California Supreme Court Overturns Ban on Gay Marraige

[quote name='BigT']I agree to some extent. But why should the government even recognize civil unions? Just fully take marriage or civil unions out of the government's sphere. Keep it in the religious sphere and whatever sphere would marry homosexuals... if they want to call it marriage, so be it...

If the government continues to define marriage, then there will always be a new group of activists to fight for new redefinitions, first miscegenation, now gay marriage, what's next?!?![/quote]
I mean this in the nicest way possible, but your logic is absolutely moronic.

If you'd like to keep the government out of marriage, then by all means, let's do it all the way. Let's get rid of health benefits, tax breaks, and any other government enabled perk to being married. Everyone files single from now on, and everyone has to find their own health coverage.

You can't have equality for some and not all. If we're going to give perks to some, we should at least make it possible for everyone to have access to those benefits. No sense in punishing people for something that they've no control over.
 
I think that's what he was suggesting--get rid of all legal benefits of marriage period and make it sheerly a religious matter for both gays and straights.

I agree to an extent, it's just there because of the belief that nuclear families are necessary to maintain society and that marriage is the key to maintaining nuclear families. I guess to some exten that's true as the hassle of marriage probably helps people to work harder to work out issues rather than just leaving--but on the other side it probably leads to many more dysfunctional families who stay together for the wrong reason.

At any case, I agree with you. Either have marriage for both gays and straights, or have it for neither. No having it for straights and not gays, and no calling it something different for gays.
 
[quote name='BigT']I agree to some extent. But why should the government even recognize civil unions? Just fully take marriage or civil unions out of the government's sphere. Keep it in the religious sphere and whatever sphere would marry homosexuals... if they want to call it marriage, so be it...

If the government continues to define marriage, then there will always be a new group of activists to fight for new redefinitions, first miscegenation, now gay marriage, what's next?!?! ;)[/QUOTE]

Amen
 
[quote name='JJSP']I mean this in the nicest way possible, but your logic is absolutely moronic.

If you'd like to keep the government out of marriage, then by all means, let's do it all the way. Let's get rid of health benefits, tax breaks, and any other government enabled perk to being married. Everyone files single from now on, and everyone has to find their own health coverage.

You can't have equality for some and not all. If we're going to give perks to some, we should at least make it possible for everyone to have access to those benefits. No sense in punishing people for something that they've no control over.[/quote]

Well, my other ideas include abolishing the income tax and limiting health insurance to being "for catastrophic events only"... but I realize that it's not practical to hope for that in the near future.

In Practical terms:
For health coverage, people should be able to designate all their children under 25 yo under the plan plus an additional "beneficiary" of their choosing... straight couples could put down their opposite sex partner and homosexual couples could put down their same sex partner.

In terms of tax breaks, I totally hate the current IRS system in which the government "rewards" you by taking less money away from you. Just cut rates across the board and maintain tax breaks for having/raising children. Why discriminate against single people?

In terms of other gov't perks, just give people the option of filing a form that designates one beneficiary of their choice.

Government is out of the marriage debate (it does not have to make value judgements about what couplings are beneficial to society) and hopefully more people are happy... but I guess it won't fly because it is based on "moronic logic." ;) :applause:
 
[quote name='BigT']
In Practical terms:
For health coverage, people should be able to designate all their children under 25 yo under the plan plus an additional "beneficiary" of their choosing... straight couples could put down their opposite sex partner and homosexual couples could put down their same sex partner.
[/QUOTE]

That is reasonable. Insurance is the biggest issue, as there will always be a place for stay at home parents--or parents working a part time job to spend more times with the kids--and this parent needs to have health coverage that doesn't cost and arm an a let.

So your proposal would solve that for both straights and gays, and get rid of one of the biggest needs for legal marriage. Other things can be taken care of through power of attorney documents, living wills etc.
 
[quote name='BigT']

In terms of tax breaks, I totally hate the current IRS system in which the government "rewards" you by taking less money away from you. Just cut rates across the board and maintain tax breaks for having/raising children. Why discriminate against single people?

[/QUOTE]

I know this is way off topic, but wouldn't it be great if we stopped taking taxes out of paychecks?

I really believe that we have become so use to getting our taxes auto-deducted that we don't think about taxes. If we had to actually go through the effort of paying taxes monthly, quarterly, or annually, I think people would get upset enough that the IRS would end or be drastically changed soon enough.
 
