Wacka Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 I have to run to Santa Cruz tomorrow. Part of my job is to go to the Recorder's office to look up deeds. Recently the recorders offices have been jammed with people getting birth certificates for their passports. Tomorrow, it is going to be clogged with gay couples getting licenses. I expect to see some weird looking characters there. Having the TV cameras is going to draw the freaks, especially in Santa Cruz. At least it will be cooler there (80 vs 100 here today). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Again, why is the government wasting time in people's underwear? It's a lot easier than facing the issues and in a country pre-occupied with sex they know it will divert atttention from their ineptitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Yeah, let's rule by "Frankenstinean Mob" rather than the Constitution. Freedom is only freedom if EVERYONE has the same rights. The Supreme Court of California actually got one right today and everyone should be happy they did so. Anyone who voted to segregate other adults over a word is an idiot. The Court didn't legislate anything. They did their job in a "Check and Balance" system, just as it was set up. Get the !@#$ over it. Oh, and Wacka: I've seen your picture. I'm not sure I'd be throwin' around the term "freak" so readily. I'm just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Tocqueville anyone? lol ??????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Friggin people spending this much time worrying about the definition of 'marriage'. Good grief. The Chinese must be laughing their asses off while we continue to circle the bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 They finally got something right. This is scary. We have a lot more in common than I thought. If would be better if they also declared straight marriages to be unconstitutional and changed their status to "friends with benefits". The gays should really try that. 1 state down, 49 to go. This is such a stupid issue. Can we just let adults marry and move on to more pressing matters? The government wastes so much !@#$ing time on what people do with their crotches. It's not the government nearly as much as it's the Wackas Wackos that feel it's their "moral" responsibility to make sure gays never marry. By doing that they then force the government to waste so much time on it. Oh, terrific, now 13,688,119 real marriages in the south and midwest are completely ruined and meaningless. A bunch of nuts on the State Supreme Court overturned an AMENDMENT TO THE STATE CONSTITUTION that 61% of the state voted for. These propositions are amendments to the constitution. How can an amendment that was legally passed be declared unconstitutional?They also did that to another proposition that denied non emergency benefits to illegals. So if 61% of the people voted an amendment to the state constitution to keep all bald headed men from getting married to full haired women that should be law too? A state can't pass an amendment that infringes on the U.S. Constitution and I don't believe the Constitution has anything against gays marrying except by idiotic interpretation. It's the same idiotic interpretation that believes government wire taps don't require warrants.. A lot of people want to amend the U.S. Constitution to keep gays from marrying and if that were ever to be added it would be in direct conflict with what the Constitution now says. It would be amazingly mind blowing if that ever actually happened. Is that some sort of homosexual celebration ritual? Go ahead if you must, but keep it on campus sonny. Alexis de Tocqueville I have to run to Santa Cruz tomorrow. Part of my job is to go to the Recorder's office to look up deeds. Recently the recorders offices have been jammed with people getting birth certificates for their passports. Tomorrow, it is going to be clogged with gay couples getting licenses. I expect to see some weird looking characters there. Having the TV cameras is going to draw the freaks, especially in Santa Cruz. At least it will be cooler there (80 vs 100 here today). I know you already said you were going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 No matter how weird San Francisco is, Santa Cruz is much stranger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 I am sure Erynthered already has his bags packed and on his way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 1 state down, 49 to go. This is such a stupid issue. Can we just let adults marry and move on to more pressing matters? The government wastes so much !@#$ing time on what people do with their crotches. Yeah, but don't you know gay people are the real cause of all of our problems? Ask any hyprocrite on the religious right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 So if 61% of the people voted an amendment to the state constitution to keep all bald headed men from getting married to full haired women that should be law too? A state can't pass an amendment that infringes on the U.S. Constitution and I don't believe the Constitution has anything against gays marrying except by idiotic interpretation. It's the same idiotic interpretation that believes government wire taps don't require warrants.. A lot of people want to amend the U.S. Constitution to keep gays from marrying and if that were ever to be added it would be in direct conflict with what the Constitution now says. It would be amazingly mind blowing if that ever actually happened. I'm sorry, but I can't pass this up. Please point to the relevant passages where the CA law infringed on US Constitutional protection of gay marriage. Would "idiotic interpretation" mean any interpretation that doesn't agree with yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 I'm sorry, but I can't pass this up. Please point to the relevant passages where the CA law infringed on US Constitutional protection of gay marriage. Would "idiotic interpretation" mean any interpretation that doesn't agree with yours? Amendment XIVSection 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. I'm sorry, but I can't pass this up. What do you think that means? Because I think it means that.. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Amendment XIVSection 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. I'm sorry, but I can't pass this up. What do you think that means? Because I think it means that.. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Is that why Defense of Marriage Act is still the prevailing federal law? If the case was as cut and dry according to your non-idiotic interpretation of law, it surely would have been declared unconstitutional over the last 12 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Is that why Defense of Marriage Act is still the prevailing federal law? If the case was as cut and dry according to your non-idiotic interpretation of law, it surely would have been declared unconstitutional over the last 12 years? Yeah, if slavery and women's suffrage were easy issues they would have been dealt with correctly the day after the Constitution was ratified. Sometimes it takes idiots several years to have an epiphany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Yeah, if slavery and women's suffrage were easy issues they would have been dealt with correctly the day after the Constitution was ratified. Sometimes it takes idiots several years to have an epiphany. Are you calling 12 years worth of Supreme Court justices idiots because they refused to take up any challenges to DoMA? How about the President who signed the law? You must be one bright fella then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Yeah, let's rule by "Frankenstinean Mob" rather than the Constitution. Freedom is only freedom if EVERYONE has the same rights. The Supreme Court of California actually got one right today and everyone should be happy they did so. Anyone who voted to segregate other adults over a word is an idiot. The Court didn't legislate anything. They did their job in a "Check and Balance" system, just as it was set up. Get the !@#$ over it. Oh, and Wacka: I've seen your picture. I'm not sure I'd be throwin' around the term "freak" so readily. I'm just sayin'. I didn't know you were a rump ranger. When's the big day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Amendment XIVSection 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. I'm sorry, but I can't pass this up. What do you think that means? Because I think it means that.. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Great. I'll let Maryland know that they can't keep me from driving 110 in a 35. Your interpretation of "privileges or immunities" is too broad. Frankly...you were doing better with your habeas corpus argument. And you weren't even quoting the law then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 No one actually read the decision, did they? Accordingly, the legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples while denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official relationship with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes, but rather whether our state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially designated a “marriage” whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a “domestic partnership.” The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution. It also is important to understand at the outset that our task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership (or some other term), but instead only to determine whether the difference in the official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution. We are aware, of course, that very strongly held differences of opinion exist on the matter of policy, with those persons who support the inclusion of same-sex unions within the definition of marriage maintaining that it is unfair to same-sex couples and potentially detrimental to the fiscal interests of the state and its economic institutions to reserve the designation of marriage solely for opposite-sex couples, and others asserting that it is vitally important to preserve the long-standing and traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, even as the state extends comparable rights and responsibilities to committed same-sex couples. Whatever our views as individuals with regard to this question as a matter of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to limit our consideration of the question to a determination of the constitutional validity of the current legislative provisions. Italics in the original, other emphasis mine. The summary, for those who don't want to read the above, is this: the CA Supreme Court didn't legalize gay marriage or strike down a gay marriage ban. They ruled that existing California law is unconstitutional because it calls a gay marriage a "domestic partnership". The decision says that IF gays can marry, it has to be called "marriage" under the equal protection clause. This is literally nothing more than a 172-page argument over semantics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 No one actually read the decision, did they? Got through the first three pages, then saw a shiny object on a wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Got through the first three pages, then saw a shiny object on a wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Alexis de Tocqueville Nice try at the old "put the Peter Pan linky in the gay thread" trick. Try it on someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts