Judge overturns Calif. gay marriage ban

at one time a state voted to ban interracial marriage. they figured like it or lump it. we could probably find some place that the majority would vote to reintroduce bans on interracial marriage today. should the majority rule in that case?

 

Gays civil rights and black civil rights are very different. .

blacks are a protected minority group.
If you accept the fact that the Courts have decided they can legislate in the name of protecting minorities... you have to ask yourself what makes gay a "protectable "minority in this case?

Men who like to have sex with other men could still be married to a women? So where is the discrimination?


Sexual choice?
Well then what about people who have multiple partners - why are wew discriminating against them?

 

a marriage contract is a legal contract. not a religious one. that being the case there should be no reason that any two people should not be able to enter into a legal contract.
people wanting to ban same sex marriage need to show how letting two people of the same sex marry harms traditional marriage. the judge was correct in his decision:

In deciding the case, Walker offered a variety of findings that may be as important as the ruling itself. Among them were the following:

•"Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person's identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents' assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."

•"Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation."


•"Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex."


•"Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."


•"Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive."


•"The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."


•"Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."



Perhaps the most important political finding that Walker made was his conclusion that the fact that Prop 8 passed as a voter initiative was irrelevant as "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

 

The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."
---------------

There ya go. Does not provide "status" equivalent of marriage.

Well let's give them "marriage" they can have status.

Thereby diluting the cultural "status" of "marriage".

Someone somewhere will come up with a new term to identify a union of man and women.

 

even a majority of fox news viewers agree that the judge made the right decision:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/04/decide-gay-marriage-judge-ruling-proposition-decision/
A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that Prop. 8, California's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional. Do you agree with the judge's decision?


Thank you for voting!
Yes -- Prop. 8 violates the Constitution. 49% (56,106 votes)
No -- Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I don't care what the judge thinks about the Constitution. 44% (49,718 votes)
I'm not sure but shouldn't the voters views count for something? 6%

 

You should double check on the definition of 'majority'.

 

Try Natural or Non-perverted

 

<p><span class="blogText bigText"><a href="http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/08/same-sex_marriage.html"><img src="http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/samesex_08_04/s01_24496839.jpg" class="bpImage" style="height: 677px; width: 990px;" /></a></span>
</p>
<p><span class="bpMore"><img src="http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/samesex_08_04/s06_22467715.jpg" class="bpImage" style="height: 651px; width: 990px;" /></span>
</p>
<p><span class="bpMore"><img src="http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/samesex_08_04/s08_22470627.jpg" class="bpImage" style="height: 661px; width: 990px;" /></span>
</p><span>
<p>hehehe
<br />
</p></span>

 

I have no real issue with gays getting married. I have a big issue with activist judges legislating from the bench. The people voted, and that's that. Any changes need to be made by congress, not some judge.

 

Another leftist admits it....FOX is a reliable news source.