Cal Supreme Court Say YAY to Gay Marriage

Users who are viewing this thread

  • 114
    Replies
  • 2K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

GraceAbounds

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,998
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.00z
I have no problem with same sex couples being united in a domestic relationship and being afforded the same legal rights under the law that heterosexual married couples are afforded as to not be discriminated against, but I do not agree with the union being called marriage. I do not agree with the definition of marriage being changed, added to, etc. This constantly happens to words in the English language and it is unnerving imo. It screws up literature by changing the context/intent of the author of the time when read in the future. If you want to come up with a new definition of something ... then make a new word for it.

Pet peeve of mine. LOL!
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\ Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marryDate:14th century

1a:(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
It's not changing the definition. :dunno
 

GraceAbounds

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,998
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.00z
You just posted a change/addition of a definition. :dunno ... no point being made with that post Tim.

Check out a Webster's 1st edition and a Webster's 4th edition. Enjoy all the changes and additions to definitions.

Like I said ... it is a pet peeve of mine.

Main Entry: marriage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij also 'mer-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>
UPDATE : Merriam-Webster has changed the definition:
Today it says: "a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage"
 

Dana

In Memoriam - RIP
Messages
42,904
Reaction score
10
Tokenz
0.17z
I'm sorry but marriage lost its definition/meaning a long time ago.


So they aren't effects anything. Marriage used to be until death do us part. Nowadays the people divorce like it's no big deal, people jump into marriage without really truly knowing the individual they supposably love. To me marriage isn't anything but just a legality issue. If you love someone, I mean truly love someone, why do you need a paper saying so? As proof? LOL
 

GraceAbounds

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,998
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.00z
I'm sorry but marriage lost its definition/meaning a long time ago.


So they aren't effects anything. Marriage used to be until death do us part. Nowadays the people divorce like it's no big deal, people jump into marriage without really truly knowing the individual they supposably love. To me marriage isn't anything but just a legality issue. If you love someone, I mean truly love someone, why do you need a paper saying so? As proof? LOL
People's behavior does not dictate what is true and what is not true.

If I say it is wrong to steal and people continue to steal that does not mean that the definition of the word 'steal' should be changed or added to.

If one buys into a relativism style of philosophy I can see why one might think it should, but I respectfully disagree.
 

teh_fuzz

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Messages
5,581
Reaction score
67
Tokenz
124.51z
Gay marriage ban overturned...

California's top court overturns gay marriage ban - Yahoo! News

California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

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.
ADVERTISEMENT

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

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as the news spread.

Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"

"This is a very historic day. This is just such freedom for us," Rizzo said. "This is a message that says all of us are entitled to human dignity."

In the Castro, historically a center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt started crying while watching the news on TV.

"I've been waiting for this all my life," he said. "This is a life-affirming moment."

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted the monthlong wedding march that took place when Mayor Gavin Newsom opened the doors of City Hall to same-sex marriages.

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.

The challenge for gay rights advocates, however, is not over.

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.

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.

But, "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," Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court's majority, which also included Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said the court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.

The conservative Alliance Defense Fund says it plans to ask the justices for a stay of their decision until after the fall election, said Glen Lavey, senior counsel for the group.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would've granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, said in a news release that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

The last time California voters were asked to express their views on gay marriage at the ballot box was in 2000, the year after the Legislature enacted the first of a series of laws awarding spousal rights to domestic partners.

Proposition 22, which strengthened the state's 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law with the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," passed with 61 percent of the vote.

The Supreme Court struck down both statutes with its sweeping opinion Thursday.

Lawyers for the gay couples had asked the court to overturn the laws as an unconstitutional civil rights violation that domestic partnerships cannot repair. A trial court judge in San Francisco agreed with gay rights advocates and voided the state's marriage laws in April 2005. A midlevel appeals court overturned his decision in October 2006.

I for one, could care less if a gay couple wants to be united, fucking let them, its their lives and their ass.
Not meaning to start a debate here but I am of the belief if two people want to be together for any reason, then why not let them.

All religious beliefs and phobias aside, is it really that bad?
 

Maulds

Accidental Bastard
Messages
10,330
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.01z
So didn't the people of California vote overwhelmingly against a resolution to recognize gay marriage? So if that was the case then Cal's supreme court went directly against the will of the people. Why would they do that?

FreeWorkVest said:
I agree with this decision. A constitution shouldn't be used to ban things. The tripe conservatives and religious right feed us about saving the family is crap.

If you believe in states rights, then 4 judges overturning the majority of voters is kind of a big deal. And California is a very liberal leaning state and they voted in large numbers against such a thing. I guess from now on we shouldn't bother voting on anything and just let judicial activism rule the day.
 

All Else Failed

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,205
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
So didn't the people of California vote overwhelmingly against a resolution to recognize gay marriage? So if that was the case then Cal's supreme court went directly against the will of the people. Why would they do that?



If you believe in states rights, then 4 judges overturning the majority of voters is kind of a big deal. And California is a very liberal leaning state and they voted in large numbers against such a thing. I guess from now on we shouldn't bother voting on anything and just let judicial activism rule the day.


i don't think civil rights should be decided based on a referendum.


"should we let black people vote"? gimme a break.
 

dt3

Back By Unpopular Demand
Messages
24,161
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.21z
Here's what I don't like. How many times has allowing gay marriage been on the ballot for Californians to vote on? I know it has been at least twice. And they never voted for it to pass. So how can the Supreme Court overturn it and say it's ok?

*Edit* Of course Maulds beat me to saying it :D
 

FreeWorkVest

Active Member
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Here's what I don't like. How many times has allowing gay marriage been on the ballot for Californians to vote on? I know it has been at least twice. And they never voted for it to pass. So how can the Supreme Court overturn it and say it's ok?

*Edit* Of course Maulds beat me to saying it :D


The role of the Supreme Court is to be above public opinion. Whether something is constitutional or not has nothing to do with puplic opinion.

If there was a bill passed into law allowing states to IDK, preventing Muslims from worshiping, even if it passed 100%, the Supreme Court would have to rule it unconstitutional. That is their role, state or federal level
 

dt3

Back By Unpopular Demand
Messages
24,161
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.21z
The role of the Supreme Court is to be above public opinion. Whether something is constitutional or not has nothing to do with puplic opinion.

If there was a bill passed into law allowing states to IDK, preventing Muslims from worshiping, even if it passed 100%, the Supreme Court would have to rule it unconstitutional. That is their role, state or federal level
There's a big difference between saying that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, which would be the role of the Supreme Court, and saying that gay marriage is now legal. The Supreme Court in effect passed a law, which is NOT the role of the Judicial Branch.
 

GuesSAngel

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,434
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I have no problem with same sex couples being united in a domestic relationship and being afforded the same legal rights under the law that heterosexual married couples are afforded as to not be discriminated against, but I do not agree with the union being called marriage. I do not agree with the definition of marriage being changed, added to, etc. This constantly happens to words in the English language and it is unnerving imo. It screws up literature by changing the context/intent of the author of the time when read in the future. If you want to come up with a new definition of something ... then make a new word for it.

Pet peeve of mine. LOL!


It's people like you where the country won't accept change. Marriage is marriage, and it should be allowed for everyone no matter what they're sexual orientation is. Everyone deserves happiness. Just because the bible says it isn't right doesn't mean it's true. Hell we would stlil have slaves in this country if it was up to people like you reading the bible.
 
78,875Threads
2,185,391Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top