Topic: California supreme court passes gay marriage...

[94MtnYote]

 Doesn't bother me, I'm not gonna tell people how to live their lives.
 whats your  ?

[abnormaltoy]

I think you need to reread whatever article you were reading. The Cali justices didn't "pass" anything...they struck down, as unconstitutional, a law banning gay marriage.

[Toymin8r]

Actually, what happened was the California Supreme Court overturned a voter approved ban on gay marriage.  I am against any court overturing anything that was approved by the voters.  That is just another example of the court system trying to make laws and thats not their job.   Now what will happen is that the same voters will appprove a bill to change the Californai State Constitution so the courts cannot do what they did today.

 As far as gay marriage goes,  If two same sex people want to be together I think they should have all the legal rights and responsibilities as a married hetero couple, just don't call it a marriage. Make up a new name for it and integrate it into our laws.  By allowing same sex couples to call it a marriage they are attempting to re-define what the term means.  The only analogy that comes to mind right now is that you wouldn't call your Toyota Pickup a car because its not a car, its a truck.  Calling it a car would be re-defining what the term car means.  

The whole issue is just another example of a very small group of society trying to force the majority to comply with them instead of that group adapting to society.  They have coined this term "politically correct"

[abnormaltoy]

Actually, what happened was the California Supreme Court overturned a voter approved ban on gay marriage.  I am against any court overturing anything that was approved by the voters.  That is just another example of the court system trying to make laws and thats not their job.

So, if the citizens of your state passed a law that no citizens could own guns...you wouldn't want a court to overturn that?

INHO, the court did exactly what it is supposed to do. Someone brought suit, the justices read the law and found conflict with the constitution of California and nullified the law. The legislature...passed a poorly thought out and poorly written law. There are two choices...rewrite the law to meet the deficiencies that the court found or, and this is the best choice, amend the constitution.

[jimbo74]

As far as gay marriage goes,  If two same sex people want to be together I think they should have all the legal rights and responsibilities as a married hetero couple, just don't call it a marriage. Make up a new name for it and integrate it into our laws.  By allowing same sex couples to call it a marriage they are attempting to re-define what the term means.

[Toymin8r]

So, if the citizens of your state passed a law that no citizens could own guns...you wouldn't want a court to overturn that?

They couldn't because it is protected by the US Constitution but I see your point.  The only option is to change their state constitution because the California Supreme court is nearly all liberal judges and they would shoot it down no matter how good it was written.

[abnormaltoy]

The problem with laws is...unless you cover every jot and tittle...someone, somewhere will take umbrage and at least try to overturn the law.

[CTENG in KS]

They couldn't because it is protected by the US Constitution but I see your point.  The only option is to change their state constitution because the California Supreme court is nearly all liberal judges and they would shoot it down no matter how good it was written.

So didn't you answer yourself there...if the ban was Unconstitutional per the state constitution, then it is the JOB of the court to rule that the law cannot stand.  That is the "checks and balances" function of the court.  It is what they are there for.

All state constitutions as well as the federal constitution provide that all people are afforded equal protection under the law.  This means in its simplest terms that you can't pass a law that restricting the rights of certain people whether by race, creed, religion, sexual preference, etc.

This really isn't even a close one.  You have the basic rights to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS.  This ban clearly violates both their rights to liberty and pursuing their own happiness.

[Lady Di]

As far as gay marriage goes,  If two same sex people want to be together I think they should have all the legal rights and responsibilities as a married hetero couple, just don't call it a marriage. Make up a new name for it and integrate it into our laws.  By allowing same sex couples to call it a marriage they are attempting to re-define what the term means.  The only analogy that comes to mind right now is that you wouldn't call your Toyota Pickup a car because its not a car, its a truck.  Calling it a car would be re-defining what the term car means.  

They do have a name for it already. A civil union.
What ticks me off about this is it only applies to gay partners.
I never wanted to get married. I had no need for marriage, I wasn't going to have kids, so I saw no need for marriage except... for the 'benefits of marriage' which is the same reason they want it.
I would have been much happier with a 'civil union' but this is not an option for straight couples then. and why not?

[abnormaltoy]

They do have a name for it already. A civil union.
What ticks me off about this is it only applies to gay partners.
I never wanted to get married. I had no need for marriage, I wasn't going to have kids, so I saw no need for marriage except... for the 'benefits of marriage' which is the same reason they want it.
I would have been much happier with a 'civil union' but this is not an option for straight couples then. and why not?

Good point!

[CTENG in KS]

MWM, if you wanted to fight that battle I bet you would win pretty easily, but since marriage laws/tax breaks already exist, likely no one has figured it worth the money for the lawyers to bother.

[Lady Di]

I wouldn't even know how to start fighting it but even is even..if gays can have a civil union then so can straights.
How do you even start to bring that up. That pisses me off to no end

[Lady Di]

I ASS u ME that they will say it is because as a straight couple you can get married.

[Tool Pimp]

  That means I can marry my hand!!!    

[Lady Di]

I had nightmares for a year about being trapped after getting married.

[abnormaltoy]

That means I can marry my hand!!!    

Wouldn't that be a form of incest?

[Tool Pimp]

Wouldn't that be a form of incest?

 

[Toymin8r]

All state constitutions as well as the federal constitution provide that all people are afforded equal protection under the law.  This means in its simplest terms that you can't pass a law that restricting the rights of certain people whether by race, creed, religion, sexual preference, etc.

This really isn't even a close one.  You have the basic rights to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS.  This ban clearly violates both their rights to liberty and pursuing their own happiness.

First, marriage is not a right.  You have to obtain a license to do it.   Not everybody has the right to be married.  If it was a right then it would be able to go down to the local governemnt office and say, "ok I want to get married, assign me a wife".  

Second, the law does not restrict the rights of anybody, it simply defines what a "marriage" is and is not.  

Third, if homosexuals are successful in re-defining the term marriage then it would violate my rights to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS because I would no longer be happy.

As I said before I have no problem with homosexual couples forming a legally binding union between each other, just call it something else.  

[abnormaltoy]

First, marriage is not a right.  You have to obtain a license to do it.   Not everybody has the right to be married.  If it was a right then it would be able to go down to the local governemnt office and say, "ok I want to get married, assign me a wife".  

Second, the law does not restrict the rights of anybody, it simply defines what a "marriage" is and is not.  

Third, if homosexuals are successful in re-defining the term marriage then it would violate my rights to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS because I would no longer be happy.

As I said before I have no problem with homosexual couples forming a legally binding union between each other, just call it something else.  

Very nice 

But, your happiness doesn't matter you selfish man you! Now go hang some drapes!

[Toymin8r]

   

[CTENG in KS]

First, marriage is not a right.  You have to obtain a license to do it.   Not everybody has the right to be married.  If it was a right then it would be able to go down to the local governemnt office and say, "ok I want to get married, assign me a wife". 

Second, the law does not restrict the rights of anybody, it simply defines what a "marriage" is and is not. 

Third, if homosexuals are successful in re-defining the term marriage then it would violate my rights to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS because I would no longer be happy.

As I said before I have no problem with homosexual couples forming a legally binding union between each other, just call it something else. 

You are absolutely correct that marriage itself is not a right.  It is, however, an expression of you right to liberty and freedom.  Under California law there are also legal and tax benefits as a condition of the marriage itself.  It is the denial of these benefits under the law to gay and lesbian couples that is unconstitutional.
While the argument can be made that they could just give them the benefits under the title "civil union", as it stands currently, those same benefits do not fully come with a civil union, only a marriage.  The law passed by voter referendum made no changes to the definition of civil union, it only denied the benefits of "marriage."  Therefore the ruling of the court only encompassed very narrowly, was the law, as written, constitutional?  The answer is clearly NO.

Per your second point, the changes the definition of marriage in no way reasonably affect your right to life or liberty.
Understand the operative word in the third part of the Declaration is the PURSUIT of happiness.  You do not have the right to BE happy, you have the right to pursue that which will make you happy barring that your pursuit would infringe on the rights of others.  Therefore, you have the right, should your happiness be bound by the definition of marriage, to get lawyers and file suit in court to have this overturned.  You will therefore be pursuing the definition of marriage that will result in your happiness.  Realize of course, that many a pursuit of happiness ends unfulfilled.

[jrock]

I don't know why this is such a big deal. If two ppl want a marrage, let them.

[Toymin8r]

What it really boils down to is that every legal resident of California gets to pay the bill for the courts and lawmakers to battle back and fourth for something that 3% of the population wants.

[jrock]

What it really boils down to is that every legal resident of California gets to pay the bill for the courts and lawmakers to battle back and fourth for something that 3% of the population wants.

Or really cares about.

[WHITE_TRASH]

Meh, whatever it doesn't surprise me to see that in cali. 

[Rocksurfer]

According to the news of which I have little faith in, the reason they overturned the ban was due to the California constitution prohibits such a ban. I smell an amendment to the constitution.


Personally I don't care what they (gays) so in their lives but legal marriage brings many advantages with it like taxes, heath care and the like. As far as I know marriage is between a man and a woman. I'd have no problem if there were allowed Civil Union but marrage no I'm sorry that is reserved for a man and a woman. They made their choices and in doing such cannot be married but a Civil Union which is basically the same thing could be in the cards for them.

[Rocksurfer]

Plus they already get married in their own way the same way a man and a woman does, it's just not recognized by the state as a legal binding contract and does not carry the same advantages. FYI what they are really trying to do is get all the things that come with a legal recognized marrage like health insurance coverage, tax breaks, credit scores and all the things that go with being married and that is what this all boils down to. If allowed it will cost us all a butt-load of money to now cover all of these now legally married people.

[jrock]

Plus they already get married in their own way the same way a man and a woman does, it's just not recognized by the state as a legal binding contract and does not carry the same advantages. FYI what they are really trying to do is get all the things that come with a legal recognized marriage like health insurance coverage, tax breaks, credit scores and all the things that go with being married and that is what this all boils down to. If allowed it will cost us all a butt-load of money to now cover all of these now legally married people.

So preventing "gay" marriage is all about saving "straight" ppl $$?

Phew, for a second there I thought Church was encroaching on State. 

[WHITE_TRASH]

Now that they have the gov't out of the way on that can I propose a trade?  They can get married but at the cost of them paying for AIDS research. 

[Rocksurfer]

But if they are allowed marriage then treating their HIV would be covered under their insurance.