Bring It On!

CA Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

May 15th, 2008 | by Dusty |

From MSNBC:

The justices released the 4-3 decision Thursday, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

Of course the haters already have a petition drive underway to change the state constitution to restrict marriage to members of the opposite sex.

The ruling can be viewed here.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 23 Responses to “CA Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban”

  2. By Ken Grandlund on May 15, 2008 | Reply

    So now the only real battle left is to fight to keep any such constitutional amendment from being passed. Because short of a constitutional amendment, there are no legal avenues left in california to continue such discrimination.

    Hooray for those on the court who chose to rule with reason and fairness and not let misguided religious inanities cloud their minds.

  3. By Dusty on May 15, 2008 | Reply

    Everyone that supports the rights of all people need to put their money where their mouth is at this point Ken.

    Very few people in this state can say they don’t have a friend or loved one that is LGBT.

  4. By steve on May 16, 2008 | Reply

    Why is it that someone who doesn’t want gay people to get married is considered to be a hate monger?

    Liberalism today is starting to sound like fascism without the “cleansing” part.

    “Think like us or else we’ll blog about you!!”

  5. By Dusty on May 16, 2008 | Reply

    Why do neocons want to prevent something which will have absolutely NO EFFECT on them or their lives?

  6. By Dusty on May 16, 2008 | Reply

    This is about gay marriage steve..stay on topic.

  7. By Ken Grandlund on May 16, 2008 | Reply

    Steve- Personally I could care less if people don’t THINK gay people should be married. It’s the whole “equality under the law” aspect of LEGISLATING DISCRIMINATION that I have a problem with.

    And your other examples don’t really change the equality issue with regards to homosexual people here Steve.

    Gun laws that regulate whether or no felons can own firearms or whether people need to own military assault rifles DO impact other peoples lives, like when those weapons are used to commit crimes. So I have no problem with laws to regulate firearms to some degree.

    Abortion is much the same as the gay marriage ban in that the only people affected by abortion laws are people seeking abortions. Whether or not a woman has an abortion has NO EFFECT on anyone else who is not part of that persons life. Just another example of people pushing their religious morality on the rest of the population.

    Laws that perpetuate inequality are anti-American by nature. Laws that limit personal choice with ones own body are likewise the same. Gun laws are more societal in nature as the use of guns does impact people beyond oneself.

  8. By steve on May 16, 2008 | Reply

    Equality under the law Ken? What law? Every man has the right to marry a woman and every woman has the right to marry a man. Where is the inequality?

    Not every marriage is done because of love so don’t bullshit me…

    Dusty… c’mon?

  9. By Craig R. Harmon on May 16, 2008 | Reply

    I’m sorry…America had institutionalized slavery for 80 some years after the Constitution, Jim Crow for some 100 years after slavery went by the wayside and women couldn’t vote for well over a hundred years. In what sense are laws that perpetuate inequality anti-American by nature? Seems like they are quintessentially American to me.

    Steve,

    Don’t be dense. Heterosexuals have the right under the law to marry the person of their mutual choice. Saying any Gay man can marry any woman he wants is like saying that anyone has the right to live under a bridge whether they are rich or poor. Calling that equality is torturing language.

  10. By Dusty on May 16, 2008 | Reply

    steve, you and your pal Lisa attempt to control/hijack the topic, and frankly I have no patience for it. Stay on topic or put up your own post ok?

    Equality is defined as everyone is treated equal under the law.How can you say that the LGBT community is treated as equal steve? They can spend decades living with a loved one and yet have no rights whatsoever regarding medical treatment, inheritance, child custody and a host of other issues.

    As for bullshitting you..on the subject of marriage, wtf does your crack about love have to do with it? To paraphase Tina Turner….

  11. By Craig R. Harmon on May 16, 2008 | Reply

    I wouldn’t call someone who disagrees with gay marriage rights a hate monger, necessarily, although they may be one. Rather, I’d say they are confusing revelation in scripture with a command to legislate biblical mores in areas where a secular, diverse nation has no business legislating.

  12. By Craig R. Harmon on May 16, 2008 | Reply

    Dusty,

    You’re the one that started the whole calling people who don’t want gays to marry, haters. Asking Steve’s question isn’t off topic, dear. You made it the topic when you included it in your blog. You opened the door to question it. You get to decide what you want in your topic but once you put it in your post, it is topical, in my opinion.

    If you don’t want Steve asking why such people should be called haters then don’t call them haters. It’s really quite simple.

  13. By Dusty on May 16, 2008 | Reply

    Craig…fyi..steve brought up abortion and gun control pal.

    Its offtopic no matter how you slice or dice it.

    If anyone continues to go off topic, I will remove your comments..its not about abortion..its about equal rights for the LGBT community.

  14. By Craig R. Harmon on May 16, 2008 | Reply

    To be fair to me, Dusty, I don’t see anything about guns or abortion in any of Steve’s comments, which means, I guess, that you removed them, as is your right. Just saying that I wasn’t aware of these topics in any of Steve’s comments when I commented. Sorry for speaking from ignorance.

