California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[gunslingingbird]

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20238779,00.html

I know that it sucks for gay people to not be able to get married in California, but this mentality that Melissa Etheridge has is so stupid. She's not going to pay her California state taxes because she feels as if she shouldn't have to, as she is "not a full citizen", due to the recent ban on gay-marriage.

What is this going to really do? I mean, honestly?

:dunno:

I'll tell you what that's gonna do. It's gonna land the fucking dyke in jail for tax evasion. :hatsoff:

 

[ChefChiTown]

You know, I just realized something about this California ban on gay-marriage. I don't know why I hadn't thought of it before, but I was just reading an article on CNN's website that was about a protest against the ban and something popped into my mind.

The other day, Melissa Etheridge stated that she has decided to refuse to pay her taxes. Why? Because she doesn't feel like she is, in her own words, a "full citizen". She doesn't feel like she is being given the opportunity to partake in this country's freedoms, so she is refusing to pay taxes because she has been denied one of her "rights". Ok...what about the right to VOTE? :dunno:

I didn't really think about it before tonight, but this ban on gay-marriage in California was set in place by a VOTE. The public went to the polling stations and put in their VOTE on whether or not gay-marriages should be allowed in California. As we all know, the ban was set in place with a victorious 52.5% of the votes.

So, Melissa Etheridge is saying that she isn't a full citizen because she is gay and can't legally get married in California. What about the 52.5% of the people who voted for the ban? Are we just supposed to ignore their right to vote, just because they don't agree with her? Wouldn't that make the people who voted for the ban on gay-marriage not "full citizens" as well, if we ended up saying that their vote didn't matter? Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in this?

It's almost as if she is saying "My right to get married should mean more than your right to vote."

Fuck you bitch. I felt kind of bad for you until I realized the hypocrisy involved with your cry-baby antics. People exercised their right to VOTE and the state's population VOTED against gay-marriage. Deal with it. Your rights don't mean more than anybody else's rights, so stop it. Barack Obama won the VOTE, but you don't see McCain supporters refusing to pay their taxes just because they didn't get what they wanted. It doesn't work that way. You win some, you lose some. Life isn't fair all of the time, so suck it up, enjoy what you have and realize that you are lucky to be living in a country like this. If you don't like the way our system of rights work here, Canada isn't all that far of a drive...and they allow gay-marriages!!!

 

[Bi 4 life]

There's no proof that homosexuality is genetic and I don't believe that it is. Personally, I believe that it's a lifestyle choice that people grow into.

My ex-girlfriend is a lesbian. I didn't know it until after we broke up, but she's gay. She said that she has known since she was in 7th grade, which was years before she even met me. We met, we took a liking to eachother, started dating and dated for over 3 years.

Now, if her genetics made her gay, then why would she have feelings for me; a man? :dunno: If it was truly a biological thing, she wouldn't be able to control it and never would've been attracted to me, a man, at all.

I grew up in a city that has the 2nd highest number of gay people per capita in the entire United States and now I live in Chicago, which is one of the most diverse cities in the world, so I know a lot of gay people. Most of (not all) the gay people I know have dated persons of the opposite sex and have had sexual relationships with persons of the opposite sex. Why? Once again, if homosexuality was truly genetic, they wouldn't be able to control their feelings of attraction or their sexual attraction and they wouldn't be interested (to any degree) in relationships with the opposite sex. Yet, a lot of gay people have experiences with the opposite sex before they claim that they're gay.

:dunno:
:2 cents:



I agree 100% with that. I was straight without a doubt until I met a shemale who I thought was a female. I guess I am now bi. I had NO attractions to men before that and still don't for the most part. It was something that happened to me by accident. Up until we actually engaged in sex I would have never thought I would ever do anything like that but again, I didn't know "she" was a shemale until the panties came off. I tried it because "she" had got me hot and bothered first off and then when I knew what "she" was I just did it anyway. Since then I have had more discreet encounters with the same sex. I am not attracted to a man unless he looks like a hot woman. I am however attracted to a man's genitalia now. Kinda weird I know but it is what it is and I don't try to understand it. I think it is a fetish. I am not gay at all. You can be influenced and I don't think it is something you are born with. You act on things based on your surroundings and what is comfortable is my belief. I have always liked out of the norm sex and this is defintely out of the norm. If you are born gay then you would never be attracted to the opposite sex nor have any desires of the opposite sex. I couldn't even imagine life without a woman or women in it.

 

[LBP 76]

^I disagree. I have known several gays/lesbians who were gay from puberty (or younger).

I think with some it's a choice. But with most I think it's genetic.

If most people are genetically pre-disposed at birth to be attracted to the opposite sex. I see no reason why a small minority (between 5-10%) can't be genetically pre-disposed at birth to be attracted to the same sex.

 

[Jason z]

Yea, it is genetics.

 

[Rattrap]

The other day, Melissa Etheridge stated that she has decided to refuse to pay her taxes. Why? Because she doesn't feel like she is, in her own words, a "full citizen". She doesn't feel like she is being given the opportunity to partake in this country's freedoms, so she is refusing to pay taxes because she has been denied one of her "rights". Ok...what about the right to VOTE? :dunno:

I didn't really think about it before tonight, but this ban on gay-marriage in California was set in place by a VOTE. The public went to the polling stations and put in their VOTE on whether or not gay-marriages should be allowed in California. As we all know, the ban was set in place with a victorious 52.5% of the votes.

So, Melissa Etheridge is saying that she isn't a full citizen because she is gay and can't legally get married in California. What about the 52.5% of the people who voted for the ban? Are we just supposed to ignore their right to vote, just because they don't agree with her? Wouldn't that make the people who voted for the ban on gay-marriage not "full citizens" as well, if we ended up saying that their vote didn't matter? Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in this?

And if the 52% voted to reinstate slavery? Would you still see this as okay? It's a much more extreme example, but it's in the same book.

It's almost as if she is saying "My right to get married should mean more than your right to vote."

No, I'd say she's saying her right to get married means more than the majority's right to oppress. And let's make no mistake about it - California's Prop 8, like Oregon's Measure 36 and other similar things in other states are oppressive legislation. It tells a minority population "No, you aren't the same as us. You get less."

Barack Obama won the VOTE, but you don't see McCain supporters refusing to pay their taxes just because they didn't get what they wanted.

Once again...Barack Obama hasn't taken away anyone's rights.

You win some, you lose some. Life isn't fair all of the time, so suck it up, enjoy what you have and realize that you are lucky to be living in a country like this.

I find this incredibly callous. Again, I could bring up any number of our rights as examples - would you be so lax were they voted away? What if, when the future comes that us white folk are no longer the majority, the majority voted away whites' right to marry? Or, again to use my example, reinstated slavery (and who's to say it would necessarily be blacks this time? Why not some other demographic of the population?)? What if it was voted in that only "affluent white males" could be property owners, like it was in the old days?

In my opinion, just because unequal treatment was legally voted into place doesn't make it right, or even acceptable.

 

[NavyBlue]

Rattrap you got it exactly right. Gays and Lesbians should not be denied their rights to marry like everyone else just because some people are against their lifestyles. I just find it incredibly hypocritical that people would take that basic right away and be ok with it, but if it's a right that pertains to them and one that they care deeply about then they'll scream bloody murder. I'd like to see a Proposition taking away tax exemption from churches or ban most firearms and see how those religious right feel about it.

 

[TheDaniël]

I'm so glad I'm on the right (as opposite to left) side of the atlantic. We have so many liberal concepts to take for granted without endless discussions: like gay-marriage.

And I'm such a fan of this remark:

I agree with gays having the right to marry. Marvin Gaye did it twice (marrying women no less).

 

[ChefChiTown]

And if the 52% voted to reinstate slavery? Would you still see this as okay? It's a much more extreme example, but it's in the same book.

I know that you are just making a point, and I appreciate that you openly claim the example to be extreme, but...

First, people need to understand how this country works. We are a "free" country. But, just because we are a "free" country, doesn't mean that we are free to do whatever we want. We have rules set in place which originated from our forefathers and those rules were put into place in order to help this country operate to the best of it's ability. Obviously, a lot of those rules and regulations are extremely out-dated, and that's why we have had revisions made throughout the years. The Abolition of Slavery (13th Amendment) was one of those revisions. In the 13th Amendment, it states...

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am13

We, as a people, don't have the ability to vote for the reinstatement of slavery. Congress has the only power to do so. So, 52.5% of the people can never vote to reinstate slavery because the 13th Amendment states that we won't even be given the opportunity to vote for it in the first place.

No, I'd say she's saying her right to get married means more than the majority's right to oppress. And let's make no mistake about it - California's Prop 8, like Oregon's Measure 36 and other similar things in other states are oppressive legislation. It tells a minority population "No, you aren't the same as us. You get less."

Personally, I look at the gay-marriage issue to be one of the many examples in this country that proves that we will never be able to please everybody. No matter what laws are set in place and no matter what rights are given to US citizens, there will always be a large group of people who feel that they are being oppressed. With that being said, the legal definition of "marriage" is...

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

According to the legal definition of "marriage", same-sex couples can't technically/legally get married. Now, they can be united through a "domestic partnership" or a "civil union". Both of those are almost exactly like marriage, but have a few differences. The only differences involve tax breaks and financial "hand me downs". Everything else is almost exactly the same.

Yes, you can make the argument of "it should be 100% exactly the same", but once again, this country doesn't work that way and not every single person (or group of people) is going to be happy with the way it operates. Here is something to think about...men and women don't have the same exact rights and don't receive the same exact treatment in this country, but, societally, we're ok with that. How is that any different between gay and straight?

Once again...Barack Obama hasn't taken away anyone's rights.

That's not the point I was making, but you made me ponder something. Referring to the legal definition of "marriage" from above:

Gay couples were never given the right to be married in the first place. Yes, obviously some rights are added to the list of freedoms in this country, but the right to gay-marriage (on a Federal level) hasn't been given to the people yet. So, the ban on gay-marriage (or, should I say, the RE-ban) didn't take any rights away from gay couples, as they never legally had that right in the first place.

I find this incredibly callous. Again, I could bring up any number of our rights as examples - would you be so lax were they voted away? What if, when the future comes that us white folk are no longer the majority, the majority voted away whites' right to marry? Or, again to use my example, reinstated slavery (and who's to say it would necessarily be blacks this time? Why not some other demographic of the population?)? What if it was voted in that only "affluent white males" could be property owners, like it was in the old days?

Don't be fooled...not every single demographic of the human population in the US has the same exact rights. Prime example...affirmative action. (I'm not saying this to sound like a cry-baby white guy, but...) Do you realize that affirmative action forces companies to hire a certain amount of minority employees? Do you realize that affirmative action forces schools to carry a certain number of minority students? White people are denied the opportunity to get certain jobs and enroll in certain schools because of affirmative action. When I enrolled in culinary school, my initial start date was pushed back by two whole semesters, just because my school had to carry a certain number of minority students. So, for two semesters in a row, they took my spot in class (which I had already paid for) and gave it to a minority. If every single demographic of the human population had the same exact rights, that never would've happened.

But, I didn't cry about it. I took my minor lump and moved on. This is why I say "deal with it". Not everyone is going to get what they want and sometimes that person is going to be you.

FYI - Here is a list of states that honor gay-marriages/unions in the US.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/samesex.htm

If gay couples want to get married and feel strongly enough about the subject to be greatly heartbroken when they can't and happen to live in a state that doesn't allow it, they can easily move to a state that does.

In my opinion, just because unequal treatment was legally voted into place doesn't make it right, or even acceptable.

I agree with that, but, once again, not everyone is going to get what they want.

:deep breath:

SIGH, with all of that being said ...I want to say, once again, that I am not opposed to gay-marriage. If they want to get married, then let them. But, unfortunately, I don't make the rules.

 

[don_equis]

Uhh...our democracy was founded on the idea of majority rule, with unalienable minority rights. Otherwise democracy just becomes a "tyranny of the majority". If tomorrow 52% of the country wanted to bring back slavery it still wouldn’t be right.

Do not compare this to slavery, it's not the same, you are born "free" you are not born thinking about fudgepacking lady boys. Bringing back the slavery? who would be the idiot to blatanly propossed that? Besides with the minimun wage and all the shit you got to do (if you work) these days it's kinda like modern day slavery anyways....besides I am aware that democracy is not perfect, but what do you recommend, it was decided in a democratic process.



Your thinking seems to be flawed. If marriage is just a religious and/or deeply rooted concept tradition that has no other difference than a civil union, then why does the government get involved with it at all? Shouldn't it be in the government’s eyes there is no such thing as a legal marriage and everything is just a civil union of one type or another? Then anybody could be "married" to anybody they wanted, and marriage would have no official legal standing itself. It would just be a concept. If it's not going to be that way then it needs to be equal for everybody. Otherwise your basic premise is that it's right to start discriminating against people because it's tradition or they do something against your own beliefs while not hurting anybody else. That doesn't seem like a very good reason to do so. Even that is ridiculous because there is absolutely nothing that will disallow anybody from having a traditional marriage as it is now if they choose to do so. I could see limiting it to humans people because animals aren't people and shouldn't have the same rights, but do you have any other reason to limit it other than it doesn't fit into what you think is proper? I don't dictate other peoples lives on that reasoning even when I dislike it. People are acting like if we allow gay marriage that some cosmic force is going to come down and make it effect there own marriage as well. I find it likely more people are just upset because it might tarnish what they think marriage should be or there own religious values. Could you image if we let people feelings on things like that dictate even more things than we do now in others areas as significantly meaningful as marriage because it upsets other people’s values.

Tell the people that have been done so wrong to please stop their violent actions and harrasing of the mormons. They lost the best they can do is find other ways to guarantee their unions and the way they are doing right now is winning them so much support...from twisted people like them.

 

[bodie54]

Tell the people that have been done so wrong to please stop their violent actions and harrasing of the mormons.

Screw the mormon church. It fed an obscene amount of money into a campaign of fear, distortion and lies in order to impose it's unjust will on others. And now it wants those folks to shrink meekly away? Nice double standard. Fuckers.

 

[LBP 76]

Screw the mormon church. It fed an obscene amount of money into a campaign of fear, distortion and lies in order to impose it's unjust will on others. And now it wants those folks to shrink meekly away? Nice double standard. Fuckers.

Mormon's. Hypocrites. They are desperately trying to stop the 'traditional' marriage from changing.
And yet the only reason they are based in Utah is because they were forced to go there to avoid persecution from... trying to change 'traditional' marriages (they believed in polygamy).

Nonsense like this is why religions should not be tax exempt. They should be classified as 'clubs'; except those parts of the church that do charity work.

 

[don_equis]

Screw the mormon church. It fed an obscene amount of money into a campaign of fear, distortion and lies in order to impose it's unjust will on others. And now it wants those folks to shrink meekly away? Nice double standard. Fuckers.

This why now I really don't give a rats ass (no pun) about them being violent. Fuck democracy when we don't get our way let's go around harrass other groups.

Now this guy has some balls

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bqvqbcULoM&feature=related

Arnold should call on the National Guard and put these violent people on jail for not respecting a democratic process, fucking immatures buncha cry babies.

 

[jedi007gotham]

The Legal concept from what I have heard that the court based their decision on is that marriage is a "natural" right like speech or even breathing was mentioned as a comparison(and that was by the judge on Fox lol).Those kind of rights are not at the whim of voters.It would take at the least a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision.Similar to how voters cannot vote on abortion rights.

And neither are actually in the constitution. This is not to get into the debate over whether they are good policy or not, but any faithful adherent to the document cannot find those rights in it without making them up and only claiming it comes from the document----- no different than how affirmative action is found valid even though it says in the 14th amendment that there shall be equal protection of the law for all individuals

 

[jedi007gotham]

I know that you are just making a point, and We, as a people, don't have the ability to vote for the reinstatement of slavery. Congress has the only power to do so. So, 52.5% of the people can never vote to reinstate slavery because the 13th Amendment states that we won't even be given the opportunity to vote for it in the first place.

I agree with some of what you said, but to clarify it is not up to congress alone to overturn a constitutional amendment. You would need a new constitutional amendment to overturn the old one. So rather than only Congrssional approval, you would need, in addition to Congress' 2/3 approval in both houses, approval by 3/4 of the states.

 

[calpoon]

you are born "free" you are not born thinking about fudgepacking lady boys.

this is crass and immature, your bigotry is showing through and clouding your ability to make a reasonable argument for your position.

So what if people aren't born gay, if it is as some say, a choice? Don't we get to have choices about our lifestyle in this country? what the hell is wrong with that?

I have the right to get shitfaced drunk every day of the week; that really isn't helping society or me any, but it's a lifestyle choice, it's something that people want to do because they choose to, and that is respected. In fact it's in the constitution and it was given back to us after religious people tried (and succeeded) to take it away. How does that make more or less sense than gay marriage?

 

[don_equis]

this is crass and immature, your bigotry is showing through and clouding your ability to make a reasonable argument for your position.

So what if people aren't born gay, if it is as some say, a choice? Don't we get to have choices about our lifestyle in this country? what the hell is wrong with that?

I have the right to get shitfaced drunk every day of the week; that really isn't helping society or me any, but it's a lifestyle choice, it's something that people want to do because they choose to, and that is respected. In fact it's in the constitution and it was given back to us after religious people tried (and succeeded) to take it away. How does that make more or less sense than gay marriage?

Perharps the "bigotry" and "immature" should be directed at those that can't accept what was decided in a democratic process and you people in here bleeding your heart out condone their uncivilized actions...they are the ones that hurt their cause, not my "bigotry" or the fact that I don't condone lawlessness behavior and harrassment of the mormons church just like if it was any other group.

There are other ways of getting their concern and all this ranting and anger on their part is not making them look good with the general public, other than a mad ranting mob.

 

[calpoon]

sure, unruly mobs are immature. that doesn't help their point either. no need to sink to tit level, it doesn't accomplish anything.

 

[don_equis]

sure, unruly mobs are immature. that doesn't help their point either. no need to sink to tit level, it doesn't accomplish anything.

Er, did you just said "tit" level? what's wrong with "tit" or "tits" :nanner:

 

[LBP 76]

Perharps the "bigotry" and "immature" should be directed at those that can't accept what was decided in a democratic process

Interesting. One could say the same (minus 'bigotry') about you in regards to accepting the Presidential election 'democratic process'.