Page 1 of 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 211

Thread: California Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,325
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy S3
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0

    California Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- While California's Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a ban on same-sex marriages that voters voters passed in November, the fight will undoubtedly go forward.


    Four states -- Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and Iowa -- currently allow same-sex marriages.

    The ruling by the court allows about 18,000 same-sex marriages performed before the ban to remain valid.

    The decision was met with chants of "shame on you" from a crowd of about 1,000 people gathered outside the court building in San Francisco on Tuesday.

    Proposition 8 passed in the 2008 general election with about 52.5 percent of the vote. California had been issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples since the state Supreme Court ruled in May 2008 that the unions were legal.

    But the question now remains whether gay rights activists across the country will take their fight -- despite the California ruling -- to state courts, push for ballot initiatives or simply pressure state politicians to move legislation.

    Currently, four states -- Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and Iowa -- approved of same-sex marriages.

    Vermont's legislature passed a law making same-sex marriages legal that will take effect in September. New Hampshire and Rhode Island remain the New England states that have not approved the marriages into law.

    Most recently, on May 6, same-sex marriage became legal in Maine when Democratic Gov. John Baldacci signed a bill less than an hour after the state Legislature approved it.

    "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage," he said in a statement.

    But he raised the possibility that the residents of the state would overturn the law. "Just as the Maine Constitution demands that all people are treated equally under the law, it also guarantees that the ultimate political power in the state belongs to the people."

    The fight for same-sex marriage in New Hampshire, meanwhile, has hit a roadblock.

    The House and Senate have approved allowing gay couples to marry. But Gov. John Lynch, a three-term Democrat, said last week that he would sign a same-sex marriage bill only if it provides "the strongest and clearest protections for religious institutions and associations, and for the individuals working with such institutions."

    Lynch said that any such measure needs to "make clear that [clergy and other religious officials] cannot be forced to act in ways that violate their deeply held religious principles."

    On Wednesday, the House fell two votes short of approving Lynch's language, 186-188. The chamber voted to send the legislation to a committee to be considered further.

    Others state have implemented same-sex marriages. Interactive: States that allow same-sex unions »

    In April, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously that it is illegal to discriminate against same-sex couples by denying them the right to marry. The first gay marriages in the state took place April 27.

    The District of Columbia voted May 5 to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, though it does not itself give marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

    Don't Miss
    New York governor to push same-sex marriage bill
    Benefits proposed for partners of U.S. diplomats
    NH House opposes governor on same-sex marriage
    But that measure faces a potentially large hurdle: being sent to Congress for a review and vote, setting up what would amount to a straight up-or-down vote on same-sex marriage.

    Because Washington is not a state, its legislation must pass congressional muster. Some measures approved by overwhelmingly Democratic Washington voters, including a restrictive gun law and a proposal decriminalizing medical marijuana use, have been vetoed by Congress in recent years.

    In New York, Gov. David Paterson introduced legislation in April to make same-sex marriage legal.

    "The time has come to act. The time has come for leadership. The time has come to bring marriage equality to the state of New York," the Democratic governor said.

    The legislation would allow same-sex couples in the state to enter into civil marriages and enjoy the same rights afforded to heterosexual married couples.

    A similar bill died in the state Senate in 2007.

    Gay rights advocates in nearby New Jersey have said they believe that the state could be the next to pass same-sex marriage into law.

    Although the state already recognizes civil unions for gays and lesbians, its legislature will have to take up the issue.

    Meanwhile, recent CNN polling has shown that a slim majority of Americans are against legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Fifty-four percent of Americans questioned in an April 23-26 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll said that marriages between gay or lesbian couples should not be recognized as valid, but 44 percent said they should be considered legal.

    But there was a large gap between the opinions of younger and older people, with younger people far more likely to approve of gay marriage. Nearly six in 10 people ages 18 to 34 said same-sex marriages should be legal. Just over four in 10 people ages 35 to 49 agreed, and the number was similar for 50- to 64-year-olds. Only 24 percent of people 65 and older agreed.

    The survey's sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

    And the marriage debate is also changing for some Republicans, who have long opposed same-sex marriages.

    In a speech April 17 to the conservative gay-rights group Log Cabin Republicans, Steve Schmidt -- an architect of Republican Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign -- said that allowing same-sex marriage is in line with the conservative credo of keeping government out of people's private lives.

    "There is a sound conservative argument to be made for same-sex marriage," said Schmidt, who was McCain's campaign manager. "I believe conservatives, more than liberals, insist that rights come with responsibilities. No other exercise of one's liberty comes with greater responsibilities than marriage. In a marriage, two people are completely responsible to and for each other."

    Schmidt says he knows that his is a minority view. In the presidential campaign, McCain ran against same-sex marriage.


    McCain's own daughter Meghan recently said the Republican Party needs to embrace issues facing gays and lesbians -- most notably, approving of same-sex marriage.

    Although moderates such as Schmidt and Meghan McCain approve, opposition is coming mainly from the party's base: conservatives. And the fight among conservatives and religious groups will probably heat up as more states begin to examine marriage rights.


    http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS...me.sex.states/

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,941
    Carrier(s)
    Straight Talk Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Good. 10 characters

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,325
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy S3
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    I know. We can't let those gays have the right to marry.