  15. By Dusty on May 16, 2008 | Reply

    Thats right Craig..so you added your two cents and didn’t even know wtf I was talking about or what stevie the neocon had put up.

    I have no problem with valid comments that are ontopic Craig.

  16. By steve on May 16, 2008 | Reply

    Look I brought up abortion and gun control because it relates to gay marriage. It gets people all in a tizzy and makes them vote for candidates who are pieces of shit that don’t solve our problems. Want to influence a ballot box? Put an issue on a ballot during a major election that will fire up people.

    And Craig, a heterosexual man cannot marry another man. I said a any man can marry a woman and any woman can marry a man. What am I being dense about? Why is this an issue with equality? Marriage was okay between a man and a woman for eons and now suddenly, let’s change everything? People are born blind and cannot see… so should we accommodate everything they do for some crazy sense of equality? I don’t buy it at all!!!

  17. By Dusty on May 16, 2008 | Reply

    Steve…are you fucking high?

    Its about equality because people that reside together can get a common-law designation if nothing else..gays can not however.

    Your defying logic here with your argument steve. What gays do has no effect on your personal life..none, nada , zilch.

  18. By steve on May 16, 2008 | Reply

    You guys are arguing about equality by saying it means nothing to my personal life…? Good idea Dusty!!! that’s a winner! Let’s let teenagers get married too… means nothing… in fact, let’s let old dudes in Texas marry a bunch of teenage girls because it means nothing to my personal life.

    And no I wish I was high… you know my pain… fucking Kaiser!

    Put that on a ballot and I’ll be wearing a Grateful Dead t-shirt at the ballot box…

  19. By Craig R. Harmon on May 16, 2008 | Reply

    Steve,

    I think you’re being dense about thinking that there’s any equality between a heterosexual man marrying a woman he loves and a homosexual man being legally allowed to marry a woman who could only represent a convenience to present to a homophobic world, never a satisfying relationship. The two are not equal. You cannot deny a gay the right to marry the same-gender person he (or she) chooses and pretend that the law that denies him (or her) that right grants him (or her) equal treatment before the law.

    Steve, slavery was accepted for eons and eons. Yes. If what’s been the status quo for eons is discriminatory, like slavery, it should be changed. I’m not advocating a civil war to accomplish it but I am saying it should be changed. And this is not an issue that I think is any crazier than the elimination of Jim Crow.

    Discrimination is discrimination. Please don’t try to tell me that gays aren’t discriminated against in this country.

    Dusty’s exactly right. There is no way to recognize heterosexual common-law marriage in law and deny same to homosexual couples and claim that the equal protections clause of the Constitution is not being violated.

    And yes, the blind should be accommodated to the degree that that’s possible and for exactly the same reason that those who are physically disabled should have access ramps built for them and disability parking provided for them: because all obstacles to equality that CAN be removed without detriment to society, SHOULD be removed. If there was some way to prove to me that granting gays the right to marry would irreparably harm society, I’d be against it. No one yet has made that case to my satisfaction.

    We should not tolerate inequalities in the law or unnecessary obstacles to people pursuing their vision of happiness in our society, in my opinion. Not if we say that we take the Constitution seriously.

  20. By Dusty on May 16, 2008 | Reply

    Jesus Christ, we aren’t talking about teenagers..don’t move the goalposts steve!

    Try, just once to deal with the issue at hand..how exactly will allowing LGBT’s to marry affect or effect your personal life??

  21. By Craig R. Harmon on May 16, 2008 | Reply

    Approached from another angle, just as “separate but equal” facilities before Brown v. Board of Education were not equal, neither is the estate of marriage between a gay person and a member of the opposite gender equal to marriage for heterosexual couples. Because they aren’t the same thing, saying that gays can marry members of the opposite gender, just as straights can, does not represent a valid argument that marriage laws in any way treat gays and straights equally.

  22. By Craig R. Harmon on May 16, 2008 | Reply

    And for the record, I don’t at all think it matters in the least, Steve, whether allowing gays to marry means anything to your personal life. That’s not the standard I would use. I would be against lots of acts we call criminal whether I’d ever personally been the victim of such a crime or not, so I don’t see any particular connection between some public policy meaning something to my personal life.

    In a related point, since having meaning for one’s personal life can include emotional experiences as well as physical experiences, lot’s of people are affected (as opposed to ‘effected’) by the very thought that gays are having fun in bed in the way they are precisely because, in their reading of the Bible, gays doing what they are doing is an abomination and they, like Rev. Phelps, fear for their nation if gays are allowed to commit abomination all over the place without that being criminalized or at least discouraged societally in some way (for which, read all manner of discrimination). However, merely having a negative emotional reaction to gays getting it on is not a constitutional reason, in my estimation, for criminalizing gay sex. Nor is a similar negative reaction to gays marrying a constitutional reason for refusing to allow gays to marry.

  23. By Craig R. Harmon on May 16, 2008 | Reply

    Er, that last sentence should end: “for refusing to allow gays to marry same-gender partners.”

  24. By Craig R. Harmon on May 16, 2008 | Reply

    Well, I’ll be away for several days and I gotta rest up for the travel so I’ll say good night to you all and I’ll look forward to chatting with you all again when I get back.

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel