| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| Californicators get gay marriage. Polygamy to follow. |
| 2008-05-15 |
| In light of all of these circumstances, we conclude that retention of the traditional definition of marriage does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, under the strict scrutiny equal protection standard, to justify withholding that status from same-sex couples. Accordingly, insofar as the provisions of sections 300 and 308.5 draw a distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples and exclude the latter from access to the designation of marriage, we conclude these statutes are unconstitutional.73 |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #25 It is the will of the people! Oh wait, it's the will of four guys on the Cal. Supreme Court. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2008-05-15 23:00 |
| #24 "doing it in the road and scaring the horses." Indeed, I think that line comes from a witness to the prosecution of Oscar Wilde - a phrase that has always stuck with me. Kalifornia has gone so 'special' I don't know exactly what to make of it anymore. Feel safe for now in Georia. |
| Posted by: Hupomong the Bunyip2147 2008-05-15 22:42 |
| #23 My sentiments as well Frank. |
| Posted by: Snash Oppressor of the Mohammatans aka Broadhead6 2008-05-15 22:40 |
| #22 I kinda miss the old days when all you had to worry about was doing it in the road and scaring the horses. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2008-05-15 22:18 |
| #21 btw - Civil Partnerships have been available in CA that grant all the rights of a marriage. This is just a power play for mainstream-forced acceptance by the gay community. It will backfire badly. If McCain plays this right, he could win CA, cuz I GUARANTEE that Amendment will draw conservatives and mainstreamers out in droves to vote. For my own part, I have gay relatives and friends. I like them and respect their relationships, but it ain't marriage. Never will be, in my mind. For them to disrespect the societal norms of "mariage" pisses me off, and I've told em so. As long as there is an alternative with all the benefits, but a different name, I politely tell em to fuck off on this issue. Surprisingly, we remain friends and acknowledged (LOL) relatives, cuz I don't dispute their existence, their lifestyle ( I certainly wouldn't choose it or wish it for my kids), or their right to equal benefits. I just don't equate it with Man-Woman Marriage, and never will |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-05-15 22:04 |
| #20 Stoopid, stoopid, stoopid. Yup, that's the definition of a RINO. McCain/Graham '08 |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-05-15 21:40 |
| #19 Grenter, thats my point entirely. Marriage is no longer anything other than a contractual relationship in the eyes of the state. So it should be treated as such. Contractual laws woudl handle insurance, etc. Tax law would grant a break only to married who produce children AND stay together to raise them. SO a "contractual marriage" for overnight with standard language of a pre-nup can be ruled legal under this ruling. Meaning eventually prostitution will be legal in a Muslim "temprary marriage" way of looking at things. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-05-15 21:38 |
| #18 already 50,000+ signatures in San Diego |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-05-15 20:50 |
| #17 I'm sure a ballot referendum will come this fall. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2008-05-15 20:42 |
| #16 I'd have no complaint about this if the legislature had decided the issue. Oops: they did, voting in favor. Ah-nuld then vetoed it (his right as governor) and said it was a matter for the courts. So the courts jumped in. Stoopid, stoopid, stoopid. This is the job of the legislative branch, not the judicial branch. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-05-15 20:19 |
| #15 There is supposed to be a referendum Constitutional ammendment on the Nov. ballot to only allow legal marriage between one each man/woman, however, as in Prop 187, it will only take one judge to declare an injunction against the peoples vote, and the goevernators AG will no doubt cave. You're screwed, have a gay olde time in the Rodney King state. |
| Posted by: Muggsy Gling 2008-05-15 19:50 |
| #14 Polygamy to follow. With no fault divorce, the state sanctioned serial polyandry and polygamy. It's the parallel version up for grabs in the 'as long as its consenting adults' category. The final nail in the coffin of 'marriage' will be legalized commercial sex [beyond the virtual one now]. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-05-15 18:26 |
| #13 But since no one needs a license to have sex, why would gays, polyamorists, etc., need to have a contract? There are a lot of laws regarding illness, death, inheritance etc. that deal with spouse, not partner. Two ways to solve the problem. Change the law to include partner or change the law to allow gays to be spouses. I would agree with much of what OS says in #9, but I believe the state has an interest in seeing that children are legitimate, biologically or legally, raised in a family, and that parents, biological and legal are held responsible for the upbringing of their children and rewarded (through taxes) while they do so. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-05-15 18:23 |
| #12 I wonder if we'll have a Marriage Lemon Law? Will there be alternate vows? ...I now pronounce you Wife and Wife or Husband and Husband. In a same sex relationship who would be the Battered Wife? Henny Youngman... Take my partner, please! |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2008-05-15 18:15 |
| #11 Or maybe an omnibus ruling from the state Supreme Court: "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." |
| Posted by: Grenter Protector of the Geats4975 2008-05-15 17:56 |
| #10 Sweet. Now you can have a 3 year trial marriage, per the terms of your contract. But since no one needs a license to have sex, why would gays, polyamorists, etc., need to have a contract? |
| Posted by: Grenter Protector of the Geats4975 2008-05-15 17:55 |
| #9 perhaps a nutshell would help. Being "married" is no real sacrifice for the good of society. Being married and having children does involve sacrifices that work for the general good of soceity. So only the latter are entitled to a benefit (tax status) as long as they remain married, while the former can and should be treated the same as singles, legally, excepting any contract language to govern their relationship. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-05-15 17:31 |
| #8 CA may as well just stop recognizing "marriage" completely, and substitute standard contract language. Thats what they are reducing it to: legal contract in order to gain tax status. So dissolve all that, reduce it to what it is: a civil contract, covered under contract and tort law. And remove the "marriage" breaks from tax law. After all, they are there to promote traditional marriage and family, and the court just found that to be illegal. So, the lawmakers can give tax advantage to those who have produced children and are in a legally bound contract state, since3 that is the benefit society gains from marriage right now. Single-parent situations are not beneficial to society, nor are childless "marriages" in that they do not add anything over and above simply shacking up and not needed as much housing. So no need for a tax break for those folks anymore. File individually and pay taxes accordingly. No special treatment for anyone except those that are providing a tangible general benefit to society (having raising their children) by their actions inside a contractual union. After all, that is the "social good" that marriage is said to bring, so that is the only situation that deserves a governmental tax break. Anything else, in the eyes of an amoral neutral state completely walled of from religion, is contractual convenience (inheritance, legal authority to act, insurance sharing, etc), and no business of the state regarding content, only civil enforcement of the contract. So gays, polygamists, polyamorists, etc will all get what they asked for, contractual protection and recognition of a contract by the state, but not what they want (moral equivalence). Marriage will once again return to being a sacrament, a spiritual relationship, and be the concern of the church, not the state. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-05-15 17:27 |
| #7 "Breeders" has always been what gays called straight couples. |
| Posted by: Albemarle Clearong3941 2008-05-15 17:04 |
| #6 Frankly I'm in favor of it. Why should straight men be the only ones to suffer? |
| Posted by: Thager Barnsmell2375 2008-05-15 16:37 |
| #5 Abu: You said the magic word, you get to collect $100. |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2008-05-15 16:32 |
| #4 I guess I can take some consolation from the fact that California voters rejected gay marriage. But this really sucks. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2008-05-15 16:14 |
| #3 No appeal to SCOTUS. The entire decision was based on the Caliphornia constitution. Looks like another initiative on the ballot this November. At least it will get more McCain voters out. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-05-15 16:14 |
| #2 Makes me ashamed to be a Californian. I hope this gets appealed to SCOTUS before Obama has a chance to pack it with moonbats. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2008-05-15 16:11 |
| #1 Call it anything else but with the same rights as a heterosexual couple and I could care less. Marriage has just been devalued. Let's go one step further and have two titles: 1. Marriage/Breeding Pairs 2. Marriage/Non-Breeding Pairs There, that fixed it, now it's totally beaurecratic. |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2008-05-15 15:26 |