Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 69

Thread: California Supreme Court overturns same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional

  1. #1

    California Supreme Court overturns same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional

    The court ruled that

    • The right to marry is a fundamental constitutional right.
    • Retaining the traditional definition of marriage cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.
    • Retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite- sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex
      couples.


    Read the summary here and the full judgement here. 172 pages, many questions of constitutionality addressed. With this, California becomes the second state after Massachusetts to allow same-sex marriages.
    Last edited by Minestra di pomodoro; 05-15-2008 at 05:38 PM. Reason: add summary



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Time to separate marriage from the state and return it to ecclesiastical law.
    My review of the For Liberty documentary:
    digg.com/d315eji
    (please Digg and post comments on the HuffPost site)

    "This political train-wreck Republicans face can largely be traced to Bush’s philosophical metamorphosis from a traditional, non-interventionist conservative to the neoconservatives’ exemplar of a 'War President', and his positioning of the Republicans as the 'War Party'."

    Nicholas Sanchez on Bush's legacy, September 30, 2007.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Bradley in DC View Post
    Time to separate marriage from the state and return it to ecclesiastical law.
    Why do you say that? Are we all not in agreeance that the more liberty, the better? Freedom of association?

  5. #4
    I'm not really sure what the argument is against it.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by UnReconstructed View Post
    I'm not really sure what the argument is against it.
    There aren't many rational arguments. It's a gut revulsion at gay men & lesbians, not dissimilar to the gut revulsion people had for black people back in the day and Mexicans now. People feel that their traditions and culture are being attacked, so they lash back. The antidote is liberty; to allow cultural conservatives to mingle, dissolve stereotypes, and learn tolerance for different people.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Bradley in DC View Post
    Time to separate marriage from the state and return it to ecclesiastical law.
    I agree, I could care less about gay marriage one way or the other (I am both Hetro and Married), but I don't think that a private contract is any business of the government.
    The state should have NO power to deny or endorse any marriage contract.
    There should not even be a "license". It is none of their business.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  8. #7
    Marriage is for The Church to decide on.... Government has no right to grant a married status nor do they have rights to grant benefits to "married" people.

  9. #8
    +1 for liberty!
    I just want objectivity on this forum and will point out flawed sources or points of view at my leisure.

    Quote Originally Posted by spudea on 01/15/24
    Trump will win every single state primary by double digits.
    Quote Originally Posted by spudea on 04/20/16
    There won't be a contested convention
    Quote Originally Posted by spudea on 05/30/17
    The shooting of Gabrielle Gifford was blamed on putting a crosshair on a political map. I wonder what event we'll see justified with pictures like this.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Bradley in DC View Post
    Time to separate marriage from the state and return it to ecclesiastical law.


    We just had a discussion on this subject at work today and everybody agreed that there is absolutely no reason for gov't to be involved in marriage, which is a vow/promise between two consenting people that no gov't piece of paper can solidify, ie marriage license. The only problem some had were property rights in the event of annulment/divorce.

    How exactly would that one problem of property be solved? Take the case to court in the event that the 2 parties couldn't come to a compromise privately?

  12. #10
    I'm gay and live in California.

    But still not dumb enough to get married.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Kludge View Post
    Marriage is for The Church to decide on.... Government has no right to grant a married status nor do they have rights to grant benefits to "married" people.
    Applause. (And why don't we have a little clapping hands smilie yet?)
    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Emanuel Watkins View Post
    A fart is change. Our founding fathers did a lot more than just fart.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by asgardshill View Post
    Applause. (And why don't we have a little clapping hands smilie yet?)

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by RSLudlum View Post
    We just had a discussion on this subject at work today and everybody agreed that there is absolutely no reason for gov't to be involved in marriage, which is a vow/promise between two consenting people that no gov't piece of paper can solidify, ie marriage license. The only problem some had were property rights in the event of annulment/divorce.

    How exactly would that one problem of property be solved? Take the case to court in the event that the 2 parties couldn't come to a compromise privately?
    How is that a problem? You bought it, you own it. Not your spouse.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Bradley in DC View Post
    Time to separate marriage from the state and return it to ecclesiastical law.
    Precisely.

    I want the gubberment outta my bedroom and outta my chapel.
    Quote Originally Posted by JoshLowry View Post
    Yongrel can post whatever he wants as long as it isn't porn.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by UnReconstructed View Post
    I'm not really sure what the argument is against it.
    The people who argue against homosexual marriage cite certain Western European countries who legalized it, and soon after saw the decline of the institution of marriage, and rise of single parent homes and births out of wedlock. They attribute this as hurting society in general. I can't say that I disagree with their assesment. I don't agree with the need to ban it though. Get the government out of it. Marriage started as a spiritual and religious ceremony, let's keep it that way.

  18. #16
    Didn't some group get married by jumping over a fire and if one got burned they shouldn't marry.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Meatwasp View Post
    Didn't some group get married by jumping over a fire and if one got burned they shouldn't marry.
    And so it was said "The Great Pyre will Purge the nonbelievers!"

