It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California high court upholds gay marriage ban

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

California high court upholds gay marriage ban


news.yahoo.com

SAN FRANCISCO – The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.

The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
The decision is basically saying that the term 'marriage' cannot be used in homosexual unions.
I think it leaves the door open for civil unions, and for those civil unions to be able to have the same exact benefits as marriage.
It is a good day for voters, but is also a bad day for a democracy in my opinion, with the majority, and a small majority at 52% taking away rights of a minority.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I wholeheartedly agree.

Putting a minority issue to a plebiscite of ignorant and unaffected parties...

Only in Arnold-land...



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Well it's sort of a step in the right direction, but two steps back at the same time.

I fully understand the religious community for not calling it "marriage". That's a religious thing and they say man and woman that's fine.

However, civil unions should be created that give partners the same exact rights as married heterosexual couples. Canada has a good system, which is how me and my husband were married.

It's strange that just south of the boarder there is such a tremendous difference in mind sets and values.

Anyway, at least those that were married before hand still have valid marriages. Those 18 000 were the most cheated out of it I think.

~Keeper



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by AnonymousMoose
 


Gays in California have and still do have the right to Civil Unions, that hasn’t changed. There is no reason for people in California to get upset, some of the gays there are mad and upset because there unions cant be called marriage it doesn’t make since at all, A great day for the Republic when the will of the people is heard.

And for those who will argue it is a civil rights issue, it isn’t. And if you so believe it to be then When I want to marry 5 women and call them all my wives will you support that as well? Or maybe If I decide to marry my dog, will you support that?? Just an Honest question?



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I wish you people would make up your minds.

When the will of the people is not heard, you cry foul! When the will of the people is heard, you cry foul!

Which is it?



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 


From what I heard, the current civil unions in California do not offer the same benefits as marriage. If this is true [maybe someone more knowledgeable can chime in] it should be changed to offer the same exact benefits as marriage.

As far as a 'Constitutional Issue' I agree...and in fact I find it interesting that people consider gay marriage a constitutional right when there is no mention of it in the constitution...but when it comes to gun control, in which the constitution states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, people are all for limiting those rights.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next couple elections.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Oppressing people for religious reasons is awesome. Good job California



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by AnonymousMoose
 


It is funny, it really is..


But one could make the argument that; Banning gay marriage infringes upon that important, "in the pursuit of happiness" statement in the Declaration of Independence.

I don't agree with banning gay marriage, but I'm not an advocate either way. I'm not looking to marry another man, so it's not my issue.
But the people in california did vote to ban gay marriage, so that is their fault, and if they want to fix it, they should prepare another proposition so they can vote gay marriage back in.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxpigxx
I wish you people would make up your minds.

When the will of the people is not heard, you cry foul! When the will of the people is heard, you cry foul!

Which is it?


It only suits them to have our voices heard when the government agrees with the way they think.

It was given to the people of California to decide how they feel this should be dealt with. They voted and the outcome wasn't what they wanted so they will cry foul.

The Supreme Court held up what the people wanted. Thats a good thing. Those who are still bitching about it are the ones who will be happy only when they get whatever they want.

Gays cannot get married in California. Deal with it, work up a new angle and raise money for the next election to bribe whoever is running for Senator.

For now, just be quite and accept defeat.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 


By drawing a comparison between same sex marriage and polygamy and/or marrying animals you are simply parroting a common and illogical line frequently relied on by same sex marriage opponents. It is not a valid comparison. The issue here deals with only one revision: the sex of those being married. It does not open the door for a vastly revised definition of marriage. There would be massive legislation involved in redefining marriage between multiple people (though I would be in support of this too, as long as everyone involved consents to the situation). As for marrying your dog, the issue there is CONSENT, which a dog can not legally provide.

The fundamental issue is ridiculous. The sex of those being married refers to one thing and one thing only: what genitalia they have. Say a man and a woman want to get married. The man dresses, behaves and lives like a woman every day of his life, but is "straight" (though it might be more appropriate to identify him as a lesbian, as he identifies as a woman). When they get married, they both wear wedding gowns. This would be perfectly legal as long as he has male genitalia beneath the 100% female gender presentation. If this is legal, then why would it not be legal for two women, one of whom is very butch and the other is very femme, to get married? Is genitalia really the fundamental gender marker? Is biological sex truly more inherent than psychological gender? What about intersexed people? What about pre-operative transsexuals? Maybe they want to get married too. What would you tell them?

This whole issue throws stark light on how fundamentally unprepared our society is to deal with shades of gray. Like it or not, understanding of the subtle and profound intricacies of the psychology of gender is changing on a deep level what is means to be "a man" or "a woman". Society must adapt or face a crisis.

The most mature way for society to face this would be to disentangle the legal aspects of marriage from the religious. As it stands, a church is allowed to marry whoever they want, regardless of sex, whether or not the marriage will be regarded as a legally binding agreement. There need to be two separate processes here: legal partnership and, if desired, the religious ritual associated with marriage. In a sense, this already exists in the form of civil unions or domestic partnerships, which do not necessarily constitute marriage. But as a whole, society is all confused, conflating the legal with the religious. If this is not addressed, the issue will never be resolved.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnonymousMoose
but is also a bad day for a democracy in my opinion, with the majority, and a small majority at 52% taking away rights of a minority.


do you even understand democracy? restriction of the legal rights of a minority according to the will of the people is the whole reason for democracy. why exactly should gay people have rights to legal protection that others can't access? if gay people can marry for the legal benefits why not roommates or brothers and sisters or parents and children.



[edit on 26/5/09 by pieman]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

do you even understand democracy? restriction of the legal rights of a minority according to the will of the people is the whole reason for democracy. why exactly should gay people have rights to legal protection that others can't access?


What others are you talking about?



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Rights? What rights?

Anything not clearly defined in the Constitution is left up to the states. Marriage is not defined in the Constitution, therefore it is up to the state.

The state gave it to the people, the people turned it down, the courts upheld the decision.

Boo-hoo to the losers.

I could care less one way or the other. It is just a pisser when the people actually get a say so, and it is upheld by the courts, and people piss and moan becaus ethey did not get their way.

I am sorry, but the majority should get to rule. Why would you impose the minority onto the majority. That makes no sense. That is exactly what is wrong with this country.



[edit on 26/5/2009 by xxpigxx]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ImzadiDax
 


sorry, i realised i hadn't clarified that so i edited, there are a lot of people that share their lives but don't have the legal protection offered by marriage.

personally, i have no issue with gay people marrying, don't give a crap, but democracy is democracy, have to accept it in this respect in the same way if a politician you don't like is elected.

[edit on 26/5/09 by pieman]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 

I saw you edited it.


I agree, gay marriage should not be won by backdoor tactics. It was a win for the will of the people, tho on a personal note, its too bad still a minority has had its rights taken away. (i.e. the could get married once)



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by xxpigxx
 


What do you mean what rights?

Cvil Unions DO NOT provide all the benefits of actual "marriage". That's the whole point, it's not about calling it marriage, it could be called rainbow happy time for all we cared.

I love how opponents of this issue always paint the homosexuals as evil or corrupting the moral fabric of America. It's the fact that this issue is on going that is ruining America.

Why is it such a difficult thing to understand? It's just government benefits, why should gay people not have them? What is the difference between the love I hold for my husband and love that my sister and her husband share?

There isn't one, there is no valid reason to uphold the ban other than 52% of the population voted for it. And althought that's great for democracy, the US is NOT suppose to be a democracy, it's a Republic.

It's dragged on for far too long on my opinion. If they don't want to legalize "marriage", then just make the civil unions equal in the eyes of the law to a marriage.

It's not hard, it doesn't hurt anybody.

~Keeper



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Marriage is a judeo-christain construct. To have gays/lesbians marriage would be like taking white-out to the bible (ironically enough, alot of those same folks want to take white-out to the Constitution too). If they want civil unions and have all the same rights as a hetero union, fine.
Just don't start changing the bible, people!



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by AnonymousMoose
but is also a bad day for a democracy in my opinion, with the majority, and a small majority at 52% taking away rights of a minority.


do you even understand democracy? restriction of the legal rights of a minority according to the will of the people is the whole reason for democracy. why exactly should gay people have rights to legal protection that others can't access?


“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

I'm not saying they should have "rights to legal protection that others can't access," as you put it. Similarly, if I understand your statement, no one should have a legal protection that another doesn't. Meaning there should be no hate crime laws or affirmative action. They are still allowed to have civil unions, and they should be allowed that with the full benefits of marriage.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
Marriage is a judeo-christain construct. To have gays/lesbians marriage would be like taking white-out to the bible (ironically enough, alot of those same folks want to take white-out to the Constitution too). If they want civil unions and have all the same rights as a hetero union, fine.
Just don't start changing the bible, people!


...Well then it shouldn't be up to the government then should it? If it's all a jesus thing then it's up to the individual church if they want to do it and there's plenty of churches who aren't bogged down in retarded hate and are willing to do this. How the hell can you justify oppressing a group of people which is exactly what this is? Oh your little book, that's right



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join