Advancing the Homosexual Agenda

Jamba

Airship Passenger
Adventurer
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
224
Age
38
Location
San Francisco, CA
Website
doormatty.livejournal.com
Nation Banner
Windy
Main Job
Dancer-Male
Secondary Job
BlackMage-Male
Server
Quetzalcoatl
Linkshell
OwMyFace
FFXI
Jamba
FFXIV
Jamba Laya
Calif. Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 15, 2008 - 1:10 pm ET,
Updated 1:23 pm ET, 1:38 pm ET, 1:45 pm ET,
2:08 pm ET

(San Francisco, California) The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Prop 22, the voter approved initiative used to block same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

The court also said that California's domestic partnership law is not a good enough substitute for marriage.

The 4-3 ruling. written by Chief Justice Ron George paves the way for gay and lesbian couples to marry once the ruling is officially published by the court - in about 30 days.

Once that is done same-sex couples in California will be able to obtain civil marriage licenses.

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation - like a person's race or gender - does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights," George wrote for the majority on the mostly Republican appointed court.

The ruling said that churches and other religious institutions will not have to recognize or perform ceremonies for these civil marriages.

The ruling does not extend to federal rights and benefits extended to married couples.

Large crowds began gathering outside the court early Thursday morning.

A wild cheer went up as the ruling was announced, drowning out gasps from opponents of same-sex marriage who also gathered in front of the court.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) said that he accepts the ruling of the court.

"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," a statement from the governor said.

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody - not just in the state of California, but throughout the country - will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.

"As of today, the right to marry is now guaranteed to anyone," said Kate Kendell, executive director of National Center for Lesbian Rights.

The case dates back to 2004 when San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some 8,000 couples exchanged vows before the state Supreme Court ruled Newsom had acted illegally.

The court nullified the marriages but said its ruling dealt only with Newsom's actions. The justices said at the time the question of whether barring same-sex couples from marrying violated the state's equal protection clause of its constitution was a separate matter.

Legal challenges on the constitutional question were begun almost immediately. Three separate suits ultimately were wrapped together into a single case.

In March 2005 a Superior Court judge in San Francisco ruled that the law denying same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said in a written ruling.

In striking down the state ban on same-sex marriage Kramer wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.

Kramer stayed his ruling while the state appealed.

In October, 2006, the California Court of Appeal in a split decision overturned Kramer's ruling and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.

Thursday's ruling sets the stage for a battle over a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that is likely to appear on the November ballot.

A coalition of conservative groups, under the banner 'Protect Marriage' , have submitted more than required 694,354 signatures to qualify. The signatures are being verified.

Last month, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said that if an initiative to ban gay marriage qualifies for the November ballot, he's prepared to fight it.

He made the commitment at a convention of Log Cabin Republicans, the nation's largest gay Republican group.

Schwarzenegger has previously vetoed bills that would have legalized gay marriage. Both times Schwarzenegger said that the courts or the people through a plebiscite should decide the issue.

©365Gay.com 2008
Source

Long story short, in about a month my fellow GLBTIQQ residing in the Golden State and I will be able to take part in the divorce statistic just like the rest of Heteromerica. Not that I'll be tying the knot anytime soon, but it's nice to have the option.

First Massachusettes and California, next stop the world!
Or at least the other blue states.
(:
 
man...weed is legal in cali by state law and now....gay marriage. Its starting to look like that particular state is the only free part of america anymore lol
 
man...weed is legal in cali by state law and now....gay marriage. Its starting to look like that particular state is the only free part of america anymore lol

Because America was totally founded on the freedom to smoke weed, right?
 
It's great news, and I've been loving watching the heads of Jesus People explode in horror at the idea of loving, committed couples might want to tie the knot and live their lives together.

What I love about this is that you can't level the "judicial activism" charge against them because the legislature had already approved marriage equality and Schwarzenegger used his veto pen and said "Let the courts decide."

Best of all, gay couples will be able to marry in 30 days, long before the Jesus People can get their initiative on the ballot.
 
man...weed is legal in cali by state law and now....gay marriage. Its starting to look like that particular state is the only free part of america anymore lol

Sure, in that sense. It also has by far the highest incarceration stats in the world. So much so, that the prison gaurds union is the biggest political power in the state.
 
It's great news, and I've been loving watching the heads of Jesus People explode in horror at the idea of loving, committed couples might want to tie the knot and live their lives together.

What I love about this is that you can't level the "judicial activism" charge against them because the legislature had already approved marriage equality and Schwarzenegger used his veto pen and said "Let the courts decide."

Best of all, gay couples will be able to marry in 30 days, long before the Jesus People can get their initiative on the ballot.

I get a kick out of both sides. The higher ups love the 'moral' argument being played. It gets everyone fired up and clouds the real issue: money. Big business and empty suits don't really give a shit about the morality, they don't like paying the added benefits that a partner in a legal union brings to the equation. Hell, if they could get away with it, they would dump straight marriages too I'm sure.
 
The fabulous thing about California's law, as opposed to Massachusetts', is that they are treating same-sex marriage the same as any other marriage, meaning a couple from New York (or wherever) could go to California, get married, return to New York, and demand that New York recognize their rights as a legally married couple. Massachusetts' same-sex marriages only cover residents of that state.
 
Last edited:
I get a kick out of both sides. The higher ups love the 'moral' argument being played. It gets everyone fired up and clouds the real issue: money. Big business and empty suits don't really give a shit about the morality, they don't like paying the added benefits that a partner in a legal union brings to the equation. Hell, if they could get away with it, they would dump straight marriages too I'm sure.

I think that's a bit narrow. The real issue for, say, Microsoft or GM or something might be money, but I would wager if you asked the 8,000 couples who had their marriages annuled, money would be pretty low on their list of what the "real issue" here is.

It is largely a question of equality and quality of living, not money.
 
Big business and empty suits don't really give a shit about the morality, they don't like paying the added benefits that a partner in a legal union brings to the equation. Hell, if they could get away with it, they would dump straight marriages too I'm sure.

Not so. Plenty of companies have realized that extending benefits to the partners of their gay employees is a crucial retention tool. If Company A won't let your insurance cover your partner but Company B will... time to send out that resume.
 
Not so. Plenty of companies have realized that extending benefits to the partners of their gay employees is a crucial retention tool. If Company A won't let your insurance cover your partner but Company B will... time to send out that resume.


True, but it is a slow process. As long as they can use the "legal status" issue to save a buck, they will.

I never understood the morality side of gay marriages. I can understand people not agreeing with gay relationships, but once it gets to the stage where the couple is dumb enough to actually want to get married, I really don't see where the church's version of morality enter's into it. It is a legal union at that point, and symbolic to themselves and those close to them, it's really none of the church's damn business. The 'immoral' relationship is going to continue whether the church recognizes the union or not.

I have only ever heard 2 even close to logical arguments against this reasoning. One being that the 'sacrament' of marriage is meant for a man and woman. Fine. The problem is that the church has done such a wonderful job of alienating homosexuals over the years that I don't think most gay couple give a shit and 3/4 about the 'sacrament' and aren't asking for it. Seriously, some of the shit that goes on makes me embarrassed to call myself a catholic.

The other argument I hear is that it "encourages gayness" (I quote it because I actually heard some one say that the other day, lmfao). How fucking stupid is this? Like people are just sitting around and read about what's going on in California and think, "well gee, I think I'll be gay now..." Come on! What cracks me up even more is that these are the same people that think that homosexuality is a disease or genetic defect. Well which is it? A disease or a choice? (I LOVE trapping them into that argument :p ).

I dunno. White, black, brown, asian, gay, straight, male, female.....people are all created equally stupid.
 
Sure, in that sense. It also has by far the highest incarceration stats in the world. So much so, that the Correctional Officers union is the biggest political power in the state.

Fixed.

We are not guards, we are Correctional Officers. There is a huge difference.

I didn't bother to read anything else, but that's a pet peeve of mine. Had to correct.
 
The other argument I hear is that it "encourages gayness" ...

That's one of my favorites, too. It all boils down to "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" How are we going to keep them all 100% hetero if we're not allowed to mock the queers and make them ride at the back of the marriage bus?

I guess the only thing keeping Matt Damon from swinging over my bed like a naked trapeze artist is the threat of social condemnation, so I applaud California for taking an important first step to realizing my dream.
 
"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," a statement from the governor said.

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody - not just in the state of California, but throughout the country - will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.
I totally read the second paragraph in my mental Ahnold voice.
 
My only question is what happens when a couple legally married in California moves to a state that has already amended their constitution to prohibit gay marriage (sup VA). I expect we're going to see this move on to the US Supreme Court soon, and there's going to be a huge, huge fight there.

I'm rooting for you guys, but it's going to be a long, bitter fight before you see true equality in this regard.
 
True, but it is a slow process. As long as they can use the "legal status" issue to save a buck, they will.

I never understood the morality side of gay marriages.

(I took a bunch out because it's very long)

I'm not entirely sure how to answer this. You don't appear to think very much of humanity in general, and marriage in specific.

I don't understand at all the anti-gay feelings some people have. Even the "I'm fine with them as long as they're not hitting on me" attitude. I mean, how do you (generic "you", not specific) turn down advances from girls you're not interested in? Can't you turn down advances from guys the same way? Or the other way around. Seriously, are all of your interactions with people so clouded by sexual tensions that you can't relate to someone else as an individual? People is people.

And that's where it becomes a question of morality. If you accept that sexual orientation (or gender identity) makes no difference to an individual's worth or legal standing, than you have to also accept that they are entitled to all of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that their basic humanity allows.

This country already decided that separate-but-equal is not equal. That's why you can't have "civil unions" for same-sex couples and "marriages" for opposite-sex couples.

Intelligence really doesn't enter into the equation at all.
 
This country already decided that separate-but-equal is not equal. That's why you can't have "civil unions" for same-sex couples and "marriages" for opposite-sex couples.

This has boggled me for a long time. What's in a name? As long as 'civil union' is equal to 'marriage' in all it's rights, tax breaks, and misery. Marriage pretty much is a civil union anyway, just with religious conotations. Is marriage just more socially acceptable? Fight for the equality, not the name. It's pretty obvious that homosexuals do not believe the same docturine that the religous fruitloops believe, so why fight so hard to be accepted by them? In fact, why aim to be equal at all? Be better!

And yes, your first sentence nails me pretty well, though my stance is softening as of late. I have a hard time finding common ground with some of my friends on this subject. Not because I'm not gay, but because they seem to believe in 'marriage'. :P
 
This has boggled me for a long time. What's in a name? As long as 'civil union' is equal to 'marriage' in all it's rights, tax breaks, and misery. Marriage pretty much is a civil union anyway, just with religious conotations. Is marriage just more socially acceptable? Fight for the equality, not the name.

Marriage is more socially acceptable. When you say "I'm married," people know what you mean. When you say "I'm in a civil union," that could mean almost anything. Hell, I could have a civil union with my sister as long as we live together and share expenses. Civil unions aren't just for gay people.

The California decision is centered around the argument that they're not the same. The rights and responsibilities are the roughly the same, but the state couldn't prove it had a compelling interest in preserving the title "marriage" for opposite sex couples and using "civil unions" for gay couples, other than to confer second-class status on gay couples.
 
This has boggled me for a long time. What's in a name? As long as 'civil union' is equal to 'marriage' in all it's rights, tax breaks, and misery. Marriage pretty much is a civil union anyway, just with religious conotations. Is marriage just more socially acceptable?

Yes, it is more socially acceptable. Society in general is a lot more respectful of a "married" couple than one that has a "civil union". That was part of what was said in the California Supreme Court decision.

Marriage only has religious connotations to religious people, the word is defined as a "social institution". People absolutely get upset about using "marriage" to describe a union that doesn't fall under their religion's definition of the word, people take their faith very seriously. But, the word does not belong to the Judeo-Christian belief system, or any belief system.

It might be a question of semantics, but there is a lot of power in language. (Is she a "woman" or a "lady"?)

Also, logistically, if you want to grant the same rights to everyone for the same situation, use the same word. If someone forgets to put "and civil unions" at the end of something dealing with the rights of long-term and legally commited (married) couples, then there is the potential for narrow interpretions, prejudice, and years of frustration and litigation. If you want to preserve the rights of long-term and legally commited couples, have them either all be "married" or all "entered into a civil union". Same is same.
 
It’s funny how homosexuals are not allowed to get married. What is marriage exactly? A bond between two individuals who want to express there love and dedication to each other in a silly Ceremony… It’s a private event, to celebrate the love between two people. Man and Women, Women and Women, Man and Man. Two people

Where does the government have a say in this? The government is dictating who is allowed to get married. This is obscene. What’s next, the government telling us who we have to marry? Why don’t we just bow our heads and let the government arrange our marriages.
 
Back
Top