California's Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

California's Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

There are 4288 comments on the latimesblogs.latimes.com story from Feb 7, 2012, titled California's Gay Marriage Ban Overturned. In it, latimesblogs.latimes.com reports that:

A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#3294 Mar 9, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
New legislation found that since NY accepted out of state marriages, they had to accept in-state marriages, in other words,what is below was never declared moot.
HERNANDEZ v.ROBLES, 7 N.Y.3d 338
Court of Appeals of New York.
July 6, 2006.
"
The critical question is whether a rational legislature could decide that these benefits should be given to members of opposite-sex couples, but not same-sex couples.
The question is not, we emphasize, whether the Legislature must or should continue to limit marriage in this way; of course
the Legislature S359may (subject to the effect of the federal Defense of Marriage Act[Pub. L. 104–199, 110 U.S. Stat. 2419])
extend marriage or some or all of its benefits to same-sex couples. We conclude,however, that there are at least two
grounds that rationally support the limitation on marriage that the Legislature has enacted. Others have been advanced, but
we will discuss only these two, both of which are derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is important to
the welfare of children.
First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in
same-sex relationships.
It's not an "either/or" situation. Allowing gay marriage won't make straight marriages any less stable. And it's not like only so many couples can marry, not as if each gay marriage prevents a straight marriage.
Reality wrote:
Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a
woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true.
This is really a non issue. You don't have to be able to produce children in order to marry. Sterile straight marriages are allowed. And allowing gay marriage will not change the fact that some couples will breed, and some won't.
Reality wrote:
The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born.
Sex in the restroom on Greyhound a bus can cause a child to be born...
Reality wrote:
It thus could choose to offer an inducement—in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits—to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn,long-term commitment to each other.
Allowing gay marriage won't prohibit them from doing that.
From reading this stuff, you'd think people were talking about *replacing* straight marriage with gay marriage.
Reality wrote:
The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples.
People marry for all sorts of reasons, not just to breed in a "stable" environment. Considering MOST marriages end in divorce, I don't know if the use of the term "stable" is appropriate.
Reality wrote:
There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children
to grow up with both a mother and a father.
Non sequitur. The irony is, that in the state of NY, more restrictions are put on married couples who adopt than on single people.

The court illustrates Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#3295 Mar 9, 2012
Oooops...
Sex in the restroom on a Greyhound bus can cause a child to be born...
Reality

Windsor, VT

#3296 Mar 9, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
blah blah blah
your opinion versus the NY court's ...
not even close.

so is there a rational and legitimate interest in protecting traditional family?

Seems there is...can you stop asking for one now since I have given you TWO supported by a recent court of law.

I understand why you challenge the rationality of a child having both a mom and a dad, but that doesn't mean we all have to...
its "rational" and "legitimate" to say the least.

“The Sky Is Falling!”

Since: Apr 07

Chicago, IL

#3297 Mar 9, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
your opinion versus the NY court's ...
not even close.
so is there a rational and legitimate interest in protecting traditional family?
Seems there is...can you stop asking for one now since I have given you TWO supported by a recent court of law.
I understand why you challenge the rationality of a child having both a mom and a dad, but that doesn't mean we all have to...
its "rational" and "legitimate" to say the least.
I'm sure you will call the good judges "judicial activists" when they rule that children raised in stable same sex households are generally no more or less well adjusted than children raised in traditional households . That day is coming. Brace yourself.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#3298 Mar 9, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
New legislation found that since NY accepted out of state marriages, they had to accept in-state marriages, in other words,what is below was never declared moot.
HERNANDEZ v.ROBLES, 7 N.Y.3d 338
Court of Appeals of New York.
July 6, 2006.
This case is TOTALLY irrelevant now.....and still DOESN'T apply to ANY OTHER STATE....thanks!!!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3299 Mar 9, 2012
biiguy wrote:
<quoted text>
IF it were the priests specifying it...
There was an age limit on the animals to be sacrificed.. AND, most of the sacrifices were eaten by the ownners, some only by the priests, and others not eaten at all.
What makes you say that? Using the Bible, I have no idea what the priest who wrote that crap actually did with the meat. I'll bet they ran a meat market out the back door.
Reality

Windsor, VT

#3300 Mar 9, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
This case is TOTALLY irrelevant now.....and still DOESN'T apply to ANY OTHER STATE....thanks!!!
on what basis? you say so? The legislature grounded the decision to have ssm on the same basis as the CA case! Cant giveth and take away. That has nothing to do with whether protecting procreators through marriage EXISTS, and is rational and legitimate.

Perry is also limited to CA, but that doesn't stop citation to it

AGAIN, you can disagree, but don't pretend you didnt get an accurate and rational response to what is the interest in denying gays marriage rights.

So, be honest, is there a legal basis for the interest in protecting procreators?
BE HONEST!
Sgt Common Sense

United States

#3301 Mar 9, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
your opinion versus the NY court's ...
not even close.
so is there a rational and legitimate interest in protecting traditional family?
Seems there is...can you stop asking for one now since I have given you TWO supported by a recent court of law.
I understand why you challenge the rationality of a child having both a mom and a dad, but that doesn't mean we all have to...
its "rational" and "legitimate" to say the least.
Both your state Vermont and New York state have marriage equality for same sex couples. How has your own marriage changed?
Reality

Windsor, VT

#3302 Mar 9, 2012
Sgt Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Both your state Vermont and New York state have marriage equality for same sex couples. How has your own marriage changed?
We literally went from being a union of a husband and wife, to
a union of "people" or "parties".
Whats in a name?
Then why aren't CU's acceptable.

So you literally redefined my marriage and our NAMES.
The same names that hold historic significance which you hope to obtain for yourselves via the name marriage and not CU's.

“The Sky Is Falling!”

Since: Apr 07

Chicago, IL

#3303 Mar 9, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
We literally went from being a union of a husband and wife, to
a union of "people" or "parties".
Whats in a name?
Then why aren't CU's acceptable.
So you literally redefined my marriage and our NAMES.
The same names that hold historic significance which you hope to obtain for yourselves via the name marriage and not CU's.
Oh, you poor abused citizen! The horror of it all! Such a life destroying turn of events!

Cheese with your whine?

“The Sky Is Falling!”

Since: Apr 07

Chicago, IL

#3304 Mar 9, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
on what basis? you say so? The legislature grounded the decision to have ssm on the same basis as the CA case! Cant giveth and take away. That has nothing to do with whether protecting procreators through marriage EXISTS, and is rational and legitimate.
Perry is also limited to CA, but that doesn't stop citation to it
AGAIN, you can disagree, but don't pretend you didnt get an accurate and rational response to what is the interest in denying gays marriage rights.
So, be honest, is there a legal basis for the interest in protecting procreators?
BE HONEST!
"Protecting procreators?!" Are you seriously deranged?? Like the 95% of all couples - THE PROCREATORS!- are in danger of losing their ju ju!

Wow. Just, wow...

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#3305 Mar 9, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
We literally went from being a union of a husband and wife, to
a union of "people" or "parties".
Whats in a name?
Then why aren't CU's acceptable.
So you literally redefined my marriage and our NAMES.
The same names that hold historic significance which you hope to obtain for yourselves via the name marriage and not CU's.
How would that 'change' your marriage? Would you still love your spouse? Marriage is the union of two people who love each other.
Srel

Tallahassee, FL

#3306 Mar 9, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
on what basis? you say so? The legislature grounded the decision to have ssm on the same basis as the CA case! Cant giveth and take away. That has nothing to do with whether protecting procreators through marriage EXISTS, and is rational and legitimate.
Perry is also limited to CA, but that doesn't stop citation to it
AGAIN, you can disagree, but don't pretend you didnt get an accurate and rational response to what is the interest in denying gays marriage rights.
So, be honest, is there a legal basis for the interest in protecting procreators?
BE HONEST!
You be honest. This was a ruling on NY constitutional law and it has been abrograted by statute, as well as effectively, if not directly, overruled by the Martinez case.
Any way you slice it, the bigots lost the argument in the end. So cling, if you will, to your now irrelevant NY case.
It gets you nothing.
Srel

Tallahassee, FL

#3307 Mar 9, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
We literally went from being a union of a husband and wife, to
a union of "people" or "parties".
Whats in a name?
Then why aren't CU's acceptable.
So you literally redefined my marriage and our NAMES.
The same names that hold historic significance which you hope to obtain for yourselves via the name marriage and not CU's.
CU's are a meaningless distinction to placate the loony bigots. The state can't tell gays to call their unions anything other than marriage of that's what they want to call it.

It does not redefine your marriage or change the legal status of your marriage in any way. It's a horseshit argument. Gay marriage affects no one's rights but the parties to such a marriage.

Your rights are not implicated, you just want to deny them to others, for no legitimate reason.

You keep making the same irrelevant and refuted arguments. Gay people really just scare the hell out of you, don't they?
That is telling in itself.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#3308 Mar 9, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
your opinion versus the NY court's ...
not even close.
so is there a rational and legitimate interest in protecting traditional family?
Begging the question. Look it up, then come back.
Gay marriage won't harm the traditional family.
Reality wrote:
Seems there is...can you stop asking for one now since I have given you TWO supported by a recent court of law.
Doesn't matter who came up with them, they aren't rational arguments against gay marriage.
Reality wrote:
I understand why you challenge the rationality of a child having both a mom and a dad, but that doesn't mean we all have to...
its "rational" and "legitimate" to say the least.
Again, Rose's Law.

No matter how you feel about gay couples raising children, it's a separate issue. Gay couples can marry and not raise kids, or raise kids and not marry. Gay couples can raise kids NOW in NY. A single gay person can adopt a kid, there are fewer restrictions on single people who adopt in NY than on married couples. And that gay person could raise the child with their same sex partner. Gay marriage could actually make it so fewer gay people are able to adopt.

So, again, what's a rational argument against gay marriage?

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#3309 Mar 9, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
We literally went from being a union of a husband and wife, to
a union of "people" or "parties".
Poor dear.
Reality wrote:
Whats in a name?
Then why aren't CU's acceptable.
So you literally redefined my marriage and our NAMES.
Oh, boo fkn hoo.
Reality wrote:
<
The same names that hold historic significance which you hope to obtain for yourselves via the name marriage and not CU's.
Where did I put my violin?

Still waiting for a rational argument against gay marriage...

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#3310 Mar 9, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
We literally went from being a union of a husband and wife, to
a union of "people" or "parties".
Whats in a name?
Then why aren't CU's acceptable.
So you literally redefined my marriage and our NAMES.
The same names that hold historic significance which you hope to obtain for yourselves via the name marriage and not CU's.
No one is responsible for your personal emotions but you. Work on it, my friend.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#3311 Mar 9, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
on what basis? you say so? The legislature grounded the decision to have ssm on the same basis as the CA case! Cant giveth and take away. That has nothing to do with whether protecting procreators through marriage EXISTS, and is rational and legitimate.
Perry is also limited to CA, but that doesn't stop citation to it
AGAIN, you can disagree, but don't pretend you didnt get an accurate and rational response to what is the interest in denying gays marriage rights.
So, be honest, is there a legal basis for the interest in protecting procreators?
BE HONEST!
No, and to the best of my knowledge.......there is no protection for couples who procreate whether within marriage or outside of marriage!!!

The legislators in New York decided on the right to grant Marriage Equality to Same-Sex Couples.......in California, the legislators voted and passed 2 different bills and the Governor vetoed those bills......then the CSSC tossed Peop 22 and granted the right to marry for Same-Sex Couples.........and Prop 8 solely ELIMINATED that right!!!

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#3312 Mar 9, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
We literally went from being a union of a husband and wife, to
a union of "people" or "parties".
Whats in a name?
Then why aren't CU's acceptable.
So you literally redefined my marriage and our NAMES.
The same names that hold historic significance which you hope to obtain for yourselves via the name marriage and not CU's.
Actually it is still a marriage between a husband and wife, between a husband and a husband, as well as a wife and a wife.......it's not marriage between a husband and a wife or a marriage between people..........you may not like the fact that I am a wife and so is my wife......but that is the definition of a legally married woman!!!

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#3313 Mar 9, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it is still a marriage between a husband and wife, between a husband and a husband, as well as a wife and a wife.......it's not marriage between a husband and a wife or a marriage between people..........you may not like the fact that I am a wife and so is my wife......but that is the definition of a legally married woman!!!
While that guy rants and raves about something he cannot control, life passes him by with all us happy, loving people on board. I feel sad for him.

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 min Jacques in Orlean... 219,156
News Ohio county official apologizes for Hillary Cli... 5 min serfs up 38
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min flack 1,402,779
News Hillary Clinton picks Tim Kaine as vice preside... 6 min serfs up 35
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 7 min Cornelius Scudmister 232,662
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 8 min woodtick57 20,566
News RNC Day 3: Cruz booed, Pence nominated 8 min Denny CranesPlace 182
News Clinton blames Republican leaders for a 'paraly... 25 min Le Jimbo 956
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 47 min freebird 390,927
More from around the web