Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire California's ban on "Same Sex Marriage" ????

California=the land of fruits and nuts, even the weather is queer.

That's one of the differences between living in a Republic and a democracy. We don;t have mob rule.

If the majority of the population voted to bring back slavery, would that be OK? Or how about creating a state religion? or if the majority of voters favored a complete gun ban.

The reality is that married couples are treated differently than unnmarried ones under law. By prohibiting certain classes of people from marrying, you are effectively denying them some legal protections and advantages that are afforded to others.

At one time interracial marriage was banned - and I have no doubt there a few here who'd like to see such a ban reinstated. But if you really believe in less government intrusion, how can you not support gay marriage? Since it's between two concenting adults, how is it anyone else's business? I may not like it, but it certainly does me no harm. The government has better thing to do than to interfer with private contracts between free citizens (which is really all marriages are in the eyes of the law).

I'll cop to the fruits and nuts, but I'll put our weather up against 'bama anytime of the year.

Tod,

Nobody is preventing people who self-identify as homosexuals from getting married - they just can't "marry" someone of the same gender because marriage can only occur with a man and a woman just like procreation can only occur with a man and a woman. There's no discrimination because self-identified homosexuals have the same rights as anybody else.

Yep! Up until 1967 one third of the states still had laws on the books banning interracial marriages, laws banning gay marriage are no different.

For amending the state constitution...

That's a clear state right,is it not?

According to wikipedia, Judge Walker first nominated in 1987 by Reagon, evidentally could not get confirmned. Nominated by Bush 1 in 89 and confirmned.

Hard to believe our country has slid so far down hill in the short 58 years I've been around...out of control immigration...homosexuality...socialism...I'm at a loss.

if their church doesnt recognize same sex marriages in the spiritual sense and they attend anyway i think the fault lies on the gay couple....



if this is true how can an atheist justice of the peace preform a marriage? if my wife and i went before a JP like that are you saying we wouldnt be married? pretty sure the state and federal court would rule that we were....dont much care if the catholic church wouldnt recognize it....

as i said, i aint trying to force anything on the Catholic or Lutheran churches or what ever......my concerns are in the court of law.....

There is a stay of this ruling yesterday until and through the 9th Circuit appellate ruling occurs.That may be close to 2 years. Depending upon the absurdity or a brief moment of clarity by the 9th with their ruling, it is going to the SC where it will then become the law of the land and no longer a state court issue.

3-4 years until decided until the SC rules upon the issue. Until then, Prop 8 is unabated.

The SC will ban same sex marriage as they should.

The decision actually was not the result of an "activist" judge. He actually had a trial, with each side putting on its case, and issued a ruling based on the evidence submitted at the trial. The lawyers and folks defending the ban on same-sex marriage just flat-out screwed up. There are a number of ways the Prop 8 Defenders could have defended the case under existing law; as the Judge pointed out repeatedly in his decision, they did not submit any evidence on a number of critical points. They didn't call the witnesses they needed to call on critical issues. At the end of the trial, all the Judge could do was render a decision based on existing case precedent involving discrimination, and the evidence the each side submitted. A judge can't make rulings on evidence that one side doesn't bother submitting. The defenders got their asses handed to them, and the Judge had to go with the evidence. His ruling makes it pretty clear, in many places, that the "Proponents" (of Proposition 8) failed to address or submit critical pieces of evidence. It's up to the Court of Appeals to address the legal issues.

If the New Orleans Saints show up to play the East Bumblphuck JV, but decide to sit in the locker room, instead of playiing, they can't really blame the the ref for losing the game.

Please tell me you didn't bet any money on that happening Issac.

There is a faction of folks who believe as you suggested above. But, I'm not buying it. A lawyer's F Up on a matter of such importance doesn't persusde a Judge to rule outside the law and constitution as this one did.

How convenient for a Judge to blame his ruling on defense counsel. There's case law to carry the day and it most always should carry the day over the idiocy of a lawyer's presentation.

If Gura F'ed up in arguing Heller, the 5 would have still ruled as they did!

Interesting. First time I've heard this story. If true than you are right half the game players didn't turn up for the first half of the game.

I certainly will if you'd like to,NeBassman!

I'm not much of gambler but I would be willing to wager a dollar?

Guy's it's not just this case that is so frustrating. Two other voter approved amendments to the state constitution are looking to be overturned.

One is the way district boundaries are redrawn in the State. The voter approved initiative that's now law takes it away from the Legislature and gives the authority to a new appointed council.

The other is the voter approved amendment that is now law to institute a new State Open Primary for future elections.

Both are now in the courts, and both most likely will be overturned one way or the other.

California Sucks alright, but it's because of the way our legal system has become.

We can't even inject a convicted murderer because it might sting a little....

We have to release prisoners, because a few might have to sleep on the floor and we just don't have enough prison space for each to have their own bunk.


Phil

really think this issue needs to be more defined cause the word "marriage" is sure [bleep] things up and the reason is cause unlike what individuals like SteveNO want to say there are many definitions to that one word even in the US and as a lawyer he has got to be well aware of that fact.....

for the sake of this discussion we need to take the spiritual meaning and throw it to the sidelines cause its sitting out this game.....dont care if your talking "getting married" by a Catholic priest, Lutheran pastor, or the half nuts witch-doctor that put up a grass hut on the corner lot and charges 3 chickens and a pack of smokes to marry a man and his goat....dont care about that definition, it means vastly different things to a great number of ppl and does not matter....and yes a small number of extremist [bleep] think the catholic church should bless their same sex marriage but as far as i and most gay ppl are concerned they can go piss up a rope....

what most gay ppl truly want is a just a civil union acknowledged at all legal levels just like a normal marriage allows....the right to survivor benefits, social security benefits, and all that legal stuff no matter if they are living in Vermont or Utah or Montana or whatever....

but the fact of the matter is this chit varies greatly by state and stuff gets convoluted when jumping from one state to the next even with typical man/woman couples because of things like common law marriages and such.....according to the state of Montana my wife and i were married in the legal sense a full 2 years before she dragged my arse in front of her pastor and filed the paper work with the county....had i died she had a rightful legal claim to my stuff over my parents and siblings even though we were not officially married....had we lived in some other states or moved from Montana to one of those other states it would not be recognized....

this normal marriage in the legal, and only the legal sense is all that 95% plus of gay ppl want......

This kinda BS is nothing new in Calioto. When I was a young pup just over legal voting age ( 21 back then) I lived in Ca. We the people voted to have the death penalty. Courts overruled it. Then a few years later it was reinstated but Every one in Calioto's prisons on death row had had their sentence commuted to Life. Death could not be reinstated. What a buncha BS.
So much for "by the people".

I have distinct dislike for the state of Ca and America's court system of judges "making" law.