Ruling on 'Gay Marriage' Expected in CA (UPDATED for veridict; ban overturned)

[Tucker]

not that I miss the moral dimensions of this issue, but now that CA has done this, does this put this question back on the national radar?  I wonder is there time to get some ballot initiatives on state ballots before november? 

Isn't it going to be on the November ballot on Fla?

I thought the DUmmies were PO'd because the issue would bring out the Conservative vote in a state they wanted to win.

[Wretched Excess]

not that I miss the moral dimensions of this issue, but now that CA has done this, does this put this question back on the national radar?  I wonder is there time to get some ballot initiatives on state ballots before november? 

Isn't it going to be on the November ballot on Fla?

I thought the DUmmies were PO'd because the issue would bring out the Conservative vote in a state they wanted to win.

that is precisely what I was talking about.  it will bring our base out in droves.  I wasn't aware that it was on the ballot in FL, though.  thanks for the info.

[Wretched Excess]

As expected...

California's Top Court Overturns Same-Sex Marriage Ban

SAN FRANCISCO  —  The California Supreme Court overturned a ban on gay marriage Thursday, calling such a prohibition unconstitutional and paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

In the 4-3 decision, Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the majority that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage.

In striking down the ban, the court said, "In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation — like a person's race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

MORE BS

 

love how they equated it to gender and race. Asshats.

Judicial fiat rules again. *eyeroll*

that is the part that both angers and horrifies me.  gay couples can't have children; they have to adopt (or get a friend to "help").

[Tucker]

that is the part that both angers and horrifies me.  gay couples can't have children; they have to adopt (or get a friend to "help").

Why did I get this image of Rosie O'Donnald. 

[Wretched Excess]

that is the part that both angers and horrifies me.  gay couples can't have children; they have to adopt (or get a friend to "help").

Why did I get this image of Rosie O'Donnald. 

that's what I was thinking, also. 

[Tess Anderson]

not that I miss the moral dimensions of this issue, but now that CA has done this, does this put this question back on the national radar?  I wonder is there time to get some ballot initiatives on state ballots before november? 

Isn't it going to be on the November ballot on Fla?

I thought the DUmmies were PO'd because the issue would bring out the Conservative vote in a state they wanted to win.

that is precisely what I was talking about.  it will bring our base out in droves.  I wasn't aware that it was on the ballot in FL, though.  thanks for the info.

Right. This same issue hel;ped Bush win his second term four years ago, now it's back BIG on the national radar, and will be on the ballot in one (formerly) blue state and Florida? Juan wins FL, period -CA if he's not running against Hillary.

They never learn. Don't make a wedge issue prominent unless you're on the winning side. 3:1 against you is losing.

[Tucker]

http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/02/State/Gay_marriage_on_ballo.shtml

Gay marriage on ballot
An initiative to ban same-sex marriage in Florida is certified for the November vote.
By ALEX LEARY, Times Staff Writer
Published February 2, 2008

Cont......

I thought I remembered reading about this in the DUmp.

[Lauri]

Given that it's California, I'm honestly surprised this didn't happen sooner.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage;_ylt=AreD0GWw8_bIKl24brk_AXas0NUE

The California Supreme Court has overturned a gay marriage ban in a ruling that would make the nation's largest state the second one to allow gay and lesbian weddings.

The justices' 4-3 decision Thursday says domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage. Chief Justice Ron George wrote the opinion.

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march.

The case before the court involved a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn a voter-approved law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

With the ruling, California could become the second state after Massachusetts where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

More at link above.

Gee, I guess my vote, and the votes of 70+% of Californians amount to nothing. Nice.

so they did give you a chance to vote and they are over ruling the people? well that sucks... 

it would appear that every state so far that has voted, has turned it down cold.

i guess this is the only way they can get the people to accept it; by forcing it on us.

[LadyLiberty]

Legislating from the bench again. They overturn the will of the people.

This is how liberals have gotten most things passed in this country, making an embarrassment out of America.

This is how abortion became legal and "constitutional".

Liberals are abhorrent.

[rich_t]

Pretty sad state of affairs, but I for one saw it coming.

This one is going to end up in the US Supreme Court before long IMO, as it has a definite legal impact in states that do not recognize gay marriage.

example: If a gay married couple from CA moves into a state that does NOT recognise gay marriage (say Iowa), then later decide to get a divorce... How do the courts of Iowa deal with it from a legal stand point?
 

[Lauri]

Pretty sad state of affairs, but I for one saw it coming.

This one is going to end up in the US Supreme Court before long IMO, as it has a definite legal impact in states that do not recognize gay marriage.

example: If a gay married couple from CA moves into a state that does NOT recognise gay marriage (say Iowa), then later decide to get a divorce... How do the courts of Iowa deal with it from a legal stand point?
 

the first gay couple to divorce is now going thru the court system. the courts are having a heck of a time figuring out how to handle it since there is no case like it before... and the two women in the relationship want to have their cake and eat it too. they want both sets of laws to apply to them - its going to be a fiasco.

ultimately it needs to wind up in the SC.. our judges right now on the bench are not going to side against the entire country. it is not a 'civil rights' issue. us heteros need to defend SOMEthing in this lifetime. i say marriage is a good one.

[rich_t]

our judges right now on the bench are not going to side against the entire country.

I hope you are correct. 

But this issue will not hit the SCOTUS until after the 08 elections.  So the make-up of the court could very easily change by the time the Court does Hear such a case.

[Lauri]

our judges right now on the bench are not going to side against the entire country.

I hope you are correct. 

But this issue will not hit the SCOTUS until after the 08 elections.  So the make-up of the court could very easily change by the time the Court does Hear such a case.

true.. which is yet another reason why conservatives need to get on board with McCain and just back our side.

[LadyLiberty]

Pretty sad state of affairs, but I for one saw it coming.

This one is going to end up in the US Supreme Court before long IMO, as it has a definite legal impact in states that do not recognize gay marriage.

example: If a gay married couple from CA moves into a state that does NOT recognise gay marriage (say Iowa), then later decide to get a divorce... How do the courts of Iowa deal with it from a legal stand point?
 

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!!!