Gay Marriage Legal in California

JaJae · 05-15-2008, 02:51 PM

The 4-3 State Supreme Court ruling states that not allowing gays to be married is discriminatory. California previously had unions with the same rights as marriage, but they took it one step further now and said they must allow gays to marry as well. I think this is a clear example of why the government shouldn't be in the business of handling marriage. They should only focus on legal unions. Marriage should be a religious thing and left at that. This kinda bites people who don't support separation of church and state in the ass because now they have to open it up to everyone. Which when I think about it kinda makes sense. If the government is in the business of dealing with such things they shouldn't discriminate.

California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

It was a close vote, I thought it would pass. And in a way I'm kinda glad it did. I'm just glad they did it through the proper legal channels this time rather than activist judges making improper decisions for their political purposes.

thewise1 · 05-15-2008, 02:59 PM

As long as this doesn't result in discrimination lawsuits against churches that choose not to perform marriage ceremonies, I'm good.

If it does, it's horribly evil.

motivez · 05-15-2008, 03:04 PM

I think it's a great decision, the government shouldn't be in the business of discriminating against people based on gender, race, religion, or sexual preference.. and so long as the government is in the business of granting rights and privileges to adults with a marriage license, this is a good decision.

The liberal states are paving the way. In 50 years it'll be legal everywhere like interracial marriage and everyone will look back on the idea of people being against letting consenting adults (of whatever gender) enter into a marriage agreement recognized by the state the same way they do those who opposed interracial marriage -- as the bigots they (mostly) are.

Now, if you are one of the people who oppose it because you don't think government should be in the business of recognizing any marriage, that's obviously different.. but most of the people who identify as Republicans or conservatives these days do it because they think gay = sin.

kombayn · 05-15-2008, 08:08 PM

I have to say I'm proud of my state for passing this law. It's about time gay & lesbian couples were allowed to marry. I think it's stupid for churches to claim they own marriage, when it's a legal document of domestic partnership. I'm sure San Francisco is just going completely nuts right now and West Hollywood.

Bunch of fags.

P.S. I agree with the poster earlier, if this leads to a bunch of lawsuits because churches don't want to marry a gay couple (I wouldn't understand why a gay couple would want to marry at a church in the first place), then yes it's going to be a bad decision. How is it working out for the people in Boston? Any feedback, stupid lawsuits, etc.?

Fed Up · 05-15-2008, 08:16 PM

It still goes to the voters of California in November.

Why California's gay-marriage decision could be overturned by voters in November. - By Emily Bazelon - Slate Magazine

Fed Up

kinggovernor · 05-15-2008, 08:20 PM

it should be decided by voters, however I have no problem with gay marriage.

Marriage is just a contract between two people and the government shouldn't be deciding whether certain adults can sign that contract. Religiously speaking it means something else, but that is what religion is for.

Fed Up · 05-15-2008, 08:27 PM

As an aside...

Where the remaining candidates stand on the issue:

Religion and Politics 2008: Gay Marriage Profile

Fed Up

kombayn · 05-15-2008, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by Fed Up

It still goes to the voters of California in November.

Why California's gay-marriage decision could be overturned by voters in November. - By Emily Bazelon - Slate Magazine

Fed Up

It'll most likely get passed, the Gay & Lesbian communities will be out in force to vote for this decision. I'll certainly vote "Yes", everyone has an equal right to make their lives miserable.

kinggovernor · 05-15-2008, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by kombayn

It'll most likely get passed, the Gay & Lesbian communities will be out in force to vote for this decision. I'll certainly vote "Yes", everyone has an equal right to make their lives miserable.

I would vote for it, however I prefer the people deciding social issues rather than a court

motivez · 05-15-2008, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

it should be decided by voters, however I have no problem with gay marriage.

So if voters thought segregation was okay, should they be allowed to vote it back?

kinggovernor · 05-15-2008, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

So if voters thought segregation was okay, should they be allowed to vote it back?

yes. I don't have much respect for court ordered morality. Courts should interpet the law as written, not as they see fit.

kombayn · 05-16-2008, 12:09 AM

^Agreed. That's why I love Mike Gravel (The National Initiative For Democracy), he actually would put the laws into the power of the people. Though, trust me... Some states would not be inhabited by little California-"liberals" like me and they'd be extreme & really scary.

Kytro · 05-16-2008, 02:21 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

yes. I don't have much respect for court ordered morality. Courts should interpet the law as written, not as they see fit.

I have little respect for voters, they really have little understanding of the issues at times, and are rarely rational decision makers. Another reason I dislike "democracy".

kinggovernor · 05-16-2008, 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by Kytro

I have little respect for voters, they really have little understanding of the issues at times, and are rarely rational decision makers. Another reason I dislike "democracy".

courts are not infallible or moral.

7960 · 05-16-2008, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

yes. I don't have much respect for court ordered morality. Courts should interpet the law as written, not as they see fit.

the court's job is also to protect the minority from the majority. the majority should not be able to vote on "all men are created equal."

Ardentfrost · 05-16-2008, 08:26 AM

Putting law creation in the hands of the voters is a bad idea for the exact reason 7960 mentioned. Courts shouldn't be protecting us from ourselves, but they should make sure the laws outlined in the constitution are followed. A majority of voters could easily remove the equality of a minority without courts there to make sure it doesn't happen.

I'm surprised TKG would be pushing for laws in the hands of voters since that is one of the most democratic sentiments that exists.

7960 · 05-16-2008, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Courts shouldn't be protecting us from ourselves, but they should make sure the laws outlined in the constitution are followed. A majority of voters could easily remove the equality of a minority without courts there to make sure it doesn't happen.

people need to google "tyranny of the majority" ..... it's the court's job to prevent it.

Ardentfrost · 05-16-2008, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

people need to google "tyranny of the majority" ..... it's the court's job to prevent it.

Considering that's the principle reason we HAVE courts outlined in the constitution, I'd think it's pretty important

TankRizzo · 05-16-2008, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by thewise1

As long as this doesn't result in discrimination lawsuits against churches that choose not to perform marriage ceremonies, I'm good.

If it does, it's horribly evil.

I don't see why or how it could, but then again, it is California.

7960 · 05-16-2008, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

I don't see why or how it could, but then again, it is California.

women have sued and won the "right" to be allowed in mens' only private clubs.
men have sued and won the "right" to be allowed in womens' only private clubs.

is it a stretch to believe gays may sue to be allowed to marry in what amounts to a straight-only private club?