CA Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban!
 

SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/...s/gay_marriage

can i get an injunction to stop juicy from trying to move into my house now that this has been overturned?


Juicy D. Links : Yo, i moving to cali now. i stay with you?
DJAIREK : ummmmmmm, no.
DJAIREK : help?
Juicy D. Links : We be good buddies



:(

more proof that your vote doesn't matter?

sad that this even needs to be put to a vote; like the fuckin gov't should say who marries who

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Exactly what I was thinking when I read the story..........:(

http://www.coedhumor.com/images/post...0-%20image.jpg

j/k - I support gay marriage, and agree with the majority opinion of the court:

ADG

Yaay. Go - "Big Gay!"

This is awesome, Airek please tell me where you and Juicy will be registered.

The fight isn't over yet however.

"A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

The secretary of state is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court's decision."

Thats why we do not live in a democracy we live in a republic so the voting sheep can not trample on peoples rights. :2 cents:

exactly. It's called a tyranny of the majority.

some people are so blind...

the government doesn't care what homosexuals do

but the lobbyist tell the govt no way dood!

why?

because then all the sudden the Insurance companies/other corporations are covering 2 homosexuals with aids instead of 1...& legally have to pay out

Normally I would agree but this question of gay marriage is very borderline when it comes to the constitution.

I may not agree with gay marriage but I believe in our constitution and I believe that everyone regardless of being gay or not has a right to get married under the US constitution.

That is too funny.

I wondered how long it would take him to jump all over you, I mean this.

that all well and good..

eventually though, maybe the majority gets tired of having shit they apparently don't want forced upon them.. and maybe they start doing something about it.

(ftr, i have no problem with gay marriage... )

Which is actually a hell of a lot less than the cost to incarcerate all the illegitimate children of trailer trash that have always had the right to marry.

What does the constitution have to do with marriage? Does it actually contain text outlining what constitutes a legal marriage in it?

Kind of like the majority of good white folk in Alabama that don't want to use the same drinking fountain, bathroom, or send their kids to the same schools as the coloreds?


The California Supreme Court is not making anyone do anything they don't want to do. If some fundamentalist christian in San Diego does not want a gay marriage, he does not have to get one. Nothing is being forced upon anyone.

Fag's are so easy for Politicians and religeous groups to target:(

I mean I doubt Fag's are going to make fire bombs and blow shit up for a right they deserve as Americans and I think the government and religeous orders know this.

Maybe Fag's should make some fire bomb's and burn a few churches down to make a point of it.
Until then Fag's are going to be targeted by everyone as they are deemed weak while living lives of shame.

Actually Marriage is an institution recognised by the government.
Supposedly Government gives tax breaks to married couples, and support for children in lower income families ( I stress supposedly ). I do not think todays current American government system sincerely works to encourage marriage and help families with children that need it in Financial, educational and medical coverages that families with children need.

So the government position is moot in reality.

Basically the way the government see's marriage is nothing more than an investment in hopes that a married couple have children.
Gay couples do not create children and therefore should not be entitled to the benefits as the government see's it. However religeous orders make good sense to combat the gay's to the government... So it is what it is.

Of course your argument has no merit because there is no fertility requirement for marriage. Barren women who have had a hysterectomy and men who have all testicles removed can get married. In Arizona, first cousins can marry if they can prove that at least one is infertile or over the age of 65. Those people who will never have children can get married.


Damn - maybe we should just go back to traditional marriage rules, like in the bible where a man could have as many wives as he could afford, and marriages were arranged by the parents.

Like I was saying the government position is moot.
It does not do nearly enough for people who are married and have children. However that is what Marriage and politics have to do with the situation. Everythign else ya said just ad's to the argument in the Gay's favor.

Marriage was and has always been about the commitment of having children nothing else until modern times.
But I am not religeous so marriage in itself is nothing but an outdated relic of an idea pushed by religeous orders and governments with stupid shit surrounding it.

The government has a huge stake in the institution of marriage. Taxes, property, wills, benefits, estates, children, etc. It's often called the cornerstone of civilization.

The constitution does NOT have specific language about what constitutes a marriage because up until very recently most people took it for granted that it was between a man and woman. That's what the fight is about. One side wants equal rights, the other wants to have the constitution changed to specifically define marriage as a man/woman union.

Ahh thanks for the clarification!

So isn't it in favour of the government to more broadly define a legal marriage? Or do married couples get tons more tax breaks/other incentives?

One of my college roommates put it best:

"I think gay people ought to get married so they can go through all the bullshit and hell that I did when I got divorced"

:-)

Whoo Hoo! Go gay People!!!

Married people do get rights/benefits that aren't granted to single people, which is what a gay couple would be considered, just like any two people living together and not married. It extends to many things that aren't related to taxes, although taxes and the transfer of property/estates is the biggie where the govt is concerned.

But the lawmakers are elected and many aren't about to commit political suicide by endorsing gay marriage when they know the electorate opposes it.

Wrong, proof your vote does not matter...

ADG is cool


mofo ass bump!

damn more wedding gifts to buy now errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Weddings are pretty gay already. I can only imagine what West Hollywood same-sex marriage ceremonies will be like.

:-)

Gay people should have to suffer just as much as straight people.

I support this.