http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/27marriage.html?em

"The California Supreme Court upheld a ban on same-sex marriage today, ratifying a decision made by voters last year that runs counter to a growing trend of states allowing the practice.

The decision, however, preserves the 18,000 marriages performed between the court's decision last May that same-sex marriage was lawful and the passage by voters in November of Proposition 8, which banned it. Supporters of the proposition argued that the marriages should no longer be recognized."

Some minister of a large church in San Diego was interviewed on TV and said this was a great day.  He then used the Bible three times to justify the decision.  (What about separation of church and state?)  To further support his position he asked "what's next?"  Then claimed we'd have people wanting to marry dogs. 

Don't you just love the wild extremes these people go to in order to fuel their fear mongering? 

I wonder what he would have said about trans people?

Julie

The same story by way of The Washington Post.

I've no idea what that feller would have said about trans-people. But I'd be willing to bet that most of us wouldn't have agreed with him.

In reality I don't think the decision says what people are thinking it says.  It's very narrow, extremely narrow and the right wing may find it a Pyrrhic victory before all is said and done.  It's really a victory for nothing more than nomenclature at best.  And the court did not want to legislate from the bench, as they should not.  Nor did this case, in reality, have anything to do with gay marriage, it had everything to do with how the initiative process works and if the voters can overrule the assembly and/or courts, and they can.  In reality its a victory for the people, though it may not look like it.  And, since the prior marriages stand, then there is de facto, gay marriage in California, and you know this is going to be on the ballot again next year, and lets hope the supporters decide to run a campaign and not just a 3 month pre-victory party.

Rather a bit silly.
The old ones count, but no new ones.

The old ones obviously did not destroy the state like so many claimed it would.

California has a much bigger problem. They need to get rid of the prop system as it does not allow for leadership. It prevents the tough decisions that no one is in favor of but must be made. Soon the budget will reduce the services and people will move as they can no longer afford to live there. The infrastructure will start to decay with no money for maintenance. It will become an extension of Baja.

Quote from: Leslie Ann on May 26, 2009, 04:40:06 PM
Rather a bit silly.
The old ones count, but no new ones.

The old ones obviously did not destroy the state like so many claimed it would.

Apparently not, and that should be a highlight point of the referendum next year part of what tekla referred to as "let's hope the supporters decide to run a campaign and not just a 3 month pre-victory party." Real people to be shown as real people with families and strong relationships and not simply a string of faceless maxims appealing to minds. Elections are most definitely about hearts and this needs to be punched and punched all over California by the organizers this time.

N~

The SC gave three ways this can be changed.  Yet another proposition. Action by the State Ledg, who are, even by California standards pretty worthless.  And by a Constitutional Convention.  No modern state (since the Civil War Era) has had a full out Constitutional Convention.  It would be exciting and scary at the same time.  It would need to overturn Prop 13, the 'super majority' needed to pass a budget or raise taxes, and some how settle the marriage issue, though I'm sure in fine California style all sorts of other issues ranging from surreal to practical would all find supporters.

The government was served with a lawsuit the week of April 27th regarding the Defense of Marriage Act which bars federal recognition of same-sex couples. Now the Department of Justice, under President Obama's authority, has till the week of June 22nd to respond. They can either carry out on with the lawsuit defending DOMA, or choose not to defend an unconstitutional law.

I'm sure they are busy trying to find some sort of third option.

Why did the court do that? Are they afraid for the power of this fundamentalist people and their lies about gay marriage? Blame on you, Court!

Boy, of all the things people don't understand, the legal system is right up there with quantum physics and the Kabbalah.

As I said:
Nor did this case, in reality, have anything to do with gay marriage, it had everything to do with how the initiative process works and if the voters can overrule the assembly and/or courts, and they can.  In reality its a victory for the people, though it may not look like it.

Quote from: tekla on May 26, 2009, 04:58:58 PM
The SC gave three ways this can be changed.  Yet another proposition. (...) And by a Constitutional Convention. 

