Gay marriage ban upheld in California

[Ban my account ffs!]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/26/california.same.sex.marriage/index.html

No surprise here... those married while it was legal still have valid marriages.

What a sad day for California.

[tmthforu94]

The people of California have spoken, and did not want gay marriage.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The people of California have spoken, and did not want gay marriage.

Should we have let the people vote on interracial marriage? Slavery? Segregation?

After all, as long as the people say it, it's perfectly okay, right?

[Ronnie]

[tmthforu94]

The people of California have spoken, and did not want gay marriage.

Should we have let the people vote on interracial marriage? Slavery? Segregation?

After all, as long as the people say it, it's perfectly okay, right?

Slavery is much different. It's human abuse. Banning gay marriage doesn't physically hurt anybody.

[Holmes]

It could ruin same-sex couple's lives if a place requires marriages to be recognized instead of domestic partnerships.

Anyway I'm calm now. California will just have to deal with a tiered class for gay couples for now, and my heart goes out to them. Moreno's dissent was what I was expecting to be the opinion.

Crazy to think that the Equal Protection Clause protected everyone in 2008, but not in 2009, no?

[Alcon]

Slavery is much different. It's human abuse. Banning gay marriage doesn't physically hurt anybody.

So, more akin to allowing a vote on segregated busing or schooling?

[Joe Biden 2020]

I am pleased with the decision.  Its a victory for the anti-gay marriage camp.  I am warming to gay marriage, but SLOWLY.  We've had 5 states ratify gay marriage in the last 3 months and, to me, that is too much too fast.  We need to slow it down a little bit.  This country needs time to soak in and get used to it after each state, rather than have the entire steak shoved down its throat at one time.  The country could choke on it if it is done too fast.  I think a slow, methodical approach to the ratification would be ideal.  I don't prescribe a regular interval, but a slower, again more methodical, approach.  To me, its like a child learning to eat meat.  If you try to shove the entire sirloin steak down its throat at one time, the child's liable to choke on it.  Rather, if you take it slow and easy, the child is more apt to accept it without major repercussions.  They may spit a bite back up every now and then, but eventually, he'll eat the entire steak.

[Scam of God]

This doesn't matter in the long run, except to facilitate more class divisions between the homosexuals of California: I can easily see the relationship between the 18,000 married gays of the state and the thousands of other homosexuals there growing strained as a result of the artificial caste system imposed upon the state by the collectivistic and anti-individualistic bigotries of its citizens.

But, as I said, California is on the wrong side of history. Social communists like tmthforu94 are a dying breed; we are a people are rediscovering our anti-authoritarian nature, and one of the prime elements of such a philosophy is knowing when to let people well enough alone. These socialists-of-the-spirit may not understand it yet, but their days are numbered.

[tmthforu94]

This doesn't matter in the long run, except to facilitate more class divisions between the homosexuals of California: I can easily see the relationship between the 18,000 married gays of the state and the thousands of other homosexuals there growing strained as a result of the artificial caste system imposed upon the state by the collectivistic and anti-individualistic bigotries of its citizens.

But, as I said, California is on the wrong side of history. Social communists like tmthforu94 are a dying breed; we are a people are rediscovering our anti-authoritarian nature, and one of the prime elements of such a philosophy is knowing when to let people well enough alone. These socialists-of-the-spirit may not understand it yet, but their days are numbered.

I do not support a national ban on gay marriage. I am also slowly warming to gay marriage, although I still find it strange. The only issues I am still a strong conservative on are immigration and abortion, but I'm slowly trending more moderate.

[12th Doctor]

The people of California have spoken, and did not want gay marriage.

Should we have let the people vote on interracial marriage? Slavery? Segregation?

After all, as long as the people say it, it's perfectly okay, right?

Ah, the inherent flaw in the logic of many liberals.

[Alcon]

The people of California have spoken, and did not want gay marriage.

Should we have let the people vote on interracial marriage? Slavery? Segregation?

After all, as long as the people say it, it's perfectly okay, right?

Ah, the inherent flaw in the logic of many liberals.

What inherent logical flaw is there?  It may be an inapt analogy in some people's opinions, but they do share enough in common to constitute a consistent analogy.  Yea, there are differences -- I don't find them convincingly strong enough to justify the distinction -- but there have to be.  Otherwise it's a tautology not an analogy.

[Lincoln Republican]

The people of California have spoken, and did not want gay marriage.

Should we have let the people vote on interracial marriage? Slavery? Segregation?

After all, as long as the people say it, it's perfectly okay, right?

Please, stop with these ridiculous comparisons.

Interracial marriage, slavery, segregation, segregated busing, segregated schooling, are in absolutely different spheres than gay marriage.  And you know it.

Quit trying to play the race card with relation to the gay marriage issue.  It no longer works, and has no relationship whatsoever.

Get real.

Congratulations to the California Supreme Court for having the courage to do the right thing and uphold the gay marriage ban.

