Schwarzenegger: Let Same-Sex Weddings Resume Now

Aug 7, 2010 Full story: ThePittsburghChannel 343

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who twice vetoed legislation that would have legalized same-sex marriage, has surprised gay rights supporters by urging a federal judge to allow gay couples to resume marrying in the state without further delay.

Full Story
Chicago Guy

Winnetka, IL

#24 Aug 7, 2010
carey529 wrote:
<quoted text>
as are you...
there is NOTHING in the constitution about marriage, opposite OR same sex.
civics 101?
14th Amendent.

Gays are being denied a legal right and benefit that heterosexual enjoy.

As you say... Civics 101

“Jobs for Americans”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#25 Aug 7, 2010
Schwarzenegger Is a devil! I will never watch one of his movies again. Between this and his leniency for illegal immigrants I have determined that he is a piece of shit.
hot topic

United States

#26 Aug 7, 2010
formerly really wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, if you look at the ruling, it really isn't saying that gay marrige is in the Constituiton That's absurd; marriage isn't mentioned in it at all.
What IS mentioned is due process and equal treatment under the law. Telling two people that they cannot make a legal, civil contract based SOLELY on their gender is NOT equal treatment under the law, and the state has NO compelling reason to discriminate against them.
The SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a fundamnetal right. If the state is going to take away that fundamnetal right from a select group of people, they MUST have a compelling legal reason to do so. "It's tradition" does not qualify.
You can't take away something that was never yours! You could have had a "civil union", but you did want it. You cry about being equal but separate. MOST gays don't even care about marriage. It is just the so called victory of those who can't stand that they are not seen the same as straights. The judges are forcing this through for you. BY NO MEANS does it mean you are accepted as equals. You're still viewed as NOT NORMAL by MOST Americans!

“Freedom Demands Responsibility”

Since: Aug 09

21st Century

#27 Aug 7, 2010
Chicago Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
14th Amendent.
Gays are being denied a legal right and benefit that heterosexual enjoy.
As you say... Civics 101
Woof, CG, You are in fact wrong. You are desparately attempting to construct a right out of whole cloth. Give me one example of a person gay or otherwise that has been denied the opportunity to marry, if they requested that opportunity with a "qualifying" partner under current law.

Unfortunately, I do believe that current political climate and the Activist Judicial system makes it a reality that "marraige" will be legally distorted to include almost any combination or permutation imaginable. For example, why two people, why not three? Give me an argument that prevents a trio of loving people from forming a family and adopting or having children? After all in the mind of your kind all that counts is people that love each other and equal rights.
Chicago Guy

Winnetka, IL

#28 Aug 7, 2010
FreeDog wrote:
<quoted text>
Woof, CG, You are in fact wrong. You are desparately attempting to construct a right out of whole cloth. Give me one example of a person gay or otherwise that has been denied the opportunity to marry, if they requested that opportunity with a "qualifying" partner under current law.
Unfortunately, I do believe that current political climate and the Activist Judicial system makes it a reality that "marraige" will be legally distorted to include almost any combination or permutation imaginable. For example, why two people, why not three? Give me an argument that prevents a trio of loving people from forming a family and adopting or having children? After all in the mind of your kind all that counts is people that love each other and equal rights.
"After all in the mind of your kind all that counts is people that love each other and equal rights."
You know nothing about me, so how do you know what "my kind" is?
And you're completely wrong in your assertions. All that counts in MY mind is 1) the Constitution and 2) legal precedent
1) The Consitution we've discussed. It's not about "life, liberty" etc. It's about "equal protection under the law".
2) Examine the legal precedent. It is ILLEGAL for anyone in the United States to "marry" a child, an animal, or to marry more than one person. Equal rights are afforded, because NO ONE can do it-- not even under "religious freedom"
It is LEGAL, however, for heterosexuals to marry the spouse of their choice. The only restrictions being that they cannot be too closely related, and they must both be of age, and of sound mind.
This is a clear example of heteros having UNEQUAL protection under the law. It is not meaningful or helpful to say gays "can marry opposite sex partners", because they would never desire such a union. Nor is it illegal to be gay. Therefore, their rights are being denied.
And if that WEREN'T the case... there wouldn't be any need for these scrambling, retroactive "fixes" adding "between a man and a woman" to existing marriage laws-- where it never existed previously.
Bigots KNOW they can't have equal application of marriage laws... unless they CHANGE the marriage laws.
Even someone who disagrees with gay marriage must be able to see and acknowledge the ACTUAL argument. woof.

“Freedom Demands Responsibility”

Since: Aug 09

21st Century

#29 Aug 7, 2010
Chicago Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
"After all in the mind of your kind all that counts is people that love each other and equal rights."
You know nothing about me, so how do you know what "my kind" is?
And you're completely wrong in your assertions. All that counts in MY mind is 1) the Constitution and 2) legal precedent
1) The Consitution we've discussed. It's not about "life, liberty" etc. It's about "equal protection under the law".
2) Examine the legal precedent. It is ILLEGAL for anyone in the United States to "marry" a child, an animal, or to marry more than one person. Equal rights are afforded, because NO ONE can do it-- not even under "religious freedom"
It is LEGAL, however, for heterosexuals to marry the spouse of their choice. The only restrictions being that they cannot be too closely related, and they must both be of age, and of sound mind.
This is a clear example of heteros having UNEQUAL protection under the law. It is not meaningful or helpful to say gays "can marry opposite sex partners", because they would never desire such a union. Nor is it illegal to be gay. Therefore, their rights are being denied.
And if that WEREN'T the case... there wouldn't be any need for these scrambling, retroactive "fixes" adding "between a man and a woman" to existing marriage laws-- where it never existed previously.
Bigots KNOW they can't have equal application of marriage laws... unless they CHANGE the marriage laws.
Even someone who disagrees with gay marriage must be able to see and acknowledge the ACTUAL argument. woof.
Woof, CG, In your entire diatribe, you didn't address my question or points, therefore, I surmise that you are logically cornered, and chose to bluster as a defense. I will address the points once again:

* Legally any human of legal age can marry. No one is barred from marrying currently. To qualify all one must do is to find a partner of the opposite sex that is willing to join in marriage. Therefore, your argument that "equal protection" somehow comes into play is false. To put it bluntly If a Gay wants to get married, all they have to do is marry a person of the opposite sex. No law bars this.

* "Illegal to marry a child" - Marriage laws are all State Laws not Federal. There are several states that allow marriage of children as young as 15, even though majority is legally 18.

* Gays currently enjoy all the rights and privileges of married people through "civil unions". The only issue is the use of the word "marriage". Humans use language to precisely describe and communicate not to confuse. "Marriage" has always meant the union of a male and a female. By co-opting this word and allowing it to mean a multitude of other combinations, it only acts to confuse. I suggest it would be better to leave the word "marriage" alone, and create several new words, just as meaningful, one for a male/male union, one for a female/female union, etc. This would take the emotion out of the issue and settle the matter.

* My reference to you as "your kind" was in reference to those of your "political leaning", it was not a guess at your sexual preference.
Chicago Guy

Winnetka, IL

#30 Aug 7, 2010
FreeDog wrote:
<quoted text>
Woof, CG, In your entire diatribe, you didn't address my question or points, therefore, I surmise that you are logically cornered, and chose to bluster as a defense. I will address the points once again:
* Legally any human of legal age can marry. No one is barred from marrying currently. To qualify all one must do is to find a partner of the opposite sex that is willing to join in marriage. Therefore, your argument that "equal protection" somehow comes into play is false. To put it bluntly If a Gay wants to get married, all they have to do is marry a person of the opposite sex. No law bars this.
* "Illegal to marry a child" - Marriage laws are all State Laws not Federal. There are several states that allow marriage of children as young as 15, even though majority is legally 18.
* Gays currently enjoy all the rights and privileges of married people through "civil unions". The only issue is the use of the word "marriage". Humans use language to precisely describe and communicate not to confuse. "Marriage" has always meant the union of a male and a female. By co-opting this word and allowing it to mean a multitude of other combinations, it only acts to confuse. I suggest it would be better to leave the word "marriage" alone, and create several new words, just as meaningful, one for a male/male union, one for a female/female union, etc. This would take the emotion out of the issue and settle the matter.
* My reference to you as "your kind" was in reference to those of your "political leaning", it was not a guess at your sexual preference.
Well, I think you missed my points, as well. The LEGAL term for a civil union is "marriage". If you wish to change this terminology, feel free. But remember "separate but equal" has already been ruled unConstitutional.

Civils unions are NOT available in most states, still. That is an innacuracy.

We are not talking about "age of consent" laws, here. The conservative argument seems to be that gay marriage supporters think pedophilia-- along with beastiality and polygamy-- is just fine and dandy. Would you agree with this statement.

Finally, it is, and remains, an entirely specious argument to say "gays have the same right to marry opposite sex partners as I do". Being gay is LEGAL. Pursuing gay relationships is LEGAL. With that being the case, setting a different LEGAL standard for straights and gays is indefensible. And you know as much-- this is just a cute little ploy anti-gay folks trot out when actual reason fails.
Renee

San Bernardino, CA

#31 Aug 7, 2010
carey529 wrote:
<quoted text>
as are you...
there is NOTHING in the constitution about marriage, opposite OR same sex.
civics 101?
Perhaps you should read the Ninth Amendment. Let me know if you don't understand what it means.

Since: May 08

Oroville

#32 Aug 7, 2010
I wonder how many of you homophobes have bothered to even read the court decision.
It is obvious none of you have any understanding of the US Constitution and separation of powers. Each branch of government is a check and balance against the other. Our nation is majority rule while protecting the rights of minorities.
In the USA you are free to be a bigot or racist and a homophobes, it would be nice if you all just admitted what you are.
Remember in November

United States

#33 Aug 7, 2010
Zombie Corpse Rental wrote:
<quoted text>You were okay with it when the Republicans ran the show, though ...
We need to rebalance; the pendulum has swung to far to the left and it needs to be more centrist or righted.

VOTE IN NOVEMBER, get rid of Boomerang Brow Pelosi. A vote for a democrat ensures her Speakership, so NO to ALL democrats.

a vote for a local democrat in YOUR county, state will help Pelosi keep her position as Speaker.

NO to DEMONCRATS!
Remember in November

United States

#34 Aug 7, 2010
LWright wrote:
I wonder how many of you homophobes have bothered to even read the court decision.
It is obvious none of you have any understanding of the US Constitution and separation of powers. Each branch of government is a check and balance against the other. Our nation is majority rule while protecting the rights of minorities.
In the USA you are free to be a bigot or racist and a homophobes, it would be nice if you all just admitted what you are.
Democrats ALWAYS resort to name calling.

If you disagree with the president: you're a racist.
If you disagree with Israeli policy: you're an anti-semite.
If you disagree with gay marriage: you're a homophobe
If you disagree with someone: you're a bigot despite the fact that they could be labeled the same.

Checks and balances: reverse democrat domination of the Congress, Senate and Executive branch.

VOTE OUT ALL DEMOCRATS IN 2010 and 2012. Your local vote adds up!

Noam, oh, Noam where are you? Under Rahm's tutu?
Remember in November

United States

#35 Aug 7, 2010
Actually, Krauthammer made an excellent point the other day.

The number of people who disapprove of gay marriage is declining, not increasing.

It's the activist judges who fail to let the public speak their mind in voting.
Remember in November

United States

#36 Aug 7, 2010
Protecting the rights of the "minorities".

Can people have sex with animals without local, state and federal intervention?

Minorities...

SO vague that fits everyone and everything.

No rules, no regs, just do it.

“Freedom Demands Responsibility”

Since: Aug 09

21st Century

#37 Aug 7, 2010
Chicago Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I think you missed my points, as well. The LEGAL term for a civil union is "marriage". If you wish to change this terminology, feel free. But remember "separate but equal" has already been ruled unConstitutional.
Civils unions are NOT available in most states, still. That is an innacuracy.
We are not talking about "age of consent" laws, here. The conservative argument seems to be that gay marriage supporters think pedophilia-- along with beastiality and polygamy-- is just fine and dandy. Would you agree with this statement.
Finally, it is, and remains, an entirely specious argument to say "gays have the same right to marry opposite sex partners as I do". Being gay is LEGAL. Pursuing gay relationships is LEGAL. With that being the case, setting a different LEGAL standard for straights and gays is indefensible. And you know as much-- this is just a cute little ploy anti-gay folks trot out when actual reason fails.
Woof, CG, This thread is about California, and Civil Unions for Gays are legal in California. They also provide all the rights of marriage.

Seperate but equal is not unconstitutional, in all matters. It has been ruled unconstitutional in matters of Race, and I believe we both agree with this. Race and Sexual Preference are not the same thing. One is behavior and the other is genetics. There has never been successful scientific proof that homosexuality is genetically based, although it has been attempted. As for "Seperate but equal" I can provide a miriad of examples of condoned and even government sponsored examples. Try Mens and Womens Restrooms, or Mens and Womens Sports Teams.

You said, "Being gay is LEGAL. Pursuing gay relationships is LEGAL.", and I agree. However, your conclusion does not follow. A + B does not necessarily equal C when C belongs to another equation. Gays have a right to "their own relationship". It is not "marriage".

Being logical and supporting my oppinion about marriage does not make me anti-gay. I am not anti-gay, as you accuse me. I am simply against the movement to co-opt "marriage" for what it was never meant to be.

“Freedom Demands Responsibility”

Since: Aug 09

21st Century

#38 Aug 7, 2010
LWright wrote:
I wonder how many of you homophobes have bothered to even read the court decision.
It is obvious none of you have any understanding of the US Constitution and separation of powers. Each branch of government is a check and balance against the other. Our nation is majority rule while protecting the rights of minorities.
In the USA you are free to be a bigot or racist and a homophobes, it would be nice if you all just admitted what you are.
Woof, LW, This thread is about California. One Judge a "minority", overturned the votes of the majority. In that election both African American and Hispanic Californians voted in favor of Proposition 8, to keep marriage between a man and a woman. Therefore, those against the decision are not "racists". That leaves only one of your terms, "bigot". You are either calling the majority of Californians "bigots", which I find remarkable, or just possibly you are seeing your own reflection.

The majority of Californians are not anti-gay, they simply believe in defending the institution of "marriage".

“i hope we can change this!”

Since: Aug 08

usa

#39 Aug 7, 2010
FrankieM wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but it sets a basis for equality.
After you.
no, things are equal now...
i can't marry more than one person at a time, a person of the same sex, or, a blood relative.
NO ONE can...
THAT'S equality.
YOU want to make exceptions...
and, maybe the people that want multiple spouses want exceptions, maybe the people that want to marry their brother, or sister want exceptions, maybe the people that want to marry sheep want exceptions...
ONLY a total moron doesn't see where this is headed.

“i hope we can change this!”

Since: Aug 08

usa

#40 Aug 7, 2010
Chicago Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
14th Amendent.
Gays are being denied a legal right and benefit that heterosexual enjoy.
As you say... Civics 101
no they aren't...
see above

“i hope we can change this!”

Since: Aug 08

usa

#41 Aug 7, 2010
Renee wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you should read the Ninth Amendment. Let me know if you don't understand what it means.
gee, a condescending elitist from california ... who'da thunk it?

nice try, toots, but ... it doesn't fly.
formerly really

San Pedro, CA

#42 Aug 7, 2010
hot topic wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't take away something that was never yours! You could have had a "civil union", but you did want it. You cry about being equal but separate. MOST gays don't even care about marriage. It is just the so called victory of those who can't stand that they are not seen the same as straights. The judges are forcing this through for you. BY NO MEANS does it mean you are accepted as equals. You're still viewed as NOT NORMAL by MOST Americans!
Who defines normal? It it okay to use the law to punish someone who you deem "not normal?" How about the handicapped? How about other colors? How about women? How about athiests? Is it okay to discrimnate against them because you think they don't deserve the same rights? You think that seperate but equal IS equal?

News flash- the Constitution does not agree with you. Equality under the law means everyone must be treated equally under the law. You don't have to like or approve or accept any minorty, but you cannot use the law to treat them as less than equal.
formerly really

San Pedro, CA

#43 Aug 7, 2010
FreeDog wrote:
<quoted text>
Woof, CG, In your entire diatribe, you didn't address my question or points, therefore, I surmise that you are logically cornered, and chose to bluster as a defense. I will address the points once again:
* Legally any human of legal age can marry. No one is barred from marrying currently. To qualify all one must do is to find a partner of the opposite sex that is willing to join in marriage. Therefore, your argument that "equal protection" somehow comes into play is false. To put it bluntly If a Gay wants to get married, all they have to do is marry a person of the opposite sex. No law bars this.
* "Illegal to marry a child" - Marriage laws are all State Laws not Federal. There are several states that allow marriage of children as young as 15, even though majority is legally 18.
* Gays currently enjoy all the rights and privileges of married people through "civil unions". The only issue is the use of the word "marriage". Humans use language to precisely describe and communicate not to confuse. "Marriage" has always meant the union of a male and a female. By co-opting this word and allowing it to mean a multitude of other combinations, it only acts to confuse. I suggest it would be better to leave the word "marriage" alone, and create several new words, just as meaningful, one for a male/male union, one for a female/female union, etc. This would take the emotion out of the issue and settle the matter.
* My reference to you as "your kind" was in reference to those of your "political leaning", it was not a guess at your sexual preference.
So, let me get this straight:
What you want is for homosexuals, in order to protect YOUR sensibilities, to enter into som sham marriage rather than marry the person of their choice? Because YOU don't like their choice of partner? Is that what you think you are saying? Because it IS what you are proposing.

No, gays do NOT enjoy all the rights and priveleges of marrige through civil unions. Civil unions are NOT equal to marriage. Not by a long shot.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 6 min Elton johns alter... 57,275
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr wojar 183,930
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr Mothra 50,470
Pharmacy Robbed of Pills 4 hr Christshariahns 5
Woman in India sues Uber after reporting driver... 6 hr Michael4991 1
Amgen Tour of California route to traverse Neva... 7 hr Sylvia 1
Some doctors won't see patients with anti-vacci... 8 hr BAD DOCTORS 1
More from around the web