| About this site |
| About us |
| Our beliefs |
| Your first visit? |
| Contact us |
| External links |
| Good books |
| Visitors' essays |
| Our forum |
| New essays |
| Other features |
| Buy a CD |
| Vital notes |
| Non-theistic... |
| Atheism |
| Agnosticism |
| Humanism |
| Other |
| About all religions |
| Main topics |
| Basic info. |
| Gods/Goddesses |
| Handling change |
| Doubt/security |
| Quotes |
| Movies |
| Confusing terms |
| Glossary |
| World's end |
| True religion? |
| Seasonal events |
| Science/Religion |
| More info. |
| Spiritual/ethics |
| Spirituality |
| Morality/ethics |
| Absolute truth |
| Peace/conflict |
| Attaining peace |
| Relig. tolerance |
| Relig. freedom |
| Relig. hatred |
| Relig. conflict |
| Relig. violence |
| Laws and news |
| Religious laws |
| Religious news |
|
|
 |
"If marriage means everything, it means absolutely
nothing." Dr. James C. Dobson, of Focus on the Family. |
||||||||
|
"The extension of the Common Benefits Clause to acknowledge
plaintiffs as Vermonters who seek nothing more, nor less, than legal
protection and security for their avowed commitment to an intimate and
lasting human relationship is simply, when all is said and done, a
recognition of our common humanity." Chief Justice Jeffrey L. Amestoy, of the Vermont Supreme Court in a decision that led to the legalization of civil unions in Vermont. |
||||||||
|
"A loving man and woman in a committed relationship can marry.
Dogs, no matter what their relationship, are not allowed to marry. How
should society treat gays and lesbians in committed relationships? As dogs
or as humans?" Posting to an Internet mailing list; used by permission
of the author. |
||||||||
|
"... They went running down the hall of their preschool singing 'Mommy and
Mama are getting married.' And they looked at me with such happy eyes." Comment
by Beth Hillman, a professor at the University of California Hastings
College of the Law in San Francisco, CA after she told her two daughters at
school about the California Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex marriage. |
||||||||
|
"As California goes, so goes the nation." Ancient adage of
unknown origin. |
||||||||
|
Four comments on Proposition 8 which ended the right of same-sex couples to
marry on 2008-NOV-06:
|
Overview:
After one proposition, many lawsuits, a pile of bills passed by the Legislature, and two vetoes by the governor, the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage on 2008-MAY-14. California became the second state to do so, after Massachusetts. Same-sex couples began marrying on 2008-JUN-16.
Proposition 8 was voted upon at the 2008-NOV-04 elections. Its intent was to re-define marriage in California as a special privilege of opposite-sex couples only. It narrowly passed 53% to 48%. The Supreme Court of California heard oral arguments on the constitutionality of Prop. 8 on 2009-MAR-05.
As expected, on 2009-MAY-26, it upheld the constitutionality of Prop 8, thus continuing the current ban on SSM. However, it also ruled that the Proposition is not retroactive. Thus, same-sex couples who were legally married during 2008 would continue to be considered married.
This decision leaves the marriages of any minority group at danger. Any hate group who dislikes a particular racial, religious, or other minority can now raise a proposition in California to eliminate the right of that minority to marry. If the Proposition is passed by at least 50% of the voters plus one, the minority would no longer be allowed to marry. Atheists' marriages are at particular risk, because of the public's high level of dislike and intolerance of Atheists.
A lawsuit has been launched in federal court to overturn Prop. 8. It is likely to eventually proceed to the U.S. Supreme Court. If they rule in favor of SSM, it could legalize SSM across the entire U.S., unless the court found a way to make a narrow ruling that applies to California only.
The Prop 8 issue is being actively debated at Living Vote.org. See: http://www.livingvote.org/
The following topics are covered in this section:
|
History of recognition of same-sex relationships by the government and courts
|
||||||||||||||
|
Path 1: The legislative route towards marriage equality:
|
||||||||||||||
|
Path 2: Pursuing same-sex marriage through the courts:
|
||||||||||||||
|
Path 3: Banning same-sex marriage via the state Constitution |
|
Home page > "Hot" topics > Homosexuality > Couples > SSM > here |
Copyright © 2001 to 2009 by Ontario Consultants on Religious
Tolerance
Latest update: 2009-JUL-09
Author: B.A. Robinson
|
|
Sponsored link: