Moonbeam Makes the Use of the Words Husband and Wife Illegal in California

And I noticed how you didn't and never address anything I say.

 

“Under existing law, a reference to ‘husband’ and ‘wife,’ ‘spouses,’ or ‘married persons,’ or a comparable term, includes persons who are lawfully married to each other and persons who were previously lawfully married to each other, as is appropriate under the circumstances of the particular case,” it reads. “The bill would delete references to ‘husband’ or ‘wife’ in the Family Code and would instead refer to a ‘spouse,’ and would make other related changes.”

Leno sponsored the bill after Proposition 8, in which California voters said no to same-sex marriage, was declared unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court refused to overturn it. State Rep. Leno said of his legislation,”This legislation removes outdated and biased language from state codes and recognizes all married spouses equally, regardless of their gender.”

This only makes sense if you're going to have same-sex marriage on the books.

I still say government should not be in the marriage business at all, of course.

 

I'm trying my damndest to understand your position but, unfortunately, you aren't capable of putting your grievances into words.

I'll just have to assume that your marriage hasn't actually been affected one iota by the legalization of gay marriage and that you just like to complain and play the victim. If I'm mistaken then spell out how your marriage has been destroyed and/or diluted. If you can't then you should probably stop crying about it.

 

You didn't "earn" being straight, it just happened. You were lucky.

 

Special rights? No, natural rights, as the institution of marriage with one man and one woman pre-dates any codified system of laws, rights, or religious beliefs held today.

Best tell your gay friends here not to exceed 20,000 posts eh? Not sure where you are trying to go with that one...

Homosexuality was on the list, its removal did not include a single scientific reason as to why such a change was validated. Do try to stick to the facts...

 

Sadly the two are directly related. Once gays had a taste of marriage they immediately attacked Christians to force them to accept them in every other way possible. The gays will only have themselves to blame if this doesn't go the way they want...

 

This whole things boils down to, "Waaaaaa!!!! Mommy, I have no rational argument to make against gay marriage so I'm whining about the use of a word as a last straw!"

 

And yet allowing homosexuals to marry will in no way prevent marriage between a man and a woman, so where is the destruction?

Marriage has stood for many things over the centuries, so suggesting that including same-sex relationships will somehow lessen it is nothing more than an appeal to antiquity.

And yet same sex couples have been raising children for decades despite the biological limitations.

 

Why is it 50% divorce and ruin families and hurt the kids you fakely care about.

 

OK, be emotional and irrational. No skin off me.

And you offered no debatable response.

 

No you did. You compared marriage to a house and yard.
You can't control your neighbor, so live with it.

 

I'm not incorrect. Yes, a few states (4 total) did institute civil unions after gay people fought for them. That isn't in dispute and not what I meant. The context was the false pretense that civil unions were offered as a compromise that anti-gay people were willing to let happen. They weren't - they opposed civil unions just as strongly as they opposed same-sex marriage, which is why my state bans both.

Some people like to pretend that civil unions were once widely available (they never were), or that they would have been available everywhere if gay people hadn't fought for legal marriage, but it's a flat out lie, and an attempt at historical revision.

 

BS. State and local laws protecting people from discrimination on the basis of orientation pre-date same-sex marriage, as do lawsuits related to violation of those laws. The legal recognition of same-sex marriage has no effect whatsoever on whether or not a business is required by law to provide services - they already are required to if the law where they operate says so, as many of them have found out even without same-sex marriage being legally recognized by their state.

As for attacking Christians, that's a falsehood. Many gay people themselves identify as Christian, and a number of Christian protestant denominations solemnize same-sex marriages. I'm not anti-Christian. I'm not even against Christians who don't believe in same-sex marriage as a religious matter. But I am against undue, illegal discrimination - regardless of the religious beliefs of the perpetrator.

As for who will be to blame if things don't go the way we want it - that would be the hordes of anti-gay people opposing our legal equality.

 

It redefines the foundation of society and treats it as it's no big deal

No, it's only stood for one thing..... Until now.

 

Oh, please...

My state (WA) made this change (redefinition) to use "spouse" in our law well before we addressed same sex marriage.

The change came from our belief that men and women are to be treated equally under the law. So, our definition of marriage uses the gender-free term "spouse", making it clear that equality is intended.

Now, it IS true that when same sex marriage came along, there was an examination of our laws defining marriage to determine this "redefinition" thing. That is, how much of our definition of marriage would need to change if we adopted same sex marriage. What we found was that our use of the term "spouse" resulted in law that needed only tiny amounts of redefinition to accommodate same sex marriage.

And, some of that was of our own making. For example, we had instituted "civil unions" (fake same sex marriages). And, with the advent of same sex marriage we needed to figure out how to move all "civil unions" to marriages - which we did, so there is no more "civil union" law anymore.

After all this, the "redefinition of marriage" claim looks pretty darn lame.


And, please note that we redefine marriage every once in a while. The idea that the definition is static is nonsense. Look up Loving v Virginia. Notice changes to divorce law. Watch the tax code change. Remember our redefinition made to give women greater equality.

 

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I'd like proof that marriage wasn't already like Detroit to begin with.

 

The one defining feature, between a husband and wife, has been consistent from the dawn of human civilization through the 20th century.

 

Absolutely correct.

 

So have single Humans, and Orphanages...this doesn't mean as much as you hoped. None of this is optimal.

 

Being raised by two adults in a committed relationship, regardless of their sex, is certainly better than being raised by a single adult or in an orphanage, wouldn't you agree? I would also argue that in some cases it's better than being raised by the two biological parents.

 

Well 2 Parents is always the best. Not sure about the "regardless of sex" part though.

Not sure about that. in fact there was a study that was done that showed the Biological 2 Parent home to be the best environment. Now of course there are some bad examples of biological parents, so mileage will vary.

 

Exactly. And, that is commitment in love and mutual support.

 

What does this fact do for the arguments regarding "GAY" marriage? ANY two committed adults could join together to raise a child. Two platonic friends, two closely related adults or two gay guys. If you want special treatment for the gay guys, youll need some justification for doing so. Biological parents arent preferred because they are sexual. They are prefered because hey are the only two adults in the world, obligated by the birth of their child, to provide and care for that child.

 

Sorry, but you have that backwards. The state must justify why homosexuals can't marry. When the government tied benefits like inheritance and the ability to make medical and legal decisions to married couples, they have to provide those benefits irrespective of the sex unless they can show a substantial interest in limiting them to one sex or another.

Which would be a good argument for keeping biological families together, but has nothing to do with preventing same-sex marriage. That is why the whole "think of the children" argument fails. If marriage is about the children, then allowing same-sex couples to marry when they can already have children through adoption or IVF, should be encouraged. Personally, if the biological parents can't get along and make a stable, nurturing family, I don't think the children should be forced to stay in such an environment just because you don't like homosexuality.

 

They can. Most gay guys I know used to be married to women. You wont find ANY marriage statute, now or in the past that even makes mention of ones sexual orientation or "homosexuals" Let alone any law tha prohibits "homosexuals" from marrying.