This is a landmark event imo. it basically means gay marriage will soon be legal everywhere in the US. yay rights!

This is a landmark event imo. it basically means gay marriage will soon be legal everywhere in the US. yay rights!


*blink*

OK, Karma for beating me to the punch, and welcome to the politics tab, but you've got your supreme courts mixed up :)

The CA State Supreme court applies only to CA, not the entire federal government.  Subject to appeal by the 9th Circuit Court (which will probably uphold the CA court's ruling given that it has to work with the weak "marriage exists only to produce babies" argument given by the Prop 8 anti-gay-marriage lawyers - an argument that if taken seriously would effectively ban heterosexual marriage between couples where at least one person is sterile either by medical accident or by choice), and then the US Supreme Court (where it's anyone's guess).

This'll still be in the courts for years.

*blink*

OK, Karma for beating me to the punch, and welcome to the politics tab, but you've got your supreme courts mixed up :)

The CA State Supreme court applies only to CA, not the entire federal government.  Subject to appeal by the 9th Circuit Court (which will probably uphold the CA court's ruling given that it has to work with the weak "marriage exists only to produce babies" argument given by the Prop 8 anti-gay-marriage lawyers - an argument that if taken seriously would effectively ban heterosexual marriage between couples where at least one person is sterile either by medical accident or by choice), and then the US Supreme Court (where it's anyone's guess).

This'll still be in the courts for years.


I wish the libertarians would turn out for this issue the way the do for gun rights.
::)

I wish the libertarians would turn out for this issue the way the do for gun rights.
::)


With a small "l", we always were. 

AuH2O winning the Presidency in the mid-60s would have made for an interesting alternate history.

Today, Barry "You don't have to be straight to shoot straight" Goldwate(R) would be denounced by the Jackass Wing of the Party as a mutant neocon traitor, and by the Elephant Wing of the Party as a RINO commie pinko.  And the "L"ibertarian party would say something along the lines of whichever Wing currently controlled it.

We thought we were playing the fundies against the neocons in 2000 in order to get our tax cuts.  The Party decided that we were the ones who got played against the fundies.  Just because we think we we're correct, just doesn't mean we win.

This is a landmark event imo. it basically means gay marriage will soon be legal everywhere in the US. yay rights!


Actually it was a federal court judge.  What I find most interesting is that Ted Olsen was part of the team.  I guess some conservatives do "get it"

I heard about this on the news yesterday.

Wasn't the Supreme Court but it will head to the Supreme Court probably.

We've had it in Massachusetts for 6 years.  I would bet there are newcomers here who are against it and don't even realize that it goes on here everyday, because it isn't a big deal.

A victory for civil rights indeed...

One step closer to the right direction!  :)

About fricking time!

We've had it in Massachusetts for 6 years.  I would bet there are newcomers here who are against it and don't even realize that it goes on here everyday, because it isn't a big deal.


And Massachusetts has a lot of problems today...and gay marriage isn't attributable to any of them!
8)

We've had it in Massachusetts for 6 years.  I would bet there are newcomers here who are against it and don't even realize that it goes on here everyday, because it isn't a big deal.



I was just saying to Carlos this morning, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, & Iowa all have it and the most amazing thing is that the sky has NOT fallen.




Cat

And Massachusetts has a lot of problems today...and gay marriage isn't attributable to any of them!
8)


yup we do, but yet unemployment is not as high here as the places that don't... hey, maybe the gay marriages are creating all the new jobs!

http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/cy5ia/why_didnt_the_prop_8_judge_recuse_himself_well/

Now the argument is being made that because this judge was gay, he should recuse himself.  Sorry, if the proponents of this BS prop thought that had any bearing at all, they were more than welcome to file a motion to recuse.

Marraige should be between one man and one woman.

Marraige should be between one man and one woman.



Says who?



Cat

Says who?



Cat
In my opinion it should be. I don;t object though to gay couples having civil unions or having the same benefits(filing taxes jointly or having your partner on your health plan) as a married couple does.

In my opinion it should be. I don;t object though to gay couples having civil unions or having the same benefits(filing taxes jointly or having your partner on your health plan) as a married couple does.



If they have all the same benefits, why not call it a marriage? Why have two different names for the exact same thing? Separate but equal? It has been determined a LONG time ago that separate does NOT equal. 



Cat

If they have all the same benefits, why not call it a marriage? Why have two different names for the exact same thing? Separate but equal? It has been determined a LONG time ago that separate does NOT equal. 



Cat
Because CAT, the word "marriage" shoulds be used for one man and one woman couple not same sex couples in my opinion.

Because CAT, the word "marriage" shoulds be used for one man and one woman couple not same sex couples in my opinion.



Would a rose by any other name...?



Cat

Marraige should be between one man and one woman.

No, marriage should be between 2 consententing adults.

Would a rose by any other name...?



The moon is made of green cheese...in my opinion.
:D

personally I don't believe in marriage period but as long as no one's forcing me into one what do I care!  :P 




In my opinion it should be. I don;t object though to gay couples having civil unions or having the same benefits(filing taxes jointly or having your partner on your health plan) as a married couple does.



I'm with Cat on this- why restrict the title of marriage to only hetero couples? It's not like two same sex couples getting married has any affect on your life in anyway so who cares?

personally I don't believe in marriage period but as long as no one's forcing me into one what do I care!  :P 




I'm with Cat on this- why restrict the title of marriage to only hetero couples? It's not like two same sex couples getting married has any affect on your life in anyway so who cares?


I think that's the way most people feel.  If you don't want to marry another guy or another gal, then DON'T!

If conservatives think gay marriage is un-Christian, they are entitled to their opinion, but there are a whole lot of other things far more un-Christian going on in American politics, such as wars for oil, capital punishment, and children going to bed hungry.
::)

Marraige should be between one man and one woman.


Why?  Because you say  so?  Marriage should be none of the state's business.

I just love the people who are against same-sex marriage because it will "destroy" traditional marriage as they are working on their 3rd marriage.



Cat

Ultimately I think that the decision itself (at least its interpretation of the 14th amendment) will be found to be overreaching.  The decision as stated seems to interpret the 14th as saying that "laws cannot discriminate" but in fact there are all sorts of laws that do just this:


Felon's can't own guns
Minors can't vote
Men can't go take a whiz in the ladies' room (in most jurisdictions)
Married people can't marry a second person whilst already married to another


If we take the judge's 14th interpretation, then Minors should be able to vote because they are not getting the same due protection of the law that non-minors get.  Men should be allowed to use the ladies' room since ladies are allowed to, and married people should not be denied the right to take a second spouse, since non-married people can do that.

If Prop 8 is to be overturned, then a better legal decision will be needed than what this judge has employed.

Marriage before childbearing is close to falling out of custom in the U.S.  Heterosexual couples first couldn't stay married and then stopped bothering to get married in the first place.  We are paying the price every day.  Every child who grows up with little sense of the security and stability a cohesive family provides is a child at a disadvantage.

I believe marriage is a social good because it promotes stability.  Society should encourage more marriage, not less. 

Here is where I depart from conservatives:

It doesn't matter what sex the parents are, but how strong the relationship is.  I would rather see a child raised by a stable and loving gay couple than a confused and selfish straight couple. 

We get too uptight about the sex part of homosexuality.  Just because a child is raised by a gay couple doesn't mean his parents are going to expose him to inappropriate sexuality.  This is the poisonous prejudice lurking under all the debate. 

What about the social stigma of having gay parents?  It shouldn't be stigmatized in the first place.  Say no to homophobia. 

I is important to remember gays are a small minority of the population.  The number of gays who want to get married is smaller, and the number of gay married couples who want to have children via adoption or surrogate conception will remain statistically anomalous.  Gay parenting won't spread among the straight population just because it is legal. 

I have also heard the risible argument that heterosexuals will marry same-sex partners in order to qualify for the other partner's health insurance.  It's conceivable, but I ask all heterosexuals -- would YOU do that?  Probably not.  Besides, Americans could obviate the insurance issue if we did what the rest of the civilized world does and legislate a universal healthcare system. 

Marraige should be between one man and one woman.


Wait a minute.  Are you referring to the religious sacrament of the Catholic church (in which case it's the Church's business, but since when did the Vatican write US tax policy?), or are you referring to the portion of contract law that deals with who inherits your property if you die without a will, who's responsible for your debts and assets as community property, and all that legalistic rot, in which case it's only the government's business because the government ties some tax breaks to pair bonding, and of course, it keeps the divorce lawyers in business, but what does that have to do with anything?

My tone is snarky (when isn't it?) but I'm seriously interested in the answer.  The question goes to the heart of the matter, namely: "what other-than-religious reason exists that requires one to define "marriage" as implicitly heterosexual?"  It can't be about baybeez, because I'd assume all but the Phelps crowd would be fine with heterosexual infertile (or childfree) couples getting married.  So what is it that makes a heterosexual form of pair bonding worthy of the name that's used to describe the contract that convers a large set of legal rights... but leaves the "icky" (NTTAWWT) form of that same pair bonding as somehow unworthy?)

I'll take the religious folks' word for it that God cares about whether it's icky or not, but that still doesn't imply to me that... (in a State that uses a Constituation that simultaneously guarantees equal representation under the law to all of its citizens (OK, so that one took a while... and a few hundred thousand dead) and explicitly precludes said State from establishing an officially-approved religion (at least we got that one right the first time around)) ...that the State should care.

The State's stuck behind a catch-22:  If "icky" has to get a parenthetical "NTTAWWT" warning every time it comes up, then even if some folks find it icky, there legally is nothing wrong with that, and the law cannot take "ickiness" into account.

Wait a minute.  Are you referring to the religious sacrament of the Catholic church (in which case it's the Church's business, but since when did the Vatican write US tax policy?), or are you referring to the portion of contract law that deals with who inherits your property if you die without a will, who's responsible for your debts and assets as community property, and all that legalistic rot, in which case it's only the government's business because the government ties some tax breaks to pair bonding, and of course, it keeps the divorce lawyers in business, but what does that have to do with anything?

My tone is snarky (when isn't it?) but I'm seriously interested in the answer.  The question goes to the heart of the matter, namely: "what other-than-religious reason exists that requires one to define "marriage" as implicitly heterosexual?"  It can't be about baybeez, because I'd assume all but the Phelps crowd would be fine with heterosexual infertile (or childfree) couples getting married.  So what is it that makes a heterosexual form of pair bonding worthy of the name that's used to describe the contract that convers a large set of legal rights... but leaves the "icky" (NTTAWWT) form of that same pair bonding as somehow unworthy?)

I'll take the religious folks' word for it that God cares about whether it's icky or not, but that still doesn't imply to me that... (in a State that uses a Constituation that simultaneously guarantees equal representation under the law to all of its citizens (OK, so that one took a while... and a few hundred thousand dead) and explicitly precludes said State from establishing an officially-approved religion (at least we got that one right the first time around)) ...that the State should care.

The State's stuck behind a catch-22:  If "icky" has to get a parenthetical "NTTAWWT" warning every time it comes up, then even if some folks find it icky, there legally is nothing wrong with that, and the law cannot take "ickiness" into account.



http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/happy/applause.gif




Cat

SEINFELD FOR PRESIDENT :) :)

Wait a minute.  Are you referring to the religious sacrament of the Catholic church (in which case it's the Church's business, but since when did the Vatican write US tax policy?), or are you referring to the portion of contract law that deals with who inherits your property if you die without a will, who's responsible for your debts and assets as community property, and all that legalistic rot, in which case it's only the government's business because the government ties some tax breaks to pair bonding, and of course, it keeps the divorce lawyers in business, but what does that have to do with anything?

My tone is snarky (when isn't it?) but I'm seriously interested in the answer.  The question goes to the heart of the matter, namely: "what other-than-religious reason exists that requires one to define "marriage" as implicitly heterosexual?"  It can't be about baybeez, because I'd assume all but the Phelps crowd would be fine with heterosexual infertile (or childfree) couples getting married.  So what is it that makes a heterosexual form of pair bonding worthy of the name that's used to describe the contract that convers a large set of legal rights... but leaves the "icky" (NTTAWWT) form of that same pair bonding as somehow unworthy?)

I'll take the religious folks' word for it that God cares about whether it's icky or not, but that still doesn't imply to me that... (in a State that uses a Constituation that simultaneously guarantees equal representation under the law to all of its citizens (OK, so that one took a while... and a few hundred thousand dead) and explicitly precludes said State from establishing an officially-approved religion (at least we got that one right the first time around)) ...that the State should care.

The State's stuck behind a catch-22:  If "icky" has to get a parenthetical "NTTAWWT" warning every time it comes up, then even if some folks find it icky, there legally is nothing wrong with that, and the law cannot take "ickiness" into account.


That's why the people who say "civil union" is okay for gays, but marriage is not. 

Yeah.  You've had three of them already.  You're worried there might not be enough marriages to go around?

In Christendom of the middle ages, men sometimes married in a purely spiritual sense, but they identified it as "marriage."  Marriages vary.  My parents' ended after 20 unhappy years.  I've also known people who have lived together monogamously without ever getting married.  They didn't think they needed it.  In some states that in itself confers a "common law" status.

You can argue marriage is necessary for families and having children.  Gays can't reproduce according to God's plan, so they should be denied marriage.  I only have to counter with a comparative.  We let infertile adults get married.  We let elderly adults get married.  We allow heterosexuals the right to get married even if they say the don't want children.  We allow heterosexuals to stay married even if they fail to reproduce.  I guess they all got one thing in common, they ain't gay!
::)

http://cagle.com/working/100807/plante.jpg

http://cagle.com/working/100807/plante.jpg



I'm surprised that is from the ULTRA conservative city like Tulsa (I'm assuming Tulsa World is just as conservative as the city is).




Cat

Actually it was a federal court judge.  What I find most interesting is that Ted Olsen was part of the team.  I guess some conservatives do "get it"


As a conservative, I have no problem with gay marriage, I simply don't see the harm it does anyone.  I can understand a church not wanting to perform a gay marriage, but I don't see any reason why courts shouldn't.

I couldn't really see why either side was making such a big deal out of what specific word the government would use to describe a relationship.  Heck, I was referring to myself as married before I legally was... and everyone who mattered considered us married. 

I kind of wonder though... 20 years ago, I'd say most people found gay relationships disturbing.  As time has progressed, many have come to accept it and don't think anything about it anymore. 

I'd venture to say that most of us currently find incest disturbing.  I wonder if a couple decades down the road, that will become accepted too.  Many of the same arguments could be made for incest that have been made for gay marriage over the years.

Not really relevant to Prop 8, but just a thought....

http://cagle.com/working/100807/plante.jpg
Thats funny(the pop section of the cartoon.)

As a conservative, I have no problem with gay marriage, I simply don't see the harm it does anyone.  I can understand a church not wanting to perform a gay marriage, but I don't see any reason why courts shouldn't.

I couldn't really see why either side was making such a big deal out of what specific word the government would use to describe a relationship.  Heck, I was referring to myself as married before I legally was... and everyone who mattered considered us married. 

I kind of wonder though... 20 years ago, I'd say most people found gay relationships disturbing.  As time has progressed, many have come to accept it and don't think anything about it anymore. 

I'd venture to say that most of us currently find incest disturbing.  I wonder if a couple decades down the road, that will become accepted too.  Many of the same arguments could be made for incest that have been made for gay marriage over the years.

Not really relevant to Prop 8, but just a thought....


Like the red neck who introduces you to to his wife and sister, but there is only one woman.

I'd venture to say that most of us currently find incest disturbing.  I wonder if a couple decades down the road, that will become accepted too.  Many of the same arguments could be made for incest that have been made for gay marriage over the years.

Not really relevant to Prop 8, but just a thought....


Naw, but we might as well cover all the bases...

All that's needed (legally) from the Prop 8 ruling to permit the State to discriminate against certain icky unions is that there be a "rational basis" for such discrimination.

One look at the British Royal Family should make it pretty clear why the State has an interest in preventing incestuous relationships.  (ironically, that argument only applies to incestuous heterosexual relationships, so you either get none of the icky or a double dose of the icky (or, if we're talking about two twin sisters who happen to be really hot, a double dose of the awesome!)...  Probably best for the State to say "We don't endorse any of it", since it can't reliably determine its ass from a hole in the ground, let alone whether the parties involved are hot or not :)

As long as we're going off the deep end, minors and box turtles can't give informed consent, so they're out the window: the State, (by virtue of having a monopoly on force), has by definition an interest in the sanctity of contract law.  If you can't give informed consent, you can't enter into any binding contract, be it marriage or otherwise.

Mormon Polygamists probably don't qualify.  The function of marriage is to make personal leagal affairs easier, not more complicated.  While groups of consenting adult humans could draft such contracts, claims for assets or community property in a divorce (or medical care, power of attorney, etc) in a poly household could get interminably complicated, so the State probably has decent grounds here to at least say "whatever you people wanna arrange for yourselves, go for it, but we're not going to supply you with any shortcuts."

Do polygamists have to sign prenups? 
???

Do polygamists have to sign prenups? 
???


Probably, but I dunno.  I believe monogamy suffers from the same problem as polygamy: one wife too many :)

Probably, but I dunno.  I believe monogamy suffers from the same problem as polygamy: one wife too many :)


Karma dude!
;D

-- From Al Bundy and NO MA'AM

SEINFELD FOR PRESIDENT :) :)


Well, Max, since you put it that way...

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i128/johnjmacdonald/Alsbiguns.jpg

ELAINE FOR PRESIDENT!  (Julia's actually a billiionaire heiress to the Dreyfuss mutual fund fortune, but even without that advantage, I'd hit it so hard that whoever pulled me out would be King of England...)

Wait a minute, YOU said "Seinfeld for President."

Kramer for VP.

Joe Biden plays "Kramer" to Obama's "Jerry."

Ever notice how little you see of Joe Biden?  Biden didn't have to take his house off Google Maps, ain't nobody care where he live at!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/urcool.gif

Ultimately I think that the decision itself (at least its interpretation of the 14th amendment) will be found to be overreaching.  The decision as stated seems to interpret the 14th as saying that "laws cannot discriminate" but in fact there are all sorts of laws that do just this:


Felon's can't own guns
Minors can't vote
Men can't go take a whiz in the ladies' room (in most jurisdictions)
Married people can't marry a second person whilst already married to another


If we take the judge's 14th interpretation, then Minors should be able to vote because they are not getting the same due protection of the law that non-minors get.  Men should be allowed to use the ladies' room since ladies are allowed to, and married people should not be denied the right to take a second spouse, since non-married people can do that.

If Prop 8 is to be overturned, then a better legal decision will be needed than what this judge has employed.


Yes, the 14th Amendment does allow for some discrimination, but only if there's a good reason for it. The judge who struck down Prop 8 found no good reason to ban same-sex marriage, hence his decision to strike down the ban against it.