    Equal rights for everyone...except gays.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,941
    Carrier(s)
    Straight Talk Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ShortSxit
    I know. We can't let those gays have the right to marry.

    Equal rights for everyone...except gays.
    Exactly.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    America!
    Posts
    2,018
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy J7
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile | $10 UNLIMITED EVERYTHING + $20 SPEED BOOST
    Feedback Score
    0
    Glad to see some Republicans coming around finally - I don't ''approve'' of this life-style personally; but speaking on the side of politics... it would be WAY TOO MUCH government interference for them to ban this legislation. That's what this party truly stands for - LESS GOVERNMENT.

    At this point, we need to be looking into whether or not same-sex couples should be able to adopt children. THAT's where our resources/focus should be - not whether they can get married...
    T-Mobile. Connecting you when you need it most... disconnecting you when you need to connect with God's beautiful creation! Service is great in cities and highways, but in rural areas they leave you with just your surroundings. I encourage you to get T-Mobile, disconnect for a while!

    I am glad that God is not like cell phone coverage. He does not hide behind mountains or loose us down long windy roads. The Lord levels mountains, and He makes our paths straight!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,941
    Carrier(s)
    Straight Talk Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NexTel32708
    Glad to see some Republicans coming around finally - I don't ''approve'' of this life-style personally; but speaking on the side of politics... it would be WAY TOO MUCH government interference for them to ban this legislation. That's what this party truly stands for - LESS GOVERNMENT.

    At this point, we need to be looking into whether or not same-sex couples should be able to adopt children. THAT's where our resources/focus should be - not whether they can get married...
    It's extremely difficult for a single parent to adopt a child. But, I don't think they should be able to adopt a child, married or not.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    361
    Device(s)
    LG Rumour
    Carrier(s)
    Virgin Mobile Canada
    Feedback Score
    0
    What about if someones brother was supposed to get their child if they ever died. Are they not allowed to get the child just because they are a gay couple?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,941
    Carrier(s)
    Straight Talk Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Virbility870
    What about if someones brother was supposed to get their child if they ever died. Are they not allowed to get the child just because they are a gay couple?
    Nope, not allowed.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    361
    Device(s)
    LG Rumour
    Carrier(s)
    Virgin Mobile Canada
    Feedback Score
    0
    Morally or legally?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,941
    Carrier(s)
    Straight Talk Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Virbility870
    Morally or legally?
    Both. 10 characters

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    361
    Device(s)
    LG Rumour
    Carrier(s)
    Virgin Mobile Canada
    Feedback Score
    0
    isnt that just prejudicial? Kind of like saying 'they cannot adopt because they're black'... Basically saying because of their lifestyle -that they didnt choose- they are not human so they deserve to be given different rights because they're gay.

    I can understand to a point of saying, making sure the living condition is adiquite and that they've both proven responsability (just like anyone would have to go abouts adopting a child).

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,325
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy S3
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Virbility870
    isnt that just prejudicial? Kind of like saying 'they cannot adopt because they're black'... Basically saying because of their lifestyle -that they didnt choose- they are not human so they deserve to be given different rights because they're gay.

    I can understand to a point of saying, making sure the living condition is adiquite and that they've both proven responsability (just like anyone would have to go abouts adopting a child).
    Only when the argument benefits them.

    This is what makes Republicans/Democrats and 95% of the people on this board alike.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    America!
    Posts
    2,018
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy J7
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile | $10 UNLIMITED EVERYTHING + $20 SPEED BOOST
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Virbility870
    isnt that just prejudicial? Kind of like saying 'they cannot adopt because they're black'... Basically saying because of their lifestyle -that they didnt choose- they are not human so they deserve to be given different rights because they're gay.

    I can understand to a point of saying, making sure the living condition is adiquite and that they've both proven responsability (just like anyone would have to go abouts adopting a child).
    No, I don't believe it is like saying ''they are black'' or ''they are white''. Race has nothing to do with the psychological growth of a child. But parental figures do - role models. It's been shown that a child with both a mother and father is more functional, and fits in better socially than a child with same-sex parents (and same goes with single parents).

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,941
    Carrier(s)
    Straight Talk Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Virbility870
    isnt that just prejudicial? Kind of like saying 'they cannot adopt because they're black'...
    Bad example.

    Quote Originally Posted by ShortSxit
    Only when the argument benefits them.

    This is what makes Republicans/Democrats and 95% of the people on this board alike.
    What? Why would you make a decision that doesn't benefit you? According to you, I should agree with everything.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Northwest Iowa
    Posts
    7,756
    Carrier(s)
    Straight Talk Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    If you care anything for democracy, you will see that this was a just ruling. If they had proceeded in the way that they might have liked, i.e. restoring the right of gays and lesbians to marry, it would have been overturning the will of the people in a big way. it would have said, "who cares if the people of the state amended their constitution, WE know what's best, not the people"

    What gay right's activists need to do now is step back and regroup for a few years, and as the climate and opinions of the people of california continues to evolve and change, find a way to get it back on the ballot and vote on it again in 4 or 5 years.

    I'm personally against gay "marriage" but I don't mind civil unions and domestic partnerships. But ultimately maybe it's an issue of whether the state should be involved in "marriage" at all since it's really a religious sacrament. At any rate, if the people had voted to allow gay marriage, I would have accepted it, because at least it's democracy in action.

Page 1 of 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 LastLast

Bookmarks