Author Topic: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage  (Read 113872 times)

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #725 on: January 06, 2010, 07:49:10 PM »
I didn't think you were a lawyer in training because of your board intelligence so please don't flatter yourself.  I thought i read somewhere you were taking night school law but must be mistaken. 

Once again you miss the point and use a redundant 'example' of incest and polygamy i mean seriously the fact you want someone to explain why that is not the same as same sex marriage rights truly shows you have zero understanding of this beyond - gay = bad straight = good.

There is nothing wrong with same sex couples having the same legal benefits and protections as married couples.  That we agree with.  I don't think the name matters to most it's the legal and inalienable rights of a married couple that same sex couples want the benefit of having.  Each American is allowed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Is that not a right afforded by the constitution?  nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. by denying a same sex couple marriage rights you are in effect denying them 'equal protection of the laws'.  You are taking their liberty, their choice away from them and condemning them to a life of second class rights and benefits UNLESS they marry someone of the opposite sex.  If that's not taking away someones choice and freedom what is? 

Also you are way off base with the whole 'locker room' thing.  To answer your question no i wouldn't want to go into the woman's locker room because unlike you Tony i am not a pervert or some kind of rapist.  If you think that just because a man is gay he automatically must look at every guy and want him then you really are misinformed on this subject. 
I do go to school at night and am thinking of taking the LSATs to keep my options open but more likely I will go for my MBA.

LOL please explain to me how denying polygamist and brothers and sisters the right to marry is any different than denying gays...seriously I really want to hear your rationalization of this.

LOL youve used that tired arguement time and time again and it doesnt fly  ::) by your logic you could use the "taking my liberty" idiocy and apply it to just about anything. If you dont understand that go take a ethics class and learn some logic and how to apply it... ::)

Its not whether they do or not look dumb ass, its that they have the opportunity to look. An opportunity that I am denied, how is that not "taking my liberty" under your definition?  ::)

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #726 on: January 06, 2010, 07:51:15 PM »
Except there has never been any obligation for married couples to procreate and social conventions, much less laws, aren't dictated by base biological urges.

Marriage has, first and foremost, always been a business arrangement. Even though the idea of love is a factor in most cultures now, that is something that has come about in recent centuries. Dowries, arranged marriages and the concept of spouses were prevalent far before that. Even within religious-based unions. Even now, for all of the strands of love and devotion connected to it, marriage still seems to be more about financial stability than emotional stability.

That's why polygamy and gay marriage are not comparable. A marriage between two men , two women or a man and a woman all legally operate the same. If a man is married to several different women and he dies, are those women still married? If those women gave birth, do the children belong to all of the women equally or do they only belong to the respective woman who gave birth to them? What if the husband falls into a coma and has no living will? Which of the wives has power of attorney over him? If the women are employed, do they include the other wives' children on their health insurance? Are the women's tax obligations contingent on the number of children to whom they gave birth or the cumulative number of children in their family?

A polygamous marriage is an actual redefinition of marriage. A gay marriage isn't. There is no "slippery slope". It literally is just an inclusion of a group that had previously been arbitrarily excluded.The concept of two people creating a familial structure inherently makes sense, regardless of the gender of the people involved.
good points doggity

how about incestual relationships? by your view its not redefining marriage so you would be for those as well?

Al Doggity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7286
  • Old School Gemini
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #727 on: January 06, 2010, 11:28:42 PM »
Well, no, not exactly.There are actually societal justifications for the illegality of incestuous marriages. By some estimates, the most common form of sexual abuse is father/daughter & brother/sister sexual abuse. If you've ever heard a sexual abuse victim describe the details of their sexual abuse, then you'd fully understand what "slippery slope" means in correct context. Most will say that they were convinced to engage in or allow inappropriate touching (or worse) because they were convinced by a loved one that it was no big deal, natural or a display of love. Normalizing incestuous relationships would have a horrific impact on sexual abuse. I don't actually believe genetic deformities would be too big of an issue unless multiple generations of inbreeding were to occur.

However, the incest/gay marriage comparison does make me LOL because it just highlights the ridiculousness of the "slippery slope" comparison. From a legal standpoint, you COULD make the argument that incestuous marriage is two consenting adults and shouldn't be outlawed. But practically, there would be no rush of brothers and sisters trying to get married. there are millions of openly gay Americans, many of whom would consider getting married if it was legal.  There aren't  a ton of siblings out there waiting to get married. When is the last time you heard of a sibling couple fighting for the right to marry? What incest marriage activist groups or websites are their? Even with it being a taboo, there should be a few well-known couples  out there if there's some sort of slippery slope in the waiting, right?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39703
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #728 on: January 07, 2010, 05:34:31 AM »
Well, no, not exactly.There are actually societal justifications for the illegality of incestuous marriages. By some estimates, the most common form of sexual abuse is father/daughter & brother/sister sexual abuse. If you've ever heard a sexual abuse victim describe the details of their sexual abuse, then you'd fully understand what "slippery slope" means in correct context. Most will say that they were convinced to engage in or allow inappropriate touching (or worse) because they were convinced by a loved one that it was no big deal, natural or a display of love. Normalizing incestuous relationships would have a horrific impact on sexual abuse. I don't actually believe genetic deformities would be too big of an issue unless multiple generations of inbreeding were to occur.

However, the incest/gay marriage comparison does make me LOL because it just highlights the ridiculousness of the "slippery slope" comparison. From a legal standpoint, you COULD make the argument that incestuous marriage is two consenting adults and shouldn't be outlawed. But practically, there would be no rush of brothers and sisters trying to get married. there are millions of openly gay Americans, many of whom would consider getting married if it was legal.  There aren't  a ton of siblings out there waiting to get married. When is the last time you heard of a sibling couple fighting for the right to marry? What incest marriage activist groups or websites are their? Even with it being a taboo, there should be a few well-known couples  out there if there's some sort of slippery slope in the waiting, right?


Al how about this argument?

The govt obviously has made the decision that it wants to encourage man-woman marriage and children via the tax code.  Should the govt be in that business, i.e. to encourage or discourage certain behaviors between men and women?  I know supporters of gay marriage dont like the fact that the tax code discriminates in that fashion, but should the govt be able to do this?

Me personally, I hate the social engineering via the tax code and think that we should have one low flat tax no exemptions etc.   

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #729 on: January 07, 2010, 05:53:45 AM »
by your idiotic reasoning you should be for polygamy and incestual relations too  ::)...are you?

again brain children, gays are not a separate class of citizen, are they?

they have the right to marry any opposite sex person they want, their rights arent being denied anymore than mine are...

you see the govt can have separate laws for separate groups as long as they treat all ppl in those groups equally...think tax brackets, if youre in one tax bracket you recieve the same treatment as another person in that tax bracket but not the same treatment as a person in another tax bracket.

Men are men there is not 2 separate classes of men, gay or straight...

I am for privatizing the institution of marriage and giving everyone civil unions but also for eliminating the perks gays get as well...

gays are the new womens movement they say the want equality but they dont they want special treatment...that shit doesnt fly hoss

They want to be a separate class/race. :)

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #730 on: January 07, 2010, 10:03:22 AM »
Well, no, not exactly.There are actually societal justifications for the illegality of incestuous marriages. By some estimates, the most common form of sexual abuse is father/daughter & brother/sister sexual abuse. If you've ever heard a sexual abuse victim describe the details of their sexual abuse, then you'd fully understand what "slippery slope" means in correct context. Most will say that they were convinced to engage in or allow inappropriate touching (or worse) because they were convinced by a loved one that it was no big deal, natural or a display of love. Normalizing incestuous relationships would have a horrific impact on sexual abuse. I don't actually believe genetic deformities would be too big of an issue unless multiple generations of inbreeding were to occur.

However, the incest/gay marriage comparison does make me LOL because it just highlights the ridiculousness of the "slippery slope" comparison. From a legal standpoint, you COULD make the argument that incestuous marriage is two consenting adults and shouldn't be outlawed. But practically, there would be no rush of brothers and sisters trying to get married. there are millions of openly gay Americans, many of whom would consider getting married if it was legal.  There aren't  a ton of siblings out there waiting to get married. When is the last time you heard of a sibling couple fighting for the right to marry? What incest marriage activist groups or websites are their? Even with it being a taboo, there should be a few well-known couples  out there if there's some sort of slippery slope in the waiting, right?
I can see your point but if the legislation put in place now were still in place in respect to minimum age of marriage, statutory rape, molestation etc...it really wouldnt be any different than it is now. Now I agree that it would present the opportunity for certain ppl to take advantage of it but for all intents and purposes it would be the same.

LOL youd be suprised what kinds of crazy ppl are out there if you started to look. Another aspect of it is how society views it, homosexuality has a large movement now but not so much 30 or 40 yrs ago...you think more ppl just decided to be gay? no, as society became more accepting of it the gay movement grew b/c ppl were not afraid to let others know they were gay.

This would happen with incest too although not nearly to the extent of gays or at least I wouldnt think so but who knows...

What do you think about gays in same sex locker rooms Al? I know to alot of ppl this seems like a petty thing but it actually has deep underlying implications

Al honestly thank you, youre the first pro gay marriage advocate that has actually presented good arguements...havent changed my mind as I think the aspects of polygamy that you brought up while good points could be dealt with by the govt as in the first wife getting the inheritance, wives are not married only men and women are etc...but very good points none the less and you have made me think and revise my arguements, so thank you

Skip8282

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7004
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #731 on: January 07, 2010, 02:19:54 PM »
I never said that polygamy should be illegal because I "don't approve." I said the comparison between polygamy and gay marriage is not apt.

 Yes, there are issues between married and formerly married people that are litigated daily, but these are issues of dispute involving extenuating circumstances among individuals.  When these issues are resolved, the legal precedents they set would apply to couples across the board, regardless of the gender of the parties involved. For the most part, familial structure and legal considerations  are very homogenous, even among alternative lifestyle families.  That isn't true of marriages containing more than two parties.

My legal operation argument is not that it would be impossible for polygamous couples to work legal arrangements. Even without polygamy ever having been legal here, it is perfectly obvious that it would not work in the same way traditional marriage has. On the other hand, there aren't really any pertinent legal issues that a gay couple would face that a male/female couple couldn't. Polygamy would be an actual redefinition of marriage.



The comparison is very apt and you're still just arguing legal precedent against a group that has not been entitled to have those precedents established.  It still doesn't address the underlying issue of equity.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  If you want gay marriage knock yourself out.  If you want 10 wives or 10 husbands knock yourself out.  As long as my rights aren't being affected  and there's laws to protect the children, I don't give a fuck what they or anybody else does concerning marriage.

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19449
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #732 on: January 21, 2010, 10:53:04 AM »
Cindy McCain comes out -- against Prop. 8

Cindy McCain -- wife of 2008 GOP presidential candidate John McCain --has taken a high profile position contrary to her husband's on the issue of same sex marriage, by starring in a new ad to support the fight against California's Prop. 8.

The Associated Press is reporting the story tonight, saying that Mrs. McCain stars in the new ad, in which she is depicted adorned "with silver duct tape across her mouth and "NOH8" written on one cheek."

NOH8 is one of the army of gay rights groups which has challenged Proposition 8, the law banning same sex marriage which was passed by California voters in 2008. Currently, a federal court trial in San Francisco is underway, challenging the constitutionality of the law.

"In the year since we've started the NOH8 Campaign, we've often been surprised at some of the different individuals who have approached us showing their support,'' organizers of the gay rights group say on their website. "Few, though, have surprised us more than Cindy McCain -- the wife of Senator John McCain and mother to vocal marriage equality advocate Meghan McCain.''

"The McCains are one of the most well-known Republican families in recent history, and for Mrs. McCain to have reached out to us to offer her support truly means a lot. Although we had worked with Meghan McCain before and were aware of her own position, we'd never really thought the cause might be something her mother would get behind,'' the group says. "We have a huge amount of respect for both of these women for being brave enough to make it known they support equal marriage rights for all Americans."

AP says that Arizona Sen. John McCain's office today "issued a statement saying the Arizona senator respects the views of members of his family but remains opposed to gay marriage.''

The former GOP presidential candidate, the statement said, believes "marriage is only defined as between one man and one woman."


chadstallion

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2854
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #733 on: January 21, 2010, 11:59:44 AM »
Cindy McCain comes out -- against Prop. 8

Cindy McCain -- wife of 2008 GOP presidential candidate John McCain --has taken a high profile position contrary to her husband's on the issue of same sex marriage, by starring in a new ad to support the fight against California's Prop. 8.

The Associated Press is reporting the story tonight, saying that Mrs. McCain stars in the new ad, in which she is depicted adorned "with silver duct tape across her mouth and "NOH8" written on one cheek."

NOH8 is one of the army of gay rights groups which has challenged Proposition 8, the law banning same sex marriage which was passed by California voters in 2008. Currently, a federal court trial in San Francisco is underway, challenging the constitutionality of the law.

"In the year since we've started the NOH8 Campaign, we've often been surprised at some of the different individuals who have approached us showing their support,'' organizers of the gay rights group say on their website. "Few, though, have surprised us more than Cindy McCain -- the wife of Senator John McCain and mother to vocal marriage equality advocate Meghan McCain.''

