lawrocket 3 #1 May 15, 2008 Link to the decision - 176 pages. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF Edited to add a simplification: California cannot deny same sex couples the right to "marry." QuoteWe therefore conclude that although the provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging upon a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution. From a Constitutional standpoint, what I think is MOST important: Quotewe conclude that strict scrutiny nonetheless is applicable here because (1) the statutes in question properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents — like gender, race, and religion —a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment, and (2) the differential treatment at issue impinges upon a same-sex couple’s fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple. Under the strict scrutiny standard, unlike the rational basis standard, in order to demonstrate the constitutional validity of a challenged statutory classification the state must establish (1) that the state interest intended to be served by the differential treatment not only is a constitutionally legitimate interest, but is a compelling state interest, and (2) that the differential treatment not only is reasonably related to but is necessary to serve that compelling state interest. So, what the court did was say that under the California Constitution, sexual to be treated under the law like race. No law can discriminate against a gay or lesbian in California. I've only made it through about 30 pages. But this is HUGE. The court seems to destroy the "Domestic Partnership" laws and say that gays and lesbians are entitled to marriage. Wow. I salute the California Supreme Court from a political point. I'll have to read the opinion more fully, though, before I can form a conclusion about whether the court did so in an activist fashion. Edited to add the final word: Quote"[W]e determine that the language of [Family Code] section 300 limiting 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. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by [Family Code] section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #2 May 15, 2008 in the long run, this is a done deal. In another 5 or 20 years, gay marriage will be legal in the country. but in the short run, this decision will cause quite the shit storm, like Rose Bird a long time back. The political future of Gavin Newsome stays bright. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #3 May 15, 2008 >In another 5 or 20 years, gay marriage will be legal in the country. Agreed. I think that our experience with gay marriages in Massachusetts, and now California, will put to rest the last myth propagated by marriage foes - "it will destroy the family." Once gays are able to marry freely, and society does not collapse, that argument will collapse of its own weight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #4 May 15, 2008 QuoteLet me make this very clear: I'm all for gay marriage. If we have to get married, they have to get married. They've been getting a free ride, way too long! -- Tom Arnold."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #5 May 15, 2008 This decision will of course be punished by GOD with an earthquake of great magnitude as he did to New Orleans with Katrina because there was going to be a Gay Pride parade. Just wanted in first with the prophecy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #6 May 15, 2008 I've got an idea: Exclude the government from the marriage business entirely. As for things where the government needs to be concerned, like visitation rights, inheritance, living wills, etc etc, here is my proposal: When you turn 18 you are allowed to assign one "legal associate". Before you get married that person could be a parent, or a sibling, or a close friend, or whatever you choose. That person gets all the rights/associations to those things in which the government needs to be concerned. In this way the government is out of the marriage business entirely & is only concerned with the mundane legal affairs. So the government would no longer be in a position to say yes or no to gay marriage. Government should not be our spiritual leader. so what do you all think? would this work? can you add any modifications that would make it work better? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #7 May 15, 2008 Did I just hear a loud roar of cheers coming out of San Francisco? "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymiles 3 #8 May 15, 2008 Great! I'll soon be able to marry that goat I've had my eye on. Make that several goats. No, no, no, make that several under aged goats. Slippery slope don't ya know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #9 May 15, 2008 Try sheep. They're more tame. And you need to get some velcro gloves. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #10 May 15, 2008 >so what do you all think? would this work? I'd be all for that. When we got married in NY, we visited town hall to get a 'marriage license' that was valid once signed by the priest. Have exactly the same process, just separate the two events. Go to town hall, get a "civil union" license and you are united in the eyes of the law. Then go to your favorite church and get married however you like. Or do it in the opposite order if you like. Or get married in a church but don't legalize it. Or get a legal union and don't get married. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aliveboy2004 0 #11 May 15, 2008 oh come on now - what's the chance of there being an earthquake in CA wait a second - did I just feel something shake?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #13 May 15, 2008 QuoteHave exactly the same process, just separate the two events. Go to town hall, get a "civil union" license and you are united in the eyes of the law. Then go to your favorite church and get married however you like. Why is the wording important? Either go get a legal marriage, go get a church marriage, or get both. What is changed by calling it a "civil union" instead of a "marriage"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base428 1 #14 May 15, 2008 Another sad day for those who value morals.... We might as well expand the definition of marriage to include animals, small children, and multiple spouses.(c)2010 Vertical Visions. No unauthorized duplication permitted. <==For the media only Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #15 May 15, 2008 Quote Great! I'll soon be able to marry that goat I've had my eye on. Make that several goats. No, no, no, make that several under aged goats. Slippery slope don't ya know. Comparing same-sex marriage to beastiality is pretty lame. And it's getting pretty old too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #16 May 15, 2008 Quote We might as well expand the definition of marriage to include animals, small children, and multiple spouses. Don't forget real dolls. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #17 May 15, 2008 I for one do not see anything wrong with it. In fact I see it as progress. First it was women. Then it was black people as well as other non-whites. And now its the gays. I mean come on....are they really THAT scary?www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mdrejhon 8 #18 May 15, 2008 Quote I for one do not see anything wrong with it. In fact I see it as progress. First it was women. Then it was black people as well as other non-whites. And now its the gays. I mean come on....are they really THAT scary? Just don't jump RW with me on freefly jumps just yet. Training to become a good flatflyer (just had my first 49-way two weeks ago), means my freefly suffers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #19 May 15, 2008 QuoteTraining to become a good flatflyer (just had my first 49-way two weeks ago), means my freefly suffers. disagree, body flying is body flying, any chance to excel in one helps skills progression in the other freefall disciplines - as long as one is aware of "how" they are moving the flow during practice and not just striking a body position and blindly allowing it to fly you ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #20 May 15, 2008 Quote I for one do not see anything wrong with it. In fact I see it as progress. First it was women. Then it was black people as well as other non-whites. And now its the gays. I mean come on....are they really THAT scary? Where do homosexuals get all their energy? You don't know. I don't know. And that is scary. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #21 May 15, 2008 Quote First it was women. Thats where the slippery slope started: allowing women to marry... Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AWL71 0 #22 May 15, 2008 QuoteAnother sad day for those who value morals.... We might as well expand the definition of marriage to include animals, small children, and multiple spouses. Well said.The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #23 May 15, 2008 Quote Quote First it was women. Thats where the slippery slope started: allowing women to marry... Yeah I know right? Men just get so stupid when the Vajayjay is flashed their way. And if its clittered....sheeeit....forget about it. www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #24 May 15, 2008 QuoteAnother sad day for those who value morals.... I value morals, and it's not a sad day for me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #25 May 15, 2008 Quote Quote Another sad day for those who value morals.... I value morals, and it's not a sad day for me. Of course not! You're one of those slippery sloped women who was allowed to marry! Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
