Gay marriage ban upheld in California

[MaxQue]

I personally don't believe sexual orientation should be placed at the same level as gender or race

So you recognize than you are a bigot?

Marokai, please don't say that. That is remembering that stupid Quebec PM who blamed the ''ethnic vote'' after he losed his referendum and resigned. Still, he was better than his successor who fired doctors and nurses to balance budget.

[??????????]

Ok, so you're just going to be a moron, I get it. Thx.

[MaxQue]

Ok, so you're just going to be a moron, I get it. Thx.

Could you provide a valable argument on why sexual orientation should be placed at the same level as gender or race?

[??????????]

Ok, so you're just going to be a moron, I get it. Thx.

Could you provide a valable argument on why sexual orientation should be placed at the same level as gender or race?

No, I don't think it's nearly as important, has less of an effect on an individuals ability to function, etc. I think the whole homo vs hetero thing is vastly hyped by the media in order to create a story. I personally disapprove of the act and think it's sinful but they should be able to do what they want behind a closed door.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Ok, so you're just going to be a moron, I get it. Thx.

Could you provide a valable argument on why sexual orientation should be placed at the same level as gender or race?

No, I don't think it's nearly as important, has less of an effect on an individuals ability to function, etc. I think the whole homo vs hetero thing is vastly hyped by the media in order to create a story. I personally disapprove of the act and think it's sinful but they should be able to do what they want behind a closed door.

As long as they stay behind closed doors?

[Magic 8-Ball]

So, is California now less liberal than, say, Iowa?

Blame the minorities.

I could understand that for the referendum (I seem to remember pollsters linking the outcome to increased black voter turnout); it's the court decision that's surprising.

[MaxQue]

Ok, so you're just going to be a moron, I get it. Thx.

Could you provide a valable argument on why sexual orientation should be placed at the same level as gender or race?

No, I don't think it's nearly as important, has less of an effect on an individuals ability to function, etc. I think the whole homo vs hetero thing is vastly hyped by the media in order to create a story. I personally disapprove of the act and think it's sinful but they should be able to do what they want behind a closed door.

As long as they stay behind closed doors?

That's the law in Canada. Courts striked that down, but that is written. They can marry also, which is strange considering that.

[Associate Justice PiT]

So, is California now less liberal than, say, Iowa?

Blame the minorities.

I could understand that for the referendum (I seem to remember pollsters linking the outcome to increased black voter turnout); it's the court decision that's surprising.

     The original court decision was surprising in terms of pure judicial partisanship. My mother had friends who argued cases before Ron George before he became a justice, & knew a lot about him. There is no judge she knew of anywhere who defendents feared more. He judged cases fairly, but if they were convicted he gave them extremely harsh sentences.

     Suffice it to say, the decision that ruled that the State Constitution required the legalization of gay marriage was not the result of a left-leaning court.

[Lunar]

So, is California now less liberal than, say, Iowa?

Blame the minorities.

just for your info,  please stop, even if it's sarcastic  


(http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/hispanics-back-gay-marriage-at-same.html)

(and religiosity might actually matter more than ethnicity, some of these divides are imaginary or inflated)

African-American homophobia is a concerning issue, but it's a wasteful way to frame the debate when a campaign utterly failed to even each out to them except pathetically in the last couple weeks, such as having Samuel L. Jackson [took me 4-5 times watching the ad to figure out who it was] narrate a commercial about the Armenian Genocide and connecting that to gay marriage somehow and expecting that to work.  As I've said before, if they were serious instead of ridiculous, they would have at least greenscreened him in.  The results were extremely unsurprising given their outreach.  I could see the hundreds of hours wasted on the UC Berkeley Campus alone, posting up fliers and handing them out to people who already agreed with them and would vote anyway for Obama, while going door-to-door or talking to ministers in a low-income, ethnic neighborhoods, would have done infinitely more, yet that would involve talking to minorities who might actually disagree with the voluteers and require a minimal amount of persuasion

We deserved to lose and we did.  Wow.  Not really.

If you PM me  I'd have a funny story or two to say about the subject.

[Magic 8-Ball]

So, is California now less liberal than, say, Iowa?

Blame the minorities.

I could understand that for the referendum (I seem to remember pollsters linking the outcome to increased black voter turnout); it's the court decision that's surprising.

     The original court decision was surprising in terms of pure judicial partisanship. My mother had friends who argued cases before Ron George before he became a justice, & knew a lot about him. There is no judge she knew of anywhere who defendents feared more. He judged cases fairly, but if they were convicted he gave them extremely harsh sentences.

     Suffice it to say, the decision that ruled that the State Constitution required the legalization of gay marriage was not the result of a left-leaning court.

I see.  So, the answer is "yes".

BTW, wasn't George one of the guys up to replace Rehnquist in '05?

[Holmes]

So, is California now less liberal than, say, Iowa?

Blame the minorities.

Don't. My boyfriend is a brownie, and so is his family, and they were all No's. Even his grandparents, and the grandma has and worships a statue of the Virgin Mary in their backyard(which is kinda hillarious). I take offense to that.


The two opposing lawyers in Bush v. Gore are working together to challenge this decision at a federal court, btw.

[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 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!!

You should be scared that you're agreeing with Vander. He is the sophist, not I.

Now, I admitted completely that my post was hyperbole. But it really shouldn't be. You probably consider some rights "more important" than others. This is fine. But would you expect, in any way, that some of those rights of yours should be delayed for arbitrary reasons? For someone else's opinion can be nothing but arbitrary, and it was the same arbitrary opinions that delayed others rights, more or less "significant" than your own.

Freedom from slavery is a right. Freedom to vote is a right. So, too, is freedom to marry--a lesser right, perhaps, if rights are to be ranked on a scale, but a right nonetheless. Is there some cut-off point at which it is reasonable to delay rights for someone? Could you name it? Or should all rights proceed immediately?

Marriage has changed hundreds if not thousands of times in our history. Our spouses were chosen for us. We were all married by age 15. You could only marry within your class, or within your race, or within your caste. You could only marry with permission from your lord, you could only marry someone from within your religion, you could only marry if you were not a priest. All of this (with the exception of the last, which remains a religious prerogative) has been abolished. Would we say today, if it were illegal to marry someone from outside your social class, or someone from outside your religion, or from outside your race, that we should be slow in recognizing the right to inter-class or inter-faith or interracial marriage? Certainly not. We would say that Tony and Maria have the right to be married. Why should we not say the same of same-sex marriage, immediately? Tony and Maria would not have to wait, in your mind, if their marriage were still illegal.

You have not provided an answer other than "I'm just slow." Sorry, not a valid position.

[kcsaff]

I personally believe a graduated emancipation would have been far preferable and less economically crippling to the South.

I think it's a perverse ethic that holds an economy as more important than freedom from slavery.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course I would, defense of my liberties is my paramount objective.
[/quote]
Is it correct then that you would rank the following items in this order?

• #1 - Your liberties
• #2 - The economy
• #3 - Other people's liberties

This is a peculiar moral system you have, and not one I wish to subscribe to.

[Coburn In 2012]

Overall this is very good news and shows there is still some sense left in California.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The two opposing lawyers in Bush v. Gore are working together to challenge this decision at a federal court, btw.

On what possible grounds could anyone with a shred of legal sense think that this ruling is appealable to the federal courts?  In Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court conclusively held that same-sex marriage is not a federal question.  This case was decided entirely upon the Supreme Court of California's view of the Constitution of California.  Anyone who chooses to appeal this to the federal court runs a very real risk of having to pay the court costs of the other side for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

Possibly a case could be based over the issue of the grandfathered same-sex relationships that are allowed to still be called a "marriage" instead of a "domestic partnership", but the only possibility for success would seem to be:
1) having the word "marriage" stripped from the grandfathered relationships, or
2) requiring California to recognize a same-sex relationship that was recognized as a marriage in another State during the period that California provided for same-sex marriages to be recognized by California as marriages.
Even then, I'm doubtful that even the 9th Circuit would want to get involved.

[Verily]

The two opposing lawyers in Bush v. Gore are working together to challenge this decision at a federal court, btw.

On what possible grounds could anyone with a shred of legal sense think that this ruling is appealable to the federal courts?  In Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court conclusively held that same-sex marriage is not a federal question.  This case was decided entirely upon the Supreme Court of California's view of the Constitution of California.  Anyone who chooses to appeal this to the federal court runs a very real risk of having to pay the court costs of the other side for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

Possibly a case could be based over the issue of the grandfathered same-sex relationships that are allowed to still be called a "marriage" instead of a "domestic partnership", but the only possibility for success would seem to be:
1) having the word "marriage" stripped from the grandfathered relationships, or
2) requiring California to recognize a same-sex relationship that was recognized as a marriage in another State during the period that California provided for same-sex marriages to be recognized by California as marriages.
Even then, I'm doubtful that even the 9th Circuit would want to get involved.

On the grounds of overturning Baker v. Nelson, of course. As I've pointed out to you before, court decisions are not immutable by the courts which themselves made them. We would not have the death penalty in this country if they were.

[??????????]

I personally believe a graduated emancipation would have been far preferable and less economically crippling to the South.

I think it's a perverse ethic that holds an economy as more important than freedom from slavery.

It's more then the economy as a whole. It has to do with equality and economic fairness. Freeing all the slaves at once collapsed the southern economy and caused resentment among poor whites who had very little before abolition and were just as hurt as the recently liberated blacks. The state of the economy directly affected the freedom of blacks and caused more harm then good. Nothing "perverse" about that other then the fact you disagree with my position on the matter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is it correct then that you would rank the following items in this order?

• #1 - Your liberties
• #2 - The economy
• #3 - Other people's liberties

This is a peculiar moral system you have, and not one I wish to subscribe to.[/quote]

Closer to :

My God
My Family
My State
My Country

[Marokai Backbeat]

So, is California now less liberal than, say, Iowa?

Blame the minorities.

Don't. My boyfriend is a brownie, and so is his family, and they were all No's. Even his grandparents, and the grandma has and worships a statue of the Virgin Mary in their backyard(which is kinda hillarious). I take offense to that.


The two opposing lawyers in Bush v. Gore are working together to challenge this decision at a federal court, btw.

I wasn't entirely serious, obviously I have nothing against minority groups. But it's true that some minorities are more socially conservative than average

It simply disgusts me when there's ANY minority that opposes gay rights, because what we're going through is pretty much the exact same thing. Any minority that doesn't support other minorities deserves to have their rights taken away.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

On what possible grounds could anyone with a shred of legal sense think that this ruling is appealable to the federal courts?  In Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court conclusively held that same-sex marriage is not a federal question.

On the grounds of overturning Baker v. Nelson, of course. As I've pointed out to you before, court decisions are not immutable by the courts which themselves made them. We would not have the death penalty in this country if they were.

In the case of the death penalty, the Supreme Court has never ruled capital punishment per se to be unconstitutional, only certain methods for implementing it.  Once a method that met its concerns was found, we had the death penalty again.  By contrast, in Baker v. Nelson they explicitly ruled that whether a State recognizes same-sex marriage is not a federal issue.  I just don't anything in the past 37 years that would cause them to change their opinion.

[Scam of God]

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.

You aren't "pushing it on people"; the anti-marriage activists are pushing it on you. According to the theory of negative liberty - which is the overriding libertarian ethical system of rights - all liberties are assumed from the outside; government regulations simply take away what already exists. You already had the right to marry outside of the artificial construct that is Proposition 8 -- that Proposition removed from you a pre-existing right.

But if the majority of the people in CA, voted against it and the court over turned it wouldn't that be pushing it on a state that did want it in the first place? I may be wrong here, but that is how I look at it.

That doesn't matter. The courts are in the wrong, and the people of the State are in the wrong - "inalienable rights" are inalienable for precisely this reason, because they are not susceptible to the whims of the ballot box. A spiritual Red like StatesRights, who hates freedom in all of its multifaceted forms, will not understand this; but you must.

A man's negative liberty cannot be taken from him, point blank. You had - and still have - the right to marry wherever you wish.

[??????????]

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.

You aren't "pushing it on people"; the anti-marriage activists are pushing it on you. According to the theory of negative liberty - which is the overriding libertarian ethical system of rights - all liberties are assumed from the outside; government regulations simply take away what already exists. You already had the right to marry outside of the artificial construct that is Proposition 8 -- that Proposition removed from you a pre-existing right.

But if the majority of the people in CA, voted against it and the court over turned it wouldn't that be pushing it on a state that did want it in the first place? I may be wrong here, but that is how I look at it.

That doesn't matter. The courts are in the wrong, and the people of the State are in the wrong - "inalienable rights" are inalienable for precisely this reason, because they are not susceptible to the whims of the ballot box. A spiritual Red like StatesRights, who hates freedom in all of its multifaceted forms, will not understand this; but you must.

A man's negative liberty cannot be taken from him, point blank. You had - and still have - the right to marry wherever you wish.

Aye Comrade! We must push for da great Stalinist state! Onward my comrades to victory!

[Holmes]

The Founding Fathers? They were alive over 200 years ago. Their views are totally irrelevant in modern day America. Their principles however, are not. If all men are created equal, then there shouldn't be a priviledged class of people while there's a seperate and unequal alternative for another.

[??????????]

The Founding Fathers? They were alive over 200 years ago. Their views are totally irrelevant in modern day America. Their principles however, are not. If all men are created equal, then there shouldn't be a priviledged class of people while there's a seperate and unequal alternative for another.

Of course you're correct. However, a sexual act doesn't equal race or gender.

[Earth]

A man's negative liberty cannot be taken from him, point blank. You had - and still have - the right to marry wherever you wish.

You have a very curious view of liberty.

At the heart of this matter, beside any talk of negative or positive freedom, is that prop 8 should never have been put to a vote. This illustrates clearly the tyranny of the majority.

The Founding Fathers? They were alive over 200 years ago. Their views are totally irrelevant in modern day America. Their principles however, are not. If all men are created equal, then there shouldn't be a priviledged class of people while there's a seperate and unequal alternative for another.

Of course you're correct. However, a sexual act doesn't equal race or gender.

No, but he's obviously pointing to heterosexuals being the privileged 'class' in this discussion.

[Holmes]

The Founding Fathers? They were alive over 200 years ago. Their views are totally irrelevant in modern day America. Their principles however, are not. If all men are created equal, then there shouldn't be a priviledged class of people while there's a seperate and unequal alternative for another.

Of course you're correct. However, a sexual act doesn't equal race or gender.

I never mentioned race or gender.

No, but he's obviously pointing to heterosexuals being the privileged 'class' in this discussion.

And also the group of lucky same-sex couples who had the priviledge to marry last year.