[quote name='BigT']I agree to some extent. But why should the government even recognize civil unions? Just fully take marriage or civil unions out of the government's sphere. Keep it in the religious sphere and whatever sphere would marry homosexuals... if they want to call it marriage, so be it...

If the government continues to define marriage, then there will always be a new group of activists to fight for new redefinitions, first miscegenation, now gay marriage, what's next?!?! ;)[/QUOTE]

Y'know, for a minute I was on the whole "yeah, keep government out of marriage entirely" bandwagon.

But it soon occurred to me that the people making these arguments have only done so in reaction to the attempt to make gay marriage legal. So, while this is some nonsensical form of egalitarianism, what it ultimately comes down to is that *none of you were concerned about government benefits for married couples in the slightest until gay marriage was put on the table*.

At all. Marriage was nonproblematic at the community level. Then the queers wanted to do it too, and THEN you decide you don't want government involved at all.

So I really have a problem with this bigotry in disguise, because even if the decision to go in this direction is apparently innocuous, the catalyst behind change was allowing loving couples the same rights and benefits as other Americans.

Moreover, it's absurd in this sense: while I haven't fleshed this idea out yet, if the government no longer recognizes marriage in any way, shape, or form, some MAD CRAZY DUMBASS lawsuits are going to come down the tubes. Visitation rights, inheritance rights, ownership/property rights, custody, etc. It'll be all jacked up.

Like my friends who own the bar a few blocks from my house that I frequent. The real "owner" has put EVERYTHING in his partner's name. He's, legally, penniless and has no material wealth to him. So in the absence of marital recognition, his partner could legally, and this would hold up in any two-bit court of law in the US, tell him to hit the bricks and get out of HIS bar.

Now, you're telling me as an act of benevolence and kindness that you'd want to extend this kind of courtesy to all Americans?

EDIT: thrust, I don't know what in the world that has to do with anything, but undoubtedly that would make the 'sting' of taxation more relevant. Very much so, because the current form of deduction has our money never even reaching us. To make that semantic shift so that we would pay quarterly, given how much anxiety there is over annual income tax, would be enormous. I'm not convinced it would curb government largesse or overspending, however.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I know this is way off topic, but wouldn't it be great if we stopped taking taxes out of paychecks?

I really believe that we have become so use to getting our taxes auto-deducted that we don't think about taxes. If we had to actually go through the effort of paying taxes monthly, quarterly, or annually, I think people would get upset enough that the IRS would end or be drastically changed soon enough.[/QUOTE]

Today in math we were discussing line integrals and my prof said "So, how do we tell if a function is conservative?" and some guy in the back (who was wearing a "F is for FURRY" shirt) said "If it whines about paying taxes?"

She (my professor) was pissed at first, but then chuckled.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
EDIT: thrust, I don't know what in the world that has to do with anything, but undoubtedly that would make the 'sting' of taxation more relevant. Very much so, because the current form of deduction has our money never even reaching us. To make that semantic shift so that we would pay quarterly, given how much anxiety there is over annual income tax, would be enormous. I'm not convinced it would curb government largesse or overspending, however.[/QUOTE]

It was only to point out my own personal belief that we pay as much taxes as we do simply because we are use to it, and it's so easy to do so. If we had to physically make the effort to pay our taxes ourselves, it would be far more painful, far more people other than ron paul supporters would be upset about it and the IRS, and something would likely be done about it.

It's really just my own personal pie in the sky theory/dream though, rather than something realistic.

[quote name='Koggit']Today in math we were discussing line integrals and my prof said "So, how do we tell if a function is conservative?" and some guy in the back (who was wearing a "F is for FURRY" shirt) said "If it whines about paying taxes?"

She (my professor) was pissed at first, but then chuckled.[/QUOTE]

Well that's true. Paying high taxes is really only ok with people that want a government so big that they give everyone everything but the kitchen sink (unless that sink is part of a government supplied domecile, of course).
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Fair enough. But what about this scenario:

The people in a state vote to define the WORD marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. Fine.

Homosexuals, wanting equal rights, instead of trying to redefine words, spend their energy on getting a law passed for their "marriage" to now be called "Civil Unions", and define a Civil Union as 2 people of the same sex. Then make all laws pertaining to Marriages also pertain to Civil Unions.

Problem Solved? If not, why?[/quote]

I hate to go back (waaaay back) to this when the discussion has moved past it, but there's a reason why this isn't problem solved, even taking it out of the concept of semantics.

