Comments on: Gay wedding fever in California after ban on gay marriage lifted

By: Hank

Hank — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:03:58 +0000

Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles together with six bishops in a statement said that they would treat gay couples sensitively but added "the church cannot approve of redefining marriage, which has a unique place in God's creation, joining a man and a woman in a committed relationship in order to nurture and support the new life for which marriage is intended.

"The meaning of marriage is deeply rooted in history and culture, and has been shaped considerably by Christian tradition. Its meaning is given, not constructed. When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution of marriage is devalued and further weakened."

And after the November voting in California, the states's
constitution will define marriage as being "between a man and
a woman." as the will of the people will overrule the
state Court's decision.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Ward Stewart/George Vye

Ward Stewart/George Vye — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:14:14 +0000

It has been our observation that in the moment that the words "gay" or "sex" appear in the matter the minds of the sanctimonious drop below the belt-line, never to rise!

Ward and George
52 years together
and yet
Strangers before the law.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Robert, ex-pat Brit

Robert, ex-pat Brit — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:20:41 +0000

Well, Mahony….you better make sure your church refuses to marry hetero couples who are infertile and those who aren't but don't want children, if that is the primary intention of the RC church's definition of marriage. You moron!

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Robert, ex-pat Brit

Robert, ex-pat Brit — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:32:53 +0000

Well said, Hayden. You'll probably get a lot of flack as I have on this issue. Many are in denial and using the lame excuse that not having civil partnerships would have guaranteed no rights at al doesn't wash any more. Spain proved that, the only country that had NO equal rights for its gay citizens and no unions or partnerships either, they went straight for marriage, excuse the pun. It faced far more opposition from the almighty powerful RC church in the process, but its gay citiziens and labour government overcame insurmountable odds and won because it was the right thing to do. Don't be surprised if Connecticut upgrades, along with New Jersy, Vermont and New Hampshire, the ball is rolling and we're not going back to second class status ever again. No social group should be segregated, no matter how many rights they have gained, everybody should be treated equally not differently.

apYrs….the term "gay marriage" alienates a lot of straight voters, marriage equality is a better term. What I despise is the number of gay UK couples who were denied the right to marry if they so chose but were compelled to accept civil partnerships because the socalled majority of gay citizens didn't want marriage. I find that hard to believe and arguable at best while the rest of the progressive world is abandoning unions and partnerships for full marriage recognition. Unfortunately, we'll never see marriage as an option in our own country and straight couples will never be able to enter into a civil partnership if they elect not to marry. Where's the equality in that? Personally, I don't see that happening either since marriage is the gold standard, anywhere you go once you leave the country. There is no substitute, ever and never will be.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: apYrs

apYrs — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:35:46 +0000

Valid point Hayden.

We use the prefix "gay" to identify its newness; in good time it shouldn't be exceptional.

In good time, civil partnership ought to be available for all those who don't want marriage; and they ought to be identifiably different.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Hayden

Hayden — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 02:46:47 +0000

I know you all in the UK are used to talking about "gay marriage" and "gay weddings" complete with "not really" quotes but what happened in California today was not "gay marriage" or "gay weddings". They weren't even gay marriages or gay weddings. They were MARRIAGES and WEDDINGS between same-sex couples. That might seem to some as nit picking but it actually isn't. Gay marriage indicates that gay people have something different than what straight people have. It practically as bad a saying gay "marriages". There is no such thing as "straight marriage" and "gay marriage" in California anymore. The Supreme Court, in its majority opinion went to great lengths to make it clear that they were NOT establishing a new, special institution for gays called "gay marriage" but were simply righting a long-term wrong by opening up the EXISTING institution of MARRIAGE (not "straight marriage") to opposite sex couples just as they opened the EXISTING institution of marriage up to mixed-race couples back in 1948. Mixed-race couples got MARRIED, they didn't get "Mixed Race Married".

No wonder so many people in England don't seem to get why they're Civil Partnerships or "marriages" or "weddings" aren't really equal to marriage. Out of one side of their mouth they say that the label doesn't matter but out of the other side they apply a "gay" label to an institution that isn't gay just because people of the same sex are entering into it.

(Report comment to the moderator)