Ca Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[maineman]

The people of California were just vetoed. They don't want gay marriage and a single judge has thrown out their collective decision.

that's why we don't allow issues regarding the rights of citizens to be decided by mob rule.

 

[Valerie]

Will the Mosque be forced to preform the marriage by the state? I wonder...

No, Lumpy...The State can not force the Mosque or Temple or Church to preform any Marriage.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That will change. That's what this law is about. It's not about giving gays rights. They already have rights. They are not an oppressed population.

What will change? The first amendment to the US Constitution?

It is not at all what marriage equality is all about and it never was.

 

[Seawytch]

Not really funny that 'Boedicka' and supporters equates segragationists to those that oppose gay marriage.
After the sacrifice of the lives and blood of Blacks striving for equality for multiple-decades in our country, if I was Black, I'd be pissed over someone comparing homophobes to segragationists; because after all, in struggles for equality, there IS NO HISTORICAL CLOSE COMPARISON between the Black struggle and the gay struggle.

Actually, I've talked to a number of black people about this. Only anecdotal, but yes, it makes them extremely angry to hear this comparison. I wonder if the high percentage black support in Prop 8 is to some extent backlash over this comparison being made. I think supporters of gay marriage (of which I am one) would do well to stay away from this comparison.

Nobody is comparing race to sexual orientation. What IS comparable is the discrimination.

 

[Valerie]

No, Lumpy...The State can not force the Mosque or Temple or Church to preform any Marriage.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That will change. That's what this law is about. It's not about giving gays rights. They already have rights. They are not an oppressed population.

What will change? The first amendment to the US Constitution?

It is not at all what marriage equality is all about and it never was.

>

DEFINITIONS

It is important to note at the outset the distinction in the types of marriages that exist in the United States and throughout the world, namely civil marriage and religious marriage. In addition, there are significant legal distinctions among civil marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership, although these terms are often incorrectly used interchangeably.

Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage

Civil marriage is a legal status established through a license issued by a state government. Such status grants legal rights to, and imposes legal obligations on, the 2 married partners.

Depending on the faith, religious marriage is considered to be a liturgical rite, a sacrament, or a solemnization of the uniting of 2 persons and is recognized by the hierarchy and adherents of that religious group. The hierarchy, clergy, and in some cases members of religious organizations, establish their own criteria and rules for who may marry within their assemblies. They are not bound by statutory definitions of marriage. Civil government entities in the United States have no authority over a religious organization's autonomy.

In the United States, couples may choose to marry in a civil ceremony, a religious ceremony, or both. In the United States, state governments grant priests, rabbis, clerics, ministers, and other clergy presiding over a religious marriage the authority of the state to endorse the marriage license and establish a civil marriage. Certain public officials in the United States, such as judges, justices of the peace, and others, also have the authority to establish civil marriage.

By contrast, in many European countries and elsewhere in the world, religious officials have no authority to establish civil marriages. If couples in these countries wish to participate in the marriage ceremony of a faith tradition, religious ceremonies are often held once a civil ceremony has taken place. However, a marriage is considered legal only by means of issuance and endorsement of a marriage license by civil authorities.

Because clergy in the United States are vested with the authority of the government for purposes of civil marriage, many people are not aware of the distinction between civil and religious marriage and assume that the 2 are inextricably linked. However, the following analysis presumes this distinction. It addresses issues related to civil marriage, leaving issues of religious marriage to religious organizations and individuals.

Civil Union

A civil union is a legal mechanism, sanctioned by civil authority, intended to grant same-gender couples legal status somewhat similar to civil marriage. In the United States, civil unions have been established only in Vermont and Connecticut. In these states, same-gender couples are granted the same state-level rights, benefits, and protections as those granted to heterosexual married couples. No other states recognize civil unions. As such, same-gender couples considered to be legally united in either of those states are treated as single individuals when they cross into other states.

Unlike the national governments of some foreign countries, the US federal government does not recognize civil unions. As a result, >1000 federal rights, benefits, and protections are not made available to same-gender couples joined by civil union in the United States.

Domestic Partnership

A domestic partnership is a relationship between 2 individuals, often but not necessarily of the same gender, who live together and mutually support one another as spouses but who are not legally joined in a civil marriage or a civil union. Some same-gender couples enter into domestic partnership agreements to create legally enforceable contracts involving property, finances, inheritance, and/or health care. Domestic partnerships do not reach the same legal threshold as civil unions or civil marriages and, accordingly, do not afford couples the rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage.

