Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: BayGBM on May 15, 2008, 03:45:22 PM



Title: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 15, 2008, 03:45:22 PM
California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
By ADAM LIPTAK

Same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The court’s 4-to-3 decision, striking down two state laws that had limited marriages to unions between a man and a woman, will make California only the second state, after Massachusetts, to allow same-sex marriages. The decision, which becomes effective in 30 days, is certain to be an issue in the presidential campaign.

“In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,” Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote of marriage for the majority, “the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.”

California already has a strong domestic partnership law that gives gay and lesbian couples nearly all of the benefits and burdens of heterosexual marriage. The majority said that is not enough.

Given the historic, cultural, symbolic and constitutional significance of the concept of marriage, Chief Justice George wrote, the state cannot limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. The court left open the possibility that the Legislature could use another term to denote state-sanctioned unions so long as that term was used across the board for all couples.

The state’s ban on same-sex marriage was based on a law enacted by the Legislature in 1977 and a statewide initiative approved by the voters in 2000, both defining marriage as limited to unions between a man and a woman. The question before the court was whether those laws violate provisions of the state Constitution protecting equality and fundamental rights.

Conservative groups have proposed a new initiative, this one to amend the state constitution, to ban same-sex marriage. If it is allowed onto the ballot and approved by the voters, Thursday’s decision would be overridden.

In 2004, San Francisco issued marriage licenses to thousands of same-sex couples until the courts put a halt to the practice. The state Supreme Court ultimately voided the licenses, saying that city officials had exceeded their authority. Thursday’s decision did not appear to affect the voided licenses.

Justice Marvin R. Baxter, dissenting, said the majority had should have deferred to the state Legislature on whether to allow same-sex marriage, particularly given the increased legal protections for same-sex couples enacted in recent years.

“But a bare majority of this court,” Justice Baxter wrote, “not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the people themselves.”

Justice Carol A. Corrigan, also dissenting, wrote that her personal sympathies were with the plaintiffs challenging the bans on same-sex marriage. But she said the courts should allow the political process to address the issue.

“We should allow the significant achievements embodied in the domestic partnership statutes to continue to take root,” Justice Corrigan wrote. “If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find its expression at the ballot box.”

The California Supreme Court was the first state high court to strike down a law barring interracial marriage, in a 1948 decision called Perez v. Sharp. The United States Supreme Court did not follow suit until 1967.

Thursday’s decision was rooted in two rationales, and both drew on the Perez decision.


The first was that marriage is a fundamental constitutional right. “The right to marry,” Chief Justice George wrote, “represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with a person of one’s choice and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual.”

Chief Justice George conceded that “as an historical matter in this state marriage has always been restricted to a union between a man and a woman.” But “tradition alone,” the chief justice continued, does not justify the denial of a fundamental constitutional right. Bans on interracial marriage were, he wrote, sanctioned by the state for many years.

The court also struck down state laws banning same-sex marriage on equal protection grounds, adopting a new standard of review in the process.

With few exceptions, courts considering suits from gay men and lesbians claiming legal discrimination of all sorts have applied a relaxed standard of scrutiny under which the government must show only that the challenged law had a rational basis.

In Thursday’s decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the correct standard of review for plaintiffs claiming discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is “strict scrutiny,” the standard used in race-discrimination cases. Under that standard, the government must demonstrate that it has a compelling interest for the law it is defending and that the distinctions drawn by the law are necessary to protect the interest.

Lawyers for state identified two interests that they said justified reserving the term marriage for heterosexual unions: tradition and the will of the majority. Chief Justice George said neither was sufficient.

Chief Justice George took pains to emphasize the limits of the majority’s ruling. It does not require ministers, priests or rabbis to perform same-sex marriages, he said.

“No religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples,” Chief Justice George wrote, “and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

He added that the decision “does not affect the constitutional validity of the existing prohibitions against polygamy and the marriage of close relatives.”

Other state supreme courts to consider the question of same-sex marriage in recent years, including those in New York, New Jersey and Washington, have been closely divided but stopped short of striking down state laws forbidding it. A decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court is expected shortly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/15cnd-marriage.html?hp


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: airosol on May 15, 2008, 05:43:10 PM
the best Court decision in a long time!


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: War-Horse on May 15, 2008, 05:56:37 PM
Next on the list is humans and dogs... ::)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: kh300 on May 15, 2008, 06:24:53 PM
i just threw up in my mouth a little bit


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2008, 12:38:39 AM
The men in black strike again.  A 4 to 3 decision.  So in the two states where this is legal (CA and MA) and the one state where it was almost legal (HI) it was the result of a handful of judges overruling the will of the people. 

At least one of the California Supreme Court justices gets it:

In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that although he agrees with some of the majority's conclusions, the court was overstepping its bounds in striking down the ban. Instead, he wrote, the issue should be left to the voters.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Hugo Chavez on May 16, 2008, 02:14:11 AM
I like how righties want government out of their lives... unless they don't like what someone else is doing with their life. LOL...  yup, clearly this will lead to animal human marriage ::)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: youandme on May 16, 2008, 04:30:35 AM
I thought California was going to break off into the ocean...soon techtoic plates shifting.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: War-Horse on May 16, 2008, 07:01:52 AM
I like how righties want government out of their lives... unless they don't like what someone else is doing with their life. LOL...  yup, clearly this will lead to animal human marriage ::)



Thats the next stop on the train to sodom and gamorah.......    "But my dog is really commited to me, its a validating relationship"!!!    "Its not about the dirty sex...really"!!!! ::)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on May 16, 2008, 07:21:03 AM
The men in black strike again.  A 4 to 3 decision.  So in the two states where this is legal (CA and MA) and the one state where it was almost legal (HI) it was the result of a handful of judges overruling the will of the people. 

At least one of the California Supreme Court justices gets it:

In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that although he agrees with some of the majority's conclusions, the court was overstepping its bounds in striking down the ban. Instead, he wrote, the issue should be left to the voters.
When the State Congress--I guess it's an approximtaion of the will of the people--makes a law, it is the job of the Judiciary to say what that law is.

Beach Bum isn't this the very essence of "States Rights" where each state is permitted to do as it pleases?

Isn't the court preserving the civil rights of the 110,000 gay couples living as married in California? 

Are civil rights open for removal by popular or unpopular decision?

Is it not tyrannical to impose on those couples the will of the public--whether a noisy minority or a suffocating majority?

Stay tuned for answers to these questions and more coming up after the break.




Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2008, 08:01:58 AM
When the State Congress--I guess it's an approximtaion of the will of the people--makes a law, it is the job of the Judiciary to say what that law is.

Beach Bum isn't this the very essence of "States Rights" where each state is permitted to do as it pleases?

Isn't the court preserving the civil rights of the 110,000 gay couples living as married in California? 

Are civil rights open for removal by popular or unpopular decision?

Is it not tyrannical to impose on those couples the will of the public--whether a noisy minority or a suffocating majority?

Stay tuned for answers to these questions and more coming up after the break.




Yes states rights is about the people deciding to do as they please, not a handful of judges legislating from the bench. 

Homosexuals don't have a civil right to marry each other, so no the four judges in California aren't preserving civil rights.

Yes civil rights can be removed by popular decision if the people amend the Constitution.  In any event, homosexual marriage isn't a civil right.  Homosexual behavior is not a protected class like race, religion, national origin.

Lifestyle choices are, always have been, and always should be subject to popular vote. 

Looks like I just hit for the cycle.  Next softball?   :D 

 



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Tre on May 16, 2008, 08:28:45 AM

Marriage is a 'behavior'?

Where do you people learn this stuff?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on May 16, 2008, 08:46:46 AM
Yes states rights is about the people deciding to do as they please, not a handful of judges legislating from the bench. 

Homosexuals don't have a civil right to marry each other, so no the four judges in California aren't preserving civil rights.

Yes civil rights can be removed by popular decision if the people amend the Constitution.  In any event, homosexual marriage isn't a civil right.  Homosexual behavior is not a protected class like race, religion, national origin.

Lifestyle choices are, always have been, and always should be subject to popular vote. 

Looks like I just hit for the cycle.  Next softball?   :D 
It appears that homosexuals have a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to marry and start a family.

The distinction of "protected class" melts away under the weight of a US citizen's fundamental right.

I, for one, am glad that government is being restrained from interfering in the private lives of citizens.  Aren't you?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: 240 is Back on May 16, 2008, 08:53:52 AM
Marriage is a 'behavior'?

Where do you people learn this stuff?

Yes.  A very foolish behavior :)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deedee on May 16, 2008, 09:23:31 AM
When did fundamentalist christianity stop being a lifestyle choice?

I think Beach Bum's concern is that it will snuff out the reason for people marrying in general. This has not been born out in any study worldwide where gay marriage is accepted.  Heterosexual people still marry.

Beach Bum also thinks abortion should be outlawed, but he has as yet not adopted a single unwanted child. Nor does he want to pay for anyone else to do so as he can't afford it.

Must feel good to want to go back to the 1950's, with no plan whatsoever, but count on God to take care of everything.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2008, 09:28:24 AM
It appears that homosexuals have a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to marry and start a family.

The distinction of "protected class" melts away under the weight of a US citizen's fundamental right.

I, for one, am glad that government is being restrained from interfering in the private lives of citizens.  Aren't you?

Yes, any man has a right to marry a woman and any woman has a right to marry a man. 

Homosexuals are not a protected class under the Constitution and I think you know that Decker. 

I am not glad that four judges overruled the will of the people.  They should put this on the November ballot and let the people decide. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2008, 09:34:28 AM
When did fundamentalist christianity stop being a lifestyle choice?

I think Beach Bum's concern is that it will snuff out the reason for people marrying in general. This has not been born out in any study worldwide where gay marriage is accepted.  Heterosexual people still marry.

Beach Bum also thinks abortion should be outlawed, but he has as yet not adopted a single unwanted child. Nor does he want to pay for anyone else to do so as he can't afford it.

Must feel good to want to go back to the 1950's, with no plan whatsoever, but count on God to take care of everything.

What??  lol.  You smoking the ganja today?  My concern is judges legislating from the bench and trampling on the will of the people to use the government to force a lifestyle choice on people who have already voted against it. 

Deedee quit making stuff up.  When have I ever said abortion should be outlawed?  Quote me. 

No, I have never adopted an unwanted child.  I have my hands full with four of my own at the moment.  How many kids do you have? 

And where did I say I didn't want to pay for anyone else to adopt an unwanted child?  Good grief woman.  I don't recall ever even discussing that subject.   

And why are you focusing on me and not the issues?   


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on May 16, 2008, 09:55:40 AM
Yes, any man has a right to marry a woman and any woman has a right to marry a man. 

Homosexuals are not a protected class under the Constitution and I think you know that Decker. 

I am not glad that five judges overruled the will of the people.  They should put this on the November ballot and let the people decide. 
Is that what this is about?  The level of judicial scrutiny of gov. legislation is lower for protected classes under a 14th A analysis.

What is the judicial scrutiny for (14A) fundemantal rights violated by gov. legislation?  Isn't that judicial scrutiny strict scrutiny?  The same as for protected classes?  If homos enjoy a fundamental right to marriage then they enjoy a fundamental right to marriage.

Aside from all that, aren't you glad that big gov. is removed from the private affairs of people?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Tre on May 16, 2008, 09:57:50 AM
My concern is judges legislating from the bench and trampling on the will of the people to use the government to force a lifestyle choice on people who have already voted against it. 

Who is being forced to be gay??

Christ almighty, man, you're taking direct quotes from la-la-land today. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2008, 09:59:51 AM
Is that what this is about?  The level of judicial scrutiny of gov. legislation is lower for protected classes under a 14th A analysis.

What is the judicial scrutiny for (14A) fundemantal rights violated by gov. legislation?  Isn't that judicial scrutiny strict scrutiny?  The same as for protected classes?  If homos enjoy a fundamental right to marriage then they enjoy a fundamental right to marriage.

Aside from all that, aren't you glad that big gov. is removed from the private affairs of people?

Are you saying homosexuals are a protected class under the U.S. Constitution? 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2008, 10:04:29 AM
Who is being forced to be gay??

Christ almighty, man, you're taking direct quotes from la-la-land today. 

What on earth are you talking about?  I didn't say anyone was forced to be gay.  I said they are attempting to use the government to force people to accept a lifestyle choice. 

Do you need a civics lesson or something?  Marriage is a contract with the state.  It's in part a state funded institution.  In other words, we the people help pay for it.  People advocating homosexual marriage are attempting to use the government to force the people to accept this behavior as a state-endorsed concept.  What happened in California is four judges just said to the millions of voters:  screw you.  They are attempting to use the government to legitimize a lifestyle choice.     


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: 240 is Back on May 16, 2008, 10:05:05 AM
Who is being forced to be gay??

Christ almighty, man, you're taking direct quotes from la-la-land today. 

beach Bum = high school dropout, college professor, and business owner.

He lies a lot, so take what he says with a grain of salt.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Tre on May 16, 2008, 10:13:00 AM
What on earth are you talking about?  I didn't say anyone was forced to be gay.  I said they are attempting to use the government to force people to accept a lifestyle choice. 

Do you need a civics lesson or something?  Marriage is a contract with the state.  It's in part a state funded institution.  In other words, we the people help pay for it.  People advocating homosexual marriage are attempting to use the government to force the people to accept this behavior as a state-endorsed concept.  What happened in California is five judges just said to the millions of voters:  screw you.  They are attempting to use the government to legitimize a lifestyle choice.     

I've been 'forced to accept' marriage in order to save money, so now the shoe is on a different foot. 

Gays do not choose to be gay.  Sure, there are people who are in situations that warrant same-sex sexual activity, but they are not, by definition, gay.

Homosexuals are people who happen to be wired differently than non-homosexuals...but that doesn't make them NOT people. 

So-called 'Christians' shoot themselves in the foot every time they open their mouths on this issue.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on May 16, 2008, 10:21:30 AM
Are you saying homosexuals are a protected class under the U.S. Constitution? 
No, I'm saying the court has extended a fundamental right to marriage to homosexuals.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2008, 10:23:13 AM
I've been 'forced to accept' marriage in order to save money, so now the shoe is on a different foot. 

Gays do not choose to be gay.  Sure, there are people who are in situations that warrant same-sex sexual activity, but they are not, by definition, gay.

Homosexuals are people who happen to be wired differently than non-homosexuals...but that doesn't make them NOT people. 

So-called 'Christians' shoot themselves in the foot every time they open their mouths on this issue.

Homosexuals choose to be homosexual and there is no science that proves otherwise.

This isn't a "Christian" issue.  Check the numbers.  Voters overwhelming reject homosexual marriage whenever it's put on the ballot.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2008, 10:32:59 AM
No, I'm saying the court has extended a fundamental right to marriage to homosexuals.

They enjoy a right to marry a person of the opposite sex. 

Using your logic, laws banning polygamy should be unconstitutional. 

What do you think will happen when a homosexual marriage meets the Defense of Marriage Act? 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Tre on May 16, 2008, 10:42:50 AM
Homosexuals choose to be homosexual and there is no science that proves otherwise.

This isn't a "Christian" issue.  Check the numbers.  Voters overwhelming reject homosexual marriage whenever it's put on the ballot.

So, the rule of bigotry should be allowed?  Puh-leese, this is AMERICA. 

Why do you need expensive scientific research to tell you how - physiologically - people 'become' gay? 

Are all the gays (who state that they were born the way they are) liars? 

Why should I believe you and not them? 

As far as I know, you're the liar. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2008, 11:09:18 AM
So, the rule of bigotry should be allowed?  Puh-leese, this is AMERICA. 

Why do you need expensive scientific research to tell you how - physiologically - people 'become' gay? 

Are all the gays (who state that they were born the way they are) liars? 

Why should I believe you and not them? 

As far as I know, you're the liar. 

Opposing government endorsement of a lifestyle choice isn't bigotry.  And I agree, this is America, where people are free to do whatever the heck they want as consenting adults.  Just don't expect the government to legitimatize your behavior. 

Why do we need science?  Oh sure, let's just let people like you say homosexuality is genetic.  Works for me. 

Why should I believe you instead of the people who started as heterosexuals, chose to become homosexual, and then chose to become heterosexual again, like Anne Heche?

And don't forget that the homosexual lobby includes bisexuals under their umbrella.  Is bisexuality genetic too?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: calmus on May 16, 2008, 11:13:57 AM

Hahaha... nice to see getbig's biggest douchebag bigot in good form here. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on May 16, 2008, 11:39:53 AM
They enjoy a right to marry a person of the opposite sex. 

Using your logic, laws banning polygamy should be unconstitutional. 

What do you think will happen when a homosexual marriage meets the Defense of Marriage Act? 

I have not expressed an opinion on polygamy.  By my logic, the fundamental right to marriage should be extended to the velvet crowd. 

My logic?

I suppose a marriage btn a man and a bull moose is not such a bad thing.

We have to let americans be americans. 

We're free and lots of people have died for guaranteeing us that sort of freedom.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: youandme on May 16, 2008, 11:46:57 AM


We have to let americans be americans. 




With that said we are bound to the code of dogma

What type of effect does this have on society?

In my opinion it opens up the flood gates (no offense Tre, hehe)

Creating anomie (Emile Durkeheim, society values diminishing)

Very sad.

This should be fought, and it will be.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deedee on May 16, 2008, 11:56:54 AM
What??  lol.  You smoking the ganja today?  My concern is judges legislating from the bench and trampling on the will of the people to use the government to force a lifestyle choice on people who have already voted against it. 

Deedee quit making stuff up.  When have I ever said abortion should be outlawed?  Quote me. 

No, I have never adopted an unwanted child.  I have my hands full with four of my own at the moment.  How many kids do you have? 

And where did I say I didn't want to pay for anyone else to adopt an unwanted child?  Good grief woman.  I don't recall ever even discussing that subject.   

And why are you focusing on me and not the issues?   



You must be joking.





Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Colossus_500 on May 16, 2008, 11:58:40 AM
The men in black strike again.  A 4 to 3 decision.  So in the two states where this is legal (CA and MA) and the one state where it was almost legal (HI) it was the result of a handful of judges overruling the will of the people. 

At least one of the California Supreme Court justices gets it:

In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that although he agrees with some of the majority's conclusions, the court was overstepping its bounds in striking down the ban. Instead, he wrote, the issue should be left to the voters.


That's all there is to say about it.  Seven people overruled the vote of the people.  What's the point in voting if judges can do this.  Rest assured, this will be a HOT HOT HOT topic in the general election.  Now, it is on record that the judges could care less about what people think, and we know for a fact that a liberal-minded White House and Congress wants more legislation from the bench.  This is why they are stalling with the judicial nominees that President Bush selected. 



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2008, 12:03:07 PM
That's all there is to say about it.  Seven people overruled the vote of the people.  What's the point in voting if judges can do this.  Rest assured, this will be a HOT HOT HOT topic in the general election.  Now, it is on record that the judges could care less about what people think, and we know for a fact that a liberal-minded White House and Congress wants more legislation from the bench.  This is why they are stalling with the judicial nominees that President Bush selected. 



It was actually only 4 people.  It was a 4 to 3 decision.  Sounds like there will be a constitutional amendment on the November ballot in California.   


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Colossus_500 on May 16, 2008, 12:09:12 PM
It was actually only 4 people.  It was a 4 to 3 decision.  Sounds like there will be a constitutional amendment on the November ballot in California.   
Yes indeed. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Colossus_500 on May 16, 2008, 12:12:35 PM
A Disappointing Decision in California
source: aclj.org (http://aclj.org)

By a vote of 4-3, the California Supreme Court struck down a state ban on same-sex marriage — a ban that had the overwhelming approval of California voters.

The decision is a disappointing one and represents another example of an activist judiciary that overreached by taking this issue out of the hands of the state legislature where it belongs. We’re disappointed that the California high court failed to uphold what an overwhelming majority of California voters clearly understand — that the institution of marriage is limited to one man and one woman.  This decision guarantees one thing:  the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage once again moves to the forefront re-energizing the public and legal debate nationwide.

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George and the essence of the majority decision is summed up in this quote:  "Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."

Justices who dissented understood the fact that this issue rests with the voters and the state legislature.   Consider this conclusion in a dissent written by Justice Marvin R. Baxter and joined by Justice Ming W. Chin:   "A bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves."

More from the dissent:

"The majority … simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice. The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. On the contrary, as the majority concedes, our original Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex."

"If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority."


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deedee on May 16, 2008, 12:14:04 PM
What??  lol.  You smoking the ganja today?  My concern is judges legislating from the bench and trampling on the will of the people to use the government to force a lifestyle choice on people who have already voted against it. 

Deedee quit making stuff up.  When have I ever said abortion should be outlawed?  Quote me. 

No, I have never adopted an unwanted child.  I have my hands full with four of my own at the moment.  How many kids do you have? 

And where did I say I didn't want to pay for anyone else to adopt an unwanted child?  Good grief woman.  I don't recall ever even discussing that subject.   

And why are you focusing on me and not the issues?   

Actually, i don't smoke anything.  I suppose from this time on, we won't see any more of your trying to keep people from getting birth control.  :)



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Tre on May 16, 2008, 12:21:13 PM
Opposing government endorsement of a lifestyle choice isn't bigotry.  And I agree, this is America, where people are free to do whatever the heck they want as consenting adults.  Just don't expect the government to legitimatize your behavior. 

Why do we need science?  Oh sure, let's just let people like you say homosexuality is genetic.  Works for me. 

Why should I believe you instead of the people who started as heterosexuals, chose to become homosexual, and then chose to become heterosexual again, like Anne Heche?

And don't forget that the homosexual lobby includes bisexuals under their umbrella.  Is bisexuality genetic too?


If life has taught you anything, it should be that there are few absolutes and that the only constant is change. 

Some people are 0% homosexual, others are 100% homosexual, and a majority of the world's population falls somewhere in-between.  Along those same lines, people can be 'more homosexual' on some days than they are on others.

 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Colossus_500 on May 16, 2008, 12:38:30 PM
Rep. Istook: Pretzel Logic Behind Gay Marriage
Friday, May 16, 2008 9:49 AM
By: Ernest Istook
source: newsmax.com   (http://newsmax.com)

The law was just a plaything to California’s Supreme Court, and the justices twisted logic into a pretzel as they legalized same-sex marriage by judicial fiat.

The court also exposed the danger created by wishy-washy lawmakers who push “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” as a supposed middle-ground compromise. That actually is a deadly policy of appeasement. It was the very existence of such laws that the justices used to justify this outrageous decision.

By trying to appease homosexual rights activists, those who have refused to stand up for traditional marriage helped to create this court ruling. They are the Neville Chamberlains of the cultural wars.

In essence, California’s highest court yesterday decreed that society cannot have a “separate but equal” matchmaking plan for same-sex couples.

The moment California or any other state adopts civil unions, this decision makes clear, it’s on the slippery slope that makes same-sex marriage inevitable.

This ruling also further disenfranchises citizens and voters. The court not only usurped legislative power, it ignored the clear will of the 61 percent of California voters who in 2000 placed into law this language: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

A lone justice, Marvin Baxter, wrote a clear dissent describing how radical the ruling is and what he called the “legal jujitsu” used by the majority to rationalize its decision. Two other justices dissented, but not as forcefully as Justice Baxter.

The high court ruled that the existence of a “domestic partners” statute compelled it to overturn California’s marriage law and permit same-sex marriages. Otherwise, the court said, it would be a denial of equal protection if same-sex couples could get advantages similar to marriage but not actually be married as opposite-sex couples can.

The lesson? Lawmakers across the country who have promoted domestic partnerships as a compromise now are exposed as enablers of the full same-sex marriage agenda. They should be held accountable accordingly.

And places that have adopted such civil union laws should repeal them right away, lest they invite a blitzkrieg of more court decisions from activist judges, mimicking the California edict.

As the majority wrote for California’s Supreme Court: “California . . . in recent years has enacted comprehensive domestic partnership legislation under which a same-sex couple may enter into a legal relationship that affords the couple virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges, and imposes upon the couple virtually all of the same legal obligations and duties, that California law affords to and imposes upon a married couple.

“Accordingly, the legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples while denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official relationship with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes, but rather whether our state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an officially recognized family relationship . . . but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially designated a ‘marriage’ whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a ‘domestic partnership.’”

But Justice Baxter correctly noted that California’s high court made a three-way power shift that violates American principles of constitutional law:

# It usurped the state legislature’s authority to make laws, violating separation of powers.

# It usurped the people’s authority to make laws via initiative and referendum.

# Because the state constitution prohibits legislators from repealing laws passed by popular vote, the court gave the lawmakers a new power to repeal such laws indirectly.

Justice Baxter said it well. He wrote in his dissent: “Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid.

"California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority.

“The majority’s mode of analysis is particularly troubling. The majority relies heavily on the Legislature’s adoption of progressive civil rights protections for gays and lesbians to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

"In effect, the majority gives the Legislature indirectly power that body does not directly possess to amend the Constitution and repeal an initiative statute. But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves.

“Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.

“In doing so, the majority holds, in effect, that the Legislature has done indirectly what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly. Under article II, section 10, subdivision (c), that body cannot unilaterally repeal an initiative statute . . . Yet the majority suggests that, by enacting other statutes which do provide substantial rights to gays and lesbians — including domestic partnership rights which, under [Family Code] section 308.5, the Legislature could not call ‘marriage’ — the Legislature has given ‘explicit official recognition’ (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 68, 69) to a California right of equal treatment which, because it includes the right to marry, thereby invalidates section 308.5.

“I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference.”

California’s high court noted that other states are looking at this equal-protection argument as a basis for moving all the way to full-blown same-sex marriage in places where civil unions or domestic partnerships have been established.

Those who support traditional values — and an orderly democratic process that lets the people and their elected officials make decisions about marriage — should recognize the dangers inherent in this California decision. Any law that mimics marriage by another name needs re-examining and probably repeal as well, lest it become full-blown same-sex marriage.

California voters probably will vote this fall on changing their statutory marriage protection into stronger constitutional protection.

Voters there and in other states would be wise to elevate this matter into an election issue in every other state as well, because it is elected officials who created this opportunity for wayward judicial activism by trying to placate a radical agenda rather than standing up against it..

Those elected officials should not be permitted now to blame it all on the judges, wringing their hands and trying to deny their complicity.

It’s time to hold accountable those lawmakers who have opened the door for this court ruling by trying to appease homosexual rights activists with laws that allow civil unions. You cannot have peace at any price with those who seek to conquer and vanquish our values.

Ernest Istook calls himself a "recovering Congressman" from Oklahoma. He is now a distinguished fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on May 16, 2008, 12:48:27 PM
With that said we are bound to the code of dogma

What type of effect does this have on society?

In my opinion it opens up the flood gates (no offense Tre, hehe)

Creating anomie (Emile Durkeheim, society values diminishing)

Very sad.

This should be fought, and it will be.
I was joking. 

The only thing this decision threatens is the worldview of people bigoted, for whatever reason, against gay people.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2008, 12:48:35 PM
A Disappointing Decision in California
source: aclj.org (http://aclj.org)

By a vote of 4-3, the California Supreme Court struck down a state ban on same-sex marriage — a ban that had the overwhelming approval of California voters.

The decision is a disappointing one and represents another example of an activist judiciary that overreached by taking this issue out of the hands of the state legislature where it belongs. We’re disappointed that the California high court failed to uphold what an overwhelming majority of California voters clearly understand — that the institution of marriage is limited to one man and one woman.  This decision guarantees one thing:  the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage once again moves to the forefront re-energizing the public and legal debate nationwide.

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George and the essence of the majority decision is summed up in this quote:  "Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."

Justices who dissented understood the fact that this issue rests with the voters and the state legislature.   Consider this conclusion in a dissent written by Justice Marvin R. Baxter and joined by Justice Ming W. Chin:   "A bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves."

More from the dissent:

"The majority … simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice. The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. On the contrary, as the majority concedes, our original Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex."

"If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority."

Word.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2008, 12:52:36 PM
If life has taught you anything, it should be that there are few absolutes and that the only constant is change. 

Some people are 0% homosexual, others are 100% homosexual, and a majority of the world's population falls somewhere in-between.  Along those same lines, people can be 'more homosexual' on some days than they are on others.

 

Life has taught me there are absolutes, there is change, there is black, white, and gray. 

lol at your homosexual analysis.  Sorry, not trying to be rude, but c'mon dude.  A percentage? 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2008, 12:55:02 PM
Actually, i don't smoke anything.  I suppose from this time on, we won't see any more of your trying to keep people from getting birth control.  :)



Drunk maybe?  I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.  You don't usually come on here and just flat out make stuff up.  But I guess I was wrong.   

Birth control??  lol.  Wrong thread. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: youandme on May 16, 2008, 01:11:21 PM
I was joking. 

The only thing this decision threatens is the worldview of people bigoted, for whatever reason, against gay people.

Yeah I know, but it threatens more than that.

People being bigoted, thats casuality of going forward with this marriage 'thing'

This is not just change, it's fundamental chaos at the roots, principles and morals our country was based on.

They should be happy that society has accepted gay culture, leave it at that. What is the real reason they want to be married? What does marriage mean to a gay couple? Rights? Love? Togetherness? It seems like more of a crusade against fundamentals rather than legal obligations. Maybe I missed the boat.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2008, 01:27:22 PM

They should be happy that society has accepted gay culture, leave it at that. What is the real reason they want to be married? What does marriage mean to a gay couple? Rights? Love? Togetherness? It seems like more of a crusade against fundamentals rather than legal obligations. Maybe I missed the boat.

IMO, it's about legitimizing the lifestyle. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: OzmO on May 16, 2008, 02:52:46 PM
I really don't care.

it doesn't matter to me.  GAS, UNEMPLOYMENT, TAXES & A STRONG DOLLAR matter to me. 

I've done nothing to day but invite my friends and work associates to move to California so they can legally come out of the closet.

They are still denying they are gay.

Not that there is anything wring with that........ ;D

I hope they make marriage with animals legal next.  That way, some tards on Getbig can move to California too.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: calmus on May 16, 2008, 03:10:00 PM


I hope they make marriage with animals legal next.  That way, some tards on Getbig can move to California too.

Not cool, outing BB like that.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: War-Horse on May 16, 2008, 05:02:02 PM
Yeah I know, but it threatens more than that.

People being bigoted, thats casuality of going forward with this marriage 'thing'

This is not just change, it's fundamental chaos at the roots, principles and morals our country was based on.

They should be happy that society has accepted gay culture, leave it at that. What is the real reason they want to be married? What does marriage mean to a gay couple? Rights? Love? Togetherness? It seems like more of a crusade against fundamentals rather than legal obligations. Maybe I missed the boat.




Well put.    Whats next if we dont draw a line in the sand.??   


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 17, 2008, 06:38:40 AM
Hmm, should I get married now?  I can, you know.  ;D


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/05/16/notes051608.DTL

Court approves evil gay agenda

 . . . Think of it. Thousands of new weddings, a million new rehearsal dinner reservations, countless fresh registrations at regional Pottery Barns and Crate and Barrels, endless DJs replaying old Elton John and Celine Dion and Shrek soundtrack tunes. The sagging and desperate California economy is positively grinning at the idea, a grin which is right now going beautifully with the thousands of people already signing up for their ceremonies at city halls across the state.

Which means the only ones left still scowling, still bitter and miserable and unhappy about it all, are the ones who never understood much about love and progress in the first place. What a shame. They're gonna miss one hell of a reception.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: JBGRAY on May 17, 2008, 06:58:18 AM
And we slide ever closer to an "anything goes" society.  Speaking out against this or saying anything negative or critical of anything within the gay community is akin to speaking of Israel in this country:  you cannot openly speak of such things without being strongly condemned. 

Chalk another one up for the all-powerful Gay lobby.  Opposing sex marriages are just a lifestyle choice now aren't they?  Having a wife and children is the equivalent of an S&M marriage from the Fulsom Street Parade, isn't it?  And the Pink Hand continues to influence............... ..

Then again, what else can we expect from a state that houses an institution that spews forth garbage and filth across all mediums?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 17, 2008, 07:06:31 AM
And we slide ever closer to an "anything goes" society.  Speaking out against this or saying anything negative or critical of anything within the gay community is akin to speaking of Israel in this country:  you cannot openly speak of such things without being strongly condemned. 

Chalk another one up for the all-powerful Gay lobby.  Opposing sex marriages are just a lifestyle choice now aren't they?  Having a wife and children is the equivalent of an S&M marriage from the Fulsom Street Parade, isn't it?  And the Pink Hand continues to influence............... ..

Then again, what else can we expect from a state that houses an institution that spews forth garbage and filth across all mediums?

Yep!

Free the slaves.
Women and blacks can vote.
Gays and lesbians can marry.

Deal with it!  ;D


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 17, 2008, 08:58:56 AM
Yes, deal with it until November, when the people of California decide whether or not they agree with the four men in black. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: TerminalPower on May 17, 2008, 10:29:07 AM
4 idiots (judges).... overturn 4 million who voted to keep marriage between man and woman. 

I hear democracy getting flushed down the toilet. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: OzmO on May 17, 2008, 10:30:00 AM
4 idiots (judges).... overturn 4 million who voted to keep marriage between man and woman. 

I hear democracy getting flushed down the toilet. 

That's funny, that's what the liberals have been saying since 9/11


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: TerminalPower on May 17, 2008, 10:43:42 AM
That's funny, that's what the liberals have been saying since 9/11

Well let's unite and take over America then.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: OzmO on May 17, 2008, 10:44:24 AM
Well let's unite and take over America then.

When  would you like to march on Washington?   ;D


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: TerminalPower on May 17, 2008, 11:52:23 AM
When  would you like to march on Washington?   ;D

LOL...hell we need not march we to to invade.   :o


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 17, 2008, 12:46:14 PM
Homosexuals choose to be homosexual and there is no science that proves otherwise.

This isn't a "Christian" issue.  Check the numbers.  Voters overwhelming reject homosexual marriage whenever it's put on the ballot.

Bum - for about the millionth time - lack of evidence of concrete genetic factor does not prove that being gay is a choice.  It's a logial fallacy that you're either unable to comprehend or simply choose to ignore.

Gay human beings overwhelming say that it is not something they chose.

When you claim that it is a choice you're saying that either all gay people are liars (on this topic)  or that you, in your infinite wisdom, know what's going on in the hearts and minds of other people better than the actual people know themselves 



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 17, 2008, 12:58:57 PM
Bum - for about the millionth time - lack of evidence of concrete genetic factor does not prove that being gay is a choice.  It's a logial fallacy that you're either unable to comprehend or simply choose to ignore.

Gay human beings overwhelming say that it is not something they chose.

When you claim that it is a choice you're saying that either all gay people are liars (on this topic)  or that you, in your infinite wisdom, know what's going on in the hearts and minds of other people better than the actual people know themselves 



O.K.  I will let you humor me.  Lack of "concrete genetic factor"?  How about zero scientific proof.

It's obviously a choice.  From a scientific standpoint, there really isn't much to discuss.  The proof doesn’t exist.  If you want to rely on the overwhelming number of homosexuals you appear to know so intimately well, then go right ahead.  Doesn't really matter to me.   


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: OzmO on May 17, 2008, 01:01:53 PM
Do we "choose" to be heterosexual?

That was an argument i heard on the radio earlier this week.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 17, 2008, 01:07:19 PM
O.K.  I will let you humor me.  Lack of "concrete genetic factor"?  How about zero scientific proof.

It's obviously a choice.  From a scientific standpoint, there really isn't much to discuss.  The proof doesn’t exist.  If you want to rely on the overwhelming number of homosexuals you appear to know so intimately well, then go right ahead.  Doesn't really matter to me.   


so you're saying that if something can't be proven true then it MUST be false?

You're also agreeing that you know the what goes on in the mind and hearts of other people better than they know themself?

Do I understand you correctly??


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Hedgehog on May 17, 2008, 01:07:38 PM
Actually, I think the Gay lobby will win this thing.

Gays are a strong group in the society today. Very few have kids, they are well-above average in earnings and education.

Especially male gays are becoming increasingly a strong interest group, with more pulling power than their number would suggest. In comparison to eg feminists (half of the population!) or other minority groups, gays are very successful in getting their message through.

The image of a gay person being AIDS ridden and something wrong is getting increasingly outdated.

I think the Christian Conservatives are fighting in vain. The gays are just too strong and will sooner rather than later get marriage passed.

The strategy to attach gay issues to voting ballots aren't gonna work forever either.

Because the gay lobby is pulling votes, and those votes are valuable.

Everytime the GOP or an interest organisation associated with the GOP gets an gay issue attached to an election, they automatically gets the growing gay lobby against the GOP ticket.

Which will be disaster.

JMO.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 17, 2008, 01:15:43 PM
Do we "choose" to be heterosexual?

That was an argument i heard on the radio earlier this week.

You do what comes natural when you hit puberty, which includes being attracted to the opposite sex.   


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 17, 2008, 01:17:26 PM
so you're saying that if something can't be proven true then it MUST be false?

You're also agreeing that you know the what goes on in the mind and hearts of other people better than they know themself?

Do I understand you correctly??

I'm saying don't invent a fact and ask other people to disprove it. 

I didn't say anything about knowing what's in anyone mind or heart.  I was talking about science. 

So no, you don't understand me correctly. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 17, 2008, 01:19:08 PM
Actually, I think the Gay lobby will win this thing.

Gays are a strong group in the society today. Very few have kids, they are well-above average in earnings and education.

Especially male gays are becoming increasingly a strong interest group, with more pulling power than their number would suggest. In comparison to eg feminists (half of the population!) or other minority groups, gays are very successful in getting their message through.

The image of a gay person being AIDS ridden and something wrong is getting increasingly outdated.

I think the Christian Conservatives are fighting in vain. The gays are just too strong and will sooner rather than later get marriage passed.

The strategy to attach gay issues to voting ballots aren't gonna work forever either.

Because the gay lobby is pulling votes, and those votes are valuable.

Everytime the GOP or an interest organisation associated with the GOP gets an gay issue attached to an election, they automatically gets the growing gay lobby against the GOP ticket.

Which will be disaster.

JMO.

I've said before I believe things like homosexual marriage are inevitable.  But it should happen only when the people decide, not some knucklehead activist judges. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Hedgehog on May 17, 2008, 01:31:18 PM
I've said before I believe things like homosexual marriage are inevitable.  But it should happen only when the people decide, not some knucklehead activist judges. 

Opposing the gays would be political suicide. :-\

The gays have been discussing adoptions and shit for so long now, so marriage seems like a non-issue in comparison.

I used to be against gays having the right to adopt, but I realized that it wasn't based on facts, it just felt wrong.

So I don't really have an opinion, if people with experience on the topic thinks kids adopted by gays gets by just as fine, then I can't have any objections.

Or conversly, if they oppose it, I would go with that.

This is a case where I think you gotta go with what research and experts tells you.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: OzmO on May 17, 2008, 01:32:17 PM
You do what comes natural when you hit puberty, which includes being attracted to the opposite sex.   

Or the same sex or not?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 17, 2008, 04:49:07 PM
I'm saying don't invent a fact and ask other people to disprove it. 

I didn't say anything about knowing what's in anyone mind or heart.  I was talking about science. 

So no, you don't understand me correctly. 

you actually have "invented" a fact.

You choose to believe that sexual orientation is a choice and you claim this to be "fact" by virtue of a logical fallacy called Argument from Ignorance.

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




Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 17, 2008, 09:22:34 PM
Opposing the gays would be political suicide. :-\

The gays have been discussing adoptions and shit for so long now, so marriage seems like a non-issue in comparison.

I used to be against gays having the right to adopt, but I realized that it wasn't based on facts, it just felt wrong.

So I don't really have an opinion, if people with experience on the topic thinks kids adopted by gays gets by just as fine, then I can't have any objections.

Or conversly, if they oppose it, I would go with that.

This is a case where I think you gotta go with what research and experts tells you.

Not necessarily.  The Republican platform has explicitly or implicitly opposed special rights, including marriage rights, for homosexuals for years and I don't think it has hurt them at all.  Realistically, there probably aren't enough homosexual voters to make a difference in most elections.  The votes on homosexual marriage pretty much prove this.  Just look at the gay capital of the U.S. (California) and how the voters reserved marriage for a man and a woman by a 60 percent margin.  When this particular issue comes up for a vote, it loses every time, from coast to coast . . . and even in the middle of the ocean.  We rejected homosexual marriage by about a 70 percent margin in Hawaii, arguably the most liberal state in the country.   


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 17, 2008, 09:23:55 PM
Or the same sex or not?

Nah.  Not normally anyway.  How do you think we all got here?   :) 



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 17, 2008, 09:34:47 PM
Nah.  Not normally anyway.  How do you think we all got here?   :) 



about 90% of the men felt "compelled" to FUCK the women?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: calmus on May 17, 2008, 09:36:08 PM

Hahaha, I'm going to laugh when one of BB's spawn decides to play for the other team.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: OzmO on May 17, 2008, 09:36:45 PM
Nah.  Not normally anyway.  How do you think we all got here?   :) 




I always thought the best form of birth control was to kill a stork.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 17, 2008, 09:42:48 PM

I always thought the best form of birth control was to kill a stork.

 :)  Or this:

(http://mommylife.net/archives/scissors.jpg)



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: OzmO on May 17, 2008, 09:53:26 PM
:)  Or this:

(http://mommylife.net/archives/scissors.jpg)



Ouch,  :-X


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 17, 2008, 10:09:33 PM
still about 10% of men/women want to get naked with the same sex

more/less?

who cares?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 18, 2008, 07:36:29 AM
This cartoon is 4 years old... is it still relevant?  ::)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 18, 2008, 10:30:41 AM
California chief justice says same-sex marriage ruling was one of his toughest
Ronald M. George, a moderate Republican who voted with the majority, likens the case to civil rights battles.
By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

May 18, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO — In the days leading up to the California Supreme Court's historic same-sex marriage ruling Thursday, the decision "weighed most heavily" on Chief Justice Ronald M. George -- more so, he said, than any previous case in his nearly 17 years on the court.

The court was poised 4 to 3 not only to legalize same-sex marriage but also to extend to sexual orientation the same broad protections against bias previously saved for race, gender and religion. The decision went further than any other state high court's and would stun legal scholars, who have long characterized George and his court as cautious and middle of the road.

But as he read the legal arguments, the 68-year-old moderate Republican was drawn by memory to a long ago trip he made with his European immigrant parents through the American South. There, the signs warning "No Negro" or "No colored" left "quite an indelible impression on me," he recalled in a wide-ranging interview Friday.

"I think," he concluded, "there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe."

Yet he described his thinking on the constitutional status of state marriage laws as more of an evolution than an epiphany, the result of his reading and long discussions with staff lawyers.

As he sometimes does with the most incendiary cases, George assigned the majority opinion to himself. He wrote and rewrote, poring over draft after draft. Each word change had to be approved by the other three justices joining him in the majority. Even the likely dissenters had to be told in "pink slips" of every word change.

On Wednesday, the long-awaited ruling was finally ready.

Court Clerk Fritz Ohlrich locked up stacks of the fat, stapled court opinions in his office to protect against leaks, and George's staff asked that security be beefed up. A fellow justice told George she would be at her desk in the morning because she wanted "to be part of history."

On Thursday, George was in his chambers, being interviewed for a documentary on death penalty administration. He said he wished he had canceled the interview.

He was on camera when he heard "a big roar" from the crowd outside.

George, who grew up in Los Angeles, said he counts gays among his friends. Four years ago, he peered out his chambers' windows across from San Francisco City Hall to watch gay couples lining up to marry. He saw the showers of rice, the popping of champagne corks, the euphoria of the couples.

He later joined four other justices in nullifying the marriage licenses, which the court deemed to have been granted illegally by San Francisco. The court refused to take up the constitutional questions of same-sex marriage then, insisting the cases work their way up through the courts.

A trial judge ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. A court of appeal overturned that ruling. And finally, the case was on George's desk.

'Very fatalistic'

George said he had voted to void the marriage licenses because he did not think they should be "in limbo" while the courts tackled the constitutional issues. Once he took up the constitutional challenge, he said he did not permit any consideration of political fallout.

"I am very fatalistic about these things," he said. "If you worry, always looking over your shoulders, then maybe it's time to hang up your robe."

Court rules bar George from discussing the ruling until it takes effect in 30 days or more.

During the two-hour interview with The Times, he refused to disclose anything about the court's internal deliberations and responded to a number of questions by reading aloud from the decision. His elegant and comfortable chambers had neat stacks of papers piled on the floor, all over his desk and on a long conference table.

Asked whether he thought most Californians would accept the marriage ruling, George said flatly: "I really don't know."

He indicated he saw the fight for same-sex marriage as a civil rights case akin to the legal battle that ended laws banning interracial marriage. He noted that the California Supreme Court moved ahead of public sentiment 60 years ago when it became the first in the country to strike down the anti-miscegenation laws.

California's decision, in a case called Perez vs. Sharp, preceded the U.S. Supreme Court's action on the issue by 19 years. Even after that ruling, Californians passed an initiative that would permit racial discrimination in housing. The state high court again responded by overturning the law, George said.

Rather than ignoring voters, "what you are doing is applying the Constitution, the ultimate expression of the people's will," George said.

By the time of the same-sex marriage oral argument in March, three other justices had tentatively decided to join George's opinion. They are Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and (sole Democrat) Carlos R. Moreno, the court's more liberal wing.

George said the oral argument marked the "highest point" for the court, and he was "so glad" the session was televised. "I was incredibly proud of how we acquitted ourselves in such a difficult and well publicized case," he said.

Relations among the justices remained warm and cordial. George said he was even pleased with the dissents, which contended that a decision on same-sex marriage should be made by the people, not the court.

Some judges in other states that had considered same-sex marriage had written in ways that were "homophobic" and demeaning to lesbians and gays, statements "that you don't find" in California's dissenting opinions, George said. They were signed by Justices Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin and Carol A. Corrigan.

'A real conundrum'

"When is it that a court should act?" George mused. "When is it that a court is shirking its responsibility by not acting, and when is a court overreaching? That's a real conundrum. I have respect for people coming out on different sides of this issue."

George's reputation for caution is based on the court's tendency, under him, to decide cases narrowly, refusing to reach issues not necessary to the case at hand. Advocates thrust the central constitutional question of equality for gay people on the court; there was no way to avoid it.

George also had taken risks before. Shortly after Gov. Pete Wilson elevated him to chief justice in 1996, George obtained enough votes to change the court's stance on parental consent for abortion. He wrote the ruling that overturned the state's parental consent law, sparking a campaign by anti-abortion groups to oust him.

After a justice's appointment, voters are asked to retain him or her at the next gubernatorial election. At the time of the parental consent decision, some judges were just squeaking by their retention votes.

Eric George, 39, a Los Angeles lawyer and the chief's eldest son, decided to mount a full campaign to protect his father's seat. After George was reconfirmed by a healthy margin, Eric George said he gave his father some playful advice.

"Could you wait at least 10 years for another controversial decision like this?" he asked.

George said the only other decision that anguished him as much as same-sex marriage occurred at the beginning of his career, when as a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge he insisted that a serial killer known as the "Hillside Strangler" be prosecuted over the objections of the Los Angeles district attorney.

The district attorney's office said there wasn't enough evidence to win a conviction, so George asked the attorney general's office to prosecute it. The trial, expected to last a year, took two years. George remembers warning his wife, Barbara, "This may become known as George's folly." The jury eventually convicted on nine of 10 murder counts.

Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, who has closely followed George's court tenure, said "the biggest surprise" of the marriage ruling was that George favored it. Uelmen said George must have done "some real soul searching."

The "very carefully written opinion" reflects that George "is very sensitive to how this will be perceived," Uelmen said. "He realized that this more than any other thing he does as chief justice will define his legacy. He'll certainly take a good deal of political heat over this."

Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, said he had long expected George to vote against same-sex marriage.

"His change from where I thought he would be is baffling," said Staver, whose group promotes traditional marriage.

UCLA law professor Brad Sears said, "Definitely what created the majority was George's support."

A proposed initiative that would amend the Constitution to again ban same-sex marriage is headed for the November ballot, but even if it passes, gays in California will enjoy heightened protections from discrimination as a result of Thursday's ruling. George will appear on the state ballot for retention in two years.

He went home Thursday night drained and discovered a card left by friends at his San Francisco apartment. It was a Japanese watercolor of a branch with red berries. His friends had written "Congratulations!" inside.

"Why not go out on a limb?" the greeting on the card read.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 18, 2008, 10:35:50 AM
(http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/crcas/2004/crcas040206.gif)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: calmus on May 18, 2008, 11:17:09 AM
Love it when judges get their appointments and then see the light.  ;D

California chief justice says same-sex marriage ruling was one of his toughest
Ronald M. George, a moderate Republican who voted with the majority, likens the case to civil rights battles.
By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

May 18, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO — In the days leading up to the California Supreme Court's historic same-sex marriage ruling Thursday, the decision "weighed most heavily" on Chief Justice Ronald M. George -- more so, he said, than any previous case in his nearly 17 years on the court.

The court was poised 4 to 3 not only to legalize same-sex marriage but also to extend to sexual orientation the same broad protections against bias previously saved for race, gender and religion. The decision went further than any other state high court's and would stun legal scholars, who have long characterized George and his court as cautious and middle of the road.

But as he read the legal arguments, the 68-year-old moderate Republican was drawn by memory to a long ago trip he made with his European immigrant parents through the American South. There, the signs warning "No Negro" or "No colored" left "quite an indelible impression on me," he recalled in a wide-ranging interview Friday.

"I think," he concluded, "there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe."

Yet he described his thinking on the constitutional status of state marriage laws as more of an evolution than an epiphany, the result of his reading and long discussions with staff lawyers.

As he sometimes does with the most incendiary cases, George assigned the majority opinion to himself. He wrote and rewrote, poring over draft after draft. Each word change had to be approved by the other three justices joining him in the majority. Even the likely dissenters had to be told in "pink slips" of every word change.

On Wednesday, the long-awaited ruling was finally ready.

Court Clerk Fritz Ohlrich locked up stacks of the fat, stapled court opinions in his office to protect against leaks, and George's staff asked that security be beefed up. A fellow justice told George she would be at her desk in the morning because she wanted "to be part of history."

On Thursday, George was in his chambers, being interviewed for a documentary on death penalty administration. He said he wished he had canceled the interview.

He was on camera when he heard "a big roar" from the crowd outside.

George, who grew up in Los Angeles, said he counts gays among his friends. Four years ago, he peered out his chambers' windows across from San Francisco City Hall to watch gay couples lining up to marry. He saw the showers of rice, the popping of champagne corks, the euphoria of the couples.

He later joined four other justices in nullifying the marriage licenses, which the court deemed to have been granted illegally by San Francisco. The court refused to take up the constitutional questions of same-sex marriage then, insisting the cases work their way up through the courts.

A trial judge ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. A court of appeal overturned that ruling. And finally, the case was on George's desk.

'Very fatalistic'

George said he had voted to void the marriage licenses because he did not think they should be "in limbo" while the courts tackled the constitutional issues. Once he took up the constitutional challenge, he said he did not permit any consideration of political fallout.

"I am very fatalistic about these things," he said. "If you worry, always looking over your shoulders, then maybe it's time to hang up your robe."

Court rules bar George from discussing the ruling until it takes effect in 30 days or more.

During the two-hour interview with The Times, he refused to disclose anything about the court's internal deliberations and responded to a number of questions by reading aloud from the decision. His elegant and comfortable chambers had neat stacks of papers piled on the floor, all over his desk and on a long conference table.

Asked whether he thought most Californians would accept the marriage ruling, George said flatly: "I really don't know."

He indicated he saw the fight for same-sex marriage as a civil rights case akin to the legal battle that ended laws banning interracial marriage. He noted that the California Supreme Court moved ahead of public sentiment 60 years ago when it became the first in the country to strike down the anti-miscegenation laws.

California's decision, in a case called Perez vs. Sharp, preceded the U.S. Supreme Court's action on the issue by 19 years. Even after that ruling, Californians passed an initiative that would permit racial discrimination in housing. The state high court again responded by overturning the law, George said.

Rather than ignoring voters, "what you are doing is applying the Constitution, the ultimate expression of the people's will," George said.

By the time of the same-sex marriage oral argument in March, three other justices had tentatively decided to join George's opinion. They are Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and (sole Democrat) Carlos R. Moreno, the court's more liberal wing.

George said the oral argument marked the "highest point" for the court, and he was "so glad" the session was televised. "I was incredibly proud of how we acquitted ourselves in such a difficult and well publicized case," he said.

Relations among the justices remained warm and cordial. George said he was even pleased with the dissents, which contended that a decision on same-sex marriage should be made by the people, not the court.

Some judges in other states that had considered same-sex marriage had written in ways that were "homophobic" and demeaning to lesbians and gays, statements "that you don't find" in California's dissenting opinions, George said. They were signed by Justices Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin and Carol A. Corrigan.

'A real conundrum'

"When is it that a court should act?" George mused. "When is it that a court is shirking its responsibility by not acting, and when is a court overreaching? That's a real conundrum. I have respect for people coming out on different sides of this issue."

George's reputation for caution is based on the court's tendency, under him, to decide cases narrowly, refusing to reach issues not necessary to the case at hand. Advocates thrust the central constitutional question of equality for gay people on the court; there was no way to avoid it.

George also had taken risks before. Shortly after Gov. Pete Wilson elevated him to chief justice in 1996, George obtained enough votes to change the court's stance on parental consent for abortion. He wrote the ruling that overturned the state's parental consent law, sparking a campaign by anti-abortion groups to oust him.

After a justice's appointment, voters are asked to retain him or her at the next gubernatorial election. At the time of the parental consent decision, some judges were just squeaking by their retention votes.

Eric George, 39, a Los Angeles lawyer and the chief's eldest son, decided to mount a full campaign to protect his father's seat. After George was reconfirmed by a healthy margin, Eric George said he gave his father some playful advice.

"Could you wait at least 10 years for another controversial decision like this?" he asked.

George said the only other decision that anguished him as much as same-sex marriage occurred at the beginning of his career, when as a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge he insisted that a serial killer known as the "Hillside Strangler" be prosecuted over the objections of the Los Angeles district attorney.

The district attorney's office said there wasn't enough evidence to win a conviction, so George asked the attorney general's office to prosecute it. The trial, expected to last a year, took two years. George remembers warning his wife, Barbara, "This may become known as George's folly." The jury eventually convicted on nine of 10 murder counts.

Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, who has closely followed George's court tenure, said "the biggest surprise" of the marriage ruling was that George favored it. Uelmen said George must have done "some real soul searching."

The "very carefully written opinion" reflects that George "is very sensitive to how this will be perceived," Uelmen said. "He realized that this more than any other thing he does as chief justice will define his legacy. He'll certainly take a good deal of political heat over this."

Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, said he had long expected George to vote against same-sex marriage.

"His change from where I thought he would be is baffling," said Staver, whose group promotes traditional marriage.

UCLA law professor Brad Sears said, "Definitely what created the majority was George's support."

A proposed initiative that would amend the Constitution to again ban same-sex marriage is headed for the November ballot, but even if it passes, gays in California will enjoy heightened protections from discrimination as a result of Thursday's ruling. George will appear on the state ballot for retention in two years.

He went home Thursday night drained and discovered a card left by friends at his San Francisco apartment. It was a Japanese watercolor of a branch with red berries. His friends had written "Congratulations!" inside.

"Why not go out on a limb?" the greeting on the card read.




Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on May 19, 2008, 06:05:13 AM
O.K.  I will let you humor me.  Lack of "concrete genetic factor"?  How about zero scientific proof.

It's obviously a choice.  From a scientific standpoint, there really isn't much to discuss.  The proof doesn’t exist.  If you want to rely on the overwhelming number of homosexuals you appear to know so intimately well, then go right ahead.  Doesn't really matter to me.   

So animals are making an obvious lifestyle choice?

"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/061116_homosexual_animals.html


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Purple Aki on May 19, 2008, 06:17:19 AM
Honestly, what's the big fucking deal? We've had civil partnerships for gays in the UK for a couple of years now and the sky hasn't fallen in or anything.

Just look how happy Nordic and Diesel1 are these days.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 19, 2008, 06:46:14 AM
So animals are making an obvious lifestyle choice?

"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/061116_homosexual_animals.html

Ding! Ding! Ding!  We have a winner!

Anyone with even an associate’s degree in biology can tell you that diversity is written into the nature of biological systems; homosexuality is part of the diversity of nature’s portfolio.  It has been observed in animals for a long time.

For reasons (that do not really matter) Nature has decided that a certain percentage of the population (in man and animal) will have a homosexual orientation.  No amount of religious indoctrination, conservative thinking, or Constitutional amendments is ever going to change that.


Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name
By DINITIA SMITH

Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called ''ecstatic behavior'': that is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins. When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either.

At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly. Roy and Silo sat on it for the typical 34 days until a chick, Tango, was born. For the next two and a half months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Mr. Gramzay is full of praise for them.

''They did a great job,'' he said. He was standing inside the glassed-in penguin exhibit, where Roy and Silo had just finished lunch. Penguins usually like a swim after they eat, and Silo was in the water. Roy had finished his dip and was up on the beach.

Roy and Silo are hardly unusual. Milou and Squawk, two young males, are also beginning to exhibit courtship behavior, hanging out with each other, billing and bowing. Before them, the Central Park Zoo had Georgey and Mickey, two female Gentoo penguins who tried to incubate eggs together. And Wendell and Cass, a devoted male African penguin pair, live at the New York Aquarium in Coney Island. Indeed, scientists have found homosexual behavior throughout the animal world.

This growing body of science has been increasingly drawn into charged debates about homosexuality in American society, on subjects from gay marriage to sodomy laws, despite reluctance from experts in the field to extrapolate from animals to humans. Gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected. On the other hand, some conservative religious groups have condemned the same practices in the past, calling them ''animalistic.''

But if homosexuality occurs among animals, does that necessarily mean that it is natural for humans, too? And that raises a familiar question: if homosexuality is not a choice, but a result of natural forces that cannot be controlled, can it be immoral?

The open discussion of homosexual behavior in animals is relatively new. ''There has been a certain cultural shyness about admitting it,'' said Frans de Waal, whose 1997 book, ''Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape'' (University of California Press), unleashed a torrent of discussion about animal sexuality. Bonobos, apes closely related to humans, are wildly energetic sexually. Studies show that whether observed in the wild or in captivity, nearly all are bisexual, and nearly half their sexual interactions are with the same sex. Female bonobos have been observed to engage in homosexual activity almost hourly...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9506EFD9113BF934A35751C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 19, 2008, 07:07:37 AM
So animals are making an obvious lifestyle choice?

"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/061116_homosexual_animals.html

Decker - surely you're aware by now that Bum simply chooses to ignore anything that doesn't fit his pre-conceived beliefs on pretty much any topic.

 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on May 19, 2008, 07:13:36 AM
Decker - surely you're aware by now that Bum simply chooses to ignore anything that doesn't fit his pre-conceived beliefs on pretty much any topic.

 
I like Beach Bum.  He's tenacious. 

On the matter at hand, it will be interesting to see his response to the animal kingdom's lifestyle choice.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: OzmO on May 19, 2008, 07:16:50 AM
I like Beach Bum.  He's tenacious. 

On the matter at hand, it will be interesting to see his response to the animal kingdom's lifestyle choice.

It's simple, Those are animals.  Humans are different.   ;D


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on May 19, 2008, 07:21:05 AM
It's simple, Those are animals.  Humans are different.   ;D
That's really good Ozmo.  I mean it.  That does resemble one of his responses.

I suppose if I were to answer that, I'd point out that human consciousness is more sophisticated than animal consciousnes.  If 'lifestyle choice' encompasses a reflective perspective where many lifestyles are considered but only one chosen, then I'd have to say that animals are not capable of that sort of mentation.

Therefore the notion that homosexuality, common to both the human and animal worlds, is not a lifestyle choice.

It's something else.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: OzmO on May 19, 2008, 07:33:46 AM
That's really good Ozmo.  I mean it.  That does resemble one of his responses.

I suppose if I were to answer that, I'd point out that human consciousness is more sophisticated than animal consciousnes.  If 'lifestyle choice' encompasses a reflective perspective where many lifestyles are considered but only one chosen, then I'd have to say that animals are not capable of that sort of mentation.

Therefore the notion that homosexuality, common to both the human and animal worlds, is not a lifestyle choice.

It's something else.
thanks  :)

BB is great guy, IMO, and I don't get why some people are all over him.   Although we don't agree on at least half of every thing we talk about he's seems to be a good family man with principles. 

But to the issue:

I've always wondered why someone would "choose" to do something that would make their skin crawl or not give them pleasure.

Sex with a woman for a man that's truly homosexual must be as revolting as sex with a man for a man who is heterosexual.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on May 19, 2008, 07:39:09 AM
thanks  :)

BB is great guy, IMO, and I don't get why some people are all over him.   Although we don't agree on at least half of every thing we talk about he's seems to be a good family man with principles. 

But to the issue:

I've always wondered why someone would "choose" to do something that would make their skin crawl or not give them pleasure.

Sex with a woman for a man that's truly homosexual must be as revolting as sex with a man for a man who is heterosexual.
With all that living in the closet, getting dragged to death behind a pickup truck and general second class citizenry, it's a wonder more people aren't clamoring to choose the lifestyle.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 19, 2008, 07:46:15 AM
I'd have more respect for Bum if he wouldn't avoid debate when confronted with his illogical and at times bigoted arguments.

It would be one thing if he just said that he doesn't approve of the lifestyle of gay people.   

Instead he continually uses patently flawed logic to pretend he's proven that being gay is a choice.

I also can't ignore the fact that he agrees with Dobson that you can "de-gay" your kid by taking a shower and letting him check out your junk and then showing him how to to pound square pegs in square holes.

wtf???


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on May 19, 2008, 07:50:44 AM
I'd have more respect for Bum if he wouldn't avoid debate when confronted with his illogical and at times bigoted arguments.

It would be one thing if he just said that he doesn't approve of the lifestyle of gay people.   

Instead he continually uses patently flawed logic to pretend he's proven that being gay is a choice.

I also can't ignore the fact that he agrees with Dobson that you can "de-gay" your kid by taking a shower and letting him check out your junk and then showing him how to to pound square pegs in square holes.

wtf???
Rare is the time that chill runs down my spine from something I read on these boards. 

That de-gay shit just made the list.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 19, 2008, 08:03:27 AM
So animals are making an obvious lifestyle choice?

"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/061116_homosexual_animals.html

Animals engage in abnormal/unnatural behavior too.  And abnormal/unnatural behavior occurring in the animal kingdom doesn't suddenly become normal when humans choose to engage in the same behavior. 

For example, infanticide. 

Infanticide (zoology)
 
A lioness may have her cubs destroyed if the pride's males are overthrown.In animals, infanticide involves the killing of young offspring by a mature animal of its own species, and is studied in zoology, specifically in the field of ethology. Ovicide is the analogous destruction of eggs. Although human infanticide has been widely studied, the practice has been observed in many other species throughout the animal kingdom. These include microscopic rotifers, insects, fish, amphibians, birds and mammals. Infanticide can be practiced by both males and females.
. . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 19, 2008, 08:06:17 AM
Rare is the time that chill runs down my spine from something I read on these boards. 

That de-gay shit just made the list.

it's even creepier when you realize that Dobson is totally serious:

Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.

http://www2.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/a000000264.cfm


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 19, 2008, 08:15:03 AM
thanks  :)

BB is great guy, IMO, and I don't get why some people are all over him.   Although we don't agree on at least half of every thing we talk about he's seems to be a good family man with principles. 

But to the issue:

I've always wondered why someone would "choose" to do something that would make their skin crawl or not give them pleasure.

Sex with a woman for a man that's truly homosexual must be as revolting as sex with a man for a man who is heterosexual.

Yep. :-[


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on May 19, 2008, 08:48:59 AM
Animals engage in abnormal/unnatural behavior too.  And abnormal/unnatural behavior occurring in the animal kingdom doesn't suddenly become normal when humans choose to engage in the same behavior. 

For example, infanticide. 

Infanticide (zoology)
 
A lioness may have her cubs destroyed if the pride's males are overthrown.In animals, infanticide involves the killing of young offspring by a mature animal of its own species, and is studied in zoology, specifically in the field of ethology. Ovicide is the analogous destruction of eggs. Although human infanticide has been widely studied, the practice has been observed in many other species throughout the animal kingdom. These include microscopic rotifers, insects, fish, amphibians, birds and mammals. Infanticide can be practiced by both males and females.
. . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)
Make up your mind Beach Bum.  Is homosexuality an obvious lifestyle choice or is it deviant behavior?  By definition, homosexuality is not normal.  By 'normal' I mean the norm--what most people are doing.  Homosexuals make up, what, 10% of the population.  As far as sexuality goes, that is definitely not the norm.

Then again, to Freud, all sexual expression that is not coital is deviant.  So kissing, oral sex anal sex and the vast panoply of other sexual experiments/expressions is deviant.

Infanticide?  Why not try cannibalism?  Necrophilia is up there as well. 

How does any of that prove that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or aberrant behavior?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Colossus_500 on May 19, 2008, 09:31:15 AM
(http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/crcas/2004/crcas040206.gif)
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 19, 2008, 09:40:34 AM
Animals engage in abnormal/unnatural behavior too.  And abnormal/unnatural behavior occurring in the animal kingdom doesn't suddenly become normal when humans choose to engage in the same behavior. 

For example, infanticide. 

Infanticide (zoology)
 
A lioness may have her cubs destroyed if the pride's males are overthrown.In animals, infanticide involves the killing of young offspring by a mature animal of its own species, and is studied in zoology, specifically in the field of ethology. Ovicide is the analogous destruction of eggs. Although human infanticide has been widely studied, the practice has been observed in many other species throughout the animal kingdom. These include microscopic rotifers, insects, fish, amphibians, birds and mammals. Infanticide can be practiced by both males and females.
. . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)

Bum - you seem to be making a ethical judgement based on your own human standards.

Have you ever considered that there might be a biological imperative why this activity might occur within the animal kingdom?



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 19, 2008, 10:00:30 AM
thanks  :)

BB is great guy, IMO, and I don't get why some people are all over him.   Although we don't agree on at least half of every thing we talk about he's seems to be a good family man with principles. 

But to the issue:

I've always wondered why someone would "choose" to do something that would make their skin crawl or not give them pleasure.

Sex with a woman for a man that's truly homosexual must be as revolting as sex with a man for a man who is heterosexual.

Thanks mang.   :)  It is really amusing to me how seriously some folks take this anonymous message board.  Some out-of-whack priorities. 



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 19, 2008, 10:03:11 AM
Make up your mind Beach Bum.  Is homosexuality an obvious lifestyle choice or is it deviant behavior?  By definition, homosexuality is not normal.  By 'normal' I mean the norm--what most people are doing.  Homosexuals make up, what, 10% of the population.  As far as sexuality goes, that is definitely not the norm.

Then again, to Freud, all sexual expression that is not coital is deviant.  So kissing, oral sex anal sex and the vast panoply of other sexual experiments/expressions is deviant.

Infanticide?  Why not try cannibalism?  Necrophilia is up there as well. 

How does any of that prove that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or aberrant behavior?


Make up your mind Decker.  Does the fact that behavior occurs in the animal kingdom mean the same behavior is predetermined in humans or not?  You're the one who brought up animals.  Follow your analysis to its logical conclusion (which would include cannibalism, etc.).   


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 19, 2008, 10:07:34 AM
Bum - you seem to be making a ethical judgement based on your own human standards.

Have you ever considered that there might be a biological imperative why this activity might occur within the animal kingdom?



I think this might be why you get frustrated Straw Man.  You constantly bring up red herrings, straw men, etc.  (That's why I think you have a great name.)  I didn't say a word about ethics.

And no, I have never considered that abnormal/unnatural behavior in animals is a "biological imperative."  The sole purpose of sex in the animal kingdom is propagation of their species.  Animals don't engage in homosexual behavior to survive.     




Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on May 19, 2008, 10:14:51 AM
Make up your mind Decker.  Does the fact that behavior occurs in the animal kingdom mean the same behavior is predetermined in humans or not?  You're the one who brought up animals.  Follow your analysis to its logical conclusion (which would include cannibalism, etc.).   
My mind is made up.  Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time.  It was accepted and practiced as normal during Classical Antiquity.  I don't care how a man or woman lives their lives.  As long as they pursue life, liberty, and happiness in a manner that does not interfere with my own interests, I say live and let live.

This is not a slippery slope argument even though your trying to make it into one.  So the references to infanticide and cannibalism do not belong.

You are the one that called homosexuality an obvious lifestyle choice.

Animals do not create an array of choices on how they should live their lives.

Yet homosexuality does exist in the animal kingdom.

Therefore there must be another explanation other than conscious choice since animals are not capable, for the most part, of framing their existences and choosing a homosexual lifestyle.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 19, 2008, 10:27:31 AM
My mind is made up.  Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time.  It was accepted and practiced as normal during Classical Antiquity.  I don't care how a man or woman lives their lives.  As long as they pursue life, liberty, and happiness in a manner that does not interfere with my own interests, I say live and let live.

This is not a slippery slope argument even though your trying to make it into one.  So the references to infanticide and cannibalism do not belong.

You are the one that called homosexuality an obvious lifestyle choice.

