Gay & Lesbian – SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.
You can always count on Calif for a laugh. They deserve themselves.
Yes, California is laughing all the way to the bank. We really should cut off all the tax dollars that subsidize red states. Their designation as red states has more meaning than their wood shed politics. Commies, all.
What about purple states?
Do they carry purses? Oh lord, sorry. The devil made me say it.
Similar to my statement LMAO
Then again, one purple state off the top of my head voted 70% for an amendment naming marriage between a man and a woman (Missouri).
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.
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!!!!!
Not a member? Sign-up today!
amateurs
leeharris1969
slashup67
adrielh791966
fyuuuuut
rylandl831968
zephyr_ali
rhettdejesus1975
MidnightPrism
yarrkz24
daviannewton651975
TemplarScribe
rontravel
samuk1000
adamhowe1980
hamy
_kam0_
BJTJ
PaganGodess
alamala
birddog54
tiktik210
saltyveruca
HotaMaMa
hsaleem
nickjones321
IceTi
Raiderwall
fourthtunz
van_victor
rbtburgess
SouthernLadyX
Angie.81
GentleGiant
mannatech
dunkirk
Will1313
Alexia
wonkydonkey
Sandra_honestly
RickyDawkins
tehranchik
BoBo in Texas
zitastakos
woman58
tomboy501
mdvaldosta
dsambrick
piggypinky08
sax80
384)
Vote
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.
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.
If the domestic partnership is legally contracted the same as what people consider a "traditional marriage", I fail to see the difference from marriage.
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.
Huh? Yes it does. A domestic partner carries the weight as a marriage.
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.
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.
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?
Ah, no I don't. But all people should get a civil union from the Gov't and marriages should come from churches. If you can get the Church(or mosque or whatever)to marry you good for you.
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.
Works for me. That's the way it's done in Japan, a country with a few hundred years on us.
"That's the way it's done in Japan, a country with a few hundred years on us."
Yeah, after we bombed them out of the middle ages and rebuilt their nation. Let's hope Iraq is just as successful. But, we do still have troops in Japan 63 years after V-J Day.
Guess we learned from our mistakes.
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.
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.
"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.
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?
"Isn't that akin to calling a white's schooling 'education' and 'learning', but calling a black's schooling ONLY 'learning'?"
What kind of stupid comment is that? Where the hell did that come from?
You might have heard: Schools were desegregated during the last century.
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.
your a baby blocking my message
Ah, name calling will get you nowhere with this crowd. Try another strategy.
Seperate is not equal.
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.
Legally contracted? You mean like a "marriage"?
You want marriage benefits, get married. Nothing worse than two people having kids and staying "single" so one can draw welfare benefits and rip off the taxpayers among the many abuses that can occur under such an arrangement.
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.
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.
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
In Virginia if a man and a woman shack up for 20 yrs, they get classified as MARRIED under Common Law.
THAT is MY point! But if a gay couple are together for 50 years, they don't have the same RIGHTS!
What is this creepy obsession you have with welfare recipients? Did someone you know whose on welfare today bully you at recess when you were a kid? ;-(
I think he must have been raised on welfare, never enough of anything, now he gripes about it adnauseam.
The usual losers negging my comment even though all I did was quote from the article. Figures.
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.
The typical white one?
People that are against same sex marriage are not "Christians" they're just self centered jerks. Why isn't there an out rage against adultry. That has ruined the meaning of marriage more than all the homosexual weddings could ever do!!
Mark! Shut up! You're ruining the distraction! LOL