In Michigan, in 2004, there was an amendment to the Michigan constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Not content to do just that, however, it also wiped out any and all domestic partner benefits and anything resembling an institution of marriage for those not legally married. So, if you're straight, you've got marriage. If you're not, you've got nothing. No legal recognition at all, and any public institution is forbidden from doing anything that looks like a benefit of marriage.

This is where the concept of laws like this being "the will of the people" starts to get murky. Did they pass they law? Yes. Did they mean for the law to define marriage as only between a man and a woman? Yes. Did they mean for the law to remove every single domestic partner concept and benefit, including any legal form of civil unions? Probably not.

The backers of Michigan's amendment claimed that the amendment would not affect domestic partner benefits -- only marriage. This is disingenuous, given the very precise language used.

It's also a very familiar tactic. Once Prop 22 -- the initiative that banned gay marriage in California in 2000 -- was passed, supporters attempted to used its passage to invalidate domestic partner laws, saying it was "the will of the people". And yet during the campaign, they swore up and down that it was only about marriage.

In November, there will be another initiative in California, this one to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, and it will be a constitutional amendment. Fearful of a repeat of Arizona, where an amendment similar to Michigan's was rejected because people saw how far it went, the backers of this amendment are only targeting marriage. This time.

Moving past law, I personally feel that whatever partner rights/benefits I have are always up for grabs. Unlike marriage, which is, well, marriage, the relationship I have to my partner changes based upon which state I'm in. When Prop 22 passed, supporters took it as an opening to go after domestic partner laws and benefits. If the new marriage amendment passes, I'm sure they'll try again.

Even yesterday's court decision...I can get married to my partner...in 30 days...assuming there's not a stay. And the marriage may or may not last past November, depending on what California voters decide. It may be secure (for now). It may be annulled. It may be up in the air. Who knows?

Problem solved? I wish.
 
Blandstalker's gay?! (Or were you just speaking out of exmaple)
Man, we are just taking over CAG if this is true.

Where's our local resident lesbian, Synergy at?! *shopping at Lowes' for a new tool belt*
 
[quote name='lilboo']*shopping at Lowes' for a new sleeveless flannel*[/QUOTE]

Leave it up to the straight boy from Kentucky to tell you how it is. :roll:

;)
 
[quote name='lilboo']Blandstalker's gay?! (Or were you just speaking out of exmaple)
Man, we are just taking over CAG if this is true.[/QUOTE]
I claim this thread in the name of teh buhtsecks.
 
[quote name='BigT']How ridiculous would it seem if I started a "white heterosexual ..." rally[/QUOTE]

They already have that: it's called the St. Patrick's Day parade.

[quote name='Sarang01']Personally I know the best solution to the Gay Marriage issue. Follow what John Stossel said about it which basically puts up the final barrier between Church and State.
Marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution and has no business being legislated or regulated by our government. It should be up to the Churches PERIOD! Now in the governmental sense Civil Union's should be as they grant rights to those who choose to enter in one mutually, both Gay and Straight.[/QUOTE]

Stossel is a huge douche for the most part, but I've thought of this myself, and it seems like a pretty practical solution. Let the religious institutions continue to define their traditions however they want. Those traditions, though, grant no rights whatsoever. The rights and legal benefits come from government recognition of the union, which is utterly neutral on the matter of the applicant's sexuality.

I'm a straight man, but my girlfriend and I fully intend to have a civil union rather than a marriage when the time comes, by way of our small measure of protest. And on the plus side, I'd get to call her my "partner," which makes me feel like we're detectives.
 
[quote name='BigT']I agree to some extent. But why should the government even recognize civil unions? Just fully take marriage or civil unions out of the government's sphere. Keep it in the religious sphere and whatever sphere would marry homosexuals... if they want to call it marriage, so be it...

If the government continues to define marriage, then there will always be a new group of activists to fight for new redefinitions, first miscegenation, now gay marriage, what's next?!?! ;)[/QUOTE]

You're missing something huge here. Marriage is the religious institution, Civil Union's are not. What Civil Union's do is grant the governmental rights we started granting to people who have been married but without need for it. The closest idea I could give to you is not being married in a Church but by an Officer of the Peace in a Court House.
Honestly we need to strip away marriage in the government because it doesn't belong there. Those who wish the right's formerly granted from being married and having it recognized by the state government will either have a Civil Union OR be married by someone authorized to perform Civil Union's as well. In the latter case when you get married you will also have a certificate recognizing your Civil Union.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Y'know, for a minute I was on the whole "yeah, keep government out of marriage entirely" bandwagon.