Animals do not create an array of choices on how they should live their lives.

Yet homosexuality does exist in the animal kingdom.

Therefore there must be another explanation other than conscious choice since animals are not capable, for the most part, of framing their existences and choosing a homosexual lifestyle.



I would imagine all sorts of abnormal/unnatural behavior has been around quite a long time.  That really doesn't prove anything. 

Let me ensure I understand you.  Because animals engage in homosexual behavior, that same behavior in humans is therefore "normal"?  But when animals engage in things like infanticide, that same behavior in humans is abnormal/unnatural?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 19, 2008, 10:32:53 AM
I think this might be why you get frustrated Straw Man.  You constantly bring up red herrings, straw men, etc.  (That's why I think you have a great name.)  I didn't say a word about ethics.

Bum - I stopped being frustrated by your simplistic and child-like view of the world a long time ago.   

Animals engage in abnormal/unnatural behavior too. 

Back to your usual semantic horseshit?

Calling something abnormal/unnatural is an ethical judgement based on your own personal standards.   

And no, I have never considered that abnormal/unnatural behavior in animals is a "biological imperative."  The sole purpose of sex in the animal kingdom is propagation of their species.  Animals don't engage in homosexual behavior to survive.    


Wrong again - Animals also engage in sexual activity to express dominance and for pleasure too.   Not unlike humans


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 19, 2008, 10:38:34 AM
Bum - I stopped being frustrated by your simplistic and child-like view of the world a long time ago.   

Back to your usual semantic horseshit?

Calling something abnormal/unnatural is an ethical judgement based on your own personal standards.   

Wrong again - Animals also engage in sexual activity to express dominance and for pleasure too.   Not unlike humans

Listen little man (or woman, whatever the heck you are), why don't you just sit this one out.  You always have trouble following discussions. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on May 19, 2008, 10:39:14 AM
I would imagine all sorts of abnormal/unnatural behavior has been around quite a long time.  That really doesn't prove anything. 

Let me ensure I understand you.  Because animals engage in homosexual behavior, that same behavior in humans is therefore "normal"?  But when animals engage in things like infanticide, that same behavior in humans is abnormal/unnatural?
No, homosexuality was not considered 'abnormal/unnatural' in Classical Antiquity.  It was practiced and accepted.

Is infanticide an 'obvious lifestyle choice' the way you purport homosexuality to be?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 19, 2008, 10:39:47 AM
Listen little man (or woman, whatever the heck you are), why don't you just sit this one out.  You always have trouble following discussions. 

how about you address the argument instead of acting like a little girl with sand in her vagina?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 19, 2008, 11:08:20 AM
No, homosexuality was not considered 'abnormal/unnatural' in Classical Antiquity.  It was practiced and accepted.

Is infanticide an 'obvious lifestyle choice' the way you purport homosexuality to be?

I'll assume I do understand your position.  It's irreconcilably inconsistent. 

Infanticide is obviously a choice, unless the person is insane.  The fact humans and animals practice infanticide doesn't make the behavior normal/natural in humans.   


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 19, 2008, 11:09:31 AM
how about you address the argument instead of acting like a little girl with sand in her vagina?


 ::)  Ah shaddap Bob Marley.  Is this one of those days you occasionally smoke marijuana?  That would explain why you're acting a fool (again). 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: 240 is Back on May 19, 2008, 11:11:57 AM
how about you address the argument instead of acting like a little girl with sand in her vagina?


I'm not so sure Beach bum is acting.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on May 19, 2008, 11:17:48 AM
I'll assume I do understand your position.  It's irreconcilably inconsistent. 

Infanticide is obviously a choice, unless the person is insane.  The fact humans and animals practice infanticide doesn't make the behavior normal/natural in humans.   
The fact that both humans and animals practice homosexuality pretty much kills your theory that it's a lifestyle choice.

Unless of course animals are operating on a goal setting/teleological course for self determination of which I am not aware.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Colossus_500 on May 19, 2008, 11:23:07 AM
The fact that both humans and animals practice homosexuality pretty much kills your theory that it's a lifestyle choice.

Unless of course animals are operating on a goal setting/teleological course self determination of which I am not aware.
There's no evidence that environmental factors (rather than genetic code) play a key role in homosexuals?   ???


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Hedgehog on May 19, 2008, 11:24:31 AM
I think we need Bay or another gay person's input on this one.

And Bay, please giv us your honest thoughts, no BS. Just keep it real.

Cuz I'd imagine you would've thought about this one more than any of us.

I mean, is there something psychological, or is it purely biological?

In other words, how does it feel to be gay?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on May 19, 2008, 11:38:07 AM
There's no evidence that environmental factors (rather than genetic code) play a key role in homosexuals?   ???
I don't know what the cause is.  I do know that it is not a lifestyle choice.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 19, 2008, 12:02:34 PM
I think we need Bay or another gay person's input on this one.

And Bay, please giv us your honest thoughts, no BS. Just keep it real.

Cuz I'd imagine you would've thought about this one more than any of us.

I mean, is there something psychological, or is it purely biological?

In other words, how does it feel to be gay?

How does it feel to be straight?  I don't know what you're really asking, but I offered one theory on the 'purpose' of homosexuality here http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=20939.msg2991700#msg2991700

There may not be a single answer to whatever it is you are asking.  Different people have different experiences and perspectives.  Some people do not 'realize' they are gay until very late in life (20's 30's 40's 50s) while other people know it from a very early age.  Haven't you ever observed a kid that was, say, three or four years old and thought to yourself "that kid is going to be gay when he grows up"?  And then he does.  Is that kid making a choice to be gay at 3 years old?  I don't think so.

Despite her parents and conservative environment Mary Cheney grew up to be a lesbian.  Did she choose that?  I don't think so.


Back to the Supreme Court's ruling: issues of civil rights and equality must never be decided by the 'will of the people' or popular opinion because popular opinion is often popular folly.  A majority of people can be easily manipulated (by a good orator, commercials, advertising religion, etc.) into voting for all kinds of nonsense, but the Courts are there to make sure that whatever is voted on by the public or the legislature passes a Constitutional test.  The Constitution demands equal protection under the law for all citizens.  That is a lesson the country had to be reminded of when it came to blacks, women, and now gays and lesbians... there will certainly be another group in the future... 

Even with the Constitution in place there is a higher test: would I want to be treated that way?  The fundamental principal of equality is what this is about.  The reality is not everyone believes in equality.  History tells us that has always been true; perhaps it always will be.  :(


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 19, 2008, 12:03:05 PM
::)  Ah shaddap Bob Marley.  Is this one of those days you occasionally smoke marijuana?  That would explain why you're acting a fool (again). 

If nothing else, I  commend your self-discipline for waiting so long before starting your usual ad-hominen bullshit.








Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: calmus on May 19, 2008, 12:53:02 PM
Hahhaha. Gramps can melt all day long (actually he's been melting for two days now), but the gay marriage cat is out of the bag.   ;D


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 19, 2008, 01:05:02 PM
The fact that both humans and animals practice homosexuality pretty much kills your theory that it's a lifestyle choice.

Unless of course animals are operating on a goal setting/teleological course for self determination of which I am not aware.

The fact that both humans and animals practice infanticide pretty much makes your theory that animal behavior normalizes human behavior patently absurd. 

The connection doesn't work Decker. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 19, 2008, 01:05:41 PM
If nothing else, I  commend your self-discipline for waiting so long before starting your usual ad-hominen bullshit.








Oh boo hoo.  Quit crying.  Man up already.   ::)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 19, 2008, 02:45:36 PM
Oh boo hoo.  Quit crying.  Man up already.   ::)

Who's crying?

You're the one that melted down about 5 posts ago



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Colossus_500 on May 19, 2008, 03:31:57 PM
I don't know what the cause is.  I do know that it is not a lifestyle choice.
If you don't know what the cause is, then how is it you are so certan it is NOT a lifestyle choice? 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: calmus on May 19, 2008, 03:33:02 PM
If you don't know what the cause is, then how is it you are so certan it is NOT a lifestyle choice? 

So what if it's a lifestyle choice? 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: OzmO on May 19, 2008, 04:01:00 PM
If you don't know what the cause is, then how is it you are so certan it is NOT a lifestyle choice? 

Logic works for me.

I've always wondered why someone would "choose" to do something that would make their skin crawl or not give them pleasure.

Sex with a woman for a man that's truly homosexual must be as revolting as sex with a man for a man who is heterosexual.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 19, 2008, 04:37:05 PM
If you don't know what the cause is, then how is it you are so certan it is NOT a lifestyle choice? 

Ding! 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 19, 2008, 06:32:11 PM
Ding! 

Is that the sound you hear in your hollow skull?

Who the fuck cares either way?

Seriously

WHY DOES IT MATTER?




Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: War-Horse on May 19, 2008, 06:47:51 PM
Humans "Being created by God" have a responsibility to act within moral guidlines of what the creator states in the scriptures.
I realize that there are disturbing things (In the scriptures)  that were allowed under some circumstances, but that doesnt mean it was "Condoned"

As sinners we have animal desires at times but we are to fight and put ourselves above this.


Now in my opinion....I think alot of gays are born this way......i had a friend who explained what torture it was for him to be attracted to females (No he wasnt coming on to me) ;D  he said if i told you right now that you had to start being attracted to men tomorrow, that society demanded it, how would you feel??

This made alot of sense to me and how do you explain some guys who are effiminite talkers and some girl jocks that could clean your clock.??

Even in Bodybuilding we realize hormone levels come in all different levels...some guys gain easy and some dont......

That said God, loves all of his children and will give them the strength.  Im not worth one plug nickel more than any other human on this planet..(gay or not).......Each of us has different challenges to overcome.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: calmus on May 19, 2008, 06:51:35 PM
Humans "Being created by God" have a responsibility to act within moral guidlines of what the creator states in the scriptures.
I realize that there are disturbing things (In the scriptures)  that were allowed under some circumstances, but that doesnt mean it was "Condoned"

As sinners we have animal desires at times but we are to fight and put ourselves above this.


Now in my opinion....I think alot of gays are born this way......i had a friend who explained what torture it was for him to be attracted to females (No he wasnt coming on to me) ;D  he said if i told you right now that you had to start being attracted to men tomorrow, that society demanded it, how would you feel??

This made alot of sense to me and how do you explain some guys who are effiminite talkers and some girl jocks that could clean your clock.??

Even in Bodybuilding we realize hormone levels come in all different levels...some guys gain easy and some dont......

That said God, loves all of his children and will give them the strength.  Im not worth one plug nickel more than any other human on this planet..(gay or not).......Each of us has different challenges to overcome.

Good post. 

And what if God created you with both sets of genitalia?  Should you consult a priest/pastor about whether God wanted you to be of male or female gender? Or should you just let the doctor play God as they used to in the past?



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: War-Horse on May 19, 2008, 06:57:07 PM
Good post. 

And what if God created you with both sets of genitalia?  Should you consult a priest/pastor about whether God wanted you to be of male or female gender? Or should you just let the doctor play God as they used to in the past?





Hermaphrodites??    Id say it would be their choice.... :-\


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on May 20, 2008, 05:55:35 AM
The fact that both humans and animals practice infanticide pretty much makes your theory that animal behavior normalizes human behavior patently absurd. 

The connection doesn't work Decker. 
I have an idea. 

Since you state that homosexuality is an obvious lifestyle choice, why don't you sit down with a squirrel, dog, whale and bird and have a roundtable discussion about the criteria they use to determine whether they choose, as part of their lifestyles, to be gay.

To choose, one has to be conscious of the options available to fulfill a purpose.  If animals are as capable as humans of making lifestyle choices, then you should have no problem eliciting that information in a discussion with them.

PS:  You are confusing "life style choice"  with aberrant behavior.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 20, 2008, 07:40:20 AM
I have an idea. 

Since you state that homosexuality is an obvious lifestyle choice, why don't you sit down with a squirrel, dog, whale and bird and have a roundtable discussion about the criteria they use to determine whether they choose, as part of their lifestyles, to be gay.

To choose, one has to be conscious of the options available to fulfill a purpose.  If animals are as capable as humans of making lifestyle choices, then you should have no problem eliciting that information in a discussion with them.

PS:  You are confusing "life style choice"  with aberrant behavior.

I have a better idea.  Since you state that abnormal animal behavior makes the same behavior in humans normal, why don't you find a lawyer friend who does criminal defense and tell him or her the next time they defend a woman accused of killing her husband to use the praying mantis defense. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on May 20, 2008, 07:51:32 AM
Beach Bum:  "homosexuality is an obvious lifestyle choice"

Decker: "Homosexuality is in the animal kingdom but animals cannot consciously choose to be homosexual b/c they lack the capacity to make that sort of sophisticated choice"

Beach Bum:  "So you're saying animal behavior normalizes human behavior"

Decker:  "What are you talking about and why are you changing the subject from "homosexuality is an obvious lifestyle choice" to "animal behavior normalizes human behavior"?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 20, 2008, 07:59:39 AM
Beach Bum:  Homosexuality is an obvious lifestyle choice.  There is no scientific proof whatsoever that homosexuality is genetic.

Decker:  But teacher . . . I mean Beach Bum, look at the fact that animals engage in homosexual behavior.

Beach Bum:  The fact animals engage in abnormal behavior does not in any way establish that the same behavior in humans is normal.  For example, look at infanticide, which happens with both animals and humans. 

Decker:  [stammer, hedge, move goal posts] . . . Well. . . . I don't know what causes homosexuality, but I know it's not a lifestyle choice.  Now why don't I give you an absurd hypothetical . . . like go talk with animals.  Yes, Beach Bum, go talk with animals!   

Beach Bum:  [sighing, seeing the obvious signs of a person trying to save a ridiculous analogy]  Why don't you have a lawyer friend use the praying mantis defense.

[Decker and Beach Bum now exchange mock question and answer]


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on May 20, 2008, 08:25:45 AM
Beach Bum:  Homosexuality is an obvious lifestyle choice.  There is no scientific proof whatsoever that homosexuality is genetic.

Decker:  But teacher . . . I mean Beach Bum, look at the fact that animals engage in homosexual behavior.

Beach Bum:  The fact animals engage in abnormal behavior does not in any way establish that the same behavior in humans is normal.  For example, look at infanticide, which happens with both animals and humans. 

Decker:  [stammer, hedge, move goal posts] . . . Well. . . . I don't know what causes homosexuality, but I know it's not a lifestyle choice.  Now why don't I give you an absurd hypothetical . . . like go talk with animals.  Yes, Beach Bum, go talk with animals!   

Beach Bum:  [sighing, seeing the obvious signs of a person trying to save a ridiculous analogy]  Why don't you have a lawyer friend use the praying mantis defense.

[Decker and Beach Bum now exchange mock question and answer]

I like you Beach Bum.  But you are a master at obfuscation.

You changed the subject from homosexuality as an "obvious lifestyle choice" to some ridiculous abstraction involving infanticide, animals and people.

You did that.  Just look over the past posts.

Back to the matter at hand.  Just answer me one question if you please:

If homosexuality is an "obvious lifestyle choice", do animals obviously choose to be homosexual?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: youandme on May 20, 2008, 08:27:48 AM
someone brought up transexuals, this thread was lost on page 1 haha


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: JBGRAY on May 20, 2008, 08:58:14 AM
Yep!

Free the slaves.
Women and blacks can vote.
Gays and lesbians can marry.

Deal with it!  ;D

Sorry for the late response, but.....

You are correct.  I can and will deal with it.  I don't have to like it, as I believe things such as homosexuality should be kept to the dark and secret recesses of society......behind closed doors, and not in the open.  It's my opinion, and it's an opinion that the majority of the world's people share.  It's an opinion that isn't going to be changed, nor is it going to go away.  You can scream accusations of bigotry all day, but you can't stifle and silence millions on an everyday basis.  Tolerance goes both ways here. 

In addition, comparing the gay community's "plight" to what was once legalized slavery is weak and downright offensive.  The financially richest tier of people in the US as a group have no claim nor no basis on identifying and comparing themselves to the various plights of peoples within the US, past and present.   



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 20, 2008, 09:36:03 AM
Sorry for the late response, but.....

You are correct.  I can and will deal with it.  I don't have to like it, as I believe things such as homosexuality should be kept to the dark and secret recesses of society......behind closed doors, and not in the open.  It's my opinion, and it's an opinion that the majority of the world's people share.  It's an opinion that isn't going to be changed, nor is it going to go away.  You can scream accusations of bigotry all day, but you can't stifle and silence millions on an everyday basis.  Tolerance goes both ways here. 

In addition, comparing the gay community's "plight" to what was once legalized slavery is weak and downright offensive.  The financially richest tier of people in the US as a group have no claim nor no basis on identifying and comparing themselves to the various plights of peoples within the US, past and present.   

Fortunately, Justice George on the CA Supreme Court disagrees with you.  It’s not a coincidence that a 68 year old judge who saw Jim Crow as a child invoked memories of that inequality in crafting his decision in the present case.

As has been said previously, the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution is not (and must never be) subject to popular vote.  Alexis de Tocqueville observed in 1835, the ‘tyranny of the majority’ must always be checked by the courts.  Critics who decry ‘activist judges’ don’t appear to understand how American law works: the democratically expressed will of the people is always subject to judicial review for Constitutionality. Not only are Judges not abusing their power, this is exactly what their power is for!  I don't have to "stifle and silence millions on an everyday basis."  The courts have effectively done that and they will continue to do so as long as they are charged with ensuring equal justice under law.

I can perfectly understand why conservatives are so upset by this ruling though.  It is further proof that their philosophy is being consigned to history’s dustbin of bigotry.  No one likes to admit their increasing irrelevance.  I don’t suppose many people here have read the many pro-slavery arguments articulated throughout the first half the 19th century.  I have.  You all sound remarkably similar and equally irrelevant.

As for keeping homosexuality in the dark and secret recess of society, people like you used to say the same thing about the disabled (but that’s a whole other subject).  Fortunately, you don’t get to decide these things.

The future is about equality--in all its forms--for everyone; your philosophy has no place there.  Ta ta  :-*



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 20, 2008, 09:46:21 AM
I like you Beach Bum.  But you are a master at obfuscation.

You changed the subject from homosexuality as an "obvious lifestyle choice" to some ridiculous abstraction involving infanticide, animals and people.

You did that.  Just look over the past posts.

Back to the matter at hand.  Just answer me one question if you please:

If homosexuality is an "obvious lifestyle choice", do animals obviously choose to be homosexual?

I like you too Decker.  But you are a master at asking loading questions, asking questions based on a false premise, and changing the facts/scenario when the error of your viewpoints are highlighted.  

I didn't change the subject.  I'm not the one who brought up animals.  You are the one who brought up animals as a means of proving that behavior occurring in the animal kingdom somehow proves that same behavior in humans is normal.  That analogy makes no sense for the reasons I've already stated.  

Your last question is another example of a loaded question, etc.  The question itself is grounded on the assumption that humans and animals make conscious choices.  One of the primary distinctions between humans and animals is the ability to make lifestyle choices.  We have common sense.  They don't for the most part.  They rely on instinct.  We don't for the most part.  Some of their instincts involve abnormal behavior, like infanticide, like killing their mate after sex, like homosexual behavior.  Unless a person is insane, our abnormal behavior always involves a choice, like choosing to murder a child, like choosing to molest a child, like smoking a cigarette, like choosing who we have sex with, etc.    

But to answer your loaded question, of course not.  The reason animals have sex is to propagate their species.  They don't "choose" to engage in sex that will cause their species to die.  They no more "choose" to engage in homosexual sex than they "choose" to kill their children.  They engage in instinctual behavior, some of it normal, some of it abnormal.    

Since we're doing this absurd hypothetical thing, how about this:  do animals choose to have sex with their offspring?    



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on May 20, 2008, 11:26:21 AM
Quote
I like you too Decker.  But you are a master at asking loading questions, asking questions based on a false premise, and changing the facts/scenario when the error of your viewpoints are highlighted. 

I didn't change the subject.  I'm not the one who brought up animals.  You are the one who brought up animals as a means of proving that behavior occurring in the animal kingdom somehow proves that same behavior in humans is normal.  That analogy makes no sense for the reasons I've already stated. 
If homosexuality is an obvious choice then animals must choose to be homosexuals b/c homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom.  Therefore animals must share the same sophistication of thought that humans have in defining their existences.

Do you see how you are twisting that around and calling it:
Quote
Your last question is another example of a loaded question,


Your conclusion itself is grounded on the assumption that humans and animals make conscious choices.   

But if animals, as you pointed out, do not choose in the same way people 'choose' (see below) then there must be another explanation for living the gay lifestyle b/c it cannot be by choice.

Quote
.....

But to answer your loaded question, of course not.  The reason animals have sex is to propagate their species.  They don't "choose" to engage in sex that will cause their species to die.  They no more "choose" to engage in homosexual sex than they "choose" to kill their children.  They engage in instinctual behavior, some of it normal, some of it abnormal.   

Since we're doing this absurd hypothetical thing, how about this:  do animals choose to have sex with their offspring?   
You loaded the question with your conclusion my friend.  Animals do not choose the way humans choose b/c they cannot fathom the goals/consequences of their actions in choosing a lifestyle.  Incest aside, it seems that something else other than 'choice' is the factor in determining the behavior.





Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 20, 2008, 11:50:47 AM
If homosexuality is an obvious choice then animals must choose to be homosexuals b/c homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom.  Therefore animals must share the same sophistication of thought that humans have in defining their existences.

Do you see how you are twisting that around and calling it:  

Your conclusion itself is grounded on the assumption that humans and animals make conscious choices.   

But if animals, as you pointed out, do not choose in the same way people 'choose' (see below) then there must be another explanation for living the gay lifestyle b/c it cannot be by choice.
 You loaded the question with your conclusion my friend.  Animals do not choose the way humans choose b/c they cannot fathom the goals/consequences of their actions in choosing a lifestyle.  Incest aside, it seems that something else other than 'choice' is the factor in determining the behavior.





Animal behavior is instinctive, human behavior largely is not.  We choose, they don't. 

Given that we are repeating ourselves, I think we are at this point:

(http://images.southparkstudios.com/media/images/602/602__image_09.jpg)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 20, 2008, 12:20:33 PM
this is more appropriate



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 20, 2008, 12:24:40 PM
Oh look.  He made a funny.  Very good straw man.   :)

I like this one for you:

(http://www.myninjaplease.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/marijuana-magnet-c117546602.jpg)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 20, 2008, 12:28:30 PM
I love the irony of you calling me or anyone stupid given the fact that appear to be borderline retarded most of the time.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 20, 2008, 12:32:16 PM
Yawn.  Boring.  Back to being a curmudgeon?  Make another funny pothead.  You're much more entertaining that way. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 20, 2008, 12:42:40 PM
what is there left to say

anytime you're confronted with logic or your lack thereof you either ignore it, change the subject or start whining like a little bitch

that is why is pointless to try to have a discussion with you as an adult




Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Colossus_500 on May 20, 2008, 12:49:50 PM
That said God, loves all of his children and will give them the strength.  Im not worth one plug nickel more than any other human on this planet..(gay or not).......Each of us has different challenges to overcome.
Well said, War-Horse!  That He does.   :)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on May 20, 2008, 12:51:35 PM
Animal behavior is instinctive, human behavior largely is not.  We choose, they don't. 


Then how can homosexuality be a choice if two creatures that cannot choose anything turn out to be gay?

That's progress my friend.





Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 20, 2008, 02:36:27 PM
what is there left to say

anytime you're confronted with logic or your lack thereof you either ignore it, change the subject or start whining like a little bitch

that is why is pointless to try to have a discussion with you as an adult




Well then quit trying to engage me fool.  How many times do I have to tell you that?  If you can't have an exchange without acting like a hypersensitive baby, and you can't handle my responses, quit trying to have discussions with me.  Very simple.  Maybe you should put a post-it on your computer or something.  Your memory sucks.  It's the ganja?   

Study: Even Infrequent Use of Marijuana Increases Risk of Psychosis by 40 Percent
Friday, July 27, 2007

LONDON —  Using marijuana seems to increase the chance of becoming psychotic, researchers report in an analysis of past research that reignites the issue of whether pot is dangerous.

The new review suggests that even infrequent use could raise the small but real risk of this serious mental illness by 40 percent.

. . . .

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291043,00.html


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: calmus on May 20, 2008, 02:40:07 PM
Well then quit trying to engage me fool.  How many times do I have to tell you that?  If you can't have an exchange without acting like a hypersensitive baby, and you can't handle my responses, quit trying to have discussions with me.  Very simple.  Maybe you should put a post-it on your computer or something.  Your memory sucks.  It's the ganja?   

Study: Even Infrequent Use of Marijuana Increases Risk of Psychosis by 40 Percent
Friday, July 27, 2007

LONDON —  Using marijuana seems to increase the chance of becoming psychotic, researchers report in an analysis of past research that reignites the issue of whether pot is dangerous.

The new review suggests that even infrequent use could raise the small but real risk of this serious mental illness by 40 percent.

. . . .

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291043,00.html

ROFL. You're going to give yourself  a heart attack at this rate.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 20, 2008, 06:58:11 PM
Well then quit trying to engage me fool.  How many times do I have to tell you that?  If you can't have an exchange without acting like a hypersensitive baby, and you can't handle my responses, quit trying to have discussions with me.  Very simple.  Maybe you should put a post-it on your computer or something.  Your memory sucks.  It's the ganja?   

Study: Even Infrequent Use of Marijuana Increases Risk of Psychosis by 40 Percent
Friday, July 27, 2007

LONDON —  Using marijuana seems to increase the chance of becoming psychotic, researchers report in an analysis of past research that reignites the issue of whether pot is dangerous.

The new review suggests that even infrequent use could raise the small but real risk of this serious mental illness by 40 percent.

. . . .

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291043,00.html

You need some new material


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 20, 2008, 07:36:32 PM
http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/05/16/us/15cnd-marriage.html?s=3&pg=5

It's about time. I'm a heterosexual grandmother of three, so I have no horse in this race, but I passionately believe gays and lesbians should have the exact same right as me to marry. Adultery is a much greater threat to traditional marriage than gay marriage, but I don't see the church crowd trying to outlaw that. If the churches don't want to marry gay couples, well, don't. They can still say no. That's their choice, no one is forcing them to marry anyone they don't want to. This will simply allow gay people the God-given right to enjoy the same recognition as other loving couples. There's too much hate in the world to worry about who's loving who.

You go grandma!  :D


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 21, 2008, 06:49:07 AM
California took a huge, important step towards equal rights for all Americans. Some of us need to compare this struggle to the days when interracial marriages were illegal.

Just last week, Mildred Jeter Loving, an African American woman who was banished from Virginia in the 1960's for marrying her white husband, passed away. She happened to be a supporter of gay/lesbian marriages.

Congratulations to those of you in California who now have the freedom you are entitled to as free American citizens. Just do not abuse or neglect the institution as so many heterosexuals do.


— StacyG, Northern NJ


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 21, 2008, 07:58:53 AM
Texas Sen. John Cornyn: California gay marriage decision will spark push for national ban

04:51 PM CDT on Thursday, May 15, 2008
By TODD J. GILLMAN / The Dallas Morning News
tgillman@dallasnews.com

WASHINGTON – Thursday's California court ruling striking down that state's ban on gay marriage will spark a fresh push to add a nationwide ban to the U.S. Constitution, Texas Sen. John Cornyn said shortly after the ruling was announced.

"It's certainly surprising. Many of us thought that the efforts to overturn the tradition marriage laws would be confined just to Massachusetts," said Mr. Cornyn, a chief backer of a push to enact a constitutional ban, which failed in 2004.

The California Supreme Court issued a 4-3 ruling Thursday that overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage, finding that domestic partnerships laws are an inadequate substitute for allowing same-sex couples to enter into formal marriages.

Coming from the nation's biggest state, gay and lesbian advocates hailed the ruling as historic. But critics of same-sex marriage were dismayed, Mr. Cornyn among them.

He noted that during congressional debates several years ago, one argument used by opponents of a constitutional ban was that few states allowed such arrangements, making the drastic step premature.

The California development, he said, reopens that argument.

"I do expect it'll generate some more debate, and I'll be happy to contribute to it," said Mr. Cornyn, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, adding that Thursday's ruling also unleashes a slew of questions about whether other states will be forced to recognize same-sex unions from California.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has twice vetoed legislation intended to allow same-sex couples to get married. He said Thursday that he would not support a Constitutional amendment meant to overturn the state high court ruling.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/051608dnnatcornynreax.10303c43f.html


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 21, 2008, 10:31:28 AM
I've heard the "activist judges circumventing the will of the people" argument too many times, and I've had enough. Sadly, in American history there have been all too many cases when the will of the people was narrow-minded, ignorant, and exclusionary. Mildred Loving, of Loving v. Virginia, also apealed to the justice system to pave the way for legalizing interracial marriage - which her state outlawed. I can't imagine anyone suggesting that Ms. Loving should have allowed the citizens of Virginia to vote to abolish their legislatively-approved Racial Integrity Act, or that Chief Justice Warren was an "activist judge" who circumvented the will of the people.

— Leah, Boston


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 21, 2008, 10:35:23 AM
As a straight man, happily married with children, the decision by the California court to allow gay and lesbian individuals comes as a heartening affirmation of basic human rights. How come VP Dick Cheney doesn't express his views on the subject? The dishonesty and hypocrisy is appalling...

— JH, NY


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 21, 2008, 10:39:23 AM
"The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog fills us in on the background as well as offering up this little nugget of information:

But here’s a catch: Even if the court votes to overturn the appellate court ruling and invalidate the 1977 law, the ruling might not stick. “Pro-family” 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."



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: youandme on May 21, 2008, 11:01:33 AM
Liberty (where it exists) is defended by traditions and customs as well as by statutes. If anything, its most effective defense depends more on the former than the later. The greater the freedom, the greater the need for strong beliefs and customs to hold that freedom in socially useful channels.

-Edmund Burke-


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: 24KT on May 21, 2008, 01:59:44 PM
Fortunately, Justice George on the CA Supreme Court disagrees with you.  It’s not a coincidence that a 68 year old judge who saw Jim Crow as a child invoked memories of that inequality in crafting his decision in the present case.

As has been said previously, the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution is not (and must never be) subject to popular vote.  Alexis de Tocqueville observed in 1835, the ‘tyranny of the majority’ must always be checked by the courts.  Critics who decry ‘activist judges’ don’t appear to understand how American law works: the democratically expressed will of the people is always subject to judicial review for Constitutionality. Not only are Judges not abusing their power, this is exactly what their power is for!  I don't have to "stifle and silence millions on an everyday basis."  The courts have effectively done that and they will continue to do so as long as they are charged with ensuring equal justice under law.

I can perfectly understand why conservatives are so upset by this ruling though.  It is further proof that their philosophy is being consigned to history’s dustbin of bigotry.  No one likes to admit their increasing irrelevance.  I don’t suppose many people here have read the many pro-slavery arguments articulated throughout the first half the 19th century.  I have.  You all sound remarkably similar and equally irrelevant.

As for keeping homosexuality in the dark and secret recess of society, people like you used to say the same thing about the disabled (but that’s a whole other subject).  Fortunately, you don’t get to decide these things.

The future is about equality--in all its forms--for everyone; your philosophy has no place there.  Ta ta  :-*



I can't add any more to this. Very Well said! Bravo!


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 22, 2008, 09:10:02 PM
Californians narrowly reject gay marriage, poll finds
Voters also back a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions, a new Times/KTLA survey shows.
By Cathleen Decker
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

May 23, 2008

By bare majorities, Californians reject the state Supreme Court's decision to allow same-sex marriages and back a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at the November ballot that would outlaw such unions, a Los Angeles Times/KTLA Poll has found.

But the survey also suggested that the state is moving closer to accepting nontraditional marriages, which could create openings for supporters of same-sex marriage as the campaign unfolds.

More than half of Californians said gay relationships were not morally wrong, that they would not degrade heterosexual marriages and that all that mattered was that a relationship be loving and committed, regardless of gender.

Overall, the proportion of Californians who back either gay marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples has remained fairly constant over the years. But the generational schism is pronounced. Those under 45 were less likely to favor a constitutional amendment than their elders and were more supportive of the court's decision to overturn the state's current ban on gay marriage. They also disagreed more strongly than their elders with the notion that gay relationships threatened traditional marriage.

The results of the survey set up an intriguing question for the fall campaign: Will the younger, more live-and-let-live voters mobilized by likely Democratic nominee Barack Obama doom the gay marriage ban? Or will conservatives drawn to the polls by the amendment boost the odds for the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain?

Either way, the poll suggests the outcome of the proposed amendment is far from certain. Overall, it was leading 54% to 35% among registered voters. But because ballot measures on controversial topics often lose support during the course of a campaign, strategists typically want to start out well above the 50% support level.

"Although the amendment to reinstate the ban on same-sex marriage is winning by a small majority, this may not bode well for the measure," said Times Poll director Susan Pinkus.

The politically volatile issue leaped into the forefront last week after the court made its judgment in a case that stemmed from San Francisco's unsuccessful effort in 2004 to allow gay marriage in the city. The court's decision, on a 4-3 vote by judges largely appointed by Republican governors, came eight years after Californians overwhelmingly banned gay marriage through a ballot measure, Proposition 22.

The court's verdict threw the issue forward until November, when Californians are expected to be asked to amend the state Constitution to prohibit gay marriage. An affirmative vote on the amendment would reinstate the ban and lead to more litigation over the issue.

Before the court took action, opponents of same-sex marriage already had submitted more than 1 million signatures to the secretary of state's office to put the matter on the November ballot. Secretary of State Debra Bowen has said she will determine its fate by mid-June, but the backers are believed to have collected enough signatures to qualify.

Asking for a delay

Thursday, supporters of the proposed amendment asked the court to place its decision on hold until after the election. Failure to do so "risks legal havoc and uncertainty," lawyers for the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund argued, noting that same-sex marriages entered into between now and November would be under a legal cloud if voters approved the ban. Court experts, however, say it is unlikely the justices would agree to such a lengthy delay in implementing their ruling.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has vetoed two bills sanctioning gay marriage, has said that he respects the court's decision and that he will not support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Californians were split on his stance, with 45% agreeing and 46% disagreeing.

The governor, who in his nearly five years in office has often butted heads with his GOP colleagues, was once again on the opposite side of most in his party: Nearly 7 in 10 Republicans disagreed with his views on the court decision and the amendment.

Becky Espinoza of Kerman, an agricultural town west of Fresno, said that if the amendment made the ballot, she would vote for it. But she acknowledged some ambivalence about the matter coming before voters at all.

"I just don't believe a man and a man should be married," said the 57-year-old Republican. "How can I put this -- it's just not right. I was brought up very old-fashioned."

Even within her own family, however, there are differences of opinion. A younger daughter, she said, feels "there's nothing wrong with that."

"To kids nowadays, it's like 'Oh well.' Maybe it is 'Oh well.' They see it. We didn't see it. It was one of those in-the-closet things."

On the opposite side is Lena Neal of Perris, who said she supported the court's decision and would vote against an amendment. Neal, a Democrat, based her views on the experiences of an elderly family member, who she said was part of a decades-long same-sex partnership. When one of them entered the hospital, she said, the other was not allowed to visit -- that benefit was restricted to family members.

"It's their right," she said of gay marriage. "They're humans."

Indeed, the poll found that views on gay marriage were greatly influenced by personal connections. Of those who said they knew a friend, a family member or a co-worker who was gay, nearly half approved of the court's ruling -- more than twice the proportion among those who said they were not acquainted with a gay person.

The divide was as stark when it came to the proposed constitutional amendment: 70% of voters who said they did not know a gay person would vote for it, a position taken by just 49% of voters who said they knew a gay person.

The poll, under Pinkus' direction, interviewed 834 Californians, including 705 registered voters, on Tuesday and Wednesday. The margin of sampling error is 3 percentage points in either direction overall and 4 points for registered voters. Margins were larger for demographic subgroups.

The poll found the state polarized when it came to gay marriage. In most surveys, majority views are somewhat ambivalent -- but on this issue they were sharply drawn. More than 4 in 10 Californians said they strongly disapproved of the court's decision, while almost 3 in 10 strongly approved. Smaller groups described their views as lukewarm.

Generally, the poll found consistency between views on the court decision and the proposed amendment. Overall, Californians opposed the court's view by a 52%-41% gap. The strongest opposition came from Republicans and self-described conservatives. Married respondents, those without college degrees, senior citizens, white evangelical Christians and those in suburban Southern California were also strongly opposed.

Those same groups were also among the strongest backers of the proposed amendment.

Most supportive of the court decision were liberals -- more than 7 in 10 of whom favored the ruling -- Democratic men and Democratic women, whites with college degrees and Bay Area residents.

Majority support -- if barely -- came from the two political groups whose backing generally spells success in California: The state's largest party, Democrats, backed it by a 55%-39% margin, and the fastest-growing political group, independents, supported it 51% to 40%.

Yet support for the ruling did not necessarily lead to opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment, and vice versa. Democrats and independents narrowly backed the amendment despite their support for the court action. Democratic men favored the ruling but were split on the amendment. Democratic women, meanwhile, approved of both the court decision and the amendment.

Effect on the election?

The interaction between the amendment and the presidential election is difficult to divine six months from election day. Among the reasons is that the court put itself at odds with the candidates -- neither Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Obama of Illinois, nor Republican McCain, a senator from Arizona, has backed gay marriage. All have sided instead with civil unions that would ensure benefits for same-sex partners.

For the candidates, the confluence of the gay marriage issue and the presidential election represents risk. For the Democratic nominee, the party's traditional allegiance with the gay community could lead to pressure on the candidate to embrace gay marriage -- perhaps alienating more moderate voters here and elsewhere.

McCain, meanwhile, will be pinched between the party's religious base, which is strongly in favor of the amendment, and the independent voters who generally recoil from social issue battles but whom McCain needs in order to win.

Some leeway

The poll suggested that the candidates may have a little leeway: Only 1 in 4 registered voters said they would vote only for a candidate who agreed with their own position on marriage. Almost 6 in 10 said they could vote for a candidate with whom they disagreed -- suggesting that the issue was far from the top of most voters' agendas.

Responding to a separate question, only 10% of registered voters said that gay marriage was the most important issue facing the state, although more than 5 in 10 voters characterized it as important, just not the most important. Another third of voters said it was not important at all.

Among those who felt it was the most important, more than 6 in 10 were conservatives or those who consider themselves part of the Republican religious base. They were overwhelmingly voting for McCain, the poll found.

But those who felt it was either not important, or not the most important issue facing California, were siding with a Democratic candidate over McCain.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Benny B on May 22, 2008, 11:13:07 PM
Sorry, but having f@gs marry is an abomination. America's road to Sodom and Gomorrah is moving forward rapidly.
 
Thankfully, none of the current presidential candidates approve of this ridiculous bullshit.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 23, 2008, 05:35:00 AM
Sorry, but having f@gs marry is an abomination. America's road to Sodom and Gomorrah is moving forward rapidly.
 
Thankfully, none of the current presidential candidates approve of this ridiculous bullshit.

Do you think interracial marriage is an abomination?

The people who are quick to condemn gay marriage are the very ones committing adultery and falling in and out of marriage, divorce, marriage, divorce.  Traditional marriage is in trouble but that is because of your behavior--not mine.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Colossus_500 on May 23, 2008, 05:54:43 AM
Do you think interracial marriage is an abomination?

The people who are quick to condemn gay marriage are the very ones committing adultery and falling in and out of marriage, divorce, marriage, divorce.  Traditional marriage is in trouble but that is because of your behavior--not mine.
It's not the same.  I did not choose to be black, just as my wife did not choose to be white.  It's not a civil rights issue.  Not by a long shot.  I know that's what the gay community likes to base their argument on, but I have to respectfully disagree, BayGBM.   Nowhere near the same ballpark, in my opinion.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Benny B on May 23, 2008, 06:22:44 AM
It's not the same.  I did not choose to be black, just as my wife did not choose to be white.  It's not a civil rights issues.  Not by a long shot.  I know that's what the gay community likes to base their argument on, but I have to respectfully disagree, BayGBM.   Nowhere near the same ballpark, in my opinion.
Thank you.  :)
I could elaborate, but you've expressed my general sentiment.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 23, 2008, 06:54:38 AM
It's not the same.  I did not choose to be black, just as my wife did not choose to be white.  It's not a civil rights issue.  Not by a long shot.  I know that's what the gay community likes to base their argument on, but I have to respectfully disagree, BayGBM.   Nowhere near the same ballpark, in my opinion.

Funny you should say that because Mildred Loving, the black plaintiff in the case of Loving vs. Virginia (1967) which overturned the ban on interracial marriage thought it was a civil rights issue (as did Coretta Scott King); she was a big proponent of gay marriage.  She passed away earlier this month.

It is obvious you did not choose to be black and should not be denied any rights associatedd with that.  I did not choose to be gay and don’t believe any gay person should be denied any rights associated with that either.

But this case does not depend on analogies, similar precedents, or the endorsement of third parties.  It turns on the question of equality:  do you believe people should be treated equally?  You say 'no' but the Constitution says “yes.”  In 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court said “yes” (and you especially should be glad they did).  In 2008 the CA Supreme Court said “yes.”

Critics of this case say the California Supreme Court is out of bounds for overturning the ‘will of the people’ but unfortunately the will of the people is often wrong.  If equality depended on a popular vote you and your wife could not be married, and you most certainly would not have access to the education you have made possible by Brown v. Board of Education (1954).  It would appear that you value equality only to the extent that it benefits you; that his heartbreaking.  There were many white people agitating for black civil rights in the 50’s and 60’s and long before.  They didn’t have to be there, but they were...

I believe in equality for all people; you do not.  Sadly, that is where we part company.  :'(



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Benny B on May 23, 2008, 07:51:02 AM
Funny you should say that because Mildred Loving, the black plaintiff in the case of Loving vs. Virginia (1967) which overturned the ban on interracial marriage thought it was a civil rights issue (as did Coretta Scott King); she was a big proponent of gay marriage.  She passed away earlier this month.

It is obvious you did not choose to be black and should not be denied any rights associatedd with that.  I did not choose to be gay and don’t believe any gay person should be denied any rights associated with that either.

But this case does not depend on analogies, similar precedents, or the endorsement of third parties.  It turns on the question of equality:  do you believe people should be treated equally?  You say 'no' but the Constitution says “yes.”  In 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court said “yes” (and you especially should be glad they did).  In 2008 the CA Supreme Court said “yes.”

Critics of this case say the California Supreme Court is out of bounds for overturning the ‘will of the people’ but unfortunately the will of the people is often wrong.  If equality depended on a popular vote you and your wife could not be married, and you most certainly would not have access to the education you have made possible by Brown v. Board of Education (1954).  It would appear that you value equality only to the extent that it benefits you; that his heartbreaking.  There were many white people agitating for black civil rights in the 50’s and 60’s and long before.  They didn’t have to be there, but they were...

I believe in equality for all people; you do not.  Sadly, that is where we part company.  :'(


Race is an artificial creation that did not even exist until modern times. In America it was initially a term to delineate people as a way of justifying physical enslavement of a specific group, the stealing of the land of others, and to preserve the sanctity of white womanhood by fearful white males.

Is Obama in an "interracial" marriage to Michelle Obama since half of his family members are white? Would he be in an interracial marriage if he were married to Cindy McCain? hmmmm...

Whereas racial distinctions are arbitrary, there has never been any doubt on what constitutes a man and what constitutes a woman. Neither has there ever been any confusion on what two genders need to mate in order for procreation to take place.

Comparing "race" to giving sanction to sexually perverse activities and behaviors is insulting to the "human" race.

If Steve and Mike want to express their love and gain some legal rights entitled to married men and women, pursue the legal avenue of civil union. Marriage is for a man and a woman. May lightning strike any church that would sanction a marriage between Sally and Mary or Steve in Mike under God.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 23, 2008, 08:32:50 AM
I could care less what “churches” do or don’t do.  As far as I’m concerned they have no moral authority.  The Catholic Church has committed wholesale murder on direct order from ‘his holiness’.  Look up the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, for example.  For a long time the Church turned its back on the Holocaust…

In America various denominations of “the church” (Catholic, Protestant, etc.) sanctioned slavery and murder; even into the 20th century it was common to attend church on Sunday morning and lynchings on Sunday afternoons.  In our own time, we have priests in the church molesting young men and women and instead of holding them accountable leaders in the church simply move them to other parishes where they can prey on other victims…

All I care about is equal justice under the law.  For all people.  The Constitutions guarantees that and the Courts enable it.  I think I speak for most gay people when I say that gay marriage has nothing to do with the church.  Rather it is about the extending of rights that heterosexual couples enjoy to gay couples who choose to get married.

For those of you whom do care about “the church” if lightening didn’t strike over the church’s endorsement of murder, slavery, lynching, or molestation, I wouldn’t hold my breath for it to strike over sanctioning a gay wedding. ::)



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 23, 2008, 08:34:06 AM
As Justice Kennard correctly observed: "the constitutionality of the marriage laws' exlcusion of same-sex couples is an issue particularly appropriate for decision by this court, rather than a social or political issue inappropriate for judicial consideration...the architects of our federal and state Constitutions understood that widespread and deeply rooted prejudices may lead majoritarian institutions to deny fundamental freedoms to unpopular minority groups, and that the most effective remedy for this form of oppression is an independent judiciary charged with the solemn responsibility to interpret and enforce the Constitutional provisions guaranteeing fundamental freedoms and equal protection."

Simply put, if the courts do not stand up for despised or unpopular minorities against the tyranny of oppressive majorities, than who else will? Certainly not an electorate, that if given the chance would have voted to maintain segregation of schools and bans on inter-racial marriage.


— RWB, San Francisco, CA


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on May 23, 2008, 08:42:27 AM
Meh, marriage is a primitive and outdated religious instituition; the only reason gays want in on it is because of the entitlements...take away the entitlements and most heterosexuals would lose interest in the thing.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Benny B on May 23, 2008, 08:49:37 AM
Of course you don't care about the church, because it condemns you for your immoral lifestyle. You don't like to be told that plowing another man in the anus is a sin before God, so you seek to avoid it so you can do whatever feels good.

Marriages are typically presided by ministers and administered in houses of worship. Hence my mention of the church. If you don't agree with any organized religion and don't believe in God, take your gay ass to a courthouse and file for a civil union.  >:(

I could care less what “churches” do or don’t do.  As far as I’m concerned they have no moral authority.  The Catholic Church has committed wholesale murder on direct order from ‘his holiness’.  Look up the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, for example.  For a long time the Church turned its back on the Holocaust…

In America various denominations of “the church” (Catholic, Protestant, etc.) sanctioned slavery and murder; even into the 20th century it was common to attend church on Sunday morning and lynchings on Sunday afternoons.  In our own time, we have priests in the church molesting young men and women and instead of holding them accountable leaders in the church simply move them to other parishes where they can prey on other victims…

All I care about is equal justice under the law.  For all people.  The Constitutions guarantees that and the Courts enable it.  I think I speak for most gay people when I say that gay marriage has nothing to do with the church.  Rather it is about the extending of rights that heterosexual couples enjoy to gay couples who choose to get married.

For those of you whom do care about “the church” if lightening didn’t strike over the church’s endorsement of murder, slavery, lynching, or molestation, I wouldn’t hold my breath for it to strike over sanctioning a gay wedding. ::)




Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: columbusdude82 on May 23, 2008, 08:50:40 AM
BayGBM, you filthy hell-bound sinner, the Word of God says very clearly that fagg0+s and other less-than-human apes must not be allowed to marry.

Why do you insist on demeaning the Word of the one and only Living God and forcing your wicked filthy fagg0+ry on our good Christian nation? ???


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 23, 2008, 08:56:54 AM
The church lost its moral authority long before I came along and certainly before I realized I was gay.  In fact, even if gay people didn’t exist the church would still be morally bankrupt.

Maybe you can embrace an institution that enabled the subjugation of women, the Bartholomew Massacre, slavery, the Holocaust, and widespread molestation.  I can’t.

So yes, I’ll take my gay ass to the justice of the peace or another civil authority and sign my marriage license.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on May 23, 2008, 05:29:56 PM
Of course you don't care about the church, because it condemns you for your immoral lifestyle. You don't like to be told that plowing another man in the anus is a sin before God, so you seek to avoid it so you can do whatever feels good.

Marriages are typically presided by ministers and administered in houses of worship. Hence my mention of the church. If you don't agree with any organized religion and don't believe in God, take your gay ass to a courthouse and file for a civil union.  >:(


What about blowing your load on a women's face or sticking your cock in a woman's anus or jamming your cock so far down her mouth she chokes....are these 'sins' before god?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Camel Jockey on May 23, 2008, 05:36:24 PM
Of course you don't care about the church, because it condemns you for your immoral lifestyle. You don't like to be told that plowing another man in the anus is a sin before God, so you seek to avoid it so you can do whatever feels good.

Marriages are typically presided by ministers and administered in houses of worship. Hence my mention of the church. If you don't agree with any organized religion and don't believe in God, take your gay ass to a courthouse and file for a civil union.  >:(


Shut it Benny Negr0

Just because it's indecent to you doesn't mean others should be denied the same freedom.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on May 23, 2008, 05:57:49 PM
Shut it Benny Negr0

Just because it's indecent to you doesn't mean others should be denied the same freedom.

Word to big bird.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 23, 2008, 06:35:08 PM
As we know all too well, people who quote the Bible, reference scripture, and teachings of “the church” are the worst sinners of all: I do not share your psycho-spiritual beliefs so its tenets are really nothing to me, but those of you whom love to invoke it routinely violate the teachings of your own faith.

How bizarre that you would expect a nonbeliever to follow your psycho-spiritual beliefs when you cannot do so yourself.  It is you who are damned.  :-[


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on May 23, 2008, 07:28:08 PM
As we know all too well, people who quote the Bible, reference scripture, and teachings of “the church” are the worst sinners of all: I do not share your psycho-spiritual beliefs so its tenets are really nothing to me, but those of you whom love to invoke it routinely violate the teachings of your own faith.

How bizarre that you would expect a nonbeliever to follow your psycho-spiritual beliefs when you cannot do so yourself.  It is you who are damned.  :-[

Who, not whom; who is a subject, whom is the object as far as relative pronouns go.

They are not violating their beliefs; they are following them to a T.

I do have one question and it is one I also ask heterosexual men who like sticking their cocks in women's anuses; what is the appeal? When I think about it all I can think of is smelly, brown fecal matter. I can't conjure up the slightest sexual thought with regards to an asshole. Why men like to stick their dicks in anuses (women's or other men's) is beyond me. I don't care if people do it, it doesn't affect me in any way, shape or form except when nice vaginal penetration porn turns into anal (a big turn off to me) but please explain to me what it is about the asshole that makes so many men want to stick their dicks in them.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 23, 2008, 10:57:00 PM
It's not the same.  I did not choose to be black, just as my wife did not choose to be white.  It's not a civil rights issue.  Not by a long shot.  I know that's what the gay community likes to base their argument on, but I have to respectfully disagree, BayGBM.   Nowhere near the same ballpark, in my opinion.

Well said Colossus. 

Also, what people should keep in mind is this isn't just about homosexual marriage.  It's about redefining gender.  For example, for the past several years people have tried to push a "gender identity" bill through the legislature that redefines gender to mean whatever a person wants it to be, on whatever day they want.  It's already in our statutes regarding housing and hate crimes.  Just a matter of time before it is imposed in the workplace.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: calmus on May 23, 2008, 11:00:10 PM
Well said Colossus. 

Also, what people should keep in mind is this isn't just about homosexual marriage.  It's about redefining gender.  For example, for the past several years people have tried to push a "gender identity" bill through the legislature that redefines gender to mean whatever a person wants it to be, on whatever day they want.  It's already in our statutes regarding housing and hate crimes.  Just a matter of time before it is imposed in the workplace.

Oh my! How terrible!  What is the world coming to?!? They'll be wanting to rape the Lord's angels next.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: War-Horse on May 24, 2008, 05:26:36 PM
As we know all too well, people who quote the Bible, reference scripture, and teachings of “the church” are the worst sinners of all: I do not share your psycho-spiritual beliefs so its tenets are really nothing to me, but those of you whom love to invoke it routinely violate the teachings of your own faith.

How bizarre that you would expect a nonbeliever to follow your psycho-spiritual beliefs when you cannot do so yourself.  It is you who are damned.  :-[



Good luck with that.....


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on May 24, 2008, 07:31:16 PM
And no answer to why people like anal sex and coat their dicks with feces.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Benny B on May 24, 2008, 11:17:04 PM
And no answer to why people like anal sex and coat their dicks with feces.
;D
I'm waiting on Bay's classic f@g response as well.

I admit to...eh...experimenting with the activity on occasion with a former girlfriend, simply because she liked it and wanted me to stick it in her butt.  ;D As a straight man I've never have had any real desire for anal sex. That's the exit hole...not meant for entry. :P I think for some men it is a power trip to have a woman submit herself to that act. It basically implies that she is willing to do anything to please you if she lets you bang her anally.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on May 25, 2008, 02:20:32 AM
;D
I'm waiting on Bay's classic f@g response as well.

I admit to...eh...experimenting with the activity on occasion with a former girlfriend, simply because she liked it and wanted me to stick it in her butt.  ;D As a straight man I've never have had any real desire for anal sex. That's the exit hole...not meant for entry. :P I think for some men it is a power trip to have a woman submit herself to that act. It basically implies that she is willing to do anything to please you if she lets you bang her anally.

Yuck.... :-X


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on May 27, 2008, 04:40:10 AM
I've heard the "activist judges circumventing the will of the people" argument too many times, and I've had enough. Sadly, in American history there have been all too many cases when the will of the people was narrow-minded, ignorant, and exclusionary. Mildred Loving, of Loving v. Virginia, also apealed to the justice system to pave the way for legalizing interracial marriage - which her state outlawed. I can't imagine anyone suggesting that Ms. Loving should have allowed the citizens of Virginia to vote to abolish their legislatively-approved Racial Integrity Act, or that Chief Justice Warren was an "activist judge" who circumvented the will of the people.

— Leah, Boston

That comparison isn't valid for one simple reason: Interracial marriage was ALREADY LEGAL in the state of Virginia, unless it involved white people. The Supreme Court pointed that out.

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

And...

Appellants point out that the State's concern in these statutes, as expressed in the words of the 1924 Act's title, "An Act to Preserve Racial Integrity," extends only to the integrity of the white race. While Virginia prohibits whites from marrying any nonwhite (subject to the exception for the descendants of Pocahontas), Negroes, Orientals, and any other racial class may intermarry without statutory interference. Appellants contend that this distinction renders Virginia's miscegenation statutes arbitrary and unreasonable even assuming the constitutional validity of an official purpose to preserve "racial integrity." We need not reach this contention because we find the racial classifications in these statutes repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, even assuming an even-handed state purpose to protect the "integrity" of all races.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on May 27, 2008, 05:00:53 AM
Californians narrowly reject gay marriage, poll finds
Voters also back a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions, a new Times/KTLA survey shows.
By Cathleen Decker
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

May 23, 2008

By bare majorities, Californians reject the state Supreme Court's decision to allow same-sex marriages and back a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at the November ballot that would outlaw such unions, a Los Angeles Times/KTLA Poll has found.

But the survey also suggested that the state is moving closer to accepting nontraditional marriages, which could create openings for supporters of same-sex marriage as the campaign unfolds.

More than half of Californians said gay relationships were not morally wrong, that they would not degrade heterosexual marriages and that all that mattered was that a relationship be loving and committed, regardless of gender.

Overall, the proportion of Californians who back either gay marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples has remained fairly constant over the years. But the generational schism is pronounced. Those under 45 were less likely to favor a constitutional amendment than their elders and were more supportive of the court's decision to overturn the state's current ban on gay marriage. They also disagreed more strongly than their elders with the notion that gay relationships threatened traditional marriage.

The results of the survey set up an intriguing question for the fall campaign: Will the younger, more live-and-let-live voters mobilized by likely Democratic nominee Barack Obama doom the gay marriage ban? Or will conservatives drawn to the polls by the amendment boost the odds for the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain?

Either way, the poll suggests the outcome of the proposed amendment is far from certain. Overall, it was leading 54% to 35% among registered voters. But because ballot measures on controversial topics often lose support during the course of a campaign, strategists typically want to start out well above the 50% support level.

"Although the amendment to reinstate the ban on same-sex marriage is winning by a small majority, this may not bode well for the measure," said Times Poll director Susan Pinkus.

The politically volatile issue leaped into the forefront last week after the court made its judgment in a case that stemmed from San Francisco's unsuccessful effort in 2004 to allow gay marriage in the city. The court's decision, on a 4-3 vote by judges largely appointed by Republican governors, came eight years after Californians overwhelmingly banned gay marriage through a ballot measure, Proposition 22.

The court's verdict threw the issue forward until November, when Californians are expected to be asked to amend the state Constitution to prohibit gay marriage. An affirmative vote on the amendment would reinstate the ban and lead to more litigation over the issue.

Before the court took action, opponents of same-sex marriage already had submitted more than 1 million signatures to the secretary of state's office to put the matter on the November ballot. Secretary of State Debra Bowen has said she will determine its fate by mid-June, but the backers are believed to have collected enough signatures to qualify.

Asking for a delay

Thursday, supporters of the proposed amendment asked the court to place its decision on hold until after the election. Failure to do so "risks legal havoc and uncertainty," lawyers for the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund argued, noting that same-sex marriages entered into between now and November would be under a legal cloud if voters approved the ban. Court experts, however, say it is unlikely the justices would agree to such a lengthy delay in implementing their ruling.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has vetoed two bills sanctioning gay marriage, has said that he respects the court's decision and that he will not support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Californians were split on his stance, with 45% agreeing and 46% disagreeing.

The governor, who in his nearly five years in office has often butted heads with his GOP colleagues, was once again on the opposite side of most in his party: Nearly 7 in 10 Republicans disagreed with his views on the court decision and the amendment.

Becky Espinoza of Kerman, an agricultural town west of Fresno, said that if the amendment made the ballot, she would vote for it. But she acknowledged some ambivalence about the matter coming before voters at all.

"I just don't believe a man and a man should be married," said the 57-year-old Republican. "How can I put this -- it's just not right. I was brought up very old-fashioned."

Even within her own family, however, there are differences of opinion. A younger daughter, she said, feels "there's nothing wrong with that."

"To kids nowadays, it's like 'Oh well.' Maybe it is 'Oh well.' They see it. We didn't see it. It was one of those in-the-closet things."

On the opposite side is Lena Neal of Perris, who said she supported the court's decision and would vote against an amendment. Neal, a Democrat, based her views on the experiences of an elderly family member, who she said was part of a decades-long same-sex partnership. When one of them entered the hospital, she said, the other was not allowed to visit -- that benefit was restricted to family members.

"It's their right," she said of gay marriage. "They're humans."

Indeed, the poll found that views on gay marriage were greatly influenced by personal connections. Of those who said they knew a friend, a family member or a co-worker who was gay, nearly half approved of the court's ruling -- more than twice the proportion among those who said they were not acquainted with a gay person.

The divide was as stark when it came to the proposed constitutional amendment: 70% of voters who said they did not know a gay person would vote for it, a position taken by just 49% of voters who said they knew a gay person.

The poll, under Pinkus' direction, interviewed 834 Californians, including 705 registered voters, on Tuesday and Wednesday. The margin of sampling error is 3 percentage points in either direction overall and 4 points for registered voters. Margins were larger for demographic subgroups.

The poll found the state polarized when it came to gay marriage. In most surveys, majority views are somewhat ambivalent -- but on this issue they were sharply drawn. More than 4 in 10 Californians said they strongly disapproved of the court's decision, while almost 3 in 10 strongly approved. Smaller groups described their views as lukewarm.

Generally, the poll found consistency between views on the court decision and the proposed amendment. Overall, Californians opposed the court's view by a 52%-41% gap. The strongest opposition came from Republicans and self-described conservatives. Married respondents, those without college degrees, senior citizens, white evangelical Christians and those in suburban Southern California were also strongly opposed.

Those same groups were also among the strongest backers of the proposed amendment.

Most supportive of the court decision were liberals -- more than 7 in 10 of whom favored the ruling -- Democratic men and Democratic women, whites with college degrees and Bay Area residents.

Majority support -- if barely -- came from the two political groups whose backing generally spells success in California: The state's largest party, Democrats, backed it by a 55%-39% margin, and the fastest-growing political group, independents, supported it 51% to 40%.

Yet support for the ruling did not necessarily lead to opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment, and vice versa. Democrats and independents narrowly backed the amendment despite their support for the court action. Democratic men favored the ruling but were split on the amendment. Democratic women, meanwhile, approved of both the court decision and the amendment.

Effect on the election?

The interaction between the amendment and the presidential election is difficult to divine six months from election day. Among the reasons is that the court put itself at odds with the candidates -- neither Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Obama of Illinois, nor Republican McCain, a senator from Arizona, has backed gay marriage. All have sided instead with civil unions that would ensure benefits for same-sex partners.

For the candidates, the confluence of the gay marriage issue and the presidential election represents risk. For the Democratic nominee, the party's traditional allegiance with the gay community could lead to pressure on the candidate to embrace gay marriage -- perhaps alienating more moderate voters here and elsewhere.

McCain, meanwhile, will be pinched between the party's religious base, which is strongly in favor of the amendment, and the independent voters who generally recoil from social issue battles but whom McCain needs in order to win.

Some leeway

The poll suggested that the candidates may have a little leeway: Only 1 in 4 registered voters said they would vote only for a candidate who agreed with their own position on marriage. Almost 6 in 10 said they could vote for a candidate with whom they disagreed -- suggesting that the issue was far from the top of most voters' agendas.

Responding to a separate question, only 10% of registered voters said that gay marriage was the most important issue facing the state, although more than 5 in 10 voters characterized it as important, just not the most important. Another third of voters said it was not important at all.

Among those who felt it was the most important, more than 6 in 10 were conservatives or those who consider themselves part of the Republican religious base. They were overwhelmingly voting for McCain, the poll found.

But those who felt it was either not important, or not the most important issue facing California, were siding with a Democratic candidate over McCain.


The problem with that, BayGBM, is that, when an amendment goes to the ballot, the percentages by which it passes is higher than the sample poll taken in the same state (even in blue states).

And, if memory serves me correctly, this went down in Hawaii, an very-blue state, over a decade ago. Its Supreme Court ruled that the laws that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman (1M-1W, for simplicity's sake) were unconstitutional. However, the voters put a constitutional amendment on the ballot and passed it by a 69-31 margin.

There's only one way to find out how the voters feel about this issue: Take it to the ballot box.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on May 27, 2008, 05:20:12 AM
This cartoon is 4 years old... is it still relevant?  ::)

Nope!! Not now, not then.

When "gay marriage" advocates get a call in their favor (i.e. what went down in Mass. an California), it's a banner day for America, a great day for "civil rights", etc.

Yet, when they get beat (i.e. a constitutional amendment gets passed, as could happen in six months in the Golden state), all of a sudden, we've got more important issues to address.

After all, American simply can't spare the extra 3-5 seconds it take to punch "Yes" or "No" on the part where there an amendment that defines marriage as a 1M-1W union.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 27, 2008, 07:59:18 AM
The problem with that, BayGBM, is that, when an amendment goes to the ballot, the percentages by which it passes is higher than the sample poll taken in the same state (even in blue states).

And, if memory serves me correctly, this went down in Hawaii, an very-blue state, over a decade ago. Its Supreme Court ruled that the laws that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman (1M-1W, for simplicity's sake) were unconstitutional. However, the voters put a constitutional amendment on the ballot and passed it by a 69-31 margin.

There's only one way to find out how the voters feel about this issue: Take it to the ballot box.

Correct.  Three justices in Hawaii tried to impose this on the people.  Seventy percent of the voters then reserved marriage to a man and woman.  And this is arguably the most liberal state in the country.  Only 11 of our 76 state legislators are Republican.  Liberals have controlled the state for over 40 years.   


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on May 27, 2008, 11:22:08 AM
Correct.  Three justices in Hawaii tried to impose this on the people.  Seventy percent of the voters then reserved marriage to a man and woman.  And this is arguably the most liberal state in the country.  Only 11 of our 76 state legislators are Republican.  Liberals have controlled the state for over 40 years.   

The folks in California are asking the state Supreme Court to stay its decision, until this get solved at the polls. The Court decision becomes final on June 14. However, there may be another hiccup. By the same state Constitution, legal forms can't be changed, unless such is passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the governor (in this case, a certain 7-time Mr. Olympia).

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=65172 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=65172)

http://www.savecalifornia.com/getpluggedin/news_details.php?newsid=9906 (http://www.savecalifornia.com/getpluggedin/news_details.php?newsid=9906)



According to the WorldNet article, the earliest this can happen is January 2009. If that's the case, this puts a monkeywrench in the plans of same-sex couples. By the time this process even gets started, the voters of California can approved the amendment, hence putting this issue to rest in the Golden State.

Also (per the Campaign for Children and Families site):

"Unlike Massachusetts, which has no statutes on marriage licenses forms and processes, California cannot change its standard marriage form or processes until the Legislature passes and the Governor signs legislation in response to the Supreme Court's ruling," explained Thomasson.  "The Governor's people cannot unilaterally change the marriage forms. That requires legislation or an initiative."

"The Supreme Court can't require the Legislature to do anything," said Gary Kreep, executive director of the California-based United States Justice Foundation.  "All the court could do is declare a statute unconstitutional, although in this case there was no basis for it.  After that, it's up to the Legislature or the voters to respond.  The Schwarzenegger administration can't do anything to the marriage form and processes until the Legislature passes a bill changing the existing statutes."

The California Constitution expressly prohibits the judicial and executive branches from making laws (Article 3, Section 3); only the Legislature and the people using the initiative process may change the law (Article 4, Section 1).  The Governor must faithfully implement California's statutes (Article 5, Section 1).  The Constitution can only be changed with voter approval (Article 18).



This also causes a problem from non-California residents with plans of getting "married" there and returning to their home states, demanding that their marriage licenses be recognized. Some legal experts see this as a ploy to ultimately reverse the Defense of Marriage Act, which federally defines marriage as a 1M-1W union and declares that states do not have to recognize same-sex "marriages" from other states.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 27, 2008, 11:27:01 AM
The folks in California are asking the state Supreme Court to stay its decision, until this get solved at the polls. The Court decision becomes final on June 14. However, there may be another hiccup. By the same state Constitution, legal forms can't be changed, unless such is passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the governor (in this case, a certain 7-time Mr. Olympia).

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=65172 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=65172)

http://www.savecalifornia.com/getpluggedin/news_details.php?newsid=9906 (http://www.savecalifornia.com/getpluggedin/news_details.php?newsid=9906)

According to these articles, the earliest this can happen is January 2009. If that's the case, this puts a monkeywrench in the plans of same-sex couples. By the time this process even gets started, the voters of California can approved the amendment, hence putting this issue to rest in the Golden State.

This also causes a problem from non-California residents with plans of getting "married" there and returning to their home states, demanding that their marriage licenses be recognized. Some legal experts see this as a ploy to ultimately reverse the Defense of Marriage Act, which federally defines marriage as a 1M-1W union and declares that states do not have to recognize same-sex "marriages" from other states.


Interesting development. 

I've always questioned what will happen when a court-ordered homosexual marriage in one state runs up against the Defense of Marriage Act and the Full Faith and Credit Clause in another state.  Maybe Decker can comment on this? 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on May 27, 2008, 11:51:47 AM

Interesting development. 

I've always questioned what will happen when a court-ordered homosexual marriage in one state runs up against the Defense of Marriage Act and the Full Faith and Credit Clause in another state.  Maybe Decker can comment on this? 



That hasnt been an issue, because the lone state in which gay "marriage" is legal already has a separate law that states that it will not issue marriage licenses to any couples, who reside in states where such would be illegal.

As for the Supreme Court, there are two cases that address this issue (indirectly). One is Murhphy v. Ramsey, which aimed to stop polygamy:

For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement. And to this end, no means are more directly and immediately suitable than those provided by this act, which endeavors to withdraw all political influence from those who are practically hostile to its attainment.


The other is a Minnesota Supreme court decision backed by the federal Supreme Court, Baker v. Nelson. It basically rejected the right to same-sex "marriage", as defining marriage as a 1M-1W union did not violate the 14th amendment. When this ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court, it was rejected for lack of a substantial federal question (thus making it binding on all lower courts). The high Court has not addressed this issue since that time (1971).

So, if it does go up again, gay "marriage" advocates must make the case as to why defining marriage as a 1M-1W union violates the 14th amendment now; whereas it did not 37 years ago.

Also of note is that the gay couple who filed the suit, tried using Loving v. Virginia, which occured less than 5 years prior, to make the case for gay "marriage". However, that tactic was ineffective.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on May 27, 2008, 06:19:56 PM
I wish these religious nutters would come clean and go to a court and say that it is all in a magic book of myths and fables and therefore gay marriage should be outlawed; that's what they think; that's what they should do.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 27, 2008, 06:56:37 PM
That hasnt been an issue, because the lone state in which gay "marriage" is legal already has a separate law that states that it will not issue marriage licenses to any couples, who reside in states where such would be illegal.

As for the Supreme Court, there are two cases that address this issue (indirectly). One is Murhphy v. Ramsey, which aimed to stop polygamy:

For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement. And to this end, no means are more directly and immediately suitable than those provided by this act, which endeavors to withdraw all political influence from those who are practically hostile to its attainment.


The other is a Minnesota Supreme court decision backed by the federal Supreme Court, Baker v. Nelson. It basically rejected the right to same-sex "marriage", as defining marriage as a 1M-1W union did not violate the 14th amendment. When this ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court, it was rejected for lack of a substantial federal question (thus making it binding on all lower courts). The high Court has not addressed this issue since that time (1971).

So, if it does go up again, gay "marriage" advocates must make the case as to why defining marriage as a 1M-1W union violates the 14th amendment now; whereas it did not 37 years ago.

Also of note is that the gay couple who filed the suit, tried using Loving v. Virginia, which occured less than 5 years prior, to make the case for gay "marriage". However, that tactic was ineffective.

Good points.  I hope this is something that is ultimately decided by voters. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: bigdumbbell on May 27, 2008, 07:51:03 PM
And no answer to why people like anal sex and coat their dicks with feces.
u dont do colonics?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 28, 2008, 07:34:29 AM
Disney opens Fairy Tale Wedding service to gays
By GARY GENTILE, Associated Press

LOS ANGELES -- The Walt Disney Co. has changed its popular Fairy Tale Wedding program to allow for commitment ceremonies between same-sex couples.

Disney had previously limited access to the program to couples with a valid marriage license.

The company said it will now include ceremonies for gay couples at its parks and cruise line after being contacted by a gay couple that wanted to participate in the program.

"We believe this change is consistent with Disney's long-standing policy of welcoming every guest in an inclusive environment," Disney Parks and Resorts spokesman Donn Walker said Friday. "We want everyone who comes to celebrate a special occasion at Disney to feel welcome and respected."

The Fairy Tale Wedding service offers packages starting at $8,000 and running to $45,000 or more.

Ceremonies are offered at Disneyland in California and at the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida, as well as on Disney's cruise ships.

Packages include flowers, dining, music and other extras, depending on the location. Walt Disney World has a dedicated wedding pavilion and for an extra fee, couples can exchange vows in front of the park's iconic attractions, including Cinderella's castle.

The more lavish packages also include having Mickey and Minnie Mouse in formal wear as guests.

Groups not affiliated with Disney have held annual "gay days" celebrations at Disney parks for years. Company officials have taken a tolerant attitude to the weekend, allowing party promoters to rent out parks after hours and rebuffing religious groups that condemned Disney.

In 2005, Southern Baptists ended an eight-year boycott of the Walt Disney Co. for violating "moral righteousness and traditional family values."


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: OzmO on May 28, 2008, 07:37:50 AM
I heard on the radio on the way to work this morning, on the Armstrong & Getty show, that 51% of people in California favor the legalization of Gay Marriages while 42% oppose.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 28, 2008, 07:56:14 AM
CALIFORNIA MAJORITY BACKS GAY MARRIAGE
Field Poll director calls results a milestone
John Wildermuth, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 28, 2008


In a dramatic reversal of decades of public opinion, California voters agree by a slim majority that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, according to a Field Poll released today.

By 51-42 percent, registered voters said they believed same-sex marriage should be legal in California. Only 28 percent favored gay marriage in 1977, when the Field Poll first asked that question, said Mark DiCamillo, the poll's director.

"This is a milestone in California," he said. "You can't downplay the importance of a change in an issue we've been tracking for 30 years."

While opposition to same-sex marriage has been weakening for years in California, supporters have remained a minority. In March 2000, for example, voters overwhelmingly backed Proposition 22, a statute that said the state would recognize only the marriage of a man and a woman. A 2006 Field Poll showed that half the state's voters still disapproved of same-sex marriage.

But the state Supreme Court's decision this month to overturn Prop. 22 might have turned the tide, DiCamillo said.

"There's a certain validation when the state Supreme Court makes a ruling that you can't discriminate when it comes to marriage," he said. "That may have been enough to move some people who were on the fence about same-sex marriage."

Younger voters and those living in the Bay Area, Los Angeles and other Democratic urban strongholds were the most supportive of same-sex marriage, the poll found, while older voters and those living in the more conservative inland areas were more opposed.

The poll also provided a boost for groups planning to battle a measure to ban same-sex marriage that is expected to go on the ballot in November as a constitutional amendment. By 51-43 percent, registered voters oppose changing the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, according to the poll.

Results differ from other poll

A statewide Los Angeles Times/KTLA Poll released last week showed different results: 54 percent of registered voters said they would support the initiative that would change the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

"When we get results that we think are surprising, we double- and triple-check our numbers, and that's what we did here," said DiCamillo. "Everything in this poll is consistent internally."

It's not unusual for two polls to have conflicting numbers, said Steve Kinney, a veteran GOP pollster.

"It's all in the methodology, who you actually talked to and whether they accurately represented that state as a whole," he said. "But even if you have confidence in your numbers, you're always scared if you come up with something totally different. Are you wrong, or is the other guy?"

Support for same-sex marriage has been growing steadily in California, and the youngest voters are pushing the hardest. Among voters 18 to 29 years old, 68 percent back gay marriage, compared with only 36 percent of those 65 and older, the Field Poll found.

It's a "generational replacement, with older folks being replaced by younger voters very much in favor of same-sex marriage," DiCamillo said.

Those younger voters "have grown up with people who are out in their lives, whether it's politicians in the news or people they know," said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, one of the groups opposed to the proposed initiative to ban same-sex marriage.

But the dramatic movement on the issue over the past few years hasn't been by accident, Kors said. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's dramatic - and later overturned - decision to issue marriage licenses to gay couples in 2004, the Legislature's passage of two bills to authorize same-sex marriage and other efforts have helped educate people about the issue and bring same-sex marriage into the California mainstream, he said.

"Legislators voted for same-sex marriage, and none of them were voted out of office," Kors said. "This (poll result) is what we'd expect, but it's also the first time we've seen a majority for same-sex marriage, and the Field Poll is as credible as it comes."

Supporters of the new initiative shrugged off the poll results, saying that it is a long time until the November election.

"The Supreme Court ruling only just happened," said Karen England, spokeswoman for the Capitol Resource Institute, one of the groups backing a ban on same-sex marriage, which is expected to be approved for the ballot in mid-June. "Once we have the measure on the ballot, the campaign can change everything."

England said plenty of voters calling her group are outraged that the Supreme Court overturned Prop. 22 after it passed with 61 percent of the vote. She also questioned the accuracy of pre-election polls, noting that support for Prop. 22 on election day was much stronger than was shown in polls taken days before the vote.

"People might say one thing to a pollster, but they make their own decision in the voting booth," she said.

How state splits on issue

The new Field Poll highlights the battleground for the fall campaign, showing the state splitting dramatically along regional, ideological and religious grounds.

The heavily Democratic urban areas strongly support same-sex marriage; 55 percent of Los Angeles County and an overwhelming 68 percent of the Bay Area are in favor. By contrast, only 38 percent of the Central Valley and 41 percent of Southern California outside of Los Angeles are in favor.

Same-sex marriage also digs a chasm between California's heavily populated coast and its inland areas; 55 percent of coastal voters back same-sex marriage compared with 40 percent in support inland.

The issue divides along liberal-conservative lines; 85 percent of strong liberals are in favor, and 85 percent of strong conservatives are opposed.

Protestants, who make up a third of the state's voters, oppose same-sex marriage 34 percent to 57 percent, while Catholics are split almost equally, 45 percent in favor to 48 percent opposed. Those with no religious preference back same-sex marriage 81 percent to 12 percent.

America will be watching the fall campaign over same-sex marriage, which will have national implications, said Kors of Equality California.

"It's going to be an intense and enormous undertaking, but we're confident we'll win," he said. "But we also know that the other side is out there working just as hard and feeling just as confident."

The poll is based on a telephone survey of 1,052 registered voters taken May 17-26. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.

Status report

The law: The state Supreme Court this month overturned a ban on same-sex marriage approved by voters in 2000.

Weddings: Counties are preparing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples when the ruling takes effect in mid-June.

New initiative: A constitutional amendment declaring that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid" is likely to qualify for the November ballot.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on May 28, 2008, 09:33:08 AM

Those polls mean absolutely nothing. It only matters, when it's all on the line, when the amendment is on the ballot.

What gets me is, if those who believe that marriage is strictly a 1M-1W union can get signatures and have state constitutional amendment placed on the ballot, what's stopping advocates of gay "marriage" from doing the same? Where are their ballot drives? Where are their petitions?

Again, something similar happened in Hawaii. The state court overturned the marriage law. There were polls cited about alleged accepted of same-sex "marriage". But, the constitutional amendment (defining marriage as a 1M-1W union) passed 69-31.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: OzmO on May 28, 2008, 09:41:46 AM
Those polls mean absolutely nothing. It only matters, when it's all on the line, when the amendment is on the ballot.

What gets me is, if those who believe that marriage is strictly a 1M-1W union can get signatures and have state constitutional amendment placed on the ballot, what's stopping advocates of gay "marriage" from doing the same? Where are their ballot drives? Where are their petitions?

Again, something similar happened in Hawaii. The state court overturned the marriage law. There were polls cited about alleged accepted of same-sex "marriage". But, the constitutional amendment (defining marriage as a 1M-1W union) passed 69-31.



Agreed.   But it's inevitable, it will happen at some point in the future.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on May 28, 2008, 09:52:23 AM
Good points.  I hope this is something that is ultimately decided by voters. 

From what I've read so far, it should happen. Unlike Massachusetts, the legislature has no say as to whether or not a constitutional amendment can be put on the ballot (and neither does the governor). All that is needed is the correct amount of certified signatures from registered voters. 1.2 million signatures were submitted; 695,000 are needed to get it done.




Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on May 28, 2008, 11:05:07 AM
Agreed.   But it's inevitable, it will happen at some point in the future.

What will happen, gay "marriage" supporters will start petitions for constitutional amendments or gay "marriage" will get legalized nationwide, courtesy of a federal Supreme Court ruling?


Concerning the latter, that is what some who support same-sex "marriage" would like you to think. Voter apathy appears to be a strategy used, whenever this issue pops up. But, consider that less than 5 years ago, only 4 states had constitutional amendments, defining marriage strictly as a 1M-1W union.

Now, 27 states have that, with Florida and California on tap to became 28 and 29.

The only chance that gay "marriage" becomes legal nation-wide is if the Supreme Court overturns its backing of Baker v. Nelson.

Because California doesn't have a residency requirement, the tactic will be for out-of-state gay couples to hit the Golden State, then sue to have their licenses recognized in their home state. That's a direct challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which does NOT require a state to recognize gay "marriage" from another state.

That may happen if there's no stay of this decision and licenses are issued, especially if the California amendment passes 6 months later.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: OzmO on May 28, 2008, 11:10:43 AM
What will happen, gay "marriage" supporters will start petitions for constitutional amendments or gay "marriage" will get legalized nationwide, courtesy of a federal Supreme Court ruling?


Concerning the latter, that is what some who support same-sex "marriage" would like you to think. Voter apathy appears to be a strategy used, whenever this issue pops up. But, consider that less than 5 years ago, only 4 states had constitutional amendments, defining marriage strictly as a 1M-1W union.

Now, 27 states have that, with Florida and California on tap to became 28 and 29.

The only chance that gay "marriage" becomes legal nation-wide is if the Supreme Court overturns its backing of Baker v. Nelson.

Because California doesn't have a residency requirement, the tactic will be for out-of-state gay couples to hit the Golden State, then sue to have their licenses recognized in their home state. That's a direct challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which does NOT require a state to recognize gay "marriage" from another state.

That may happen if there's no stay of this decision and licenses are issued, especially if the California amendment passes 6 months later.



Again, I don't disagree with anything you said here I think.   I'm just saying at some point it will be legal.  How that happens?  When that happens?  I'm not sure.  I don't think it will take another 50 years.

Personally, I don't care either way, what happens.  But i think BB is correct when he says it will happen at some point.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Colossus_500 on May 28, 2008, 11:11:11 AM
What will happen, gay "marriage" supporters will start petitions for constitutional amendments or gay "marriage" will get legalized nationwide, courtesy of a federal Supreme Court ruling?


Concerning the latter, that is what some who support same-sex "marriage" would like you to think. Voter apathy appears to be a strategy used, whenever this issue pops up. But, consider that less than 5 years ago, only 4 states had constitutional amendments, defining marriage strictly as a 1M-1W union.

Now, 27 states have that, with Florida and California on tap to became 28 and 29.

The only chance that gay "marriage" becomes legal nation-wide is if the Supreme Court overturns its backing of Baker v. Nelson.

Because California doesn't have a residency requirement, the tactic will be for out-of-state gay couples to hit the Golden State, then sue to have their licenses recognized in their home state. That's a direct challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which does NOT require a state to recognize gay "marriage" from another state.

That may happen if there's no stay of this decision and licenses are issued, especially if the California amendment passes 6 months later.


All the more reason that the upcoming presidential election is crucial seeing that whichever candidate wins will be replacing at least 2 Supreme Court Justices.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 28, 2008, 07:31:00 PM
New York to Back Same-Sex Unions From Elsewhere
By JEREMY W. PETERS

ALBANY — Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.

In a directive issued on May 14, the governor’s legal counsel, David Nocenti, instructed the agencies that gay couples married elsewhere “should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union.”

The revisions are most likely to involve as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.

In a videotaped message given to gay community leaders at a dinner on May 17, Mr. Paterson described the move as “a strong step toward marriage equality.” And people on both sides of the issue said it moved the state closer to fully legalizing same-sex unions in this state.

“Very shortly, there will be hundreds and hundreds and hundreds, and probably thousands and thousands and thousands of gay people who have their marriages recognized by the state,” said Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell, a Democrat who represents the Upper West Side and has pushed for legalization of gay unions.

Massachusetts and California are the only states that have legalized gay marriage, while others, including New Jersey and Vermont, allow civil unions. Forty-one states have laws limiting marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Legal experts said Mr. Paterson’s decision would make New York the only state that did not itself allow gay marriage but fully recognized same-sex unions entered into elsewhere...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/nyregion/29marriage.html?hp=&pagewanted=all


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: CARTEL on May 28, 2008, 08:35:26 PM
Wait till some twinks start asking for union support and take half the earnings from some Bears.

Welcome to hell, funboys!

Be careful what you ask for  ;)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: bigdumbbell on May 29, 2008, 04:07:00 AM
one of the many executive tools available...there are more to come.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 30, 2008, 09:24:33 AM
How Governor Set His Stance on Gay Rights
By JEREMY W. PETERS and DANNY HAKIM

When David A. Paterson was growing up and his parents would go out of town, he and his little brother would stay in Harlem with family friends they called Uncle Stanley and Uncle Ronald.

Uncle Stanley and Uncle Ronald, he said, were a gay couple, though in the 1960s few people described them that way. They helped young David with his spelling, and read to him and played cards with him.

“Apparently, my parents never thought we were in any danger,” the governor recalled on Thursday in an interview. “I was raised in a culture that understood the different ways that people conduct their lives. And I feel very proud of it.”

Mr. Paterson, who two months ago was unexpectedly elevated to be governor of New York, has accepted gay men and lesbians since early in life. From his first run for office, in 1985, he reached out to gays and lesbians, and in 1994, long before gay rights groups were broadly pushing for it, he said he supported same-sex marriage.

As he rose in politics, he became a go-between in the occasionally strained relationship between gay and black residents in his district and beyond, using his easygoing manner to broker disagreements and soothe hurt feelings.

On Thursday, the governor, who is still largely unknown to many New Yorkers, appealed to them to recognize what he called the basic common sense of allowing gay men and lesbians married elsewhere to gain the same rights here as heterosexual couples.

In doing so, he is stepping to the forefront of an issue that has often tripped up his party nationally, and he is going further than either of the two Democratic presidential candidates have been willing to do.

“People who live together for a long time would like to be married — as far as I’m concerned, I think it’s beautiful,” he said in a news conference called to discuss his directive to state agencies to revise their regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like California.

“I think it’s fine, regardless of the tenets of religion or the beliefs of some,” he added. “It’s something that the government should allow for people. It’s maybe misunderstood in this generation.”

But already on Thursday, there were signs of a backlash against his decision, with some conservative groups mulling whether to mount a legal challenge to the directive. Some Republican legislators said that Mr. Paterson is wading into an issue that should be settled by the Legislature, and likened it to the ill-fated attempt by his predecessor, Eliot Spitzer, to grant driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants without seeking legislative support.

“It’s outrageous that the governor did what he did,” said Michael Long, chairman of the state’s Conservative Party. “He’s for same-sex marriage, that’s fine. I have no problem with that. To do this in the dark of night, through the back door, to begin the process of destroying the sanctity of marriage, is really wrong.”

It was shortly after Mr. Paterson was sworn in, on March 17, that his legal counsel, David Nocenti, approached him to discuss a February appellate court ruling in Rochester. In that case, the court said that because of New York’s longstanding practice of recognizing marriages from other jurisdictions, a community college in Monroe County must provide health benefits to the wife of a woman who was married in Canada.

Mr. Nocenti recommended that Mr. Paterson order all state agencies to bring their policies in line with that decision.

Mr. Paterson quickly agreed to do so, not only because the state risked legal exposure if it did not, but also because such a directive would be a strong statement of principle about an issue he cares about deeply. He met with his inner circle, and there was no dissent.

On May 14, Mr. Nocenti’s memo went out to the agencies. The governor’s plan called for not publicizing the directive until after June 30, when the agencies were asked to report back to Mr. Nocenti with the revisions necessary to comply with the court ruling. Once the governor approved those changes, he planned to announce them publicly. But Mr. Nocenti’s memo was reported on Wednesday night by The New York Times, and the governor described its contents at a dinner with gay advocates on May 17.

In the interview, Mr. Paterson said he believes deeply that gay men and lesbians today face the same kind of civil rights battle that black Americans faced. He acknowledged that this position put him at odds with some black leaders, who bristle at such comparisons.

“In many respects, people in our society, we only recognize our own struggles,” Mr. Paterson said. “I’ve wanted to be someone in the African-American community who recognizes the new civil rights struggle that is being undertaken by gay and lesbian and transgendered people.”

When Mr. Paterson became governor, gay activists cheered, saying they would have an ally in Albany even more committed than Mr. Spitzer. The Web site of The Advocate, a gay magazine, ran a story headlined, “Could Spitzer’s woes have a silver lining?” The story called Mr. Paterson “the best-case scenario for gays and lesbians in the state.”

Mr. Paterson introduced the State Senate’s first hate crimes bill in the 1980s and refused to support a compromise that did not include gay men and lesbians. When the Senate ultimately agreed to pass a hate crimes bill in 2000, it marked the first time the phrase “sexual orientation” appeared in New York State laws.

Mr. Paterson, then a senator, said: “Now I can die in peace,” adding, “If nothing else ever happens here, I feel that I can point to a contribution that I made.”

During his years as minority leader of the Senate, from 2002 to 2006, his warm relations with the majority leader, Joseph L. Bruno, a Republican, helped pave the way for laws extending civil rights protections to gay men and lesbians, and coincided with a softening of Mr. Bruno’s views on gay rights.

“From the get-go, when I first introduced marriage, which was in, like, 2001, he put his name down right away as a sponsor,” said Senator Tom Duane, a Manhattan Democrat and the only openly gay member of the Senate. “The second I asked him if he wanted to be a sponsor, he said yes. When he was minority leader, he also fought for funding for groups and he’s been great on H.I.V./AIDS issues, as well. He has been 100 percent behind us.”

Some lawmakers said they particularly admired Mr. Paterson’s position on gay marriage because it would have been easy for him to let the issue rest once he became governor.

“I just think it shows the steel in his spine,” said Assemblyman Micah Z. Kellner, a Democrat who represents the Upper East Side. “He knows he is now the governor of all people in New York State, gay and straight.”

Mr. Paterson said he does not see his support for gay marriage as an issue of political fortitude, but rather something more human and almost reflexive.

“All the time when I’d hear Uncle Stanley and Uncle Ronald and my parents talk, they were talking about the civil rights struggle,” Mr. Paterson said. “In those days, I knew I wanted to grow up and feel that I could change something.”



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 31, 2008, 10:09:42 AM
10 States Ask Calif. Court to Delay Gay Marriage 

Friday, May 30, 2008 2:30 PM

SAN FRANCISCO -- The attorneys general of 10 states are urging the California Supreme Court to delay finalizing its ruling to legalize same-sex marriage.

The attorneys general say in court documents filed Thursday that they have an interest in the case because they would have to determine if their states would recognize the marriage of gay residents who wed in California.

They want the court to stay its ruling until after the November election, when voters likely will decide whether to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown is urging the court not to grant the stay.

The states involved are Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah.
 
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/gay_marriage_states/2008/05/30/100258.html


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on May 31, 2008, 03:25:28 PM
10 States Ask Calif. Court to Delay Gay Marriage 

Friday, May 30, 2008 2:30 PM

SAN FRANCISCO -- The attorneys general of 10 states are urging the California Supreme Court to delay finalizing its ruling to legalize same-sex marriage.

The attorneys general say in court documents filed Thursday that they have an interest in the case because they would have to determine if their states would recognize the marriage of gay residents who wed in California.

They want the court to stay its ruling until after the November election, when voters likely will decide whether to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown is urging the court not to grant the stay.

The states involved are Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah.
 
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/gay_marriage_states/2008/05/30/100258.html

They don't have to do so, according to the Defense of Marriage Act. This is why gay "marriage" supporters were looking for a state, other than Massachusetts, to legalize it.

Baker v. Nelson already stated that bans on gay "marriage" don't violate the 14th amendment, which is the argument that supporters will attempt to use. They must present the case as to why it does not, as it did not 37 years ago.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 31, 2008, 03:42:11 PM
They don't have to do so, according to the Defense of Marriage Act. This is why gay "marriage" supporters were looking for a state, other than Massachusetts, to legalize it.

Baker v. Nelson already stated that bans on gay "marriage" don't violate the 14th amendment, which is the argument that supporters will attempt to use. They must present the case as to why it does not, as it did not 37 years ago.

I don't know McWay.  Anytime we leave decisions like these in the hands of the Courts, you never what can happen.  Just look at the case (Bowers v. Hardwick?) where they overturned precedent that couldn't have been more than 20 years old or so. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on June 03, 2008, 11:01:31 AM
First Same-Sex Weddings in Greece
By ANTHEE CARASSAVA

ATHENS — Defying governmental wrath, the mayor of a remote Greek island performed the country’s first same-sex marriages on Tuesday, wedding two men and two women.

The civil ceremonies, held at sunrise in the nondescript town hall of Tilos, a tiny island in the eastern Aegean Sea, defied statements by a senior Greek prosecutor last week that such unions were illegal.

“It’s done, now,” the mayor, Anastassios Aliferis, said in a telephone interview. “The unions have been registered and the licenses have been issued. It’s a historic moment.”

With its abundance of glamorous gay bars and summer island resorts such as Mykonos, Greece has long drawn thousands of gay tourists annually. But gays and lesbians in this European Union nation of 11 million people frequently complain of discrimination. Public displays of affection are widely frowned upon. The country’s military bars gays from joining its ranks, and in 1993 a private Greek television network, Mega Channel, was fined $116,000 by the National Radio and Television Council for showing men kissing in a weekly drama. Greece’s powerful Orthodox Church has also denounced homosexuality as a sin and “defect of human nature.”

On Tuesday, however, a bubbling just-married Evangelia Vlami emerged from the Tilos town hall, telling the BBC that the unions would help end discrimination. “We did this to encourage other gay people to take a stand,” she said.

About two dozen people attended the no-frills ceremony, held under the watchful eyes of police officers and dumfounded locals.

“I couldn’t believe it,” said Sofia Kamma, a resident contacted by phone. “I know they’re people too, but couldn’t they have gone on doing what they were doing without getting our community involved?”

Greek gay rights groups have noted a loophole in a 1982 law that does not specify that a civil union must involve a man and woman.

But last week, as the gay couples made plans to tie the knot, taking out a wedding notice in a local newspaper, Greece’s top prosecutor, Giorgos Sanidas, warned that any marriage between same-sex couples would be “automatically nullified and considered illegal.”

He said the decree was founded in the spirit of the constitution that defines marriage as matrimony between a man and a woman with the intent of forming a family.

But Mr. Aliferis, a Socialist foe of the ruling conservative government, insisted otherwise. “There is no court in Europe that will side by this arcane reading of the constitution,” he said. “What happens if a couple can not reproduce and have a family? Is their marriage null and void?”

Gay activists have warned that they may now begin to sue any of the country’s municipalities if civil authorities resist requests for similar sax-sex unions.

The Netherlands was the first European Union country to offer full civil marriage rights to gay couples in 2001. Belgium did so in 2003, followed by Spain, despite fierce opposition from the Roman Catholic Church.

Most other European Union countries have varying forms of civil unions.

“It’s ludicrous for Greece, the cradle of democracy and human rights, to defy homosexuals equal rights and privileges,” said Mr. Aliferis. “Officials should take the time and reassess their views.”

Gay activists have vowed to seek recourse with the European Court of Justice if authorities in Greece continue to challenge same-sex marriages.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on June 03, 2008, 12:10:03 PM
It's official! The California Marriage Amendment is on the ballot:

California Marriage Amendment Qualifies for November Ballot – The People Will Decide (6/2/08)


Secretary of State Debra Bowen today certified the eighth initiative for the November 4, 2008, General Election ballot. The measure would amend California’s Constitution to define marriage as a union “between a man and a woman.”


“The response from the people of this state has been unprecedented in support of marriage’s legacy, by responding with an all-out volunteer signature campaign,” said Ron Prentice, CEO of the California Family Council and Chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition sponsoring the amendment. “We’re so grateful to the over 1.1 million voters who signed the marriage petition in time for the November election. Passing this amendment is the only way for the people to override the four supreme court judges who want to re-define marriage for our entire society.”

In order to qualify for the ballot, the marriage definition measure needed 694,354 valid petition signatures, which is equal to 8% of the total votes cast for governor in the November 2006 General Election. The initiative proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures in an attempt to qualify the measure, and it qualified through the random sample signature check.

“The vast majority of research continues to state that California’s voters favor keeping marriage as it is, protecting its historic definition between only a man and a woman. The November ballot will give opportunity for citizens to respond to the State Supreme Court’s decision, by solidifying traditional marriage in the California Constitution. Californians are a tolerant people. But we also know that marriage is between a man and a woman, as the voters reaffirmed just a few years ago.” stated Prentice.





http://www.protectmarriage.com/newsdetail.php?newsId=314 (http://www.protectmarriage.com/newsdetail.php?newsId=314)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: OzmO on June 03, 2008, 12:17:07 PM
Do you guys believe that legalizing GAY marriage would make a mockery of the practice?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on June 03, 2008, 12:19:24 PM
It's official! The California Marriage Amendment is on the ballot:

California Marriage Amendment Qualifies for November Ballot – The People Will Decide (6/2/08)


Secretary of State Debra Bowen today certified the eighth initiative for the November 4, 2008, General Election ballot. The measure would amend California’s Constitution to define marriage as a union “between a man and a woman.”


“The response from the people of this state has been unprecedented in support of marriage’s legacy, by responding with an all-out volunteer signature campaign,” said Ron Prentice, CEO of the California Family Council and Chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition sponsoring the amendment. “We’re so grateful to the over 1.1 million voters who signed the marriage petition in time for the November election. Passing this amendment is the only way for the people to override the four supreme court judges who want to re-define marriage for our entire society.”

In order to qualify for the ballot, the marriage definition measure needed 694,354 valid petition signatures, which is equal to 8% of the total votes cast for governor in the November 2006 General Election. The initiative proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures in an attempt to qualify the measure, and it qualified through the random sample signature check.

“The vast majority of research continues to state that California’s voters favor keeping marriage as it is, protecting its historic definition between only a man and a woman. The November ballot will give opportunity for citizens to respond to the State Supreme Court’s decision, by solidifying traditional marriage in the California Constitution. Californians are a tolerant people. But we also know that marriage is between a man and a woman, as the voters reaffirmed just a few years ago.” stated Prentice.





http://www.protectmarriage.com/newsdetail.php?newsId=314 (http://www.protectmarriage.com/newsdetail.php?newsId=314)

Good.  The voters should decide, one way or the other. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Colossus_500 on June 03, 2008, 01:17:53 PM
It's official! The California Marriage Amendment is on the ballot:

California Marriage Amendment Qualifies for November Ballot – The People Will Decide (6/2/08)


Secretary of State Debra Bowen today certified the eighth initiative for the November 4, 2008, General Election ballot. The measure would amend California’s Constitution to define marriage as a union “between a man and a woman.”


“The response from the people of this state has been unprecedented in support of marriage’s legacy, by responding with an all-out volunteer signature campaign,” said Ron Prentice, CEO of the California Family Council and Chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition sponsoring the amendment. “We’re so grateful to the over 1.1 million voters who signed the marriage petition in time for the November election. Passing this amendment is the only way for the people to override the four supreme court judges who want to re-define marriage for our entire society.”

In order to qualify for the ballot, the marriage definition measure needed 694,354 valid petition signatures, which is equal to 8% of the total votes cast for governor in the November 2006 General Election. The initiative proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures in an attempt to qualify the measure, and it qualified through the random sample signature check.

“The vast majority of research continues to state that California’s voters favor keeping marriage as it is, protecting its historic definition between only a man and a woman. The November ballot will give opportunity for citizens to respond to the State Supreme Court’s decision, by solidifying traditional marriage in the California Constitution. Californians are a tolerant people. But we also know that marriage is between a man and a woman, as the voters reaffirmed just a few years ago.” stated Prentice.





http://www.protectmarriage.com/newsdetail.php?newsId=314 (http://www.protectmarriage.com/newsdetail.php?newsId=314)
The opponents of this issue being on the ballot in November will still try to convince the public through the tanked-up media that the polls show that more people care less about the issue.  It will be a wake-up call when the ballot results should at least a 5-10% point margin in favor of a marriage amendment.  Twenty-Seven states already have this amendment in their constitution.  And if California ends up with vote to amend it's state constitution, the adversaries will have to concede that, indeed, not everyone sees this lifestyle as favorable as they deem it to be.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: bigdumbbell on June 03, 2008, 01:26:11 PM
Do you guys believe that legalizing GAY marriage would make a mockery of the practice?
no more than that mormon cult already does


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on June 03, 2008, 01:35:54 PM
Do you guys believe that legalizing GAY marriage would make a mockery of the practice?

No more so than getting divorced and remarried does. I bet everyone reading this knows someone who is remarried once, twice, or even thrice!


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: OzmO on June 03, 2008, 02:23:39 PM
no more than that mormon cult already does
No more so than getting divorced and remarried does. I bet everyone reading this knows someone who is remarried once, twice, or even thrice!


You know i asked one of my clients this the other day and he said "like many husbands and wives don't already make a mockery of marriage with the way they cheat and treat each other?"



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on June 03, 2008, 03:28:19 PM
The opponents of this issue being on the ballot in November will still try to convince the public through the tanked-up media that the polls show that more people care less about the issue.  It will be a wake-up call when the ballot results should at least a 5-10% point margin in favor of a marriage amendment.  Twenty-Seven states already have this amendment in their constitution.  And if California ends up with vote to amend it's state constitution, the adversaries will have to concede that, indeed, not everyone sees this lifestyle as favorable as they deem it to be.

That's generally the case. Some of these outlets will prop up polls, claiming that people support gay "marriage". If history repeats itself, these polls will be shot to pieces, when the results of the vote are tallied. 1.1 million people signed this petition in record time; they only needed 695,000.

If the amendment passes, it will be the third time a state's residence has voted for such, after its court deemed laws that declared marriage as only a 1M-1W union unconstitutional. And, California will join Michigan, Oregon, Hawaii, and Wisconsin, as "blue" states with constitutional amendments, regarding the definition of marriage.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on June 03, 2008, 03:30:09 PM
no more than that mormon cult already does

In other words, more of a mockery.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on June 03, 2008, 04:30:55 PM
In other words, more of a mockery.

LOL  ;D


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on June 04, 2008, 09:07:37 AM
California Supreme Court refuses to delay gay marriage until after November election
The ruling, on a 4-3 votes, means same-sex couples could tie the knot as early as later this month.
By Andrew Blankstein, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
10:07 AM PDT, June 4, 2008

The California Supreme Court today has rejected a request by conservative and religious groups to delay implementing its legalization of same-sex marriage until after the November election.

The ruling, made on a 4-3 vote, means that gay marriage could begin soon -- perhaps as early as later this month.

State officials announced last week that California counties are authorized to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples beginning June 17.

On Monday, the California secretary of state said an initiative barring gay marriage had enough signatures to qualify for the Nov. 4 ballot.

The proposal would amend the state Constitution to define marriage as a union "between a man and a woman" and undo last month's historic California Supreme Court ruling, which found that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unconstitutional.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on June 04, 2008, 09:10:40 AM
What will the gays have to continually whine and bitch about now?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Benny B on June 04, 2008, 12:47:13 PM
What will the gays have to continually whine and bitch about now?
fecal matter on the penis


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on June 04, 2008, 05:33:53 PM
George Takei and partner plan to wed in September
By MICHAEL WEINFELD, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, June 4, 2008

George Takei, best known for playing Sulu on "Star Trek," will never forget the first time he saw Brad Altman, the man he plans to marry, more than two decades ago.

They were working out in a running club and he couldn't take his eyes off Altman, who had a "lean, tightly muscled" body, the 71-year-old actor told AP Radio in an interview.

Takei said he asked Altman to help him train for a marathon, they fell in love, and now they've been living together for 21 years.

Altman said he proposed by getting down on one knee in their kitchen while Takei was eating a sandwich after seeing on TV that the California Supreme Court had legalized same-sex marriage. It surprised Takei, who thought he would be the one who popped the question.

They bought each other turquoise and silver wedding rings.

Takei and Altman plan to marry Sept. 14 in the Democracy Forum at the Japanese National Museum in Los Angeles.

Walter Koenig, who played Chekov in "Star Trek," will be the best man and Nichelle Nichols, who played Uhura, will be the matron of honor. Castmate Leonard Nimoy will be among the 200 guests, but probably not William Shatner. Takei has said Shatner didn't treat him and most of the cast very well.

Takei, who had a recurring role on NBC's "Heroes" last year, and Altman plan to honeymoon for a month in South America.

As for what they'll wear on their big day, Altman said they'll both walk down the aisle in white tuxedoes, which seemed to catch Takei off-guard.

"Well, now that you've announced it on the air, I guess it's settled," he said.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on June 04, 2008, 06:07:48 PM
So what?

A nerd icon is getting married.  :)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: OzmO on June 04, 2008, 08:38:17 PM
At some point who really gives a sh1t?   Unless of course you are a closet phobe.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on June 04, 2008, 10:07:30 PM
At some point who really gives a sh1t?   Unless of course you are a closet phobe.

Closet phobes? On a bodybuilding board no less?  Could it be?  :D


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on June 05, 2008, 06:56:00 AM
At some point who really gives a sh1t?   Unless of course you are a closet phobe.

No one does care, that's what is so funny.

I'm not really in favor of re-defining marriage but will gladly trade marriage meaning less for not having to hear gays carp about the issue anymore.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: OzmO on June 05, 2008, 07:38:28 AM
No one does care, that's what is so funny.

I'm not really in favor of re-defining marriage but will gladly trade marriage meaning less for not having to hear gays carp about the issue anymore.

Although even though I'm in California, i don't hear much about it. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on June 05, 2008, 08:19:23 AM
Same-sex wedding date may move up to June 16
Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Staff Writer

(06-04) 21:04 PDT -- San Francisco officials have asked the state for permission to begin marrying same-sex couples a little earlier than scheduled, on the evening of June 16 instead of the morning of June 17.

Mayor Gavin Newsom and other city officials are wondering when the state Supreme Court ruling allowing same-sex nuptials actually takes effect. The state has told county clerks the ruling kicks in the morning of June 17. But city officials want to know whether they can legally begin to issue the marriage licenses at 5:01 p.m. June 16 - right after the end of the state's workday.

"Unquestionably, we hope to extend beyond 5 o'clock. Why wouldn't we?" Newsom said Wednesday. "People have longed for this for 30 and 40 years. I don't think we should deny that just on the basis of a bureaucratic timeline."

Such a change would require permission from the state Office of Vital Records, which oversees the issuance of marriage licenses for all of California's 58 counties.

Suanne Buggy, a spokeswoman for the office, said the state has received inquiries from some counties about whether starting on the 16th would be legal.

"We're taking a look at it and will get additional guidance to counties if needed," Buggy said.

Since the moment the state Supreme Court ruled that California's Constitution grants same-sex couples the same right to marry as opposite-sex couples, people have made appointments at San Francisco City Hall, trying to be the first in line to be married there.

Initially, officials believed the decision would take effect June 16, but the state decided last week that it would be the next day. Forty-four same-sex couples had signed up in San Francisco to marry on the 16th. The state's decision forced them to reschedule their appointments, and some could be weeks later.

Karen Hong, the director of the county clerk's office, said city officials are discussing whether they can schedule more than 48 daily wedding ceremonies and appointments for obtaining licenses. Allowing more appointments could open up more slots for couples to marry on June 17. They also might be able to reserve spots on the 16th, depending on the state's determination.

San Francisco began requiring reservations in 2004, when Newsom ordered the clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and people waited in line for hours, sometimes even overnight.

Hong said her office, which has a staff of seven including her, will need additional help, equipment and detailed logistical planning. Some people could come from other departments in City Hall, she said.

"We're still working on getting commitments for additional resources. As soon as we get those commitments in place, we will definitely put that information out to the public," Hong said.

Even with the desire by some couples to be first in line, the San Francisco Convention & Visitors Bureau - which is launching a campaign to encourage both straight and gay couples to marry in the city - wants couples to take their time.

"In the best case scenario, it's not a rush thing," said Joe D'Alessandro, president and CEO of the bureau, who is planning a Labor Day wedding with his partner. "It's something people can plan this time, and that's how we are really going to encourage people."


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on June 06, 2008, 11:52:52 AM
What will the gays have to continually whine and bitch about now?

The fact that their marriage licenses may only be good for another 5 months.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on June 06, 2008, 01:33:42 PM
The fact that their marriage licenses may only be good for another 5 months.

They complain to much.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on June 10, 2008, 10:59:10 AM
Gay Unions Shed Light on Gender in Marriage
By TARA PARKER-POPE

For insights into healthy marriages, social scientists are looking in an unexpected place.

A growing body of evidence shows that same-sex couples have a great deal to teach everyone else about marriage and relationships. Most studies show surprisingly few differences between committed gay couples and committed straight couples, but the differences that do emerge have shed light on the kinds of conflicts that can endanger heterosexual relationships.

The findings offer hope that some of the most vexing problems are not necessarily entrenched in deep-rooted biological differences between men and women. And that, in turn, offers hope that the problems can be solved.

Next week, California will begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, reigniting the national debate over gay marriage. But relationship researchers say it also presents an opportunity to study the effects of marriage on the quality of all relationships.

“When I look at what’s happening in California, I think there’s a lot to be learned to explore how human beings relate to one another,” said Sondra E. Solomon, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Vermont. “How people care for each other, how they share responsibility, power and authority — those are the key issues in relationships.”

The stereotype for same-sex relationships is that they do not last. But that may be due, in large part, to the lack of legal and social recognition given to same-sex couples. Studies of dissolution rates vary widely.

After Vermont legalized same-sex civil unions in 2000, researchers surveyed nearly 1,000 couples, including same-sex couples and their heterosexual married siblings. The focus was on how the relationships were affected by common causes of marital strife like housework, sex and money.

Notably, same-sex relationships, whether between men or women, were far more egalitarian than heterosexual ones. In heterosexual couples, women did far more of the housework; men were more likely to have the financial responsibility; and men were more likely to initiate sex, while women were more likely to refuse it or to start a conversation about problems in the relationship. With same-sex couples, of course, none of these dichotomies were possible, and the partners tended to share the burdens far more equally.

While the gay and lesbian couples had about the same rate of conflict as the heterosexual ones, they appeared to have more relationship satisfaction, suggesting that the inequality of opposite-sex relationships can take a toll.

“Heterosexual married women live with a lot of anger about having to do the tasks not only in the house but in the relationship,” said Esther D. Rothblum, a professor of women’s studies at San Diego State University. “That’s very different than what same-sex couples and heterosexual men live with.”

Other studies show that what couples argue about is far less important than how they argue. The egalitarian nature of same-sex relationships appears to spill over into how those couples resolve conflict.

One well-known study used mathematical modeling to decipher the interactions between committed gay couples. The results, published in two 2003 articles in The Journal of Homosexuality, showed that when same-sex couples argued, they tended to fight more fairly than heterosexual couples, making fewer verbal attacks and more of an effort to defuse the confrontation.

Controlling and hostile emotional tactics, like belligerence and domineering, were less common among gay couples.

Same-sex couples were also less likely to develop an elevated heartbeat and adrenaline surges during arguments. And straight couples were more likely to stay physically agitated after a conflict.

“When they got into these really negative interactions, gay and lesbian couples were able to do things like use humor and affection that enabled them to step back from the ledge and continue to talk about the problem instead of just exploding,” said Robert W. Levenson, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley.

The findings suggest that heterosexual couples need to work harder to seek perspective. The ability to see the other person’s point of view appears to be more automatic in same-sex couples, but research shows that heterosexuals who can relate to their partner’s concerns and who are skilled at defusing arguments also have stronger relationships.

One of the most common stereotypes in heterosexual marriages is the “demand-withdraw” interaction, in which the woman tends to be unhappy and to make demands for change, while the man reacts by withdrawing from the conflict. But some surprising new research shows that same-sex couples also exhibit the pattern, contradicting the notion that the behavior is rooted in gender, according to an abstract presented at the 2006 meeting of the Association for Psychological Science by Sarah R. Holley, a psychology researcher at Berkeley.

Dr. Levenson says this is good news for all couples.

“Like everybody else, I thought this was male behavior and female behavior, but it’s not,” he said. “That means there is a lot more hope that you can do something about it.”



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on June 11, 2008, 09:52:28 AM
2 counties to halt all weddings, gay or not
Marisa Lagos, Chronicle Staff Writer

(06-10) 18:50 PDT -- County officials in at least two California counties say they'll stop performing all wedding ceremonies by next week, arguing that they don't have enough resources to marry both gay and straight couples.

Officials in Kern and Butte counties cited budget and staffing constraints as the rationale for halting the ceremonies. But clerks in other counties say that claim is specious. Some activists went further, arguing that the decision to stop the ceremonies amounts to poorly disguised discrimination against gay and lesbian couples.

County clerks are required by law to issue marriage licenses, but the offices do not have to perform wedding ceremonies. The recent state Supreme Court decision allowing same-sex marriages takes effect after the business day on Monday.

In Kern County, Clerk Ann Barnett announced her decision only after county lawyers told her she could not refuse to marry gay couples. Butte County Clerk Candace Grubb, meanwhile, blamed budget constraints, telling the Chico Enterprise-Record that her decision was made long before the court ruling.

In Merced County, Clerk Stephen Jones also announced that all marriages were being halted, though he later reversed his decision.

Conservative populations

Neither Barnett nor Grubb returned calls seeking comment Tuesday, nor did officials with the Alliance Defense Fund. That group, which argued in court against same-sex marriage, has urged county clerks to oppose such unions.

Both counties have conservative populations that overwhelmingly supported a 2000 ballot measure that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, a law found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on May 15. Advocates of that law are going back to the ballot in November with a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

Gay marriage advocates said the decisions to halt all marriages in the rural counties limits options for gay and straight couples who do not want or are denied a religious ceremony.

Only a handful of people - including religious officials, state legislators, retired judges and magistrates - may marry couples under California law. County clerks also may marry couples, and they may deputize any member of the public to perform the ceremonies.

Some county clerks said the budget argument seems a stretch, though they acknowledged that both Butte and Kern counties might not have enough staff to deal with a large influx of couples.

It's a no-brainer'

Steve Weir, Contra Costa County's clerk and president of the California Association of Clerks and Elected Officials, noted that the state allows counties to set their own fees for marriage ceremonies so they can recover the costs associated with performing the duty.

"It's a nice service that we provide to the public, and it's not costing me anything. In this day and age with the budget situation, how can you go wrong providing a public service that helps with your overhead? It's a no-brainer," Weir said. "Other folks might say you can go to another county, but that's not the point. I'm not going to say you can register to vote in Alameda County because we're not in the same political party."

Others said they doubt that the clerk's office in any rural, conservative county would be overwhelmed with gay couples come next week. Kings County Clerk Ken Baird, for example, said he would be surprised if more than a handful of same-sex couples wanted to get married there.

"Bakersfield (the Kern County seat) is not a very safe place to be out," added the Rev. Byrd Tetzlaff of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Kern County. "We are not expecting that many couples, maybe 10 or 12."

Free marriages

After hearing of the decision, Tetzlaff announced she would perform free marriages to same-sex couples until Nov. 4, when voters will weigh in the proposed constitutional amendment.

Next Tuesday she plans to offer her services to all couples getting licenses at the county building. But she said she and other gay-marriage supporters have been told that the police will not allow them to conduct the ceremonies there.

"We are looking at places nearby where we can be, and there are a number of us that are going to be supporting the couples as they go in to get their licenses," she said.

Kern County Supervisor Don Maben asked county officials Tuesday to explore other options for folks who want to tie the knot, including possibly bringing in officials from another county to perform the ceremonies. The Kern County Board of Supervisors will not take up the matter again until July, he said.

"I am concerned that this is disenfranchising all citizens from having civil marriages in Kern County," he said. "This is an 8,000-square-mile county, and there aren't a lot of opportunities (for civil ceremonies)."

Maben said he is "getting a lot of flak" for raising concerns about Barnett's decision but, that to him, it's not a gay-rights issue - it is simply a marriage issue. At least 25 opposite-sex couples who had weddings scheduled at the clerk's office are also being forced to make other plans, he said.

Options limited

In the meantime, couples wishing to get married in Butte or Kern counties could have limited options. Many churches refuse to perform gay marriages, though Tetzlaff said a number of clergy members in Bakersfield will marry same-sex couples privately. If Barnett or Grubb will not deputize her staffers or members of the public to perform the marriages, couples might have to find other public officials or retired judges who can - or leave the county, which could significantly increase the cost.

Weir, who is openly gay and plans to marry his partner next week, said while clerks are not legally bound to perform marriage ceremonies, they are public servants.

"We take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the state of California," he said. "It's a public ministerial process we perform for the public, and to a degree we have a monopoly on it - you can't go across the street to a private clerk's office."


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on June 11, 2008, 10:05:50 AM
2 counties to halt all weddings, gay or not
Marisa Lagos, Chronicle Staff Writer

(06-10) 18:50 PDT -- County officials in at least two California counties say they'll stop performing all wedding ceremonies by next week, arguing that they don't have enough resources to marry both gay and straight couples.

Officials in Kern and Butte counties cited budget and staffing constraints as the rationale for halting the ceremonies. But clerks in other counties say that claim is specious. Some activists went further, arguing that the decision to stop the ceremonies amounts to poorly disguised discrimination against gay and lesbian couples.

County clerks are required by law to issue marriage licenses, but the offices do not have to perform wedding ceremonies. The recent state Supreme Court decision allowing same-sex marriages takes effect after the business day on Monday.

In Kern County, Clerk Ann Barnett announced her decision only after county lawyers told her she could not refuse to marry gay couples. Butte County Clerk Candace Grubb, meanwhile, blamed budget constraints, telling the Chico Enterprise-Record that her decision was made long before the court ruling.

In Merced County, Clerk Stephen Jones also announced that all marriages were being halted, though he later reversed his decision.

Conservative populations

Neither Barnett nor Grubb returned calls seeking comment Tuesday, nor did officials with the Alliance Defense Fund. That group, which argued in court against same-sex marriage, has urged county clerks to oppose such unions.

Both counties have conservative populations that overwhelmingly supported a 2000 ballot measure that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, a law found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on May 15. Advocates of that law are going back to the ballot in November with a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

Gay marriage advocates said the decisions to halt all marriages in the rural counties limits options for gay and straight couples who do not want or are denied a religious ceremony.

Only a handful of people - including religious officials, state legislators, retired judges and magistrates - may marry couples under California law. County clerks also may marry couples, and they may deputize any member of the public to perform the ceremonies.

Some county clerks said the budget argument seems a stretch, though they acknowledged that both Butte and Kern counties might not have enough staff to deal with a large influx of couples.

It's a no-brainer'

Steve Weir, Contra Costa County's clerk and president of the California Association of Clerks and Elected Officials, noted that the state allows counties to set their own fees for marriage ceremonies so they can recover the costs associated with performing the duty.

"It's a nice service that we provide to the public, and it's not costing me anything. In this day and age with the budget situation, how can you go wrong providing a public service that helps with your overhead? It's a no-brainer," Weir said. "Other folks might say you can go to another county, but that's not the point. I'm not going to say you can register to vote in Alameda County because we're not in the same political party."

Others said they doubt that the clerk's office in any rural, conservative county would be overwhelmed with gay couples come next week. Kings County Clerk Ken Baird, for example, said he would be surprised if more than a handful of same-sex couples wanted to get married there.

"Bakersfield (the Kern County seat) is not a very safe place to be out," added the Rev. Byrd Tetzlaff of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Kern County. "We are not expecting that many couples, maybe 10 or 12."

Free marriages

After hearing of the decision, Tetzlaff announced she would perform free marriages to same-sex couples until Nov. 4, when voters will weigh in the proposed constitutional amendment.

Next Tuesday she plans to offer her services to all couples getting licenses at the county building. But she said she and other gay-marriage supporters have been told that the police will not allow them to conduct the ceremonies there.

"We are looking at places nearby where we can be, and there are a number of us that are going to be supporting the couples as they go in to get their licenses," she said.

Kern County Supervisor Don Maben asked county officials Tuesday to explore other options for folks who want to tie the knot, including possibly bringing in officials from another county to perform the ceremonies. The Kern County Board of Supervisors will not take up the matter again until July, he said.

"I am concerned that this is disenfranchising all citizens from having civil marriages in Kern County," he said. "This is an 8,000-square-mile county, and there aren't a lot of opportunities (for civil ceremonies)."

Maben said he is "getting a lot of flak" for raising concerns about Barnett's decision but, that to him, it's not a gay-rights issue - it is simply a marriage issue. At least 25 opposite-sex couples who had weddings scheduled at the clerk's office are also being forced to make other plans, he said.

Options limited

In the meantime, couples wishing to get married in Butte or Kern counties could have limited options. Many churches refuse to perform gay marriages, though Tetzlaff said a number of clergy members in Bakersfield will marry same-sex couples privately. If Barnett or Grubb will not deputize her staffers or members of the public to perform the marriages, couples might have to find other public officials or retired judges who can - or leave the county, which could significantly increase the cost.

Weir, who is openly gay and plans to marry his partner next week, said while clerks are not legally bound to perform marriage ceremonies, they are public servants.

"We take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the state of California," he said. "It's a public ministerial process we perform for the public, and to a degree we have a monopoly on it - you can't go across the street to a private clerk's office."

Will Weir still uphold that oath, if the marriage amendment passes in November?

All of this could have been avoided, if the judges had simply ordered the stay and WAITED, until the election to see the results.

According to this article, the amendment will be retroactive. It makes no sense to give marriage licenses to gay couples, when they could be null and void 5 months later.

http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=850 (http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=850)

And, again, I ask, what's is stopping those who support gay "marriage" from doing what their opponents did: beating the streets, starting petitions, and driving to get a constitutional amendment to the ballot to favor their cause?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on June 11, 2008, 10:20:52 AM
Will Weir still uphold that oath, if the marriage amendment passes in November?

All of this could have been avoided, if the judges had simply ordered the stay and WAITED, until the election to see the results.

According to this article, the amendment will be retroactive. It makes no sense to give marriage licenses to gay couples, when they could be null and void 5 months later.

http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=850 (http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=850)

And, again, I ask, what's is stopping those who support gay "marriage" from doing what their opponents did: beating the streets, starting petitions, and driving to get a constitutional amendment to the ballot to favor their cause?


I agree.  Really doesn't make any sense not to stay their decision. 

They don't beat the streets because there is no groundswell of support.  Voters don't want it.  And it's not just "Republicans," "conservatives," or "religious" voters.     


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on June 11, 2008, 10:24:25 AM
I agree.  Really doesn't make any sense not to stay their decision. 

They don't beat the streets because there is no groundswell of support.  Voters don't want it.  And it's not just "Republicans," "conservatives," or "religious" voters.     

At this point I say give it to them so they can STFU already.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on June 11, 2008, 10:28:34 AM
At this point I say give it to them so they can STFU already.

lol.   :)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on June 12, 2008, 04:30:22 AM
At this point I say give it to them so they can STFU already.

They will get it (for at least 5 months), unless the California Court of appeals orders the stay. According to a more recent article (similar to one I posted several days ago), the California legislature has to come up with the new law and the new forms, replacing the 1M-1W language of marriage with a "gender-neutral"-type one for the marriage licenses.

That's one reason why the gay "marriage" supporters don't want the stay. By the time the legislature meets to re-write this law, the amendment will have been decided and the Cali. Supreme Court's call may be voided.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on June 12, 2008, 04:56:23 AM
Screw what the public wants!! I'm just over hearing gays and fags go on about this topic. If losing a critical part of our culture means never having to hear about this topic again then I don't care. So sick of all the bullshit and crap, especially the stupid comparisons between blacks and gays.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Colossus_500 on June 12, 2008, 08:42:16 AM
A breakdown of how the country sees this topic:

Light green  - states already have a marriage amendment in their state constitution (voters already passed a resolutions)
Light blue - states that are likely to have amendments on the ballot in November
Dark green - state (Arizona) that could have the amendment on the ballot again in November
Dark blue - states that do not have a marriage amendment being pursued



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: loco on June 12, 2008, 09:03:06 AM
Why do gay people want to get married?  Haven't they suffered enough already?...just kidding!   ;D

All joking aside, gay people are not just protesting that they can't get married in certain states.  They are also protesting that they can't get divorced.  Yes, that's right, those gay people that managed to get married are now protesting that they can't get divorced now or that the divorce process for them is now too difficult.

Same-Sex Couples Face
Another Growing Hurdle -- Divorce

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121306493888759775.html?mod=googlenews_wsj



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on June 12, 2008, 09:03:28 AM
A breakdown of how the country sees this topic:

Light green  - states already have a marriage amendment in their state constitution (voters already passed a resolutions)
Light blue - states that are likely to have amendments on the ballot in November
Dark green - state (Arizona) that could have the amendment on the ballot again in November
Dark blue - states that do not have a marriage amendment being pursued



source??

gays have been able to get married now in CA (for a few weeks so far)

How have you been personally harmed??


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on June 12, 2008, 09:05:09 AM
Why do gay people want to get married?  Haven't they suffered enough already?...just kidding!   ;D

All joking aside, gay people are not just protesting that they can't get married in certain states.  They are also protesting that they can't get divorced.  Yes, that's right, those gay people that managed to get married are now protesting that they can't get divorced now or that the divorce process for them is now too difficult.

Same-Sex Couples Face
Another Growing Hurdle -- Divorce

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121306493888759775.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I agree with you

we should outlaw marriage for everyone


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: loco on June 12, 2008, 09:11:50 AM
I agree with you

we should outlaw marriage for everyone

 ;D

I was kidding about that.  Marriage can be great if both people are willing to commit for life and work through their many problems.   :)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on June 12, 2008, 09:14:10 AM
;D

I was kidding about that.  Marriage can be great if both people are willing to commit for life and work through their many problems.   :)

personally, I'm against marriage but I don't think it should be outlawed or illegal

of course, by people I assume you mean people





Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on June 12, 2008, 09:38:46 AM
what if you had to renew your marriage license every "x" number of years

just like a business license or a drivers license


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on June 12, 2008, 10:56:23 AM
A breakdown of how the country sees this topic:

Light green  - states already have a marriage amendment in their state constitution (voters already passed a resolutions)
Light blue - states that are likely to have amendments on the ballot in November
Dark green - state (Arizona) that could have the amendment on the ballot again in November
Dark blue - states that do not have a marriage amendment being pursued



I think I'm color blind.  Which states are dark blue? 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on June 12, 2008, 04:55:38 PM
Foes of California same-sex marriage ruling ask a lower court to delay it
With a state Supreme Court ruling set to become law June 16, a group asks an appeals court to delay its imposition until after a November vote on the issue. The ruling's proponents deride the effort.
By Maura Dolan
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

SAN FRANCISCO -- Opponents of same-sex marriage asked the California Court of Appeal today to put on hold a ruling that permits gays to marry next week, a move that supporters of the ruling quickly belittled as frivolous and certain to fail.

The California Supreme Court, which approved same-sex nuptials in a historic ruling May 15, already has refused to delay the effective date of its decision. Opponents wanted the court to postpone the ruling's effect until after a November ballot initiative to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. The ruling becomes law June 16 at 5 p.m.

The 1st District Court of Appeal, which had ruled 2-1 against same-sex marriage, is bound by the Supreme Court's decision.

San Francisco City Atty. Dennis Herrera, whose office helped litigate the marriage case, called the petition "beyond frivolous . . . absurd."

"I am not aware of a process that enables parties to effectively appeal a higher court ruling to a lower court," Herrera said.

But Liberty Counsel, the group that filed the petition on behalf of sponsors of the November marriage initiative, said the Court of Appeal procedurally regains the case on June 16 and could issue a stay.

"This court should stay the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples to prevent a violation of federal and state law by opening the door to de facto polygamy and polyamory," the petition by the Christian-affiliated group said.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on June 12, 2008, 08:05:55 PM
I agree with you

we should outlaw marriage for everyone

Yes, outlaw marriage; a primitive and antiquated institution and more costly than it is effective in so many ways.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on June 12, 2008, 08:34:12 PM
Yes, outlaw marriage; a primitive and antiquated institution and more costly than it is effective in so many ways.

To what extent do you think this will affect traditional marriage?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on June 12, 2008, 08:49:28 PM
To what extent do you think this will affect traditional marriage?

Huh? I think marriage (gay or heterosexual) is useless and silly; I don't get your question.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Benny B on June 13, 2008, 06:01:11 AM
Foes of California same-sex marriage ruling ask a lower court to delay it
With a state Supreme Court ruling set to become law June 16, a group asks an appeals court to delay its imposition until after a November vote on the issue. The ruling's proponents deride the effort.
By Maura Dolan
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

SAN FRANCISCO -- Opponents of same-sex marriage asked the California Court of Appeal today to put on hold a ruling that permits gays to marry next week, a move that supporters of the ruling quickly belittled as frivolous and certain to fail.

The California Supreme Court, which approved same-sex nuptials in a historic ruling May 15, already has refused to delay the effective date of its decision. Opponents wanted the court to postpone the ruling's effect until after a November ballot initiative to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. The ruling becomes law June 16 at 5 p.m.

The 1st District Court of Appeal, which had ruled 2-1 against same-sex marriage, is bound by the Supreme Court's decision.

San Francisco City Atty. Dennis Herrera, whose office helped litigate the marriage case, called the petition "beyond frivolous . . . absurd."

"I am not aware of a process that enables parties to effectively appeal a higher court ruling to a lower court," Herrera said.

But Liberty Counsel, the group that filed the petition on behalf of sponsors of the November marriage initiative, said the Court of Appeal procedurally regains the case on June 16 and could issue a stay.

"This court should stay the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples to prevent a violation of federal and state law by opening the door to de facto polygamy and polyamory," the petition by the Christian-affiliated group said.
This thread really means a lot to you, eh homo?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on June 13, 2008, 06:19:47 AM
This thread really means a lot to you, eh homo?

What's his life gonna be dedicated to after the 18th?

A major part of his identity will be gone, LOL!


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on June 13, 2008, 07:44:45 AM
Foes of California same-sex marriage ruling ask a lower court to delay it
With a state Supreme Court ruling set to become law June 16, a group asks an appeals court to delay its imposition until after a November vote on the issue. The ruling's proponents deride the effort.
By Maura Dolan
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

SAN FRANCISCO -- Opponents of same-sex marriage asked the California Court of Appeal today to put on hold a ruling that permits gays to marry next week, a move that supporters of the ruling quickly belittled as frivolous and certain to fail.

The California Supreme Court, which approved same-sex nuptials in a historic ruling May 15, already has refused to delay the effective date of its decision. Opponents wanted the court to postpone the ruling's effect until after a November ballot initiative to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. The ruling becomes law June 16 at 5 p.m.

The 1st District Court of Appeal, which had ruled 2-1 against same-sex marriage, is bound by the Supreme Court's decision.

San Francisco City Atty. Dennis Herrera, whose office helped litigate the marriage case, called the petition "beyond frivolous . . . absurd."

"I am not aware of a process that enables parties to effectively appeal a higher court ruling to a lower court," Herrera said.

But Liberty Counsel, the group that filed the petition on behalf of sponsors of the November marriage initiative, said the Court of Appeal procedurally regains the case on June 16 and could issue a stay.

"This court should stay the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples to prevent a violation of federal and state law by opening the door to de facto polygamy and polyamory," the petition by the Christian-affiliated group said.

I think I linked a similar article from Liberty Counsel. As this blurb mentions, the Court of Appeal regains the case on the 16th. The argument goes that the Court of Appeal can issue the stay, because the California constitution requires that either the Legislature or the electorate must make the new law (signed by the governor) and the new legal forms to accomodate gay "marriage".

The problem for gay "marriage" supporters is that, should the stay occur, by the time the Legislature gets around to doing that, the election will have occured with the vote on the marriage amendment. If it passes, marriage will clearly be defined as a 1M-1W union, nullifying the courts ruling.

And, as stated before, even if gay couples do get marriage licenses starting next week, they become void, if the amendment passes in November.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on June 13, 2008, 08:25:24 AM
I think I linked a similar article from Liberty Counsel. As this blurb mentions, the Court of Appeal regains the case on the 16th. The argument goes that the Court of Appeal can issue the stay, because the California constitution requires that either the Legislature or the electorate must make the new law (signed by the governor) and the new legal forms to accomodate gay "marriage".

The problem for gay "marriage" supporters is that, should the stay occur, by the time the Legislature gets around to doing that, the election will have occured with the vote on the marriage amendment. If it passes, marriage will clearly be defined as a 1M-1W union, nullifying the courts ruling.

And, as stated before, even if gay couples do get marriage licenses starting next week, they become void, if the amendment passes in November.

I say go get those rocks just like the Bible says we should!


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Colossus_500 on June 13, 2008, 11:06:11 AM
source??
citizenlink.org (http://citizenlink.org)

How have you been personally harmed??
Great question for you to delve into and find the answer, bro. 




Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on June 15, 2008, 09:48:22 AM
citizenlink.org (http://citizenlink.org)
Great question for you to delve into and find the answer, bro. 

I haven't been harmed at all.

How about you?

btw - the link you posted appears to be owned or somehow connected to Dobson who I personally think is a world class lunatic. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on June 16, 2008, 06:21:23 AM
Lesbian pioneer activists see wish fulfilled
Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, June 16, 2008

Lesbian rights pioneers Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, together for more than half a century, will get married in San Francisco City Hall this evening wearing the same pastel-colored pantsuits they donned four years ago when they wed the first time.

Once again, they will be the first of thousands of same-sex couples rushing to marry. But this time their wedding will be carried by the strength of a California Supreme Court decision that granted lesbian and gay couples the constitutional right to marry.

Another change: Their pantsuits. The hems have been taken up since Martin, in pale purple, and Lyon, in powder blue, put them on for their first wedding in City Hall on Feb. 12, 2004. The nuptials that San Francisco city officials sanctioned four years ago were later deemed illegitimate by the state.

"We're both getting shorter," said Lyon, who at 83 is four years younger than her partner.

What hasn't shrunk is the San Francisco couple's willingness to be at the forefront of a decadeslong civil rights battle, starting for them in an era when homosexuality could get you fired, denied an apartment or arrested during one of the frequent police raids on bars catering to gay men and lesbians.

Their life together as activists has entwined the political and the personal and has been marked by a series of groundbreaking and often controversial undertakings.

Where they started

They founded the Daughters of Bilitis in 1955, the first national lesbian organization. In 1964, they helped launch the Council on Religion and the Homosexual, bringing together national religious leaders and gay and lesbian activists to discuss homosexual rights. Lyon, in a challenge to the leadership of the feminist movement, was the first open lesbian on the board of the National Organization for Women in 1973. Martin, meanwhile, helped lead a successful campaign to get the American Psychiatric Association to take homosexuality off its list of mental illnesses.

The couple made international headlines in 2004 when they became the first same-sex couple to wed after San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and City Attorney Dennis Herrera decided to test state law by allowing more than 4,000 gay and lesbian couples to marry. After a month, the California Supreme Court halted the weddings on the grounds that city officials acted without proper authority.

Attention will turn to Martin and Lyon again this evening when they become the first same-sex couple in San Francisco, and perhaps in all of California, to marry when the state Supreme Court's decision officially takes effect just after 5 p.m.

"It's really just amazing the progress we've made," Lyon said.

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, a public interest law firm that joined the legal battle to overturn the ban on same-sex marriage, said the moment rightfully belongs to them.

"It would not be happening were it not for Del and Phyllis," she said. "They and a small cadre of others sacrificed everything to build a foundation that got us to this historic place where we are today."

Kendell, who met the couple 14 years ago, has become their de facto gatekeeper and helped plan their wedding.

The invitation-only ceremony will take place behind closed doors in the Mayor's Office at City Hall with about 50 family members, friends, neighbors and political allies in attendance. Newsom will preside.

"We have to remember to say, 'I do.' OK?" Lyon said.

"I think we can do that," Martin said.

The interchange was both playful and poignant. The years are catching up with Lyon and Martin. The timing of the California Supreme Court's ruling isn't lost on them.

"We're not getting younger," said Martin, quieter and frailer than her partner, during an interview last week in their Noe Valley home.

Decades together

The thought of being able to get married was not one they could even imagine when the two first shared after-work drinks in Seattle in 1950, a get-together that at first sparked a friendship and two years later a love affair that has endured.

To grasp the longevity of their relationship, one only has to know what they paid in 1955 for their small hillside home with a sweeping view of San Francisco. Their paltry salaries as a secretary and a bookkeeper helped them cover the $11,000 price.

The years of their accomplishments and passions are displayed on their walls: plaques of appreciation from politicians and civil rights groups and photographs and drawings of such public figures as Hillary Rodham Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Shirley Chisholm and Eleanor Roosevelt. There is the collection of campaign buttons for Democratic candidates, the baseball autographed by Giants players, and a vast collection of books, including copies of "Lesbian/Woman," which they co-wrote in 1972.

They said they spend a lot of time at home now - getting up and down the steep stairs that separate their front door from the sidewalk isn't as easy as it once was.

A limousine will pick them up this afternoon for the ride to City Hall, where they probably will be met by cheers from well-wishers and, perhaps, jeers from protesters who believe marriage should be reserved just for heterosexuals.

After Martin and Lyon finalize the paperwork and take their vows, they are scheduled to step onto the balcony overlooking the ornate City Hall rotunda for a public cake-cutting ceremony. That will be followed by a private reception at a nearby restaurant, and then it's back home again.

There will be no honeymoon.

Their daughter, born to Martin 66 years ago during a brief marriage that ended in divorce, will be with them to share in the day's events.

"It's really a big deal for them and for me to have this happen at this point in their lives," said Kendra Mon, a social worker from Petaluma who was raised by her two moms and her dad and his new wife. "It's like icing on the cake and a reminder of how far we've come."

She thought more about the significance for a few minutes and then likened it to the classic Christmas movie "It's a Wonderful Life" - but with a twist.

In the movie, the character played by James Stewart gets to see what his small town and family would be like if he hadn't existed.

"But," Mon said, "this is like my moms get to see what life is like because they've been here."


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on June 16, 2008, 05:00:10 PM
Del Martin, 87, center left, and Phyllis Lyon, 84, center right, are married by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom , center, in a special ceremony at City Hall in San Francisco, Monday, June 16, 2008. Also pictured are the couple's witnesses, Roberta Achtenberg, left, and Donna Hitchens. Lyon and Martin became the first officially married same sex couple after California's Supreme Court declared gay marriage legal.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on June 16, 2008, 05:55:06 PM
So Bay..... when are you jumping the broom?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on June 17, 2008, 04:48:17 PM
Opponents lose last-ditch legal bid to stop same-sex weddings
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 17, 2008

(06-17) 12:41 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- While today's gay and lesbian weddings proceeded, a state appeals court rejected a conservative religious group's last-ditch attempt to put same-sex marriages on hold until California voters consider the issue in November.

The Campaign for California Families argued that the state Supreme Court's ruling legalizing same-sex weddings should not take effect until the Legislature had a chance to rewrite or repeal a host of laws governing marriages and domestic partnerships.

The organization also said the courts should avoid confusion about the status of marriages performed in the next few months by suspending the ruling until a Nov. 4 vote on an initiative that would write a ban on same-sex marriage into the state Constitution.

The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco denied a stay without comment this morning after receiving the case from the state's high court, whose ruling became final at 5 p.m. Monday. The appeals court returned the case to a Superior Court judge in San Francisco for final orders to state officials to make sure each county clerk's office was complying with the marriage ruling.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on June 17, 2008, 04:51:41 PM
Now that gays can get married it's probably going to be unbearable for the those conservative, republican, closet queens to stay married to their frustrated wives


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on June 18, 2008, 04:59:24 AM
Opponents lose last-ditch legal bid to stop same-sex weddings
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 17, 2008

(06-17) 12:41 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- While today's gay and lesbian weddings proceeded, a state appeals court rejected a conservative religious group's last-ditch attempt to put same-sex marriages on hold until California voters consider the issue in November.

The Campaign for California Families argued that the state Supreme Court's ruling legalizing same-sex weddings should not take effect until the Legislature had a chance to rewrite or repeal a host of laws governing marriages and domestic partnerships.

The organization also said the courts should avoid confusion about the status of marriages performed in the next few months by suspending the ruling until a Nov. 4 vote on an initiative that would write a ban on same-sex marriage into the state Constitution.

The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco denied a stay without comment this morning after receiving the case from the state's high court, whose ruling became final at 5 p.m. Monday. The appeals court returned the case to a Superior Court judge in San Francisco for final orders to state officials to make sure each county clerk's office was complying with the marriage ruling.

I thought this was about following the state's constitution, which states that the Legislature has to revise the laws and approved the marriage licenses, before such become official.

This is about timing and influencing the vote for the November marriage amendment. But which way will it go? Will people feel sympathetic about potentially taking marriage licenses away from same-sex couples that already have them and vote the amendment down, or will voters (outraged by the judges' disregard for their views) show up en masse and pass the amendment by an even larger margin than they did with Proposition 22?

We'll find out in 41/2 months.

One thing gay activists groups are stating is that same-sex couples should NOT file more lawsuits, until they get a "critical mass" of states that support their cause, citing that if they lose, it will be harder to win later. And, they should target the states in which they have the best chance of winning (i.e. states where it's quite difficult to amend its constitutions.





Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Colossus_500 on June 30, 2008, 05:43:27 AM
That's No Man, That's My Wife
Burt Prelutsky - townhall.com (http://townhall.com)
Monday, June 30, 2008

As you may have noticed, the California Supreme Court recently decided by a 4-3 margin to green light same-sex marriages. In doing so, they over-turned a ballot measure that 61% of the voters approved in 2000, which stated that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.” Although there is nothing in the state constitution that warrants that vote being set aside by four jurists, these days there’s nothing unusual about 56% of the judges over-ruling 61% of the electorate.

It’s no big surprise that the three judges who demurred had been appointed by Republican governors. What is odd and rather troubling about this turn of events is that three of the four judges who think same-sex marriages is a swell idea were also appointed by Republican governors. And lest you leap to the perfectly reasonable conclusion that this can all be laid at Gov. Schwarzenegger’s doorstep, the only judge he put on the bench was Carol Corrigan, and she was one of the three who dissented. Chief Justice Ron George and Kathryn Werdegar were appointed by Pete Wilson, and Joyce Kennard by George Deukmejian. In fact, of the seven justices, only Carlos Moreno owes his black robe to a Democrat, Gray Davis.

When you realize that David Souter was placed on the U.S. Supreme Court by George Herbert Walker Bush, you begin to wonder if Republicans bother paying any attention at all to such matters. When it comes to picking judges, do they flip a coin or do they just pick names out of a hat?

I realize that many people, after several years of unrelenting gay propaganda in the media, have been brain-washed into believing that to oppose same-sex marriages is to be the worst kind of bigot. They have cleverly insisted that it is akin to being opposed to bi-racial unions. That, of course, is sheer sophistry. What marriage of a man and a woman of different races is akin to is marriage between a man and a woman of different religions or different nationalities. Marriage between two men or two women, on the other hand, is the end result of political correctness carried to its ludicrous extreme.

If you disagree, please let me know on what particular basis, you could legally or morally oppose marriage between a sister and her brother or a father and his daughter or, for that matter, between a man and a female softball team, so long as they were all consenting adults. I can’t wait until justices George, Werdegar, Kennard and Moreno, are asked to adjudicate just such a case in the future. And, believe me, having swung open that particular door, it’s only a matter of time until a parade of human oddities come marching in.

It is fascinating how completely the heterosexual world has come to accept homosexuality as a norm. Back in the 1890s, Oscar Wilde sued the Marquis of Queensberry, the father of Wilde’s male lover, for daring to call him a sodomite. Three days into the ill-advised libel suit, Wilde’s lawyers decided to call it off when it became all too apparent that the Marquis was going to be able to prove his case.

At that point, Wilde was arrested on the charge of gross indecency. During the trial, Wilde was asked to explain what the Marquis’s son, Lord Alfred Douglas, had been referring to when he wrote to Wilde of the love that dares not speak its name. “It is beautiful,” said Wilde, who was notorious for picking up sailors, servants and young male prostitutes, “it is fine, it is the noblest form of affection. It is intellectual, and it repeatedly exists between an older and a younger man, when the older man has intellect, and the younger man has all the joy, hope and glamour of life before him.”

The trial ended with, you should excuse the expression, a hung jury. There was then a second trial and Wilde was found guilty and sentenced to two years at hard labor. Apparently, the jury didn’t regard Wilde, who was in his mid-30s when he took up with Lord Douglas, as sufficiently avuncular to buy his old graybeard defense.

It’s strange from our vantage point to realize there was a time before same-sex marriages and gay pride parades when homosexuality was the love that dared not speak its name.

These days, it’s the love that never shuts up.

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Benny B on June 30, 2008, 10:26:29 AM
Quote
I realize that many people, after several years of unrelenting gay propaganda in the media, have been brain-washed into believing that to oppose same-sex marriages is to be the worst kind of bigot. They have cleverly insisted that it is akin to being opposed to bi-racial unions. That, of course, is sheer sophistry. What marriage of a man and a woman of different races is akin to is marriage between a man and a woman of different religions or different nationalities. Marriage between two men or two women, on the other hand, is the end result of political correctness carried to its ludicrous extreme.
;)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on June 30, 2008, 10:43:39 AM
Yep.  Great quote. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on June 30, 2008, 10:58:57 AM
That's No Man, That's My Wife
Burt Prelutsky - townhall.com (http://townhall.com)
Monday, June 30, 2008

I realize that many people, after several years of unrelenting gay propaganda in the media, have been brain-washed into believing that to oppose same-sex marriages is to be the worst kind of bigot. They have cleverly insisted that it is akin to being opposed to bi-racial unions. That, of course, is sheer sophistry. What marriage of a man and a woman of different races is akin to is marriage between a man and a woman of different religions or different nationalities. Marriage between two men or two women, on the other hand, is the end result of political correctness carried to its ludicrous extreme.

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.



Not the worst kind of bigot - but still a bigot.

What exactly is the problem with gay marriage again?

Can someone who opposes it sum it up in a sentence or two and do it without conflating it with all other nonsense.

Let's even take it out of the US.

Gays can legally get married in Canada - tell me what harm it has caused




Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Colossus_500 on July 02, 2008, 01:35:57 PM
Children in the 'gay marriage' crosshairs
Matt Barber

You've probably heard the relativist line that goes something like this: "Gay marriage won't hurt anyone. Live and let live, already!" Well, don't buy it for a minute.

With its recent 4-3 opinion – which arrogantly presumed to redefine the millennia-old definition of legitimate marriage – the California Supreme Court daftly divined that the framers of the California Constitution intended – all along, I guess – that Patrick Henry really had a constitutional right to "marry" Henry Patrick. In so doing, four black-robed Dr. Frankensteins have loosed that paradoxical abomination tagged "same-sex marriage" on the countryside.
 
Abomination, you say? Isn't that a bit strong?
 
Nope. God used it. And I'll give just one example of many as to why He did. Keep in mind, though: If California voters fail to pass a constitutional amendment in November to undo this extremist act of judicial social engineering, we can expect thousands more examples just like it.
 
Virginia resident Lisa Miller, mother of six-year-old Isabella Miller, was involved in homosexuality for a short time. Thankfully, she found freedom from the destructive "gay" lifestyle – as so many others have done – through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and, along with Isabella, is now a Christian.
 
For the past five years or so, Lisa and Isabella have been trying to live their lives in peace at home in Virginia. But unfortunately, they've been unable to do so, as Lisa's dark past has come back to haunt them. They've been the target of a vicious legal attack by militant homosexual activists that places Vermont's civil union laws ("gay marriage" by another name) directly at odds with the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, Virginia's Marriage Affirmation Act, and the Virginia Constitution.
 
Outrageously, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in March that Lisa must share custody of her own daughter with Janet Jenkins, a woman who was, for a brief time, Lisa's lesbian "civil partner." Jenkins is entirely unrelated to Isabella and, for the most part, is a total stranger to the little girl. Although Jenkins is neither a biological parent nor an adoptive parent, Vermont's highest court determined that – because of a brief "civil union" from a weekend jaunt to Vermont back in 2000 – Jenkins, who hadn't seen Isabella since she was little over a year old, must be granted "parental" rights and visitation.
 
Little Isabella – who is both terrified by this stranger and understandably confused by her bizarre lifestyle – has suffered tremendous emotional trauma as a result. There are even concerns about her physical safety.
 
But it gets much worse. Because Christianity is biblically incompatible with unrepentant homosexuality, and since Lisa teaches Isabella God's express design for human sexuality (one man, one woman within the bonds of marriage), Jenkins has claimed in the past that Lisa is an unfit parent. Precisely because Lisa is a Christian, Jenkins has essentially argued that she's not fit to raise her very own daughter.
 
But it gets worse yet. On June 18, in an act that can only be described as pure evil, Jenkins' attorneys filed a "Motion for Transfer of Both Sole Legal and Physical [Custody]" of Isabella to Janet Jenkins. Yes, you read that right. This unrelated, near-perfect stranger and her single-minded homosexual activist attorneys are trying to permanently rip this horrified child from her mother's loving embrace as a sacrifice to the gods of postmodern homo-fascism. Unfortunately, with the history of this Vermont court, the motion may well be granted.
 
Still, there is a silver lining to this tragic story. Attorneys with Liberty Counsel, the Christian civil liberties law firm representing Lisa and Isabella Miller, have filed an action in Virginia asking the commonwealth to respect its Marriage Affirmation Act, the federal DOMA and Virginia's constitution, which stipulates that Virginia "shall not create or recognize" "civil unions" or "same-sex marriages" from other states, nor can it recognize rulings which stem from such "unions" (such as Vermont's custody ruling).
 
This pits the laws of Vermont directly against the laws of Virginia. If Virginia does the right thing and tells Vermont to keep its "civil unions" to itself, the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately have to resolve the conflict.
 
But on a larger scale, Lisa and Isabella's tragic story demonstrates that it's all too often children who are ultimately victimized by state-recognized immorality. It's the children who suffer when adults selfishly depart from God's intended design for human sexuality and marriage – as reaffirmed by Christ's teachings in the New Testament – and enter into counterfeit homosexual "civil unions" or "same-sex marriages."
 
So-called same-sex "parenting" willfully deprives a child of his or her mother or father and is fundamentally immoral for that reason (among others). We know conclusively that it's best for children to be raised with both mom and dad. It's not always possible, but even with single parenting, there's always the chance that the other half – an adoptive mother or father – will enter the picture.
 
We need only rely on common sense, but the preponderance of research has proven that a mother and a father each possess unique qualities central in helping to formulate who a child ultimately becomes.
 
While standing before the Courts of Justice Committee of the Virginia Senate in 2005, Robert Knight, former director of the Culture and Family Institute, testified to the following:

    "In 2001, a team of pro-homosexual researchers from the University of Southern California did a meta-analysis of 'gay parenting' studies and published a refreshingly honest article in American Sociological Review, '(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?'
     
    "The authors concluded that, yes, studies show that girls are more likely to 'be sexually adventurous and less chaste,' including being more likely to try lesbianism, and that boys are more likely to have 'fluid' conceptions of gender roles, and that researchers should stop trying to cover this up in the hopes of pursuing a pro-homosexual agenda. The researchers said, in effect: Some of the kids are more likely to turn out gay or bisexual, but so what?"


Ultimately, though, it all boils down to simple biology. It's impossible for a "gay" pair to have a child without utilizing the mechanics of natural procreation. They have no choice but to bring an opposite-sex third party into the picture. A child like Isabella can't really have two mommies (or three mommies; Jenkins is reportedly in a new lesbian relationship). She can have only one mommy and a daddy (who in this case was an anonymous sperm donor).
 
Jenkins and others like her are laboring under an unfortunate delusion. They're not mom, mommy, mother or mum. They're not even "step-mom." The closest thing they are to family is, well, kind of like mommy's fun friend who made you call her Aunt Meg.
 
But none of this matters to today's postmodern moral relativists. They have a specific agenda in mind: to completely redefine reality-based marriage and family into oblivion...no matter who gets hurt in the process.
 
And Lisa and little Isabella are just two of the latest victims of that agenda. Unfortunately, if this perversion of justice in California is left to stand, and if Virginia chooses not to rebuff Vermont's outrageous ruling in the Lisa Miller case, there will be many, many more.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deedee on July 02, 2008, 06:55:39 PM
That story was in the Washington Post awhile ago, but the details were slightly different.

I guess if gay people marry, they'll be open to the same crap hetero people deal with when a relationship goes sour and they have a child.

It's a good thing that Lisa Miller just happened to find God when her legal bills started to pile up. It was a gift from heaven.  :)

But the real moral of their story is, whether straight or gay, don't marry someone you met at an AA meeting.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on July 02, 2008, 07:02:24 PM
That story was in the Washington Post awhile ago, but the details were slightly different.

I guess if gay people marry, they'll be open to the same crap hetero people deal with when a relationship goes sour and they have a child.

It's a good thing that Lisa Miller just happened to find God when her legal bills started to pile up. It was a gift from heaven.  :)

But the real moral of the story is, whether straight or gay, don't marry someone you met at an AA meeting.

The real moral is never to marry in the first place...


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deedee on July 02, 2008, 07:19:31 PM
The real moral is never to marry in the first place...

Not everyone wants to raise illegitimate children for one thing. Besides, lots of people actually flourish with a marriage partner they love and cherish.

Have you ever seen My Dinner With Andre?  He had very thoughtful ideas about the meaning of marriage and monogomy.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on July 04, 2008, 05:47:28 AM
Gay-Marriage Opponents To Boycott McDonald's
By Frank Ahrens, Washington Post Staff Writer


A group that opposes same-sex marriage has called for a boycott of McDonald's, saying the fast-food giant has refused "to stay neutral in the cultural war over homosexuality."

The American Family Association (AFA) launched the boycott yesterday because McDonald's joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce several months ago and placed an executive on the group's board of directors, in addition to donating to the chamber.

The association asked McDonald's to remove itself from the chamber but the burger-maker declined, leading to the boycott. "We're saying that there are people who support AFA who don't appreciate their dollars from the hamburgers they bought being put into an organization that's going to fight against the values they believe in," Tim Wildmon, the association's president, said yesterday.

"Hatred has no place in our culture," McDonald's USA spokesman Bill Whitman said. "That includes McDonald's, and we stand by and support our people to live and work in a society free of discrimination and harassment."

In March, the association ended a two-year boycott of Ford after the automaker largely stopped advertising its Volvo, Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles in the gay media. The association also has boycotted retailer Target for substituting "holiday" for "Christmas" in its advertising and the Walt Disney Co. for its "embrace of the homosexual lifestyle."

Corporations increasingly are courting the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender markets for their buying power and trendsetting value. This translates into corporate sponsorships of events, such as gay pride festivals, and advertising targeted at nonheterosexual consumers.

As a result, faith-based groups such as the AFA are following the example practiced for years by the secular left, which has targeted corporations for their policies on environmental, workplace and human-rights issues.

The AFA "exists to motivate and equip citizens to change the culture to reflect Biblical truth and traditional family values," the group's Web site reads. The organization, based in Tupelo, Miss., has 2.8 million people on its e-mail alert system and sends its monthly magazine to 170,000 people, Wildmon said.

Wildmon said his group wants McDonald's to give up its membership in the chamber, which is located in Dupont Circle, next year and to remove its logo from the chamber's Web site. "I think the request we're making is more than fair," Wildmon said.

A call to chamber president Justin G. Nelson was not returned.

Wildmon said that his group would not object if McDonald's gave money to a group that, for instance, assisted gay HIV/AIDS patients. "You wouldn't hear from us," he said. "That would be classified as humanitarian aid." The AFA has planned no on-site protests, Wildmon said.

In a May 29 letter to Wildmon, McDonald's global chief diversity officer Pat Harris wrote: "McDonald's is associated with countless local and national affinity groups. . . . We have a well-established and proud heritage of associating with individuals and organizations that share the belief that every person has the right to live and work in a community free of discrimination."

On its new Web site, BoycottMcDonalds.com, AFA says the boycott is not about McDonald's hiring or serving gay patrons or its treatment of gay employees. Instead, the boycott is motivated by McDonald's throwing "the full weight of their corporation to promoting the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage."

Ascertaining the impact of such boycotts can be tricky. Ford's monthly sales slumped at times during the AFA boycott, but so did those of General Motors, DaimlerChrysler and Toyota. The boycott coincided with an industry-wide slide in sales of SUVs and trucks, Ford's core products. "It is so difficult to sort out what cause and effect is today with the number of variables that are in play," said David E. Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research.

Ford, which has sold its Jaguar and Land Rover lines, said gay-oriented ads constituted a small slice of its marketing budget. When cuts were made, mainstream-market advertising was reduced, while niche advertising was all but eliminated.

In a March statement, the company said: "Ford will continue to market its products widely to attract as many customers as possible and make charitable contributions to strengthen communities to the extent business conditions allow. Difficult business conditions in recent years have reduced our overall spending across the board."


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on July 04, 2008, 10:36:37 AM
Children in the 'gay marriage' crosshairs
Matt Barber

You've probably heard the relativist line that goes something like this: "Gay marriage won't hurt anyone. Live and let live, already!" Well, don't buy it for a minute.

With its recent 4-3 opinion – which arrogantly presumed to redefine the millennia-old definition of legitimate marriage – the California Supreme Court daftly divined that the framers of the California Constitution intended – all along, I guess – that Patrick Henry really had a constitutional right to "marry" Henry Patrick. In so doing, four black-robed Dr. Frankensteins have loosed that paradoxical abomination tagged "same-sex marriage" on the countryside.
 
Abomination, you say? Isn't that a bit strong?
 
Nope. God used it. And I'll give just one example of many as to why He did. Keep in mind, though: If California voters fail to pass a constitutional amendment in November to undo this extremist act of judicial social engineering, we can expect thousands more examples just like it.
 
Virginia resident Lisa Miller, mother of six-year-old Isabella Miller, was involved in homosexuality for a short time. Thankfully, she found freedom from the destructive "gay" lifestyle – as so many others have done – through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and, along with Isabella, is now a Christian.
 
For the past five years or so, Lisa and Isabella have been trying to live their lives in peace at home in Virginia. But unfortunately, they've been unable to do so, as Lisa's dark past has come back to haunt them. They've been the target of a vicious legal attack by militant homosexual activists that places Vermont's civil union laws ("gay marriage" by another name) directly at odds with the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, Virginia's Marriage Affirmation Act, and the Virginia Constitution.
 
Outrageously, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in March that Lisa must share custody of her own daughter with Janet Jenkins, a woman who was, for a brief time, Lisa's lesbian "civil partner." Jenkins is entirely unrelated to Isabella and, for the most part, is a total stranger to the little girl. Although Jenkins is neither a biological parent nor an adoptive parent, Vermont's highest court determined that – because of a brief "civil union" from a weekend jaunt to Vermont back in 2000 – Jenkins, who hadn't seen Isabella since she was little over a year old, must be granted "parental" rights and visitation.
 
Little Isabella – who is both terrified by this stranger and understandably confused by her bizarre lifestyle – has suffered tremendous emotional trauma as a result. There are even concerns about her physical safety.
 
But it gets much worse. Because Christianity is biblically incompatible with unrepentant homosexuality, and since Lisa teaches Isabella God's express design for human sexuality (one man, one woman within the bonds of marriage), Jenkins has claimed in the past that Lisa is an unfit parent. Precisely because Lisa is a Christian, Jenkins has essentially argued that she's not fit to raise her very own daughter.
 
But it gets worse yet. On June 18, in an act that can only be described as pure evil, Jenkins' attorneys filed a "Motion for Transfer of Both Sole Legal and Physical [Custody]" of Isabella to Janet Jenkins. Yes, you read that right. This unrelated, near-perfect stranger and her single-minded homosexual activist attorneys are trying to permanently rip this horrified child from her mother's loving embrace as a sacrifice to the gods of postmodern homo-fascism. Unfortunately, with the history of this Vermont court, the motion may well be granted.
 
Still, there is a silver lining to this tragic story. Attorneys with Liberty Counsel, the Christian civil liberties law firm representing Lisa and Isabella Miller, have filed an action in Virginia asking the commonwealth to respect its Marriage Affirmation Act, the federal DOMA and Virginia's constitution, which stipulates that Virginia "shall not create or recognize" "civil unions" or "same-sex marriages" from other states, nor can it recognize rulings which stem from such "unions" (such as Vermont's custody ruling).
 
This pits the laws of Vermont directly against the laws of Virginia. If Virginia does the right thing and tells Vermont to keep its "civil unions" to itself, the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately have to resolve the conflict.
 
But on a larger scale, Lisa and Isabella's tragic story demonstrates that it's all too often children who are ultimately victimized by state-recognized immorality. It's the children who suffer when adults selfishly depart from God's intended design for human sexuality and marriage – as reaffirmed by Christ's teachings in the New Testament – and enter into counterfeit homosexual "civil unions" or "same-sex marriages."
 
So-called same-sex "parenting" willfully deprives a child of his or her mother or father and is fundamentally immoral for that reason (among others). We know conclusively that it's best for children to be raised with both mom and dad. It's not always possible, but even with single parenting, there's always the chance that the other half – an adoptive mother or father – will enter the picture.
 
We need only rely on common sense, but the preponderance of research has proven that a mother and a father each possess unique qualities central in helping to formulate who a child ultimately becomes.
 
While standing before the Courts of Justice Committee of the Virginia Senate in 2005, Robert Knight, former director of the Culture and Family Institute, testified to the following:

    "In 2001, a team of pro-homosexual researchers from the University of Southern California did a meta-analysis of 'gay parenting' studies and published a refreshingly honest article in American Sociological Review, '(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?'
     
    "The authors concluded that, yes, studies show that girls are more likely to 'be sexually adventurous and less chaste,' including being more likely to try lesbianism, and that boys are more likely to have 'fluid' conceptions of gender roles, and that researchers should stop trying to cover this up in the hopes of pursuing a pro-homosexual agenda. The researchers said, in effect: Some of the kids are more likely to turn out gay or bisexual, but so what?"


Ultimately, though, it all boils down to simple biology. It's impossible for a "gay" pair to have a child without utilizing the mechanics of natural procreation. They have no choice but to bring an opposite-sex third party into the picture. A child like Isabella can't really have two mommies (or three mommies; Jenkins is reportedly in a new lesbian relationship). She can have only one mommy and a daddy (who in this case was an anonymous sperm donor).
 
Jenkins and others like her are laboring under an unfortunate delusion. They're not mom, mommy, mother or mum. They're not even "step-mom." The closest thing they are to family is, well, kind of like mommy's fun friend who made you call her Aunt Meg.
 
But none of this matters to today's postmodern moral relativists. They have a specific agenda in mind: to completely redefine reality-based marriage and family into oblivion...no matter who gets hurt in the process.
 
And Lisa and little Isabella are just two of the latest victims of that agenda. Unfortunately, if this perversion of justice in California is left to stand, and if Virginia chooses not to rebuff Vermont's outrageous ruling in the Lisa Miller case, there will be many, many more.

This is terrible.  Poor kid.  I hope the courts do the right thing. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on July 04, 2008, 11:16:22 AM
Both women seem equally wacko to me



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Benny B on July 04, 2008, 01:31:33 PM
Gay-Marriage Opponents To Boycott McDonald's
By Frank Ahrens, Washington Post Staff Writer


A group that opposes same-sex marriage has called for a boycott of McDonald's, saying the fast-food giant has refused "to stay neutral in the cultural war over homosexuality."

The American Family Association (AFA) launched the boycott yesterday because McDonald's joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce several months ago and placed an executive on the group's board of directors, in addition to donating to the chamber.

The association asked McDonald's to remove itself from the chamber but the burger-maker declined, leading to the boycott. "We're saying that there are people who support AFA who don't appreciate their dollars from the hamburgers they bought being put into an organization that's going to fight against the values they believe in," Tim Wildmon, the association's president, said yesterday.

"Hatred has no place in our culture," McDonald's USA spokesman Bill Whitman said. "That includes McDonald's, and we stand by and support our people to live and work in a society free of discrimination and harassment."

In March, the association ended a two-year boycott of Ford after the automaker largely stopped advertising its Volvo, Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles in the gay media. The association also has boycotted retailer Target for substituting "holiday" for "Christmas" in its advertising and the Walt Disney Co. for its "embrace of the homosexual lifestyle."

Corporations increasingly are courting the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender markets for their buying power and trendsetting value. This translates into corporate sponsorships of events, such as gay pride festivals, and advertising targeted at nonheterosexual consumers.

As a result, faith-based groups such as the AFA are following the example practiced for years by the secular left, which has targeted corporations for their policies on environmental, workplace and human-rights issues.

The AFA "exists to motivate and equip citizens to change the culture to reflect Biblical truth and traditional family values," the group's Web site reads. The organization, based in Tupelo, Miss., has 2.8 million people on its e-mail alert system and sends its monthly magazine to 170,000 people, Wildmon said.

Wildmon said his group wants McDonald's to give up its membership in the chamber, which is located in Dupont Circle, next year and to remove its logo from the chamber's Web site. "I think the request we're making is more than fair," Wildmon said.

A call to chamber president Justin G. Nelson was not returned.

Wildmon said that his group would not object if McDonald's gave money to a group that, for instance, assisted gay HIV/AIDS patients. "You wouldn't hear from us," he said. "That would be classified as humanitarian aid." The AFA has planned no on-site protests, Wildmon said.

In a May 29 letter to Wildmon, McDonald's global chief diversity officer Pat Harris wrote: "McDonald's is associated with countless local and national affinity groups. . . . We have a well-established and proud heritage of associating with individuals and organizations that share the belief that every person has the right to live and work in a community free of discrimination."

On its new Web site, BoycottMcDonalds.com, AFA says the boycott is not about McDonald's hiring or serving gay patrons or its treatment of gay employees. Instead, the boycott is motivated by McDonald's throwing "the full weight of their corporation to promoting the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage."

Ascertaining the impact of such boycotts can be tricky. Ford's monthly sales slumped at times during the AFA boycott, but so did those of General Motors, DaimlerChrysler and Toyota. The boycott coincided with an industry-wide slide in sales of SUVs and trucks, Ford's core products. "It is so difficult to sort out what cause and effect is today with the number of variables that are in play," said David E. Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research.

Ford, which has sold its Jaguar and Land Rover lines, said gay-oriented ads constituted a small slice of its marketing budget. When cuts were made, mainstream-market advertising was reduced, while niche advertising was all but eliminated.

In a March statement, the company said: "Ford will continue to market its products widely to attract as many customers as possible and make charitable contributions to strengthen communities to the extent business conditions allow. Difficult business conditions in recent years have reduced our overall spending across the board."

Boycott McHomo burgers!  :D


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Colossus_500 on July 17, 2008, 11:24:57 AM
Marriage amendment to stay on Calif. ballot
Jeff Johnson - OneNewsNow - 7/17/2008
www.onenewsnow.com

The California Supreme Court has ruled that the marriage protection amendment will remain on the state's November ballot.

Following the California's Supreme Court ruling that legalized homosexual "marriage" in that state, activists sued to keep the marriage protection amendment off the November ballot. However, they failed in their attempt on Wednesday when the court ruled in favor of Proposition 8's inclusion on the ballot.

Glen Lavy with the Alliance Defense Fund says the homosexual activists trying to keep the amendment off the ballot showed their contempt for the will of the people and the democratic process by filing such a baseless lawsuit. "I would have been shocked if the court had prevented this amendment from going on the ballot," he comments. "The lawsuit was frivolous. There was no basis for the arguments. It would have been ridiculous for the court to rule in their favor," Lavy contends.
 
Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel represented the Campaign for California Families and argued in defense of the amendment. "[We] really didn't know which way the court was going [on this particular issue]," he says. "But the good news is they've rejected the argument by same-sex advocates to remove the marriage amendment from the ballot.

"Now the secretary of state is free to print all the information to notify the voters and, in fact, the voters will speak in November," the Liberty Counsel founder continues. "And when they speak, I believe they'll pass these 14 words. These 14 words will overrule the 4-to-3 decision of the California Supreme Court and restore marriage as the union of one man and one woman."
 
Those 14 words are: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." According to Staver, passage of Prop. 8 would invalidate all same-sex marriages performed in California prior to the enactment of the amendment.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Colossus_500 on July 30, 2008, 05:51:47 AM
Opponents of gay marriage say they'll sue over changed wording in Proposition 8

After a tweak by the state attorney general's office, the initiative now seeks to 'eliminate the right' of same-sex couples to marry, wording that the measure's proponents say could prejudice voters.

By Jessica Garrison
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
latimes.com (http://latimes.com)
July 29, 2008

Supporters of Proposition 8, the proposed state constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, said they would file suit today to block a change made by California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown to the language of the measure's ballot title and summary.

Petitions circulated to qualify the initiative for the ballot said the measure would amend the state Constitution "to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

In a move made public last week and applauded by same-sex marriage proponents, the attorney general's office changed the language to say that Proposition 8 seeks to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."

Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage coalition, called the new language "inherently argumentative" and said it could "prejudice voters against the initiative."

Proponents of the measure said they want voters to see ballot language similar to what was on the petitions that began circulating last fall.

"This is a complete about-face from the ballot title that was assigned" when the measure was being circulated for signatures, Kerns said.

On the other side, Steve Smith, campaign manager for No on Proposition 8, applauded the language change.

"What Proposition 8 would do is eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, which is exactly what the attorney general put in the title of the measure," he said. "It will be very difficult for them to win the case."

Political analysts on both sides suggest that the language change will make passage of the initiative more difficult, noting that voters might be more reluctant to pass a measure that makes clear it is taking away existing rights.

The dust-up reflects the fierce battle being waged over the question of same-sex marriage in California, the most closely-watched social issue that will appear on the November ballot.

And it has raised suspicion in some circles that Brown, a possible candidate for governor in 2010, was influenced by politics.

"He is delivering something . . . that is very important to the gay community, and that is a title and summary that is more likely to lead you to vote 'No,' " said political analyst Tony Quinn.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who became a hero to the gay and lesbian community in 2004 when he officiated same-sex marriages that were later invalidated by the state, is also exploring a run for governor.

Quinn added that language changes that substantive are "highly unusual."

Gareth Lacy, a spokesman for the attorney general, denied that there was any political motivation for the move.

Instead, he said, the change was necessary because of the dramatic turn of events that have taken place since the petitions were circulated: namely that the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage and thousands of gay couples have since wed.

"The title and summary accurately reflect the measure," Lacy said.

He noted that language in titles and summaries often changes between the time a measure is circulated for signatures and when it appears on the ballot.

In another change, the revised language predicts a loss to state and local governments of tens of millions of dollars in sales tax revenues over the next few years if the measure passes. But the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office said that in the long run there would "likely be little fiscal impact."


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on August 02, 2008, 12:59:50 PM
Opponents of gay marriage say they'll sue over changed wording in Proposition 8

After a tweak by the state attorney general's office, the initiative now seeks to 'eliminate the right' of same-sex couples to marry, wording that the measure's proponents say could prejudice voters.

By Jessica Garrison
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
latimes.com (http://latimes.com)
July 29, 2008

Supporters of Proposition 8, the proposed state constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, said they would file suit today to block a change made by California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown to the language of the measure's ballot title and summary.

Petitions circulated to qualify the initiative for the ballot said the measure would amend the state Constitution "to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

In a move made public last week and applauded by same-sex marriage proponents, the attorney general's office changed the language to say that Proposition 8 seeks to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."

Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage coalition, called the new language "inherently argumentative" and said it could "prejudice voters against the initiative."

Proponents of the measure said they want voters to see ballot language similar to what was on the petitions that began circulating last fall.

"This is a complete about-face from the ballot title that was assigned" when the measure was being circulated for signatures, Kerns said.

On the other side, Steve Smith, campaign manager for No on Proposition 8, applauded the language change.

"What Proposition 8 would do is eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, which is exactly what the attorney general put in the title of the measure," he said. "It will be very difficult for them to win the case."

Political analysts on both sides suggest that the language change will make passage of the initiative more difficult, noting that voters might be more reluctant to pass a measure that makes clear it is taking away existing rights.

The dust-up reflects the fierce battle being waged over the question of same-sex marriage in California, the most closely-watched social issue that will appear on the November ballot.

And it has raised suspicion in some circles that Brown, a possible candidate for governor in 2010, was influenced by politics.

"He is delivering something . . . that is very important to the gay community, and that is a title and summary that is more likely to lead you to vote 'No,' " said political analyst Tony Quinn.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who became a hero to the gay and lesbian community in 2004 when he officiated same-sex marriages that were later invalidated by the state, is also exploring a run for governor.

Quinn added that language changes that substantive are "highly unusual."

Gareth Lacy, a spokesman for the attorney general, denied that there was any political motivation for the move.

Instead, he said, the change was necessary because of the dramatic turn of events that have taken place since the petitions were circulated: namely that the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage and thousands of gay couples have since wed.

"The title and summary accurately reflect the measure," Lacy said.

He noted that language in titles and summaries often changes between the time a measure is circulated for signatures and when it appears on the ballot.

In another change, the revised language predicts a loss to state and local governments of tens of millions of dollars in sales tax revenues over the next few years if the measure passes. But the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office said that in the long run there would "likely be little fiscal impact."

Since the AG can't stop the amendment from hitting the ballot, he's trying to stack the deck in favor of the "No" votes. He's supposed to stay impartial, put the amendment on the ballot as is.

It's on those who support gay "marriage" to make their case to the people. In my view, the key to this amendment will be, as it was with Prop. 22, rallying the citizens OUTSIDE the L.A. and San Francisco areas. In 2000, when Prop. 22 hit ballot, those two areas made up the lion's share of the "No" votes.

It was the other 52 counties in California that carried the mail and got Prop. 22 passed. This will undoubtedly require a major grass-roots rally from churches and other institutions that are in favor of this amendment. If they can get the voters out in mass, then this amendment will pass.

Keep in mind that this would not be the first time the Cali. Supreme Court has ruled something "unconstitutional", only to have the people vote (via amendment) to override that ruling. In 1972, the court ruled the death penalty was unconstitutional. Just a few months later, the people amended the state constitution, legalizing the death penalty, once again.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on August 02, 2008, 03:30:45 PM
I don't see any problem with the change in wording.  It's an improvement and clarifies exactly what the intended outcome of proposition is trying to achieve.

The "protect marriage" concept is complete horseshit as gay marriage poses absolutely no threat to heterosexual marriage

I wish all ballot initiatives had to be as clear and concise with their wording and written objectives


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: 24KT on August 02, 2008, 08:17:45 PM
The change in wording does more accurately reflect what the proposition, which is to 'eliminate their right to marry'. Since the Supreme Court has already ruled on the matter, gays and lesbians now have the right to marry. The proposition if passed would infact 'eliminate' that right. Seems simple enough to me.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on August 02, 2008, 08:52:54 PM
Since the AG can't stop the amendment from hitting the ballot, he's trying to stack the deck in favor of the "No" votes. He's supposed to stay impartial, put the amendment on the ballot as is.

It's on those who support gay "marriage" to make their case to the people. In my view, the key to this amendment will be, as it was with Prop. 22, rallying the citizens OUTSIDE the L.A. and San Francisco areas. In 2000, when Prop. 22 hit ballot, those two areas made up the lion's share of the "No" votes.

It was the other 52 counties in California that carried the mail and got Prop. 22 passed. This will undoubtedly require a major grass-roots rally from churches and other institutions that are in favor of this amendment. If they can get the voters out in mass, then this amendment will pass.

Keep in mind that this would not be the first time the Cali. Supreme Court has ruled something "unconstitutional", only to have the people vote (via amendment) to override that ruling. In 1972, the court ruled the death penalty was unconstitutional. Just a few months later, the people amended the state constitution, legalizing the death penalty, once again.



Ridiculous.  Don't see how he can get away with that.  The problem is you'll probably have the same handful of judges who created this mess ruling on this AG's decision. 

Very interested to see how the people of California decide this one. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on August 03, 2008, 06:39:11 AM
The change in wording does more accurately reflect what the proposition, which is to 'eliminate their right to marry'. Since the Supreme Court has already ruled on the matter, gays and lesbians now have the right to marry. The proposition if passed would infact 'eliminate' that right. Seems simple enough to me.

that's it in a nutshell



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on August 03, 2008, 05:25:05 PM
The change in wording does more accurately reflect what the proposition, which is to 'eliminate their right to marry'. Since the Supreme Court has already ruled on the matter, gays and lesbians now have the right to marry. The proposition if passed would infact 'eliminate' that right. Seems simple enough to me.

The right to marry has already been there. This issue is about defining what marriage is. This amendment says "one man and one woman", as Prop. 22 did.

The judges made their ruling, based on how the state constitution CURRENTLY reads. If the amendment passes, they must rule, based on how it would read then. Everyone can participate in marriage. If some don't want to do so, because of their preference, that's on them. Being able to participate and wanting to do so or not (based on "sexual preference") are different things.

The Attorney General is merely supposed to put the amendment on the ballot, after ensuring that those who submitted it, followed the proper procedures. He is NOT doing that. He's trying to sway public opinion to vote "No!", which is wrong, given his position. That would be just like saying, in the 1972 amendment regarding the death penalty, that the amendment eliminates the rights of murderers NOT to face capital punishment.

Let the people look into the issue for themselves and make the call on election day.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on August 03, 2008, 05:27:46 PM
The right to marry has already been there. This issue is about defining what marriage is. This amendment says "one man and one woman", as Prop. 22 did.

The judges made their ruling, based on how the state constitution CURRENTLY reads. If the amendment passes, they must rule, based on how it would read then. Everyone can participate in marriage. If some don't want to do so, because of their preference, that's on them. Being able to participate and wanting to do so or not (based on "sexual preference") are different things.

The Attorney General is merely supposed to put the amendment on the ballot, after ensuring that those who submitted it, followed the proper procedures. He is NOT doing that. He's trying to sway public opinion to vote "No!", which is wrong, given his position. Let the people look into the issue for themselves and make the call on election day.

Are you saying gays have have the right to get married?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on August 03, 2008, 05:35:19 PM
Are you saying gays have have the right to get married?

How is marriage defined? Federally, it's the union of a man and a woman.

Can gays participate in marriage, based on this definition? YES!!!

Do they want to do so? NO!!!

Remember Ellen Degeneres' old "partner", Anne Heche? She was/is gay!! Yet, when she showed up to get a marriage license with a MAN, she got one. Her lesbianism (past or present) had no bearing on the matter.

The former New Jersey governor, Jim McGreevy claimed to be a "gay American". Yet, gay or not, he was able to participate in marriage, as he had a wife. No one screened him to see if he was a homo, prior to issuing the marriage license to him and his bride-to-be.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on August 03, 2008, 05:38:15 PM
How is marriage defined? Federally, it's the union of a man and a woman.

Can gays participate in marriage, based on this definition? YES!!!

Do they want to do so? NO!!!

Remember Ellen Degeneres' old "partner", Anne Heche? She was/is gay!! Yet, when she showed up to get a marriage license with a MAN, she got one. Her lesbianism (past or present) had no bearing on the matter.

ok - semantic games aside - Do people in CA have the right to marry another person of the same sex?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on August 03, 2008, 05:46:05 PM
ok - semantic games aside - Do people in CA have the right to marry another person of the same sex?

There are no semantics involved. The judges changed the definition of marriage from "one man and one woman" to just "two people". Based on that, the folks in CA do have that. In three months, the people will get their say on how they want marriage defined in their state.

My point is that there's a difference between having the right to participate in marriage (but not doing so, due to sexual preference) and changing the definition to suit one's preference. That begs the question that many gay activists and their supporters like to avoid, namely why marriage should be changed to fit their preference but not that of others (polygamists, pedophiles, etc.).


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: 24KT on August 03, 2008, 05:54:01 PM

Remember Ellen Degeneres' old "partner", Anne Heche? She was/is gay!! Yet, when she showed up to get a marriage license with a MAN, she got one. Her lesbianism (past or present) had no bearing on the matter.

I've had the ...uh, 'pleasure' (for want of a better word) or observing this woman operate very closely,
...and lets say lesbian is not the word I'd use to describe her, ...'ambitious opportunist' is more appropriate IMO
Others may have a decidely less diplomatic term for her.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on August 03, 2008, 06:05:29 PM
I've had the ...uh, 'pleasure' (for want of a better word) or observing this woman operate very closely,
...and lets say lesbian is not the word I'd use to describe her, ...'ambitious opportunist' is more appropriate IMO
Others may have a decidely less diplomatic term for her.

Perhaps, that's the case. Regardless, any lesbianism (actual or perceived, past or present) had no bearing on her getting a marriage license. She showed up with a man and got one.

Again, it's about changing the very definition of marriage itself. Basically, it's a union between a man and woman. Even within that framework, there are limiting factors: age, family relations, number of participants.

If gays have the right to have their preferences met, shouldn't those who like kids (say under 13) be able to have theirs met, as well. What about those who dig close relatives? What if first/second cousins simply isn't close enough? Don't those folks have the "right" to have marriage changed to accomodate them?

And, why is just two people? That's a question some polygamists are asking now. If gays can have the rules changed, then they can, too.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on August 03, 2008, 06:06:45 PM
There are no semantics involved. The judges changed the definition of marriage from "one man and one woman" to just "two people". Based on that, the folks in CA do have that. In three months, the people will get their say on how they want marriage defined in their state.

My point is that there's a difference between having the right to participate in marriage (but not doing so, due to sexual preference) and changing the definition to suit one's preference. That begs the question that many gay activists and their supporters like to avoid, namely why marriage should be changed to fit their preference but not that of others (polygamists, pedophiles, etc.).

The judges didn't change the definition of marriage - the Supreme Court of CA decided that the ban on same sex marriage was unconstitituional and therefore same sex couples have have the right to get married.

What's the problem?

Do you think anyone who is opposed to gay marriage is going to be confused b the word change?  If anything it helps clarify the intent of the proposition?





Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on August 03, 2008, 06:11:16 PM
The judges didn't change the definition of marriage - the Supreme Court of CA decided that the ban on same sex marriage was unconstitituional and therefore same sex couples have have the right to get married.

What's the problem?

Do you think anyone who is opposed to gay marriage is going to be confused b the word change?  If anything it helps clarify the intent of the proposition?


Then, what was the definition of marriage, prior to the court's ruling? And, what kept gays from participating in it?

There's a reason the term "same-sex 'marriage' " is used. It's because marriage's natural definition is that of a man and a woman.

The intent of the amendment is to change the definition of marriage BACK to what it was (what the people CLEARLY STATED that it should be in 2000): a union between a man and a woman.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on August 03, 2008, 06:16:28 PM
Perhaps, that's the case. Regardless, any lesbianism (actual or perceived, past or present) had no bearing on her getting a marriage license. She showed up with a man and got one.

Again, it's about changing the very definition of marriage itself. Basically, it's a union between a man and woman. Even within that framework, there are limiting factors: age, family relations, number of participants.

If gays have the right to have their preferences met, shouldn't those who like kids (say under 13) be able to have theirs met, as well. What about those who dig close relatives? What if first/second cousins simply isn't close enough? Don't those folks have the "right" to have marriage changed to accomodate them?

And, why is just two people? That's a question some polygamists are asking now. If gays can have the rules changed, then they can, too.


I have no problem with polygamy

who cares

why do opponents of same sex marriage think it can be conflated with any other permutation that they can think up




Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on August 03, 2008, 06:19:21 PM
I have no problem with polygamy

who cares

why do opponents of same sex marriage think it can be conflated with any other permutation that they can think up


Because, staying that changing the gender requirement for marriage is fine, but changing the age, family relation, or number of participants is wrong (as many gay "marriage" supporters) do makes no sense.

Back to the amendment, the AG should NOT be trying to word the amendment one way or the other. Were he doing so, in an attempt to bump up the "Yes" votes, I'm sure you'd disagree with his actions.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on August 03, 2008, 06:20:21 PM
Then, what was the definition of marriage, prior to the court's ruling? And, what kept gays from participating in it?

There's a reason the term "same-sex 'marriage' " is used. It's because marriage's natural definition is that of a man and a woman.

The intent of the amendment is to change the definition of marriage BACK to what it was (what the people CLEARLY STATED that it should be in 2000): a union between a man and a woman.

Where was it clearly stated in 2000?

Are you referring to the ban that was struck down by the Supreme Court of CA as being unconstitutional or are you referring to something else?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on August 03, 2008, 06:26:56 PM
Because, staying that changing the gender requirement for marriage is fine, but changing the age, family relation, or number of participants is wrong (as many gay "marriage" supporters) do makes no sense.

so you're saying gender is equivalent to age, family relation, etc...

Back to the amendment, the AG should NOT be trying to word the amendment one way or the other. Were he doing so, in an attempt to bump up the "Yes" votes, I'm sure you'd disagree with his actions.

I've already stated that I don't have a problem with it. 

Why do you think it would bump up Yes votes.  Don't you mean No votes?

Why do you think the word change would skew the outcome?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on August 03, 2008, 06:29:20 PM
Where was it clearly stated in 2000?

By Proposition 22, voted into law by the populace.


Are you referring to the ban that was struck down by the Supreme Court of CA as being unconstitutional or are you referring to something else?

That's one and the same. That's why other states, like my home state of Florida, are voting on amendments: To keep the state courts from pulling the same thing that CA's court just did.

California, Florida, and Arizona have marriage amendments on the ballot this fall. If they all pass, that puts the number of states with such to 30.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on August 03, 2008, 06:34:18 PM
so you're saying gender is equivalent to age, family relation, etc...

As far as marriage restrictions go, it is. You seem to think that it is not. Again, why is changing gender restrictions cool but changing any of the others isn't?


I've already stated that I don't have a problem with it. 

Why do you think it would bump up Yes votes.  Don't you mean No votes?

Why do you think the word change would skew the outcome?

I didn't say it would bump up the "YES" votes. You don't have a problem with what the AG is doing, because his intent is to influence the voters to say "No". If he were using different wording, with the intent of getting the voters to say "Yes", I believe you'd have a problem with that.

He shouldn't be tinkering with it, one way or the other. Put the amendment on the ballot, AS IT WAS SUBMITTED, and leave it alone.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on August 03, 2008, 06:38:08 PM
By Proposition 22, voted into law by the populace.

And determined to be unconstitutional by the CA Supreme Court







Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on August 03, 2008, 06:42:25 PM
And determined to be unconstitutional by the CA Supreme Court



That is why Prop. 8 is on the ballot. If it becomes part of the constitution, the court's ruling is void.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on August 03, 2008, 06:47:47 PM
As far as marriage restrictions go, it is. You seem to think that it is not. Again, why is changing gender restrictions cool but changing any of the others isn't?

I didn't say it would bump up the "YES" votes. You don't have a problem with what the AG is doing, because his intent is to influence the voters to say "No". If he were using different wording, with the intent of getting the voters to say "Yes", I believe you'd have a problem with that.

He shouldn't be tinkering with it, one way or the other. Put the amendment on the ballot, AS IT WAS SUBMITTED, and leave it alone.

yeah - I misread that part about the "yes" vote.   I guess I would have to see the word change to decide whether it was intended to influence an outcome or merely to clarify intent.  

I don't see how you can pick and choose where to conflate gender and age (or something else) to suit your purpose.   Our laws restrict drinking based on age but not gender.  Why doesn't it apply in that circumstance?   Seems kind of obvious no?




Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on August 03, 2008, 06:55:35 PM
That is why Prop. 8 is on the ballot. If it becomes part of the constitution, the court's ruling is void.

at the present time the court have determined that same sex couples have the right to marry right?

btw - shouldn't we just get rid of the Supreme Court and just put EVERTHING up for a vote


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on August 04, 2008, 05:41:21 AM
at the present time the court have determined that same sex couples have the right to marry right?

btw - shouldn't we just get rid of the Supreme Court and just put EVERTHING up for a vote

State courts are guided by state constitutions. And the people have the right to alter their states' constitution. Last time I checked, we had (or are supposed to have) government of the people, by the people, and for the people.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on August 04, 2008, 05:47:05 AM
State courts are guided by state constitutions. And the people have the right to alter their states' constitution. Last time I checked, we had (or are supposed to have) government of the people, by the people, and for the people.



Yup, back in 1776 or perhaps 1789...been going down hill with the 'people thing' for quite some time now... ;D


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Colossus_500 on August 04, 2008, 06:23:22 AM
'ambitious opportunist'
"Pot, meet Kettle."  :P


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: 24KT on August 04, 2008, 09:42:36 AM
"Pot, meet Kettle."  :P

Trust me, ...there have been many opportunities, ...but I would never sell/rent/lease/trade my sexuality,
for the sake of publicity, career advancement, or monetary gain etc. 

What you mistakenly refer to as ambitious opportunism, is merely pragmatic prudence.

I'm not about to commit suicide by allowing myself drown in an upcoming flood.
Like Noah, I'm gonna build an ark. And like Noah, ...I watch the naysayers, & skeptics being swept away


There are forces in this world that are bigger than us.
These forces will either push us into success, or they can crush us.
When the winds of change start blowing, ...success or failure all boils down to how we set our sails.
We can scream about the storm, ...or we can learn to dance in the rain.

I choose the latter. ...and oh what a perfectly profitable storm it is. (http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/whistle.gif)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on August 04, 2008, 10:21:02 AM
Trust me, ...there have been many opportunities, ...but I would never sell/rent/lease/trade my sexuality,
for the sake of publicity, career advancement, or monetary gain etc. 

What you mistakenly refer to as ambitious opportunism, is merely pragmatic prudence.

I'm not about to commit suicide by allowing myself drown in an upcoming flood.
Like Noah, I'm gonna build an ark. And like Noah, ...I watch the naysayers, & skeptics being swept away


There are forces in this world that are bigger than us.
These forces will either push us into success, or they can crush us.
When the winds of change start blowing, ...success or failure all boils down to how we set our sails.
We can scream about the storm, ...or we can learn to dance in the rain.

I choose the latter. ...and oh what a perfectly profitable storm it is. (http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/whistle.gif)

How's being a lesbian treating you these days, Jag? ;D


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Benny B on August 04, 2008, 11:43:59 AM
How's being a lesbian treating you these days, Jag? ;D
Probably as well as being a sexually frustrated heterosexual has treated you, "Deicide".  :D


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on August 04, 2008, 11:51:51 AM
Probably as well as being a sexually frustrated heterosexual has treated you, "Deicide".  :D

I doubt it; being a lesbian is significantly easier.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Benny B on August 04, 2008, 12:04:36 PM
I doubt it; being a lesbian is significantly easier.
Well to that I must say, I wouldn't know because I am neither.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on August 04, 2008, 12:21:45 PM
Well to that I must say, I wouldn't know because I am neither.

Then don't bring it up... ::)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: 24KT on August 04, 2008, 12:28:22 PM
How's being a lesbian treating you these days, Jag? ;D

I guess this must be my cue to confess ...I'm gay for Obama.  :D

There, ...since I admitted, you and all the others can admit it too.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: boonasty on August 04, 2008, 04:15:30 PM
Trust me, ...there have been many opportunities, ...but I would never sell/rent/lease/trade my sexuality,
for the sake of publicity, career advancement, or monetary gain etc. 

but didnt you play a hooker in a movie ???



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: 24KT on August 04, 2008, 04:18:53 PM
but didnt you play a hooker in a movie ???


What's your point?  :-\


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: boonasty on August 04, 2008, 04:26:49 PM
when you said this

Trust me, ...there have been many opportunities, ...but I would never sell/rent/lease/trade my sexuality,
for the sake of publicity, career advancement, or monetary gain etc. 

]

i assume you got paid for playing a hooker in the film

maybe sexuality wasnt the word you meant to use



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: 24KT on August 04, 2008, 04:35:00 PM
when you said this

i assume you got paid for playing a hooker in the film

maybe sexuality wasnt the word you meant to use


OK, I understand what you're saying, and the point you're trying to make, ...I just don't agree with it.
as I sit here formulating a clarification, it's not making any sense, even though it does make sense,
 ...so I'm not even going to offer it. I will instead say... a 'portrayal' of someone who trades sex for money is not the same as actually trading sex for money. Portrayal of a hooker doesn't make you one.

ps: If Charlie Sheen is directing... all bets are off.  ;D


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Benny B on August 04, 2008, 07:20:37 PM
Then don't bring it up... ::)
How did I bring up jag being a lezbo, you no pussy pulling fucktard?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: 24KT on August 05, 2008, 02:02:25 AM
For the record, ...I'm not a lesbian, ...not that there'd be anything wrong with it if I was.  :)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: boonasty on August 05, 2008, 04:43:59 PM
OK, I understand what you're saying, and the point you're trying to make, ...I just don't agree with it.
as I sit here formulating a clarification, it's not making any sense, even though it does make sense,
 ...so I'm not even going to offer it. I will instead say... a 'portrayal' of someone who trades sex for money is not the same as actually trading sex for money. Portrayal of a hooker doesn't make you one.


of course portrayal of a hooker doesnt make you one i agree i never meant you are a hooker.

but you did in fact use your sexuality for money in that movie correct?



one more question. what is your objective review of that movie?  do you give it a thumbs up or down?  is it worth the time to watch in entirety?




Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: 24KT on August 05, 2008, 04:51:40 PM
of course portrayal of a hooker doesnt make you one i agree i never meant you are a hooker.

but you did in fact use your sexuality for money in that movie correct?

In pretty much all the roles in which I played a hooker, I wouldn't really say I used my sexuality at all.

Quote
one more question. what is your objective review of that movie?  do you give it a thumbs up or down?  is it worth the time to watch in entirety?


Which one? Actually, I take that back. There was one comedy wherein I did play a hooker and did use my sexuality a tad, but it's not mentioned on IMDB, and it was an Italian comedy, ...so unless you speak Italian, renting it would be a waste of your time. it was a funny movie though. A good 80% of the stuff I worked in I never saw. theatrical films yes, but TV series, hardly. Alot were made for export to the USA and with CanCon laws, much of the programming we worked on didn't make it to our airwaves. Alot of HBO series, Lifetime series, and various MOW's etc.,


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on August 06, 2008, 10:42:23 AM
of course portrayal of a hooker doesnt make you one i agree i never meant you are a hooker.

but you did in fact use your sexuality for money in that movie correct?



one more question. what is your objective review of that movie?  do you give it a thumbs up or down?  is it worth the time to watch in entirety?




That's a good point.  Playing a hooker doesn't make you a hooker, but someone who does is using sexuality for money.  I don't think this is necessarily a criticism of any actor. 

But . . . you have to draw the line somewhere.  Like Ving Rhames (sp?).  I don't care what role he plays or how much of a tough guy he trys to be, he will always be the guy who got raped in Pulp Fiction.   :o   


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on August 06, 2008, 01:20:16 PM
On subject people.  Stay on subject.  Otherwise, take it private.  :)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on August 06, 2008, 01:33:34 PM
That's a good point.  Playing a hooker doesn't make you a hooker, but someone who does is using sexuality for money.  I don't think this is necessarily a criticism of any actor. 

But . . . you have to draw the line somewhere.  Like Ving Rhames (sp?).  I don't care what role he plays or how much of a tough guy he trys to be, he will always be the guy who got raped in Pulp Fiction.   :o   

It's hilarious that that would be the thing that sticks in your mind after all these years.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on August 06, 2008, 02:15:46 PM
 ::)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on August 06, 2008, 04:37:12 PM
::)


::) ::)

you're the one who admitted that when YOU see a certain person all YOU can think about is that person being sodomized

 ::) ::)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on August 06, 2008, 04:38:47 PM
Yawn.   ::)  You bore me Straw Man. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on August 06, 2008, 04:42:46 PM
Yawn.   ::)  You bore me Straw Man. 

I guess I don't capture your attention as much a Ving Rhames



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on August 06, 2008, 04:50:59 PM
I guess I don't capture your attention as much a Ving Rhames



Yes you do.  I give as much attention to one homosexual as I do another, so you both get equal attention (which is not much).   :)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on August 06, 2008, 04:57:41 PM
Yes you do.  I give as much attention to one homosexual as I do another, so you both get equal attention (which is not much).   :)

Hey Beach Bunny

Don't think about Ving Rhames



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on August 06, 2008, 05:00:19 PM
Oh he's trying to make a funny.  Very good Straw Man.  I've previously said you are more entertaining when you try and make jokes.  Nice job. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on August 06, 2008, 05:04:18 PM
and I've previously said that I wish (and I'm still waiting) for you to say anything that makes me laugh

mostly I'm just creeped out

no offense


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on August 06, 2008, 05:10:44 PM
None taken.  I think you're weird, but I don't know you.  Anyone who gets offended by things typed on an anonymous message board needs to rearrange their priorities. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on August 06, 2008, 07:19:20 PM
None taken.  I think you're weird, but I don't know you.  Anyone who gets offended by things typed on an anonymous message board needs to rearrange their priorities. 

first rational thing I've seen you write in a long time


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on August 06, 2008, 07:21:31 PM
 ::)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on August 06, 2008, 07:27:39 PM
::)

yep - I feel the same way


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: 24KT on August 06, 2008, 10:39:35 PM
That's a good point.  Playing a hooker doesn't make you a hooker, but someone who does is using sexuality for money.

You're making an unfair assumption based upon your own imagination or lack thereof.

'Hooker' is simply a job title. it's quite possible to establish someone's job title or "occupation" in a script without actually having them perform the job in question. Given time restraints, that is more often than not what occurs.
One can easily portray a hooker without using ones sexuality.

ie: Law & Order - the detectives interview a "neurosurgeon" in his home. Do they have to show the guy performing brain surgery to establish his character's occupation ... no they don't do they.

A chef: Dress the guy up in a funny white hat, stick him in a restaurant, and voila. What culinary skills has he used?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on August 06, 2008, 10:45:09 PM
You're making an unfair assumption based upon your own imagination or lack thereof.

'Hooker' is simply a job title. it's quite possible to establish someone's job title or "occupation" in a script without actually having them perform the job in question. Given time restraints, that is more often than not what occurs.
One can easily portray a hooker without using ones sexuality.

ie: Law & Order - the detectives interview a "neurosurgeon" in his home. Do they have to show the guy performing brain surgery to establish his character's occupation ... no they don't do they.

A chef: Dress the guy up in a funny white hat, stick him in a restaurant, and voila. What culinary skills has he used?


Pure semantics.  A hooker is defined by the fact she has sex for money. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: 24KT on August 06, 2008, 11:01:38 PM
Pure semantics.  A hooker is defined by the fact she has sex for money. 

In real life perhaps, ...however on film, ...it's a whole other story. In films, she is defined by a stereotype.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on August 06, 2008, 11:04:24 PM
In real life perhaps, ...however on film, ...it's a whole other story. In films, she is defined by a stereotype.

More semantics.  In what movie is a hooker not someone who sells sex for money?  The stereotype is she sells her body for money, which is an accurate stereotype. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: 24KT on August 06, 2008, 11:56:16 PM
More semantics.  In what movie is a hooker not someone who sells sex for money?  The stereotype is she sells her body for money, which is an accurate stereotype. 

No, ...the stereotype is a woman dressed in a micro-mini, fish net stockings and loud rabbit fur jacket.

Toss in some big hair, loud gaudy jewelry, have her chew gum like Britney Spears and voila... film industry hooker!


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on August 07, 2008, 11:19:08 AM
No, ...the stereotype is a woman dressed in a micro-mini, fish net stockings and loud rabbit fur jacket.

Toss in some big hair, loud gaudy jewelry, have her chew gum like Britney Spears and voila... film industry hooker!

Yes, but in what scenario is a hooker not someone who sells sex?  She (or he) doesn't have to actually stand on a corner or be in the bed with someone to convey that they are a hooker, but however they portray their character, the substance of his/her occupation does not change. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: 24KT on August 07, 2008, 11:56:14 AM
Yes, but in what scenario is a hooker not someone who sells sex?  She (or he) doesn't have to actually stand on a corner or be in the bed with someone to convey that they are a hooker, but however they portray their character, the substance of his/her occupation does not change. 

The discussion wasn't about the definition of a hooker, ...but whether or not I'd used my sexuality to portay one.

Can we get this thread back on-topic please? ...you know, ...all about how California is going to hell because two men or two women will be able to call their legal union a 'marriage'?

thanks


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on August 07, 2008, 12:55:29 PM
The discussion wasn't about the definition of a hooker, ...but whether or not I'd used my sexuality to portay one.

Can we get this thread back on-topic please? ...you know, ...all about how California is going to hell because two men or two women will be able to call their legal union a 'marriage'?

thanks

A hooker is defined by the fact she sells sex, which makes it impossible to portray a hooker without using "sexuality."  But I'm starting to repeat myself.  This horse is about dead. 

Back to the discussion of the men in black and how they trampled on the will of the people of California.  McWay has pretty much nailed the issues in this thread.   


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: 24KT on August 07, 2008, 05:36:24 PM
A hooker is defined by the fact she sells sex, which makes it impossible to portray a hooker without using "sexuality."  But I'm starting to repeat myself.  This horse is about dead. 

Impossible to portray, and impossible to conceive of, ...only for those void of any imagination.
Yes you're repeating yourself. Maybe you should stick to things you actually know about, ...filmmaking isn't one of them.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on August 07, 2008, 08:50:32 PM
Impossible to portray, and impossible to conceive of, ...only for those void of any imagination.
Yes you're repeating yourself. Maybe you should stick to things you actually know about, ...filmmaking isn't one of them.

Thanks Einstein.   ::)  I expect more from someone with a 160 IQ.  Or did you only portray someone with a 160 IQ?   


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on August 07, 2008, 09:03:33 PM
That's a good point.  Playing a hooker doesn't make you a hooker, but someone who does is using sexuality for money.  I don't think this is necessarily a criticism of any actor. 

But . . . you have to draw the line somewhere.  Like Ving Rhames (sp?).  I don't care what role he plays or how much of a tough guy he trys to be, he will always be the guy who got raped in Pulp Fiction.   :o   

Bum - I've read through this thread again and I have to admit you've finally made me laugh.
 
I'm talking about your realization that "playing a hooker doesn't make you a hooker"

hilarious 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Colossus_500 on August 08, 2008, 01:15:30 PM
Judge upholds redefined Prop. 8 ballot language
Jeff Johnson
8/8/2008 11:25:00
www.onenewsnow.com


Pro-family attorneys are vowing to go back to court to get biased, pro-homosexual language removed from the ballot title and summary for the California marriage protection amendment.

The amendment states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." But somehow, Attorney General Jerry Brown reinterpreted that as eliminating "the right of same-sex couples to marry." Timothy Chandler, legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), was in Superior Court in California Thursday arguing that Brown's editorializing is illegal.
 
"The issue before the voters is whether or not California should define marriage as between one man and one woman," Chandler explains. "And rather than presenting it that way to the voters, the attorney general got political with it."
 
Instead of providing a neutral and unbiased ballot title and summary, says the ADF attorney, Brown bowed to "political pressure" and "gave a biased and prejudicial summary" -- in effect failing to follow his obligation under state law. "The attorney general is required by law to provide an objective summary of what the proposition would do to the law," Chandler explains.
 
But the Superior Court disagreed Friday, ruling that Brown was within his rights to define the amendment as taking away rights, even though those alleged rights were only recently created by the California Supreme Court.

"In this case, the Attorney General did not abuse his discretion in concluding that the chief purpose and effect of the initiative is to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, even if the initiative also has other purposes and effects," wrote Judge Timothy Frawley. "The Attorney General's title is an accurate statement of the primary purpose and effect of the measure. It is not argumentative or inherently prejudicial."

The original ballot title described the amendment as a change to the state constitution that would "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Chandler hopes a three-judge panel of the California Appellate Court will overturn Frawley's decision.
 
"This is an emergency petition to try to get the court to order the attorney general to provide a [sic] unbiased ballot title and summary before the ballots are begun to be printed here in California, which starts next week," says Chandler.

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund and ProtectMarriage.com say they intend to file the appeal immediately.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on August 08, 2008, 01:54:43 PM
 ;D


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on August 08, 2008, 01:59:06 PM
Judge upholds redefined Prop. 8 ballot language
Jeff Johnson
8/8/2008 11:25:00
www.onenewsnow.com


Pro-family attorneys are vowing to go back to court to get biased, pro-homosexual language removed from the ballot title and summary for the California marriage protection amendment.

The amendment states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." But somehow, Attorney General Jerry Brown reinterpreted that as eliminating "the right of same-sex couples to marry." Timothy Chandler, legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), was in Superior Court in California Thursday arguing that Brown's editorializing is illegal.
 
"The issue before the voters is whether or not California should define marriage as between one man and one woman," Chandler explains. "And rather than presenting it that way to the voters, the attorney general got political with it."
 
Instead of providing a neutral and unbiased ballot title and summary, says the ADF attorney, Brown bowed to "political pressure" and "gave a biased and prejudicial summary" -- in effect failing to follow his obligation under state law. "The attorney general is required by law to provide an objective summary of what the proposition would do to the law," Chandler explains.
 
But the Superior Court disagreed Friday, ruling that Brown was within his rights to define the amendment as taking away rights, even though those alleged rights were only recently created by the California Supreme Court.

"In this case, the Attorney General did not abuse his discretion in concluding that the chief purpose and effect of the initiative is to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, even if the initiative also has other purposes and effects," wrote Judge Timothy Frawley. "The Attorney General's title is an accurate statement of the primary purpose and effect of the measure. It is not argumentative or inherently prejudicial."

The original ballot title described the amendment as a change to the state constitution that would "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Chandler hopes a three-judge panel of the California Appellate Court will overturn Frawley's decision.
 
"This is an emergency petition to try to get the court to order the attorney general to provide a [sic] unbiased ballot title and summary before the ballots are begun to be printed here in California, which starts next week," says Chandler.

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund and ProtectMarriage.com say they intend to file the appeal immediately.

This will wind up with the same panel of judges that started this whole mess?   ::)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on August 08, 2008, 02:10:02 PM
This will wind up with the same panel of judges that started this whole mess?   ::)

I don't believe so.  This latest appeal will be heard by the California Appellate Court.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/

The California Supreme Court effectively started this.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on August 08, 2008, 02:12:31 PM
This will wind up with the same panel of judges that started this whole mess?   ::)

Actually the people who started the mess were the religious nutbags who initiated the proposition



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on August 08, 2008, 02:14:35 PM
lol.  And all those nutbags who voted for it?  lol . . .

 ::)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on August 08, 2008, 02:15:56 PM
Actually the people who started the mess were the religious nutbags who initiated the proposition



I wonder how many of their marriages have dissolved since this started.  :-[


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on August 08, 2008, 02:18:46 PM
lol.  And all those nutbags who voted for it?  lol . . .

 ::)

yep - those too

they should all mind their own fucking business and Focus on their own Families


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on August 08, 2008, 02:27:16 PM
yep - those too

they should all mind their own fucking business and Focus on their own Families

True, but it is easier (and more fun) to preach to other people than face your own faults.  Just ask Ted Haggard and his wife.  :-[



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on August 28, 2008, 03:32:17 AM
Most oppose bid to ban gay marriage in California, poll finds
Fifty-four percent of likely voters are against Prop. 8, with 40% supporting the measure. But when asked if same-sex couples should be allowed to wed, respondents were evenly split.
By Jessica Garrison
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

10:36 PM PDT, August 27, 2008

California voters remain closely divided on the concept of gay marriage, but a significant majority of likely voters oppose a measure to ban it, according to a poll released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California.

Proposition 8, which would amend the state Constitution to allow marriage only between a man and a woman, is trailing 40% to 54% among likely voters, according to the poll. In a separate question, pollsters asked respondents if they support or oppose allowing gay men and lesbians to marry. On that question, Californians were evenly split, 47% to 47%.

Mark Baldassare, president of the policy institute, said the election probably will be close, in part because of the even split in the general attitude toward gay marriage, but also because those supporting Proposition 8 were more likely to describe the issue as important to them than were voters on the other side.

The polling, he said, "shows a deeply divided electorate."

Wednesday's poll was in line with previous surveys. Support for Proposition 8 has slipped slightly in the institute's poll since a survey last month that showed 51% of voters against and 42% in favor.

In other findings, the poll found:

* Barack Obama was leading John McCain by 48% to 39% among likely voters in the state -- a margin that was down six points since July, with most of the decline coming among self-described independents. The survey was taken before the Democratic convention began.

* An overwhelming majority, 84%, say the state's budget impasse is a serious problem, but likely voters were more closely divided on solutions. The largest group, 44%, favored a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, while 38% would close the state deficit by cutting spending. A solution that relied mostly on increasing taxes drew only 8% support, while 4% would support borrowing money and running a deficit.

* On abortion, likely voters were divided 47% in favor, 44% opposed on Proposition 4, a measure that would require parents to be notified 48 hours before a minor has an abortion. Voters rejected similar proposals in 2005 and 2006.

* Another ballot measure, on legislative redistricting, is drawing support from about four in 10 likely voters. Proposition 11, which is backed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, would give a commission of registered voters the authority to determine state legislative districts. The survey showed 39% in favor, 36% against and 25% undecided.

Campaign strategists frequently say ballot measures that begin the fall campaign with less than 50% support face long odds because propositions usually lose support as the campaign proceeds.

The findings are based on a telephone survey of 1,047 likely voters between Aug. 12 and 19. The results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

On same-sex marriage, the poll did not reveal why the split on the ballot measure differed from attitudes on the general issue of gay marriage. But Jennifer Kerns, a spokeswoman for the Proposition 8 campaign, cited the language voters will see on the ballot, which pollsters also read to respondents, that describes the proposition as a measure to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."

That legal right has existed since May, when the California Supreme Court ruled that the state Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the same access to marriage that heterosexual couples have. That ruling overturned Proposition 22, passed by voters in 2000, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

The Protect Marriage coalition circulated petitions for Proposition 8 this spring in order to amend the Constitution and take the issue away from the courts. At the time, the petitions said the measure would amend the state Constitution "to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Earlier this summer, state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown altered the ballot language, saying the change was necessary to accurately reflect the effect the measure would have in overturning the court's decision. The Protect Marriage coalition filed a lawsuit to block that change, but lost.

Both sides predicted an intense campaign between now and election day.

Supporters of Proposition 8 had raised more than $10.1 million as of 4 p.m. Wednesday. Opponents had raised more than $9.4 million.

Both sides were dependent on dollars from out of state, with opponents of the measure getting $4.9 million -- more than half of their money -- from outside of California. Proponents collected $3.8 million from outside the state.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on August 28, 2008, 03:43:14 AM
Most oppose bid to ban gay marriage in California, poll finds
Fifty-four percent of likely voters are against Prop. 8, with 40% supporting the measure. But when asked if same-sex couples should be allowed to wed, respondents were evenly split.
By Jessica Garrison
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

10:36 PM PDT, August 27, 2008

California voters remain closely divided on the concept of gay marriage, but a significant majority of likely voters oppose a measure to ban it, according to a poll released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California.

Proposition 8, which would amend the state Constitution to allow marriage only between a man and a woman, is trailing 40% to 54% among likely voters, according to the poll. In a separate question, pollsters asked respondents if they support or oppose allowing gay men and lesbians to marry. On that question, Californians were evenly split, 47% to 47%.

Mark Baldassare, president of the policy institute, said the election probably will be close, in part because of the even split in the general attitude toward gay marriage, but also because those supporting Proposition 8 were more likely to describe the issue as important to them than were voters on the other side.

The polling, he said, "shows a deeply divided electorate."

Wednesday's poll was in line with previous surveys. Support for Proposition 8 has slipped slightly in the institute's poll since a survey last month that showed 51% of voters against and 42% in favor.

In other findings, the poll found:

* Barack Obama was leading John McCain by 48% to 39% among likely voters in the state -- a margin that was down six points since July, with most of the decline coming among self-described independents. The survey was taken before the Democratic convention began.

* An overwhelming majority, 84%, say the state's budget impasse is a serious problem, but likely voters were more closely divided on solutions. The largest group, 44%, favored a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, while 38% would close the state deficit by cutting spending. A solution that relied mostly on increasing taxes drew only 8% support, while 4% would support borrowing money and running a deficit.

* On abortion, likely voters were divided 47% in favor, 44% opposed on Proposition 4, a measure that would require parents to be notified 48 hours before a minor has an abortion. Voters rejected similar proposals in 2005 and 2006.

* Another ballot measure, on legislative redistricting, is drawing support from about four in 10 likely voters. Proposition 11, which is backed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, would give a commission of registered voters the authority to determine state legislative districts. The survey showed 39% in favor, 36% against and 25% undecided.

Campaign strategists frequently say ballot measures that begin the fall campaign with less than 50% support face long odds because propositions usually lose support as the campaign proceeds.

The findings are based on a telephone survey of 1,047 likely voters between Aug. 12 and 19. The results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

On same-sex marriage, the poll did not reveal why the split on the ballot measure differed from attitudes on the general issue of gay marriage. But Jennifer Kerns, a spokeswoman for the Proposition 8 campaign, cited the language voters will see on the ballot, which pollsters also read to respondents, that describes the proposition as a measure to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."

That legal right has existed since May, when the California Supreme Court ruled that the state Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the same access to marriage that heterosexual couples have. That ruling overturned Proposition 22, passed by voters in 2000, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

The Protect Marriage coalition circulated petitions for Proposition 8 this spring in order to amend the Constitution and take the issue away from the courts. At the time, the petitions said the measure would amend the state Constitution "to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Earlier this summer, state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown altered the ballot language, saying the change was necessary to accurately reflect the effect the measure would have in overturning the court's decision. The Protect Marriage coalition filed a lawsuit to block that change, but lost.

Both sides predicted an intense campaign between now and election day.

Supporters of Proposition 8 had raised more than $10.1 million as of 4 p.m. Wednesday. Opponents had raised more than $9.4 million.

Both sides were dependent on dollars from out of state, with opponents of the measure getting $4.9 million -- more than half of their money -- from outside of California. Proponents collected $3.8 million from outside the state.



This is about tax benefits, isn't it?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on October 10, 2008, 10:16:52 AM
Connecticut high court rules same-sex couples can marry
9:22 AM PDT, October 10, 2008

HARTFORD, Conn. — Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions.

The divided court ruled 4-3 that gay and lesbian couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry under the state constitution, and Connecticut's civil unions law does not provide those couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples.

"I can't believe it. We're thrilled, we're absolutely overjoyed. We're finally going to be able, after 33 years, to get married," said Janet Peck of Colchester, who was a plaintiff with her partner, Carole Conklin.

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding.

"To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others," Palmer wrote.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Friday that she disagreed, but will not fight the ruling.

"The Supreme Court has spoken," Rell said in a statement. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision -- either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution -- will not meet with success."

The lawsuit was brought in 2004 after eight same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses and sued, saying their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process were violated.

They said the state's marriage law, if applied only to heterosexual couples, denied them of the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage.

Peck said that as soon as the decision was announced, the couple started crying and hugging while juggling excited phone calls from her brother and other friends and family.

"We've always dreamed of being married," she said. "Even though we were lesbians and didn't know if that would ever come true, we always dreamed of it."


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-samesex11-2008oct11,0,4772793.story


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on October 10, 2008, 10:21:00 AM
Incredible.  The men in black stike yet again. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on October 10, 2008, 10:28:53 AM
Incredible.  The men in black stike yet again. 

And with the Constitution (and its clause guaranteeing equal protection) at their back, they will continue to do.  If you do not believe all citizens should be treated equally, I can see why this decision, and so many others, would upset you.  Perhaps you would be happier living in the 19th century.  ::)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: JohnnyVegas on October 10, 2008, 10:34:54 AM
And with the Constitution (and its clause guaranteeing equal protection) at their back, they will continue to do.  If you do not believe all citizens should be treated equally, I can see why this decision, and so many others, would upset you.  Perhaps you would be happier living in the 19th century.  ::)
Bay-you getting maried anytime soon????


BTW Bay, Prop 8 in CA is trying to strike down the gay marriage decision.

I think even if 8 wins (it is losing by a good margin) I am sure the CA Supreme Court, based on the opinion this year, will still find that marriage is a "fundamental right" and will find Prop 8 unconstitutional.

My position used to be be marriage is between a man and a woman, but I switched, now I dont give a shit-I mean who really cares about petty shit like this anyway????

Much bigger things to worry about in life-like our fucked up economy.

BTW-No, Im not gay.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on October 10, 2008, 10:40:05 AM
And with the Constitution (and its clause guaranteeing equal protection) at their back, they will continue to do.  If you do not believe all citizens should be treated equally, I can see why this decision, and so many others, would upset you.  Perhaps you would be happier living in the 19th century.  ::)

I'd be happier living in a country where the people decide, not four or five judges legislating from the bench. 

None of these decisions (Mass, CA, and CT) decided anything based on "the Constitution (and its clause guaranteeing equal protection)."  They decided them on state constitutional grounds.  The U.S. Supreme has not said homosexuality is a protected class.  It's a lifestyle choice and whether the states should afford special protection to that lifestyle choice should be left to the voters.   


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on October 10, 2008, 10:48:07 AM
Bay-you getting maried anytime soon????


BTW Bay, Prop 8 in CA is trying to strike down the gay marriage decision.

I think even if 8 wins (it is losing by a good margin) I am sure the CA Supreme Court, based on the opinion this year, will still find that marriage is a "fundamental right" and will find Prop 8 unconstitutional.

My position used to be be marriage is between a man and a woman, but I switched, now I dont give a shit-I mean who really cares about petty shit like this anyway????

Much bigger things to worry about in life-like our fucked up economy.

BTW-No, Im not gay.


One never knows with these things, but I am confident Prop 8 will fail.  Should I invite getbig to the ceremony?  I wonder who would come?  ;D


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on October 10, 2008, 10:54:51 AM
Bay-you getting maried anytime soon????


BTW Bay, Prop 8 in CA is trying to strike down the gay marriage decision.

I think even if 8 wins (it is losing by a good margin) I am sure the CA Supreme Court, based on the opinion this year, will still find that marriage is a "fundamental right" and will find Prop 8 unconstitutional.

My position used to be be marriage is between a man and a woman, but I switched, now I dont give a shit-I mean who really cares about petty shit like this anyway????

Much bigger things to worry about in life-like our fucked up economy.


BTW-No, Im not gay.


... but you can't fool all the people all the time.  :)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on October 10, 2008, 11:24:25 AM
Bay-you getting maried anytime soon????


BTW Bay, Prop 8 in CA is trying to strike down the gay marriage decision.

I think even if 8 wins (it is losing by a good margin) I am sure the CA Supreme Court, based on the opinion this year, will still find that marriage is a "fundamental right" and will find Prop 8 unconstitutional.

My position used to be be marriage is between a man and a woman, but I switched, now I dont give a shit-I mean who really cares about petty shit like this anyway????

Much bigger things to worry about in life-like our fucked up economy.

BTW-No, Im not gay.

Last time I checked, this amendment was actually up 47-42, according a more recent poll done on it. If the CA Supreme Court felt that this amendment was "unconstitutional", it makes no sense that the judges would allow it to be put on the ballot, in the first place.

Then again, that court has done other things that make no sense, such as not suspending the legalization of gay "marriage", until the elections are over. Why give marriage licenses to gay couples, when they could be voided in a matter of months?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on October 10, 2008, 11:35:19 AM


... but you can't fool all the people all the time.  :)

Are certain voters unable to multi-task?

And where exactly is it written that anyone, who speaks about this issue, does so at the expense of other issues?

Many folks, espeically conservatives, want a good economy, healtcare, steady employment....AND marriage to be clearly defined as a union between a man and a woman. Obama and Biden have both stated as such and they are NOT conservatives. Does that mean that they're putting the economy on the back burner?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on October 10, 2008, 12:41:43 PM
Connecticut Ruling Overturns Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
By SHARON OTTERMAN

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled on Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry, reversing a lower court decision that had concluded that the civil unions legalized in the state three years ago offered the same rights and benefits as marriage.

With the 4-to-3 ruling, Connecticut becomes the third state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage. California legalized gay marriage in May 2008, and Massachusetts in 2004.

“Today is really a great day for equality in Connecticut,” said Bennett Klein, senior lawyer at Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, which argued the case before the Supreme Court. “Today’s decision really fulfills the hopes and dreams of gay and lesbian couples in Connecticut to live as full and equal citizens.”

Opponents of same-sex marriage called for continued steps for a constitutional ban on the practice. “It’s an outrage, but it’s not unexpected,” said Peter Wolfgang, the executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut. “We thought all along that the court would usurp the democratic process and force same-sex marriage on Connecticut.”

In his majority opinion, Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote that the court found that the “segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm,” in light of “the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody.”

The court also found that “the state had failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage.”

In 2005, the Connecticut Legislature passed civil union legislation, but the eight gay and lesbian couples who were plaintiffs in the case argued that the civil union law had created an unequal status for gay men and lesbians that did not confer upon them the same rights and protections as marriage.

While the Connecticut civil union law states that parties to a civil union have "all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law” that are granted to spouses in a marriage, it also included, at the insistence of Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, a clause that defined marriage as “the union of one man and one woman.”

In a statement issued on Friday, Governor Rell said she would uphold the ruling, even though she disagreed with it.

“The Supreme Court has spoken,” the governor said. “I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision, either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution, will not meet with success. I will therefore abide by the ruling.”

The ruling went to the heart of the question of whether civil unions and marriage can be viewed as separate but equal institutions. In the majority opinion, Justice Palmer wrote that they could not be, because the difference between marriage and civil unions was not just that of nomenclature.

“Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means equal,” Justice Palmer wrote. “The former is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the latter most surely is not.”

In 2005, Connecticut was the first state to recognize same-sex unions through an act of its legislature, rather than a court order. Still, the judges ruled, that action fell short in giving the state’s gay and lesbian couples the equal protection under the law guaranteed by the state’s Constitution.

“There is no doubt that civil unions enjoy a lesser status in our society than marriage,” the court found.

“Ultimately,” the opinion continued, “the message of the civil unions law is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as real marriage.”

With the ruling, Connecticut joins Massachusetts and California as the only states that allow same-sex couples to marry. Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and New Jersey have civil unions, while Maine, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii have domestic partnership laws that allow same-sex couples to receive some of the same benefits granted to those in civil unions.

The decision takes effect on October 28, and the first same-sex marriages will be able to occur sometime in November, the Connecticut attorney general’s office said. Of the eight same-sex couples who were plaintiffs in the Connecticut case, Kerrigan, Elizabeth, et al., v. Connecticut Department of Health, et al., four of the couples had already entered same-sex civil unions, while the others had been holding out for the marriage designation.

The case began in 2004 when the eight couples applied to marry in the town of Madison, and were rejected. Arguments were last heard in the case in May 2007, and the justices took well over a year to reach their decision.

The case turned on whether same-sex couples should be treated as a “suspect class” — groups like minorities and women that have experienced discrimination — which could lead to heightened legal scrutiny of the decision to offer separate institutions.

In oral arguments before a Supreme Court panel, the assistant attorney general said the number of “prominent politicians who are openly gay and lesbian” proves that homosexuals are not “politically powerless,” one of the requirements of a suspect class; that caused one justice to say, “If it were true political power,” they would have already won the right to marry.

The state also argued that the plaintiffs had no case because they were free to marry, just not someone of the same sex, and that there was no gender discrimination because men and women were equally constrained. In July 2006, the lower court judge, Patty Jenkins Pittman of Superior Court in New Haven, backed the state, ruling that Connecticut’s Constitution “requires there be equal protection and due process of law, not that there be equivalent nomenclature.”

Concurring with Justice Palmer in Friday’s opinion were justices Flemming L. Norcott Jr., Joette Katz, and Lubbie Harper, an appellate court justice who sat on the panel for the case. Justices David Borden, who was acting chief justice at the time of the ruling but who is now retired, Christine S. Vertefeuille, and Peter T. Zarella, each filed an opinion in dissent.

Justice Borden said he agreed with the lower court’s ruling that treating sexual orientation as a suspect class “is contrary to a sound and prudent interpretation of constitutional standards regarding equal protection of the laws, because it unduly minimizes the unique and extraordinary political power of gay persons in this state.”

Justice Zarella went further in his dissent, ruling that there was no fundamental right to same-sex marriage in Connecticut because the state’s marriage laws deal with the regulation of procreation, a factor not triggered in the case of gay marriage. “The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis as biology, not bigotry,” he wrote.

About 1,800 couples have obtained civil unions in Connecticut since 2005, more than a third of them in the first three months they were offered. Some gay-rights advocates say the demand has slowed since, amid complaints that the unions leave people feeling not quite married and not quite single, facing forms that mischaracterize their status and questions at airports challenging their ties to their own children.

In April 2007, the Connecticut General Assembly’s judiciary committee approved same-sex marriage legislation by a vote of 27 to 15, a larger margin than was expected by even the most optimistic advocates. But the legislature never went on to pass a gay marriage law, which Governor Rell had threatened to veto.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: JohnnyVegas on October 10, 2008, 02:06:59 PM
Last time I checked, this amendment was actually up 47-42, according a more recent poll done on it. If the CA Supreme Court felt that this amendment was "unconstitutional", it makes no sense that the judges would allow it to be put on the ballot, in the first place.

Oh no, the CA Sup Ct cannot hold any initiative off the ballot-that is not their job.

Their job is to interpret the law-and that only happens AFTER a law becomes a law, not before.

A good example is prop 187, from 1991 when the state passed an initiative, by a WIDE margin, that stopped welfare services to illegal immigrants-that was passed and as soon as it passed a con law challenge was filed and the law was struck down.

No, prop 8 would never survive a legal challenge under a "strict scrutiny" level of review which is given to fundamental rights. That is if 8 even passes. IMO anyway. But courts can do whatever they want to and find a millon ways to try to justify it.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: JohnnyVegas on October 10, 2008, 02:08:41 PM

The ruling went to the heart of the question of whether civil unions and marriage can be viewed as separate but equal institutions. In the majority opinion, Justice Palmer wrote that they could not be, because the difference between marriage and civil unions was not just that of nomenclature.

“Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means equal,” Justice Palmer wrote. “The former is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the latter most surely is not.”


If you read the CA decision, this is, almost verbatim, lifted from it.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on October 10, 2008, 03:57:51 PM
If you read the CA decision, this is, almost verbatim, lifted from it.

If it is good enough for CA it is good enough for CT.  America tried "separate but equal" in the past and it didn't work out so well; one would think the country might have learned a lesson from that.  ::)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on October 11, 2008, 06:53:23 AM
Conservatives had better have a good long look in the mirror. Their grandparents were the same people who believed blacks shouldn't marry whites. Their great great grandparents believed blacks shouldn't vote. Their great^4 grandparents believed in slavery.

History moves folks. It moves slowly, but it will not stop. Ask yourself. Which side of history do you want to be on?
— typingmonkey, california


I was born and raised in CT and moved away at 18 because of the small town and small minds. This ruling makes me long for home. Thanks for your openmindedness and understanding! Now if only we could do this in Atlanta...
— Holly, Atlanta, GA



Wonderful! The times, they are changing. From a 73 year old grandfather.
— Hans Levi, St. Louis, Mo


Yea! With all the troubles people have right now, some are worried about gay and lesbian couples getting married? Jeez, get a life. Congratulations to those who can now marry legally!
— lrm, St. Paul, MN



Right on.

Anyone who thinks that other people's rights should be up for a vote wouldn't feel the same way if it were their own rights.
— Karen, Washington



I'm sure this decision will be viewed by those in the so-called "Red States" as an example of east coast liberals run amok. I'm the mother of a 17 year old who just told us he's gay (although I knew two years ago - moms just know...) and I'm no "liberal." He is the absolute pride of my life - a top honors student, athlete, volunteer at a homeless shelter, and regular church goer. It is fascinating to watch him reject the outreach from top colleges in the South and Midwest because he believes he wouldn't be welcomed on their campuses for who he is. It's their loss.

I am so proud of my state's Supreme Court, made up of judges who were appointed by people we the people elected. My son deserves equal rights, and he, unlike the generations before him, will get them.
— MM, Rocky Hill, CT


http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/10/11/nyregion/11marriage.html?s=1&pg=1


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Benny B on October 11, 2008, 07:05:23 AM
If it is good enough for CA it is good enough for CT.  America tried "separate but equal" in the past and it didn't work out so well; one would think the country might have learned a lesson from that.  ::)
The perverse actions of the homo community has nothing to do with the Black struggle for equal rights in America.  ::)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on October 22, 2008, 10:01:36 AM
OCTOBER 22, 2008
Gay Marriage in Peril in California
By JIM CARLTON

A state ballot measure to ban gay marriage in California is gaining momentum, with polls showing almost even odds of it passing after trailing by double digits a month ago.

The Rev. Dr. Paul Tellstrom, pastor of the Irvine United Congressional Church in Irvine, Calif., urges Californians to vote "no" on Proposition 8.
In June, the state legalized same-sex marriages. The next month, Proposition 8, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, was put on the ballot for November. Initial polling showed that a majority of Californians were likely to vote against Proposition 8. A Sept. 18 poll by the San Francisco-based Field Poll found the measure losing 55% to 38% among likely voters.

But now the measure is favored 48% to 45% among likely voters questioned in an Oct. 17 poll by Survey USA of Verona, N.J. The poll's margin of error, four percentage points, means the results were a statistical tie.

A group leading the fight against the measure, Equality for All, said this week that one of its internal polls shows Proposition 8 leading by four percentage points. The close results of that poll, too, may suggest a dead heat as the Nov. 4 election approaches.

"The outcome will be close because Californians are evenly divided on gay marriage," said Mark Baldassare, chief executive of the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California in San Francisco. A new poll by the institute, due out late Wednesday, is expected to show a tight race. The measure needs a simple majority vote to pass.

Proposition 8 was initiated after the state's Supreme Court said in May that a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, paving the way for the legalization of gay marriage in California starting June 17. Same-sex marriages are also legal in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

The issue has come up in the presidential campaign, with Republican Sen. John McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, suggesting this week that she would support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage nationwide. The outcome of California's battle could affect whether states move to recognize gay marriages.

Supporters of Proposition 8 have gained ground by capitalizing on their opponents' missteps. They have been running a television ad for several weeks that shows San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom delivering a boisterous response to a throng of supporters after the state Supreme Court ruling. "The door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not," the Democratic mayor says loudly.

"Gavin Newsom has been a great player on our team," said Sonja Eddings Brown, spokeswoman for Protect Marriage California, a group that has been leading the "Yes on 8" campaign.

Pollsters say that fueling the rise in support for Proposition 8 is an advertising blitz heavily bankrolled by the Mormon Church, which suggests, among other things, that if Proposition 8 doesn't pass then schoolchildren will be indoctrinated about gay marriage.

Between 30% and 40% of the $25.5 million in donations raised as of last week by the "Yes" campaign has come from the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, supporters of the measure say. "Yes" campaigners say the Mormons are just one of many religious groups that support the ban.

Officials in San Francisco -- a national pioneer in recognizing gay marriages -- have come out strongly against the Mormon Church's campaign. "This is a blood feud on their part," said Therese Stewart, chief deputy city attorney of San Francisco.

 A Mormon Church spokesman said it is acting only as a part of a broad coalition of groups opposed to gay marriage. "The campaign has had the support of over 60,000 individual contributors, the majority of which are not Mormons," Mormon spokesman Michael Purdy said in a statement. Mormon leaders, on the church's official Web site, ask their followers to support the California ballot measure to reinforce church teachings that "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God."

Proposition 8 opponents are scrambling to turn back the tide. They have raised about $20 million by enlisting powerful allies such as the state teachers and nurses unions. The "No" campaign also is unleashing its own attack ads. "Unfair, Unnecessary, and Wrong," says one new ad, which calls attention to a wave of newspaper, union and other endorsements against the measure.

Proposition 8 draws its heaviest support in Republican strongholds such as the Central Valley and Inland Empire of Southern California, according to recent polls. Its biggest opposition is coming from Democratic bastions such as San Francisco and Los Angeles along the coast.

But two Democratic constituencies -- African-Americans and Latinos -- are leaning toward the ban. Among likely black voters, 58% supported Proposition 8 compared with 38% who opposed it in the most recent Survey USA poll. Among Latinos, 47% supported the proposition while 41% opposed it; white voters were nearly evenly split. The reason, "Yes" officials say, is that church attendance is strong in many minority communities.

As a result, both sides are lobbying to corral votes in minority neighborhoods. Tuesday, for instance, African-American leaders in Oakland and Los Angeles held news conferences opposing the ban. The same day, other African-American leaders in those cities came out in support of Proposition 8.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463078466356397.html


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on October 29, 2008, 05:26:01 AM
Gay marriages to begin next month in Connecticut
By SUSAN HAIGH, Associated Press Writer
Wed Oct 29, 5:31 am ET

HARTFORD, Conn. – Officials are gearing up for the day next month when gay and lesbian couples can begin tying the knot in Connecticut.

Attorneys involved in the gay marriage case said Tuesday that couples can begin picking up marriage license applications sometime on or after Nov. 10. A judge at the New Haven Superior Court, where the case began in 2004, still must decide the precise date.

The state Supreme Court's decision allowing same-sex marriages became official Tuesday with its publication in the Connecticut Law Journal. The publication triggered a 10-day period when motions for reconsideration can be filed.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said after that period ends on Nov. 10, the Superior Court judge can act on the high court's ruling.

The judgment may come later that week because Nov. 10 is a Monday, a busy day for the Superior Court, and Tuesday is a state holiday.

The state Department of Public Health is having new marriage applications printed that reflect the change. Instead of putting one name under "bride" and the other under "groom," couples will see two boxes marked "bride/groom/spouse." The new forms are expected to be shipped out to city and town clerks later this week.

"The moment the judgment is entered, the state of Connecticut is required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. And we expect the clerks will be ready," said Bennett H. Klein, senior attorney with the Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.

The state Supreme Court issued a 4-3 decision on Oct. 10 that same-sex couples have the right to wed rather than accept a civil union law designed to give them the same rights as married couples. Connecticut became the third state, behind Massachusetts and California, to legalize gay marriage.

It's unclear how many couples will get married.

According to the public health department, there have been 2,032 civil union licenses issued in Connecticut between Oct. 2005 and July 2008.

"I would bet that the majority of those people would change the civil unions to marriage," said Anne Stanback, president of Love Makes a Family, a pro-gay marriage organization. "I think that you have people who've waited to get married and have not had civil unions."

Couples currently in a civil union that wish to become married will need to fill out a marriage license application form at their city or town hall. There is no residency requirement for marriage in Connecticut.

The state's 2005 civil unions law will remain on the books, at least for now. Same-sex couples can continue to enter civil unions, which give them the same state legal rights and privileges as married couples without the status of being married. It will be up to the General Assembly to decide whether to change the civil unions law, Klein said.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on November 04, 2008, 12:33:27 AM
From the Los Angeles Times ENDORSEMENTS 2008

No on Proposition 8
Debunking the myths used to promote the ban on same-sex marriage.

November 2, 2008

Clever magicians practice the art of misdirection -- distracting the eyes of the audience to something attention-grabbing but irrelevant so that no one notices what the magician is really doing. Look over at that fuchsia scarf, up this sleeve, at anything besides the actual trick.

The campaign promoting Proposition 8, which proposes to amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriages, has masterfully misdirected its audience, California voters. Look at the first-graders in San Francisco, attending their lesbian teacher's wedding! Look at Catholic Charities, halting its adoption services in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal! Look at the church that lost its tax exemption over gay marriage! Look at anything except what Proposition 8 is actually about: a group of people who are trying to impose on the state their belief that homosexuality is immoral and that gays and lesbians are not entitled to be treated equally under the law.

That truth would never sell in tolerant, live-and-let-live California, and so it has been hidden behind a series of misleading half-truths. Once the sleight of hand is revealed, though, the campaign's illusions fall away.

Take the story of Catholic Charities. The service arm of the Roman Catholic Church closed its adoption program in Massachusetts not because of the state's gay marriage law but because of a gay anti-discrimination law passed many years earlier. In fact, the charity had voluntarily placed older foster children in gay and lesbian households -- among those most willing to take hard-to-place children -- until the church hierarchy was alerted and demanded that adoptions conform to the church's religious teaching, which was in conflict with state law. The Proposition 8 campaign, funded in large part by Mormons who were urged to do so by their church, does not mention that the Mormon church's adoption arm in Massachusetts is still operating, even though it does not place children in gay and lesbian households.

How can this be? It's a matter of public accountability, not infringement on religion. Catholic Charities acted as a state contractor, receiving state and federal money to find homes for special-needs children who were wards of the state, and it faced the loss of public funding if it did not comply with the anti-discrimination law. In contrast, LDS (for Latter-day Saints) Family Services runs a private adoption service without public funding. Its work, and its ability to follow its religious teachings, have not been altered.

That San Francisco field trip? The children who attended the wedding had their parents' signed permission, as law requires. A year ago, with the same permission, they could have traveled to their teacher's domestic-partnership ceremony. Proposition 8 does not change the rules about what children are exposed to in school. The state Education Code does not allow schools to teach comprehensive sex education -- which includes instruction about marriage -- to children whose parents object.

Another "Yes on 8" canard is that the continuation of same-sex marriage will force churches and other religious groups to perform such marriages or face losing their tax-exempt status. Proponents point to a case in New Jersey, where a Methodist-based nonprofit owned seaside land that included a boardwalk pavilion. It obtained an exemption from state property tax for the land on the grounds that it was open for public use and access. Events such as weddings -- of any religion -- could be held in the pavilion by reservation. But when a lesbian couple sought to book the pavilion for a commitment ceremony, the nonprofit balked, saying this went against its religious beliefs.

The court ruled against the nonprofit, not because gay rights trump religious rights but because public land has to be open to everyone or it's not public. The ruling does not affect churches' religious tax exemptions or their freedom to marry whom they please on their private property, just as Catholic priests do not have to perform marriages for divorced people and Orthodox synagogues can refuse to provide space for the weddings of interfaith couples. And Proposition 8 has no bearing on the issue; note that the New Jersey case wasn't about a wedding ceremony.

Much has been made about same-sex marriage changing the traditional definition of marriage. But marriage has evolved for thousands of years, from polygamous structures in which brides were so much chattel to today's idealized love matches. In seeking to add a sentence to California's Constitution that says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized," Proposition 8 supporters seek to enforce adherence to their own religious or personal definition. The traditional makeup of families has changed too, in ways that many religious people find immoral. Single parents raise their children; couples divorce and blend families. Yet same-sex marriage is the only departure from tradition that has been targeted for constitutional eradication.

Religions and their believers are free to define marriage as they please; they are free to consider homosexuality a sin. But they are not free to impose their definitions of morality on the state. Proposition 8 proponents know this, which is why they have misdirected the debate with highly colored illusions about homosexuals trying to take away the rights of religious Californians. Since May, when the state Supreme Court overturned a proposed ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, more than 16,000 devoted gay and lesbian couples have celebrated the creation of stable, loving households, of equal legal stature with other households. Their happiness in no way diminishes the rights or happiness of others.

Californians must cast a clear eye on Proposition 8's real intentions. It seeks to change the state Constitution in a rare and terrible way, to impose a single moral belief on everyone and to deprive a targeted group of people of civil rights that are now guaranteed. This is something that no Californian, of any religious belief, should accept. Vote no to the bigotry of Proposition 8.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Desolate on November 04, 2008, 12:38:07 AM
Marriage is a privilege, not a right.

Ban it, California.

Tolerance is for people who lack any moral conviction. In other words, scum.




Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on November 05, 2008, 04:57:46 PM
Same-sex marriage ban wins; opponents sue to block measure
John Wildermuth,Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writers

(11-05) 12:48 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- After a heated, divisive campaign fueled by a record $73 million of spending, California voters have approved Proposition 8, which would change the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Opponents promptly filed suit to try to block the measure from taking effect.

With 96 percent of the vote counted, Prop. 8 was winning by a decisive 400,000-vote margin, 52.2 percent to 47.8 percent. It piled up huge margins in the Central Valley and carried some Democratic strongholds such as Los Angeles County. The measure lost in every Bay Area county but Solano.

As the vote counting continued this morning, opponents of Prop. 8 filed a lawsuit directly with the state Supreme Court - whose May 15 ruling legalized same-sex marriage - asking the justices to overturn the measure.

The suit argued that Prop. 8 would change the California Constitution in such fundamental ways - taking important rights away from a minority group - that it amounted to a constitutional revision, which requires approval by the Legislature before being submitted to the voters. The case was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Lamda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

The same groups asked the court before the election to remove Prop. 8 from the ballot on those grounds. The justices refused, but left the door open for a post-election challenge.

"A major purpose of the Constitution is to protect minorities from majorities," said Elizabeth Gill, an ACLU lawyer. "Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the Constitution itself, only the Legislature can initiative such revisions."

The suit was filed on behalf of six unmarried same-sex couples and the gay rights group Equality California.

Passage of Prop. 8 leaves more than just the future of same-sex marriage up in the air. Questions have also been raised about whether the marriages of the estimated 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who have wed since June will be recognized as valid.

Supporters of the ban have said their measure was intended to be applied retroactively. "We're confident voters did go to the polls to vote 'yes' to protect traditional marriage," said Chip White, a spokesman for the Prop. 8 campaign.

Same-sex marriage bans won easily Tuesday night in Florida and Arizona. It was a rematch in Arizona, which in 2006 became the only state to ever reject a ban on same-sex marriage.

The campaign in California pitted those who argued that a same-sex marriage ban was nothing more than outdated discrimination against gays and lesbians, and conservatives and Christian groups who countered that the state and the courts have no right to unilaterally change a definition of marriage that has existed for centuries.

The flood of dollars that poured into the state from every part of the country made Prop. 8 the most expensive social issue race the nation has ever seen. And behind every one of those checks was someone desperately worried about what the election result could mean to them and their state.

To San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and other opponents of Prop. 8, as well as to religious groups that backed the measure, the proposed ban on same-sex marriage was the second-most-important election in the country Tuesday.

The Prop. 8 battle, born in San Francisco, came eight years after more than 61 percent of California voters came out in favor of Prop. 22, which banned same-sex marriage in the state. But supporters had little time to savor the victory.

In 2004, Newsom set off a political and social explosion when he ordered marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples in the city. Gay and lesbian couples flocked to the city, showing up in wedding dresses and tuxes for the chance to be legally married. Despite outraged reaction from across the state and nation, Newsom didn't back down until a court ordered the city to stop issuing the same-sex licenses.

In 2005 and 2007, the Legislature passed bills that would have allowed same-sex marriage, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed them. In 2006, the state Supreme Court voted unanimously to hear several challenges to same-sex marriage and rule on them.

Opponents of same-sex marriage were ready with a challenge that became Prop. 8.

Worried that a governor after Schwarzenegger would sign a same-sex marriage bill or that the court would rule against them, Prop. 22 supporters began putting together another initiative drive to make the same-sex marriage ban part of the California Constitution, beyond the reach of either the Legislature or the courts. They raised the money and gathered more than 1.1 million signatures by this spring.

On May 15, the state Supreme Court cleared the way for same-sex marriage. The court voted 4-3 to overturn Prop. 22 and the same-sex marriage ban, ruling that the state Constitution provided a right to marry that extends to same-sex couples. The three dissenting justices argued that it was up to the voters or the Legislature, not the court, to permit same-sex marriage, a view quickly taken up by opponents of the ruling.

"Four judges ignored 4 million voters and imposed same-sex marriage on California," Prop. 8 supporters said in a TV ad. "It's no longer about tolerance. Acceptance of gay marriage is now mandatory."

It was an argument that continued all the way to election day.

But with same-sex marriage legal in California, opponents of Prop. 8 could run a totally different campaign from the type that had lost virtually every election over the issue across the nation.

Rather than arguing for same-sex marriage, opponents took the moral high ground atop the Supreme Court decision and argued that a vote for Prop. 8 was a vote for discrimination. They got another bit of help when state Attorney General Jerry Brown ordered the Prop. 8 ballot language changed to say that it "eliminates the rights of same-sex couples to marry."

Prop. 8 backers charged that politics, not legal rectitude, was behind Brown's decision. They went to court, but lost.

That allowed Prop. 8 opponents, worried that many voters were not enamored with the idea of same-sex marriage, to run a TV campaign that almost never mentioned gays or lesbians or showed them in an ad. Instead, the ads charged that Prop. 8 supporters wanted to take away rights from a single, unnamed group of people, which opponents said was not fair.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on November 05, 2008, 05:10:18 PM
Stay tuned.  The four-judge legislature will probably rewrite the state constitution. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Hereford on November 05, 2008, 05:14:43 PM
Of course, the ACLU is now involved...

Majority rules, get over it.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on November 11, 2008, 09:14:00 AM
Olbermann: Gay marriage is a question of love
Everyone deserves the same chance at permanence and happiness

By Keith Olbermann
updated 6:13 p.m. PT, Mon., Nov. 10, 2008

Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8.  And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them—no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble.  You'll even give them all the same legal rights—even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage. If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.

How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling.  With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.

You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know. It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:

"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge. It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all: So I be written in the Book of Love; I do not care about that Book above. Erase my name, or write it as you will, So I be written in the Book of Love."


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on November 11, 2008, 09:22:15 AM
I’d love to hear what women like Gayle Haggard (Ted Haggard’s wife), Dina Matos McGreevey (Jim McGreevy’s wife), Terry McMillian (author), and Suzanne Craig (Senator Larry Craig’s wife) have to say about Prop 8.  Each of them ended up in sham marriages to gay men.  Wouldn’t they rather live in a world where gay men felt free to be themselves and marry other men rather than sucker women into marrying them?

As long as homosexuals are denied (among other things) marriage equality there will be men who feel pressured to pass for straight and marry unwitting women--only to have it blow up in everyone's face later. :-[


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: timfogarty on November 11, 2008, 09:25:38 AM
Olbermann: Gay marriage is a question of love
Everyone deserves the same chance at permanence and happiness

the video is a bit more powerful

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Buffgeek on November 11, 2008, 09:30:42 AM
I’d love to hear what women like Gayle Haggard (Ted Haggard’s wife), Dina Matos McGreevey (Jim McGreevy’s wife), Terry McMillian (author), and Suzanne Craig (Senator Larry Craig’s wife) have to say about Prop 8.  Each of them ended up in sham marriages to gay men.  Wouldn’t they rather live in a world where gay men felt free to be themselves and marry other men rather than sucker women into marrying them?

As long as homosexuals are denied (among other things) marriage equality there will be men who feel pressured to pass for straight and marry unwitting women--only to have it blow up in everyone's face later. :-[

Bay have you felt pressure to marry a woman in your life?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on November 11, 2008, 09:36:54 AM
Bay have you felt pressure to marry a woman in your life?

Yes. When I was younger, I did.  I got over it, but over the years, I have met quite a few who didn't get over it.  They got married, many have kids, and they still have sex with men on the side.  Over the years, I have been hit on by almost as many "straight" married guys as gay guys.  I am sure this is true for most gay men.

There are even some married closeted guys on getbig.  :-\


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Buffgeek on November 11, 2008, 09:43:23 AM
the video is a bit more powerful

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY


ACtually the Video makes me want to beat him senseless. I really cant stand Oberman any the crap that spews forth when he opens his trap. 

He is everything I hate about liberals.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Buffgeek on November 11, 2008, 09:51:13 AM
Yes. When I was younger, I did.  I got over it, but over the years, I have met quite a few who didn't get over it.  They got married, many have kids, and they still have sex with men on the side.  Over the years, I have been hit on by almost as many "straight" married guys as gay guys.  I am sure this is true for most gay men.

There are even some married closeted guys on getbig.  :-\

I am conflicted on this subject. I grew up in the restaruant industry and had a rough childhood and worked with several gay men who I respected greatly. two of them had very longterm partners they had been with for over 20 years. They were wild and crazy in their younger days, but they had been monogomous for a very long time. Then I worked with some flamboyant gay guys who wanted attention and would hit on every guy around to shock and get attention.

I just really dont get it as I have never been attracted to a man and from a religous/social standpoint I dont agree with the homosexual lifestyle. I came from a really messed up childhood so I see the traditional family as the ideal. I see a constant breakdown in values and morality in America and I think if I am honest with myself I fear that this is just another path down that road. Marriage is already treated a joke as is human life....

That said.... I think back on the men I mentioned before who I greatly respected, but disagreed with their lifestyle. I am conflicted in that I dont necessarily think its my place to say if they can or cannot have a civil union.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Hedgehog on November 11, 2008, 10:09:35 AM
Gay marriages is a threat to gays.
 If gayness is something genetical, it means that gay marriages could mean the end of gays.
Fewer gays would be born, since the gay gene wouldn't be passed on.
At least fewer fags, lezzies inseminates.
So in a few generations - gays will be gone.

Whatcha think about that Willis?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on November 11, 2008, 10:13:43 AM
Olbermann is doing the same tired trick that many gay "marriage" supporters (or those who don't like marriage amendments) do:

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.

How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?


So, Olbermann's rationale for allowing gay "marriages" is that marriage is now worthless. And, since it is, it should be re-defined to cater to homosexuals' desire? That makes a whole lot of sense.

What Olbermann tends to forget is that, even in countries where gay "marriage" has been legal for at least a decades, the marriage rates are STILL quite low and the splits are quite high. So, if he wants to use the lack-of sanctity argument, he loses there as well.

Is marriage bad or good? Olbermann is, as the saying goes, talking out both sides of his neck. He's criticizing marriage and how bad it is, when people define it as a 1M-1W union. But, he's blissfully talking about how great it is, when it's redefined to accomodate homosexuals.

I’d love to hear what women like Gayle Haggard (Ted Haggard’s wife), Dina Matos McGreevey (Jim McGreevy’s wife), Terry McMillian (author), and Suzanne Craig (Senator Larry Craig’s wife) have to say about Prop 8.  Each of them ended up in sham marriages to gay men.  Wouldn’t they rather live in a world where gay men felt free to be themselves and marry other men rather than sucker women into marrying them?

As long as homosexuals are denied (among other things) marriage equality there will be men who feel pressured to pass for straight and marry unwitting women--only to have it blow up in everyone's face later. :-[

No, those women would have rather lived in a world where their husband HONORED THEIR MARRIAGE VOWS. Few, if any, would be fighting for polygamy, if these men committed adultery with women. Nor, would we be talking about pedastry, if these dudes started messing with children.





Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on November 11, 2008, 10:17:37 AM
I am conflicted on this subject. I grew up in the restaruant industry and had a rough childhood and worked with several gay men who I respected greatly. two of them had very longterm partners they had been with for over 20 years. They were wild and crazy in their younger days, but they had been monogomous for a very long time. Then I worked with some flamboyant gay guys who wanted attention and would hit on every guy around to shock and get attention.

I just really dont get it as I have never been attracted to a man and from a religous/social standpoint I dont agree with the homosexual lifestyle. I came from a really messed up childhood so I see the traditional family as the ideal. I see a constant breakdown in values and morality in America and I think if I am honest with myself I fear that this is just another path down that road. Marriage is already treated a joke as is human life....

That said.... I think back on the men I mentioned before who I greatly respected, but disagreed with their lifestyle. I am conflicted in that I dont necessarily think its my place to say if they can or cannot have a civil union.

You don’t sound conflicted to me.  You said it yourself, it is not your place to decide whether someone else should be treated equally under the law.  Similarly, it is not my place to decide if you should be treated equally under the law.

That decision was made years ago ago and inscribed in the State and Federal Constitutions.  It has taken a long time for a capricious public to accept equality for various population groups but the principle of equality has always been true.  Either you believe people should be treated equally or you do not.  I believe it in.  For all people.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on November 11, 2008, 10:25:18 AM
No, those women would have rather lived in a world where their husband HONORED THEIR MARRIAGE VOWS. Few, if any, would be fighting for polygamy, if these men committed adultery with women. Nor, would we be talking about pedastry, if these dudes started messing with children.

I'd like to hear woman's take on this.  I suspect that for most women having your husband "honor his marriage vows" doesn't have much meaning if you know your husband is not really attracted to you... is really attracted to men... and has been hiding who is really is over all the years you have known him because he felt pressure to do so.

Secret/dual identities are cool in comic books but not in real life.

Would you feel comfortable if you found out your sister was about to marry a guy like Ted Haggard or Larry Craig but  he came to you and said "I know I have a gay past, but I'm ready to put it all behind me and honor my vow to your sister once we are married"?

I would not allow my sister to marry a man like that--no matter how sincere I thought he was.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on November 11, 2008, 10:30:07 AM
You don’t sound conflicted to me.  You said it yourself, it is not your place to decide whether someone else should be treated equally under the law.  Similarly, it is not my place to decide if you should be treated equally under the law.

That decision was made years ago ago and inscribed in the State and Federal Constitutions.  It has taken a long time for a capricious public to accept equality for various population groups but the principle of equality has always been true.  Either you believe people should be treated equally or you do not.  I believe it in.  For all people.


Then it's time for these protestors to quit acting a fool and, as I've suggested time and time again, START INTIATIVES AND AMENDMENTS OF THEIR OWN!

What's stopping all these gay "marriage" supporters in CA, from getting 695,000 signatures and getting an amendment, defining marriage as a "union of any two people" put on the ballot? Why wait for the courts (whose ruling just got trumped by Prop. 8  )? Why wait for the Legislsature (Arnold vetoed gay "marriage" bills, TWICE)?



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Buffgeek on November 11, 2008, 12:08:57 PM
You don’t sound conflicted to me.  You said it yourself, it is not your place to decide whether someone else should be treated equally under the law.  Similarly, it is not my place to decide if you should be treated equally under the law.

That decision was made years ago ago and inscribed in the State and Federal Constitutions.  It has taken a long time for a capricious public to accept equality for various population groups but the principle of equality has always been true.  Either you believe people should be treated equally or you do not.  I believe it in.  For all people.



Here is the thing. You have the same rights as I do under the constitution. The difference is that your sexual preference is men vs mine bieng woman. What this means then is you want special rights.

I dont think you can equate the civilrights movement regarding blacks and woman to this issue. This was about equality of rights. You can do everything in this country that I can do.

The question is are you looking for Validation that what you are doing is accepted or are merely seeking the same legal rights as a married hetero couple?

In California dont they have civil unions that already give the same rights as a married couple?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: timfogarty on November 11, 2008, 01:51:20 PM
I am conflicted on this subject. I grew up in the restaruant industry and had a rough childhood and worked with several gay men who I respected greatly. two of them had very longterm partners they had been with for over 20 years. They were wild and crazy in their younger days, but they had been monogomous for a very long time. Then I worked with some flamboyant gay guys who wanted attention and would hit on every guy around to shock and get attention.

I just really dont get it as I have never been attracted to a man and from a religous/social standpoint I dont agree with the homosexual lifestyle.

first you need to define what is a homosexual lifestyle?   there are both gays and straights who are in long term monogamous relationships.  There are both gays and straights who have a house full of kids out in the suburbs.  there are both gays and straights who live in the inner city and go clubbing a few nights a week.  there are both gays and straights who are quite promiscuous. 

so the only thing that is left to define whether you live the homosexual lifestyle is who you fall in love with.  so you don't agree or approve that I fall in love with men?    tough


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: timfogarty on November 11, 2008, 01:54:22 PM
I dont think you can equate the civilrights movement regarding blacks and woman to this issue. This was about equality of rights. You can do everything in this country that I can do.

marry the one that I love
not get fired because of the one that I love
not get promoted because of the one that I love
serve in the military despite the one that I love
not get beaten because of the one that I love

sounds like all we're looking for is equal rights to me


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on November 11, 2008, 03:50:00 PM
Here is the thing. You have the same rights as I do under the constitution. The difference is that your sexual preference is men vs mine bieng woman. What this means then is you want special rights.

I dont think you can equate the civilrights movement regarding blacks and woman to this issue. This was about equality of rights. You can do everything in this country that I can do.

The question is are you looking for Validation that what you are doing is accepted or are merely seeking the same legal rights as a married hetero couple?

In California dont they have civil unions that already give the same rights as a married couple?

I don’t have to equate the Civil Rights movement regarding blacks and woman to this issue because the call for equality does not require a precedent.  Though if it makes you feel better Coretta Scott-King drew parallels between black Civil Rights and equality for gays and lesbians.  She was a proponent of gay marriage.  I don’t need anyone to corroborate the two movements for equality, but if you do, there you have it.  I think her moral authority speaks for itself.

Both here and in various newspapers following the election, I have read quotes from people who say “the people have spoken” and we should just deal with it.  End of story.

Wrong!  Anyone with even a passing knowledge of American history knows that is never going to happen. Equality is not subject to a popular vote.  Democracy is designed to protect all citizens from the tyranny of the majority.

Yes, opponents of gay marriage won this round, but there will be another round, and another one after that, and as many as it takes, but this issue is never going to go away until gays and lesbians have secured equal rights under the law.  That was true of black inequality, women’s inequality, Jewish inequality, rights for the disabled, and others.  Sure, there are still racists out there, misogynists out there, anti-Semites, and other forms of bigotry.  And that’s fine.  People are free to hate anyone they want.  But the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law and (legal) society is going to be forced to accept that no matter how long it takes.

I am certain that gay marriage will happen in California in very short order.  Stranger things have happened; I never expected to see a black President in my lifetime.  :-*



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on November 11, 2008, 04:26:42 PM
I don’t have to equate the Civil Rights movement regarding blacks and woman to this issue because the call for equality does not require a precedent.  Though if it makes you feel better Coretta Scott-King drew parallels between black Civil Rights and equality for gays and lesbians.  She was a proponent of gay marriage.  I don’t need anyone to corroborate the two movements for equality, but if you do, there you have it.  I think her moral authority speaks for itself.

Interesting take. Then again, King's daughter, Bernice, has a completely different view. I saw her on TV once discussing this issue, and I believe she said something to the effect of her father did not take a bullet to sanction gay marriage. And Bernice's cousin, Alveda, appears to feel the same way.

Alveda King -- niece of the slain civil rights leader, founder of the faith-based King for America Inc. and a vocal opponent of gay marriage -- said she joined her cousin in the Atlanta march because she believes her uncle never intended gay rights to be part of the civil rights movement.

"Bernice says herself that she knows deep within that her father did not march and did not take a bullet for same-sex marriage," said Alveda King. "I don't believe that people should be penalized for their affections, but we need to be clear on the purpose of sexuality and marriage, that purpose being procreation."


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/208154_martin17.html (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/208154_martin17.html)


Both here and in various newspapers following the election, I have read quotes from people who say “the people have spoken” and we should just deal with it.  End of story.

Wrong!  Anyone with even a passing knowledge of American history knows that is never going to happen. Equality is not subject to a popular vote.  Democracy is designed to protect all citizens from the tyranny of the majority.

Prop. 8 supporters heard the exact opposite from their detractors. Gay "marriage" was here; the courts ruled and they should just "deal with it". San Francisco mayor, Gavin Newsom, claimed that it was going to happen, "whether you like it or not".

So, it goes both ways. Democracy is also supposed to protect all citizens from the tyranny of the minority. The California voters have made it clear, that they ain't letting 4 judges redefine marriage for the whole state.


Yes, opponents of gay marriage won this round, but there will be another round, and another one after that, and as many as it takes, but this issue is never going to go away until gays and lesbians have secured equal rights under the law.  That was true of black inequality, women’s inequality, Jewish inequality, rights for the disabled, and others.  Sure, there are still racists out there, misogynists out there, anti-Semites, and other forms of bigotry.  And that’s fine.  People are free to hate anyone they want.  But the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law and (legal) society is going to be forced to accept that matter how long it takes.

I am certain that gay marriage will happen in California in very short order.  Stranger things have happened; I never expected to see a black President in my lifetime.  :-*


That goes back to what I've said before. You brought it up to Arnold, via the legislature; he shot it down two times. You went to the CA court, which ruled in your favored; but a constitutional amemdnment trumped their ruling just six months later.

Where is the movement to get 695,000 signatures for an amendment, redefining marriage for same-sex couples? Shouldn't that be the next step?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: CQ on November 11, 2008, 05:22:25 PM
I don’t have to equate the Civil Rights movement regarding blacks and woman to this issue because the call for equality does not require a precedent.  Though if it makes you feel better Coretta Scott-King drew parallels between black Civil Rights and equality for gays and lesbians.  She was a proponent of gay marriage.  I don’t need anyone to corroborate the two movements for equality, but if you do, there you have it.  I think her moral authority speaks for itself.

Both here and in various newspapers following the election, I have read quotes from people who say “the people have spoken” and we should just deal with it.  End of story.

Wrong!  Anyone with even a passing knowledge of American history knows that is never going to happen. Equality is not subject to a popular vote.  Democracy is designed to protect all citizens from the tyranny of the majority.

Yes, opponents of gay marriage won this round, but there will be another round, and another one after that, and as many as it takes, but this issue is never going to go away until gays and lesbians have secured equal rights under the law.  That was true of black inequality, women’s inequality, Jewish inequality, rights for the disabled, and others.  Sure, there are still racists out there, misogynists out there, anti-Semites, and other forms of bigotry.  And that’s fine.  People are free to hate anyone they want.  But the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law and (legal) society is going to be forced to accept that matter how long it takes.

I am certain that gay marriage will happen in California in very short order.  Stranger things have happened; I never expected to see a black President in my lifetime.  :-*



Good post as always Bay.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: timfogarty on November 11, 2008, 06:25:12 PM
Interesting take. Then again, King's daughter, Bernice, has a completely different view. I saw her on TV once discussing this issue, and I believe she said something to the effect of her father did not take a bullet to sanction gay marriage. And Bernice's cousin, Alveda, appears to feel the same way.

well, maybe Bernice and Alveda should read up on King's right-hand man, Bayard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard_Rustin) Rustin (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USArustin.htm)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on November 11, 2008, 08:32:45 PM
well, maybe Bernice and Alveda should read up on King's right-hand man, Bayard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard_Rustin) Rustin (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USArustin.htm)

Word! 

It's great to educate the ignorant about these historical figures, but I repeat: the call for equality does not require a precedent or endorsement from any authority other than the Constitution.  There have always been opponents of equality.  Perhaps there always will be, but history will wash these people away just as it always has.  The irony is . . . they know it.  ;D


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Hedgehog on November 12, 2008, 04:58:51 AM
I'm sure this decision will only make the gay lobby work even harder and get more sympathy.
There will be another vote in a few years and then the gays will start a winning streak, working their way through every gay friendly state.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Benny B on November 12, 2008, 06:19:01 AM
It's going to be a LONG time before homo marriage is the law of the land. Get over it.  ::)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on November 12, 2008, 06:23:12 AM
Here’s an interesting Op-Ed

Joe Jacoby: Playing The Race Card On Gay Marriage

IT HAS been widely noted that black voters put California's Proposition 8 over the top last week, with nearly 7 out of 10 voting in favor of the constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. As the magnitude of black opposition to same-sex marriage became clear on Election Day, blogger Andrew Sullivan, a prominent gay-marriage champion, reacted bitterly:
   
   
"Every ethnic group supported marriage equality," he wrote, "except African-Americans, who voted overwhelmingly against extending to gay people the civil rights once denied them."
(Apparently, Mr. Sullivan forgot that 53% of Latino voters in CA voted for Prop. 8. But why let facts get in the way of a good anti-marriage amendment rant?).

Well, let's see. The civil rights once denied to black Americans included the right to register as a voter, the right to cast a ballot, the right to use numerous public facilities, the right to get a fair hearing in court, the right to send their children to an integrated public school, and the right to equal opportunity in housing and employment. Have gay people been denied any of these rights? Have they been forced to sit in the back of buses? Confined to segregated neighborhoods? Barred from serving on juries? Subjected to systematic economic exploitation?

Plainly, declining to change the timeless definition of marriage deprives no one of "the civil rights once denied" to blacks, and it is an absurdity to claim otherwise. It is also a poisonous slur: For if opposing same-sex marriage is like opposing civil rights, then voters who backed Proposition 8 are no better than racists, the moral equivalent of those who turned the fire hoses on blacks in Birmingham in 1963.

Which is, of course, exactly what proponents of same-sex marriage contend.

It has become routine for the defenders of traditional wedlock to be cast as the worst sort of hateful bigots, "gladly donning the roles played by Lester Maddox and George Wallace in the civil rights era," to quote The New York Times's Frank Rich. Anyone who insists that marriage can only mean the union of male and female - and "anyone" now includes a majority of voters in 30 of the 30 states where marriage amendments have been on the ballot - can expect to be told that they are no better than racists, modern-day segregationists motivated by malevolence and heartlessness.

Thus, supporters of same-sex marriage regularly referred to the California ballot measure as "Proposition Hate," while a group calling itself "Californians Against Hate" launched a website to publicize the names and addresses of donors to the Yes-on-8 campaign. Yet it was the foes of Proposition 8 whose hatred and intolerance were vividly on display. Signs promoting the amendment were stolen or defaced, churches were vandalized, and at least one supporter of the amendment ended up in the hospital after being beaten by an assailant screaming: "What do you have against gays?"
(I’ve been saying that protestors have been doing that for days now. But Tim seems to think I’m just pulling this out of mid-air).

For sheer hatefulness and bigotry, however, nothing surpassed the anti-Proposition 8 television ad that depicted two Mormon missionaries forcing their way into the home of a married lesbian couple.

"Hi, we're here from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," one of the Mormons says. "We're here to take away your rights," says the other.

The missionaries pull the wedding rings from the women's fingers, then proceed to ransack the house, looking for their marriage license. When they find it, they triumphantly tear it up.

"Hey, we have rights," one of the women protests.

"Not if we can help it," one of the missionaries smugly replies.


(Now what was that about lies, fear-mongering, and propaganda, again?)

If black voters overwhelmingly reject the claim that marriage amendments like Proposition 8 are nothing more than bigotry-fueled assaults on civil rights, perhaps it is because they know only too well what real bigotry looks like. Perhaps it is because they resent the assertion that adhering to the ageless meaning of marriage is tantamount to supporting the pervasive humiliation and cruelty of Jim Crow. Perhaps it is because they are not impressed by strident condemnations of "intolerance" and "hate" by people who traffic in rank anti-Mormon hatemongering.
(There you have it!!!)

Or perhaps it is because they understand that a fundamental gulf separates the civil rights movement from the demand for same-sex marriage. One was a fight for genuine equality, for the right of black Americans to live on the same terms, and under the same restrictions, as whites. The other is a demand to change the terms on which marriage has always been available by giving it a meaning it has never before had. That isn't civil rights - and playing the race card doesn't change that fact.

(AMEN!!!)

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/11/12/playing_the_race_card_on_gay_marriage/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed6 (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/11/12/playing_the_race_card_on_gay_marriage/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed6)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Benny B on November 12, 2008, 06:28:29 AM


If black voters overwhelmingly reject the claim that marriage amendments like Proposition 8 are nothing more than bigotry-fueled assaults on civil rights, perhaps it is because they know only too well what real bigotry looks like. Perhaps it is because they resent the assertion that adhering to the ageless meaning of marriage is tantamount to supporting the pervasive humiliation and cruelty of Jim Crow. Perhaps it is because they are not impressed by strident condemnations of "intolerance" and "hate" by people who traffic in rank anti-Mormon hatemongering.

Or perhaps it is because they understand that a fundamental gulf separates the civil rights movement from the demand for same-sex marriage. One was a fight for genuine equality, for the right of black Americans to live on the same terms, and under the same restrictions, as whites. The other is a demand to change the terms on which marriage has always been available by giving it a meaning it has never before had. That isn't civil rights - and playing the race card doesn't change that fact.


'Nuff said!


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Fury on November 12, 2008, 06:37:00 AM
Hahaha, here go the blacks again acting like they were the only ones who have ever been oppressed and nobody else in history will ever feel their "pain" or their "suffering". What an absolute crock of self-deprecating bullshit.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: CQ on November 12, 2008, 06:44:43 AM
Hahaha, here go the blacks again acting like they were the only ones who have ever been oppressed and nobody else in history will ever feel their "pain" or their "suffering". What an absolute crock of self-deprecating bullshit.

Actually BF, safe to say most the convo around here about blacks isn't from us. If I was to get truly bored I could go through 5 pages of threads and show that. The ratio has to be an easy 10 to 1, people bring us up all the time, kinda creepy really.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Fury on November 12, 2008, 07:16:49 AM
Actually BF, safe to say most the convo around here about blacks isn't from us. If I was to get truly bored I could go through 5 pages of threads and show that. The ratio has to be an easy 10 to 1, people bring us up all the time, kinda creepy really.

I'm mentioning you guys because no one can ever feel oppressed or harassed these days without it being compared to the civil rights movement, as if black people were the only people ever oppressed throughout history. I would say there are a lot of similarities between what blacks went through and what gays do and there are differences as well. To completely write their problems off as being below what the blacks went through is not only bullshit, but just a continuance of the self-deprecating black bullshit and their broken train of thought. I understand that more white people bring you up than blacks on here, but it's pathetic watching gay problems get written off by the blacks on here as "beneath" what they went through, when in reality "they" probably weren't even alive during the civil rights movement.

Gay beatings, murders, violence towards gays is all reminiscent of the civil rights movement. Now I'm not gay, but the double standard played by blacks really cracks me up. I personally don't hold marriage in any sort of religious regard so whether or not they marry is of no consequence to me. I have a thousand other things I would rather worry about than what little Sarah and Sally down the street choose to do.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Benny B on November 12, 2008, 07:22:00 AM
Now I'm not gay...
No, just a self loathing Jew.  :D


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Fury on November 12, 2008, 07:23:54 AM
No, just a self loathing Jew.  :D

Aww, ickle wickle Tyrone Rafiq Shakira Mohammed III is still upset with me.

Apparently you're still brainwashed by the institution known as religion, as evidenced by your hypocrisies regarding gay marriage. What a bitter and angry 40 year old black man. I'm sorry that your life turned out terrible and you blame it on whitey, but get over it. Probably has to do with the fact that there's a very high chance that your IQ is lower than most whites. 

I know it stings Benny. I know. Keep venting on all the whites here, you racist crybaby. Get it all out.  :D


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on November 12, 2008, 08:51:23 AM
Here are yet more examples of the “tolerance” from some protestors of Prop. 8:
Churches Vandalized Over Prop 8

Several churches have been vandalized by apparent supporters of same-sex marriage since the idea was banned in California last week, local police have reported.

Proposition 8, which defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman, was passed 52 to 47 percent on Nov. 4. Since then, local authorities have reported a protest or vandalized property nearly every day.

Last Friday in Orangevale, Calif., a Latter-day Saints chapel sign and several walkways were tagged with the phrases "No on 8" and "hypocrites."

Saturday morning, two churches in San Luis Obispo, Calif. were also hit. Someone had poured adhesive on a doormat, key pad, and window at a Mormon church, while eggs and toilet paper were thrown at a nearby Assembly of God church.

Mormons, Evangelical Christian churches, and other religious groups were strong supporters of Proposition 8 and provided much of the funding for the measure.

Monday in Utah, home to the Mormon church, the windows of five Latter-day Saints wardhouses were shot out with a BB gun. Police, however, did not openly link the damages to Prop 8 supporters.

"A lot of opinion has generated that this is in connection with Prop 8," Layton Utah Police Lt. Quinn Moyes said. "We aren't making that connection yet."

Several protests have also been reported in California; most of them peaceful.

About 1,000 gay rights supporters protested outside Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Sunday. Warren publicly endorsed Prop 8 weeks before the Nov. 4 election.

Monday, at least 400 gathered outside a Mormon church in Oakland. Police had to close two highway ramps because of the protest.

Marriage ballots were also passed in Arizona and Florida, but demonstrations have been on a smaller scale in the states.[/i

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/479857.aspx (http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/479857.aspx)

And, lest some folks think that these reports are coming from “hate sites”:

Church Vandalized With 'No On 8' Tags:

Messages Spray-Painted On Walkways At Orangevale Chapel


ORANGEVALE, Calif. - A Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints chapel was tagged by vandals who are apparent opponents of a same-sex marriage ban that voters recently passed.

The church's main sign was tagged with a "No on 8" message, as were several walkways. A message that said "hypocrites" was also painted on the property.

"It is evident that the election results for the constitutional marriage amendment will not mean an end to the debate over same-sex marriage in this state, or our country," regional church spokeswoman Lisa West said in a statement. "We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position."

Logan Jackson, a member of the church who said he's not speaking on its behalf, called the vandalism "saddening."

California voters approved Proposition 8, a ban on same-sex marriage, on Tuesday.

The outcome has sparked protests across the state from those who opposed the measure, including a massive demonstration in front of a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints chapel in Los Angeles on Wednesday.

The church encouraged its members to work to pass California's Proposition 8 by volunteering their time and money for the campaign. Thousands of Mormons worked as grassroots volunteers and gave tens of millions of dollars to the campaign.

Church officials said members were encouraged to support the ban but deny making any institutional donations.

The chapel is on the 7900 block of Hazel Avenue.

 


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27601056/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27601056/)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on November 12, 2008, 09:06:28 AM
It seems that lots of people are acting a fool, over this issue in California, as a Jewish synagouge that performs gay "marriages" got vandalized, as well.

Jewish Synagogue Targeted By Vandals
Prop. 8 Controversy At Helm Of Vandalism


SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A progressive Jewish synagogue in Sacramento is the latest victim of vandalism in the divide over a ban on gay marriage in California.

Leviticus 18:3 was spray painted on the wall at the Congregation B'nai Israel following Tuesday's election in which voters passed Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

That verse in the Bible says: ''You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes.'

It appeared whoever spray painted the scriptural reference was condemning this Jewish Synagogue for performing several same-sex ceremonies.

A video shows one such ceremony from September.

Congregation B'nai Israel said they acknowledge there are other Jewish temples that do not support same-sex marriage.




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27631731/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27631731/)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on November 12, 2008, 10:10:57 AM
Lovely.  ::)  That kind of extremism isn't going to make selling this thing to the public any easier.   


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on November 12, 2008, 10:14:57 AM
Lovely.  ::)  That kind of extremism isn't going to make selling this thing to the public any easier.   
Would you tell me how you feel about gay marriage?

Do you think it is the business of government to keep these people seeking marriage disenfranchised?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on November 12, 2008, 10:26:03 AM
Would you tell me how you feel about gay marriage?

Do you think it is the business of government to keep these people seeking marriage disenfranchised?

I'm opposed, just like the overwhelming majority of the voting public, state legislatures, and the U.S. House and Senate, Presidents Clinton (who signed the Defense of Marriage Act) and Bush.  Even Obama claims to oppose homosexual marriage. 

Marriage is the government's business, because it regulates marriage.  Government has decided that marriage should be between one man and woman, like it has been since the institution started.  The public does not want to redefine marriage.  I do think it will happen one day, but for the time being, whenever it comes up for a vote, I'll be expressing my opinion at the ballot box (although we already voted to preserve traditional marriage here by 70 percent). 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on November 12, 2008, 10:31:43 AM
I'm opposed, just like the overwhelming majority of the voting public, state legislatures, and the U.S. House and Senate, Presidents Clinton (who signed the Defense of Marriage Act) and Bush.  Even Obama claims to oppose homosexual marriage. 

Marriage is the government's business, because it regulates marriage.  Government has decided that marriage should be between one man and woman, like it has been since the institution started.  The public does not want to redefine marriage.  I do think it will happen one day, but for the time being, whenever it comes up for a vote, I'll be expressing my opinion at the ballot box (although we already voted to preserve traditional marriage here by 70 percent). 

Fair enough and it was the answer I expected.  A good one.  But like with separate but equal, which the country fully supported, this oppression will fall.  I think you're right saying that it is doomed.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on November 12, 2008, 10:44:40 AM
Fair enough and it was the answer I expected.  A good one.  But like with separate but equal, which the country fully supported, this oppression will fall.  I think you're right saying that it is doomed.

It will fall, but I don't view it as oppression.  We are doing some dangerous things in our society.  I don't think homosexual marriage is dangerous, but to get there we are embracing confusion.  I've said this many times, but this isn't just about legitimizing homosexual behavior, because the movement include bisexuals, transsexuals, and transvestites under their umbrella.  Also, we have even redefined gender by statute in Hawaii (and probably other states).  It's incredible.  Here, gender is whatever you think it is on whatever day you think it is.     



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on November 12, 2008, 11:25:55 AM
Gay Marriages Begin in Connecticut
By LISA W. FODERARO

NEW HAVEN — Bunches of white balloons and giant sprays of long-stemmed red roses festooned City Hall here Wednesday morning, as one of the eight couples who successfully sued the state to allow same-sex marriage became the first to obtain a marriage license as the law took effect.

The couple, Barbara and Robin Levine-Ritterman, filled out the paperwork and waited about 10 minutes for it to be processed, but they said they would not marry today because they were still working out their wedding plan. “We’re thinking about doing it May,” said Robin Levine-Ritterman, who was holding a bouquet of roses. “We really wanted to be part of this historic first.”

The official start of gay marriages came a month after Connecticut’s highest court legalized the unions, and the court announced only last week that Wednesday would be the official first day of nuptials. Many gay and lesbian couples said they would wait to apply for their licenses, which expire after 65 days, as they planned big wedding celebrations for the spring and summer.

Advocates for same-sex marriage predicted there would not be the same rush for licenses here on Wednesday that there was in 2004 when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize the unions, and in June, when California began performing the ceremonies. They cited the short notice of Wednesday’s events and the fact that Connecticut has had civil unions for gay couples since 2005. But the lawyers who argued the case and others called the day momentous, especially as a counterpoint to last week’s passage of a ballot measure in California invalidating that state’s court decision legalizing gay marriage.

“Today, Connecticut sends a message of hope and promise to lesbian and gay people throughout the country who want to be treated as equal citizens by their government,” said Ben Klein, a lawyer with Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, a Boston group that litigated the Connecticut case. “It is living proof that marriage equality is moving forward in this country.”

