**See This Page With Full Graphics, Pictures and Color!** CLICK HERE --> : Cali Supreme Court: Hey fags, you're okay with us!
The California Supreme Court just legalized gay marriage.
Huge-ass opinion here. (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF)
This should start some fireworks, in an election year no less. But I'm pro-gay marriage anyway, so there's no controversy on this from me.
LiddyRules
05-15-2008, 01:52 PM
Good for them.
Seriously, the controversy is such bullshit.
MrBogey
05-15-2008, 02:05 PM
Now to see who is ideologically consistent and who is a hack.
Will California deny marriage licenses over incest?
FMDoug
05-15-2008, 02:15 PM
First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples. . . . Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children . . . . Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest.
SatansCheerledr
05-15-2008, 08:10 PM
First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples. . . . Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children . . . . Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest.
Fag
THE FEZ MAN
05-15-2008, 09:53 PM
good, now they can enjoy divorce
FMDoug
05-15-2008, 10:04 PM
Fag
??
I just copy-paste the decision and i'm a faggot? Now I actually understand point number 3.
Ok, on a personal level and even a policy level, I've go nothing against gays and lesbos marrying. It doesn't affect me in any way- I don't give a fuck.
But almost EXACTLY 4 years ago (May 17th, 2004), the Massachusetts Supreme Court did the exact same thing that California did today, and John Kerry got hit with the "supports gay marriage" label. That alone cost him a SHITLOAD of votes in the South and the Midwest, where he got his ass ***ed by Bush.
Obama supports gay marriage could conceivably even hurt Obama's black support, since most blacks tend to be pretty socially conservative when it comes to homos.
This is fucking brilliant. The Demmies (and their peripheral supporters, like the liberal Supreme Courts of states like Mass. and Cali.) are just shooting themselves in the ass right now. I'm not ready to say that McCain will win hands-down, but the indicators are rising pretty fast.
Let 'em get married. Doesn't really affect most of us one way or the other. The only gray area is as far as insurance benefits go (more specifically in coverage for certain diseases that might be more common among same-sex couples). But if they and other same-sex couples are willing to pay a higher insurance premium based on their risk, even that becomes a non-issue.
BloodyDiaper
05-16-2008, 10:58 AM
This is fucking brilliant. The Demmies (and their peripheral supporters, like the liberal Supreme Courts of states like Mass. and Cali.) are just shooting themselves in the ass right now. I'm not ready to say that McCain will win hands-down, but the indicators are rising pretty fast.
The only problem is that a voter who is against gay marriage can't really count on McCain because he's waffled on it too much. For example:
MATTHEWS: Should there be — should gay marriage be allowed?
MCCAIN: I think that gay marriage should be allowed, if there’s a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that. I don’t have any problem with that, but I do believe in preserving the sanctity of a union between man and woman.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15330717/page/3/
I don't think it will be as big of an issue as it was in 2004 in terms of influencing the election, BUT McCain could use this to hammer home the issue of potential Supreme Court positions. The next president, whomever it's going to be, will probably fill a couple seats on the Court, and McCain has already used that fact to slam Obama's inexperience and liberal ideology as reasons why he shouldn't be the one to nominate them.
If he ties in this ruling with the overall theme of 'activist judges', he might have a strong point on this. At the least, it could be a motivating factor to remind some of the conservative base who isn't too fond of him that he'd be a better choice to fill the Court than Obama.
The anti gay marriage thing is retarded. From a legal standpoint, there is nothing sacred about marriage. It's just a legally binding document.
Obviously there is no reason not to allow a gay couple to agree to a similar document with the exact same terms. Don't want to call it marriage? Fine, fuck everyone. Let's stop (legally) calling it marriage for strait couples too.
If a couple of fruits want to say they're married, let them say it. If some fundamentalist cunts want to think only strait couples are "actually" married, let them think it.
This shit should have nothing to do with our legal system.
What I fucking hate is the fundie assholes who start that shit about "oh, I guess this means that you can marry your dog or your sister now, huh?"
This ain't a slippery slope issue motherfuckers. It's about FINALLY giving a class of Americans the sort of civil rights the rest of us have enjoyed for 200+ years.
Ted the Poster
05-16-2008, 01:38 PM
This shit should have nothing to do with our legal system.
No shit. But neither should abortion. Everybody's for freedom until it's about something that offends them.
The anti gay marriage thing is retarded. From a legal standpoint, there is nothing sacred about marriage. It's just a legally binding document.
Obviously there is no reason not to allow a gay couple to agree to a similar document with the exact same terms. Don't want to call it marriage? Fine, fuck everyone. Let's stop (legally) calling it marriage for strait couples too.
If a couple of fruits want to say they're married, let them say it. If some fundamentalist cunts want to think only strait couples are "actually" married, let them think it.
This shit should have nothing to do with our legal system.
The problem is that marriage is the place that blurs the line between church and state the most in people's day-to-day lives.
A marriage is a legally binding partnership. And that's good and it makes sense, since the state has as reasonable an interest in promoting good family life as much as it does in any other social issue. A good stable family life is an excellent cornerstone for having more productive members of society.
On the other hand, a marriage is also a religious matter. Most people get married in a church, even if they're "legally" married when the marriage certificate is signed at the courthouse, for most people the anniversary is when they're married in the church/synagogue/whatever (of course, in most places the court allows a back- or forward-dating to the church marriage date).
Civil unions were on the table in '04. If GLAAD and the other homo lobbying groups had pushed hard for it, they could have gotten federally guaranteed civil unions, just like they have in Europe. It would have given atheists and non-religious types (not just gays) a way of partnering up without any of that "take her name or not" nonsense.
GLAAD and the other homo lobbying groups didn't push. The best explanation I can come up with is that they FUCKED OVER THEIR OWN CONSTITUENCY to take the long ball chance of helping Kerry get elected on that "issue" and then getting the whole marriage she-bang after he got elected. The problems with that were:
1.) Kerry had to get elected.
2.) Kerry probably wasn't going to go for gay marriage anyway.
That's the DNC for you. Fucked over one of their own constituency groups in the name of pushing their group agenda.
Civil unions were on the table in '04. If GLAAD and the other homo lobbying groups had pushed hard for it, they could have gotten federally guaranteed civil unions, just like they have in Europe. It would have given atheists and non-religious types (not just gays) a way of partnering up without any of that "take her name or not" nonsense.
GLAAD and the other homo lobbying groups didn't push. The best explanation I can come up with is that they FUCKED OVER THEIR OWN CONSTITUENCY to take the long ball chance of helping Kerry get elected on that "issue" and then getting the whole marriage she-bang after he got elected. The problems with that were:
1.) Kerry had to get elected.
2.) Kerry probably wasn't going to go for gay marriage anyway.
That's the DNC for you. Fucked over one of their own constituency groups in the name of pushing their group agenda.
Yep, basically. They set the movement back at LEAST a decade, possibly longer. They could have had civil unions - there was just enough public support for it to be viable - but they pushed for full-on marriage rights, and it freaked middle America right the fuck out.
And in a way I can't totally blame the pro-marriage folks for pushing for marriage rather than civil unions, because IMO it is a civil right which they should have and it's a joke they don't receive it already. But with such a delicate matter, you have to be willing to compromise for now in order to reap the full benefits later.
So basically, the pro-marriage crowd should have "taken an L", of sorts, and just worked for civil unions. Let America handle that for a few years, and then quietly bring up the marriage issue again and get the support you need.
Instead we got hundreds (or thousands) of queers getting married across the nation in violation of state constitutions, and that pissed off middle America and freaked them out.
SatansCheerledr
05-16-2008, 06:24 PM
??
I just copy-paste the decision and i'm a faggot? Now I actually understand point number 3.
I didn't even read the whole thing, I was just being my adorable self. (smiley-wavy pea)
Yep, basically. They set the movement back at LEAST a decade, possibly longer. They could have had civil unions - there was just enough public support for it to be viable - but they pushed for full-on marriage rights, and it freaked middle America right the fuck out.
And in a way I can't totally blame the pro-marriage folks for pushing for marriage rather than civil unions, because IMO it is a civil right which they should have and it's a joke they don't receive it already. But with such a delicate matter, you have to be willing to compromise for now in order to reap the full benefits later.
So basically, the pro-marriage crowd should have "taken an L", of sorts, and just worked for civil unions. Let America handle that for a few years, and then quietly bring up the marriage issue again and get the support you need.
Instead we got hundreds (or thousands) of queers getting married across the nation in violation of state constitutions, and that pissed off middle America and freaked them out.
It's only an "L" if you think of it as one.
In 2004, gays didn't have the right to marry. If they'd taken civil unions, they'd have gotten more than they had the day before. That's a "W" in any reasonable person's book.
That's why I went with the "long ball" terminology. Yes, a grand slam home run is great. But a double with two RBIs is pretty friggin' good, too.
Instead, the homo lobby got struck out, ending the inning and stranding all 3 base runners. That's a fail in anyone's book.
Biff Hardslab
05-16-2008, 06:52 PM
Lee Mels: Dude, we can be in Cali tomorrow for only $309.00 each.
Flea: Finally.
M4NxplYCPWQ
weakside
05-16-2008, 11:43 PM
Good. It's crazy our country is even debating this issue. Treating anyone as a second-class citizen based on age, gender, or sexual orientation is garbage.
The problem is that marriage is the place that blurs the line between church and state the most in people's day-to-day lives.
A marriage is a legally binding partnership. And that's good and it makes sense, since the state has as reasonable an interest in promoting good family life as much as it does in any other social issue. A good stable family life is an excellent cornerstone for having more productive members of society.
On the other hand, a marriage is also a religious matter. Most people get married in a church, even if they're "legally" married when the marriage certificate is signed at the courthouse, for most people the anniversary is when they're married in the church/synagogue/whatever (of course, in most places the court allows a back- or forward-dating to the church marriage date).
Right, but the religious portion of mariage has nothing to do with the legal system. If the term mariage is the sticking point, why even have it in the law? It's all bullshit and semantics. We're a fucking embarrassment.
Right, but the religious portion of mariage has nothing to do with the legal system. If the term mariage is the sticking point, why even have it in the law? It's all bullshit and semantics. We're a fucking embarrassment.
Because the term "marriage" started off as a religious term, being the religious joining of a couple.
Dude, bullshit and semantics matter to people. You can think it shouldn't matter or should matter, but it does.
As a matter of purely practical politics, the homo lobby should have taken the civil union compromise back in '04. With that, by '10 or '15, they'd have nation-wide gay marriage be legal.
It's the mistake both radical liberals (well, every liberal I've ever met, actually) and radical conservatives: you think the political system can be switched in an instant, and you should get everything you want in an instant. Politics don't work that way. Radical changes, either conservative or liberal, just end up being erased when the political pendulum swings the other way. The effective way of changing things is through small, comfortable, incremental changes. Otherwise all of your conservative or liberal gains will be erased with the next election.
Good. It's crazy our country is even debating this issue. Treating anyone as a second-class citizen based on age, gender, or sexual orientation is garbage.
Yeah, like there's going to come a time when we don't have things to debate and bitch about...
burky79
05-17-2008, 12:00 PM
This ain't a slippery slope issue motherfuckers. It's about FINALLY giving a class of Americans the sort of civil rights the rest of us have enjoyed for 200+ years.
Next thing ya know women will vote and blacks will use my waterfountain...
oh wait.:action-sm
sorry, you set it up perfectly, thx!
Because the term "marriage" started off as a religious term, being the religious joining of a couple.
Dude, bullshit and semantics matter to people. You can think it shouldn't matter or should matter, but it does.
As a matter of purely practical politics, the homo lobby should have taken the civil union compromise back in '04. With that, by '10 or '15, they'd have nation-wide gay marriage be legal.
It's the mistake both radical liberals (well, every liberal I've ever met, actually) and radical conservatives: you think the political system can be switched in an instant, and you should get everything you want in an instant. Politics don't work that way. Radical changes, either conservative or liberal, just end up being erased when the political pendulum swings the other way. The effective way of changing things is through small, comfortable, incremental changes. Otherwise all of your conservative or liberal gains will be erased with the next election.
Too bad it's the radicals who shout the loudest and set the agenda.
THE FEZ MAN
05-17-2008, 08:56 PM
Good. It's crazy our country is even debating this issue. Treating anyone as a second-class citizen based on age, gender, or sexual orientation is garbage.
yep. its horse shit. religious zealots make my fucking blood boil... stay the fuck out of my bedroom and i will stop calling you all fools that believe in fairy tails
Too bad it's the radicals who shout the loudest and set the agenda.
... and are just as often counter-productive for the "cause" they claim to be fighting for.
People think that, because they have the franchise, they are as qualified to discuss politics as any politician or political mover-and-shaker. The truth is, most POLITICIANS aren't qualified to discuss politics, IMO. Just because you have a crescent wrench doesn't mean you're qualified to discuss how to set up the plumbing for a 100 story building.
I'm almost tempted to advocated Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" (the book, not the shitty-ass-despite-a-nice-boob-shot movie) solution on that score.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.