Gay marriage ban upheld in California

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

    A sad day for liberty-minded individuals, though victory is something that is long in coming & we cannot allow ourselves to be discouraged by a few potholes in the road. Hopefully one day California will rejoin Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, & Maine in extending full marriage rights to homosexual couples.

What? The majority of people spoke and didn't want gay marriage. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not the court did the right thing by not going against the will of the people.

Cue the slavery, interracial marriage, and segregation arguments.

Race doesn't equal sexual preference.

[Marokai Backbeat]

    A sad day for liberty-minded individuals, though victory is something that is long in coming & we cannot allow ourselves to be discouraged by a few potholes in the road. Hopefully one day California will rejoin Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, & Maine in extending full marriage rights to homosexual couples.

What? The majority of people spoke and didn't want gay marriage. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not the court did the right thing by not going against the will of the people.

Cue the slavery, interracial marriage, and segregation arguments.

Race doesn't equal sexual preference.

You're making the argument that the will of the people should be unfettered, which gave us interracial marriage bans, sodomy laws, and segregation, among other things. According to your argument none of these things should have been stopped and left to the people to decide on at a much much much slower pace.

[MaxQue]

    A sad day for liberty-minded individuals, though victory is something that is long in coming & we cannot allow ourselves to be discouraged by a few potholes in the road. Hopefully one day California will rejoin Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, & Maine in extending full marriage rights to homosexual couples.

What? The majority of people spoke and didn't want gay marriage. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not the court did the right thing by not going against the will of the people.

If a majority of people would raise taxes by 200% on truck drivers, you would agree because that is ''people will''.
Some issues are too important to be left in the hands of people. See what they did with California's budget.

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

    A sad day for liberty-minded individuals, though victory is something that is long in coming & we cannot allow ourselves to be discouraged by a few potholes in the road. Hopefully one day California will rejoin Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, & Maine in extending full marriage rights to homosexual couples.

What? The majority of people spoke and didn't want gay marriage. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not the court did the right thing by not going against the will of the people.

Cue the slavery, interracial marriage, and segregation arguments.

Race doesn't equal sexual preference.

You're making the argument that the will of the people should be unfettered, which gave us interracial marriage bans, sodomy laws, and segregation, among other things. According to your argument none of these things should have been stopped and left to the people to decide on at a much much much slower pace.

Did the people actually go out and vote on those particular issues? Are you aware that segregation was reviled by many localities in the south? Mainly because it hurt businesses and was a pain in the rear involving enforcement. And yes, I believe slavery should have been ended at a MUCH slower pace then what happened in the actual timeline.

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

    A sad day for liberty-minded individuals, though victory is something that is long in coming & we cannot allow ourselves to be discouraged by a few potholes in the road. Hopefully one day California will rejoin Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, & Maine in extending full marriage rights to homosexual couples.

What? The majority of people spoke and didn't want gay marriage. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not the court did the right thing by not going against the will of the people.

If a majority of people would raise taxes by 200% on truck drivers, you would agree because that is ''people will''.
Some issues are too important to be left in the hands of people. See what they did with California's budget.

I would agree with it, but the idea of that happening is so nonsensical it would never happen.

[Alcon]

Did the people actually go out and vote on those particular issues? Are you aware that segregation was reviled by many localities in the south? Mainly because it hurt businesses and was a pain in the rear involving enforcement. And yes, I believe slavery should have been ended at a MUCH slower pace then what happened in the actual timeline.

People voted on segregation in a lot of places, slavery too.  I have precinct results from Multnomah County, Oregon -- voted for both slavery and segregation (85%+ against both) the same year.  What's yar point?

[Marokai Backbeat]

    A sad day for liberty-minded individuals, though victory is something that is long in coming & we cannot allow ourselves to be discouraged by a few potholes in the road. Hopefully one day California will rejoin Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, & Maine in extending full marriage rights to homosexual couples.

What? The majority of people spoke and didn't want gay marriage. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not the court did the right thing by not going against the will of the people.

Cue the slavery, interracial marriage, and segregation arguments.

Race doesn't equal sexual preference.

You're making the argument that the will of the people should be unfettered, which gave us interracial marriage bans, sodomy laws, and segregation, among other things. According to your argument none of these things should have been stopped and left to the people to decide on at a much much much slower pace.

Did the people actually go out and vote on those particular issues? Are you aware that segregation was reviled by many localities in the south? Mainly because it hurt businesses and was a pain in the rear involving enforcement. And yes, I believe slavery should have been ended at a MUCH slower pace then what happened in the actual timeline.

Yes, and they voted to keep federal and local representatives in place that supported these policies.

When something like this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6596687/) still happens in this day and age, I would be terrified to imagine what would have happened without the courts (or the federal government) stepping in.

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

What's yar point?

Arrggh I don't know, matey.

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

When something like this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6596687/) still happens in this day and age, I would be terrified to imagine what would have happened without the courts (or the federal government) stepping in.

The wording of the bill had more to do with the closeness of the vote then anything else.

[Associate Justice PiT]

    A sad day for liberty-minded individuals, though victory is something that is long in coming & we cannot allow ourselves to be discouraged by a few potholes in the road. Hopefully one day California will rejoin Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, & Maine in extending full marriage rights to homosexual couples.

What? The majority of people spoke and didn't want gay marriage. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not the court did the right thing by not going against the will of the people.

If a majority of people would raise taxes by 200% on truck drivers, you would agree because that is ''people will''.
Some issues are too important to be left in the hands of people. See what they did with California's budget.

I would agree with it, but the idea of that happening is so nonsensical it would never happen.

     Well if you sincerely believe in no checks on the public opinion, then I guess you're at least consistent, though I think a non-republican democracy is by far the most dangerous form of free governance. After all, why have a government at all if it will not protect the freedoms of the citizenry?

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

    A sad day for liberty-minded individuals, though victory is something that is long in coming & we cannot allow ourselves to be discouraged by a few potholes in the road. Hopefully one day California will rejoin Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, & Maine in extending full marriage rights to homosexual couples.

What? The majority of people spoke and didn't want gay marriage. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not the court did the right thing by not going against the will of the people.

If a majority of people would raise taxes by 200% on truck drivers, you would agree because that is ''people will''.
Some issues are too important to be left in the hands of people. See what they did with California's budget.

I would agree with it, but the idea of that happening is so nonsensical it would never happen.

     Well if you sincerely believe in no checks on the public opinion, then I guess you're at least consistent, though I think a non-republican democracy is by far the most dangerous form of free governance. After all, why have a government at all if it will not protect the freedoms of the citizenry?

My main point is that it's up for the individual state to decide how crazy it gets with ballot initiatives. While I don't agree with how easy it is in CA to get a ballot going they absolutely have the right to destroy themselves if they wish. Just don't come to me, the taxpayer, asking for a bailout when you FUBAR.

[MaxQue]

When something like this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6596687/) still happens in this day and age, I would be terrified to imagine what would have happened without the courts (or the federal government) stepping in.

The wording of the bill had more to do with the closeness of the vote then anything else.

Okay. You defend racist people and you said than slavery ended too quickly.
However, if somebody would legiferate on firearms, you would be the first to tribunal, to defend your liberties. Strangely, the liberty to be equal no matter your skin color or your sexual orientation is not important.
I suppose than liberties are only important when they have an effect on you.

[Associate Justice PiT]

    A sad day for liberty-minded individuals, though victory is something that is long in coming & we cannot allow ourselves to be discouraged by a few potholes in the road. Hopefully one day California will rejoin Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, & Maine in extending full marriage rights to homosexual couples.

What? The majority of people spoke and didn't want gay marriage. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not the court did the right thing by not going against the will of the people.

If a majority of people would raise taxes by 200% on truck drivers, you would agree because that is ''people will''.
Some issues are too important to be left in the hands of people. See what they did with California's budget.

I would agree with it, but the idea of that happening is so nonsensical it would never happen.

     Well if you sincerely believe in no checks on the public opinion, then I guess you're at least consistent, though I think a non-republican democracy is by far the most dangerous form of free governance. After all, why have a government at all if it will not protect the freedoms of the citizenry?

My main point is that it's up for the individual state to decide how crazy it gets with ballot initiatives. While I don't agree with how easy it is in CA to get a ballot going they absolutely have the right to destroy themselves if they wish. Just don't come to me, the taxpayer, asking for a bailout when you FUBAR.

     Oh, destroying ourselves is a favorite pasttime in California. Just look at how often & how long we go without a budget.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

     A sad day for liberty-minded individuals, though victory is something that is long in coming & we cannot allow ourselves to be discouraged by a few potholes in the road. Hopefully one day California will rejoin Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, & Maine in extending full marriage rights to homosexual couples.

Those rights already exist in California.  The opinion issued by the California Supreme Court was quite explicit that the only thing Proposition 8 affected was the name by which legal documents will use to refer to a "officially recognized family relationship" when it involves a same-gender couple.  Save for the fact that it can't be referred to in legal documents as a marriage, there is no difference, nor can there be without violating the California Constitution.  So almost all of this fuss and fury is not over rights, but instead over the definition of a word! (There is also some justifiable concern over how easy it is to change what is considered a right under the California Constitution, but that is what you get for having a Constitution that allows amendments to pass with a simple majority.)

[MaxQue]

     A sad day for liberty-minded individuals, though victory is something that is long in coming & we cannot allow ourselves to be discouraged by a few potholes in the road. Hopefully one day California will rejoin Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, & Maine in extending full marriage rights to homosexual couples.

Those rights already exist in California.  The opinion issued by the California Supreme Court was quite explicit that the only thing Proposition 8 affected was the name by which legal documents will use to refer to a "officially recognized family relationship" when it involves a same-gender couple.  Save for the fact that it can't be referred to in legal documents as a marriage, there is no difference, nor can there be without violating the California Constitution.  So almost all of this fuss and fury is not over rights, but instead over the definition of a word! (There is also some justifiable concern over how easy it is to change what is considered a right under the California Constitution, but that is what you get for having a Constitution that allows amendments to pass with a simple majority.)

Gays need real and visible equality, not equality by the back door.

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

When something like this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6596687/) still happens in this day and age, I would be terrified to imagine what would have happened without the courts (or the federal government) stepping in.

The wording of the bill had more to do with the closeness of the vote then anything else.

Okay. You defend racist people and you said than slavery ended too quickly.
However, if somebody would legiferate on firearms, you would be the first to tribunal, to defend your liberties. Strangely, the liberty to be equal no matter your skin color or your sexual orientation is not important.
I suppose than liberties are only important when they have an effect on you.

If I was able to translate that I would respond to you.

[Marokai Backbeat]

When something like this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6596687/) still happens in this day and age, I would be terrified to imagine what would have happened without the courts (or the federal government) stepping in.

The wording of the bill had more to do with the closeness of the vote then anything else.

Okay. You defend racist people and you said than slavery ended too quickly.
However, if somebody would legiferate on firearms, you would be the first to tribunal, to defend your liberties. Strangely, the liberty to be equal no matter your skin color or your sexual orientation is not important.
I suppose than liberties are only important when they have an effect on you.

If I was able to translate that I would respond to you.

I believe the gist of it is, "You're a selfish bigot."

[Joe Republic]

Gays need real and visible equality, not equality by the back door.

Must... resist... urge to... make joke...

[Associate Justice PiT]

     A sad day for liberty-minded individuals, though victory is something that is long in coming & we cannot allow ourselves to be discouraged by a few potholes in the road. Hopefully one day California will rejoin Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, & Maine in extending full marriage rights to homosexual couples.

Those rights already exist in California.  The opinion issued by the California Supreme Court was quite explicit that the only thing Proposition 8 affected was the name by which legal documents will use to refer to a "officially recognized family relationship" when it involves a same-gender couple.  Save for the fact that it can't be referred to in legal documents as a marriage, there is no difference, nor can there be without violating the California Constitution.  So almost all of this fuss and fury is not over rights, but instead over the definition of a word! (There is also some justifiable concern over how easy it is to change what is considered a right under the California Constitution, but that is what you get for having a Constitution that allows amendments to pass with a simple majority.)

Gays need real and visible equality, not equality by the back door.

     Ernest is correct though that they have full marriage rights. I got a little too swept up in my rhetoric at that point, so I made a misstatement there.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Gays need real and visible equality, not equality by the back door.

And the wording is used in legal documents is going to affect that?  The legal name is the only difference in California between a "marriage" and a "domestic partnership".  If making the name the same would have any actual real world effect on people's attitudes, then to deal with the evils of racism and segregation we should have simply relabeled blacks as whites and solved the problem once and for all back in the 1960's.

[Torie]

This is the right decision legally. California allows amending its Constitution via the ballot box. The end.

[MaxQue]

Okay.
First thing: You defend racist people and you said than slavery ended too quickly.

Second thing: However, if somebody would pass a law on guns, you would be the first to complain than they destroy your liberties. Strangely, the liberty to be equal no matter your skin color or your sexual orientation is not important to you.
I suppose than liberties are only important for you when they have an effect on you.

Clearer?

Joe, indeed I see the joke.

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

Okay.
First thing: You defend racist people and you said than slavery ended too quickly.

I didn't defend the people. I simply stated that the bill that was put up for a vote was worded badly. That has long since been discussed and proven to be true and the most likely reason for the close vote. And yes, I did say slavery ended to quickly. I personally think that ending it through military action was the wrong course of action as I believe the long term impacts were more negative. I personally believe a graduated emancipation would have been far preferable and less economically crippling to the South.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course I would, defense of my liberties is my paramount objective.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not true at all. Don't put words in my mouth. I believe in gender and race equality like most folks do. I personally don't believe sexual orientation should be placed at the same level as gender or race but that doesn't mean I believe in harassment/violence against hetero or homosexuals.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Somewhat, yes, but not any more extreme then your average individual who is conscience of politics.

[Magic 8-Ball]

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

[Marokai Backbeat]

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

Blame the minorities.