"The McCains are one of the most well-known Republican families in recent history, and for Mrs. McCain to have reached out to us to offer her support truly means a lot. Although we had worked with Meghan McCain before and were aware of her own position, we'd never really thought the cause might be something her mother would get behind,'' the group says. "We have a huge amount of respect for both of these women for being brave enough to make it known they support equal marriage rights for all Americans."

AP says that Arizona Sen. John McCain's office today "issued a statement saying the Arizona senator respects the views of members of his family but remains opposed to gay marriage.''

The former GOP presidential candidate, the statement said, believes "marriage is only defined as between one man and one woman."


way to go, Cindy; if you had done that last november I would have reconsidered my vote.
w

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19256
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #734 on: January 21, 2010, 12:03:47 PM »
Cindy McCain comes out -- against Prop. 8

Cindy McCain -- wife of 2008 GOP presidential candidate John McCain --has taken a high profile position contrary to her husband's on the issue of same sex marriage, by starring in a new ad to support the fight against California's Prop. 8.

The Associated Press is reporting the story tonight, saying that Mrs. McCain stars in the new ad, in which she is depicted adorned "with silver duct tape across her mouth and "NOH8" written on one cheek."

NOH8 is one of the army of gay rights groups which has challenged Proposition 8, the law banning same sex marriage which was passed by California voters in 2008. Currently, a federal court trial in San Francisco is underway, challenging the constitutionality of the law.

"In the year since we've started the NOH8 Campaign, we've often been surprised at some of the different individuals who have approached us showing their support,'' organizers of the gay rights group say on their website. "Few, though, have surprised us more than Cindy McCain -- the wife of Senator John McCain and mother to vocal marriage equality advocate Meghan McCain.''

"The McCains are one of the most well-known Republican families in recent history, and for Mrs. McCain to have reached out to us to offer her support truly means a lot. Although we had worked with Meghan McCain before and were aware of her own position, we'd never really thought the cause might be something her mother would get behind,'' the group says. "We have a huge amount of respect for both of these women for being brave enough to make it known they support equal marriage rights for all Americans."

AP says that Arizona Sen. John McCain's office today "issued a statement saying the Arizona senator respects the views of members of his family but remains opposed to gay marriage.''

The former GOP presidential candidate, the statement said, believes "marriage is only defined as between one man and one woman."



Wouldn't it make more sense for her to oppose Amendment 102 (Arizona's marriage amendment)?

And why is it that Prop. 8 supposedly violates the US Constitution, when Nebraska's marriage amendment was found NOT to do so?

I've yet to hear a gay "marriage" advocate (even the ones from a certain West-Coast left-winged newspaper forum) argue the case with any sense.

That Nebraska case is almost identical to this one. Incidentally, a district court (similar to that of Vaughn Walker) ruled against the amendment; but it was overturned by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. The US Supreme Court remained silent on it.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39703
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #735 on: January 21, 2010, 12:25:31 PM »
way to go, Cindy; if you had done that last november I would have reconsidered my vote.


Why - did you vote for Bob Barr like 240?

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #736 on: January 21, 2010, 02:41:12 PM »
straw bay serious question when are you going to rally for equal rights for straight males who want to stare at females in locker rooms like you get to in mens locker rooms?

seems a tad unfair doesnt it?

why not trying to answer the question instead of simply posting and running?

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19449
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #737 on: March 03, 2010, 01:44:15 PM »
Same-sex couples line up as D.C. gay marriage law takes effect
By Keith L. Alexander and Ann E. Marimow

Sitting at a desk in the marriage bureau of the D.C. Superior Court on Wednesday morning, Angelisa Young's eyes filled with so many tears, she eventually buried her face in her fiancee's chest.

Within 30 minutes and with a final keystroke, Young and her partner, Sinjoyla Townsend, who met 13 years ago in a constitutional law class at the University of the District of Columbia, became the first same-sex couple to apply to be married in the District, as the city officially joined five states in allowing gay marriage.

"I'm just so happy. We're whole now. We will actually be a true family like everyone else," Young, 47, said as Townsend, 41, used her thumb to wipe away her soon-to-be wife's tears. After the couple rose from the desk, other couples in line behind them broke into applause and cheers.

The two women left their Southeast Washington home two hours before the bureau opened, standing in line in a light cold rain for about an hour before they, along with some 20 other couples mostly dressed in jeans, jackets and sweaters, were allowed inside the courthouse. The number of applicants grew slowly throughout the morning. By midafternoon, 124 couples had filed to be married, far surpassing the dozen applications the bureau typically collects on a single day.

