This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Doesn't surprise me. People are wrong in every group. Which is one reason I try to be an individualist.Still, there's no denying the issue of gay marriage has been, predominantly, a right-wing issue; banning it has been associated with conservatism.
Everywhere I've heard says it will pass.
MSNBC 5 minutes ago: with 22% of the vote in, "yes" is ahead 54-46
Yes, but that's not a projection. The papers and TV stations were basing the "too close to call" statement off exit polls.It's now at 53-47.
Well OK, I'll keep my fingers crossed.
You know those people are saying that exact same thing about you, right?
People didn't think they were on the wrong side of segregation either.
Although I ultimately decided to vote "No" on Prop. 8, I completely understand the enormous mobilization in favor of Prop. 8. Liberals, particularly in California, consistently underestimate how pissed off people become when judges create new laws and rights outside of the purview of a democratic process.
You do realize CA has had a civil union available for a long time and is nearly identical to marriage except for 8 trivial differences? The case and this proposition are all about the name of the union, not about rights. Frankly, Im more concerned that a state as broke as CA is about to pass bond initiatives for things that are not critical and that they cant afford.
not only that but the states that have passed marriage constitutional amendment initiatives like Oregon and California are pretty deep blue states. Just goes to show that marriage being viewed as between a man and a woman goes beyond politics in this country.You know those people are saying that exact same thing about you, right?
They did not "create" new laws. They viewed the current laws as being unconstitutional. Now the morons in this state are going to make it constitutional. Why we even get to vote on what is or isn't constitutional is beyond me.Maybe voters are sick of the supreme courts (state, national) bastardizing the intent of the people who wrote the constitutions to begin with.
No interracial marriage?Maybe voters are sick of the supreme courts (state, national) bastardizing the intent of the people who wrote the constitutions to begin with.
So the fact that no court in this state's history had ever ruled that gays had a state constitutionally protected right to marriage until 2008 doesn't strike you as intriguing in the very least? How could such an idea have been "constitutional" all of this time and we did not know it?
Actually, a San Francisco Superior Court ruled in 2005 that Prop 22, which was adopted in 2000 was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals partially reversed in 2006, and the California Supreme Court agreed with the Superior Court and found that Prop 22 was unconstitutional in 2008. The reason that California is amending its constitution is that laws prohibiting gay marriage, which were never in force prior to 2000, were unconstitutional. Sad that you probably voted yes on this when you have no understanding of how the law actually works.They did not "create" new laws. They viewed the current laws as being unconstitutional. Now the morons in this state are going to make it constitutional. Why we even get to vote on what is or isn't constitutional is beyond me.
Actually, a San Francisco Superior Court ruled in 2005 that Prop 22, which was adopted in 2000 was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals partially reversed in 2006, and the California Supreme Court agreed with the Superior Court and found that Prop 22 was unconstitutional in 2008. The reason that California is amending its constitution is that laws prohibiting gay marriage, which were never in force prior to 2000, were unconstitutional. Sad that you probably voted yes on this when you have no understanding of how the law actually works.
I know the history of this very well... if you want me to be a #### about this, I wrote my law school thesis on the topic of the advancement of gay marriage domestically and internationally. Oh, and in case you did not read my initial post in this thread (please look above), I clearly stated that I voted "No" on Prop. 8.With all of that being said, no one in here can tell me with a straight face that a state court prior to 2000 would have ruled that gay marriage was a constitutionally protected right. The fact that it suddenly is simply stunning.
You know the history very well, but you were factually wrong by three years on this statement "So the fact that no court in this state's history had ever ruled that gays had a state constitutionally protected right to marriage until 2008." Gotcha. You also fail to recognize that if gay marriage was not legal, Prop 22, recognizing only marriages between a man and a woman in 2000, would have been completely unnecessary.Sad that someone can claim to get through law school who doesn't understand the appellate system. And what law school was that that required a thesis?Actually, a San Francisco Superior Court ruled in 2005 that Prop 22, which was adopted in 2000 was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals partially reversed in 2006, and the California Supreme Court agreed with the Superior Court and found that Prop 22 was unconstitutional in 2008. The reason that California is amending its constitution is that laws prohibiting gay marriage, which were never in force prior to 2000, were unconstitutional. Sad that you probably voted yes on this when you have no understanding of how the law actually works.
