Oh you don't know the half if it.

12,999 posts motherf***er

13,000 posts motherf***er

Not including, of course, those fabulous posts made on those classic accounts GFGJ, GoForGoldenJarlz, and of course GFGJ Who.

1376, I guess I should post more HAHAHAHAHA

So gay rights got nerfed once again in the great state of California.

no, all that happened was that the court upheld the people's right to amend the constitution of the state of california.

i honestly don't really know why there was even one dissenting opinion. regardless of your opinion on marriage I don't think you could disagree with the court on this one. I'm actually quite impressed at how well the judges were able to set aside their religious beliefs and look at the actual issue (Moreno being the exception) considering they utterly failed at it last year (though granted last years decision was on a more complex problem and it doesn't surprise me that they weren't able to extricate their emotions and religious beliefs from the hard issues at hand).

The fact that it even went to court at all is quite depressing as it demonstrates that people are willing to sacrifice the integrity of our system and our constitution for the benefit of a short term benefit to their agenda (especially when you consider that prop 8's amendment will likely be overturned in the next election anyway).

I'm actually with you on this. I don't like Prop h8 at all or the way it turned out, but the fact of the matter is it did pass, and it being overturned here wouldn't have been just. Really, today was a victory, if a small one, because another part of the ruling is that the marriages before prop h8 passed are being upheld.

And hopefully it will indeed be overturned next election.

another part of the ruling is that the marriages before prop h8 passed are being upheld.

I thought it was a fundamental part of any juridical system that laws can never be retroactive. Anything else would be idiocy.

Meh, if we elected Conan the Barbarian, anything can happen.

You'd think so, but there was quite a bit of talk of those marriages being nullified.

no, all that happened was that the court upheld the people's right to amend the constitution of the state of california.

i honestly don't really know why there was even one dissenting opinion. regardless of your opinion on marriage I don't think you could disagree with the court on this one. I'm actually quite impressed at how well the judges were able to set aside their religious beliefs and look at the actual issue (Moreno being the exception) considering they utterly failed at it last year (though granted last years decision was on a more complex problem and it doesn't surprise me that they weren't able to extricate their emotions and religious beliefs from the hard issues at hand).

The fact that it even went to court at all is quite depressing as it demonstrates that people are willing to sacrifice the integrity of our system and our constitution for the benefit of a short term benefit to their agenda (especially when you consider that prop 8's amendment will likely be overturned in the next election anyway).

So, in your opinion, interracial marriage should still be illegal? What about segregation? Jim Crow laws? All of these laws would still probably be on the books if it wasn't for the courts. The laws had the backing of the majority. I understand that you feel that civil rights was a different issue, but that's why I included the example of interracial marriage. On it's face, it's exactly the same situation.

In truth, I'm not going to argue one side or the other. It's the law of the land and until the 18 to 25 demographic which is 70% in support of gay marriage becomes the majority they will ammend the state constitution (again, sigh).

In my opinion, the situation isn't as cut and dry and mete thinks it is. Where do we draw the line mete? If a majority of the people think it's okay to dip gay people in a vat of boiling acid, does that mean we should allow the law? I'll admit that it's a bit of a straw man, but the idea gets my point across.

To be fair, I'm more angry that it's so easy to modify our constitution than anything. WTF? simple majority vote with no safeguards? And you can modify the entire basis for our state government to include that them there sausage stuffers ain't allowed to call themselves married cause that's for me and my second cousin? You've got to be kidding me.

Also, I would like to point out that we don't live in a democracy. Simple majority is NOT the basis of our government. Elected officials is. So the whole "the courts are causing me butthurt" argument, while it looks valid, is in fact a mirage.

If you can't tell, the whole situation irks me so sorry if I come off a little bitter. The fact that a lynch mob can tell people how to live their lives because of a "Yes means No" law that was backed and advertised for by PEOPLE THAT DON'T EVEN LIVE IN THIS STATE just really pisses me off.

Also, the fact that god fearing IOWA allows gay marriage but we don't pisses me off too.

[This message has been edited by DrNick (edited 05-27-2009 @ 12:12 PM).]

If anything San Francisco will break off from the Union and become a city-state. Just being there is a total different experience from the rest of the state. I mean they clean the streets with pine sol..

It also surprises me that being Pro Gay hasn't been turned into another "Red Scare" with McCarthyism.

Not gonna happen. We already have arabs for that vibe.

Also, the fact that god fearing IOWA allows gay marriage but we don't pisses me off too.

What else is there to do in Iowa? Sex is basically the only entertainment those folks have besides corn husking and corn grinding and corn bread baking. After a while they were all bound to try gay secks.

[This message has been edited by Cheesewiz (edited 05-27-2009 @ 03:38 PM).]

Says the guy from Tennessee.

Hey hey hey. We've got successful sports teams at least. And mountains and rivers to hike and camp on. Iowa is nothing but corn fields.

So, in your opinion, interracial marriage should still be illegal?

that has nothing to do with anything since the supreme court simply ruled on whether or not the people are allowed to modify the constitution or not. In fact there was no way the decision could have gone any other way since the courts don't have the power to change the way our system works (again I don't know understand how there was any dissenting opinion). The ruling wasn't about gay rights, and it wasn't about marriage, it was simply about whether the amendment was passed in accordance with california law (and it was, obviously).

that's all my post was about.

and anyway I'm pretty sure that if we voted on whether to recognize interracial marriage the people would be overwhelmingly in favor, so no, it should not still be illegal. But if for some reason if the decision went the other way I would argue that yes, it should be illegal (though I would disagree with it and support any logically reasonable opposition to such a measure).

Rick what you seem not to understand is that your views on marriage, while they undoubtedly work for you, are not in any way universal. Unless you believe that God mandates that marriage have certain traits, you have no logical basis on which to condemn marriage practices that don't live up to your own personal values. There's no reason to consider arranged marriages, for example, immoral. It's simply one way to organize affinal and kin relationships. There are as many different views on marriage as there are cultures, and there's absolutely no reason to assume one is better than the other. I just don't see how you can assert universal marriage rights in the face of all this variation.

The whole marriage rights tirade is based on a mistaken premise, which is that there are universal absolutes in regards to marriage. That's simply untrue. You can argue that it's best for our society to recognize gay marriage, and maybe it is, but you can't logically argue that it's unjust or immoral not to (unless you invoke a "god says so" argument).

Also, I would like to point out that we don't live in a democracy. Simple majority is NOT the basis of our government. Elected officials is. So the whole "the courts are causing me butthurt" argument, while it looks valid, is in fact a mirage.

California uses both direct democracy and elected officials to decide state policy. Sorry. And anyway I don't have a problem with the legislature passing marriage laws (and I've said this before) since they are [ideally] representatives of the people. The courts a different situation altogether since they don't represent the people and they are only supposed to interpret existing laws rather than decide what religious and cultural values the state will mandate. so yeah this argument of yours doesn't hold water.

And if california's refusal to recognize gay marriages has you so butthurt, why aren't you so gung-ho about the legalization of sibling marriages? Why is it okay to deny the rights of brothers and sisters who wish to marry each other? Or first cousins? Or parent-offspring? If we apply your arguments for gay marriage consistently, then such prohibitions are equally as unjust as the prohibition on gay marriage.

[This message has been edited by Meteora (edited 05-27-2009 @ 07:23 PM).]

Yeah, but they also have gay marriages, which Tennessee doesn't have.

I think we banned it in the 2006 elections. Next I think we'll order them all to where tie-dyed emblems so we can discriminate more effectively.

I'm moving to tennessee.

From Alaska?! How will you survive?!

Erm, wait, where were you from before again? Somewhere in the South?

Oh, and that reminds me, last weekend I was driving Northeast of Cleveland and I saw a guy flying the Stars and Bars on his rest stop/gas station. Keep in mind this is only a handful of miles from Canada.

[This message has been edited by Mapppp (edited 05-27-2009 @ 09:58 PM).]