California overturns ban on same-sex marriage

[Tasaio]

From California court overturns ban on same-sex marriages

The decision was a closely watched one and makes California only the second state after Massachusetts where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

Two down, forty-eight to go. It's long past time gays and lesbians were treated with respect and dignity in the US.

Excellent news.

[Barcs]

Definitely. San Francisco will be especially happy about this

[Love]

Alright! I'm glad to see the country taking a step in the right direction.

[Dan.Linehan]

I'm pretty excited about the outcome on this. We've been talking about it all morning in the office.

This ruling goes deeper than just marriage; no legal rights can be withheld based on someone's sexual orientation.

The opinion then observes that "in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation - like a person’s race or gender - does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

That's from a nice seven page summary PDF, here.

That summary was put out by the NCLR. A friend of mine works there. At about 10:02 this morning her away message went from "OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG" to "WE WON!!"

[PianoManGidley]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

This ruling goes deeper than just marriage; no legal rights can be withheld based on someone's sexual orientation.

That's remarkable! That will end up being SO applicable in so many different aspects of gay rights, such as employment discrimination! *sighs* If only this were a ruling on the Federal level...

[Jennihul]

I'm thrilled. Congratulations on your success, gay and lesbian people!

Jennifer

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Woo-hoo! I'll have to celebrate extra hard for you guys because I doubt Texas will be following in the very near future. Though, a lot of more open minded people are realizing Texas is awesome and we can only accomplish goals like this if they don't all leave the state for more liberal places.

[fwellers]

I agree. Great news !!
We were discussing and don't know about certain things.
For instance.
I thought that marriages from one state are automatically recognized in another state etc....

So, if a gay couple get married in CA, and then move to VA, will they be able to enjoy the same rights ?
For that matter, what about Federal tax rules, will the Feds abide by the CA ruling ?

How does it all work ?

Thanks,
floyd

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

This ruling goes deeper than just marriage; no legal rights can be withheld based on someone's sexual orientation.

So true! I don't think it's important to be married, whether you're gay or straight. But it is important, I feel, that discrimination based on sexual orientation be relegated to the past.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

I apologize because this is off topic, but I keep hearing people say that "California, the largest state in the union, legalized gay marriage." Did Alaska and Texas seceed without my knowledge? Has California grown?

California's Supreme Court on Thursday overturned a state ban on gay marriage, paving the way for same-sex couples in the country's largest state to tie the knot.

From:
Top California court opens door to same-sex marriages

[Dan.Linehan]

Largest by population.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

I see. That's what I was thinking they must mean. Only that word always makes me think size. I guess saying "the state with the most people" is kind of cumbersome .

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Largest by population.

Yeah the idiots in the media took the fact that California has the 8th largest GDP and then NBC reported that it was the 8th largest country which is incorrect. Now they then can deduct that its the largest state and make a false report based upon the false report by NBC. So one mistake trickles through the entire lazy media.

I read my morning newspaper and it was exactly the same news that was on NBC in the morning. I find it interesting that there seems to be no originality in reporting...

Back to the subject though...

This is a great step for homosexuals... Now they can be miserable like the rest of us.... Just kidding.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

This is a great step for homosexuals... Now they can be miserable like the rest of us.... Just kidding.

LOL.

Not quite yet.

[Amadeus]

The law doesn't make sense. Marriage is defined through history and it's creation as a union between a man and a woman. Marriage in it's origin was set up for procreation and we know there is not going to be any procreation with gays. So the very idea of marriage and two people from the same sex in a relationship negate each other. I can understand why gay couples want to get the same benefits like insurance benefits for non-insured partner, inheritance, tax breaks, etc. etc. than that is one thing. I don't have any problem with this, but it should not be defined as marriage. I think one reason Schwarzenegger was for this bill is to help him get reelected, but also to bring in more revenue to the state through marriage and divorce licenses.
Personally I think it was stupid for the liberals to push for this before the 2008elections. It will just encourage more conservatives to come out and vote against Democrats like they did in the 2004 election.
I'm personally against marriage being defined any other way than a union between a man and a woman and the majority of Americans feel the same way. This is the main reason it has been shot down in every other state and will continue to be shot down. To me the spread of HIV/AIDS is an indicator that these relationships are immoral. It is a known myth and lie that HIV is prevalent among the heterosexual community in this country. The gay population want you to believe that it is "everyone's" disease so they can get more funding, but they would be lying. It usually is spread through gay sex (anal), needle sharing, and blood transfusions in the 80s. Yes it is possible to catch HIV through heterosexual sex, but then again it is possible to get struck by lightning too. Do your own research on this and you will see.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

Marriage in it's origin was set up for procreation and we know there is not going to be any procreation with gays.

Where did the institution of marriage originate?

In addition, why can homosexuals not procreate? We have the technology, and it is also used by heterosexual couples who are unable to procreate otherwise.

Should barren women or sterile men be unallowed to enter into a heterosexual marriage since they are unable to procreate as the definition of marriage requires?

[PianoManGidley]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

The law doesn't make sense. Marriage is defined through history and it's creation as a union between a man and a woman. Marriage in it's origin was set up for procreation and we know there is not going to be any procreation with gays. So the very idea of marriage and two people from the same sex in a relationship negate each other.

So then, you would be with the gays in Washington state who are for a law that requires married couples to produce children?

To me the spread of HIV/AIDS is an indicator that these relationships are immoral.

Wow. So I guess any straight person who ever got HIV or AIDS via drug usage or a blood transfusion was just as immoral, eh? Or maybe they were really just gay and didn't know it or were still in the closet? Your ignorance and prejudice makes me sick.

[Amadeus]

Originally Posted by PianoManGidley

Or maybe they were really just gay and didn't know it or were still in the closet? Your ignorance and prejudice makes me sick.

Actually Pianoman you are right. A great deal of the reported so called heterosexual HIV cases were from gay people or drug users who just did not want to admit that they were gay/bisexual or drug users.

Why are you making this so personal calling me an idiot? It's a natural law of stimulus response. Something bad happens when it goes against the laws of nature. I sleep with a gay man I am more likely to get HIV than a normal heterosexual relationships. It's just that cut and dry. If I go down the interstate 150 miles an hour driving recklessly without a seatbelt something bad will probably happen eventually.

I do not want any harm to come to those who are homosexual. If I could wave a magic wand a rid the world, including gays, from this awful disease I would do it in a heartbeat. No one deserves that. In my mind I've done things worse than gay sex but I don't deserve to die from it. I'm not even saying it is their fault that they have feelings for the same sex it's just sick in my opinion when they act upon these feelings sexually and I personally don't think they should have the right to legally marry.

[Dave Kaminski]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

Why are you making this so personal calling me an idiot? It's a natural law of stimulus response. Something bad happens when it goes against the laws of nature. I sleep with a gay man I am more likely to get HIV than a normal heterosexual relationships. It's just that cut and dry. If I go down the interstate 150 miles an hour driving recklessly without a seatbelt something bad will probably happen eventually.

Why are we talking to HIV in relation to Gay marriage? If gay people are to marry, and your argument is valid (which I highly doubt - please provide evidence/links to your case when making such a claim) will this not control the spread more than expand it?

Sadly, I have found there isn't enough evidence accrued as of yet in regards to gay divorce rates to make a statement in regards to it.

It's not necessarily true, either, that you have a higher chance of contracting the disease if you have relations with a gay person. If you're as selective with your gay partners as your hetero partners (do you use protection and get std tests before having sex, or do you just 'hook up' with whomever you choose?) you should be equally at risk in either situation!

[Dan.Linehan]

History shows is that the definition of marriage changes.

For example, interracial marriage was illegal until 1967 per Anti-miscegenation law. So spouting off about how marriage is defined historically isn't really valid.

Don't like gay marriage? I have a simple solution: Don't marry a gay.

[Dave Kaminski]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

Yes it is possible to catch HIV through heterosexual sex, but then again it is possible to get struck by lightning too. Do your own research on this and you will see.

I did some research - it IS possible to get stuck by lightning!

Turns out, though, it's much more likely during a thunderstorm than any other time, AND you have to be outside!

I wonder if we could apply those rules to this argument as well.. let's see:

If you have unprotected heterosexual sex, your chances of catching an STD, such as AIDS, are much higher than they are if you are having protected sex.

That reminds me of the indoors part of the lightning! If you stay indoors, your chances of being struck by lightning are GREATLY reduced!

If you're aware of the sexual past of your hetero partner and you get drug tested with your partner, your chances of transmitting an STD are lowered greatly.

Again, this applies to the lightning! Check the weather, and you'll have the greatest chance of knowing whether or not a thunderstorm is coming! Sounds parallel to me!

This is curious to me... as you can take the exact same steps with a homosexual partner to prevent the spread of disease as I've suggested above with a heterosexual partner!

I wonder if the spread of aids among gays is more closely tied to the fact that homosexuality is openly condemned (such as you're doing) and that gays don't necessarily as good a chance to feel secure about their sexual habits, so they do not selectively choose their partners as finely as heterosexuals when it comes to STD checks.