The California Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.
The state high court’s 4-3 ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, while the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.
The long-awaited court decision stemmed from San Francisco’s highly publicized same-sex weddings, which in 2004 helped spur a conservative backlash in a presidential election year and a national dialogue over gay rights.
Overdue.
#47,
One question — why should I have to spend thousands in legal fees where I can do it all in one simple certificate issued by the government?
# 58 Mister Ketchup
Just in case you mis-understood my post I am not against gay marriage and if Mustard was gay I wouldn’t care one bit. My issue with Mister Mustard is based on pretty much one issue and one issue alone.
Ed. Just for the record. That post on 15 was me
Post #11 Mister Mustard…Was that not Mustard?
Posting under a name that is already used is bad form. That has been done to me on several occasions and it isn’t cool at all.
[Duplicate comment deleted. – ed.]
Poor kids…
“I am 12 years old and my dad says that my mom can’t come to school because other mommies will tell their kids not to hang out with me.”
“J”, no that post was the real me.
Never said I was gay, never said Jews have big noses.
Wonder how many rooms the house has ?
# 65 Mister Mustard
“Never said I was gay, never said Jews have big noses.”
No I believe you on the gay thing. That was probably my mistake. Just so you know it wouldn’t matter anyway and I would never use it to attack you. That would be fucked up.
As far as the Jew thing……….Well now I have to question whether or not you said any of it because some asshat thinks it clever to post moronic statements posing as other people. Very bad form!
So for now I would have to say cool. Fine. But it is still not cool that you say they are pushy. I won’t ride you about it but it isn’t cool. Sorry, if you were not the one to say some of the other shit that has pisssed me off in the past. I should know better than to assume am talking to the same person every time as someone, I would like to know who, has been posing as me a several occasions.
[Same person. If it happens again, he’s history. – ed.]
I gotta ask.
Is bobbo always bobbo and pedro always pedro?
If not……WTF!!! I feel like I have been arguing with a BOT.
>>Is bobbo always bobbo and pedro always pedro?
You can ALWAYS tell Bobbo. And if somebody mentions Kuzco, you can assume it’s Pedro
#68. J- When we catch it, we stop it as much as possible. Mustard has been targeted a number of times…
# 70 McCullough
Well then I apologies to Mustard for the waist of time and attack because he may not have deserved it. For that matter it was the only issue I had with him. Although, he didn’t help much by poking me with a stick. š
#70 – And why do you think that is? I say we take up a collection and buy him a new personality.
California Supreme Court Justice Baxter:
“But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves.Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will….
I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislatureās own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the Peopleās will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power.”
And he’s right too. The judicial branch shouldn’t make law from the bench simply because it wants to. NO MATTER WHAT THE ISSUE IS.
#7, bobbo,
āThe Courtā has no business overturning 3-4 thousand years of settled law.
Can you reference some of that 3-4,000 years of āsettled lawā? You do realize that that predates the Roman Empire, and the Greeks, and the Persians, and the Egyptians, and …
BTW, if the church is correct, then by your numbers marriage was invented 1-2,000 years after āgodā put man on earth. Would you care to explain this anomaly?
*
#23, bobbo,
Further, the notion that you need a license goes against the āconstitutional rightā analysis. Things licensed are things privileged and can be regulated as wished.
The State is not allowed to discriminate unless it can be shown to be for the good of society. See my answer to #27, Sea Lawyer later in this post.
*
#25, Ron,
Just curiousā¦
If a Muslim male who is legally married to more than 1 woman in his home country moves to the US, is his marriage to wife #2,3ā¦ recognized?
No. The morals section of the Immigration Act does not allow bigamy now or at any time in the immigrants past.
*
#27, Sea Lawyer,
State granted privileges are by definition discriminatory, or else they wouldnāt be privileges.
Almost. Privileges must be earned. That is what differentiates them from a right. But even then, the State may not discriminate in the granting of a privilege unless it can show that it is harmful to society. For example, the State may put an age and capability restriction on a drivers license but they can not deny you a license because of your sex or skin color.
The argument that marriage promotes child bearing has been shown to be false as barren and sterile couples are allowed to marry. The next argument that dual parents provide a stable environment is destroyed by all the single parent homes the State allows. Thus marriage between only heterosexual couples does not serve society.
*
#39, tickles,
There are lies, damn lies, and those who use statistics incorrectly to bolster a failed argument. There is no comparison of longevity between partners in a married (contracted) state and those in a consensual (no contract) state. The lack of a contract will always allow for the easy dissolving of the union.
Now compare unmarried heterosexual unions with unmarried homosexual unions for a more accurate comparison.
*
#45, benson,
This will become one of the hot buttons in the general election.
Far from it. A majority of Americans support rights for homosexuals. The electorate got burned last time by being distracted by right wing nut bullcrap, they won’t fall for that again.
Armageddon has not arrived at our doorstep because of sexuality. It has come because of the hypocrisy of the religious right leadership, the lies Bush told to help him steal another election, and the 4,000+ who have died in Iraq based upon a lie.
If anything, this will help Democratic politicians.
Just excellent. Bring it on! Polygamy and the right to marry my motherā¦ or my fatherā¦ or my dog.
I thought there was something weird about you.
*
#54, Dallas,
Enjoy. I hope that some day, soon, Texas also wakes up.
#71. Nah, he probably deserved it anyway, not to worry.
[Comment deleted – Violation of Posting Guidelines. – ed.]
As it stands, “marriage” — from the government point of view, has devolved to solely concerning insurance, division of property, medical decisions and in some instances tax.
I’d rather see a constitutional amendment saying the government will have no laws recognizing marriage nor granting any benefits thereof nor keep any records pertaining to marriage.
“Marriage” shouldn’t be involved in insurance, medical decisions and property rights.
Q: Why do squirrels swim on their back?
A: To keep their nuts dry.
#75, “Almost. Privileges must be earned. That is what differentiates them from a right.”
No, privileges are granted by a second party, a right is not dependent on somebody else to exist. That is the difference. There is no requirement that anything be earned with a privilege, just a willingness of the grantor to bestow it.
There is nothing preventing a gay man from marrying right now. The issue is that gays decide to call it discrimination if they can’t get their agenda passed, which includes redefining marriage.
More proof that liberals hate democracy.
Our laws are based upon our constitution and I believe the constitution begins by describing who it is written for “We the people”. Now if you wanted to change the constitution to begin “We the heterosexual people” then I think you could legally keep non heterosexual people from having the same rights under the law. But until you change that wording, you can’t just apply the laws selectively.
#86–gear==certainly non-heterosexual people have all the same and the exact same rights as hetero’s do. Male gays are free to marry or not marry female gays as they may wish.
The “institution” of marriage is not a basic human right. If it were, then I would demand to be married. Where is my wife? I demand my “rights.”
Wow!! I’m very late to this party. I don’t quite understand this whole obsession with whether or not Mr. Mustard is gay. Unless someone’s interested, why care?
I for one am very glad to see this and hope it will spark a trend in the nation. I fail to see how anyone else’s marriage will weaken my own. I enjoy the rights associated with marriage and don’t feel the need to deny them to anyone.
Why should the state be in the business of determining what a marriage is anyway?
Perhaps I’ve read too much Heinlein. However, if a couple of dozen people of assorted sexes and genders want to form a life partnership, I’m fine with that. It may take a while to work out the tax form issues. It’s not my business to stop it though.
One man, one woman works for me. But, nothing works for everyone. Why would I care what someone else decides to call a marriage?
Damn homophobes need to get in touch with their own feelings and accept them rather than legislating against those who have already done so.
>>certainly non-heterosexual people have all the
>>same and the exact same rights as heteroās do.
>>Male gays are free to marry or not marry female
>>gays as they may wish.
Bobbo – === – wtf are you talking about? You’re making very little sense here. Are your really saying that male gays are free to marry people of the other sex? And vice versa? If so, that makes less sense than just about anything you’ve posted to date. – === –
#88–Scott==you ask: “Why should the state be in the business of determining what a marriage is anyway?” /// I could dodge this by simply saying “because it has chosen to do so.” But in truth, a valid societal function is to support those institutions/relations that are seen as supporting society/peace/stability and “traditional marriage” is one of those.
Indeed for all the gay marriage advocates, what we see here is the gradual creep of political correctness. It starts laudably with not wanting to be discriminated against and now is moving to wanting to participate in benefits it is not naturally entitled to. Not enough to be able to establish a life partnership with someone else, now its discrimination if that partner cannot share in the social benefits of spouses?
Facts should make a difference. Men are different than women. Men and women together can have babies. Other groupings can not. If society determines to benefit the baby makers, I see no reason why those groups that cannot do that think they nonetheless qualify for the benefit.
I feel the same discrimination when the parking lot is full, its raining, and the only spots available at the Mountaineering Store are the handicapped spots right at the front doors. “I” deserve access to those spots too!!! I have RIGHTS!!!!!!!!
And why shouldn’t I have maternity leave too? And military retirement?? I’m denied all sorts of things I don’t qualify for. Its unfair.
#89–Mustard, if you think that doesn’t make any sense, then read #90.
But the truth is as I’ve posted. Its entirely rational to deny marriage to same sex, or to close relations, or to multiple partners, or to other species. Your sister may not like it but there is a whole other world of possibilities out there to frustrate your ambitions. Don’t be so narrowly driven.
>>Men and women together can have babies.
Many cannot, many more choose not to do so. Should these “barren” hetero couples be relegated to some kind of so-called “union” with fewer rights than devout Catholics and others who pop a bun out of the oven every 18 months?
>>And why shouldnāt I have maternity leave too?
You can. It’s mandated by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and is called “Paternity leave”. Guess you missed that one, huh? Tsk.
>>But in truth, a valid societal function is
>>to support those institutions/relations that
>>are seen as supporting society / peace /
>>stability and ātraditional marriageā is one
>>of those.
Come on, Bobster. Do you really think that “traditional marriage” supports society/ peace/ stability? Why? Because the rednecks will be rioting in the streets if gay marriage is allowed? Put the motherfuckers in jail for rioting, and society, peace, and stability are good to go. And I’m not sure what kind of societal, peaceful, or stabilizing role all the hetero marriages with spouse-beating, abandonment, child abuse, divorce, etc. serve.
#87 bobbo yes; you are correct two gay people of the opposite sex do have the right under the law to marry. And two gay people of the same gender also have that right under the law in Calif. and Mass. As I pointed out our constitution spells out that it should also be a right under the law for two gay people of the same sex to marry in all the states.
I never said it was a”basic human right” I was talking about equal rights under the laws of the constitution.
Your imaginary scenario about a single person demanding to be married because they have a right to do so is insipid.
This subject is so gay…….