Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Here are the relevant facts Judge Walker finds:
1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.
2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.
3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.
4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender.
5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."
6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.
7. Prop 8 proponents' "assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."
8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor than it can be changed.
9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population.
10. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union."
11. "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."
12. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.
The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."
13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."
Prop. 8 Overturned: The Facts, Not the Law, Matter - Politics - The Atlantic
Why limit all this freedom to couples? The more the merrier.
Can't you be happy for us?
Homosexuality and incest are two different things Willow. Think about it.
Oh who didn't see this coming?
Dude the will of the people can and has been ruled unconstitutional for a while.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't most people support a ban on flag-burning when it was ruled unconstitutional?
I was against that too.... if someone wants to burn a flag, I say let them! (just wish they would wrap themselves in it 1st though) It called freedom of speech!
I dont recall the right for two gays to get married
Then you need to go read Loving v Virginia which made it very clear that marriage is a fundamental right... which means any intrusion on that right needs to meet more of a standard than 'ewww... i don't like gays'.
I told you from the get go I'm not against gay marriage. I am against fake elections. Oh the waste of time and treasure. Think of all the homes for the homeless you could have built with all that wasted money.
apology accepted.
i don't know how old your mom is... and i don't know why it wouldn't bother her. but my gay friends here very much want the right to marry.
and ultimately, isn't that what it's about? having the right to choose to live together or marry LIKE EVERYONE ELSE?
I think they are entitled to it under the constitution. I'm very proud of the court for it's decision. After embarrassing and disgusting decisions like Citizen's United, it reminds me of why I went to law school.
Now hopefully the rightwingnuts on the USSC won't mess with it.
No doubt republicans would love to vote on those.If everybody still wanted lynchings that wouldn't make it right. Sometimes the judges are better than mob rule.
apology accepted.
i don't know how old your mom is... and i don't know why it wouldn't bother her. but my gay friends here very much want the right to marry.
and ultimately, isn't that what it's about? having the right to choose to live together or marry LIKE EVERYONE ELSE?
I think they are entitled to it under the constitution. I'm very proud of the court for it's decision. After embarrassing and disgusting decisions like Citizen's United, it reminds me of why I went to law school.
Now hopefully the rightwingnuts on the USSC won't mess with it.
Cool.....
She is 60.... that probably explains alot.
We just have to agree to disagree, but I am mainly pissed that a judge overturns the will of the people. Why even bother voting on an issue, if it is going to be overturned because a judge doesnt like it. The vote should never happened in the 1st place if that is so.
Just one mans opinion
I told you from the get go I'm not against gay marriage. I am against fake elections. Oh the waste of time and treasure. Think of all the homes for the homeless you could have built with all that wasted money.
California is pretty good at passing things by way of initiative that are clearly unconstitutional. We once passed a law that allowed homeowners to refuse to sell to a potential buyer because of race. That one lasted about as long as Prop. 8 did.
WTG, California SUPREMES!!!!!
I heard the judge was a pole-smoker. If he had any moral compass he would of recused himself.
apology accepted.
i don't know how old your mom is... and i don't know why it wouldn't bother her. but my gay friends here very much want the right to marry.
and ultimately, isn't that what it's about? having the right to choose to live together or marry LIKE EVERYONE ELSE?
I think they are entitled to it under the constitution. I'm very proud of the court for it's decision. After embarrassing and disgusting decisions like Citizen's United, it reminds me of why I went to law school.
Now hopefully the rightwingnuts on the USSC won't mess with it.
Cool.....
She is 60.... that probably explains alot.
We just have to agree to disagree, but I am mainly pissed that a judge overturns the will of the people. Why even bother voting on an issue, if it is going to be overturned because a judge doesnt like it. The vote should never happened in the 1st place if that is so.
Just one mans opinion
Here are the relevant facts Judge Walker finds:
1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.
Only in the case of statutory marriages.
2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.
I thought you said this list was of relevant points.
3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.
Change for the sake of change is as stupid a rationale to change as there is.
4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender.
See #2.
5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."
See #2.
6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.
As well as anecdotal. How do we verify bona fide "gayness" should a same-sex couple who are straight decide to get married?
7. Prop 8 proponents' "assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."
Ibid.
8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor than it can be changed.
Ibid.
9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population.
See #2.
10. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union."
So are many poligamists...So what?
11. "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."
See #2.
12. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.
The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."
So, this is all about their social perceptions, status and feelings, rather than any supposed "rights"...Glad we could finally cut to the chase and clear that one up.
13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."
See #2.
Prop. 8 Overturned: The Facts, Not the Law, Matter - Politics - The Atlantic
why?
Because it compares being a homosexual to enslavement. That's a long damn walk.
Then you had better tell all the liberal idiot gays to stop comparing it to the civil rights movement of the 60's... The gays do it all the time.
"The will of the people" isn't worth SQUAT if it results in a violation of constitutional provisions.
"Will of the people" - my patootie! Under that theory, the good citziens of Any State, USA, could, conceivably, reinstate slavery and hey - it's the "will of the people."
Because it compares being a homosexual to enslavement. That's a long damn walk.
Then you had better tell all the liberal idiot gays to stop comparing it to the civil rights movement of the 60's... The gays do it all the time.
Yet another example: \/\/\/
"The will of the people" isn't worth SQUAT if it results in a violation of constitutional provisions.
"Will of the people" - my patootie! Under that theory, the good citziens of Any State, USA, could, conceivably, reinstate slavery and hey - it's the "will of the people."
No comparison
I don't think George was comparing gay marriage to slavery, I believe he was simply illustrating that people are idiots and sometimes vote for laws which are fundamentally unconstitutional and in THAT regard the two are related.
I gotta say. If I were black, that argument would insult me no end.
why?
Because it compares being a homosexual to enslavement. That's a long damn walk.
