Same-sex marriage legal in Cali

[Savaric]

Unless I'm interpreting it wrong: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/sam...age/index.html

I believe more in civil unions for same-sex couples, but I'm not up in arms about it. Doesn't affect me in any way.

But I love this part: "The ruling surprised legal experts because the court has a reputation for being conservative. Six of its seven judges are Republican appointees."

Rofl, actually makes perfect sense to me. I suspect the enitre GOP is in the closet.

[Ilusan]

Arnold is such a wild-card. I just can't feel that guy out. On one hand his conservative side shows when he bans gay marriages (vetoes? Im not sure what he did concerning the same-sex marriage declaration in San Fran) but then, his progressive side shows when he allocates funds for stem cell research and advocates implementation of even more solar power to fuel California's grids. Now, with his promise to fight against an overruling to the State's supreme court ruling that over-ruled his own (veto?) he leaves me bewildered again. Maybe in his bid for an amendment to allow immigrants to become president he is simply a master at playing both ends of the field? or is it that he really believes in the checks and balances that our government prides--without letting his personal opinions disrupt that balance. I don't live in CA so I don't know if everything else he's done has benefited the state or not but from my limited knowledge i say good for him.

[Nephrys]

I used to support civil unions too.. I figured, hey its something at least! If they won't let gays marry, at least civil unions will grant them a lot of the same rights. Then someone made the analogy to me that civil unions are comparable to the old policies of segregation...

Separate but equal. And we all know how that worked out..

Sooooo... I'm all for this ruling.

[kestra]

Can you hear that?
The sound of heterosexual marriages in jeopardy!! (j/k)

[Jyn]

Originally posted by Ilusan
Maybe in his bid for an amendment to allow immigrants to become president he is simply a master at playing both ends of the field? or is it that he really believes in the checks and balances that our government prides--without letting his personal opinions disrupt that balance. I

If I remember right, it's actually closer to your checks and balances comment. He's said before that he's vetoed such legislation in the past because he doesn't believe it's within the legislature's power to pass such laws. He has said that such matters are for the courts and voters themselves, or something to that effect.

[Savaric]

The only thing that bothers me, albeit very indirectly, is the liberalism that seems to follow with gay rights. Here in Mass we have some most restrictive, Nazi gun laws in the U.S. Right behind us, and in some cases worse, there is Cali. They have also managed to ban smoking in bars here. I hate cigarettes but that's excessive. One tends to kinda infer that liberals believe in freedom, like right to abortion, gay marriage, etc.. But it's not like that at all.

I just hope this new ruling isn't a result of bowing down to liberal radicalism.

[Gromgor]

I say do away with Marriages as an institutional recognized as legal in the eyes of the government. Marriage is a product of religion. Let EVERYONE have a civil union for legal reasons and let people choose to have marriages if their religion so dictates.

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by Savaric
The only thing that bothers me, albeit very indirectly, is the liberalism that seems to follow with gay rights. Here in Mass we have some most restrictive, Nazi gun laws in the U.S. Right behind us, and in some cases worse, there is Cali. They have also managed to ban smoking in bars here. I hate cigarettes but that's excessive. One tends to kinda infer that liberals believe in freedom, like right to abortion, gay marriage, etc.. But it's not like that at all.

I just hope this new ruling isn't a result of bowing down to liberal radicalism.

Even if it is the people of California, and any other state that wants to allow this, are well within their rights to do so. I actually applaud the California Supreme Court for ruling they way they did, I just wish they would have gotten the ruling right.

The ruling is wrong for holding that 14th Amendment gives homosexuals the right to marry, that was never the purpose or reasoning of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is specific to race.

The California Supreme Court should have ruled under the 10th Amendment and its own state constitution. States are well within their rights to do things like ban abortion, permitt gay marriage, ban smoking in bars (and even homes), if the state so decides. Now yes, I know there is that case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey that deals with abortion on a national level but that is a different thread.

Essentially, the Supreme Court of California made the right ruling but punted to the U.S. Supreme Court making something a federal issue that should not be a federal issue. States are allowed to be different, we should not be cookie cutters of each other. I really despise Democrats and Republicans for thinking that we should be and forcing their points of view, on issues like this, down our throats at the federal level.

[kestra]

Essentially, the Supreme Court of California made the right ruling but punted to the U.S. Supreme Court making something a federal issue that should not be a federal issue. States are allowed to be different, we should not be cookie cutters of each other. I really despise Democrats and Republicans for thinking that we should be and forcing their points of view, on issues like this, down our throats at the federal level.

Here, here!!
Regarding smoking, Calgary has banned smoking in bars. Everybody whinned that business would suffer as a result. It hasn't.

[Gromgor]

Originally posted by Joreth
States are allowed to be different, we should not be cookie cutters of each other. I really despise Democrats and Republicans for thinking that we should be

I think this is part of the design of our government that most people aren't even aware of. That the individual states were meant to be the biggest part of our day to day government. Every state should have a different flavor. One based on the desires and wishes of the majority of that state. If California wants gay marriages, fine! If Utah wants goat sex, let them. If Tennessee wants sister fucking, by all means. It doesn't mean that New York, Washington and Texas have to have such liberal positions. While Nevada might permit all of it!