Gay Marriage Ban Challenged In Calif.

Calif. Supreme Court Will Hear Lawsuits Seeking To Nullify Gay Marriage Ban

(AP)  California's highest court agreed Wednesday to hear several legal challenges to the state's new ban on same-sex marriage but refused to allow gay couples to resume marrying before it rules.

The California Supreme Court accepted three lawsuits seeking to nullify Proposition 8, a voter-approved constitutional amendment that overruled the court's decision in May that legalized gay marriage.

All three cases claim the measure abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.

As is its custom when it takes up cases, the court did not elaborate on its decision.

Along with the gay rights groups and local governments petitioning to overturn the ban, the measure's sponsors and Attorney General Jerry Brown had urged the Supreme Court to consider whether Proposition 8 passes legal muster.

The court directed Brown and lawyers for the Yes on 8 campaign to submit their arguments for why the ballot initiative should not be nullified by Dec. 19. It said lawyers for the plaintiffs, who include same-sex couples who did not wed before the election, must respond before Jan. 5. Oral arguments could be scheduled as early as March, according to court spokeswoman Lynn Holton.

Both opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 expressed confidence Wednesday that their arguments would prevail.

But they also agreed that the cases present the court's seven justices — six of whom voted to review the challenges — with complex questions that have few precedents in state case law.

[rationaltalk]

You are also grossly incorrect in your assumption that I do not like you or other ggay people. But you will not see your errors in any of these manners, you assume much, and you know what that makes you.

Posted by guysdigdirt at 05:12 PM : Nov 21, 2008

Yes, you do remind me of whites in the 50''s who said things like, "I don''t dislike coloreds, I just feel that God did not intend for them to mix with us, and they should be glad we give them a bathroom at all, and stop complaining that they can''t use our bathrooms."

[rationaltalk]

If those who are against ggay marrige were as obscene, hateful, violent, crass, vulgar, and mean as you have been when you lost you would be complaining about hate crimes and being the victims. Now you are the culprits and you see no reason for shame.

Hypocrites.

Posted by guysdigdirt at 05:37 PM : Nov 21, 2008

Well, again you are being silly. Have two gay guys ever beaten a college student to death for being straight? Do gay employers tell their straight employees they must keep their heterosexuality a secret or be fired? Do gay Churches psychologically abuse straight members by trying to "re-program" them? Your logic is flawed once again. If there is any whining going on here, I think it''s coming from the straight section that seems a little sore about sharing civil rights, as though it will somehow harm you if two men who you will probably never even meet get married. It''s time for certain straight people to stop licking their wounds and grow up. There''s enough room in this world for all of us.

[rationaltalk]

How is maintaining the meaning of a word discrimintaion?

Posted by guysdigdirt at 05:28 PM : Nov 21, 2008

Oh, if that''s all you are worried about, you are certainly free to petition your government to call it something different. But, whatever you call it, it should be offered equally to all citizens, not just to white citizens, or tall citizens, or blonde citizens, or straight citizens.

[rationaltalk]

So what will you say when someone, possibly someone you know, wants to marry a chimp? Is it discrimination to say no.

At this point you are either laughing at me or ticked off that I would "stoop so low" as to bring this up. However, in Austria they just voted to classify a chimp as a human being.

Are you going to say no on will ever want to marry an animal? What will you tell them?

Once you change the meaning of a word it is easier to change it again, and again, and... you get the point.

Why not just come up with you own "union" and call it what you want?

Posted by guysdigdirt at 05:26 PM : Nov 21, 2008

Now you''re just being silly. Allowing straight people to marry never resulted in chimps getting married? Why would allowing gay people to marry? Your logic is rather juvenile.

[guysdigdirt]

For a group of people who have always wanted, asked for, whined because they did not get- compassion, understanding and tolerance- you have all shown a lot of hate and bile when you lose.

If those who are against ggay marrige were as obscene, hateful, violent, crass, vulgar, and mean as you have been when you lost you would be complaining about hate crimes and being the victims. Now you are the culprits and you see no reason for shame.

Hypocrites.

[guysdigdirt]

Now that there is a national discussion going on about this, fairness and justice will prevail, as they always have in the history of this country. Raw bigotry has never been able to withstand the light of day.
Posted by RationalTalk

No, now that the ggay community has ammassed itself in tight communiites they will vote in that area to push it through. In areas where they have not fortified their armies they will not succeed in getting ggay marriage passed.

[guysdigdirt]

With all the ggay pride you show in your endless ggay pride parades and rallies why do you want to be/ seem straight?

[guysdigdirt]

The fact is marriage is the foundation of our society. Marrriage is one man and one woman.

Same-sexx couples cannot further society even one generation without help from outside the relationship.

I have no problem with ggays, ggays being joined in a relationship, ggays having all the rights married people have. But get it some way without taking the meaning of the word marriage away from those who hold it sacred.

Please.

[guysdigdirt]

A law that discriminates against gay people is no more legitimate than a law that discriminates against short people. It''''''''s time this country stopped discriminating against people simply because they are different.
Posted by RationalTalk

How is maintaining the meaning of a word discrimintaion? If you are a man, can you go into the ladies room anytime you want? If you answer yes, you are a liar or just immoral and unethical. If you answer no, the obvious and honest answer, then I ask why not? Isnt that discriminatioin by your arguement?

[guysdigdirt]

A law that discriminates against gay people is no more legitimate than a law that discriminates against short people. It''''s time this country stopped discriminating against people simply because they are different.
Posted by RationalTalk

So what will you say when someone, possibly someone you know, wants to marry a chimp? Is it discrimination to say no.

At this point you are either laughing at me or ticked off that I would "stoop so low" as to bring this up. However, in Austria they just voted to classify a chimp as a human being.

Are you going to say no on will ever want to marry an animal? What will you tell them?

Once you change the meaning of a word it is easier to change it again, and again, and... you get the point.

Why not just come up with you own "union" and call it what you want?

[guysdigdirt]

So it is OK to change a defenition of a word and take something away from the majority of the people to suit your desires?

Posted by guysdigdirt at 02:36 PM : Nov 21, 2008

Your logic is backwards. Here, a slim majority is attempting to deny rights to a minority group simply because it does not like them.
Posted by RationalTalk

No, you are the incorrect person here. You are trying to change the defenition of a word to suit your desires. You are trying to take something from me.

I am not trying to take anything from you. I am trying to maintain the meaning of a word, and institution.

You are also grossly incorrect in your assumption that I do not like you or other ggay people. But you will not see your errors in any of these manners, you assume much, and you know what that makes you.

[rationaltalk]

So it is OK to change a defenition of a word and take something away from the majority of the people to suit your desires?

Posted by guysdigdirt at 02:36 PM : Nov 21, 2008

Your logic is backwards. Here, a slim majority is attempting to deny rights to a minority group simply because it does not like them. (Not the other way around, as you apparently believe.) That''s not just un-fair, it''s un-American. It was wrong when whites try to do that to blacks, and it''s wrong when straights try to do it to gay people. This is far from over, injustices like this do not stand for very long once exposed to the light of day. Now that there is a national discussion going on about this, fairness and justice will prevail, as they always have in the history of this country. Raw bigotry has never been able to withstand the light of day.

[guysdigdirt]

The whole ggay marriage issue is not really about marriage, it is about the right to force your opinion and desire down someone else''s throat.

If it was really about getting the same rights as married people get it would be a lot less trouble to get them from the Federal Govt. CA has already give all they can give.

[guysdigdirt]

A law that discriminates against gay people is no more legitimate than a law that discriminates against short people. It''''s time this country stopped discriminating against people simply because they are different.
Posted by RationalTalk

So it is OK to change a defenition of a word and take something away from the majority of the people to suit your desires?

There is a rule that says men cannot go into womens restrooms whenever they want, is that discrimination?

Your arguement is full of holes, the people have spoken, get over it.

[rationaltalk]

A law that discriminates against gay people is no more legitimate than a law that discriminates against short people. It''s time this country stopped discriminating against people simply because they are different.

[honestabe8]

"then things such as prositution, drug selling and the like by your definition are not wrong"

Posted by tj217

tj: what kind of drug selling is morally wrong?

[kansas1946]

On your third statement; I do not agree that it was a red herring argument. I stated an example of an ''''orientation'''' that is abnormal and argued that simply because one is so oriented, it does not follow that one is any less disturbed. Now, I''''m not saying that being homosexually-oriented is as ''''bad'''' as being violent-oriented, but it IS anomolous.
****************************************

Being "abnormal" means nothing. Abnormal just means that something (or someone) is outside the "norm." Norm being a range of values for any given thing. Since the large majority of humans are straight, then g a y s are outside the norm. So what. A person born with one leg is outside the norm, but their civil liberties are not abridged. A person whose IQ is 150 or above is abnormal. I don''t think they should be allowed to marry. Do you?
G a y s may be abnormal but they certainly are not unnatural. Nature created them just like she created genius folks.

[kansas1946]

Oh, and don''''t forget Cindy Sheehan.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by michaelt3032 at 08:02 PM : Nov 20, 2008
+ report abuse
********************************

Yeah, how dare she whine just because her son was killed in a illegal war based on lies.

[terribayless-2009]

Instead of introspection, the sore losers who opposed Prop. 8 responded with threats, fists and blacklists.

Activists have published on the Internet an "Anti-Gay Blacklist" of Prop. 8 donors. If the tables were turned and Prop. 8 proponents created such an enemies list, everyone in Hollywood would be screaming "McCarthyism" faster than you could count to eight.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=327508

[ziadora]

Love to stay and chat, but got to go to work.

Ciao.