LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

California Legalizes Gay Marriage

Thu, May 15, 2008 at 11:11:18 am PDT

In an election year, the California Supreme Court has legalized gay marriage.

Hang on to your hats.

Advertisement

843 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 newsjunkie_ky  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:12:00am

Idiots!

2 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:12:02am

Maybe my sister will move there.

3 Who Watches the Watchmen?  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:12:02am

Four lawyers trump the voters of California. Heh™.

4 Uncle Joe  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:12:32am

Change!

5 JohnnyReb  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:12:47am

Remeber this is California, the land of fruits and nuts.

6 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:12:48am

I don't want to be forced into a gay marriage! Why would the state oppress us this way?
/

7 Sharmuta  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:13:09am

They meant "gay" as in happy, right?

/

8 itellu3times  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:13:21am

So now John McCain can live openly with the Republican Party?

9 newsjunkie_ky  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:13:52am

A parade will be held in SF on Saturday. Oh wait, there is a parade EVERY Saturday.

10 Dr. Shalit  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:14:06am

Sounds like "PROPOSITION TIME" in CA.

-S-

11 joncelli  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:14:21am

Hummm. Still time for defense of marriage referendums in various states to be set up? Could be a wedge issue for the Republicans.

12 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:14:22am

The big question: "Full faith & credit"?

13 Dahveed  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:14:27am

Activist judges. When you can't win inthe court of public opinion you file a lawsuit. You find enough liberal judges and they will agree to anything.

14 Uncle Joe  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:14:47am

Yeah, stay home because McCain's a chump! The pendulum will surely swing back once the Dems have locked up the courts, the bureaucracy and legislated every nitwit pet agenda they can think of. Then we can really show 'em!

15 rwmofo  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:14:56am

Divorce lawyers are out shopping for that new vacation home. Please leave a message.

16 pat  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:15:12am
Hang on to your hats.

And cover your butt.

17 P. Aaron  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:15:23am

Let it all hang out. Pretty soon they'll be nothing to live for...nothing to die for.

The USA=Europe.

18 Honorary Yooper  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:15:33am

Since when did the courts get to make the law? I thought that Californians had made their choice known by a referendum?

19 Sharmuta  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:15:38am

re: #16 pat

ROTF!

20 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:15:43am

The bad news: This will only push weddings to a whole new level of opulence.


/shamlessly stolen from "The Onion"

21 redheadredstate  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:15:54am

They needed to legalize it? I didn't see much evidence that anyone was trying to stop it did you? My cousin is a cop in San Fran, oh the stories he tells about being hit on by gay men. He used to work in Vice and I cannot share some of those stories with you. I cannot wait for the implosion!

22 song_and_dance_man[deleted]  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:16:12am
23 Diamond Bullet  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:16:22am

Legalized? I'm surprised they didn't make it mandatory.

24 gop_patriot  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:16:23am

re: #16 pat

HAHAHAHA!

25 joncelli  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:16:28am

re: #12 Occasional Reader

Precisely. It's a foot in the door -- if a marriage is legal in California, then you've got to recognize it in Kansas...although specifically banning it might get you around that. That's a legal question, and I don't even play a lawyer on TV.

26 rwmofo  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:16:41am

Give them an inch. Uhh, scratch that.

27 lawhawk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:17:17am

There's a move to put a proposition on the ballot in November that would amend the state constitution to clearly spell out that marriage is between a man and a woman, but the Court could rule that that violates the Constitution and would not be permissible.

Never mind that the law struck down today was passed by the voters with a 60% majority.

28 Nevergiveup  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:17:27am

Well since this now seems headed to the Ballot in CA this November, it may only help our cause by mobilizing the base like the Mass same sex debate did last time out.

29 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:17:36am

re: #15 rwmofo

Divorce lawyers are out shopping for that new vacation home. Please leave a message.

LOL!

30 Alouette  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:17:36am

So much for the will of the people, judges know better than the lower voting classes.

31 redheadredstate  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:17:40am

# 22

And soon they will do away with the Governorship and elect a Queen.

CLASSIC!

32 SouthAmericanWay  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:17:56am

It would seem that they're working for the GOP or something... It is wonderful that it brings close to home for conservatives what may happen if they stay home this election cycle.

33 offendi  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:18:10am

Does this dovetail in some way with some of Pastor Manning's theories?

34 Tumulus11  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:18:19am
'It's for the children.'

. Oh, wait, no it's not.

35 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:18:23am

re: #27 lawhawk

but the Court could rule that that violates the Constitution and would not be permissible

The Court could rule that a proposed amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional?!

36 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:18:38am

re: #27 lawhawk

Yes, constitutional bans on gay marriage are very unpopular and will never happen.

37 pat  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:18:42am

Where does Obama stand?

38 mojo9  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:19:00am

BFD! California is like a bowl of granola. after the fruits and nuts, all you have is flakes.

39 joncelli  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:19:32am

re: #37 pat

With his back against a wall?
/

40 sngnsgt  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:19:33am

I now pronounce you husband and husband. Who gets the pretty ring?
-- * --

41 Sponge  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:19:36am

re: #16 pat

And cover your butt.

Butt to the wall, man......

42 BuddyG[deleted]  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:20:46am
43 Cygnus  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:20:47am

This will go nicely with the... ahem... "M"-a-thon coming up on the 25th. California has become a moral cesspool.

44 pat  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:21:08am

re: #36 Killgore Trout

Yes, constitutional bans on gay marriage are very unpopular and will never happen.

LOL. My State, the bluest in the nation, changed it's Constitution immediately after our Court pulled this stunt. The Referendum was going to be razor thin, according to the MSM, with the gays prevailing. Passed 67%.

45 lawhawk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:21:28am

re: #35 Occasional Reader

Consider that some intrepid lawyer could seek to strike down the ballot proposal claiming that it is unconstitutional. Watch for that scenario.

Or, the Cal. S.Ct. could adopt the Mass S.Ct. position that its decision was not reversible by constitutional amendment; the court said it would strike such an amendment as a violation of the existing provisions of the state constitution.

46 Honorary Yooper  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:21:34am

re: #23 Diamond Bullet

Legalized? I'm surprised they didn't make it mandatory.

Nah. It'd take the 9th Circuit to do that.

47 Kulhwch  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:21:35am

re: #7 Sharmuta

They meant "gay" as in happy, right?

/

You're talking mythical, right?

}:)     [I, being a divorce survivor ... ]

48 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:21:53am

re: #17 P. Aaron

Let it all hang out. Pretty soon they'll be nothing to live for...nothing to die for.

Whereas the methodology is certainly questionable (judges striking down the will of the people), I don't agree that legal gay marriages are the end of civilization and the world.

49 RoyalCanadian  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:22:07am

One man's vicotry is another man's bummer. Lawyers made millions in the lead up to gay marriage and they will make billions with gay divorce. No wonder they stand behind gays.

50 pat  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:22:23am

When is the Court going to declare the Constitution unConstitutional?

51 Nevergiveup  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:22:28am

If you can't define marriage as between a man and a women, why do they define marriage as only between one man and one "other". I mean then why is polygamy wrong? just pointing out were this may be heading.

52 zmdavid  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:22:45am

re: #35 Occasional Reader

The Court could rule that a proposed amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional?!

Yes. The court is God. (At least in their view)

53 Bombarafat  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:23:07am

Arizona Bay here it comes

54 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:23:27am

re: #37 pat

Where does Obama stand?

He's a long-legged pimp.

55 Cygnus[deleted]  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:23:32am
56 BuddyG  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:23:37am

re: #48 JamesTKirk


Then where do you draw the line? Two adults?
Legalized polygamy? What about their "rights"?

57 rwmofo  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:23:49am

re: #34 Tumulus11

. Oh, wait, no it's not.

Actually you're on to something. When conservatives "come out" against this CHILDREN WILL STARVE! ...according to Barbara Boxer.

58 cblesz  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:23:55am

re: #14 Uncle Joe

Yeah, stay home because McCain's a chump! The pendulum will surely swing back once the Dems have locked up the courts, the bureaucracy and legislated every nitwit pet agenda they can think of. Then we can really show 'em!

EXACTLY! See, this is what we can expect from the SCOTUS once Barry gets elected. More and more activist judges just like Ruth Bader Ginsberg. This is the exact argument for voting FOR McCain OR against Barry.

59 world b. free  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:24:00am

If only James Bond hadn't thwarted Christopher Walken's plans in "View to a Kill" to detonate dynamite all along the San Andreas Fault Line and plunge California into the ocean.

60 lawhawk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:24:03am

If this case doesn't get the GOP energized about trying to limit the influence of activist courts, nothing will... Elections have repercussions and outcomes - and if you stand on the sidelines in a snit because you don't like McCain, you're going to get exactly what you deserve - even more activist judges that will pump out activist decisions and not based on the law. Penumbras and emanations indeed.

61 Sharmuta  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:24:30am

re: #50 pat

When is the Court going to declare the Constitution unConstitutional?

Give obama the White House and a few Supreme Court picks....

62 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:24:32am

What gets me about this is that the court overturned and ammendment to the state constitution.

This is judicial activism on steroids.

Liberals may hail this as a great decision, but the same court could use the same power to dismiss the legislature and the governor and rule by decree.

What is going to stop them - the state constitution?

63 USA  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:24:44am

Man and beast are next. Of course, state's will start with civil unions, then find them unacceptable alternatives to marriage.

64 sngnsgt  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:24:52am

I can hear DUmmies screeching about this thread already.

65 stead63  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:25:03am

California's New Slogan: Where the voice of the people in a Democracy just dont matter.

66 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:25:10am

re: #28 Nevergiveup

...this November, it may only help our cause by mobilizing the base like the Mass same sex debate did last time out.

Make a big issue of this, and you'll kill any chance of major Democratic crossover votes to McCain (all those people who said they'd vote for him if their choice wasn't the Dem nominee).

67 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:25:15am

re: #43 Cygnus

This will go nicely with the... ahem... "M"-a-thon coming up on the 25th. California has become a moral cesspool.

What's an "M"-a-thon?

68 USA  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:25:21am

states PIMF

69 Cygnus  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:25:24am

re: #59 world b. free

If only James Bond hadn't thwarted Christopher Walken's plans in "View to a Kill" to detonate dynamite all along the San Andreas Fault Line and plunge California into the ocean.

And Superman stopped Lex Luthor from doing the same thing.

70 Nevergiveup  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:25:33am

re: #60 lawhawk

If this case doesn't get the GOP energized about trying to limit the influence of activist courts, nothing will... Elections have repercussions and outcomes - and if you stand on the sidelines in a snit because you don't like McCain, you're going to get exactly what you deserve - even more activist judges that will pump out activist decisions and not based on the law. Penumbras and emanations indeed.

Other than "Penumbras and emanations"( got to give me time to look them up). What he said!

71 Shug  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:25:37am

I just think the courts and legislatures have better things to do.

Like preventing the sharia law which would make Gay marriage a non-issue.....big time

72 zmdavid  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:25:40am

re: #63 USA

Man and beast are next. Of course, state's will start with civil unions, then find them unacceptable alternatives to marriage.


Polygamy will come before that.

73 cod_is_great  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:25:43am

I'll take this over sharia any day. And she shouldn't forget that one of our greatest commentators on the subject of creeping sharia, Bruce Bawer, lives with a man.

74 song_and_dance_man[deleted]  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:25:46am
75 newsjunkie_ky  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:25:54am

I love my Country more than I hate McCain.

I love that bumper sticker.

76 Rogue198  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:25:57am

re: #50 pat

When is the Court going to declare the Constitution unConstitutional?

That's what the Paulians want to do

77 Nevergiveup  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:26:00am

re: #66 JamesTKirk

Make a big issue of this, and you'll kill any chance of major Democratic crossover votes to McCain (all those people who said they'd vote for him if their choice wasn't the Dem nominee).

Got a point there.

78 zombie  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:26:06am

For some reason, even though I live at the epicenter of the gay marriage movement, this issue leaves me completely unmoved, one way or the other. To me, it's an unimportant side-issue affecting very few people that has been blown way out of proportion by both sides, on purpose.

If forced to take a stand, I'd have to come donw on the laissez-faire side of things: Marry whoever (or whatever) you want to marry. What's it got to do with me?

79 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:26:19am
80 BuddyG  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:26:19am

re: #55 Cygnus

What came first, Dick or "dick"?

81 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:26:25am

re: #49 RoyalCanadian

One man's vicotry is another man's bummer. Lawyers made millions in the lead up to gay marriage and they will make billions with gay divorce. No wonder they stand behind gays.

Gonna' refrain.

82 cblesz  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:26:49am

This is perfect...the GOP and McCain ought to make the commercials and ads NOW! Simply bring this freaking activist court's decision to the public and tell them that this is exactly what they are voting for if they vote for Obama's change! Oh, i forgot, the republicans were neutered sometime ago and won't do it...

83 Shug  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:27:00am

re: #78 zombie


my thoughts exactly.
Elizabeth Taylor did more damage to marriage than adam and steve

84 WrathofG-d  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:27:04am

What is the big deal exactly? The people of California are extreme leftists who would support the privilege of Homosexuals to "marry" eachother, and the Government passed a bill saying such.

This is a State's rights issue, and has been decided upon by this State.

This IS California we are talking about.

85 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:27:21am

re: #51 Nevergiveup

If you can't define marriage as between a man and a women, why do they define marriage as only between one man and one "other". I mean then why is polygamy wrong? just pointing out were this may be heading.

Or, group marriage.

86 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:27:26am

re: #45 lawhawk

Or, the Cal. S.Ct. could adopt the Mass S.Ct. position that its decision was not reversible by constitutional amendment; the court said it would strike such an amendment as a violation of the existing provisions of the state constitution.

Wow. I had not heard that. It's simply... beyond parody.

"Your proposed amendment would violate the existing Constitution!"

Er... yeah, that's, um, kind of the point.

"SILENCE! We have spoken! So it is written, so it shall be done!"

87 Kulhwch  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:27:49am

re: #59 world b. free

If only James Bond hadn't thwarted Christopher Walken's plans in "View to a Kill" to detonate dynamite all along the San Andreas Fault Line and plunge California into the ocean.

Or Superman hadn't thwarted Lex Luthor's plans in "Superman" to detonate nuclear weapons all along the San Andreas Fault Line and plunge California into the ocean.

}:)     [Wait, that thinking is faulty ... ]

88 BuddyG  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:27:54am

re: #66 JamesTKirk

"crossover votes" ? Hmmmm, like "swing votes"?

89 stead63  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:27:58am

re: #51 Nevergiveup

If you can't define marriage as between a man and a women, why do they define marriage as only between one man and one "other". I mean then why is polygamy wrong? just pointing out were this may be heading.

thats just around the corner I fully agree. What about a man and a horse? I mean the gate's standing wide open

90 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:28:02am

re: #14 Uncle Joe

Yeah, stay home because McCain's a chump! The pendulum will surely
swing back once the Dems have locked up the courts, the bureaucracy and
legislated every nitwit pet agenda they can think of. Then we can
really show 'em!

In 40 years. Just like the New Deal. We will be dead when the "pendulum swings back."

Dems have a way of hanging on to power. Decisions like this one give us insight into how.

91 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:28:05am

re: #78 zombie

For some reason, even though I live at the epicenter of the gay marriage movement, this issue leaves me completely unmoved, one way or the other. To me, it's an unimportant side-issue affecting very few people that has been blown way out of proportion by both sides, on purpose.

If forced to take a stand, I'd have to come donw on the laissez-faire side of things: Marry whoever (or whatever) you want to marry. What's it got to do with me?

Exactly. Doesn't change my marriage in any way, shape, or form.

Besides, marriage is much healthier than random sex in bathhouses with thousands of strangers. And I'd rather see people at gay pride marches flashes their wedding rings than ... well, what they're flashing now.

92 MigueldowninMexico  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:28:30am

This is the next enlightened step California should take.
Already being considered by some Europeans.

Go all the way! Why stop at a third of it?

93 quickjustice  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:28:34am

The N.Y. Court of Appeals said it was up to the N.Y. legislature, elected by the people, to make this decision. By taking this decision away from the California legislature, the California Supreme Court exposes its arrogance and its contempt both for the elected California legislature, the elected governor of California, and the people of California.

Time for another one of your legendary Propositions, Californians!

94 rawmuse  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:29:05am

Oh, well, why should straights be the only ones who are miserable?

95 Cygnus  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:29:12am

re: #67 MandyManners

What's an "M"-a-thon?

Look here. Sorry, I was too much of a wimp to type it out.

96 kyleb  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:29:17am

Can't we just call them Butt Buddies? I mean that sounds like a fair compromise and a more accurate term to boot.

97 cblesz  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:29:33am

re: #84 WrathofG-d

What is the big deal exactly? The people of California are extreme leftists who would support the privilege of Homosexuals to "marry" eachother, and the Government passed a bill saying such.

This is a State's rights issue, and has been decided upon by this State.

This IS California we are talking about.

Um, I live in California and resent that remark. I think you really need to distinguish NORTHERN CALIFORNIA (San Fran, berkely) with Southern California. And, may I ask where you live?

98 VegasRick  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:30:21am

re: #95 Cygnus

Look here. Sorry, I was too much of a wimp to type it out.

That should cum with some kind of warning!

99 zombie  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:30:36am

re: #43 Cygnus

This will go nicely with the... ahem... "M"-a-thon coming up on the 25th. California has become a moral cesspool.

The masturbate-a-thon is mostly a straight thing.

100 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:30:37am

re: #78 zombie

For some reason, even though I live at the epicenter of the gay marriage movement, this issue leaves me completely unmoved, one way or the other.

I am sorta kinda with you... EXCEPT for the glaring judicial activism aspect to the whole thing. Go back and read what lawhawk posted about the Mass. court; "our decision cannot be undone, even by constitutional amendment, so there!" Very disturbing.

101 BuddyG  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:30:38am

re: #91 JamesTKirk

"random sex in bathhouses with thousands of strangers"

Do you really think that would stop if gays could be legally married?

102 Kulhwch  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:30:41am

re: #78 zombie

For some reason, even though I live at the epicenter of the gay marriage movement, this issue leaves me completely unmoved, one way or the other. To me, it's an unimportant side-issue affecting very few people that has been blown way out of proportion by both sides, on purpose.

If forced to take a stand, I'd have to come donw on the laissez-faire side of things: Marry whoever (or whatever) you want to marry. What's it got to do with me?

Exactly.  And I only live 90 miles from said same epicenter ... right in the middle of Sacramento ...

}:)     [BUT I live nowhere near Arnold, so don't anyone come over ... ]

103 lawhawk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:30:58am

re: #84 WrathofG-d

There's a Constitutional provision called full faith and credit, that would extend that decision to every other state in the country. If you're in New Jersey or Montana, you'd have to accept the marriage between two people married in California under their law, even if you disagree with the law.

104 NoSubmission  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:31:10am

re: #78 zombie

For some reason, even though I live at the epicenter of the gay marriage movement, this issue leaves me completely unmoved, one way or the other. To me, it's an unimportant side-issue affecting very few people that has been blown way out of proportion by both sides, on purpose.

If forced to take a stand, I'd have to come donw on the laissez-faire side of things: Marry whoever (or whatever) you want to marry. What's it got to do with me?


I agree.

105 Cygnus  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:31:12am

re: #80 BuddyG

What came first, Dick or "dick"?

Inquiring minds want to know. :)

106 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:31:42am

re: #86 Occasional Reader

Wow. I had not heard that. It's simply... beyond parody.

"Your proposed amendment would violate the existing Constitution!"

Er... yeah, that's, um, kind of the point.

"SILENCE! We have spoken! So it is written, so it shall be done!"

I get this image of Q in the ST:TNG episode "Encounter at Farpoint."

107 rwmofo  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:31:51am

re: #60 lawhawk

If this case doesn't get the GOP energized about trying to limit the influence of activist courts, nothing will... Elections have repercussions and outcomes - and if you stand on the sidelines in a snit because you don't like McCain, you're going to get exactly what you deserve - even more activist judges that will pump out activist decisions and not based on the law. Penumbras and emanations indeed.

I totally agree. The "centrist" Clinton appointed Ginsburg and Breyer who vote just left of Karl Marx and--SURPRISE!--they're still on the court.

108 rawmuse  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:31:51am

re: #103 lawhawk

There's a Constitutional provision called full faith and credit, that would extend that decision to every other state in the country. If you're in New Jersey or Montana, you'd have to accept the marriage between two people married in California under their law, even if you disagree with the law.

Also known as "reciprocity". It does not work with guns, though.

109 joncelli  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:31:56am

re: #78 zombie

That would be my attitude too if marriage didn't have state sanction (and by "state" I mean "sanction by the individual states -- this is a local issue in which the Feds have no right to interfere). The state does sanction marriages, though, so marriage takes on the role of an institution that can be used to mainstream an agenda. I would just as soon make marriage a purely private matter, devoid of state interference, but since it isn't, alternate definitions of marriage have to be defeated.

110 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:31:59am

re: #78 zombie

For some reason, even though I live at the epicenter of the gay
marriage movement, this issue leaves me completely unmoved, one way or
the other. To me, it's an unimportant side-issue affecting very few
people that has been blown way out of proportion by both sides, on
purpose.

If forced to take a stand, I'd have to come donw on
the laissez-faire side of things: Marry whoever (or whatever) you want
to marry. What's it got to do with me?

While I agree with you on the issue itself (I am basically libertarian), what about the state constitution itself?

The court just said that it can declare any ammendment to the state constitution as unconstitutional.

That translates into "the constitution is whatever we want it to be."

I have a HUGE problem with that.

111 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:32:00am
112 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:32:29am

re: #84 WrathofG-d

What is the big deal exactly? The people of California are extreme leftists who would support the privilege of Homosexuals to "marry" eachother, and the Government passed a bill saying such.

This is a State's rights issue, and has been decided upon by this State.

This IS California we are talking about.

What if the couple decides to move to a conservative state, such as West Virginia?

113 Cygnus  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:32:31am

re: #98 VegasRick

That should cum with some kind of warning!

It was posted a couple of days ago. Turned out to be one of the funniest threads I've ever read!

114 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:32:35am

re: #91 JamesTKirk

Besides, marriage is much healthier than random sex in bathhouses with thousands of strangers. And I'd rather see people at gay pride marches flashes their wedding rings than ... well, what they're flashing now.

I don't really think the Folsom Street crowd were just waiting all along for a legal justification to settle down into stable, monogamous marriages, and join the PTA. But that's just me.

115 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:33:06am

re: #95 Cygnus

Look here. Sorry, I was too much of a wimp to type it out.

Oh, that!

116 BuddyG  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:33:16am

re: #112 MandyManners

California to W.Virginia; deliverance

117 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:33:19am

re: #101 BuddyG

"random sex in bathhouses with thousands of strangers"

Do you really think that would stop if gays could be legally married?

No, any more than every single straight person is monogamous due to the availability of straight marriage.

118 VegasRick  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:33:22am

re: #105 Cygnus

Inquiring minds want to know. :)

I'm glad I didn't take the nic VegasDick.

119 WrathofG-d  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:33:42am

re: #97 cblesz

I live in the Los Angeles area. (born and raised)

There are those of us that would disagree with the uber Leftistness of California, but that is the State we live in.

No offense meant.

120 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:33:44am

re: #99 zombie

The masturbate-a-thon is mostly a straight thing.

Homosexuals don't do that?

121 Cygnus  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:33:45am

re: #115 MandyManners

Oh, that!

Yeppers.

122 rwmofo  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:33:46am

re: #96 kyleb

Can't we just call them Butt Buddies? I mean that sounds like a fair compromise and a more accurate term to boot.

They say that the cowboy in the Village People was a Rump Ranger.

123 Shug  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:34:08am

re: #110 karmic_inquisitor

The court just said that it can declare any ammendment to the state constitution as unconstitutional.

The inmates are running the loony bin

124 Uncle Joe  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:34:16am

re: #38 mojo9

BFD! California is like a bowl of granola. after the fruits and nuts, all you have is flakes.

Although I share your frustration with California lunacy, I was born in California, have lived here all my life, and can tell you that most of the fruits, nuts and flakes have been imported from every state in the union (and even from overseas) because of hyperliberal promotion by San Francisco and Hollywood. They know how to recruit!

Meanwhile, the Republican Party makes no attempt to even have a presence here and have abandoned one of the nation's largest, most important states to the kooks. How do you think that makes Republicans here feel? Look at the voting record in the middle and eastern part of the state (away from SF and Hollywood). Huge areas of the state vote Republican trying to turn things around but the Republicans only go the McCain/Ahnold route and parrot and pander to leftists. They don't have any firm principles and do a terrible job of selling very saleable conservative ideas to the people here. So what happens? More and more conservatives just give up. They move out of state and more fanatical leftists move in.

125 Spider Mensch  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:34:22am

it would take a few years to prove out, but it will be interesting to see if the divorce rate among gay couples is higher than hetero couples. I have a strange inkiling it just might be. but I'll leave that to the sociologists to speculate why.

126 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:34:23am

re: #109 joncelli

That would be my attitude too if marriage didn't have state sanction (and by "state" I mean "sanction by the individual states -- this is a local issue in which the Feds have no right to interfere). The state does sanction marriages, though, so marriage takes on the role of an institution that can be used to mainstream an agenda. I would just as soon make marriage a purely private matter, devoid of state interference, but since it isn't, alternate definitions of marriage have to be defeated.

And how does that state sanction threaten you so much?

127 BuddyG  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:34:36am

re: #117 JamesTKirk

Then it isn't a good arguement for gay marriage

128 WrathofG-d  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:34:43am

re: #103 lawhawk

I'd repeal the ff&C clause and go back to a states rights approach. We are way too far off from what the Constitution permits.

This is a great opportunity to start peeling back.

129 Macker  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:34:50am

re: #42 BuddyG

Dang! What store is that in?

130 zombie  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:34:51am

re: #63 USA

Man and beast are next.

Actually, the reason that's not going to happen is not any moral opposition to man-animal marriage, but because the animal is not able to "give consent." So, it'll never happen -- unless someone tries to marry one of those chimps who know sign language.

131 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:35:10am

re: #122 rwmofo

They say that the cowboy in the Village People was a Rump Ranger.

As opposed to all the rest of the Village People how?

132 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:35:37am

re: #121 Cygnus

I snickeed and laughed a long time.

133 WrathofG-d  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:35:44am

re: #130 zombie

Actually, the reason that's not going to happen is not any moral opposition to man-animal marriage, but because the animal is not able to "give consent." So, it'll never happen -- unless someone tries to marry one of those chimps who know sign language.


ok then....brother and sister are next.

134 Russkilitlover  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:35:45am

re: #38 mojo9

BFD! California is like a bowl of granola. after the fruits and nuts, all you have is flakes.

And....
Year-round fabulous weather
Yosemite
Kings Canyon
Mt. Shasta
Redwoods
1,000 miles of awe inspiring beaches
Rolling golden hills
Agriculture to feed the world
Joshua Tree National Park
Mammoth
Tahoe

Yup. Sure sucks here.

135 BuddyG  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:35:50am

re: #129 Macker

Dang! What store is that in?


Don't ask, don't tell

136 Widow'smight  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:36:01am

re: #91 JamesTKirk

I seriously doubt Gays and Lesbians will flock to ? to get married, and I doubt the piece of paper will change their habits. The problem here is that it is framed that marriage is a "Right", and it is not. You give up rights when you get married. Marriage is an obligation.

137 ploome hineni[deleted]  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:36:23am
138 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:36:30am

Judicial activism simply invalidates the entire idea of a Constitution.

A Constitution is a contract. The founders of this country made the contract explicit after having promoted the enlightenment era idea of a "social contract" - that a government serves by the permission of the governed.

Here we have the Government deciding that the very contract with the Governed can be changed unilaterally by the Government.

That is no longer a contract.

139 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:36:32am

re: #128 WrathofG-d

I'd repeal the ff&C clause

Um, no. That's called "throwing out the baby with the bathwater". We'd cease to be a country, and become a collection of city-states. Easy pickings for the commies and jihadists.

140 The Pulchritudinous Patriot  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:36:41am

re: #59 world b. free

If only James Bond hadn't thwarted Christopher Walken's plans in "View to a Kill" to detonate dynamite all along the San Andreas Fault Line and plunge California into the ocean.

Actually, I blame Superman, and all because his big head stopped working at the thought of Lois Lane.

141 Cygnus  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:36:43am

re: #132 MandyManners

I snickeed and laughed a long time.

I had to get away from it for a while because I was at work and uncontrollable laughter was threatening to break out.

142 unreconstructed rebel  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:36:54am

OT, but

Obama Takes Issue With Bush Foreign Policy Speech

A bit touchy there, ain't we, Barry? Well, if the shoe fits ...

143 song_and_dance_man[deleted]  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:36:58am
144 Sol Roth  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:37:03am

Unless a super majority of homosexual unions adopt and raise children, this can be nothing more that the furtherance of Marxism (nuclear family destruction). Legal instruments already exist that allow homosexuals to transfer property and appoint power of attorney for health care; the biggest arguments for this favoring of a minority population at the expense of ALL our freedoms.

Feh.

145 rawmuse  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:37:06am

re: #136 Widow'smight

I agree. I can remember when gays would not dream of marriage. That was for squares. Too restrictive.

146 Maximu§  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:37:21am

I have a Gay client who is raising a little girl with his partner and from what Ive seen...the child is normal, she is Happy and they are a happy family....so WTF is the problem?

I say....leave people alone, MYOB, let gay couples be married and live their lives in peace.

Gay Marriage hurts no one.

Maximu§
3/11 ACR

147 Peacekeeper  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:37:46am

REPUBLICAN SENATOR ACCUSED OF DEFECATING IN PUBLIC SEX ROOM!

148 zmdavid  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:37:51am

re: #143 song_and_dance_man

Well, at least they won't be able to procreate.

That's what embryonic stem cell research is for.

149 MigueldowninMexico  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:37:52am

re: #130 zombie

Actually, the reason that's not going to happen is not any moral opposition to man-animal marriage, but because the animal is not able to "give consent." So, it'll never happen -- unless someone tries to marry one of those chimps who know sign language.

That's not an argument. In many different "cultures", even today, women are never asked their consent. Or children.
You're thinking in Western terms.
But other "cultures" can see things in a very different light.

150 Jimmy The Clam  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:38:04am

I thought this was settled back in 2000, but I guess it doesn't matter what 61% of the California voters wanted.

151 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:38:09am

re: #141 Cygnus

I had to get away from it for a while because I was at work and uncontrollable laughter was threatening to break out.

Works gets in the way of a lot of stuff.

152 Cygnus  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:38:43am

re: #147 Peacekeeper

REPUBLICAN SENATOR ACCUSED OF DEFECATING IN PUBLIC SEX ROOM!

Linky please!

153 joncelli  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:38:54am

re: #126 JamesTKirk

Full faith and credit. If a gay marriage must be recognized in California, it must be recognized in PA. I would be willing to accept some kind of legal arrangement short of marriage, but accepting gay relationships as marriage diminishes the true purpose of the institution, which is to domesticate men and promote child rearing.

154 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:39:17am

re: #136 Widow'smight

I seriously doubt Gays and Lesbians will flock to ? to get married, and I doubt the piece of paper will change their habits. The problem here is that it is framed that marriage is a "Right", and it is not. You give up rights when you get married. Marriage is an obligation.

Regardless of whether you call it a "right" or an "obligation", neither term explains why it's a disaster if gay people do it.

155 Peacekeeper  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:39:22am

re: #152 Cygnus

Sorry, I'm channeling the future, 2012 or so...

156 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:39:31am

re: #152 Cygnus

Linky please!

It is funny joke, tovarisch. (And rerun, too... tovarisch PK, must have new material to fight moose & squirrel)

157 BuddyG  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:39:41am

Next up, gay divorce

158 ploome hineni[deleted]  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:39:51am
159 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:39:52am

re: #153 joncelli

Full faith and credit. If a gay marriage must be recognized in California, it must be recognized in PA. I would be willing to accept some kind of legal arrangement short of marriage, but accepting gay relationships as marriage diminishes the true purpose of the institution, which is to domesticate men and promote child rearing.

WTF?

160 wolfie  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:40:00am

re: #100 Occasional Reader

I am sorta kinda with you... EXCEPT for the glaring judicial activism aspect to the whole thing. Go back and read what lawhawk posted about the Mass. court; "our decision cannot be undone, even by constitutional amendment, so there!" Very disturbing.

BINGO. The really important question, IMO, is how these decisions are made. The Illuminati impose their vision of righteousness on the unwashed masses, regardless of law, procedure, and the Common Law tradition.....all of which they have (ahem!) deconstructed. Not even the College of Cardinals nor the Pope are so dictatorial.
Legal positivism= the law means whatever we say it does.
Vox judicium vox Dei= The voice of judges is the voice of God.
Bow down to your new priests.

161 Cygnus  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:40:21am

re: #155 Peacekeeper

Sorry, I'm channeling the future, 2012 or so...

Can you give me some winning lottery numbers then?

162 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:40:28am

re: #144 Sol Roth

Unless a super majority of homosexual unions adopt and raise children, this can be nothing more that the furtherance of Marxism (nuclear family destruction). Legal instruments already exist that allow homosexuals to transfer property and appoint power of attorney for health care; the biggest arguments for this favoring of a minority population at the expense of ALL our freedoms.

Feh.

I fail to see how this affects my marriage or freedom in any way.

163 sventopia  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:40:50am

Wow! So let me get this straight (pun intended): Gay folks should pay the same taxes but shouldn't get all the benefits of government-issued marriages because allowing such would ... umm ... instantly transform us into non-bathing Euro-trash hippies and take The Price Is Right reruns off the air forever?

Would it, perhaps, make you doomsayers feel less arrogant and justifiable in your false sense of superiority? The law doesn't force churches and private orgs to marry the homosexuals... just the government whom they all pay taxes too. It seems like it's just plain fair to me.

Otherwise, we'll need to institute a "homosexual exemption" from all fed, state and local taxes to compensate them for paying into a marriage system that they are banned from participating in.

164 WrathofG-d  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:41:09am

re: #139 Occasional Reader

NOt to get into a long drawn out discussion about the purpose of the Federal government as (although I'd love the discussiON) I don't have the time.

Short answer NO.

The Fed would still authority over Multi State Military issues and certain issues of national security.

Anyway, if you want to know how it would actually work, read the constitition.

165 BuddyG  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:41:21am

re: #162 JamesTKirk

It affects the society in which you live.

166 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:41:25am

re: #153 joncelli

Full faith and credit. If a gay marriage must be recognized in California, it must be recognized in PA. I would be willing to accept some kind of legal arrangement short of marriage, but accepting gay relationships as marriage diminishes the true purpose of the institution, which is to domesticate men and promote child rearing.

My marriage is undiminished.

167 Iron Fist  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:41:56am

re: #139 Occasional Reader,

FF&C has never applied to concealed carry permits. Why should it apply to Gay Marriage? States that don't recognize gay marriage don't recognize gay marriage.

Seems pretty simple to me.

168 MigueldowninMexico  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:42:03am

This is a completely gramscian move.
Funny to see how many lizards don't get it.

Another step in "deconstructing" our Western civilization.

169 sngnsgt  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:42:11am

If John Doe & Jack Doe get married in CA, is it recognized by other states as a legal marriage?

170 zombie  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:42:28am

re: #91 JamesTKirk

Exactly. Doesn't change my marriage in any way, shape, or form.

Besides, marriage is much healthier than random sex in bathhouses with thousands of strangers. And I'd rather see people at gay pride marches flashes their wedding rings than ... well, what they're flashing now.

EXACTLY.

Actually, the truth is this: there will be a big flurry of about 5,000 gay couples getting married at first, with much media coveragde and fanfare...and then gay marriages will slow to a tiny trickle or only a few every month.

I know a LOT of gay people. (In fact, probably the majority of people I know are gay.) And I can't think of a single one that would have the slightest interest in getting married.

The whole thing is just one of those "prove a point" issues. Like flag-burning. Across America every day, how many people burn an American flag every week? One? Two? Totally unimportant. And yet it became a huge "free speech" issue. Same applies to gay marriage. A few will get married, and no one will really notice or care.

And the world keeps turning.

171 WrathofG-d  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:42:30am

re: #142 unreconstructed rebel

Its like when a politician states that he is against Terrorism, indoctrination, imperialism, and the murder of civilians....

and CAIR screams Islamophobia.

172 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:42:31am

re: #163 sventopia

to compensate them for paying into a marriage system

Gay people helped pay for my marriage? Then where the hell is my rebate?

173 Shug  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:43:10am

re: #140 The Pulchritudinous Patriot

Actually, I blame Superman, and all because his big head stopped working at the thought of Lois Lane.


My Little head stops working at the thought of Margot Kidder

174 Sharmuta  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:43:12am

re: #162 JamesTKirk

I fail to see how this affects my marriage or freedom in any way.

The only thing affecting my freedom here is the court disenfranchising my vote on a ballot initiative.

175 cblesz  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:43:16am

re: #119 WrathofG-d

I live in the Los Angeles area. (born and raised)

There are those of us that would disagree with the uber Leftistness of California, but that is the State we live in.

No offense meant.


I know...was just kidding. Actually, I was born and raised in the other leftist joke = Mass. Moved to Los Angeles, met my wife and am raising my family here. I agree, CA is a joke, but not ALL of it.

176 zmdavid  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:43:32am

re: #163 sventopia

1. It's not a law, it's a court decision.
2. How do you know it doesn't force Churches to marry gay couples?

177 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:43:43am

re: #165 BuddyG

It affects the society in which you live.

The society in which I live already includes many same-sex couples known to me personally who are living in long-term relationships, raising children, and so forth without leading to a crisis of biblical proportions. Then again, I have also seen cats and dogs living together...

178 marge45b  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:43:48am

I can see it now the Catholic Church will be sued for discrimination when it refuses to perform "Same-Sex" Church Weddings.

179 MigueldowninMexico  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:44:00am

Got to go have lunch.
Laters, lizards :)

180 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:44:05am

re: #164 WrathofG-d

Anyway, if you want to know how it would actually work, read the constitition

I've read the Constitution, thank you very much. The one that has that, you know, full faith & credit clause (Article IV, Section 1). Which the framers of the Constitution included, for damn good reasons.

181 Iron Fist  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:44:12am

re: #150 Jimmy The Clam,

Democracy is much to important to be trusted to the voters.

182 redheadredstate  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:44:17am

# 166

The fact is that a majority of the California electorate voted that this not go forward and this decision negates that. If for no other reason (and I have many others) this shouldn't stand.

183 NoSubmission  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:44:31am

re: #136 Widow'smight

I seriously doubt Gays and Lesbians will flock to ? to get married, and I doubt the piece of paper will change their habits. The problem here is that it is framed that marriage is a "Right", and it is not. You give up rights when you get married. Marriage is an obligation.


Not all gay people are promiscuous. I know many who are surprisngly rather conservative Republicans and in long term monogamous relationships.

184 Macker  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:44:31am

What gay marriage hath wrought, the IRS will still not recognize said couples as married. Link

185 song_and_dance_man[deleted]  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:45:08am
186 CyanSnowHawk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:45:12am

re: #35 Occasional Reader

The Court could rule that a proposed amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional?!

If I am looking at this correctly, the initiative in the pipeline now (1.1 million signatures submitted, subject to verification, requires about 695,000), Proposition 22, will be an amendment to the CA State Constitution that will define marriage as a union of one Man and one Woman. That could not be ruled unconstitutional at the State level, and I am pretty certain that the US Constitution is mum on the issue of marriage.

187 rawmuse  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:45:18am

Supreme Court, here we come.

188 formercorpsman  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:45:20am

re: #51 Nevergiveup

You hit the nail on the head.

Legal precedent like this will lead to outright mandating of socialistic onslaught.

Seriously, how could an argument stand on merit, or for that matter, a moral argument, that would prevent polygamists, or people involved in other social structures from petitioning for recognition as well?

Could you imagine the retort being that is does not follow norms?

Take away any religious or moral component to the argument. Imagine the windfall that will follow this domino. Public benefits, state insurance regulators, the list is endless.

Moreover, when put to the vote of the people, the court has decided to step and become the legislative branch it was never elected to be.

189 cblesz  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:45:20am

re: #182 redheadredstate

# 166

The fact is that a majority of the California electorate voted that this not go forward and this decision negates that. If for no other reason (and I have many others) this shouldn't stand.

Exactly...the MAJORITY of Californians are not nutso...

OK...a large amount are...but the majority are still sane.

190 Ceemack  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:45:26am

re: #84 WrathofG-d
Gee, it's fun listening to people who've clearly never lived here talking about what us silly Californians are like.

In case you haven't been reading carefully, we the voters have passed several ballot measures--like no social services to illegal aliens, no racial preferences, and no marriage except between one man and one woman--that most people in the other 56 states would call "conservative".

Unfortunately, we've got an activist Supreme Court that sees fit to overturn the will of the people, seemingly at a whim.

I'm unsettled by the idea of men marrying men and women marrying women. It's like brother marrying sister...it's just wrong.

But I'm even more unsettled to see that my vote apparently doesn't county.

I've lived here all my life, but it may be time to take another look at moving out of state.

Perhaps the constitutional amendment will make it to the November ballot and then carry another majority.

191 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:45:29am

re: #163 sventopia

Would it, perhaps, make you doomsayers feel less arrogant and justifiable in your false sense of superiority?

Ah, honest debate! So refreshing.

/

192 The Pulchritudinous Patriot  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:45:43am

re: #153 joncelli

the true purpose of the institution, which is to domesticate men

....


lol!

193 Shug  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:45:46am

re: #183 NoSubmission

Not all gay people are promiscuous. I know many who are surprisngly rather conservative Republicans and in long term monogamous relationships.

and none of them are named Larry Craig

194 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:45:50am

re: #174 Sharmuta

The only thing affecting my freedom here is the court disenfranchising my vote on a ballot initiative.

I agree with the "judicial activism" issue; it's the people in hysterics over gay marriage that dismay me.

195 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:46:00am

re: #176 zmdavid

1. It's not a law, it's a court decision.
2. How do you know it doesn't force Churches to marry gay couples?

Ummmmm...it IS a law. Case law carries the same weight as statutory law.

196 incanus  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:46:28am

re: #176 zmdavid

1. It's not a law, it's a court decision.
2. How do you know it doesn't force Churches to marry gay couples?

Or that it won't? I'm sure churches would never be accused of intolerance and hauled before a Thought Crimes court because they opted to not marry a gay couple.

197 MigueldowninMexico  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:46:49am

re: #182 redheadredstate

# 166

The fact is that a majority of the California electorate voted that this not go forward and this decision negates that. If for no other reason (and I have many others) this shouldn't stand.

It's already happening in Europe.
The Gramsci Nazis at work.

*POOF*

198 jemima  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:46:52am

I used to live in a town where a guy would break into a barn to rape a little girl's pony.

I guess it's okay if he really really wanted to do it. Who are we to judge etc.

199 Peacekeeper  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:46:53am

( Los Angeles) A young married couple from San Francisco were shocked and dismayed entering the LAX rest area. TV 5's NewsNow team interviewed the victims:
"Well, Brian and I were just getting heated up, we wanted a quickie before boarding the New York flight when suddenly there was this sound from the next stall, and he asked asked me 'Mike do you smell something?'
OMG! It smelled horrible! "What's happening?" I screamed and Brian just held his breath and ran for the door. It was terrible.
We don't have anything against heteros but they need to be considerate and take care of things like that at home, before coming out into an airport.

200 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:46:54am

re: #186 CyanSnowHawk

I was referring to lawhawk's note upthread of the position taken by the Mass. court (not this one), that their decision was immune to constitutional amendment. Shocking judicial arrogance, and flatly undemocratic.

201 zombie  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:46:59am
#110 karmic_inquisitor

re: #78 zombie

For some reason, even though I live at the epicenter of the gay
marriage movement, this issue leaves me completely unmoved, one way or
the other. To me, it's an unimportant side-issue affecting very few
people that has been blown way out of proportion by both sides, on
purpose.

If forced to take a stand, I'd have to come donw on
the laissez-faire side of things: Marry whoever (or whatever) you want
to marry. What's it got to do with me?

While I agree with you on the issue itself (I am basically libertarian), what about the state constitution itself?

The court just said that it can declare any ammendment to the state constitution as unconstitutional.

That translates into "the constitution is whatever we want it to be."

I have a HUGE problem with that.

Oh, I agree. The judicial activism is distasteful. But the underlying topic (gay marriage) just makes me shrug.

I have a feeling a lot of pundits and so forth expressing outrage over this are simply using the judicial-activism aspect to mask their true feelings (i.e. revulsion at the thought of gay marriage).

202 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:47:01am

re: #142 unreconstructed rebel

OT, but

Obama Takes Issue With Bush Foreign Policy Speech

A bit touchy there, ain't we, Barry? Well, if the shoe fits ...

Obama's reaction deserves attack and ridicule.

1) Obama was not mentioned ONCE in Bush's remarks.

2) The context of the remarks was a speech to a foreign legislative body outlining why the US will support Israel should she take military action against terror states - again, nothing to do with Obama

3) The fact that Obama is touchy about it shows -

a) very poor foreign policy judgment - should Obama's policies be undermined in such a way if he should ever make a speech to a foreign legislature?

b) an incapacity to unite the country - what exactly was controversial about what Bush said? Is Obama going to unite the country with such a line of attack?

4) "Methinks he doth protest too much" sums up Obama's objections when it comes to the appeasement crtiticisim.

Obama should be getting hit with both barells today - but he isn't. Blind media.

203 The Pulchritudinous Patriot  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:47:11am

re: #159 MandyManners

WTF?


Single men are like bears with furniture.

204 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:47:22am

re: #176 zmdavid

1. It's not a law, it's a court decision.
2. How do you know it doesn't force Churches to marry gay couples?

For the same reason churches already can't be forced to perform marriages. I defy you to tell a Catholic priest, Jewish rabbi, or muslim imam to marry you if neither you nor your spouse are members of that religion or subscribe to any of its tenets.

205 rawmuse  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:48:15am

There are already gay churches and gay weddings in SF, and have been for decades. This is more about spouse's rights, such as being able to get on your spouse's health insurance, visiting them in the hospital, etc.

206 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:48:16am

re: #163 sventopia

Wow! So let me get this straight (pun intended): Gay folks should pay the same taxes but shouldn't get all the benefits of government-issued marriages because allowing such would ... umm ... instantly transform us into non-bathing Euro-trash hippies and take The Price Is Right reruns off the air forever?

Would it, perhaps, make you doomsayers feel less arrogant and justifiable in your false sense of superiority? The law doesn't force churches and private orgs to marry the homosexuals... just the government whom they all pay taxes too. It seems like it's just plain fair to me.

Otherwise, we'll need to institute a "homosexual exemption" from all fed, state and local taxes to compensate them for paying into a marriage system that they are banned from participating in.

That's next.

207 LeftJustAintRight  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:48:31am

The FUN will start when the divorces start
LOL
Now the courts will decide who is the man when alimony payments are requested by both partners
LOL
I just have one thing to say to all the gay people
Careful what you wish / Cause you may just get it
LOL

208 BuddyG  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:48:49am

re: #177 JamesTKirk

The society in which I live already includes many same-sex couples known to me personally who are living in long-term relationships, raising children, and so forth without leading to a crisis of biblical proportions. Then again, I have also seen cats and dogs living together...

Why do same sex couples need to be legally married?

209 Shug  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:48:57am

re: #190 Ceemack

I agree that your vote should count but if the voters approved a ballot initiative that banned surgery on the elderly or something else that violated the constitution, then that would be overturned ( rightly )
So on that account, I can see where a court can overturn the will of the voter and that is a good thing.

That's why amending the State constitution is really the only way any more to make any decision fool proof

Until the 9th circuit court overturns that state court and the state amendment for violation of the US constitution.......

I'm getting a migraine

210 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:49:06am

re: #203 The Pulchritudinous Patriot

Single men are like bears with furniture.

Ha!

(of course you mean "bears" not in the Andy Sullivan sense... but that brings us back to the thread topic)

211 bulwrk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:49:08am

I'm sure the happiest people of all are the divorce lawyers.

212 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:49:23am

re: #203 The Pulchritudinous Patriot

Single men are like bears with furniture.

So are some single women.

213 joncelli  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:49:33am

re: #159 MandyManners

Yeah, that kind of sounds weird. Let me fall back and explain. I don't want the state in the marriage business; I want all marriages to be private contracts. Gays could get married, polygamous marriages would be okay, etc. In general, it's none of my business what consenting adults do, and more power to them if they want to sanctify their union with a contract or a religious observance.

BUT (and you saw that coming) what I meant with the "domesticate men" statement was that the institution of marriage ties men legally and culturally to the home, to protecting women, and to raising and protecting children. Men are naturally anarchic; marriage is society's way of directing their wild energy to positive ends. The state has an interest in that. When marriage wanes, men direct their energies into negative pursuits. Gay marriage is a means of gaining the legal benefits of marriage without satisfying all of its cultural outcomes; it may or may not domesticate men, but it most certainly doesn't protect women and promote child rearing. And I probably just finished digging myself a deep, deep hole, so I'll just pretend to work now.

214 Widow'smight  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:49:50am

re: #154 JamesTKirk

I didn't say it was a disaster, I said it wasn't a right, nor is it even mentioned in our Constitution. And, according to our Constitution, it should be left up to the LEGISLATURE of each State.

My problem is that some of the same people pushing so hard for Gay Marriage are also pushing for lowering the Age of consent to 10 or 12. In that case, the child would no longer be protected from gay/straight predators, but would have to face defense lawyers and such. Unless they were kids in my family, the SOB would have a private Pre-trial hearing, then an opportunity to check out the nearest healthcare facility.

I'm sure most Gay folks don't think that way, but lacking is the reporting on the supporters of this movement, and their real intent.

215 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:49:52am

re: #205 rawmuse

There are already gay churches and gay weddings in SF, and have been for decades. This is more about spouse's rights, such as being able to get on your spouse's health insurance, visiting them in the hospital, etc.

Those are already legal.

216 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:50:03am

re: #154 JamesTKirk

Exactly how are gays going to ruin the institution of marriage. Haven't heteros already done that?

217 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:50:05am

re: #208 BuddyG

Why do same sex couples need to be legally married?

Why shouldn't they? And if they want to, why are you telling them they can't?

218 Sharmuta  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:50:35am

re: #194 JamesTKirk

I agree with the "judicial activism" issue; it's the people in hysterics over gay marriage that dismay me.

I hold to the view we're all equal in the eyes of the Law.

219 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:50:43am

re: #211 bulwrk

I'm sure the happiest people of all are the divorce lawyers.

And, china shops!

220 wolfie  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:50:44am

re: #162 JamesTKirk

I fail to see how this affects my marriage or freedom in any way.

A handful of sanctimonious judges imposing their views on you without regard for law, procedure, democracy, or political custom affects your freedom. You may like or dislike or be neutral about the substance of their decision, but you'd better worry about the way they made it.

221 rawmuse  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:50:46am

re: #203 The Pulchritudinous Patriot

Single men are like bears with furniture.

Some men, yes. I know some guys where you would have to go in to their living rooms with a fire hose in order to find the front door. Intelligent life forms develop in their refrigerators and are now petitioning congress for their own district. It can be bad.

222 lawhawk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:50:56am

re: #86 Occasional Reader

The Mass court had given the legislature 180 days to come up with a definition allowing gays to wed, and that only full, equal marriage rights would be constitutional.

They basically threatened to overturn anything that didn't meet their definition.

223 incanus  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:50:58am

re: #201 zombie

Oh, I agree. The judicial activism is distasteful. But the underlying topic (gay marriage) just makes me shrug.

I have a feeling a lot of pundits and so forth expressing outrage over this are simply using the judicial-activism aspect to mask their true feelings (i.e. revulsion at the thought of gay marriage).

Come now, you're better than that. "[group] is opposing this not because of the points they have raised but because they are [racist]" (where "racist" means "in opposition to some identity group"). This is a fallacious argument.

224 Athos  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:51:03am

re: #187 rawmuse

Supreme Court, here we come.

Not from this case. Only recourse is the likely constitutional amendment proposition expected on the November ballot. If that passes, it trumps the creative interpretation of the CA Supreme Court for a “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.”

225 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:51:07am

All you screamers who can't stand the idea that gay sex is happening ought to support gay marriage.

After all, nothing kills sex faster than getting married, right?

226 song_and_dance_man[deleted]  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:51:16am
227 Peacekeeper  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:51:35am

BIG GAY IS RIPPING US OFF!

228 incanus  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:51:43am

re: #204 JamesTKirk

For the same reason churches already can't be forced to perform marriages. I defy you to tell a Catholic priest, Jewish rabbi, or muslim imam to marry you if neither you nor your spouse are members of that religion or subscribe to any of its tenets.

Wait a few years.

229 unreconstructed rebel  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:51:50am

re: #137 ploome hineni

re: #202 karmic_inquisitor

What's worse, Pelosi & Biden have jumped in too.

230 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:52:17am

re: #220 wolfie

A handful of sanctimonious judges imposing their views on you without regard for law, procedure, democracy, or political custom affects your freedom. You may like or dislike or be neutral about the substance of their decision, but you'd better worry about the way they made it.

They're not imposing their views on me. They're imposing their views on the less than 1% of the population who are (a) gay and (b) want to get married.

I'm already married. This changes nothing for me.

231 Sharmuta  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:52:23am

re: #219 MandyManners

re: #211 bulwrk

I'm sure the happiest people of all are the divorce lawyers.

And, china shops!

LMAO!

232 rawmuse  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:52:25am

re: #225 JamesTKirk

Just the Good Sex. But, sometimes the old sneakers feel pretty good.

233 antishock8  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:52:29am

Cool. I don't see why anyone would discriminate against homosexual Americans. There's no rational basis. It's all religious. Long live democracy and equality.

234 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:52:31am

re: #213 joncelli

Yeah, that kind of sounds weird. Let me fall back and explain. I don't want the state in the marriage business; I want all marriages to be private contracts. Gays could get married, polygamous marriages would be okay, etc. In general, it's none of my business what consenting adults do, and more power to them if they want to sanctify their union with a contract or a religious observance.

BUT (and you saw that coming) what I meant with the "domesticate men" statement was that the institution of marriage ties men legally and culturally to the home, to protecting women, and to raising and protecting children. Men are naturally anarchic; marriage is society's way of directing their wild energy to positive ends. The state has an interest in that. When marriage wanes, men direct their energies into negative pursuits. Gay marriage is a means of gaining the legal benefits of marriage without satisfying all of its cultural outcomes; it may or may not domesticate men, but it most certainly doesn't protect women and promote child rearing. And I probably just finished digging myself a deep, deep hole, so I'll just pretend to work now.

It does the same to women.

Oh, and I don't need a man to protect me. I've a Desert Eagle and a good aim.

235 Shug  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:52:37am

re: #224 Athos

Not from this case. Only recourse is the likely constitutional amendment proposition expected on the November ballot. If that passes, it trumps the creative interpretation of the CA Supreme Court for a “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.”


then somebody will sue them in federal court.

Can the federal court then ban the state constitutional amendment for violation of some federal protection?

236 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:53:12am

re: #226 song_and_dance_man

Exactly. Churches are free to ignore gay marriages but at the same time they can't force the state to ignore them too.

237 zombie  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:53:14am

re: #114 Occasional Reader

I don't really think the Folsom Street crowd were just waiting all along for a legal justification to settle down into stable, monogamous marriages, and join the PTA. But that's just me.

Exactly. Truth be told -- and believe me, I'm no fire-and-brimstone conservative, but a San Francisco laissez-faire liberal -- but my personal observations of people's lifestyles pretty much confirms the stereotypes, that gay men are fairly promiscuous (at least around these parts), and marriage is about the last thing on their minds. Casual multiple sexual partners seems pretty much standard behavior.

Which, actually, is also perfectly fine by me. Again: i am opposed to nanny-state-ism telling people what to do in their personal lives. I guess you'd call that a libertarian streak. Want to make love to a park bench and then stage a wedding ceremony with it, presided over by a taxidermed aardvark? Be my guest.

238 BuddyG  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:53:15am

re: #217 JamesTKirk

Why shouldn't they? And if they want to, why are you telling them they can't?

Because (as someone mentioned earlier on this thead) it's another attack on the nuclear family. It erodes tradition. And if same-sex couples are permitted to legally marry, then where do you draw the line?

239 LeftJustAintRight  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:53:18am

re: #225 JamesTKirk

After all, nothing kills sex faster than getting married, right?


Reminds me of a joke
The only cure for a nymphomaniac is wedding cake

240 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:53:27am

re: #214 Widow'smight

I didn't say it was a disaster, I said it wasn't a right, nor is it even mentioned in our Constitution. And, according to our Constitution, it should be left up to the LEGISLATURE of each State.

My problem is that some of the same people pushing so hard for Gay Marriage are also pushing for lowering the Age of consent to 10 or 12. In that case, the child would no longer be protected from gay/straight predators, but would have to face defense lawyers and such. Unless they were kids in my family, the SOB would have a private Pre-trial hearing, then an opportunity to check out the nearest healthcare facility.

I'm sure most Gay folks don't think that way, but lacking is the reporting on the supporters of this movement, and their real intent.

Homosexuality is NOT THE SAME AS PEDOPHILIA.

241 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:53:47am

re: #225 JamesTKirk

All you screamers who can't stand the idea that gay sex is happening

I think you're being a little... "reductivist", I believe is the word, in your characterization of those who disagree with you.

(Me, on the substantive question, I have mixed feelings, but generally support the idea that gays should be able to have what I'll still call "civil unions" (since I think the M-word just confuses the whole issue, really); at the same time, I am troubled by possible long-term cultural effects.)

242 incanus  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:53:47am

re: #235 Shug

then somebody will sue them in federal court.

Can the federal court then ban the state constitutional amendment for violation of some federal protection?

Of course; the Federal Government is all powerful and trumps all. At least they're there to take care of us and guide us along the path to true enlightenment.

243 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:53:49am

re: #165 BuddyG

It affects the society in which you live.

How does gay marriage effect the society you and I live in?

244 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:53:53am

re: #226 song_and_dance_man

Gays can get married in the eyes of the State, but they will never be married in the eyes of God.

You're free to hold that belief, but the state's not in the business of determining God's intent in any case. Besides, it's "til death do we part" for all of us... None of us will be married on Judgement Day when we meet the Dude.

245 Kulhwch  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:54:06am

re: #117 JamesTKirk

re: #101 BuddyG
"random sex in bathhouses with thousands of strangers"

Do you really think that would stop if gays could be legally married?

No, any more than every single straight person is monogamous due to the availability of straight marriage.

Excellent answer, and undoubtedly true ...

}:)     [But prepare to duck ... ]

246 Widow'smight  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:54:22am

re: #183 NoSubmission

Never said they were! I just don't think that you'll have that many Gay couples willing to give up their rights just to prove a point.

247 sngnsgt  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:54:50am

re: #239 LeftJustAintRight

Reminds me of a joke
The only cure for a nymphomaniac is wedding cake

LOL!

248 snowcrash  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:54:51am

I have no problems with homosexuality or homosexuals in a committed relationships. I only fear that legalizing gay marriage will encourage the normalizing of alternate lifestyle teaching in the early elementary school setting. I would not want my daughter coming home from the 2nd grade with a book called "King and King", a homosexual love story book for kids. This happened in Lexington MA in 2006, I think. I regret that gay marriage cannot be kept separate from a political agenda.

249 The Pulchritudinous Patriot  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:54:55am

re: #221 rawmuse

Some men, yes. I know some guys where you would have to go in to their living rooms with a fire hose in order to find the front door. Intelligent life forms develop in their refrigerators and are now petitioning congress for their own district. It can be bad.

My ex-husband had an incredible collection of empty Pert shampoo bottles under his bathroom vanity and along the edge of his bathtub before I married him.

I can't even begin to describe the sheer hugeness of his emply toilet paper roll collection, I still tremble when I think of it.

250 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:55:12am

re: #238 BuddyG

Because (as someone mentioned earlier on this thead) it's another attack on the nuclear family. It erodes tradition.

So, you were fine with the tradition of white people and black people being prohibited from marrying?

251 CyanSnowHawk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:55:27am

re: #89 stead63

thats just around the corner I fully agree. What about a man and a horse? I mean the gate's standing wide open

Um, why is one of the first arguments against gay marriage almost always bestiality? That seems to me to be a rather big leap.

252 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:55:46am

re: #240 MandyManners

Homosexuality is NOT THE SAME AS PEDOPHILIA.

Consenting human adults. Big difference.

253 zombie  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:55:46am

re: #120 MandyManners

Homosexuals don't do that?

No, they do it too -- it's just that the masturbate-a-thon organizers are mostly straights.

Actually, what they are are media whores, who will do anything to get attention. The sexual counterparts of Code Pink. Personally I wish no one would give any attention their stupid stunts, because they're just attention vampires and they're feeding off your gawking and shock.

They are boring old creeps.

254 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:55:47am

re: #237 zombie

Want to make love to a park bench

Ah, no, you lost me on that point right there. That's public behavior, and the state has a legitimate interest.

255 Sharmuta  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:55:54am

re: #248 snowcrash

I regret that gay marriage cannot be kept separate from a political agenda.

But how else can the democrats pander to homosexuals?!

256 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:56:16am

re: #235 Shug

then somebody will sue them in federal court.

Can the federal court then ban the state constitutional amendment for violation of some federal protection?

I'm dizzy.

257 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:56:31am

re: #243 unrealizedviewpoint

How does gay marriage effect the society you and I live in?

More musicals, apparently. Hey, I liked "Chicago", so bring 'em on!

258 Peacekeeper  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:56:42am

Want to make love to a park bench and then stage a wedding ceremony with it, presided over by a taxidermed aardvark? Be my guest.


What if I want to walk down the street without my toddler seeing two leather clad freaks caulking socks? Do I have a right?

259 BuddyG  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:56:43am

re: #250 JamesTKirk


I'm fine with a man & a woman having children and creating a family.

260 WrathofG-d  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:56:56am

re: #190 Ceemack

I live in CA but was unaware that we have passed any ballots against Same-Sex marriage.

One would be surprised to find that we have a Conservative state when we continue to vote in the same leftist idiots.

261 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:57:19am

re: #236 Killgore Trout

Exactly. Churches are free to ignore gay marriages but at the same time they can't force the state to ignore them too.

What about the photographer who's in hot water for refusing to photograph a homosexual wedding?

262 sventopia  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:57:49am

re: #172 Occasional Reader

Gay people helped pay for my marriage? Then where the hell is my rebate?

re: #176 zmdavid


2. How do you know it doesn't force Churches to marry gay couples?

Separation of church and state. Besides, gay marriage is old news in Massachusetts, a state even bluer than Cali, and churches can still marry (and not marry) whomever they want there. Example: the Roman Catholics don't believe in inter-faith marriages, but inter-faith marriages are recognized by the govt. So, does that force the RC church to marriage a Catholic and a Hindu? Absolutely not. Same concept applies here.

263 incanus  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:57:56am

re: #258 Peacekeeper

Want to make love to a park bench and then stage a wedding ceremony with it, presided over by a taxidermed aardvark? Be my guest.


What if I want to walk down the street without my toddler seeing two leather clad freaks caulking socks? Do I have a right?

No, you're a Luddite. Report to Cattle Car #343 at &30 am next Tuesday. no need to pack.

264 Sharmuta  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:58:03am

And for Pete's sake- the men here whining about marriage...

Did she hold a gun to your head literally? Glad I'm not your wife, guys.

265 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:58:10am
266 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:58:15am

re: #258 Peacekeeper

Want to make love to a park bench and then stage a wedding ceremony with it, presided over by a taxidermed aardvark? Be my guest.


What if I want to walk down the street without my toddler seeing two leather clad freaks caulking socks? Do I have a right?

Public sex is illegal regardless of the genders and orientations involved.

267 Shug  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:58:42am

re: #266 JamesTKirk

Public sex is illegal regardless of the genders and orientations involved.

and whether or not the couple is married

268 song_and_dance_man[deleted]  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:58:52am
269 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:59:05am

re: #259 BuddyG

I'm fine with a man & a woman having children and creating a family.

I know personally gay parents who are a hell of lot better at it than Britney and K-Fed.

270 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:59:18am

re: #84 WrathofG-d

What is the big deal exactly? The people of California are extreme leftists who would support the privilege of Homosexuals to "marry" eachother, and the Government passed a bill saying such.

This is a State's rights issue, and has been decided upon by this State.

This IS California we are talking about.

The point is that the "extreme leftists" of California, of whom I am one of apparently, voted by a large margin to ban such marriages by a constitutional ammendment. This amendment was just overturned by the courts. Note that homosexual marriage is still illegal, it just can't be banned at this point.

271 Widow'smight  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:59:19am

re: #240 MandyManners


I think you read that post wrong. Some of the folks behind this movement are trying to lower the age of consent, I said some, not all.

272 BuddyG  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:59:31am

re: #265 buzzsawmonkey


Where do you draw the line?

273 zombie  Thu, May 15, 2008 11:59:51am

re: #147 Peacekeeper

REPUBLICAN SENATOR ACCUSED OF DEFECATING IN PUBLIC SEX ROOM!

Hilarious!

274 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:00:14pm

re: #268 song_and_dance_man

I guess the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.

Only if you're saying that gays aren't allowed the same life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that the rest of us have.

275 LeftJustAintRight  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:00:27pm

This thread will be as good as the ID threads
LOL

276 Sol Roth  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:00:43pm

re: #162 JamesTKirk

I fail to see how this affects my marriage or freedom in any way.

IMHO, the re-definition of marriage to include non-reproducing homosexuals dilutes its original intent; to provide a stable, monogamous mating of a heterosexual pair for the production of offspring that have the maximum fitness to survive and pass on that fitness to the next generation.

Unless this is the intent of homosexual marriage proponents, and what I have read it is not, then you have a dilution of a practice that has served to stabilize societies for thousands of years. It may indeed be a slippery slope to weaken and ultimately destroy the nuclear family which, if we take the out-of-wedlock black birthrate as an example, wholly unhealthy to society. Destruction of the nuclear family is a stated goal of Marxism. You can read their propaganda here: [Link: www.fifthinternational.org...] This is where I see threats to my marriage and freedom.

277 zmdavid  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:01:01pm

re: #262 sventopia

If the law means whatever some judge says, there are no gaurantees of anything.

Minor quibble - The Roman Catholic Church recognizes interfaith marriage if they agree that any children will be raised Catholic.

278 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:01:03pm

re: #261 MandyManners


What about the photographer who's in hot water for refusing to photograph a homosexual wedding?


That's a tricky issue. It gets complicated; Imagine if the photographer refused service to blacks? Or a muslim photographer refusing service to Jews? What if it was a gay photographer refusing to service heteros?

279 BuddyG  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:01:09pm

re: #269 JamesTKirk


Gay people are fine. Gay marriage is not fine.

280 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:01:24pm

re: #257 JamesTKirk

More musicals, apparently. Hey, I liked "Chicago", so bring 'em on!

281 Athos  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:01:30pm

re: #201 zombie

My issue is with the use of the term 'marriage' in addition to the process. I can't find in the CA Constitution a “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship” that was denied by the inability to get a marriage license / certificate.

I'm fine with domestic partnerships legally entered and legally binding. That includes the need to legally dissolve failed partnerships and making economic restitutions if warranted.

I'm also fine with states via the legislature / voters deciding to extend benefits and stature previously denied to same-sex couples if they are legally entered and legally binding. This ultimately is a states rights issue and should not extend to the other states under the full faith clause.

However, to me, I do not see sexual preference as a foundation for a right or the need to redefine marriage to include this type of union. Just as some express bewilderment over the opposition to gay marriage, I in turn express bewilderment over the pressure for its acceptance if not to achieve a political goal - particularly since CA has a very strong domestic partnership law that few conservatives have an issue with.

282 LeftJustAintRight  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:01:38pm

I bet Charles has the Ban Stick ready

283 Shug  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:01:46pm

So are heterosexual couples that don't want any or can't have any children still allowed to marry?

284 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:02:00pm

re: #265 buzzsawmonkey

It is absurd to contend that homosexual couples do not have property which needs safeguarding

That's actually my hidden agenda; my gay neighbors have really nice stuff. Why can't I just take it?

285 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:02:05pm

re: #276 Sol Roth

IMHO, the re-definition of marriage to include non-reproducing homosexuals dilutes its original intent; to provide a stable, monogamous mating of a heterosexual pair for the production of offspring that have the maximum fitness to survive and pass on that fitness to the next generation.

I know many married couples who have no children, nor plan to have any. Are you going to rule their marriages invalid? Is childbearing to be a legal requirement for married couples?

286 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:02:15pm

re: #264 Sharmuta

And for Pete's sake- the men here whining about marriage...

Did she hold a gun to your head literally? Glad I'm not your wife, guys.

Dinged ya' up!

287 Kulhwch  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:02:19pm

re: #136 Widow'smight

re: #91 JamesTKirk

I seriously doubt Gays and Lesbians will flock to ? to get married, and I doubt the piece of paper will change their habits. The problem here is that it is framed that marriage is a "Right", and it is not. You give up rights when you get married. Marriage is an obligation.

Ooo, ooo, soooo close ... I think you almost had the right word* there.  I know at times my marriage seemed kinda like an obligation, or perhaps a greatly-inflated karmic payback for something I did very wrong in a past life.  Oh, sorry, I live in California, we speak that way ... heh ...

* Other, better words, might include: choice, option, duty, entitlement, lifestyle, priviledge, booby-trap, mire, time-bomb, fantasy, etc.

}:)     [Hmm ... marriage as obligation ... hmm ... to who?]

288 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:02:45pm

re: #277 zmdavid

If the law means whatever some judge says, there are no gaurantees of anything.

Minor quibble - The Roman Catholic Church recognizes interfaith marriage if they agree that any children will be raised Catholic.

IOW, churches are free, and continue to be free, to set their own standards for marriage recognition.

289 unreconstructed rebel  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:02:58pm

re: #282 LeftJustAintRight

Does this constitute entrapment? After all, Charles brought the subject up. :)

290 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:03:01pm

re: #201 zombie

I have a feeling a lot of pundits and so forth expressing outrage over
this are simply using the judicial-activism aspect to mask their true
feelings (i.e. revulsion at the thought of gay marriage).

While that is probably true in many cases, I see those people as having a right to object to gay marriage in the first place.

Marriage is a contract, and states have the right (and obligation) to make clear what kinds of contracts are legal and which one's aren't.

At issue (from a state's interests stand point) in Gay marriage are the rights that one gets when part of a marriage contract - taxation treatment, estate and property issues, custodial issues over children, medical issues and whatnot. Within that, there are real issues to be addressed that the state has a keen interest in.

I could not care one bit about who is sleeping with whom and how long they want to maintain that relationship. But we have a body of law going back sometime that has made assumptions about what a marriage consists of and we ought to be deliberate in weeding through the implications of a full recognition of marriage to same sex couples.

Were it my issue to deal with, I would remove the word "marriage" from law and use another term. The institution of "marriage" was first given "force" by religious authorities long before states started regulating it (with blood tests, marriage licenses and whatnot). Then it would be up to religions to declare people "married" and it would be up to society to "recognize" a marriage, whereas the legal institution would simply be a state designation recognizing a type of contract that gives the parties to the contract certain rights.

As it sits now in Claifornia by this ruling, all of the aspects of marriage as a social institution have been confered on same sex couples as a civil right. So anyone denying that civil right for social recognition and acceptance (not just legal) can find themselves hauled into either a civil or criminal court for having violated those people's civil rights.

It will be interesting to see which church is sued first for not conducting a full marriage ceremony for a same sex couple that demands such as a civil right.

291 The Pulchritudinous Patriot  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:03:01pm

re: #244 JamesTKirk

You're free to hold that belief, but the state's not in the business of determining God's intent in any case. Besides, it's "til death do we part" for all of us... None of us will be married on Judgement Day when we meet the Dude.

Righto....this is why there is and should be the seperation of Church and State in the Constitution.

I don't care if there are civil unions between same sex couples if that is what each state decides. If a particular religious denomination decides to not marry same sex couples in the church, then fine.

If, however there were ever any legislation forcing a religious body or bodies to conduct marriage ceremonies, then I'd have a problem simply because the State was imposing it power on the Church and that would be unconstitutional.

292 Creeping Eruption  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:03:03pm

I wonder who here has had the time to read and digest the 172 page decision? Not me. I will reserve judgment until then. It sucks seeing normally erudite Lizards spouting off sound bites. I'll sit back now, take my down-dings, and wait for a new thread.

293 opnion  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:03:10pm

re: #18 Honorary Yooper

Since when did the courts get to make the law? I thought that Californians had made their choice known by a referendum?


The courts can always find a constitutional right even where it does not exist.
Look at Roe V Wade. They took it away from the states & the theory was silly.

294 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:03:32pm

re: #278 Killgore Trout

That's a tricky issue. It gets complicated; Imagine if the photographer refused service to blacks? Or a muslim photographer refusing service to Jews? What if it was a gay photographer refusing to service heteros?

Some would say that being homosexual is a choice whereas race is not.

295 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:03:43pm

re: #279 BuddyG

Gay people are fine. Gay marriage is not fine.

And yet no one can give a clear answer (screaming "tradition" or "communism" is not a clear answer) on why that second sentence is the case.

296 Sharmuta  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:03:46pm

re: #286 MandyManners

Dinged ya' up!

When did you turn you ratings on?

297 vagabond trader  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:03:51pm

A gay male friend, who has no interest in marrying , told me that gays deserve to have the same right to be miserable as any straight couple.lol.

298 song_and_dance_man[deleted]  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:04:20pm
299 Athos  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:04:55pm

re: #235 Shug

From my understanding, there is no federal grounds at this point for the SCOTUS to take the case or appeal. If there were a Federal law or Constitutional Amendment, then SCOTUS would have the option to hear it.

I don't think the Feds can step in and rule a State Constitutional amendment unconstitutional under the US Constitution since it's a state constitutional issue and independent of the Fed.

300 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:05:01pm

re: #281 Athos

particularly since CA has a very strong domestic partnership law that few conservatives have an issue with.


From the hot air article....;

Yes, (some) conservatives seem to be saying, gays can go ahead and have civil unions that grant them all the benefits married couples have — but for god’s sake, don’t let them call themselves “married.” To which a court can only reply, “Why not?” The right’s strategy, in other words, has been to concede 99 yards and then stand on the one-yard line and say “no further,” but that’s not how discrimination jurisprudence works. If you’re going to discriminate you need a good reason, and depending upon whom you’re discriminating against, you may need a very, very good reason.
301 BuddyG  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:05:34pm

re: #295 JamesTKirk

If same-sex marriage is allowed, where would you then draw the line?
And what are your reasons for that boundary?

302 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:05:49pm
303 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:05:52pm

re: #296 Sharmuta

Earlier this week.

304 Maximu§  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:06:00pm

OMG...Gay Marriage is legal?

Our whole world is coming to an end.....we're finshed! Our whole society is going to fold like a Chinese lawn chair! Lock up the kids!

s/

Seriously, you people need to calm down. Gays are an extreme minority and their getting marrried hurts no one. I expect at least 4-5 negetive mark downs from the Zealots in here for this comment, but thats Ok, I can take it.

305 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:06:04pm

re: #204 JamesTKirk

For
the same reason churches already can't be forced to perform marriages.
I defy you to tell a Catholic priest, Jewish rabbi, or muslim imam to
marry you if neither you nor your spouse are members of that religion
or subscribe to any of its tenets.

This decision changes that - marriage is now a civil right. One's standing in society is damaged when one is not recognized as "married" because of one's sexual preference.

A priest CANNOT refuse to mary a black parishoner to a white parishoner if either would be allowed to marry someone of their same race.

This is now a civil right, and has to be viewed under the same tests.

306 Sharmuta  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:06:06pm

re: #298 song_and_dance_man

I'm not saying that. It was to illustrate that our nation was founded on the principle and acknowledgment of a Creator in refutation to your suggestion that the state's not in the business of determining God's intent.

But the State's NOT in the business of religion! It's in the First Amendment!

307 Da_Beerfreak  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:06:23pm

re: #12 Occasional Reader

The big question: "Full faith & credit"?

That's why an amendment to the U.S. Constitution will be the only way to stop this madness.
// {:-(™

308 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:06:27pm

re: #276 Sol Roth

IMHO, the re-definition of marriage to include non-reproducing homosexuals dilutes its original intent; to provide a stable, monogamous mating of a heterosexual pair for the production of offspring that have the maximum fitness to survive and pass on that fitness to the next generation.

Unless this is the intent of homosexual marriage proponents, and what I have read it is not, then you have a dilution of a practice that has served to stabilize societies for thousands of years. It may indeed be a slippery slope to weaken and ultimately destroy the nuclear family which, if we take the out-of-wedlock black birthrate as an example, wholly unhealthy to society. Destruction of the nuclear family is a stated goal of Marxism. You can read their propaganda here: [Link: www.fifthinternational.org...] This is where I see threats to my marriage and freedom.

So a small percentage of folks, 1% of the 6% of the American population want to wed, and it's considered a threat. Gimme a break.

309 Roger  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:06:37pm

re: #229 unreconstructed rebel

re: #202 karmic_inquisitor

What's worse, Pelosi & Biden have jumped in too.

Pelosi, Biden and Reed are queer.

/And I don't mean in a homosexual way.

310 Intrepid  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:06:46pm

re: #176 zmdavid

1. It's not a law, it's a court decision.
2. How do you know it doesn't force Churches to marry gay couples?

Your second point is, IIRC, Tammy Bruce's objection to legalizing gay marriage. Her concern was that this would begin a process of obligating priests/pastors, who have a religious belief against it, to perform ceremonies that are against their religious beliefs. Therefore a huge issue between church/state separation.

311 Sol Roth  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:06:46pm

re: #237 zombie

Which, actually, is also perfectly fine by me. Again: i am opposed to nanny-state-ism telling people what to do in their personal lives. I guess you'd call that a libertarian streak. Want to make love to a park bench and then stage a wedding ceremony with it, presided over by a taxidermed aardvark? Be my guest.

LOL!

312 Sharmuta  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:06:55pm

re: #303 MandyManners

Good deal, Mandy. Welcome to the fabulous world of Dings!

313 lawhawk  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:07:37pm

re: #235 Shug

then somebody will sue them in federal court.

Can the federal court then ban the state constitutional amendment for violation of some federal protection?

The case was decided on State Constitutional grounds, so the case ends with the Cal. Supreme Court - they're the final arbiters of California law.

314 NoSubmission  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:07:38pm

re: #304 Maximu§

OMG...Gay Marriage is legal?

Our whole world is coming to an end.....we're finshed! Our whole society is going to fold like a Chinese lawn chair! Lock up the kids!
s/
Seriously, you people need to calm down. Gays are an extreme minority and their getting marrried hurts no one. I expect at least 4-5 negetive mark downs from the Zealots in here for this comment, but thats Ok, I can take it.


If I had my ratings turned on, I'd ding you up.

315 sventopia  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:07:57pm

re: #172 Occasional Reader

Gay people helped pay for my marriage? Then where the hell is my rebate?

When you think of all the legal fees they have to spend preparing the hundreds of contracts that automagically come along with a legal marriage, not to mention all the other marriage related bennies -- you bet they pay. Gay folks have to file taxes separately, cannot usually rely on their partner for health insurance, survivor benefits, immigration stuff, and on and on.

But regardless, gays entering into a legal contract like marriage doesn't deny anyone else's right to do the same, so I just don't think it's anything to get worked up over.

316 joncelli  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:08:03pm

re: #304 Maximu§

I dinged you up just to be cantankerous. ;-)

317 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:08:41pm

re: #304 Maximu%uFFFD

OMG...Gay Marriage is legal?

Our whole world is coming to an end.....we're finshed! Our whole society is going to fold like a Chinese lawn chair! Lock up the kids!

s/

Seriously, you people need to calm down. Gays are an extreme minority and their getting marrried hurts no one. I expect at least 4-5 negetive mark downs from the Zealots in here for this comment, but thats Ok, I can take it.

Zealots. Maximu again hits nail squarely.

318 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:08:44pm

re: #294 MandyManners

Some would say that being homosexual is a choice whereas race is not.


That's a pretty loaded argument but it's not a choice for many/most gays. It simply isn't. Attempts at curing homosexuality don't work and are often psychologically damaging to the "patients". If gay sex really was a choice why would so many pastors, priests, and conservative politicians ruin their lives, careers, and families by pursuing gay sex. Gay sex must be really fantastic because people take great risks and pay high prices to get it.

319 Shug  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:08:49pm

re: #313 lawhawk

The case was decided on State Constitutional grounds, so the case ends with the Cal. Supreme Court - they're the final arbiters of California law.

thanks. I was just wondering at what point the federal court could overturn the state court.

Like what if the people of california amended the california constitution to deny voting rights to black people or women?

320 newsjunkie_ky  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:09:04pm

re: #266 JamesTKirk

Seem to remember seeing pictures of public sex in SF on zombie's site. Don't think they were arrested.

321 zombie  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:09:33pm

re: #198 jemima

I used to live in a town where a guy would break into a barn to rape a little girl's pony.

I guess it's okay if he really really wanted to do it. Who are we to judge etc.

What are you talking about? Gay marriage is the same as bestiality rape?

Weird.

322 ArmyWife  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:09:42pm

re: #306 Sharmuta

No, the first amendment states there will not be a Government imposed religion - a la the Anglican church in England, nor will you be punished for practicing whatever religion you follow. It never said there would be no reference to religion ever, ever. The "wall of separation" is a fallacy and made up by....you guessed it...COURTS.

323 Squirrelguy  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:09:42pm

re: #12 Occasional Reader

The big question: "Full faith & credit"?

Then my concealed handgun license should work in Kali.

324 Dianna  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:09:50pm

This thread is moving really fast, and I'm working, so I just wish to say that ignoring the voters is not what judges are for. And, while I do not have a dog in the gay marriage fight, I feel that this is something that gays need to persuade married people about. This isn't going to help, at all.

325 vagabond trader  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:09:55pm

re: #276 Sol Roth

Oh please, my straight spouse and I are already being punished with higher taxes because we failed to produce offspring. Should our legal marriage also be dissolved?

326 opnion  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:09:55pm

Alright, someone had to ask. How do you decide which one gets to soften the window treatments?

327 BuddyG  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:10:08pm

re: #302 buzzsawmonkey

Would you be okay with legal polygamy; A multi-partner marriage?

328 wolfie  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:10:19pm

re: #277 zmdavid

If the law means whatever some judge says, there are no gaurantees of anything.
Minor quibble - The Roman Catholic Church recognizes interfaith marriage if they agree that any children will be raised Catholic.

Indeed.

329 Ojoe  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:10:22pm

1. This stuff makes dreadful politics.

2. Gay "M---" is not the same thing, don't use the same word.

3. Language is not meant to obscure but to clarify.

4. God loves everyone.

330 Dianna  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:10:26pm

re: #314 NoSubmission

Me, too.

Got to go back to work.

331 Peacekeeper  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:10:38pm

re: #321 zombie

What are you talking about? Gay marriage is the same as bestiality rape?

Accounts Differ...

332 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:10:45pm

re: #301 BuddyG

If same-sex marriage is allowed, where would you then draw the line?
And what are your reasons for that boundary?

Consenting adults.

Children cannot consent. Animals cannot consent.

No one has demonstrated to me any valid reason why they have any business telling other adults who they can and cannot marry. I don't care if they're from different races (It was as recently as 1967 when Loving vs. Virginia struck down the laws against mixed-race marriages!), different religions (long, bloody history there; which still continues with muslims and their honor killings), or the same sex...

They are consenting adults and it's their business, not yours, what they do.

333 OldLineTexan  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:10:50pm

re: #278 Killgore Trout

That's a tricky issue. It gets complicated; Imagine if the photographer refused service to blacks? Or a muslim photographer refusing service to Jews? What if it was a gay photographer refusing to service heteros?

If I have a business without public facilities* (such as many wedding photographers), what business is it of the Government whether or not I am a bigot, or just uncomfortable in certain settings? What right then does this photographer have to refuse to take pornographic pictures, if I as a customer demand them?

To take it further, if the Gov't starts telling this photographer who he will accept as a customer, will the same Gov't tell his customers which photographer to choose? There's an LDS Temple down the street...were I a photographer, I could not work in that Temple because I am not Mormon and do not hold a Temple recommend. Does the photographer have rights in that case that trump the rights of the Mormons to preserve the sanctity of their Temple?

*the public facilities question has LONG been settled

334 sventopia  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:10:51pm

re: #277 zmdavid


Minor quibble - The Roman Catholic Church recognizes interfaith marriage if they agree that any children will be raised Catholic.

Quibble taken... all the Catholics are know are also the most anti-Catholic people I know, so my sources regarding RC theology probably aren't the most reliable.

335 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:11:00pm

re: #318 Killgore Trout

That's a pretty loaded argument but it's not a choice for many/most gays. It simply isn't. Attempts at curing homosexuality don't work and are often psychologically damaging to the "patients". If gay sex really was a choice why would so many pastors, priests, and conservative politicians ruin their lives, careers, and families by pursuing gay sex. Gay sex must be really fantastic because people take great risks and pay high prices to get it.

But, for those who believe it IS a choice, and a sinful one at that, it would be forcing them to violate their own religious beliefs. Is the next step forcing a church to perform the ceremony?

336 Sharmuta  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:11:12pm

re: #319 Shug

thanks. I was just wondering at what point the federal court could overturn the state court.

Like what if the people of california amended the california constitution to deny voting rights to black people or women?

Yeah- we should end women's suffrage- those women are suffering!

/Old Tom Green joke

337 unreconstructed rebel  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:11:17pm

re: #309 Roger

Time was when queer as an adjective & queer as a noun meant different things, but I got your meaning.

But, in the above context queer is to gentle a word. Vicious anti-american traitors suits me better.

338 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:11:21pm

re: #292 Creeping Eruption

I wonder who here has had the time to read and digest the 172 page
decision? Not me. I will reserve judgment until then. It sucks seeing
normally erudite Lizards spouting off sound bites. I'll sit back now,
take my down-dings, and wait for a new thread.

Page 7.

We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, 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.

Marriage is a now civil right.

339 nyc redneck  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:11:25pm

re: #183 NoSubmission

Not all gay people are promiscuous. I know many who are surprisngly rather conservative Republicans and in long term monogamous relationships.

i know several gay couples (both male and female) who have been together for yrs. also. at least 3 couples have adopted children and are good parents. my gay male friends are conservative business owners. they adopted their daughter when she was born to a woman who had no way of caring for her. she is 12 now and such a sweet kid. and somehow, she looks just like both of her dads. they are good solid people and caring parents. ( i jokingly ask them to adopt me, sometimes.)

340 Peter Griffin  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:11:40pm

Maybe the whole country should allow gay marraiges from Memorial to Labor Day to see if all of those FABULOUS weddings will stimulate the economy?

341 Squirrelguy  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:11:41pm

Let them get married. Let be be as unhappy as I was. Let them give up half of everything they own when they want out.

Equality can be a bitch.

342 Peacekeeper  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:11:54pm

Congrats Charles this has all the earmarks of careening into a FOAD thread.

Talk about boldly going...

343 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:12:09pm

re: #305 karmic_inquisitor

This decision changes that - marriage is now a civil right. One's standing in society is damaged when one is not recognized as "married" because of one's sexual preference.

A priest CANNOT refuse to mary a black parishoner to a white parishoner if either would be allowed to marry someone of their same race.

This is now a civil right, and has to be viewed under the same tests.

Marriage is a civil right for Jews, yet priests ARE most certainly allowed to refuse to marry Jews within a Catholic church. Getting married is a right. Getting married by a priest is not and never was.

344 Squirrelguy  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:12:31pm

re: #327 BuddyG

Would you be okay with legal polygamy; A multi-partner marriage?

Geez, I don't want one. Why in the hell would I want more?

345 BuddyG  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:12:37pm

re: #332 JamesTKirk

You'd be okay with multiple consenting adults all getting legally married to eachother as a group ?

346 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:12:51pm
347 zmloh  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:12:54pm

Well, goodbye California it was so nice to know YA!

348 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:13:19pm

re: #320 newsjunkie_ky

Seem to remember seeing pictures of public sex in SF on zombie's site. Don't think they were arrested.

And how will gay marriage change that, if they're already having public sex in SF?

349 opnion  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:13:27pm

i am just saying that throwing beastiality in here seems like such bigotry against Islam. Ya know it"s a cultural thing.
Ok a stretch

350 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:13:33pm

re: #340 Peter Griffin

Maybe the whole country should allow gay marraiges from Memorial to Labor Day to see if all of those FABULOUS weddings will stimulate the economy?

Just don't put registry information in with the wedding invitations.

351 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:13:37pm

re: #198 jemima

I used to live in a town where a guy would break into a barn to rape a little girl's pony.

I guess it's okay if he really really wanted to do it. Who are we to judge etc.


re: #321 zombie

What are you talking about? Gay marriage is the same as bestiality rape?

Weird.


Like I said before, there should be some test administered somewhere between hatching and delousing prior to granting posting privileges.

352 The Pulchritudinous Patriot  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:13:43pm

re: #310 Intrepid

Your second point is, IIRC, Tammy Bruce's objection to legalizing gay marriage. Her concern was that this would begin a process of obligating priests/pastors, who have a religious belief against it, to perform ceremonies that are against their religious beliefs. Therefore a huge issue between church/state separation.

But this is why we have the Supreme Court. It's also why it takes 3/4s of the states to ratify any changes to the Constitution. Any law that orders priests/rabbis etc to perform the "religious" aspect of the marriage contract would get challenged immediately.

353 experiencedtraveller  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:13:49pm

re: #265 buzzsawmonkey

I would marry buzzsawmonkey.

/c'mon you know what I mean!

354 Sharmuta  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:14:05pm

re: #322 ArmyWife

No, the first amendment states there will not be a Government imposed religion - a la the Anglican church in England, nor will you be punished for practicing whatever religion you follow. It never said there would be no reference to religion ever, ever. The "wall of separation" is a fallacy and made up by....you guessed it...COURTS.

I know that- but legally- the courts and the government are not in the business to decide God's intent, which was Song & Dance Man's argument.

355 Peacekeeper  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:14:16pm

re: #329 Ojoe

1. This stuff makes dreadful politics.

2. Gay "M---" is not the same thing, don't use the same word.

3. Language is not meant to obscure but to clarify.

4. God loves everyone.

Does God love Hitler?*


* Which is a rhetorical point and I do not think that gays are hated by God. Some people yes, not gays as a class.

356 Widow'smight  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:14:23pm

re: #287 Kulhwch

Well around here, some folks speak PA Dutchified, Vunst.

I have a financial obligation to my Wife and Children, a Moral Obligation to them, and an Obligation to protect them.

BTW, THIS wife is a real blessing to me and our kids. I can speak honestly about Marriage being an obligation cause I went through a real ugly divorce.

357 Intrepid  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:14:38pm

re: #253 zombie

Hey Zombie - what's the strangest parade/protest/?-a-thon you've seen/photo'd in SF?

Just wonderin', since there's such a myriad of choices....

358 Roger  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:14:44pm

re: #329 Ojoe

4. God loves everyone.

He does think some folks are idiots for carving something out of wood, stone or polycarbonate and then worshiping it.

359 freetoken  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:14:52pm

re: #144 Sol Roth

If I read the link Charles posted correctly, it is this approach (that you advocate) that got the decision rendered as it was. Namely, that having given up so many "yards", so to speak, the court simply found that to not go all the way was fundamentally wrong, according to California constitution and law.

360 CyanSnowHawk  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:15:00pm

re: #178 marge45b

I can see it now the Catholic Church will be sued for discrimination when it refuses to perform "Same-Sex" Church Weddings.

Do you mean the same way that the Catholic Church is constantly being sued in order to allow women to become priests?

/Separation of Church and State works both ways

361 NoSubmission  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:15:00pm

re: #353 experiencedtraveller

I would marry buzzsawmonkey.

/c'mon you know what I mean!


I {heart} buzzsawmonkey! I get first dibs..

362 Ojoe  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:15:06pm

This is something that should never be in the arena of public policy, one way or another.

I do not think it was a wise idea to bring it t here in the first place.

363 kynna  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:15:14pm

I've got friends in a civil union so I'm not bashing the idea of gay marriage. I haven't totally made up my mind, actually.

But IIRC the voters made this ban as per the state constitution. I agree with posters who hope this kind of judicial meddling will energize the voters to put more conservatives (ie Federalists) in office. Someone has to be thinking about 'by the people, for the people'. If they can overturn this voter realized action then they could turn over anything the voters have decided on. Including keeping Islam out of our classrooms and banning sex ed in 2nd grade.

364 JamesTKirk  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:15:29pm

re: #342 Peacekeeper

Congrats Charles this has all the earmarks of careening into a FOAD thread.

Talk about boldly going...

Hey! Leave my catchphrase out of this!

/ gotta be going anyway...

365 Sharmuta  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:15:45pm

re: #350 MandyManners

Just don't put registry information in with the wedding invitations.

LMAO! It's soooo uncouth.

366 joncelli  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:15:54pm

So the solution is pretty clear: take marriage out of the ambit of the state. Make all marriage contractual. Marry three guys and woman, if you want. Just don't get government involved, with its implications of societal acceptance.

367 BuddyG  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:16:04pm

re: #346 buzzsawmonkey

Won't answer the question, huh?

368 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:16:17pm

re: #343 JamesTKirk

Marriage
is a civil right for Jews, yet priests ARE most certainly allowed to
refuse to marry Jews within a Catholic church. Getting married is a
right. Getting married by a priest is not and never was.

The example I laid out was among parishoners of the said church. The case law on such is huge.

Again - civil right.

Loving v. Virginia

369 zombie  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:16:32pm

re: #214 Widow'smight

My problem is that some of the same people pushing so hard for Gay Marriage are also pushing for lowering the Age of consent to 10 or 12. In that case, the child would no longer be protected from gay/straight predators, but would have to face defense lawyers and such.

Link for that?

Oh sorry, there isn't one. Just another ridiculous slander.

99% of the activists seeking to lower the age of consent are straight. Many, in fact, are members of fringe religious sects who want girls to be able to marry at 13 with no parental veto power.

Strange how these social issue debates bring out the real rifts in the lizard community. We agree on so many other things.

Just as with the other divisive issues around here, things break down along theological lines, with Team Secular facing off against Team Religious.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

370 Honorary Yooper  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:16:49pm

re: #228 incanus

Wait a few years.

They already can't be told to perform the marriage. For example, a Catholic church will not perform a marriage if the previous marriage has not been annulled within the church. This stands even with a civil divorce.

Now a justice of the peace on the other hand...

371 OldLineTexan  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:16:51pm

re: #314 NoSubmission

If I had my ratings turned on, I'd ding you up.

I wouldn't because I have yet to see the hyperventilating that some people are hyperventilating about. But that's just me.

/and BEFORE you kick me, I don't give a rat's ass. Both sides are half-right. Good luck with that. The judicial activism is real and a serious threat, but hey, that just makes me a bigot with a hidden agenda.

372 restitutor orbis  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:16:59pm

Oh jeez. I bet Savage popped a blood vessel. Maybe this will give him something new to talk about rather than the lefty talking points he's been spewing lately (Corporations!.... Big Oil!...... Bush greatest disaster to befall the country!....... Who's pulling his strings?............... Puppetmasters!)

373 average_guy  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:17:00pm

More details here.

Apparently there will be a gay marriage ban on the ballot in November 2008 in The Golden State, although this could be subsequently overturned in the courts as well. Of course, any marriages performed between now and then would be legal, at least I presume so. I wonder if the ballot initiative will drive conservative voter turnout this November in California? Interesting...

374 freetoken  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:17:06pm

re: #176 zmdavid

On #2 - for the same reason that TODAY churches are NOT forced to marry anyone that simply wants to be...

375 Ojoe  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:17:10pm

re: #338 karmic_inquisitor

WTF it is a fundamental constitutional right?

Where does that come from?

This whole area is a spiritual area and the state should keep its nose out of it.

376 Peacekeeper  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:17:15pm

re: #364 JamesTKirk

You screwed that male/female thing from Trek VI, but at least you didn't marry it.

377 unreconstructed rebel  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:17:21pm

re: #366 joncelli

Just don't get government involved

Please! The tax code is complicated enough.

378 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:17:24pm

re: #365 Sharmuta

LMAO! It's soooo uncouth.

Nothing like opening up those stiff double envelopes to have a bunch of business cards fall all over the counter.

