Simon left in time... :)

[bestfriend]

Alright here people. One thought, and one thought only! This is California we are talking about here. The laziest state in the nation. Well, at least on the continent, sorry Hawaii. This place is laid back. "Everything will work itself out." Thats the consensus around here. The problem with that? The people that vote are not the majority! The people that vote are the minority, the special interests groups. Think about that for a while, and how that influences what gets done around here. Thats all I have to say about that.

Edit - TDW thats priceless, I love that movie.

Edit again - What I said was "minority", what I meant was special interest groups, which are not such a minority around here.

[tdw]

Though this is probably more apt...at least for likes of me.....


YouTube - Welcome to Hell

[sailaway21]

Not all homos are happy about the decision.
Pajamas Media » Golden State Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down

[sailaway21]

The practical implications of the decision: Maggie Gallagher on California Supreme Court & Marriage on National Review Online

[tdw]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Not all homos are happy about the decision.
Pajamas Media » Golden State Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down

nor should they be.........


YouTube - Gay Christian

[erps]

I fail to see why it is that anyone other than the two people involved should have input as to the legality of their civil marriage . If homosexuality is not illegal , then why should civil homosexual marriage be barred ? The argument that this opens the gate to polygamy or underage marriage is an utter nonsense.

Why do you say that?

Isn't the court basically saying that if the state is going to allow one group of people to marry, they can't discriminate against another group? Isn't that the very core of the ruling?

I think it is, but I'll be the first to admit I haven't read the whole ruling. But if that is the reason behind the ruling, there are plenty of other groups of people who are also currently not allowed to marry by statute. If you were in one of those groups, why wouldn't you latch onto this ruling and say "hey, you let them get married, what about me?" From the article sailaway21 posted:

Polyamorists, Muslims, and breakaway heretical Mormons can expect to find at a minimum new comfort in this sweeping moral support (if not yet legal support) for the dignity of their own favored family relationships, since the right to marry is the right to have one’s family relationship officially recognized and accorded equal dignity.
Maggie Gallagher on California Supreme Court & Marriage on National Review Online

I think because of that reason that the state is eventually going to have to get out of the marriage business, because I don't think the state should be in the discrimination business.

And what if California changes their constitution to discriminate against gays again. Can a simple majority change the constitution to take away other rights of other groups? Can they vote another amendment like only hetrosexuals can vote? In a democracy, there need to be checks to protect the minority from the majority and I always thought that check was the constitution. Any constitutional scholars here that could esplain that to me?

[Valiente]

1958 version:

Wobbly's up to his usual old piffle again, I see. The Negroes already have the right to ride the buses in virtually all of the US, it is specifically riding in the front of them that is the issue. They are not content with just riding a bus, it has to be riding a bus up front with decent white folk. That the very definition of Jim Crow then becomes meaningless is not without consequences. The right for other lower orders to have their own definition of bus-seat riding rights would be just as permissible as "equal rights" under any broadening of bus riding's definition and the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

It's rather nice and all that our resident Negro-loving Communists and fellow travellers are so willing to allow us decent white folk to have our preference for the separation of the races left intact, but it's a misplaced concern-although appreciated. The equal rights movement wants education, voting, access to services, and once the state mandates that what they have is, in fact, "equality", the law suits against organizations like the Klan will begin.

This is just the latest in the on-going diatribe of the lower orders in their demands to be pronounced normal. Since that point is statistically absurd on the face of it, the only alternative is to then change the definition of normal along with a slew of other previously quite serviceable words.

Do not mistake this movement for an argument about human rights, it's much less than that.

[sailaway21]

I'll bet blacks are just thrilled with Val's equating the battle against racism with homosexuality. It's soft thinking though that equates the rights of man with rights based upon a conditional relationship. I'm born black and there's naught to be done to change that fact. I may be born homosexual (if you buy the genetic aspect of the argument) and I'm free to practise my homosexuality; I'm just not free to call it something it is not.

In one regard it's nice that Val chose 1958; it's far enough back in history to illuminate the fact that homosexuality has never been regarded as normal behavior, not even by it's practioners. And while the behavior has been unfailingly regarded as abberent, there has been a certain tolerance of it, the limits of which we might now be stretching. There's never been a consideration that the practise might equal marriage as marriage meant something very specifically different, something homosexual unions could never achieve.

[ebs001]

erps, it appears that all it takes in California to change their constitution is a simple majority on an initive. To change the Constitution of the US, is another matter. Both houses must pass the amendment by 2/3 majority. Then it goes to the states and 3/4 of them must ratify it. Usually there is a time limit placed on the ratification process and in order to avoid contraversial issues, for example the ERA, the states let time expire.
This will be a short lived victory for the gay and lesbian community because at the next opportunity Californians will vote to amend their constitution.

[erps]

Can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional, like if it conflicts with another amendment?