California approves same sex marriage

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by auncut10in, May 15, 2008.

  1. auncut10in

    auncut10in Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    714
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    1,713
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    in San Francisco until April, then back sailing in
    Congratulations California. It is nice to know that another state is more interested in the civil rights of its citizens than it is with the religious right. Especially since our federal constitution prohibits the government from making laws concerning religion.

    Same-Sex Marriage: News & Videos about Same-Sex Marriage - CNN.com
     
  2. marleyisalegend

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,587
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    charlotte
    hey, anybody wanna move to cali with me and get married!!!!!
     
  3. unabear09

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Messages:
    7,083
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    24
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock, AR
    Congrats to you all! Its about time this country woke up and realised this is the 21st century, rather then the 19th century. I wish you all the best in the world
     
  4. yngjock20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,203
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    147
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Valley
    OH SHIT. I didn't even know about this and I'm a native Californian. Man, American Idol is ruining my life.
     
  5. SyddyKitty

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,507
    Albums:
    9
    Likes Received:
    269
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    It's about time. :)
    A good reason to move there, aside from the great weather. <3
     
  6. simcha

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Over The Rainbow
    Yes, it's time to celebrate again! I'm excited. Yet....

    Hey, let's watch it though. Someone has 1,000,000 signatures on a measure to get an amendment before voters this Fall to change the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

    It's not over here, unfortunately. We still have the hate mongerers of Orange County and the Central Valley to deal with... Let's make sure they get defeated in the Fall...

    Oh, and get out the vote on June 3rd. the special primary... Important propositions are out there on the ballet again.
     
  7. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,477
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    70
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    Actually, this has nothing to do with religion. Nice try.

    California voters debated for years on this, and voted on it, and voted against it clearly. And then 7 political-bent judges overturned the will of the ppl.

    I am pro-whatever marriage. But this an awful precedence.

    What's the use of voting, when the "Rose Birds" (Californians know whom she is) can empower their political leanings.

    I always felt this could be brought up for vote again, doing it the RIGHT way... and it would win, as slim as this 4-3 margin, but still win.

    THIS IS SO WRONG
     
  8. HotBulge

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,180
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    216
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Lowells talk to Cabots, Cabots talk to God

    Yes, be concerned about disgruntled social conservatives who will try to "legistlate" the issue and put gay marriage to a vote. That issue came up again in the 2006 state elections here in Massachusetts, even though gay marriage was first established in 2004. (Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, former GOP presidential candidate, tried to lead the ballot initiative against marriage. Luckily, the MA legislature systematically and procedurally moved it to the last item in the legislative season, and the districts of MA voted on the motion to remove the item from the legislative docket. It effectively killed the effort).

    California's advancement of civil rights in tremendous. It may shock the status quo, but trust me, after 4 years of gay marriage in MA, the sky HAS NOT FALLEN. The sun also rises, the Earth still rotates on its axis, and the expansion of civil rights (from gay marriage) has come at the expense of no one.... The same reality will happen in California!
     
  9. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,477
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    70
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    Let me further explain this... many will recall the 2000 Presidential General Election, when it felt like a power grab of state and federal supreme court justices were deciding the outcome of the election, via the pivotal position that Florida became.

    That's where the will of the people, the vote, etc... comes into effect. There wasn't much we could do in this case, and thankfully (even per the ultra liberal New York Times detailed analysis) the outcome would of made no difference in either case. This is different.

    A liberal judge via a "Duke" appointee nailed it... "Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said the court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote."

    I vehemently agree.

    California has about the 6th largest GDP in world... we are like our own country, our propositions are paramount, and should NEVER be taken so lightly and with such disregard. Often contentious, yet paramount. The California Constitution is the 2nd largest in the world. And so on. The rights prescribed in the California Constitution blow the Bill of Rights out of the water.

    7 judges, all pretty much on the same side of the politico fence, overturning and deciding landmark decisions on their own is frightening. It's even more frightening how close this decision was, and the reason for dissension (as mentioned by Justice Baxter), where personal opinion seemed to prevail over spirit of the judicial law. A slap on the hand for California.
     
  10. HaagenDazs

    HaagenDazs New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    It's good. Love is love. It's not limited to man and woman. Whatever your preference is, do you.

    There are some uptight, primitive, conservative fools rife with ignorance, who will fight this of course (i.e. that ridiculous 1,000,000 signature idiocy), but hopefully that doesn't stand in the way of progress.

    We have to get past ignorant ideals of the past.
     
  11. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    And I vehemently disagree. Minority civil rights are among the few issues that should NEVER be decided by popular vote. Otherwise, no minority would ever have any rights at all.
     
  12. swordfishME

    swordfishME Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    947
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    DFW Texas
    Color me shocked.

    As happy as I am that gay people have the right to get married in California now, this decision was way more activist than I had hoped the California SC would be. It almost seems like they said we are allowing this because we want to do it not because it is discriminatory not to allow gay couples to marry.
     
  13. auncut10in

    auncut10in Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    714
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    1,713
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    in San Francisco until April, then back sailing in
    So lets see, I guess integration should not have happened since state laws prohibited that as well. Blacks should still be sitting on the back of the bus? Inter racial marriages should not be allowed?

    It is the legislative's job to protect the civil rights of all of its citizens when laws are passed that take away the rights of part of its population. If the voters decided that Jews or Catholics should not be allowed in the state of California, would you be ok with that as well? Are the people able to vote for anything that they want against other citizens?

    The California Supreme court did not vote in favor of gay marriage, they ruled that the legal constitution that was voted by the citizens of California prohibits discrimination against its citizens. The ballot issue was in contradiction with the state constitution.

    And btw, the California legislature has voted in favor of gay marriage for the past 3 years only to be vetoed by Governor Swartznager. His reason that he has stated over and over again is that it should go through the judicial process to see whether the ballot measure was constitutional. Guess he got his answer.

    If this is not a religious issue, then what is the reason why gay marriage should not be allowed? The only thing I have heard is coming from the Christian right saying marriage is a sacred covenant between God and man. I guess it is a civil right as well to be able to marry someone you love.
     
  14. SpeedoMike

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,940
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Points raised by Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News:

    The California decision cannot be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court since this is a state issue.

    The justices who voted were primarily placed on the court by Republican governors, not leftist ones. They based their decision on the rights of the persons.

    Although there is a constitutional amendment possibly pending this November, most likely if it passed the California Supreme Court would rule it invalid, using the same criteria as today's decision.

    Finally, Napolitano says this ruling will have an effect on other states, given that California is the most populous state and it's often in the forefront on matters like this.
     
  15. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,286
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    It's exactly that it is discriminatory not to allow gay couples to marry.
     
  16. HyperHulk

    HyperHulk New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Messages:
    883
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sydney, Oz
    Congratulations to California for this historic decision! It's about time.

    This decision was based on equality as defined by the state's constitution and sexual orientation was formally recognized as having the same protections as race and gender.

    The calls of judicial activism against the will of the people rings false to me. The justices here applied the laws of the land. It is their obligation as justices to interpret initiatives in respect to the constitution. This decision is no different than the court ruling against the laws that prohibited Black & White couples to marry. If California voters approve of initiatives that said that all White males were not allowed to own homes in California, the Supreme Court would easily rule against that gender and racial discrimination. This is no different here. The prior ballot initiative violated fundamental rights under the Constitution. Also note that the CA Legislature has twice approved granting same-sex marriage rights but that was vetoed by the governor.

    This was indeed the right decision by the court, which really had no choice. Remember that 6 of the 7 justices here were appointed by Republicans, so no one can claim this is a liberal group.

    The court ruled that gays and lesbians have a fundamental right to form a "family relationship". The court ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a violation of the state's constitution. The state recognized that discrimination against the right to marry for gays and lesbians is also a discrimination based on gender.

    Discrimination and inequality must be fought at every opportunity. Gays and lesbians deserve and should enjoy all the rights as heterosexuals. Any attempt to curtail those rights violates fundamentals notions of justice and equality.

    This is a proud day for California and all of its citizens.
     
  17. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    I agree with you that this is a poor way to get around the issue.

    However, Prop 22 is unconstitutional under California's constitution given how the courts, legislatures (state and municipal), and executives have interpreted individual rights under the constitution of California's equal protection clauses. California has a long history of not permitting discrimination based upon sexual orientation. I'm sure you must be aware of this and time and again sexual orientation has been deemed to be protected under equal protection as it's framed by the constitution of California.

    In essence, the court is upholding that legal precedent by saying that Prop 22 flies in the face of all previous court and legislative action in this area. Legally speaking, it's a conservative decision because it's siding with how equal protection has been historically interpreted in California.

    The only way around this is to get an amendment to the constitution of California. Prop 22 was bad law, pure and simple, because it neglected to take into account California's constitutional provisions against discrimination.

    Don't blame the judges here, blame the people for not knowing their own constitution and how it has been interpreted by various government branches over time.
     
  18. HotBulge

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,180
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    216
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Lowells talk to Cabots, Cabots talk to God

    Agreed! If we left equal rights to the status quo, we would still be debating whether Blacks should vote and whether the suffrage should be extended to women.

    I will never understand why Gay Marriage represents the be-all/end-all of social issues when there are some many other national concerns to attend to. Isn't our time better spent worrying about Iraq, energy independence, global warming, providing a solid education for our children, etc?
     
  19. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,477
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    70
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    I knew that was going to come up. What at question then, wasn't the institution of marriage, but more so racial mixing. So what's to keep me and my lawn from getting married, and me filing taxes as "married filing jointly"?

    And what did gay/same-sex marriage in achieve????...after all love-is-love as someone stated. course I'm not sure what the "couples laws" were before. But... last I checked California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support. Huh??? So what was the big victory, to be defined sexually like a hetero couple... somewhat ass-backwards (pun intended)

    My good friend deals with the same ordeals with her partner over custody with the coolest 5 yr old in the state, just as a male/female relationship would. They enjoy the same ups/downs... which is good. Sorta, in theory, no fun for her.

    I'm not sure what this ruling does... shit on religion/culture? So be it. Fine. This has little to do with inclusion (see some of the comments in here that are making it a non-religious vs religious argument). The Western Culture has advanced and survived via man/woman relationships for thousands of years, not from same sex partnerships... it's how we've survived and evolved as a species... and this is to do what??? Further that cause for that union, and call it marriage... because the Christians call it that and men/women call it that, and we feel left out? I don't get it. Californians get the rights/privileges, and thankfully (as with my friend) the challenges and drawbacks. Is this the "left out of the country club" or "never joined a sorority/fraternity" feeling?.. I'm sure other states have it much worse, but California, Mass, NY.... come on.......

    If same-sex "marriage" will mainstream everyone, than great. We can then eliminate all the LGBT organizations that permeate our schools, corporations and daily life. Gays can be lawyers, neighbors, etc... vs having to be gay lawyers, gay neighbors... somehow I doubt it. The rights of the masses, yet the individuality. I think many heteros see "marriage" as part of their individuality, yet are all in favor of the same-sex partnership right prescribed in the State of California.

    I don't know... I just say leave the hetero marriage lifestyle be... since there's so much individuality and the rights are already afforded to same sex unions... someone can explain. Not purposely posing as ignorant. Same-sex relationships are different, just as hetero relationships are different. But I'm seeing this as more of a sucker punch on the establishment, vs. the actual rights of what they seek.

    I can propose eternal union with a cactus, do I need the state to recognize it? Is it discriminatory to then propose that we classify marriages in California as "straight marriages" vs "same-sex marriage"? Or what will surely boil some bubbles ...."pro-creation marriages" or "evolutionary superior marriages"... you get my point. Culture and religion are not synonymous. Perhaps in 10, no 5 years, we'll see a "Hetero Student Union" in a Berkeley high school. Imagine that? Or is doctrine that the minority is only subject to oppression? Folly.

    I see many getting their jollys because they feel this ruling steps on the nads of certain religions (if not all, especially Muslims.. wonder how this news is being carried by Al Jezerra [digression]) and beliefs... sorry you had a bad experience with all that, that is why you left it in the first place.

    Along the lines, of the spirit of individuality (whether right or wrong) this feels like a last hope for many heterosexuals. Many/most straight Californians are NOT religious... if anything they are lightly religious, and feel the man/woman/pro-creation thing is still pertinent.

    I can use the Koran as toilet paper too... it's the US afterall. You can do what you want, and should be afforded equal protection I suppose.

    I understand it's a societal gain of rights and recognition... I do. I just see it as a word.
     
  20. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,477
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    70
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    Where is the discrimination? (just begging the question) Marriage by definition (only recent updated to poke the stick was "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law") or something like that.

    You can say it's discriminatory for a 49 year old man who never went to school, to not be allowed in kindergarten.

    Point being, there's folly on both sides here... and I fail to see what the point of it is, here in California. What exactly is gained? It's certainly not legal, civic, or financial.

    Remember I couldn't care less about who marries whom, but I understand what was voted on, and what is going on here judicially.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted