California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

I'm not sure there's much more to go over, though I must say this has been an enjoyable discourse (if only all the Obama/McCain arguments were so civil!), but I do have one last question:

ChefChiTown said:

I don't agree with being gay, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

Click to expand...

Just what do you mean?

Well it sucks to be them gays and lesbians. They need to chill out I mean look at the people that did not voted for Obama we are not going out there and stoping traffic and demonstrating all piss off, it's a democracy like it or hate it.

don_equis said:

Well it sucks to be them gays and lesbians. They need to chill out I mean look at the people that did not voted for Obama we are not going out there and stoping traffic and demonstrating all piss off, it's a democracy like it or hate it.

Click to expand...

Contrary to popular belief, Obama hasn't taken away any of your basic rights.

Prop 8 was headed to a double-digit defeat until the Religious Right created some smear ads about "teaching same sex marriage in public schools" and that some churches would have their non-tax status overturned as a result of Prop 8 because some churches rent out their space for marriages and they would have to do the same for samesex marriages.

These ads were nothing more than smear tactics, but they worked. The 2 side-issues were inflammatory and disconnected to the central issue. Public school curriculum is the responsibility of local school boards, not this proposition and not the Religious Right.

As was mentioned earlier in the thread, the California Supreme Court will review this ballot initiative to see if it's constitutional because as it is written, it would be the public legislation of oppression and discrimination.

I don't care what 2 consenting adults do. As long as they pay their taxes and are law-abiding, what right do we have to tell adults who they can or can't marry? What is the religious right going to do when "Junior" or "Missy" see two gays making out at Starbucks? Beat them up? Make Starbucks close its doors?

I actually think Churches/Synagogues, Temples, Mosques should not be tax-free entities anymore. The state needs revenue and might as well take money from organizations who try to manipulate the State anyway.

don_equis said:

Well it sucks to be them gays and lesbians.

Click to expand...

I can just see the Southern hillbilly twang in your post.

Rattrap said:

Just what do you mean?

Click to expand...

I mean what I said. I don't agree with being gay, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

Just like I don't agree with people who piss on eachother while having sex, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it. To each their own.

ChefChiTown said:

I mean what I said. I don't agree with being gay, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

Just like I don't agree with people who piss on eachother while having sex, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it. To each their own.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with gay people whatsoever, it's not like they are starting World War 3 or hurting anyone. The way some racist people act, you would think gay people were terrorists or something. Those racist people need a good slap in the face.

Rattrap said:

Contrary to popular belief, Obama hasn't taken away any of your basic rights.

Click to expand...

Is marriage a basic right? and Obama hasn't yet and get over it it was decided in a democratic way tell them to get a refund for their campaign money

Dean Henneberg said:

I can just see the Southern hillbilly twang in your post.

Click to expand...

Man you really fell down for that one, It did not take someone long to acuse me of what?? red neck? I guess you don't know that im a little lighter than Obama and I do got curly black hair too, never seen a hillbilly looking like that. Go ahead with your personal insults just because I spole my mind intentionally, that's what you people far left like to do.


Can't they find a civil way to push for their agenda? one thing I do agree is that those that are married already they should be "grandfather clause" and those who got new plans to do so well like I said before it sucks to be them.

Don Equis: Is Democracy free from mistakes? Is it the role of the Judiciary system to protect "the people" from doing dumb things?

don_equis said:

Is marriage a basic right?

Click to expand...

I think it is. Even if other people don't the fact you should be treated as an equal under the law to everybody else no matter who you are is.

I say what the hell. Let gays get married if they want. Why does the farging government always have to legislate their idea of morality?

titsrock said:

Don Equis: Is Democracy free from mistakes? Is it the role of the Judiciary system to protect "the people" from doing dumb things?

Click to expand...

I am not ignorant of that fact that democracy is not perfect but it is how we decide things. I did not voted for Obama, got upset about McCain not winning, vented it out and now accept the fact that more people voted for Obama and he is the president, that is the reality and I accept it. judiciary system has to follow what people have decided upon a democratic process, but obviously things are dumb and wrong when a group of people did not get what they wanted, it always happens.

meesterperfect said:

I want to marry my cat.
she's so beautiful and we are in love.
we should be able to be married, why would anyone want to deny that right from us?
Or maybe my sister, or cousin, or daughter.
or maybe a combination of them........
Who has the right to tell me we can't?

Click to expand...

Ah nothing like the feeling of quoting yourself.

My point was:
I have nothing against homosexuals being recognized as a true legal partnership.
If 2 men or woman are together as a couple than it should be recognized as a legal partnership if they want it to be, therefore things like pensions, social security, life benefits, alimony, ect can be passed from one partner to another
. Thats why I believe domestic partnership laws are in effect in some or many states.

However allowing a marraige between anything other than a man and woman opens up a huge can of legal worms.
Like I was implying in my post.
If the GOV will recognize a marriage between same sex, why not mother/daughter, brother/sister, father/son, multiple spouses, ect ect?
I know it sounds sick but its very possible that this will come up in the future
There must be limits, and who's to say what these limits are?
Thats why I think marraige should be left alone and should be only recognized as being between a man and woman.

it was a "voter-approved" amendment. wtf doesnt the courst understand about that?

Considering the gay population in California I find this to be a very poor choice on their behalf. People do what they want regardless of laws, so even if they don't have the right to be married they will still continue to live together, and sleep together, and be together, throughout the rest of their lives. So why bother them? They just want to put it on paper, and feel like they are accepted into society that way.

Think about this, there are still many racist people out there, angry that Asian, Hispanic, and African American's get to vote. The KKK is always going to be around, even if it has to be undercover. Besides, it's not like gay people don't have all the rights we do. They do get all the rights everyone does, except they can't get married. So many people get divorced nowadays it's hard to say that straight marriage is any stronger of a union.

I believe it's time we all got off our high horses, and let people be. If gay people want to get married, let them. It's a document. A piece of paper. Not the end of the world, because everyone is going to be gay because of it.

Kind of funny how the Mormons were the one's who put up the money for this proposition. Yes, the Mormons who are for polygamy. lol

don_equis said:

I am not ignorant of that fact that democracy is not perfect but it is how we decide things. I did not voted for Obama, got upset about McCain not winning, vented it out and now accept the fact that more people voted for Obama and he is the president, that is the reality and I accept it. judiciary system has to follow what people have decided upon a democratic process, but obviously things are dumb and wrong when a group of people did not get what they wanted, it always happens.

Click to expand...

Uhh...our democracy was founded on the idea of majority rule, with unalienable minority rights. Otherwise democracy just becomes a "tyranny of the majority". If tomorrow 52% of the country wanted to bring back slavery it still wouldn’t be right.

meesterperfect said:

Ah nothing like the feeling of quoting yourself.

My point was:
I have nothing against homosexuals being recognized as a true legal partnership.
If 2 men or woman are together as a couple than it should be recognized as a legal partnership if they want it to be, therefore things like pensions, social security, life benefits, alimony, ect can be passed from one partner to another
. Thats why I believe domestic partnership laws are in effect in some or many states.

However allowing a marraige between anything other than a man and woman opens up a huge can of legal worms.
Like I was implying in my post.
If the GOV will recognize a marriage between same sex, why not mother/daughter, brother/sister, father/son, multiple spouses, ect ect?
I know it sounds sick but its very possible that this will come up in the future
There must be limits, and who's to say what these limits are?
Thats why I think marraige should be left alone and should be only recognized as being between a man and woman.

Click to expand...

Your thinking seems to be flawed. If marriage is just a religious and/or deeply rooted concept tradition that has no other difference than a civil union, then why does the government get involved with it at all? Shouldn't it be in the government’s eyes there is no such thing as a legal marriage and everything is just a civil union of one type or another? Then anybody could be "married" to anybody they wanted, and marriage would have no official legal standing itself. It would just be a concept. If it's not going to be that way then it needs to be equal for everybody. Otherwise your basic premise is that it's right to start discriminating against people because it's tradition or they do something against your own beliefs while not hurting anybody else. That doesn't seem like a very good reason to do so. Even that is ridiculous because there is absolutely nothing that will disallow anybody from having a traditional marriage as it is now if they choose to do so. I could see limiting it to humans people because animals aren't people and shouldn't have the same rights, but do you have any other reason to limit it other than it doesn't fit into what you think is proper? I don't dictate other peoples lives on that reasoning even when I dislike it. People are acting like if we allow gay marriage that some cosmic force is going to come down and make it effect there own marriage as well. I find it likely more people are just upset because it might tarnish what they think marriage should be or there own religious values. Could you image if we let people feelings on things like that dictate even more things than we do now in others areas as significantly meaningful as marriage because it upsets other people’s values.

meesterperfect said:

My point was:
I have nothing against homosexuals being recognized as a true legal partnership.
If 2 men or woman are together as a couple than it should be recognized as a legal partnership if they want it to be, therefore things like pensions, social security, life benefits, alimony, ect can be passed from one partner to another
. Thats why I believe domestic partnership laws are in effect in some or many states.

However allowing a marraige between anything other than a man and woman opens up a huge can of legal worms.
Like I was implying in my post.
If the GOV will recognize a marriage between same sex, why not mother/daughter, brother/sister, father/son, multiple spouses, ect ect?
I know it sounds sick but its very possible that this will come up in the future
There must be limits, and who's to say what these limits are?
Thats why I think marraige should be left alone and should be only recognized as being between a man and woman.

Click to expand...

By that reasoning, why hasn't the government started to recognize legal partnerships between mother/daughter, brother/sister, father/son, multiple spouses, etc.? And what prevents them from doing so? Isn't the damage already done by allowing legal partnerships?

There really is no difference in the eyes of the law between legal partnerships and marriage, so I would think anyone who favors allowing "legal partnerships" and not "marriage" would only have religious reasons or personal bigotry to cite.

At the same time, any homosexuals who think it is a big deal to have the right to marry rather than just a legal partnership, they must be driven by religious reasons or personal selfishness as well.

It's all a battle of semantics. And a ridiculous one at that.

I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry, I think it is their right. But if a certain state wants to only allow a "legal partnership" just to keep the conservatives happy, then homosexuals should be happy with that and not make such a big deal out of it.

RealMenSwallow said:

Considering the gay population in California I find this to be a very poor choice on their behalf. People do what they want regardless of laws, so even if they don't have the right to be married they will still continue to live together, and sleep together, and be together, throughout the rest of their lives. So why bother them? They just want to put it on paper, and feel like they are accepted into society that way.

Think about this, there are still many racist people out there, angry that Asian, Hispanic, and African American's get to vote. The KKK is always going to be around, even if it has to be undercover. Besides, it's not like gay people don't have all the rights we do. They do get all the rights everyone does, except they can't get married. So many people get divorced nowadays it's hard to say that straight marriage is any stronger of a union.

I believe it's time we all got off our high horses, and let people be. If gay people want to get married, let them. It's a document. A piece of paper. Not the end of the world, because everyone is going to be gay because of it.

Click to expand...

Very well said.

Melissa Etheridge PROTESTS GAY-MARRIAGE BAN

Click to expand...

Etheridge declares that if she's not "allowed the same right [to marry] under the state constitution as any other citizen. ... I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes, because I am not a full citizen."

Click to expand...

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20238779,00.html

I know that it sucks for gay people to not be able to get married in California, but this mentality that Melissa Etheridge has is so stupid. She's not going to pay her California state taxes because she feels as if she shouldn't have to, as she is "not a full citizen", due to the recent ban on gay-marriage.

What is this going to really do? I mean, honestly?

:dunno: