Gay Marriage in CA? OK!

2008-05-15 11:16:30

#1

IRONCHEF: Member; +385|6486|Northern California

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7403547.stm

Well, it's been done. The gays got their day in court, and despite the vetos of our governator, and the will of the people (prop 22), they got the CA Supreme Court to rule the gay marriage ban as unconstitutional...based on discrimination because as far as I can see, marriage is not constitutionally protected...it's an inherent right I think, but not protected by any amendment.

Anyway, I actually agree that it is discriminatory...just wish they'd be happy with their already EQUAL rights as domestic couples. I have no problem with them being together, even considered legally bound. I'd just like it if they'd call it something else and if they'd do a separate type of civil document (not marriage). Marriage is actually a traditional, religious based ordinance..it's not a definition. Oh well.

California's top court has ruled that a state law banning marriage between same-sex couples is unconstitutional.

The state's Supreme Court ruled that the "right to form a family relationship" applied to all Californians regardless of sexuality.

The ban was approved by voters in 2000 but challenged by gay rights activists and the city of San Francisco.

California's legislature has twice passed laws to make gay marriage legal but the state governor has vetoed them.

The ruling paves the way for California to become only the second US state, after Massachusetts, to allow same-sex marriage, although more challenges are expected.

The seven-judge panel voted 4-3 in favour of the plaintiffs who argued that the 2000 law was discriminatory.

Thoughts?

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2008-05-15 11:18:00)

2008-05-15 11:18:59

#2

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6339|tropical regions of london

it took 100 years after the end of slavery for blacks to have the same rights as whites in society.

2008-05-15 11:33:47

#3

2tuff: Positive Karma Here!; +357|6771

God Save the Queen wrote:
it took 100 years after the end of slavery for blacks to have the same rights as whites in society.

Well said

2008-05-15 11:34:01

#4

Lotta_Drool: Spit; +350|6179|Ireland

I am going to buy stock in K Y jelly to celebrate the fact that no matter how fucked up a person or action is the liberals will always find a way to make it mainstream.

Ok, now we have:

People living in the US illegally mainstreamed
Gay marriage mainstreamed

Next on the list

Drugs legalised
Guns outlawed
Religion outlawed

Then liberalism will succeed in its ultimate goal of creating a society filled with

MARRIED GAY MEXICAN ATHEISTS

2008-05-15 11:35:12

#5

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6617|London, England

Lotta_Drool wrote:
I am going to buy stock in K Y jelly

That's a fucking awesome reply tbh

2008-05-15 11:42:11

#6

IRONCHEF: Member; +385|6486|Northern California

Might not stick..

However, the court’s ruling “might not stick,” as right-wing organizations “have submitted more than 1.1 million signatures for an initiative that would amend the state Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. If at least 694,354 signatures are found to be valid, the measure would go on the November ballot and, if approved by voters, would override any court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.”

Buttttt (no pun intended)...

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger released this statement: "I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

So the fight isn't over..and frankly, I'd like the people's choice to overrule the state supreme court..and even the constitutionality (yes, I'm a hypocrite) because to me, it's a religious value that I'd like preserved for heterosexuals...as is intended and backed by obvious precedence. In reality, they're not really discriminated against since they enjoy ALL state benefits as couples. So on that premise, it may not be unconstitutional at all.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/15/cal … riage-ban/

2008-05-15 11:42:36

#7

liquix: Member; +51|6449|Peoples Republic of Portland

let them have the title, how does it hurt you. It doesn't.

2008-05-15 11:44:28

#8

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6339|tropical regions of london

hell, why dont we just get rid of the courts in the first place and have mob rule. majorital tyranny FTW

2008-05-15 11:45:11

#9

IRONCHEF: Member; +385|6486|Northern California

liquix wrote:
let them have the title, how does it hurt you. It doesn't.

Who said it hurts me. It hurts the ideal and good name of marriage as a religious value and ordinance. It's offensive. Just as gay preachers in christian churchs offends me, so too does this.

2008-05-15 11:46:27

#10

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6339|tropical regions of london

you offend me, can we outlaw you.

2008-05-15 11:56:14

#11

(T)eflon(S)hadow: R.I.P. Neda; +456|6825|Grapevine, TX

IRONCHEF wrote:
liquix wrote:
let them have the title, how does it hurt you. It doesn't.
Who said it hurts me. It hurts the ideal and good name of marriage as a religious value and ordinance. It's offensive. Just as gay preachers in christian churchs offends me, so too does this.

Im glad we agree on something IRONCHEF. +1 Props to you for not letting this liberal minded disease coax you into believing this is the right thing for society.

If the homosexuals want to live in peace and harmony, fine, I have no objection to that, along with having benefits that married heterosexuals benefit from. Its just not a marriage as described by law in my state or what this beloved country was founded on.

2008-05-15 12:01:07

#12

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6339|tropical regions of london

this is why conservatives trip me out. They hate government interference with the private lives of individuals, but they also want strict government regulation on what is deemed appropriate in society and what isnt. Champion hypocrits.

Screaming for abortions being wrong but celebrating the right in the constitution that guarentees the ownership of tools that are specifically meant to take human life and cause suffering as well as calling for jingoistic government foreign policies and defending the right to kill convicted felons.

2008-05-15 12:01:53

#13

IG-Calibre: comhalta; +226|6738|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

it's referred to as a "civil union" here, not, "marriage" while both reward the "couples" the same civil rights / government considerations they are not the same things.

2008-05-15 12:23:29

#14

FallenMorgan: Member; +53|5910|Glendale, CA

Marriage is stupid anyways. There should be no legal definition of marriage.

I'm sick of the government telling me what I can and can't do. Who the fuck are they to say that two men or two women can't get married?

Lotta_Drool wrote:
I am going to buy stock in K Y jelly to celebrate the fact that no matter how fucked up a person or action is the liberals will always find a way to make it mainstream.

Ok, now we have:

People living in the US illegally mainstreamed
Gay marriage mainstreamed

Next on the list

Drugs legalised
Guns outlawed
Religion outlawed

Then liberalism will succeed in its ultimate goal of creating a society filled with

MARRIED GAY MEXICAN ATHEISTS

Next on the Conservative's list:

Banning homosexuality
Banning abortion
Forcing women to wear ankle-length dresses and bullshit
Christianity as the state religion

Last edited by FallenMorgan (2008-05-15 12:27:10)

2008-05-15 12:53:32

#15

SFCCDailey: Banned; +106|6711|USA

I Support Gay Marriage As Long As Both Chicks Are Hot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2008-05-15 13:01:13

#16

HurricaИe: Banned; +877|5957|Washington DC

So, how many of you salute the nazi flag each morning?

2008-05-15 13:04:29

#17

OrangeHound: Busy doing highfalutin adminy stuff ...; +1,335|6645|Washington DC

IRONCHEF wrote:
liquix wrote:
let them have the title, how does it hurt you. It doesn't.
Who said it hurts me. It hurts the ideal and good name of marriage as a religious value and ordinance. It's offensive. Just as gay preachers in christian churchs offends me, so too does this.

Pfft ... marriage is so screwed up as a "religious value and ordinance" already that the gays aren't going to do any more damage to it. "Christians" treat marriage with contempt and disrespect ... the divorce rate among Christians is higher than the non-Christians in America.

2008-05-15 13:05:22

#18

Roger Lesboules: Ah ben tabarnak!; +316|6573|Abitibi-Temiscamingue. Québec!

SFCCDailey wrote:
I Support Gay Marriage As Long As Both Chicks Are Hot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well damn said!

2008-05-15 13:05:23

#19

FallenMorgan: Member; +53|5910|Glendale, CA

IG-Calibre wrote:
it's referred to as a "civil union" here, not, "marriage" while both reward the "couples" the same civil rights / government considerations they are not the same things.

