Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And that is the way it should be, I dont CARE what you do in your bedroom. I dont talk about my sex life and I dont want to hear about someone else's!
Good God! It's not ABOUT the bedroom! It's about the COURT ROOM! It's about the HOSPITAL ROOM! It's about the LIVING ROOM!
Gay sex is legal and happening all over the world as you read this. The sex isn't an issue. It isn't what people are fighting for. It's not new. Homosexuality is as old a the hills.
This is about something much richer than that. It's about two people being able to commit to one another. If you want to consider being gay a tawdry subject of shame, then you should go criticize the creepy husbands and pastors and politicians sneaking off to have shameful anonymous sex in public bathrooms because they are too ashamed to confront the reality of their desires and deal with their homosexuality like an adult instead of lying to the world and pretending they're just one of the guys.
The people who want to get married deal with your scorn every day. They've dealt with the angry stares and the alienated parents and the jokes and the scowls. They've endeavored to be out and attempt a meaningful and public relationship with someone they love. To focus your hatred on these people is wrong-headed.
I think that california being such a large state, as well as a touristy state it is going to have HUGE impacts on the rest of the nation. If sally and bill can go to malibu and get married and go back to kansas and their marriage license is upheld, but adam and steve's is not... there's going to be HUGE outcry... I think leaving this issue up to states is the wrong approach... it just continues to divide the nation.. hell did we leave slavery up to states rights???? NO.. I'm not equating the two in terms of oppression and substance.. I'm merely stating that this bag of worms needs to be let out and faced on the national level. Allowing marriages in California to people who are not residents of california is going to create a huge legal mess for individual states. I know for one as a gay person I have no problems with getting married in california and taking the state of idaho all the way to the supreme court on their gay marriage ban. It is unconstitutional and contradictory to liberty and justice for all.... plain and simple... Marriage allows someone to marry who they are in love with..and want to build a life with... and those people must be consenting adults.... California is right.. but I'm very unimpressed with the federal governments response to the issue. Their apathy is only making this a longer drawn out and more painful battle for people on both sides. Seeing as how california will be allowing gay marriage which is more than 12 percent of the nations population.. its time for someone in Washington to address the issue and allow for wounds to be healed and weapons and fighting to be put to rest...
Actually I suspect not. Each state is allowed to say by a vote, if they want to recognize gay marriages or not.
That does not mean that it is time for Washington to address the issue. Washignton has no authority upon state laws... I'm so tired of people looking to Washington for disputes among the states...
The people voted to ban gay marriage in California, the liberal judges took your rights away and overturned your right to have a voice.
Judges do NOT make laws, they are not allowed to overturn a vote and I am hoping someone with some guts jumps on this and gets this back to what the PEOPLE of California voted for and that is to BAN gay marriage.
These judges need to be arrested and tossed in jail, their license taken away forever. We need to wake up and stop liberal judges from screwing over the peoples voice.
Arnold --- Wake up and overturn this unlawful act by these judges.
To me thats the issue. I have not read the actual law, so I cant decide if the judges were correct or not, but its very clear that the people voted against gay marriages.
[/b]
People can vote for whatever they want. If it's unconstitutional it won't stand when challenged: this is where the role of judges comes in, to review challenged legislation and rule it constitutional or not. In this case it was not constitutional.
Considering that the current legal definition of marriage includes man/woman, I would be interested to see how it is unconstitutional..
Actually I suspect not. Each state is allowed to say by a vote, if they want to recognize gay marriages or not.
That does not mean that it is time for Washington to address the issue. Washignton has no authority upon state laws... I'm so tired of people looking to Washington for disputes among the states...
problem is.. civil rights have never been voted on... they don't get voted on.. they get heard in the courts.. and if two people of opposite sex's can marry in california and not be residents.. then isn't it also indeed discrimination if two people of the same sex were married in california but denied the same clause? Whether you like it or not.. social issues MUST be addressed on a national level or we are going to go down the path of division that existed durring the civil war.. but over different issues... the south strongly advocated state's rights just like you seem to... if that were the case.. we could very well still have slavery in states like virginia and south carolina...
Once californians start getting married and moving elsewhere.. and others going there to be wed start happening.. its going to open pandora's box... if you refuse to acknowlege it and want to sweep it under the rug in hopes it will go away.. and each state will be allowed to keep their bans you're very naive... but since you seem to like floating down da nile (denial) be sure to share with us your wonderful pictures of the egyptian countryside... I hear its beatiful there
just so you know.. its the united states of america.. not the different states of america... I'm gay so of course I support gay marriage.. but for the sake of the issue, something needs to be done at the national level so that it can be put to rest and not cause anymore pain and strife.. that is if we want to remain united.... lets not make this the liberal states of america vs the conservative states of america...
Are you kidding? I cant imagine a boy growing up not getting to go out for football, baseball or have friends over, so he is relegated to isolation where his only exposure is to homosexuals or freindly's, probably spending an unhealthy amount of time on the computer or in front of the TV watching the View, ellen and sex in the city! His only vacations are to Gay pride parades & on Rosies cruise ship
Where do you think the butt pat came from in football?
Considering that the current legal definition of marriage includes man/woman, I would be interested to see how it is unconstitutional..
The issue before this Court, if you read the decision and opinions, was whether denying same-sex couples marriage was constitutional and the Court found that under California Constitution's Equal Protection Clause and recognition of marriage as a fundamental constitutional right, the Court had to rule that the ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. People can vote for whatever they want- unless they change their State Constitution first, they're bound by it. Apparently California Constitution recognizes marriage as a fundamental right.
Quote:
[SIZE=5]First, we must determine the nature and scope of the
"right to marry" -- a right that past cases establish as one
of the fundamental constitutional rights [*37] embodied
in the California Constitution. Although, as an historical
matter, civil marriage and the rights associated with it
traditionally have been afforded only to opposite-sex
couples, this court's landmark decision 60 years ago in Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711
which found that California's statutory provisions prohibiting
interracial marriages were inconsistent with the fundamental
constitutional right to marry, notwithstanding the circumstance
that statutory
prohibitions on interracial marriage had existed since the
founding of the state -- makes clear that history alone is
not invariably an appropriate guide for determining the
meaning and scope of this fundamental constitutional
guarantee. The decision in Perez, although rendered by a
deeply divided court, is a judicial opinion whose
legitimacy and constitutional soundness are by now
universally recognized.
[/SIZE]
The issue before this Court, if you read the decision and opinions, was whether denying same-sex couples marriage was constitutional and the Court found that under California Constitution's Equal Protection Clause and recognition of marriage as a fundamental constitutional right, the Court had to rule that the ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. People can vote for whatever they want- unless they change their State Constitution first, they're bound by it. Apparently California Constitution recognizes marriage as a fundamental right.
[/font]
Well thankfully, most other states will not recognize the marriage, at least not without fighting and screaming for it..
Well thankfully, most other states will not recognize the marriage, at least not without fighting and screaming for it..
so you would fail to recognize the legitimacy of the argument and see the nation go down a path of fighting and screaming? when it is inevitable anyway? how can you have the best interest of america at heart in saying or impying such things? absurd
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
