California Supreme Court overturns ban on Gay marriage!

Discussion in 'Life After Brown' started by UPS Lifer, May 15, 2008.

  1. UPS Lifer

    UPS Lifer Well-Known Member

    I just heard on the news (more to come!) that the California Supreme Court has overturned the ban on Gay marriage!

    No matter what your beliefs are this is a watershed event that will have a ripple affect throughout our socioeconomic culture.

    As we know, California is one of the largest states with a GDP that is ranked 7th in the world!

    I wonder what sort of effect this will have on the rest of the US. I guess we will hear more as the day and coming days progress.

    This really does test the line of separation of church and state. I am looking forward to hear the comments on this topic as the days progress.
     
  2. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Someone reported on Fox that it may be put to a vote by the people.
     
  3. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    If I remember correctly California's supreme court is composed mainly of republican appointees, which makes it even more interesting.

    In November the people of California should have the opportunity to vote on a ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution to read, in part:
    "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.", but recent polling trends show California being almost evenly split on the issue, which is a big change from 2000. In addition, Governor Schwarzenegger had this to say:
    I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.

    Sounds like your neighbors should be happy, moreluck :wink2:
     
  4. hdkappler

    hdkappler Member

    :happy2:i wonder in same sex marriages when they have kids.i can see it know.i met your parents a couple of nice guys.or mom and dad donna and alice.dad's name is alice.:peaceful:
     
  5. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    ???? OK, so gay couples run out to get married....like Ellen & Portia are talking about doing.

    What if this measure is on the ballot in Nov. and is shot down by the populace ? Are these people's marriages null & void ??

    How would that work?

    Inquiring minds want to know !!:happy2:
     
  6. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Children are the exact reason that state sanctioned same sex marrige is being resisted by the state. Some might think it's out of concern for the wellbeing of the child but consider this point. In it's natural state, a same sex union is absolutely incapable of ever producing offspring. It either takes the intervention of science or a 3rd party of the opposite sex must come into play, no pun intended.

    And it is that inability to re-produce, to multiply if you will that is at the heart of the problem. The State sanctions and encourages heterosexual sexual unions for 1 most important reason. It is via this union only that can re-produce new taxpayers, new workers, new citizens. Any action that takes away this more important act which could threaten the health of the State will not be tolerated. Acts of self gradification via self induced sexual stimulation were considered a threat to this process and those discouraged up to and including laws that forbade their practice.

    Various chemical substances (drugs) were made illegal not out of concern for the individual user, but rather the threat potential that way to many people would turn on and tune out of state sanctioned society and the perverbal wheels of society would fall off and the self imposed leaders of society might have to get real jobs for a change!
    :happy-very:

    Wikipedia has an interesting article on the marraige license and under the sections entitled "History" and "Controversy" will be found some very interested reading.

    On the history section:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license#History

    On the Controversy section:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license#Controversy

    Marriage for the most part in western culture was considered a private or religious matter for centuries and therefore local custom mostly dictated that policy. In 1753' England, the foot in the door came in the form of the Hardwicke Marriage Act which at that point forbabe the old common-law practice of marriage and granted state sanction only as the clear means. The US remained locked into the old common-law custom until the 1920's when 38 states adopted a marriage licensing process in an effort to stem a growing concern for inter-racial relationships. From there the genie so to speak was out of the bottle.

    In 1996', the federal gov't passed the Defense of Marriage Act and lot of that on the surface was political postering in an election year. Underneath and not spoken of was the growing statisical evidence that the core US population was in fact in decline and that birthrates statistics showed an alarming future to a gov't that was heavily in debt and dependant upon having a supply of future taxpayers. If you take away both legal and illegal immigration over the last 30 years, the US population would have declined in number and signs showed the trend would continue in years ahead so something had to be done via the central planners to encourage a reversal of fortunes. Not enough obviously and therefore we have the current immigration picture to make up the economic shortfall for our own lack of birthrate. It should be noted that across western Europe the same trends are happening as well and mass migrations from Africa and the Mideast are taking place to maintain the population levels.

