California Supreme Court Holds that Gay Marriage must be Allowed under the California Constitution

[billvon 2,434]

>See, I didnt know that, but then again, where is that written in the bible?

I don't think it is written any more than "women should not marry" is written. But the passages people used were:

Leviticus 19:19: You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. you shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.

Deuteronomy 7:3: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. (This is after listing the other seven nations of the world at the time.)

>Of course I have hinesight and i grew up in the city, but, how could any
>preacher just let that go?

Times change. We once also believed that women shouldn't vote, and that blacks were both inferior and not entitled to rights. Nowadays we're smarter than that.

>I think the impact of this is going to be much more profound than that of
>interacial marriages.

What do you think the impact will be? (beyond a few people being able to marry each other.)

[tbrown 26]

Quote

>In another 5 or 20 years, gay marriage will be legal in the country.

Agreed. I think that our experience with gay marriages in Massachusetts, and now California, will put to rest the last myth propagated by marriage foes - "it will destroy the family." Once gays are able to marry freely, and society does not collapse, that argument will collapse of its own weight.

We can already take a look at the first generation of kids who grew up and reached adulthood with openly gay parents. Statistically, they're as normal as any other kids of their generation. They're about as happy, adjusted, and successful as anyone else. They've got their share of screw-ups, but no more than the population at large. And thry're also no "gayer" than the rest of their generation, their sexual orientation as to whether they grow up gay, bi, or hetero is no different either.

So what do we need, another generation to study ? The results are already their. Gay parents are just as good - or bad - as any other parents.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[billvon 2,434]

>Is it just me, or do some people (Bill) find a way to interject race into as
>many threads as possible?

I do it because you are making EXACTLY the same arguments that people made against interracial marriages.

>it is unnatural . . .

Then why are so many animals homosexual or polygamist?

>it is a financial burden on our government (taxes, social security,
>medical, and other benefits paid to the "spouse")

Agreed. Of course, ending segregation was a MUCH bigger impact.

>and it devalues traditional heterosexual marriages.

How will your marriage be devalued if two women in San Francisco get married? Will it be equally devalued if a black man marries a white woman in Kentucky?

> In addition, I feel the increased acceptance of homosexuality does
>increase the likelihood of young adults choosing that lifestyle, especially
>those with identity issues.

That's a good thing. I know more than a few kids who were forced to live a lie because no one would accept them for who they were.

>I am willing to bet there are many more like me, as 61% of
>Californians voted against homosexual marriage a few years ago.

Yep. And when interracial marriages were first ruled legal, most of the country was against THEM. But the Constitution was deemed more important than popular opinion.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Was it handled correctly or did the judicial usurp what the legislature should have dealt with. (I believe the Cali leg would have revised existing law to come to the same conclusion).

If I understand correctly, it was a referendum by the voters that gave what was essentially "separate but equal" status for opposite sex and same sex marriages/civil unions.

To what extent can the California state legislature appeal or amend such a referendum? While it doesn't rule out judicial activism (although that doesn't appear to be the case so far), did the legislature have any power to deal with the issue in this case?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

The legislature makes statutes. A statute was overturned.

Only by amending the state Constitution can this decision be overturned - barring a future judicial fiat.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The legislature makes statutes. A statute was overturned.

Only by amending the state Constitution can this decision be overturned - barring a future judicial fiat.

So the statute that was overturned was passed by the legislature, not the people?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Royd 0]

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not at all. I'm pointing out the hypocracy of people who choose to embrace every manner of foolishness, just to throw a wrench in the works, wouldn't let their kids hang out with the poor, roughhewn rednecks, down the block, because they are afraid it might contaminate the more finely tuned sensibilities of their precious children.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ah, I see. You were creating a strawman argument.

Quote

Most tolerant people I know are just that, tolerant. They aren't likely to forbid their kids from associating with poor folks, redneck or otherwise. Their kids, OTOH, might be intelligent enough to not want to hang out with other kids who spew hatred and bigotry learned from their elders, whether those kids are rich or poor, black or white, Christian or non-religious, etc.

Ah, I see. You hear the word redneck, and you automatically attach hatred and bigotry. How unjudgmental of you.

