California Supreme Court overturns ban on Gay marriage!
- Thread starter UPS Lifer
- Start date
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
Darn, I will be eating lunch by then.
Sorry, you will be wakened by the 29 virgins that were originally assigned to Osama. Hell, by the time we finally get him, he will be too old to know even what to do with them. Of course though, there is Joe, the camel, but I digress.
But wait, there is more, if you get up right away, and brush your teeth, we will include breakfast, and if you eat right quickly, we will double your reward, thats right, 58 virgins.
So, there you have it, up and atem inthe AM!
d
Sorry, you will be wakened by the 29 virgins that were originally assigned to Osama. Hell, by the time we finally get him, he will be too old to know even what to do with them. Of course though, there is Joe, the camel, but I digress.
But wait, there is more, if you get up right away, and brush your teeth, we will include breakfast, and if you eat right quickly, we will double your reward, thats right, 58 virgins.
So, there you have it, up and atem inthe AM!
d
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
Will get one of the guys on the firing squad to do it.
Probably the crosseyed one. the first 6 are still running, the one that was pissed off, still is, so no favors from him, and the brit? He is still at it with the gun and having just too much fun. So there you are.
d
Probably the crosseyed one. the first 6 are still running, the one that was pissed off, still is, so no favors from him, and the brit? He is still at it with the gun and having just too much fun. So there you are.
d
Geez, Lifer, funny you get upset about "holier than thou" people. Your whole post was about how you are holier than the rest of us.
And didn't you start this thread??? I'm not calling you a troll, but surely you must have known the reaction and replies it would get.
UPS Lifer
Well-Known Member
Thanks for pointing out the perception you have. I am trying to take a neutral position in the sense it is none of my business but I can see how it could come across the way you stated it. I guess that even taking a neutral position you are taking a position. DUH!
When I wrote the post stating "holier than thou", I actually was not thinking of any of the posters. I do not know anyone on a personal level so I can't relate those comments to any of you and how you live your life.
I was thinking of other folks I personally know where I can see multiple discrepancies in how they act, and what they say. The posts spark my mind to wonder to my personal dealings with folks outside BC.
I am sorry for the confusion. I do not want to come across as "holier than thou". I have a deep respect for people of high moral and religious character and respect their views. Those views come from commitment and discipline. I struggle daily with these issues and don't see myself on this level.
Thanks again for your candid views! I appreciate it!
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
Actually when the conversation gets to a no win, no loss situation, then sometimes its best to let a bit of humor ease the subject.
I do have to remind myself that there is a difference between those that are looking to form a union with someone of the same sex for life, those creatins that choose to have sex in bathrooms (such a large problem in some areas that they have taken the doors off the stalls), public places etc. These are usually the ones that are in the fore front shouting for their rights. Not usually the people that want to live thier lives quietly in peace together.
So pardon me if I have lumped you all together.
d
I do have to remind myself that there is a difference between those that are looking to form a union with someone of the same sex for life, those creatins that choose to have sex in bathrooms (such a large problem in some areas that they have taken the doors off the stalls), public places etc. These are usually the ones that are in the fore front shouting for their rights. Not usually the people that want to live thier lives quietly in peace together.
So pardon me if I have lumped you all together.
d
dilligaf
IN VINO VERITAS
Tooner you are way too funny. Thanks for the laugh.UPSLIFER, I understand your thoughts, and respect them.
I think Dilligaf and Dannyboy are flirting.
When they are joined as one can we call them Dilliboy
UPS Lifer
Well-Known Member
I was reading Browniehound's comment in another thread and realized that we grow up with a strong notion of what marriage is all about. Most of us carry this into adult life and possibly cement those feelings in our own marriage.
I personally do not believe that marriage is about the pro-creation of children. Though, this is a strong argument as to why (in our society) marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
My personal belief is that marriage is about honor, love, commitment and sacrifice. Children may or may not be part of the grand scheme of things. However, when it comes to my own marriage, it is probably as traditional as it comes other than my wife did work part of the time while the boys were growing up!
These comments below give more perspective on how the decision was reached. I think it is worth looking at. There is also a dissenting view from another judge.
California Judge Defends Gay Marriage Decision
California Chief Justice Ronald George, a lifelong Republican, said his decision to vote in favor of overturning the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was the toughest of his career.
It’s also become one of the most controversial.
George, 68, wrote the 121-page state Supreme Court ruling that struck down the gay marriage ban.
“The 4-3 decision, which George calls the toughest of his career. . .will define his legacy as chief justice,” the San Jose Mercury News observed.
Writing for the majority, Judge George declared: “We determine that the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples."
George said the 1948 California Supreme Court ruling in Perez v. Sharp, which outlawed a ban on interracial marriage, weighed heavily on his decision to overturn the gay marriage ban.
He defended his decision by saying that California’s Constitution dictated the outcome.
He wrote in his decision that "an individual's sexual orientation — like a person's race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."
The legal world is abuzz over the decision by George’s court, the first to protect gays with the same civil rights laws that apply to race, religion, or gender, the Mercury News reported.
“The decision took a great deal of courage and leadership,” said University of California-Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law professor Stephen Barnett.
Not everyone is as complimentary as Barnett.
Eight years ago, 4,618,673 California voters — 61 percent of those casting ballots — approved an initiative that stated: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Robert P. George, a Princeton University professor of jurisprudence, said about the new court ruling: "It looks like a fairly conventional liberal judicial activist decision. These guys had the votes, and they rammed it through. They don't regard the will of the people of California as worthy of their particular concern."
Justice Marvin Baxter, a Republican on the court, wrote a dissenting opinion that accused the court of substituting "its own social policy views for those expressed by the people."
Presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain, long opposed to gay marriage and civil unions, appeared on Thursday’s "The Ellen DeGeneres Show” and said he disagrees with the California decision, but wishes DeGeneres all the best as she makes plans to walk down the aisle with her girlfriend, actress Portia de Rossi.
“I just believe in the unique status of marriage between man and woman,” McCain said.
The conservative Alliance Defense Fund said it would ask the justices for a stay of the decision until after the fall election in hopes of adding California to the list of 26 states that have approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, according to The Associated Press.
"We're obviously very disappointed in the decision,” said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the organization. “The remedy is a constitutional amendment.”
The decision is not the first controversial one George has handed down. In 1996, he wrote the majority decision for a ruling overturning a California law requiring minors to get parental consent before having an abortion.
“As a result, angry social conservatives moved to oppose George’s election in 1998, forcing him to raise more than $1 million to campaign,” the Mercury News disclosed.
George’s current 12-year term is up in 2010.
The decision supports my view that this is more about equality than anything else. When you break it down and look at who we are as human beings without all the titles, labels, status and "things" we are all the same. We are born with nothing and leave this world with nothing. This makes us equal. When we start feeling that someone else is less worthy of the tittle of marriage, I feel we are showing superiority to that person because our belief is more important or more normal than your belief. This is where I have to draw a line in the sand and say that Gay & Lesbian as well as any person who is different than me because of religious or ethnicity is equal to me and has the same rights and privileges that I have. In the context of the law and my own personal beliefs I have to support the CA Supreme Court decision.
If the will of the people feel that it is necessary to change the law and they can muster the support, I will respect that decision as well. I will not support that position.
If I was a Gay or Lesbian person living in California and the law changed against marriage, I would move out of the state and go somewhere where I could live within my beliefs.
My marriage is bound in Heaven and no Gay or Lesbian marriage can diminish what I have with my wife. So... I will support their cause but probably not with the same passion they have.
I personally do not believe that marriage is about the pro-creation of children. Though, this is a strong argument as to why (in our society) marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
My personal belief is that marriage is about honor, love, commitment and sacrifice. Children may or may not be part of the grand scheme of things. However, when it comes to my own marriage, it is probably as traditional as it comes other than my wife did work part of the time while the boys were growing up!
These comments below give more perspective on how the decision was reached. I think it is worth looking at. There is also a dissenting view from another judge.
California Judge Defends Gay Marriage Decision
California Chief Justice Ronald George, a lifelong Republican, said his decision to vote in favor of overturning the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was the toughest of his career.
It’s also become one of the most controversial.
George, 68, wrote the 121-page state Supreme Court ruling that struck down the gay marriage ban.
“The 4-3 decision, which George calls the toughest of his career. . .will define his legacy as chief justice,” the San Jose Mercury News observed.
Writing for the majority, Judge George declared: “We determine that the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples."
George said the 1948 California Supreme Court ruling in Perez v. Sharp, which outlawed a ban on interracial marriage, weighed heavily on his decision to overturn the gay marriage ban.
He defended his decision by saying that California’s Constitution dictated the outcome.
He wrote in his decision that "an individual's sexual orientation — like a person's race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."
The legal world is abuzz over the decision by George’s court, the first to protect gays with the same civil rights laws that apply to race, religion, or gender, the Mercury News reported.
“The decision took a great deal of courage and leadership,” said University of California-Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law professor Stephen Barnett.
Not everyone is as complimentary as Barnett.
Eight years ago, 4,618,673 California voters — 61 percent of those casting ballots — approved an initiative that stated: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Robert P. George, a Princeton University professor of jurisprudence, said about the new court ruling: "It looks like a fairly conventional liberal judicial activist decision. These guys had the votes, and they rammed it through. They don't regard the will of the people of California as worthy of their particular concern."
Justice Marvin Baxter, a Republican on the court, wrote a dissenting opinion that accused the court of substituting "its own social policy views for those expressed by the people."
Presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain, long opposed to gay marriage and civil unions, appeared on Thursday’s "The Ellen DeGeneres Show” and said he disagrees with the California decision, but wishes DeGeneres all the best as she makes plans to walk down the aisle with her girlfriend, actress Portia de Rossi.
“I just believe in the unique status of marriage between man and woman,” McCain said.
The conservative Alliance Defense Fund said it would ask the justices for a stay of the decision until after the fall election in hopes of adding California to the list of 26 states that have approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, according to The Associated Press.
"We're obviously very disappointed in the decision,” said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the organization. “The remedy is a constitutional amendment.”
The decision is not the first controversial one George has handed down. In 1996, he wrote the majority decision for a ruling overturning a California law requiring minors to get parental consent before having an abortion.
“As a result, angry social conservatives moved to oppose George’s election in 1998, forcing him to raise more than $1 million to campaign,” the Mercury News disclosed.
George’s current 12-year term is up in 2010.
The decision supports my view that this is more about equality than anything else. When you break it down and look at who we are as human beings without all the titles, labels, status and "things" we are all the same. We are born with nothing and leave this world with nothing. This makes us equal. When we start feeling that someone else is less worthy of the tittle of marriage, I feel we are showing superiority to that person because our belief is more important or more normal than your belief. This is where I have to draw a line in the sand and say that Gay & Lesbian as well as any person who is different than me because of religious or ethnicity is equal to me and has the same rights and privileges that I have. In the context of the law and my own personal beliefs I have to support the CA Supreme Court decision.
If the will of the people feel that it is necessary to change the law and they can muster the support, I will respect that decision as well. I will not support that position.
If I was a Gay or Lesbian person living in California and the law changed against marriage, I would move out of the state and go somewhere where I could live within my beliefs.
My marriage is bound in Heaven and no Gay or Lesbian marriage can diminish what I have with my wife. So... I will support their cause but probably not with the same passion they have.
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
Dear sir
As a smart individual, you would be the first to admit that there are some issues with your post that are not kosher to the rest.
First off, when you read the reason the judge voted the way he did, he mentioned that there was law that weighed heavy on his mind. That of inter-racial relationships. That between a man and woman of different races. Not that of people of the same sex. Big difference. To try and equate racial equality with that of homosexual equality is a real stretch of the imagination. Something this judge seems willing to do.
To override the will of the majority on issues is contrary to the constitution, something this judge swore to uphold. It also seems that there are enough people with deep pockets to keep him on the bench in California. Activists that want a judge they can pay off to rule in their favor, and against the will of the majority of the population.
Laws in favor of the minority, against the majority. Rulings against the constitutional basis of law. Sounds like something every one ought to support.
California's population have given the rest of the USA some wonderful propositions in the past, three strikes and your off the street comes to mind. And yet after the people of california have spoken, along comes seven men to overturn the will of the people.
And you support that? Forget about what they overruled, the fact that they overruled anything is appalling to me. And to apply their version of what they think the constitution says, instead of what it actually says......
d
As a smart individual, you would be the first to admit that there are some issues with your post that are not kosher to the rest.
First off, when you read the reason the judge voted the way he did, he mentioned that there was law that weighed heavy on his mind. That of inter-racial relationships. That between a man and woman of different races. Not that of people of the same sex. Big difference. To try and equate racial equality with that of homosexual equality is a real stretch of the imagination. Something this judge seems willing to do.
To override the will of the majority on issues is contrary to the constitution, something this judge swore to uphold. It also seems that there are enough people with deep pockets to keep him on the bench in California. Activists that want a judge they can pay off to rule in their favor, and against the will of the majority of the population.
Laws in favor of the minority, against the majority. Rulings against the constitutional basis of law. Sounds like something every one ought to support.
California's population have given the rest of the USA some wonderful propositions in the past, three strikes and your off the street comes to mind. And yet after the people of california have spoken, along comes seven men to overturn the will of the people.
And you support that? Forget about what they overruled, the fact that they overruled anything is appalling to me. And to apply their version of what they think the constitution says, instead of what it actually says......
d
before i retired from brown i delivered to some gay couples.if it was a women i would say mam.a man i would say sir.have a nice day just like i would say to anyone else.i'am not in favor of gay marriages(100%againstbut i still respect them like anyone else.i wasn't born to judge people.(i do belive thre was only one man who ever walked this earth who was perfect.that's why he died for all of us.i have made mistakes in my life to.
UPS Lifer
Well-Known Member
2 points I would like to make about your comments...
The Supreme Court is duty bound to uphold the constitution. They interpret and rule on what the intent is. Their job is not to interpret the constitution based on popular thought or what the majority of voters think it should be.
It is not an accurate science and the constitution is not a perfect document! When the will of the people seem to be in jeopardy than the course of action should be to take steps to amend the constitution to reflect what the will of the people determine.
As for your other comment tainting the reputation of this judge because he does not agree with you on this issue is in very poor taste. Unless you can prove that this judge accepts "pay offs" from activists, then the comments you made are a personal attack against this individual and are offensive.
Dannyboy, you are better than that.
I can tell you that if the will of the majority decides to amend the constitution to make marriage just between a man and a woman than I will respect that decision. I don't agree with it and certainly feel it will be a setback in our evolution as a species.
I am also very optimistic that most Californians do not have this issue stuck in their gut and will let it pass without overturning the decision through the legislative process. Only time will tell on this one!
Y
yogini
Guest
I am one of the people the marriage laws affects in a very personal way. My partiner and I will be celebrating our 23rd year together this year. We got married in SF in 2004 and watched that get annulled. This June we will again go to City Hall and get married. All the while we are domestic partners.
When my partner or should I say my fiancee and I went to City Hall to sign up for dometic partners there was another couple there a man and a women applying for a marriage license. I felt a sting of hurt in my heart. Yes, it is true, the state considers me and my partner second class citizens.
Heterosexuals have a term "Just living together" which implies that you are are have sexual relations, living in the same dwelling, but just living together is NOT THE SAME COMMITTMENT as marriage. We are asking that our relationship of 23 years be considered on a par with your relationship. In my heart, I love my partner and consider our bond the closest I have ever known with another person.
Please - Please - Please support our committment as we have joined you in your various civil rights issues.
Thank you. Yogini
When my partner or should I say my fiancee and I went to City Hall to sign up for dometic partners there was another couple there a man and a women applying for a marriage license. I felt a sting of hurt in my heart. Yes, it is true, the state considers me and my partner second class citizens.
Heterosexuals have a term "Just living together" which implies that you are are have sexual relations, living in the same dwelling, but just living together is NOT THE SAME COMMITTMENT as marriage. We are asking that our relationship of 23 years be considered on a par with your relationship. In my heart, I love my partner and consider our bond the closest I have ever known with another person.
Please - Please - Please support our committment as we have joined you in your various civil rights issues.
Thank you. Yogini
Congratulations on 23 years
!I hope everything works out for you this time around. It's long overdue in my opinion.
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
Well now that is an interesting spin on the subject. The further evolution of a species by the pairing off of two same sex partners instead of male/female.
As for judges that are activists instead of judges, my statement stands. How does a judge raise millions to stay in his position, unless he intends to make that back/or those that contributed get something back in return.
You think UPS contributes as much as it does because they just like giving money away?
Please......
d
ImpactedTSG
Well-Known Member
Civil rights? Where in the Bill of Rights does it say that same sex marriage is a right? If you choose to be gay, then you take whatever stigma mainstream America puts on it. If I grow a mohawk and get tattoos all over my face and I get discriminated against, then that was my own fault for choosing to do that. If you want to be in that sort of relationship, you should not be worrying about how I judge you. I would be worrying about how God will judge you. Live how you want, but don't expect that it is YOUR RIGHT to have everyone agree with it.
Similar threads
