This is a great day for equal rights in the U.S. The government has no business legislating morality.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...-marriage.html
This is a great day for equal rights in the U.S. The government has no business legislating morality.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...-marriage.html
Can't we just skip the 9th Circuit and go straight to the Supreme Court?His ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
I'd be surprised if this is even appealed. The Proponents put on such a lackluster case, I can't find one thing that could be appealed. I'm still reading the opinion though. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL
Good...there's no legal reason that gays should not be allowed to marry. Now if a church doesn't want to marry them, fine...but a church is not the end all to be all in marriage decisions. I hope other states follow suit in this. People can cry all they want that "the voters have spoken", but I don't believe in legislating religious morals one bit...and that's all the voters did. The courts did the right thing by this in my opinion.
Not to mention the courts have long held that fundamental rights are not subject to votes or elections; so that argument holds no water.
I don't believe in legislating morals either. But marriage is not an issue of morality. People are confusing the two.
While I don't believe in legislating morals, I do believe in majority rules. The majority ruled here, and a judge overturned it. That's
Good, gays should have the right to marry who ever they want to marry, just like we have the right to marry who ever we want.
The judge was gay?
Fixed!
Gay judge has proven record of impartiality
Vaughn Walker never made an issue of his sexual orientation
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-0...-olympic-games
Separation of Church and State at its finest
I'm not totally against it.
AP
Defenders of Prop 8 are using innaccurate information. They say that kids fare better when raised by both a mother and father. A recent 25-year study has shown that children raised by two women are more well adjusted than those raised by a man and woman.
http://www.livescience.com/culture/g...ng-100208.html
The point is, the Will of the People voted on their ballot, and that was thrown in the trash by one man, an activist judge.
why even bother vote?
The judge’s invalidation of the votes of over seven million Californians runs contrary to legal precedent and the notion of states' rights
Yeah, I don't understand how these people can say with a straight face (pun intended) that straight couples raise better kids than gay couples. They're probably the same people who don't understand how divorce rates can be so high and kids have gotten so out of control nowadays.
And it was only brought before a judge because some activists didn't agree with the will of the people and found it to be unconstitutional (and the judge agreed that fundamental rights, as set by the constitution, should not be voted on by the people). It can still be overturned again by other judges...this isn't a closed book you know. You have to agree though, sometimes the majority of people don't make the right (constitutional) decisions. That's why courts are in place, to uphold the constitution and the letter of the law as they interpret it. Besides...I imagine this judge was voted in by the majority of people.
yeah - they'll run it up the flagpole to the Supreme Court - should only take a few million dollars of taxpayers money
lay off another couple thousand teachers in Cali, that should pay for it
Caption time..
Gay judge has proven record of impartiality
"Fudge for everyone!"
and polygamists should sue to have their marriages too, they should be free to marry who they want, right?
Hell at least their sex can produce offspring - survival of the species, it's natural
i think gay people should be able to live with whoever they choose, but marriage is ONE man and ONE woman. Gays can have civil unions or some other legal arrangement.
As far as "legislating morality", that's what or whole legal system is based on. "don't steal", "don't kill", "don't hurt others" and so on.
Let the backlash begin...
Judge Walker's ruling proves, however, that the American people were and are right to fear that too many powerful judges do not respect their views, or the proper limits of judicial authority.
Did our Founding Fathers really create a right to gay marriage in the U.S. Constitution? It is hard for anyone reading the text or history of the 14th Amendment to make that claim with a straight face, no matter how many highly credentialed and brilliant so-called legal experts say otherwise.
Judge Walker has added insult to injury by suggesting that support for marriage is somehow irrational bigotry, akin to racial animus. The majority of Americans are not bigots or haters for supporting the commonsense view that marriage is the union of husband and wife, because children need moms and dads..
Judge Walker's view is truly a radical rejection of Americans' rights, our history and our institutions that will only fuel a popular rebellion now taking place against elites who are more interested in remaking American institutions than respecting them.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz0vhFw2cD8
Divorce rates are higher in gay couples.
However when it comes to morals and for the children to be good productive people in society, it varies. I was fortunate enough to have good parents growing up(and I'm glad they have tried to allow me to be my own person while delivering their two cents on how to become a better man if need be).
This won't be closed until it goes in front of the Supreme Court, even if the 9th Circuit Court over rules it. Plus this was a vote of the people and therefore should not be able to be overturned. The Majority of California spoke in favor of it. That might have been the case, but there is always a chance the judge was nominated.
I have no problem with that. It's the title of Marriage that I have an issue with. Although I feel the lifestyle is immoral, I am not going to stop someone else from living it. Especially when Opposites are a part of life. And well, you need a member of the opposite sex to produce offspring. If gays want their own union, that's fine. It must be a Civil Union in my book.
Exactly, nothing says that morality(Whether it is produced by Religion or not) can not be taken into consideration for the creation of certain laws such as the ones mentioned about stealing, killing , hurting, etc. We have the chance to vote on certain laws for a reason and the rights of the people should be respected unless beyond a reasonable doubt this is unconstitutional. I don't have enough of a reason to believe that Prop 8 is not.
786 Ways to score touchdowns
So marriage is a respected institution now? And should only be held to the holiest of high standards that come between a man and a woman? Let's think about this for a second. Satanists can be married (as long as their straight), you can order a Russian bride online and make them your wife (as long as your a man), you can marry for money alone, you can marry for immigration purposes...heck you can even have someone who vaguely resembles Elvis marry you at a 24 hour drive thru quickie marriage center...as long as your straight. It's THAT sacred of an institution. It's so sacred of an institution that for about $4 I (someone who does not believe in God or the Devil) can go online, right now, and become an ordained minister and marry people.
Look...I'm ordained. All I have to do is take it to the courthouse, pay a few bucks, and make it official!
Let's quit pretending that allowing gays to marry is some sort of black mark on the "sacred" institution. That's bullshit. If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, cool...they don't have to. They can refuse them the same way a Catholic church would refuse my Pope hating ass. If a gay couple CAN find a church that is willing to marry them though, they should have the legal right to do so. Otherwise, they can go to a courthouse like the rest of us sinners. The government should stay out of the churches business the same way the church should stay out of the governments. That would make this whole debate null and void because there's no reason outside of religious scripture that would deem a ban on gay marriages necessary.
To address gay couples just getting civil unions...that would be great if civil unions carried the same legal status as a marriage. For instance, If one partner of a gay couple is arrested, the other partner (even in a civil union) can be forced to testify against them. Carefully drafted wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude one partner from a funeral or deny them the right to visit a partner's grave or hospital bed. As survivors, they can even sieze a real estate property that the partner's may have been buying together for years, quickly sell it at a huge loss and stick the other with the remaining debt on a property they no longer own. There are more, but these are examples of rights that gay couples are not afforded under civil unions...and that's bullshit.
Again, there is NO GOOD legal reason to not allow gay marriages. NONE. It's unconstitutional to ban it and I'd agree with every judge who voted the majority down on this issue. It's victimless and most people just don't like it because they think its icky and goes against their religious beliefs. That's just not a good enough reason to make a law against it.
/rant
Do you have some statistics to back this up? I've found quite a few sites in a reasonable amount of time that either say otherwise or state that there just isn't enough data yet to get a good figure.
http://community.beliefnet.com/go/th...Hetero_Divorce
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/08/07/2523
http://gaymarriage.lifetips.com/cat/...ics/index.html
Right...but you guys are comparing gay marriage (which harms no one) to killing people or stealing property (harmful crimes). Don't you understand the difference between the two? Wouldn't you think the courts should have to step in and do something if some town or state decided to legalize murder or theft? Or would you just let majority rule there as well? You can't use that as an example of passing a law that bans something that hurts no one.
Or is it?
My dad has one of those and has performed several weddings for friends.
I never understood this argument. I especially can't stand those that say "Next thing is they'll allow people to marry horses." Go on www.freerepublic.com (actually, don't go there) and every time gay marriage is brought up, somebody mentions legalized beastiality. First of all, homosexuality and beastiality are two very different things. Secondly, I don't know why they're so obssessed with the idea of marrying horses(wishful thinking maybe.)