If you really want to focus on each tree and miss the entire forest, then suit yourself.You know the history very well, but you were factually wrong by three years on this statement "So the fact that no court in this state's history had ever ruled that gays had a state constitutionally protected right to marriage until 2008." Gotcha. You also fail to recognize that if gay marriage was not legal, Prop 22, recognizing only marriages between a man and a woman in 2000, would have been completely unnecessary.Actually, a San Francisco Superior Court ruled in 2005 that Prop 22, which was adopted in 2000 was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals partially reversed in 2006, and the California Supreme Court agreed with the Superior Court and found that Prop 22 was unconstitutional in 2008. The reason that California is amending its constitution is that laws prohibiting gay marriage, which were never in force prior to 2000, were unconstitutional. Sad that you probably voted yes on this when you have no understanding of how the law actually works.
Only a matter of time before we can all marry multiple partners...male and/or female. I hope to one day be able to marry plants and animals...what business does the government have in trying to stop me from being happy?Once we really open up marriage...I think I'll marry all of Somalia and add them to my health plan. I can end all those health issues on one fell swoop.Actually, a San Francisco Superior Court ruled in 2005 that Prop 22, which was adopted in 2000 was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals partially reversed in 2006, and the California Supreme Court agreed with the Superior Court and found that Prop 22 was unconstitutional in 2008. The reason that California is amending its constitution is that laws prohibiting gay marriage, which were never in force prior to 2000, were unconstitutional. Sad that you probably voted yes on this when you have no understanding of how the law actually works.
you were completely wrong on your own "facts" and you're wrong on the history. you want to spout bull####, fine. but when you get called on it, own up to it. you don't know what you're talking about.If you really want to focus on each tree and miss the entire forest, then suit yourself.You know the history very well, but you were factually wrong by three years on this statement "So the fact that no court in this state's history had ever ruled that gays had a state constitutionally protected right to marriage until 2008." Gotcha. You also fail to recognize that if gay marriage was not legal, Prop 22, recognizing only marriages between a man and a woman in 2000, would have been completely unnecessary.Actually, a San Francisco Superior Court ruled in 2005 that Prop 22, which was adopted in 2000 was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals partially reversed in 2006, and the California Supreme Court agreed with the Superior Court and found that Prop 22 was unconstitutional in 2008. The reason that California is amending its constitution is that laws prohibiting gay marriage, which were never in force prior to 2000, were unconstitutional. Sad that you probably voted yes on this when you have no understanding of how the law actually works.
If you're married to two women...and I'm married to two women...and then we decide to get married.Am I then married to your two wives as well?Just wondering how all of this is going to work out...plus, I need to know for tax purposes.
Jesus Christ. I did not have my facts wrong and now you are just sounding like a lunatic. The fact that Prop 22 was passed did not mean that gay marriage was legal or "constitutional" prior to its passage. Not even the biggest opponents of Prop. 8 would argue that. And again, you cannot tell me with a straight face that a court prior to 2000 would have ruled that way either.you were completely wrong on your own "facts" and you're wrong on the history. you want to spout bull####, fine. but when you get called on it, own up to it. you don't know what you're talking about.If you really want to focus on each tree and miss the entire forest, then suit yourself.You know the history very well, but you were factually wrong by three years on this statement "So the fact that no court in this state's history had ever ruled that gays had a state constitutionally protected right to marriage until 2008." Gotcha. You also fail to recognize that if gay marriage was not legal, Prop 22, recognizing only marriages between a man and a woman in 2000, would have been completely unnecessary.Actually, a San Francisco Superior Court ruled in 2005 that Prop 22, which was adopted in 2000 was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals partially reversed in 2006, and the California Supreme Court agreed with the Superior Court and found that Prop 22 was unconstitutional in 2008. The reason that California is amending its constitution is that laws prohibiting gay marriage, which were never in force prior to 2000, were unconstitutional. Sad that you probably voted yes on this when you have no understanding of how the law actually works.
Pretty much all law schools have a writing requirement. A note or a comment of 25-50 pages is normally required. And the prop in 2000 was a reaction to court rulings in other parts of the country, namely Vermont which was the first state to mandate civil unions at a minimum. If you actually read the decision, this was not based on actual discrimination or rights not granted to homosexual couples, but on badges of discrimination - social stigmas. Only racial discrimination has ever been treated with that amount of concern. In this case, separate was pretty much equal and frankly the decision of the court was pretty radical.You know the history very well, but you were factually wrong by three years on this statement "So the fact that no court in this state's history had ever ruled that gays had a state constitutionally protected right to marriage until 2008." Gotcha. You also fail to recognize that if gay marriage was not legal, Prop 22, recognizing only marriages between a man and a woman in 2000, would have been completely unnecessary.Sad that someone can claim to get through law school who doesn't understand the appellate system. And what law school was that that required a thesis?Actually, a San Francisco Superior Court ruled in 2005 that Prop 22, which was adopted in 2000 was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals partially reversed in 2006, and the California Supreme Court agreed with the Superior Court and found that Prop 22 was unconstitutional in 2008. The reason that California is amending its constitution is that laws prohibiting gay marriage, which were never in force prior to 2000, were unconstitutional. Sad that you probably voted yes on this when you have no understanding of how the law actually works.
Oh, I forgot to answer this... I graduated from NYU Law. Is that law school prestigious and liberal enough for you?You know the history very well, but you were factually wrong by three years on this statement "So the fact that no court in this state's history had ever ruled that gays had a state constitutionally protected right to marriage until 2008." Gotcha. You also fail to recognize that if gay marriage was not legal, Prop 22, recognizing only marriages between a man and a woman in 2000, would have been completely unnecessary.Sad that someone can claim to get through law school who doesn't understand the appellate system. And what law school was that that required a thesis?Actually, a San Francisco Superior Court ruled in 2005 that Prop 22, which was adopted in 2000 was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals partially reversed in 2006, and the California Supreme Court agreed with the Superior Court and found that Prop 22 was unconstitutional in 2008. The reason that California is amending its constitution is that laws prohibiting gay marriage, which were never in force prior to 2000, were unconstitutional.
Sad that you probably voted yes on this when you have no understanding of how the law actually works.I know the history of this very well... if you want me to be a #### about this, I wrote my law school thesis on the topic of the advancement of gay marriage domestically and internationally. Oh, and in case you did not read my initial post in this thread (please look above), I clearly stated that I voted "No" on Prop. 8.
With all of that being said, no one in here can tell me with a straight face that a state court prior to 2000 would have ruled that gay marriage was a constitutionally protected right. The fact that it suddenly is simply stunning.
This argument also confuses me. How does letting gay people get married lead to polygamy? And even if it does (it doesn't), why do we care there either? Live and let live down?If you're married to two women...and I'm married to two women...and then we decide to get married.Am I then married to your two wives as well?Just wondering how all of this is going to work out...plus, I need to know for tax purposes.
It goes something like, if you have no right to decide which 2 people can get married, what right do you have to decide that a person can only marry one person at a time. Why shouldnt it just be a union of two or more people instead of two people? Live and let live as it were. ETA: Also brings into question the right to prevent incest. Why cant you marry your first cousin, sister or mother? At some point pretty much everyone agrees the government should decide which unions it should recognize and which it should ban. The question is where is that line.This argument also confuses me. How does letting gay people get married lead to polygamy? And even if it does (it doesn't), why do we care there either? Live and let live down?If you're married to two women...and I'm married to two women...and then we decide to get married.Am I then married to your two wives as well?Just wondering how all of this is going to work out...plus, I need to know for tax purposes.
Ok, so then we assume (I think safely) that pretty much everyone is against incest. I would think we don't ever have to worry about that one becoming legal. Polygamy I personally don't have a problem with. If someone wants to marry 2 different people and his/her spouses are happy with it, it's no skin off my nose. (as long as its not done in secret from one spouse to another) If people do find polygamy offensive though, then treat that as a separate issue and figure out what to do about that then. The point is gay marriage helps some people and hurts absolutely no one.:edit for grammarIt goes something like, if you have no right to decide which 2 people can get married, what right do you have to decide that a person can only marry one person at a time. Why shouldnt it just be a union of two or more people instead of two people? Live and let live as it were. ETA: Also brings into question the right to prevent incest. Why cant you marry your first cousin, sister or mother? At some point pretty much everyone agrees the government should decide which unions it should recognize and which it should ban. The question is where is that line.This argument also confuses me. How does letting gay people get married lead to polygamy? And even if it does (it doesn't), why do we care there either? Live and let live down?If you're married to two women...and I'm married to two women...and then we decide to get married.Am I then married to your two wives as well?Just wondering how all of this is going to work out...plus, I need to know for tax purposes.
Figured it wasn't California, since you don't understand the history of California law or the way the appellate system works. Stanford's the only California law school I know of that does a thesis, but you didn't seem to be a big enough ##### to have graduated from there--besides, Stanford alums mention they're from Stanford every opportunity they get. Being from NY would explain why you think a Supreme Court decision is the first time a state court rules on something.Oh, I forgot to answer this... I graduated from NYU Law. Is that law school prestigious and liberal enough for you?You know the history very well, but you were factually wrong by three years on this statement "So the fact that no court in this state's history had ever ruled that gays had a state constitutionally protected right to marriage until 2008." Gotcha. You also fail to recognize that if gay marriage was not legal, Prop 22, recognizing only marriages between a man and a woman in 2000, would have been completely unnecessary.Sad that someone can claim to get through law school who doesn't understand the appellate system. And what law school was that that required a thesis?Actually, a San Francisco Superior Court ruled in 2005 that Prop 22, which was adopted in 2000 was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals partially reversed in 2006, and the California Supreme Court agreed with the Superior Court and found that Prop 22 was unconstitutional in 2008. The reason that California is amending its constitution is that laws prohibiting gay marriage, which were never in force prior to 2000, were unconstitutional.
Sad that you probably voted yes on this when you have no understanding of how the law actually works.
With all of that being said, no one in here can tell me with a straight face that a state court prior to 2000 would have ruled that gay marriage was a constitutionally protected right. The fact that it suddenly is simply stunning.
This is an inane conversation. The 2005 and 2006 decisions are part of the case history of the 2008 decision. 2008 was not the first decision on the prop, but it was the first final decision on the prop.And almost all law schools have a writing requirement, yes, even in CA.Figured it wasn't California, since you don't understand the history of California law or the way the appellate system works. Stanford's the only California law school I know of that does a thesis, but you didn't seem to be a big enough ##### to have graduated from there--besides, Stanford alums mention they're from Stanford every opportunity they get. Being from NY would explain why you think a Supreme Court decision is the first time a state court rules on something.Oh, I forgot to answer this... I graduated from NYU Law. Is that law school prestigious and liberal enough for you?You know the history very well, but you were factually wrong by three years on this statement "So the fact that no court in this state's history had ever ruled that gays had a state constitutionally protected right to marriage until 2008." Gotcha. You also fail to recognize that if gay marriage was not legal, Prop 22, recognizing only marriages between a man and a woman in 2000, would have been completely unnecessary.Sad that someone can claim to get through law school who doesn't understand the appellate system. And what law school was that that required a thesis?Actually, a San Francisco Superior Court ruled in 2005 that Prop 22, which was adopted in 2000 was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals partially reversed in 2006, and the California Supreme Court agreed with the Superior Court and found that Prop 22 was unconstitutional in 2008. The reason that California is amending its constitution is that laws prohibiting gay marriage, which were never in force prior to 2000, were unconstitutional.
Sad that you probably voted yes on this when you have no understanding of how the law actually works.
With all of that being said, no one in here can tell me with a straight face that a state court prior to 2000 would have ruled that gay marriage was a constitutionally protected right. The fact that it suddenly is simply stunning.
I care a LOT more about the democratic process than the issue. Personally, I would be happy with a Gay marriage law. I would be happy with a Gay marriage proposition. I would be happy with a Gay marriage amendment. I would vote for all these things.Despite the fact that I disagree with an anti-gay-marriage proposition, I VERY strongly disagree with judges pulling constitutional interpretations out of thin air. To overturn the decisions of the people or their elected representatives, there needs to be a clear obvious reason for it within the constitution, not "emanations" or many of the other conjurations of activist judiciaries.This is the one issue that for the life of me I can't see both sides of. Why does ANYONE care?
I would bet civil unions could almost pass nationwide today . Insisting on the term marriage I still would imagine garner major opposition in that time
Still not being called, guess this is going to be close?
Trivial?
