[Roger Kaputnik]

Ye gads!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7403547.stm



California lifts gay marriage ban
California's ruling is expected to have an impact on the nationwide debate California's top court has ruled that a state law banning marriage between same-sex couples is unconstitutional.

The state's Supreme Court said the "right to form a family relationship" applied to all Californians regardless of sexuality.

The ban was approved by voters in 2000 but challenged by gay rights activists and the city of San Francisco.

The state legislature twice passed laws to legalise gay marriage, but Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed them.

He said California's court system should rule on the matter.

The seven-judge panel voted 4-3 in favour of the plaintiffs who argued that the 2000 law was discriminatory.

"Limiting the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute," California Chief Justice Ron George said in the written opinion.

'Historic'

The decision was met outside the courthouse by cheers from gay marriage supporters.

"I'm profoundly grateful. This is a historic day," said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the city's case to the court.

"Everybody being entitled to equal protection under the law probably carried the day," he said.

The ruling paves the way for California to become only the second US state, after Massachusetts, to allow same-sex marriage.

The decision is expected to re-invigorate the fight for same-sex marriage rights nationwide, say gay activists and legal experts.

California's Supreme Court has a history of landmark rulings that are later picked nationally.

The state currently offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married men and women.

Other states, such as Vermont and New Jersey, have similar civil union provisions.

Californian voters approved the ban against same-sex marriages in a 2000 referendum. The law stated that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognised in California".

In early 2004, San Francisco became the first place in the US where gay couples were able to marry after the city's Mayor Gavin Newsom authorised same-sex marriage licences, claiming the state legislation was discriminatory.

In August of that year, California's Supreme Court ruled the mayor had overstepped his authority and nullified the hundreds of marriages.

Gay rights group Equality California was joined by nearly two dozen gay couples and the city of San Francisco in bringing the case to the Supreme Court.

[Dave]

I have to agree with Lewis Black on this matter....

h ttp://youtube.com/watch?v=o-id4GKsaQk

(broken link -- remove the space between the first "h" and the "t" to cut and paste into your browser -- link is definitely not safe for work, and may make one's head explode, if one is a close minded bigot)

... not to mention the state of Massachusetts, Canada, the Netherlands, Mexico, Spain, and South Africa.

If the law allows some guy to marry another guy, what's that to me, or to anyone else? It isn't going to require that I marry a guy, or my sister to marry some gal. On the other hand, it may allow my female cousin the opportunity to marry the gal she's been living with for the past 15 years, which, if they want to, I think they should be able to do.

[Roger Kaputnik]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7738800.stm




Court to review gay marriage ban
Supporters of gay rights say majority rule should not make the law California's highest court says it will hear legal challenges to a ban on gay marriage, but that the ban will remain in place pending its ruling.

The state legalised gay marriage in May, but 52% of voters backed a move to ban it in a referendum on 4 November.

The measure, Proposition 8, amends the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman only.

Supporters of gay rights have vowed to fight the move, saying majority rule should not set the law.

Judges at the court voted by six to one to review challenges - filed by groups of same-sex couples, a gay rights body and a group of local governments - to Proposition 8.

They agreed to hear arguments on the legality of the voting process.

Opponents of the move argue that it amounts to a revision of the constitution - something that can only be put to a public vote by a two-thirds majority in the legislature.

The judges also agreed to examine whether the ban would have an impact on same-sex couples who were married between May and November, reports said.

A hearing could be held as early as March, the court said.



SEE ALSO Divisions persist over gay marriage ban
12 Nov 08 | Americas DeGeneres rues gay marriage ban
06 Nov 08 | Entertainment California bans same-sex marriage
05 Nov 08 | US Elections 2008 DeGeneres urges gay marriage vote
18 Oct 08 | Entertainment First California gay couples wed
17 Jun 08 | Americas California rules on gay marriage
15 May 08 | Americas

[Homey]

I have to agree with Lewis Black on this matter....

h ttp://youtube.com/watch?v=o-id4GKsaQk

(broken link -- remove the space between the first "h" and the "t" to cut and paste into your browser -- link is definitely not safe for work, and may make one's head explode, if one is a close minded bigot)

... not to mention the state of Massachusetts, Canada, the Netherlands, Mexico, Spain, and South Africa.

If the law allows some guy to marry another guy, what's that to me, or to anyone else? It isn't going to require that I marry a guy, or my sister to marry some gal. On the other hand, it may allow my female cousin the opportunity to marry the gal she's been living with for the past 15 years, which, if they want to, I think they should be able to do.