America should not have to cow tow to the twisted, radical, gay agenda, just because the gay community wants to subvert, debase, and demean real marriage.

GET OVER IT!

I am going to say this again, in case anyone still does not understand

Opposition to gay marriage does not equate to issues of race!

So quit insulting people's intelligence by trying to brainwash them into believing that the issue of gay marriage equates to issues to race.

They do not equate.  Never have.  Never will.

And don't throw that bigot crap at me.  Because if you are, then throw the same bigot crap at Barack Obama, John Kerry, and Al Gore, the last three Democratic Presidential nominees.  They all oppose same sex marriage.  Gore opposed it at least at the time of his run for President. 

[Verily]

I am pleased with the decision.  Its a victory for the anti-gay marriage camp.  I am warming to gay marriage, but SLOWLY.  We've had 5 states ratify gay marriage in the last 3 months and, to me, that is too much too fast.  We need to slow it down a little bit.  This country needs time to soak in and get used to it after each state, rather than have the entire steak shoved down its throat at one time.  The country could choke on it if it is done too fast.  I think a slow, methodical approach to the ratification would be ideal.  I don't prescribe a regular interval, but a slower, again more methodical, approach.  To me, its like a child learning to eat meat.  If you try to shove the entire sirloin steak down its throat at one time, the child's liable to choke on it.  Rather, if you take it slow and easy, the child is more apt to accept it without major repercussions.  They may spit a bite back up every now and then, but eventually, he'll eat the entire steak.

Can I just say that your position is * poorly considered?

Yes, I can. Clearly, gay marriage doesn't affect you at all, and you've realized that. Yet, for your own selfish discomfort, you would tell hundreds of thousands of people to wait on equal protection under the law, to wait on equal right of contract, to wait on equal taxation to wait on equal recognition. Equality must wait because we're queasy.

At the risk of sounding hysterical (because it is hyperbole), would you tell slaves in 1865 to wait a few decades to be freed because we're not sure if we want to let you go, we're just warming to the idea? Would you tell women in 1920 to wait a few decades for the right to vote because we want to take our time? Would it not have been better if slavery were abolished in 1855 rather than 1865, or in 1845 instead of 1855; would it not have been better if women received the right to vote in 1910 rather than 1920, or in 1900 rather than 1910? Why is it then better for gay marriage to happen in 2020 than in 2010, or in 2030 than in 2020? Rights don't have anything to do with how you feel about them. They're only about the people they affect.

*Wording changed on my own reconsideration.

[Alcon]

I am going to say this again, in case anyone still does not understand

Opposition to gay marriage does not equate to issues of race!

So quit insulting people's intelligence by trying to brainwash them into believing that the issue of gay marriage equates to issues to race.

An analogy does not imply complete equity

An analogy requires that two objects be similar in a way of some profundity

If everything is identical in an analogy, it is comparing something to itself, and is a tautology

grahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

On the other hand, I think the idea that gay people want to "debase and demean" marriage is pretty bigoted, myself -- or, at minimum, incredibly ignorant.

[Scam of God]

I am pleased with the decision.  Its a victory for the anti-gay marriage camp.  I am warming to gay marriage, but SLOWLY.  We've had 5 states ratify gay marriage in the last 3 months and, to me, that is too much too fast.  We need to slow it down a little bit.  This country needs time to soak in and get used to it after each state, rather than have the entire steak shoved down its throat at one time.  The country could choke on it if it is done too fast.  I think a slow, methodical approach to the ratification would be ideal.  I don't prescribe a regular interval, but a slower, again more methodical, approach.  To me, its like a child learning to eat meat.  If you try to shove the entire sirloin steak down its throat at one time, the child's liable to choke on it.  Rather, if you take it slow and easy, the child is more apt to accept it without major repercussions.  They may spit a bite back up every now and then, but eventually, he'll eat the entire steak.

This argument is idiotic, the sort a child might make when his mother snatches from his grasp the marker he's using to doodle on the wall. The ethical right knows no divergences of time; one is either all correct immediately or he never is. You are a typical communist - both your economic and social scores belies it - so I really expect you not to see the value of individualism. Nevertheless, the truly individual man cannot wait for morons like yourself to acquiesce to his need for space; your weakling's recalcitrance on this issue has no bearing on the private conduct of any man. To whit: it is unmanly for anybody to proclaim to decide what is valuable for any other man, for it suggests a feeling of instability and a lack of assurance on one's own part. You are either in favor of freedom or you ought to be disposed of.

[Scam of God]

This doesn't matter in the long run, except to facilitate more class divisions between the homosexuals of California: I can easily see the relationship between the 18,000 married gays of the state and the thousands of other homosexuals there growing strained as a result of the artificial caste system imposed upon the state by the collectivistic and anti-individualistic bigotries of its citizens.

But, as I said, California is on the wrong side of history. Social communists like tmthforu94 are a dying breed; we are a people are rediscovering our anti-authoritarian nature, and one of the prime elements of such a philosophy is knowing when to let people well enough alone. These socialists-of-the-spirit may not understand it yet, but their days are numbered.

I do not support a national ban on gay marriage. I am also slowly warming to gay marriage, although I still find it strange. The only issues I am still a strong conservative on are immigration and abortion, but I'm slowly trending more moderate.

I don't give a hoot in Hell what you are 're-discovering'. You believe in a communal ethical system; you presuppose you and yours capable of mandating a moral schemata suitable for all men everywhere and at every time. This is collectivistic, and, ultimately, communistic. You are a traitor to the American spirit of individualism and a political abhorrence.

[Scam of God]

Liberals hate democracy when they lose.  Liberals hate the country when even the courts don't agree with them.

Democracy is a sham established to set the individual's rights under the rule of the great masses - the self-same great masses that make you feel empowered, that remind you that you're not the only drooling mongoloid in this great world of ours.

[Mint]

It could ruin same-sex couple's lives if a place requires marriages to be recognized instead of domestic partnerships.

Anyway I'm calm now. California will just have to deal with a tiered class for gay couples for now, and my heart goes out to them. Moreno's dissent was what I was expecting to be the opinion.

Crazy to think that the Equal Protection Clause protected everyone in 2008, but not in 2009, no?

You know, I can't think of anything I've read from you that I've ever disagreed with. I'm going to have to try harder.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I am pleased with the decision.  Its a victory for the anti-gay marriage camp.  I am warming to gay marriage, but SLOWLY.  We've had 5 states ratify gay marriage in the last 3 months and, to me, that is too much too fast.  We need to slow it down a little bit.  This country needs time to soak in and get used to it after each state, rather than have the entire steak shoved down its throat at one time.  The country could choke on it if it is done too fast.  I think a slow, methodical approach to the ratification would be ideal.  I don't prescribe a regular interval, but a slower, again more methodical, approach.  To me, its like a child learning to eat meat.  If you try to shove the entire sirloin steak down its throat at one time, the child's liable to choke on it.  Rather, if you take it slow and easy, the child is more apt to accept it without major repercussions.  They may spit a bite back up every now and then, but eventually, he'll eat the entire steak.

Can I just say that your position is retarded?

Yes, I can. Clearly, gay marriage doesn't affect you at all, and you've realized that. Yet, for your own selfish discomfort, you would tell hundreds of thousands of people to wait on equal protection under the law, to wait on equal right of contract, to wait on equal taxation to wait on equal recognition. Equality must wait because we're queasy.

At the risk of sounding hysterical (because it is hyperbole), would you tell slaves in 1865 to wait a few decades to be freed because we're not sure if we want to let you go, we're just warming to the idea? Would you tell women in 1920 to wait a few decades for the right to vote because we want to take our time? Would it not have been better if slavery were abolished in 1855 rather than 1865, or in 1845 instead of 1855; would it not have been better if women received the right to vote in 1910 rather than 1920, or in 1900 rather than 1910? Why is it then better for gay marriage to happen in 2020 than in 2010, or in 2030 than in 2020? Rights don't have anything to do with how you feel about them. They're only about the people they affect.

Another sophist comparing gay marriage to slavery, segregation, women's right to vote, et cetera.  These are in NO WAY comparable to gay marriage.  Gays have the SAME RIGHTS as everyone else.  That they cannot marry each other is not relevant.  I cannot marry a man of the same sex either.  Gay people can vote, they can receive an education, they can purchase property and they can own businesses.  Gay people are not being oppressed.  When the vast majority of Americans are told that an age-old institution, the bedrock of our society, must be changed because of political reasons, don't be surprised when we get angry, and don't cry "Discrimination!" when there is none.

Wow, for once I agree with Vander!!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A constitutional ban on gay marriage while having 18,000 pre-existing gay marriage licenses is asinine. Oh, well, I guess the only question is when the voters overturn Prop. 8.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The people of California have spoken, and did not want gay marriage.

The people of California will get a chance to speak on this again. 52% is not a mandate. Interracial marriage was far less popular when the courts struck down bans against it.

[Devilman88]

I support Gay Marriage, but I don't want to push it on people. The will come around sooner or later. People in California voted to not have it, so they shouldn't have it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I support Gay Marriage, but I don't want to push it on people. The will come around sooner or later. People in California voted to not have it, so they shouldn't have it.

Well, this will probably be on the June or Nov. 2010 ballot.

[Alcon]

Wow, for once I agree with Vander!!

So, you see no moral issue with segregated schooling or busing?

Or, if homosexuality isn't actively chosen, you might as well say that blacks had the same rights -- to not be enslaved if they had white skin.  The only difference in the analogy is that one might be able to suppress their sexuality, but not skin color.  Otherwise, the moral parallel is pretty pure.