| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/23 |
| 1999/12/22-24 [Recreation/Dating] UID:17089 Activity:very high |
12/22 I know the motd is not normally a place to say anything remotely
serious, but this seems pretty important to me. There is a petition
to legalize same sex marriage in California. It needs signatures
to get on the ballot. They are asking people to download the
signature form off the web and fill it out. If you are registered to
vote in California and feel same sex marriages are important please
either visit the web site at http://www.samesexmarriage.org (.com is a
straight porn site btw) or take a look at /tmp/csua/petition.pdf.
-aspo
\_ Windows RULES! Linux SUX! BAN Linux.
\_ I'd feel my marriage was somehow something less if reduced to a
mere legal contract so queers can feel good about being queer. Go
feel good some where else. Not interested.
\_ Won't move back to CA until you can marry your boyfriend? That's
pretty serious. I'll be signing so we can get it on the ballot and
vote it down and be done with it.
\_ This last weekend, a man and woman came to my door taking a tally
of people supporting a proposition in march to explicitly ban
same-sex marriages in CA. I don't know what was more disturbing,
that they supported the ban, or that they had a printout of the
names and addresses of all registered voters in my neighborhood.
\_ Voter registration lists are public record and easily
obtained. Candidates & parties use them all the time
to mail out flyers.
\_ Since there's a petition to legalize between man & man and women &
women, is there a petition to legalize marriages between brother &
sister, uncle & niece, aunt & nephew, father & daughter, mother &
son, and so on?
\_ Orthogonal, and no it is not. It is a good and
\_ I'm not sure aobut mother & son type marriages, but it is
legal to marry your niece/nephew. Get a clue. And stop
trolling. -aspo
\_ No it is not legal in this State to marry your niece/nephew.
Check out Family Code Section 2200 in
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html My point is that why
should we accept one kind of biologically wrong marriage but
reject other kinds.
\_ and same sex marriage is biologically wrong how? is
opposite sex marriage biologically wrong if they use
birth control?
\_ No, not nature-wise. Opposite sex couples who take
pills are still biologically "right" (or "fit", or
"appropriate") for reproduction nature-wise. They just
cognitively decide to disrupt nature.
\_ so marriage has to have something to do with the
possibility of reproduction even if the couple plans
to never have children? should people who become
sterile non-"cognitively" be banned from marrying?
\_ No I didn't think that. Rather, I agree with the
"Marriage is either simply a legal contract ...
or marriage is a special institution ..."
paragraph below that someone else wrote.
\_ What is "special" about it, such that the
State has a vested interest in promoting it?
I am personally offended that a special
interest group gives itself priviledges
that it denies a minority group simply
due to religious superstition. -ausman
\_ Either you think it's "special"; or you
don't, in which case it appears that you
would think we should accept marriage
between any two individuals, including man
and man, uncle and niece, and so on.
& man, uncle & niece, bro & sis, and so on.
\_ well then, I stand corrected. However you still should
\_ No, actually. Orthogonal.
get a clue and stop trolling. Oh and if it really matters
to you get your own petition started. This issue is
orthogonal to the issue. -aspo
\_ Disagreement is not trolling. You've had your say
and other think you're wrong. Tough shit.
\_ But trolling often takes the form of disagreement.
\_ Orthoganal, and no it is not. It is a good and
relavent point. Marriage is either simply a legal
contract, which should be enterable by any two
OR MORE adults, in which case this law doesn't go
far enough and simply heaps irrationality on
irrationality, or marriage is a special
institution designed to foster a particular
morality/behaviour by recognizing and to some
degree rewarding said behaviour, in which case
\_ Unfortunately, marriage is also associated with
the "right" to be parents in many peoples minds.
To truly fix the system, the state should declare
marriage a religious ceremony it no longer has
anything to do with, and make all people who want
the traditional marriage benefits sign a
domestic partnership contract (gets rid of the
whole pre-nup mess as well, since that would be
included in the contract). Those who want to be
parents should be required to get a license,
everyone else given mandatory birth control. Then
you've taken both religion & genetics out of the
picture, and prevented a whole lot of unwanted
pregnancies and children born to people who can't
or won't take care of them.
homosexual marriages don't fit the bill. |
| 5/23 |
|
| www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html Information presented reflects laws currently in effect. All California Codes have been updated to include the 2003 Statutes. To display the Table of Contents for a code, select a code and click on Search. |
| www.samesexmarriage.org They were joined by tens of thousands of supporters, who circulated and signed petitions asking to have this simple request placed before California voters. The Attorney General for California approved the language and concurred that the cost to Californians was negligible. Time was short, however, and without assistance from established gay and lesbian activist groups, the initiative was not able to gain enough signatures to make it to the ballot. The proposed initiative was based on the simple premise that lesbian and gay people are valuable members of society, whose long-term, committed relationships are deserving of recognition equal to their heterosexual counterparts. This recognition could only be accomplished through civil marriage, and not through a substitute such as domestic partnership. The language of the initiative is deliberately simple: Section 40 is added to Article 1 of the California Constitution, to read: SEC. Two people of the same sex may lawfully marry in California. Such a marriage is subject to the same provisions of California law applicable to other marriages. The partners to the marriage shall meet the same legal requirements as other married persons, and they shall have the same legal rights and obligations as other married persons. This section does not require any church, religion or religious organization to perform any marriage ceremony. This section supersedes any California law that prohibits legal marriage between two people of the same sex who meet the legal requirements applicable to other married persons. Lawful marriage is the most effective, and least expensive way for government to allow lesbian and gay people access to numerous state laws covering inheritance, domestic dispute resolution, tax policy, and insurance coverage. It would also allow access to more than a thousand Federal benefits. The proponents of the marriage initiative unapologetically stated that legal same-sex marriage would send a powerful message to gay and straight people alike, that a committed same-sex couple deserves the same respect and recognition accorded to a heterosexual couple. There is still momentum for a same-sex marriage ballot initiative in California. An increasing number of Californians favor same-sex marriage. A 2002 public opinion poll of registered voters in California shows that 45% of Californians support the freedom to marry for gay and lesbian couples. Recently, opposition to equal marriage rights in California has fallen to 49%, the lowest level in history and the first time opposition has been below 50%. Various advocacy groups have used other avenues to seek equal marriage rights in California in the three years since the marriage initiative was proposed. Attempts to win the right to marry in the courts are sidetracked by a hostile judiciary and by Proposition 22, an anti-marriage initiative adopted by the California voters in March of 2000. Meanwhile, the California legislature is incapable of mustering a majority for anything more than limited "domestic partner" type benefits for same-sex couples, and the governor of California has stated his unequivocal opposition to same-sex marriage. Thus, while some of the benefits of marriage are being bestowed gradually through domestic partner laws, there remains a vast gulf between the legal rights of same-sex versus opposite-sex couples. Perhaps more importantly, the continuing exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the word "marriage" maintains a verbal apartheid, and it continually reminds gay and lesbian people that they and their relationships are something less. The state of Massachusetts is expected to have same-sex marriage by May of 2004, as a result of a recent ruling by that state's Supreme Judicial Court. Such litigation could take years and is not certain to succeed. Thus, for Californians, the ballot initiative process may still be the best vehicle by which to secure civil marriage. Given the high degree of existing support in the population, a new initiative campaign has a reasonable chance of success. Moreover, any campaign, whether successful or not, will advance the recognition of same-sex families in California and lay the foundation for future success. The proponents of the initiative are considering the possibility of a future initiative campaign. |