Archive for Friday, May 16, 2008
Ruling on gay marriage may reach into November
May 16, 2008
Advertisement
On the street
Do you agree with the California State Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the state’s same-sex marriage ban?
I agree with it. It was an idiotic law to make in the first place. It is the land of the free except for you, and you, and you? We shouldn’t be afraid of our differences. They make us stronger.
San Francisco — California’s Supreme Court declared that gay couples in the nation’s biggest state can marry — a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of matrimony.
Same-sex couples could tie the knot in as little as a month. But the window could close soon after — religious and social conservatives are pressing to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.
“Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law,” declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case along with her partner. She added: “We’re going to get married. No Tupperware, please.”
A crowd of people raised their fists in triumph inside City Hall, and people wrapped themselves in the rainbow-colored gay-pride flag outside the courthouse. In the Castro, long the center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt wept as he watched the news on TV.
“I’ve been waiting for this all my life. This is a life-affirming moment,” he said.
By the afternoon, gay and lesbian couples had already started lining up at San Francisco City Hall to make appointments to get marriage licenses. In West Hollywood, supporters planned to serve “wedding cake” at an evening celebration.
James Dobson — chairman of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, which has spent thousands of dollars to get the measure on the ballot — called the ruling an outrage.
“It will be up to the people of California to preserve traditional marriage by passing a constitutional amendment. ... Only then can they protect themselves from this latest example of judicial tyranny,” he said in an e-mailed statement.
In its 4-3 ruling, the Republican-dominated high court struck down state laws against same-sex marriage and said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.
“In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation,” Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.
Massachusetts in 2004 became the first, and so far only, state to legalize gay marriage; more than 9,500 couples have taken advantage of the law. But the California ruling is considered monumental by virtue of the state’s size — 38 million out of a U.S. population of 302 million — and its historical role as the vanguard of many social and cultural changes that have swept the country since World War II.
California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households, according to 2006 census figures.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has twice vetoed legislation that would have granted marriage to same-sex couples, said in a statement that he respected the court’s decision and “will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”
Top ads RSS
- Get on Board! Now training School Bus Drivers and Attendants! ...
- ATTENTION EARLY BIRDS... Are you enthusiastic about making people smile ...
- Full time Guest Service Agent 2nd Shift Part time Guest ...
- MWI Veterinary Supply Co. seeks warehouse workers to pick/pack/ship in ...
- KU Continuing Education
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Businesses say 23rd and Iowa repaving project hurting their bottom line July 8, 2008 · 25 comments
- Radical founders July 8, 2008 · 100 comments
- Police outline events of killing July 7, 2008 · 79 comments
- Barbecue joint ready to move into old Bucky's location July 7, 2008 · 111 comments
- $4 gas comes to town July 8, 2008 · 14 comments
- Study: Military gays don’t undermine cohesion July 8, 2008 · 15 comments
- Douglas County commissioners considering mill increase in 2009 budget July 7, 2008 · 18 comments
- Fall surprise? July 7, 2008 · 139 comments
- Motorists, cyclists share responsibility July 6, 2008 · 131 comments
- Weblog: Backyard Fence Blog: 2 b continued here and now! May 21, 2008 · 424 comments
- Police outline events of killing July 7, 2008
- Window peeper on Tennessee Street reported July 8, 2008
- A dandy pro debut July 8, 2008
- Two questioned in connection with crime spree, police chases in Jefferson County July 8, 2008
- Barbecue joint ready to move into old Bucky's location July 7, 2008
- Scientists: Watermelon yields Viagra-like effects July 7, 2008
- City plan affects 3,000 rentals July 8, 2008
- Doctors recommend cholesterol drugs for some 8-year-olds July 7, 2008
- Communication camp helps youngsters learn self-expression July 7, 2008
- Bush has dug a deep hole for the nation July 3, 2008
16 May 2008 at 2:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
situveux1 (Anonymous) says…
The biggest and best thing that could have happened to Republicans in November. Nothing gets out conservatives like gay marriage.
16 May 2008 at 7:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
I bet Utah is looking forward to the changing times!
16 May 2008 at 8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
storm (Anonymous) says…
Heteros need to speak out more about the injustice of paying a marriage tax while gay couples get off scot-free. Hope the ruling sticks. Dobson, mind your own business.
16 May 2008 at 9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
malcolm_x_obama (Anonymous) says…
It's about time, imagine waking up every day knowing that simply because of the person you choose to love, you'll have to file your taxes differently than everyone else. Hitler did the exact same thing to the Jews! It's a cruel indignity no human being should be forced to endure.
Caring for a sick loved one is also something we all take for granted, but in most states gays can't visit other gays in the hospital. It's against the law! What if the only person you ever loved was on their death bed, and you weren't even allowed to be at their side in their final moments to say, “Gosh, I'm sorry I gave you AIDS”? It's hard for us insensitive heterosexuals to envision such a nightmare, but it's a terrible reality that members of the deeply passionate and overly dramatic Gay Community suffer through every day.
The California Supreme Court has finally removed the tiny “except for gays” asterisk on their state's Bill of Rights with this nifty new law they've written despite public opinion. I pray to a gender-neutral Gaia that a more progressive SCOTUS under President Obama follows suit and legalizes same-sex marriage nationwide - centuries of tradition and the moral fabric of society be damned. Of course President Obamajad may impose Sharia Law and then we won't have any gays, just like Iran.
16 May 2008 at 9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
Another blow to traditional marriage and families. Too bad.
16 May 2008 at 9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Why are you so insecure about your marriage, STRS? Is your spouse that eager to dump you?
16 May 2008 at 9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…
“Another blow to traditional marriage and families.
Too bad.”
No, STTR, that would be divorce.
16 May 2008 at 9:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
malcolm_x_obama (Anonymous) says…
Leave the Mormon fundamentalists alone!!!
Plural marriage should be legalized too. I'd love to purchase ….er.. I mean sponsor a couple of 20 year old Filipino honeys. Everyone for gay marriage is good with that?
16 May 2008 at 10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RonaldWilson (Anonymous) says…
So, let me see, a few people in black robes can undo what over 61% of the people decided. Hmmm… doesn't seem like democracy to me. It smacks of tyrrany. That's the biggest problem with this story. That is more damaging than redefining marriage. No one even flinches when “the people” are silenced and their will is quashed. Judges should be picked at random and serve 30 day terms, not unlike jury duty.
16 May 2008 at 10:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…
No caring parent would ever want to raise a child in some parts of California in this day and age.
16 May 2008 at 10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says…
“Judges should be picked at random and serve 30 day terms, not unlike jury duty.” - ronaldwilson
Wow, that is a well thought out, deep, highly educated idea. Why haven't our leaders figured that one out? Ridiculous…
16 May 2008 at 10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
duplenty (Anonymous) says…
“Just before Rome fell, they legalized drugs, sodomy, and abolished slavery.”
So, harderfaster is a fan of slavery?
'Another blow to traditional marriage and families. Too bad.”
Uh huh. How?
“So, let me see, a few people in black robes can undo what over 61% of the people decided.”
I'm not sure that you can characterize the Supreme Court as a “few people in black robes”…you will recall that the SCOTUS determined the outcome of the 2000 elections…I don't recall seeing you moaning over that decision.
“No caring parent would ever want to raise a child in some parts of California in this day and age.”
Heaven forfend!!! Thankfully, no one is forcing you to do any such thing. It's a good thing there are no gay people in Kansas!
16 May 2008 at 11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says…
“No caring parent would ever want to raise a child in some parts of California in this day and age.” - cato
Except the millions upon millions of people that do already…you must be morally superior Cato, all hail Cato, knower of right and wrong, infallible in every way, lover of mankind, (but not mankind that loves men). Thanks for your enlightened, educated and carefully thought out propositions, your brilliance shines a light upon all you touch, and your humility is unrivaled. Bless Cato as he doesn't bless others…
16 May 2008 at 11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
malcolm_x_obama (Anonymous) says…
AA,
If a test could determine a genetic marker for homosexuality and the mother tests her unborn baby and finds that it has the marker do you support her decision to abort that tissue growth in her womb?
16 May 2008 at 11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says…
Only if it was going to be a log-cabin republican…
16 May 2008 at 11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
duplenty (Anonymous) says…
set, match to anxiousatheist.
As you've had your a$$ handed to you, you may retire for the day, MxO.
16 May 2008 at 12:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Confrontation (Anonymous) says…
With the divorce rate being 50% or higher, there's not much that's “special” or “sacred” about marriage.
16 May 2008 at 12:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says…
There is nothing sacred about “sacred”…People use these emotional terms as if they means something…they don't…
16 May 2008 at 1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RonaldWilson (Anonymous) says…
There is nothing sacred about “sacred”…People use these emotional terms as if they means something…they don't… —aa
Ah there's the deep thought out wisdom we've heard so much about. All hail the anxious athiest. And, why so anxious? There's nothing to look forward to after you shuffle off this mortal coil. Tell us, great sage, more little know things “people” do.
16 May 2008 at 1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RonaldWilson (Anonymous) says…
anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says…
Only if it was going to be a log-cabin republican…
Hypocrisy is truly the lefty's only undying principal. Their only responsibilty to their cause is to be hypocritical.
And as I've said before, once they identify the gay gene, all homosexuals will be pro-life. They can't reproduce, so they must have our gay children to keep the dating pool full.
16 May 2008 at 2 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says…
“And as I've said before, once they identify the gay gene, all homosexuals will be pro-life. They can't reproduce, so they must have our gay children to keep the dating pool full.” - Ronald Mcdonald
That is so interesting, your snide, ridiculous “premises” somehow find fertile soil in the barren wasteland we'll call your brain. No matter how you word your ideas, it's quite obvious you are afraid of homosexuality. I'm not sure why, probably your upbringing, but your parents probably weren't exactly “pillars of society”, so I won't blame you. Anyway, I'm the messenger so I'm ready to be attacked, and I won't hold my breath in regard to actual intellectual conversation…
16 May 2008 at 3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Alyosha (Anonymous) says…
Newsflash!
Those CA judges do face voters:
http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/…
There's nothing undemocratic about judges holding legislators to the ultimate rule of law, the constitution, either a state's or the US Constitution.
It's really quite an easy concept: constitutions limit what even legislatures can do (that's why the Constitution says “Congress shall pass no law….”).
That's what the judges in this case did.
16 May 2008 at 3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
vpete69 (Anonymous) says…
I could care less about gay marriage. I personally do not support it, but I dont think it should be the government's responsibility to decide on who is allowed to marry and who isn't.
Here is where I have a problem: I have a problem with a court overturning a decision made by the people. That is the exact definition of communist government. I believe the ban on gay marriage could be unconstitutional, so I'm not going to show too much dislike of the system in this case.
I also have a problem with the typical supporters of liberal agenda contradicting their entire belief system by supporting court decisions such as this. What would they say if the people of California voted 61% in favor to ban guns throughout the state, and then the court came through and said, “sorry, but this ban is unconstitutional” (which it would be) and overturned it? I'm sure the liberals would be screaming bloody f'n murder.
See what I mean. To the liberals, the constitution only gives rights to them. Which is again, a contradiction in itself.
16 May 2008 at 3:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says…
If the people make laws that are unconstitutional, then yes they must be overturned. We can not rely on the whims of the populace to create thoughtful, prudent laws. This is why we have people who study law and know what is constitutional, (or not). These people make sure “gang rule” doesn't take place, as this is what the anti-gay marriage platform is, hatred towards a section of society with purpose to deligitimize their American-experience. Judges don't make laws, they challenge the legality of the laws in reference to the contstitution in place at the time. Duh…
16 May 2008 at 3:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
duplenty (Anonymous) says…
“I have a problem with a court overturning a decision made by the people. That is the exact definition of communist government”
Wow! That's a really ignorant statement. Our entire legal framework is organized around the idea of the court examining the relationship between the legislative process and the constitution.
Americans in general (and vpete69 specifically) are not too sharp when it comes to the constitution…see any number of retarded ideas that have passed any number of legislatures across the country…thus we need people (i.e. judges) to examine the ideas that lay people vote on as to whether they are, in fact consitutional.
16 May 2008 at 3:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beobachter (Anonymous) says…
vpete, why don't you spend some time reading and attempting to understand our constitution. Specifically why we have 3 branches and what each branch's function is.
16 May 2008 at 3:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
vpete69 (Anonymous) says…
Tell me, Dub, AA and beo….how would you react if a state banned the possession of firearms? Dont tell me how you 'should' react….tell me how YOU “would” actually react.
16 May 2008 at 3:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beobachter (Anonymous) says…
think it a good idea, stop some of the gun nuts from killing people, normally family members, friends, etc. What exactly would be my reaction, relief that finally some common sense is coming into play.
16 May 2008 at 4:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
vpete69 (Anonymous) says…
Beo, thank you for the proving my point.
You believe everyone who owns a gun is a danger, and dont believe in the 2nd amendment which protects the right to own guns.
And some believe that homosexuals are a danger to their children and a degradation to the morals that this country was founded upon.
You are completely fine with supporting overturning the ban on gay marriage because of its unconstitutionality (which I also believe), but then you will spit on the constitution when it overturns a gun ban. Wow. And you call us 'gun nuts' and 'bigots'. Tell me, how do your beliefs place you above the 'bigot' line?
16 May 2008 at 4:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says…
“And some believe that homosexuals are a danger to their children…” - vpete69
Yea, but those peoples opinions are based on irrational fear, we can't make laws based on ignorance…What we do know, (and is a rational fear), is that the more guns there are, the more gun deaths there are. Equating gun control and homosexual control is a dubious proposition. One is a safety concern, the other is bigotry based on cave-man philosophy.
16 May 2008 at 4:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beobachter (Anonymous) says…
pete, I simply don't believe the Constitution gives an individual the right to total un-regulated gun possession. That's why, hopefully the SC will at last make a definitive ruling and at least then we all can be on the same page. And before you rant an rave, I've owned guns all my life and don't see a problem with some regulation.
16 May 2008 at 4:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
duplenty (Anonymous) says…
“Tell me, Dub, AA and beo….how would you react if a state banned the possession of firearms?”
You are not too bright, are you, pete? I matters not *at all* how I, or anyone else, would react.
The issue is that any attempt by a state to ban firearms would violate the 2nd Amendment, and be found to be unconstitutional.
Kinda like the gay marriage ban.
I'm sorry that our public school system has failed you so incredibly.
16 May 2008 at 4:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cg22165 (Anonymous) says…
Tyranny? Majority? Democracy?
Yeah, the majority has never been wrong, ever. Should we make a list of things the majority has _not_ been wrong about?
Our system (sometimes) works because there are ways of regulating how much the majority imposes their will on the minority. And, don't try to twist this around to a minority imposing their will on the majority; what the minority does in this case has _no_ effect on the majority. I'm married and straight (just happen to be that way; doesn't mean anything, any more than the color of my eyes means something) and this example of the majority feels absolutely no impact from allowing Bill and Bob or Jill and Jane to marry.
16 May 2008 at 5:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cg22165 (Anonymous) says…
“James Dobson — chairman of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family..”
Oh yeah, let's let our laws be based on purely religious beliefs. That's never caused any trouble, has it?
Could it be any more apparent that those who are opposed to this ruling are upset because they can't impose their religious beliefs on everyone else?
16 May 2008 at 9:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
akt2 (Anonymous) says…
Malcom X Obama
How is it illegal for a gay person to visit a sick gay person in the hospital? How would anyone know or be able to screen these visits? Only if the next of kin to the sick person had a request to deny certain visitors.
17 May 2008 at 1:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Defender (Anonymous) says…
“I have a problem with a court overturning a decision made by the people. That is the exact definition of communist government.”
Maybe you should educate yourself before speaking.
19 May 2008 at 10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
vpete69 (Anonymous) says…
Beo, show me an example of a gun ban resulting in less gun violence.
From 2005-2007, 70 million firearms were sold in the United States and gun crime dropped by 4.2 percent nationwide.
Since the 1976 DC gun ban, DC has had one of the highest violent crime rates in the country…every year since. Gun crime rates in DC are over 14 per 100,000 while the rest of the country averages about 4.5 per 100,000. Its the same story in Chicago.
I'm all for reasonable regulations on firearms. There are plenty of people who shouldnt be able to own them. But penalizing the law abiding gun owners (who account for about 99.5% of the population) for the crimes committed by the other .05%, to most of us is not a reasonable regulation. And in EVERY city/state/country where a gun ban has been in effect, crime rates go UP.
So, I urge you to show me where you get your facts for the “more guns = more crime” emotion.
19 May 2008 at 10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
vpete69 (Anonymous) says…
I meant my previous post to go to Anxiousatheist.