Among the first couples actually to be married, just before 11 a.m., was Peg Oliveira, a 36-year-old yoga teacher, and Jen Vickery, a 44-year-old lawyer, who wed just outside City Hall with their 3-month-old daughter, Willow, and half a dozen friends watching. They exchanged rings, shared a story about how Ms. Oliveira proposed in the aisles of IKEA, and then had a slow, tender kiss after a friend, Judge F. Herbert Gruendel of the state appellate court, pronounced them married.

“We decided that we wanted to hold out for the real thing,” Ms. Oliveira said of why the couple, together four years, had not entered into a civil union. “We’re not having a party. Parties are fun. It’s not about the celebrating piece of this. It’s about honoring the magnitude of the rights that we will be granted and we wanted to jump in and take advantage of that right away.”

Massachusetts and Connecticut are now the only states allowing same-sex marriage. Vermont and New Hampshire also have civil unions. And California has domestic partnerships that provide many similar rights and privileges.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Fury on November 12, 2008, 12:00:37 PM
I live in Connecticut. Interestingly enough, the state didn't fall into hell today.  ::)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on November 12, 2008, 01:33:54 PM
I live in Connecticut. Interestingly enough, the state didn't fall into hell today.  ::)

So your marriage license is safe? :)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Fury on November 12, 2008, 02:11:52 PM
So your marriage license is safe? :)

Doc, my boy, I know you're in NY. It's just a stone's throw away if and when you and Junaids ever decide to take the next step in your relationship.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on November 12, 2008, 03:20:47 PM
Doc, my boy, I know you're in NY. It's just a stone's throw away if and when you and Junaids ever decide to take the next step in your relationship.

New York state recognizes marriages from other states. If you and your husband ever come upstate, pleas call.  :)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Fury on November 12, 2008, 03:32:22 PM
New York state recognizes marriages from other states. If you and your husband ever come upstate, pleas call.  :)

That's a good thing. You and Junaids won't be forced to stay in CT.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on November 12, 2008, 03:39:49 PM
That's a good thing. You and Junaids won't be forced to stay in CT.

Screw CT, I'm only willing to leave New York for someplace warm. Freezing my ass off already and there's no snow.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Fury on November 12, 2008, 03:41:45 PM
Screw CT, I'm only willing to leave New York for someplace warm. Freezing my ass off already and there's no snow.

Fall is the best season of the year. Right when it starts getting crisp. Not freezing but crisp. Like high 30s. Nice fleece, see your breath, that kind of shit. Really wakes one up.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on November 12, 2008, 03:50:12 PM
Fall is the best season of the year. Right when it starts getting crisp. Not freezing but crisp. Like high 30s. Nice fleece, see your breath, that kind of shit. Really wakes one up.

I want to be on a beach... drinking, smoking cigars and chilling. I hate being cold


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Fury on November 12, 2008, 03:51:59 PM
I want to be on a beach... drinking, smoking cigars and chilling. I hate being cold

Calm on Doc, black people can't swim.

I like the beach and this weather. I'm all indifferent to it. In another month or two when it's frigid and ugly as shit up here I'll like the beach weather more than I do now.






I had to put a racist comment in there, was getting too lovey dovey. Got to keep it real.  ;)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on November 12, 2008, 04:04:58 PM
Calm on Doc, black people can't swim.

I like the beach and this weather. I'm all indifferent to it. In another month or two when it's frigid and ugly as shit up here I'll like the beach weather more than I do now.


I had to put a racist comment in there, was getting too lovey dovey. Got to keep it real.  ;)

Surely you and 'friend' will be fireside all winter, LOL!


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Fury on November 12, 2008, 04:08:17 PM
Surely you and 'friend' will be fireside all winter, LOL!

Doc, the chances of me being gayer than you are incredibly slim. I'm not the guy who hangs out with 30-something year old Pakistani homosexuals I met on a bodybuilding forum.  ;)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on November 12, 2008, 04:43:56 PM
Doc, the chances of me being gayer than you are incredibly slim. I'm not the guy who hangs out with 30-something year old Pakistani homosexuals I met on a bodybuilding forum.  ;)

You are so more likely to be gay than me, you Mo!  :)

Let's see.. you probably dress better, own hair product and always have to get in the last word.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on November 14, 2008, 08:33:20 AM
State high court interested in Prop. 8 suits
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

(11-13) 18:17 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court has asked state Attorney General Jerry Brown to reply by Monday to lawsuits challenging the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage - a sign that the justices are taking the cases seriously and will not dispose of them quickly.

Two groups of gay and lesbian couples and local governments led by the city of San Francisco filed the suits a day after the Nov. 4 election, when Proposition 8 passed with a 52 percent majority.

They argue that the initiative, a state constitutional amendment, violates other provisions of the California Constitution by taking rights away from a historically persecuted minority group and stripping judges of their power to protect that group. The couples' suits contend that Prop. 8 makes such fundamental changes that it amounts to a constitutional revision, which can be placed on the ballot only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

Brown has said he will defend Prop. 8 in court while also supporting the legality of an estimated 18,000 weddings performed under the court's May 15 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

That ruling declared that state law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman violated the state Constitution. Sponsors of Prop. 8 contend that the initiative - which declared that only marriage between a man and a woman is "valid or recognized in California" - would invalidate all existing same-sex marriages.

The filing the court requested from Brown's office will not address the ballot measure's validity, but will focus instead on the initial questions of whether the justices should accept the suits for review - and, if so, whether they should suspend Prop. 8 while they decide the case, said the state's lawyer, Christopher Krueger, a senior assistant attorney general. Suspending Prop. 8 would allow same-sex marriages to resume.

"I think it's fair to infer that the court is looking at these (cases) very carefully," Krueger said. Usually, he said, when plaintiffs ask the state's high court to take up their case directly without first filing in a lower court, the justices dismiss the suit without asking the other side for a reply.

Krueger declined to say whether Brown's office would ask the court to dismiss the suits without further review. He noted, however, that Bill Lockyer, the attorney general when gay-rights advocates first challenged the marriage law, invited the state Supreme Court to review the issue in 2006 even after an appellate court had upheld the ban on same-sex marriage.

Although the court's request, issued Wednesday, did not mention any issues in the suits or state the justices' views, "it indicates that the Supreme Court sees the seriousness and immensity of the issue, and before it takes any action it wants to hear from Jerry Brown," said Irving Greines, an appellate lawyer in Los Angeles.

Greines filed papers Wednesday on behalf of the Beverly Hills Bar Association and California Women Lawyers supporting the legal challenges to Prop. 8 and urging the court to accept the suits for review. On Thursday, the conservative Pacific Justice Institute submitted a letter arguing that the court lacks authority to issue a stay that would suspend a voter-approved state constitutional amendment.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on November 14, 2008, 08:45:14 AM
State high court interested in Prop. 8 suits
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

(11-13) 18:17 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court has asked state Attorney General Jerry Brown to reply by Monday to lawsuits challenging the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage - a sign that the justices are taking the cases seriously and will not dispose of them quickly.

Two groups of gay and lesbian couples and local governments led by the city of San Francisco filed the suits a day after the Nov. 4 election, when Proposition 8 passed with a 52 percent majority.

They argue that the initiative, a state constitutional amendment, violates other provisions of the California Constitution by taking rights away from a historically persecuted minority group and stripping judges of their power to protect that group. The couples' suits contend that Prop. 8 makes such fundamental changes that it amounts to a constitutional revision, which can be placed on the ballot only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

Brown has said he will defend Prop. 8 in court while also supporting the legality of an estimated 18,000 weddings performed under the court's May 15 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

That ruling declared that state law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman violated the state Constitution. Sponsors of Prop. 8 contend that the initiative - which declared that only marriage between a man and a woman is "valid or recognized in California" - would invalidate all existing same-sex marriages.

The filing the court requested from Brown's office will not address the ballot measure's validity, but will focus instead on the initial questions of whether the justices should accept the suits for review - and, if so, whether they should suspend Prop. 8 while they decide the case, said the state's lawyer, Christopher Krueger, a senior assistant attorney general. Suspending Prop. 8 would allow same-sex marriages to resume.

"I think it's fair to infer that the court is looking at these (cases) very carefully," Krueger said. Usually, he said, when plaintiffs ask the state's high court to take up their case directly without first filing in a lower court, the justices dismiss the suit without asking the other side for a reply.

Krueger declined to say whether Brown's office would ask the court to dismiss the suits without further review. He noted, however, that Bill Lockyer, the attorney general when gay-rights advocates first challenged the marriage law, invited the state Supreme Court to review the issue in 2006 even after an appellate court had upheld the ban on same-sex marriage.

Although the court's request, issued Wednesday, did not mention any issues in the suits or state the justices' views, "it indicates that the Supreme Court sees the seriousness and immensity of the issue, and before it takes any action it wants to hear from Jerry Brown," said Irving Greines, an appellate lawyer in Los Angeles.

Greines filed papers Wednesday on behalf of the Beverly Hills Bar Association and California Women Lawyers supporting the legal challenges to Prop. 8 and urging the court to accept the suits for review. On Thursday, the conservative Pacific Justice Institute submitted a letter arguing that the court lacks authority to issue a stay that would suspend a voter-approved state constitutional amendment.

I just read this about 20 minutes ago.

It appears that Brown’s intention is that of a compromise (of sorts). And, ff the court follows his lead, Prop. 8 will stand but so will the estimated 18,000 gay “marriages” performed prior to Nov. 5.

My take is this: The argument of the plaintiffs is that Prop. 8 is a revision of the CA constitution and, as such, a simple majority vote cannot enact it. That has more of a chance of sticking, should Prop. 8 supporters insist that the 18,000 gay “marriages” be nullified.

However, if they let those remain but prevent future gay “marriages” from happening, the argument of allegedly taking rights away loses much, if not all, of its punch. Prop. 8 is simply an amendment, which ends the discussion of constitutionality.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on November 14, 2008, 11:46:44 AM
 ::)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on November 14, 2008, 01:03:38 PM
::)

That sign isn’t quite accurate. Remember that interracial marriage was allowed, as long as neither party was white. But, whether there was race-mixing or not, the construct remained one man and one woman.

It's a bit disingenuous for some gay activists to fume about intolerance and bigotry, while they're hurling racial slurs at black people (even black gays who protest Prop. 8).

As I've said in my thread, black gays will tell you that they experience PLENTY of intolerance, hate, bigotry, even among their supposed homo brethren. Prop. 8 has brought that to a head, now.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on November 14, 2008, 01:24:28 PM
MCWAY...I think you should dedicate your life to teaching the unenlightened the truth about the evils of homosexuality.

Then I hope one of your kids turns out gay so you can make his life miserable.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on November 14, 2008, 01:31:12 PM
James Dobson: Gay Marriage Our Greatest Threat!

October 27, 2008

Quote
"We've picked bad presidents before, and we've survived as a nation. But we will not survive if we lose the institution of marriage."

Got that? Gutting the Constitution, breaking the military, crashing the economy, and making the world hate us, no biggie. But letting gays get married, that's the end of the world.

Prop 8 won't just stop gays from getting married in California, it'll nullify all existing gay marriages. Because nothing will preserve the sacred institution of marriage like suddenly dissolving a whole bunch of 'em.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/104822/james_dobson


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on November 14, 2008, 01:49:40 PM
MCWAY...I think you should dedicate your life to teaching the unenlightened the truth about the evils of homosexuality.

Then I hope one of your kids turns out gay so you can make his life miserable.

That would be like my saying I hope you dedicate your life to spreading atheism. Then, one of your kids grows up to be a minister.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on November 14, 2008, 02:26:11 PM
That would be like my saying I hope you dedicate your life to spreading atheism. Then, one of your kids grows up to be a minister.

It wouldn't happen and the analogy is a terrible one.

What would you do if one of your children came to you and told you he/she were gay? Would you get an exorcism performed of him/her?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on November 15, 2008, 01:56:07 PM
It wouldn't happen and the analogy is a terrible one.

So, now you can guarantee that, should you have children, they will remain atheists like you?

Madalyn Murray O'Hair's son became a Christian. If her son can do that, your son/daugther can too (unless you've set yourself to remain unmarried and childless).


What would you do if one of your children came to you and told you he/she were gay? Would you get an exorcism performed of him/her?

Exorcisms are for demon-possesion, not homosexuality. What I would do is continue to love my child but make it perfectly clear that homosexuality is not acceptable in my home, just as any other sinful behavior isn't.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on November 15, 2008, 01:59:54 PM
So, now you can guarantee that, should you have children, they will remain atheists like you?

Madalyn Murray O'Hair's son became a Christian. If her son can do that, your son/daugther can too (unless you've set yourself to remain unmarried and childless).


Exorcisms are for demon-possesion, not homosexuality. What I would do is continue to love my child but make it perfectly clear that homosexuality is not acceptable in my home, just as any other sinful behavior isn't.



It's doubtful (if I have children, for which I am not required to be married anyway) my kids would be Christians. They wouldn't be raised in the US, most likely secular Europe or some Asian country.

So I guess you would be telling your daughter that her having a girlfriend is a sin; that's great but you can't actually prevent her from having a girlfriend now can you?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on November 15, 2008, 02:04:14 PM
It's doubtful (if I have children, for which I am not required to be married anyway) my kids would be Christians. They wouldn't be raised in the US, most likely secular Europe or some Asian country.

It's doubtful that my kids would be atheists; but the possibility remains.


So I guess you would be telling your daughter that her having a girlfriend is a sin; that's great but you can't actually prevent her from having a girlfriend now can you?

No, I can't. In the same vein, should your children want to become Christians, you can't stop them from doing that, either.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: timfogarty on November 15, 2008, 03:14:49 PM
What I would do is continue to love my child but make it perfectly clear that homosexuality is not acceptable in my home, just as any other sinful behavior isn't.

what does that mean?  that you're only homosexual the 10-20 minutes that you're having sex?

if a child still living with you came to you and said he/she was gay, would you kick them out?  what if they became active in the gay rights movement?

if your child was living with someone in a loving committed relationship, would you allow you child to visit?  would you visit him/her in their home?   would you allow their partner to visit?  what about if they've been together for 10 years?  if they have children by adoption or other means?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on November 15, 2008, 04:16:12 PM
what does that mean?  that you're only homosexual the 10-20 minutes that you're having sex?

if a child still living with you came to you and said he/she was gay, would you kick them out?  what if they became active in the gay rights movement?

if your child was living with someone in a loving committed relationship, would you allow you child to visit?  would you visit him/her in their home?   would you allow their partner to visit?  what about if they've been together for 10 years?  if they have children by adoption or other means?

All evil sinfulness...don't you get it?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: timfogarty on November 15, 2008, 04:31:46 PM
All evil sinfulness...don't you get it?

so if your heterosexual child divorces and remarries, can't let them visit either.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on November 15, 2008, 04:39:08 PM
so if your heterosexual child divorces and remarries, can't let them visit either.

Exactly but if he crawls on his hands and knees begging for forgiveness as the wretch he is from the fictitious deity of the Christians he will be forgiven.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on November 15, 2008, 04:51:16 PM
what does that mean?  that you're only homosexual the 10-20 minutes that you're having sex?

It means that loving my children does not require my acceptance of homosexuality.


if a child still living with you came to you and said he/she was gay, would you kick them out?  what if they became active in the gay rights movement?

if your child was living with someone in a loving committed relationship, would you allow you child to visit?  would you visit him/her in their home?   would you allow their partner to visit?  what about if they've been together for 10 years?  if they have children by adoption or other means?


Love does not override sinful behavior. My children know our stance (the "our" being me and my wife) on the issue of homosexuality. Furthermore, I have members of my family who are gay, who have been in our home and I in theirs.

So, you and Deicide can cease with your hypothetical mess, in your attempt to wish some kind of angst on me, with regards to gay family members.

so if your heterosexual child divorces and remarries, can't let them visit either.

Divorce is allowed in certain instances, the most infamous being ADULTERY. What part of that don't you get?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on November 15, 2008, 05:48:43 PM
 :'(


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on November 15, 2008, 06:25:02 PM
Wanda Sykes says she's 'proud to be gay'
(11-15) 17:59 PST LAS VEGAS, (AP) --

Comedian Wanda Sykes says the passage of a same-sex marriage ban in California has led to her be more outspoken about being gay.

"You know, I don't really talk about my sexual orientation. I didn't feel like I had to. I was just living my life, not necessarily in the closet, but I was living my life," Sykes told a crowd at a gay rights rally in Las Vegas on Saturday. "Everybody that knows me personally they know I'm gay. But that's the way people should be able to live their lives."

Sykes, who is known for her feisty and blunt style, said the passage of California's Proposition 8 made her feel like she was "attacked."

"Now, I gotta get in their face," she said. "I'm proud to be a woman. I'm proud to be a black woman, and I'm proud to be gay."

Sykes' appearance at the Las Vegas rally was a surprise to organizers. She was in town performing at the Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on November 15, 2008, 06:46:48 PM
:'(

An end to frivolous divorces? Sounds good to me!!! But what happens if your spouse cheats on you? Are you folks willing to stay with them, regardless?

Or, if such a law were to be passed, would you complain about that, too?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Hereford on November 15, 2008, 06:49:33 PM
Bay.

How do you feel about the fact gays feel their cause is more important than the will of the majority of people in the largest state in the country?

Serious question bro.  ???


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: timfogarty on November 15, 2008, 07:25:18 PM
How do you feel about the fact gays feel their cause is more important than the will of the majority of people in the largest state in the country?

the majority wanted to keep slavery.  the majority didn't want women to vote.  the majority didn't want whites to marry blacks (in 1967!).  the majority wanted apartheid.

But constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on November 15, 2008, 07:43:10 PM
the majority wanted to keep slavery.  the majority didn't want women to vote.  the majority didn't want whites to marry blacks (in 1967!).  the majority wanted apartheid.

But constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities.

and neither slaves or women had been granted said rights before having them voted them taken away

the prior CA Supreme Court decision will be the Achilles heel of prop 8


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: DIVISION on November 15, 2008, 07:44:04 PM
the majority wanted to keep slavery.  the majority didn't want women to vote.  the majority didn't want whites to marry blacks (in 1967!).  the majority wanted apartheid.

But constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities.

Timothy, you're going to have to blockade the Mormons to overturn this legislation.
 
It may come down to the end of days for that happen.   :-X




DIV


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on November 15, 2008, 07:54:28 PM
the majority wanted to keep slavery.  the majority didn't want women to vote.  the majority didn't want whites to marry blacks (in 1967!).  the majority wanted apartheid.

But constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities.

Not when constitutional guarantees afford the electorate the right to vote on certain issues.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on November 15, 2008, 08:13:16 PM
Bay.

How do you feel about the fact gays feel their cause is more important than the will of the majority of people in the largest state in the country?

Serious question bro.  ???

The Constitution and the principles laid out in it (specifically the 14 Amendment containing the equal protection clause) trumps “the will of the majority of people.”  Remember, democracy is specifically designed to protect against “the tyranny of the majority.”  That phrase goes all the way back to the days of Thomas Jefferson. 

Jefferson understood very well that large numbers of people may easily be manipulated (for example by a slick talker, by advertisements, by religion, by dreams, by bigotry, by fear and other irrational impulses) into doing things, believing things, supporting actions, or passing laws that are hopelessly misguided.  Simply because a majority of people believe we should do X does not mean that X is necessarily the right thing to do. History is filled with examples of large numbers of people (even a majority) being manipulated into doing something stupid or illegal.  For example, the trauma of 9/11 and stoked fears of a mushroom cloud duped the USA into invading Iraq.  500 hundred billions of dollars and thousands of lives later, virtually every one now realizes that was a terrible mistake.   

The idea that citizens should be treated equally is inscribed into the Constitution.  Capricious public opinion—no matter how big the majority—cannot circumvent that.  The judiciary was specifically created to ensure this.  One of the great (and perhaps terrible) things about the principle of equality is that when legitimately applied, it will necessarily be applied to people who you may not want to have it.  Too bad; either everyone has it or no one has it. 

There have always been opponents of equality. When we look back in time at the people who opposed equal treatment under the law for various groups (blacks, women, Jews, the disabled, and on and on) we often ask ourselves, “who were those idiots and why were they so hopelessly ignorant?”  Look around you: those people are still here!

If you could place a sample of the opponents of gay marriage into a time machine and deposit them in into 1860 what side of the abolition of slavery do you think they would be on?  If you could deposit them into 1918 what side of women’s suffrage do you think they would be on? Legacy admissions (where if your parents or grandparents attended a school you would get favorable treatment when you applied) are still common at American universities.  Did you know that legacy admission policies were originally designed to keep Jews out of the best colleges?  If we take that time machine back to say 1900, the people who support Proposition 8 today would be the same people in favor of legacy admissions.  They want to reserve benefits for themselves that other people do not have access to.

Over the years, these opponents have used fear, religion, pseudo-science, legitimate science, racism, sexism, jingoism, and other filters to explain why “those people” should not be treated equally.  As I said, there have always been opponents of equality.  Even if those opponents constitute a majority, their will does not supersede the Constitution or the Justices that police it.

The Constitution was here long before you (and your filters) came along; and it will be here long after you (and your filters) are gone.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on November 18, 2008, 05:59:39 AM
The Constitution and the principles laid out in it (specifically the 14 Amendment containing the equal protection clause) trumps “the will of the majority of people.”  Remember, democracy is specifically designed to protect against “the tyranny of the majority.”  That phrase goes all the way back to the days of Thomas Jefferson. 

Jefferson understood very well that large numbers of people may easily be manipulated (for example by a slick talker, by advertisements, by religion, by dreams, by bigotry, by fear and other irrational impulses) into doing things, believing things, supporting actions, or passing laws that are hopelessly misguided.  Simply because a majority of people believe we should do X does not mean that X is necessarily the right thing to do. History is filled with examples of large numbers of people (even a majority) being manipulated into doing something stupid or illegal.  For example, the trauma of 9/11 and stoked fears of a mushroom cloud duped the USA into invading Iraq.  500 hundred billions of dollars and thousands of lives later, virtually every one now realizes that was a terrible mistake.   

The idea that citizens should be treated equally is inscribed into the Constitution.  Capricious public opinion—no matter how big the majority—cannot circumvent that.  The judiciary was specifically created to ensure this.  One of the great (and perhaps terrible) things about the principle of equality is that when legitimately applied, it will necessarily be applied to people who you may not want to have it.  Too bad; either everyone has it or no one has it. 

There have always been opponents of equality. When we look back in time at the people who opposed equal treatment under the law for various groups (blacks, women, Jews, the disabled, and on and on) we often ask ourselves, “who were those idiots and why were they so hopelessly ignorant?”  Look around you: those people are still here!

If you could place a sample of the opponents of gay marriage into a time machine and deposit them in into 1860 what side of the abolition of slavery do you think they would be on?  If you could deposit them into 1918 what side of women’s suffrage do you think they would be on? Legacy admissions (where if your parents or grandparents attended a school you would get favorable treatment when you applied) are still common at American universities.  Did you know that legacy admission policies were originally designed to keep Jews out of the best colleges?  If we take that time machine back to say 1900, the people who support Proposition 8 today would be the same people in favor of legacy admissions.  They want to reserve benefits for themselves that other people do not have access to.

Over the years, these opponents have used fear, religion, pseudo-science, legitimate science, racism, sexism, jingoism, and other filters to explain why “those people” should not be treated equally.  As I said, there have always been opponents of equality.  Even if those opponents constitute a majority, their will does not supersede the Constitution or the Justices that police it.

The Constitution was here long before you (and your filters) came along; and it will be here long after you (and your filters) are gone.



As long as there’s no constitutional breach, the will of the majority takes precedence. And, with a legal precedent already set (“Baker v. Nelson”) saying that defining marriage as a 1M-1W union DOES NOT run afoul of the federal Constitution, marriage amendments are quite legal and lawful.

So, the task for gay activists would be to show that defining marriage as a 1M-1W union  violates the Constitution now, when it did not do so then.

Perhaps, a far greater task is showing the merits of gay “marriage” and winning the support of the populace. As it relates to California, that would be starting an amendment of their own, defining marriage as, say, “a union of two people”.

Whatever the case, vandalizing church property, trespassing during church services (i.e. some activists interrupting a church service in Michigan, screaming during their worship time and littering the sanctuary), and racial threats and insults aimed at blacks hardly helps the cause of gay “marriage” advocates.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on November 18, 2008, 11:53:06 AM
The Constitution and the principles laid out in it (specifically the 14 Amendment containing the equal protection clause) trumps “the will of the majority of people.”  Remember, democracy is specifically designed to protect against “the tyranny of the majority.”  That phrase goes all the way back to the days of Thomas Jefferson. 


In what court decision have they applied the 14th Amendment to homosexual marriage?   


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on November 18, 2008, 12:40:16 PM
In what court decision have they applied the 14th Amendment to homosexual marriage?   

That would be NONE!!!!

Again, see "Baker v. Nelson". A gay couple tried that in Minnesota about 5 years after "Loving v. Virginia". The state court ruled that banning same-sex marriage does not run afoul of the 14th amendment (or any other, for that matter).

When the couple tried to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, their case was dismissed on its merits and for "want of a substantial federal question". That basically means that the federal Court sided with the Minnesota court, and as such, the ruling was binding on all lower courts.

In short, states have the right to define marriage as a 1M-1W union, as California and 29 other states have done. The voters in CA are merely doing what they have every privilege and right to do in this matter.

What's really ironic is that the lawsuits now being filed by gay couples, trying to get Prop. 8 nullified, BETRAY the very arguments that BayGBM and others are trying to make.

They claim that gay "marriage" is a "civil right" and thus immune from the will of the majority. But, the suits being filed now are looking for a technicality to go in their favor. The issue is no longer whether the people have the right to vote for (or against) Prop. 8, but whether it's a simple majority of the electorate vs. a super majority of the electorate (and the Legislature, which gay activists know that Prop. 8 doesn't have).


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on November 18, 2008, 01:21:34 PM
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/11/17/daily20.html

Jerry Brown asks Supreme Court to review Prop. 8
Sacramento Business Journal


California Attorney General Jerry Brown on Monday filed a brief with the California Supreme Court asking it to review and resolve the legal challenges surrounding Proposition 8.

The proposition, which was passed by voters Nov. 4 with a 52.2 percent to 47.8 percent margin, eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry. Opponents of the gay marriage ban have filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the measure.

Brown on Monday urged the Supreme Court to review the measure to “ensure uniformity of decision, finality and certainty for the citizens of California.” He said he would prefer an expedited resolution to a temporary stay on the measure to avoid confusion.

Brown said in a news release that same-sex marriages performed between June 17 and Nov. 4 are valid will continue to be recognized by the state.


“The constitutionality of the change created by Proposition 8 impacts whether same-sex marriages may issue in California and whether same-sex marriages from other states will be recognized here,” he wrote in a set of briefs filed with the court. “There is significant public interest in prompt resolution of the legality of Proposition 8. The Court can provide certainty and finality in this matter.”



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on November 18, 2008, 01:31:34 PM
That would be NONE!!!!

Again, see "Baker v. Nelson". A gay couple tried that in Minnesota about 5 years after "Loving v. Virginia". The state court ruled that banning same-sex marriage does not run afoul of the 14th amendment (or any other, for that matter).

When the couple tried to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, their case was dismissed on its merits and for "want of a substantial federal question". That basically means that the federal Court sided with the Minnesota court, and as such, the ruling was binding on all lower courts.

In short, states have the right to define marriage as a 1M-1W union, as California and 29 other states have done. The voters in CA are merely doing what they have every privilege and right to do in this matter.

What's really ironic is that the lawsuits now being filed by gay couples, trying to get Prop. 8 nullified, BETRAY the very arguments that BayGBM and others are trying to make.

They claim that gay "marriage" is a "civil right" and thus immune from the will of the majority. But, the suits being filed now are looking for a technicality to go in their favor. The issue is no longer whether the people have the right to vote for (or against) Prop. 8, but whether it's a simple majority of the electorate vs. a super majority of the electorate (and the Legislature, which gay activists know that Prop. 8 doesn't have).


Thanks.  That's what I thought.  Didn't know this had already been addressed by the supreme court.  There is going to be a showdown soon when someone from Mass, CT, or CA tries to have their marriage recognized in a state that bans homosexual marriage.  I don't think anyone has challenged The Defense of Marriage Act?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on November 18, 2008, 01:49:01 PM
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/11/17/daily20.html

Jerry Brown asks Supreme Court to review Prop. 8
Sacramento Business Journal


California Attorney General Jerry Brown on Monday filed a brief with the California Supreme Court asking it to review and resolve the legal challenges surrounding Proposition 8.

The proposition, which was passed by voters Nov. 4 with a 52.2 percent to 47.8 percent margin, eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry. Opponents of the gay marriage ban have filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the measure.

Brown on Monday urged the Supreme Court to review the measure to “ensure uniformity of decision, finality and certainty for the citizens of California.” He said he would prefer an expedited resolution to a temporary stay on the measure to avoid confusion.

Brown said in a news release that same-sex marriages performed between June 17 and Nov. 4 are valid will continue to be recognized by the state.


“The constitutionality of the change created by Proposition 8 impacts whether same-sex marriages may issue in California and whether same-sex marriages from other states will be recognized here,” he wrote in a set of briefs filed with the court. “There is significant public interest in prompt resolution of the legality of Proposition 8. The Court can provide certainty and finality in this matter.”



That seems to match with this report:

Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown urges high court to let Prop. 8 take effect

His office, which has the responsibility of defending the initiative, also asks justices to review the lawsuits against the measure 'to provide certainty and finality.'


By Maura Dolan


Reporting from San Francisco -- As more lawsuits against Proposition 8 landed before the California Supreme Court, Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and the anti-gay-marriage campaign urged the court Monday to review the suits but allow the measure to remain in effect during that review.

Brown, whose office defends state laws, said in papers filed with the court that the lawsuits against the anti-gay-marriage initiative raised issues of statewide importance that should be addressed by the state's highest court "to provide certainty and finality."

But Brown's office also said the court should refrain from granting a preliminary order to put the measure on hold pending a court ruling.

If same-sex couples were permitted to marry now -- and the court eventually upheld Proposition 8 -- those couples would be "left uncertain as to the ultimate legal standing of their marriages," Brown's office said.

In a footnote, the attorney general stressed that nothing in the state's response to the lawsuits should be construed to suggest that the state "questions the validity of any same-sex marriage" that occurred before Nov. 5, when Proposition 8 became law.

The campaign behind Proposition 8 also urged the court to review the legal dispute and rule quickly.

Proposition 8 backers want to intervene in the litigation because they said Brown cannot be trusted to defend the measure.

"We feel confident that the law is on our side, and the court will make a correct decision," said Frank Schubert, campaign manager for Proposition 8……

Liberty Counsel, which has fought same-sex marriage, also filed papers with the California Supreme Court on Monday and urged the court to dismiss the lawsuits without review. The Christian legal group said the court should protect the democratic process.

"The people of California have spoken by affirming traditional marriage," said Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel.

"It is time to move on. Fourteen words that reaffirm the historic and common sense definition of marriage are not a radical revision to the Constitution."

Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen said he was not surprised that Brown's office urged the California Supreme Court to review the petitions, even though Brown's office is supposed to defend ballot initiatives that pass.

Because Brown defined the legal dispute as a "statewide concern," Uelmen said, "it makes sense to bypass the lower courts and just go ahead and hear them."

Shannon Price Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which filed one of the Proposition 8 lawsuits, said he was pleased that Brown recognized the importance of the case and "was so strongly supporting review."

The court has yet to respond to the lawsuits. It could dismiss them or grant review. If it reviews them, the courtit probably would ask for more written arguments and set a date for a hearing.

"We are not confident the attorney general will vigorously defend Proposition 8 in light of his strong opposition to the measure."

Opponents of Proposition 8 argue that it was a sweeping constitutional revision, which can only be put on the ballot by the Legislature, instead of a more limited constitutional amendment, as supporters contend.

A wide array of groups and local governments have urged the state high court in six lawsuits -- two more were filed Monday -- to overturn the measure. The lawsuits contend that Proposition 8 illegally revised the state Constitution by altering fundamental constitutional principles.

The latest anti-Proposition 8 lawsuit was filed by the California Council on Churches, the Episcopal Bishop of California, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ, the Progressive Jewish Alliance and the Unitarian Universalist Assn. of Congregations.

The California Supreme Court voted 4 to 3 on May 15 to overturn a state ban on same-sex marriage, but Christian groups gathered enough signatures to place Proposition 8 on the Nov. 4 ballot. It passed with about 52% of the vote.

Liberty Counsel, which has fought same-sex marriage, also filed papers with the California Supreme Court on Monday and urged the court to dismiss the lawsuits without review. The Christian legal group said the court should protect the democratic process.

"The people of California have spoken by affirming traditional marriage," said Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel.

"It is time to move on. Fourteen words that reaffirm the historic and common sense definition of marriage are not a radical revision to the Constitution."


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-gaymarriage18-2008nov18,0,7313761.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-gaymarriage18-2008nov18,0,7313761.story)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on November 18, 2008, 02:00:18 PM
Thanks.  That's what I thought.  Didn't know this had already been addressed by the supreme court.  There is going to be a showdown soon when someone from Mass, CT, or CA tries to have their marriage recognized in a state that bans homosexual marriage.  I don't think anyone has challenged The Defense of Marriage Act?

As I said earlier, Beach Bum, they’re arguing that Prop. 8 is a revision of the CA constitution and, as a result, it would require a 2/3 vote by the Legislature BEFORE it gets to the people. They know that there ain’t enough lawmakers there to put Prop. 8 on the ballot. But, if there were, that would STILL mean that Prop. 8 is a measure for which people can vote.

That COMPLETELY CLASHES with their whole spiel about gay “marriage” being a civil right, immune to the will of the majority.


As for DOMA challenges, some have tried; I think that happened once in Florida. But a lower court there squashed it.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Tre on November 18, 2008, 04:21:35 PM
Thanks.  That's what I thought.  Didn't know this had already been addressed by the supreme court.  There is going to be a showdown soon when someone from Mass, CT, or CA tries to have their marriage recognized in a state that bans homosexual marriage.  I don't think anyone has challenged The Defense of Marriage Act?

That's on the agenda, but is not an immediate fight.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Tre on November 18, 2008, 04:23:40 PM

What's going to happen, however, when two men walk in to purchase a marriage license and one of them identifies himself as a woman?



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: timfogarty on November 18, 2008, 05:15:02 PM
What's going to happen, however, when two men walk in to purchase a marriage license and one of them identifies himself as a woman?

that would be perjury.  why do you keep bringing that up? 

however there was a case in Texas I believe where a post-op m-f married another woman.  the state granted the license based on the gender listed on the birth certificates.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Tre on November 18, 2008, 07:16:40 PM
that would be perjury.  why do you keep bringing that up? 

How is it perjury if a person self-identifies as that gender? 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on November 18, 2008, 07:45:53 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6p_aESYqtg


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: w8tlftr on November 18, 2008, 07:59:18 PM
Wanda Sykes says she's 'proud to be gay'
(11-15) 17:59 PST LAS VEGAS, (AP) --

Comedian Wanda Sykes says the passage of a same-sex marriage ban in California has led to her be more outspoken about being gay.

"You know, I don't really talk about my sexual orientation. I didn't feel like I had to. I was just living my life, not necessarily in the closet, but I was living my life," Sykes told a crowd at a gay rights rally in Las Vegas on Saturday. "Everybody that knows me personally they know I'm gay. But that's the way people should be able to live their lives."

Sykes, who is known for her feisty and blunt style, said the passage of California's Proposition 8 made her feel like she was "attacked."

"Now, I gotta get in their face," she said. "I'm proud to be a woman. I'm proud to be a black woman, and I'm proud to be gay."

Sykes' appearance at the Las Vegas rally was a surprise to organizers. She was in town performing at the Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino.

That's funny. Sykes rhymes with dykes.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: gcb on November 18, 2008, 09:16:20 PM
Marriage isn't a religious institution it's a civil union since to get married you don't have to go to church, so why should religious values enter into it?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on November 19, 2008, 04:51:21 AM
Marriage isn't a religious institution it's a civil union since to get married you don't have to go to church, so why should religious values enter into it?

Because people vote on policy, based on their philosophical and/or religious beliefs, which they have every right to do, as it relates to the issue of marriage.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on November 19, 2008, 04:57:42 PM
Calif. Supreme Court takes up Prop 8 case, but lets it remain in effect during interim


SAN FRANCISCO (BP)--The California Supreme Court agreed Nov. 19 to consider the constitutionality of Proposition 8, but -- in a win for supporters -- allowed the amendment, which prohibits "gay marriage," to remain in effect during the interim.

In recent days both sides had urged the court to take up the matter in an expedited manner and not to allow the case to wind its way through lower courts, where it could take years to finalize.

Opponents of Prop 8 also had urged the high court to issue a stay and allow same-sex couples to "marry" while the case is being considered. The court, though, declined to do that, which possibly could be an indication it believes Prop 8 opponents are likely to lose. The two-page directive by the court said only one of the justices, Carlos R. Moreno -- who voted with the 4-3 majority in May to allow "gay marriage" -- would have issued a stay.

Oral arguments will take place early next year.

Opponents of Prop 8 filed a similar lawsuit during the summer in an attempt to keep the proposal off the ballot, but the court turned away the suit and allowed Prop 8 to go before voters. Conservatives hope the court's early action is an indication of how it will rule next year.

The court in its Nov. 19 directive listed three questions it wants lawyers to address:

-- Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?

-- Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?

-- If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

At issue is a lawsuit filed by Prop 8 opponents, including the city of San Francisco, the ACLU and homosexual activist groups, asserting that Prop 8 amounted to a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the state constitution. Revisions -- in essence, drastic changes -- must first go through the legislature before going to voters. Prop 8, which passed 52-48 percent, was placed on the ballot via citizen signatures and did not go through the legislature. It went into effect the day after it passed.

In legal briefs filed Nov. 17, Andrew P. Pugno, the lead attorney representing ProtectMarriage.com -- the campaign behind Prop 8 -- argued that given the "constitutional and social significance" of Prop 8, the issue "should be resolved as soon as possible" and "should ultimately be decided by this Court." Sending the case to lower courts, he said, would only result in uncertainty and delay and would be damaging to the "interests of justice and the political system itself."

Pugno urged the court to uphold Prop 8, arguing that declaring it invalid "would be unprecedented and would constitute a serious encroachment on the people's sovereign right to amend the Constitution and set basic public policy through the initiative process." If the court follows its own precedent regarding citizen-backed constitutional amendments, Pugno said, it will allow Prop 8 to stand. The "power to amend" the state constitution is "broad and deep and by nature populist," Pugno said, and "has often been used to make significant changes," even "to override judicial interpretations of the Constitution with which the people disagree."

"Petitioners' arguments that Proposition 8 constitutes a revision to the Constitution are highly abstract and find no support in California case law or in the judiciary's long tradition of respectful deference to initiative amendments," the legal briefs stated. "Other courts addressing similar revision/amendment arguments under closely analogous constitutional provisions have rejected them. … Proposition 8 is simple, narrow, and targeted to a single issue. It restores the definition of marriage to what it was and always had been prior to May 15, 2008 -- nothing more."

Pugno also noted that three California Supreme Court justices -- as well as two state appeals court justices -- had refused to legalize "gay marriage." Because of that, he said, the case's outcome "was by no means self-evident."

"The effect of Proposition 8 is limited to reinstating the status quo that existed before the Marriage Cases decision took effect on June 16, 2008," he wrote. "[Prop 8 opponents'] arguments would most likely have been summarily rejected if Proposition 8 had been enacted before the Marriage Cases decision, and they should be rejected now for the same reasons. The revision/amendment analysis does not turn on the fortuity of timing."

Equality California, a group in California that backs "gay marriage," issued a statement after the court's Nov. 19 action, saying Prop 8 should be overturned.

"If permitted to stand, Proposition 8 would be the first time an initiative has successfully been used to change the California Constitution to take way an existing right only for a particular group," the statement read. "Such a change would defeat the very purpose of a constitution and fundamentally alter the role of the courts in protecting minority rights."

Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, sent an e-mail to supporters Nov. 19, saying the campaign was urging the court to hear the case "to avoid years of costly litigation."

He also said that even if his side prevails in court, the political battle is not over.

"Because we fully expect to prevail in court, we expect that, at some point, we will need to defeat a ballot proposal by advocates of same-sex marriage," Prentice wrote. "Our opponents have threatened such a proposal as early as 2010. We are already beginning the planning process to lay the groundwork to defeat a future proposed initiative that would legalize gay marriage. … We are fully confident that the California Supreme Court will uphold Proposition 8, even if some members of the Court disagree with the issue."


http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=29373 (http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=29373)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on December 20, 2008, 12:32:16 AM
Kenneth Starr to defend gay marriage ban before state Supreme Court
3:07 PM, December 19, 2008

(http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2007-12/34483945.jpg)
Kenneth W. Starr, the former U.S. Solicitor General who led the inquiry into President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica L. Lewinsky, will argue the case in favor of upholding a ban on gay marriage before the California Supreme Court.

Starr was today named lead counsel for the official proponents of Proposition 8. This afternoon, the group filed court briefs defending the legality of the proposition, which was approved by 52% of California voters last month throwing into question thousands of marriages performed during the five months the practice was legal in the state.

The briefs are in response to a spate of legal challenges filed by gay rights advocates, including the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Opponents of the proposition argued that it amounted to a constitutional revision instead of a more limited amendment.

A revision of the state constitution can only go before voters after a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a constitutional convention. Proposition 8 was put on the ballot after a signature drive. The case poses a series of provocative legal challenges.

The first among them is that California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who opposed Proposition 8 but is legally bound to defend the state’s laws, must now weigh in on the challenge. Brown has in recent days been called upon to declare it a revision. In the past, he has said he plans to “defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California.”

But he has also said he believes that the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages performed between June and November should remain valid.

Because it did not trust Brown to mount a staunch defense of the proposition, the group Protect Marriage intervened in the case and filed its own brief. It argues that the same-sex marriages are no longer valid. Brown’s briefs are due later today.

The court could hear oral arguments as soon as March.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/12/kenneth-w-starr.html


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on February 05, 2009, 02:00:54 PM
Federal judge rules denial of health coverage to same-sex spouse unconstitutional
February 5, 2009

A federal judge has deemed unconstitutional the government’s denial of healthcare coverage and other benefits to the same-sex spouse of a Los Angeles public defender, calling into question the validity of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt said the federal government’s refusal to grant spousal benefits to Tony Sears, the husband of deputy federal public defender Brad Levenson, amounted to unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.

“Because there is no rational basis for denying benefits to the same-sex spouses of [Federal Public Defender] employees while granting them to the opposite-sex spouses of FPD employees, I conclude that the application of [federal statutes] so as to reach that result is unconstitutional,” Reinhardt wrote in an order to the U.S. Courts administration to submit Levenson’s benefits election form. The ruling was issued Monday and published Wednesday.

“The denial of federal benefits to same-sex spouses cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage or a desire to deprive same-sex spouses of benefits available to other spouses in order to discourage them from exercising a legal right afforded them by a state,” Reinhardt wrote.

Neither Reinhardt’s ruling nor one in a similar case involving a 9th Circuit employee issued by appeals court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski establishes precedent that would have to be followed by courts hearing other challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act or the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act, which seek to deny federal benefits to same-sex spouses.

Reinhardt and Kozinski handled the respective complaints from Levenson and from 9th Circuit staff lawyer Karen Golinski in their capacity as dispute resolution officials within the federal judiciary, whose employees are prohibited from suing in federal court. Other federal employees denied benefits for same-sex spouses could sue under Title VII and other anti-discrimination statutes.

With same-sex marriage legal or recognized in only a handful of states and on hold in California since the passage of Proposition 8 in November, the number of cases similar to Levenson’s is probably small. Reinhardt said he didn’t know whether similar appeals had been raised by federal employees elsewhere in the judicial system. Still, legal scholars see Reinhardt’s reading of the Defense of Marriage Act as a bellwether on the constitutionality of that law and potentially others that seek to discourage or discriminate against homosexual partnerships.

“I think that this is a very important case in terms of the application of the Constitution to sexual orientation discrimination, especially with regard to partners,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC  Irvine law school.

While noting that Reinhardt’s ruling doesn’t directly affect the issue of gay marriage, Chemerinsky said he considered it “a key case toward creating a constitutional right for benefits for same-sex partners.”

Levenson, who married Sears on July 12 during last year’s five-month window when gay marriage was legal in California, applied for spousal benefits three days later but was denied by the 9th Circuit Executive Office on grounds that the Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act prohibit extending benefits to same-sex spouses.

Levenson appealed to the 9th Circuit’s Standing Committee on Federal Public Defenders, which Reinhardt chairs, with the argument that his office’s dispute resolution plan expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by the Republican-controlled Congress 13 years ago and signed into law by President Clinton. The act identified three objectives: defending and nurturing the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage; defending traditional notions of morality; and preserving scarce government resources.

In his 15-page ruling, Reinhardt debunked the first two objectives, stating that “gay people will not be encouraged to enter into marriages with members of the opposite sex by the government’s denial of benefits to same-sex spouses.” On the cost-saving objective, Reinhardt deemed the potential savings from discriminating against gays “insignificant” and “founded upon a prohibited or arbitrary ground.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/02/gay-marriage.html


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: War-Horse on February 05, 2009, 07:00:17 PM
Federal judge rules denial of health coverage to same-sex spouse unconstitutional
February 5, 2009

A federal judge has deemed unconstitutional the government’s denial of healthcare coverage and other benefits to the same-sex spouse of a Los Angeles public defender, calling into question the validity of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt said the federal government’s refusal to grant spousal benefits to Tony Sears, the husband of deputy federal public defender Brad Levenson, amounted to unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.

“Because there is no rational basis for denying benefits to the same-sex spouses of [Federal Public Defender] employees while granting them to the opposite-sex spouses of FPD employees, I conclude that the application of [federal statutes] so as to reach that result is unconstitutional,” Reinhardt wrote in an order to the U.S. Courts administration to submit Levenson’s benefits election form. The ruling was issued Monday and published Wednesday.

“The denial of federal benefits to same-sex spouses cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage or a desire to deprive same-sex spouses of benefits available to other spouses in order to discourage them from exercising a legal right afforded them by a state,” Reinhardt wrote.

Neither Reinhardt’s ruling nor one in a similar case involving a 9th Circuit employee issued by appeals court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski establishes precedent that would have to be followed by courts hearing other challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act or the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act, which seek to deny federal benefits to same-sex spouses.

Reinhardt and Kozinski handled the respective complaints from Levenson and from 9th Circuit staff lawyer Karen Golinski in their capacity as dispute resolution officials within the federal judiciary, whose employees are prohibited from suing in federal court. Other federal employees denied benefits for same-sex spouses could sue under Title VII and other anti-discrimination statutes.

With same-sex marriage legal or recognized in only a handful of states and on hold in California since the passage of Proposition 8 in November, the number of cases similar to Levenson’s is probably small. Reinhardt said he didn’t know whether similar appeals had been raised by federal employees elsewhere in the judicial system. Still, legal scholars see Reinhardt’s reading of the Defense of Marriage Act as a bellwether on the constitutionality of that law and potentially others that seek to discourage or discriminate against homosexual partnerships.

“I think that this is a very important case in terms of the application of the Constitution to sexual orientation discrimination, especially with regard to partners,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC  Irvine law school.

While noting that Reinhardt’s ruling doesn’t directly affect the issue of gay marriage, Chemerinsky said he considered it “a key case toward creating a constitutional right for benefits for same-sex partners.”

Levenson, who married Sears on July 12 during last year’s five-month window when gay marriage was legal in California, applied for spousal benefits three days later but was denied by the 9th Circuit Executive Office on grounds that the Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act prohibit extending benefits to same-sex spouses.

Levenson appealed to the 9th Circuit’s Standing Committee on Federal Public Defenders, which Reinhardt chairs, with the argument that his office’s dispute resolution plan expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by the Republican-controlled Congress 13 years ago and signed into law by President Clinton. The act identified three objectives: defending and nurturing the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage; defending traditional notions of morality; and preserving scarce government resources.

In his 15-page ruling, Reinhardt debunked the first two objectives, stating that “gay people will not be encouraged to enter into marriages with members of the opposite sex by the government’s denial of benefits to same-sex spouses.” On the cost-saving objective, Reinhardt deemed the potential savings from discriminating against gays “insignificant” and “founded upon a prohibited or arbitrary ground.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/02/gay-marriage.html








This is really long.  Do you have the cliff notes?     Are the Gays winning?  ???


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on February 06, 2009, 09:58:13 AM

This is really long.  Do you have the cliff notes?     Are the Gays winning?  ???

That is typical length for a newspaper article.  Read a book lately?  They are even longer?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on February 06, 2009, 01:10:42 PM
Federal judge rules denial of health coverage to same-sex spouse unconstitutional
February 5, 2009

A federal judge has deemed unconstitutional the government’s denial of healthcare coverage and other benefits to the same-sex spouse of a Los Angeles public defender, calling into question the validity of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt said the federal government’s refusal to grant spousal benefits to Tony Sears, the husband of deputy federal public defender Brad Levenson, amounted to unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.

“Because there is no rational basis for denying benefits to the same-sex spouses of [Federal Public Defender] employees while granting them to the opposite-sex spouses of FPD employees, I conclude that the application of [federal statutes] so as to reach that result is unconstitutional,” Reinhardt wrote in an order to the U.S. Courts administration to submit Levenson’s benefits election form. The ruling was issued Monday and published Wednesday.

“The denial of federal benefits to same-sex spouses cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage or a desire to deprive same-sex spouses of benefits available to other spouses in order to discourage them from exercising a legal right afforded them by a state,” Reinhardt wrote.

Neither Reinhardt’s ruling nor one in a similar case involving a 9th Circuit employee issued by appeals court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski establishes precedent that would have to be followed by courts hearing other challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act or the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act, which seek to deny federal benefits to same-sex spouses.

Reinhardt and Kozinski handled the respective complaints from Levenson and from 9th Circuit staff lawyer Karen Golinski in their capacity as dispute resolution officials within the federal judiciary, whose employees are prohibited from suing in federal court. Other federal employees denied benefits for same-sex spouses could sue under Title VII and other anti-discrimination statutes.

With same-sex marriage legal or recognized in only a handful of states and on hold in California since the passage of Proposition 8 in November, the number of cases similar to Levenson’s is probably small. Reinhardt said he didn’t know whether similar appeals had been raised by federal employees elsewhere in the judicial system. Still, legal scholars see Reinhardt’s reading of the Defense of Marriage Act as a bellwether on the constitutionality of that law and potentially others that seek to discourage or discriminate against homosexual partnerships.

“I think that this is a very important case in terms of the application of the Constitution to sexual orientation discrimination, especially with regard to partners,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC  Irvine law school.

While noting that Reinhardt’s ruling doesn’t directly affect the issue of gay marriage, Chemerinsky said he considered it “a key case toward creating a constitutional right for benefits for same-sex partners.”

Levenson, who married Sears on July 12 during last year’s five-month window when gay marriage was legal in California, applied for spousal benefits three days later but was denied by the 9th Circuit Executive Office on grounds that the Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act prohibit extending benefits to same-sex spouses.

Levenson appealed to the 9th Circuit’s Standing Committee on Federal Public Defenders, which Reinhardt chairs, with the argument that his office’s dispute resolution plan expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by the Republican-controlled Congress 13 years ago and signed into law by President Clinton. The act identified three objectives: defending and nurturing the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage; defending traditional notions of morality; and preserving scarce government resources.

In his 15-page ruling, Reinhardt debunked the first two objectives, stating that “gay people will not be encouraged to enter into marriages with members of the opposite sex by the government’s denial of benefits to same-sex spouses.” On the cost-saving objective, Reinhardt deemed the potential savings from discriminating against gays “insignificant” and “founded upon a prohibited or arbitrary ground.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/02/gay-marriage.html


AHHHH!!! The 9th Circus....ahem....Circui t Court, only the one that's had MORE DECISIONS REVERSED (by far) than any other court in the country, is looking to add to its collection.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: War-Horse on February 06, 2009, 07:50:36 PM
That is typical length for a newspaper article.  Read a book lately?  They are even longer?


I guess im not that interested.     Yes or No  Are the gays winning?? :'(


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on April 03, 2009, 07:01:50 AM

I guess im not that interested.     Yes or No  Are the gays winning?? :'(

You're not that interested... remember?  Or are you...  8)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on April 03, 2009, 07:03:58 AM
Iowa court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional
By AMY LORENTZEN, Associated Press Writer
Friday, April 3, 2009

Des Moines, Iowa (AP) --

The Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling Friday finding that the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making Iowa the third state where gay marriage is legal.

In its decision, the court upheld a 2007 district court judge's ruling that the law violates the state constitution. It strikes the language from Iowa code limiting marriage to only between a man a woman.

"The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa constitution must be declared void even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion," said a summary of the ruling issued by the court.

The ruling set off celebration among the state's gay-marriage proponents.

"Iowa is about justice, and that's what happened here today," said Laura Fefchak, who was hosting a verdict party in the Des Moines suburb of Urbandale with partner of 13 years, Nancy Robinson.

Robinson added: "To tell the truth, I didn't think I'd see this day."

Richard Socarides, an attorney and former senior adviser on gay rights to President Clinton, said the ruling carries extra significance coming from Iowa.

"It's a big win because, coming from Iowa, it represents the mainstreaming of gay marriage. And it shows that despite attempts stop gay marriage through right wing ballot initiatives, like in California, the courts will continue to support the case for equal rights for gays," he said.

Court rules dictate that the decision will take about 21 days to be considered final, and a request for a rehearing could be filed within that period. That means it will be at least several weeks before gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses.

But Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said the county attorney's office will not ask for a rehearing, meaning the court's decision should take effect after that three-week period.

"Our Supreme Court has decided it, and they make the decision as to what the law is and we follow Supreme Court decisions," Sarcone said. "This is not a personal thing. We have an obligation to the law to defend the recorder, and that's what we do."

The case had been working its way through Iowa's court system since 2005 when Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian Iowa couples who were denied marriage licenses. Some of their children are also listed as plaintiffs.

The suit named then-Polk County recorder and registrar Timothy Brien.

The state Supreme Court's ruling upheld an August 2007 decision by Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson, who found that a state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the state's constitutional rights of equal protection.

The Polk County attorney's office, arguing on behalf of Brien, claimed that Hanson's ruling violates the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.

Lambda Legal scheduled a news conference for early Friday to comment on the ruling. A request for comment from the Polk County attorney's office wasn't immediately returned.

Around the nation, only Massachusetts and Connecticut permit same-sex marriage. California, which briefly allowed gay marriage before a voter initiative in November repealed it, allows domestic partnerships.

New Jersey, New Hampshire and Vermont also offer civil unions, which provide many of the same rights that come with marriage. New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, and legislators there and in New Jersey are weighing whether to offer marriage. A bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Vermont has cleared the Legislature but may be vetoed by the governor.

The ruling in Iowa's same-sex marriage case came more quickly than many observers had anticipated, with some speculating after oral arguments that it could take a year or more for a decision.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on April 03, 2009, 09:51:39 AM
Iowa court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional
By AMY LORENTZEN, Associated Press Writer
Friday, April 3, 2009

Des Moines, Iowa (AP) --

The Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling Friday finding that the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making Iowa the third state where gay marriage is legal.

In its decision, the court upheld a 2007 district court judge's ruling that the law violates the state constitution. It strikes the language from Iowa code limiting marriage to only between a man a woman.

"The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa constitution must be declared void even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion," said a summary of the ruling issued by the court.

The ruling set off celebration among the state's gay-marriage proponents.

"Iowa is about justice, and that's what happened here today," said Laura Fefchak, who was hosting a verdict party in the Des Moines suburb of Urbandale with partner of 13 years, Nancy Robinson.

Robinson added: "To tell the truth, I didn't think I'd see this day."

Richard Socarides, an attorney and former senior adviser on gay rights to President Clinton, said the ruling carries extra significance coming from Iowa.

"It's a big win because, coming from Iowa, it represents the mainstreaming of gay marriage. And it shows that despite attempts stop gay marriage through right wing ballot initiatives, like in California, the courts will continue to support the case for equal rights for gays," he said.

Court rules dictate that the decision will take about 21 days to be considered final, and a request for a rehearing could be filed within that period. That means it will be at least several weeks before gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses.

But Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said the county attorney's office will not ask for a rehearing, meaning the court's decision should take effect after that three-week period.

"Our Supreme Court has decided it, and they make the decision as to what the law is and we follow Supreme Court decisions," Sarcone said. "This is not a personal thing. We have an obligation to the law to defend the recorder, and that's what we do."

The case had been working its way through Iowa's court system since 2005 when Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian Iowa couples who were denied marriage licenses. Some of their children are also listed as plaintiffs.

The suit named then-Polk County recorder and registrar Timothy Brien.

The state Supreme Court's ruling upheld an August 2007 decision by Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson, who found that a state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the state's constitutional rights of equal protection.

The Polk County attorney's office, arguing on behalf of Brien, claimed that Hanson's ruling violates the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.

Lambda Legal scheduled a news conference for early Friday to comment on the ruling. A request for comment from the Polk County attorney's office wasn't immediately returned.

Around the nation, only Massachusetts and Connecticut permit same-sex marriage. California, which briefly allowed gay marriage before a voter initiative in November repealed it, allows domestic partnerships.

New Jersey, New Hampshire and Vermont also offer civil unions, which provide many of the same rights that come with marriage. New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, and legislators there and in New Jersey are weighing whether to offer marriage. A bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Vermont has cleared the Legislature but may be vetoed by the governor.

The ruling in Iowa's same-sex marriage case came more quickly than many observers had anticipated, with some speculating after oral arguments that it could take a year or more for a decision.

I'd hardly call yet another court-ordered edict, regard gay "marriage" a mainstreaming of the issue.

It appears that the pattern is much the same. Where gay "marriage" supporters have their success is in liberal/Democrat-controlled governments in which there's political red tape to get an amendment to the people for their vote.

If they want to see, if this ruling "repsents the mainstreaming" of gay "marriage", take it to the ballot and let the people have their say on the matter.

Now, if history repeats itself, this ruling in Iowa becomes a wake-up call to those states who still foolishly think that their marriage laws are enough to stop their states’ courts from imposing gay “marriage” within their borders.

So, at least three states should come up with marriage amendments and pass them, clearly defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on April 03, 2009, 09:54:17 AM
I'd hardly call yet another court-ordered edict, regard gay "marriage" a mainstreaming of the issue.

It appears that the pattern is much the same. Where gay "marriage" supporters have their success is in liberal/Democrat-controlled governments in which there's political red tape to get an amendment to the people for their vote.

If they want to see, if this ruling "repsents the mainstreaming" of gay "marriage", take it to the ballot and let the people have their say on the matter.



Who cares what other people want to do with their lives!? Why do you care?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on April 03, 2009, 10:09:49 AM
Who cares what other people want to do with their lives!? Why do you care?

Because, as has been shown in Massachusetts and in other places where gay “marriage” is legal (and even in some spots, where it’s not), the issue goes WAY beyond two homosexuals obtaining a license to mimic marriage.

In New Mexico, where "gay marriage" is not legal, a lesbian couple filed a complaint with the state's civil rights commission after a husband-and-wife-owned photography company refused to take pictures of their commitment ceremony. The husband and wife asserted that the ceremony violated their Christian beliefs, but the commission disagreed, ruling earlier this year that the company discriminated and ordering them to pay $6,600 in attorneys' fees.


In New Jersey, a lesbian couple filed a complaint with the state's civil rights office after officials with an oceanfront religious retreat center owned by members of the United Methodist Church refused to allow the two women to use a pavilion for a same-sex civil union ceremony. (Civil unions are legal in the state.) The state last year agreed with the couple and removed the tax-exempt status of the pavilion, located in Ocean Grove.


 http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=29197 (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=29197)

It’s about gay activists, imposing their lifestyle onto others (especially people of faith), while giving those people of faith, absolutely NO SAY in the matter, whatsoever. There was even a case in Sweden, where a pastor was thrown in jail, simply for stating that homosexuality was wrong. And, we’ve had near-cases of that happening right HERE in the USA.

The aforementioned scenarios doesn’t just affect the lives of the gay couples. If I (or any other person) can potentially be thrown in the slammer or slapped with over $6K in legal fees, for stating my belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, that goes WAY BEYOND simply "what other people do with their own lives". And cases like this are popping up left and right.

THAT is why I care.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on April 03, 2009, 10:15:44 AM
Because, as has been shown in Massachusetts and in other places where gay “marriage” is legal (and even in some spots, where it’s not), the issue goes WAY beyond two homosexuals obtaining a license to mimic marriage.

In New Mexico, where "gay marriage" is not legal, a lesbian couple filed a complaint with the state's civil rights commission after a husband-and-wife-owned photography company refused to take pictures of their commitment ceremony. The husband and wife asserted that the ceremony violated their Christian beliefs, but the commission disagreed, ruling earlier this year that the company discriminated and ordering them to pay $6,600 in attorneys' fees.


In New Jersey, a lesbian couple filed a complaint with the state's civil rights office after officials with an oceanfront religious retreat center owned by members of the United Methodist Church refused to allow the two women to use a pavilion for a same-sex civil union ceremony. (Civil unions are legal in the state.) The state last year agreed with the couple and removed the tax-exempt status of the pavilion, located in Ocean Grove.


 http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=29197 (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=29197)

It’s about gay activists, imposing their lifestyle onto others (especially people of faith), while giving those people of faith, absolutely NO SAY in the matter, whatsoever. There was even a case in Sweden, where a pastor was thrown in jail, simply for stating that homosexuality was wrong. And, we’ve had near-cases of that happening right HERE in the USA.

The aforementioned scenarios doesn’t just affect the lives of the gay couples. If I (or any other person) can potentially be thrown in the slammer for merely stating my belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, that goes WAY BEYOND simply "what other people do with their own lives". And cases like this are popping up left and right.

THAT is why I care.


Fair enough. Private institutions have the right to not take on certain clients and what have you. As an atheist I think it is retarded to believe the crap you believe but my libertarian principles come first. People have a right to say whatever they want to say. I don't believe in curtailing freedom of speech. If religious wackos want to believe that gays are 'evil' let them, just as when idiots want to deny the Holocaust ever happened. People should have the right to say whatever stupid things they want to and if some privately owned business doesn't want to take certain customers, it's the perogative of the owners. That's how it works in a free society.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on April 03, 2009, 10:22:32 AM
Fair enough. Private institutions have the right to not take on certain clients and what have you. As an atheist I think it is retarded to believe the crap you believe but my libertarian principles come first. People have a right to say whatever they want to say. I don't believe in curtailing freedom of speech. If religious wackos want to believe that gays are 'evil' let them, just as when idiots want to deny the Holocaust ever happened. People should have the right to say whatever stupid things they want to and if some privately owned business doesn't want to take certain customers, it's the perogative of the owners. That's how it works in a free society.

PRECISELY!!!!

If you were to be chucked in jail for expressing your belief that there is no God, or forced to let people have a Bible study in your private pavillion (or other place of business) else be hammered with thousands of dollars (or Euros, in your case) in legal fees, you'd know exactly why this is of such concern.

As Liberty Cousel head, Matt Staver puts it, "Whenever you have same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions, you end up having a clash between the same-sex agenda and freedom of religion. The two are not compatible, because the same-sex agenda seeks to force by law acceptance of its view, and that will inevitably collide with Christian values."

Even if you DON'T believe in God or any other deity yet believe that gay "marriage" is wrong (Yes, there are people who fit that description), you could face the same hostile treatment.




Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on April 03, 2009, 10:25:59 AM
PRECISELY!!!!

If you were to be chucked in jail for expressing your belief that there is no God, or forced to let people have a Bible study in your private pavillion (or other place of business) else be hammered with thousands of dollars (or Euros, in your case) in legal fees, you'd know exactly why this is of such concern.

As Liberty Cousel head, Matt Staver puts it, "Whenever you have same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions, you end up having a clash between the same-sex agenda and freedom of religion. The two are not compatible, because the same-sex agenda seeks to force by law acceptance of its view, and that will inevitably collide with Christian values."

Even if you DON'T believe in God or any other deity yet believe that gay "marriage" is wrong (Yes, there are people who fit that description), you could face the same hostile treatment.




Well, it is a pretty tricky question. Back in the earlier part of the 20th century, businesses and restaurants often refused black clients; where does one draw the line?  ;)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on April 03, 2009, 10:44:44 AM
Well, it is a pretty tricky question. Back in the earlier part of the 20th century, businesses and restaurants often refused black clients; where does one draw the line?  ;)

One draws the line, when the issue becomes a constitutional breach. Over 36 years ago, the US Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to a Minnesota case (Baker v. Nelson) in which the MN court ruled that marriage laws, defining the institution as a union between a man and a woman, did not violate the 14th amendment. Two gay activists tried to use the Loving v. Virginia case (which eradicated the remaining laws preventing whites from marrying non-whites) to legalize gay "marriage" then.

When the gay activists tried to appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court, the appeal was dropped on its merits, for want of a substantial federal question. In other words, it effectively agreed with Minnesota's court and thus was binding on all lower courts in the country.

That's why, when courts ruled that traditional marriage laws are "unconstitutional" (from a state perspective), the people can pass amendments to override their state courts, as most recently happened in California.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on April 03, 2009, 10:48:06 AM
One draws the line, when the issue becomes a constitutional breach. Over 36 years ago, the US Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to a Minnesota case (Baker v. Nelson) in which the MN court ruled that marriage laws, defining the institution as a union between a man and a woman, did not violate the 14th amendment. Two gay activists tried to use the Loving v. Virginia case (which eradicated the remaining laws preventing whites from marrying non-whites) to legalize gay "marriage" then.

When the gay activists tried to appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court, the appeal was dropped on its merits, for want of a substantial federal question. In other words, it effectively agreed with Minnesota's court and thus was binding on all lower courts in the country.

That's why, when courts ruled that traditional marriage laws are "unconstitutional" (from a state perspective), the people can pass amendments to override their state courts, as most recently happened in California.



You hate those 'fags', don't you? ;)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on April 07, 2009, 11:25:06 AM
Vermont Legislature Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage
By Keith B. Richburg, Washington Post Staff Writer
 
NEW YORK, April 7 -- Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to recognize gay marriage, and the D.C. Council voted to recognize same-sex unions performed in other states. The two actions give same-sex marriage proponents new momentum, following a similar victory last week in Iowa's Supreme Court.

"I think we're going to look back at this week as a moment when our entire country turned a corner," said Jennifer C. Pizer, the national marriage project director for the advocacy group Lambda Legal. "Each time there's an important step forward, it makes it easier for others to follow."

The issue is also advancing in New Hampshire, where it has passed the state House and is awaiting action by the Senate, as well as in Maine and New Jersey, which are debating same-sex marriage legislation.

New Jersey, which now allows civil unions for gay couples, is a particular prize for advocates because of its large size, and they are hoping for action this year after a commission in December recommended making marriage laws gender-neutral. Gov. Jon S. Corzine has said he would sign a same-sex marriage bill.

New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states, and Gov. David Paterson has said he supports full marriage rights for same-sex couples. And sometime before early June, the California Supreme Court must decide whether Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the Golden State about five months after it became legal, was a valid use of the referendum power.

The action Tuesday in Vermont came swiftly, surprising even some of the proponents of gay marriage who were still celebrating their victory last Friday, when the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriages could go ahead.

The two houses of Vermont's legislature voted last week for a same-sex marriage bill -- four votes short of a veto-overriding majority -- and Gov. Jim Douglas (R) vetoed it Monday. But Tuesday, several house members who voted against it last week switched sides to support the override, making gay marriage law.

The final vote was 100 to 49 to override the governor's veto. The initial vote last week was 94 to 52. Vermont has no mechanism for a citizen referendum to override the law.

"All of us are thrilled at the pace," said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Massachusetts-based Family Equality Council, which advocates for gay rights. "This is a great day."

With the Vermont vote, and the D.C. Council action, Chrisler said, "I think this is a very significant indicator of how the tide is turning in this country and folks recognize that this is about love and commitment." She added, "The arc of history is long but bends towards justice."

The Vermont vote Tuesday was particularly symbolic for activists because this is the state that nine years ago became the first to legalize civil unions between same-sex couples. Seen at the time as revolutionary, Vermont has in recent years seen other states surpass it by legalizing same-sex marriage outright.

"Vermont opened an important back door," Pizer said. "Now it has invited gay people to enter through the front door of marriage."

Some 43 U.S. states have laws prohibiting gay marriages -- 29 of those with constitutional amendments specifically defining marriage as between a man and a woman -- but many of those are being subjected to court challenge. Gay activists also hope to challenge the 1996 federal "Defense of Marriage Act" that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Domestic partnerships already are legal in the nation's capital, and gay couples married in other states are recognized as domestic partners when they move the city.

Tuesday's legislation in Washington was billed as an important milestone in gay rights, because it explicitly recognizes married couples from other states.

