Good... I hope every state does this. We've been living in the dark ages too long

40yoVirgin: Good... I hope every state does this. We've been living in the dark ages too long

That's the way the winds are blowing. Sure there are some ultra religious types that oppose it, but it's just not an issue that you can sell to the average American voter. You saw how that constitutional amendment Bush wanted went absolutely nowhere. Nobody cares if a couple of homosexuals want to live together.

nekom: Nobody cares if a couple of homosexuals want to live together.

That is apathy I can get behind!

;)

40yoVirgin: That is apathy I can get behind!

Well that's pretty much what it is, I think. I don't know anybody who actually cares if gays want to get married, do you? Obviously there are homosexual groups who are pushing for it, and fundamentalist religious groups pushing against it, but if you ask joe schmoe on the street, I'm pretty sure he'll tell you "Queers want to get married? Go ahead, what do I care?"

seems like this is long over due...

Everyone gets a lei for being gay!

Civil unions through consent of the people's elected representatives instead of through courts: you're doing it right.

40yoVirgin: Good... I hope every state does this. We've been living in the dark ages too long

I hope there will come a day that the concept of 'marriage license' will be abolished, and that every couple who wants to have their commitment and partnership recognized by the state will fill out the same civil union paperwork.

Marriage is a relgious institution - leave it to the religions.

I recognize the irony of being married and saying that, but if I could go back and do it again, I would do it via city hall, and not with all the Papist pomp that Mr. Duff wanted... particularly now that he has 'unseen the light' and is irreligious as I am.

sparky1013: seems like this is long over due...

you beat me to it.

Surly_Duff: I hope there will come a day that the concept of 'marriage license' will be abolished, and that every couple who wants to have their commitment and partnership recognized by the state will fill out the same civil union paperwork.

Marriage is a relgious institution - leave it to the religions.

That is EXACTLY my opinion as well. From the religious end, if a particular church won't perform the ceremony for homosexuals, that's their right. From the legal end, it's a contract between two people. And from a personal end, I couldn't care less what relationships consenting adults want to participate in. If somebody chooses a partner in life of the same sex and finds their happiness there, it's not my place to tell them it's wrong.

I couldn't care less what relationships consenting adults want to participate in. If somebody chooses a partner in life of the same sex and finds their happiness there, it's not my place to tell them it's wrong.

Then hopefully we can strip the bullshiat Defense of Marriage Act from the books

nekom: That is EXACTLY my opinion as well. From the religious end, if a particular church won't perform the ceremony for homosexuals, that's their right. From the legal end, it's a contract between two people. And from a personal end, I couldn't care less what relationships consenting adults want to participate in. If somebody chooses a partner in life of the same sex and finds their happiness there, it's not my place to tell them it's wrong.

Agreed. Let two responsible adults get the tax benefits, the visitation rights, health insurance, etc. etc. None of that injures me or picks my pocket.

/Frankly, if my gay neighbors got the tax benefits, they would do faaaabulous things with their front lawn from their refund and increase my property values.

And before you know it they'll be trying to marry their pet monk seals.

This could bring new meaning to the Hawaiian Goose.

jaylectricity: And before you know it they'll be trying to marry their pet monk seals.

As long as your seal is of the age of consent and possesses a valid drivers license or birth certificate, I have no problem with that.

/won't somebody please think of the pups?

MasterThief: Civil unions through consent of the people's elected representatives instead of through courts: you're doing it right.

You're right.

Except, look what happened in California. Gay marriage proponents pushed the same sort of domestic partnership act through the state legislature and then once it was passed, they went to court to have it declared unconstitutional as "separate but equal," and got activist judges to agree. They said that if the state is willing to give equal rights to domestic partnerships, there's no reason to for the state to ban gay marriage.

The dissenting judge called that sort of thinking "legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature's own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth." Hawaii and other states better think about that before they get themselves jujitsued by this new civil union act they're considering.

SkinnyHead: Hawaii and other states better think about that before they get themselves jujitsued by this new civil union act they're considering.

What would you suggest?

So, they're simplifying a bunch of paperwork for consistent couples and creating a classification that'll help with things like adoption and the flaws of complete social independence, without going out of their way to offend religious organizations? Wow, it's like activists actually promoted something useful without being complete asshats. My brain might asplode.

Can CA trade its gay lobby for HIs? It sounds like they're about 1000000% more pleasant.

People sure get excited when the government gets the chance to get even more control over their lives.

I oppose government sanctioned marriages and civil unions.

You can write a contract for anything and change your name without "getting married" or anything else.

People claim they want to keep the gov't out of the bedroom, but this only allows it easier access.

nekom: I don't know anybody who actually cares if gays want to get married, do you?

Unfortunately, I know a LOT of people. They filter their hatred for gays by working hard and spending a LOT of money to ensure gays don't have equal rights.

SkinnyHead: MasterThief: Civil unions through consent of the people's elected representatives instead of through courts: you're doing it right.

You're right.

Except, look what happened in California. Gay marriage proponents pushed the same sort of domestic partnership act through the state legislature and then once it was passed, they went to court to have it declared unconstitutional as "separate but equal," and got activist judges to agree. They said that if the state is willing to give equal rights to domestic partnerships, there's no reason to for the state to ban gay marriage.

The dissenting judge called that sort of thinking "legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature's own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth." Hawaii and other states better think about that before they get themselves jujitsued by this new civil union act they're considering.

Anymore conservative buzz words and you would be a blogger for politico.

Anyone here claiming that the gaining of rights through court actions is wrong are, well, morons, and have no idea of how the system of checks and balances works.

The majority rule that you wish actually existed, is guarded against by the very governmental system that you are claiming is against the will of the people.

Now each of you go read the federalist papers and learn about the tyranny of majority. After all, the forefathers of our nations wrote them.

SkinnyHead: Except, look what happened in California. Gay marriage proponents pushed the same sort of domestic partnership act through the state legislature and then once it was passed, they went to court to have it declared unconstitutional as "separate but equal," and got activist judges to agree. They said that if the state is willing to give equal rights to domestic partnerships, there's no reason to for the state to ban gay marriage.

The problem is that its not separate but equal - its separate but unequal. Almost all contracts are written with the assumption that 'marriage' is the term used to describe a contract between two adults. A 'civil union' is pointless unless I can also get health benefits that are granted to married couples because in a lot of cases I can't. If civil union was offered in my state myself and my partner would not use it as you enter into a legal nightmare.

Only until full marriage rights are granted OR the state gets out of 'marriage' game and just falls back to civil unions for ALL couples.

bravian: If civil union was offered in my state myself and my partner would not use it as you enter into a legal nightmare.

That's gay.

Seriously, is there any other type of legal contract in this country that limits an adult's ability to enter into it on the basis of gender alone?

Yes to gay marriage? Then yes to making abortion illegal.

You can't have it both ways, leftists. If you want government to OK what goes on in the bedroom, then the gov't has the right to protect unborn children who are subject to abortion.

After all, this is about human rights- whether the people are gay or unborn.

Too bad this change won't do a darn bit of good at the federal level.

/I don't care a whole lot if the state recognizes gay marriage.
//Federal benefits are where the money's at.

Surly_Duff: I hope there will come a day that the concept of 'marriage license' will be abolished, and that every couple who wants to have their commitment and partnership recognized by the state will fill out the same civil union paperwork.
Marriage is a religious institution - leave it to the religions.

This has been my opinion ever since the issue of "gay marriage" started hitting the news.
The word "marriage" just has too much symbolism wrapped around it, while the "civil union" is the appropriate modern term for a secular lifelong partnership, regardless of the gender mix involved.

If your church doesn't want to marry homosexuals, fine. If your church only wants to marry homosexuals, fine.
But if citizens want to establish a household legally, and get the benefits that have been traditionally associated with marriage, they should be using the same paperwork as Bob & Jane Jesusfreak as far as the state is concerned.

If the opponents of open marriage really cared about defending marriage, they would be trying to ban divorce and/or mandate pre-marital counseling.

/SurlyDuff, why are you discriminating against non-couple households?
//You disgusting bigot!!1!!1!!1!!eleven!

Just you wait. God will punish Hawaii for this with streams of fire burning everything in it path.

SkinnyHead: MasterThief: Civil unions through consent of the people's elected representatives instead of through courts: you're doing it right.

You're right.

Except, look what happened in California. Gay marriage proponents pushed the same sort of domestic partnership act through the state legislature and then once it was passed, they went to court to have it declared unconstitutional as "separate but equal," and got activist judges to agree. They said that if the state is willing to give equal rights to domestic partnerships, there's no reason to for the state to ban gay marriage.

The dissenting judge called that sort of thinking "legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature's own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth." Hawaii and other states better think about that before they get themselves jujitsued by this new civil union act they're considering.

Also, you're full of shiat. There was never a court case in California confronting the civil union legality.

In 2000, Prop 22 was passed (first shot, and fired by the religious right). It updated the law books but not the constitution.

The CA legislature passed civil unions some time later which gives not all, but most of the legal rights of the married. Fun fact, only same sex couples and couples over 65 can get civil unions in CA.

San Fran mayor pulls his get married here shiat after that, but gets shut down. No legal standing for any of the marriages that took place.

Gay rights advocates challenge Prop 22 in court and have it overturned in 06. Something like 14,000 gay couples get legally married between then and 08.

The religious groups, including the mormon church, get Prop 8 on the ballot and get it passed (running a very dirty campaign mind you) with 8% less votes than Prop 22 did. 52% vs 60% respectively.

Yes on 8 then filed a notion in court to get those 14,000 marriages invalidated (so much for the sanctity of marriage), but that is put on hold because No on 8 groups filed a case stating that Prop 8 is not an amendment to the constitution, but a rewrite removing equal protection which is defined in the constitution.

AG Jerry Brown, which should advocate Prop 8 as the will of the people tells the court that there is constitutionally no reason why Prop 8 should stand that that the office of the AG will not support it.

Verbal arguments open in March.

In the meantime, Yes on 8 files suite to overturn the will of the people to hide the names of donors. They lose the case, and are ordered to release the other 16,000 names of donors to Yes on 8 (they were breaking campaign fiance laws by hold those names). The state also uncovers that the mormon church donated far more money to Yes on 8 than first reviled in their public records, 2,000 vs 2 millon (lol). They are under further investigation at this time.

ramathorn83: If you want government to OK what goes on in the bedroom,

Who says this is about bedroom preferences?
This is an issue of equal rights for stable households.

Hell, I don't care if siblings want to file a domestic partnership and reap the benefits. Two asexual adults want to buddy up, fine with me. The point is that it isn't anybody's business what happens in other homes, and if we extend certain rights and privileges to certain groups, everyone should be able to obtain the same rights and privileges without getting the approval of any particular social club.

ramathorn83: Yes to gay marriage? Then yes to making abortion illegal.

You can't have it both ways, leftists. If you want government to OK what goes on in the bedroom, then the gov't has the right to protect unborn children who are subject to abortion.

After all, this is about human rights- whether the people are gay or unborn.


So, if prop 8 fails to get overturned, I assume that you rightist (lol) will halt your efforts to make abortion illegal, right? After all, you can't have it both ways.

it's all a plot to bolster their tourism
FABULOUS

ramathorn83: Yes to gay marriage? Then yes to making abortion illegal.

You can't have it both ways, leftists. If you want government to OK what goes on in the bedroom, then the gov't has the right to protect unborn children who are subject to abortion.

Wow, that's the shoddiest piece of logic I've seen today (and I just came from arguing with the RON PAULISTS! in another thread)!

MrTuffPaws: Also, you're full of shiat. There was never a court case in California confronting the civil union legality.

That was the reasoning behind the California Supreme Court decision that invented the right to gay marriage. Because the state was willing to grant domestic partnerships the same rights as marriage (or as much as a state can give), they said there was no reason to deny gays the right to marriage itself.

That means that if you support the traditional definition of marriage, but are willing to compromise and support domestic partnerships, they will take your compromise and beat you over the head with it and call you a bigot, until they get everything they want. That's what compromise gets you. Hawaii should take note.

Gay rights advocates challenge Prop 22 in court and have it overturned in 06. Something like 14,000 gay couples get legally married between then and 08.

Actually, the ban on gay marriage was not overturned until the 2008 Supreme Court decision.

Yes on 8 then filed a notion in court to get those 14,000 marriages invalidated (so much for the sanctity of marriage), but that is put on hold because No on 8 groups filed a case stating that Prop 8 is not an amendment to the constitution, but a rewrite removing equal protection which is defined in the constitution.

Prop 8 invalidated those marriages. It says that "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." That means what it says -- no same-sex marriage is valid or recognized in California.

Prop 8 was not put on hold by the filing of the lawsuit. The Calif Supreme Court denied the request for a stay. Prop 8 is currently in effect, which means that same-sex marriages are not currently valid or recognized.

AG Jerry Brown, which should advocate Prop 8 as the will of the people tells the court that there is constitutionally no reason why Prop 8 should stand that that the office of the AG will not support it.

That's not entirely true. Jerry Brown agrees with Prop 8 supporters that Prop 8 is not a constitutional revision. That was the only serious challenge to Prop 8, and Jerry Brown came out against it. That dooms the challenge to Prop 8.

His "inalienable rights" argument is just a joke that has zero chance of success. He's just using that as a smoke screen to fool gay rights supporters into thinking that he's really on their side while he knifes them in the back on the real issue (i.e, the revision vs. amendment issue).

SkinnyHead:

That's not entirely true. Jerry Brown agrees with Prop 8 supporters that Prop 8 is not a constitutional revision. That was the only serious challenge to Prop 8, and Jerry Brown came out against it. That dooms the challenge to Prop 8.

His "inalienable rights" argument is just a joke that has zero chance of success. He's just using that as a smoke screen to fool gay rights supporters into thinking that he's really on their side while he knifes them in the back on the real issue (i.e, the revision vs. amendment issue).

You're wrong again. Jerry as top government lawyer was expected to support prop 8 because historically, that is what the AG did with ballot based props. He is obviously against it.

Jerry Brown: "[Prop8]deprives people of the right to marry, an aspect of liberty that the Supreme Court has concluded is guaranteed by the California Constitution."

And stated as much in court. Yeah, Jerry is the secret double agent of morality :rolleyes:

SkinnyHead: His "inalienable rights" argument is just a joke that has zero chance of success quote from the state Supreme Court's own decision in In Re Marriage Cases.

Good chance it'll work, since they've already found a fundamental right to marry whom you wish in the Constitution.

SkinnyHead: That was the reasoning behind the California Supreme Court decision that invented the right to gay marriage.

"Invented"?

/facepalm
//I've really gotta remember not to argue with the guy with a "G.E.D. in Law"

A few years after us Canucks instituted gay marriage, and I'm still waiting for the first church to be forced to do a wedding.

Also waiting for the destruction of traditional marriage. Any day now.

Here it comes.

Just around the corner.

Uh huh.

Get married there and stay for the honeymoon. Sounds job creation-y.

MasterThief: Civil unions through consent of the people's elected representatives instead of through courts: you're doing it right.

You aren't big on that whole "airing grievances to your government" thing are you?

Surly_Duff: Marriage is a relgious institution

No, no it isn't. It has never, in the history of the entire farking earth, ever been a solely religious institution. Weddings are, mostly, religious ceremonies. The actual relationship? Marriage? That's been non-religious since the days of having to ask Chief Og if you could marry caveman Urgh's daughter Eep.

SkinnyHead: activist judges

Judges saying "Hey guys, that law you passed violates parts X, Y, and Z of the state constitution's anti-discrimination and equal protection clauses" isn't 'activist' in any way, shape or form. What would have been activist would be them saying "We recognize that this law violates these provisions, but it stays on the books anyway to avoid pissing off ignorant fundies".

ramathorn83: Yes to gay marriage? Then yes to making abortion illegal.

You can't have it both ways, leftists. If you want government to OK what goes on in the bedroom, then the gov't has the right to protect unborn children who are subject to abortion.

After all, this is about human rights- whether the people are gay or unborn.

4/10

penthesilea: Get married there and stay for the honeymoon. Sounds job creation-y.

You mean job evolution-y, right?

Murkanen: Judges saying "Hey guys, that law you passed violates parts X, Y, and Z of the state constitution's anti-discrimination and equal protection clauses" isn't 'activist' in any way, shape or form. What would have been activist would be them saying "We recognize that this law violates these provisions, but it stays on the books anyway to avoid pissing off ignorant fundies".

Proposition 8 is now part of the California State Constitution, so the supreme court is going to have to accept Prop 8, whether it pisses off gay marriage activists or not.

Jerry Brown's crazy "inalienable rights" theory is just an invitation for state judges to go full activist. He's asking judges to violate their oath to uphold the state constitution.

There's no way that's going to happen. Those judges remember the last time the state supreme court went full activist against the will of the people. The voters responded by going full tyranny of the majority on them, and kicked them off the bench.

SkinnyHead: Proposition 8 is now part of the California State Constitution, so the supreme court is going to have to accept Prop 8, whether it pisses off gay marriage activists or not.

Actually no they don't. There's an argument over whether or not Prop 8 constitutes a normal amendment or if it constitutes a constitutional revision due to the havoc it plays with equal protection. Revisions need legislative procedures to be enacted.

Considering even the state AG isn't defending the case, I think that will speak more loudly to the California SCOTUS than anything else.

/by the way, thanks for telling me to bet on the Cardinals
//I made 300 bucks betting on the Steelers

Murkanen: Actually no they don't. There's an argument over whether or not Prop 8 constitutes a normal amendment or if it constitutes a constitutional revision due to the havoc it plays with equal protection. Revisions need legislative procedures to be enacted.

Considering even the state AG isn't defending the case, I think that will speak more loudly to the California SCOTUS than anything else.

/by the way, thanks for telling me to bet on the Cardinals
//I made 300 bucks betting on the Steelers

The California SCOTUS? What the hell is that?

And you're welcome for the Superbowl tip. Cardinals bet paid off -- beat the spread.

SkinnyHead: The California SCOTUS? What the hell is that?

Me mistyping, I was referring to the California Supreme Court.

sparky1013: seems like this is long over due...

Indeed.

Murkanen: The actual relationship? Marriage? That's been non-religious since the days of having to ask Chief Og if you could marry caveman Urgh's daughter Eep.
Eep might be cute is she shaved those pits.