California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by TrojanWoman

Not sure I understand the correlation of this statement.

You work hard for your money do you not? And you pay taxes? And those taxes pay these judges to sit there and listen to petty stuff such as this when there is a huge line of more important things that get pushed to the side because people are selfish.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by nate2512

So gays don't participate?

I would expect them to participate in attempting to gain equality. It directly affects them.

If straight people find it "morally wrong," then they don't have to get married to someone of the same sex. Simple as that.

[JonoBN41]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

Civil unions aren't enough? Why do gays (and all their supporters) feel the need to change the definition of marriage?

Definitions are changed and added to all the time. A pen is no longer a quill dipped in ink, phones need not be connected by wires, and automobiles aren't necessarily powered by internal combustion engines. But we didn't take up petitions to ban ball-point pens, cellphones, and electric or hybrid cars just because they didn't fit the existing definition. And who would propose banning online bulletin boards such as Greek Chat simply because it's not an actual board attached to a wall? When women were elected to the House of Representatives, they weren't "congressmen", they are called congresswomen. Things change. We progress.

When has mankind - oops humankind - ever constrained itself from experiencing something new out of fear of a definition?

The terms "married" and "spouse" are written into innumerable policies including insurance coverage, probate laws, tax laws, and trying to find out someone's condition at a hospital, just to name a few. Civil union might sound as if it's good enough, but is not the same thing.

[summer_gphib]

The courts have too much power, and have had too much power for far too long. For me, personally, I don't really care. I don't see that there are that many tax benefits for average people, but hell most of my tax customers lie about their marital status anyway, especially if children are involved, it is monetarily beneficial to claim head of household. Illegal if you are married and have not been separated, but very common. Of course it all depends on the tax bracket. I deal with more EITC customers than the higher-tax bracket clients.

Anyway, I'm getting way off course.

I would like to see a nation-wide vote. What has happened to democracy in this nation? It is ruined by an outdated electoral-college system, and a court system that is out of control. Oy vey. I'm on my soap box.

I have often wondered what would happen if the very concept of judicial review were challenged, going back to Marbury vs. Madison.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I would expect them to participate in attempting to gain equality. It directly affects them.

If straight people find it "morally wrong," then they don't have to get married to someone of the same sex. Simple as that.

It's not even about the fact that I find it morally wrong, it's about all these people making it into a political proposition and gays pushing their own personal agendas on the rest of the world. I honestly don't see why straight people are so concerned with it either, other than they just want something they can defy government on, which is retarded.


SECdomination, where did you go?

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

Definitions are changed and added to all the time. A pen is no longer a quill dipped in ink, phones need not be connected by wires, and automobiles aren't necessarily powered by internal combustion engines. But we didn't take up petitions to ban ball-point pens, cellphones, and electric or hybrid cars just because they didn't fit the existing definition. And who would propose banning online bulletin boards such as Greek Chat simply because it's not an actual board attached to a wall? When women were elected to the House of Representatives, they weren't "congressmen", they are called congresswomen. Things change. We progress.

God my generation sucks.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

Personally, I think it would be a lot easier to just collect all gays and throw them on an island together. That way, they'd all just go extinct and we wouldn't have to worry about them.
Hey, everyone loves dinosaurs!

Interesting humor void of logic there.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by nate2512

This is the most ridiculous thing ever. While the rest of the world is concerned with things like global warming, soaring oil prices, and a recessed economy, all the selfish homosexuals are worried about are themselves, its the most ridiculously selfish thing I've ever heard in my life. We don't need to be spending all this taxpayer money just so gays can call themselves married. Next time you all gripe about oil prices remember that you're also working your ass off just so gays can use up all of your tax dollars tying up courts that could be used for something much more useful. Give it a break, gays are disgusting, and it's morally wrong.

Are you as pissed about your tax money being used to deal with the guys that are so straight in Texas they've got MULTIPLE wives and are so straight they even start up with girls under the age of 14?

Are you as pissed at all of the taxpayer money involved in all those constitutional amendments AGAINST gay marriage that were drafted and put all over the ballots in multiple states in 2004? (and will likely be again, at least in California, now, in 2008)

I cosign whoever said it's not the homosexual community generating most of the activity around this issue, if anything, they are forced time and again to fight against all the initiatives that are first being taken against them as citizens in this society. Does it really impact your life if two women or two men want to exchange vows with each other, Nate? Does it really? Because if the ultraconservatives and evangelists would just leave the issue alone, let the decisions that have allowed gay marriage to stand and spend THEIR time worrying about the economy, global warning and gas prices, then I'm fairly sure the homosexual community would be happy to live their lives and be at peace.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

I cosign whoever said it's not the homosexual community generating most of the activity around this issue, if anything, they are forced time and again to fight against all the initiatives that are first being taken against them as citizens in this society.

You're right, the political arena was flooded with anti-gay political activity, and the gay community has merely responded. That surely happened, good call.

I'm not arguing gay people should have stayed silent. Fight for what they believe in, etc. But to assert that they're not driving this dispute is blatantly laughable.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I'm not arguing gay people should have stayed silent. Fight for what they believe in, etc. But to assert that they're not driving this dispute is blatantly laughable.

Why was the case in court, Shiner?

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Why was the case in court, Shiner?

Because gay Californians wanted to include themselves under the "marriage" label, and the electorate disagreed with their position.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I don't think that homosexuals are the ones making the fuss.

Agree.

[nittanyalum]

But first, gays had been given the right to marriage and then the right wing got all up in arms and got the ban on the ballot. So they were fighting to get the right back. Why couldn't the right just have stood to begin with? Why is it ok that all kinds of political and legal maneuvering can go on because straight taxpayers are scared of something, but it's not ok when gay taxpayers need to also use political and legal channels to gain, maintain or protect their rights?

Why is it ok to use the gay taxpayers' money to enact legislative bans against them, but when gays use taxpayer money it's an affront to the rest of the country?

[NappyBison]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Are you as pissed about your tax money being used to deal with the guys that are so straight in Texas they've got MULTIPLE wives and are so straight they even start up with girls under the age of 14?

I shouldn't laugh, but I chuckled when I read this...

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

But first, gays had been given the right to marriage and then the right wing got all up in arms and got the ban on the ballot. So they were fighting to get the right back. Why couldn't the right just have stood to begin with? Why is it ok that all kinds of political and legal maneuvering can go on because straight taxpayers are scared of something, but it's not ok when gay taxpayers need to also use political and legal channels to gain, maintain or protect their rights?

Why is it ok to use the gay taxpayers' money to enact legislative bans against them, but when gays use taxpayer money it's an affront to the rest of the country?

Obviously because the MAJORITY of people think like me and think that gays shouldn't be married.