NationStates Jolt Archive

Source (http://www.optonline.net/News/Article/Feeds?CID=type%3Dxml%26channel%3D32%26article%3D14033200)

SAN FRANCISCO - A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

In the eagerly awaited opinion likely to be appealed to the state's highest court, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional.

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote.

The judge wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.

"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote.

Kramer ruled in lawsuits brought by the city of San Francisco and a dozen same-sex couples last March. The suits were brought after the California Supreme Court halted a four-week marriage spree that Mayor Gavin Newsom had initiated in February 2004 when he directed city officials to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians in defiance of state law.

The plaintiffs said withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians trespasses on the civil rights all citizens are guaranteed under the California Constitution.

Two legal groups representing religious conservatives joined with California Attorney General Bill Lockyer in defending the existing laws and had vowed to appeal if Kramer did not rule in their favor.

Lockyer's office has said it expects the matter eventually will have to be settled by the California Supreme Court.

A pair of bills pending before the California Legislature would put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot. If California voters approve such an amendment, as those in 13 other states did last year, that would put the issue out of the control of lawmakers and the courts.
I have mixed feelings - although I am happy that gays/lesbians have equal rights as heterosexuals I still feel like it would be much better for the government to stop issuing marriage licenses, and just civil unions (with increased legal/economic benefit although) for all.

California is now my favourite state

Sex between and man and man or a woman and a woman isn't natural! Like wheelchairs and eyeglasses!

California is now my favourite state
What about Washington and Massachusetts?

What about Washington and Massachusetts?
what have they done to impress me?

I have mixed feelings - although I am happy that gays/lesbians have equal rights as heterosexuals I still feel like it would be much better for the government to stop issuing marriage licenses, and just civil unions (with increased legal/economic benefit although) for all.

Oh, not that sillyness again. Marriage is a civil union.

The Bible says couplings between homosexuals is a sin! We must follow our theocracy's most sacred document!

Sex between and man and man or a woman and a woman isn't natural! Like wheelchairs and eyeglasses!

actually, it is more natural than wheelchairs and eye glasses. Many (if not most) animal species have gay couples. My avatar on another forum was two male lions going at it like woodpeckers.

Oh, not that sillyness again. Marriage is a civil union.
No, I mean just stop using the title of 'marriage'

Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

Sex between and man and man or a woman and a woman isn't natural! Like wheelchairs and eyeglasses!
YEA !! ban whellchairs and glasses !! :rolleyes:

YEA !! ban whellchairs and glasses !! :rolleyes:

only if we can ban cars, planes, clothes, computers, vibrators, duvets, cutlery and shoes too

No, I mean just stop using the title of 'marriage'

Why?

Human Rights: 3

Theocratic Homophobia : 47



still a long way to go, my freinds

Human Rights: 3

Theocratic Homophobia : 47

still a long way to go, my freinds

Don't worry, you'll get there. You have the support of many people who live in countries where gay marriage is legal and see that nothing but good has come of it.

Take that, homophobes! Your hatred will not succeed in the end. You are fighting a losing battle against freedom and equality.

Hey, don't be a dick to foxy!
If that's what it takes to get him to stop...

Take that, homophobes! Your hatred will not succeed in the end. You are fighting a losing battle against freedom and equality.
bah, it will probably get overturned by the state Supreme Court, which leans conservative. They are fighting a losing battle, but it's gonna be a loooooong losing battle, I predict at least 30 years before gay marriage is fully legalized in all 50 states, enough time for a generational turnover.

Originally posted by Fass
Don't worry, you'll get there. You have the support of many people who live in countries where gay marriage is legal and see that nothing but good has come of it.

If your gay, don't move to Ohio. It is possibly the most homophobic state in America. The first issue on our ballot was to ban gay marrige, and it passed with something like 85% for and 15% against. Pretty bad.

bah, it will probably get overturned by the state Supreme Court, which leans conservative. They are fighting a losing battle, but it's gonna be a loooooong losing battle, I predict at least 30 years before gay marriage is fully legalized in all 50 states, enough time for a generational turnover.
Keep in mind the courts can't actually do anything, the legislature just has to write the same law differently.

I see no reason why two people no matter their sexes can't get married. A particularly favorite view on the subject of gay marriage of mine is a quote from the character Jack McCoy on Law & Order: "I say let them do it. Let them be as miserable as the rest of us." Hurray for district attorney cynicism. :cool:

jeeze. Sorry for trying to introduce humour into a subject that completely lacks any humour.
Maybe there's a reason it lacks humor? You know, how it isn't meant to be funny? Let's inject some humor into a discussion about the recent lynchings in Alabama! Cause you know, no one's laughing.

Maybe there's a reason it lacks humor? You know, how it isn't meant to be funny? Let's inject some humor into a discussion about the recent lynchings in Alabama! Cause you know, no one's laughing.There's a big difference between death and gay marriage.

bah, it will probably get overturned by the state Supreme Court, which leans conservative. They are fighting a losing battle, but it's gonna be a loooooong losing battle, I predict at least 30 years before gay marriage is fully legalized in all 50 states, enough time for a generational turnover.
Sad that these people are calling themselves conservative, which more or less is supposed to denote government influence.

How can a bureaucrat in the bedroom be seen as a good thing? :confused:

A victory for all progressive humanity~!


Gay marriage is an equal protection issue. Nothing more or less.

gays and lesbians
should be free to get married
as they are in love

There's a big difference between death and gay marriage.
What about between racism and civil rights?

What about between racism and civil rights?Those are quite alike however.

If your gay, don't move to Ohio. It is possibly the most homophobic state in America. The first issue on our ballot was to ban gay marrige, and it passed with something like 85% for and 15% against. Pretty bad.Not only that, but the specific wording prevents even Civil Unions. Just to add insult to injury.

Horray! No more families ripped apart by people who are deluded into thinking that they are straight!

I am indifferent to marraige rights for homosexuals.
It is the poor strategic thinking of the proponents of those rights that amazes me. They rely almost exclusively on judicial activism to get what they want. They understand they have nowhere near enough popular support in the public so they get judges to overrule the public's desires on the matter.
This creates a backlash against them, people get pissed that judges run around overturning what they voted for or enacted. So, it creates victories for the Republicans who largely stand against this kind of activism (except when it supports one of their pet causes).
So, more of the right gets elected, in the future there will be fewer and fewer judges to support their causes so down the road the activists are shooting themselves in the foot. La la la la live for today. . .they sang in the 60's and that seems to be how they go about their lives now.

I am indifferent to marraige rights for homosexuals.
It is the poor strategic thinking of the proponents of those rights that amazes me. They rely almost exclusively on judicial activism to get what they want. They understand they have nowhere near enough popular support in the public so they get judges to overrule the public's desires on the matter.
This creates a backlash against them, people get pissed that judges run around overturning what they voted for or enacted. So, it creates victories for the Republicans who largely stand against this kind of activism (except when it supports one of their pet causes).
So, more of the right gets elected, in the future there will be fewer and fewer judges to support their causes so down the road the activists are shooting themselves in the foot. La la la la live for today. . .they sang in the 60's and that seems to be how they go about their lives now.
Maybe the judges are just doing their job? i.e., interpreting the law, ruling things unconstitutional which are in fact unconstitutional?

I bet people were pissed when Liberal Activist Judges overturned segregation against the will of the majority in "Brown vs. Board of Education".

California has the wackiest judges. Aren't constitutional rights cases supposed to be in the Supreme Court?
Anyone remember the San Francisco judge and the ban on guns there?

I am indifferent to marraige rights for homosexuals.
It is the poor strategic thinking of the proponents of those rights that amazes me. They rely almost exclusively on judicial activism to get what they want. They understand they have nowhere near enough popular support in the public so they get judges to overrule the public's desires on the matter.
This creates a backlash against them, people get pissed that judges run around overturning what they voted for or enacted. So, it creates victories for the Republicans who largely stand against this kind of activism (except when it supports one of their pet causes).
So, more of the right gets elected, in the future there will be fewer and fewer judges to support their causes so down the road the activists are shooting themselves in the foot. La la la la live for today. . .they sang in the 60's and that seems to be how they go about their lives now.
Maybe more and more things being passed are unConstitutional and the jduges are subsequently doing their job?

California has the wackiest judges. Aren't constitutional rights cases supposed to be in the Supreme Court?
Everything can't be taken straight to the Supreme Court, that's the sole reason there ARE lower courts

Maybe the judges are just doing their job? i.e., interpreting the law, ruling things unconstitutional which are in fact unconstitutional?

I bet people were pissed when Liberal Activist Judges overturned segregation against the will of the majority in "Brown vs. Board of Education".

Yes, maybe they are doing their jobs, but that is completely irrelevant to what is going to happen because of public backlash. The right and wrong of a position is not the point of my post. There is a growing backlash against this activism and it is going to hurt the activists much more than help them. Judges will be appointed who do not do this stuff, mind will be hardened against the activist's positions in many cases simple because they took a judicial route to have them implented. It is very poor strategic thinking.

Sex between and man and man or a woman and a woman isn't natural! Like wheelchairs and eyeglasses!
Hey, why didn't you post that in my sarcasm thread?

California has the wackiest judges. Aren't constitutional rights cases supposed to be in the Supreme Court?
Anyone remember the San Francisco judge and the ban on guns there?


If you'd read anything about the case you'd have seen that it deals with the california state constituion, and that it is going to be appealed to the state supreme court anyhow.

There's a big difference between death and gay marriage.
Not to the "good" Christians! ;)

If you'd read anything about the case you'd have seen that it deals with the california state constituion, and that it is going to be appealed to the state supreme court anyhow.
Oh. I was too lazy to read it. My bad.

Human Rights: 3

Theocratic Homophobia : 47



still a long way to go, my freinds

Hey hey now, Connecticut is on its way too.

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-unions0302.artmar02,0,486431.story?coll=hc-headlines-local

Oh, and hooray for judges protecting the freedoms of all people, not just the rich and straight.

Hey hey now, Connecticut is on its way too.

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-unions0302.artmar02,0,486431.story?coll=hc-headlines-local
NO RELL NO!!
That is just wrong. Thats it, I officially have mixed feelings about that once awesome state.

Yes, maybe they are doing their jobs, but that is completely irrelevant to what is going to happen because of public backlash. The right and wrong of a position is not the point of my post. There is a growing backlash against this activism and it is going to hurt the activists much more than help them. Judges will be appointed who do not do this stuff, mind will be hardened against the activist's positions in many cases simple because they took a judicial route to have them implented. It is very poor strategic thinking.
It's worked before. Sometimes a little civil unrest and *judicial activism* is necessary to get anything done. Eventually, people realize it wasn't such a big deal, and move onto fighting something else.

Who poured lye on this thread? :confused:

NO RELL NO!!
That is just wrong. Thats it, I officially have mixed feelings about that once awesome state.
Not discriminating against a certain group makes this state less awesome? :headbang:

I take the judge has never heard of the 10th Amendment.

It's worked before. Sometimes a little civil unrest and *judicial activism* is necessary to get anything done. Eventually, people realize it wasn't such a big deal, and move onto fighting something else.

Yes, it did work before. That is why activist became addicted to it. It was quick and easy in comparison to trying to change overall public opinion or indifference. But now it is all the time about everything.
Yes, it may work in the short run but in the long run it will fail. It is already failing. The Republicans have gained a dominence they have never enjoyed and one of their biggest tools has been pointing out these constant reversings of the majority's will by judges on behalf of US liberals.

Everyone has a right to be happy. So if the gays and lesbians want to get married. Let them, let them be deprive of sex, and happiness once their partner are nagging them to death lol.

I take the judge has never heard of the 10th Amendment.

The long forgotten 10th amendment. The most ignored of all of them.

Not discriminating against a certain group makes this state less awesome? :headbang:
No, the fact that we are next though is not awesome. I never pictured Connecticut as that kind of state. I always thought that some other state would get it before us. Really, as a Connecticut citizen, it is sort of unnerving to find something out about the people who live in your state you didn't know before. Maybe thats the farmer in me talking, but I never expected it from Rell.

Yes, it did work before. That is why activist became addicted to it. It was quick and easy in comparison to trying to change overall public opinion or indifference. But now it is all the time about everything.
Yes, it may work in the short run but in the long run it will fail. It is already failing. The Republicans have gained a dominence they have never enjoyed and one of their biggest tools has been pointing out these constant reversings of the majority's will by judges on behalf of US liberals.
In the long run, the majority of America will support gay marriage anyways, so the Republicans are thinking short term if they are going to pack the courts with conservative judges, then 30 years from now the judicial branch is seen as infested with activist conservative judges striking down the democratic process of legalizing gay marriage, and then we can have our own backlash!

No, the fact that we are next though is not awesome. I never pictured Connecticut as that kind of state. I always thought that some other state would get it before us. Really, as a Connecticut citizen, it is sort of unnerving to find something out about the people who live in your state you didn't know before. Maybe thats the farmer in me talking, but I never expected it from Rell.
Well, I would jump for joy if I thought Alabama would ever support gay marriage as a state, but it ain't gonna happen. Wanna trade states? :p

Not unless you can claim your state invented something better than the hamburger, the grinder, or the pizza (possibly).

I take the judge has never heard of the 10th Amendment.
I hearts Roach! :D

In the long run, the majority of America will support gay marriage anyways, so the Republicans are thinking short term if they are going to pack the courts with conservative judges, then 30 years from now the judicial branch is seen as infested with activist conservative judges striking down the democratic process of legalizing gay marriage, and then we can have our own backlash!

Do you think you are disagreeing with me?
Exactly. . .all things cultural are cyclical. But that doesn't change the fact that it is poor strategic thinking. I am not arguing that the liberal activist side is wrong in their ideas (that is a different debate) I merely think their strategy, right now, is poor.

Not unless you can claim your state invented something better than the hamburger, the grinder, or the pizza (possibly).
Don't know about the grinder, but there is no known inventor for the other two. The Hamburger originated in Hamburg as a way of eating beef (much like Frankfurt came up with the Frankfurter), while the pizza is an Italian food dating back as least as far as the Roman Empire.

Don't know about the grinder, but there is no known inventor for the other two. The Hamburger originated in Hamburg as a way of eating beef (much like Frankfurt came up with the Frankfurter), while the pizza is an Italian food dating back as least as far as the Roman Empire.
Stop contridicting me!
The grinder was invented in Groton by some resteraunt which frequently served submarine officers. Hence the name, "Submarine Sandwich".
The hamburger I think was brought to New Haven first from Germany. I can't be sure on that one though. Same for Pizza.
EDIT: That means they became famous in Connecticut.

I take the judge has never heard of the 10th Amendment.

Why are you mentioning an amendment to the federal constitution, when this whole case is about a state constitution? It seems to me that doing this on state level is exactly in the spirit of the 10th amendment.

Not unless you can claim your state invented something better than the hamburger, the grinder, or the pizza (possibly).
George Washington Carver was from Alabama. Do you like peanut butter? He's responsible for the yumminess. Damn, LAST MONTH was Black History Month, did you not pay any attention whasoever?

Why are you mentioning an amendment to the federal constitution, when this whole case is about a state constitution? It seems to me that doing this on state level is exactly in the spirit of the 10th amendment.
You weren't clear enough, and so you've danced.

George Washington Carver was from Alabama. Do you like peanut butter? He's responsible for the yumminess. Damn, LAST MONTH was Black History Month, did you not pay any attention whasoever?
Peanut butter is for SQUARES! Its too sticky. Give me a Meatball sub over a PB&J any day.
As for black history month, I forgot to watch TV in Febuary. Yeah, all month. The things I do when I dont have ESPN.......

Do you think you are disagreeing with me?
Exactly. . .all things cultural are cyclical. But that doesn't change the fact that it is poor strategic thinking. I am not arguing that the liberal activist side is wrong in their ideas (that is a different debate) I merely think their strategy, right now, is poor.
Well yes I'm disagreeing, I think the current *strategy* is correct. I say *strategy* because it's not like judges nationwide are gathering at Democrat conventions and plotting how best to achieve gay marriage. It's individual judges making rulings. The only real strategy comes from GLBT advocacy groups and the like, and all they do is pressure politicians, arrange marches, raise money, etc.

So what I'm saying is that I believe the current means to achieving gay marriage (judicial rulings) is not overly harmful to the greater goal of tolerance for homosexuals. I think the backlash myth is overly fanned by conservative reactionaries, who are hostile to the idea of gay marriage introduced judicially or legislatively. I think if we take the high ground now, we will be viewed positively in the future, just like the segregation opponents of the 50s are now universally respected. The Republicans may win seats in the short term, but their hardline stance will hurt them in the long run.

So yes, I support the recent judicial rulings for gay marriage.

Peanut butter is for SQUARES! Its too sticky. Give me a Meatball sub over a PB&J any day.
As for black history month, I forgot to watch TV in Febuary. Yeah, all month. The things I do when I dont have ESPN.......
Obviously you have no idea what I dooooo with the peanut butter.... ;)

The long forgotten 10th amendment. The most ignored of all of them.
Because people seem to like to pretend it is an end all amendment to allow every state to do as they please. That was overruled when the federal government decided EVERYONE had to follow federal rules

You weren't clear enough, and so you've danced.

Huh?

Obviously you have no idea what I dooooo with the peanut butter.... ;)
No, and no.
I'm sorry, body painting is for hot lesbians only. :D

Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.


I was raised by my mother alone, and if the above is your real opinion than you obviously weren't raised as well as I was.

I was raised by my mother alone, and if the above is your real opinion than you obviously weren't raised as well as I was.

Adjust your sarcasm detector please, and then retreat in shame.

No, and no.
I'm sorry, body painting is for hot lesbians only. :D
well let's see here... hot + bi... close enough?

Huh?
http://funfreepages.com/albums/classic/captain_obvious.jpg

Depends if you're a woman or not......
A hot bi guy+peanut butter body painting= *shudders*

well let's see here... hot + bi... close enough?
OMG, are you a unicorn? Rob is a very sit0down only man, right now.

Pic of obscure comic book character

Still not making sense.

Depends if you're a woman or not......
A hot bi guy+peanut butter body painting= *shudders*
Yeah, I'm female... last time I checked. :p

Adjust your sarcasm detector please, and then retreat in shame.

its been a long day.

*cries*

I think you're a unicorn too. I mean, horses do like peanut butter. But then again, I've never seen a bisexual unicorn......

Originally Posted by Eichen--
Pic of obscure comic book character

That's it?

Still not making sense. ]Still not making sense.
:p

I think you're a unicorn too. I mean, horses do like peanut butter. But then again, I've never seen a bisexual unicorn......
There's a few of them left. I pet some regularly. :p

Why can they not Ban Gay Marriage...they are not banning Civil Unions after all.

For some reason i hope California gets nuked by North Korea for this....probably just rage that'll go away eventually. But right now i wish them ill will. -.-

Why can they not Ban Gay Marriage...they are not banning Civil Unions after all.

Marriage = Civil Union

Separate != Equal

Really, it's quite simple, if you leave superstition out of it.

Why can they not Ban Gay Marriage...they are not banning Civil Unions after all.

For some reason i hope California gets nuked by North Korea for this....probably just rage that'll go away eventually. But right now i wish them ill will. -.-
MuhOre, why does gay marriage bother you? How does it personally affect you? Why are you so opposed to it that you wish destruction upon the largest state in America?

I'm really curious how people can get so worked up against two people of the same gender getting married.

Most people in real life I talk to either support it or don't really care about it. The only people who rant against it I find on the internet.

Just try to explain to me why it is that you oppose gay marriage so much.

The Bible says couplings between homosexuals is a sin! We must follow our theocracy's most sacred document!

The Bible also says that hunchbacks and blind people can't approach the altar. And that you can own slaves, as long as their from a neighbouring nation. And that you can stone people for eating shellfish. A lot a the Bible is just crap. And America isn't a theocracy.

The Bible also says that hunchbacks and blind people can't approach the altar. And that you can own slaves, as long as their from a neighbouring nation. And that you can stone people for eating shellfish. A lot a the Bible is just crap. And America isn't a theocracy.
As Fass said,

Adjust your sarcasm detector please, and then retreat in shame.

Marriage = Civil Union

Separate != Equal

Really, it's quite simple, if you leave superstition out of it.


Marriage=Religious Institution

Leave Religious practices be, i would like you to even name one religion that has promoted Gay Marriage of any kind. I bet you won't heck even the Greeks never had Gay Marriage, sure they thought of women as just Baby Makers and the Men as the lovers for the most part, but at least they did not come with up with the concept of marrying eachother.

And really it's quite simple of you leave the minorities interest out of the majority.


MuhOre, why does gay marriage bother you? How does it personally affect you? Why are you so opposed to it that you wish destruction upon the largest state in America?

I'm really curious how people can get so worked up against two people of the same gender getting married.

Most people in real life I talk to either support it or don't really care about it. The only people who rant against it I find on the internet.

Just try to explain to me why it is that you oppose gay marriage so much.

1. Largest State? If you mean by Area, then Alaska and Texas is bigger. But i'm guessing you mean population. Hmmm i always thought New York was the biggest.

2. It affects me, because it means for the sake of one minor civil liberty, they get to make a mockery of religion. Why can they not be content with Civil Unions? Marriage and Civil Unions should be seperate, the married couple can go register at the government as a Civil Union at the end, but at least they're considered married in their eyes.

3. Different areas rant about it, people here in my area either don't care, are for it (minority) or against it. To me the only people that seem to be for it are also the Internet, you must remember some areas have higher views of opposite spectrums then others.

err... i think i explained the gist of it, in short they can just go to the government and register as living together and such. After all the government was the one that gave them the liberty to do so in the first place, Leave Homosexual Rights out of Religion!


The Bible also says that hunchbacks and blind people can't approach the altar. And that you can own slaves, as long as their from a neighbouring nation. And that you can stone people for eating shellfish. A lot a the Bible is just crap. And America isn't a theocracy.

Only Jews can use those laws in our land, Why do people keep doing this over and over...i still don't understand how Christians can quote one part of Leviticus, yet to ignore the rest. -.-

Why can they not Ban Gay Marriage...they are not banning Civil Unions after all.

For some reason i hope California gets nuked by North Korea for this....probably just rage that'll go away eventually. But right now i wish them ill will. -.-


An israeli hoping death on people he doesnt agree with... who'd-a-thunk.


Obviously israel doesnt have any regard for civil rights (they dont have regard for human rights, which is a prerequisite) so I dont expect you to understand that the US constitution calls for equal protection under the law for everyone.

@MuhOre- how about we keep religion out of marraige. That's what I did.
And the Catholic Church did marry homosexuals during medieval times. They also had different ideas on abortion. So everyone using religion as an excuse to butt in other peoples lives needs to get a grip.

Marriage=Religious Institution





When the government issues 'marriage licenses' it becomes a civil institution.

Either everyone gets a "civil union" or everyone get "marriage."

Can't be both ways, not and be constitutional or even morally correct.

An israeli hoping death on people he doesnt agree with... who'd-a-thunk.

:rolleyes:

Marriage=Religious Institution

Leave Religious practices be, i would like you to even name one religion that has promoted Gay Marriage of any kind. I bet you won't heck even the Greeks never had Gay Marriage, sure they thought of women as just Baby Makers and the Men as the lovers for the most part, but at least they did not come with up with the concept of marrying eachother.\
Then states and the federal government are not allowed to recognize marriages or give any sort of benefit to married couples, and in ancient Greece people wern't exactly monogamous

Why can they not Ban Gay Marriage...they are not banning Civil Unions after all.

For some reason i hope California gets nuked by North Korea for this....probably just rage that'll go away eventually. But right now i wish them ill will. -.-

Why are you so vehemently obssessed with gay marriage to the point of taking a nuclear holocaust to prevent it? I don't see why people get so uptight about this shit.

An israeli hoping death on people he doesnt agree with... who'd-a-thunk.


Obviously israel doesnt have any regard for civil rights (they dont have regard for human rights, which is a prerequisite) so I dont expect you to understand that the US constitution calls for equal protection under the law for everyone.


Even though i'm pretty sure that consitutes as trolling, at least i'm smart enough not to twist someones word around.

And Israel has high civil rights, it's just that Terrorists have no civil rights nor their supporters. In Israel i call that common sense. And what does the US constitution have to do with Gay Marriage?

@MuhOre- how about we keep religion out of marraige. That's what I did.
And the Catholic Church did marry homosexuals during medieval times. They also had different ideas on abortion. So everyone using religion as an excuse to butt in other peoples lives needs to get a grip.

The point is Marriage is a part of religion, the celebration that G-ds creation unite in front of him to be as one. Mind you that is how it is supposed to work. How about we keep Government Laws out of religion, let Religion do it's thing, you do yours. I don't care if 2 Gay people have a civil union, but i do care if they consider themselves married. As well as, although it is true that religion should butt out of other peoples lives, i still believe that it should go to majority rule, and if the majority wants Abortion illegal and to Behead Chickens to their Satanic Overlord on the 2nd tuesday on a New moon, let them. So long as it does not involve my religion in any way or affect it, i do not care.


When the government issues 'marriage licenses' it becomes a civil institution.

Either everyone gets a "civil union" or everyone get "marriage."

Can't be both ways, not and be constitutional or even morally correct.

Actually what would be easier is you are married in your Church/synagouge/Mosque/whatever, and then you go apply for your civil union. That way you are married, and still get the civil union benefits, and also that way the Atheists, Gays, Lesbians etc, can still get their civil union.

Same concept, except now there is no word if marriage, any marriage documents can be kept by the religious organization for future use.


Then states and the federal government are not allowed to recognize marriages or give any sort of benefit to married couples, and in ancient Greece people wern't exactly monogamous

Yes i know, as said the Religious Organization recognizes the marriage, the government recognizes "The 2 people decided to live with eachother and support eachother and such"


All i'm waiting for right now, is when in the future Polygamy will be legal... I will support that cause, but not for the reason your probably thinking.

Why are you so vehemently obssessed with gay marriage to the point of taking a nuclear holocaust to prevent it? I don't see why people get so uptight about this shit.


Actually i was uptight because the Judge banned California from being even allowed to ban it in the first place, that is not very Liberal if you ask me....

And i don't see why you have to be so uptight about allowing people to do whatever they want for the sake of a civil liberty they can live without.

Marriage=Religious Institution

Leave Religious practices be, i would like you to even name one religion that has promoted Gay Marriage of any kind.
I believe Wiccans do handfastings on homosexual couples.
Some Christian churches are doing gay marriage ceremonies, if I remember correctly.

Oops. There goes that argument.
And really it's quite simple of you leave the minorities interest out of the majority.
Oh, so what the majority wants is always right?
Think slavery, think the separation of blacks and whites...
Think the right to religious freedom in some countries...

Actually i was uptight because the Judge banned California from being even allowed to ban it in the first place, that is not very Liberal if you ask me....

And i don't see why you have to be so uptight about allowing people to do whatever they want for the sake of a civil liberty they can live without.
Just like interracial marriage or freedom of assembly. You can't pick and choose civil rights to obey just because you are a homophobe or racist or any other hate filled loser

And i don't see why you have to be so uptight about allowing people to do whatever they want for the sake of a civil liberty they can live without.

It isn't hurting anyone so why not just let them get married? It's not the end of the world, keeping it illegal isn't going to keep people from being gay. I mean, we could just ban marriage altogether since straight people can live without marriage.

Actually i was uptight because the Judge banned California from being even allowed to ban it in the first place, that is not very Liberal if you ask me....

And i don't see why you have to be so uptight about allowing people to do whatever they want for the sake of a civil liberty they can live without.

Well, technically he didn't ban it from being banned. Were California to pass a constitutional amendment, the judiciary could do nothing about it.

That being said, it isn't a liberal/conservative issue, it's a strict application of constitutional law. The law in California, coming straight from the Constitution, is that all laws should be applied equally among the population. Now, according to modern interpretation, there are situations where the state can legitemately violate that clause (for example, people under 18 are not allowed to vote), but it has to do so for strong and compelling reasons (in this case, people under the age of 18 are as a group unfit for suffrage because they haven't matured, are under the undue influence of their parents, etc.). The judge could find no compelling reason, however, why heterosexuals should be allowed to be married, while homosexuals cannot; in other words, the strong and compelling reason does not exist in this case. Therefore, the law banning homosexual marriage in California is at odds with the Constitution of California, and must be abolished. Pretty straightforward logic.

As for being uptight, I suppose I am. But then again, this is a civil liberty we're talking about here, one that all people are by nature supposed to enjoy, so you'll forgive me if I get a bit miffed when people 1) start talking about taking away that civil liberty for irrational reasons, 2) do it by writing it into a State's Constitution, and 3) are blasphemous enough to pass that bigotry off as "God's Will".

what have they done to impress me?
Fully legalized gay marriage after rulings by their highest courts. California still has a ways to go.

Marriage = Civil Union

Separate != Equal

Really, it's quite simple, if you leave superstition out of it.We all know how well that Seperate but equal stuff worked out for Black People in the 50's. That's why we still have broken water fountains for the blacks.

Just like interracial marriage or freedom of assembly. You can't pick and choose civil rights to obey just because you are a homophobe or racist or any other hate filled loser

Yeah well, you hate cows, so there! :P

Well, just like freedom of assembly, it doesn't matter if it's two people assembling, or who they are, they can assemble.

So I have the feeling that by the same argument - that the state has no compelling interest in it - that polygamy is perfectly legal as any restriction against it is unconstitutional.

Polygyny is also legal.

In fact, any combination of consenting adults in any number is legal.

Fully legalized gay marriage after rulings by their highest courts. California still has a ways to go.

Last I heard, Washington legislature hasn't overturned DOMA yet. If it had, I'd likely be getting a call from a couple of friends of mine, since I offered to perform their ceremony once it would be legally recognized. As of March 9th, the high court was still wrangling it out. An official court decision should be handed down in the fall, according to the last article I read, but as of now gay marriage is still unrecognized in Washington.

Dont speak about california if you dont know california. It california, the majority of people either do support gay marriage, or the number is rising fast. The people in my county do, for sure.

Muhgore(whatever spelling it) is obvious a religious fanatic. People shouldnt be allowed to do something that has to do with religious in some way, if they either...

A. Dont follow the religion

B. Dont perfectly go with the religion.

Even if the world isnt a majority for gay marriage, it is a majority against theocracy(or at least the western world). If you are that fanatical, move to the mountains, take your fanatical friends with you, and shoot at any homosexuals or undesirables that come near you.

Didnt he say he was a jew? Hmm.. It was horrible when hitler was killing the jews, but the homosexuals were fine, im sure...

Marriage=Religious Institution

Nope. That's why you have to sign a marriage licence to be married, no matter how many time your little priest or rabbi or shaman or whatever "weds" you.

Leave Religious practices be,

Marriage is not a religious matter. It is very much secular.

i would like you to even name one religion that has promoted Gay Marriage of any kind.

Wicca. Christianity. Judaism. Look - three! Yes, there are christian and jewish congregations willing to perform religious ceremonies for gay couples. Not to mention all the other religions. You know you don't get to decide what a religion is to promote - the people following it can promote whatever they want.

I bet you won't heck even the Greeks never had Gay Marriage, sure they thought of women as just Baby Makers and the Men as the lovers for the most part, but at least they did not come with up with the concept of marrying eachother.

The greeks didn't have homosexuality as a notion at all. The term was not created until the second half of the 19th century. You should read some Foucault before you continue speeking of things you know nothing about.

And really it's quite simple of you leave the minorities interest out of the majority.

Since when is what the majority thinks (which it doesn't - not where I live, anyway, here gay marriages have overwhelming popular support) relevant to issues of civil liberty? You do know that "tyranny of the majority" is not relevant in constitutional states?

Marriage is religious matter. If it isn't then the people of california can ban it via constitutional amendment.
The ony way gay marriage can't be banned is if it's based on one's religion.
Other than that, the states have the authority to ban it.
The judge in this case was a pot smoking hippie who needs to be deported back to mexico.

Marriage is religious matter. If it isn't then the people of california can ban it via constitutional amendment.
The ony way gay marriage can't be banned is if it's based on one's religion.
Other than that, the states have the authority to ban it.
The judge in this case was a pot smoking hippie who needs to be deported back to mexico.

If marriage is a religious matter, then how do people get married by a justice of the peace, or a ship's captain, or a drive-through in Vegas?

Nice way to end your argument, by the way. That ad hominem fallacy will get them every time...

If marriage is a religious matter, then how do people get married by a justice of the peace, or a ship's captain, or a drive-through in Vegas?

Nice way to end your argument, by the way. That ad hominem fallacy will get them every time...
hey, if people didn't smoke pot, they would agree with me on everything. Its the pot that prevents them thinking clearly so that they are unable to do so.

Justice of the peace, ship's captain, a drive through, all the same. Regardless of who officiates, marriage is still a religious event. If it was secular, then you wouldn't have pastors or rabbis doing it.

hey, if people didn't smoke pot, they would agree with me on everything. Its the pot that prevents them thinking clearly so that they are unable to do so.

Justice of the peace, ship's captain, a drive through, all the same. Regardless of who officiates, marriage is still a religious event. If it was secular, then you wouldn't have pastors or rabbis doing it.

Actually, pot smokers tend to be excesivly agreeable. When people drink they're as likely to fall asleep as to become violent, but when they smoke up they just sit around and giggle muttering "yeah, whatever man."

hey, if people didn't smoke pot, they would agree with me on everything. Its the pot that prevents them thinking clearly so that they are unable to do so.

Justice of the peace, ship's captain, a drive through, all the same. Regardless of who officiates, marriage is still a religious event. If it was secular, then you wouldn't have pastors or rabbis doing it.

Funny, I don't smoke pot. I don't agree with you. I think I just destroyed that argument.

Moving on, yes, they're all the same in that they're secular institutions. If marriage is religious, then why are they not all performed by religious leaders? All you did was flip the question around, you didn't actually answer it.