What's the logic of some states not allowing same-sex marriage?

[TeamDelarosa]

Is there a logic behind it? Is it cause the states that reject it are more religious and not as open minded as other states?

[Soonerjohn]

I don't know, how religious or open minded is California? They are the poster state against gay marriage.

[TeamDelarosa]

I don't know, how religious or open minded is California? They are the poster state against gay marriage.

I thought that was a "unique" case and a official decision will be met in June 2013?

[Soonerjohn]

I thought that was a "unique" case and a official decision will be met in June 2013?

That is a scotus ruling. California voted to not allow gay marriage.

[TeamDelarosa]

That is a scotus ruling. California voted to not allow gay marriage.

Was there any feelings to why Californians felt this way? Are you from California?

[Zedbimmer]

Im guessing not wanting it just cause you don't want it is not an option.

[Soonerjohn]

Was there any feelings to why Californians felt this way? Are you from California?

It was widely attributed to the Mormons that successfully pushed and succeeded to get the vote passed. Though the Mormon population is small and shouldn't be the scapegoat for why it passed.

Personally, I think the government should get out of marriage all together.

[TeamDelarosa]

It was widely attributed to the Mormons that successfully pushed and succeeded to get the vote passed. Though the Mormon population is small and shouldn't be the scapegoat for why it passed.

Personally, I think the government should get out of marriage all together.

But I thought if the scotus would had passed the legislation it would had become legal again?

[IDrinkBloodLOL]

Educational Tidbit:

The phrase "open minded" means the willingness to entertain a thought, evaluating it before deciding whether to adopt it or reject it.

It is not automatically "open minded" to accept homosexual behavior - in fact most people have extremely closed minds on this issue: "you support homosex or else you are evil and you are not a person."

No view is intrinsically "open minded" or "closed-minded," as the entire concept revolves around how you handle not information rather than what positions you take.

[MangoPort]

Educational Tidbit:

The phrase "open minded" means the willingness to entertain a thought, evaluating it before deciding whether to adopt it or reject it.

It is not automatically "open minded" to accept homosexual behavior - in fact most people have extremely closed minds on this issue: "you support homosex or else you are evil and you are not a person."

No view is intrinsically "open minded" or "closed-minded," as the entire concept revolves around how you handle not information rather than what positions you take.

This is incorrect because it supposes being against homosexuality is rational and it is not. Thus, one must either be for gay marriage, or closed minded. That's not to say that you can't be for homosexuality and still be closed minded, but you cannot be against homosexuality and be open minded.

[BEARDofNORRIS]

Was there any feelings to why Californians felt this way? Are you from California?

My understanding: Large turnout from anti-gay hispanic catholics and other religious groups, and not enough liberals got off their asses to vote.

[darknessmanX]

it's because marriage is defined as the unity of a bride and a groom.

[CuriousGM]

it's because marriage is defined as the unity of a bride and a groom.

Because as we all know, language is a static constant of the universe.

[Fiyero]

Is there a logic behind it? Is it cause the states that reject it are more religious and not as open minded as other states?

Mainly because of ultra conservative and religious legislators.

[Fiyero]

I don't know, how religious or open minded is California? They are the poster state against gay marriage.

California is conservative outside the major cities, and Prop 8 was strongly funded by the Mormon Church.

[flairon]

because the general pop doesn't want it.

[wings_unhinged]

Is there a logic behind it? Is it cause the states that reject it are more religious and not as open minded as other states?

Our state constitution has an amendment preventing gay marriage... Alaskans are pretty religious and conservative.

I'm in favor of removing it, and the population is slowly coming around. It's a matter of the older generation being replaced, as with everywhere else.

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

because the general pop doesn't want it.

That is not a logical reason. If bowing to the will of the general populace is logical, then elected fascist states and violent theocracies are logical.

[flairon]

That is not a logical reason. If bowing to the will of the general populace is logical, then elected fascist states and violent theocracies are logical.

It's a democracy....the will of the many takes precedent over the will of the few. Thats why we have that crazy voting thing

[Kiknskreem]

It's a democracy....the will of the many takes precedent over the will of the few. Thats why we have that crazy voting thing

So we could vote to outlaw fat people from marriage if the majority wanted it?

Oh, that's right, we can't, because we have individual rights and that crazy Constitution thing.

[CuriousGM]

That is not a logical reason. If bowing to the will of the general populace is logical, then elected fascist states and violent theocracies are logical.

In this case it actually is, otherwise you're saying democracy itself is illogical.

[Kiknskreem]

In this case it actually is, otherwise you're saying democracy itself is illogical.

True democracy is just mob rule.

[dirtdickens]

It wouldnt be a huge deal if they didnt do it for the benefits.

[CuriousGM]

True democracy is just mob rule.

Every system if government has it's flaws, in democracies case you get tyranny of the majority which I much prefer to the tyranny of the few or one.

It wouldnt be a huge deal if they didnt do it for the benefits.

Fair enough, let's eliminate benefits for heterosexual couples as well.

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

In this case it actually is, otherwise you're saying democracy itself is illogical.

See Kiknskreem's post. Democracy is legalized tyranny. Doing something because a majority votes for it is illogical.

[lasher]

We are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. There is a huge difference and the difference exists primarily in order to suppress instances of tyranny of the majority. This is why the judicial branch has the authority to override, sometimes, the will of the majority.

[CuriousGM]

See Kiknskreem's post. Democracy is legalized tyranny. Doing something because a majority votes for it is illogical.

It's not illogical within the confines of democracy tho. Argumentum ad populum would apply if being objectively true was the goal of democratically made choices, but it's not.

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

We are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. There is a huge difference and the difference exists primarily in order to suppress instances of tyranny of the majority. This is why the judicial branch has the authority to override, sometimes, the will of the majority.

Agreed.

But how many people know that we are not a democracy?

[lasher]

Agreed.

But how many people know that we are not a democracy?

Not enough imo.

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

It's not illogical within the confines of democracy tho. Argumentum ad populum would apply if being objectively true was the goal of democratically made choices, but it's not.

That's an excellent point. But ultimately, democratic systems are illogical. Using an expensive drug that will cause more harm than good to give one a brief amount of life is illogical, but logic isn't the point of using that drug. Does that excuse the bioethical considerations of those using the drug within the system? No. Democratic systems are not excused from logical examination because their end goals are not logic in and of themselves. If they are, then democratic systems have completely lost their usefulness. A system that doesn't have to make sense can only self-destruct.