California supreme court confirms gay-marriage ban

[DateDoc]

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- The California Supreme Court backed the state's ban on same-sex marriages in an opinion Tuesday. Existing same-sex marriages in the state, however, will be allowed to stand, according to the court. The court estimated that about 18,000 same-sex marriages were performed in California before Proposition 8 banning same-sex unions went into effect.

[Phoenix]

cool...next they can start burning the books and giving people money for informing on their neighbours

nazi state here we come


ugh

[TheStout]

Originally Posted by DateDoc

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- The California Supreme Court backed the state's ban on same-sex marriages in an opinion Tuesday. Existing same-sex marriages in the state, however, will be allowed to stand, according to the court. The court estimated that about 18,000 same-sex marriages were performed in California before Proposition 8 banning same-sex unions went into effect.

Unbelievable!!! I just dont understand how it effects the people voting against this at all.

[pornguy]

They wont give money. They just give a pat on the back until someone turns THAT person in.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

cool...next they can start burning the books and giving people money for informing on their neighbours

nazi state here we come


ugh

What are you talking about? There was an election. The people voted their will. What is the point of having ballot measures if you are just going to let the courts decide what is and is not law?

Originally Posted by TheStout

Unbelievable!!! I just dont understand how it effects the people voting against this at all.

Every election has a winner and a loser.

[The Duck]

They should just ignore the whole church completely, why do they want anything to do with an establishment that despises them.

Somebody start gay-church.

[Hawkeye]

1. The state court upheld the will of the people. That's a good thing.

2. This is a great argument for PRIVATIZING marriage. This decision should be between 2 (or more) people, not between 2 people and the government bureaucrats. Remember, when you give the government the power to tax and regulate things, sometimes it comes back to bite you in the ass.

Will liberals learn this lesson? Or will liberals continue to demand increased regulatory power for the state?

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by DateDoc

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- The California Supreme Court backed the state's ban on same-sex marriages in an opinion Tuesday. Existing same-sex marriages in the state, however, will be allowed to stand, according to the court. The court estimated that about 18,000 same-sex marriages were performed in California before Proposition 8 banning same-sex unions went into effect.

Congrats to the mind

[Porn Producer]

Fags owned - California obeys the will of the people

[TheStout]

Interesting read

http://www.equalitymatters.org/equal...c/full_reasons

I live in Canada so I am not fully up to date on this debate. I have read bits and pieces and was shocked to see it got overturned.

[rhon23]

I dont think government should have anything at all to do with who marries who. This shouldn't have even come to a vote in the first place. Did government vote on hetero marrages? It's ridiculous. If two people are in love and want to be married so be it hetero or homo. Who cares. It's their life.

[DrChango]

underfunded schools, state government is courting total insolvency, people are fleeing the state en masse, and yet this is something worth dominating public discourse. California deserves to collapse is gay marriage trumps REAL problems. "My kid is in a classroom with fifty other kids, and I got an I O U for my state tax return, but that's not important...I need to keep those damn queers from getting married, by god!" Fucking imbeciles

[born4porn]

Originally Posted by rhon23

I dont think government should have anything at all to do with who marries who. This shouldn't have even come to a vote in the first place. Did government vote on hetero marrages? It's ridiculous. If two people are in love and want to be married so be it hetero or homo. Who cares. It's their life.

well said!

[Porko]

this thread is so gay..

[TheSenator]

I think it is time to fence off California and let it burn.

This will save American tax payers a lot of money for bailing them out.

Let us vote on it.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by rhon23

I dont think government should have anything at all to do with who marries who. This shouldn't have even come to a vote in the first place. Did government vote on hetero marrages? It's ridiculous. If two people are in love and want to be married so be it hetero or homo. Who cares. It's their life.

Right on

[mvee]

Originally Posted by rhon23

I dont think government should have anything at all to do with who marries who. This shouldn't have even come to a vote in the first place. Did government vote on hetero marrages? It's ridiculous. If two people are in love and want to be married so be it hetero or homo. Who cares. It's their life.

Well, the Mormons, conservative christian groups and nuts like billionaire, Howard F. Ahmanson, who once said, "My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives.? care allot and that's who paid double digit millions to campaign for Prop8.

The 'will of the people' was bought by these groups I doubt they will stop here. Next up will be abortion rights. California brought this on themselves by being the 48 worst state in public education. Stupid people are ripe for propaganda.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

1. The state court upheld the will of the people. That's a good thing.

I agree. While I think gay people should be allowed to be married, there was an election and those opposed to it won. As long as it is determined that there is nothing illegal about the way the law was written it should stand.

2. This is a great argument for PRIVATIZING marriage. This decision should be between 2 (or more) people, not between 2 people and the government bureaucrats. Remember, when you give the government the power to tax and regulate things, sometimes it comes back to bite you in the ass.

Will liberals learn this lesson? Or will liberals continue to demand increased regulatory power for the state?

I also agree, but think you are a little bit off base here. It is the conservatives that want to regulate marriage. They are the ones who create these ballot measures and support them. They want to alter state constitutions to define marriage as being between 1 man and 1 women. Liberals want just the opposite. They either want the definition to be between 2 people or no definition at all. Conservatives are all for privatization or individual freedom until it involves something that they don't agree with then they quickly rush to control it.

[kane]

Originally Posted by rhon23

I dont think government should have anything at all to do with who marries who. This shouldn't have even come to a vote in the first place. Did government vote on hetero marrages? It's ridiculous. If two people are in love and want to be married so be it hetero or homo. Who cares. It's their life.

I agree. I love when they say that letting gay people marry will destroy the institution of marriage. the divorce rate in this country is over 50%. That is failure. The institution is already dead.

[Bladewire]

Equal rights shouldn't hedge on a ballot measure.

Now in California some fags have more rights then others, that's fucked up.

ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL ~ total bullshit

Originally Posted by baddog

What are you talking about? There was an election. The people voted their will. What is the point of having ballot measures if you are just going to let the courts decide what is and is not law?



Every election has a winner and a loser.

[AudreyG]

"The Choice" in question is only whether or not a certain group of people are in fact legally permitted to make a choice of their own (in this case to marry). As for the sanctity of the electoral system, that conservative attitude only works when you're not talking about a human rights issue, because human rights issues are always about minority rights - so a majority vote never works. If moving forward in human rights were up to the electoral system we'd still have slavery, a ban on mixed marriages and the Lord's prayer in schools.

[AudreyG]

Originally Posted by Squirtit

Equal rights shouldn't hedge on a ballot measure.

Now in California some fags have more rights then others, that's fucked up.

ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL ~ total bullshit

Interesting... what rights are those exactly?

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Squirtit

Equal rights shouldn't hedge on a ballot measure.

Now in California some fags have more rights then others, that's fucked up.

ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL ~ total bullshit

The fact that you have to resort to using a word like "fags" discounts any comments you may have.

[Bryan G]

Originally Posted by baddog

The fact that you have to resort to using a word like "fags" discounts any comments you may have.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by baddog

Every election has a winner and a loser.

didn't know civil rights were up for election!

[PSSuperstars]

And wasn't the wording on Prop 8 actually really confusing? and you had a high number of people who thought they were voting FOR gay marriage when they were really voting to ban it?

I thought I read a sample ballot... and it looked like stereo instructions.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by kane

I agree. I love when they say that letting gay people marry will destroy the institution of marriage. the divorce rate in this country is over 50%. That is failure. The institution is already dead.

isn't that also a good argument that we should be striving to protect the institution of marriage and revive it?

[Topbuxom Lea]

Originally Posted by DrChango

underfunded schools, state government is courting total insolvency, people are fleeing the state en masse, and yet this is something worth dominating public discourse. California deserves to collapse is gay marriage trumps REAL problems. "My kid is in a classroom with fifty other kids, and I got an I O U for my state tax return, but that's not important...I need to keep those damn queers from getting married, by god!" Fucking imbeciles

what he said.....

[baddog]

Originally Posted by SBR Richard

didn't know civil rights were up for election!

Show me where marriage is mentioned in the Bill of Rights please. The "more perfect union" was not talking about marriage.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

isn't that also a good argument that we should be striving to protect the institution of marriage and revive it?

Nope. The institution of marriage is pretty cut and dry. It says right in the vows you take. For better or worse, sickness and health, richer or poorer until death do us part. That is pretty clear cut. If people choose to take that oath, then choose to not honor that agreement it means one of two things, 1. the agreement is unreasonable and asking people to uphold it is unreasonable or 2. people don't hold the agreement sacred.

Either way it is an individual's prerogative if they want to take those vows seriously or not. I understand that there are many reasons for a marriage to end. A friend of mine just left her husband because he was abusive. To me that means the agreement was unreasonable. She couldn't uphold her part of the agreement due the circumstances she was living under. Could she have stayed with him? Sure. But should she be forced to live the rest of her life in misery and potential danger because of a decision she made when she was 23 years old? I don't think so.

What I am getting at is that the sanctity of marriage comes down to each individual and who they choose to enter into that agreement with. Some people make good choices, get married for the correct reasons to the right person and stay together forever. Many people do not. If the sanctity of marriage is up to each individual than I don't see how gay marriage can alter it in any way. If gay marriage were suddenly made legal nationwide do you think straight people would stop getting married? Do you think couples that are already married would suddenly just divorce? Nope. It would have no effect on it whats so ever.

Marriage is a failed institution and has been pretty much since the beginning. Even before divorce was common there were many miserable marriages and people living together that hated each other, but felt they had no way out of the situation. If two people want to enter into a marriage that is between them and nobody else. I can't see any way that the government could protect or revive the sanctity of marriage short of outlawing divorce and then we would just go back to where we were before with many miserable people coexisting because they made a bad decision and now have no way out of it.

[V_RocKs]

Originally Posted by kandah

They should just ignore the whole church completely, why do they want anything to do with an establishment that despises them.

Somebody start gay-church.

Isn't that what the Catholic Church is?

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by DateDoc

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- The California Supreme Court backed the state's ban on same-sex marriages in an opinion Tuesday. Existing same-sex marriages in the state, however, will be allowed to stand, according to the court. The court estimated that about 18,000 same-sex marriages were performed in California before Proposition 8 banning same-sex unions went into effect.

the fact is gay and lesbian attempt legalize same sex marriages is an attempt to force their views on religions that don't believe it is right. If this was truely about choice as so many people try and claim they would have accepted the civil union as an acceptable commitment and focused on strengthen it so that it was legally equivalent to a marriage in the eyes of the state.

That way a marriage would be a combination of the religious cerimony + civil union under the state

the civil union would be the only important part for gay couples who wanted to make a legally binding committment to each other.

[WhiplashDug]

All the bantering back and forth about the court ruling today is pointless. This was not about gay or straight marriage or the endorsement of either position.

This court ruling really only dealt ONLY with two things (The court ruled appropriately on both):

1. "Can the citizens of CA make this amendment to the state constitution"
YES the people, who properly got placed the initiative on the proper ballot and yes, a majority approved it. Its that simple.

2. "Are the existing marriages legal in light of the new amendment"
YES they are, as they are portected under the US constitution which protects people from retrospective punishment.

The debate on this is over. Now, the next step, go back to the initiative game, put up a new one makeing gay marraige a right of the people and take it to the vote next time around. If it passes - you will be happy that the COURTS do not have the authority to OVER TURN the vote of the people... keep in mind, the judges in power may not always be on your side.

Judge's are ONLY to enforce the rule of law... not make it. Otherwise... the people have no voice!

[brassmonkey]

Originally Posted by Porn Producer

Fags owned - California obeys the will of the people

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

the fact is gay and lesbian attempt legalize same sex marriages is an attempt to force their views on religions that don't believe it is right. If this was truely about choice as so many people try and claim they would have accepted the civil union as an acceptable commitment and focused on strengthen it so that it was legally equivalent to a marriage in the eyes of the state.

That way a marriage would be a combination of the religious cerimony + civil union under the state

the civil union would be the only important part for gay couples who wanted to make a legally binding committment to each other.

I don't see it as an attempt to force their views on on religions that believe it is wrong. I think it is about equality. I think a lot of gay people see a civil union as being a second rate marriage and that they should be allowed the same opportunity to marry as a straight person and that this marriage should be equal to that of a straight couple.

They aren't telling the church you have to accept this, they are simply saying we want the same opportunity as them.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by kane

I don't see it as an attempt to force their views on on religions that believe it is wrong. I think it is about equality. I think a lot of gay people see a civil union as being a second rate marriage and that they should be allowed the same opportunity to marry as a straight person and that this marriage should be equal to that of a straight couple.

They aren't telling the church you have to accept this, they are simply saying we want the same opportunity as them.

I wish I could enter a civil union without getting married. Would have saved me tons.

[IllTestYourGirls]

We should stop thinking we need the states permission to marry who we want. We should ban marriage licenses. And let the will of the INDIVIDUAL decide who or what they want to marry as long as it does not go against the liberty of another.

The only reason there was a marriage license was because in Massachusetts a black man wanted to marry a white woman. Then the states realized it was a good way to rob people of their money and their liberty.

[kane]

Originally Posted by baddog

I wish I could enter a civil union without getting married. Would have saved me tons.

You are not the only guy I have heard say that.

I think anyone and everyone should be able to get a civil union if the prefer. I think a couple should be allowed to define the terms of their relationship and the government shouldn't have anything to do with it.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by baddog

I wish I could enter a civil union without getting married. Would have saved me tons.

You can, it's called common law. That's outside of the current contract law which rules via admiralty/maritime law under wartime powers. The war against the people days are soon over.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by kane

You are not the only guy I have heard say that.

I think anyone and everyone should be able to get a civil union if the prefer. I think a couple should be allowed to define the terms of their relationship and the government shouldn't have anything to do with it.

Well that is the problem with liberals. They want big government and they want the big government to tell them what to do. It just so happens the government is telling them something they dont want to hear. Something that hurts no one. And the right wing nut jobs are using that against them. Simple solution, get the government out of the way. And stop having people try to control other peoples lives! Why is the government telling people who they can marry?

[baddog]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

You can, it's called common law. That's outside of the current contract law which rules via admiralty/maritime law under wartime powers. The war against the people days are soon over.

Common law is not recognized in CA.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

You can, it's called common law. That's outside of the current contract law which rules via admiralty/maritime law under wartime powers. The war against the people days are soon over.

uhm.. yeah. go to california and try to divorce your same sex partner because he is your "common law spouse" - if they don't legally recognize the marriage, it doesn't exist... anymore than you can declare yourself married to your cat.

[pr0]

Originally Posted by DrChango

underfunded schools, state government is courting total insolvency, people are fleeing the state en masse, and yet this is something worth dominating public discourse. California deserves to collapse is gay marriage trumps REAL problems. "My kid is in a classroom with fifty other kids, and I got an I O U for my state tax return, but that's not important...I need to keep those damn queers from getting married, by god!" Fucking imbeciles

are the schools underfunded

or are the schools harboring 50% of the illegal immigrant population

i do believe the schools are receiving the proper amount of funding for the students that are actually supposed to be there

and yea you're right......damn homo's are fucking everything up trying to get married

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by pr0

are the schools underfunded

or are the schools harboring 50% of the illegal immigrant population

i do believe the schools are receiving the proper amount of funding for the students that are actually supposed to be there

and yea you're right......damn homo's are fucking everything up trying to get married

Schools are OVER funded without a doubt. Why is it public schools can teach a child for less and get better results?

[rhon23]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Schools are OVER funded without a doubt. Why is it public schools can teach a child for less and get better results?

they keep laying off all the teachers. I think its somewhere around 20,000 or some ridiculous number

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by baddog

Common law is not recognized in CA.

It should be the only law's there are. The current system running under maritime/admiralty is getting out of hand. There are too many groups of people trying to tell others how they should and shouldn't live. We should have a basic set of laws which are and have been in place for hundreds of years and thats common law. You don't kill, steal, cause bodily injury etc you're all good. Just on the federal level alone there are 10,000+ laws on the books. EVERY single one of us could be arrested if someone choose to do so. It's ridiculous.

Let's look at some on a local level

More than 8 women may not live in the same house because that would constitute a brothel.
It is illegal to use a lasso to catch a fish.
Giving and receiving oral sex is prohibited by law.
Driving is not to be done while asleep.
The definition of “dumb animal” includes every living creature.
Skunks may not be carried into the state.

So we have a bunch of people sitting around voting up their pay every year or so to come up with BS like this.

[pr0]

I think schools are well funded.

I think there's a generation of kids who would just rather do drugs & fuck.

It's kind of like the 60's again only there isn't a "cause".

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by rhon23

they keep laying off all the teachers. I think its somewhere around 20,000 or some ridiculous number

If they found better ways to spend the money rather than just looking for more and more hand outs without getting results then those teachers would not be laid off. Socialism does not work. Public schooling is proof of that.

sorry, leading this thread off topic lol

[pr0]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

If they found better ways to spend the money rather than just looking for more and more hand outs without getting results then those teachers would not be laid off. Socialism does not work. Public schooling is proof of that.

sorry, leading this thread off topic lol

I think this thread is "RIGHT ON TOPIC"

I think the people who were products of "PUBLIC SCHOOLING" were the ones who passed prop 8.

What kind of ignorant hate-filled fuck would want to keep 2 people in love from getting married?

No wonder you guys get huge fires every summer. It's not god......

It's karma.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by pr0

I think this thread is "RIGHT ON TOPIC"

I think the people who were products of "PUBLIC SCHOOLING" were the ones who passed prop 8.

What kind of ignorant hate-filled fuck would want to keep 2 people in love from getting married?

No wonder you guys get huge fires every summer. It's not god......

It's karma.

And public schooling teaches you that you need "mommy and daddy government" permission to get married. So yea. I guess it is right on track.