Why did the SC prefer one of this two possibilities? Why they made this stupid decision? Is they any change to change it? Maybe with another Prop.?

The Court gave three ways, it did not prefer one over the other, it simply listed them.

Let me guess, none of you have really read the decision have you?  There was a reason there were not big old riots in SF today.  They did read it, and came to the same conclusion I did.  All the Court did was give the right wing a word, but beyond that, nothing.  It let the prior marriages stand, which, BTW has the wingnuts spinning round like a top.

Quote from: tekla on May 26, 2009, 05:08:32 PM
Boy, of all the things people don't understand, the legal system is right up there with quantum physics and the Kabbalah.

As I said:
Nor did this case, in reality, have anything to do with gay marriage, it had everything to do with how the initiative process works and if the voters can overrule the assembly and/or courts, and they can.  In reality its a victory for the people, though it may not look like it.

How can this be a "victory" for people, if a part of this people got stolen their rigths? It is a vctory for fundamentalist Churches, Sects and Cults, which see,that they can do everything. That they IS NO SEPERATION BETWEEN CHURCHES AND STATE/COUNTRY! I'm so furious at the moment, i wish I can do something to change the judges mind!

i wish I can do something to change the judges mind!

Never met one have you?  Its easier to make the sun rise in the West and set in the East than to change a judge's mind.

The ruling was not - NOT - about gay marriage, it was about the people changing the Constitution on a basic level through the initiative process.  The Court already ruled last year on gay marriage and it was that ruling that set off this process.

QuoteIts easier to make the sun rise in the West and set in the East than to change a judge's mind.

LOL Unless you live in MS. What is an appointment to the Federal bench worth. Ask Scruggs, Trent Lott's  brother in-law.

I still don't understand how you can have separation of church and state yet have a law that holds or denies a ritual that is performed in a church and based on the bible...usually.

I don't think people should care who gets married and who doesn't. It shouldn't matter. People need to grow up and just let it go.

I feel a little saddened they banned it. It really isn't any of our business to make a whole class of people upset by denying them something they should be able to have just for being who they were born as.

OK.  I really haven't read the thread, but I will voice my opinion.  Mostly because I am no pain.

The idiots that passed this law are flat out bigots.  Religion has nothing to do with rights. People that voted for this law and the morons that up held it, have their heads so far up their.......

I am so tired of the BS that the Immoral Minority spreads that it makes me sick.  And yes, I  iam just enough light to voice my true opinion.

I am sorry if it P.O. 's the mods, or anyone else.  The last thing that HUMAN rights need is religion.

And people wonder why I turned my back on the so called religious movement.

Opinions expressed are my own.  Read history.  The worst thing that happened was organized religion.

The Inquisition. The Catholic church.

Nazi Germany.  Supported by the the Catholic Church.

The Jesuit Priests.  The CIA for the Catholic Church.

Priests in general.  Spies for the the ... guess who... the Catholic church.

Guess what......... I am not surprised that it failed.  Guess what the unofficial religion of the good old USA is.  The Catholic Church.

I am really sorry if I PO'd anyone, but I am sick and tired of the Catholic Church telling us what to do.  And After all it is only the Old Rome Empire reborn.

Your so called Pope is nothing more the Emperor the the Empire of the Old Rome Empire.

Janet

They did not really ban anything except the use of the word "marriage" in a legal sense.  People can still go down to the courthouse and do the Domestic Partnership deal that is 100% the same in terms of obligations, rights, benefits as a marriage contract.  People can still 'get married' if the Church allows it, like the MCC and other churches.  All the court said the law did was say 'marriage' was for straight couples, and DPs were for gay or other couples.

But why do same-sex couples have to go thru the BS of sign "special" papers, when a straight couple can go to Reno and have the same thing.  BS.

It is all nothing but religious rhetoric.


Janet