Funny you should say that. McDonald v. Chicago found the Chicago handgun ban to be....... Unconstitutional.

Proposition 8 has been ruled unconstitutional. Justice has won out over ignorance and hatred today.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_15677141?nclick_check=1

This thread comes to mind...

Anyone honestly believe an amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman wouldn't be attempted if the Tea Party held any power in the legislature?

Any odds on this ruling surviving? Not even sure the 9th will up hold it. Almost certain the SCOTUS will reverse it.

Hope I'm wrong but with he Con make up of the courts I don't see this standing.

Stranger things have happened. Just ask Arizona.

The SCOTUS might punt it, too. Either way, it is interesting to note the right's attitude towards "judicial activism" with respect to this issue vs. "Obamacare".

i'm pleased with the ruling.
i expect that conservative court-stacking---done of course in the name of preventing court-stacking with "activists"---could be a problem.

but for the moment, i would like to stand to the side and with some gusto tell the church of latter day saints to fuck itself.

and maybe now it's possible to dream up a way to get those fascists out of scouting.

Oh my god, you need to read the full text of the ruling. The judge holds nothing back.

Well, it's at least another step in the right direction.

I still like to hope that one day the entire United States will stop upholding the heterosexual monopoly on marriage.

One day at a time, I guess.

Wow, prop 8 wound up in front of a Judge? AND was overturned? Color me both shocked and dismayed.

Dismayed that we don't allow the tyranny of the majority to overrule the rights guaranteed by the Constitution? Color me disagree-with-you blue.

About time a good piece of news came out of that state. hear this piece of crap got over turned put a smile on my face.

Yes it is, but then he went and issued a stay on his own ruling.

The sooner to SCOTUS, the better. I don't see how anyone could concoct a Constitutional argument for excluding gays from "marriage". Generally, the court is split 5-4 conservative. My hope is that one of the five will have the courage to recognize the fact of the matter. I love arguing this issue with my socially conservative friends. Even the best of them can only hold off for about 30 minutes before confessing their objection is based soley on the fact that man/man love is just icky. As soon as you get them there, they won't argue anymore - primarily because they know the Constitution even protects the "icky".

the Republican butthurt (pun intended) today is great. Newt Gingrich is calling for "immediate action from Congress to define marriage as One Man/One Woman."

This from the guy who has had 2 divorces, 2 mistresses, and gave one wife the divorce papers while she was getting chemo from breat cancer

My friend who is the most vocal opponent to "gay marriage" is against it because she says inclusion of gays will destroy the institution of marriage.

She does not see the irony in that position considering she is an AVID watcher of the bachelor/bachelorette series. For those who are unfamiliar with the shows, they basically parade in candidates like cattle and let the "prize" fuck them all until he picks his bride. All of this occurs in front of a national TV audience. This, of course, does nothing to diminish the "sanctity of marriage".

I never understood this. It must come from a position of complete ignorance. I imagine these same people haven't actually met gay couples, let alone gay families.

As someone who has, I will tell you, gay marriage will only enrich the institution of marriage. This is because it leads to the inclusion of families that have been (or were) otherwise shut out based on sexual orientation.

If you ask me, the opposition to and the barring of gay marriage is an assault on the the concept of family.

No, no I think this is a great thing. Quite honestly I think it's ridiculous for this issue to be decided as a referendum anyway as it deals with rights of others that the majority shouldn't be voting on (tyranny of the masses and all that). Its just amazing to me that people didn't think the issue was going to wind up in front a judge and overturned from the very beginning.

Great ruling and I hope it gets the ball rolling for the rest of the country.

I worked with a guy who was so anti-gay "agenda" (as he put it) it really consumed way too much of his time, IMO. Oregon Citizens Alliance (anti-gay group) signs filled his lawn every election season. As a group we all went Reno one year. After a night of loosing cash and getting a little drunk at the tables most of us made our way to the nearest strip club. I found myself sitting next to him near the stage. At some point two girls came out on stage and started the bump-n-grind while removing most of their clothes. In Reno they don't (didn't?) get completely naked. They were required to leave their panties on by law. You can have prostitution- but strippers must leave their underwear on, whatever. Anyway these two girls started making out and preforming simulated sex on stage. I looked over at my co-worker and said "bet this makes you want to leave." "Why?" "Umm, because their behavior is pretty graphically homosexual." "No it's not... it's two chicks." Ok, I always thought you were a whack job, now I have no doubt.

It still amazes me that after all the time this issue has been in the public spotlight I've yet to hear one single compelling argument as to why gay marriage shouldn't be made legal. Not one single reason that doesn't boil down to "I don't like it" or its "gross". Its like the opposition isn't even trying build a case. Usually with any issue both sides can put together compelling arguments, you might disagree but at the very least they have something to work with, here you have nothing.

Its really something else that this issue has been around for so long considering how little the opposition has given us to work with. Really what are we actually debating about at this point? The right not to be creeped out by others?

This issue is going to make for some REALLY confused history students in about 100 years.

Tully - You should have replied, "I'll bet you'd let them get married..."

Yeah, put it right up there with, "Women weren't allowed to vote."

Oh, totally misunderstood you. Mea culpa.

Yeah I read back what I wrote and the sarcasm may not have come across very well considering I've seen that same statement used today by people who oppose gay marriage. The AUDACITY of that court!!! How dare they!!!!!

Anyway no worries. :)

the opposition's case is pretty clearly defined by Judeo-Christian "values" and "definitions"

I'm very glad of the ruling, but I'm doubtfull it will pass a SCOTUS ruling if it ever gets that far.

I'm not sure how SCOTUS could rule against it constitutionally, but I'm sure they'll try

Nah... we let them vote we just don't count them...

See, this whole thing with barring gay marriage but permitting civil unions reminds me of situations of patronizing exclusion: it's like they're making gay parents "sit at the kiddie table" when it comes to how people form families in American society.

Sure, gay parents can form a kind of union, just so long as is isn't a "real" union.

Actually, I take it back---it's worse than being put at the kiddie table. It's more like segregation, only it's not as painful to bear because it's invisible. But it's for this very same reason that it's easier to do. It's a kind of spiritual/familial segregation.

Many people are raised to value family, and marriage is usually a part of that. Think about how many of those who value marriage view heterosexual couples who have children out of wedlock or with only a civil union. Those who oppose gay marriage are basically saying that gay families aren't sanctioned by God and are, at best, as bad as having children out of wedlock or without a proper marriage. But there are many people (in Canada anyway) who view marriage from a largely secular position.

But it isn't that simple. I think many who oppose gay marriage also oppose gay parenting.

if you're going to play the Democracy game, seaver, you have to take account of the information context. the information provided people is the basis for their decisions, and in an actual Democracy---which obviously the united states is not---everyone knows that the information available is important. so it can't be---o what's the word---bullshit? you know, the sort of bullshit that has people all freaked out, enough to see in, say, two people who love each other who happen to be gay wanting to avail themselves of the civil benefits of marriage and to affirm in that way their committment to each other and maybe raise a family---you know, who want to do pretty much the same thing breeder couples want to do when they get married---a "threat to the institution of marriage"....

one of the few things about the us system that keeps it floating over the cesspool of information that it is in **way** too many areas is that what is voted on has to be constitutional or it will be thrown out in court.

The whole civil union thing flat out pisses me off. It pisses me off that Obama is trying to punt on this issue too. It smacks of "separate but equal." It is in no way equal. If heterosexuals are allowed to marry in a church that is willing to preform that marriage then homosexuals should have the same right. No punts no, give mes... equal rights for everyone even of you don't like their religious view or sexual orientation.

The fact that people like Limbaugh and Gingrich are so opposed to this is fucking unbelievable to me. You'd think people who have shit on the "institution of marriage" as many times as these two would keep their opinions on the matter to themselves. The day Rush comes out and demands all prescription drug abusers be jailed he should be taken off the air, permanently. No I'm not advocating a violence. Not a firing squad, just a firing.

Too late, sadly. Rush has yet to give up on that shit, despite being nailed coming back from the Bahamas, I think, carrying suitcases packed with various pain 'scrips and Viagra. I like Rush when he's being funny (and he can be a riot), but the rank, stinking hypocrisy of the man sticks to my nose-hairs like a greasy bad smell. At least Edwin Edwards was an honest crook.

Yes, but unlike the gay marriage issue I don't think Rush (a pill poppers name is Rush, still makes me laugh) is out there saying "lock all them pill poppers up!" How many times has this guy been married? Gingrich served his cancer ridden wife with divorce papers while she was in her hospital bed! It's insulting for these two, especially these two, to make comments about the 'institution of marriage"

Yeah I've never really understood that Tully, divorce and other issues surrounding marriage as we know it don't receive a 1000th of the ire the gay marriage issue has filled these people with. If they really cared about the sanctity of marriage I would think a few other pressing issues should be on their minds as well.

I just wish people would admit that they're bigots and move on, at least be honest about why your seething with hatred and anger over something that has virtually no effect on your life (well in some cases anyway, its amazing how many of the opponents of gay marriage have been outed over the last few years). Dancing around the issue by citing "sanctity of marriage" and how society as we know it will collapse if we redefine the word just comes across as a joke to the rest of us. Of course plain old bigotry isn't enough of a reason to ban anything these days so they spin these ridiculous issues in an attempt to give their position some kind of backbone.

We have soooooo many better things to spend our time on in my opinion. But as long as the bigots make it an issue I think it's a hurt full to us all so I'm willing to fight against it. It isn't freedom if it's only freedom for some. I remember back when the Iraq war first started there was a very real push of "you're either with us or... you're the enemy. Fuck you, you anti-American, terrorist loving POS! Whew, pass me some freedom fires." Can't I think you're fucking things up and still be American? It makes me sick every time I hear one of these hypocrites get up and make a speech shouting about freedom and how "real Americans" know and believe "X." No you shit head... real Americans believe all kinds of things and are made up of all kinds of different religions.

I can't even believe that with everything else we need to work on this is still an issue. Now I must go and make sure I have everything I need to make "freedom toast" in the morning.

Its astounding how easily people get hung up on this stuff isn't it? Gay marriage shouldn't even be an issue, it should have been nothing more then a wrinkle or hiccup in our system that needed to be addressed, fixed and put behind us. Instead this (and other needlessly complicated issues) consume the headlines, dominates the debates around elections, tie up our courts and govt offices and wastes tax payers money that could be better spent elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, this is an important issue that needs to be resolved, its just amazing how hard it is to find a resolution over what should amount to simply correcting the system to afford everyone the same rights (a value we supposedly hold very dear) so we can all move on to other pressing issues.

I'm sick of it, if there is one thing that will drive me out of the US for another country its our tendency to get so hung up on stuff like this and debate it endlessly while we spend decades and god knows how many millions of dollars trying to resolve it. This SHOULD be a lot simpler and US citizens shouldn't have to fight this hard for the most basic of equalities.

Damn...

...wheres that venting thread when I need it.

Are you kidding me?

If a federal judge ruled on Monday that it was unconstitutional to bar homosexuals from marriage, it would be an instant boon to the economy.

This should clear the path for the state to drop its law on polygamy as well.

The only thing I can see standing in the way of polygamy is the rather unimportant tax argument, the "what if everyone marries everyone to get tax breaks couples get?"

Polygamy is not in the same realm as Gay Marriage.

As far as I am aware, Polygamy is illegal, homosexuality is not. Homosexuals (given that their sexuality is not illegal) simply want the right to be married like everyone else. I certainly have no problem with that.

Marriage can easily be defined as a union between 2 people (of whatever gender).

On the other hand, who am I to say that a lucky guy like Ratbastid shouldn't be allowed to marry both his women.

I guess I really don't care what people do in the privacy of their own homes (other than to marvel at it).

Here's hoping.

Seriously.

Research how recent sodomy laws were abolished. Homosexuality hasnt always been legal.


Marriage can be easily defined? Research the history of it to where we are now. It sounds like youre bringing up the same argument with a different flavor.

Absolutely. Many culture around the globe would not bat an eye at Polygamy, in fact some would not look kindly on man with only one wife.

Why is stuff like this illegal. I mean the US is the "land of the free and home of the brave"... right?

so all homosexuals perform sodomy?

According to my porn, lesbians love it.

Just what exactly do you think sodomy is? Not exactly where I thought the direction this would go. Semantics can be friend or foe in here depending on one's mood Im guessing.

Homosexuals don't perform sodomy; sodomy is what homosexuals are accused of and arrested and punished for---sodomy refers to sexual practices that are deemed "unnatural," "unethical," or otherwise against God's will.

What is this, 1980?

I heard fellow on tv today explaining how this judge has forced sodomy on everybody in the state of California and if we're not careful it will be forced on all of us across the country.

I'll just let that stand on its own.

Wait, don't tell me: this was local news, amiright?

No, no I think it might have been CNN...maybe fox. I turned the tv on and caught the tail end of it, I didn't really pay attention to what channel it was, I know it wasn't local though. You don't tend to hear a lot of editorializing and debating on the local news here anyway.

I knew there was a reason why I don't watch television news.

I hear that, you turn it to get a quick run down of whats going on in the world and instead get beaten over the head with sensationalism and enough stupid to make the opponents of gay marriage blush (sorry couldn't resist).

Im not stating anyone here is, the lost point was viewing the hypocracy of lifting a ban on gay marriages without doing the same for consenting adults that want to marry more than one person. Is it OK to use the word gay?

I think polygamists should have the right to get marry into a group if they want to, I don't see the harm in it. As long as your not hurting anyone you should be able to build your family as you see fit, if group marriage is how some people want to go about it more power to them.

Divorces could be a bitch navigate through though.

Gay marriage gets the green light August 18th:

Judge gives the green light for same-sex marriage in California - CNN.com

That's fantastic.

If this gets pushed to the U.S. Supreme Court, I hope that helps pave the way to nationwide same-sex marriage.

That looks like where it is headed. Hopefully gay marriage will remain legal through the entire drawn out court case so that everyone can see that there are no negative consequences of it being legal.

A Supreme Court ruling Prop 8 as constitutionally valid would be essentially banning gay marriage nationwide, which I just can't imagine happening if it remains legal for any significant period of time.

so the ninth circuit court of appeals has about a week to review the appeal(s).
but the opinion from walker found them unlikely to carry the case and unable to demonstrate any harm would follow from allowing marriages to go forward while an appeal process was in motion. so this seems largely a courtesy to the federal court, yes?

i'm not a lawyer. i don't even play one on tv. but i read the text earlier announcing the delay until the 18th and that's what i gathered from it.

i have to say, this is pretty good. it'll be better when folk can marry next week. and just in time for my birthday. i think that's lovely.