Idiots!

Maybe my sister will move there.

Four lawyers trump the voters of California. Heh™.

Change!

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

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

They meant "gay" as in happy, right?

/

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

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

Sounds like "PROPOSITION TIME" in CA.

-S-

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

The big question: "Full faith & credit"?

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.

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!

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

Hang on to your hats.

And cover your butt.

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

The USA=Europe.

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

re: #16 pat

ROTF!

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

/shamlessly stolen from "The Onion"

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!

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

re: #16 pat

HAHAHAHA!

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.

Give them an inch. Uhh, scratch that.

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.

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.

re: #15 rwmofo

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

LOL!

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

# 22

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

CLASSIC!

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.

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

'It's for the children.'

. Oh, wait, no it's not.

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?!

re: #27 lawhawk

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

Where does Obama stand?

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

re: #37 pat

With his back against a wall?
/

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

re: #16 pat

And cover your butt.

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

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

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%.

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.

re: #23 Diamond Bullet

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

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

re: #7 Sharmuta

They meant "gay" as in happy, right?

/

You're talking mythical, right?

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

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.

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.

When is the Court going to declare the Constitution unConstitutional?

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.

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)

Arizona Bay here it comes

re: #37 pat

Where does Obama stand?

He's a long-legged pimp.

re: #48 JamesTKirk

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

re: #50 pat

When is the Court going to declare the Constitution unConstitutional?

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

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?

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

I can hear DUmmies screeching about this thread already.

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

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).

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?

states PIMF

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

I love my Country more than I hate McCain.

I love that bumper sticker.

re: #50 pat

When is the Court going to declare the Constitution unConstitutional?

That's what the Paulians want to do

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.

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?

re: #55 Cygnus

What came first, Dick or "dick"?

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.

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...

re: #78 zombie

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

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.

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.

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!"

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 ... ]

re: #66 JamesTKirk

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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!

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

re: #67 MandyManners

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

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

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

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?

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!

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.

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.

re: #91 JamesTKirk

"random sex in bathhouses with thousands of strangers"

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

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 ... ]

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.

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.

re: #80 BuddyG

What came first, Dick or "dick"?

Inquiring minds want to know. :)

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

Let the protests begin!

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?

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!

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.

re: #95 Cygnus

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

Oh, that!

re: #112 MandyManners

California to W.Virginia; deliverance

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.

re: #105 Cygnus

Inquiring minds want to know. :)

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

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.

re: #99 zombie

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

Homosexuals don't do that?

re: #115 MandyManners

Oh, that!

Yeppers.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

re: #117 JamesTKirk

Then it isn't a good arguement for gay marriage

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.

re: #42 BuddyG

Dang! What store is that in?

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.

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?

re: #121 Cygnus

I snickeed and laughed a long time.

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.

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.

re: #129 Macker

Dang! What store is that in?

Don't ask, don't tell

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

OT, but

Obama Takes Issue With Bush Foreign Policy Speech

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

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.

re: #136 Widow'smight

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

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

REPUBLICAN SENATOR ACCUSED OF DEFECATING IN PUBLIC SEX ROOM!

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.

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.

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

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.

re: #147 Peacekeeper

REPUBLICAN SENATOR ACCUSED OF DEFECATING IN PUBLIC SEX ROOM!

Linky please!

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.

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.

re: #152 Cygnus

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

re: #152 Cygnus

Linky please!

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

Next up, gay divorce

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?

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.

re: #155 Peacekeeper

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

Can you give me some winning lottery numbers then?

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.

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.

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.

re: #162 JamesTKirk

It affects the society in which you live.

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.

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.

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

Another step in "deconstructing" our Western civilization.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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?

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...

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

Got to go have lunch.
Laters, lizards :)

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.

re: #150 Jimmy The Clam,

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

# 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.

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.

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

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.

Supreme Court, here we come.

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.

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.

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.

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.

/

re: #153 joncelli

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

....

lol!

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

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.

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.

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.

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*

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.

( 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.

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.

#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).

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.

re: #159 MandyManners

WTF?

Single men are like bears with furniture.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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)

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

re: #203 The Pulchritudinous Patriot

Single men are like bears with furniture.

So are some single women.

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.

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.

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.

re: #154 JamesTKirk

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

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?

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.

re: #211 bulwrk

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

And, china shops!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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?

BIG GAY IS RIPPING US OFF!

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.

re: #137 ploome hineni

re: #202 karmic_inquisitor

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

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.

re: #219 MandyManners

re: #211 bulwrk

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

And, china shops!

LMAO!

re: #225 JamesTKirk

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.)

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.

re: #165 BuddyG

It affects the society in which you live.

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

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.

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 ... ]

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.

re: #239 LeftJustAintRight

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

LOL!

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.

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.

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?

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.

re: #240 MandyManners

Homosexuality is NOT THE SAME AS PEDOPHILIA.

Consenting human adults. Big difference.

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.

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.

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?!

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.

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!

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?

re: #250 JamesTKirk

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

re: #266 JamesTKirk

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

and whether or not the couple is married

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.

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.