http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

Quote :

"We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples. ...We therefore conclude that although the provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging upon a same-sex couple's constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution. "

5/15/2008 1:27:20 PM

gj california.

5/15/2008 1:28:49 PM

I don't give a fuck.

Honestly I am sick of this stupid issue coming up.

Of all the problems in this country

-iraq
- health care
-social security reform
- the economy
- illegal immigration
- "global warming"
- energy dependence
- etc

the least of my concerns is two fags wanting to get married. honestly who gives a shit. the same Christian redneck conservatives bitching about this are probably the same liquor guzzling baboons that go home every night and beat their wives.

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 1:31 PM. Reason : a]

5/15/2008 1:30:47 PM

HUR, aren't you a libertarian? Shouldn't you be happy that things like this give citizens equal (and more) rights?

I agree there are more important issues (though my list is different from yours in some ways), but certainly laws that curtail the freedom of legitimate citizens should be struck down?

5/15/2008 1:35:25 PM

Good. You should not be able to afford certain privileges to a contract relationship based simply on the sex of the two parties involved in said contract while denying them to another group of parties based on the sex of the two parties involved. It smacks of violation of the equal protection clause contained within virtually all state constitutions and within the US constitution.

5/15/2008 1:38:09 PM

I think it's telling that people proposed a US constitutional amendment against it. They can see the legal writing on the wall. Same sex marriage will be legal in the majority of US states within the next 5 years.

5/15/2008 1:39:51 PM

Quote :

"HUR, aren't you a libertarian? Shouldn't you be happy that things like this give citizens equal (and more) rights?"

To me it is a non-issue; they was created by republican christian conservatives to distract people from the real issues. Kinda like the "ZOMG BILL GOT A BJ IN THE OVAL ROOM!!!"

5/15/2008 2:00:05 PM

Yup, it's the new flag burning. An unpopular non-issue that they can trot out when it's politically convenient, because as much as the majority hates it sometimes, the minority has guaranteed and protected rights.

5/15/2008 2:06:59 PM

Not an issue. People should be viewed as equals by our govt. If they want a civil union, have at it. The govt should recognize it. I just dont want churches being sued for discrimination when their ceremony gets declined at teh church.

Oh, and since we are all for equality, when are we doing to treat everyone equal with our taxcodes? Watch those equal rights go right out the window with most of you there.

5/15/2008 2:10:12 PM

Quote :

"The govt should recognize it. I just dont want churches being sued for discrimination when their ceremony gets declined at teh church."

Constitutionally protected by the 1st amendment. Separation of church and state. You can get married all you want in church but it holds no legal standing until you sign the marriage license as far as I know.

I'm all for equal taxation, as close to 0% as possible and then either usage fees or per capita charge for certain things. I'd like to the absolute minimum required to provide necessary, Constitutional government at the federal level, same thing at the state level, and again at the local level.

5/15/2008 2:14:13 PM

I'd agree to a standard tax rate if you'd agree to a maximum wage

5/15/2008 2:16:51 PM

I don't even know where to start with that one. That's just earth-shatteringly dumb.

5/15/2008 2:18:47 PM

Agreed. There are different tax rates for a reason.

5/15/2008 2:19:15 PM

if they are going to allow gay marriages, i say lets get this polygamy thing legal

lol

5/15/2008 2:20:20 PM

If you can support the family the why not? I personally think one woman is a handful, couldn't imagine multiple ones.

5/15/2008 2:21:37 PM

^exactly, why not.

mormons had it right all along. i'll be damned

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 2:22 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2008 2:22:35 PM

I could be wrong, but I believe Arnold vetoed legislation that would allow gay marriage, but now has come out saying he will back this ruling. It's interesting that a republican would force this to come from the courts instead of through the legislative branch.

5/15/2008 2:23:56 PM

can a governor overturn a courts decision? Maybe talk radio is right about judges legislating from the bench.

