now I will wait patiently while you try to figure out how to deny that.
That's news to a whole bunch of us heterosexuals, 9:17. Are you saying every time you get some trim, as they say, a pregnancy is in the mix?
Waiting.
Just read the "viciousness" comment in 4:06. Who is the group with the "god hates fags" and "burn in hell" signs?
Now that's vicious.
You, 10:45, still depend on being able to right off all opponents of same-sex marriage as vicious bigots. (See? Even just now you said to yourself, "They are!")
But they aren't. Consider:
"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them, it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."
Source? 2358 of the _Catechism of the Catholic Church_.
6:03 Now you did it...you brought the Catholic church into the argument. Now we're liable to hear all about Tom Fuentes, the O.C. diocese (hat tip to Mr. Moxley) and the pederasts.
I might need popcorn for this thread...we may set a record!
You have now changed the argument, 6:03, to some Catholic psychobabble:
"They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them, it is a trial."
As there was no evidence posted about the two mom and dad stuff earlier, there is, I am sure, no evidence for this claptrap.
If being gay or lesbian is a trial, it's from the personal attacks or, in this case, smug patronizing that causes problems in that community.
Go ahead and give us a good example (without any biblical stuff)as to what's wrong with gays and lesbians, and what they do that does not have a heterosexual equivalent.
The point made 6/24 @ 6:03 doesn't depend on the truth or falsity of Catholicism. I did distract the more unfocused readers with that reference.
The point was to show that opposition to "same-sex marriage" does not necessarily involve bigotry. Catholicism may be entirely false, but the quoted passage does show that opposition to "same-sex" marriage is consistent with holding that gays and lesbians "...must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."
That point does not depend on a Catholic or a biblical point of view.
11:01,
What same-sex couples do that does not typically have a heterosexual equivalent is to completely separate sex from babies, which is "...like separating food from nutrition, or eyes from seeing, or ice-makers from ice...," as Peter Kreeft puts it. Now if a hetero couple also purposely and completely separated sex from babies, then they would be making the same mistake as a same-sex couple.
The fact that sex is for having babies does not depend on anything biblical or religious. It is, though, a high form of intellectual entertainment to watch people try to deny it.
One last point, just for you, 11:01. The intrinsically valuable and utterly unique person that you are could not have been produced by a same-sex union. It took a man and a woman to produce you. Keep that in mind when you think about these issues.
OK, 1:20, here's a response:
"Now if a hetero couple also purposely and completely separated sex from babies, then they would be making the same mistake as a same-sex couple."
--So, then, what about all the hetero couples I know are making that "mistake", some of them as I am writing this, I am fairly sure. And looking at the procreation rate in some circles, and the rise in world population and diminishing of resources, I'd say that the reproducers are often the ones making a mistake.
"The fact that sex is for having babies does not depend on anything biblical or religious. It is, though, a high form of intellectual entertainment to watch people try to deny it."
--Sex is not "for" anything. Sex is the usual method by which humans reproduce. Sex is also lots of fun when reproduction is not part of the scenario. One's sexual activity, proposed or otherwise, as far as I know, is never part of any requirement for marriage in this state or any other civilized society.
"One last point, just for you, 11:01. The intrinsically valuable and utterly unique person that you are could not have been produced by a same-sex union. It took a man and a woman to produce you. Keep that in mind when you think about these issues."
So, what's the point? There are millions upon millions of people right now, working away at pumping out children. There are also many more not doing it. The fact that some people do not have the capability of reproducing (both homo and heterosexuals) should have nothing to do with entering into a loving commitment and entering into a consensual marriage contract, in which they get certain legal benefits that are otherwise denied them for no good reason.
If you want to be consistent, then ask for legislation in which only reproducers will get to marry, and criminalize sexual activity otherwise.
"Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."
Excellent point. I could not agree more.
I believe that gay folks should have the right to get married.....Then everyone can be just as unhappy as I am....
It's just called marriage now!!!!!
Post a Comment