Big Gay Al Goes to California

[Harlowe]

Where gay marriage is now legal. Fox News is going foam at the mouth over this one and frankly, I think Neo-cons are going to love it. There is no better way to get the raging homophobe vote out in full-force than scare them with "gays marrying...in a CHURCH maybe" oh my!
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZmL ... wD90MB6P00

Personally, I always thought civil unions would have been a less divisive way to pursue this.

[Ddrak]

The government should have nothing to do with marriage - everyone should get legal civil unions from the government, and marriage from a church if they so choose.

Dd

[Klast Brell]

/Agree Harlowe

This is definitely going to mobilize the homophobe vote. Just like abortion and interracial marriage before them I see this as the beginning of the creep that will eventually lead to total national legalization. I wonder what the notional battle will be 20 years from now? Marijuana? Prostitution? Gambling?

[Rsak]

The reporting on this issue has been pretty bad because I can't find the legal reason they gave for making this decision. It had better be a pretty good reason to overturn a vote by the state citizens.

[Rsak]

Found the actual ruling and as far as I can understand it the reasoning for the constitutionality of same sex marriage is that using different terms would have the risk of lack of dignity and respect.

So by this logic Males do not have the same dignity and respect as Females despite the fact that we have completely equal rights simply because different terms are used. That is completely and utterly absurd.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Actually, I think the argument was that banning same-sex marriages was discrimination based on sex.

[Harlowe]

Actually, I think the argument was that banning same-sex marriages was discrimination based on sex.

That was my understanding too.

[Rsak]

No the legal finding shows that California was providing Civil unions which the same rights. They went at length that the different terminology did not offer equal respect and dignity.

[Harlowe]

No the legal finding shows that California was providing Civil unions which the same rights. They went at length that the different terminology did not offer equal respect and dignity.

And that was discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

[Rsak]

Yes but it is still just terminology.

A same sex marriage is different from a opposing sex marriage, just like a male is not a female. Nothing in that risks respect or dignity especially when the state is mandating what is equal.

[Partha]

Unfortunately for that argument, the California Constitution is pretty clear about equal language. Unequal language offers opportunity to deny rights enshined in that Constitution.

[Select]

A same sex marriage is different from a opposing sex marriage, just like a male is not a female.

That logic bothers me... possibly because it isn't logic?

[Chants Evensong]

The government should have nothing to do with marriage - everyone should get legal civil unions from the government, and marriage from a church if they so choose.

Dd

Spot on.

[Rsak]

That logic bothers me... possibly because it isn't logic?

You really do not qualify as a college student.. you lack the requisite skills for the entrance exams.

A male is not a female because they have different bodies most notably the sexual organs. A same sex marriage is comprised of two parties of the same sex, while a heterosexual marriage is comprised of two parties of opposite sexes. They are unequivocally different things.

You can argue over the moral or philosophical views that they should be treated the same or differently, but they are never totally equal. Terminology to reflect does not remove any dignity or respect with the acknowledgment that they are two different things.

[Klast Brell]

Yes but it is still just terminology.

A same sex marriage is different from a opposing sex marriage, just like a male is not a female. Nothing in that risks respect or dignity especially when the state is mandating what is equal.

Yes but it is still just terminology.

A same race marriage is different from a opposing race marriage, just like a Negro is not a White. Nothing in that risks respect or dignity especially when the state is mandating what is equal.

[Rsak]

But there are no currently identifiable biological differences between races like there are between the sexes. There are more variations in skin color of single ethnic categories then between some ethnicities these days.

[Rsak]

On further review of the finding by the California Supreme Court it is really ugly.

Basically there are three pieces to this legal catastrophe in order of importance.

1. California Constitution
2. Initiative Statute (can not be overridden by legislative branch without being voted on by public)
3. Legislative laws

The executive really overstepped itself here by using laws by a branch that specifically does not have the power to override a initiative statute as evidence to override that statute.

[Klast Brell]

Grr I hate it when the board eats my posts. Trying again.

Sulu is getting married
http://www.georgetakei.com/news.asp

Our California dream is reality. Brad Altman and I can now marry. We are overjoyed! At long last, the barrier to full marriage rights for same-sex couples has been torn down. We are equal with all citizens of our state!

And here is a picture from when he sang with the village people.

[jookkor]

Yes but it is still just terminology.

A same sex marriage is different from a opposing sex marriage, just like a male is not a female. Nothing in that risks respect or dignity especially when the state is mandating what is equal.

I dont usually talk to you but I gotta say, sometimes the Chewbacca defense is hilarious. Thanks man.

[Rsak]

Nice to see you hold the same high opinion of the ruling of the California Supreme Court that I do Jookkor.