The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children -- Pawelski et al. 118 (1): 349 -- Pediatrics[/QUOTE]

 

[George Costanza]

"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

Memo to Infidel: Get a dictionary somewhere and look up the word, "analogy."

 

[bodecea]

Not really funny that 'Boedicka' and supporters equates segragationists to those that oppose gay marriage.
After the sacrifice of the lives and blood of Blacks striving for equality for multiple-decades in our country, if I was Black, I'd be pissed over someone comparing homophobes to segragationists; because after all, in struggles for equality, there IS NO HISTORICAL CLOSE COMPARISON between the Black struggle and the gay struggle.

Actually, I've talked to a number of black people about this. Only anecdotal, but yes, it makes them extremely angry to hear this comparison. I wonder if the high percentage black support in Prop 8 is to some extent backlash over this comparison being made. I think supporters of gay marriage (of which I am one) would do well to stay away from this comparison.

Nobody is comparing race to sexual orientation. What IS comparable is the discrimination.

Exactly...civil rights are civil rights whether we talk about blacks, asians, women, handicapped, ages, religion, or sexual orientation.

 

[bodecea]

Marriage equality does not include plural marriage Willow. Move to Utah.

That's a lovely sentiment. Sort of like telling blacks to move to Africa, or gays to move to San Fran

After all, if we're going to let all consenting adults marry each other at will, why not allow plural marriages? Or marriages between parents and (grown) children? Brothers and sisters? Don't they have the right to pursue happiness in their own way as well?

Let me ask you this...has allowed me to legally marry in any way CHANGED the possiblities that there might be plural marriages or marriages between parents and children, brothers and sisters? If you answer yes, please be clear as to how legal gay marriages have opened that door any more than it was already opened legally.

 

[mal]

Actually, I've talked to a number of black people about this. Only anecdotal, but yes, it makes them extremely angry to hear this comparison. I wonder if the high percentage black support in Prop 8 is to some extent backlash over this comparison being made. I think supporters of gay marriage (of which I am one) would do well to stay away from this comparison.

Nobody is comparing race to sexual orientation. What IS comparable is the discrimination.

Exactly...civil rights are civil rights whether we talk about blacks, asians, women, handicapped, ages, religion, or sexual orientation.

Then Stop Excluding the other Sexual Deviations, you Fucking Hypocrital Bigot...



peace...

 

[AllieBaba]

Actually, I've talked to a number of black people about this. Only anecdotal, but yes, it makes them extremely angry to hear this comparison. I wonder if the high percentage black support in Prop 8 is to some extent backlash over this comparison being made. I think supporters of gay marriage (of which I am one) would do well to stay away from this comparison.

Nobody is comparing race to sexual orientation. What IS comparable is the discrimination.

Exactly...civil rights are civil rights whether we talk about blacks, asians, women, handicapped, ages, religion, or sexual orientation.

Yeah. Well please find where gays have been legally sold, tortured, bred, captured, and collectively wiped out, denied ownership of property, and I'll buy that comparison.

 

[mal]

Marriage equality does not include plural marriage Willow. Move to Utah.

That's a lovely sentiment. Sort of like telling blacks to move to Africa, or gays to move to San Fran

After all, if we're going to let all consenting adults marry each other at will, why not allow plural marriages? Or marriages between parents and (grown) children? Brothers and sisters? Don't they have the right to pursue happiness in their own way as well?

Let me ask you this...has allowed me to legally marry in any way CHANGED the possiblities that there might be plural marriages or marriages between parents and children, brothers and sisters? If you answer yes, please be clear as to how legal gay marriages have opened that door any more than it was already opened legally.

If you are Successful Nationally then the other Deviancies will Use your Arguments...

Equal Rights for Consenting Adults and all... And not about Sex and all... And it's about Love and all...



peace...

 

[mal]

Nobody is comparing race to sexual orientation. What IS comparable is the discrimination.

Exactly...civil rights are civil rights whether we talk about blacks, asians, women, handicapped, ages, religion, or sexual orientation.

Yeah. Well please find where gays have been legally sold, tortured, bred, captured, and collectively wiped out, denied ownership of property, and I'll buy that comparison.

The Molestation of the Honest Civil Rights Movement of a Truly Oppressed People to try to find Validation for a Sexual Deviancy is BEYOND Insulting to those who Fought it.



peace...

 

[Yukon.]

Just in.
More to follow.

You people really are racist morons. How else did you think the court would rule? Did you really expect the court to uphold a discriminatory practice? The fags win, and the religious right-wing, zealots LOSE ! BRAVO

 

[bodecea]

Nobody is comparing race to sexual orientation. What IS comparable is the discrimination.

