Let Freedom Ring and be "Fabulous"

[theologian]

Very proud of our "activist judges" in California today!

[gogo]

 

On CNN:

 

California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

 

Story Highlights

NEW: "This will have a huge effect across the nation' date='" attorney says

NEW: Governor says he will respect ruling, not pursue the matter further

NEW: 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

[tongue-tied]

God, doesn't anyone ever think of the children?

[Dreamin']

Another reason to love California.

[Mr. Kinsley]

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?

[Guest Jules]

Oh. I'm cool with that. What's the big deal?

Have you ever watched gay porn?

[ikol]

The government should have nothing to due with marriage whether it's straight, gay, polygamous, etc.

[bobbob1313]

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?

[ikol]

So gay people give you the heebie-jeebies, is what you are trying to say?

 

No, the government gives me the heebie-jeebies.

[bobbob1313]

No, the government gives me the heebie-jeebies.

 

So you are saying the government is gay?

[Mr. Kinsley]

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.

[Mr. Kinsley]

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.

[ikol]

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.

[Good Old Neon]

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?

[gogo]

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.

[ikol]

Why are you averse to calling a same sex union marriage?

 

Why are you so attached to the word marriage?

[bjorn_skurj]

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.

[Good Old Neon]

Why are you so attached to the word marriage?

 

 

I

[ikol]

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.

[Good Old Neon]

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?

[ikol]

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.

[Good Old Neon]

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?

[deepseacatfish]

I'm with Ikol and Bjorn on this.

 

 

Good job California.

[ikol]

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.

[Good Old Neon]

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?