Wife Tries To Abort And Poison Husband's Lovechild
Man Injured By Tree Limb Files Suit Against City
Charles Barron Will Run For Council Speaker
Alleged Tiger Mistress Is Unrecognizable To Dead Fiancee's Dad
New Jersey State Senate To Vote On Gay Marriage
Protesters in San Fransisco today anticipate the State Supreme Court's ruling. (Frankie Frankeny and Chloe Harris, via SFist.)
The State Supreme Court in California has voted 6-1 to uphold Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that banned gay marriage in the state last November. But in upholding the law, the court also agreed to validate the 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place between June of last year when gay marriage was legalized (by the same court) and November, when Prop 8 was passed by the voters.
The decision was announced minutes ago before an angry crowd outside the San Francisco courthouse. Legal analysts are currently poring over the decision, so expect more details on the ruling to come, as well as plenty of protests—same-sex marriage advocates have promised to engage in civil disobedience if the court upheld Prop. 8, and CBS News reports that demonstrators are currently blocking traffic in San Francisco.
Update: Gay City News reports that at 6 p.m., "advocates led by Marriage Equality New York, a grassroots group, will gather at Sheridan Square, Seventh Avenue South at Christopher Street, for a march to Union Square Park."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I see, so the majority can take away the civil rights of a minority.
And don't forget the minorities taking away the civil rights of another minority.
And don't forget the minorities taking away the civil rights of another minority.
Well, that's what happens when one minority takes offense after the other one cynically and self servingly evokes their past to push their agenda. What did you expect?
Marriage is a civil right?
Maybe? About 700 related civil rights come from marriage.
When the state is involved, it is.
Are you for the trans-fat ban?
Yes.
What the fuck are you talking about? Banning trans fats is not a violation of civil liberties. You are a moron.
What is it then, SP? Do you understand the term?
Bottomless, your analogy might work if the law allowed only straight people to eat trans fats.
Nope. I generally don't support bans unless it's for direct environmental reasons.
I don't really see how this relates, so how about you dispense with the cryptic arguments and just state what you're getting at...
Politburo,
My point, which SP made for me in a vulgar, glamorous way, is that my issue with gay marriage is that many people claim it violated civil liberties. Okay, I agree with you. The government should never disrupt your life when it's not violating any one else's life.
However, many of these pro-gay marriage supporters also support the more liberal ideals like health/trans-fat banning.
This is in congruent behavior as if you believe in liberty you have to let people eat whatever they want just as you have to let them marry whomever they want. You can't say, "Well the obese don't know any better so we have to mandate what we eat."
Well isn't that the same "holier than thou" argument that religious conservatives are using? "You are too secularized to know it, but we're saving you from a mortal sin!"
So sorry if it seemed cryptic, but I am just upset at the same behavior by both sides of the argument.
You complete and utter imbecile. Trans fats are POISON. Should it be legal for people to use arsenic in their products which are sold on the market?
SP,
What do you propose then, in respect to health regulation? Because trans-fats may not be good for you, but I can rattle off a bunch of other products and foods out there that are dangerous and poisonous in excess.
Do you want to go back to prohibition times and ban alcohol, too? What about cigarettes? What about Twinkies? What about Big Macs?
Please don't tell me that you're pro-marijuana and drug legalization now, too. Because your counterinituitive views would make my trans-fat hardened arteries seize up.
Not sure why I wrote counterinutitive...more like hypocritical.
Although I might take exception with some of the reasoning, I generally agree. And it may not seem like it sometimes, but there are many liberals who have similar beliefs.. the problem is that people screaming "ban [insert item]!" are much more attention-grabbing.
Thanks for the reply.
Marriage might not a civil right, but a government that sanctions marriages can not discriminate on basis of sexual orientation. A better solution would be to take away government's ability to discriminate: get rid of all state-sanctioned marriage.
Agreed. Marriage should be a religious product, and up to the churches and synagogues.
Nice try, but as long as the government can wring abit more money out of our pockets, there will be federal and state involvement in marraige.
According to SCOTUS it is. Loving v. Virginia, 1967. Unanimous opinion, written by Chief Justice Earl Warren:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"
But the rulings wasn't for or against gay marriages but on the legality of the public referendum. I don't think this was much of a surprise to many people. Governor Schwarzenegger should introduce a bill to legalize gay marriages or make the civil union equal at least.
Be pragmatic. If the ceremony were called civil union, it would be law.
If one insists on being Linguistically Correct, this is the results. In life, one must learn to choose one's battles, and to battle over the choice of words is silly and self-defeating.
so was the battle over separate drinking fountains.
oh, wait...
so was the battle over separate drinking fountains.
Wow, you guys are so desperate to use the "gay marriage rights= black struggle" talking point so desperately, you don't even care if it's not even in logical response to what someone else is saying.
Or maybe I'm slow and don't seem to understand where semantics played a major role in Jim Crow laws. Please help me out here.
water is water, right? what difference does it make which fountain it comes from...
civil unions = marriage, right? what difference does it make which word(s) is/are used to describe it...
explain the difference.
California sucks-wildfires, earthquakes, and shitty government.
meanwhile, somewhere far off, a Mormom is doing a happy jig...
NYC sucks as well
American history has no track record of the majority happily voting for minority rights. A lot of people have to march, protest, go to jail, boycott, etc. (and sometimes for generations) to MAKE PROGRESS.
WHY DO THESE PEOPLE CARE IF GAYS MARRY?
So many more productive things can be done with this time they are wasting!
If the gays all left California, it's economy would collapse.