California Supreme Court approves gay marriage »
Posted by: SonOfTheMask 3 months, 1 week ago384 Comments Report this Story
SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.
Read Full Story at latimes.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 384
-
0%
SonOfTheMask3 months, 1 week ago
FTA: The state high court's ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, and the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny3 months, 1 week ago
I don't care if gays get married. It's "domestic partner" benefits I oppose - for heterosexuals, gays, transgendered, etc., etc.
I figure if they want to get married, no problem. But domestic partner benefits leaves way too much room for abuse: welfare abuse, taxpayer abuse, flat out lying about who your "domestic partner might be just so they get bennies" abuse.
Reply-
0%
Grrr3 months, 1 week ago
If the domestic partnership is legally contracted the same as what people consider a "traditional marriage", I fail to see the difference from marriage.
Reply-
0%
puffin3 months, 1 week ago
Yea yea, but traditional has nothing to do with it. It's the words "marriage", "marry", and in some instances even "marr", that define the legal terms. Partnerships don't have the same legal clout and don't come with the/some particular rights afforded to marriages.
It's all in the terminology.
Reply-
-
0%
david_nwpa3 months, 1 week ago
Crghss, Domestic partnerships in theory are supposed to have the same weight or importance as marriage. Having said that, some hospitals and other entities treated domestic partners differently from married couples. The troubles exist throughout New Jersey, Connecticut and other states which have them. They are not the same as marriage, and are hence, separate but definitely not equal.
Reply-
0%
crghss3 months, 1 week ago
It all depends on the state. BUT, we could create a civil union that carries the same rights as a marriage. In the court of law we could establish a civil union as anything we want. But for some reason the Gay community won't accept this. It's marriage or nothing.
Reply-
0%
Tangent0013 months, 1 week ago
Well, if it's the same thing as marriage, why not call it marriage? Isn't that akin to calling a white's schooling 'education' and 'learning', but calling a black's schooling ONLY 'learning'?
Straights can be civilly united and they can be married, while gays can only be civilly united. Do you not see the implicit discrimination there?
Reply-
-
0%
Tangent0013 months, 1 week ago
Agreed. The civil portion is the realm of the state, the 'marriage' portion is the realm of the church or community.
I think I misunderstood you a bit.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
tkyrchncs3 months, 1 week ago
Everyone is free to turn to God or not, as that is the law of God and this country. Don't marry a man if you think it's wrong, but neither you nor your God has authority over my relationships, and our government shouldn't either.
Reply -
0%
Dionys3 months, 1 week ago
"There is no discrimination at all. This world was made for men and women to get married and not the same sex getting married. People of the same sex is letting the devil win and should learn to turn to God. "
Maybe this is true for your hateful God. But for those of us that follow the example of Christ and the law of the Bible there is nothing that restricts people of the same sex getting married, just as there is nothing that speaks against people *being* homosexuals, just a specific act as outlined in Lev 20.
So take your hateful God and go somewhere else where they allow you to legislate your religion and impose it on others. Remember, though, there may come a day when someone else can legislate their religion on your daily life.
Reply -
0%
hamy3 months ago
How does this affect you? How does it harm your marriage? It doesn't unless you are gay so why does this bother you that I may have the same rights as you?
Reply
-
-
-
0%
tkyrchncs3 months, 1 week ago
Yep. Because those discriminated against and their friends took to the streets and called out this country's conscience, and the courts listened. And then the President and the legislature listened, and then the Feds sent the National Guard to enforce equal treatment on the screaming and jeering people, WHETHER THEY WANTED IT OR NOT. Maybe we all need to take a lesson here.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
david_nwpa3 months, 1 week ago
Ah, name calling will get you nowhere with this crowd. Try another strategy.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
MajJohn3 months, 1 week ago
Can a domestic partner be forced to testify against her partner in court? I believes so. As a minister or JP can you be sued for refusing to marry a same sex couple? Will you be sued for honoring your own beliefs? Do you have the freedom of association.? So much for the legal weight.
Moral weight, does the state have a moral interest, it seldom does, only a legal interest. This issue is far from over, the initiative to put it to a vote will allow this issue to fester. And then will the court honor the will of the people? Probably not, since it's ruled against such initiatives in the past.
Should the court be deciding that a terminology somehow denotes a difference or really look to see if discrimination exists? If there is no discrimination, the court should not be legislating from the bench, but what can you expect from such progressive bastions as California and Massachusetts.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
raats66623 months, 1 week ago
Maybe I'm missing something, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. In one post you say you don't have a problem with marriage, but have a problem with "domestic partner" benefits.
Most people who support gay marriage a trying to get the "Legal" recognition which allows them to file joint tax returns, make medical decision for a 'spouse', are able to receive 'benefits' associated with being a 'spouse'.
Are YOU suggesting that 'domestic partner' benefits might be made available to people 'shacking up'?
Believe it or NOT, there would actually be LESS 'welfare' if gays were allowed to 'marry' because NOW since the mother is 'single' they are entitled to benefits that they would NOT be entitled to were they married.
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny3 months, 1 week ago
Domestic partner isn't just a "gay" issue. Try to pay attention, will you?
"Believe it or NOT, there would actually be LESS 'welfare' if gays were allowed to 'marry' because NOW since the mother is 'single' they are entitled to benefits that they would NOT be entitled to were they married."
That's pretty much what I said.
Reply-
0%
raats66623 months, 1 week ago
I HAVE been paying attention and if YOU would open YOUR eyes (I know it's far TOO much to ask that you open your bigoted MIND) you would know that Domestic partner IS a gay issue. People who "shack up", even if it is for 20 years GENERALLY don't get classified as "Domestic Partners" and the DIFFERENCE is those that ARE "shacking up" CAN get the LEGAL benefits by getting married, gays CAN'T.
And you seem to be of the same view as your 'flip flopper' McCain 'if they want to have a private ceremony that's fine, I do not think gay marriages should be legal."
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NeBw28tX5Nw
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Goppy3 months, 1 week ago
You shouldnt take stuff liek that personal SonOf.
Maybe what they are sayin is they simply dont agree with the content of the artikal.
I myself get negged ALL the tiem by certain members.
For instance, LibsRfunny follows me around endlessly givin me negs --- followed by DropKickaLib.
I say ... Be strong ... just liek your grandfather would wish for you Loki.
Reply-
catstevensComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
scott42613 months, 1 week ago
Yes,Arkansas - another "purple state" - overwhelmingly passed a gay marriage ban in 2004. And the nutcases are working on putting a measure on the 2008 ballot geared to prevent any unmarried couples from adopting children (since gays can't marry, they can't adopt children). This is ignoring the fact that the pool of parents willing to adopt is already smaller than the number of children who need loving homes.
What's wrong with this picture?
Incidentally, my precinct in Little Rock - the liberal Hillcrest neighborhood - voted AGAINST the gay marriage ban by over 70% in 2004. I consider myself very lucky to have found a tiny liberal pocket in this "purple" but very socially conservative state.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
ontherock3 months, 1 week ago
The whole thing is just GROSS!!!!
Gay marriage, Domestic Partner Rights???
What's next?? I have been living with my cousin since I was 9 and we want benefits too???
This country has gone MAD!!!
It's really frightening. Yes a woman can love another woman like a sister and men the same as brothers BUT this whole gay/homo thing is just WRONG!!!!!
People smack a male dog for trying to hump another male dog because it's just WRONG!!!!!
Reply-
HmacComment removed: User banned.70 Replies
-
-
0%
Coatl3 months, 1 week ago
Well english is not my mother laguage, but if hump means what I think it means: why does anyone hump?
Reply-
0%
Global_Warmer3 months, 1 week ago
Consummation of marriage. Start a family. Make babies. You know, everything that defines marriage.
Reply-
-
-
0%
Coatl3 months, 1 week ago
I don't want to sanctify same-sex marriage, if they need that to be happy then they should get married, It's not thay they're forcing same-sex marriage on all of us, is it?
Reply -
0%
Tangent0013 months, 1 week ago
The sanctification of a marriage is up to whichever church is willing to do so.
Reply -
0%
not2needy3 months, 1 week ago
Global, although i'm not completely sure where i stand on this issue, you are certainly bungling your argument against gay marriage.
Many people hump, men and women, with or without the sanctity of marriage..and without the intent of procreation, in fact there are probably hundreds of methods of birth control just so people CAN hump without procreating.
It's my bet that you have humped outside of the marriage bed, and used protection to prevent conception/ hence your statement has just been voided as garbage!
Reply
-
-
-
0%
NoWayMan3 months, 1 week ago
"Consummation of marriage. Start a family. Make babies. You know, everything that defines marriage."
you don't actually believe that, do you?
most humping, in fact the vast majority of humping, does not occur in an effort to make babies or consummate marraige.
get real.
Reply-
-
-
0%
Global_Warmer3 months, 1 week ago
Judging from your logic, you certainly couldn't. Face it, the only reason gays want to marry is because of their permiscuity, AIDS has run rampant through that community in the 80's and 90's. Now, all of a suddent they are self-proclaimed monogomous couples and want to get married. This community is looking for shared health care insurance and survivor benefits. Anything beyond that is BS. So save your bleeding-heart crap for someone that doesn't know any better,...say some bonehead California judge.
Reply-
0%
Coatl3 months, 1 week ago
LOL, why so much hate?
I just see people who want to be happy, there are gay people who are promiscuous and there are some who are monogamous like heterosexuals. What I really fail to see is how 2 people getting married affects you.
Reply-
0%
Global_Warmer3 months, 1 week ago
Calling a spade a spade is not hatred, so don't twist it. I have a very close relative that died from AIDS. He was gay. He' was the one who made me realize that AIDS is spread in his community because of the permiscuity. I took responsibility for his actions, and realized that he had no one to blame but himself. besides, if gays were sincere, why didn't they fight for this legislation 20, 30 years ago. All of a suddent, it's in everyone's face. The reason it's on the bench is because you wouldn't stand the test of a ballot.
Reply-
0%
Coatl3 months, 1 week ago
AIDS is spread in ANY community because of promiscuity, the taboo that gay relatinships were in the past was the main reason of both, their promiscuity(if you have to hide your relationship it's clear that it won't last) and why they haven't fight fot that legislation 20 or 30 years ago. They aren't even being fully accepted now, and think have improved a lot in 20 or 30 years. Probably they wouldn't stand the test of a ballot, but neither would have the ban of slavery in the US 200 years ago, that doesn't make slavery right, is it?
Reply-
0%
Global_Warmer3 months, 1 week ago
Oh, now you're comparing the plight of slaves over a 100 years ago to two men getting married to each other?
As far as AIDS, you're right, it does exist in the hetrosexual community, however, the highest rate is among homosexuals, followed by a close second among IV drug users.
Reply-
-
-
0%
Coatl3 months, 1 week ago
That and probably the fact that they haven't enough supporters , the US is a quite religious country, and a lot of religious organizations are aganist gay marriage. I just hope that you come to realize that there is no good reason why anyone can't marry the person they really want to.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
NoWayMan3 months, 1 week ago
"however, the highest rate is among homosexuals, followed by a close second among IV drug users."
global warmer is wrong. again.
http://www.avert.org/worlstatinfo.htm
Reply -
0%
fourthtunz3 months, 1 week ago
{{{{{{As far as AIDS, you're right, it does exist in the hetrosexual community, however, the highest rate is among homosexuals, followed by a close second among IV drug users.}}}}}
Right due to an@l sex not because of god. Heterosexuals get it the same way, they just have more options, so to speak.
Reply -
-
-
-
0%
ZippySpincycle3 months, 1 week ago
"if gays were sincere, why didn't they fight for this legislation 20, 30 years ago."
Funny you should mention 20 years ago. One of my best friends from high school came out in 1987. I still remember how worried she was that she would get fired--or beaten up--if anyone at her workplace knew she was gay. She also mentioned that she wished she could do what all the straight workers at her office could without a second thought: have a photo on her desk of the person she loved most.
20 years later, she does feel free to have her partner's photo on her desk (yep, they're still together, though she's at a much better job). And now, if they lived in CA or MA, they could get married, and I would be thrilled for them.
Reply -
HanymanComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
hamy3 months ago
Um...we have been fighting for this for 40 years, thanks. Stonewall was in 69. Know your gay history before you try to teach it.
And I can't be the only one who finds it incredibly awful of you to whittle your relative's life down to one thing. AIDS. I am sure that he left behind a lot more than that to a more understanding and loving audience.
I am sure he is looking down on you with scorn.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
ZippySpincycle3 months, 1 week ago
"Face it, the only reason gays want to marry is because of their permiscuity, AIDS has run rampant through that community ...This community is looking for shared health care insurance and survivor benefits. Anything beyond that is BS."
Wow...that's really going to be news to all the lesbian couples who want to get married. The AIDS infection rate among lesbians is even lower than among straights. Care to explain how their behavior is motivated by a virus that they're mostly unaffected by?
Reply -
0%
Tangent0013 months, 1 week ago
During the 60's and 70' it was the heteros' turn to be promiscuous, and yes, STDs rose dramatically as a result. Eventually, the 'free love' crowd settled down.
There are promiscuous people and periods on both sides of the sexual-preference equation. People who commit to a loving partner should be rewarded, regardless of orientation, as it contributes to the stability of society as a whole. That includes shared health insurance (committed couples tend to be healthier), survivor benefits, end-of-life and other medical decision-making, adoption rights, etc.
What damage does it do to allow same-sex marriage?
Reply-
-
0%
ZippySpincycle3 months, 1 week ago
Well, that's mostly because free love costs so much these days...
Reply
-
-
-
0%
NoWayMan3 months, 1 week ago
gays want to marry because of their promiscuity?
what kind of twisted, bass ackwards logic is that?
and what are you saying, two gay people can't actually be in love?
*ring* its the phone, for you global warmer. its the 18th century calling. they want you to come back home.
Reply -
-
-
-
0%
NoWayMan3 months, 1 week ago
this has nothing to do with morals. its about reality.
wake up numbskull. most people aren't having sex in order to make babies. thats just a fact.
and you're the only one here trying to push a moral position.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
jordan113 months, 1 week ago
Uh, don't look now, but everyone who marries doesn't have babies.
Reply -
0%
Dionys3 months, 1 week ago
"Consummation of marriage. Start a family. Make babies. You know, everything that defines marriage. "
So now sterile people can't get married? Or people who don't want to overpopulate the planet with children?
Hmm.
Interesting theory. Sounds like the middle ages are back.
Reply -
0%
fourthtunz3 months, 1 week ago
Global_Warmer
{{{{{Consummation of marriage. Start a family. Make babies. You know, everything that defines marriage.}}}}}}}}
Right just like gay folks, some might have to adopt but you've got it!
Reply -
0%
hamy3 months ago
So people who cannot have children should not be allowed to live? Is that what you are getting at? To me, marriage is a fulfilling relationship where two people act as a team. I am sorry that your marriage is so unfulfilling that you only see it as a means to children.
How sad for your partner.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