The initial council vote was 12-0. The unanimous vote sets the stage for future debate on legalizing same-sex marriage in the District -- and a clash with Congress, which approves the city's laws under Home Rule. The council is expected to take a final vote on the legislation next month.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on April 10, 2009, 09:02:54 AM
Liberty and Justice  ;D


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on April 11, 2009, 01:00:35 PM
Vermont Legislature Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage
By Keith B. Richburg, Washington Post Staff Writer
 
NEW YORK, April 7 -- Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to recognize gay marriage, and the D.C. Council voted to recognize same-sex unions performed in other states. The two actions give same-sex marriage proponents new momentum, following a similar victory last week in Iowa's Supreme Court.

"I think we're going to look back at this week as a moment when our entire country turned a corner," said Jennifer C. Pizer, the national marriage project director for the advocacy group Lambda Legal. "Each time there's an important step forward, it makes it easier for others to follow."

The issue is also advancing in New Hampshire, where it has passed the state House and is awaiting action by the Senate, as well as in Maine and New Jersey, which are debating same-sex marriage legislation.

New Jersey, which now allows civil unions for gay couples, is a particular prize for advocates because of its large size, and they are hoping for action this year after a commission in December recommended making marriage laws gender-neutral. Gov. Jon S. Corzine has said he would sign a same-sex marriage bill.

New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states, and Gov. David Paterson has said he supports full marriage rights for same-sex couples. And sometime before early June, the California Supreme Court must decide whether Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the Golden State about five months after it became legal, was a valid use of the referendum power.

The action Tuesday in Vermont came swiftly, surprising even some of the proponents of gay marriage who were still celebrating their victory last Friday, when the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriages could go ahead.

The two houses of Vermont's legislature voted last week for a same-sex marriage bill -- four votes short of a veto-overriding majority -- and Gov. Jim Douglas (R) vetoed it Monday. But Tuesday, several house members who voted against it last week switched sides to support the override, making gay marriage law.

The final vote was 100 to 49 to override the governor's veto. The initial vote last week was 94 to 52. Vermont has no mechanism for a citizen referendum to override the law.

"All of us are thrilled at the pace," said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Massachusetts-based Family Equality Council, which advocates for gay rights. "This is a great day."

With the Vermont vote, and the D.C. Council action, Chrisler said, "I think this is a very significant indicator of how the tide is turning in this country and folks recognize that this is about love and commitment." She added, "The arc of history is long but bends towards justice."

The Vermont vote Tuesday was particularly symbolic for activists because this is the state that nine years ago became the first to legalize civil unions between same-sex couples. Seen at the time as revolutionary, Vermont has in recent years seen other states surpass it by legalizing same-sex marriage outright.

"Vermont opened an important back door," Pizer said. "Now it has invited gay people to enter through the front door of marriage."

Some 43 U.S. states have laws prohibiting gay marriages -- 29 of those with constitutional amendments specifically defining marriage as between a man and a woman -- but many of those are being subjected to court challenge. Gay activists also hope to challenge the 1996 federal "Defense of Marriage Act" that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Domestic partnerships already are legal in the nation's capital, and gay couples married in other states are recognized as domestic partners when they move the city.

Tuesday's legislation in Washington was billed as an important milestone in gay rights, because it explicitly recognizes married couples from other states.

The initial council vote was 12-0. The unanimous vote sets the stage for future debate on legalizing same-sex marriage in the District -- and a clash with Congress, which approves the city's laws under Home Rule. The council is expected to take a final vote on the legislation next month.

I believe the count is 30, as far as states with marriage amendments go. It appears this guy is ignoring Prop. 8 in California, simply because of the ongoing court case. But, from all preliminary reports, it appears that Prop. 8 will stand (barring some super-prosecutor, saving the day for the plaintiffs).

I also find the claim about the country turning the corner, with regards to gay "marriage", is rather spurious as best.

All of the states that have legalized gay "marriage" have two things in common:

1) They have liberal/far-left Legislature and/or courts.

2) They are in states, in which getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot requires going through political red tape.

A Time magainze article indicated that gay "marriage" proponents should temper their expectations, because it's still vastly unpopular within the country. It further indicated that, even with Iowa's unanimous court decision, the ruling would be REVERSED, if the people were able to vote on it, any time soon.

As we've seen in California, a mere six months after the court struck down Prop. 22 (and, in spite of 18,000 licenses being given to gay couples), the people voted for Prop. 8, clearly defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

So, claiming that the entire country has turned the corner on gay "marriage", when one simple amendment in any of those states would overturn the Legislature (or Court) ruling, isn't quite accurate.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on April 11, 2009, 03:12:12 PM
I believe the count is 30, as far as states with marriage amendments go. It appears this guy is ignoring Prop. 8 in California, simply because of the ongoing court case. But, from all preliminary reports, it appears that Prop. 8 will stand (barring some super-prosecutor, saving the day for the plaintiffs).

I also find the claim about the country turning the corner, with regards to gay "marriage", is rather spurious as best.

All of the states that have legalized gay "marriage" have two things in common:

1) They have liberal/far-left Legislature and/or courts.

2) They are in states, in which getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot requires going through political red tape.

A Time magainze article indicated that gay "marriage" proponents should temper their expectations, because it's still vastly unpopular within the country. It further indicated that, even with Iowa's unanimous court decision, the ruling would be REVERSED, if the people were able to vote on it, any time soon.

As we've seen in California, a mere six months after the court struck down Prop. 22 (and, in spite of 18,000 licenses being given to gay couples), the people voted for Prop. 8, clearly defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

So, claiming that the entire country has turned the corner on gay "marriage", when one simple amendment in any of those states would overturn the Legislature (or Court) ruling, isn't quite accurate.



I agree that the country hasn't turned the corner yet, but it's only a matter of time.  We also have some issues the supreme court and/or Congress will have to decide, e.g., when a couple that gets married in Massachusetts tries to get their marriage recognized in one of the 30+ states that prohibit homosexual marriage, will the DOMA be deemed Constitutional?

And given that this entire movement includes gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people (and "gender identity" in Hawaii), what's next on the marriage front?  A bisexual who wants to marry a man and a woman?   


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on April 11, 2009, 04:34:39 PM
I agree that the country hasn't turned the corner yet, but it's only a matter of time.  We also have some issues the supreme court and/or Congress will have to decide, e.g., when a couple that gets married in Massachusetts tries to get their marriage recognized in one of the 30+ states that prohibit homosexual marriage, will the DOMA be deemed Constitutional?

That's been tried already. A lesbian couple "married" in Mass. tried to move to Florida and have the Sunshine State recognize it. A federal judge said nope. The state court didn't budge (and this was before Florida passed its amendment last year).

Plus, you have the issue, regarding "Baker vs. Nelson" back in 1972.

As mentioned earlier, the Federal Supreme Court agreed with the lower (MN) court that defining marriage as a 1M-1W union violates no constitutional amendments (It dismissed the appeal of two gay activists on its merits). States can define marriage as they see fit.

Some people would have you believe that gay "marriage" is an inevitable. But, activists on both sides of the equation would beg to differ. Again, the states where it's almost impossible to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot are where gay "marriage" is having the most success.








Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on April 11, 2009, 04:53:07 PM
That's been tried already. A lesbian couple "married" in Mass. tried to move to Florida and have the Sunshine State recognize it. A federal judge said nope. The state court didn't budge (and this was before Florida passed its amendment last year).

Plus, you have the issue, regarding "Baker vs. Nelson" back in 1972.

As mentioned earlier, the Federal Supreme Court agreed with the lower (MN) court that defining marriage as a 1M-1W union violates no constitutional amendments (It dismissed the appeal of two gay activists on its merits). States can define marriage as they see fit.

Some people would have you believe that gay "marriage" is an inevitable. But, activists on both sides of the equation would beg to differ. Again, the states where it's almost impossible to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot are where gay "marriage" is having the most success.


What happened with the Flordia case?  Is it being appealed? 

I'm one who does think it's inevitable.  The entire discourse is changing.  I know a guy here who was compared to Hitler because he didn't support the civil unions bill.   :-\  In many circles it is almost impossible to oppose these alternative lifestyle choices without being labeled a bigot.

Also, it is much more difficult to argue that we should prevent homosexual, bisexual et al. marriage when those same groups are given the same status as our traditionally protected groups (race, religion, national origin, etc.).  They are a protected class in our state law here.  Obama will assuredly sign federal legislation doing the same thing if it gets to his desk.  Marriage is the next logical step.  It might take a while, but I really see it coming down the pike.     


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on April 11, 2009, 05:27:39 PM
What happened with the Flordia case?  Is it being appealed? 

NOPE!! FL Supreme Court dismissed it and it's gone no further than that.


I'm one who does think it's inevitable.  The entire discourse is changing.  I know a guy here who was compared to Hitler because he didn't support the civil unions bill.   :-\  In many circles it is almost impossible to oppose these alternative lifestyle choices without being labeled a bigot.

Also, it is much more difficult to argue that we should prevent homosexual, bisexual et al. marriage when those same groups are given the same status as our traditionally protected groups (race, religion, national origin, etc.).  They are a protected class in our state law here.  Obama will assuredly sign federal legislation doing the same thing if it gets to his desk.  Marriage is the next logical step.  It might take a while, but I really see it coming down the pike.     

It could happen, if people who believe in traditional marriage get bullied into thinking they can't stop it. I don't fear any labels put on me, by gay "marriage" supporters. If the folks in CA, one of the most liberal states in this country, can vote for traditional marriage, that tells me that this is hardly a settled issue.

As for Obama, he has danced around this issue numerous times. How he actually feels depends on his audience.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on April 11, 2009, 05:52:02 PM
NOPE!! FL Supreme Court dismissed it and it's gone no further than that.

It could happen, if people who believe in traditional marriage get bullied into thinking they can't stop it. I don't fear any labels put on me, by gay "marriage" supporters. If the folks in CA, one of the most liberal states in this country, can vote for traditional marriage, that tells me that this is hardly a settled issue.

As for Obama, he has danced around this issue numerous times. How he actually feels depends on his audience.

I wasn't very clear, but regarding Obama I was referring to the legislation that will extend things like Title VII to GLBT people.  I forget the name of the legislation, but it's not a marriage bill.  If that is done, then it is harder to argue that those folks should be denied any "rights." 

But you're right about whether it's settled today.  If anything, the public has spoken decisively about preserving traditional marriage, including in Oregon where activists spent a lot of money and still lost. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tu_holmes on April 12, 2009, 08:19:16 AM
I wasn't very clear, but regarding Obama I was referring to the legislation that will extend things like Title VII to GLBT people.  I forget the name of the legislation, but it's not a marriage bill.  If that is done, then it is harder to argue that those folks should be denied any "rights." 

But you're right about whether it's settled today.  If anything, the public has spoken decisively about preserving traditional marriage, including in Oregon where activists spent a lot of money and still lost. 

Does that mean that the public has spoken about abortion? Are you willing to admit abortion is a done deal?

Pro-Life measures just do not get passed anymore.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on April 12, 2009, 11:48:17 AM
Does that mean that the public has spoken about abortion? Are you willing to admit abortion is a done deal?

Pro-Life measures just do not get passed anymore.

I already addressed this:  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=269708.25

You are welcome to go back to that thread and continue the discussion, or bury your head in the sand like you did when I presented you with the facts.   :)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on April 12, 2009, 11:53:58 AM
Does that mean that the public has spoken about abortion? Are you willing to admit abortion is a done deal?

Pro-Life measures just do not get passed anymore.

If you don't believe in abortion don't have one.
If you don't believe in gay marriage don't marry someone of the same sex.  ;)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tu_holmes on April 12, 2009, 11:56:57 AM
I already addressed this:  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=269708.25

You are welcome to go back to that thread and continue the discussion, or bury your head in the sand like you did when I presented you with the facts.   :)

You didn't present any facts Beach... you're using the same argument I used here... but it is ok for you here, but not abortion.

As a matter of fact, you should go back and look at the thread... I presented you with actual fact and YOU buried your head.

What's a fact?  Three initiatives failed so that establishes that the majority of Americans are pro choice?  Sorry.  Not buying.

See... That's called "ignoring".


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on April 12, 2009, 11:59:51 AM
You didn't present any facts Beach... you're using the same argument I used here... but it is ok for you here, but not abortion.

As a matter of fact, you should go back and look at the thread... I presented you with actual fact and YOU buried your head.

See... That's called "ignoring".

lol.  Whatever dude.  Go back and read the thread, including the excerpts and links I posted. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tu_holmes on April 12, 2009, 12:04:13 PM
lol.  Whatever dude.  Go back and read the thread, including the excerpts and links I posted. 

Again... my fact is recent and relevant... 3 pro-life measures 2 of them in "red states"... None of them passed.

That's a fact... Sorry you don't like it.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on April 12, 2009, 06:41:44 PM
Again... my fact is recent and relevant... 3 pro-life measures 2 of them in "red states"... None of them passed.

That's a fact... Sorry you don't like it.

Quote
Here is something that took me about a minute to find.  What's obvious, if you actually read it, is states have placed a plethora of restrictions on abortion, including banning abortion after viability.   


GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE
 
An Overview of Abortion Laws
STATE POLICIES IN BRIEF
As of 
MARCH 1, 2009
 
 
BACKGROUND:  Since the Supreme Court handed down its 1973 decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, states
have constructed a lattice work of abortion law, codifying, regulating and limiting whether, when and under what
circumstances a woman may obtain an abortion.  The following table highlights the major provisions of these state laws. 
More detailed information can be found by selecting the table column headings in blue.  Except where noted, the laws
are in effect, although they may not always be enforced.
 
 
HIGHLIGHTS:
 Physician and Hospital Requirements: 38 states require an abortion to be performed by a licensed physician. 19
states require an abortion to be performed in a hospital after a specified point in the pregnancy, and 18 states require
the involvement of a second physician after a specified point.
 
Gestational Limits:  36 states prohibit abortions, generally except when necessary to protect the woman’s life or
health, after a specified point in pregnancy, most often fetal viability. 

 
“Partial-Birth” Abortion: 15 states have laws in effect that prohibit “partial-birth” abortion. 4 of these laws apply
only to postviability abortions.

 
 Public Funding:  17 states use their own funds to pay for all or most medically necessary abortions for Medicaid
enrollees in the state. 32 states and the District of Columbia prohibit the use of state funds except in those cases when
federal funds are available: where the woman’s life is in danger or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.  In
defiance of federal requirements, South Dakota limits funding to cases of life endangerment only.
 

 Coverage by Private Insurance:  4 states restrict coverage of abortion in private insurance plans to cases in which the
woman’s life would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term.
Additional abortion coverage is permitted
only if the woman purchases it at her own expense.
 
 Refusal:  46 states allow individual health care providers to refuse to participate in an abortion.  43 states allow
institutions to refuse to perform abortions, 16 of which limit refusal to private or religious institutions.

 
 State-Mandated Counseling:  17 states mandate that women be given counseling before an abortion that includes
information on at least one of the following: the purported link between abortion and breast cancer (6 states), the
ability of a fetus to feel pain (8 states), long-term mental health consequences for the woman (7 states) or
information on the availability of ultrasound (6 states).
 
 Waiting Periods:  24 states require a woman seeking an abortion to wait a specified period of time, usually 24 hours,
between when she receives counseling and the procedure is performed.  6 of these states have laws that effectively
require the woman make two separate trips to the clinic to obtain the procedure.
 
 Parental Involvement:  34 states require some type of parental involvement in a minor’s decision to have an abortion. 
22 states require one or both parents to consent to the procedure, while 10 require that one or both parents be notified
and 2 states require both parental consent and notification.


Quote
I also looked at the three bills/initiatives that failed in November:

California Prop 4:  parental notification
No - 6,111,260 - 52 percent
Yes - 5,599,878 - 48 percent

Colorado Amendment 48:  human life from moment of conception
No - 1,605,978 - 73 percent
Yes - 585,561 - 27 percent

South Dakota Initiative 11:  limit all abortions except for rape or health of mother
No - 206,488 - 55 percent
Yes - 167,536 - 45 percent

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/ballot.measures/

You cannot reasonably conclude that the California measure is part of a trend, when (a) it was narrowly defeated with well over 5 million people voting "yes" and (b) 34 states require some form of parental notification.  The trend is clearly in favor of parental notification. 

The Colorado amendment didn't attempt to ban or limit abortion, although that would have started the dominoes. 

South Dakota's initiative was narrowly defeated and was pretty broad. 

So, what I said is absolutely correct:    "I would be more convinced if it was part of a trend in which every single proposed law restricting abortion in any way was defeated at the ballot box.  That hasn't happened."


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: LurkerNoMore on April 12, 2009, 07:01:54 PM
If you don't believe in abortion don't have one.
If you don't believe in gay marriage don't marry someone of the same sex.  ;)

LOL!!

Didn't you know? Republicans like to keep their gay tops single and unmarried.  They would really hate to violate those Family Values they treasure so much by forcing another married man to commit adultery with them.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on April 14, 2009, 06:07:51 AM
Paterson Will Introduce Same-Sex Marriage Bill
By JEREMY W. PETERS

Gov. David A. Paterson will announce on Thursday plans to introduce legislation to legalize same-sex marriage, according to people with knowledge of the governor’s plans.

Mr. Paterson’s move, which he first signaled last week after Vermont became the fourth state to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed, reflects the governor’s desire to press the issue with lawmakers in Albany as other states move ahead with efforts to grant more civil rights to homosexuals.

The action in Vermont, where state legislators overrode Gov. Jim Douglas’s veto of a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, came less than a week after the Iowa Supreme Court granted same-sex couples the right to marry.

Mr. Paterson has said in recent days that the state legislature should move ahead now with the legislation regardless of whether it can muster enough votes. His reasoning, which some gay rights advocates have challenged, is that New York should make a statement that it is committed to treating same-sex couples the same way it treats couples of the opposite sex.

The announcement will take place at 10 a.m. on Thursday at Mr. Paterson’s office in Midtown Manhattan, said people briefed on the governor’s plans but who asked not to be identified because they did not want to upstage the governor.

Simply because Mr. Paterson is introducing a bill, however, does not mean that action in the legislature is imminent. It could take months – even longer – before the bill makes its way through the appropriate committees and onto the floor of the Senate and the Assembly.

“This is not a guarantee of anything,” said Assemblyman Micah Z. Kellner, a Democrat from the Upper East Side who noted that it took two months for legislation legalizing same-sex marriage to get through the Assembly in 2007 before it ultimately stalled. The bill never reached the Senate.

The legislation is likely to have an especially long road in the Senate, where more lawmakers oppose same-sex marriage than support it. Gay rights advocates are now actively seeking more senators – both Democrats and Republicans – to vote for the bill.

While Mr. Paterson has said he would like to see lawmakers “fight it out” and debate the bill on the floor of both houses even if it fails, Albany tradition dictates that the bill is likely to come to a vote only when it has enough support to pass. Senator Thomas K. Duane, a Democrat and the bill’s chief supporter in the Senate has said he opposes the governor’s notion of fast-tracking it. And the Senate majority leader, Malcolm A. Smith, has said he would bring the bill to the floor when it has enough support.

The same-sex bill Mr. Paterson plans to introduce is the same piece of legislation that former Gov. Eliot Spitzer introduced in 2007, said Assemblyman Daniel J. O’Donnell. The Assembly passed it 85-61, a wider margin than expected.

Mr. O’Donnell said there was some discussion among lawmakers, gay rights lobbyists and the governor’s office about whether the legislation should include any new language that would, for example, allow city clerks to refuse to marry same-sex couples. But Mr. O’Donnell said that the decision was made to leave the bill as is.

“Whether or not the bill should be amended is a political question, but it is a political question that would take more time than it’s worth to resolve. So we decided to leave it,” he said.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on April 14, 2009, 06:19:29 AM
Jeez, why can't we all just get along? ???


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on April 14, 2009, 06:39:25 AM
New York isn't very religions but we're beyond zealous when it comes to children's rights. Gay marriage will probably only have adverse effects on people stupid enough to adopt.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on April 14, 2009, 06:42:42 AM
New York isn't very religions but we're beyond zealous when it comes to children's rights. Gay marriage will probably only have adverse effects on people stupid enough to adopt.

How so? Who cares what other people want to do? They're not hurtin anyone.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on April 14, 2009, 07:13:11 AM
How so? Who cares what other people want to do? They're not hurtin anyone.

Only people on the fringes care.

I'm more or less curious how redefining marriage will affect the family unit. I divorce the mother typically becomes custodial parent and there is a relatively simple child support formula. Considering the divorce rate is about 50% (first time) and 75% (second time around) it's impossible that gay marriage cannot affect children in some way. I'm simply curious what the effect will be.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tu_holmes on April 14, 2009, 09:40:31 AM
No Beach... The trend is people being pro-choice... Even your own quotes prove so... You just refuse to see it.

Abortion based measures in 2008... 3 pro-choice wins.

It's ok... You're in denial.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on April 14, 2009, 11:21:52 AM
No Beach... The trend is people being pro-choice... Even your own quotes prove so... You just refuse to see it.

Abortion based measures in 2008... 3 pro-choice wins.

It's ok... You're in denial.

Yes tu.  Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tu_holmes on April 14, 2009, 02:20:08 PM
Yes tu.  Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. 

That's what one of my ex's used to say... Such a girl statement.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on April 14, 2009, 02:29:22 PM
That's what one of my ex's used to say... Such a girl statement.

Maybe that's why she's your ex.  :)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tu_holmes on April 14, 2009, 03:00:01 PM
Maybe that's why she's your ex.  :)

So you're not denying you act like a girl ???


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on April 14, 2009, 03:21:22 PM
So you're not denying you act like a girl ???

Are you denying that your ex broke up with you because you repeat the same nonsense over and and over again, regardless of what the facts actually show? 

(I'm actually responding to your toddler-like ad hominem comment by making one of my own.) 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tu_holmes on April 14, 2009, 03:37:11 PM
Are you denying that your ex broke up with you because you repeat the same nonsense over and and over again, regardless of what the facts actually show? 

(I'm actually responding to your toddler-like ad hominem comment by making one of my own.) 

Yes, I'm denying that...

(See how simple it is to say Beach is wrong?)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on April 17, 2009, 10:00:48 AM
Ex-McCain aide to call for gay marriage support

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Steve Schmidt, a key architect of John McCain's presidential campaign, is making his first public return to Washington a bold one.

Schmidt will use a speech Friday to Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, to urge conservative Republicans to drop their opposition to same-sex marriage, CNN has learned.

"There is a sound conservative argument to be made for same-sex marriage," Schmidt will say, according to speech excerpts obtained by CNN. "I believe conservatives, more than liberals, insist that rights come with responsibilities. No other exercise of one's liberty comes with greater responsibilities than marriage."

Schmidt makes both policy and political arguments for a Republican embrace of same-sex marriage.

On the policy front, Schmidt likens the fight for gay rights to civil rights and women's rights, and he admonishes conservatives who argue for the protection of the unborn as a God-given right, but against protections for same-sex couples.

"It cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is un American or threatens the rights of others," he says in the speech. "On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence — liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"That, I believe, gives the argument of same sex marriage proponents its moral force," Schmidt will say.

Politically, he will say that becoming more open and accepting is critical to reversing an alarming trend for Republicans — a shrinking coalition. He will note that Republicans should be especially concerned that McCain got crushed by Barack Obama among voters under 30, who are generally more accepting of gay couples and at odds with the GOP.

"Some Republicans believe the period of self-examination within the party necessitated by the loss of our majority status is mostly a question of whether the party should become more moderate or conservative. I think that's a false choice. We need to grow our coalition, but as I said, that's hard to do if we lose some votes while gaining others," says Schmidt.

Schmidt had previously expressed his personal support for gay marriage. Last month, he told the Washington Blade newspaper that he is in favor of legalizing it and that he voted against California's Proposition 8, which overturned a court ruling that had legalized the unions in that state.

In making the case, Schmidt is putting himself at odds with the position of John McCain, whose 2008 campaign he effectively ran.

McCain rarely talked about same-sex marriage or other social issues, but when he did, he made clear he was in line with social conservatives in opposing same-sex marriage.

"Have no doubt about my commitment to the unique status and sanctity of marriage between man and woman," McCain said on the campaign trail.

McCain's daughter Meghan has become a vocal advocate in recent months for gay marriage, and is slated to participate in the Log Cabin Republican convention this weekend.

In his speech Friday, Schmidt will acknowledge that his is a "minority view" in the GOP, but will also say, "I'm confident American public opinion will continue to move on the question toward majority support, and sooner or later the Republican Party will catch up to it."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/16/ex-mccain-aide-to-call-for-gay-marriage-support/


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on April 19, 2009, 05:42:39 PM
Ex-McCain aide to call for gay marriage support

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Steve Schmidt, a key architect of John McCain's presidential campaign, is making his first public return to Washington a bold one.

Schmidt will use a speech Friday to Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, to urge conservative Republicans to drop their opposition to same-sex marriage, CNN has learned.

"There is a sound conservative argument to be made for same-sex marriage," Schmidt will say, according to speech excerpts obtained by CNN. "I believe conservatives, more than liberals, insist that rights come with responsibilities. No other exercise of one's liberty comes with greater responsibilities than marriage."

Schmidt makes both policy and political arguments for a Republican embrace of same-sex marriage.

On the policy front, Schmidt likens the fight for gay rights to civil rights and women's rights, and he admonishes conservatives who argue for the protection of the unborn as a God-given right, but against protections for same-sex couples.

"It cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is un American or threatens the rights of others," he says in the speech. "On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence — liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"That, I believe, gives the argument of same sex marriage proponents its moral force," Schmidt will say.

Politically, he will say that becoming more open and accepting is critical to reversing an alarming trend for Republicans — a shrinking coalition. He will note that Republicans should be especially concerned that McCain got crushed by Barack Obama among voters under 30, who are generally more accepting of gay couples and at odds with the GOP.

"Some Republicans believe the period of self-examination within the party necessitated by the loss of our majority status is mostly a question of whether the party should become more moderate or conservative. I think that's a false choice. We need to grow our coalition, but as I said, that's hard to do if we lose some votes while gaining others," says Schmidt.

Schmidt had previously expressed his personal support for gay marriage. Last month, he told the Washington Blade newspaper that he is in favor of legalizing it and that he voted against California's Proposition 8, which overturned a court ruling that had legalized the unions in that state.

In making the case, Schmidt is putting himself at odds with the position of John McCain, whose 2008 campaign he effectively ran.

McCain rarely talked about same-sex marriage or other social issues, but when he did, he made clear he was in line with social conservatives in opposing same-sex marriage.

"Have no doubt about my commitment to the unique status and sanctity of marriage between man and woman," McCain said on the campaign trail.

McCain's daughter Meghan has become a vocal advocate in recent months for gay marriage, and is slated to participate in the Log Cabin Republican convention this weekend.

In his speech Friday, Schmidt will acknowledge that his is a "minority view" in the GOP, but will also say, "I'm confident American public opinion will continue to move on the question toward majority support, and sooner or later the Republican Party will catch up to it."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/16/ex-mccain-aide-to-call-for-gay-marriage-support/


Oh, YES IT CAN be argued. Again, see the cases I listed from that article from Baptist Press, namely about the couple fined over $6K for refusing to perform a lesbian "commit ceremony" at their wedding chapel in NEW MEXICO (where gay "marriage" isn't even legal).

If the GOP switches their position on same-sex "marriage", they will lose their conservative base, without which they have NO CHANCE of winning. As stated before, they may not always win with that base; but they WILL NOT WIN without it.

The GOP's losses have virtually nothing to do with this issue. Look at the last two presidental elections. Obama won California HANDS DOWN; yet Prop. 8 still passed. In fact, the tipping point (much to gay activists' chagrin) was Obama's most-easily locked up demographic: black voters.

Florida flipped from "red" to "blue"; yet Amendment 2 passed in the Sunshine state.

Going back to 2004, several "blue" states that Kerry won with relative ease (i.e. Michigan, Oregon) passed marriage amendments as well.

Therefore, I see no connection between the GOP's accepting gay "marriage" and future political success.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tu_holmes on April 19, 2009, 06:09:43 PM
Oh, YES IT CAN be argued. Again, see the cases I listed from that article from Baptist Press, namely about the couple fined over $6K for refusing to perform a lesbian "commit ceremony" at their wedding chapel in NEW MEXICO (where gay "marriage" isn't even legal).

If the GOP switches their position on same-sex "marriage", they will lose their conservative base, without which they have NO CHANCE of winning. As stated before, they may not always win with that base; but they WILL NOT WIN without it.

The GOP's losses have virtually nothing to do with this issue. Look at the last two presidental elections. Obama won California HANDS DOWN; yet Prop. 8 still passed. In fact, the tipping point (much to gay activists' chagrin) was Obama's most-easily locked up demographic: black voters.

Florida flipped from "red" to "blue"; yet Amendment 2 passed in the Sunshine state.

Going back to 2004, several "blue" states that Kerry won with relative ease (i.e. Michigan, Oregon) passed marriage amendments as well.

Therefore, I see no connection between the GOP's accepting gay "marriage" and future political success.


So you think the Christian right wing will just stop voting all together?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on April 20, 2009, 03:46:31 AM
So you think the Christian right wing will just stop voting all together?

Hardly!!! My point, of course, was that gay "marriage" was hardly a factor in the GOP's loss and it has no bearing on its attempts to return to the winner's circle.

In fact, isn't this McCain aide speaking to the "Log Cabin Republicans" (i.e. gays who consisitently voted GOP, despite its backing of marriage amendments)?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on April 20, 2009, 03:50:45 AM
Hardly!!! My point, of course, was that gay "marriage" was hardly a factor in the GOP's loss and it has no bearing on its attempts to return to the winner's circle.

In fact, isn't this McCain aide speaking to the "Log Cabin Republicans" (i.e. gays who consisitently voted GOP, despite its backing of marriage amendments)?

So, what's evil about homosexuality?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tu_holmes on April 20, 2009, 08:09:27 AM
Hardly!!! My point, of course, was that gay "marriage" was hardly a factor in the GOP's loss and it has no bearing on its attempts to return to the winner's circle.

In fact, isn't this McCain aide speaking to the "Log Cabin Republicans" (i.e. gays who consisitently voted GOP, despite its backing of marriage amendments)?

I think the point is that they will always get the right wing vote... If they can get some of the gay or more liberal vote, then their party can potentially return to prominence.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on April 22, 2009, 12:47:07 PM
I think the point is that they will always get the right wing vote... If they can get some of the gay or more liberal vote, then their party can potentially return to prominence.


They already have "some of the gay vote" (i.e. the Log Cabin Republicans). What the GOP needs is to solidify the base and get more of them to vote. McCain had a scant handful of the social conservatives in his corner, until he picked Palin. Even then, when the big crowds were showing up, they were more for HER than for him.

The tandem of social and fiscal conservatism must be there, in order for the GOP to get it done. One without the other won't cut it.

One of the reasont the liberals are so enraged with "Christian right wing" is because they think they put Bush over the top in 2004, particularly with regards to the marriage amendments. Prior to 2004, only 4 states had constitutional amendments, defining marriage as a 1M-1W union. After 2004, it jumped to 17.

In any event, gay "marriage" has nothing to do with the equation. Even, in the "blue" states that Kerry had little trouble winning in '04, marriage amendments held in those states passed handily. In '06, when the GOP got bounced out of power, 7 state marriage amendments passed. And, of course, last year's election, with a decisive Obama win, amendments passed in three states: California ("blue"); Florida (flipped from "red" to "blue") and, Arizona ("red").



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on April 30, 2009, 05:10:44 PM
New Hampshire Senate Passes Gay Marriage Bill
By ABBY GOODNOUGH

CONCORD, N.H. — The New Hampshire Senate voted narrowly on Wednesday to legalize same-sex marriage, paving the way for the state to potentially become the fifth in the nation — and the third this month — to allow gay couples to wed.

The Democratic-controlled Senate voted 13 to 11 in favor of the bill, but only after a last-minute amendment strengthened language granting legal protections for religious groups and organizations that do not want to perform or help carry out same-sex marriages.

The House, which approved the marriage bill by a seven-vote margin last month, must vote on the Senate’s amended version. But supporters and opponents predicted that version would pass the House, which is more liberal and was more enthusiastic about same-sex marriage from the start.

It is unclear whether Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, will veto the bill or whether the new language will persuade him to endorse it. The bill probably cannot gain enough support in either house for an override, so its fate almost certainly rests with Mr. Lynch.

The governor has consistently opposed same-sex marriage, but he could also let the bill become law without his signature. Mr. Lynch did not reveal his intentions after the Senate’s vote but restated his belief that the state’s two-year-old civil-union law provides sufficient rights and protections to gay couples.

“To achieve further real progress,” he said in a statement, “the federal government would need to take action to recognize New Hampshire civil unions.”

The Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress in 1996, prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. It denies federal benefits, like Social Security survivors’ payments, to spouses in such marriages.

Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, which was established to fight same-sex marriage around the country, said the group would intensively lobby Mr. Lynch to veto the bill.

“This vote is in no way representative of what folks in New Hampshire want,” Mr. Brown said, adding that the Senate leadership had used “arm-twisting” to change the votes of a few crucial Democrats. “If the governor is going to stand by his words,” he added, “he will veto this bill.”

To some extent, the support for same-sex marriage reflects a sea change in New Hampshire politics since 2006, when Democrats gained control of the legislature for the first time in over a century. While staunchly conservative on fiscal matters, New Hampshire has been less so on social issues, partly because its residents’ famous libertarian streak resists government intrusion in personal matters.

But last-minute politicking also played a role in the Senate’s vote. Last week the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3 to 2 against the marriage measure, and the committee’s chairwoman, Senator Deborah Reynolds, a Democrat, said afterward that New Hampshire was simply not ready for same-sex marriage.

Ms. Reynolds, the only Democrat who opposed the bill in committee, emphasized that civil unions were still new in New Hampshire and that Vermont, whose legislature approved same-sex marriage on April 7, had done so only after living with civil unions for nine years.

But on Wednesday, Ms. Reynolds, who represents a fairly conservative region, said the new language made the bill acceptable. She described it as a compromise that was “respectful to both sides of the debate and meets our shared goals of equality under the state laws for all of the people of New Hampshire.”

Gov. Jim Douglas of Vermont, a Republican, vetoed that state’s same-sex marriage bill, but the Democratic-controlled legislature overrode his veto, making Vermont the first state to adopt same-sex marriage legislatively instead of through the courts. Days earlier, the Iowa Supreme Court found a state law banning same-sex marriage to be a violation of the State Constitution.

In New Hampshire, more than 650 same-sex unions have been registered since they became legal in January 2008.

Same-sex marriage was among several contentious bills that the Senate took up Wednesday, all passed by the House in recent weeks. One, a measure to allow people with certain illnesses to possess marijuana for medical purposes, passed in a vote of 14 to 10. But the Senate voted unanimously against a bill that would guarantee transgender people protection from discrimination in housing and employment. It also put off action on a bill to repeal the death penalty.

Democrats hold a 14-to-10 majority in the Senate, but it is generally more centrist and cautious than the House, where Democrats hold a 223-to-175 majority.

Opponents of same-sex marriage appeared better organized here than in Vermont. Cornerstone Research Institute waged an intense phone campaign with help from the National Organization for Marriage, but the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition and other gay-rights groups also lobbied fiercely.

Mo Baxley, the coalition’s executive director, described the Senate bill as a fair compromise.

“It is in keeping with New Hampshire’s live-free-or-die tradition to stand up for individual liberties and against discrimination of any kind,” Ms. Baxley said.

“I have to say,” she added, “America is at a turning point.”



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on April 30, 2009, 05:53:10 PM
It's business as usual: Another state with left-leaning Legislature, which prevents the people from actually voting on this issue, hardly an indication that "America is at a turning point".



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 05, 2009, 05:26:09 PM
Gay Marriage Advances in Maine
By ABBY GOODNOUGH and KATIE ZEZIMA

AUGUSTA, Me. — Gay-rights advocates moved remarkably close to their goal of making same-sex marriage legal throughout New England on Tuesday, when the Maine House of Representative voted to legalize such unions.

Supporters of same-sex marriage have won victory after victory this spring, with the legislatures of Vermont, New Hampshire and now Maine embracing it. The region is close to offering such marriages full support; Massachusetts was the first state in the nation to let gay couples marry in 2004, and Connecticut began allowing same-sex marriage last fall.

But in Maine and New Hampshire, the governors, both Democrats, will be pivotal in determining whether same-sex marriage proponents succeed in winning over an entire region of the country. Neither Gov. John Baldacci of Maine nor Gov. John Lynch of New Hampshire has made his intentions public. Both men opposed same-sex marriage in the past but have indicated they might be reconsidering.

No governor has yet signed a same-sex marriage bill that was not the result of court ruling. Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, vetoed a bill in Vermont last month, and the Legislature then enacted it after an override. And Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, also a Republican, vetoed a similar bill in California in 2005.

Supporters of the measures probably do not have enough support to override a veto in Maine or New Hampshire.

With the movement enjoying momentum from the string of recent victories — including the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision last month that same-sex marriage should be legal there — Mr. Baldacci and Mr. Lynch are facing considerable pressure from advocates and from their own party, which increasingly supports same-sex marriage.

Mr. Lynch will have five days to make a decision after the bill reaches his desk; Mr. Baldacci will have 10.

In California, where the State Supreme Court may rule this week on whether a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage is constitutional, gay-rights advocates are optimistic even though many expect the ruling to uphold the ban.

The next state to debate same-sex marriage will probably be New York. Gov. David A. Paterson, a Democrat, introduced a marriage bill last month and the State Assembly, which strongly supports it, will probably take it up next week. The bill’s fate in the Senate is less certain.

In Maine, the Democratically controlled House voted 89 to 57 for the bill; the State Senate, also dominated by Democrats, approved the bill last week in a 21-to-14 vote. Mr. Baldacci’s spokesman, David Farmer, said he would not make a final decision before the bill reached his desk. That could be as soon as Wednesday, when the State Senate is expected to formally pass it.

“He absolutely is listening to what people have to say,” Mr. Farmer said. “But at the end of the day, I think it will come down to what he believes is the right thing to do.”

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland will be among the groups lobbying Mr. Baldacci, a Catholic, to veto the bill, as will the Maine Family Policy Council, an affiliate of the Family Research Council in Washington. “We’re going to be on his case,” said Marc R. Mutty, director of public affairs for the diocese.

The House chamber was thick with emotion on Tuesday as many legislators openly wept and revealed personal details. One told her colleagues for the first time that she has a lesbian daughter; another wept as he explained that he, as a white man, would not have been able to marry his wife of 25 years, who is black, if a law had not been changed. Other legislators spoke of sleepless nights debating how to vote.

Several political observers guessed that Mr. Baldacci, who is barred by term limits from seeking re-election, would sign Maine’s bill and that Mr. Lynch, who might run again, would let New Hampshire’s become law without his signature.

“I could see him letting it pass without his explicit approval,” Dante Scala, an associate professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire, said of Mr. Lynch. “One of his hallmarks has been to put some distance between himself and the legislature.”

After the Senate’s vote last week, Mr. Lynch restated his belief that the state’s two-year-old civil-union law provided sufficient rights and protections to gay couples. But he did not repeat an earlier statement that marriage should be only between a man and a woman.

While the Iowa decision gave supporters of same-sex marriage an important first victory in the nation’s heartland and a few other states are considering legislation this year, New England remains the nucleus of the movement. Gay-rights groups here have been raising money, training volunteers and lobbying voters and lawmakers as part of a campaign called Six by Twelve.

The region’s strong libertarian bent helps explain why the issue has found support. And voters in some New England states cannot initiate constitutional amendments, a strategy for blocking same-sex marriage elsewhere.

Maine does have a “people’s veto” process by which voters can put a question on the ballot. Opponents of the same-sex marriage law will surely try to collect enough signatures — about 55,000 — to suspend it until a public referendum can be held.

A Rhode Island bill is unlikely to be acted on soon; proponents believe its chances will improve in 2011, after Gov. Donald L. Carcieri, a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage, leaves office.

“We are closer than we thought we would be, although not closer than we hoped we would be,” said Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the group leading the New England campaign. Pointing out that May 17 is the fifth anniversary of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, Ms. Swislow added, “New England is such a small region that people have been able to see it’s good for everyone.”

Washington, DC Acts on Marriages

The Council of the District of Columbia on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a bill that recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The measure now goes to Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, who has said he supports it. The committees in the House and Senate that oversee the District of Columbia would then have 30 session days to review the law. If Congress does not act within 30 days, the law will automatically take effect.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 05, 2009, 05:28:28 PM
CNN Poll: Most Americans Oppose Gay Marriage, but Those Under 35 Back It
May 05, 2009 11:06 AM ET
By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country

As a slew of states move to legalize gay marriage, a new CNN poll finds that most Americans still oppose it, though those under 35 are solidly for gay marriage legalization.

The poll finds that just 44 percent back gay marriage, compared with 58 percent of those under 35. The generational gap over the issue is striking: Only around 4 in 10 Americans ages 35 to 64 back gay marriage, and the number drops to 24 percent for those above age 65.

The numbers raise an important question about the strategy of the pro-gay marriage forces: Is their move to start legalizing gay marriage in many states far enough ahead of public opinion to provoke a serious backlash? Or, given the dramatic generational shift in public opinion on the issue, is their timing just right?

Read CNN's poll analysis here.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/05/05/cnn-poll-most-americans-oppose-gay-marriage-but-those-under-35-back-it.html


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on May 06, 2009, 03:23:21 AM
CNN Poll: Most Americans Oppose Gay Marriage, but Those Under 35 Back It
May 05, 2009 11:06 AM ET
By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country

As a slew of states move to legalize gay marriage, a new CNN poll finds that most Americans still oppose it, though those under 35 are solidly for gay marriage legalization.

The poll finds that just 44 percent back gay marriage, compared with 58 percent of those under 35. The generational gap over the issue is striking: Only around 4 in 10 Americans ages 35 to 64 back gay marriage, and the number drops to 24 percent for those above age 65.

The numbers raise an important question about the strategy of the pro-gay marriage forces: Is their move to start legalizing gay marriage in many states far enough ahead of public opinion to provoke a serious backlash? Or, given the dramatic generational shift in public opinion on the issue, is their timing just right?

Read CNN's poll analysis here.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/05/05/cnn-poll-most-americans-oppose-gay-marriage-but-those-under-35-back-it.html

The strategy has little to do with demographics. It has everything to do with targeting states where the people can't vote on this issue (without going through a liberal-tilting Legislature or Senate to get it on the ballot).

That's the nature of the California suit on Prop. 8. The plaintiffs want to declare Prop. 8 a "revision" meaning it would have to go through CA's Legislature and pass by a 67% supermajority as well as a simple (51%) majority of the electorate. Of course, they know that the Legislature doesn't support Prop. 8, at least not by that margin.

If Prop. 8 stands as a mere amendment, the people don't need to go through the Legislature. Therefore the vote stands and marriage remains defined as a union between a man and a woman.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tu_holmes on May 06, 2009, 02:08:30 PM
I think it's an age gap... Similarly to how interracial marriage was a taboo that became a non issue .

Younger people are always more accepting than the older.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 06, 2009, 02:10:45 PM
I think it's an age gap... Similarly to how interracial marriage was a taboo that became a non issue .

Younger people are always more accepting than the older.

Perhaps.  Another way to look at it is young folks tend to get smarter as they get older.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on May 06, 2009, 02:17:00 PM
Not so fast on Maine!!!

Maine gov. signs 'gay marriage' bill, but law could be overturned with 'people's veto'

AUGUSTA, Maine (BP)--Maine's Democratic governor signed a bill Wednesday, legalizing "gay marriage," setting the stage for what likely will be a high-profile and costly "people's veto" effort to overturn the law and restore the traditional definition of marriage.

With his signature Gov. John Baldacci, who is in his final term, became the first governor in U.S. history to sign a gay marriage bill. Vermont's legislature legalized "gay marriage" in April by overriding the veto of its Republican governor.......


Technically, Maine is the fifth state to redefine marriage to include homosexuals, but because of the state's unique constitution, citizens can gather signatures and place the law on the ballot. If that happens -- approximately 55,000 signatures are required -- the law would not go into effect until the people vote. It is called a "people's veto," and conservative leaders already have said they're going to go that route.

"All hope is not lost," Michael Heath, executive director of the conservative Maine Policy Council, which supports the people's veto effort, told Baptist Press. "Unlike Massachusetts and other states, we can go directly to the ballot. This is a direct democracy mechanism that will be utilized."

If past people's veto efforts are any indication, the signatures should be gathered with relative ease. Twice in the past 11 years conservatives in Maine gathered the required number of signatures to overturn sexual orientation laws, something less controversial than "gay marriage." Conservatives won one vote and lost the most recent one.

A vote on "gay marriage" -- which will take place either in November or next June -- would be the costliest and most high-profile people's veto in state history, Heath said. Opponents of the new law warn it will weaken religious freedoms and parental rights and lead to the requirement of "gay marriage" being taught in school as morally acceptable.



http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=30434 (http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=30434)

Bascially, the law takes effect in June. From there, the people have about three months to get about 56,000 signatures, in order to vote on reversing the law this November.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tu_holmes on May 06, 2009, 02:59:15 PM
Perhaps.  Another way to look at it is young folks tend to get smarter as they get older.

Not really... they never overturned women's right to vote or de-segregation... So I'd say not.

It's just the way things happen as time passes.

No one cares about abortion anymore either... Well, except you old people... And as you old people die off... Well... You get the idea.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 06, 2009, 03:03:59 PM
Not really... they never overturned women's right to vote or de-segregation... So I'd say not.

It's just the way things happen as time passes.

No one cares about abortion anymore either... Well, except you old people... And as you old people die off... Well... You get the idea.


Who never overturned women's right to vote or desegregation?  Not following you.  What do you mean? 

Old people are by and large smart people.  Definitely smarter than folks who haven't been around the block much.  For many people, as they get older they realize how little they actually knew as a youngster.  That was certainly the case for me.  That's part of the reason I have so much respect for anyone older than me.  They've often times been there, done that,  made the mistakes, etc.   


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on May 06, 2009, 06:08:09 PM
Not really... they never overturned women's right to vote or de-segregation... So I'd say not.

You forget that three states have overturned gay "marriage" after it was legalized: Alaska, Hawaii (Bum's home state) and California.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: bigdumbbell on May 06, 2009, 06:14:28 PM
You forget that three states have overturned gay "marriage" after it was legalized: Alaska, Hawaii (Bum's home state) and California.


3 more white trash states


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on May 06, 2009, 07:04:05 PM
3 more white trash states

You're running out of places to live.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tu_holmes on May 06, 2009, 11:33:08 PM
Who never overturned women's right to vote or desegregation?  Not following you.  What do you mean? 

Old people are by and large smart people.  Definitely smarter than folks who haven't been around the block much.  For many people, as they get older they realize how little they actually knew as a youngster.  That was certainly the case for me.  That's part of the reason I have so much respect for anyone older than me.  They've often times been there, done that,  made the mistakes, etc.   

I don't think any of them have made the "mistake" as you put it of legalizing gay marriage... So I'm not sure how your statement makes any sense in this instance.

You forget that three states have overturned gay "marriage" after it was legalized: Alaska, Hawaii (Bum's home state) and California.

How could I forget that? It's all over the place... Again... Young people who will inherit the earth will eventually legalize gay marriage everywhere because young people do not look at things the same way old people do.

Pretty simple.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 07, 2009, 10:50:57 AM
3 more white trash states

O Rly?  What's your definition of a "white trash state"? 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 07, 2009, 10:52:47 AM
I don't think any of them have made the "mistake" as you put it of legalizing gay marriage... So I'm not sure how your statement makes any sense in this instance.



 ???  I don't understand this either. 

I was asking you to clarify this comment:

Quote
Not really... they never overturned women's right to vote or de-segregation... So I'd say not.


What do you mean? 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tu_holmes on May 07, 2009, 12:18:59 PM
???  I don't understand this either. 

I was asking you to clarify this comment:



What do you mean? 


You said this:
Perhaps.  Another way to look at it is young folks tend to get smarter as they get older.

My point was that if that was the case, then as the young folks got "smarter" as you put it and changed their mind, then we would have reverted back to women not being allowed to vote and civil rights would have been swept away.

Because the young people would have gotten "smarter" and seen the error of their ways.

Or am I misunderstanding what you're stating there... You seem to be saying that these young people make mistakes they regret as they get older when it comes to their vote, but I see no basis for you making that statement.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 07, 2009, 12:43:41 PM

You said this:
My point was that if that was the case, then as the young folks got "smarter" as you put it and changed their mind, then we would have reverted back to women not being allowed to vote and civil rights would have been swept away.

Because the young people would have gotten "smarter" and seen the error of their ways.

Or am I misunderstanding what you're stating there... You seem to be saying that these young people make mistakes they regret as they get older when it comes to their vote, but I see no basis for you making that statement.



I see.  I think we were missing each other's point.  Not allowing women to vote and race discrimination was never a smart thing to do, so repealing voting and civil rights laws would not be done by older folks.  The error was instituting those practices in the first place. 

I wasn't necessarily talking about voting.  I was talking about thought process and opinions.  As we mature, become more educated, gain more life experience, etc. our thought process and opinions often change.  That doesn't mean young people's opinions can't be solid and shouldn't count.  Just putting them in context. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 23, 2009, 08:50:04 PM
Diplomats’ Same-Sex Partners to Get Benefits
By MARK LANDLER

WASHINGTON — The State Department will offer equal benefits and protections to same-sex partners of American diplomats, according to an internal memorandum Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sent last week to an association of gay and lesbian Foreign Service officers.

Mrs. Clinton said the policy change addressed an inequity in the treatment of domestic partners and would help the State Department recruit diplomats, since many international employers already offered such benefits.

“Like all families, our Foreign Service families come in different configurations; all are part of the common fabric of our post communities abroad,” Mrs. Clinton said in the memorandum, a copy of which was provided to The New York Times by a member of the gay and lesbian association.

“At bottom,” she said, “the department will provide these benefits for both opposite-sex and same-sex partners because it is the right thing to do.”

A senior State Department official confirmed the new policy, though he did not say when it would take effect.

Among the benefits are diplomatic passports, use of medical facilities at overseas posts, medical and other emergency evacuation, transportation between posts, and training in security and languages.

Gay and lesbian diplomats have lobbied the State Department for these benefits for several years. Under current policy, they note, diplomats with domestic partners could be evacuated from a hazardous country by the American government while their partners were left behind.

The State Department had declined to provide some benefits to the partners of diplomats, invoking the Defense of Marriage Act, which limited federal recognition of same-sex unions.

Mrs. Clinton was asked about the issue in February at her first town-hall-style meeting with department employees. “I view this as an issue of workplace fairness, employee retention, and the safety and effectiveness of our embassy communities worldwide,” she said, to applause.

Influential lawmakers also pushed for the changes — even drafting legislation requiring the State Department to offer these benefits — until Mrs. Clinton assured them that she would address the issue.

At a hearing last week on financing for the State Department, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Representative Howard L. Berman, welcomed news of the planned change in policy. Mr. Berman, Democrat of California, introduced a former ambassador to Romania, Michael Guest, who left the Foreign Service in 2007, citing unfair treatment of his partner, Alex Nevarez.

Mrs. Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, appointed the nation’s first openly gay ambassador, James C. Hormel, to serve in Luxembourg. Opposition by Republican senators blocked a vote on the appointment, leading Mr. Clinton to appoint him eventually during a Congressional recess in 1999.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on May 24, 2009, 03:42:57 AM
Diplomats’ Same-Sex Partners to Get Benefits
By MARK LANDLER

WASHINGTON — The State Department will offer equal benefits and protections to same-sex partners of American diplomats, according to an internal memorandum Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sent last week to an association of gay and lesbian Foreign Service officers.

Mrs. Clinton said the policy change addressed an inequity in the treatment of domestic partners and would help the State Department recruit diplomats, since many international employers already offered such benefits.

“Like all families, our Foreign Service families come in different configurations; all are part of the common fabric of our post communities abroad,” Mrs. Clinton said in the memorandum, a copy of which was provided to The New York Times by a member of the gay and lesbian association.

“At bottom,” she said, “the department will provide these benefits for both opposite-sex and same-sex partners because it is the right thing to do.”

A senior State Department official confirmed the new policy, though he did not say when it would take effect.

Among the benefits are diplomatic passports, use of medical facilities at overseas posts, medical and other emergency evacuation, transportation between posts, and training in security and languages.

Gay and lesbian diplomats have lobbied the State Department for these benefits for several years. Under current policy, they note, diplomats with domestic partners could be evacuated from a hazardous country by the American government while their partners were left behind.

The State Department had declined to provide some benefits to the partners of diplomats, invoking the Defense of Marriage Act, which limited federal recognition of same-sex unions.

Mrs. Clinton was asked about the issue in February at her first town-hall-style meeting with department employees. “I view this as an issue of workplace fairness, employee retention, and the safety and effectiveness of our embassy communities worldwide,” she said, to applause.

Influential lawmakers also pushed for the changes — even drafting legislation requiring the State Department to offer these benefits — until Mrs. Clinton assured them that she would address the issue.

At a hearing last week on financing for the State Department, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Representative Howard L. Berman, welcomed news of the planned change in policy. Mr. Berman, Democrat of California, introduced a former ambassador to Romania, Michael Guest, who left the Foreign Service in 2007, citing unfair treatment of his partner, Alex Nevarez.

Mrs. Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, appointed the nation’s first openly gay ambassador, James C. Hormel, to serve in Luxembourg. Opposition by Republican senators blocked a vote on the appointment, leading Mr. Clinton to appoint him eventually during a Congressional recess in 1999.



All about special privileges and benefits; if they weren't there no gay people (and very few straight people) would want to get married. I say take the state out of it and take the marriage welfare benefits away from EVERYONE (gay and straight).


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: timfogarty on May 26, 2009, 09:17:17 AM
Prop 8 upheld,  but the 18000 marriages already performed will remain valid


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on May 26, 2009, 09:20:08 AM
Prop 8 upheld,  but the 18000 marriages already performed will remain valid

If marriage welfare didn't exist, no gays would want to get married and much fewer straights as well.

Solution=get rid of marriage benefits.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 26, 2009, 09:22:18 AM
Prop 8 upheld,  but the 18000 marriages already performed will remain valid

just saw it on CNN.com.  I still haven't read anything about the decision.  I don't understand how existing rights can be taken away by ballot initiative but now that we know it's possible I guess we should start looking for more rights that we can take away by a simple majority vote.

I assume also that this will simply become a political volleyball that will be included  at each election cycle.  We can just keep adding and deleting ammendments every time we have an election.  


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: timfogarty on May 26, 2009, 09:28:59 AM
We can just keep adding and deleting amendments every time we have an election.  

that's been California for the past 30 years or so


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on May 26, 2009, 09:30:21 AM
that's been California for the past 30 years or so

End marriage welfare.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 26, 2009, 09:32:12 AM
that's been California for the past 30 years or so

I know we've used it to add to the civil code but I wasn't aware we've used it to add/delete ammendments to the constitution (but I haven't checked either).

This whole issue is undoubtly headed to the US Supreme Court


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Benny B on May 26, 2009, 09:38:25 AM
California high court upholds gay marriage ban
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

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

The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George 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.

The court said the people have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.

"In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.

The announcement of the decision set off an outcry among a sea of demonstrators who had gathered in front of the San Francisco courthouse awaiting the ruling. Holding signs and many waving rainbow flags, they chanted "shame on you." Many people also held hands in a chain around an intersection in an act of protest.

Gay rights activists immediately promised to resume their fight, saying they would go back to voters as early as next year in a bid to repeal Proposition 8.

The split decision provided some relief for the 18,000 gay couples who married in the brief time same-sex marriage was legal last year but that wasn't enough to dull the anger over the ruling that banned gay marriage.

"It's not about whether we get to stay married. Our fight is far from over," said Jeannie Rizzo, 62, who was one of the lead plaintiffs along with her wife, Polly Cooper. "I have about 20 years left on this earth, and I'm going to continue to fight for equality every day."

The state Supreme Court had ruled last May that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to wed. Many same-sex couples had rushed to get married before the November vote on Proposition 8, fearing it could be passed. When it was, gay rights activists went back to the court arguing that the ban was improperly put to voters.

That was the issue justices decided Tuesday.

"After comparing this initiative measure to the many other constitutional changes that have been reviewed and evaluated in numerous prior decisions of this court, we conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision," the ruling said.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 26, 2009, 09:41:10 AM
I'm stunned.  They got one right.   :o


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: timfogarty on May 26, 2009, 09:45:38 AM
This whole issue is undoubtedly headed to the US Supreme Court

it took 20 years between the time the California Supreme Court overturned its miscegenation law and the time the US Supreme Court did it nationwide. 

but in 1948 California didn't have ballot propositions.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on May 26, 2009, 09:53:40 AM
I'm stunned.  They got one right.   :o

Did they? It's entirely possible that grandfathering those couples may violate equal protection under the law.

it took 20 years between the time the California Supreme Court overturned its miscegenation law and the time the US Supreme Court did it nationwide. 

but in 1948 California didn't have ballot propositions.

Gays are not a separate race. It's a stupid comparison.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 26, 2009, 09:56:19 AM
Did they? It's entirely possible that grandfathering those couples may violate equal protection under the law.

Gays are not a separate race. It's a stupid comparison.


I haven't read the opinion, but at first blush I can understand why they upheld the existing "marriages."  They were "legal" at the time they were performed.   

Agree about the comparison.  Stupid. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 26, 2009, 10:00:08 AM
The comparison is valid but there doesn't even need to be a comparison.

The same CA Supreme Court first decided that not allowing gays to get married violated the Equal Protection Clause

A slim majority of voters later decided to take away that right and in essence over-ride the Equal Protection clause and the same CA Supreme Court decided it as valid to take away a previously recognized
right.

The whole thing is a mess


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on May 26, 2009, 10:01:42 AM
I haven't read the opinion, but at first blush I can understand why they upheld the existing "marriages."  They were "legal" at the time they were performed.   

Agree about the comparison.  Stupid. 

It counts on the listener being stupid, racist or both.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 26, 2009, 10:05:53 AM
It counts on the listener being stupid, racist or both.

It really does insult people's intelligence.  But the GLBT community has done a good job of demonizing the opposition. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: timfogarty on May 26, 2009, 10:09:39 AM
Gays are not a separate race. It's a stupid comparison.

and being 1/4 non-white is not a separate race either, but miscegenation laws still applied.

btw, genetically, there is no such thing as race


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 26, 2009, 10:12:18 AM
and being 1/4 non-white is not a separate race either, but miscegenation laws still applied.

btw, genetically, there is no such thing as race

Race is innate.  Sexual preference is not. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tu_holmes on May 26, 2009, 10:13:12 AM
Race is innate.  Sexual preference is not. 

I disagree as does most of the forward thinking population of the world.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on May 26, 2009, 10:16:13 AM
and being 1/4 non-white is not a separate race either, but miscegenation laws still applied.

btw, genetically, there is no such thing as race

It's a 100% stupid comparison, FWIW.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tonymctones on May 26, 2009, 10:16:35 AM
and being 1/4 non-white is not a separate race either, but miscegenation laws still applied.

btw, genetically, there is no such thing as race
actually there are genetic differences between races, homo sapiens are one species but if you go further down the ladder homo sapiens can be genetically divided into racial differences.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tonymctones on May 26, 2009, 10:18:12 AM
I disagree as does most of the forward thinking population of the world.
Actually your wrong holmes the majority of the thinking population understand that it has a genetic component to it but since its expressed in a behavior it becomes a choice...Its not 100% genetic like many ppl would have you believe.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: timfogarty on May 26, 2009, 10:22:53 AM
Actually your wrong holmes the majority of the thinking population understand that it has a genetic component to it but since its expressed in a behavior it becomes a choice...Its not 100% genetic like many ppl would have you believe.

no one claims its 100% genetic.  hormones in the womb seem to have a big impact.

sexual orientation is innate.  your sexual orientation remains whether you act on it or not.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on May 26, 2009, 10:23:44 AM
The comparison is valid but there doesn't even need to be a comparison.

The same CA Supreme Court first decided that not allowing gays to get married violated the Equal Protection Clause

A slim majority of voters later decided to take away that right and in essence over-ride the Equal Protection clause and the same CA Supreme Court decided it as valid to take away a previously recognized
right.

The whole thing is a mess

The voters didn't over-ride the Equal Protection Clause. What they did was re-establish marriage's original definition. The Court made its ruling, based on how the CA constitution read at that time last year.

The only reason this thing is a "mess" is because the CA court foolishly decided to allow gay "marriages" to take place, before the outcome of Prop. 8 arrived from the ballot box. That, and the actions of AG Brown, convinced me that the intent was to skew public opinion to vote Prop. 8 down.

That way, the judges look rosy, no matter what. They backed so-called marriage equality, yet the people had their say at the ballot box.

I believe this never should have gone to the court, in the first place. If there were any problems with Prop. 8, they should have been addressed LAST YEAR, before AG Brown and the court APPROVED it for ballot submission. You don't judge the amendment, based on the outcome of the election itself.

In short, if Prop. 8 wasn't "unconstitutional" last May, it shouldn't be "unconstitutional" this May.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tonymctones on May 26, 2009, 10:28:39 AM
no one claims its 100% genetic.  hormones in the womb seem to have a big impact.

sexual orientation is innate.  your sexual orientation remains whether you act on it or not.
actually not but a couple of years ago that was the prevelant thought and to this day alot of ppl hold that theory as correct...so does a genetic propensity towards violence or addiction...


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on May 26, 2009, 10:30:19 AM
I disagree as does most of the forward thinking population of the world.

Right.   ::)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: timfogarty on May 26, 2009, 10:32:53 AM
actually there are genetic differences between races, homo sapiens are one species but if you go further down the ladder homo sapiens can be genetically divided into racial differences.

the problem is that we're always mixing our genes.   there may be some tiny pockets in the world where the gene pool has been isolated for the last 10000 years.  everyone in that location may have very similar genes.  but world wide, none of the 'races' have been isolated.   there no set of genes that all black people have that all non-blacks do not.   there is no single characteristic shared by all black people.   same with the other 'races'.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on May 26, 2009, 10:35:03 AM
The real downside to this decision is that we'll have to read another gajillion comments about it from Bay, LOL!


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: timfogarty on May 26, 2009, 10:36:56 AM
What they did was re-establish marriage's original definition.

original definition?   a contract between two men (father of the bride and the future son-in-law), exchanging property (the bride for a dowry) ?   that original definition?

Quote
I believe this never should have gone to the court, in the first place. If there were any problems with Prop. 8, they should have been addressed LAST YEAR, before AG Brown and the court APPROVED it for ballot submission. You don't judge the amendment, based on the outcome of the election itself.

In short, if Prop. 8 wasn't "unconstitutional" last May, it shouldn't be "unconstitutional" this May.

the law doesn't work like that.   the Supreme Court cannot rule on proposed laws, only existing laws.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 26, 2009, 10:38:20 AM
The voters didn't over-ride the Equal Protection Clause. What they did was re-establish marriage's original definition. The Court made its ruling, based on how the CA constitution read at that time last year.

The only reason this thing is a "mess" is because the CA court foolishly decided to allow gay "marriages" to take place, before the outcome of Prop. 8 arrived from the ballot box. That, and the actions of AG Brown, convinced me that the intent was to skew public opinion to vote Prop. 8 down.

That way, the judges look rosy, no matter what. They backed so-called marriage equality, yet the people had their say at the ballot box.

I believe this never should have gone to the court, in the first place. If there were any problems with Prop. 8, they should have been addressed LAST YEAR, before AG Brown and the court APPROVED it for ballot submission. You don't judge the amendment, based on the outcome of the election itself.

In short, if Prop. 8 wasn't "unconstitutional" last May, it shouldn't be "unconstitutional" this May.

yeah the voters did essentially over-ride the equal protection clause or a better word might created an exception on a previous ruling regarding the equal protection clause

again - the court first ruled that denying gays the right to marry violated the equal protection clause.

That decicion preceded Prop 8.  





Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on May 26, 2009, 10:49:05 AM
original definition?   a contract between two men (father of the bride and the future son-in-law), exchanging property (the bride for a dowry) ?   that original definition?

the law doesn't work like that.   the Supreme Court cannot rule on proposed laws, only existing laws.

Prior to May 2008, marriage in CA had one definition: A union between a man and a woman.

That definition is once again the standard, with a few exceptions, due to some foolish judicial actions.



[/quote]
yeah the voters did essentially over-ride the equal protection clause or a better word might created an exception on a previous ruling regarding the equal protection clause

again - the court first ruled that denying gays the right to marry violated the equal protection clause.

That decicion preceded Prop 8.  


Actually, Prop. 8 was submitted for the ballot BEFORE the court made its ruling. Regardless of how the court ruled, Prop. 8 was going to the ballot box for election day and, if passed, would either validate the court's upholding Prop. 22 or overturn the court's striking down of Prop. 22.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: timfogarty on May 26, 2009, 11:10:33 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTFNlYp3n20


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 26, 2009, 11:44:02 AM
Prior to May 2008, marriage in CA had one definition: A union between a man and a woman.

That definition is once again the standard, with a few exceptions, due to some foolish judicial actions.




Actually, Prop. 8 was submitted for the ballot BEFORE the court made its ruling.
Regardless of how the court ruled, Prop. 8 was going to the ballot box for election day and, if passed, would either validate the court's upholding Prop. 22 or overturn the court's striking down of Prop. 22.

Per Wiki:  The initiative proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures, and on June 2, 2008, the initiative qualified for the November 4, 2008 election ballot through the random sample signature check

The CA Supreme Court ruling was on May 15, 2008



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on May 26, 2009, 12:02:07 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTFNlYp3n20

Like I said, end marriage welfare and no one will want to get married again and EVERYONE will save money.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tonymctones on May 26, 2009, 12:15:55 PM
Like I said, end marriage welfare and no one will want to get married again and EVERYONE will save money.
just do away with the term marriage in terms of the government and make it strictly private and give everyone civil unions then we wont have to worry about it.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on May 26, 2009, 12:28:52 PM
just do away with the term marriage in terms of the government and make it strictly private and give everyone civil unions then we wont have to worry about it.

Yes, this would work too; but there can't be any benefits. NO WELFARE.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tonymctones on May 26, 2009, 12:42:04 PM
Yes, this would work too; but there can't be any benefits. NO WELFARE.
why not?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on May 26, 2009, 12:53:37 PM
why not?

Freebies/welfare always create an incentive. This is why there is so much illegal immigration south of the border, for were the benefits not there there would be a massive reduction in motivation to cross the border. Get rid of the incentive and the problem automatically decreases. Simple as. Same issue with immigration in Europe. These are just examples. Marriage (gay or staight) is no different.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on May 26, 2009, 12:55:03 PM
Per Wiki:  The initiative proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures, and on June 2, 2008, the initiative qualified for the November 4, 2008 election ballot through the random sample signature check

The CA Supreme Court ruling was on May 15, 2008



Yes on 8's campaign literature suggests that Proposition 8 "is necessary to overturn [the] outrageous California Supreme Court decision that overturned Proposition 22," but the drive to put Proposition 8 on the ballot began on October 1, 2007, five months before oral arguments were heard in the Supreme Court. Supporters of the measure submitted 1.1 million signatures to the Secretary of State's office on April 24, 2008. The measure needed 694,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot. The measure qualified on June 2, 2008.

http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/hot_topics/2008/Nov2008Election/Prop8history.html (http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/hot_topics/2008/Nov2008Election/Prop8history.html)

The court knew of the submission of those ballot and the likelihood that the 690,000+ signatures needed would be there. That's why I made the statement earlier.

Again, even if the court made the decision to strike down Prop. 22, the judges should have stayed the ruling until the result from the election. The fact that it qualified suggest that the court and/or AG had a chance to review the amendment for any supposed constitutional problems.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 26, 2009, 01:28:10 PM

Yes on 8's campaign literature suggests that Proposition 8 "is necessary to overturn [the] outrageous California Supreme Court decision that overturned Proposition 22," but the drive to put Proposition 8 on the ballot began on October 1, 2007, five months before oral arguments were heard in the Supreme Court. Supporters of the measure submitted 1.1 million signatures to the Secretary of State's office on April 24, 2008. The measure needed 694,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot. The measure qualified on June 2, 2008.

http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/hot_topics/2008/Nov2008Election/Prop8history.html (http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/hot_topics/2008/Nov2008Election/Prop8history.html)

The court knew of the submission of those ballot and the likelihood that the 690,000+ signatures needed would be there. That's why I made the statement earlier.

Again, even if the court made the decision to strike down Prop. 22, the judges should have stayed the ruling until the result from the election. The fact that it qualified suggest that the court and/or AG had a chance to review the amendment for any supposed constitutional problems.


your own link say that it wasn't approved until June.

Why should the court delay a decision on a case before them just because a ballot measure might be on the ballot.  That wouldn't be fair to the plaintiffs and it would possibly project a bias regarding the ballot measure.

BTW - who cares.  It doesn't matter now anyway and it doesn't change the courts ruling in May of 2008


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 26, 2009, 01:29:50 PM
Like I said, end marriage welfare and no one will want to get married again and EVERYONE will save money.

you can't think of any other reason why people might want to get married?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on May 26, 2009, 01:39:29 PM
you can't think of any other reason why people might want to get married?

Well, it isn't the only one but probably the driving force behind it, especially for gay people.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tonymctones on May 26, 2009, 01:42:53 PM
Freebies/welfare always create an incentive. This is why there is so much illegal immigration south of the border, for were the benefits not there there would be a massive reduction in motivation to cross the border. Get rid of the incentive and the problem automatically decreases. Simple as. Same issue with immigration in Europe. These are just examples. Marriage (gay or staight) is no different.
true but there are alot of other incentives to get married, especially from a family standpoint or a raising a child standpoint I dont think the number of marriages would drop significantly if the government incentives where not there.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on May 26, 2009, 01:45:24 PM
true but there are alot of other incentives to get married, especially from a family standpoint or a raising a child standpoint I dont think the number of marriages would drop significantly if the government incentives where not there.

Good. Let them do it. ;D Watch the numbers drop in droves. Believe me... ;)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 26, 2009, 01:46:34 PM
Well, it isn't the only one but probably the driving force behind it, especially for gay people.

really?





Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tonymctones on May 26, 2009, 01:47:56 PM
Good. Let them do it. ;D Watch the numbers drop in droves. Believe me... ;)
I doubt it like i said there are still alot of incentives not tied to government in marriage...


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tonymctones on May 26, 2009, 01:50:36 PM
Well, it isn't the only one but probably the driving force behind it, especially for gay people.
Not at all the driving force behind the vast majority of marriage is to provide a secure enviroment to successfully produce offspring not governmental welfare which is why taking that away wouldnt diminish the numbers as much as you think i believe anyway...


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on May 26, 2009, 02:00:41 PM
Not at all the driving force behind the vast majority of marriage is to provide a secure enviroment to successfully produce offspring not governmental welfare which is why taking that away wouldnt diminish the numbers as much as you think i believe anyway...

Some religious people woudn't care but many other people would.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tonymctones on May 26, 2009, 02:02:12 PM
Some religious people woudn't care but many other people would.
would care about what?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on May 26, 2009, 02:05:44 PM
would care about what?

Loss of entitlements.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tonymctones on May 26, 2009, 02:09:22 PM
Loss of entitlements.
I think just about everybody would be upset about the loss of entitlements, religion would have nothing to do with it.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on May 27, 2009, 04:24:47 AM
your own link say that it wasn't approved until June.

Why should the court delay a decision on a case before them just because a ballot measure might be on the ballot.  That wouldn't be fair to the plaintiffs and it would possibly project a bias regarding the ballot measure.

Because of the potential legal problems that can (and, in this case, DID) occur down the line. Much of this COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED by staying the ruling.

That's why I've maintained that this was the CA Court's (and AG Brown's) attempt to rig the election against Prop. 8

BTW - who cares.  It doesn't matter now anyway and it doesn't change the courts ruling in May of 2008

The May 2008 ruling is basically worthless, with a relatively few exceptions.





Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on May 27, 2009, 04:30:05 AM
Clearly the most important issue facing America today...


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on May 27, 2009, 05:10:00 AM
Clearly the most important issue facing America today...

No one made such a claim, genius. This may come as a shock to you. But, people can discuss MULTIPLE issues (hence the reason we have this particular forum).


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on May 27, 2009, 05:11:48 AM
No one made such a claim, genius. This may come as a shock to you. But, people can discuss MULTIPLE issues (hence the reason we have this particular forum).

I don't see anything trumping gay marriage in importance actually. I am glad you agree.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on May 27, 2009, 06:45:56 AM
Clearly the most important issue facing America today...

Apparently more important than the right to vote.

You're forgetting how many gays are on this site. :)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on May 27, 2009, 09:52:57 AM
Apparently more important than the right to vote.

You're forgetting how many gays are on this site. :)

And more important than the ruination of the US as we know it as well...


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: timfogarty on May 27, 2009, 10:19:10 AM
"I personally think it is time that we as a nation get past distinguishing people on the basis of sexual orientation and that a grave injustice is being done to people by making these distinctions.  I thought their cause was just."

"It is our position in this case that Proposition 8, as upheld by the California Supreme Court, denies federal constitutional rights under the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution. The constitution protects individuals' basic rights that cannot be taken away by a vote. If the people of California had voted to ban interracial marriage, it would have been the responsibility of the courts to say that they cannot do that under the constitution. We believe that denying individuals in this category the right to lasting, loving relationships through marriage is a denial to them, on an impermissible basis, of the rights that the rest of us enjoy…I also personally believe that it is wrong for us to continue to deny rights to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation."

- Ted Olson, uber-conservative, George W Bush's Solicitor General, argued Bush's case to the Supreme Court in Bush v Gore regarding Florida's ballots, wife was on the plane that was flown into the Pentagon, that Ted Olson


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on May 27, 2009, 11:38:41 AM
"I personally think it is time that we as a nation get past distinguishing people on the basis of sexual orientation and that a grave injustice is being done to people by making these distinctions.  I thought their cause was just."

"It is our position in this case that Proposition 8, as upheld by the California Supreme Court, denies federal constitutional rights under the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution. The constitution protects individuals' basic rights that cannot be taken away by a vote. If the people of California had voted to ban interracial marriage, it would have been the responsibility of the courts to say that they cannot do that under the constitution. We believe that denying individuals in this category the right to lasting, loving relationships through marriage is a denial to them, on an impermissible basis, of the rights that the rest of us enjoy…I also personally believe that it is wrong for us to continue to deny rights to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation."

- Ted Olson, uber-conservative, George W Bush's Solicitor General, argued Bush's case to the Supreme Court in Bush v Gore regarding Florida's ballots, wife was on the plane that was flown into the Pentagon, that Ted Olson

The problem with that is the precedence set by the case, Baker v. Nelson from the 1970s. Gay activists tried that same trick, fresh off the Loving v. Virginia ruling. But, that didn't float.


The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination. Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967), upon which petitioners additionally rely, does not militate against this conclusion. Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, prohibiting interracial marriages, was invalidated solely on the grounds of its patent racial discrimination. As Mr. Chief Justice Warren wrote for the court (388 U.S. 12, 87 S.Ct. 1824, 18 L.Ed.2d 1018):

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 8 S.Ct. 723, 31 L. Ed. 654 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations."

Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.

We hold, therefore, that Minn.St. c. 517 does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Affirmed.


http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm (http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm)


The Minnesota court ruled that its marriage law DID NOT violate the Equal Protection clause or the Due process clause of the Constitution. The gay activists appealed to the US Supreme Court, which dismissed that appeal on its merits for lack of a substantial federal question.

When the US Supreme Court dimissses an appeal of a lower court ruling on its merits, it's basically saying that the lower court got it right and ruled almost exactly as it would have ruled. Thus, Baker.. is binding on all lower courts. It's been used as precedence to shoot down 21st-century gay activists' attempt to get other states to recognize gay "marriages" performed in Mass. and/or other states (i.e. Lockmeyer v. San Francisco, 2004 and Wilson v. Ake, 2005).




 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: timfogarty on May 27, 2009, 11:43:45 AM
The problem with that is the precedence set by the case, Baker v. Nelson from the 1970s. Gay activists tried that same trick, fresh off the Loving v. Virginia ruling. But, that didn't float.

I agree the lawsuit doesn't have much of a chance.  The point of my posting was who's arguing for gay marriage.    More and more conservatives are coming around to our side.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: w8tlftr on May 27, 2009, 01:33:36 PM
I agree the lawsuit doesn't have much of a chance.  The point of my posting was who's arguing for gay marriage.    More and more conservatives are coming around to our side.

That's because true conservatives believe in individual liberty vs. authoritarian government control.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on May 27, 2009, 01:51:08 PM
Most important issue in all politics.

Proof...look at the length of this thread... :-\


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on May 27, 2009, 06:36:58 PM
Most important issue in all politics.

Proof...look at the length of this thread... :-\

The thread's been around for over a year. OF COURSE, it's going to be long.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on May 27, 2009, 07:49:28 PM
The thread's been around for over a year. OF COURSE, it's going to be long.

There are plenty of year-old threads that aren’t this long.  This thread is long because you bodybuilding fans are interested in the subject of gay marriage.  ;)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on May 27, 2009, 08:28:15 PM
Because of the potential legal problems that can (and, in this case, DID) occur down the line. Much of this COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED by staying the ruling.

That's why I've maintained that this was the CA Court's (and AG Brown's) attempt to rig the election against Prop. 8

The May 2008 ruling is basically worthless, with a relatively few exceptions.

paranoid much?



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on May 28, 2009, 04:23:16 AM
paranoid much?


Hardly!!!


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on June 01, 2009, 03:05:34 PM
Dick Cheney backs gay marriage
By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer
Monday, June 1, 2009

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday he supports gays being able to marry but believes states, not the federal government, should make the decision.

"I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney said in a speech at the National Press Club. "I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."

Cheney, who has a gay daughter, said marriage has always been a state issue.

"And I think that's the way it ought to be handled today, that is, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that," he said.

Cheney spent most of his speech, and during the questions and answers that followed, defending the Bush administration's wartime policies . . .


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tu_holmes on June 01, 2009, 03:06:51 PM
Dick Cheney backs gay marriage
By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer
Monday, June 1, 2009

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday he supports gays being able to marry but believes states, not the federal government, should make the decision.

"I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney said in a speech at the National Press Club. "I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."

Cheney, who has a gay daughter, said marriage has always been a state issue.

"And I think that's the way it ought to be handled today, that is, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that," he said.

Cheney spent most of his speech, and during the questions and answers that followed, defending the Bush administration's wartime policies . . .


*blink blink*

WTF

Did I just miss something completely... When did Cheney start saying anything that makes sense.

Is this guy running for president?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on June 01, 2009, 04:53:57 PM
*blink blink*

WTF

Did I just miss something completely... When did Cheney start saying anything that makes sense.

Is this guy running for president?

Don't kid yourself.  He only holds this position because he has a lesbian daughter, Mary.  He and his wife have accepted their "daughter-in-law" Heather Poe into the family.  And their grandchild born of Mary.

Even Bush gave them his blessing... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/washington/16cheney.html


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on June 01, 2009, 06:02:13 PM
Don't kid yourself.  He only holds this position because he has a lesbian daughter, Mary.  He and his wife have accepted their "daughter-in-law" Heather Poe into the family.  And their grandchild born of Mary.

Even Bush gave them his blessing... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/washington/16cheney.html

Weird. I wonder if Bush or Cheney read the Republican Party Platform in 2004 ( and I Cheneys older daughter worked on his campaign too)

Protecting Marriage

We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that
fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor
bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to
marriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is
best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father
anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the
accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special
union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.
After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human
experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most
fundamental institution of civilization, the union of a man and a woman in marriage.
Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences
throughout the country, and anything less than a Constitutional amendment, passed by the
Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges.
On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. The
Constitutional amendment process guarantees that the final decision will rest with the
American people and their elected representatives. President Bush will also vigorously
defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was supported by both parties and passed by
85 votes in the Senate. This common sense law reaffirms the right of states not to
recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on June 02, 2009, 03:14:40 AM
Weird. I wonder if Bush or Cheney read the Republican Party Platform in 2004 ( and I Cheneys older daughter worked on his campaign too)

Protecting Marriage

We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that
fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor
bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to
marriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is
best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father
anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the
accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special
union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.
After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human
experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most
fundamental institution of civilization, the union of a man and a woman in marriage.
Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences
throughout the country, and anything less than a Constitutional amendment, passed by the
Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges.
On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. The
Constitutional amendment process guarantees that the final decision will rest with the
American people and their elected representatives. President Bush will also vigorously
defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was supported by both parties and passed by
85 votes in the Senate. This common sense law reaffirms the right of states not to
recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.

Kerry tried to use that against Cheney (and Bush) back then. However, that didn't fly.

Don't kid yourself.  He only holds this position because he has a lesbian daughter, Mary.  He and his wife have accepted their "daughter-in-law" Heather Poe into the family.  And their grandchild born of Mary.

Even Bush gave them his blessing... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/washington/16cheney.html

I thought Liz Cheney was the lesbian one.

Regardless, Cheney still believes that the states make the call. Thus far, the count remains at least 44 states define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, with 30 of them having state constitutional amendments to ensure that's the case.

The big issue now is whether that lawsuit by Team Olsen gets a Supreme Court look and, if it does, whether it actually BACKFIRES on gay "marriage" advocates (see my thread on the issue).





Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on June 02, 2009, 06:28:14 AM
Kerry tried to use that against Cheney (and Bush) back then. However, that didn't fly.

didn't fly with people who are ok with hypocrisy



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on June 03, 2009, 06:58:02 AM
didn't fly with people who are ok with hypocrisy


What hypocrisy?

Cheney stated now, as he did back in 2004, that this is a state's issue. That particular year 13 states made their voices heard loud and clear. Since then, 13 more have done the same (most recently, California).

That's why we have 30 states that indicate, in no uncertain terms, that marrriage is a union between a man and a woman.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on June 03, 2009, 01:57:23 PM
N.H. Legislature Approves Gay Marriage
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- New Hampshire's governor has signed legislation making the state the sixth to allow gay marriage.

Gov. John Lynch was Surrounded by cheering supporters of the move as he signed the three bills about an hour after the key vote on the legislation in the House.

The law will take effect in January, exactly two years after the state legalized civil unions. New Hampshire joins Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa in recognizing same-sex marriages, though opponents hope to overturn Maine's law with a public vote.

Lynch demanded -- and got -- language protecting the rights of religious opponents of gay marriage before signing the bills.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- New Hampshire legislators approved a measure Wednesday that would make the state the sixth to allow gay marriage, and Gov. John Lynch said he would sign it later in the afternoon.

He had promised a veto if the law didn't clearly spell out that churches and religious groups would not be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services.

The Senate passed the measure Wednesday, and the House -- where the outcome was more in doubt -- followed later in the day. The House gallery erupted in cheers after the 198-176 vote.

''If you have no choice as to your sex, male or female; if you have no choice as to your color; if you have no choice as to your sexual orientation; then you have to be protected and given the same opportunity for life, liberty and happiness,'' Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, R-Windham, said during the hourlong debate.

New Hampshire's law takes effect Jan. 1. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa already allow gay marriage, though Maine opponents hope to overturn that state's law with a public vote.

California briefly allowed gay marriage before a public vote banned it; a court ruling grandfathered in couples who were already married.

New Hampshire opponents, mainly Republicans, objected on grounds including the fragmented process that required three bills.

''It is no surprise that the Legislature finally passed the last piece to the gay marriage bill today. After all, when you take 12 votes on five iterations of the same issue, you're bound to get it passed sooner or later,'' said Kevin Smith, executive director of gay marriage opponent Cornerstone Policy Research.

Lynch, a Democrat, personally opposes gay marriage but decided to view the issue ''through a broader lens.''

Lynch said he would veto gay marriage if the law didn't address churches and religious groups.

The revised bill added a sentence specifying that all religious organizations, associations or societies have exclusive control over their religious doctrines, policies, teachings and beliefs on marriage.

It also clarified that church-related organizations that serve charitable or educational purposes are exempt from having to provide insurance and other benefits to same sex spouses of employees. The earlier version said ''charitable and educational'' instead of ''charitable or educational.''

The House rejected the language Lynch suggested two weeks ago by two votes. Wednesday's vote was on a revised bill negotiated with the Senate.

The vote was supporters' last chance this year in New Hampshire.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on June 17, 2009, 07:35:11 AM
U.S. to Extend Its Job Benefits to Gay Partners
By JEFF ZELENY

President Obama will sign a presidential memorandum on Wednesday to extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, administration officials said Tuesday evening, but he will stop short of pledging full health insurance coverage.

Mr. Obama, in an Oval Office announcement, is expected to offer details about which benefits will be provided. It is the most significant statement he has made on gay issues, and it comes as he faces intense criticism from several gay rights leaders over what they suggest has been a failure to live up to campaign promises in the first months of his presidency.

Mr. Obama will be weighing in for the first time on one of the most delicate social and political issues of the day: whether the government must provide benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. While he will announce a list of benefits, officials said, they are not expected to include broad health insurance coverage, which could require legislation to achieve.

The initial reaction from some gay rights advocates was mixed.

“Extending benefits to partners of gay federal employees is terrific, but at this point he is under enormous pressure from the gay civil rights community for having promised the moon and done nothing so far,” Richard Socarides, an adviser to the Clinton administration on gay issues, said Tuesday evening. “So more important now is what he says tomorrow about the future for gay people during his presidency.”

The breadth and scope of the memorandum to be signed by Mr. Obama was being completed Tuesday evening, said administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid upstaging the president’s announcement on Wednesday.

As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama vowed to “fight hard” for the rights of gay couples. As a senator, he sponsored legislation that would have provided health benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

But President Obama and his advisers have been reluctant to wade deeply into divisive issues like overturning a ban on openly gay military members or extending benefits to partners of government employees, fearful that such moves could overtake the administration’s broader agenda.

He has sent private assurances, several activists have said, that he intends to do more in coming years. But some gay groups have grown impatient with the wary stance of the White House, particularly as a growing number of state legislatures have taken up the question of same-sex marriage and other issues important to gay men and lesbians.

In considering whether to extend health benefits to same-sex partners, Mr. Obama confronted divided legal opinions.

In California, two federal appeals court judges said that employees of their court were entitled to health benefits for their same-sex partners under the program that insures millions of federal workers. But the federal Office of Personnel Management has instructed insurers not to provide the benefits ordered by the judges, citing a 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act.

Joe Solmonese, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, wrote an angry letterto the White House on Monday about a decision by the administration to file a legal brief supporting the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

“As an American, a civil rights advocate, and a human being, I hold this administration to a higher standard than this brief,” Mr. Solmonese wrote. “In the course of your campaign, I became convinced — and I still want to believe — that you do, too.”

The brief, filed in federal court last week, was in response to a lawsuit arguing that the marriage act is unconstitutional.

A White House spokesman said that it was standard practice for the administration to back laws that are challenged in court — even those it does not agree with — and that the president “wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.” Mr. Obama repeatedly backed repealing the act during his presidential campaign.

With the administration’s decision to stop short of extending full health insurance benefits or calling for legislation to do so, it remained an open question how significant the presidential announcement would be, Mr. Socarides said.

But administration officials said the timing of the announcement was intended to help contain the growing furor among gay rights groups. Several gay donors withdrew their sponsorship of a Democratic National Committee fund-raising event next week, where Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is scheduled to speak.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/politics/17gays.html?_r=1&hp


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on June 17, 2009, 08:32:33 AM
Funny..... The president believes marriage is between a man and women but gets a free pass because Bush and the economy sucks balls. He extends federal benefits to same sex couples, further abusing taxpayers in an already fucked up economy, and that's still not enough for people.

Apparently the quest to legitimize aberrant behavior is more important than anything else going on in the world.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Deicide on June 17, 2009, 08:37:03 AM
Funny..... The president believes marriage is between a man and women but gets a free pass because Bush and the economy sucks balls. He extends federal benefits to same sex couples, further abusing taxpayers in an already fucked up economy, and that's still not enough for people.

Apparently the quest to legitimize aberrant behavior is more important than anything else going on in the world.

That's a strong word. Please clarify.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Straw Man on June 17, 2009, 08:53:48 AM
What hypocrisy?

Cheney stated now, as he did back in 2004, that this is a state's issue. That particular year 13 states made their voices heard loud and clear. Since then, 13 more have done the same (most recently, California).

That's why we have 30 states that indicate, in no uncertain terms, that marrriage is a union between a man and a woman.

it's a convenient way of dodging the issue but if he really believes in equal rights for gays then he shouldn't run on a platform to actually restrict the rights of gays.  That would be called hypocrisy


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on June 17, 2009, 09:45:37 AM
That's a strong word. Please clarify.

Behavior that departs substantially from the norm of a group.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Dos Equis on June 17, 2009, 09:48:58 AM
Should we change the title of this thread?  It is continually bumped with items that have nothing to do with the original post (which isn't a problem). 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on June 18, 2009, 05:07:57 AM
it's a convenient way of dodging the issue but if he really believes in equal rights for gays then he shouldn't run on a platform to actually restrict the rights of gays.  That would be called hypocrisy

He's not dodging the issue. He believes the states should decide the issue. So does Obama. But, as I've said, the BIG difference between the two is that Cheney would rather have the PEOPLE decide; whereas Obama wants state courts and left-winged Legislatures to do it.

Cheney is no more hypocritical than the Log Cabin Republicans are (who ALSO voted for Bush in 2004). Nor would he be any more hypocritical than John Kerry was. Kerry not only agreed that the states should decide, but he actually OPPOSED legalizing gay "marriage" in his very own home state (the one that started all this mess in this country).

Lest you keep forgetting, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, by and large, believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Why do you think that these marriage amendments (for the most part) keep passing by lopsided margins, even in "blue" states.

Look at the states Kerry won in '04, with marriage amendments (i.e. Michigan and Oregon) They passed easily. Obama flipped Florida "blue"; yet, Amendment 2 passed 62-38 which is a landslide by normal standards. However, it's a "slim" victory, because of Florida's supermajority requirement of at least 60%.

Then, there's the Defense of Marriage Act. It passed 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate. That's not just due to Republicans.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: BayGBM on August 12, 2009, 07:57:17 PM
Group that spearheaded effort against Prop. 8 postpones push for amendment until 2012
Equality California says a delay until the presidential election year will aid fundraising in the campaign to legalize same-sex marriage. Other groups want voters to decide issue in 2010.
By Ari B. Bloomekatz and Jessica Garrison

One of the state's largest gay rights groups announced Wednesday it will wait until 2012 to push for an amendment to the California Constitution permitting same-sex marriage, but other organizations with the same agenda insisted they want to bring the issue back to voters in 2010.

Leaders of Equality California, which spearheaded the campaign against Proposition 8, said they planned to wait until the next presidential election and released a road map for repealing the 2008 ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage.

"If we thought November 2010 was the best time to go, the time when we thought we could win back the freedom to marry, we would go . . . But we don't," said Marc Solomon, Equality California's marriage director.

In the analysis and plan titled "Winning Back Marriage Equality in California," the organization said it would wait until 2012 to allow more time for fundraising and outreach, among other reasons. Most of the group's top 100 donors to last year's No-on-8 campaign said they would be reluctant or unwilling to participate in a campaign in 2010.

Equality California estimates that a winning campaign would need between $30 million and $50 million.

Meanwhile, some organizations, including the Los Angeles-based Courage Campaign, which bills itself as a multi-issue advocacy group, have said they would try to bring an initiative to the ballot next year. The Courage Campaign sent an e-mail to its members Wednesday touting fundraising efforts that leaders say prove there is momentum in challenging the ban as soon as possible.

The e-mail said the group had raised $136,000 in the previous few days to "finance the research necessary" to go to the ballot in 2010.

"We're not going to let the calendar decide for us when we can win," said Courage Campaign Chairman Rick Jacobs. "This is an enormous issue for our members. A lot of our growth occurred in the post-Proposition 8 era. Our members have been adamant."

Opponents of same-sex marriage have said both dates are inappropriate, pointing out that California voters have twice in the last nine years said no to gay marriage.

Also Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker ordered all parties in a federal lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 to resubmit their case management statements because the originals failed "to get down to the specifics of how we are going to proceed," according to a copy of the legal order.

Walker ordered that the new statements be submitted by Monday.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Tre on August 13, 2009, 02:14:50 AM

I also told those fools that waiting until 2012 was a mistake. 

You strike while the iron is hot, while the issue is fresh and people still care enough to stay involved and to continue talking about it.. 

The cost for a 2010 campaign would be lower for BOTH sides, given the current state of the economy. 

You have to go in 2010, because the rules would allow you to get a prop passed with a simple majority, an option that may be gone by 2012. 

You don't 'wait' to tell people that bigotry in any form is not ok.  Let's get it on. 


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on August 13, 2009, 04:07:18 AM
Group that spearheaded effort against Prop. 8 postpones push for amendment until 2012
Equality California says a delay until the presidential election year will aid fundraising in the campaign to legalize same-sex marriage. Other groups want voters to decide issue in 2010.
By Ari B. Bloomekatz and Jessica Garrison

One of the state's largest gay rights groups announced Wednesday it will wait until 2012 to push for an amendment to the California Constitution permitting same-sex marriage, but other organizations with the same agenda insisted they want to bring the issue back to voters in 2010.

Leaders of Equality California, which spearheaded the campaign against Proposition 8, said they planned to wait until the next presidential election and released a road map for repealing the 2008 ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage.

"If we thought November 2010 was the best time to go, the time when we thought we could win back the freedom to marry, we would go . . . But we don't," said Marc Solomon, Equality California's marriage director.

In the analysis and plan titled "Winning Back Marriage Equality in California," the organization said it would wait until 2012 to allow more time for fundraising and outreach, among other reasons. Most of the group's top 100 donors to last year's No-on-8 campaign said they would be reluctant or unwilling to participate in a campaign in 2010.

Equality California estimates that a winning campaign would need between $30 million and $50 million.

Meanwhile, some organizations, including the Los Angeles-based Courage Campaign, which bills itself as a multi-issue advocacy group, have said they would try to bring an initiative to the ballot next year. The Courage Campaign sent an e-mail to its members Wednesday touting fundraising efforts that leaders say prove there is momentum in challenging the ban as soon as possible.

The e-mail said the group had raised $136,000 in the previous few days to "finance the research necessary" to go to the ballot in 2010.

"We're not going to let the calendar decide for us when we can win," said Courage Campaign Chairman Rick Jacobs. "This is an enormous issue for our members. A lot of our growth occurred in the post-Proposition 8 era. Our members have been adamant."

Opponents of same-sex marriage have said both dates are inappropriate, pointing out that California voters have twice in the last nine years said no to gay marriage.

Also Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker ordered all parties in a federal lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 to resubmit their case management statements because the originals failed "to get down to the specifics of how we are going to proceed," according to a copy of the legal order.

Walker ordered that the new statements be submitted by Monday.


Roughly translated: "WE AIN'T GOT ENOUGH SIGNATURES!!!!!"

It's going to be REAAAAAAAAAALY interesting to see how they reach out to blacks, after all of the name-calling and racial slurs they dished out, upon learning that black voters voted overwhemingly for Prop. 8.


I also told those fools that waiting until 2012 was a mistake. 

You strike while the iron is hot, while the issue is fresh and people still care enough to stay involved and to continue talking about it.. 

That's the problem, Tre. The iron ain't hot; it's barely lukewarm. As stated earlier, they don't have the signatures. Otherwise, they'd put it on the ballot.


The cost for a 2010 campaign would be lower for BOTH sides, given the current state of the economy. 

You have to go in 2010, because the rules would allow you to get a prop passed with a simple majority, an option that may be gone by 2012. 

You can't go in 2010, if you don't have the 695,000 signatures submitted on time. And, experts state that, realistically, the gay "marriage" folks would need over a million signatures, to sift out that amount.

As mentioned in Ozmo's thread, Prop. 8 supporters spend $40 million; Prop. 8 opponents shelled out $43 million. Cali is strapped for cash and the last thing on the mind of many Californians is coughing up that much money, simply for the pleasure of watching gay activists get beat for the third time.



You don't 'wait' to tell people that bigotry in any form is not ok.  Let's get it on. 

You can't "get it on" without signatures. They don't have them....GAME OVER!!! (at least until 2012). Lost in all of this, the rationale for pushing for 2010 is that there won't be as many black folks (the contingent credited/blamed for putting Prop. 8 over the top), due to Obama not being on the card. But, there won't be as many young voters (touted as the largest supporters of gay "marriage"), either.

Contrast that with the folks in Maine (hardly a bastion of conservatism). In just one month, they've gathered nearly twice the amount of signatures needed to vote on using the "People's Veto" to void Maine's gay "marriage" bill. Even though the bill has been signed by the state's governor, it's not due to take effect until November. And Maine's constitution doesn't allow that to happen, until the people have had their say on the matter.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on August 13, 2009, 04:32:02 AM
I also told those fools that waiting until 2012 was a mistake. 

You strike while the iron is hot, while the issue is fresh and people still care enough to stay involved and to continue talking about it.. 

The cost for a 2010 campaign would be lower for BOTH sides, given the current state of the economy. 

You have to go in 2010, because the rules would allow you to get a prop passed with a simple majority, an option that may be gone by 2012. 

You don't 'wait' to tell people that bigotry in any form is not ok.  Let's get it on. 

I seriously doubt the average American cares, Tre.

Also, they've been so bad lately that a lot of people have turned their backs (not in a gay way) on the cause.

Personally, I believe the actual challenge by gays should be to the (sorry, I can't remember the actual number and this is a guess) 18,000 or so marriages allowed to remain in effect. In my mind, it seems other gays were denied equal protection under the law.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on August 13, 2009, 04:40:43 AM
I seriously doubt the average American cares, Tre.

Also, they've been so bad lately that a lot of people have turned their backs (not in a gay way) on the cause.

Personally, I believe the actual challenge by gays should be to the (sorry, I can't remember the actual number and this is a guess) 18,000 or so marriages allowed to remain in effect. In my mind, it seems other gays were denied equal protection under the law.

That may not be a road on which the gays want to travel. As I said on another forum, the counter-challenge to that is those "marriages" should have never occured in the first placed. Based on California's constitution, the court's ruling in May 2008 isn't enough to make a de facto law. The Legislature or the electorate actually had to undertake the process and make a law, consistent with the court ruling.

That didn't happen. There is no law on California's books, past or present, that defines marriage as anything other than a union of one man and one woman. CA's constituion states there must be such.

I've stated in the past that the CA Supreme Court and the state's attorney general pulled this tactic, in hopes in influencing the vote on Prop. 8. If that's the case, that strategy didn't work.

If gays made the challenge and lost, those 18,000 "marriages" would be void, because they're unconstitutional. They might simply want to cut their losses and leave that alone.

Tre does bring up a good point about the majority issue. Back in 2006, the voters in my home state of Florida passed an amendment, requiring a supermajority of 60% for all future amendments to pass (I voted against that one). For all the press Prop. 8 received, FL's Amendment 2 ran more of a risk of not passing. But, in the end, Amendment 2 got over the hump, 62-38.

If CA's citizens, wearing of this and other amendment fightsw, do what Florida's citizens did, the gay-"marriage" supporters' geese may be cooked.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on August 13, 2009, 05:20:34 AM
He's not dodging the issue. He believes the states should decide the issue. So does Obama. But, as I've said, the BIG difference between the two is that Cheney would rather have the PEOPLE decide; whereas Obama wants state courts and left-winged Legislatures to do it.
His daughter is gay but he has no position on the matter.  The viability of gay marriage should be decided by the states.

Those are two different matters.  Cheney is dodging the issue by conflating the two separate matters-1. his personal view and 2. society's view.

Quote
Cheney is no more hypocritical than the Log Cabin Republicans are (who ALSO voted for Bush in 2004). Nor would he be any more hypocritical than John Kerry was. Kerry not only agreed that the states should decide, but he actually OPPOSED legalizing gay "marriage" in his very own home state (the one that started all this mess in this country).
Log Cabin Reps are interesting.  They are social/economic darwinists at the bottom of the food chain.

I think they are masochistic fags.

How is Kerry acting hypocritically?

Quote
Lest you keep forgetting, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, by and large, believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Why do you think that these marriage amendments (for the most part) keep passing by lopsided margins, even in "blue" states.
Slave ownership, separate but equal and women as footstools were also popular ideas in the day.

Quote
...


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on August 13, 2009, 06:11:02 AM
His daughter is gay but he has no position on the matter.  The viability of gay marriage should be decided by the states.

Those are two different matters.  Cheney is dodging the issue by conflating the two separate matters-1. his personal view and 2. society's view.

That's not dodging the issue. He believes the states should decide. Whether they say "yes" or "no" makes no difference. How does his personal view and society's view clash with WHO should decide the issue?

That's the subject at hand, with regards to Cheney....WHO should decide, not WHAT the decision should be. And again, Cheney wants the people, not the courts or left-winged Legislature, to make the call.


Log Cabin Reps are interesting.  They are social/economic darwinists at the bottom of the food chain.

I think they are masochistic fags.

I hope you're not implying that they're "fags" now, because they're Republicans. Are you suggesting that all homosexuals should be Democrats? But, that would kill the stereotype that the GOP is just for mean ol' rich heterosexual white guys.

The point, of course, is that BOTH 2004 presidental candidates beleived that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and they believed that the states should have a say in the matter (though, Bush wanted to take it a step further with a Federal Marriage Amendment).

It's also interesting to note that, in 2004, Missouri passed its marriage amendment by a 71-29 margin. the largest margin ever at the time. SIXTY percent of the voters were Democrats. As stated earlier, this is hardly just a Republican issue (you don't get such lopsided margin with just GOP support).


How is Kerry acting hypocritically?

I never claimed that Kerry was acting hypocritically (at least, not on this issue). His view mirrors that of Cheney: The states should decide their own marriage laws.


Slave ownership, separate but equal and women as footstools were also popular ideas in the day.


None of which has to do with defining the institution of marriage. There is no moral imperative to change the definition of marriage to accomodate homosexuals, whatsoever.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on August 13, 2009, 06:19:08 AM
That's not dodging the issue. He believes the states should decide. Whether they say "yes" or "no" makes no difference. How does his personal view and society's view clash with WHO should decide the issue?
You are conflating the issues as well.

Why can't the former most powerful man in the world answer a simple question as to what his opinion is of homosexual marriage?

Another great dodge would be, "I can't answer that question b/c I am not gay."  He's not giving his opinion on the matter at hand - What is YOUR opinion on gay marriage Mr. Vice President. 

Quote
That's the subject at hand, with regards to Cheney....WHO should decide, not WHAT the decision should be. And again, Cheney wants the people, not the courts or left-winged Legislature, to make the call.
The courts have the final say on what the law is.

Quote
I hope you're not implying that they're "fags" now, because they're Republicans. Are you suggesting that all homosexuals should be Democrats? But, that would kill the stereotype that the GOP is just for mean ol' rich heterosexual white guys.
I'm implying that they are like chickens belonging to the Col. Sanders party.

Quote
I never claimed that Kerry was acting hypocritically (at least, not on this issue). His view mirrors that of Cheney: The states should decide their own marriage laws.

None of which has to do with defining the institution of marriage. There is no moral imperative to change the definition of marriage to accomodate homosexuals, whatsoever.
Fine.

I would think that it is a moral imperative to the gays who are denied the benefits of marriage.

I just don't see what you or society has to gain by denying these people the right to marry.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on August 13, 2009, 06:37:10 AM
You are conflating the issues as well.

Why can't the former most powerful man in the world answer a simple question as to what his opinion is of homosexual marriage?


Another great dodge would be, "I can't answer that question b/c I am not gay."  He's not giving his opinion on the matter at hand - What is YOUR opinion on gay marriage Mr. Vice President. 

When was CHENEY the most powerful man in the world?


"I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."

How is that dodging the question? He believes that there should be something to accomodate homosexuals. But, ULTIMATELY, it's up to the states to decide the issue (one way or the other).



The courts have the final say on what the law is.

No, they don't. I refer you to what went down in California, less than a year ago.

California's Supreme Court said that defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman was "unconstitutional". The people of California trumped that by modifying their state constitution. So that ruling of the CA court is moot. The same thing happened in Alaska and Hawaii. The people changed their constitution to clearly spell out marriage's definition, after their respective state courts ruled it "unconstitutional".

Lest, you forget, the majority of the states that passed marriage amendments did so PROACTIVELY, to keep their respective courts from doing what the courts in Mass., Iowa, California, Alaska, and Hawaii did. Those amendments are in place, and there's not a darn thing the state courts can do about it.

The courts answer to constitutions; constitutions are ratified BY THE PEOPLE.




I'm implying that they are like chickens belonging to the Col. Sanders party.

Chickens about what? What Democratic presidental candidate came out and stated, point blank, that they support and believe in same-sex marriage? Obama? I DON'T THINK SO! Clinton? PLEASE!!! Kerry? GET REAL!!!

If Republicans were the only one opposing gay "marriage", the amendments wouldn't be passing by an average of 68-32. The reason you have such lopsided margins is simple: The lion's share of folks on BOTH SIDES believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

Go back to 2004. At least, two "blue" states that Kerry had little problem winning passed marriage amendments. In 2008, my home state flipped from "red" to "blue". Yet, Amendment 2 passed. From a sheer numbers perspective, it passed easily, 62-38. But, by Florida's constitution, it barely made it, because (as of late 2006/early 2007) amendments must pass by a supermajority of 60%.


I would think that it is a moral imperative to the gays who are denied the benefits of marriage.

I just don't see what you or society has to gain by denying these people the right to marry.

They're not denied the benefits or the "right" to marry. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. If they don't want to play by those rules (because of their sexual "preference"), that's their issue. Someone may prefer to mess around with little kids; that doesn't mean that our age laws deny them the right to marry.

There's nothing for society to gain by changing marriage's definition to accomodate homosexuals.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: tu_holmes on August 13, 2009, 08:15:24 AM
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. If they don't want to play by those rules (because of their sexual "preference"), that's their issue. Someone may prefer to mess around with little kids; that doesn't mean that our age laws deny them the right to marry.

There's nothing for society to gain by changing marriage's definition to accomodate homosexuals.

There's nothing lost by society either.

As far as the "definition of marriage." That is such a load of crap. Who determines definitions?

People.

It could easily say a union between two of legal age consenting individuals. Just because that's not the definition today does not mean that can not be the definition in the future.

Look at the word gay. It used to simply mean happy, now it means homosexual. Definitions change. For someone to talk about what a word is defined to prove how they are right is akin to saying "I know you are, but what am I." to prove your point.

Anyone who throws little kids in with their point is even more insane. Marriages are about of age consenting adults... That's pretty cut and dried.

It's not about kids, or animals or any other far reaching ridiculousness that people try to make it out to be and it never will be. Because we're talking about OF AGE CONSENTING ADULTS.



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on August 13, 2009, 08:17:55 AM
When was CHENEY the most powerful man in the world?
Oh come on.


Quote
"I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."

How is that dodging the question? He believes that there should be something to accomodate homosexuals. But, ULTIMATELY, it's up to the states to decide the issue (one way or the other).
Even your explanation is as vague as his answer.  "...there should be something..."   Look, do you, personally, believe that gays should have the right to marry, Mr. Vice President?


Quote
No, they don't. I refer you to what went down in California, less than a year ago.
Yes, they do.  Marbury v. Madison.

"It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."
http://supreme.justia.com/us/5/137/case.html

Quote
California's Supreme Court said that defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman was "unconstitutional". The people of California trumped that by modifying their state constitution. So that ruling of the CA court is moot. The same thing happened in Alaska and Hawaii. The people changed their constitution to clearly spell out marriage's definition, after their respective state courts ruled it "unconstitutional".
Is this what you are referring to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California

How did the CA people change the CA constitution?

I don't know the full details of what happened in those states.  To me, it doesn't matter how one couches ones bigotry under the incidents of law, wrong is wrong.  And those dudes are wrong.  Life, Liberty and Happiness for all....except the queers!

Now there's a rallying cry.

Quote
Lest, you forget, the majority of the states that passed marriage amendments did so PROACTIVELY, to keep their respective courts from doing what the courts in Mass., Iowa, California, Alaska, and Hawaii did. Those amendments are in place, and there's not a darn thing the state courts can do about it.The courts answer to constitutions; constitutions are ratified BY THE PEOPLE.
What are you talking about?


Quote
Chickens about what? What Democratic presidental candidate came out and stated, point blank, that they support and believe in same-sex marriage? Obama? I DON'T THINK SO! Clinton? PLEASE!!! Kerry? GET REAL!!!
Forgive me for not acknowledging the long, rich history of Republicans at the forefront of Gay rights.

Are you serious?  Clinton tried to lift the ban on gays in the military and the republicans put forth their full support.  hahahha.  Of course they didn't.  Obama is wrong about gay marriage.

Quote
If Republicans were the only one opposing gay "marriage", the amendments wouldn't be passing by an average of 68-32. The reason you have such lopsided margins is simple: The lion's share of folks on BOTH SIDES believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
They're not the only ones opposing gay marriage.  They oppose gays.  Homosexuality is an abomination for a Christian party in a Christian Nation.

They don't want to accomodate something that should be destroyed.

Quote
Go back to 2004. At least, two "blue" states that Kerry had little problem winning passed marriage amendments. In 2008, my home state flipped from "red" to "blue". Yet, Amendment 2 passed. From a sheer numbers perspective, it passed easily, 62-38. But, by Florida's constitution, it barely made it, because (as of late 2006/early 2007) amendments must pass by a supermajority of 60%.
Again, slavery, miscegenation and women's oppression were very popular in the day.  Something natural and biblical about those things.

Quote
They're not denied the benefits or the "right" to marry. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. If they don't want to play by those rules (because of their sexual "preference"), that's their issue. Someone may prefer to mess around with little kids; that doesn't mean that our age laws deny them the right to marry.
Spare me your slippery slope bullshit.  Marriage is a legal concept designed to establish a mode of property descension.  All the religious crapola of one flesh and under god was added to that property concept.

Quote
There's nothing for society to gain by changing marriage's definition to accomodate homosexuals.
That's not what I asked.  What does society gain by denying marriage to gays?  I'm sorry, adult gays?


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on August 13, 2009, 09:53:28 AM
There's nothing lost by society either.

As far as the "definition of marriage." That is such a load of crap. Who determines definitions?

People.

And, as last check, the PEOPLE made it quite clear that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.


It could easily say a union between two of legal age consenting individuals. Just because that's not the definition today does not mean that can not be the definition in the future.

It could be. But, that's for the people to decide. And, in at least 30 states, they've made that definition loud and clear. That doesn't go away, simply because homosexuals and their supporters don't like it.


Look at the word gay. It used to simply mean happy, now it means homosexual. Definitions change. For someone to talk about what a word is defined to prove how they are right is akin to saying "I know you are, but what am I." to prove your point.

In order to claim that people have the "right" to something, that something MUST be clearly defined. The claim is that people have the "right" to marriage. How is that thing marriage defined? That's what at issue here.


Anyone who throws little kids in with their point is even more insane. Marriages are about of age consenting adults... That's pretty cut and dried.

Says who? Didn't you just make the point that people define marriage and change the definition? Certain countries allow child marriage. Heck, in THIS COUNTRY, the minimum marrying age (in some states) is as low as TWELVE.


It's not about kids, or animals or any other far reaching ridiculousness that people try to make it out to be and it never will be. Because we're talking about OF AGE CONSENTING ADULTS.


Again, marriage ages vary. Females aren't considered women, until they turn 18; YET, they can be married younger than that. Plus, the issue here is how the institution of marriage is defined, what comprised it.

Adults or kids, how many, family relations, etc.: ALL of those items factor into how we define marriage. To deny that, based on some emotional (yet woefully misguided) bent towards gay "marriage" is "far-reaching ridiculousness".


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on August 13, 2009, 10:22:14 AM
Oh come on.

Oh come on, yourself!!!

Since when is the VICE-PRESIDENT considered the most powerful man in the world?

Do you REEEAAAAAALLLY think that title applies to Joe Biden today?


 Even your explanation is as vague as his answer.  "...there should be something..."   Look, do you, personally, believe that gays should have the right to marry, Mr. Vice President?

I'm not the vice-president. Regardless, he gave his answer. And the fact remains that, regardless of his answer, he believes that the states should decide the issue, one way or the other.

So, your harping on his allegedly dodging the question is quite pointless.


 Yes, they do.  Marbury v. Madison.

"It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."
http://supreme.justia.com/us/5/137/case.html
Is this what you are referring to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California

How did the CA people change the CA constitution?

Where in the world have you been, under a rock? THEY VOTED to pass Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment that clearly defined marriage as union between one man and one woman. Prop. 8 was one of the biggest political issues in the news last year.

But, it's hardly an isolated case. As stated earlier, several states passed constituitonal amendments proactively, to keep the courts from doing what CA's court (as well as that of Mass. and other did).

The Judicial Department says what the law is......IN CONCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

Why do you think the liberal politicians in Mass. broke their necks trying to keep the people from voting on a marriage amendment there?

It's because the people's voice is the final say. If they amend their consitutition to clearly define marriage as a 1M-1W union, the Mass. Supreme Court's verdict gets scrapped.



I don't know the full details of what happened in those states.  To me, it doesn't matter how one couches ones bigotry under the incidents of law, wrong is wrong.  And those dudes are wrong.  Life, Liberty and Happiness for all....except the queers!

Wrong again! This has nothing to do with bigotry, something liberals love to scream, every time they don't get their way regarding certain social issues.




What are you talking about?

Again, where have you been? Constitutional amendment have been passing in states since (at the very least 2004). Many of them were done proactively, after the Mass. verdict that struck down its marriage laws. Simply put, those other states weren't going to wait for 4 judges to decide that defining marriage as a 1M-1W union was "unconstitutional". They amended their constitutions to spell it out, IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, how marriage is to be defined.



Forgive me for not acknowledging the long, rich history of Republicans at the forefront of Gay rights.

I made no such claim that they did, genius. The point, which you clearly missed, is that your inference that homosexuals shouldn't be Republicans is a stupid one, to say the least.



Are you serious?  Clinton tried to lift the ban on gays in the military and the republicans put forth their full support.  hahahha.  Of course they didn't. 


Hahaha, yourself, Einstein! I never made the claim that Republicans supported Clinton's efforts. Are you smoking that stuff?


Obama is wrong about gay marriage.

Says who?


They're not the only ones opposing gay marriage.  They oppose gays.  Homosexuality is an abomination for a Christian party in a Christian Nation.

They don't want to accomodate something that should be destroyed.

The GOP isn't necessarily a Christian party. It listens to Christian voters for the same reason that Democrats listen to far-left liberal voters: THEY HELP GET THE POLITICIANS ELECTED.

The Democrats can't win without the "liberal left"; the Republicans can't win without the "religious right".



Again, slavery, miscegenation and women's oppression were very popular in the day.  Something natural and biblical about those things.

Wrong again, Decker.

One, miscegenation was never an issue, according to Scripture, as Israel was NEVER BANNED from intermarrying people, based on race

Two, your women's oppression spiel is equally as laughable. Any study of ANE culture shows that the laws of the Bible were extremely revolutionary, regarding the treatment of women. They could vote, be judges and hold certain political offices. They were allowed to inherit property (a rarity in ancient society), and, in legal cases (unlike their neighbors) women were presumed INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY (sound familiar).

Three, the "slavery" thing is yet another misnomer. What the Bible called "slavery" and what we've come to know as such (i.e. chattel slavery) are hardly the same issue.

Lost in all of this, none of that saves your pitiful rationale to justify gay "marriage" one bit.



Spare me your slippery slope bullshit.  Marriage is a legal concept designed to establish a mode of property descension.  All the religious crapola of one flesh and under god was added to that property concept.

Spare me your "property concept" BS, which is again little more than a pathetic attempt to find feeble justification for gay "marriage". Were that even remotely the case, that still doesn't change the fact that no moral imperative exists to redefine marriage to accomodate homosexuals. Otherwise, you have to redefine it to accompany those other folks, from that "slippery slope".


 That's not what I asked.  What does society gain by denying marriage to gays?  I'm sorry, adult gays?


As far as I can tell nothing. Of course, it doesn't NEED to gain anything, in order for marriage to keep its 1M-1W definition. Nor does society gain anything by altering the definition to please gays.

As stated earlier, no one's being denied marriage. I don't care how "gay" you are. You bring a woman to the courthouse or the church (of the proper age, who ain't close kin) and you can get hitched. If you're a girl, bring a guy to the same courthouse/church and the same thing happens, no matter how much lesbian stuff you've done (if you don't believe me, ask a certain female bodybuilder who makes her living making lesbian porn).



Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on August 13, 2009, 10:32:46 AM
That may not be a road on which the gays want to travel. As I said on another forum, the counter-challenge to that is those "marriages" should have never occured in the first placed. Based on California's constitution, the court's ruling in May 2008 isn't enough to make a de facto law. The Legislature or the electorate actually had to undertake the process and make a law, consistent with the court ruling.

I'm not saying they should challenge the legitimacy of those marriages. My argument is that allowing those marriages to exist created a new class and deprived remaining gays of their 14th amendment (equal protection under the law) rights.

If gays made the challenge and lost, those 18,000 "marriages" would be void, because they're unconstitutional. They might simply want to cut their losses and leave that alone.

Wouldn't being forced to litigate 18,000 cases, win or lose, be better than people accepting that only 9000 gays had a legal right to be married in California?


Tre does bring up a good point about the majority issue. Back in 2006, the voters in my home state of Florida passed an amendment, requiring a supermajority of 60% for all future amendments to pass (I voted against that one). For all the press Prop. 8 received, FL's Amendment 2 ran more of a risk of not passing. But, in the end, Amendment 2 got over the hump, 62-38.

Tre is probably right in that pushing now while there's momentum may cost less. That being said, he would probably not be so interested in the topic if not having married a Mormon once and is also willfully ignoring the gay communities intolerance towards anyone with differing views.

Also, stupid shit like Wanda Sykes' commercials, Miss California, a coach losing income for saying something about a 'gay dance', etc... and insulting language about miscegenation and gay being the new black polarizes people who don't have to care. It's becoming painfully evident that people are losing their right to disagree on this topic so all you really have to do is figure out what the backlash will be.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on August 13, 2009, 11:01:21 AM
I'm not saying they should challenge the legitimacy of those marriages. My argument is that allowing those marriages to exist created a new class and deprived remaining gays of their 14th amendment (equal protection under the law) rights.

Good point, there.


Wouldn't being forced to litigate 18,000 cases, win or lose, be better than people accepting that only 9000 gays had a legal right to be married in California?

I think they should be (collectively). But, if you're a gay "marriage" supporter or involved in one of those cases, you don't want to go there. CA's constitution states that a law needed to be created to support the CA Court's ruling, that struck down Prop. 22 (the previous marriage law). That didn't occur. There's only one marriage law now, and it clearly states that marriage is a 1M-1W union.


Tre is probably right in that pushing now while there's momentum may cost less. That being said, he would probably not be so interested in the topic if not having married a Mormon once and is also willfully ignoring the gay communities intolerance towards anyone with differing views.

But, there is no momentum. As I said, in response to BayGBM, that flap was just PC speak for "we ain't got enough signatures".



Also, stupid shit like Wanda Sykes' commercials, Miss California, a coach losing income for saying something about a 'gay dance', etc... and insulting language about miscegenation and gay being the new black polarizes people who don't have to care. It's becoming painfully evident that people are losing their right to disagree on this topic so all you really have to do is figure out what the backlash will be.


The push for 2010 is due to the belief that there won't be no black folk at the polls (since they're the ones, cited with pushing Prop. 8 over the top).

As is often the case, gay activists are banking on low-voter turnout and apathy to help them win. But, voter apathy works both ways. Again, as strapped for cash as Cali is, few (if any) want to give gay activists $43 million to watch them lose again.

Plus, as stated elsewhere, the one demographic that gays brag are their biggest supporters are also known to be MIA, during non-presidental elections (the younger voters, sub-35).

Pushing for 2012, however, is quite strenuous as well. The black voters WILL be there to help Obama go for a second term. And, I don't see them changing their tune about gay "marriage" in just over 2 years. Plus, there's got to be a WHOOOOOOOOOOLE lot of apologizing from the white gay folk, after that infantile tirade by some of their ranks, following Prop. 8's passage.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on August 13, 2009, 12:08:16 PM
Good point, there.

I think they should be (collectively). But, if you're a gay "marriage" supporter or involved in one of those cases, you don't want to go there. CA's constitution states that a law needed to be created to support the CA Court's ruling, that struck down Prop. 22 (the previous marriage law). That didn't occur. There's only one marriage law now, and it clearly states that marriage is a 1M-1W union.

But, there is no momentum. As I said, in response to BayGBM, that flap was just PC speak for "we ain't got enough signatures".


The push for 2010 is due to the belief that there won't be no black folk at the polls (since they're the ones, cited with pushing Prop. 8 over the top).

As is often the case, gay activists are banking on low-voter turnout and apathy to help them win. But, voter apathy works both ways. Again, as strapped for cash as Cali is, few (if any) want to give gay activists $43 million to watch them lose again.

Plus, as stated elsewhere, the one demographic that gays brag are their biggest supporters are also known to be MIA, during non-presidental elections (the younger voters, sub-35).

Pushing for 2012, however, is quite strenuous as well. The black voters WILL be there to help Obama go for a second term. And, I don't see them changing their tune about gay "marriage" in just over 2 years. Plus, there's got to be a WHOOOOOOOOOOLE lot of apologizing from the white gay folk, after that infantile tirade by some of their ranks, following Prop. 8's passage.

There's one simple flaw. Blacks generally oppose gay marriage and culturally tend to be more conservative on certain issues than given credit for. I'm not saying blacks hate gays or some stupid shit like that. Blacks will defend a relative (gay or otherwise) to the death that doesn't mean they approve of the lifestyle itself.

I do find it amusing that people blame black voters for Prop 8 results with one breath and then compare themselves to them with another.  :) It's politically convenient way of ignoring the majority's feelings on the matter but probably stops things from being discussed in a helpful manner.

People also ignore that Obama is not in favor of changing marriage's definition. I have no clue if it's an honest feeling or his being savvy enough politically to realize right-wingers would have picked better republican candidates for the last election. There's no way to tell because he's a politician and they're all liars. Only two things are certain; republicans had no desire to inherit this economy or end up with Hillary Clinton as president.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on August 13, 2009, 12:19:30 PM
There's one simple flaw. Blacks generally oppose gay marriage and culturally tend to be more conservative on certain issues than given credit for. I'm not saying blacks hate gays or some stupid shit like that. Blacks will defend a relative (gay or otherwise) to the death that doesn't mean they approve of the lifestyle itself.

I do find it amusing that people blame black voters for Prop 8 results with one breath and then compare themselves to them with another.  :) It's politically convenient way of ignoring the majority's feelings on the matter but probably stops things from being discussed in a helpful manner.

People also ignore that Obama is not in favor of changing marriage's definition. I have no clue if it's an honest feeling or his being savvy enough politically to realize right-wingers would have picked better republican candidates for the last election. There's no way to tell because he's a politician and they're all liars. Only two things are certain; republicans had no desire to inherit this economy or end up with Hillary Clinton as president.

I would say that Obama is passively not in favor of gay “marriage”. He may oppose it personally. But, if the courts or some other entity pass it anyway, he’ll do little to stop them.

It’s funny indeed. The same gay activists who were blubbering about tolerance, acceptance, and civil rights were calling black people, “n*@&#)s” and other racial slurs, following Prop. 8 passage. Even black homosexuals weren’t immune from the wrath of their white brothers in gayness.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: drkaje on August 13, 2009, 12:53:14 PM
I would say that Obama is passively not in favor of gay “marriage”. He may oppose it personally. But, if the courts or some other entity pass it anyway, he’ll do little to stop them.

It’s funny indeed. The same gay activists who were blubbering about tolerance, acceptance, and civil rights were calling black people, “n*@&#)s” and other racial slurs, following Prop. 8 passage. Even black homosexuals weren’t immune from the wrath of their white brothers in gayness.


Bigotry and racism don't exclusively belong to whites.

Why people are unable to understand that simple fact is beyond me. :)


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on August 14, 2009, 05:11:24 AM
Bigotry and racism don't exclusively belong to whites.

Why people are unable to understand that simple fact is beyond me. :)

Indeed!!!

It simply shows that, were the shoe on the other foot, the oppressed would act like the oppressors.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Tre on August 14, 2009, 07:03:52 AM
It simply shows that, were the shoe on the other foot, the oppressed would act like the oppressors.

This is one of the primary reasons I targeted the Mormons.

They didn't like being oppressed and even today, MANY still have a persecution complex, yet they had no problem joining the pile-on against gays.


Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: Decker on August 14, 2009, 08:20:07 AM
Oh come on, yourself!!!

Since when is the VICE-PRESIDENT considered the most powerful man in the world?

Do you REEEAAAAAALLLY think that title applies to Joe Biden today?
I think your points are an indictment of your honesty.

Quote
I'm not the vice-president. Regardless, he gave his answer. And the fact remains that, regardless of his answer, he believes that the states should decide the issue, one way or the other.

So, your harping on his allegedly dodging the question is quite pointless.
I think your points are an indictment of your honesty.

Quote
Where in the world have you been, under a rock? THEY VOTED to pass Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment that clearly defined marriage as union between one man and one woman. Prop. 8 was one of the biggest political issues in the news last year.
Yes, I've been living under a rock.  So the change to the constitution was to add, out of the fucking blue, that marriage is btn a man and a woman.

Great.

Quote
But, it's hardly an isolated case. As stated earlier, several states passed constituitonal amendments proactively, to keep the courts from doing what CA's court (as well as that of Mass. and other did).

The Judicial Department says what the law is......IN CONCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

Why do you think the liberal politicians in Mass. broke their necks trying to keep the people from voting on a marriage amendment there?

It's because the people's voice is the final say. If they amend their consitutition to clearly define marriage as a 1M-1W union, the Mass. Supreme Court's verdict gets scrapped.
I'm certain in the applicable time, you'd say the same thing about slavery, miscegenation, and women as property.  Your justification of democratic absolutism is applicable to those things as well.

Remember, the essence of democracy is the lynch mob.


Quote
Wrong again! This has nothing to do with bigotry, something liberals love to scream, every time they don't get their way regarding certain social issues.
What's a bigot?

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

You've stated that b/c of your religious prejudice, gays shouldn't marry.  You don't oppose gay marriage on the basis of any credible fact.  You oppose it on the grounds that you hold the belief that a book written by sheepherders is the word of God and that word is 'death' to fags.

You and your ilk are textbook bigots.  Tell me why you are not.


Quote
Again, where have you been? Constitutional amendment have been passing in states since (at the very least 2004). Many of them were done proactively, after the Mass. verdict that struck down its marriage laws. Simply put, those other states weren't going to wait for 4 judges to decide that defining marriage as a 1M-1W union was "unconstitutional". They amended their constitutions to spell it out, IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, how marriage is to be defined.
You certainly put yourself out to make sure gays are treated like second class citizens.

I have no such stake in the matter other than to point out the hurtful and hateful basis of your actions and perspective.

Quote
I made no such claim that they did, genius. The point, which you clearly missed, is that your inference that homosexuals shouldn't be Republicans is a stupid one, to say the least.
'Genius'....Hey, I put my pants on one leg at a time just like you.

I stated that log cabin republicans were like chickens belonging to the Col. Sanders party.

You misread that as me calling someone a chicken/coward.  I stayed with the meme correctly.  You showed that your attention span is limited.


Quote
Hahaha, yourself, Einstein! I never made the claim that Republicans supported Clinton's efforts. Are you smoking that stuff?
Again, in reference to republicans and log cabin freaks.

Quote
Says who?
Says me.

Quote
The GOP isn't necessarily a Christian party. It listens to Christian voters for the same reason that Democrats listen to far-left liberal voters: THEY HELP GET THE POLITICIANS ELECTED.
I think your points are an indictment of your honesty.  You're right.  The religious right that runs that party is a mix of religions.  What was I thinking?

Quote
The Democrats can't win without the "liberal left"; the Republicans can't win without the "religious right".
Sure thing.

Quote
Wrong again, Decker.

One, miscegenation was never an issue, according to Scripture, as Israel was NEVER BANNED from intermarrying people, based on race

Two, your women's oppression spiel is equally as laughable. Any study of ANE culture shows that the laws of the Bible were extremely revolutionary, regarding the treatment of women. They could vote, be judges and hold certain political offices. They were allowed to inherit property (a rarity in ancient society), and, in legal cases (unlike their neighbors) women were presumed INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY (sound familiar).

Three, the "slavery" thing is yet another misnomer. What the Bible called "slavery" and what we've come to know as such (i.e. chattel slavery) are hardly the same issue.
I made those points in reference to those ugly chapters in American history.

Then I opined that those bigotries sounded biblical.  As usual you go overboard to intoxicate your mind so that the perfection of the Bible remains intact in your bigoted world-view.

But since we're here, Christian uberman Jerry Falwell beat the drum for miscegenation.  Billy Graham railed against Jews...Let's face it, anything Christian south of the Mason/Dixon line was pro-slavery miscegenation. 

Your protestations about women are insane. "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."--1 Tim. 2:11-14

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18)  That made a proud moment in our country's history - Salem witch trials.  Even Sarah Palin is a witch.
Why is that woman still alive?

Here's a link to for access to 200 more biblical quotes that treat women as sex slaves, and property.
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/women.php

Quote
Lost in all of this, none of that saves your pitiful rationale to justify gay "marriage" one bit.
Pitiful?  No wonder your thrown for a loop here.  "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is nowhere to be found in your book of fables, the Bible.


Quote
Spare me your "property concept" BS, which is again little more than a pathetic attempt to find feeble justification for gay "marriage". Were that even remotely the case, that still doesn't change the fact that no moral imperative exists to redefine marriage to accomodate homosexuals. Otherwise, you have to redefine it to accompany those other folks, from that "slippery slope".
Spare you from historical fact?  Your psychological defense mechanisms are more elaborate than the US tax code.

Quote
As far as I can tell nothing. Of course, it doesn't NEED to gain anything, in order for marriage to keep its 1M-1W definition. Nor does society gain anything by altering the definition to please gays....
So society's gain is keeping gays as second class citizens.






Title: Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
Post by: MCWAY on August 14, 2009, 11:08:14 AM
I think your points are an indictment of your honesty.
I think your points are an indictment of your honesty.

I think your points are an indictment of lack of sleep or heavy narcotic use. Again, when was Cheney or any other VP ever considered to be the most powerful man in the world? The PRESIDENT is often considered to be that, but not the VP.


Yes, I've been living under a rock.  So the change to the constitution was to add, out of the fucking blue, that marriage is btn a man and a woman.

Great.

NOOOOOOOO!!!! California's law has always been that marriage is between a man and a woman, until the CA court's ruling in 2008, deeming Prop. 22 (a stronger enforcement of a previous marriage law) as "unconstitutional". To paraphrease Matt Staver from Liberty Counsel, all the voters did was restore the definition of marriage in California to what it had always been (since the state's existence) until that ruling.


I'm certain in the applicable time, you'd say the same thing about slavery, miscegenation, and women as property.  Your justification of democratic absolutism is applicable to those things as well.


Remember, the essence of democracy is the lynch mob.

PLEASE!!! Every time the people vote against some bone-headed liberal idea, all of a sudden they're listed as being a mob, just like the folks protesting ObamaCare.

It's always "mob rule", when you lose on an issue. And, once again, slavery, miscegenation, and women being used as property have nothing to do with the subject at hand, notwithstanding that the people's voice played a role in ending that as well.


What's a bigot?

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

You've stated that b/c of your religious prejudice, gays shouldn't marry.  You don't oppose gay marriage on the basis of any credible fact.  You oppose it on the grounds that you hold the belief that a book written by sheepherders is the word of God and that word is 'death' to fags.

You and your ilk are textbook bigots.  Tell me why you are not.

For starters, I'm not intolerantly devoted to my own opinions. And my religious beliefs are no more "prejudice" than your anti-religious/secular beliefs are.

Furthermore, your blurb about the Bible being written by sheepherders simply mirrors your own "prejudice" and flat-out buffoonery on the matter.


You certainly put yourself out to make sure gays are treated like second class citizens.

I do nothing of the sort. If asked to vote on an issue, I simply vote "yes" or "no". The fact that you or any other gay "marriage" supporter doens't like is neither my problem not my concern.


I have no such stake in the matter other than to point out the hurtful and hateful basis of your actions and perspective.

If you have no stake in the matter, then quit blubbering about it and find a new hobby.



'Genius'....Hey, I put my pants on one leg at a time just like you.

I stated that log cabin republicans were like chickens belonging to the Col. Sanders party.

You misread that as me calling someone a chicken/coward.  I stayed with the meme correctly.  You showed that your attention span is limited.

Again, what are you smoking? I made no indication that you were calling the Log Cabin Republicans cowards. What I said was simply how stupid your take is that somehow homosexuals can't or shouldn't be Republicans.


Again, in reference to republicans and log cabin freaks.

Again, lay off the weed!! Your referring to Log Cabin Republicans as "freaks", simply because they are Republicans and gay is as dumb now as it was then,


Says me.
I think your points are an indictment of your honesty.  You're right.  The religious right that runs that party is a mix of religions.  What was I thinking?

Few will accuse you of "thinking", when it comes to posting this mess. What I said, O-ye-that-hath-trouble-reading, is that the GOP listens to evangelical Christian voters, BECAUSE THAT BLOCK HELPS THEM WIN ELECTIONS.

I made those points in reference to those ugly chapters in American history.

Then I opined that those bigotries sounded biblical.  As usual you go overboard to intoxicate your mind so that the perfection of the Bible remains intact in your bigoted world-view.

But since we're here, Christian uberman Jerry Falwell beat the drum for miscegenation.  Billy Graham railed against Jews...Let's face it, anything Christian south of the Mason/Dixon line was pro-slavery miscegenation. 

Both miscegenation and anti-Semitism are wrong, per Biblical standards. And, lest that memory of yours go south, BOTH changed their tunes, when learning that such didn't agree with Scripture.


Your protestations about women are insane. "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."--1 Tim. 2:11-14

Few things are more comical than some Bible skeptic, boneheadedly posting verses,  with nary the foggiest clue of the context in which it was written.

One, this verse in reference to a particular group of women who were being taught false thing about the Christian faith and were erroenously teaching others. Paul addressed this issue to them and them alone.

Two, O factually-deprived one, Paul was taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in part, BY A WOMAN: Priscilla, along with her husband, Aquilla. And he credits his start in the faith with what he learned from her.

Acts 18:26, And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

Three, in Romans 16, Paul lists a number of women who have helped him in the ministry (almost half the people he thanks are women): Mary, the aforementioned Priscilla, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, to name a few.

Romans 16:1-4, I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea, That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you, for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.  Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus, who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. 





Not to mention the minor fact that women worked as prophetessed, such as Anna, who saw Jesus Christ as an infant in the temple of Jerusalem.

Luke 2:36, And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity.

And, of course, there's Deborah, who ruled over Israel as a judge.

Judges 4:4-5, And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.

Here's a hint: When people come to a woman for judgment, she's giving them INSTRUCTION.

So much for that foolish quip of yours.




"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18)  That made a proud moment in our country's history - Salem witch trials.  Even Sarah Palin is a witch.
Why is that woman still alive?

It's probably because she hasn't been engaging in thing like human sacrifice and other perverse things like the "witches" referenced in the Old Testament, genius.


Here's a link to for access to 200 more biblical quotes that treat women as sex slaves, and property.
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/women.php

At least, now we know the source of this gibberish. Though refuting this mess is quite simple, it is time-consuming. So, I'll address a few of the crackpot claims I've heard folks like you spew time and time again (the skeptic silliness is underlined).

Exodus 21:7-11: "Unfair rules for female servants, may be sex slaves" Women were hired as servants, often to avoid poverty. And, as the rest of the passage states (and these atheists conveniently left out), if a woman is bethrohed to a man but he ends the engagement or is married to her and divorces her, HE IS STILL on the hook to take care of her financially. "her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.". Today, we call that ALIMONY.

Furthermore, NOTHING in that passage talks about sex slaves. First, there's no sex WITHOUT marriage. And, the financial provisions in case of divorce are clearly spelled out. In other words, whether she starts out as a servant or not, once she's married, she gets all the benefits of a full-blown wife.

Deut. 22:23,24 "Woman raped in city, she & her rapist both stoned to death" It appears that these Rhodes scholars don't read too well. Verse 23 and 24 DO NOT talk about a woman being raped. Verses 25 and 26, however, do. And they read as follows, "But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her, then the man only that lay with her shall die  But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter.

Raping a woman was the equivalent of murder, as far as being a capital offense.

Now how do you supposed these Einsteins miss that? 

Deut 22:28-29 "Woman must marry her rapist". First, the woman doesn't have to marry her rapist. Exodus 21 states that the father makes the call as to whether or not the marriage takes place. Regardless, the man must put up the 50 shekels (about 7 years wages).

Secondly, if the father authorized the marriage, the rapist is on the hook FOR LIFE. He can't divorce her and, as the case with the servant, he must provide her food, clothes, and any other care permanently.

Third, notice that this only applies to an unbetrothed virgin; if the virgin is betrothed, the rapist dies. Care for the victim is the only reason he's kept alive.

Fourth, and most importantly, marriage doesn't equate to living in the same house, having sex with the husband, etc. I'll use a modern example: The Linda and Terry "Hulk" Hogan divorce case. They were separated for two years. They lived in different houses, had separate bank accounts, and start living completely different lives. Linda even had a restraining order again the Hulkster. Yet, they were still legally married.

So, the issue is care for the victim, plain and simple.

Proverbs 11:22 "One of numerous Proverbial putdowns" That particular verse refers to a woman WHO LACKS DISCRETION, hardly a putdown. Of course, the poster boys for "Hooked on Phonics" missed Proverbs 31, "Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price [is] far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar. She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.....  Strength and honour [are] her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.  She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.  Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.  Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.  Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.

That's a real putdown there, folks. 

Judg. 11:30-40  "Jephthah's nameless daughter sacrificed" Ummmmmm....not quite.

Jephthah said he would offer up a burnt offering to the Lord. Per the Levitical laws, all burned offerings has to be a) animals, and b) MALE. His daughter was neither. Furthermore, human sacrifice was OUTLAWED.

Look at the last two