    Homosexual persons complain that heterosexual persons in marriage get special priviledge and they do because of the afore mentioned reason. Instead of fighting to join the gov't cheese line (tax deduction) why not amass their political power behind ending all tax deductions in the form of eliminating the entire income tax system. Instead of demanding gov't action upon employers to force inclusion in insurance plans, why not fight to end the practice established during the wage freeze years of FDR's depression policy of employer provided health insurance and make the entire healthcare market an open free market once again and let competition and market demand drive the day and drive down prices as well. People can still form private co-ops to purchase insurance if they so choose but leave that to the individual. It also frees the employee even further from the employer which is also a healthy thing IMO. Instead of joining gov't priviledge, why not expend that energy to end gov't being in all those areas in the first place!

    As for California or any other community setting local standards, I'm not for any collective body telling me or anyone else how to live when there is no crime in the form of force or fraud committed on another human being but I'm not going to sit here in my home 1000's of miles from California and demand the courts or US gov't to tell those folks how to live because I don't want them to turn around in the form of payback and do it to me!

    I also understand that we live in a mobocracy (extreme democracy) and that if I being a part of the majority today impose my will on the minority and set the legal precedence that one day I or my heirs may find themselves in a minority and my very actions may come back to haunt me or my children. The sins of the fathers will visit upon them to the 7th generation so to speak and historically I've found much truth in that old biblical precept!

    JMO on this matter!

    Did you ever once consider that when Morpheus told Neo that he was a battery that in fact Morpheus was really talking about all of us!
    :surprised:
     
  7. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    More,

    On the one hand it would appear that might be the case (null and void) but it depends what your State Constitution and State law sez in relation to Ex Post Facto Law and if all parties were operating in good faith. Certain actions when made illegal also have a "grandfather" clause that allow past practice until those parties involved die off so to speak.

    Again, this all depends ot your local and state law. I'm waiting for the day the right case is brought into the arena under the 14th amendment equal protection clause and SCOTUS is put in a position of choosing between current policy of the nationstate and undermining the essence of the 14th amendment!
     
  8. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    The real solution is for the government to get out of the marriage business, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
     
  9. UPS Lifer

    UPS Lifer Well-Known Member

    It is more complicated than that. Folks want separation of church and state but only when it is convenient and fits their needs. You can't take away
    people's belief systems. Their morality guides the way they govern... and the majority rules. If the majority of folks vote legislatures in that are against a particular morality that has a major moral implication such as child pornography, polygamy, or same sex marriages than you will see restrictive laws passed to prohibit the moral objection.

    So - break down just the examples above. Which ones really flame you? Is it OK to pick and choose?

    Laws change as societies move toward a different belief system. So ... It is a slow process that at times, may take more than one generation to change. Legislatures have to break through the "moral turpitude" ceiling. In the process they may be labeled. Sometimes it takes extreme courage to push on and fight the judgement of society to do what is correct.
     
  10. helenofcalifornia

    helenofcalifornia Well-Known Member

    I don't get what business it is of other people to decide what is best for them as long as no one gets hurt. I am 100% behind gay marriages. WWJD? What would Jesus do? I believe that he would have recognized that people are different and react accordingly. People are born gay, it is not a choice that most sane people would take upon themselves. I think it will be a close vote in November when this initiative is on the ballot and the Republicans will now have a reason to come out to vote. It is going to get dirty and ugly. I just don't get what the big deal is. WWJD? He sure as heck wouldn't be campaigning against it. I will now get off my soapbox.
     
  11. tourists24

    tourists24 Well-Known Member

    It's ok to be on your soapbox, that's the purpose of this forum
     
  12. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    When it comes to fully informed, consenting adults who are not under force or fraud, I feel they should be free to do as they see fit and live as they see fit. When it comes to kids, it violates the first principle of the parties being adults among other issues.

    When it comes to dogs, obviously the problem is first determining consent and also you can't determine if or how force was involved. Breaking a dog for example from using your livingroom rug as a toilet may require a bit of force in order to train a dog for being house broke and so it may be with some other human interactions.

    As for having multiple wives, I believe you've been a fairly stnadard defender of all things biblical so what's the problem. If it's good enough for Abraham and the boyz, then why the objection now? Or is this another case of where the "All Knowing, Unchanging God" of your's changed the rules of the game again?

    :happy-very: That was very unchristian of me wasn't it!

    Besides, how many men have several "girlfriends" on the side in whom they string em' along for the sex and when the lady needs them, they are no where to be found. At least multi-wives (or let's not leave the ladies out) multi-husbands, everyone's under one roof, above board and the one enjoying a different thrill every night is on the hook as a responsible party.

    I happen to believe in the one man/one woman principle if you will or in the case of same sex partners, a totally monogamous relationship. Cervical cancer is known to be caused by a virus and one source that this virus is spread is sex via multiple partners. It's also not a settled point if in this case, the male, becomes a carrier or if the virus has some long term effect on the male as of yet not identified by medicine.

    Nature or natural law IMO enforces monogamy as when you step outside the arena, the risk of disease is vastly enhanced the farther you run afield from monogamy. We've cheated natural law with such things as condoms and I advocate their use if you plan to do so but I also believe as I said that nature steers us towards monogamous relationships all on it's own but the question is whether we see it for what it is?

    JM "unchristian" O!
    :wink2:
     
  13. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    Re: Activist judges

    This alllllll has already happened in Massachusetts. Activist judges overturning the will of the people. And when the people demanded the right to vote on it? Denied, so sorry, we know better than the people we [-]rule [/-]serve.


    Don't worry. It doesn't matter what happens in November. It has already been decided.
     
  14. browndevil

    browndevil Active Member

    I have a feeling our Pottery Barn deliveries will double!!LOL
     
  15. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Well, if this stays our law, then our housing market is in for a robust recovery when they all flock to California.....they'll need someplace to live.:happy-very:
     
  16. tourists24

    tourists24 Well-Known Member

    I think you missed the whole point of my question. It's obvious you arent christian, but that wasnt my point either. My whole point was we in America have set a standard of what marriage is. I was simply wondering where we draw a line (if at all), no matter what as long as consent is a given.


    actually I wasnt referring to kids. I meant adult siblings. But since you brought it up, why should age matter as long as you have consent. Why do you get to make up the rules. Seems we already have a standard set in this country

    how do you know if you cant determine consent. If the dog seems eager for it, looks like that could be consent. Again now you are getting to set the standard. I know this sounds disgusting to me too. But it does make my point.

    this was not my point at all. Im simply stating that we've had our standard here in AMERICA for many years. I wouldnt want to be one of those bible thumpers pushing religeon on you now would I?

    I guess we may agree on this one if gay marriage is permissible
     
  17. UPS Lifer

    UPS Lifer Well-Known Member

    AMEN to that! It can't come soon enough for me.... My house hit the MLS today and I had to price it $300k lower than a year and a half ago...yikes!
     
  18. dannyboy

    dannyboy From the promised LAND

    Re: California Supreme Court overturns ban on

    For that matter, what about the rest of the world? Ever wonder what has led the rest of the world to find America somewhat disgusting over the last 20 years or so? And some even disgusting to the point of violence.

    I think it has to do with absolutes.

    It used to be that for better or worse we believed in a lot of things. There were absolutes everywhere we looked. Rules and laws. Right and wrong. Good taste and bad. Morality was pretty much a norm. Right from wrong was taught at home, in the church, and at school.

    But not anymore, everyone is too worried about damageing someone elses self image, or being too restrictive, imposing too many limits.

    Fast forward to now. There is no right or wrong, only how the situation makes you feel right now. There are no absolutes, only different shades of what you want to do today. And with the open filandering from the top members of our country for the world to see and mock, where does it stop?

    Why stop at same sex marrages? Why not allow interspecies marriages? Hell, Buffy wants to marry Rex, her dobberman. Why not allow that now as well? Where will the stupidity stop.

    I dont give a rats behind about your personal relationships. None of my business. But when you feel the need to involve the word marriage to that relationship to promote the ajenda, that is wrong.

    And in many world wide cultures that are very deeply religious, that type of fixation of not only our citizens but even our gooberment is revolting to them.

    We have lost our identity as to who we are. I even find it hard to believe that this country is headed the way it seems to be heading.

    BTW,
    That has as much science behind that statement as the statement that we are the cause of global warming.

    d
     
  19. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    If it makes it to a ballot, I'm voting it down......not because I don't approve of someone else's relationship but because of my personal definition of marriage.
     
  20. helenofcalifornia

    helenofcalifornia Well-Known Member

    But your definition of a marriage is not what everybody's is. And, again, why should you be the judge for someone else? If the vote in November goes anything like the polls just released it will be voted down by a 49% against, 48% in favor and 3% undecided. Those 3% will be heavily lobbied. I just think marriage is between two adult, consenting people and shouldn't be legislated by the government. I believe we are taking a step backwards if this vote goes through against gay marriage.