The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Wretched Excess on May 15, 2008, 07:41:45 AM
-
Ruling on 'Gay Marriage' Expected in California Thursday
San Francisco (AP) - Both sides in the gay marriage debate will be watching California's highest court Thursday to see if the nation's biggest state goes the way of Massachusetts and legalizes same-sex marriage.
The California Supreme Court was scheduled to rule on a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn a voter-approved law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, California could become the second state after Massachusetts where gay and lesbian residents can marry.
"What happens in California, either way, will have a huge impact around the nation. It will set the tone," said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of the gay rights group Equality California.
Supporters and opponents of gay marriage predicted a number of possible outcomes from the California court's seven justices, six of whom were appointed by Republican governors.
Like the top court in Massachusetts, they could hold that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying constitutes unlawful discrimination and order state lawmakers to remedy the situation.
Less likely but still feasible, they could bypass the Legislature and simply strike the one man-one woman definition from the marriage statutes, according to Kors. In that instance, the soonest couples could start walking down the aisle would be in 30 days, the time it typically takes for Supreme Court opinions to become final, he said.
A majority of the justices could also join the top courts in four other states that have upheld gay marriage bans.
Such a decision would leave any subsequent changes in the hands of voters or the Legislature, which has twice passed laws to make gay marriage legal. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed them both times, citing the ban approved by voters in 2000.
MORE (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200805/CUL20080515b.html)
-
...."California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support. It's therefore unclear what additional relief state lawmakers could offer short of marriage if the court renders the existing ban unconstitutional.".....
So, that settles it. It's not about 'rights' but about the word 'marriage' and the term 'married'. Gotta get that last dig in against religion before moving on to the next step in the agenda.
-
If the court rules for the plaintiffs, they will disenfranchise 70 odd percent of the voters. That proposition passed by something like 74%...
Will of the people, bah
-
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 (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.
-
dupe
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=7325.0
:tongue:
-
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, Sodom could become the second state after Gomorrah where gay and lesbian residents can marry.
Who didn't see that one coming?
-
dupe
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=7325.0
:tongue:
this story definitely belongs in BN. I'm merging them here.
-
dupe
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=7325.0
:tongue:
this story definitely belongs in BN. I'm merging them here.
That works...just wanted it all in one place. :cheersmate:
-
NOW can we put up armed roadblocks on eastbound I-10 at Blythe?
I'm waiting for the "Big One." Hopefully, the whole state will just break off and fall into the ocean.
-
NOW can we put up armed roadblocks on eastbound I-10 at Blythe?
I'll volunteer to stand a watch....
doc
-
NOW can we put up armed roadblocks on eastbound I-10 at Blythe?
I'm waiting for the "Big One." Hopefully, the whole state will just break off and fall into the ocean.
We'd be cleaning up a ghey slick for months. :-)
-
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 (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.
-
Hummmm Massatwoshits is represented by a Kennedy. Californicate is governed by someone married to a Kennedy. Coincidence?
-
Legislating from the bench again. They overturn the will of the people. :banghead:
-
Not surprised by it. People are moving out of the state because of high taxes.
-
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 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355836,00.html)
:banghead:
-
BREAKING ON DRUDGE:
GAR Marriage...
I got a screen cap before they changed it.
Heh...
(http://tinyurl.com/4f7tnq)
-
BREAKING ON DRUDGE:
GAR Marriage...
I got a screen cap before they changed it.
Heh...
(http://tinyurl.com/4f7tnq)
I ain't sticking my johnson in anything with teeth. :2muchgay:
Edit to add: Anything that has teeth and is a slimy, scaly thing.
-
I ain't sticking my johnson in anything with teeth. :2muchgay:
Edit to add: Anything that has teeth and is a slimy, scaly thing.
Good thing you added the edit - least you lead me to believe your female associate is toothless - which come to think of it, may not be a bad thing anyway. :-) :-)
-
I wonder how much self-interest factored into the ruling by the justices?
-
Legislating from the bench again. They overturn the will of the people. :banghead:
Wonder what percentage of California Supreme Court justices are gay?
-
Wonder how this will effect the states that have pro-actively banned gay marriage?
KC
-
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 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355836,00.html)
:banghead:
love how they equated it to gender and race. Asshats.
Judicial fiat rules again. *eyeroll*
-
Our screwed up court strikes again. No mention of the PURPOSE of marriage. Just more gobblety goop about "feelings" and "change".
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355836,00.html)
:banghead:
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").
-
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. :puke:
-
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. :puke:
that's what I was thinking, also. :wink:
-
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. :banghead:
-
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.
-
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 (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... :banghead:
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.
-
Legislating from the bench again. They overturn the will of the people. :banghead:
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!!!