User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 5:45:21 AM EDT
California's top court seems split on gay marriage
Advertisements  Source: Reuters SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The California Supreme Court appeared divided on Tuesday over whether to allow gay marriage during nearly four hours of oral arguments on the contentious issue that could impact gay rights nationwide. Several of the seven judges asked whether the state legislature might better decide whether matrimony should be limited to a man and a woman, while others pointed to how the same court ended the state ban on marriages between blacks and whites after World War Two. "I think it's going to be a divided opinion but I wouldn't want to predict who will win," Christopher Krueger, a lawyer representing the state attorney general who presented arguments before the judges, told Reuters. The hearing brought into focus the highest-profile U.S. fight over gay rights in recent years and the outcome could influence legislation and lawsuits in other states on what has been a hot-button issue in recent election campaigns. Full Story at this link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080304/us_nm/rights_califo... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 5:49:41 AM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 5:52:45 AM EDT
[#2]
So everyone must have a gay marriage 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 5:53:33 AM EDT
[#3]
It irks me how they say 'gay rights'.
Honestly, I don't see gays having any less rights than heterosexual people. Getting married isn't really a 'right'. The .gov (at any level) recognizing a 'marriage' isn't a right either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 5:54:05 AM EDT
[#4]
I think we need to get rid of our common law based legal system and implement a civil law based legal system. Then we as a society wouldn't have to deal with this crap.... It's not gonna happen though... The lawyers and judges make too much money and get away with too much stuff.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 6:10:58 AM EDT
[#5]
Good for them, I hope more states follow suit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 6:44:37 AM EDT
[#6]
I will never understand why some homo would want to shove his tool into some other man's dirty, hairy, cornhole.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 10:23:40 AM EDT
[#7]
Going to be much ado about nothing in the end (not withstanding the above comment). Many of the questions revolved around what the practical difference between a "marriage" and a civil union is, and what rights or privileges are denied to same sex partners under the law. My impression is that it basically came down to is that there was no practical difference, any possible differences between the two forms of civil contract could easily be resolved. If one is concerned about medical decision, post-mortem decisions, a power of attorney and wills can make it clear what the desired outcome is. Pre-mortem just make sure you fill out your beneficiary forms correctly.
Then it just comes down to "What constitutes a "marriage" " and I believe none of us want the courts or legislatures getting involved in religious decisions. If your church doesn't want to solemnize a civil contract for whatever reason, fine, if they do fine. But the .gov and/or other busybodies can keep their noses out of it., |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 10:33:11 AM EDT
[#8]
The Government should not be involved in "marriage" in any form. If the government wants to sell "lecenses", they should be civil joining licenses that anyone of age can buy and use to join with any other people of age whether it is man/man, woman/woman, man/woman, woman/man/woman, etc. If there is a split all property gained should be allocated equally between the parties.
Churches can decide whether they want to marry homosexuals or multiple parties or not by them selves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 10:38:48 AM EDT
[#9]
In before "next they will allow us to marry animals" people.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 10:47:12 AM EDT
[#10]
IBSA's - "well what if someone wants to marry a goat?" |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 10:58:51 AM EDT
[#11]
Broken link fixed and made hot. "California's legislature has voted twice since 2005 to allow gay marriages, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, vetoed the bills, saying voters or the courts should decide the issue." The voters haver already spoken on this issue when they overwhelming passed Prop 22 eight years ago, which states. "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Now I guess it's wait and see what the court decides. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 11:23:45 AM EDT
[#12]
Voters in the 60's likley also wanted interracial marriage banned. The majority isn't always right, as seen with many issues. Sometimes you need a court to deliver a blow to the idiocy, be it bigots or anti-gun freaks. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 11:26:52 AM EDT
[#13]
I am hating this state more and more
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 11:31:21 AM EDT
[#14]
Courts dont impose things.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 11:40:51 AM EDT
[#15]
Just being polite I guess like when you got to a bar or restuaraunt and say to a woman "Can I Push Your Stool In For You" with a different application for a man.Also instead of saying "I Like Pie" you can say " I Need A Little Mud For My Turtle" |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 11:46:22 AM EDT
[#16]
Good. There is no good reason that gay couples shouldn't receive the same legal recognition and benefits as straight people. I like women, some people like their same sex - It isn't my business, I don't give a fuck what they do.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 11:51:37 AM EDT
[#17]
So you're for polygamy too I take it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 11:53:04 AM EDT
[#18]
Well the gov is very involved in the marriage issue. They bestow rights and befefits on married couples that single people do not have. They pay for children in the form of tax deductions. They force other non bearing couples and single people to pay for the care and education of those children. Yea government is very involved. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 11:58:06 AM EDT
[#19]
'I don't want to impose my beliefs on others... ...unless of course it is to impose my belief that those who engage in deviant sexual behavior should have special days of solidarity in our public schools and be able to change the definition of marriage.... I'm ALL FOR imposing THOSE beliefs on others!!!' [/sarcasm] -3D |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 11:58:07 AM EDT
[#20]
Although that is another form of intimate relationship(s), it is still deviating from the idea that two consenting, non familial adults should be able to form a legal partnership. Throwing in another person, child, or animal simply changes the subject. I don't think we're in danger of much of a "slippery slope" by allowing gay unions. The gooberment shouldn't be involved with marriage anyway. It should recognize unions only and let religious institutions deal with the marriage argument. - BG |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:00:03 PM EDT
[#21]
HAHA....reason 34,571 why I will not move to California EVER.
I like pie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:00:13 PM EDT
[#22]
Thooper!!!! 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:01:04 PM EDT
[#23]
Many schools are simply trying to cut down on the malicious acts against LGBT students, not impose an agenda. And, if the government got out of the marriage business altogether, no one would be redefining it except for religious institutions. There is a way to make both sides happy... or at least content. - BG |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:03:38 PM EDT
[#24]
Government should not be in the business of marriage, but should also no keep people from making private contracts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:03:40 PM EDT
[#25]
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:05:59 PM EDT
[#26]
If gays want to live together, good for them. They should NOT get any state benefits (tax stuff) for being married though, or be allowed to get married. They are not going to be reproducing children, thereby contributing to the growth of society, so they shouldn't be treated as though they will. They want to be "married" and live together? Great, good for them. They shouldn't get a legal benefit from it though.
Essentially, what I am saying is, .gov should not help them in any way, but nor should it impose on them saying..."you can't be together". -Ben |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:07:13 PM EDT
[#27]
Who gives a fuck? The folks screaming about the "sanctity of marriage" aren't crusading to repeal divorce. How many people here just on arfcom have been married multiple times? How many have had multiple partners that they weren't married to, but are howling about gay marriage being an affront to decent society?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:09:38 PM EDT
[#28]
My wife and I aren't going to be having kids. Should we be penalized (further)? I had a coworker who through itemizing and deductions from his kids, his wife's kids, and he and his wife's kids, actually got back 2 grand more than they paid in. How in the fuck is that justified? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:10:19 PM EDT
[#29]
Should infertile couples be barred from marrying? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:10:28 PM EDT
[#30]
Funny thing. It's only been in the past few decades that the female member of the marriage was anymore than the property of her husband. SO all of these arguments about protecting traditional marriage are bogus. Don't believe me pick up your bible and read it. There was no problem with a man having multiple wives.
So what this argument boils down too is discrimination. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:11:33 PM EDT
[#31]
If .gov doesn't want to give the same rights, benifits, and protection of law to the gays then I have no problem with that....just as soon as they stop requiring gays to pay taxes to support them.
When .gov views all of the citizens the same, then the paying of taxes can resume. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:13:04 PM EDT
[#32]
Because we banned gay marriage?  You picked the wrong thread to just read the title and skip the text. I'd throw in a "steers and queers" joke here, but it would just be too easy.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:13:07 PM EDT
[#33]
Here is the rub on that argument. Currently, there are six criteria: 1. The number of participants (currently 2). 2. Consenting. 3. Non-familial. 4. Adults. 5. Human. 6. Opposite gender. The Gay Marriage Lobby wants us to get rid of #6. They say that #6 is discrimination. BUT, then, how do they reconcile the other five? Whould those not also be discriminating factors? Of course they would! So, that lobby isn't really concerned with discrimination. They are concerned with getting their way while still keeping the remainder of the discriminating factors in place. 'Minds are like parachutes, they only work when they're open'. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:13:34 PM EDT
[#34]
Then you would be fine with the gays not paying taxes to support schools and children that they'll never have? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:14:53 PM EDT
[#35]
this is b/a trying to compare ,marriage between black and whites as an example.
hogwash;;it has to do with men and women not sam and stan or jill and jinger!!! duh screw all the excuses marriage is between a man and a woman> my fact of life and all who think its homophobic PISS OFF!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:15:20 PM EDT
[#36]
Equal protection under the law. You can't give benifits to one group and deny them to another. This would be a whole lot simpler if the government didn't stick its nose into marriage in the first place... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:16:16 PM EDT
[#37]
The idea is that a man and a woman generally have at least the possibility to have kids. Now, given, there are exceptions to the rule, but they are just that. The exception, not the rule. "A married homosexual couple is not going to have kids" would be the general rule in this case, apply accordingly. -Ben |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:17:55 PM EDT
[#38]
Absolutely, though to take that a step further, I would be happy with no one that is childless paying taxes towards schools and children that are not theirs. Better yet, the .gov should not be funding/running schools.* *on a federal level, it should be left up to the states, and even then...iffy. -Ben |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:18:02 PM EDT
[#39]
Democracy is only valid so long as the ruling elites agree with the results. Sounds like some place else I heard of once before.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:19:02 PM EDT
[#40]
AND...
While I support the private contracting between 'silly homos', I do not support their enforcement of that contract on the rest of society. If they have a 'gay marriage', forcing a private employement company to extend benefits to the 'wife' through an act of government is BULLSHIT. If a private employment company wants to give medical or other benefits to wives of heterosexual companies but doesn't want to support homosexual 'spouses', they should not be forced to do so. Private contracting! Government stay out! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:20:14 PM EDT
[#41]
Fuck-I'd love to not have to pay taxes to support schools and after school programs for kids that I will never have. Not only to I have to pay extra to fund these programs that I will never make use of, the people who DO make use of them get to write off the very costs of their kids using them. Their deduction per child means that I have to pay EXTRA to fund those schools. How is that not theft by proxy? I don't go to school, don't need school books, have no need for a teacher or a school bus, and I damn sure don't need a goddamn subsidized school lunch. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:21:22 PM EDT
[#42]
and your mind is still closed. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:22:01 PM EDT
[#43]
While I agree that Government shouldn't have stuck its nose in the marriage game in the first place, the Equal Protection thing is bogus. As it is, the government gives special dispensations to other groups.... Woman or Minority owned businesses tend to be given special treatment in contract awarding... hell, Vietnam Vets get special treatment as well. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:22:04 PM EDT
[#44]
By encouraging malicious acts against those who believe that homosexual behavior is a sin and goes against what the Bible teaches. Don't think those kids are marginalized? ridiculed? belittled? Riiiiiight...
Not only are they NOT doing that, but they DON'T WANT to and REFUSE to do that. So it really is a non sequitur. -3D |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:23:31 PM EDT
[#45]
The basic request is to eliminate #6. I say go for it and have fun. Nixing #6 while simultaneously acknowledging that there is no intention, ever, of touching #s1-5 doesn't really hit me as Earth-shattering. - BG |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:23:34 PM EDT
[#46]
Surely you jest... or you're illiterate.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:23:59 PM EDT
[#47]
That would be a very profitable endeavor for some government employees... Small mutt dog... $50 Marry it... PROFIT (on 'with-dependents' benefits & such)... P.S. The government 'recognition' of marraige is social engineering - designed to promote a 'traditional' family for the benefit of the (assumed) subsequent children... As long as 'shacking up' hetero couples do not get benefits... Gays have no reason to complain... Neither group is the 'target traditional ideal' that the recognition and benefits are designed to promote... IMHO, it's no different than renters asking for a 'rent tax credit' because home-owners get a 'mortgage interest tax credit'... That said, I view this as a 'pander politics' issue similar to illegal immigration - it's designed to get a perticular segment of the electorate all hyped up to go vote... Which is why we ONLY hear about it during ELECTION CYCLES.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:24:00 PM EDT
[#48]
So let them adopt-then the strain on social services is lessened even further. And don't throw up the "gay parents produce gay children or gays are pedophiles" bullshit. Gay kids come from straight parents, and most pedophiles are *drumroll please* parents/step-parents. My mom works for the Attorney General's Office in CPS-daddy is WAAAY more likely to be diddling the daughter or son than Big Gay Al down the street.
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:25:01 PM EDT
[#49]
And they wouldn't get jail time for shooting their spouses either...  
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2008 12:28:22 PM EDT
[#50]
Mark my words, there will come a time, and probably in the not too distant future, that there will be a "movement" to just do away with marriage all together. Watch and see what I tell you.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
