California high court upholds gay marriage ban

[titsrock]

Its not just the wackos, apparently. Seeing as how it has been defeated by popular vote and I don't think the majority of the populace would categorize themselves as such.

People voted for Prop 8 because they thought same sex marriage was going to be "force taught" in public schools, which was nothing but a bullshit "fear" planted and advertised ad nauseam.

Most people don't actually give a shit about samesex marriage because most people have gay friends.:dunno:

The court's ruling pretty much leaves the door open for a repeal proposition to be floated sometime. The court decided that the 18000 marriages already completed are legal, but only new ones are outlawed? Does that make any sense? :dunno:

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

People voted for Prop 8 because they thought same sex marriage was going to be "force taught" in public schools, which was nothing but a bullshit "fear" planted and advertised ad nauseam.

Most people don't actually give a shit about samesex marriage because most people have gay friends.:dunno:

:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/Majority-Americans-Continue-Oppose-Gay-Marriage.aspx

 

[titsrock]

^
Public opinions shift like the wind....:dunno:

 

[shayd]

The only reason this became an issue was because of the Mormon Church. They successfully and purposely distracted Californians by launching some bullshit ads connecting Gay Marriage and Education. That was what swung Prop 8 around. Before the ads hit the airwaves, Prop 8 was an 8% point loser.

Well done TR! That's exactly right, and plain and simple the ONLY reason that prop passed, stupid people being swayed by the television.

I support gay marriage rights, but I don't think courts should be given power to overturn voter's decision at the polls otherwise what's the point of voting?

If that's the case, then I think you have a problem with the United States Constitution, which gives the Judicial branch the power to declare laws unconstitutional.

the majority does, however have the right to decide if it is socially acceptable and if it is recognizable publically and legally.

No, they really don't. Society tried that before with segregation, and before that with slavery. Those both sort of met the same destiny.

I find this too be very unconstitutional, its like segregation equal but different. Once it reaches the Supreme Court i think gay will be allowed to marry

Bingo. That's exactly what it is. Proponents of gay-marriage often cite that gays should instead of a marriage, have a "domestic partner". It's plain and simple segregation, only this time around, it isn't based on race.

I still say it violates the 1st and 14th Amendments of the Federal Constitution. A state's own constitution can't supersede that. Like other people have mentioned if a state made a law saying a black and white person couldn't marry each other would those same people congratulating California now be here defending it just as adamantly?

You're absolutely right D-Rock. It's beyond rediculous that there is even a debate as to whether this is Constitutional.

From the Constitution itself:
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've heard many times that marriage isn't a right. Well, from the Constitution itself, it's absolutely clear that privileges (ie marriage) must be allowed equally under the law. Period.

The whole anti same sex marriage debate just makes me sick. Bigotry, hatred, and homophobia are all being openly displayed by so many people right now that it's rediculous. I never thought I'd see a day where prominent discrimination was displayed and not based on race, religion, or ethnicity.

 

[glock27]

That's telling 'em, Shayd!

Also, how hypocritical is it for you to be railing against gay rights on a message board dedicated to the love of pornography?

Isn't that a slap in the face of the whole concept of "free love"?

Who cares if gay people want to get married to each together?

 

[Red Spyder]

Another point I'd like to make, the voters in California did NOT vote to prohibit gays and lesbians to live together or to fall in love with each other or to suck/lick/poke/pierce/penetrate/touch/fondle/play with/cover with whip cream/pee into/or whatever they do to each other's reproductive/digestive excretion organs, they CAN live together, so what's the big deal? And if they love each other, that should be just fine, do you need a piece of paper to tell you that it's okay to love each other? Many heterosexual couples clearly do not.

I've heard some people say it has to do with life insurance and other kinds of benefits, well, that's no big deal either, if they want to pass a proposition to allow gays and lesbians to leave life insurace or other benefits to their surviving partner, that should be fine, at least that sounds fine with me, I would support that, and I'm a huge conservative.

 

[afkallthetiem]

Look in the mirror, then smile...homophobe!
It requires being you...pretty simple.

Oh okay, you're resorting to personal attacks cause you can't win an argument. Cool guy.

 

[max0rz]

Wait I'm confused what the status is as of now, is gay marriage in California legal or illegal?

all the marriages that took place are legal, but gay marriage as a construct is now illegal again.

