Gay Marriage Is Legal In California Now
May 15th 2008 20:36
I just stopped by Don Lee's blog, White Line Philosophy. He has an interesting take on gay marriage. He's asking if the new gay marriage laws will be followed by new gay divorce laws. Think about it, folks. Usually, it's the man who pays alimony, isn't it? What if the "husband and wife" are both men? Is it the higher wage earner? Like with celebrity divorces? And what if they have children? (Adopted, I mean. Biological children would go with the blood parent, I'm sure). Would the stay-at-home spouse get the kids? Or the wage earner? Would one half of the couple be designated "husband" and the other one, "wife?" Or would there have to be a new legal definition of which one was which? Would the two be absolutely equal in all ways? Would an abused male partner be able to go to a "battered women's shelter?" Or would new shelters have to be created for abused gays only?
Now that two men can marry or two women can marry, will three people be able to do it? Or will there have to be a new law specifying that "marriage" of any kind is only between TWO people? And what if a threesome decided to challenge it? Will the old Mormon ways of a man having multiple wives be resurrected to accommodate those who want group "marriages?"
I'm not asking these questions because I'm a Christian conservative. They are legitimate questions that need legitimate answers, don't ya think?
Now that two men can marry or two women can marry, will three people be able to do it? Or will there have to be a new law specifying that "marriage" of any kind is only between TWO people? And what if a threesome decided to challenge it? Will the old Mormon ways of a man having multiple wives be resurrected to accommodate those who want group "marriages?"
I'm not asking these questions because I'm a Christian conservative. They are legitimate questions that need legitimate answers, don't ya think?
| 90 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
When two people of the same sex become married, the 'husband and wife' terminology no longer applies. Gay people aren't trying to follow in heterosexuals' footsteps. 'Spouse' will probably still apply, and perhaps they will refer to each other as 'husband and husband' and 'wife and wife' or maybe come up with a whole new terminology altogether (either officially or unofficially).
Would the stay-at-home spouse get the kids? Or the wage earner?
It would depend on the specifics of each case... and yes, the higher wage earner is more likely to be asked for money, whether they're married to a person of the same sex or not.
Would the two be absolutely equal in all ways?
I don't see why not.
Would an abused male partner be able to go to a "battered women's shelter?" Or would new shelters have to be created for abused gays only?
I don't think men are allowed in women's shelters, because they're not women. The aim of these shelters is to provide a safe environment, and this is usually interpreted to mean 'free of men'. I don't know if there are any men's shelters. There should be, because men who are abused by other men have sepcific concerns (i.e. they need to be in a supportive environment, and hopefully with other abused men so they can support each other)
Now that two men can marry or two women can marry, will three people be able to do it?
It's possible that people might wish for this to happen... I'm not sure how acceptable it will be seen as.
Hope that answers some of your questions...
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Side note, I just heard it put quite succinctly on Fox News Channel. "A million voters said no and four justices said yes." Should be interesting to see if November will bring a constitutional ammendment banning same sex marriage or whether it will continue to stand.
Makes you wonder why people bother to vote, huh?
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
The people of California should have the right to vote on this issue in Nov.. I have been taught all my life that our Government was suppose to be by the people for the people.
But it seems that the Liberal Judges have taken it upon themselves to rule our country from the bench instead of from Congress where our elect officals are.
Seems these self appointed dictators are now trying to make laws instead of following them. We are on a slippery slop that will without doubt end up in complete collapse of the family and any morality that is left in America.
This is why we need a Federal Constitutional Amendment to protect traditional marriage as we know it, and as God has intented it to be.
When God created Man he called his name Adam, and then he created a woman for the man and called her Eve, Genesis 2:23-24 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and Mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
God wanted Adam and Eve to Marry, Not Adam and Steve.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by Jim Stillman
If the objection is to the term “marriage” then I suppose a non-marital civil union with another name would be OK? Let’s call this relationship, “meatball” and provide that persons who meatball receive the same legal benefits as married couples: preferential tax treatment, mandatory rights of inheritance, coverage under employer-provided health insurance or pension programs, would this be acceptable?
If the right to marry or meatball is a basic aspect of liberty and freedom, then 1,000 votes of the people cannot and should not negate them. SL, this is the thrust of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Bill of Rights.
Lester quotes the Bible as his authority. He may do so, of course; but understand that in a pluralistic society, his Bible may not be controlling on others.
I am firmly in the heterosexual camp, been married for almost 50 years, have 4 daughters and 14 grandchildren. I am, nonetheless, not at all confident that I can or should dictate others’ moral choices.
I thought Conservatives wanted government to butt out of individuals’ lives. I guess that doesn’t apply to sexual choices.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by Don Lee
White Line Philosophy
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
The Bible says we shall not kill, our law punishes any one that kills. The Bible say thou shalt not steal, our law punishes anyone that steals.
I just love this, because the pluralistic society in many ways are controlled by the Bible whether they like it or not.
I could care less what they call it as long as they don't call it Marriage, or same sex marriages, or Gay marriage. I purpose instead of calling it meatball as Jim has suggested, we call it meatheads.
But the worse thing is that four meatheads on the Ca. Surpreme Court said that the citizens didn't have a say in their laws.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by troyhm69
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief