Jump to content

California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

HtownWxBoy

By HtownWxBoy
in Way Off Topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 271
  • Created
  • Last Reply
20thStDad

20thStDad

Posted
Posted

So I have a question, as this is something I know nothing about. In states that don't have an explicit ban on gay marriage, is it legal by default? Are there marriage laws that restrict on anything besides age? I would think it's like getting a driver's license. You're old enough, you pay, get one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TJones

TJones

Posted
Posted

Don't breakout the Belini's and Petifore cakes just yet. There is a petition and there is gonna be an injunction by the far right breeders.

Marriage, as defined by the state of Texas, is the legal joining of one male and one female in holy matrimony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TJones

TJones

Posted
Posted
"HOLY" matrimony? Really? That's what Texas state law says?

ALRIGHT, you caught me ! But in the normal realm of the world outside of Liberalland it is referred to as "Holy Matrimony !" :P

For the sake of argument, the union of one male one female ONLY .

......for those who can't be bothered to look it up.

http://austin.about.com/od/governmentcitys...rriageamend.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jayshoota

jayshoota

Posted
Posted
Huray for Activist Judges! God love 'em!

Yeah, applying the Constitution to invalidate a law really makes them activist...I guess the judges who struck down the ban on interraicial marriage in Loving v. Virginia were activist judges too???

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gwilson

gwilson

Posted
Posted
Don't breakout the Belini's and Petifore cakes just yet. There is a petition and there is gonna be an injunction by the far right breeders.

Marriage, as defined by the state of Texas, is the legal joining of one male and one female in holy matrimony.

Comments like this annoy the crap out of me. It is another example of the double standards. Breeders is, by the context it is generally used, a deragotory term (it isn't inherently deragotory, just like every other word), but in this context, that is its intent. Double standards just annoy me.

That said, it isn't just far right that has a problem with gay marriage. I think the argument made by most that it affects the sanctity of marriage is idiotic, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't even close to being a right wing thing.

There should be no laws regarding marriage at all (regulating who can and cannot enter in to marriage).

To the person who said they don't like activist judges but support this, that is a huge problem. It is not a judges job, regardless of whether or not you agree with them, to make/change law. We should be VERY, VERY scared of judges who take it upon themselves to legislate from the bench and usurp the power of the legislative branches and the will of the people.

Yeah, applying the Constitution to invalidate a law really makes them activist...I guess the judges who struck down the ban on interraicial marriage in Loving v. Virginia were activist judges too???

Since this happens to be a consitutional matter (not the rights of one group vs the other, but that marriage itself should not be defined by law), the judge was within their right. However, it has been an alarmingly popular trend of late for judges to legislate from the bench based on political agendas/views and not the constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BryanS

BryanS

Posted
Posted
Since this happens to be a consitutional matter (not the rights of one group vs the other, but that marriage itself should not be defined by law), the judge was within their right. However, it has been an alarmingly popular trend of late for judges to legislate from the bench based on political agendas/views and not the constitution.

Judges can never legislate from the bench. Ever. I am not aware of any judicial jurisdiction, local, state, or federal, in this country were a judge has drafted up, passed, and signed legislation. They render decision on law (passed and signed by other bodies of government), carefully weighing individual rights against constitutional principles so as to ensure that the contract that you have between yourself and your government (via a constitution) is not trampled by a tyrannical majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BryanS

BryanS

Posted
Posted
Don't breakout the Belini's and Petifore cakes just yet. There is a petition and there is gonna be an injunction by the far right breeders.

Marriage, as defined by the state of Texas, is the legal joining of one male and one female in holy matrimony.

Bingo. Here is the what the good people of CA are going to be voting on, in Nov (more than likely):

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"

...and here is a link to the group, that is behind the amendment: ProtectMarriage.com

...To amend the CA constitution... all you need is 50%+1 vote to do it. Even if you think gays and lesbians should be afforded equal access to marriage... how many of us out there could actually answer "No" to that simple, 14 word sentence?

We've always heard, from those who oppose gay rights, that gay rights are "special rights." Well... if a majority of people amend the CA constitution, as can reasonably be expected, then what you'll have on your hands will not only be a case of "special rights" but an entire special class of people out there. That is, between roughly July and November, when equal marriage is legal, you're going to have a lot people getting married who couldn't do it before. And then, that will end in November, more than likely. Even if the amendment passes, you cannot retroactively reverse/annul those marriages - you just can't perform any new ones. Meaning, the younger, upcoming generation will be denied rights that the older, previous generation enjoyed; a step backwards. Way to go.

So in the zeal to "protect marriage" (from people who are armed with no weapons)... you create a special class. And by doing so... all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, over time, will be dissociated with the institution in an effort to level the inequality between classes of people who can and cannot marry. So in all your efforts to "protect" marriage and "defend" marriage - all you've really done is destroy want you wanted to protect, in the first place.

So enjoy the celebration... but it will be brief. I hope I'm wrong... but if Oregon is any example (they had a similar one-liner)... the amendment will pass, probably 51 to 56% in favor.

I try to look on the bright side. Divorce is probably the #1, single most destroyer of wealth in this country. So... it's not so much that straight America (not that all gay people are for gay marriage) is trying to "protect marriage" as it is that they are trying to protect gays and lesbians from having to endure the ravages of a nasty divorce case. No marriage, no divorce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
houstonmacbro

houstonmacbro

Posted
Posted
So... it's not so much that straight America (not that all gay people are for gay marriage) is trying to "protect marriage" as it is that they are trying to protect gays and lesbians from having to endure the ravages of a nasty divorce case. No marriage, no divorce.

Absolutely right on that point. Who WANTS to get married?!?

Seems like an anachronism that needs to just die. And for gays to want to emulate the worst behavior of straights is mindboggling. I've heard figures as high as 50%-70% of marriages end in divorce.

Again, who wants that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
houstonmacbro

houstonmacbro

Posted
Posted
Losers like me, I guess. I want to marry my girlfriend. If she was my boyfriend, I think I'd still want to marry her.

I think I'd like my partner and I to have benefits (like health insurance, survivorship rights, etc.) but is 'marriage' the only way to obtain that ... even for straight people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
crunchtastic

crunchtastic

Posted
Posted
I think I'd like my partner and I to have benefits (like health insurance, survivorship rights, etc.) but is 'marriage' the only way to obtain that ... even for straight people?

yep. And it irritates us straight unmarried couples to no end.

The only reason I see that me and the cap'n would get married was if one us no longer had access to benefits, or when we're much older, for the social security bennies. Domestic partner bennies should extend to straight couples as well-- But of the increasing number of companies that provide D.P. bennies, they are for same sex couples only--my own employer is one of these. Makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sevfiv

sevfiv

Posted
Posted
they are for same sex couples only--my own employer is one of these. Makes no sense.

That is odd - where I work, this is what I found - mentions nothing about same sex, though:

Q: What is the definition of

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cnote

cnote

Posted
Posted
I think I'd like my partner and I to have benefits (like health insurance, survivorship rights, etc.) but is 'marriage' the only way to obtain that ... even for straight people?

Many companys already allow benefits for "life partners"..

Can someone name me one good reason to waste time and effort arguing about gay marriage??? Why they hell should we not allow them to get married???? People need to wake up and realize as has been stated in this thread that there is no "sacred union" to protect. Divorce makes marriage a joke in this country as it is. (Not that I think a gay marriage is any kind of attack on the institution, I think it will make it stronger)

Gay couples are allowed to adopt and raise children (as they should be), that is about one thousand times more responsability than getting married. The fact that we have people in this country that still want to create gaps in the equality of rights of US citizens makes me want to puke. How does a gay couple getting a marriage license have an impact on anyone??? It is just ignorant people who are soooo damn scared of "other"...

Edit::Sev, my two previous employers share a very similar set of attributes that define life or dometic partner...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
crunchtastic

crunchtastic

Posted
Posted
That is odd - where I work, this is what I found - mentions nothing about same sex, though:

Q: What is the definition of "domestic partner" for benefits?

A: Domestic Partner must satisfy the following criteria:

* Have an intimate, committed relationship of mutual caring, and have agreed to be responsible for each other's welfare.

* Have lived together in such a relationship for a period of not less than one year at the same residence address.

* Are jointly responsible for debts to third parties.

* Are both at least 18 years of age.

* Neither partner is legally married

* Are not related by blood or adoption.

* Neither partner has another partner who meets this definition, and both partners intend to remain in this relationship indefinitely.

Yea, after I accepted the offer and read the policy more closely, they specifically define domestic partners as same sex. Yours is much more specific in its definition --especially the requirement of being jointly responsible for third party debts. That is troublesome to me. That's precisely one of the reasons we don't get married!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
crunchtastic

crunchtastic

Posted
Posted
This should be voted on. Judges have too much power.

In the supreme courts that's precisley the intent--to check 'too much power' and keep legislatures from passing unconstitutional laws.

Passing a vote doesn't make it constitutional.

And I certainly don't trust congressmen or state leges to uphold the bill of rights, much less to be the arbitars of constitutionality. (which brings up the issue of electing judges, but I digress).

If we put constitutional issues to a vote (show those activist judges a thing or two!!) we'd probably still have Jim Crow. Think about it. I'm not saying it's perfect, but consider the alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
memebag

memebag

Posted
Posted
This should be voted on. Judges have too much power.

Huh? This was voted on. The court struck down the proposition. Are you saying that the judiciary shouldn't be able to rule on the constitutionality of anything that's been voted on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...