Cali Gay marriage ban upheld by Court.

2009-05-26 10:51:53

#1

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5872

The California Supreme Court has upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.

The decision Tuesday rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/2 … 07697.html

Last edited by Macbeth (2009-05-26 12:07:00)

2009-05-26 11:23:16

#2

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6732|The Land of Scott Walker

First sane thing that court has done.

2009-05-26 11:30:49

#3

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|7053|UK

I don't get why people oppose same sex marriage. Seriously, do you actually give a shit what other people do with their lives?

2009-05-26 11:33:22

#4

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6968|Disaster Free Zone

Stingray24 wrote:
First sane thing that court has done.

Errr no.

This is one of the times when the right thing to do is not the popular one.

2009-05-26 11:33:45

#5

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6732|The Land of Scott Walker

Vote of the people has to mean something, that's what was upheld by the court.

2009-05-26 11:58:24

#6

Ioan92: Member; +337|6009

+1 California

2009-05-26 12:04:32

#7

menzo: ̏̏̏̏̏̏̏̏&#; +616|6733|Amsterdam‫

-1 cali let then be gay, so what

https://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee37/menzo2003/fredbf2.png

2009-05-26 12:07:38

#8

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6968|Disaster Free Zone

Stingray24 wrote:
Vote of the people has to mean something, that's what was upheld by the court.

You'd think that wouldn't you, but the people voted for what is wrong. The issue should never even have gone to a pole, and just been passed by the government 20 years ago.

2009-05-26 12:09:41

#9

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6281|Truthistan

California just showed it has something in common with 1950's Alabama. So much for California being progressive.

I guess we're gonna need a gay Rosa Parks and a gay MLK to push for equality on the California front.

Prop 8 Something to be Ashamed Of

2009-05-26 12:12:18

#10

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6824|Long Island, New York

Stingray24 wrote:
Vote of the people has to mean something, that's what was upheld by the court.

Haha, yeah right. The only reason you're saying that is because of your own religious beliefs.

2009-05-26 12:37:47

#11

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,982|6919|949

DrunkFace wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
Vote of the people has to mean something, that's what was upheld by the court.
You'd think that wouldn't you, but the people voted for what is wrong. The issue should never even have gone to a pole, and just been passed by the government 20 years ago.

Exactly. It really is a shame when personal moral issues are brought forth to be legislated. The fact that the ultra-conservative Mormon coalition hijacked our somewhat unique referendum process to put forth a ridiculously outdated agenda and force "the people" to vote on an issue that the government really should have no say in is somewhat disturbing. As far as I know we can continue to vote to change the California Constitution regarding "gay marriage" as much as we want. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but if that's the case expect this issue to be addressed in the near future.

It appalls me how much some religious folk think marriage is unique - and that because some consider marriage sacred that it must be that way for everyone.

2009-05-26 12:46:46

#12

{M5}Sniper3: Typical white person.; +389|7047|San Antonio, Texas

Stingray24 wrote:
Vote of the people has to mean something, that's what was upheld by the court.

It will be taken up again in another appeals court and voted again by the people, then taken to another appeals court and voted again by the people, and again, and again, until it finally passes. The people's voice means nothing in a PC world.

Last edited by {M5}Sniper3 (2009-05-26 12:49:13)

2009-05-26 12:58:25

#13

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,982|6919|949

{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
Vote of the people has to mean something, that's what was upheld by the court.
It will be taken up again in another appeals court and voted again by the people, then taken to another appeals court and voted again by the people, and again, and again, until it finally passes. The people's voice means nothing in a PC world.

The people's voice? You've got to be kidding. That was a national referendum that happened to take place in California. You had money from all over the country being dumped into that stupid fuckstain of a Proposition (on both sides). Sad, really - but a microcosm of politics in general.

2009-05-26 13:01:18

#14

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6732|The Land of Scott Walker

{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
Vote of the people has to mean something, that's what was upheld by the court.
It will be taken up again in another appeals court and voted again by the people, then taken to another appeals court and voted again by the people, and again, and again, until it finally passes. The people's voice means nothing in a PC world.

That's what's been happening up until now, so you're probably right, Sniper.

And no, Ken, I'm not kidding. The people have California have voted on this issue multiple times and activist judges in the courts have struck down their vote. Hence my contention the court has wised up.

