California Supreme Court Holds that Gay Marriage must be Allowed under the California Constitution

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Even right now.. I am wearing wool socks... and a cotton jeans... and a cotton blend blouse. Do you think I am going to hell because of the clothing in my wardrobe??

You may want to reconsider the wool socks before heading down. I hear it's pretty warm. You may even want to change from jeans (no pun intended) to shorts.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

.....And plenty don't like the "judgmental." Of course, they are themselves being "judgmental" about it.

"Oh. He's soooo judgmental." That's a judgment.
"I hate him. He's sooooo intolerant." That displays intolerance.
"You can't say what is right and wrong." That's saying somebody is right or wrong.

Fact of life. We are all self-centered. Myself included.
We are all judgmental. Myself included.

Let's own up to it.

oooooh, look at mr Fancy Pants, lording it over all the peons

who are YOU to pass judgement on the rest of us?


I really hate people that hate.
I can tell all about people that judge.
I will not tolerate the intolerant.
Those stereotypers are all the same.

as for the ignorant? I really just don't know about them

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[livendive 8]

Quote

Personally, I don't have a problem with the ruling. I have a problem with the SC over riding the voters of CA. 60% of Californians voted against same sex marrige.

It looks like, once again, majority rule isn't worth a damn when the courts get involved.

Perhaps those people should have first changed the Constitution before they voted for a piece of legislation that didn't pass Constitutional muster. On 9/15/01, an emergency referendum banning the practice of Islam in the US might have gotten a majority vote, but that wouldn't have made it constitutionally legitimate. At any given time, enough people might be motivated to vote in favor of a nationwide CCW ban. It would of course be subsequently struck down by virtue of the second amendment. Presumably you'd be ok with courts overturning that piece of passed legislation.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

What tax break? Dual income couples with similar pay an average of over $1100 more in taxes than if they were single.

Those are some pretty big qualifiers there. If my girlfriend and I had been married last year instead of "living in sin", we'd have paid somewhere around $8,000 less in taxes (and this doesn't take into account the fact that we'd also be getting twice as much "stimulus" money).

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[lawrocket 3]

I think this leads me to another point here. As far as the Feds are concerned, gays ain't married.

I suspect that they will be filing separate tax returns. That sort of thing.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think this leads me to another point here. As far as the Feds are concerned, gays ain't married.

I suspect that they will be filing separate tax returns. That sort of thing.

if you assume equivalent dual income households (some assumption), then that results in a tax privilege that hetero married couples don't get -

watch how fast the feds figure that out and find a way to get that money

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Most tolerant people I know are just that, tolerant. They aren't likely to forbid their kids from associating with poor folks, redneck or otherwise.

Unless it involves the child's school, and then suddenly standards of association are dramatically increased.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

what gets me about this whole thing is that the issue was put to a vote. the people voted no. then the court decideds the peoples vote dosent count and they can just change the law themselves. if the will of the people can be ignored like this by the courts and governmet then i'm really wooried about where our country is headed.

The voters of San Francisco were happy to pass a law in 2005 banning handgun ownership for city residents, even though the State Supreme Court told them in 1982 this was not legal. Again the high court eliminated it.

Are you saying the Court is wrong, not the voters (or the coucilman who put it on the ballot knowing it was not legal)?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I think this leads me to another point here. As far as the Feds are concerned, gays ain't married.

I suspect that they will be filing separate tax returns. That sort of thing.

if you assume equivalent dual income households (some assumption), then that results in a tax privilege that hetero married couples don't get -

watch how fast the feds figure that out and find a way to get that money

You may be correct - the US government will recognize gay marriage at the federal level when enough states have permitted it to show real money in it for them.

However, while the year to year revenue may be higher, this is offset by tax laws beneficial to married couples when death occurs.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

However, while the year to year revenue may be higher, this is offset by tax laws beneficial to married couples when death occurs.

ok - compromise

government stays completely out of marriage (if they want to promote having kids, then any benefit applies to individuals with kids)

eliminate the inheritance tax

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

the US government will recognize gay marriage at the federal level when enough states have permitted it to show real money in it for them

In the end, this is the ONLY criteria that will decide it

no matter who's in charge

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Unless it involves the child's school, and then suddenly standards of association are dramatically increased.

???

Care to expound?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Unless it involves the child's school, and then suddenly standards of association are dramatically increased.

???

Care to expound?

lots of SF parents talk the tolerance line, and then send their kids to private schools. Many other examples of hypocritical nimby'isms.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Unless it involves the child's school, and then suddenly standards of association are dramatically increased.

???

Care to expound?

lots of SF parents talk the tolerance line, and then send their kids to private schools. Many other examples of hypocritical nimby'isms.

This assumes the reason parents send their students to private school is to avoid socialization with children belonging to different ethnic or socioeconomic groups. Would you say that's also why some parents send their kids to the best colleges they can afford? Personally, the only things I ever considered with regard to public or private schools for my daughter were cost and quality of education.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Lindsey 0]

There are lots of things worse than being gay. Heck, look at mean people. They're allowed to marry, and they can even adopt children! Somehow I bet that children are better off with parents who are gay than with parents who are mean and heartless.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

lots of SF parents talk the tolerance line, and then send their kids to private schools. Many other examples of hypocritical nimby'isms.

This assumes the reason parents send their students to private school is to avoid socialization with children belonging to different ethnic or socioeconomic groups. Would you say that's also why some parents send their kids to the best colleges they can afford? Personally, the only things I ever considered with regard to public or private schools for my daughter were cost and quality of education.

Blues,
Dave

Yes- quality of education. Though they want to say otherwise, they fear that a school full of poor kids will drag down the quality of education.

[SpeedRacer 1]

WTF is this world coming to?

Next thing you know, we'll have RW flyers marrying freeflyers!!

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Shawndiver 0]

So I have read through this thread and I still have not seen a clear answer a question.

My question is, how long before the polygamists are knocking at the supreme courts door? If four people of consenting age wish to be married, (or six, or ten) why should they be discriminated against? Children and animals cannot give consent so that argument would be easy to defeat, but why should someone be discriminated against because their sexual preferences include multiple partners?

Let me state, I think it’s great on this ruling. Let two people who love each other and want to commit to each other do it in a very real and legally binding sense (Python reference) no matter whether its man/woman man/man woman/woman. Makes no difference to me. If I understand this ruling correctly, it forbids discrimination based on sexual preferences.

Just curious. Frankly, would not bother me in the least if they got their rights as well. Lawrocket stated it perfectly earlier, it makes no difference in my choice of personal relationship.

_________________

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

WTF is this world coming to?

Next thing you know, we'll have RW flyers marrying freeflyers!!

OK... now you're just going TOO far!!!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rynodigsmusic 0]

Quote

Strongly disagree.

With what do you disagree? Are you saying you believe that being in close proximity with homosexuals can turn people gay? Or do you think it's bad to teach children tolerance and acceptance of those not like themselves?

>>>>Its about the influence. No, I dont think that being around homosexuals is going to turn someone gay, but influence inspires more thoughts than people realize. I guess you really havent met anyone who has found shame in themselves in regards to homosexual "encounters"?

Quote

The question that I originally asked was sincere to everyone, but what I found is exactly what I said, Only the person who is gay knows the answer to whether or not it is a choice. It is no different from an addict. They dont wish they were that way, but it seems they made descisions back down the way...descisions that I dont judge.....that led them down that path.

You claim that you don't judge, yet you judge homosexuality to be immoral. Which is it? You can't judge and also claim not to judge.

>>>>I dont judge the decisions they make/made, but I still believe it is right to keep what is right, right. I believe its everyones God-given right to make a judgement. If you find making a judgement, the same as being the judge of someone, then you dont see the difference. If you believe making a judgement is being the judge of someone, then you are doing the same thing by what you believe to be right. I cant help but think that this is more a personal issue with you and I, and Im sorry about that.

Quote

I dont believe God made anyone an addict, but we have seen that people are influenced both genetically and by their enviornment.

Don't creationists believe that God is behind their genetics, and placed kids in their environment?

>>>>Yeah, I guess an evolutionist would think that way

Quote

I understand some will have opposite opinions, that is perfectly ok, but still, the core issure, is the morality of homosexual marriages and whether we believe it is right to allow it. It is not a morality issue of having the same civil liberties, though that is exactly how people are taking it.

The court's opinion, and make no mistake, their opinion is the only one that matters, is that is about civil liberties. There's no reason to consider homosexuality immoral. That's like claiming that it's immoral to have blue eyes.

>>>>You and I simply dont agree with what we believe to be moral and immoral. My stance is that our model of morality shouldnt involve homosexuality, however, I dont think it should seperate people at the heart level.

"We didn't start the fire"

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

My question is, how long before the polygamists are knocking at the supreme courts door?

Who knows? Personally, I'd like to see how that works out.

Quote

If four people of consenting age wish to be married, (or six, or ten) why should they be discriminated against?

Good question! And there are no real easy answers, right? The Court stated:

Quote

we conclude that, under this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and protected familypossessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family — constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society.

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples

[emphasis in original]

So, looking at that as right, under that reasoning, it appears that the Cal Supreme Court could find that there is not a compelling state interest to ban polygamy.

But, in footnote 52, the court explained:

Quote

52 We emphasize that our conclusion that the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships. Past judicial decisions explain why our nation’s culture has considered the latter types of relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry. (See, e.g., Reynolds v. United States (1878) 98 U.S. 145, 165-166; string cite omitted)

Although the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay individuals and gay couples clearly is no longer constitutionally permissible, the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment. (Accord, e.g., Potter v. Murray City (C.D. Utah 1984) 585 F.Supp. 1126, 1137-1140, affd. (10th Cir. 1985) 760 F.2d 1065, 1068-1071, cert. den. (1985) 474 U.S. 849; People v. Scott, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th 189, 193-194.) Thus, our conclusion that it is improper to interpret the state constitutional right to marry as inapplicable to gay individuals or couples does not affect the constitutional validity of the existing legal prohibitions against polygamy and the marriage of close relative.

So it sounds like the court already drew the line in the sand. But, then again, this line may change in the coming years - or days.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

You and I simply dont agree with what we believe to be moral and immoral. My stance is that our model of morality shouldnt involve homosexuality, however, I dont think it should seperate people at the heart level.

What I've been saying is that the morality issue should be moot. We're talking about the government here.
The government should stick to the affairs of the government.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

See, I didnt know that, but then again, where is that written in the bible?

There is nothing written in the bible agains homosexual marriages.
The bible prohibits homosexual _sex_, and sodomy laws have been repealed long time ago.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I think this leads me to another point here. As far as the Feds are concerned, gays ain't married.
I suspect that they will be filing separate tax returns. That sort of thing.

Same from the immigration law; they won't be able to sponsor their spouses for a Green Card.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rynodigsmusic 0]

Quote

Quote

You and I simply dont agree with what we believe to be moral and immoral. My stance is that our model of morality shouldnt involve homosexuality, however, I dont think it should seperate people at the heart level.

What I've been saying is that the morality issue should be moot. We're talking about the government here.
The government should stick to the affairs of the government.

I know very little about the law, but I still believe the core of law is founded on morality.

"We didn't start the fire"