Bay Area gays, lesbians and supporter...

Bay Area gays, lesbians and supporters rejoice at ruling

There are 22 comments on the Contra Costa Times story from Aug 5, 2010, titled Bay Area gays, lesbians and supporters rejoice at ruling. In it, Contra Costa Times reports that:

Beverly Hickok, 90, and Doreen Brand, 82, watch breaking news that California's proposition 8 has been overturned at their home in El Cerrito, Calif.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Contra Costa Times.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Charlie

Papeete, French Polynesia

#1 Aug 5, 2010
Judge Vaughn Walker:
"That the majority of California voters
supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant,
as "fundamental rights may not be
submitted to [a] vote; they depend on
the outcome of no elections.

"The evidence shows that the movement
of marriage away from a gendered institution
and toward an institution free from state-mandated
gender roles reflects an evolution of understanding
of gender rather than a change in marriage.
The evidence did not show any historic purpose
for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as
states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry.[B]Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.[/B]

"The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution
of marriage. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses' obligations to each other and to their dependents."

覧覧覧覧覧

The quote above clearly shows that Vaughn Walker is an idiot or had been influenced. He gives the rationale for marriage as " the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household"

He doesn't indicate, however, what the legitimate state interest in conferring all the benefits, rights and privileges of marriage to people would be in the first place if that is, indeed, the case. Why would any government get itself involved in people's personal lives if it was just a matter of setting up house together?

That question remains forever unanswered by all the gay marriage advocates.

Vaughn Walker rehashes all the tired and worn fallacies and radical, left-wing revisionist history that have all been debunked over and over again by sane people. He even makes up a little history of his own.

No matter. When one is nuts, I guess he just stays nuts. Evidently, no rational argument will convince a crazy person.

My guess is that Judge Walker knew that his decision would be appealed to a higher court anyway, so he allowed himself this little fantasy and rack up some points in the meantime from the gay community in SF of which he is part. He's probably celebrating his own decision with his gay buddies right now.

But can one imagine the ostracism he would have faced from his closest friends, acquaintances and other members of the gay community if he had ruled in favor of Proposition 8?

He should have excused himself. There was no way he could have remained impartial.

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

#2 Aug 5, 2010
Charlie wrote:
He doesn't indicate, however, what the legitimate state interest in conferring all the benefits, rights and privileges of marriage to people would be in the first place if that is, indeed, the case. Why would any government get itself involved in people's personal lives if it was just a matter of setting up house together?
That question remains forever unanswered by all the gay marriage advocates.
Very simply, if for no other reason than designating legally who would be responsible for unpaid debts after one of the persons involved died or became in some other way incapacitated and unable to pay their debts. The entire premise of marriage itself is about the ability of a couple to come together and work for the mutual benefit and protection of each other and everything that they might be able to build together, creating a stable unit which can withstand issues that a single person alone cannot. Marriage creates lines of relationship and responsibility, ties of financial culpability, and legal obligations which are not found outside of it.
Duped since birth

Birmingham, MI

#3 Aug 5, 2010
All Americans should be rejoicing that the constitution has once again triumphed in this country, despite all attempts to circumvent its very clear intentions.
Charlie

Papeete, French Polynesia

#4 Aug 5, 2010
Pagan and Proud wrote:
<quoted text>Very simply, if for no other reason than designating legally who would be responsible for unpaid debts after one of the persons involved died or became in some other way incapacitated and unable to pay their debts. The entire premise of marriage itself is about the ability of a couple to come together and work for the mutual benefit and protection of each other and everything that they might be able to build together, creating a stable unit which can withstand issues that a single person alone cannot. Marriage creates lines of relationship and responsibility, ties of financial culpability, and legal obligations which are not found outside of it.
Now, you just made all of that up. But since you said it, you are going to have to provide proof. Show that states have instituted marriage so that debts can be paid.

By the way, that isn't true in all states. It depends on whether the state is a community property state and whether the debts were acquired prior to or after a marriage. It may not hold if a state permits spouses to maintain separate assets and liabilities.

As for the rest of your claims, well, no. The state doesn't need to get involved.

Actually, you hark back to Genesis, where God said that it is not good for a man to be alone, and then created a helpmate for him. That is your "entire premise of marriage." And you thought you weren't religious.

Of course, God goes on to say be fruitful and multiply, so procreation was definitely part of the equation.

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

#5 Aug 5, 2010
Charlie wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, you just made all of that up. But since you said it, you are going to have to provide proof. Show that states have instituted marriage so that debts can be paid.
No, actually financial culpability for a mate is part of the Marriage obligation or don't you know what marriage actually entails?
Charlie wrote:
By the way, that isn't true in all states. It depends on whether the state is a community property state and whether the debts were acquired prior to or after a marriage.
Not really. If someone is married, if they die the survivor is responsible for the debts incurred.
Charlie wrote:
It may not hold if a state permits spouses to maintain separate assets and liabilities.
Grasping at straws.
Charlie wrote:
As for the rest of your claims, well, no. The state doesn't need to get involved.
Sure it does.
Charlie wrote:
Actually, you hark back to Genesis, where God said that it is not good for a man to be alone, and then created a helpmate for him. That is your "entire premise of marriage." And you thought you weren't religious.
ROFLMAO! Sorry your imaginary friend really doesn't have anything to do with it.
Charlie wrote:
Of course, God goes on to say be fruitful and multiply, so procreation was definitely part of the equation.
If that's true your deity wouldn't have made many people that were medically infertile, but then that's always the downfall of mythology.
Charlie

Papeete, French Polynesia

#6 Aug 5, 2010
Pagan and Proud wrote:
<quoted text>No, actually financial culpability for a mate is part of the Marriage obligation or don't you know what marriage actually entails?<quoted text>Not really. If someone is married, if they die the survivor is responsible for the debts incurred.<quoted text>Grasping at straws.<quoted text>Sure it does.<quoted text>ROFLMAO! Sorry your imaginary friend really doesn't have anything to do with it.<quoted text>If that's true your deity wouldn't have made many people that were medically infertile, but then that's always the downfall of mythology.
Well, we can all see who doesn't have any education in law here.

Culpability, btw, means guilt or deserving of blame. Your vocabulary is a bit off-target here.

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

#7 Aug 5, 2010
Charlie wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, we can all see who doesn't have any education in law here.
You.
Charlie wrote:
Culpability, btw, means guilt or deserving of blame. Your vocabulary is a bit off-target here.
No, the issue is your lack of understanding and willingness to attempt to obfuscate issues. Should a person die or become otherwise unable to pay a debt, the first person which would be held financially culpable is the spouse. At this point you should pull some sort of extenuating BS out of your rear to try to confuse the issue, as is your normal modus operandi.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#8 Aug 5, 2010
Pagan and Proud wrote:
<quoted text>You.<quoted text>No, the issue is your lack of understanding and willingness to attempt to obfuscate issues. Should a person die or become otherwise unable to pay a debt, the first person which would be held financially culpable is the spouse. At this point you should pull some sort of extenuating BS out of your rear to try to confuse the issue, as is your normal modus operandi.
I don't believe the issue is why the state is involved in marriage. The simple fact is that it IS involved. And so long as the sate is involved in it, and the USSC says that marriage is a basic right of every citizen, then it should be governed equally. It is all really very simple.

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

#9 Aug 5, 2010
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe the issue is why the state is involved in marriage. The simple fact is that it IS involved. And so long as the sate is involved in it, and the USSC says that marriage is a basic right of every citizen, then it should be governed equally. It is all really very simple.
I agree, I was simply humoring the troll. It's the same twit from the Philippines area that pops in, makes grandiose statements, attempts to interweave mythology and distract from the fact that it really doesn't know what it's talking about.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#10 Aug 5, 2010
Pagan and Proud wrote:
<quoted text>I agree, I was simply humoring the troll. It's the same twit from the Philippines area that pops in, makes grandiose statements, attempts to interweave mythology and distract from the fact that it really doesn't know what it's talking about.
I know. I make the same mistake with Frank from Long Island all the time. He seems to be on a level field some days, and then he apparently goes off his meds, and bounces all over the place. I should know better than to engage him, but I do.

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

#11 Aug 5, 2010
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
I know. I make the same mistake with Frank from Long Island all the time. He seems to be on a level field some days, and then he apparently goes off his meds, and bounces all over the place. I should know better than to engage him, but I do.
Oh Daniel P/Frank ? He's absolutely delusionally psychotic.
Deanna Adams

Whittier, CA

#12 Aug 5, 2010
Society has established marriage as a contract between two individuals who wish to intertwine their property and their lives. If this is true, than why do we discriminate and segregate by having religious institutions dictate and denying services to certain individuals. Religious institutions are revolting against this saying that marriage is a sacred binding between a man and a woman. To me, that is similar to racial segregation in the sense that religious institutions are denying services to certain individuals.

I believe that the moment we are born, we are wired to express ourselves however we please, and mitigate social contracts which suppress and diminish liberty. For example, freedom of religion was established to protect individuals from being chastised for not following main stream religion. I believe social contracts transform through time and the individual changes society not vice versa. Defense mechanisms kick in to protect the psyche from pain repressing the innate disposition conforming to a social contract. This sense of psychological security is false and the psyche finds a path to free itself. That is how freedom of religion was established because individuals desired to express freely contrary to main stream religion. Most social contracts are based on conformity and false psychological security.

All religious institutions independent from government control its members through its rules and regulations. Regardless of religion rules and regulations are established to control. Government institutions govern not only its people but the institutions within. What happens when institutions have a greater influence over government? That is that the majority of the government people belong to a certain institution. Then this group obviously has a large control over the rights that the government gets to protect.

I think gay marriage should be legalized only because I believe that the homosexual community should be able to engage in such a contract if they see fit. How I feel is insignificant and independent of a right between two humans. As of now, they have no protection from these institutions that are simply bulling them around.
The gay community should have the right to be protected if they choose to get married. I do believe; however, two licenses should be issued similar like a confidential and public license. But the right and privilege what the marriage license offers must be equal between the two.

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

#13 Aug 5, 2010
Deanna Adams wrote:
I do believe; however, two licenses should be issued similar like a confidential and public license. But the right and privilege what the marriage license offers must be equal between the two.
There is no legitimate reason to have two separate but equal licenses, that Violates the earlier SCOTUS ruling and creates a legal line of segregation.
Deanna Adams

Whittier, CA

#14 Aug 5, 2010
Compromise with the establishment and the earlier scotus ruling might get things done faster. A stiff branch break. I recommend flexibility.
Deanna Adams

Whittier, CA

#15 Aug 5, 2010
Ooops.... A stiff branch breaks.

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

#16 Aug 6, 2010
Deanna Adams wrote:
Ooops.... A stiff branch breaks.
So therefore one should settle for what you can get? Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing an evil. No compromise.
Deanna Adams

Redlands, CA

#17 Aug 8, 2010
What is the difference between a yellow and green license? Yellow for same-sex and green for straight. By the way, I am straight and yellow is my favorite color. That is my point.

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

#18 Aug 8, 2010
Deanna Adams wrote:
What is the difference between a yellow and green license? Yellow for same-sex and green for straight. By the way, I am straight and yellow is my favorite color. That is my point.
What is the difference in a school for black students and a school for white? Theoretically they are equal, in fact they aren't. Segregation is simply wrong. Such separation has always proven to be a divisive thing. One of the first occurrences after New Jersey passed their law allowing for Civil Unions which were to be the equal of Marriage was a Lawsuit because a company, UPS in fact, would NOT allow a person to put their partner on their insurance after they "Unioned", the statement was that the insurance was for a "spouse", something which is not legally created with a Civil Union. The fact that the couple won isn't the point, the fact that the lawsuit should never have come into being in the first place if everything was truly equal. It isn't.

Since: Jun 10

United States

#19 Aug 8, 2010
It is simply one more step down the road to the cesspool.

Every time this country takes another step toward what we think of as "tolerance", "inclusiveness", etc. we move that much further away from the moral and social gold standard of our colonial forebears.

We chose to elect a member of an unevolved jungle race to the highest executive position in the government. One step. We chose to allow members of a violent, non-White religion to build a house of worship blocks from the World Trade Center site, where members of that religion murdered 3,000 Chriatians. Another step. We are extending the institution of sacred matrimony to those who engage in sexual perversion. Another step. It is currently proposed to grant U.S. citizenship to an entire backward, violent, unevolved population from the cesspools of the Third World. Yet another step.

This country was founded four hundred years ago to be the "Shining City on the Hill." It owes its existence to the blood, sweat, courage and determination of White Christians from Europe. There were no "transgendered people" there. There were no pagans, agnostics, vegetarians or animal welfare nuts. There were no Affirmative Action programs involved, and no stimulus money.

Four hundred years on this country finds itself moving rapidly from that city on the hill, a place of order and prosperity, and slouching toward Dystopia, a smelly latrine with a flag.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#20 Aug 8, 2010
Mr T Bagger wrote:
It is simply one more step down the road to the cesspool.
Every time this country takes another step toward what we think of as "tolerance", "inclusiveness", etc. we move that much further away from the moral and social gold standard of our colonial forebears.
We chose to elect a member of an unevolved jungle race to the highest executive position in the government. One step. We chose to allow members of a violent, non-White religion to build a house of worship blocks from the World Trade Center site, where members of that religion murdered 3,000 Chriatians. Another step. We are extending the institution of sacred matrimony to those who engage in sexual perversion. Another step. It is currently proposed to grant U.S. citizenship to an entire backward, violent, unevolved population from the cesspools of the Third World. Yet another step.
This country was founded four hundred years ago to be the "Shining City on the Hill." It owes its existence to the blood, sweat, courage and determination of White Christians from Europe. There were no "transgendered people" there. There were no pagans, agnostics, vegetarians or animal welfare nuts. There were no Affirmative Action programs involved, and no stimulus money.
Four hundred years on this country finds itself moving rapidly from that city on the hill, a place of order and prosperity, and slouching toward Dystopia, a smelly latrine with a flag.
How convienent that you overlooked the red, yellow, brown, and black races on whose backs this nation built its' economic stenght.

If you enjoyed the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries in this country, you would probably really enjoy Iran or Iraq. Their religious government would probably fit you to a "T".

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

El Cerrito Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 20 hr Ha Hair 20,932
New Executive Order Presidential Candidates mus... 21 hr shabbyguy 1
News SolTrans offers free bus service from Benicia t... Mar 23 Helen 1
News Girl who came to U.S. illegally can't get loans (May '10) Mar 22 tellinitlikeitis 3,236
News Doctor heads to court after online sex sting (Nov '06) Mar 22 Jim_Bakker 17,469
News Slaying victim remembered as bikers roar throug... (Jun '08) Sep '15 Donna 1,073
News 'Bag of Dirt' Cancer Doc (Jul '15) Jul '15 Spotted Girl 2

El Cerrito Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

El Cerrito Mortgages