+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 79
  1. #1
    Salvage Bans
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    936
    BG Level
    5
    FFXI Server
    Odin

    Gay marriage legal in california in 30 days~

    State supreme court struck down the same sex marriage ban as unconstitutional.


    Quote Originally Posted by CNN
    (CNN) -- The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."
    art.hug.gi.jpg

    Gay couple John Lewis, left, and Stuart Gaffney celebrate outside the California Supreme Court on Thursday.

    In a 4-3 120-page ruling issue, the justices wrote that "responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."

    "We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.

    The ruling takes effect in 30 days. Video Watch what the ruling means »

    Several gay and lesbian couples, along with the city of San Francisco and gay rights groups, filed a lawsuit saying they were victims of unlawful discrimination. A lower court ruled San Francisco acted unlawfully in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

    The ruling surprised legal experts because the court has a reputation for being conservative. Six of its seven judges are Republican appointees.

    San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said he is "profoundly grateful" for the decision and for the court's "eloquence" in its delivery.

    "After four long years, we're very, very gratified," he said.

    Shannon Minter, attorney for one of the plaintiffs in the case, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the ruling "a moment of pure happiness and joy for so many families in California."

    "California sets the tone, and this will have a huge effect across the nation to bringing wider acceptance for gay and lesbian couples," he said.

    Neil Giuliano, president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, issued a statement saying, "Today's ruling affirms that committed couples, gay and straight, should not be denied the duties, obligations and protections of marriage. ... This decision is a vital affirmation to countless California couples -- straight and gay -- who want to make and have made a lifelong commitment to take care of and be responsible for each other."

    Groups opposing same-sex marriage also reacted strongly to the ruling.

    "The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and instead legislating from the bench," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for the group Concerned Women for America, in a written statement.

    "So-called 'same-sex' marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it's in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable."

    The organization said that a constitutional marriage amendment should be placed on the November ballot and that national efforts should be made to generate a federal marriage amendment.

    "The decision must be removed from the hands of judicial activists and returned to the rightful hands of the people," Barber said.

    A constitutional amendment initiative specifying that marriage is only between a man and a woman is awaiting verification by the secretary of state's office after its sponsors said they had gathered enough signatures to place it on the statewide ballot. The parties cannot appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Herrera said, as federal courts do not have jurisdiction over the state laws. "This is the final say," he said.

    In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that although he agrees with some of the majority's conclusions, the court was overstepping its bounds in striking down the ban. Instead, he wrote, the issue should be left to the voters.

    In 2004, San Francisco officials allowed gay couples in the city to wed, prompting a flood of applicants crowding the city hall clerk's office. The first couple to wed then was 80-year-old Phyllis Lyon and 83-year-old Dorothy Martin, lovers for 50 years.

    "We have a right just like anyone else to get married to the person we want to get married to," Lyon said at the time.

    San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom called the ruling a victory not just for the city "but for literally millions of people. ... What the court did is simply affirm their lives."

    CNN's Ted Rowlands reported that "huge cheers" went up in San Francisco when the ruling was announced.

    In California, a 2000 voter referendum banned same-sex marriage, but state lawmakers have made two efforts to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both bills.

    "I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," Schwarzenegger said in a statement issued Thursday. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

    Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriages in 2004, and gay couples need not be state residents there to wed. However, then-Gov. Mitt Romney resurrected a 1913 law barring non-resident marriages in the state if the marriage would be prohibited in the partners' home state.

    Subsequent court and agency decisions have determined that only residents of Massachusetts, Rhode Island or New Mexico may marry in the state, unless the marriage partners say they intend to relocate to Massachusetts after the marriage.

    New Hampshire, Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut permit civil unions, and California has a domestic-partner registration law. More than a dozen other states give gay couples some legal rights, as do some other countries. Check the law in different states »

    "It's a throwaway line, but I think it's true: As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation," Newsom said. "And I don't think people should be paranoid about that. ... Look what happened in Massachusetts a number of years ago. Massachusetts is doing just fine. The state is doing wonderfully."

    The state law in question in the case, which consolidated six cases, was the Defense of Marriage Act, Proposition 22. Oral arguments in March lasted more than three hours.

    "There can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most consistent with our state's general legislative policy and preference," the ruling said.

    "Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of Section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a 'union between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples."

    Newsom compared the ruling to the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a Virginia case overturning that state's ban on interracial marriage.

    "This is about civil marriage. This is about fundamental rights," he said.

    The ruling may make the same-sex marriage issue more important in November elections.
    advertisement

    Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain supports "traditional" marriage but opposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, saying individual states should decide the issue. He also backs some legal benefits for same-sex couples.

    Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton both oppose same-sex marriage but support civil unions. They also oppose a constitutional ban.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/sam...ref=newssearch


    Weeeeeeeee

  2. #2

    Re: Gay marriage legal in california in 30 days~

    It always struck me that if we're accepting homosexuality that we should also accept their right to a monogamous relationship with equal rights. I would respect a minister's right to refuse to perform the service in a church, but to deny a gay couple a civil wedding performed at a non-denominational location is basically homophobic.

  3. #3

    Re: Gay marriage legal in california in 30 days~

    Good news.

  4. #4
    Chram
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,740
    BG Level
    7
    FFXIV Character
    Helmut Lang
    FFXIV Server
    Excalibur

    Re: Gay marriage legal in california in 30 days~

    Ehh I dont care either way. Creeps, move back to Cali so we can get married.

  5. #5
    Conejita's Jolly
    Chaparrita's Dulce
    Trigger warning: Fuck your feelings.

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,139
    BG Level
    8

    Re: Gay marriage legal in california in 30 days~

    I wonder how many homosexuals are gonna get married right away lol. Anyways, in before the shit storm.

  6. #6
    Old Merits
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,116
    BG Level
    6

    Re: Gay marriage legal in california in 30 days~

    Quote Originally Posted by Meteora
    I wonder how many homosexuals are gonna get married right away lol. Anyways, in before the shit storm.
    Portia de Rossi and Ellen DeGeneres

  7. #7
    Xavier
    Guest

    Re: Gay marriage legal in california in 30 days~

    I always love when critics say that this will jeopardize the sanctity of marriage, a sanctity so sanctified that it ends in a 50% divorce rate.

    I'm with Shuemue, if the Church doesn't want to perform the ceremonies thats understandable, but civil unions should be perfectly acceptable.

  8. #8
    Black Belt
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5,736
    BG Level
    8
    FFXI Server
    Siren
    WoW Realm
    Thrall

    Re: Gay marriage legal in california in 30 days~

    Just curious and if it invites the shitstorm then so be it. :D

    If California can determine that it's unconstitutional to ban gay marriage, why are other states interpreting it differently? I would think the constitution tries to be as cut and dry as possible and not be written in such a way where liberal states come to a conclusion which is different from a conservative state. Also if this ever became a national issue instead of a state by state 1, why is interpretation going to be so 2 sided, it seems to me it's mostly the "religious" opinions and influence playing a role more than what is or isnt really unconstitutional.

  9. #9
    BG Medical's Student of Medicine
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    30,595
    BG Level
    10

    Re: Gay marriage legal in california in 30 days~

    Well, I guess San Fransisco is going to have a lot of filled churches.

  10. #10
    Salvage Bans
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    758
    BG Level
    5
    FFXI Server
    Odin

    Re: Gay marriage legal in california in 30 days~

    lolFags

  11. #11
    The Mizzle Fizzle of Nikkei's Haremizzle

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    22,050
    BG Level
    10
    FFXI Server
    Bismarck

    Re: Gay marriage legal in california in 30 days~

    Quote Originally Posted by Xavier
    I always love when critics say that this will jeopardize the sanctity of marriage, a sanctity so sanctified that it ends in a 50% divorce rate.


    QFMFT.

    I will say nothing further until the imminent shit storm arrives.

