California High Court "Overturns" Gay Marriage Ban

[Alaska Darin]

Actually it is a serious question. What are the limits of our freedom? Look, I have a sister who is homosexual. I don't hate her, I love her. But why must we be forced to accept these unnatural behaviors as normal?

I guess it depends on what your definition of natural is. There are plenty of homosexual animals and there is speculation that it's nature's way of dealing with overpopulation. But I don't think the "animal/people" thing is even on the horizon. I do know that history has shown that much of the "screaming and crying" about similiar stuff (slavery/women's rights/etc) show how silly the argument against homosexual rights really are.

 

I also don't believe you choose who you're attracted to. For example: I'm a big fan of tall, large breasted, athletically built blondes. It's just how I am. There isn't any reason I can point to for it. I don't think homosexuals are any different. They just aren't wired the same and that certainly isn't their fault.

I completely agree that this issue is just one of those 'shiny object' issues to distract us from dealing with the things that will eventually destroy our nation if we don't deal with them. I'm not passionate about this. But at the same time, where does it end?

 

I have gay friends who I regularly associate and spend time with. I don't think any less of them but don't necessarily agree with their lifestyle. But at the end of the day, who really like's everything about another person? We chose to overlook perceived flaws in our friends character in order to maintain a relationship. I'm sure that's how they feel about me also.

I don't think anything you asked is even remotely plausible. I simply don't think the government has the right to tell people who they're allowed to love/spend their lives with and enjoy the same freedoms as the majority.

 

Sh--, I don't have a problem with poligamy amongst consenting adults. If you're a dude and are crazy enough to think you can make more than one chic happy, have at it. I draw the line at the crazy ass religious cult/recruitment thing because it goes against free will.

[X. Benedict]

So what's your point? Does that make it OK becuase they're raising a 'straight' kid? Funny.

 

So when are we going to allow 'marriage' between a man and a dog? Or a man and a pig? I know some of our posters here are pining for the day it's made legal. It's all in the name of freedom right? Where does it end? Who's to say what the limits are? The people or the courts?

 

When somebody names their dog their health care proxy, or gets their pig to sign as witness to their DNR, or when airlines start giving bereavement rates for dead cats, I'll concede you have a point.

[John Adams]

So what's your point? Does that make it OK becuase they're raising a 'straight' kid? Funny.

 

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on this. My point was as I stated--I have only personal anecdotal evidence of several kids and families I know in my daughter's school. In one case of an older kid--again anecdotal only--the kid is as "normal" as someone like you would hope, ie, he likes girls and sports and video games etc. The only difference between him and the next "normal" (again your definition) teen boy is that he busts his parents' 4 balls instead of 2 when he's being a sh------- teenager.

 

So when are we going to allow 'marriage' between a man and a dog? Or a man and a pig? I know some of our posters here are pining for the day it's made legal. It's all in the name of freedom right? Where does it end? Who's to say what the limits are? The people or the courts?

 

I love a good slippery slope argument as much as the next guy but you've gone to loopy land.

 

This is the definition of marriage as between 2 consenting adults. Thus, the homosexual married couple gets the same rights and responsibilities under the law as a hetero couple. The extension to dogs and pigs is not something you really fear as a result of this. Why you care about it extending to same sex marriages is beyond me.

[John Adams]

Actually it is a serious question. What are the limits of our freedom? Look, I have a sister who is homosexual. I don't hate her, I love her. But why must we be forced to accept these unnatural behaviors as normal?

 

Why do you consider your sister unnatural? Because she's homosexual? I'm sure there are plenty of unnatural traits in lots of people you accept--and some you may even laud. BFD if she likes women. How does the Marriage law" in any way affect you, except that your kids may someday have two aunts and you'll have an extra sister-in-law?

[X. Benedict]

Gay marriage. The political gift that keeps on giving.

 

Just in time for Oct.

 

So much easier to polarize an electorate without all that obtuse talk about deficit spending, war policy, energy policy, infrastructure, health care, or foreign policy.

[Steely Dan]

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.

 

Read the examples I mentioned. Then let them carom around your noggin for a little bit of time. Then think about the 13th amendment, it abolishes slavery, which was ratified in 1865 and subtract 1789, the date the original Constitution was ratified, from 1865. It's 76 years to help you out. Then think about the 19th Amendment and look it up. You'll probably have to, I'll help though, it provides the right for women to vote. Then think about it being ratified in 1920. Then subtract 1789 from 1920, it's 131 years, and let that number carom around your noggin for a bit of time. 76 years and 131 years. Then think about 12 years and how that number compares to either of the other two numbers. Let that carom around your noggin for some time. Then do it again.

 

Ok, maybe now you're ready to realize that 12 years is a very short time for things that are very unfair and, in one case in particular, repugnant to be handled in the correct manor by this country. Of course there's a chance you disagree with one or both of those but I'm going to cut you a break and assume you agree with their being handled, exactly in what I call the correct manner, eventually.

 

Now think about the people who thought both of those were wrong. Now think about whether or not they were stupid or smart. Let that carom around your noggin and then tell me what you conclude from that.