You also associate liberalism with tolerance. I find a whole lot of hate, venom and contempt rolling off of the tongues of the enlightened.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Most tolerant people I know are just that, tolerant. They aren't likely to forbid their kids from associating with poor folks, redneck or otherwise. Their kids, OTOH, might be intelligent enough to not want to hang out with other kids who spew hatred and bigotry learned from their elders, whether those kids are rich or poor, black or white, Christian or non-religious, etc.

Ah, I see. You hear the word redneck, and you automatically attach hatred and bigotry. How unjudgmental of you.

I didn't make that connection at all, actually.

Quote

You also associate liberalism with tolerance. I find a whole lot of hate, venom and contempt rolling off of the tongues of the enlightened.

Actually, I only mentioned tolerance, not liberalism. Another connection you made yourself.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I understand how people could not see how it harms others around them, but it does.

Ah, I see now. You have no idea what you're talking about other than what your religion has told you.

And, I honestly don't mean this to be offensive, but your narrow views are really making all of the "truth" and "love" stuff sound like BS.

[countzero 7]

what gets me about this whole thing is that the issue was put to a vote. the people voted no. then the court decideds the peoples vote dosent count and they can just change the law themselves. if the will of the people can be ignored like this by the courts and governmet then i'm really wooried about where our country is headed.

diamonds are a dawgs best friend

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

what gets me about this whole thing is that the issue was put to a vote. the people voted no. then the court decideds the peoples vote dosent count and they can just change the law themselves. if the will of the people can be ignored like this by the courts and governmet then i'm really wooried about where our country is headed.

I'm not aware of any state where an unconstitutional law will stand just because it was voted in by the people. If it's that important to the people, then they will have to amend their constitution.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[SpeedRacer 1]

jcd beat me to it.

We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

Quote

Training to become a good flatflyer (just had my first 49-way two weeks ago), means my freefly suffers.

disagree, body flying is body flying, any chance to excel in one helps skills progression in the other freefall disciplines - as long as one is aware of "how" they are moving the flow during practice and not just striking a body position and blindly allowing it to fly you

I totally agree. Maybe a rephrase: Keeping almost all my jumps RW, means I haven't tried more than few freefly jumps -- so don't put me on headdown 3-way just yet...

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Only by amending the state Constitution can this decision be overturned

Maybe its just me, but the thought of amending a Constitution to preclude individuals from having specific rights seems to be so contrary to the principles of the USofA that anyone who would vote for this should have their citizenship temporarily revoked until they earn it back by volunteering in a VA hospital caring for people who make the ultimate sacrifice for exactly the opposite ideals.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I totally agree. Maybe a rephrase: Keeping almost all my jumps RW, means I haven't tried more than few freefly jumps -- so don't put me on headdown 3-way just yet...

just a break from the legislative vs judicial activity discussion......



I should clarify too on that - I think that there's a critical skill level, where, prior to that point, one discipline doesn't much help the other - just learning the basics. But at a certain point, suddenly you realize that they aren't much different at all, then you get a great kick in your training as it all applies.

It amazes me just how much the techniques in mantis, bootie fly, sit and headdown are all so very similar in application. Though comfy on a huge belly way, and faster 4-way, etc, I wouldn't volunteer to do 4way VRW any time soon - except for laughs. But soon - I hope, and I can thank my 4way RW experience just as much as I can thank my Freeflying friends for my progress.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

Only by amending the state Constitution can this decision be overturned

Maybe its just me, but the thought of amending a Constitution to preclude individuals from having specific rights seems to be so contrary to the principles of the USofA that anyone who would vote for this should have their citizenship temporarily revoked until they earn it back by volunteering in a VA hospital caring for people who make the ultimate sacrifice for exactly the opposite ideals.

The Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of each citizen, even if the majority of people vote to infringe the rights of a certain minority group.

that is what happened.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Johnh 0]

Quote

what gets me about this whole thing is that the issue was put to a vote. the people voted no. then the court decideds the peoples vote dosent count and they can just change the law themselves. if the will of the people can be ignored like this by the courts and governmet then i'm really wooried about where our country is headed.

Make that 2 people who don't know what a constitution is for.