The couples won't be able to marry until Tuesday at the earliest since it takes three business days for the applications to be processed. Young and Townsend plan to marry that day in a ceremony at the Human Rights Campaign headquarters with friends and family in attendance.

Many of the couples wore HRC buttons on their lapels; most were from the District, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia, and the line appeared to be made up of more women than men. Some couples brought their children or spoke of the importance to their sons and daughters.

"It's a great source of pride for her and deep down, a source of relief and stability," said Silver Spring resident Deborah Weiner of her 15-year-old daughter as she stood with her partner of 24 years, Janne Harrelson.

There were congratulatory hugs, commemorative pens and chocolate cupcakes to mark the historic moment. But it was also a somewhat-subdued scene of quiet anticipation as applicants drank coffee, checked their BlackBerrys and prepared to head to work after filing their forms and paying $45 in fees.

Court officials had called extra security officers to monitor the halls for protesters. But the celebration largely overshadowed a group of four opponents from a church in Kansas who gathered outside the courthouse, chanting and carrying signs in protest, one of which read: "Mourn for your sins."

There were also local religious leaders in the crowd, who showed up to demonstrate their support for same-sex marriage, and dozens of college students, who cheered as couples emerged hand in hand from the courthouse. Representatives from the Hyatt Regency handed out roses and offered discounts on catering and accommodations for same-sex weddings held before the end of the year.

Absent from the event was Bishop Harry Jackson, who has been one of the leading voices opposed to the District's new law. Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, has tried unsuccessfully to block the measure from taking effect by seeking a public vote on same-sex marriage.

Jackson said he would continue to press his case in court to "let the people vote."

Hereford

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4028
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #738 on: March 03, 2010, 04:32:00 PM »
straw bay serious question when are you going to rally for equal rights for straight males who want to stare at females in locker rooms like you get to in mens locker rooms?

seems a tad unfair doesnt it?

why not trying to answer the question instead of simply posting and running?

Doesn't look like you got your answer Tony.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #739 on: March 03, 2010, 07:38:37 PM »
Doesn't look like you got your answer Tony.
of course not  ;)

when ppl are made to look foolish and their ideals shown to be as injust as the actions they are rallying against they tend to turn a blind eye  8)

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19449
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #740 on: March 28, 2010, 11:14:49 AM »
Maryland gays flock to D.C. to take vows
Many are encouraged by the state attorney general's opinion that same-sex marriages performed out of state should be recognized.
By Scott Calvert
Reporting from Washington

Dupont Circle on a recent sunny afternoon: Workers on lunch break gathered for impromptu picnics; others relaxed on park benches, drawn by the spring-like warmth.

And under one budding tree, barely noticed by a passing stream of pedestrians, Jessica Leshnoff and Holly Beatty of Baltimore prepared to wed.

"We gather today to marry Jessica and Holly. This is your time; this is your day. Today you once again declare your love and commitment to each other: this time sanctioned not only by your love, your vows and your solemn commitment, but by the law."

With those words, officiant Todd Waymon of the Washington Ethical Society began a simple ceremony that granted the women the legal recognition they've yearned for during nine years together. Looking on were five friends and Leshnoff's 88-year-old great-uncle who came from Florida.

Gay couples from Maryland have been flocking to Washington this month since it began sanctioning same-sex marriages, joining five states. The staff at D.C. Superior Court has been too busy to sort applications by state, but a spokeswoman said it appeared that at least 25% of the 151 license-seekers the first day were from Maryland.

Proximity is not the only factor. A key impetus was last month's opinion by Maryland Atty. Gen. Douglas F. Gansler that Maryland should recognize same-sex nuptials performed out of state.

In the emotional crucible of marriage politics, some lawmakers in Annapolis, the state capital, have been trying to blunt the force of the opinion, which directly affects only state agencies but has been hailed by gay rights advocates as a major step toward equality.

A sense that the issue is far from settled -- reinforced by the rejection of gay marriage by voters in Maine and California -- was another reason Leshnoff and Beatty wasted no time making their union legal.

"You never know when it's going to be taken away," Leshnoff said.

Actually, this was not the first time they made their commitments. In 2008, they held a Jewish wedding before 150 family members and friends.

Their relationship began in the spring of 2001 when they met, through friends, during a night out in Washington. A week later Leshnoff e-mailed Beatty, and soon they went on their first date.

Beatty, 35, is now a full-time student at the University of Baltimore, pursuing a degree in government, public policy and community studies. Leshnoff, 31, is a freelance journalist and copywriter.

