California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[TrojanWoman]

Originally Posted by nate2512

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.

Not sure I understand the correlation of this statement.

[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.

[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?

[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...

[jon1856]

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?

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)

.

Nittany-You should also have asked about the fact that those wives and unmarried mothers also collect a great deal of tax monies as well.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Nittany-You should also have asked about the fact that those wives and unmarried mothers also collect a great deal of tax monies as well.

DOH!!! EXCELLENT point, Jon! Yeah, what he said!

[doogur]

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.

So by your logic, straight marriages should not be tying up the courts, either. Where do you get this strong anti marriage bias?

So next time you gripe about oil prices remember that you're also working your ass off just so straights can use up all of your tax dollars tying up courts that could be used for something more useful.

[DSTCHAOS]

I can think of bigger wastes of tax payer money. Some of which are being covered up by the Illuminati. Connnnnnnsssssspiraccccccccy theeeeeeoryyyyy.....

[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?

[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.

[PeppyGPhiB]

A lot of gay people work in my industry (PR and advertising), so I've been lucky enough to know many gay people. After reading all these posts, I just don't understand how some of you could think the GLBT community is trying to make this issue political. This is a legal definition battle for them - it's the christian conservatives that are making it a political issue. I believe there are only seven states that allow civil unions. Many of you probably have no idea of the lack of rights gay people, and gay couples, have in many states - they don't qualify for their partner's insurance, they aren't entitled to death benefits or the tax benefits, and even if their partner is sick and dying in the hospital, the hospital does not have to release any information on their condition. In fact, if a gay person is in a terrible car accident that puts them in a vegetative state, the hospital would actually look to any relative, no matter how far removed, to make decisions regarding the patient's care over a partner of 20 years even.

In many states gay people are not a protected class for some of our most basic rights, including employment. Did you know that in the majority of our states, a person could be fired from their job just for being gay? No cause needed - being gay is the cause. What gay people are looking for is the same legal rights straight Americans have, and the same protections other minorities in America have.

ETA: this clip from the Ellen show yesterday made me smile =) http://youtube.com/watch?v=G-nGsN1_fM8

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

What gay people are looking for is the same legal rights....... and the same protections other minorities in America have.

This is one thing about the 'gays need rights like minorities have' that bothers me so much. Gays are not minorities, and when gays equate themselves as such, I find it to be very offensive. Whenever anyone can find evidence of when gays were brought to this country against their will, forced to live in inhumane physical, mental, cultural, and spritual bondage for over 300 years in this country. Where gay women were forced to have babies for the 'massa' just to produce more people to enslave. Where gay men were beaten down and torn from their families. Where gay people were given outdated books to use in public schools. When you can find evidence like that, then *maybe* I'll buy the gays are minorities argument. Until then, please stop calling them that. If you're gay, you're gay. But don't equate being gay with being a minority in this country.

As far as I can tell, with White gays especially, they still get better treatment than I do. Why? Because at the end of the day they are White and I'm not. And if you don't believe me ask Hillary Clinton, since it will be the less educated White people who can get her into the White House.
(Meaning one's race is more important than anything else.)

[Leslie Anne]

You were actually doing a good job contradicting your anti-gay marriage statement here:

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

It seems to me that the only real difference between a gay person and a straight person is who they decide to "sleep" with.

Case in point ---

A good friend and I were in grad school at the same time. She is gay (lesbian) and I'm straight. We're both Black females of the same age. We both have similar backgrounds in terms of family. She is Catholic, I'm protestant - basically both of us are of Christian religions. She had struggles in grad school, so did I.

The only major difference is that she went out with girls, I went out with guys. Our similarities ended at the bedroom door, if you will.

Exactly! So if that's the ONLY difference, then why are you allowed to marry but she isn't?


And then you slipped into the completely illogical:

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I think that what ever you do in your private life is your business. Some people are into S&M, threesomes and bondage - I don't see any of those people at the court house demanding equal rights.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

This is one thing about the 'gays need rights like minorities have' that bothers me so much. Gays are not minorities, and when gays equate themselves as such, I find it to be very offensive. Whenever anyone can find evidence of when gays were brought to this country against their will, forced to live in inhumane physical, mental, cultural, and spritual bondage for over 300 years in this country. Where gay women were forced to have babies for the 'massa' just to produce more people to enslave. Where gay men were beaten down and torn from their families. Where gay people were given outdated books to use in public schools. When you can find evidence like that, then *maybe* I'll buy the gays are minorities argument. Until then, please stop calling them that. If you're gay, you're gay. But don't equate being gay with being a minority in this country.

So African-Americans are the only minorities? I don't think you quite understand what the word "minority" means. At its root, it's simply about percentages not cultural history.