Last edited by Stingray24 (2009-05-26 13:01:54)

2009-05-26 13:10:13

#15

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,982|6919|949

Stingray24 wrote:
{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
Vote of the people has to mean something, that's what was upheld by the court.
It will be taken up again in another appeals court and voted again by the people, then taken to another appeals court and voted again by the people, and again, and again, until it finally passes. The people's voice means nothing in a PC world.
That's what's been happening up until now, so you're probably right, Sniper.

And no, Ken, I'm not kidding. The people have California have voted on this issue multiple times and activist judges in the courts have struck down their vote. Hence my contention the court has wised up.

Activist judges...what a stupid buzzword. If anything gets struck down by any appeals court (but the 9th District especially), it's because of "Activist Judges". It's a really tired phrase.

The people's voice could by extension mean every single religious faction within the country putting pressure on their members to spread the word about the evils of gay marriage and remind the people - if you vote against Prop 8 "they will teach gay marriage in schools". Yeah, I guess if you have to resort to ridiculous and mindless drivel to influence a vote you deserve for it to pass. The religious institutions had much more at stake than the people in California who wanted the gay people to get a little certificate on their wall to commemorate their marriage. Oh well, the religious zealots can go back to their sacred 50% divorce rate. Boo hoo and bah humbug!

2009-05-26 13:15:11

#16

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6732|The Land of Scott Walker

Do you oppose people joining together to mobilized like-minded people to vote on an issue? That's how we do it here, not through the courts.

2009-05-26 13:16:42

#17

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,982|6919|949

Stingray24 wrote:
Do you oppose people joining together to mobilized like-minded people to vote on an issue? That's how we do it here, not through the courts.

Yes I do

2009-05-26 13:24:13

#18

Wreckognize: Member; +294|6772

Stingray24 wrote:
Do you oppose people joining together to mobilized like-minded people to vote on an issue? That's how we do it here, not through the courts.

When it violates another groups rights, then yes, I do.

2009-05-26 13:26:43

#19

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5872

Wreckognize wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
Do you oppose people joining together to mobilized like-minded people to vote on an issue? That's how we do it here, not through the courts.
When it violates another groups rights, then yes, I do.

Greatest good for the greatest amount?

2009-05-26 13:26:54

#20

mtb0minime: minimember; +2,418|6941

It's never gonna stop. They're just gonna keep coming and keep coming until the ban is finally repealed.

Personally, I am not against gay marriage. But Prop 8 failed, and that's that, so wait until the next major election to do another one right? Wrong. People just freak the fuck out and want to keep the pressure on and whine and complain because it didn't turn out the way they wanted it to. I support the court for upholding the decision of the voters back in November.

2009-05-26 14:27:03

#21

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6692|North Carolina

California -- where the liberals are extremists, and the conservatives are too.

2009-05-26 14:31:57

#22

Noobeater: Northern numpty; +194|6734|Boulder, CO

Macbeth wrote:
Wreckognize wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
Do you oppose people joining together to mobilized like-minded people to vote on an issue? That's how we do it here, not through the courts.
When it violates another groups rights, then yes, I do.
Greatest good for the greatest amount?

Whats good about banning gay people from getting married? There is no benefit to it whatsoever and to be quite honest non-gay people shouldn't give a toss about it. I don't care what the legal name for the couple is called so long as they have the legal rights that any other couple would have.

2009-05-26 14:33:28

#23

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6692|North Carolina

Noobeater wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Wreckognize wrote:

When it violates another groups rights, then yes, I do.
Greatest good for the greatest amount?
Whats good about banning gay people from getting married? There is no benefit to it whatsoever and to be quite honest non-gay people shouldn't give a toss about it. I don't care what the legal name for the couple is called so long as they have the legal rights that any other couple would have.

No kidding, but religion rarely makes much sense.

What we ought to do is just separate marriage from government and replace all legal recognition of marriages with civil unions (straight and gay).

2009-05-26 14:43:13

#24

Gawwad: My way or Haddaway!; +212|6972|Espoo, Finland

That's bad...

What would you say if they banned black people from getting married?

2009-05-26 14:49:24

#25

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6692|North Carolina

Gawwad wrote:
That's bad...

What would you say if they banned black people from getting married?

Well, not surprisingly, religion has been used in the past to ban interracial marriages.

So yeah, that's not far from the mark.

Religion FTL yet again.

BF2S Forums Cali Gay marriage ban upheld by Court.

Stingray24 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

{M5}Sniper3 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

{M5}Sniper3 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

{M5}Sniper3 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Wreckognize wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Wreckognize wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Noobeater wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Wreckognize wrote:

Gawwad wrote:

Board footer