Forums | MacLife

And already Gavin's going on CNN (in a few minutes). I must say I am surprised. I thought it was going to go the other way. I just wish this would have happened after the election. Something like this might just energize social conservatives to go to the polls for McCain.

Godless Heathens!

What isn't at all apparent to the social conservatives who are opposed to this is that all it changes is property, inheritance, and interpersonal responsiblities under law.

It isn't an assault on religion.

"Another One Bites the Dust!"
===================
Of course. And about time. Now, can't we move on to war, environment, economy health care, foreclosures, farm bills and the other items?

About Nov....I think the MA decision was also in the first half of '04. Will '08 replicate that folderol around beating Kerry for Obama?

I wonder can a Prop in CA show up in Nov to overturn this? (Which might put CA in play for R candidates.) EDIT: based on the already decided Prop, I'd say: no.

In the meantime, congrats all around.

Last edited by daemon (2008-05-15 1:42 pm)

I ust say I'm pleasantly surprised. I cant remeber the last time I thought that about anything in the US.

after-life wrote:

The legislature tried to legalize gay marriage twice but Arnold vetoed it, giving proposition 22 as a rationale.

Now that proposition 22 is overturned, will he sign a gay marriage law? I doubt it.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Of course it's unconstitutional. And inevitably the federal court will rule the same thing. And correctly so.

That's a taller order because the federal constitution doesn't ban discrimination based on sex, and there aren't statutes that prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation, like in California.

It was put before a vote of the people several times and the people of the state voted it down.
So they then tried to get it in a different way.

after-life wrote:

The legislature tried to legalize gay marriage twice but Arnold vetoed it, giving proposition 22 as a rationale.

Now that proposition 22 is overturned, will he sign a gay marriage law? I doubt it.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Of course it's unconstitutional. And inevitably the federal court will rule the same thing. And correctly so.

That's a taller order because the federal constitution doesn't ban discrimination based on sex, and there aren't statutes that prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation, like in California.

Er ... no. It has nothing to do with discrimination at any specific group, it's about the fourteenth amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. That is to say, if straight consenting adults can get hitched, it's unconstitutional to prevent consenting gay adults from doing the same.

Such, as I said before, is how courts have ruled in a number of countries, including Canada. Actually the US is way behind on this for some reason -- I'd have expected test cases to have made their way to the Supreme Court by now.

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

[
Such, as I said before, is how courts have ruled in a number of countries, including Canada. Actually the US is way behind on this for some reason -- I'd have expected test cases to have made their way to the Supreme Court by now.

You and me both.
Hell, I can't believe it even needs a court to decide it's illegal to discriminate this way.

Frankly I'd think that

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

should be enough, but that's why I'm not a lawyer.

bedstuy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

[
Such, as I said before, is how courts have ruled in a number of countries, including Canada. Actually the US is way behind on this for some reason -- I'd have expected test cases to have made their way to the Supreme Court by now.

You and me both.
Hell, I can't believe it even needs a court to decide it's illegal to discriminate this way.

Seriously?  It's barely been 20 years since the heterosexuals sat silent while thousands upon thousands of gay men died.  We had to beg to even get stories printed in the New York Times, much less any politician to speak up.  And forget Joe Schmoe on the street.

Frankly none of this even seem feasible until sodomy laws were finally ruled unconstitutional, and that was only five years ago.

That smurf is true and that smurf is horrifying.

Courts are necessary because people are smurfs. No doubt the south would still be segregated without the activist liberal judges.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Er ... no. It has nothing to do with discrimination at any specific group, it's about the fourteenth amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. That is to say, if straight consenting adults can get hitched, it's unconstitutional to prevent consenting gay adults from doing the same.

The handful the states where the courts have called for civil unions or gay marriage have all done it on the grounds of sex discrimination.

Sexual orientation has not been ruled to be an attribute that warrants equal protection under the 14th amendment.

It's going to take a lot more precedent for the federal courts to come down on the side of justice. Just a few years ago it was still constitutional to ban homosexual sex.

Daniel wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Actually the US is way behind on this for some reason -- I'd have expected test cases to have made their way to the Supreme Court by now.

The reason is simple: this country is filled to the brim with very loud, very dumb religious idiots.

And also, gay rights groups are purposely keeping cases out of the federal courts, because right now they're dominated by right wing activists, and they don't want to create any bad precedents.

bratboy wrote:

....and by "different way" you mean through legislation?



Well yeah....

Either the legislation needs a vote (a lot of california legislation does) or it doesn't.
If it doesn't need a vote, then why was it tried that way several times?
If it does need a vote and gets a vote, then why not stick with the vote of the people of the state instead of trying to get it in another way when previous attempts at the legislation deemed it needed a vote?

There was legislation - twice. I wonder what most Americans would think about putting freedom of religion to a public vote (hypothetically speaking - if it weren't in the BoR)? Yes, I need to let the rest of the people decide if my relationship is as valid as theirs because they have an interest in it. What nonsense. There is a constitutional amendment on the way, we'll see if it passes.

Prop 22 was snuck in during a primary election. This new amendment will be during a general election. It will be interesting to see what happens. If it gets on the ballot, I think it will be very close.

There is some celebrating going on here in the Castro of course. Hopefully it won't be short-lived like the last one.

Last edited by robco (2008-05-15 11:47 pm)