California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[BlueBalls]

Maybe..................if I lived in SE Ohio. :rofl: :rofl:

It's always the eastern part, I wonder why?

 

[ChefChiTown]

yet all of those people have the right to marry each other, as long as their partner is not of the same sex. So they DO have rights that gays don't.

Child molesters can't live where they want. They are told where they can or can't live. So, gay people have rights that child molesters don't. It works both ways.

I've said it before and so have many intelligent people:

Marriage should be a spiritual union, performed by a religious authority and with such appropriate rituals as one's creed dictates and nothing more.

If you want to have a legally binding contract that grants you provisions of state and federal claims, then you can get a secular civil partnership (or domestic union, or whatever you want to call it) that should be available to all adult citizens.

The two should be completely separated from each other.

Marriage almost always has nothing to do with religion, especially in this country. Just because marriage ceremonies are held in a church or in a temple, it doesn't mean that it's a religious event.

I can walk into the office of the Justice of the Peace and get the same exact marriage certificate as somebody who has a ceremonial wedding in a church. This country (governmentally) views marriage as nothing more than an agreement to a legally binding document; a marriage license.

I don't care if gay people are allowed to marry one another or not. It doesn't effect me either way. I just think that the fight for equal rights is eventually going to get out of hand. As I stated before, there will come a point in time where people get so microscopic with every possible "difference" that they can find between themselves and the majority.

We, as a country, just like to cry about everything we possibly can. Did you know that Victoria's Secret has to accept employment applications from men? Why? Because, equal rights. Men are forced to be given the same right of employment opportunity at Victoria's Secret as women are. Yet...how many men have you seen working at Victoria's Secret? Equal rights only changes the public perception on things, not the reality.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

More judicial legislation. Awesome. It is just sickening that these robed clowns can overturn the will of the voting public nilly willy. It does make me wonder about the ceremony, though. When they wrap it up does whatever hippie preacher or minister say "I now pronounce you man and....man," or "wife and wife?" How about pitcher and catcher?

I look forward to the first bitter high profile gay divorce and seeing if it gets as bitter as a traditional divorce.

 

[Philbert]

More judicial legislation. Awesome. It is just sickening that these robed clowns can overturn the will of the voting public nilly willy. It does make me wonder about the ceremony, though. When they wrap it up does whatever hippie preacher or minister say "I now pronounce you man and....man," or "wife and wife?" How about pitcher and catcher?

I look forward to the first bitter high profile gay divorce and seeing if it gets as bitter as a traditional divorce.

That's an interesting point...I never considered that detail.
I now pronounce you:
"...Husband and Husband? "
"...married! You may now kiss the other Dude."
"...bonded Butt Pirates!"
Someone needs to do some research, inquiring minds want to know!:rofl:

 

[calpoon]

not that you really care because you are just making fun of gay people, but I believe that the ceremony is usually non gender specified. Such as, "I now pronounce you wed (or married), you may now kiss (each other)."

Child molesters can't live where they want. They are told where they can or can't live. So, gay people have rights that child molesters don't. It works both ways.

yeah, but gay child molesters have less rights than straight ones.

the fact that you even draw that comparison in the first place is pretty ridiculous and sounds like personal bias instead of impartial objectivity. you really believe that two consenting adults in a homosexual relationship represent a demographic on any level of comparison with pedophiles?

I'd say that anywhere from around 10-20 percent of the population is either gay or bi-sexual, and sexuality is not like people whose hobby is bowling, it's a significant part of personal identity. Just think about if you were not allowed to express any heterosexual impulses, how much would it effect your lifestyle? I'm not saying that is what is happening to gay people, just pointing out that your sexuality effects what you do everyday for all people, and not just some small fringe group.

Marriage almost always has nothing to do with religion, especially in this country. Just because marriage ceremonies are held in a church or in a temple, it doesn't mean that it's a religious event.

If that is the case, then why is gay marriage banned? what other reason is there besides religious ones or simple intolerance?

Men are forced to be given the same right of employment opportunity at Victoria's Secret as women are. Yet...how many men have you seen working at Victoria's Secret?

because of the same people that are opposed to gay marriage are also opposed to workers having any kind of rights to fair treatment under the threat of "communism." A company can't legally discriminate against someone... but most of them can fire someone for no reason at all, which means that they can fire them for discriminatory reasons, just as long as they don't say that is why they are doing it.

 

[D-rock]

More judicial legislation. Awesome. It is just sickening that these robed clowns can overturn the will of the voting public nilly willy. It does make me wonder about the ceremony, though. When they wrap it up does whatever hippie preacher or minister say "I now pronounce you man and....man," or "wife and wife?" How about pitcher and catcher?

I look forward to the first bitter high profile gay divorce and seeing if it gets as bitter as a traditional divorce.

It's not about them overturning the will of the public (at least not in this instance) as it is about them enforcing the first and fourteenth amendments that public policies were against, the ones that allow for freedom of religion and have the equal protection clause.

 

[bustybbwlover]

the masses often seek to impose their will upon those who are different (aka the minority). this isn't about fighting the public but rather protecting the few.

 

[ChefChiTown]

not that you really care because you are just making fun of gay people, but I believe that the ceremony is usually non gender specified. Such as, "I now pronounce you wed (or married), you may now kiss (each other)."

When did I say any of that?

the fact that you even draw that comparison in the first place is pretty ridiculous and sounds like personal bias instead of impartial objectivity. you really believe that two consenting adults in a homosexual relationship represent a demographic on any level of comparison with pedophiles?

What have I said that makes me bias? When have I said anything negative towards gay people?

Also, I'm willing to bet that there are just as many people with a sexual preference of underaged children as there are people with a sexual preference of members of the same sex.

I'd say that anywhere from around 10-20 percent of the population is either gay or bi-sexual, and sexuality is not like people whose hobby is bowling, it's a significant part of personal identity. Just think about if you were not allowed to express any heterosexual impulses, how much would it effect your lifestyle? I'm not saying that is what is happening to gay people, just pointing out that your sexuality effects what you do everyday for all people, and not just some small fringe group.

There's a lot of natural impulses that are a significant part of our personal identities that we aren't allowed to express. If someone likes drinking alcohol, they're not allowed to walk down the street, throwing back bottles of Budweiser (open container law). If someone likes music, they can't drive down the street, playing their music as loud as they want (noise ordinance). If someone is a nudist, they can't walk down the street in the buff (public nudity law).

So, if you argument for supporting gay marriage is that being gay is a significant part of your personal identity, then we should let people drink beer on the street, play their music as loud as they want and let people walk around naked too.

Go ahead and say that my comparison between drinking a beer on the street and gay marriage is silly and asinine, but my point remains valid.

If that is the case, then why is gay marriage banned? what other reason is there besides religious ones or simple intolerance?

A big reason that a lot of politicians don't want to allow gay marriage is due to the financial benefits that those couples would receive. In fact, most gay couples are mad the ban of gay marriage due to the lack of their ability to receive the financial benefits of marriage.

Domestic partnerships are the same exact thing as a "regular" marriage, with the exception of varying financial details; transfer of funds and property upon death, tax breaks, etc.

Married couples receive tax breaks and other forms of financial leeway. So, the more married couples, the less money the government receives.

because of the same people that are opposed to gay marriage are also opposed to workers having any kind of rights to fair treatment under the threat of "communism." A company can't legally discriminate against someone... but most of them can fire someone for no reason at all, which means that they can fire them for discriminatory reasons, just as long as they don't say that is why they are doing it.

That's why I said that having equal rights does nothing but change public perception, but not reality.

 

[calpoon]

When did I say any of that?

you didn't. that comment was not directed at you, which was why the stuff that I qouted and responded to from you was posted after that statement.

Go ahead and say that my comparison between drinking a beer on the street and gay marriage is silly and asinine, but my point remains valid.

If your point is valid, then it applies just as much to straight marriage as it does to gays. Why should straight people be allowed to get married just because it is a part of their lifestyle choice? I don't see how that is any different than gay marriage, or the choice to get drunk everyday. It's all just a matter of people doing what they feel like because they want to, not necessarily because it does anything for society.

Married couples receive tax breaks and other forms of financial leeway. So, the more married couples, the less money the government receives.

I hate the government too, but I don't know if I can buy that conspiracy theory. that just completely ignores all of the people that vote against it who have no stake in the government making money off it.

 

[Philbert]

not that you really care because you are just making fun of gay people, but I believe that the ceremony is usually non gender specified. Such as, "I now pronounce you wed (or married), you may now kiss (each other)."

Now, now...if you're gonna get all serious and grumpy, at least be accurate.
I wasn't making fun of gay people, merely the contrast between a gay marriage and a hetero one.
I came equipped with a sense of humor...

I don't really care what is said at a gay wedding, or even every hetero one.

 

[ChefChiTown]

you didn't. that comment was not directed at you, which was why the stuff that I qouted and responded to from you was posted after that statement.

Ahh, gotcha.

If your point is valid, then it applies just as much to straight marriage as it does to gays. Why should straight people be allowed to get married just because it is a part of their lifestyle choice? I don't see how that is any different than gay marriage, or the choice to get drunk everyday. It's all just a matter of people doing what they feel like because they want to, not necessarily because it does anything for society.

It was your point, not mine.

I hate the government too, but I don't know if I can buy that conspiracy theory. that just completely ignores all of the people that vote against it who have no stake in the government making money off it.

I don't think it's a conspiracy theory. I just find it hard to believe that most the politicians who make up our government are really in it for any other reason than money. They can say that they're looking out for our best interests (as citizens) all they want to, but they hardly ever walk the walk.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

It's not about them overturning the will of the public (at least not in this instance) as it is about them enforcing the first and fourteenth amendments that public policies were against, the ones that allow for freedom of religion and have the equal protection clause.

You're equating freedom of religion with a dude's choice to stick a wiener up his butt? It's not the same thing at all. I hope California has some sort of constitutional convention to overturn this horrid decision.

 

[TrueTranssexual]

When did I say any of that?
Also, I'm willing to bet that there are just as many people with a sexual preference of underaged children as there are people with a sexual preference of members of the same sex.

Let's just say such case is true, which I highly doubt. Pedophilia hurts children. You can be born a psycho, and just because it is natural for you to be a psycho, that doesn't mean you should be allowed to go and hurt other people.
However, when it comes to gay people, how is it directly hurting anyone that two adults want to be together? Do you, let them do them!! LOL (pun intended)

There's a lot of natural impulses that are a significant part of our personal identities that we aren't allowed to express. If someone likes drinking alcohol, they're not allowed to walk down the street, throwing back bottles of Budweiser (open container law). If someone likes music, they can't drive down the street, playing their music as loud as they want (noise ordinance). If someone is a nudist, they can't walk down the street in the buff (public nudity law).

Once again...all this behaviors you are using as comparison DO affect other people directly. I would say that nudity is innapropiate because children will be exposed to sex images (how will you hide obvious sexual arousal if you are walking around completely naked, for example?); furthermore, ALL people have to abide by that, not just a majority , also, there are places where you can go if you want to express this characteristics in your personality. Playing music out loud disturbs other people' abilities to relax, sleep, talk, etc. Throwing bottles of Budwiser might put others in danger of being physically harmed, and also the city would have to clean after.
Sorry, but the comparisons are strange.

How is it that two adult men or women or perhaps intersexed getting marry directly affects other people?? And out of curiosity, if a person is intersexed, can he/she marry either sex despite current anti-gay marriage laws?

 

[TrueTranssexual]

You're equating freedom of religion with a dude's choice to stick a wiener up his butt? It's not the same thing at all. I hope California has some sort of constitutional convention to overturn this horrid decision.

Why are you so bothered by what adult men do with their butts?? Mind your own butt, I would say! Who knows, maybe it is their religion that makes them stick a wiener up their butts. :1orglaugh

 

[ChefChiTown]

Let's just say such case is true, which I highly doubt. Pedophilia hurts children. You can be born a psycho, and just because it is natural for you to be a psycho, that doesn't mean you should be allowed to go and hurt other people.
However, when it comes to gay people, how is it directly hurting anyone that two adults want to be together? Do you, let them do them!! LOL (pun intended)

It's not about harming other people. There are lots of rights that we, as citizens, are given that allow us to interfer with other people's lives.

Ironically, one of those things is protesting. People who march and protest against the gay marriage ban are interfering with plenty of people's lives, yet, they're still allowed to do it. They block traffic, make a loud commotion (but yet, don't get ticketed for breaking the noise ordinance?), interfer with sidewalk traffic, alter bus routes, disturb surrounding businesses and homes, etc.

I said it before and I'll say it again...

Equal rights does nothing but change public perception, not the reality.

Once again...all this behaviors you are using as comparison DO affect other people directly. I would say that nudity is innapropiate because children will be exposed to sex images (how will you hide obvious sexual arousal if you are walking around completely naked, for example?); furthermore, ALL people have to abide by that, not just a majority , also, there are places where you can go if you want to express this characteristics in your personality. Playing music out loud disturbs other people' abilities to relax, sleep, talk, etc. Throwing bottles of Budwiser might put others in danger of being physically harmed, and also the city would have to clean after.
Sorry, but the comparisons are strange.

Kids can also be exposed to homosexuality, which could be viewed as inappropriate as well. Allowing gay couples to marry could potentially harm those children, as they can be influenced by their homosexual parents and develop altered personality traits which normally wouldn't occur.

Playing loud music is actually allowed, by law. I can play my music really loud until 10PM (depending on what state you're in), but if I play the same music, at the same volume, but only in my car, I can get ticketed for breaking the noise ordinance. Equal rights, huh?

Also, I didn't say "throwing" beer bottles. I said "throwing back", as in drinking. If I stand in my front yard and drink a beer, who exactly am I harming? Nobody. Yet, I'm legally not allowed to do it. Now, if I'm at a baseball game, for example, I can drink all the beer I want, regardless of who is there. Kids, pregnant women, etc. But, if I'm on my property, drinking that same beer (which is something that I am legally allowed to drink), I can get ticketed for breaking the open container law. Equal rights, huh?

Are those examples silly? Yes. Do they still make a point? Yes.

How is it that two adult men or women or perhaps intersexed getting marry directly affects other people?? And out of curiosity, if a person is intersexed, can he/she marry either sex despite current anti-gay marriage laws?

I mentioned that a big reason that politicians have a problem with allowing gay marriage is because of tax breaks that are given to married couples. A lot of it has to do with money, not how it impacts the lives of others.

Also, I have no idea about the intergendered people and their ability (or lack there of) to marry. I would assume that it all boils down to if they are legally considered a man or a woman. But, I don't know.

:dunno:

FYI - I don't care if gay people can get married or not. If they want to get married, I say we let 'em. But, honestly...I don't care either way.

 

[max0rz]

this makes #5 now.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/national_world&id=6798955

So is this another case of one of those wacky liberal activist judges getting up to no good again, or is it all kosher, lol.

 

[NavyBlue]

I, too, have no problem allowing gay marriage. It's funny that those anti gay marriage people want to strengthen the institution of marriage, and yet they are preventing people from getting married. There's no difference if it's between a man and a woman or two people of the same sex. As long they love each other that's what matters.

 

[Mauser98k]

not that i care either way, but why does the government (national or state) even bother putting stuff up for vote during an election if a judge can just, on a whim, negate the results? just proving yet again that the public's opinion doesn't matter.

 

[Baill Inneraora]

Congrats to Maine. 5 down and 45 to go to end legalized discrimination in the land of the free.

 

[Baill Inneraora]

not that i care either way, but why does the government (national or state) even bother putting stuff up for vote during an election if a judge can just, on a whim, negate the results? just proving yet again that the public's opinion doesn't matter.

Majority rule can not just vote to take away people's equal rights.