California high court upholds gay marriage ban

California high court upholds gay marriage ban but allows existing same-sex marriages to stand
May 26 12:03 PM US/Eastern

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - California high court upholds gay marriage ban but allows existing same-sex marriages to stand.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

floridafun wrote:...that the mormans temporarily bought the prop 8 vote last year...

humm, those mormons must've paid off the CA supreme court...

LTRT wrote:California high court upholds gay marriage ban but allows existing same-sex marriages to stand
May 26 12:03 PM US/Eastern

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - California high court upholds gay marriage ban but allows existing same-sex marriages to stand.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

floridafun wrote:...that the mormans temporarily bought the prop 8 vote last year...

humm, those mormons must've paid off the CA supreme court...

By allowing the existing same sex marriages to stand that simply means this case gets taken to the US Supreme Court. The Ca SC took the middle of the road position and punted the ball up the food chain. I bet your AWB site is rejoicing today!!!!

Bman wrote:...I bet your AWB site is rejoicing today!!!!

I would have no idea, why don't you check it out and let us all know.

Seriously, why not simply call gay marriage a "civil union"? ...take this issue away from the gay folks for a minute and let me pose a scenario.

I know people that have lived together (brother and sister, both unmarried and childless) in their childhood home for years together after their mother and father passed on. Why shouldn't they be able to use a "civil union" agreement to enable them tax benefits/estate/etc. as compared to a married couple who share in very similar domestic living arrangements, with only the addition of sexual relations or raising children? Is it really *that* confusing to think of this as a collection of legally binding agreements under the umbrella term "civil union"?

Or are we really only afraid of or concerned about the possibility of the going's on inside the "House of Yes"?

meta4 wrote:Seriously, why not simply call gay marriage a "civil union"? ...take this issue away from the gay folks for a minute and let me pose a scenario.

I know people that have lived together (brother and sister, both unmarried and childless) in their childhood home for years together after their mother and father passed on. Why shouldn't they be able to use a "civil union" agreement to enable them tax benefits/estate/etc. as compared to a married couple who share in very similar domestic living arrangements, with only the addition of sexual relations or raising children? Is it really *that* confusing to think of this as a collection of legally binding agreements under the umbrella term "civil union"?

Or are we really only afraid of or concerned about the possibility of the going's on inside the "House of Yes"?

If someone can show me how same sex marriage harms them (like Doe) then I would not support legalizing gay marriage or civil unions. I do not see how Meta and his wifes marriage or life style is harmed by allow same sex marriages. I kind of agree with you Meta in terms of calling both opposite sex marriage and same sex marriage as civil unions from a legal perspective and allow each and every church decide what their religion calls that union.

LTRT wrote:

Bman wrote:...I bet your AWB site is rejoicing today!!!!

I would have no idea, why don't you check it out and let us all know.

We all believe that line.

Bman wrote:

meta4 wrote:Seriously, why not simply call gay marriage a "civil union"? ...take this issue away from the gay folks for a minute and let me pose a scenario.

I know people that have lived together (brother and sister, both unmarried and childless) in their childhood home for years together after their mother and father passed on. Why shouldn't they be able to use a "civil union" agreement to enable them tax benefits/estate/etc. as compared to a married couple who share in very similar domestic living arrangements, with only the addition of sexual relations or raising children? Is it really *that* confusing to think of this as a collection of legally binding agreements under the umbrella term "civil union"?

Or are we really only afraid of or concerned about the possibility of the going's on inside the "House of Yes"?

If someone can show me how same sex marriage harms them (like Doe) then I would not support legalizing gay marriage or civil unions. I do not see how Meta and his wifes marriage or life style is harmed by allow same sex marriages. I kind of agree with you Meta in terms of calling both opposite sex marriage and same sex marriage as civil unions from a legal perspective and allow each and every church decide what their religion calls that union.

I think you kinda overlooked an important element Bman. I think you ignored the "take this away from the gay folks for a minute" qualification. I attempted to substitute an example of platonic domestic partnership specifically to take same sex love out of the equation and leave only the domestic partnership quality thereby negating the moral aspects of same sex love.

IMO, I think the gay crowd only wants to gain access to nomenclature of marriage, previously held as a "same sex only" institution... and It's not rocket science to expect that there are those who disagree - that a dilution of the meaning, or redefining of the word marriage is not necessary. I'm not referring to the religious institutional definition, but a US/State/Local legal definition of marriage, and associated benefits.

Church designation of married in the scenario I posted wouldn't apply because neither party (brother or sister) want to go around calling themselves "married" simply because they may (in a future time) be viewed equal legally. Likewise, any gay couple can walk into a church which supports gay marriage commitment and participate in a marriage ceremony, but in most states it won't give them the legal benefits to do so.

I guess the question in my mind is why does the gay community care so much about redefining the word marriage, when in fact, they can go around calling themselves whatever they want. Don't they just primarily want the legal benefits? IMO, If gay couples want to go to a church and get a "marriage commitment", more power to them. That doesn't effect me.

If needed, someone please go ahead help me better explain what I'm saying...

I decided that I dont give a sh** either way about gay marriage... it has no effect on me whatsoever, so... smok'em if you got'em.

I would not someone telling me who I can and cannot marry.... is all I am gonna say!!

the word "marriage" is not owned by religion. if i choose to marry tomorrow i must go to the courthouse and apply for a certificate of marriage, even tho there is no reference to any magical ghost or the sex of my intended. really now..was there no marriage in this world until christianity? bzzzzz wrong answer!

for all who think a civil union should be good enough for gays, and those hundreds of federal and state and social rights not covered by a civil union are unimportant, their own marriages should be downgraded immediately to being exactly such a civil union.

no surprise this was punted with the knowledge it would then go to the supremes. the good news is by the time it is finally heard by them, hillarys announcement of allowing equal benefits to partners and families of gay diplomats (gotta follow that diplomats chouldnt get special priveliges fed employees dont get), and the new numbers from the equality domino effect will make it old unshocking news..it will seem embarrassingly silly and will pass with much less fervor and fanfare.

floridafun wrote:the word "marriage" is not owned by religion. if i choose to marry tomorrow i must go to the courthouse and apply for a certificate of marriage, even tho there is no reference to any magical ghost or the sex of my intended. really now..was there no marriage in this world until christianity? bzzzzz wrong answer!

for all who think a civil union should be good enough for gays, and those hundreds of federal and state and social rights not covered by a civil union are unimportant, their own marriages should be downgraded immediately to being exactly such a civil union.

no surprise this was punted with the knowledge it would then go to the supremes. the good news is by the time it is finally heard by them, hillarys announcement of allowing equal benefits to partners and families of gay diplomats (gotta follow that diplomats chouldnt get special priveliges fed employees dont get), and the new numbers from the equality domino effect will make it old unshocking news..it will seem embarrassingly silly and will pass with much less fervor and fanfare.

All the court did was uphold the will of the majority of California voters which is pretty shocking since the California courts are liberal. Get over it.

floridafun wrote:for all who think a civil union should be good enough for gays, and those hundreds of federal and state and social rights not covered by a civil union are unimportant, their own marriages should be downgraded immediately to being exactly such a civil union.

See, I had hoped by my post I'd at least appear ignorant enough that I wouldn't be able to quote chapter and verse of (their) position on this issue. What wide array of rights and benefits are they currently missing outside of ... survivorship of assets following death, tax benefits from adopted or implanted children, and insurance benefits?

Kroman wrote:

floridafun wrote:the word "marriage" is not owned by religion. if i choose to marry tomorrow i must go to the courthouse and apply for a certificate of marriage, even tho there is no reference to any magical ghost or the sex of my intended. really now..was there no marriage in this world until christianity? bzzzzz wrong answer!

for all who think a civil union should be good enough for gays, and those hundreds of federal and state and social rights not covered by a civil union are unimportant, their own marriages should be downgraded immediately to being exactly such a civil union.

no surprise this was punted with the knowledge it would then go to the supremes. the good news is by the time it is finally heard by them, hillarys announcement of allowing equal benefits to partners and families of gay diplomats (gotta follow that diplomats chouldnt get special priveliges fed employees dont get), and the new numbers from the equality domino effect will make it old unshocking news..it will seem embarrassingly silly and will pass with much less fervor and fanfare.

All the court did was uphold the will of the majority of California voters which is pretty shocking since the California courts are liberal. Get over it.

Once again Kroman you are freaking WRONG ... the majority of the California SC Justices were appointed by republican governors. STFU now please.

Bman wrote:

Kroman wrote:

floridafun wrote:the word "marriage" is not owned by religion. if i choose to marry tomorrow i must go to the courthouse and apply for a certificate of marriage, even tho there is no reference to any magical ghost or the sex of my intended. really now..was there no marriage in this world until christianity? bzzzzz wrong answer!

for all who think a civil union should be good enough for gays, and those hundreds of federal and state and social rights not covered by a civil union are unimportant, their own marriages should be downgraded immediately to being exactly such a civil union.

no surprise this was punted with the knowledge it would then go to the supremes. the good news is by the time it is finally heard by them, hillarys announcement of allowing equal benefits to partners and families of gay diplomats (gotta follow that diplomats chouldnt get special priveliges fed employees dont get), and the new numbers from the equality domino effect will make it old unshocking news..it will seem embarrassingly silly and will pass with much less fervor and fanfare.

All the court did was uphold the will of the majority of California voters which is pretty shocking since the California courts are liberal. Get over it.

Once again Kroman you are freaking WRONG ... the majority of the California SC Justices were appointed by republican governors. STFU now please.

And Souter was appointed by President Bush 41 and he turned out liberal. Got any other IBU (Interesting But Useless) facts?

Kroman wrote:

Bman wrote:

Kroman wrote:

floridafun wrote:the word "marriage" is not owned by religion. if i choose to marry tomorrow i must go to the courthouse and apply for a certificate of marriage, even tho there is no reference to any magical ghost or the sex of my intended. really now..was there no marriage in this world until christianity? bzzzzz wrong answer!

for all who think a civil union should be good enough for gays, and those hundreds of federal and state and social rights not covered by a civil union are unimportant, their own marriages should be downgraded immediately to being exactly such a civil union.

no surprise this was punted with the knowledge it would then go to the supremes. the good news is by the time it is finally heard by them, hillarys announcement of allowing equal benefits to partners and families of gay diplomats (gotta follow that diplomats chouldnt get special priveliges fed employees dont get), and the new numbers from the equality domino effect will make it old unshocking news..it will seem embarrassingly silly and will pass with much less fervor and fanfare.

All the court did was uphold the will of the majority of California voters which is pretty shocking since the California courts are liberal. Get over it.

Once again Kroman you are freaking WRONG ... the majority of the California SC Justices were appointed by republican governors. STFU now please.

And Souter was appointed by President Bush 41 and he turned out liberal. Got any other IBU (Interesting But Useless) facts?

Souter is just like me ... a former republican who can't stand the party being run by your likes.

Bman wrote:

Kroman wrote:

Bman wrote:

Kroman wrote:

floridafun wrote:the word "marriage" is not owned by religion. if i choose to marry tomorrow i must go to the courthouse and apply for a certificate of marriage, even tho there is no reference to any magical ghost or the sex of my intended. really now..was there no marriage in this world until christianity? bzzzzz wrong answer!

for all who think a civil union should be good enough for gays, and those hundreds of federal and state and social rights not covered by a civil union are unimportant, their own marriages should be downgraded immediately to being exactly such a civil union.

no surprise this was punted with the knowledge it would then go to the supremes. the good news is by the time it is finally heard by them, hillarys announcement of allowing equal benefits to partners and families of gay diplomats (gotta follow that diplomats chouldnt get special priveliges fed employees dont get), and the new numbers from the equality domino effect will make it old unshocking news..it will seem embarrassingly silly and will pass with much less fervor and fanfare.

All the court did was uphold the will of the majority of California voters which is pretty shocking since the California courts are liberal. Get over it.

Once again Kroman you are freaking WRONG ... the majority of the California SC Justices were appointed by republican governors. STFU now please.

And Souter was appointed by President Bush 41 and he turned out liberal. Got any other IBU (Interesting But Useless) facts?

Souter is just like me ... a former republican who can't stand the party being run by your likes.

Bman so much hatred in you. How can you say you are a member of an "inclusive" party when you behave exactly the opposite?

Yoda... 'So much hate inside you.....'

meta4 wrote:

floridafun wrote:for all who think a civil union should be good enough for gays, and those hundreds of federal and state and social rights not covered by a civil union are unimportant, their own marriages should be downgraded immediately to being exactly such a civil union.

See, I had hoped by my post I'd at least appear ignorant enough that I wouldn't be able to quote chapter and verse of (their) position on this issue. What wide array of rights and benefits are they currently missing outside of ... survivorship of assets following death, tax benefits from adopted or implanted children, and insurance benefits?

sooo...for those who think even only your listing of benefits shouldnt matter to gays, they should be willing to strip their own relationships of those same rights..right?

basically each state has its own allowable "rights", and pretty much are recognized only in that state. so forget moving to another state for a job upgrade or a family situation. civil unions dont allow any fed benefits, just whatever each particular state allows. and again, any folks who think this should be enough, should gladly downgrade their own relationship to a state civil union.

the next go around should include the fact that because the primary reasons against equality in marriage are religious, the infringement of the wall of seperation will be addressed.

Bman wrote:If someone can show me how same sex marriage harms them (like Doe) then I would not support legalizing gay marriage or civil unions.

And in the same manner, if you put up the same fight for people who like to have sex with a horse, then I'll be more likely to support legalized gay marriage, since likewise how does beastility harm other people?

floridafun wrote:

meta4 wrote:

floridafun wrote:for all who think a civil union should be good enough for gays, and those hundreds of federal and state and social rights not covered by a civil union are unimportant, their own marriages should be downgraded immediately to being exactly such a civil union.

See, I had hoped by my post I'd at least appear ignorant enough that I wouldn't be able to quote chapter and verse of (their) position on this issue. What wide array of rights and benefits are they currently missing outside of ... survivorship of assets following death, tax benefits from adopted or implanted children, and insurance benefits?

sooo...for those who think even only your listing of benefits shouldnt matter to gays, they should be willing to strip their own relationships of those same rights..right?

basically each state has its own allowable "rights", and pretty much are recognized only in that state. so forget moving to another state for a job upgrade or a family situation. civil unions dont allow any fed benefits, just whatever each particular state allows. and again, any folks who think this should be enough, should gladly downgrade their own relationship to a state civil union.

the next go around should include the fact that because the primary reasons against equality in marriage are religious, the infringement of the wall of seperation will be addressed.

I didnt realize there actually was a civil union...

Markwes wrote:

Bman wrote:If someone can show me how same sex marriage harms them (like Doe) then I would not support legalizing gay marriage or civil unions.

And in the same manner, if you put up the same fight for people who like to have sex with a horse, then I'll be more likely to support legalized gay marriage, since likewise how does beastility harm other people?

So what you are saying is that you have NOTHING ... you are harmed in no manner if two consenting same sex individuals are married ... it is all about the fact that you just disagree with it, there is no harm to anyone.

Thanks Mark ...

At what age do horses reach the age of consent and can verbally state that they want to enter into a monogamous long term relationship with Kroman?

Pez wrote:I didnt realize there actually was a civil union...

I just had to use the old scoring system for this.

+1

floridafun wrote:

meta4 wrote:

floridafun wrote:for all who think a civil union should be good enough for gays, and those hundreds of federal and state and social rights not covered by a civil union are unimportant, their own marriages should be downgraded immediately to being exactly such a civil union.

See, I had hoped by my post I'd at least appear ignorant enough that I wouldn't be able to quote chapter and verse of (their) position on this issue. What wide array of rights and benefits are they currently missing outside of ... survivorship of assets following death, tax benefits from adopted or implanted children, and insurance benefits?

sooo...for those who think even only your listing of benefits shouldnt matter to gays, they should be willing to strip their own relationships of those same rights..right?

basically each state has its own allowable "rights", and pretty much are recognized only in that state. so forget moving to another state for a job upgrade or a family situation. civil unions dont allow any fed benefits, just whatever each particular state allows. and again, any folks who think this should be enough, should gladly downgrade their own relationship to a state civil union.

the next go around should include the fact that because the primary reasons against equality in marriage are religious, the infringement of the wall of seperation will be addressed.

So, I think what you're basically saying is that they lack, and are gunning for the Federal benefits, right?

i love it--they are gunning for their rights...without using any other words this alone will get the nra and the religilous riters on the bandwagon

and ok so i had "civil unions" terminology on my mind because it was mentioned in an earlier post...if thats the biggest wrong that can be pointed out about what i said i must have done ok

floridafun wrote:i love it--they are gunning for their rights...without using any other words this alone will get the nra and the religilous riters on the bandwagon

and ok so i had "civil unions" terminology on my mind because it was mentioned in an earlier post...if thats the biggest wrong that can be pointed out about what i said i must have done ok

I think you misunderstood what I said a little bit re: gunning. I was summarizing the state-to-state breakdown. Under the umbrella of the Federal law, States would be compelled to recognize these unions and give equal rights.

I am starting to think there is no overall victory for equal marriage rights in sight for this issue. Even if the Supreme Court and a handful of states uphold the right for married gays have equal "married" rights, file joint state tax returns, etc. I could see more states may challenge the ruling of the Supreme Court by it's own state constitutional sovereignty, as South Carolina Governor has recently done with an unpopular stand against receiving Federal stimulus aid.