I agree with you Dave. I guess I'm just a plain ole liberal at heart...here in a sea of conservatism.

I don't understand what scares people re: gay marriage. And my other shocking thought is it should be called a marriage. Marriage is a WORD. To deny any citizen the rights afforded to others is unconstitutional and discriminatory. It doesn't bother me what people do in the privacy of their homes. To tell someone they can't get insurance for a partner or their children because they are gay is ludicrous. Let people live in peace in the manner they choose to live. Life is too short to bother ourselves with the issues of others. We need to get along.

[Ang]

AMEN to that! The way I look at it, it's up to God to decide if they're right or wrong. Not us.

Group Hug!!

[Homey]

Thank you Ang...I have much more to say on this in support of gay rights...but I don't want to aggravate so many people right off the bat.

The wise ones may not appreciate my comments at this point... group hug back at ya. Maybe we should start a thread dedicated to a ladies point of view in the sea of testosterone and conservatism...what do ya say?

[Ang]

Right on! I'm sure Heath and KRK would be on board with that too!

[Homey]

You're the mod..I'll wait to hear how you proceed. Thanks Ang!!!

Look forward to hearing varied perspectives. This could be fun!

[Roger Kaputnik]

You're the mod..I'll wait to hear how you proceed. Thanks Ang!!!

Look forward to hearing varied perspectives. This could be fun!

I laugh at myself because of how unhip I must be! When I first read this, I thought it was some new way of paying a compliment along the lines of "You're the bomb." This morning, freed from the bonds of riesling and tryptophan, I see you mean "moderator." Ha ha ha to me!

At any rate, in most discussions of gay issues, the conversation usually breaks down very quickly if someone has moral objections. To those with true convictions, those moral arguments carry the weight of facts. To the other side, those convictions are totally discounted. Whence then?

[Dave]

Whence? How about simply using a default position of "Mind your own business"?

What bothers me about most of the holy roller types who have such a big problem with gays and lesbians is that they claim it's in the Old Testament, right next to the verse about not eating shellfish. Shouldn't they also be out picketing at Red Lobster?

This post has been edited by Dave: Nov 28 2008, 05:16 PM

[Yokas]

I agree with you Dave. I guess I'm just a plain ole liberal at heart...here in a sea of conservatism.

I don't understand what scares people re: gay marriage. And my other shocking thought is it should be called a marriage. Marriage is a WORD. To deny any citizen the rights afforded to others is unconstitutional and discriminatory. It doesn't bother me what people do in the privacy of their homes. To tell someone they can't get insurance for a partner or their children because they are gay is ludicrous. Let people live in peace in the manner they choose to live. Life is too short to bother ourselves with the issues of others. We need to get along.

There are not many of "us" liberals left. I agree. Live and let live. Give gays their civil rights, they are as entitled to them as anyone else; and you're right, if you bump into them, it won't rub off on you, so don't be afraid. Unfortunately, there is a thread of thought that says that if you're exposed to something different, you (or your loved ones) might be exposed to "something different", and you'll become this "thing". If we can teach people to trust their gut feelings, they won't go wrong, and they don't have to ever be afraid. Kudos to California for the fight; kudos to all of those that refuse to give up the fight; and, yes, I'd like to be a part of the group hug!

[Homey]

Whence? How about simply using a default position of "Mind your own business"?

What bothers me about most of the holy roller types who have such a big problem with gays and lesbians is that they claim it's in the Old Testament, right next to the verse about not eating shellfish. Shouldn't they also be out picketing at Red Lobster?

[Ang]

There are not many of "us" liberals left. I agree. Live and let live. Give gays their civil rights, they are as entitled to them as anyone else; and you're right, if you bump into them, it won't rub off on you, so don't be afraid. Unfortunately, there is a thread of thought that says that if you're exposed to something different, you (or your loved ones) might be exposed to "something different", and you'll become this "thing". If we can teach people to trust their gut feelings, they won't go wrong, and they don't have to ever be afraid. Kudos to California for the fight; kudos to all of those that refuse to give up the fight; and, yes, I'd like to be a part of the group hug!

Yokas, I just scooted over so you can squeeze in!

This whole thing reminds me of segregation in the 60's and beyond. It seems that people need to have someone to exclude. First is was the blacks and Asians, now it's the gays. I guess it makes people feel superior. If you ask me it just makes people look ignorant.
When I was in the Navy I was friends with this girl. We became very close friends and eventually ended up rooming together in the barracks. After about 6 months she told me she was gay. I never knew. Never even suspected. She was afraid that I wouldn't want to be her friend anymore. When she told me, I asked her if she was attracted to me. She said, "No, you're not gay." and that was that. Our friendship continued for a couple years until we both ended up stationed in other places.
The point is, straight people think that gayness will rub off on them (good point Michele) when in reality, gay people aren't typically attracted to straight people. And all people are people, we should stop meddling in things that aren't really important and focus more on the big picture and what will affect everyone's lives on a daily basis.

[Tim]

Here's my take on the gay thing. Growing up in MC in the late 50's/early 60's I was pretty much a homophobe. Just didn't get it, didn't like it, and was actually fearful of gays trying to get me to, uh - go gay. Then I moved to Hollywood in '84. The guy at the PO box place was gay. Guy across the hall was gay. I soon came to realize there was NOTHING wrong with these guys. They were certainly not dressed in fishnets doing showtunes in their living rooms or hitting on me. So with the gay marriage issue - who cares? Aren't there enough problems in the world? Do we really need to worry about the legal status of two same-sex people who are going to live together with or without a marriage license? Let people be happy.

[Homey]

Here's my take on the gay thing. Growing up in MC in the late 50's/early 60's I was pretty much a homophobe. Just didn't get it, didn't like it, and was actually fearful of gays trying to get me to, uh - go gay. Then I moved to Hollywood in '84. The guy at the PO box place was gay. Guy across the hall was gay. I soon came to realize there was NOTHING wrong with these guys. They were certainly not dressed in fishnets doing showtunes in their living rooms or hitting on me. So with the gay marriage issue - who cares? Aren't there enough problems in the world? Do we really need to worry about the legal status of two same-sex people who are going to live together with or without a marriage license? Let people be happy.

I just can't figure out the fear. Fear and ignorance leads to hate and prejudice. We are a free country, aren't we? Free to live how we see fit? There should be no barriers for anyone's lifestyle.

I have many gay friends, and a few family members, they are just like anyone else. We need not discriminate against anyone.

As far as God's law. I believe we have separation of church and state. We can't be dictated by someone's version of the Bible. It's just not right. The Bible is not the be all end all. We are a country of many religions...because we are a free country...except for gay people. It's time we get over it.

[Tim]

I just can't figure out the fear.

For me it was fear of the unknown. Once I got to know a couple of gay people in California I realized how unfounded that fear was.

[Dave]

For me it was fear of the unknown. Once I got to know a couple of gay people in California I realized how unfounded that fear was.

Once you got to know some openly gay people, that is. You never know -- your high school drama or gym teacher, your plumber, the guy next door -- any or all of them could have been gay. Didn't effect you much though, did it?

My very personal take on the straight/gay issue is this: I don't recall waking up one day and deciding "I"m attracted to girls," just like I don't recall waking up one day and deciding "I'm going to be right handed." I doubt there are many people who "decide" to be gay or straight, just as few people "decide" to be right or left handed. It's just part of who one is, and someone else's sexual orientation doesn't effect mine, just as someone else's left-handedness doesn't effect my right-handedness. I just won't be borrowing their scissors.

[Tim]

Once you got to know some openly gay people, that is. You never know -- your high school drama or gym teacher

Jerry Karstens gay????

Dude - you must've attended jr. high in a different city.

But no - if someone I met in my youth was gay but I didn't know it it would have been a non-issue.

[Yokas]

Jerry Karstens gay????

Dude - you must've attended jr. high in a different city.

But no - if someone I met in my youth was gay but I didn't know it it would have been a non-issue.

I don't get the Jerry Karstens comment. Sorry.
As a retired teacher, this is/has been my concern: Our kids today do a lot of experimenting with sexuality issues. They "practice" gay, or bi, or other "risky" areas of sexuality. My concern becomes that they are so open to sexuality, they do not define their sexuality and stay in the area that they belong. You are gay, or you are not. I hate it that the kids cross-over, whimsically, based on their personal loss/gain in realtionships. Often, they are not in touch with their sexuality--yet they practice without being enlightened.
IMO, gay is gay and straight is straight. Don't mess where you don't beling.

[Homey]

Maybe it's not so black and white. That's what experimenting is all about. Like one said...I don't remember waking up and saying...I like women... I like men.

I have one friend who was engaged with a female, but found it in his realm to discover, no, this is not for me. Heartbreaking I'm sure, but better than to make a big mistake. He lead his young years thinking he should do the right thing and fooled himself. Luckily he didn't go further than the engagement.

I don't know what the right answer is. Perhaps more experienced input is necessary. Those of us who can't relate maybe shouldn't be so succinct. ??