California Supreme Court OK's Gay Marriage (Banning: appointed, apartment, health insurance)

[tangodoodles]

I'm so happy! I mean, really, I don't know why conservatives and religious types have to get up in gay people's business. I think that the most vocal opponents of gay rights are closeted homosexuals themselves. How sad that their own self-hate guides their actions. Oh well, we're well on our way to becoming the second state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage! This has almost completely redeemed California in my eyes. Now I don't need to move to Massachusetts (it's so cold!) to live in a state that cares about equality. I'm straight but not narrow, more people should try it, it feels fantastic! Maybe this society isn't as hopeless as I thought it was.

[tangodoodles]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

Are you talking about the courts that enforced racial segregation? Or the courts that said its OK for the government to take one person's land and give it to another? Yeah, the courts sure know what's best all the time.

Have you escaped California yet? You should probably get on that because we're becoming more liberal by the second. There's no room for hatred in the U.S. and this ruling helps enforce that idea. Hopefully other states can begin move forward to ensure that everyone is equal under the law. I don't know why you're so bitter about it, allowing gays more rights doesn't infringe on your rights in any way. Just be happy, don't get upset that some more people share the same basic rights as the rest of us.

[Mach50]

Live and let live.

[2norcalgirls]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

Are you talking about the courts that enforced racial segregation? Or the courts that said its OK for the government to take one person's land and give it to another? Yeah, the courts sure know what's best all the time.

If you read my post carefully, the words "all the time" never appeared. I am talking about a modern court system, that while flawed, can make some more logical decisions than many voters who lack education or the ability to think critically--or are simply too lazy to research and their potential impacts before voting for them. Average citizens tend to be reactionary. Judges' positions require them to act through logic and reasoning. This doesn't always happen, but I hardly think you can compare taking someone's rights away, as in racial segregation and appropriating land, to granting rights as in this case. Your logic is faulty; you've clearly got some homophobia to deal with; and I'm finished with this conversation. I'll be happy to banter with you when you can enter the 21st century.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

Didn't the people pass a proposition banning it? Makes me wonder why anyone bothers to vote on anything. If you don't vote the left way, it gets overturned.

You do realize that the court is dominated by REPUBLICANS right?

"The California Supreme Court has six Republican appointees and one Democrat. Scholars have described the court under the leadership of Chief Justice Ronald M. George as cautious and moderately conservative."


Also I'm just curious on what you thought about the Supreme Court decision to give Bush the presidency despite him losing the popular vote, did you agree with that despite the will of the voters being denied?

[tangodoodles]

Originally Posted by sav858

You do realize that the court is dominated by REPUBLICANS right?

"The California Supreme Court has six Republican appointees and one Democrat. Scholars have described the court under the leadership of Chief Justice Ronald M. George as cautious and moderately conservative."


Also I'm just curious on what you thought about the Supreme Court decision to give Bush the presidency despite him losing the popular vote, did you agree with that despite the will of the voters being denied?

Thank you!

[TheDragonslayer]

This is my partners 63rd birthday and what better gift than to be allowed to marry after us being together for 29 years this July. It is about time, California was the first state to abolish a ban against inter racial marriage and now it is legal in all states, maybe not always accepted though. The battle has really only just begun.

[Mach50]

Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer

This is my partners 63rd birthday and what better gift than to be allowed to marry after us being together for 29 years this July. It is about time, California was the first state to abolish a ban against inter racial marriage and now it is legal in all states, maybe not always accepted though. The battle has really only just begun.

Yup! California is on the frontier once again.
USATODAY.com - Gays face same battle interracial couples fought

[Humanoid]

Makes me wonder why anyone bothers to vote on anything.

You seem to have a basic misunderstanding on how this country was created. The judicial system can overturn laws passed by the legislature if the laws are unconstitutional and that's exactly what was done in this case. The judicial system cannot overturn laws in any other case.

This is part of those crazy "checks and balances" the founding fathers built into our political system. I know...its crazy isn't it? The founders had enough insight to prevent mob rule.

But it should be noted that the judicial system is checked by the legislature, the legislature can change the constitution and build a ban on same-sex marriage into it. Or we could just remove the bill of rights and other similar nonsense that guarantees equality.

As someone else noted, maybe this is time to plan your big move! Hell, if you don't like the political system you could make a bigger move.

You should probably get on that because we're becoming more liberal by the second.

Lets hope not.... The issue of gay marriage isn't really a "liberal" issue. For example any libertarian minded person will be fine with gay marriage. One has to remember that the republican party is not a party of religious conservatives, its merely been hijacked by them recently.

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by sav858

Also I'm just curious on what you thought about the Supreme Court decision to give Bush the presidency despite him losing the popular vote, did you agree with that despite the will of the voters being denied?

The U.S. Supreme Court did not "give Bush the presidency," they just put a stop to the endless illegal hand recounts. Bush lost the popular vote, but won the electoral votes and the latter are what elects a president.

As for today's "decision," it will just encourage more to vote in Nov., when (it looks like) there will be a proposition to modify the Constitution making marriage only between a man and woman.