The inability to marry legally has been a constant source of pain and irritation, the couple say.

Leshnoff said she had recently suggested moving somewhere such as Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal and they might feel more respected.

Then Gansler issued his opinion. "Totally changed everything," Leshnoff said.

Back at sunny Dupont Circle, Leshnoff and Beatty promised to console each other in sorrow, to strengthen each other in weakness, to share and create happiness. They slid wedding bands onto each other's ring finger and recited: "With all that I have, and all that I am, I marry you and join my life to yours."

"Having declared yourselves to each other, and by the powers vested in me by . . . the Government of the District of Columbia, I now pronounce you married," Waymon said.

Leshnoff and Beatty kissed and embraced. Their friends clapped. Great-uncle Ben Leibowitz beamed from his wheelchair. "I waited such a long time for this," he said. "I got myself a new niece."

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19449
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #741 on: May 17, 2010, 03:21:11 PM »
Portugal's president ratifies gay marriage law
Published: 05.17.10, 23:59 / Israel News

Portugal's conservative president announced Monday he is reluctantly ratifying a law allowing gay marriage, making the predominantly Catholic country the sixth in Europe to let same-sex couples wed.
 
President Anibal Cavaco Silva said he would not veto the bill because majority liberal lawmakers would only overturn his decision. The country must focus instead on battling a crippling economic crisis that has increased unemployment and deepened poverty, he said. (AP)

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #742 on: May 17, 2010, 03:29:13 PM »
of course not  ;)

when ppl are made to look foolish and their ideals shown to be as injust as the actions they are rallying against they tend to turn a blind eye  8)
still turning a blind eye ehh bay?  ::)

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19449
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #743 on: July 14, 2010, 08:56:58 PM »
State Chief Justice Ronald George to retire

Ronald George, California's chief justice since 1996 and author of the ruling that briefly legalized same-sex marriage in the state, said Wednesday he will retire in January - a surprise announcement that allows Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to choose his successor.

George, 70, has been a judge for 38 years and a member of the state Supreme Court since Gov. Pete Wilson appointed him in 1991.

In interviews since the May 2008 same-sex marriage ruling, George had indicated he planned to seek another 12-year term this November. But he said Wednesday he's decided to step down - not because of sporadic threats of an opposition campaign, or more lucrative work in the private sector, but to have time for himself and his family after years of seven-day workweeks.

"Reflection convinced me now is the right time - while I am at the top of my game - to leave while the proverbial music still plays," George said.

Fan of governor

He also said he wanted his successor to be appointed by Schwarzenegger, whose recent infusion of state funding enabled the courts to end a year of one-day-a-month shutdowns.

"I feel a great sense of reassurance in the exemplary level of appointments this governor has made" and his "commitment to the judicial branch," George said.

Schwarzenegger issued a statement praising George for his "tremendous commitment to justice with extraordinary dedication to upholding impartiality under the law."

Under constitutional timelines, George said, the governor has until Sept. 15 to nominate a candidate who would go before a three-member commission, chaired by George, for confirmation and then appear on the November ballot for a 12-year term beginning in January.

Corrigan on list?

Six of the seven current justices were chosen by Republican governors, including George and Justice Carol Corrigan, Schwarzenegger's lone appointee. Corrigan, 61, a former Alameda County prosecutor with a moderately conservative record since joining the court in 2006, could be on the short list as George's successor.

"I'd look carefully at Corrigan" as a candidate, said Gerald Uelmen, a Santa Clara University law professor and an expert on the court's history. "She has moved to the top rank of productiveness."

If Schwarzenegger chooses Corrigan or another current justice to replace George as chief justice, he would also get to nominate that justice's successor, who would go through the same confirmation process.

George is the third-longest-serving chief justice in California history and one of the most influential judicial figures in recent decades.

He wrote important rulings on abortion, sex discrimination and racial slurs in the workplace, but his most notable and controversial decision was the 4-3 majority opinion two years ago that declared the right of gays and lesbians to marry.

Same-sex rulings

In a decision that overturned a 1977 state law and a 2000 ballot measure, George said the California Constitution's guarantees of personal privacy and autonomy protect "the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one's choice."

Less than six months later, after 18,000 same-sex couples had wed in California, voters overturned the ruling by passing Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment.

The court voted 6-1 to uphold Prop. 8 in May 2009, in a George opinion that validated the pre-election marriages and lamented the ease of passing initiatives in California that affect basic rights. A separate challenge to the ballot measure is pending before a federal judge in San Francisco.

George restated his concerns Wednesday, saying, "Perhaps it is far too easy to amend our Constitution" by initiative. He noted that other states require legislative review or a two-thirds popular vote for constitutional changes.

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which took part in both marriage cases, said Wednesday that George's 2008 ruling was a courageous statement that "the promise of the Constitution extended to everyone."

That legacy, she added, was blemished somewhat by his ruling a year later that "permitted a majority of voters to eliminate that fundamental right."

Abortion consent

The marriage ruling, which prompted some religious conservatives to threaten a 2010 campaign against George, was not his first exposure to controversy.

He wrote 4-3 decision in 1997 overturning a state law requiring parental consent for minors' abortions - a law signed by Wilson, who had appointed him chief justice. Despite an opposition campaign by anti-abortion groups, George easily won a new 12-year term in 1998.

As a Los Angeles Superior Court judge in 1981, George refused the district attorney's request to dismiss murder charges against the alleged Hillside Strangler, Angelo Buono, and instead brought in the state attorney general to take over the case. Buono was eventually convicted of nine murders.

In his role as the court system's top administrator, George led a successful campaign at the ballot box in 1998 to consolidate the 220 Municipal and Superior Court districts around the state into 58 countywide Superior Courts. He also engineered rules simplifying jury instructions and making court procedures more accessible to the public and the news media.

As a justice, he has been conservative in criminal cases, particularly capital cases, moderate to liberal on civil rights and other social issues, and typically at the ideological center of his court.

"He led from the center," said Santa Clara's Uelmen. "I think he'll be seen as a moderate who brought a lot of moderation to the court."

George said Wednesday his future will be "devoted to family, reading and travel," and that he has no plans to work as a lawyer or a private judge.

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19449
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #744 on: July 15, 2010, 05:12:43 AM »
Argentina Legalizes Gay Marriage
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 7:51 a.m. ET

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) -- Argentina legalized same-sex marriage Thursday, becoming the first country in Latin America to grant gays and lesbians all the legal rights, responsibilities and protections that marriage brings to heterosexual couples.

After a marathon debate, 33 lawmakers voted in favor, 27 were against it and 3 abstained in Argentina's Senate in a vote that ended after 4 a.m. Since the lower house already approved it, and President Cristina Fernandez is a strong supporter, it now becomes law as soon as it is published in the official bulletin.

The law is sure to bring a wave of marriages by gays and lesbians who have increasingly found Buenos Aires to be more accepting than many other places in the region.

The approval came despite a concerted campaign by the Roman Catholic Church and evangelical groups, which drew 60,000 people to march on Congress and urged parents in churches and schools to work against passage.

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio said ''everyone loses'' with gay marriage, and ''children need to have the right to be raised and educated by a father and a mother.''

Nine gay couples had already married in Argentina after persuading judges that the constitutional mandate of equality supports their marriage rights, but some of these marriages were later declared invalid.

As the debate stretched on for nearly 16 hours, supporters and opponents of held rival vigils through the frigid night outside the Congress building in Buenos Aires.

''Marriage between a man and a woman has existed for centuries, and is essential for the perpetuation of the species,'' insisted Sen. Juan Perez Alsina, who is usually a loyal supporter of the president but gave a passionate speech against gay marriage.

But Sen. Norma Morandini, another member of the president's party, compared the discrimination closeted gays face to the oppression imposed by Argentina's dictators decades ago.

''What defines us is our humanity, and what runs against humanity is intolerance,'' she said.

Same-sex civil unions have been legalized in Uruguay, Buenos Aires and some states in Mexico and Brazil. Mexico City has legalized gay marriage. Colombia's Constitutional Court granted same-sex couples inheritance rights and allowed them to add their partners to health insurance plans.

But Argentina now becomes the first country in Latin America to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, granting gays and lesbians all the same rights and responsibilities that heterosexuals have. These include many more rights than civil unions, including adopting children and inheriting wealth.

Gay rights advocates said Argentina's historic step adds momentum to similar efforts around the world.

''Today's historic vote shows how far Catholic Argentina has come, from dictatorship to true democratic values, and how far the freedom to marry movement has come, as twelve countries on four continents now embrace marriage equality,'' said Evan Wolfson, who runs the U.S. Freedom to Marry lobby.

He urged U.S. lawmakers to stand up ''for the Constitution and all families here in the United States. America should lead, not lag, when it comes to treating everyone equally under the law.''

Among the opponents were teacher Eduardo Morales, who said he believes the legislation was concocted by Buenos Aires residents who are out step with the views of the country.

''They want to convert this city into the gay capital of the world,'' said Morales of San Luis province.

Ines Franck, director of the group Familias Argentinas, said the legislation cuts against centuries of tradition.

Opposing the measure ''is not discrimination, because the essence of a family is between two people of opposite sexes,'' he said. ''Any variation goes against the law, and against nature.''

The president, currently on a state visit to China, spoke out from there against the Argentine Catholic Church's campaign and the tone she said some religious groups have taken.

''It's very worrisome to hear words like 'God's war' or 'the devil's project,' things that recall the times of the Inquisition,'' she said.

Some opposition leaders have accused her of promoting the initiative to gain votes in next year's presidential elections, when Fernandez's husband, former President Nestor Kirchner, is expected to run again.

The vote came after Sen. Daniel Filmus urged fellow lawmakers to show the world how much Argentina has matured.

''Society has grown up. We aren't the same as we were before,'' he said.

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19449
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #745 on: August 04, 2010, 01:58:49 PM »
Judge strikes down Prop. 8, allows gay marriage in California
by Maura Dolan

A federal judge in San Francisco decided today that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, striking down Proposition 8, the voter approved ballot measure that banned same-sex unions.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said Proposition 8, passed by voters in November 2008, violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice.. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Updated at 1:54 p.m.: "Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment," the judge wrote. "Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

Vaughn added: "Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships, and plaintiffs’ relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States.“

Ultimately, the judge concluded that Proposition 8 "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. … Because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”]

Walker, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, heard 16 witnesses summoned by opponents of Proposition 8 and two called by proponents during a 2½-week trial in January.

Walker’s historic ruling in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger relied heavily on the testimony he heard at trial. His ruling listed both factual findings and his conclusions about the law.

Voters approved the ban by a 52.3% margin six months after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was permitted under the state Constitution.

The state high court later upheld Proposition 8 as a valid amendment to the state Constitution.

An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married in California during the months that it was legal, and the state continues to recognize those marriages.

The federal challenge was filed on behalf of a gay couple in Southern California and a lesbian couple in Berkeley. They are being represented by former Solicitor General Ted Olson, a conservative, and noted litigator David Boies, who squared off against Olson in Bush vs. Gore.

A Los Angeles-based group formed to fight Proposition 8 has been financing the litigation.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown refused to defend Proposition 8, prodding the sponsors of the initiative to hire a legal team experienced in U.S. Supreme Court litigation.

Backers of Proposition 8 contended that the legal burden was on the challengers to prove there was no rational justification for voting for the measure. They cited as rational a view that children fare best with both a father and a mother.

But defense witnesses conceded in cross-examination that studies show children reared from birth by same-sex couples fared as well as those born to opposite-sex parents and that marriage would benefit the families of gays and lesbians.

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19449
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #746 on: August 04, 2010, 02:12:44 PM »
Here's the full text of the ruling if you are interested (and with 30 pages on the topic of gay marriage, getbig is obviously very interested). ;D


http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #747 on: August 04, 2010, 07:26:30 PM »
Doest this mean you will start to fight for the rights of straights that have to be continually sexually harrased by gays?

or at the very least STFU about this?  ;D

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #748 on: August 04, 2010, 09:13:22 PM »
Doest this mean you will start to fight for the rights of straights that have to be continually sexually harrased by gays?

or at the very least STFU about this?  ;D

Tony, stop being such an ass. give it a rest, your argument is so stale.
Sexual harassment is against the law, and if you're being sexually harassed, there is no law on the books that permits it... now STFU about gays staring at your naked ass in locker room. Stop wearing those gay ass red & silver Richard Simmons sneakers and they won't mistake you for being gay. NOW STFU already!  ::)
w

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #749 on: August 04, 2010, 09:23:03 PM »
Tony, stop being such an ass. give it a rest, your argument is so stale.
Sexual harassment is against the law, and if you're being sexually harassed, there is no law on the books that permits it... now STFU about gays staring at your naked ass in locker room. Stop wearing those gay ass red & silver Richard Simmons sneakers and they won't mistake you for being gay. NOW STFU already!  ::)
LMAO...its ok for them to do it b/c they are gay?

sounds real equal... ::)

Id be more than willing to put up with gays looking at me if I were allowed to stare at women in the locker room, but something tells me you wouldnt be ok with that?

Look here wench youre the only person who has a negative comment about my shoes and to be honest I dont care if the entire world dislikes them I do and since Im the one wearing them fack off you little shit!!!