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    The people who argue against homosexual marriage cite certain Western European countries who legalized it, and soon after saw the decline of the institution of marriage, and rise of single parent homes and births out of wedlock. They attribute this as hurting society in general. I can't say that I disagree with their assesment.
    Could you cite your sources after making such a bold claim? I've never heard anyone argue that before - sure, that society collapses but not because legalizing same-sex marriage led to... less marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Get the government out of it. Marriage started as a spiritual and religious ceremony, let's keep it that way.
    Incorrect, Marriage started out as a civil ceremony for property reasons. The only type of marriage the government can hand out are civil marriages and civil divorces. Any church ceremony performed is Constitutionally separate from the civil marriage. The government is not "in" your church.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by lukeownzu View Post
    How is that a problem? You bought it, you own it. Not your spouse.
    Except if you bought it together, and you both own it, and then you split up. A marriage is just like a business partnership in this respect. There needs to be a contract.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    The state should have NO power to deny or endorse any marriage contract. There should not even be a "license". It is none of their business
    What do you mean by endorse? Marriage is the state recognition of two (limited by the tax code) people as a couple, so they can file a joint tax return, open up a joint bank account, sue for one another's death, and so forth. This is like registering a copyright, the state needs to know so it can protect you.

  24. #21
    Ya know what? There's an easy way to protest this, just don't get "state" married, if you want to get hitched just do it through a church. I know there are other issues, but I for one will never get "state" married, no matter how hard they make it on people who don't.
    Those who want liberty must organize as effectively as those who want tyranny. -- Iyad el Baghdadi

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by amy31416 View Post
    if you want to get hitched just do it through a church.
    ...for 100% of the discrimination and 0% of the benefits.

    Same-sex couples aren't lobbying for recognition by your church.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Minestra di pomodoro View Post
    Could you cite your sources after making such a bold claim? I've never heard anyone argue that before - sure, that society collapses but not because legalizing same-sex marriage led to... less marriage.

    Incorrect, Marriage started out as a civil ceremony for property reasons. The only type of marriage the government can hand out are civil marriages and civil divorces. Any church ceremony performed is Constitutionally separate from the civil marriage. The government is not "in" your church.
    It's not really a bold claim. A simply Google search will tell you the opinions of many conservatives on the issue if you bothered to look.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/...0602230800.asp
    I am not saying that their conclusions are right or are wrong. All I was agreeing with was their assesment that stable families are needed for a stable society. They point to gay marriage as hurting the stable familiy institution, and point to the Netherlands as an example.

    As far as what marriage was created for, it really depends on where you look. In ancient Israel, marriage was as much and even more so a religious ceremony as was for propety. In ancient Rome and Greece, it was not so much a religious ceremony.

  27. #24
    Doesn't the problem of "should X and Y be allowed to marry" arise from income taxes, estate taxes and the government dictating what kinds of contracts it will acknowledge?

    I.e., if we got rid of income tax and estate tax and the government honored all contracts between consenting adults impartially, then civil marriage would be irrelevant.

    Since those aren't likely to happen soon, the question is, what should be done in the meantime? Expand the definition of marriage until we can finally get rid of it altogether?

    For those who favor the latter, then should it be expanded to include polygamy as well? And not just polygamy in the traditional sense of one man and lots of wives, but any number of people of any gender.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Minestra di pomodoro View Post
    What do you mean by endorse? Marriage is the state recognition of two (limited by the tax code) people as a couple, so they can file a joint tax return, open up a joint bank account, sue for one another's death, and so forth. This is like registering a copyright, the state needs to know so it can protect you.
    ???

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    It's not really a bold claim.
    It is, if you don't see the world through a Christian conservative lens. It may seem self-evident to you, because you didn't grow up in a SSM family and your life was stable, just as it might seem self-evident to you that the Universe was designed because on Earth you would see humans designing complex things.

    But both are naïve assumptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    A simply Google search will tell you the opinions of many conservatives on the issue if you bothered to look. http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/...0602230800.asp I am not saying that their conclusions are right or are wrong.
    Those are post-hoc rationalizations for their opposition to SSM, not their first reasons.

    On to Stanley Kurtz, A simple Google search will also tell you that Kurtz's interpretation of statistics has been debunked several times, not only with the Netherlands, but Scandinavia also (where they only give same-sex couples a morsel of the rights under titles other than "marriage") Enlighten yourself at Media Matters, Hollandaise or Slate.

    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    All I was agreeing with was their assesment that stable families are needed for a stable society.
    That statement is loaded with all kinds of assumptions, but the most glaring one is the assumption that families with same-sex couples are inherently unstable, and families with opposite-sex couples are stable. Why do you say that?

    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    As far as what marriage was created for, it really depends on where you look. In ancient Israel, marriage was as much and even more so a religious ceremony as was for propety. In ancient Rome and Greece, it was not so much a religious ceremony.
    It still is in Israel. But we don't live in Israel. We live in a country where the church is Constitutionally separated from the State. This means if your church marries you, the state will not necessarily recognize it, and vice-versa. In the United States, all civil marriage is a contract. So all this about "returning" marriage to ecclesiastical law is nonsense.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by rp08orbust View Post
    I.e., if we got rid of income tax and estate tax and the government honored all contracts between consenting adults impartially, then civil marriage would be irrelevant.
    Civil marriage is a contract, and allowing Same-sex couples to marry would do the same thing. The state is currently not honoring all contracts impartially, they are denying recognition to gay men & lesbians.

    Quote Originally Posted by rp08orbust View Post
    Expand the definition of marriage until we can finally get rid of it altogether?
    That's not the SSM couples' goal. All they want to do is get married, not to destroy civilization.

    Quote Originally Posted by rp08orbust View Post
    For those who favor the latter, then should it be expanded to include polygamy as well? And not just polygamy in the traditional sense of one man and lots of wives, but any number of people of any gender.
    The tax code would probably have to be rewritten for that, but I'm not opposed to it. All that matters is that they love each other. Societal concerns come second.

    Re: opening the floodgates for incest, etc: all these cases can be taken individually, your "traditional marriage" broke in 1967 with Loving v. Virginia when the SCOTUS ruled that a white man and a colored woman could marry.
    Last edited by Minestra di pomodoro; 05-16-2008 at 09:25 AM. Reason: Societal concerns come second.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Minestra di pomodoro View Post
    It is, if you don't see the world through a Christian conservative lens. It may seem self-evident to you, because you didn't grow up in a SSM family and your life was stable, just as it might seem self-evident to you that the Universe was designed because on Earth you would see humans designing complex things.

    But both are naïve assumptions.



    Those are post-hoc rationalizations for their opposition to SSM, not their first reasons.

    On to Stanley Kurtz, A simple Google search will also tell you that Kurtz's interpretation of statistics has been debunked several times, not only with the Netherlands, but Scandinavia also (where they only give same-sex couples a morsel of the rights under titles other than "marriage") Enlighten yourself at Media Matters, Hollandaise or Slate.



    That statement is loaded with all kinds of assumptions, but the most glaring one is the assumption that families with same-sex couples are inherently unstable, and families with opposite-sex couples are stable. Why do you say that?



    It still is in Israel. But we don't live in Israel. We live in a country where the church is Constitutionally separated from the State. This means if your church marries you, the state will not necessarily recognize it, and vice-versa. In the United States, all civil marriage is a contract. So all this about "returning" marriage to ecclesiastical law is nonsense.
    I could care less whether or not the link I showed is correct. I clearly stated that I was simply relaying what some people have against gay marriage and I provided a link since you asked ever so nicely for it. Don't lecture to me about something I didn't say. I said I wasn't arguing that their opinions are right, so please read more carefully next time.

    I never suggested that same-sex couple families could not be stable. I used families in a general sense. If you weren't out looking for an argument, you would have seen that in my post. I simple agreed with these certain conservatives on the notion that families are the bedrock of society.

    You may be talking about the United States, but I wasn't. If I was talking about the United States, I wouldn't have brought up Israel. Since marriage is a universally accepted tradition, I thought I'd go outside of our short history as a country and look further back in time.

    If you're directing me to go to mediamatters, I might as well go to the mediaresearchcouncil.org. It's the same thing, just different sides of the political spectrum.

  33. #29
    Why would gays want a state sanctioned marriage anyway? Don't people realize that when you get a marriage license, you have a 3 party contract? You, your spouse, and the state?
    Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.

    Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Above all I think everyone needs to understand that neither the Bundys nor Finicum were militia or had prior military training. They were, first and foremost, Ranchers who had about all the shit they could take.
    Quote Originally Posted by HOLLYWOOD View Post
    If anything, this situation has proved the government is nothing but a dictatorship backed by deadly force... no different than the dictatorships in the banana republics, just more polished and cleverly propagandized.
    "I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    In a free society there will be bigotry, and racism, and sexism and religious disputes and, and, and.......
    I don't want to live in a cookie cutter, federally mandated society.
    Give me messy freedom every time!

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
    Why would gays want a state sanctioned marriage anyway? Don't people realize that when you get a marriage license, you have a 3 party contract? You, your spouse, and the state?
    The legal rights and benefits that accompany. In most states, gay partners are not allowed bedside privileges at hospitals in the event of an accident. Nor do they have custodial claims in medical matters where their partner is left disabled. Ted Schiavo wouldn't be possible. That's just the tip of the iceberg.
    Quote Originally Posted by JoshLowry View Post
    Yongrel can post whatever he wants as long as it isn't porn.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Australian High Court unanimously overturns gay ‘marriage’ law
    By eduardo89 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-12-2013, 09:38 PM
  2. U.S. Supreme Court Overturns 'Stolen Valor' Act
    By RonPaulFanInGA in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-28-2012, 01:06 PM
  3. Iran Supreme Court Overturns Pastor's Death Sentence
    By TER in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-06-2011, 10:55 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-23-2011, 10:42 PM
  5. Supreme Court Overturns Constitution
    By CurtisLow in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-14-2007, 04:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •