Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HtownWxBoy

California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

Recommended Posts

I don't think there should be a law either way. It isn't for the government to decide. If there IS to be a law, it should be decided upon by the people, not politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marriage, as defined by the state of Texas, is the legal joining of one male and one female in holy matrimony.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"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

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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, one male one female.

Actually, it is "one man and one woman".

Strike two...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huray for Activist Judges! God love 'em!

Although I am not a fan of activist judges, anything that gives equal rights to American citizens is OK in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...and, it is "marriage", not "matrimony".

Steeeeeeeerike threeeee!!!!!!!

Nobody says "Holy Marriage".........see, that's why you NEED to go to church !!!

HOMERUN !!! The game is OVER !!!

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huray for Activist Judges! God love 'em!

Would you prefer lazy, inactivist judges? I want activist judges - they need to earn their pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by BryanS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, who wants that?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Edited by cnote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Edited by crunchtastic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by crunchtastic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gay or straight, I think people take marriage way too lightly in this country. It should be way harder to get married and even harder to get divorced. Especially if benefits come with it and taxpayers have to pay for divorce court to be overbooked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even judges get it wrong now and then. These judges think they are legislators.

The timing of this will hurt the Dems come election time. Now one of the most useless issues of all time will distract the masses even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many churches in this city that are so freaking strict about even getting a straight couple married people just say:

"To hell with it let's just live together".

The hardcore criteria they force on you is like "crap what do you want a couple of saints?" Whole new topic I know...

again, this is why many people turn away from church weddings. :wacko::angry2::)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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???

I was being sarcastic.

Issues of equality should NOT be left up to the people to vote on. People who think this way should go back to school and take a history course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are many churches in this city that are so freaking strict about even getting a straight couple married people just say:

"To hell with it let's just live together".

The hardcore criteria they force on you is like "crap what do you want a couple of saints?" Whole new topic I know...

again, this is why many people turn away from church weddings. :wacko::angry2::)

If I ever get married, joined, hitched, partnered up in a civil ceremony or whatever-you-want-to call-it (doubtful at this stage in my life) it probably would not be in a church of any sorts.

Edited by houstonmacbro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The timing of this will hurt the Dems come election time. Now one of the most useless issues of all time will distract the masses even more.

Just a little off topic prediction. The GOP is toast come November. President on down. I'm a liberal Demorcrat and this worries me. I'm more aligned with the Demorcrats but one party having all the power is never good.

Back on topic with a definition of an "activist" judge: A judge you do not agree with. By the way, weren't 6 of the seven judges on the Calfornia supreme court GOP nominees?

Edited by west20th

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even judges get it wrong now and then. These judges think they are legislators.

The timing of this will hurt the Dems come election time. Now one of the most useless issues of all time will distract the masses even more.

All three candidates have expressed support for civil unions, so whichever two make it to the general election will have to defend themselves.

Anyway, this is good for anyone who claims to support religious freedom. Before, bigger churches were using the government to dictate to smaller congregations what constitutes a marriage. That definition is pretty flexible, no matter how much you argue its about "one man and one woman."

Edited by westguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was being sarcastic.

Issues of equality should NOT be left up to the people to vote on. People who think this way should go back to school and take a history course.

:P Sorry, I read stuff a little to literally sometimes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This should be voted on. Judges have too much power.

Civil rights should never go to the ballot box. We'd still have the confederacy, slavery, and segregated schools had we allowed the good citizens of those eras to vote on.

EDIT: Took out "vote and move on" quote...

Edited by BryanS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Civil unions would be fine, or just call it non-traditional marriages.

I think Pope Benedict XVI has it right when he says "traditional marriage is an irreplaceable good for the entire society, and the union between man and woman is the "natural cradle" of life".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the allegation of judicial activism stems from the court's arbitrary determination of who has a "right to marry" and who doesn't. They decided that two people of the same gender have this right, but that two people in the same family, or that more than two people of any gender, do not. Why draw the line where they did?

The court explained their decision not to extend the "right to marry" to incestuous and or polygamous relations on the basis that

"...the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment." p. 79 of majority opinion.

An interesting rationale, considering that many people think that same-sex relationships have a potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment. It's all a matter of what you consider to be "detrimental" and "sound family environment." I'm sure there are many different opinions on that, but the real question is, why is the court making this decision? What gives them insight into what is detrimental to a sound family environment that the general public doesn't have?

Edited by H-Town Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Consider the SOURCE gwilson, and you may not be so "annoyed". I will scream it from the highest mountain that I am a BREEDER. I liken this "derogatory" term to the N-word, apparently if you are one, you are entitled to use it ? I don't see anything wrong with the word Breeder. Double standards are just a part of life.

I agree with you about NOT just the far right that has a problem with gay marriage, but the far right Christians always get the blame, because they are the most vocal about it. Gay marriage is a problem in the Jewish religion, the Muslim religion, pretty much EVERY religion that abides by some sort of "Bible" if you will. I find myself a very religious person, but really have no problem with gay marriage, I am of the minority of Christians. What I have found hilarious is that some of the homosexuals that have joined in a civil union, now want a DIVORCE ! I guess they realized it ain't all it's cracked up to be.

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Civil unions would be fine, or just call it non-traditional marriages.

I think Pope Benedict XVI has it right when he says "traditional marriage is an irreplaceable good for the entire society, and the union between man and woman is the "natural cradle" of life".

...and just let them eat cake, too. And the Pope is right, for those that believe as he does. This isn't about the Pope, or the religious institution of marriage; it's about going to the courthouse and signing a civil contract. Civil Unions, by their nature of being an 1890

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

imo, it is scary that there are folks out there that put same-sex relationships on the same page as incestuous and polygamous ones. nice.

it is also scary to me that said folks devote SO much personal time to meddling in other people's relationships. DSM-IV, anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Consider the SOURCE gwilson, and you may not be so "annoyed". I will scream it from the highest mountain that I am a BREEDER. I liken this "derogatory" term to the N-word, apparently if you are one, you are entitled to use it ? I don't see anything wrong with the word Breeder. Double standards are just a part of life.

I agree with you about NOT just the far right that has a problem with gay marriage, but the far right Christians always get the blame, because they are the most vocal about it. Gay marriage is a problem in the Jewish religion, the Muslim religion, pretty much EVERY relion that abides by some sort of "Bible" if you will. I find myself a very religious person, but really have no problem with gay marriage, I am of the minority of Christians. What I have found hilarious is that some of the homosexuals that have joined in a civil union, now want a DIVORCE ! I guess they realized it ain't all it's cracked up to be.

It's not so funny when you can't get it undone! "We got married in Canada, we hate each other, and want a divorce." Well... we don't recognize gay marriage, so we can't give you a divorce - sorry you're gonna have to stay together. Talk about cruel and unusual punishment.

EDIT: Not only is gay marriage in the court system, but also gay divorce. There is a poor lesbian couple in RI they are having to sue the state... to get a divorce/dissolution of their relationship. It's been dragging through the court system for years now...

Edited by BryanS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

How long have you two been together Crunch ? You are most likely considered common law in this state, and you actually may qualify for benefits, you need to call HR.

Bryan, you can't go back to Canada and get it undone ?

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it's about going to the courthouse and signing a civil contract.

That's not what my marriage was about. I don't think you get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
imo, it is scary that there are folks out there that put same-sex relationships on the same page as incestuous and polygamous ones. nice.

it is also scary to me that said folks devote SO much personal time to meddling in other people's relationships. DSM-IV, anyone?

I think the point about incest and polygamy is actually a good one, as it is tough to form a rational argument against them but for same sex...I think with incest you can base a ban on the genetic facts and high risk of birth defects and other complications in potential offspring.

As far as polygamy goes, I am not sure I care if people want to live a polygamist lifestyle either as long as they are not breaking the law by abusing children.

How can anyone take offense against being called a Breeder??? I am a breeder and proud of it, breeding was the highlight of my life! If there are people who want to turn that into a derogatory term, all I can do is laugh :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How long have you two bween together Cruch ? You are most likely considered common law in this state, and you actually may qualify for benefits, you need to call HR.

I think you need to sign some forms before you're considered common law in Texas. I don't think you can be common law just by living together like you can in other places.

Texas calls it an "informal marriage," rather than a common-law marriage. Under

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...