California's supreme court legalizes gay marriage

[Manverue]

Calif.'s supreme court legalizes gay marriage

[stoneric]

Good for them.

[Prophet Saddam]

California does it riiiiiiight!

[kamikazi89]

great, nothing motivates the base faster then raw fear

[BearsysRevenge]

Another step towards personal freedom once again in the US.



[Edit] Why are people who say this is gonna open the door for other "non-traditional marriages" so stupid?
"Next they're gonna wanna marry their dogs"
Right, because a dog can sign a marriage license

[spicoli]

^they're not stupid, they have a point...from a religious standpoint, anyway.
i'm glad, if they're glad. do what makes you happy, imo.
i'm just happy that there's yet another special interest group, at least in california, that can stfu, you got what you want, now stop fucking whining. ahhhhhhhhhhh.

[BearsysRevenge]

Bringing a religious standpoint into politics is stupid.
Jefferson's Wall of Separation is there for a reason.

[kamikazi89]

they're tearing down that wall, every day(and aren't shy about it either)

[WildWill]

I know a bunch of my friends who are extremely happy with the ruling.

It's great, I was watching the news coverage yesterday, and thinking to myself "This is great, these couples have been waiting for years to get married, I give their marriages six months!"

Yup, now they can marry and divorce just like hetero couples! Well, until the morons who are against it try to get a California Constitutional Amendment, which won't pass.

[kamikazi89]

yea, and then there's the bible belt

they're gonna go preemptive on that ass

[Jimmy Coonan]

I'm in favor of gay marriage, but using the courts to do it is a dangerous way to go about it--it'll just make the homophobes push for a constitutional amendment banning it, if not in the federal constitution then state by state where they can (and I'm sure a lot of states would pass it). Besides, it'll keep the issue alive. Abortion is still a hot topic 35 years after Roe v. Wade, because the courts forced abortion on us with shaky legal reasoning instead of leaving it to the legislatures like they should've.

More and more people support gay marriage every day, we should wait until enough of them do for legislatures to legalize it rather than using the legal system as an undemocratic shortcut and having judges twist the law to read things into them that we know weren't supposed to be there in the first place.

[kamikazi89]

state by state is exactly the plan of attack(a federal ammendment to the constitution is not going to pass)

that and judicial appointments(which the average voter doesn't care too much about)

[Kat_IV]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Coonan

I'm in favor of gay marriage, but using the courts to do it is a dangerous way to go about it--it'll just make the homophobes push for a constitutional amendment banning it, if not in the federal constitution then state by state where they can (and I'm sure a lot of states would pass it). Besides, it'll keep the issue alive. Abortion is still a hot topic 35 years after Roe v. Wade, because the courts forced abortion on us with shaky legal reasoning instead of leaving it to the legislatures like they should've.

More and more people support gay marriage every day, we should wait until enough of them do for legislatures to legalize it rather than using the legal system as an undemocratic shortcut and having judges twist the law to read things into them that we know weren't supposed to be there in the first place.

Agreed. No matter what you think about the underlying issue (gay marriage, abortion, etc) the courts overextend their authority when they do stuff like this. And they undermine democracy. Frankly, I'm shocked that an anti-gay marriage law passed a public vote in California to begin with. I wonder if it would survive a revote. But you shouldn't be happy just because the courts got you something you wanted. Next time it could just as easily be something you hate. And it's not the right way to do things.

[Maturin]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Coonan

I'm in favor of gay marriage, but using the courts to do it is a dangerous way to go about it--it'll just make the homophobes push for a constitutional amendment banning it, if not in the federal constitution then state by state where they can (and I'm sure a lot of states would pass it). Besides, it'll keep the issue alive. Abortion is still a hot topic 35 years after Roe v. Wade, because the courts forced abortion on us with shaky legal reasoning instead of leaving it to the legislatures like they should've.

More and more people support gay marriage every day, we should wait until enough of them do for legislatures to legalize it rather than using the legal system as an undemocratic shortcut and having judges twist the law to read things into them that we know weren't supposed to be there in the first place.

Well stated. It would've been a lot better if the people of California had voted this for themselves. Instead, this has motivated the social conservatives who are introducing a ballet measure to get the ruling overturned.

[Terry]

I know what you're saying Larry, but to me it's been way too damn long and homosexuals have been trampled underfoot in regard to freedom in this country for far too long, so if it takes the courts to allow these ppl the rights you and I so flippantly enjoy, so be it.

[stoneric]

To vote on whether 2 consenting adults should have the same rights as 2 other consenting adults seems wrong to me. Did we vote on inter-racial marriage?

[DubStyle311]

It seems to me that its not about their rights. Its about the benefits.