Author Topic: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage  (Read 112795 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63727
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #525 on: May 06, 2009, 04:03:59 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.   

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19253
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #526 on: May 06, 2009, 07:08:09 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.


bigdumbbell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17468
  • Bon Voyage !
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #527 on: May 06, 2009, 07:14:28 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

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19253
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #528 on: May 06, 2009, 08:04:05 PM »
3 more white trash states

You're running out of places to live.

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #529 on: May 07, 2009, 12:33:08 AM »
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.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63727
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #530 on: May 07, 2009, 11:50:57 AM »
3 more white trash states

O Rly?  What's your definition of a "white trash state"? 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63727
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #531 on: May 07, 2009, 11:52:47 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? 

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #532 on: May 07, 2009, 01:18:59 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.


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63727
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #533 on: May 07, 2009, 01:43:41 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. 

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19432
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #534 on: May 23, 2009, 09:50:04 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.


Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #535 on: May 24, 2009, 04:42:57 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).
I hate the State.

timfogarty

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7115
  • @fogartyTim on twitter
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #536 on: May 26, 2009, 10:17:17 AM »
Prop 8 upheld,  but the 18000 marriages already performed will remain valid

Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #537 on: May 26, 2009, 10:20:08 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.
I hate the State.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #538 on: May 26, 2009, 10:22:18 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.  

timfogarty

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7115
  • @fogartyTim on twitter
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #539 on: May 26, 2009, 10:28:59 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

Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #540 on: May 26, 2009, 10:30:21 AM »
that's been California for the past 30 years or so

End marriage welfare.
I hate the State.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #541 on: May 26, 2009, 10:32:12 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

Benny B

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 12407
  • Ron = 'Princess L' & many other gimmicks - FACT!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #542 on: May 26, 2009, 10:38:25 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.
!

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63727
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #543 on: May 26, 2009, 10:41:10 AM »
I'm stunned.  They got one right.   :o

timfogarty

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7115
  • @fogartyTim on twitter
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #544 on: May 26, 2009, 10:45:38 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.

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #545 on: May 26, 2009, 10:53:40 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.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63727
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #546 on: May 26, 2009, 10:56:19 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. 

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #547 on: May 26, 2009, 11:00:08 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

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #548 on: May 26, 2009, 11:01:42 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.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63727
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #549 on: May 26, 2009, 11:05:53 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.