But it soon occurred to me that the people making these arguments have only done so in reaction to the attempt to make gay marriage legal. So, while this is some nonsensical form of egalitarianism, what it ultimately comes down to is that *none of you were concerned about government benefits for married couples in the slightest until gay marriage was put on the table*.
[/QUOTE]
Translation: it sounds like a good idea, but the fact that morons like thrustbucket, BigT, Stossel, et al. support it makes it a bad idea ;).

I've always been against the government doling out "benefits" with the money it takes away from its citizens in the first place.

At all. Marriage was nonproblematic at the community level. Then the queers wanted to do it too, and THEN you decide you don't want government involved at all.
Click to expand...
Yes, the gays did throw a wrench into the system. With regular marriage, one could make a reasonable argument that such unions benefit society and thus couples should get a tax break for engaging in them. However, the gays have proposed that couplings between same sex partners provide equal benefit to society. This seems much more controversial and in either case exposes how government makes its value decisions: married hetero people with children deserve more money back from us than married heteros w/o children, who deserve more than single people; where do same sex married people belong in this hierarchy?


So I really have a problem with this bigotry in disguise, because even if the decision to go in this direction is apparently innocuous, the catalyst behind change was allowing loving couples the same rights and benefits as other Americans.

Moreover, it's absurd in this sense: while I haven't fleshed this idea out yet, if the government no longer recognizes marriage in any way, shape, or form, some MAD CRAZY DUMBASS lawsuits are going to come down the tubes. Visitation rights, inheritance rights, ownership/property rights, custody, etc. It'll be all jacked up.
Click to expand...
It's not bigotry, it's pragmatism. I'm looking for a simple idea that both sides might be able to agree with. The gay marriage issue is a catalyst in that it points out inadequacies in the current framework.

Even if we make a special exception for gays to be granted the right to marry another group will always be left behind that lacks that right. Naturally, these groups would likely be smaller and without as loud a voice as the homosexuals, but that does not mean that their points are any less valid (examples would be people with intersex conditions, transsexuals, people with karyotypic abnormalities, and others who do not fit with our neat XX genotype= female phenotype, XY genotype = male phenotype scheme. The only way to truly treat everyone equally would be to take gov't entirely out of this issue.

The visitation rights, custody, property things can be addressed as I wrote earlier by having people file a document that names a "beneficiary" (or other neutral term) of his or her choice. It would be kind of like filing an advance directive for medical decision making purposes.

Like my friends who own the bar a few blocks from my house that I frequent. The real "owner" has put EVERYTHING in his partner's name. He's, legally, penniless and has no material wealth to him. So in the absence of marital recognition, his partner could legally, and this would hold up in any two-bit court of law in the US, tell him to hit the bricks and get out of HIS bar.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone do that unless they are naive or trying to set up a scheme to avoid taxes. If it's the latter, I commend him!

Now, you're telling me as an act of benevolence and kindness that you'd want to extend this kind of courtesy to all Americans?
Click to expand...
People would still maintain the right to make smart business decisions and not put themselves in such a position.

EDIT: thrust, I don't know what in the world that has to do with anything, but undoubtedly that would make the 'sting' of taxation more relevant. Very much so, because the current form of deduction has our money never even reaching us. To make that semantic shift so that we would pay quarterly, given how much anxiety there is over annual income tax, would be enormous. I'm not convinced it would curb government largesse or overspending, however.
Click to expand...
The whole idea is to make taxation sting more so that the complacent rabble that makes up most of America will actually rise up against taxation...
 
[quote name='BigT']Yes, the gays did throw a wrench into the system. With regular marriage, one could make a reasonable argument that such unions benefit society and thus couples should get a tax break for engaging in them. However, the gays have proposed that couplings between same sex partners provide equal benefit to society. This seems much more controversial and in either case exposes how government makes its value decisions: married hetero people with children deserve more money back from us than married heteros w/o children, who deserve more than single people; where do same sex married people belong in this hierarchy?[/QUOTE]

Gay people can "have" children and there is no law forcing straight couples to have kids.

Do you want one?
 
Look.
I'm not politcal AT ALL.

Here's the situation.
I want to have a legal bond between me and my BF. What's mine is his and what's his is mine. We grow old together, one of us dies..my life insurances covers him, his covers me.
One of us gets sick, we should be able to see each other at a hospital...and in the event of something big (PULL THE PLUG) I want to be the descision maker..and vice versa.

I also want this to be reconized anywhere I go in this country.

So now tell me, why shouldn't I be able to have this?
 
There's no reason why not, and that's why this argument is so fucking stupid- and why I get so internet-raged over this shit when people can't see what this is really about.
 
[quote name='BigT']Translation: it sounds like a good idea, but the fact that morons like thrustbucket, BigT, Stossel, et al. support it makes it a bad idea ;).[/quote]

The funny thing about Stossel? He's a homophobe, but his moustache screams "daddy."

I've always been against the government doling out "benefits" with the money it takes away from its citizens in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yet you make the "reasonable benefit to society" argument below.

Yes, the gays did throw a wrench into the system. With regular marriage, one could make a reasonable argument that such unions benefit society and thus couples should get a tax break for engaging in them. However, the gays have proposed that couplings between same sex partners provide equal benefit to society. This seems much more controversial and in either case exposes how government makes its value decisions: married hetero people with children deserve more money back from us than married heteros w/o children, who deserve more than single people; where do same sex married people belong in this hierarchy?
Click to expand...

If you think in the oversimplified dichotomy of children versus no children, sure. But if you think of legal rights, household (and thus community) stability, institutional participation, etc., stable long-term monogamous households contribute more to society than simply plopping out children.

It's not bigotry, it's pragmatism. I'm looking for a simple idea that both sides might be able to agree with. The gay marriage issue is a catalyst in that it points out inadequacies in the current framework.
Click to expand...

Because gay people can't be parents?!? News to me.

Even if we make a special exception for gays to be granted the right to marry another group will always be left behind that lacks that right. Naturally, these groups would likely be smaller and without as loud a voice as the homosexuals, but that does not mean that their points are any less valid (examples would be people with intersex conditions, transsexuals, people with karyotypic abnormalities, and others who do not fit with our neat XX genotype= female phenotype, XY genotype = male phenotype scheme. The only way to truly treat everyone equally would be to take gov't entirely out of this issue.
Click to expand...

Nope. The argument, if we permit two-person couples to marry legally, will account for biological rarities such as those you describe (n.b., it warms my heart to read a physician's comments about the falsehood of making a social dichotomy out of the presumption of a biological one). Since those people above identify as "male" or "female" legally (though they may not outside of that), there won't be any issues, now, will there be?

The visitation rights, custody, property things can be addressed as I wrote earlier by having people file a document that names a "beneficiary" (or other neutral term) of his or her choice. It would be kind of like filing an advance directive for medical decision making purposes.
Click to expand...

While true, that doesn't change the fact that the whole issue boils down to straight folks outrage that they may not be able to cling to an institution that they really don't have dominion over in the way they think.

It's a societal level version of taking your kickball and storming home with it because the kid around the corner wants to play and you don't like him. Only it's not your kickball, but you take it anyway.
 
I'm glad to see such a huge victory in the progression of gay rights take place over my Las Vegas vacation. The news quickly became the topic of debate between Crimson and myself, she the Republican, I the Democrat, and the discussion initially hovered around the religious sanctity of marriage, the weak argument on how gay marriage might ruin straight marriage, and etc.

What it boiled down to by the end of our hour long discussion was the following:

1. Gay marriage is not illegal by any means of the Constitution nationally, and in most states.
2. Any gay rights regarding marriage does NOT force a church to marry the couple, it is up to the couple to find a church willing to marry them.
3. Any marriage that Crimson or I ever have will never be threatened by any other marriage, straight or gay, and that anyone who wants to use that argument is simply insecure with both their relationship to their partner and their relationship to God. (although admittedly that last bit on insecurity is more my sentiments than hers). :)

As far as I'm concerned, everyone in entitled to the same happiness and unhappiness that marriage brings to the people of this world, and with divorce rates at 50% nationally, straight couples have absolutely no right to preach about the sanctity that so many abuse.

~HotShotX
 
^ very true Hotshot :)

If people want to preach that gay marriage shouldn't happen because it's IN THE BIBLE!1!..then they ALSO need to march down to Washington and tell congress that DIVORCE should be illegal too.. because I know DIVORCE is a sin.

/raised catholic
 
[quote name='lilboo']Look.
I'm not politcal AT ALL.

Here's the situation.
I want to have a legal bond between me and my BF. What's mine is his and what's his is mine. We grow old together, one of us dies..my life insurances covers him, his covers me.
One of us gets sick, we should be able to see each other at a hospital...and in the event of something big (PULL THE PLUG) I want to be the descision maker..and vice versa.

I also want this to be reconized anywhere I go in this country.

So now tell me, why shouldn't I be able to have this?[/quote]

Lets not forget that if your boyfriends parents decide they didn't want you anywhere near him in the hospital they have that "right" to deny you. Hell, me and my partner want to eventually move to MA in several years so that we can be legal. Hopefully, with CA, the dominos will start to fall.

And the issue some have with calling a man and a woman "married" and a same sex couple "civil union" boils down, to me, as the same misguided rhetoric of "seperate but equal"
 
I think you're missing the point Snatcher. The term marriage doesn't belong ANYWHERE in government as it's bringing religion into government institutions. It would be like having a Cross or Star Of David on any government building.
Bottom line both Gays and Straights should only be able to get Civil Union's when it comes to the government.
 
I never understood what the big deal about the topic was. If people are against 2 people of the same sex getting married, then they can choose not to do it themselves. How does other peoples choice affect them? It comes off more of others putting their values and ignorant beliefs on others just for the sake of making others miserable. I'm from mass, the states still there, we haven't fallen into the deep pits of hell.

We should be protecting the rights of minorities, not making them feel even less equal.
 
i feel weird suddenly chiming in 7 pages into the thread...

but i dont mind if gay people get married. personally, i think that its just fine. i figure, if religious institutions are againt gay marriage, they dont have to perform them. marriage is more of a legal institution more than it is a religious one.

the thing that bugs me is that the court can overturn the will of the voters. and i get it, we live in a republic, they can do that. but judges change just like voters do. whos to say a new court several years down the line doesnt reverse the decision.

plus, i think people who think this, "opens the door" for buggery, polygamists and the likes are moronic. but hey, to each their own. that being said, im going to finish my beer and watch law & order: svu at 3am .
 
Gay marriage has never been a big deal for me as what two consenting adult do is their own business as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. Anyway, isn't monogamy is something that should be encouraged rather than discouraged?
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']

the thing that bugs me is that the court can overturn the will of the voters. and i get it, we live in a republic, they can do that. but judges change just like voters do. whos to say a new court several years down the line doesnt reverse the decision.

[/quote]


Not sure why this should be up to the people. Not into U.S political history but when segregation was broken up was it up to the people to decide whether blacks should be given the same rights?
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']the thing that bugs me is that the court can overturn the will of the voters. and i get it, we live in a republic, they can do that. but judges change just like voters do. whos to say a new court several years down the line doesnt reverse the decision.[/quote]

The reason for this was because the "will" of the voters was unconstitutional. The idea that the court was wrong for their decision is kind of like saying if only the KKK had enough supporters, they would be right and the law of the land.

The reassuring thing is, it was not the judge's "personality" or "mindset" that resulted in the decision, it was the interpretation of the state constitution, a constitution that simply said nothing about marriage, gay or otherwise. Bear in mind that 6 of the 7 California Supreme Court Justices are Republican appointees.

Even if another court later down the road overturns the decision, there is always the National Supreme Court as a last resort, and unless Bush has his way, the Constitution will NEVER have any wording regarding marriage.

(Which, by the way, would be the equivalent of a 4 year old taking a crayon and scribbling all over the original document). Never before has the Constitution been successfully amended to reduce the people's rights, and is an insult to everything America stands for. Prohibition was a similar attempt, but was repealed.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='HotShotX']The reason for this was because the "will" of the voters was unconstitutional. The idea that the court was wrong for their decision is kind of like saying if only the KKK had enough supporters, they would be right and the law of the land.

The reassuring thing is, it was not the judge's "personality" or "mindset" that resulted in the decision, it was the interpretation of the state constitution, a constitution that simply said nothing about marriage, gay or otherwise. Bear in mind that 6 of the 7 California Supreme Court Justices are Republican appointees.

Even if another court later down the road overturns the decision, there is always the National Supreme Court as a last resort, and unless Bush has his way, the Constitution will NEVER have any wording regarding marriage.

(Which, by the way, would be the equivalent of a 4 year old taking a crayon and scribbling all over the original document). Never before has the Constitution been successfully amended to reduce the people's rights, and is an insult to everything America stands for. Prohibition was a similar attempt, but was repealed.

~HotShotX[/QUOTE]

No, I get it. This court thinks that the "will" of the people is unconstitutional, but the change of one judge could have, or could in the future, changed that.

On a side note, there is a movement in California to put a ban on gay marriage on the state constitution this November.
 
[quote name='lilboo']Blandstalker's gay?! (Or were you just speaking out of exmaple)
Man, we are just taking over CAG if this is true[/quote]

What, you need flashcards? ;)

Gay and...getting married in a month.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']No, I get it. This court thinks that the "will" of the people is unconstitutional, but the change of one judge could have, or could in the future, changed that.

On a side note, there is a movement in California to put a ban on gay marriage on the state constitution this November.[/QUOTE]

That's just the way the system works. State and federal constitutional issues come down to a simple majority vote from a few judges.

It's a way to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

However, the system is still flawed as extreme minorities can still be oppressed when the majority is large enough to pass changes to constitutions.
 
[quote name='blandstalker']What, you need flashcards? ;)

Gay and...getting married in a month.[/QUOTE]

Well that's great! Congrats!
:shakes penis: Nice to meet you :cool:
 
[quote name='lilboo']:shakes penis: Nice to meet you :cool:[/quote]

Way to work that stereotype. :) Allow me.

fabulous.jpg


~HotShotX
 
[quote name='lilboo']Blandstalker's gay?! (Or were you just speaking out of exmaple)
Man, we are just taking over CAG if this is true.

Where's our local resident lesbian, Synergy at?! *shopping at Lowes' for a new tool belt*[/quote]

I'm right here! :cool: And for the record, I don't own a tool belt, but I do have a set of screwdrivers. Does that count?

God the "flaunting" argument really drives me completely batshit insane. It's totally okay for straight couples to grab ass, make out, hold hands, put up PDA pictures in public places, assume everyone around them is straight, wear "Mrs. Pitt" and other hetero type ornamentation - but the minute a gay/lez person tries it, it's being flamboyant.

As to the topic at hand - it's about time. I honestly can't figure out why people can't focus on the issue at hand and not the language on the paper.

Looks like California has just joined my home state (Go Massachusetts!) in FINALLY getting with the program. :applause:

Edit: and fuck this "will of the people" crap - it's a faux majestic way of trying to defend the fact that some people think they should have a say over whose finger I put a ring on. That's just totally ridiculous.
 
[quote name='Synergy']I'm right here! :cool: And for the record, I don't own a tool belt, but I do have a set of screwdrivers. Does that count?

God the "flaunting" argument really drives me completely batshit insane. It's totally okay for straight couples to grab ass, make out, hold hands, put up PDA pictures in public places, assume everyone around them is straight, wear "Mrs. Pitt" and other hetero type ornamentation - but the minute a gay/lez person tries it, it's being flamboyant.

As to the topic at hand - it's about time. I honestly can't figure out why people can't focus on the issue at hand and not the language on the paper.

Looks like California has just joined my home state (Go Massachusetts!) in FINALLY getting with the program. :applause:

Edit: and fuck this "will of the people" crap - it's a faux majestic way of trying to defend the fact that some people think they should have a say over whose finger I put a ring on. That's just totally ridiculous.[/QUOTE]


1. Yes it does. More tools than I do :rofl: (Unless spatulas count for anything?)
2. :rofl: @ grab ass
3 & everything else. Yes yes and more yes. Like I mentioned earlier, it kinda pisses me off when I go to work and I see people's desks FLOOOOOODED with pics of them and their family. If I were to hang up a picture of me and my BF I'd get talked about OR I'd be considered "throwing it in people's faces". It's really stupid.

On the other hand, since we live in SUUUCH a heavy sue happy world, I say if your gay.. fuckin be the gayest fuck you could be. This way, when someone calls you out on it at work.. you can report it to your manager and if they do nothing.. you gets cash money ^_______^

I think I'm gonna wear a dress to work tomorrow.. :whistle2:k
 
[quote name='lilboo']I think I'm gonna wear a dress to work tomorrow.. :whistle2:k[/quote]

Awwwww, but I hate flannel! Maybe I'll wear a t-shirt with a naked picture of Eva Mendes on the front and "I'd hit that" under it. :lol:
 
[quote name='Sarang01']I think you're missing the point Snatcher. The term marriage doesn't belong ANYWHERE in government as it's bringing religion into government institutions. It would be like having a Cross or Star Of David on any government building.[/quote]

Marriage is religion in the same way that Christmas is Christian.

Christmas started out life as a pagan tradition (a.k.a. Solstice), got co-opted by religion, and is now something that is both religious and secular, depending on your point of view. It has Jesus, yes, but it also has Santa. Some people celebrate both aspects, some only one, some neither.

Marriage was around before there was a Christian faith, isn't owned by any particular faith, and has changed over time. Many, if not most, religions have made it an institution of the religion, but that does not make it exclusively a religious institution. The government does not mandate belief in anything except your legal obligations.

