Cali Gay Marriage Opinion to be Released Today

[nerd137 0]

>Hmm, your neighbors must not be too bright if they really thought that. That was one of the simplest propositions I've ever seen...

People can be incredibly stupid and lazy. I was amazed by how few people I talked to actually read the proposition. What was it, 15 words? 20 perhaps?

Too many people rely on information from TV ads (which are inevitably misleading) when deciding how to vote.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

I don’t think the government should be in the marriage business.

Are you married, or does your protest end at your doorstep?

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Marriage is a specific religious term regarding a man and a woman.

It is? I am an athiest. I got married by a man who was not affiliated with a religious group in any way at a casino in Las Vegas. Am I not married?

Well, you're certainly a gambler where the house has the overwhelming odds. So, yes.

I'm an atheist too. My marriage certainly has nothing to do with religion.

[BikerBabe 0]

thanks lawrocket. I was thinking something along the lines of insurance, or taxes (joint filing, etc) would be the practical way to go about it.

I love this case since it seems to be a PERFECT illustration of reason vs. emotion in regards to the law. Yeah, we're all mad about it, but in a purely rational light, the court did the right thing.

Now the real challenge comes in figuring out a rational way to support what our emotions say is right.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[billvon 3,179]

>Hmm, your neighbors must not be too bright if they really thought that.

I think some people stop thinking once you push their hot buttons. For some people it might be "your children are at risk!" for other people it might be "tax and spend democrats want to gouge you" for yet others it might be "California wants to kill babies" or whatever. We see that happen here all the time.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Suppose a same sex couple who were legally married in one state subsequently moved to another state that does not recognize same sex marriages. If that state did not recognize their marriage as valid, it would appear to be a violation of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

I believe that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act ensures that no state will be required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

Thanks to Bill Clinton for signing that one. Good thing that we've got people like him to protect the sanctity of marriage.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If marriage is a religious institution, then the government has no business recognizing any marriage.

Correct. I have trouble understanding why we need the government to be in the marriage business at all.

Like it or not, governmental involvement in marriage is inevitable in modern times.

I disgree. I think that there are alternate methods that could form the same legal relationships, which would actually be superior, because they would specifically enumerate the rights and relationships, forcing the parties to actually consider them rather than just gazing off, star crossed, and simpering "we're in love", and somehow expecting that to take care of everything.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

Suppose a same sex couple who were legally married in one state subsequently moved to another state that does not recognize same sex marriages. If that state did not recognize their marriage as valid, it would appear to be a violation of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

I believe that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act ensures that no state will be required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

I believe that act is in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and hence unconstitutional.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Our neighbors, for example, are pro gay marriage, but voted for prop 8 because they thought the ballot measure was to require gay marriage be taught to children.

Hmm, your neighbors must not be too bright if they really thought that. That was one of the simplest propositions I've ever seen, and if someone couldn't understand what they were voting for on that one, then I shudder to think how they interpret some of the propositions that require actually reading multiple pages.

Two days before the election, every interested church gave a sermon about how awful things would get if prop 8 didn't pass. That resulted in a significant shift in polling right when it mattered. People trust in their pastors and many will happily do whatever told.

Misleading campaign ads are somewhat similar. It's not that they trust TV, but people will latch onto something that tells them what they want to hear. Those scary gays are going to be showing my 8 yo sex toys in school if we don't pass prop 8! More importantly, they're going to do it without asking me, just like how they got gay marriage legal.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

I believe that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act ensures that no state will be required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

I believe that act is in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and hence unconstitutional.

I agree. And hopefully it will be repealed soon.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think it's a good thing in the this instance in that the people of California can now pursue equality in civil unions in a legal manner and not waste time hoping for illegal judicial activism to short cut the process.

Probably not. From what I see on the street in SF with signature takers, there is a large sentiment for putting on yet another initiative in 2010.

I think this is a tactical mistake. I think it has a much better chance in 2012 to get the last few points. Right now the uninterested (not gay, gay favoring, or highly religious) would like to not think about it for a while. If it loses again, that's 3 times and more than a few voters may take a 3 strikes and you're out stance.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

People trust in their pastors and many will happily do whatever told.

Hmm, I think I'm going to become a pastor.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I believe that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act ensures that no state will be required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

I believe that act is in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and hence unconstitutional.

I agree. And hopefully it will be repealed soon.

I think it's more likely to be overturned by the SCOTUS, as it's such a hot button political issue that Congress won't want to touch it.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

In the long run, gay marriage will be completely legal in California. Gays will someday have the same rights that groups like women and blacks have attained. Having tens of thousands of legal gay marriages in California - proof that gay marriages can work and do not cause the collapse of society - will help that day come sooner.

It's pretty surprising how a lot of things have changed in half a generation. One decade ago, no country recognized gay marriages. A lot has changed since the Harvey Milk or the Stonewall days before I was born.

I admit I am surprised it's legal in Iowa and it's not in California. Iowa is full of surprises - including Obama's first big break.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I admit I am surprised it's legal in Iowa and it's not in California.

It is, though I can't decide what it really means.

It could just be a reflection of the prevalence of Catholicism in Hispanic America, who represent the largest growing demographic in the state.

It definitely strikes me as a waste of good money - close to 100M on prop 8.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't know your opinion, and I certainly would not agree without such knowledge.

Well then I will tell you. I am against same sex marriage. Marriage is a specific religious term regarding a man and a woman.

My Gods say Marriage is for any number of adults who wish to form a union regardless of gender.

With Congress being constitutionally prohibited from creating a national religion, my Gods' edicts are equally valid.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

I expected them to uphold prop 8. I am glad, though, that the gay marriages that were performed before prop 8 have been upheld. Gay marriage is now literally legal in California, although no new ones can be performed until another proposition (prop 9?) can be passed.

In the long run, gay marriage will be completely legal in California. Gays will someday have the same rights that groups like women and blacks have attained. Having tens of thousands of legal gay marriages in California - proof that gay marriages can work and do not cause the collapse of society - will help that day come sooner.

Gays do have the same rights as everyone else. In California, for example, they can marry a person of the opposite sex. Neither gays nor heterosexuals can marry a person of the same sex.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[TheBachelor 5]

Quote

Quote

I don't think I'd say the majority of California voters are bigots.

What would you call them then, mindless drones willing to go along with the program laid out by their religious zealot leaders? Because that's kinda the only two options here.

I voted for prop 8 because I really dislike San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom's arrogance, and when I saw him talking about same-sex marriage, saying it was going to happen "whether ya like it or not!", my vote was cemented. It probably would have been different had he not lended his support.

So, I don't think I'm a bigot, and "religious zealot leaders" had nothing to do with my vote.

There are battered women? I've been eating 'em plain all of these years...

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I think that there are alternate methods that could form the same legal relationships, which would actually be superior, because they would specifically enumerate the rights and relationships, forcing the parties to actually consider them rather than just gazing off, star crossed, and simpering "we're in love", and somehow expecting that to take care of everything.

Um, Tom. That's exactly what divorce and marriage laws do. They are groups of laws based on contract that operate under the notion that this marriage is a special kind of contract and therefore entitled to certain presumptions.

I'm telling you that simply from a practical aspect of dealing with divorce, if divorces were based upon contract law it'd be more of a nightmare than it is now. Way worse.

There are economic efficiency reasons for these laws.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

Such exercise of power is not automatically legitimized simply because 50.1% of the population supports it.

Well clearly it is. So what percent of the population should it take to pass? Bill said a super majority. Well in Florida we have that and it still passed so what next?

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I believe that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act ensures that no state will be required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

I don't believe that particular law would withstand the scrutiny of the SCOTUS if challenged.

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

[billvon 3,179]

>Gays do have the same rights as everyone else. In California, for
>example, they can marry a person of the opposite sex.

By that argument, blacks in Georgia in 1950 had exactly the same rights as everyone else. They could use their own bathrooms (just like whites) go to their very own schools (just like whites) and marry someone who is the same race that they are (just like whites.)

I am glad we've gotten away from that particular bit of bigotry. "Separate but equal" has been discredited pretty thoroughly.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I voted for prop 8 because I really dislike San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom's arrogance, and when I saw him talking about same-sex marriage, saying it was going to happen "whether ya like it or not!", my vote was cemented. It probably would have been different had he not lended his support.

Wow. So you voted just to spite the San Francisco mayor, with no regard to the people who would actually be affected by your vote. Wow.

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

It definitely strikes me as a waste of good money - close to 100M on prop 8.

I do wonder the money should have been better spent now (just settling for civil union status first, marriage later) and then wait half a generation later, to ensure a landslide victory.

From my math calculations, a same-sex marriage certificate already cost California taxpayers over $5000 each because of the YES vs NO battle.

California has some serious financial trouble to worry about, after all. For the moment, the average citizen probably needs help more than this issue. The freedom is there to relocate to another part of the country as well. Then again, I understand that the battle is very passionate on both sides. But how massive a fleet of skydiving aircraft can $100M buy?

I'm glad that the ones who got married already, get to keep their marriage. It at least spares them some of the pain of doing it all over again next time it becomes legal.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

Quote

Like it or not, governmental involvement in marriage is inevitable in modern times.

I disgree. I think that there are alternate methods that could form the same legal relationships, which would actually be superior, because they would specifically enumerate the rights and relationships, forcing the parties to actually consider them rather than just gazing off, star crossed, and simpering "we're in love", and somehow expecting that to take care of everything.

To elaborate what the DoggieJumper mentioned earlier, (and I have read this proposal in other places):

Marriage as we know it today would be split into two separate parts:
1. A civil union, recognized by gov't which would cover all legal aspects of what we currently call "marriage".
2. A religious ceremony, recognized only by the church chosen by the parties involved.

People wanting the traditional marriage as we know it today, would do both.
People not interested in the religious angle would only do #1.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.