  12. #12
    Xavier
    Guest

    Re: Gay marriage legal in california in 30 days~

    Quote Originally Posted by Koyangi
    Just curious and if it invites the shitstorm then so be it. :D

    If California can determine that it's unconstitutional to ban gay marriage, why are other states interpreting it differently? I would think the constitution tries to be as cut and dry as possible and not be written in such a way where liberal states come to a conclusion which is different from a conservative state. Also if this ever became a national issue instead of a state by state 1, why is interpretation going to be so 2 sided, it seems to me it's mostly the "religious" opinions and influence playing a role more than what is or isnt really unconstitutional.
    Thats the fundamental problem with the system. Laws which do not specifically ban or allow an activity, but rather offer vague instruction which may or may not relate to a particular case, -are- subject to interpretation, and that interpretation is always going to be influenced by the ideological view of the judge, whether they admit it or not. People will always seek to reaffirm their own beliefs and apply them whenever possible to a given situation, consciously or subconsciously.

  13. #13
    Sea Torques
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    605
    BG Level
    5
    FFXIV Character
    Winter Sky
    FFXIV Server
    Cactuar

    Re: Gay marriage legal in california in 30 days~

    let the anal compton swap-meet commence?

  14. #14

    Re: Gay marriage legal in california in 30 days~

    The problem is there is no seperation of Church and State. Politcally speaking, gay couples deserve just as many rights and tax status and all that other good stuff just as much as the next straight couple. The problem is that the church gets involved.

    We came up with an idealistic solution last night at the bar I work at lol.
    Everyone should be allowed to get 'married' with the benefits of marraige. If they want to get sanctioned by the church then after a year of being married, they can go to their minister and request to have their marraige sanctioned by the church. But just because the church doesn't agree with what we want, it doesn't mean they should prohibit us from receiving the same status as anyone else as far as money/politics go.

  15. #15

    Re: Gay marriage legal in california in 30 days~

    The vatican says that gay aliens can't exist.

  16. #16

    Re: Gay marriage legal in california in 30 days~

    why do people still get married

  17. #17

    Re: Gay marriage legal in california in 30 days~

    For straight guys, it's to show the world they aren't gay.

    For gay people, it's to show the world they stand out.

  18. #18
    blax n gunz
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    11,161
    BG Level
    9

    Re: Gay marriage legal in california in 30 days~

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Mk. 2
    why do people still get married
    Financial reasons, legal reasons and call me crazy but maybe every now and then some people actually think a promise that lasts forever is worth making official.

  19. #19

    Re: Gay marriage legal in california in 30 days~

    Quote Originally Posted by Correction
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Mk. 2
    why do people still get married
    Financial reasons, legal reasons and call me crazy but maybe every now and then some people actually think a promise that lasts forever is worth making official.
    So with making same-sex marriage legal are they going to do away with all the domestic-partnership laws?

    I know alot of the reason I got married was for insurance/finacial/legal reasons. We didnt want to get married but it was just easier for us. Had they offered domestic-partnership laws to traditional couples we probably wouldnt be married right now.

  20. #20
    blax n gunz
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    11,161
    BG Level
    9

    Re: Gay marriage legal in california in 30 days~

    Quote Originally Posted by BIGSTIC
    Quote Originally Posted by Correction
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Mk. 2
    why do people still get married
    Financial reasons, legal reasons and call me crazy but maybe every now and then some people actually think a promise that lasts forever is worth making official.
    So with making same-sex marriage legal are they going to do away with all the domestic-partnership laws?

    I know alot of the reason I got married was for insurance/finacial/legal reasons. We didnt want to get married but it was just easier for us. Had they offered domestic-partnership laws to traditional couples we probably wouldnt be married right now.
    I'm all for 'lifelong domestic partnership' equality, gay or straight. 'Marriage rights' at this point is a huge fight over a legal definition that affects everyone legally and financially. Trouble is the Fundamentalist Right would probably block equal access to unmarried heterosexual couples, too. Something about 'blah blah tradition blah blah living in sin blah blah God Says So.' At least, they'd have to if they didn't want to be complete fucking hypocrites.

    *cough*

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Legal underage stripping in Rhode Island
    By Snprphnx in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 2009-07-25, 13:39
  2. Is it legal to breastfeed in public?
    By Dalecia in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 382
    Last Post: 2008-07-23, 17:30
  3. $30,000 Electric Car to be sold in California
    By octopus in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 2007-12-24, 23:49
  4. Man saws house in two in divorce
    By Ddz in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 2007-03-11, 03:07
  5. Who lives in California?
    By Judah in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 2005-08-08, 21:38