That means this is solely about terminology. On the one hand, if civil unions are simply civil marriage, then religions can have the term "marriage". But why should they? Religions have no more right to it than anyone else.

[quote name='Sarang01']
Bottom line both Gays and Straights should only be able to get Civil Union's when it comes to the government.[/quote]

When exactly does this happen?

I suspect that the government will abandon marriage in favor of civil unions for everyone the same time that Christmas becomes an exclusively religious holiday and we celebrate "Santa Claus Day" some other month.

Pardon me if I don't mark my calendar.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I think government interference is required here, just like it was to end segregation.

Sometimes minority groups need to be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

I have problems with government's infringe on the rights of their citizens, but not when they interfere to protect the rights of some of their citizens in a manner than does not infringe on the rights of others.

Gay marriage hurts non-gays in no way, shape or form. Aside from legal/government purposes, no one has to acknowledge these marriages. They're valid in the eyes of the state, churches, other groups and individual citizens don't have to recognize them as married. Nor are their own marriages affected in anyway.[/QUOTE]

This is pretty much my view on the situation. Well stated. :)

[quote name='BigT']Somewhere, Anthony Comstock is rolling over in his grave...[/QUOTE]

This is the same Anthony Comstock who thought that anatomy textbooks were lewd, right?

If so...that's fan-fucking-tastic. Let him roll! :D
 
[quote name='Gothic Walrus']This is the same Anthony Comstock who thought that anatomy textbooks were lewd, right?

If so...that's fan-fucking-tastic. Let him roll! :D[/quote]

Seriously! When I read that, I was thinking...christ, someone is actually touting Comstock? The man was a fucking book burner! And a vicious bastard who got away with atrocious civil liberties violations in the name of preserving his own sick ideas about moral decency.

I'd stomp on his grave in a pair of stilettoes with lilboo.
 
[quote name='Synergy']Seriously! When I read that, I was thinking...christ, someone is actually touting Comstock? The man was a fucking book burner! And a vicious bastard who got away with atrocious civil liberties violations in the name of preserving his own sick ideas about moral decency.

I'd stomp on his grave in a pair of stilettoes with lilboo.[/quote]
Don't you mean Doc Martens? ;)
 
[quote name='lilboo']Well that's great! Congrats![/quote]

Thank you.

[quote name='lilboo'] :shakes penis: Nice to meet you :cool:[/quote]

Put that thing away! The groom might see you ;)

I am, officially on the form, the bride. I always wanted to be. The only questions are if I get to be Bridezilla, and if I should wear white.

What would Anthony Comstock say?

Ah, fuck him. What would Brian Boitano do?
 
Not too many fans of Comstock I see... :cry: ;)

How 'bout my local hometown UHF hero, Wally George?

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmupejKsVrg[/media]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD1druhFCt4[/media]
 
[quote name='mykevermin']George was satire, though, wasn't he?[/quote]
Well, in his autobiography (yes, I did actually read it :D), he states that some of his on air "feuds," like the one with local DJ Rick Dees were staged for publicity. However, he maintains that he was a staunch conservative who believed in the basic ideas he conveyed on the show. He lists his main heros as Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Joe Pyne, Frank Sinatra, and Ozzie Nelson. Further, he lists Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Jerry "Governor Moonbeam" Brown as his least favorite politicians.

However, Wally was a showman all his life, so he did spruce up many of his stances for the sake of TV... His guests, most of whom he berated on air, have stated that he was much more congenial backstage.

I have fond memories of his show from my adolescence and early teen years... before the era of the internet, Wally on KDOC-56 was the source for all the weird and wacky stuff that other more respectable networks would balk at airing... he'd bring strippers, prostitutes, mud-wrestlers, death-metal bands, drug pushers, libertarians, gay rights activisits, and many other "liberal lunatic perverts" on his show and a heated debate would ensue usually ending with the guest getting thrown off the stage as the crowd of local college students cheered. It was great... Wally seemed like an right wing authority figure who totally snapped :D.
 
Yeah. There was a pro-wrestler named Bob Backlund whose persona has reminded me of Wally George in a way (without overtly saying he's conservative, he strongly alludes to it).

Heh. He plays his persona so thickly that, while he's happy to sign autographs for fans, he will only do it if you can name every US president in order. :lol:

Funny that George is serious under it all; the style of debate he offers up is, like Michael Savage, pure theater and its very hard to convince me that someone so off the wall really believes that they're conveying their ethics in the best way (most effective way) possible.

Huh. Him n' Downey both, man - they ushered in the era of trash TV more than Donahue could ever claim to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top