What's the point in changing the name, other than to get the Conservatives to be quiet?

God Save the Queen wrote:
this is why conservatives trip me out. They hate government interference with the private lives of individuals, but they also want strict government regulation on what is deemed appropriate in society and what isnt. Champion hypocrits.

Screaming for abortions being wrong but celebrating the right in the constitution that guarentees the ownership of tools that are specifically meant to take human life and cause suffering as well as calling for jingoistic government foreign policies and defending the right to kill convicted felons.

Right on. Conservatives are fascist.

2008-05-15 13:05:30

#20

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6339|tropical regions of london

HurricaИe wrote:
So, how many of you salute the nazi flag each morning?

not in the mornings

2008-05-15 13:07:06

#21

HurricaИe: Banned; +877|5957|Washington DC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

Perhaps I'm interpreting this wrong, but:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Everyone who's saying that marriage should be recognized by what it is in religious terms are forgetting that silly old document.

Last edited by HurricaИe (2008-05-15 13:07:35)

2008-05-15 13:07:27

#22

mtb0minime: minimember; +2,418|6650

Good news! But this just happened today?? I saw some pics on facebook of one of my student-teacher's wedding... guess they went to some other state to have it? Or maybe it wasn't official.

2008-05-15 13:11:59

#23

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6339|tropical regions of london

FallenMorgan wrote:
God Save the Queen wrote:
this is why conservatives trip me out. They hate government interference with the private lives of individuals, but they also want strict government regulation on what is deemed appropriate in society and what isnt. Champion hypocrits.

Screaming for abortions being wrong but celebrating the right in the constitution that guarentees the ownership of tools that are specifically meant to take human life and cause suffering as well as calling for jingoistic government foreign policies and defending the right to kill convicted felons.
Right on. Conservatives are fascist.

no. the word "fascist" shouldnt be trumped about so frequently where we would label anything that goes against our ideas of right as "fascist"

there has really only been one fascist regime in world history, the Italians under mussolini.

but, in this case, I called conservative hypocrites.

2008-05-15 13:12:35

#24

konfusion: mostly afk; +480|6546|CH/BR - in UK

God Save the Queen wrote:
it took 100 years after the end of slavery for blacks to have the same rights as whites in society.

And to compensate we're getting bogus affirmative action.

I agree with IRONCHEF that they should have every right we have, except for calling it marriage.

I also think that people like Brittney Spears should not be allowed to marry, because they pull the term into the dirt. I think that some couples out there should have to go through a trial or something before they're allowed to marry - maybe make an exception in dire times (ie War )

Lotta_Drool wrote:
[unnecessary] no matter how fucked up a person or action is the liberals will always find a way to make it mainstream.

I agree with you to some extent (although some statements were really unnecessary). I'm against the legalization of drugs, same sex marriage and illegals immigrants.
But I don't agree with you on this issue because being homosexual is "fucked up". It's just because my belief is that the term marriage was for a contract between a man and a woman and that it should be binding. I say the latter because I hate what marriage has become...

-konfusion

2008-05-15 13:21:47

#25

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6126|North Tonawanda, NY

God Save the Queen wrote:
there has really only been one fascist regime in world history, the Italians under mussolini.

Don't forget Nazi Germany. Nazism is considered to be a form of fascism.

On topic:

In civil terms, marriage is just a contract. In religious terms, it means more than just some paper. BUT, why should the established secular use of the word not apply to homosexuals? That part doesn't make any sense, since it is a secular, legal definition that shares the same name.

Let the churches maintain the sanctity of their marriage institutions, and let homosexuals get married in courthouses. Nothing says Catholics, Mormons, etc... are going to have to accept gay marriage in their faith.

BF2S Forums Gay Marriage in CA? OK!

God Save the Queen wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

liquix wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

liquix wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

liquix wrote:

SFCCDailey wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

HurricaИe wrote:

FallenMorgan wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

Board footer