Well, ''banned'' would actually be a more apt description, lol.

 

[shayd]

they CAN live together, so what's the big deal? And if they love each other, that should be just fine, do you need a piece of paper to tell you that it's okay to love each other?

The big deal is the violation of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. As in, you can't deny people privileges for arbitrary reasons, (like, say, because of your sexual inclination). The entire proponent movement isn't about benefits, insurance, or any of that, because that's all state level legislation. The movement is a Constitutional rights issue, and about extending civil liberties to every single citizen, not picking and choosing for some half-assed reason.

I just don't get the anti-same sex marriage argument. There is no merit on any level to arbitrarily denying civil rights and liberties to citizens, none. If I didn't know any better, I'd almost venture a guess as to say that they'd never read the Constitution.

 

[don_equis]

It's good that the people's wish prevailed. want to change the constitution then put it on the ballot again next time or they can go and for a gay state. Fact is I really don't care for gay folks only sexy lesbians.

 

[Neutron66]

The entire proponent movement isn't about benefits, insurance, or any of that, because that's all state level legislation.

You're right. It's not about that. It's all about a word. Marriage. Even if they get all the exact same benefits as everyone else they won't accept it being called a "civil union." It must be called "marriage."

That's really what it all comes down to isn't it?

 

[gunslingingbird]

Fact is I really don't care for gay folks only sexy lesbians.

Sexy lesbians?!? Brother, have you ever seen a real lesbian? I'm talking about in real life, not pornstars. Let me tell you something. About 60% of the women that I work with are bull dykes. There is absolutely NOTHING sexy about them. They have deep voices, look like dudes, and want to make sure they have bigger and better power tools than the men on the call. I don't know about you, but I don't think that someone who makes Hulk Hogan look effeminate is sexy. :2 cents:

 

[Neutron66]

He did say "sexy lesbians."

Not bull dykes.

 

[don_equis]

Sexy lesbians?!? Brother, have you ever seen a real lesbian? I'm talking about in real life, not pornstars. Let me tell you something. About 60% of the women that I work with are bull dykes. There is absolutely NOTHING sexy about them. They have deep voices, look like dudes, and want to make sure they have bigger and better power tools than the men on the call. I don't know about you, but I don't think that someone who makes Hulk Hogan look effeminate is sexy. :2 cents:

My friend you are looking too much into that short statement, it is what I meant...sexy lesbians i.e. "pornstars type" or amateur ala Girls Gone Wild or Saphic Erotica. Not your everyday type Rossie or Sykes, that's why I said "sexy lesbians"

 

[shayd]

You're right. It's not about that. It's all about a word. Marriage. Even if they get all the exact same benefits as everyone else they won't accept it being called a "civil union." It must be called "marriage."

That's really what it all comes down to isn't it?

Nope, once again, it's about extending civil liberties to all citizens per the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. The title is absolutely irrelevant, it's essentially about preventing a new form of segregation.

I'll give you a scenario that'll hopefully help you, and maybe others understand. Suppose tomorrow that a random state, (we'll say New York for the sake of this argument), passed a measure to make an amendment to the state constitution that prevented all people with dyed hair from getting a drivers license. Instead, they would receive a piece of paper labeled a "degree of certification". The degree would afford its possessor the exact same privileges as a drivers license, only they'd receive a piece of paper in lieu of a plastic license. Proponents say the the new amendment is allowable because those with dyed hair are "unnatural".

That potential measure would be obliterated. It's the same with this issue, you can't just pick and choose who enjoys civil liberties and privileges for some arbitrary reason, the Constitution forbids it in the 14th Amendment.

I have absolutely no clue as to what the Justices of the California Supreme Court were thinking. Each and every one of them should be removed from their positions, stripped of all legal certifications, and new Justices, who have actually read the Constitution should be nominated in their stead.

 

[don_equis]

Nope, once again, it's about extending civil liberties to all citizens per the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. The title is absolutely irrelevant, it's essentially about preventing a new form of segregation.

I'll give you a scenario that'll hopefully help you, and maybe others understand. Suppose tomorrow that a random state, (we'll say New York for the sake of this argument), passed a measure to make an amendment to the state constitution that prevented all people with dyed hair from getting a drivers license. Instead, they would receive a piece of paper labeled a "degree of certification". The degree would afford its possessor the exact same privileges as a drivers license, only they'd receive a piece of paper in lieu of a plastic license. Proponents say the the new amendment is allowable because those with dyed hair are "unnatural".

That potential measure would be obliterated. It's the same with this issue, you can't just pick and choose who enjoys civil liberties and privileges for some arbitrary reason, the Constitution forbids it in the 14th Amendment.

I have absolutely no clue as to what the Justices of the California Supreme Court were thinking. Each and every one of them should be removed from their positions, stripped of all legal certifications, and new Justices, who have actually read the Constitution should be nominated in their stead.

We are not living in the system of the "judges' that's Judge Dredd. A measure that was put there by vote prevailed as it should in a democratic proccess. They did the right thing, if gay dudes want to change it then perharps instead of jumping on cars after the ballot is passed or attacking good looking babes like Ms California, they should try to persuade the voters by being "nice" and selling their point, not being violent fairies from hell.

Your hair example falls short is not the same. I can see that you have changed your hair color, but for you to come out and say that you are gay then you are bringing with you and putting "out there" your behind closed doors lifestyle. Do I go out there and want special treatment because I am heterosexual??

 

[Boothbabe]

[/COLOR][/COLOR]Do I go out there and want special treatment because I am heterosexual??

You don't need it because you've always enjoyed the rights gay people are denied.

 

[don_equis]

You don't need it because you've always enjoyed the rights gay people are denied.

Exactly what rights are gay people denied that I just always so enjoy for being hetero?? I betcha than any hetero guy that get's divorce surely doesn't feel like he got's any rights after his wife wipes hm out clean. So what exactly do I enjoy more than the poor and oppressed gay folks?

 

[Red Spyder]

I don't think this issue has to do with extending civil liberties to all, it's about changing the definition of what marriage is to conform to political correctness. What rights are denied to homosexuals anyway? I mean, marriage means "husband and wife", "man and a woman", so a man can't legally marry a man or a woman can't legally marry a woman and you all are acting like gays have absolutely positively not rights at all, when in fact they have all the rights everyone else has.

Are they denied the right to free speech? No, they have gay pride parades.

Are they denied the right to keep and bear arms? No, at least not here in Texas they can own a gun like anyone else.

Are they denied the right to vote? Not that I know.

Are they denied the right to hold public office? Hello, Barnie Frank.

Are they denied the right to have a job? Hello, Hollywood and Broadway!

Are they denied the right to an education? I saw several of them in college.

Are they denied the right to have property? No, I've met gay people who own their own home and even a profitable business and I wish them the best of luck on that. And this is just a short list of all the rights I could think about now I need to go have breakfast, they have the right to that too, you know?

 

[bodie54]

So what exactly do I enjoy more than the poor and oppressed gay folks?

Number of Legal Benefits:
Marriage: Over 1,049 federal and state level benefits.
Civil Unions: Over 300 state level benefits. No federal protection.

Tax Relief:
Marriage: Couples can file both federal and state tax returns jointly.
Civil Unions: Couples can only file jointly in the state of civil registration.

Medical Decisions:
Marriage: Partners can make emergency medical decisions.
Civil Unions: Partners can only make medical decisions in the registered state. Partners may not be able to make decisions out of state.

Gifts:
Marriage: Partners can transfer gifts to each other without tax penalty.
Civil Unions: Partners do not pay state taxes, but are required to report federal taxes.

Death Benefits:
Marriage: In the case of a partner's death, the spouse receives any earned Social Security or veteran benefits.
Civil Unions: Partners do not receive Social Security or any other government benefits in case of death. In the case of the death of former Congressman Gerry Studds, his partner of 15 years was denied the government pension that would have gone to a legally recognized spouse.

Child/Spousal Support:
Marriage: In case of divorce, individuals may have a legally-binding financial obligation to spouses and children.
Civil Unions: In the case of dissolution , no such spousal or child benefits are guaranteed or required out of state.

Immigration Rights:
Marriage: U.S. citizens and legal residents can sponsor their spouses and family members for immigration.
Civil Unions: U.S. citizens and legal residents cannot sponsor non-legal spouses or family members.

Perhaps most importantly, you can marry the person you love. They can't.