5/15/2008 2:27:27 PM

Quote :

"Agreed. There are different tax rates for a reason."

that is bullshit. Flat income tax for the wins

5/15/2008 2:27:32 PM

Quote :

"Agreed. There are different tax rates for a reason."

Sigh. A wage ceiling would be an artificial government constraint on the free market, which is completely different from asking gov. to constrain itself. Ideally you would like to see a small enough gov. that it could be funded via tariffs, fines, and minimal taxes.

5/15/2008 2:28:17 PM

I agree with both hur and kurtis

5/15/2008 2:29:56 PM

this is great news

wlb420 and nutsmacker can now get married. i am so happy for them. i hope they create beautiful democratic children together.

lol

5/15/2008 2:31:48 PM

Quote :

"I just dont want churches being sued for discrimination when their ceremony gets declined at teh church."

This is a mind-numbingly stupid assertion with no basis in reality whatsoever that you somehow manage bring up in every single thread regarding the subject. Thanks.

The solution is that government should have no place in marriage whatsoever. People should get "married" however the hell they want, and the government can grant civil unions to people who wish to have it legally recognized.

5/15/2008 2:53:35 PM

churches WILL be getting sued soon

just wait... in 5.... 4.... 3....

5/15/2008 2:54:33 PM

spooky, why do you feel it wont happen. I see just the opposite happening. People love to sue in this country, why would this be different? The boy scouts have been sued, private country clubs, why would this kind of discrimination be different? In your opinion.

Ive stated Im for civil unions, yet you choose to attack me when I consider the next step and some consequences of that action. Why

5/15/2008 2:57:15 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfsTXzAgp6c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEIUSjaCdew

5/15/2008 2:58:10 PM

^

I don't understand these links...

5/15/2008 3:02:32 PM

People sue for a lot of things, what's important is whether a court will actually punish the church for not marrying them, which it shouldn't.

And civil unions have proven problematic in NJ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_gay_unions_in_New_Jersey#Criticisms

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 3:08 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2008 3:05:02 PM

^^ I'm not surprised, notastute. (1) Is Mendelssohn's "Wedding March" and (2) is a gay couple cutting a cake.

Um. . .which part don't you understand?

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 3:16 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2008 3:14:15 PM

shin, thanks for the link. It might be important whether the court will punish them or not, but it still costs a shitload to defend yourself.

5/15/2008 3:21:15 PM

Quote :

"The boy scouts have been sued, private country clubs, why would this kind of discrimination be different?"

The BSA uses federal land. They can discriminate all they want if they're willing to give up federal support.

I've never heard of a private country club getting sued for this type of stuff. Private clubs are explicitly exempted from the Civil Rights Act.

5/15/2008 3:32:16 PM

Quote :

"spooky, why do you feel it wont happen. I see just the opposite happening. People love to sue in this country, why would this be different? The boy scouts have been sued, private country clubs, why would this kind of discrimination be different? In your opinion."

Show me one case of a couple who do not meet a certain religion's criteria who have sucessfully sued to be married in that religion. I ask this question every time, and you've never given an example.

5/15/2008 3:40:55 PM

^Bingo, that's my only qualm with gay marriage - it goes against my Christian beliefs. But politically, it's OK with me.

5/15/2008 3:47:33 PM

So, why does the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democrats--Barack Obama--not support gay marriage? Why didn't John Kerry? Why didn't Al Gore? Why didn't Bill Clinton? And so on.

5/15/2008 3:49:23 PM

Because Dems don't want to appear on the losing side of social issues.

5/15/2008 3:52:30 PM

Because taking a stand on marriage v. civil unions isn't worth guaranteed failure in November?

5/15/2008 3:52:51 PM

Well spooky, considering its not been recognized until recently. However, New Jersey recognized civil unions and it only took a couple of months before a complaint was made to the state for discrimination for refusing their "service".

Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster of Ocean Grove filed the complaint after the association rejected their application to use the pavilion and returned their $75 deposit. The group said it rejected the application because the church does not recognize same-sex unions.

"In an apparent distortion of the First Amendment, they are claiming that they have the right to discriminate against people who do not share their religious tenets," Bernstein said.


"To date, the Division on Civil Rights has asserted nothing beyond its right to initiate an investigation to determine whether there has been a violation of the law against discrimination," Moore said.

Moore said it was the first investigation to deal with the issue of where a civil union ceremony could be performed since the civil-unions legislation became law.

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?coll=news_articles&sernum=2007/08/14/3&page=1

There you go, happy now?

5/15/2008 3:58:25 PM

I'll be getting married eventually. Whether its in Canada, South Africa, or CA... I'll still be living NC corrupting your marriages with my monogamous relationship. The US is my home and I would prefer to get married in my home country if given that option. (MA isn't an option b/c it requires residency) I haven't decided for sure if I would or wouldn't want to get married in a church, but if I did I'd only want to be in a church that didn't oppose me getting married there, and I wont be suing in churches over getting married ever.

5/15/2008 5:19:12 PM

Quote :

"I'll still be living NC corrupting your marriages with my monogamous relationship."

Who is that directed to?

I applaud you for not sueing churches , however, its very naive to think it wont happen.

5/15/2008 5:22:46 PM

Quote :

"however, its very naive to think it wont happen."

You've yet to give me a legal foundation on which someone would sue

Churches are private organizations who receive no federal funding. They can discriminate all they want.


And even if you did, you would be making an argument against all anti-discrimination laws in general. Not just those related to sexual preference.

5/15/2008 5:28:27 PM

Look up a couple lines boone.

5/15/2008 5:30:05 PM

(from your article):

Quote :

""To date, the Division on Civil Rights has asserted nothing beyond its right to initiate an investigation to determine whether there has been a violation of the law against discrimination," Moore said. Moore said it was the first investigation to deal with the issue of where a civil union ceremony could be performed since the civil-unions legislation became law. He said the state had previously received two complaints having to do with receiving job benefits. "

so basically, a gay couple complained to the state, the church sued the state (before anything had even been done to the church). seems pretty flimsy to me.

5/15/2008 5:39:15 PM

^Exactly.

You've demonstrated that it's caused a fuss.

Not a lawsuit, though (or at least not one directed at a church)

5/15/2008 5:41:04 PM

geez. Right the gay couple claimed discrimination from the exact same scenerio that I predicted. You are right no one has sued a church over this yet, but you are fooling yourself if you think it wont happen. Let me pose a question to the both of you. If the state finds that these ladies were discriminated against, do they have a suit? Lets ask terp too.

Dont let the fact that this is the FIRST ONE discredit my point that people are claiming discrimination, its only a matter of time before the lawsuits go flying. Its how this country works, people hate being told NO.

5/15/2008 6:09:29 PM

I was going to respond, but it looks like Boone and sarijoul already did it for me.

5/15/2008 6:24:22 PM

^^people claim discrimination over all sorts of shit. it doesn't mean it will hold up in court (or ever even get to trial in the first place)

5/15/2008 6:36:00 PM

you guys leave me speechless.

5/15/2008 6:54:04 PM

Quote :

"So, why does the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democrats--Barack Obama--not support gay marriage? Why didn't John Kerry? Why didn't Al Gore? Why didn't Bill Clinton? And so on."

5/15/2008 7:21:42 PM

^ because it would very likely cost them the election.

But, Obama at least does support gays adopting, and he also apparently supports the seperate but equal civil unions:

Quote :

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell - Gays in the Military: Barack Obama believes we need to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. His campaign literature says, "The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve." Gay & Lesbian Adoption: Barack Obama believes gays and lesbians should have the same rights to adopt children as heterosexuals. Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions: Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." "

-http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 7:28 PM. Reason : ]

5/15/2008 7:24:03 PM

^ So, you admit that the Democrats don't have the courage of their convictions, right?

No shit--don't muddy the waters with civil unions. The candidates I mentioned before support civil unions--we're talking gay marriage here. Why don't they just openly support it?

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 7:31 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2008 7:29:31 PM