said by major marco :

Oh do tell, SteveO...exactly when are "non-parties" bound by a "civil contract" in the context being discussed?

said by Steve :

Most civil contracts don't bind non-parties; this one does, [...]

said by RR Conductor :

This has nothing to do with civil rights, and everything to do with the destruction of a sacred ordinance, marriage.

said by Jtmo :

Well, they did it again, but it hit locally.
Local thug who beat up a bus passenger, not deported or reported.
Then he robs a pregnant lady, let go again.
He lives out of town, but knows he does not fear deportation in SFO, so he goes there.

Well, he gunned down a father and two sons over a freeway dispute, road rage. Nice job Gavin and Company.

said by Gizy :

Marriage is not a religious institution. It is a civil contract.

said by HappyBunny :

I didn't! I didn't! I got divorced!

said by No_Strings :

Chin up, Bun. There's more sanctity in the second one. At least that's been my experience.

said by RR Conductor :

No shocker there, Gavin Newsom pretty much flaunts the law of CA, look at the gay marriage issue, though we plan to fix that this November. It's a shame, SF and the Bay Area are so beautiful, but are currently plagued by a huge thorn by the name of Gavin, it's time to pluck it out. As a Democrat, I also think he should have his membership revoked, maybe he and Ylen could join the "Flaunt the law" party :D

said by RR Conductor :

...cannot in good concious stand by while marriage is turned into a joke, we are the ones who want to keep marriage the cornerstone of society that it has been and must continue to be. I don't care if the world comes with swords and guns to kill me, I cannot in good concious allow gay marriage to stay legal, think what you must about us/me.

said by Valkyre :

Then there's always the Scott Peterson way of dispensing with ones wife.

said by Valkyre :

I always laugh when I hear people make this quote. How many married, heterosexual couples uphold the "sanctity" of marriage!?

said by RR Conductor :

This has nothing to do with civil rights, and everything to do with the destruction of a sacred ordinance, marriage.

said by Fat City :

Let's see...you're not even married and you're getting all lathered up about gay unions. You don't have a first-hand understanding of marriage to begin with.
I think I can see the hypocrisy in that.

said by sashwa :

Is it time for a recipe? :D

said by sashwa :

Is it time for a recipe?

said by Fat City :

Let's see...you're not even married and you're getting all lathered up about gay unions. You don't have a first-hand understanding of marriage to begin with.
I think I can see the hypocrisy in that.
By the way, how does your "concious" feel about Mormon polygamy?

i think there's a little bit of mistaken understanding about what marriage is.

marriage, in the very general sense, began as a religious right and had nothing to do with the state (govt, whatever). each religion had it's own rules about who could marry what and when, and differences were mainly based on geography.

eventually, the state began to recognize certain versions of marriage to control/restrict religious expression. people often say that it was about promoting progeny, but they're living in lollipop land. homogeneity and control were the issues for the state. the issues for the religions, however, were all about creating more parishioners, and secondarily about creating healthy parishioners (and for some, it wasn't about that at all). there were hints of indoctrination and property rights as well, but the main concern for the religious sects were population (de-facto survival and power).

now, along comes america. we inherit the idea that the state involves itself in the marriage process, and continue to promote the bullshit story that the state's involvement is all about progeny and health (though, tell that to the native-american's and their kids/property rights/cultural leaders).

somewhere along the way, medical science actually evolves beyond leeches and someone notices that marrying your first cousin more often than not results in simple minded children with teeth growing out of their eye sockets. NOW, for the first time, the american states enact some real regulation of marriage that actually has something to do with the health of their citizens - you can't marry your first cousin (some states also say second cousins). This was less than 100 years ago. I think CA enacted it in the 1940s. NOTE - there were some blood test requirements before this, but it was mainly for diseases like syphilis and didn't exclude you from marriage, they just made you get healthy. That's the sum total of the regulation of marriage. no profound ideology in there except the homogenization of the citizenry. (edit - wait, i forgot about age limits. those were instituted before the kissing cousin rules, but mainly for the same reasons.)

so, where does that leave us? well, since the only entities concerned with procreation all along the way (and certainly now) were religious ones, it's very safe to say that the state's concerns, especially considering the separation of state and church, aren't about procreation at all. if we can say the state has any legitimate traditional concerns at all when it comes to marriage, it's about the health and safety of the participants and those around them (including any potential adopted children).

"wait", you say, "what about homogeneity?" well, since the time when the US and state govts openly destroyed native cultures, the citizens of the US and the States, separately, have enacted laws (majoritarian) and constitutions (super-majoritarian) that recognize that there are differences that we shall recognize and not discriminate against, at least when it comes to state actors. note - if the difference is not recognized, then it can't be discriminated against. the US constitution has not yet recognized differences in gender (gay/straight), though it's come awfully close, and there ARE already federal employment laws that recognize differences in sex and gender.

what the CA supreme court did was to recognize that the state legislature (and therefore its citizenry) had passed many, many state laws that outlawed discrimination based on gender, and that each enacted law was based on the CA constitution. As a result, the constitution "recognized" the difference embodied in gender, and so gender could therefore not be discriminated against, at least not by the state.

so. where are we now? well, arguments about procreation as a state concern are illegitimate at best. arguments about the health and safety of same sex marriages, particularly in relation to family lifestyle involving adopted or turkey-baster children, have been sufficiently shot down so that no state can reasonably argue in court that a state-law gay marriage ban is rationally related to some idea of health and safety based in a reality that wouldn't also preclude any hetero marriage. CA, specifically, recognizes gender as a protected class (like race). if you don't like that, then you are welcome to move to a state whose constitution is not as even-handed (and there are plenty). be prepared, however, for the eventual recognition of gender by the US constitution. once that happens, then all the states will have to allow same sex marriages (or, more specifically, gay marriages - two hetero individuals could still be kept from marrying if they just wanted a union for tax relief).

there's lots more we could talk about concerning privacy in getting a marriage license, what legitimate interests a state could have with respect to marriages it wants to condone (like 12 year olds and polygamy), and more, but i want to go home to my marriage partner and eat.

said by RR Conductor :

We are the majority of Californian's who passed the proposition making marriage in CA legal only between man and woman only to have 4 judges just threw out the door, we are the ones that while tolerant and loving of all men, cannot in good concious stand by while marriage is turned into a joke, we are the ones who want to keep marriage the cornerstone of society that it has been and must continue to be. I don't care if the world comes with swords and guns to kill me, I cannot in good concious allow gay marriage to stay legal, think what you must about us/me.

I completely respect and admire yours and others views and disagreements with me, and I don't ask anybody in here to change their minds on this issue nor to agree with what I say, I am just stating how I feel and believe, and though the winds of the world's whims and views that change by the hour may blow against me, I will not stand down on this.

It's kinda funny, SF preaches how open and accepting of everyone and every belief they are, that we're all one happy family, but if you dare disagree with them you are branded evil, bigoted, hateful or worse, I can't believe I'm the only one who see the hypocrisy in that.

said by CurtesyFlush :

Hey KF, what was that noise outside?

There it is again. Better go investigate.

said by RR Conductor :

...it matters not, it's how we feel and it will not change just because it not "popular" or "pc" with the world's views at the moment.

said by RR Conductor :

No shocker there, Gavin Newsom pretty much flaunts the law of CA, look at the gay marriage issue, though we plan to fix that this November.

said by RR Conductor :

Read it if you want to (unless you're afraid it will "brainwash" you or something), or attack it, it matters not, it's how we feel and it will not change just because it not "popular" or "pc" with the world's views at the moment.

said by RR Conductor :

This has nothing to do with civil rights, and everything to do with the destruction of a sacred ordinance, marriage.

said by RR Conductor :

look at the gay marriage issue, though we plan to fix that this November.

said by RR Conductor :

look at the gay marriage issue, though we plan to fix that this November.

said by RR Conductor :

No shocker there, Gavin Newsom pretty much flaunts the law of CA, look at the gay marriage issue, though we plan to fix that this November.

said by Kingscup :

The state of California and the state of San Fransisco. Hell, They are already their own city and county. Why not make them a state? /sarcasm

said by CurtesyFlush :

When we become two states.