[billvon 2,434]

>then the court decideds the peoples vote dosent count and they can
>just change the law themselves.

Correct.

If Utah voted to force everyone there be a Mormon, a US court would "just change the law themselves" because the US Constitution says they can't do that. If they really wanted a change, they could amend the US constitution and remove the First Amendment.

If Georgia voted to force all blacks to attend separate but equal schools, a US court would "just change the law themselves" because the US Constitution says they can't do that. Again, if they really wanted a change, they could amend the US constitution to specifically permit that.

That's what life under a Constitution is like.

[billvon 2,434]

You say " . . .hanging around with the poor rednecks . . ." and then complains about "judgmental crap." So rednecks are poor, eh? And they're like "Neanderthals?"

It's pretty clear who's doing the judgmental thing here.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So the statute that was overturned was passed by the legislature, not the people?

By both. The statute was created by the Legislature. In 2000, it was amended by popular vote, which inserted this language: “[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

This is what was overturned.

Sometimes, the "will of the people" is wrong. That's why we have rules and precedent.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

what gets me about this whole thing is that the issue was put to a vote. the people voted no. then the court decideds the peoples vote dosent count and they can just change the law themselves. if the will of the people can be ignored like this by the courts and governmet then i'm really wooried about where our country is headed.

If the "will of the people" is to be controlling, I would suggest that we take all laws and just get rid of them.

On more than one occasion, and in more than one profession, I have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic. I note that I did not ever take an oath to support and defend the "will of the people."

The best example of "the will of the people" is a mob riot - imposing their will on others.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

I would be very interested to see what you believe to be right and wrong.

I agree with her, so perhaps you'd be interested in what I believe to be right and wrong.

I believe that love, compassion and the freedom to live life without harassment or discrimination from others based on ones color, culture, religion, gender, sexual preference, preferred breakfast food, etc., are right.

I believe that hatred, intolerance, oppression and violence are wrong.

Quote

I truly am sorry if you believe I am coming off as egocentric.

I'm not sure that egocentric is the right word. You do come off to me as ethnocentric -assuming that one's own culture is superior to all others and should therefore be dominant.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

You say " . . .hanging around with the poor rednecks . . ." and then complains about "judgmental crap." So rednecks are poor, eh? And they're like "Neanderthals?"

It's pretty clear who's doing the judgmental thing here.

Yes. EVERYBODY! EVERYBODY!

Like it or not, this calls for people to make judgments. What's the problem?

People are making judgments ancillary to the item. Connected? Absolutely. But ancillary, nonetheless.

People state why they make the judgments that they are making. Others on the other side of the spectrum respond with judgments of their own. Some have religious objections that form the basis of their judgment. Others have their own judgments about religion that form the basis for their judgments about the judgment of others.

And plenty don't like the "judgmental." Of course, they are themselves being "judgmental" about it.

"Oh. He's soooo judgmental." That's a judgment.
"I hate him. He's sooooo intolerant." That displays intolerance.
"You can't say what is right and wrong." That's saying somebody is right or wrong.

Fact of life. We are all self-centered. Myself included.
We are all judgmental. Myself included.

Let's own up to it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I believe that love, compassion and the freedom to live life without harassment or discrimination from others based on ones color, culture, religion, gender, sexual preference, preferred breakfast food, etc., are right.

Are you serious? Do you truly believe that someone who has a bagel with cream cheese for breakfast is entitled to exercise the same rights as someone who eats Wheaties? Un-f'ing-believable. Next thing you know, people who eat salads for lunch will consider themselves morally and civically equal to those who eat sandwiches for lunch.

Don't even get me started about dinner. It will be a sad day if the time ever comes when those who prefer early dinners are not recognized as inferior to those who eat late dinners.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

They shouldnt be completely ignorant or naive to them though.

SO the Biblical law that bases most of the religious rights moral objections is in the Old Testament the so called Laws set forth in Leviticus. There are a whole lot of "laws" there that most good god fearing folk today break on a daily basis. Personlly I do love lobster.. its a flaw.. but a law I break at least every couple weeks. Even right now.. I am wearing wool socks... and a cotton jeans... and a cotton blend blouse. Do you think I am going to hell because of the clothing in my wardrobe??