namelesstavern.net

by **Tossica** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 3:13 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/14/gay.m ... index.html

by **Xaiveir** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 3:36 pm

Right ruling imho.

by **mofish** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 3:48 pm

Awesome. As I was saying. Its only a matter of time before these garbage amendments are overthrown.

by **Lyion** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 3:49 pm

n the eagerly awaited opinion likely to be appealed to the state's highest court, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional.

It'll be overturned next week, and it'll absolutely be nuked by the US Supreme Court.

Yet another example of a judge trying to legislate instead of interpret.

by **Arlos** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 4:13 pm

Actually, I dunno that it will go to the US Supreme Court, though it may well. After all, states can decide for themselves their own marriage laws, though no other state is in any way legally bound to recognize any marriage that is not consistent with its own laws. ie, 2 chicks could get married in California, say, and get all the rights/benefits/negatives associated with said marriage while they live in CA. If they move to, say, Utah, they will lose all that, as Utah is sure as hell not going to recognize their marriage as legitimate. Since states can decide for themselves whether or not to accept the matter, I suspect that even if someone appeals it to the US Supreme court, they'll kick it back saying it's a matter for individual states to decide.

And I still utterly disagree with the judge "legislating". He *IS* interpreting the State Constitution. He obviously feels that the statutes for equal protection under the law for all citizens applies equally to homosexuals as it does to ethnic minorities. And in that he's got other legal decisions to back him up. After all, at least here in CA, homosexuals are a recognized minority group when it comes to prosecuting people for Hate Crimes. If the Law and the Courts recognize them as a minority group in one area (criminal law), it makes no sense to somehow at the same time NOT recognize them when it comes to matrimonial law.

-Arlos

by **Malluas** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 4:55 pm

Arlos... he is legistlating... the definition is making law when there is already law banning it. What he is doing is pretty much what the Mass Supreme court did as in... screw the voters.. you WILL do something.

I agree with them being able to go into civil unions.. its the exact same thing as marriage but without the word. And maybe the judge has the right idea that they should be treated fairly.. but you can't just say Ok well this law is uncontitutional when its been around for a long time. and never been ruled unconstitutional before (remember CA has been controled by democrats forever).

Now what they can do is in the US government make it legal... or the states will vote on it and make it legal or not. But ever since Bush became president... liberal judges have tried to inact their opinions and they aren't following the law or the makers intent. Whether you agree or not with a law voted on by the people of CA. If they voted on it and if i remember it passed with like 60 something percent. What this judge is doing is usurping the whole voting process.

Like what they did in Ohio, they LET people vote multiple times in democrat polling places. No law for providing provisional ballots in so you can vote in ANY polling place, or the counting of them and they did it anyways.

Same with Florida in '00, they usurped laws to have THREE recounts not just one.. 3.

THis will be overturned but it will end up on the supreme courts list of cases to hear (whether they hear it or not which i am guessing not, eventho recently the ruling would be upheld cause of US Supreme court justices using like France law instead of the US's)

by **Tossica** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:02 pm

If it's the EXACT same thing as a Marriage without the word, WHY THE FUCK DO YOU CARE what they call it?

by **Malluas** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:09 pm

so is a dog a cat?

its a definition thats been around for 10,000 years... why change it?

by **Narrock** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:35 pm

Arlos wrote:Actually, I dunno that it will go to the US Supreme Court, though it may well. After all, states can decide for themselves their own marriage laws, though no other state is in any way legally bound to recognize any marriage that is not consistent with its own laws. ie, 2 chicks could get married in California, say, and get all the rights/benefits/negatives associated with said marriage while they live in CA. If they move to, say, Utah, they will lose all that, as Utah is sure as hell not going to recognize their marriage as legitimate. Since states can decide for themselves whether or not to accept the matter, I suspect that even if someone appeals it to the US Supreme court, they'll kick it back saying it's a matter for individual states to decide.

And I still utterly disagree with the judge "legislating". He *IS* interpreting the State Constitution. He obviously feels that the statutes for equal protection under the law for all citizens applies equally to homosexuals as it does to ethnic minorities. And in that he's got other legal decisions to back him up. After all, at least here in CA, homosexuals are a recognized minority group when it comes to prosecuting people for Hate Crimes. If the Law and the Courts recognize them as a minority group in one area (criminal law), it makes no sense to somehow at the same time NOT recognize them when it comes to matrimonial law.

-Arlos

lol classic.

by **brinstar** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:38 pm

california was the first state to toss out the ban on interracial marriages, a ban which was widely accepted for years and years and years

40 odd years later it is an embarrassment to a great majority of americans that such a thing was even an issue in the first place

i dare you to say in this day and age that it was a mistake to toss out that ban

by 2060 the general consensus will be "man i can't believe we used to ban same-sex marriage, how embarrassing"

by **Lyion** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:42 pm

brinstar wrote:by 2060 the general consensus will be "man i can't believe we used to ban same-sex marriage, how embarrassing"

Apples and oranges. Gay Marriage goes against 80% of the countries religious beliefs. It's vastly different than interracial or ethnic issues which are genetic and is more directed towards sexual choice which is not inherited.

Perhaps we'll find Cannibalism and Incest acceptable in 2060, too. Those are as much a feel good and non interference issue as Gay Marriage.

by **Tossica** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:44 pm

Haha. Lyion is dumb too.

by **Azlana** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:44 pm

we all know that "seperate but equal" is bullshit, and THAT's why it isn't "just a word".

by **Arlos** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:59 pm

Malluas, in the south, back in the 50s and early 60s, they had state laws for seperation between whites and blacks. These are known, colloquially, as Jim Crowe laws. These laws were legally passed, and fit the belief systems of a majority of the voting populace of the state. When the supreme court struck down those laws as unconstitutional, were THEY legislating? Why aren't you ranting about their interfering in laws that had been in place for a long time in states?

This is the *ENTIRE FUCKING POINT* of Judicial Review, is to strike down laws that are NOT CONSTITUTIONAL. Got it? Happened with the Jim Crowe laws. Where's your outrage against that, hmmm? Same EXACT goddamn thing. You may not agree that homosexuals constitute a minority, but guess what, the law says they do already. Go look up the Hate Crime statutes for at the very least here in California. Right there homosexuals are defined IN THE LAW as a minority group, deserving of special mention. Someone beats the crap out of a gay guy yelling "DEATH TO FAGS", they're going to get it worse than a normal assult and battery, same as a KKK guy beating up a black guy yelling, "DEATH TO NIGGERS". Therefore, since California law already treats homosexuals as a minority group, denying them marriage, strictly due to the fact that they're part of that minority group is against the law until such time as a Constitutional amendment to the California State Constitution is passed, and I guarantee you no such amendment would pass.

As for Lyion, I repeat: No one sane is trying to convince churches to perform weddings that violate their faith. Whether or not gay marriage is against the religion of someone is *IRRELEVANT* when it comes to purely civic matters. Seperation of Church & State, remember? Religion is supposedly not a factor when it comes civic laws, else certain religions would be unduly benefitted, which is, even you will admit, against the US Constitution.

Oh and Mindia, Great rhetoric there, keep up the good work! What a well-reasoned and supported argument! Try real hard, and you might progress in your debate skills to the point where you achieve the level of a 2 year old, and start throwing temper tantrums!

-Arlos

by **brinstar** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:03 pm

apples and oranges yourself, foolman

gay marriage is nothing like cannibalism or incest

why don't you go ahead and suggest bestiality and pedophilia while you're in the mood to act ridiculous

we've gone through this before. you (astonishingly, in light of your apparent intelligence) do not consider homosexuals to be a "cultural group" in the same way that blacks and women and married people are considered to be "cultural groups" and thus do not deserve access to the same privileges other "cultural groups" are allowed. once you state your argument as such, i boggle with disbelief that someone normally so rational could utter such a concept, then you counter with general smarminess poorly masked by attempts to reinforce your point, then i state simply that only raw bigotry could spawn such an opinion that would seek to deny a group of people you are not a member of the happiness you have access to simply because you do not approve of their lifestyle, and then you reply that you have no problem with their lifestyle but that doesn't mean they should be able to get married and we go around in circles for a while amongst annoying one-line posts by the likes of Finawin and neither of us concedes and the thread is gradually taken over by hijackers

there i just saved us three pages

EDIT: that took too long to type since i was hatching a scheme for dave to get his hoodie back from fae's house at the same time, but this post was directed towards lyion

by **Harrison** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:31 pm

HOLY FUCKING PUNCTUATION BATMAN

by **Tae-Bo** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:48 pm

Harrison wrote:HOLY FUCKING PUNCTUATION BATMAN

HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

moving on

by **Yamori** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:14 pm

Old laws DO need to be challenged on their constitutionality. Sheesh.

by **Diabolik** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:02 pm

It's only the ugly homosexuals who get married anyway.

Except for Melissa Etheridge's new woman. She's hot.

by **Scoota McGee** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:25 pm

Laws that are dependant on someone's marital status need to be banned. Why do you fools want so badly to buy into the system and give your freedoms away?

by **Lyion** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:53 pm

I agree Scoota. I do not want marriage to be at all ingrained into our public system. I certainly do not want it compounded by adding even more layers.

In response to Brinstar: Blacks are a cultural group because they were born with a dark pigmented skin. Women are who they are because they were born female.

Gay sex is a choice, and gay marriage has nothing to do with inheritance and in my opinion is a result of applied behavior. I'm not bigoted against gays, despite the silly attacks by those who do not wish to debate and merely be rude to those of opposing views. I just do not support Gay Marriage.

You can wrongly equate it to interracial marriage or other civil rights movements, but the bottom line is no 'civil' rights are being violated. Any person can get married, as long as he marries a member of the opposite sex. Given its the same for everyone, there is no issue. People want to change what marriage is. This is not about 'civil' rights. Its about changing society into what a small fringe group wants. Fortunately we are in a democracy, despite the desire of the fascist few who do not believe in our freedoms.

In my opinion, gay marriage is EXACTLY like cannibalism or incest. It's a socially unaccepted ideal that mainstream America frowns upon. It is not a proven inherited group. Incest and Cannibalism doesn't hurt others but we do not accept it. Apples and Apples there, I believe.

I don't think choices should involve special protections or law changes, be it sexual different choices or behavior, such as smoking or being a drug addict.

I've stated my reasons before why I believe what I do. I do find it interesting that so many young people are more concerned with personal hedonism than in the effects and good on society.

We are at the pinnacle of political correctness. If Gay marriage isn't supported now, it should tell you its because its not a 'civil' issue, but just a political one.

by **brinstar** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:58 pm

Lyion wrote:Cannibalism doesn't hurt others

entire argument invalidated.

by **Lyion** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:59 pm

Being they're already dead, please explain to me how it does?

You do realise what we do with corpses already, right?

by **Diabolik** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:01 pm

Lyion wrote:You do realise what we do with corpses already, right?

We loot them?

by **Lyion** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:05 pm

haha. As Miracle Max says, go through his clothes and look for loose change!

namelesstavern.net

Go fags! = Article number 2

Go fags! = Article number 2

Who is online