Exactly...civil rights are civil rights whether we talk about blacks, asians, women, handicapped, ages, religion, or sexual orientation.

Yeah. Well please find where gays have been legally sold, tortured, bred, captured, and collectively wiped out, denied ownership of property, and I'll buy that comparison.

Wait a minute...let me clarify here. You are saying that a minority must have had all those things you listed happen to them before we will even consider allowing them to have equal rights? Please give a yes or no answer before we continue.

 

[mal]

Just in.
More to follow.

You people really are racist morons. How else did you think the court would rule? Did you really expect the court to uphold a discriminatory practice? The fags win, and the religious right-wing, zealots LOSE ! BRAVO

Hey Shitpack!... It's a San Fran Judge... It's going the 9th next... The MOST Overturned Court in the Land.

Everything to this point has been as Predictable the Sun Rising in the East.



peace...

 

[Gadawg73]

True conservatives fight discrimination.
The judge that wrote this opinion is a true conservative. Read the opinion.
Conservatism is NOT defined by religion but the right wing kooks here always define Christianity as being in the GOP.
40 years from now you fools that support discrimination of homosexuals will all see how this was/IS a non issue.
Read the opinion. Ted Olson is a conservative and he KOed the opponents of gay marriage. He had them ADMIT on the witness stand that banning gay marriage IS discrimination.
Read the opinion and weep.
The lovers of discrimination lost. Get over it. You will continue to lose. Quit being milk weak cry babies.
Praise the US Constitution. We are a nation of LAWS.
Not of men and their phony baloney biased religous views.

 

[Gadawg73]

Just in.
More to follow.

You people really are racist morons. How else did you think the court would rule? Did you really expect the court to uphold a discriminatory practice? The fags win, and the religious right-wing, zealots LOSE ! BRAVO

Hey Shitpack!... It's a San Fran Judge... It's going the 9th next... The MOST Overturned Court in the Land.

Everything to this point has been as Predictable the Sun Rising in the East.



peace...

Hate to tell ya Moe but this judge is a conservative.
Read the opinion. The folks that opposed gay marriage admitted to Ted Olson that their opposition WAS discrimination.
Is Ted Olson a liberal? LOL
U need to do your homework.
A true conservative supports the rights of gays to marry.
Read the closing argument of Ted Olson,CONSERVATIVE lawyer supporting gay marriage.
You should know that this decision is a great day for freedom and justice.
Rejoice man. Start loving your freedom more than wanting to take it away from others.

 

[Ravi]

How disappointing not one gay marriage opponent can answer how gay marriage directly effects their lives. I guess they just take pleasure in trying to take away rights from other people.

How it does or doesn't affect my life is a red herring, you meathead.

Outside of state involvement in the matter, I couldn't care less what consenting adults do, insofar as their private contractual agreements are concerned.

If you don't care less, then why are you against gay marriage? And if you're not, why are you responding to my question?

He seems to believe that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married because if they are some people might take advantage of the situation, i.e. two straight males might get married.

 

[bodecea]

How it does or doesn't affect my life is a red herring, you meathead.

Outside of state involvement in the matter, I couldn't care less what consenting adults do, insofar as their private contractual agreements are concerned.

If you don't care less, then why are you against gay marriage? And if you're not, why are you responding to my question?

He seems to believe that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married because if they are some people might take advantage of the situation, i.e. two straight males might get married.

I see that argument and chuckle...as if people aren't marrying for financial/immigration purposes already.....maybe they want the government to step in even more to confirm that people really ARE gay or really ARE straight before they marry. Conservatives my ass.

 

[Ravi]

If you don't care less, then why are you against gay marriage? And if you're not, why are you responding to my question?

He seems to believe that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married because if they are some people might take advantage of the situation, i.e. two straight males might get married.

I see that argument and chuckle...as if people aren't marrying for financial/immigration purposes already.....maybe they want the government to step in even more to confirm that people really ARE gay or really ARE straight before they marry. Conservatives my ass.

I think he's hoping for the government job that certifies marriages are purely a matter of love and straight sex by peering into bedrooms.

 

[Gadawg73]

Nobody is comparing race to sexual orientation. What IS comparable is the discrimination.

Exactly...civil rights are civil rights whether we talk about blacks, asians, women, handicapped, ages, religion, or sexual orientation.

Then Stop Excluding the other Sexual Deviations, you Fucking Hypocrital Bigot...



peace...

The LAW, not religous beliefs, excludes other sexual deviations that are illegal from getting married.
Or are you claiming that being gay is illegal?
Show me in the law where gays are excluded from getting married.