WOOP WOOP!!! Precedence? Set! United States progressing to an actual free country? WHO KNEW? FULL SPEED AHEAD!
http://www.latimes.com/ne...20100805,0,7957358.story
Awesome Judge of the Universe posted:
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay
men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence
shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California
Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to
same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating
against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents
California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide
marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is
unconstitutional."
In my excitement I forgot to add that this was fed-court, not SUPREME, which it will likely go to. If it does not, though, then yeah. Awesome. The crazy thing is is that the defendants (California) have not said a WORD about taking it up to Supreme Court yet, which you usually hear this like, right after a decision. So who knows?
And my faith in the human race is somewhat restored once more.
Given that the California Constitution was specifically amended in this matter, how can a judge strike it down using a separate provision of the California Constitution?
Meh, whatever. The State should get out of the marriage business entirely. I’d rather have it eliminated than have it redefined like this. You want to legally partner up with someone? Draw up a contract; let there be civil unions throughout the land. Leave marriage (and the various religious and historical connotations that entails) alone.
Meh, whatever. The State should get out of the marriage business entirely. I’d rather have it eliminated than have it redefined like this. You want to legally partner up with someone? Draw up a contract; let there be civil unions throughout the land. Leave marriage (and the various religious and historical connotations that entails) alone.
Though I do not care what the government defines it as, this is what I have been saying since this whole thing came up. Cultural standards need to be separate from government. Civil partnerships and personal freedom of definitions of cultural institutions ahoy! Marriage discriminates against celibates and polygamists 
!
Given that the California Constitution was specifically amended in this matter, how can a judge strike it down using a separate provision of the California Constitution?
This was not a state court. This was a federal court. The California Constitution has nothing to do with this. This has to do with the US Constitution. I didn't follow the case and I haven't read the decision either, but even the little I've seen the argument used to knock out Proposition 8 was grounded in using the US Constitution, which has been used to allow "mixed" marriages to occur when some states used to block those on moral and/or religious grounds.
Draw up a contract; let there be civil unions throughout the land. Leave marriage (and the various religious and historical connotations that entails) alone.
Really, dude? You are so much better than that.
LianneKa wrote:
...the argument used to knock out Proposition 8 was grounded in using the
US Constitution, which has been used to allow "mixed" marriages to occur
when some states used to block those on moral and/or religious grounds.
Pretty much this. Anytime anything "BAD" is portrayed against the freakin' bible, it's all RAR IMMORAL AND STOP PISSING ON MY BELIEFS AND RIGHTS, when the hypocrites are DOING IT RIGHT BACK with that hateful crap. Also, the Catholic church did not invent marriage, as there were already other rituals similar to marriage out and about. If I remember right, the Romans were totally cool about it, (but then again I'm sure bible thumpers would use that as the "catalyst to why the empire fell and bla bla bla"), so "marriage" isn't just tied to religion. It's just a motion of a promise of a forever love to the person you're in love with.
And please oh please let's not have someone be one of those people that are like "OH MAI GAWD, WHAT'S NEXT, MAN AND DOG?" here because I swear I will smack the tard out of you.
And my faith in the human race is somewhat restored once more.
You use whether or not one of the 50 states, in a country you don't even live in, officially recognizes same sex marriages, as a way to decide your level of faith in the human race? o.o
I was overeggerating a little, but yes, I do.
We live in a world of war and terror and hate and we've got to take every little pocket of... and I can't think of a better word for this sorry, good that we can.
It doesn't really matter that it's not the country I live in. Gay rights is an issue I care pretty strongly about and every victory, no matter how small or distant, is a good thing to me. I've got a pact with my best friend that we'll go to the next gay pride march in my city, work permitting. I look forwards to a time where homosexuality is embraced worldwide as a legitimate type of relationship equal to heterosexuality, even though I'm pretty sure it isn't going to happen in my lifetime.
As much as I often give the impression otherwise, I do care about countries other than my own.
Gay rights is an issue I care pretty strongly about and every victory, no matter how small or distant, is a good thing to me.
Fair enough. It's just that gay marriage (or, more accurately, government acknowledgement of it; the extent to which marriage is even a "right" is quite contested anyway) seems like a relatively small issue even within gay rights (compare it to gay adoption, for example) let alone compared to much broader issues. Not to say I don't get passionate about small subjects either, but there's a difference between that and using it as a gauge for one's faith in humanity. Yes, it was hyperbole, but it's not like that kind of hyperbole came out of thin air. I figured it'd be worthwhile probing into it, and seeing where the inclination to it came from.
I also wouldn't equate opposition to gay marriage with homophobia either; there's examples of opposition that claim not to be rooted in homophobia, though that example is obviously flawed, I still wouldn't assume it to be about homophobia. There's a difference between not taking their word for it and assuming one's own to be better.
The one thing I never liked about it was all the conservative pricks claiming still flapping their gums about things will get screwed or some other kind of crap. I stopped paying attention after a while because all in all they seem to be just hiding behind religion in general.
There are much bigger problems in the world than worrying about defining what marriage is. Like the economy and two wars being fought overseas.
I agree. 100%. There MUST be a legal reason to ban gay marriage. One that has nothing to do with religion or homophobia. One... on a link that correlates barring two healthy people from getting married to a person with a highly infectious and dangerous sexually transmitted disease. I believe it, Matt, but some people might think that that ban has something to do with the CDC. And as of yet, and I just found this out so BRACE yourselves, the CDC does NOT consider The Gay to be a real disease. Sad, I know, although my friends at Fox are working to resolve that, as they have new information on how you catch The Gay from a trusted source, who isn't the one that told them about the Taliban training monkeys to use assault rifles.
You see, I believe that the only time something should be outlawed, is when it hurts another person. And this hurts me deeply, and the proof is right here:
i wanna be the very best
I don't quite follow you, Rico. o.o
: I followed him JUST FINE.
CHANGE PLACES!!
I'm surprised at you people! What you're promoting is downright
dangerous. Don't you know that 'the gay'
is a major contributor of global Warming!
All that friction generates tremendous heat that escapes
straight into the atmosphere, not to mention all the CO2 thrust out by their
heavy masculine breathing... rubbing of toned, oiled muscles glistening in the
fleeting light of aromatic candles.... Mmmmm Doctor House...
Meh! Whoa, okay snap out of it girl.
Sorry, watched House MD this morning, not quite fully
recovered yet so best not to explore this path any further.... Hugh Laurie,
gweeee
*leaves a pic behind and flits off into her own little
world*
^ I really don't know what to say...
Why say anything? She's right....house is awesome! :3
You got me there!
"not to mention all the CO2 thrust out by their heavy masculine breathing"
oh reithe that was awsome 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO43p2Wqc08
I heard Gays made part of Greenland fall off too! D:
Noooo the poor polar-bears! When will this reign of well toned tyranny end! How many more continents must fall prey to their soothing action and awesome fashion sense!