 

Ok, let a little more caroming to take place. Now do you get it?

 

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.

 

That is so ridiculous that all I can say about that is think about the difference between the two and tell me exactly how they are the same. I believe they are different because your example is a dangerous activity that puts others lives in danger and therefore can be limited while gay marriage poses no threat. I guess you couldn't figure that out on your own. If, for any reason, you think your analogy is valid then please tell me how it is.

 

 

I guess it would start and end with the definition of homo sapien.

 

 

 

Animals and children can't give consent, adult humans can. And why marry the cow when the milk is free.

 

Don't use facts. Facts have no use to these people.

[Steely Dan]

I can't believe some of the dogs and pigs my friends have married over the years. But hey, who am I to criticize them.

 

 

 

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on this. My point was as I stated--I have only personal anecdotal evidence of several kids and families I know in my daughter's school. In one case of an older kid--again anecdotal only--the kid is as "normal" as someone like you would hope, ie, he likes girls and sports and video games etc. The only difference between him and the next "normal" (again your definition) teen boy is that he busts his parents' 4 balls instead of 2 when he's being a sh------- teenager.

 

I love a good slippery slope argument as much as the next guy but you've gone to loopy land.

 

This is the definition of marriage as between 2 consenting adults. Thus, the homosexual married couple gets the same rights and responsibilities under the law as a hetero couple. The extension to dogs and pigs is not something you really fear as a result of this. Why you care about it extending to same sex marriages is beyond me.

 

[GG]

Read the examples I mentioned. Then let them carom around your noggin for a little bit of time. Then think about the 13th amendment, it abolishes slavery, which was ratified in 1865 and subtract 1789, the date the original Constitution was ratified, from 1865. It's 76 years to help you out. Then think about the 19th Amendment and look it up. You'll probably have to, I'll help though, it provides the right for women to vote. Then think about it being ratified in 1920. Then subtract 1789 from 1920, it's 131 years, and let that number carom around your noggin for a bit of time. 76 years and 131 years. Then think about 12 years and how that number compares to either of the other two numbers. Let that carom around your noggin for some time. Then do it again.

 

And the examples you cited were too broad in their interpretation. You are using your standard to flavor your interpretation of the laws. Marriage is not an inalienable right, it is a legal construct that is governed by the states. Thusly, since there is no mention whatsoever in the US Constitution bout the legal construct of marriage, the following passage is the operative law of the land:

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

So, while you may personally disagree with the legislative process, 61% of Californians who voted said something in their state. and it's their decision, not anyone else's. If you don't like it, get enough votes to change the US Constitution.

[DC Tom]

I don't think anything you asked is even remotely plausible. I simply don't think the government has the right to tell people who they're allowed to love/spend their lives with and enjoy the same freedoms as the majority.

 

Which would be true if the government was telling anyone they weren't free to spend their lives with whoever they want. But that's not the issue. The issue is: should it be legally recognized? And that is a government matter.

 

It's also why I find the whole issue faintly ridiculous. Gay couples are denied certain legal rights to joint property and inheritance (which I believe should be granted to them). No one's denying them the right to live in a long-term monogamous partnership. And anyone who's says they need the legal recognition of the state to live in a long-term monogamous partnership probably isn't in one to begin with. Really...who gives a sh--? And aren't we as a nation just maybe spending far too much time debating the subject?

[John Adams]

So, while you may personally disagree with the legislative process, 61% of Californians who voted said something in their state. and it's their decision, not anyone else's. If you don't like it, get enough votes to change the US Constitution.

 

The their power was checked by the state Supreme Court--putting the ball back into the elctorate's hands. If it means that much to keep the word "marriage" as between a man and a woman, they will have to pass an amendment to the CA state constitution, the only purpose of which would be to exclude a group of people from calling their already legally recognized "domestic partnerships" a "marriage." Why in !@#$'s sake would anyone care to take the time and expense do do such a thing--it's certainly not driven by any spirit other than downright meanness.

[K-9]

Gay marriage. The political gift that keeps on giving.

 

Just in time for Oct.

 

So much easier to polarize an electorate without all that obtuse talk about deficit spending, war policy, energy policy, infrastructure, health care, or foreign policy.

 

No sh*t! How can it be that anyone with a passionate voting concern on other issues is all of a sudden going to forget that and vote out of concern for this? How f*ckin stupid is that? Then again, maybe it's me.

[DC Tom]

That is so ridiculous that all I can say about that is think about the difference between the two and tell me exactly how they are the same. I believe they are different because your example is a dangerous activity that puts others lives in danger and therefore can be limited while gay marriage poses no threat. I guess you couldn't figure that out on your own. If, for any reason, you think your analogy is valid then please tell me how it is.

 

Can you cite any elements of law that say your broad interpretation of "privileges and immunities" specifically excludes dangerous privileges?

 

Hell, can you cite any that say marriage is a "privilege" to begin with? Where, exactly, does your broad interpretation come from? Maybe we should start small...how about just looking up the legal definition of "privilege" and getting back to me?

[GG]

The their power was checked by the state Supreme Court--putting the ball back into the elctorate's hands. If it means that much to keep the word "marriage" as between a man and a woman, they will have to pass an amendment to the CA state constitution, the only purpose of which would be to exclude a group of people from calling their already legally recognized "domestic partnerships" a "marriage." Why in !@#$'s sake would anyone care to take the time and expense do do such a thing--it's certainly not driven by any spirit other than downright meanness.

 

That's the practical and sensible matter to it. But the legal framework allows for an angry mob to change the laws, and that's that.

[John Adams]

Which would be true if the government was telling anyone they weren't free to spend their lives with whoever they want. But that's not the issue. The issue is: should it be legally recognized? And that is a government matter.

 

It's also why I find the whole issue faintly ridiculous. Gay couples are denied certain legal rights to joint property and inheritance (which I believe should be granted to them). No one's denying them the right to live in a long-term monogamous partnership. And anyone who's says they need the legal recognition of the state to live in a long-term monogamous partnership probably isn't in one to begin with. Really...who gives a sh--? And aren't we as a nation just maybe spending far too much time debating the subject?

 

I guess the problem is still twofold in CA. On the one side, domestic partners want the legal protections afforded to hetero marrieds so the word "marriage" is actually important for legal precedent. I can see some lawyer arguing (before this decision) that because "marriage is defined as between a man and a woman" that some 200 years of case law precedent on a question related to marriage does not apply to domestic partnerships. It's a pretty ocmpelling argument too. The legislature had to intend some legal consequence in passing a law explicitly defining "marriage" as it did--thus there are some differences between the domestic partnership and married heteros.

 

The other problem is that the anti-gay-marriage crowd pushes this issue to the fore too--for whatever reason that it excites them. And every time they do, the homosexuals feel (rightly) that their rights are threatened.

 

So yes, though there are other issues of much more importance, it's one that keeps coming up until these state courts and legislatures all work through their various machinations. I expect in 20 years, this crap will be mostly behind us.

[Steely Dan]

And the examples you cited were too broad in their interpretation. You are using your standard to flavor your interpretation of the laws. Marriage is not an inalienable right, it is a legal construct that is governed by the states. Thusly, since there is no mention whatsoever in the US Constitution bout the legal construct of marriage, the following passage is the operative law of the land:

 

 

 

So, while you may personally disagree with the legislative process, 61% of Californians who voted said something in their state. and it's their decision, not anyone else's. If you don't like it, get enough votes to change the US Constitution.

 

Do you believe legal constructs can be built and ratified by a state in direct contradiction of the U.S. Constitution?

 

 

Which would be true if the government was telling anyone they weren't free to spend their lives with whoever they want. But that's not the issue. The issue is: should it be legally recognized? And that is a government matter.

 

It's also why I find the whole issue faintly ridiculous. Gay couples are denied certain legal rights to joint property and inheritance (which I believe should be granted to them). No one's denying them the right to live in a long-term monogamous partnership. And anyone who's says they need the legal recognition of the state to live in a long-term monogamous partnership probably isn't in one to begin with. Really...who gives a sh--? And aren't we as a nation just maybe spending far too much time debating the subject?

 

The easiest way to get those rights is to let them get legally married.

 

Can you cite any elements of law that say your broad interpretation of "privileges and immunities" specifically excludes dangerous privileges?

 

Hell, can you cite any that say marriage is a "privilege" to begin with? Where, exactly, does your broad interpretation come from? Maybe we should start small...how about just looking up the legal definition of "privilege" and getting back to me?

 

I believe I asked you tell me how they are the same.

[John Adams]

That's the practical and sensible matter to it. But the legal framework allows for an angry mob to change the laws, and that's that.

 

And the angry mob still can. It just was checked in the latest round. A state constitutional amendment is the check-mate move in California. That's all that's left for the mob. Looks like the mob wants to make that amendment. No doubt (for reasons unfathomable to me), it will pass.

[GG]

Do you believe legal constructs can be built and ratified by a state in direct contradiction of the U.S. Constitution?

 

If a state enacts a law that is in contradiction with the USC, then it will be struck down. Again, have state laws regarding legality of marriage contradicted with the USC?

 

Put aside your opinion for a moment, and point to legal precedent.

[GG]

And the angry mob still can. It just was checked in the latest round. A state constitutional amendment is the check-mate move in California. That's all that's left for the mob. Looks like the mob wants to make that amendment. No doubt (for reasons unfathomable to me), it will pass.

 

Not necessarily. I believe I read somewhere that the Gubernator will veto an outright state amendment.

[PastaJoe]

No sh*t! How can it be that anyone with a passionate voting concern on other issues is all of a sudden going to forget that and vote out of concern for this? How f*ckin stupid is that? Then again, maybe it's me.

 

It gives the Republicans an issue to get the evangelical voters who are lukewarm to McCain out to vote. Gays and abortion were a factor in 2000, probably enough to give the election to Bush.

[John Adams]

Not necessarily. I believe I read somewhere that the Gubernator will veto an outright state amendment.

 

Ah. One last check in CA. Well, the mob put him in power too. It can't always win.