theologian Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Very proud of our "activist judges" in California today! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 On CNN: California ban on same-sex marriage struck down Story HighlightsNEW: "This will have a huge effect across the nation' date='" attorney saysNEW: Governor says he will respect ruling, not pursue the matter furtherNEW: Opponent calls ruling "worst kind of judicial activism State Supreme Court rules law unconstitutional on equal-protection grounds (CNN) -- In a much-anticipated 4-3 ruling issued Thursday, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional The ruling clears the way for the state to become the second to legalize same-sex marriage. Several gay and lesbian couples -- along with the city of San Francisco and gay rights groups -- had sued, saying they were victims of unlawful discrimination. A lower court ruled San Francisco acted unlawfully in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but Thursday's ruling overturned that decision. Watch what the ruling means Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tongue-tied Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 God, doesn't anyone ever think of the children? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamin' Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Another reason to love California. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Kinsley Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 This is an outrage and needs to be reversed!! Yet another assault on the family. This absolutely disgusts me to my very core! I'll be damned if I will now have to leave my wife and marry some other guy! What about my children?!?!? I mean, really, who in their right mind would... hmm? What's that?... I can stay with my wife, but gay people can get married now if they want to? Oh. I'm cool with that. What's the big deal? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Oh. I'm cool with that. What's the big deal?Have you ever watched gay porn? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 The government should have nothing to due with marriage whether it's straight, gay, polygamous, etc. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 The government should have nothing to due with marriage whether it's straight, gay, polygamous, etc. So gay people give you the heebie-jeebies, is what you are trying to say? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 So gay people give you the heebie-jeebies, is what you are trying to say? No, the government gives me the heebie-jeebies. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 No, the government gives me the heebie-jeebies. So you are saying the government is gay? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Kinsley Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 So, who should be in charge of the legal aspect of marriage if not the government? Should polygamy and incest be legalized through a lack of oversight? The government is only involved in terms of setting the parameters of the institution of marriage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Kinsley Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Have you ever watched gay porn?No, but I did see that movie about Oscar Wilde a few years back. I had no idea that dudes could do it in the missionary position. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 So you are saying the government is gay? No... So, who should be in charge of the legal aspect of marriage if not the government? Should polygamy and incest be legalized through a lack of oversight? The government is only involved in terms of setting the parameters of the institution of marriage. The government can handle the legal aspects without calling it marriage. The government could authorize civil unions, union contracts (whatever you want to call it) and leave marriage to private citizens. That way the government is completely neutral on the issue and individual rights are protected. And I'm not so sure that the government's role should be to prevent polygamy and incest. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 No... The government can handle the legal aspects without calling it marriage. The government could authorize civil unions, union contracts (whatever you want to call it) and leave marriage to private citizens. That way the government is completely neutral on the issue and individual rights are protected. And I'm not so sure that the government's role should be to prevent polygamy and incest. Why are you averse to calling a same sex union marriage? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 I'm with ikol on this one. A civil union could be entered into by anyone, and would be strictly a legality. Anyone needing recognition above and beyond that could be "married" within whatever spiritual or cultural tradition they wanted. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Why are you averse to calling a same sex union marriage? Why are you so attached to the word marriage? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 The government can handle the legal aspects without calling it marriage. The government could authorize civil unions, union contracts (whatever you want to call it) and leave marriage to private citizens. That way the government is completely neutral on the issue and individual rights are protected. And I'm not so sure that the government's role should be to prevent polygamy and incest.We are in agreement on marriage. I don't care about polygamy, as long as it's between consenting ADULTS. (Not pervy old men marrying teenagers.) The same for incest, but I don't think too many cases fall into the "consenting adults" category. I think it is appropriate and desirable for the government to prevent people from being exploited or coerced, and to punish those who exploit and coerce.Good for teh gays. I feel the same way about gay marriage that I do about gays joining the military - I don't wanna do it, so if they wanna do it, rock on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Why are you so attached to the word marriage? I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Why not scrap the term marriage altogether, and refer to all unions, gay or straight, as civil unions? That's exactly what I was advocating. The government should only be concerned with protecting rights, not playing word games. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 That's exactly what I was advocating. The government should only be concerned with protecting rights, not playing word games. Are you married? If not, assuming you eventually wed, will you refer to your union as a civil one, or a marriage? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Are you married? If not, assuming you eventually wed, will you refer to your union as a civil one, or a marriage? I'll refer to it as marriage, but I won't give a damn what the government calls it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 I'll refer to it as marriage, but I won't give a damn what the government calls it. Are you in favor of states rights in relation to same sex marriages, or are you in favor of legisltation at the federal, constitutional level? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
deepseacatfish Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 I'm with Ikol and Bjorn on this. Good job California. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Are you in favor of states rights in relation to same sex marriages, or are you in favor of legisltation at the federal, constitutional level? I lean more towards states rights. I definitely don't think there should be any sort of constitutional amendment related to marriage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 I lean more towards states rights. I definitely don't think there should be any sort of constitutional amendment related to marriage. So some states should be allowed to not recognize the legal/cultural legitimacy of same sex civil unions or marriages? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.