379 Peter Griffin  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:17:28pm

re: #350 MandyManners

Oh look honey, they are registered at The White Rabbit, The Gay Dolphin, and Crate & Barrel

380 song_and_dance_man[deleted]  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:17:35pm
381 Shug  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:17:47pm

re: #369 zombie

I like team zombie

382 Athos  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:17:59pm

re: #300 Killgore Trout

What I think AP is missing is that 60.1% of the CA electorate defined marriage as between one man and one woman. If the Supreme Court is to overturn that vote then they need to have a specific right to that is being denied other than use of the term or the redefinition of the term to fit a “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.”

Then there is the other argument twist of AP's position, that the burden of proof is on those same-sex persons to prove why it has to be called marriage and not a domestic partnership. Shouldn't that burden be on the group trying to influence change as opposed to the group holding the traditional definition (and the definition as defined by the electorate).

383 sparrowlake  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:18:30pm

re: #295 JamesTKirk

And yet no one can give a clear answer (screaming "tradition" or "communism" is not a clear answer) on why that second sentence is the case.

Tradition beats Communism, though, ya gotta admit.

384 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:18:32pm
385 maddogg  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:18:35pm

Just a matter of time til you can marry your dog.

386 formercorpsman  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:18:47pm

re: #204 JamesTKirk

You have seen the story floating around about the guy who called the catholic hospital main number, asked if they did sex change operations, knew the answer would no, and now has a lawsuit.

To think somehow, the motivation behind this is to just live and let live, you are fooling yourself.

There is an effort by politically motivated people, subverting our constitutional process of a couple hundred years.

I don't like where this goes. Only because it never stops with equality. It is a barge to encroach upon people's free will if they so disagree with this lifestyle.

Think about some small business person who may decide to hire someone, or not based upon certain attributes they feel might have a negative impact for their success.

This type of thing has a major domino effect.

387 Russkilitlover  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:18:48pm

re: #170 zombie

But it's a nice way to distract the masses from what's really important! Wouldn't want anyone turning away from monumental issues like gay marriage to contemplate oh, say, appeasing terrorists, nationalizing health care, or importing abject poverty.

388 Peacekeeper  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:19:05pm
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Why ? Because you said so?

;)

389 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:19:15pm

re: #379 Peter Griffin

Oh look honey, they are registered at The White Rabbit, The Gay Dolphin, and Crate & Barrel

Anyone who puts that into a wedding invitation guarantees I won't buy crap.

390 MellyMel  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:20:01pm

re: #349 opnion

i am just saying that throwing beastiality in here seems like such bigotry against Islam. Ya know it"s a cultural thing.
Ok a stretch

LOL. I need that laugh -- thanks!

391 CyanSnowHawk  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:20:01pm

re: #200 Occasional Reader

I was referring to lawhawk's note upthread of the position taken by the Mass. court (not this one), that their decision was immune to constitutional amendment. Shocking judicial arrogance, and flatly undemocratic.

Oh. That is shocking and arrogant, but I sort of expect that from Mass.

392 zombie  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:20:05pm
#223 incanus
re: #201 zombie

Oh, I agree. The judicial activism is distasteful. But the underlying topic (gay marriage) just makes me shrug.

I have a feeling a lot of pundits and so forth expressing outrage over this are simply using the judicial-activism aspect to mask their true feelings (i.e. revulsion at the thought of gay marriage).

Come now, you're better than that. "[group] is opposing this not because of the points they have raised but because they are [racist]" (where "racist" means "in opposition to some identity group"). This is a fallacious argument.

I stand by my statement: a lot of conservative pundits are just opposed to gay marriage in principle, but they'll use the "judicial activism" aspect of this story (which is a valid aspect) to make it seem like they have a different motivation.

People publicly misrepresenting their motives happens all the time.

393 joncelli  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:20:05pm

re: #385 maddogg

Some men think they've already done that.

/Thank you! I'll be here all week!

394 Squirrelguy  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:20:08pm

re: #379 Peter Griffin

Oh look honey, they are registered at The White Rabbit, The Gay Dolphin, and Crate & Barrel


The Blue Oyster Bar.

395 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:20:08pm
396 Shug  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:20:13pm

re: #385 maddogg

Just a matter of time til you can marry your dog.


Why buy the dog when you can get the bone for free?

397 JustMyView  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:20:31pm

re: #214 Widow'smight

My problem is that some of the same people pushing so hard for Gay Marriage are also pushing for lowering the Age of consent to 10 or 12. In that case, the child would no longer be protected from gay/straight predators, but would have to face defense lawyers and such. Unless they were kids in my family, the SOB would have a private Pre-trial hearing, then an opportunity to check out the nearest healthcare facility.

I'm sure most Gay folks don't think that way, but lacking is the reporting on the supporters of this movement, and their real intent.

The reporting must be really lacking. I've never heard of anyone pushing this idea. How did you happen to hear about it

398 Sharmuta  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:20:39pm

Actually- I'd like to see more equity in divorce laws.

399 opnion  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:20:51pm

re: #390 MellyMel

LOL. I need that laugh -- thanks!


My pleasure.

400 MandyManners  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:21:00pm

re: #396 Shug

*whack*

401 Peacekeeper  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:21:00pm

re: #387 Russkilitlover

But it's a nice way to distract the masses from what's really important! Wouldn't want anyone turning away from monumental issues like gay marriage to contemplate oh, say, appeasing terrorists, nationalizing health care, or importing abject poverty.

COMRADE!

402 NoSubmission  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:21:15pm

re: #371 OldLineTexan
I don't want to kick anyone. We all have a right to express our points of view here.

403 Ornery Potlicker  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:21:17pm

This will only make me more bitter and clingy.

404 Creeping Eruption  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:21:18pm

re: #338 karmic_inquisitor

Marriage is a now civil right.

If that is the case, I don't have a problem with that. I have not read the full decision though to agree or disagree with your analysis.

405 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:21:19pm
406 newsjunkie_ky  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:21:28pm

re: #348 JamesTKirk
Don't know what you are asking. I responded to this:
re: #258 Peacekeeper

Want to make love to a park bench and then stage a wedding ceremony with it, presided over by a taxidermed aardvark? Be my guest.


What if I want to walk down the street without my toddler seeing two leather clad freaks caulking socks? Do I have a right?

JamesTKirk said, "Public sex is illegal regardless of the genders and orientations involved."

Apparently it is not illegal in SF between gay men, according to zombie's pictures and her writings that police look the other way. If a straight couple were engaging in oral sex on a public street they would be arrested.

407 Da_Beerfreak  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:21:44pm

re: #50 pat

When is the Court going to declare the Constitution unConstitutional?

FDR already did that before WWII IIRC.

We have FDR to thank for today's Ogliarchy.

(In case you missed the memo:
The Republic is dead.)

408 Dianna  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:22:04pm

re: #366 joncelli

Then you're saying (sigh) that the state has no interest in marriage?

That position won't hold up, unfortunately, because of a bunch of statistics. The sad and sorry fact is that the state should be backing marriage to the hilt, because children do better in families with stable marriages; men behave better when married; both men and women do better, financially, physically and mentally when married; and it's better for the state for people to be married.

Sorry.

I'm just a secular person, who isn't married but living with someone of the other sex.

409 joncelli  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:22:06pm

re: #405 buzzsawmonkey

Bwahahaha!

410 ArmyWife  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:22:13pm

I am opposed to gay marriage. I am not opposed to gay relationships - I don't care much what happens in people's bedrooms so long as its not harming me or something innocent such as a child or animal.

What we need to remember is there IS a cost associated with this - health insurance premiums will go up, that being the biggest one. Is that enough to say we shouldn't do this? I am not sure, but we kid ourselves if we don't think this isn't a part of the debate. I also don't buy the "discrimination" argument. If gay people wanted to marry for the insurance benefits and whatever else, no one is stopping them - so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.

The scary part of this particular issue (CA) is the way it came about. It flies in the face of necessary checks and balances - that should scare you whether you are gay, straight or undecided.

411 Ward Cleaver  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:22:19pm

That should make the jihadis love California.

412 Ojoe  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:22:26pm

re: #404 Creeping Eruption

Marriage is more basic than anything "civil".

IMHO

413 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:22:29pm

re: #335 MandyManners

But, for those who believe it IS a choice, and a sinful one at that, it would be forcing them to violate their own religious beliefs.

Yes, it does. To some extent if someone's religious beliefs are so rigid then they need to take responsibility and insulate themselves from the rest of society. Muslims who object to guide dogs, booze and pork should move to Saudi Arabia. America has no obligation to create a society that accommodates all religions without offense. People should take responsibility for their own sensitivities not expect the rest of society to accommodate them.

414 NoSubmission  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:22:33pm

re: #385 maddogg

Just a matter of time til you can marry your dog.


As long as I can marry both my dogs... Polydoggie!
All kidding aside, my dogs are nicer than my last two husbands.

415 Squirrelguy  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:22:34pm

re: #403 Ornery Potlicker

This will only make me more bitter and clingy.

Lock & load!

416 Maximu§  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:23:12pm

My Brother who is a born-again-Christian believes anyone outside of his little Church is going to Hell!...course, I think he is a f**king Idiot.

I have a real problem with Christians who think God only smiles on them and the rest of us regular folk are going to burn in the eternal fires of Hell.

If a Gay couple marries, raises children and are productive members of society.....who the F**K are we to judge them?

Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone....

417 unreconstructed rebel  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:23:23pm

re: #407 Da_Beerfreak

The Republic is dead

Happened when they stole our gold.

418 Sol Roth  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:23:25pm

re: #285 JamesTKirk

I know many married couples who have no children, nor plan to have any. Are you going to rule their marriages invalid? Is childbearing to be a legal requirement for married couples?

Marriage of heterosexuals that are sterile, or who don't want children are no threat to the original purpose of marriage.

419 Peter Griffin  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:23:32pm

I'm picturing 5 groomsmen - dressed as The Village People

420 DownRightMeanAmerican  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:23:40pm

I wonder what the folks in River Bend-Dover NH are thinking?

421 runrabbitrun  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:23:59pm

re: #285 JamesTKirk

I know many married couples who have no children, nor plan to have any. Are you going to rule their marriages invalid? Is childbearing to be a legal requirement for married couples?

No, not every hetero couple can have, or wish to have children - but only hetero couples may bring a child into existence, which was one of the original intents of marriage: to encourage couples which MAY produce children to take financial and physical responsibility for those children. Remember, if a homosexual couple seeks to ADOPT a child, they are investigated and declare their commitment to provide same to the child as a part of the investigation. Not so with heteros, which was a benefit to the culture of couples being married.

The legal normalization of homosexual marriage may affect adoptions, state/fed funding assistance of religious schools - they may all lose funding and not be able to exist if they teach that a homosexual lifestyle is contrary to their faith. It may affect foster care/adoptions by religious groups - which care for enormous numbers of at-risk kids - and there will be demands for equal representation of gay families in textbooks, primers, etc. (not to mention the shakedown of corporations to include gay families represented in movies, ad campaigns, and so on).

It will definitely change the culture - interesting.

422 noraono  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:24:03pm

I went to the second "most gay" UC school after Berkeley- we were the first to have non-gendered bathrooms and had the largest LGBTQIA club in the system.

that said, I had a lot of gay friends. Nearly 100% of those had no interest in "marriage" as it stands- they considered marriage to be an institution for straight people. What they did want was a recognized civil union that gave them all the rights, privileges, and benefits of a married couple.

I'm all for civil unions and think gay couples should have every RIGHT of a straight couple- my only objection is to the naming. I believe marriage is a building block of families and should not apply to a same sex couple. But, that's just me being a zealot i guess.

423 BuddyG  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:24:03pm

re: #384 buzzsawmonkey

You have not explained your objections to any--let alone all--of the points I raised in #265 above.

I will be interested to hear your answers--but until you provide them, I see no purpose to dignifying your attempts to introduce red herrings into the discussion.

I imagine that we both agree that legal marriage can't be anything goes.
My boundary is one man & one woman. What's yours?

424 Squirrelguy  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:24:04pm

re: #411 Ward Cleaver

That should make the jihadis love California.

Only if they include camels & goats.

425 Ojoe  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:24:11pm

State go away

Activists go away

426 Slumbering Behemoth  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:24:12pm

re: #128 WrathofG-d

I'd repeal the ff&C clause and go back to a states rights approach.

The only problem with that (if someone hasn't already beat me to this point) is that the clause also covers other things such as graduate degrees.

Remove that, and your AS, BA, Doctorate, and so on are now only valid in the state your earned them in.

427 LeftJustAintRight  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:24:14pm

Who the he! cares what we think ?
What does Obama think
And
Wright
CAIR
Hillary
They are the voices that matter
Us Typical UnPigmented People do not even matter

428 Ornery Potlicker  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:24:20pm

re: #332 JamesTKirk

If you looked into my dogs eyes when I walk through the door, you would see the embodiment of consent.

429 zombie  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:24:25pm

re: #225 JamesTKirk

All you screamers who can't stand the idea that gay sex is happening ought to support gay marriage.

After all, nothing kills sex faster than getting married, right?

EXACTLY.

What is so heinous about gay marriage? If anything, it will only serve to DECREASE promiscuity in the gay community.

Or are people just opposed to gay sex in principle, and they're expressing their opposition to it by opposing gay marriage?

I started this thread being ambivalent about gay marriage, but the more I read, the less a problem I have with it.

Where are your laissez-faire principles, people? You don't want anyone telling you what you can and cannot do -- right? Why then tell others what they can and cannot do?

430 Morganfrost  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:24:47pm

Please! Stop arguing! The Court has decided this is something (else) which must be removed from the purview of (what's left of) a democratic society. If you don't have a black robe, your opinion (and that of your elected representatives) on this matter is no longer of any consequence. There goes another piece of your democracy; don't worry-- it's for your own good.

431 NoSubmission  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:24:53pm

re: #422 noraono
Non gender bathrooms? EW!

432 hayseed  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:25:03pm

what does our leader thik of this

433 Golem Akbar  Thu, May 15, 2008 12:25:06pm

re: #379 Peter Griffin

Oh look honey, they are registered at The White Rabbit, The Gay Dolphin, and Crate & Barrel

Now don't knock Crate and Barrel. I like their furniture. [not that there is anything wrong with Crate and Barrel]

434