California Supreme Court OK's Gay Marriage (spring break, home, taxes)

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Fleet

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.

But doesn't it still go against the "will of the people"?

Also when "activist" judges threw out SF's VOTER APPROVED handgun ban did you agree with that or not? That will of the people didn't want handguns in SF but judges over turned it. So what are your thoughts on that action?

[notmeofficer]

We have got to get rid of activist judges and the quirky ca supremes....

strict constitutional applications only...

marriage is between a man and a woman... you want a civil union.. have at it... but change the fabric of our society and constitution for another person's weirdness... no thanks

[happ]

Originally Posted by sav858

But doesn't it still go against the "will of the people"?

One can't talk sense to so-called Americans who do not even know what kind of system of government we have. They are rather dim-witted like Bush.

[TheDragonslayer]

It is only wrong because you see it as wrong and believe it is wrong, but that does not make your opinion mine, nor should I have to live by your standards based on your bible. Your bible is not my belief nor that of many others. To make people believe in what you believe is no different than what has been going on in the middle east for centuries. Your beliefs are not inclusive or american. America was settled by pioneers escaping religious persecution and it became a country based on religious freedom and the pursuit of happiness. All you want is to spread your kind of despair. If your marriages are so fragile that gay marriage would threaten them, why did you even bother to get married?

Now, tell me this; how many of you would not mind if a gay man married a gay woman for the same privileges that you appreciate in your straight religious sanctioned marriages? I also notice that most of you against gay marriage are really against a man being with a man and do not mention lesbians. How typical, they are probable straight men with a fantasy of seeing two women together. There is such a strong dichotomy in this discrimination against gay people with gay men getting a stronger hit.

[gizmo980]

YAHOO!!!!!! I'm so happy to hear the news, and hopefully it will actually stick this time - anyone going to the party on Castro tonight? I would but I'm working late. Anyway, YAHOO again!

[Riverdog]

I'm not from California, but I have to jump in here because I think this is a great thing that has happened. My wife and I went all the way to Canada to get married, because they seem to be mostly done with this debate.

We are not trying to push anything down anyone's throats. The bible argument is irrelevant. We live in a country that has no official religion. If you go to your local church and get married, it doesn't mean anything until you get your marriage license from the government. The government is NOT a religious institution. Christians can get married by the government, so can Jews, Buddhists, atheists, etc. The Bible does not extend the rite of marriage to these other groups, but the government does. Why should gay and lesbian people be any different?

The facts are, this is not a lifestyle choice. Do you think anyone rational would CHOOSE to be harassed and to have their rights curtailed? Believe me, I tried to become sexually interested in men. . .my life would have been much simpler. I wouldn't have had to break the news to my parents and see how devastated they were. I wouldn't have to worry that my co-workers would find out. My attempt worked about as well as if a hetero person tried to become interested in the same sex. Could you make that "lifestyle choice?" Well, neither can I.

My wife and I would like to move somewhere rural, but we know it might be dangerous. When we do move, we will probably have to pay for private health insurance for her (she works from home). If she were a man, she would automatically be covered under my policy.

Do you see what a difference this makes, even in the little things of day to day life? We have to consider everything so carefully where we can live, does it make financial sense to stay here where she is covered, how can we work this all out? And if we do have to pay for private health insurance, why is it that I, the person who would pay for most of it, would then not be able to visit her in the hospital?

Whether you like it or not, whether your religion permits it or not, my family already exists. All we want is what every American has the right to - liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by adysmom

Marriage is between and "man" and a "woman" as it is stated in the bible, I do not hate gys just the acts they do....

Which is precisely why we have this pesky thing called "separation of church and state" - just because YOUR Bible supposedly says it's wrong (which I could argue, but quite frankly I'm sick of that old debate), doesn't mean our entire govt should cater to your religious beliefs. I am a Reform Jew, and not only is our faith "OK" with it, but my Temple even has a lesbian Rabbi... so why are YOUR beliefs more important than mine, and why do you feel they have the power to deny anyone's rights? Lots of people do things I don't like, but I don't have the audacity to suggest they are less worthy (of rights & respect) than myself. As long as you're not physically hurting anyone, who really cares?

It's not like marriage is such a sacred thing anymore, with a 60% divorce rate, 2-week courtships, abusive spouses, deadbeat dads, and whatnot. Besides, wasn't marriage originally created as a business arrangement, and weren't the women considered property of their husbands? Luckily times have changed since then, and are continuing to progress with society.

[tangodoodles]

Originally Posted by notmeofficer

We have got to get rid of activist judges and the quirky ca supremes....

strict constitutional applications only...

marriage is between a man and a woman... you want a civil union.. have at it... but change the fabric of our society and constitution for another person's weirdness... no thanks

Activist judges? Ha! Of the seven judges on the California Supreme Court, six of them were appointed by Republican governors. Besides, the judgeship is supposed to be bipartisan. Banning gay marriage is not consitutional, that's the point. It's just a case of majority persecuting minority. That's why the initial vote against gay marriage was overturned. We, as citizens, are allowed to vote or not vote for constitutional amendments but if the constitutional amendment itself is unconstitutional the supreme court has the power to overturn that law. If you don't understand the checks and balances of the government then why do you even bother posting?

[Nedrick]

Originally Posted by 2norcalgirls

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.

Your thinking scares the crap out of me. If this country runs the way you think (which it is well on its way) we are going to be standing in line for toliet paper and living in grey monotonous apartment buildings. Did we not pay attention in school on how and why our government was created or how it works? Or the sturggle for everybody to get a vote - lack of education or educated? You yourself are basically advocating what you're fighting against - segregating the uneducated and the normal "masses" from having a voice.

It doesn't matter what the people say, we can trust the educated moral judges to run the country. Judges are nothing but glorified ambulance chasers (lawyers) who DO base their decisions on "reactionary" thoughts and impulses and what only benefits them in the long run.

I'm one of the "people who lack education" who will not put his trust in appointed officials.

Thank you educated free thinker, see you in the line for toliet paper.

[tangodoodles]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

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.


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.

You're right, that was a poor choice of words. I should have said progressive. And I agree completely, my parents have been Republicans for a long time but they're Goldwater conservatives and they got so fed up of the religious right hijacking the party that they are now registered as Democrats.