Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/19/gay.marriage/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/...dex.html</a> This is good news. Oral arguments could be heard as early as March. From the article: "In its May 15 ruling legalizing gay marriage in California, the justices seemed to signal that a ballot initiative like Proposition 8 might not be enough to change the underlying constitutional issues of the case in the court's eyes. The ruling said the right to marry is among a set of basic human rights "so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process."
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder And in a pig headed, shoot the messenger tactic, Prop 8 supporters vow to recall justices who vote to overturn it. What these backwards societal devolvers don't realize is the law is the law. Idiots, all of them. <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-supreme-court19-2008nov19,0,614109.story" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...09.story</a>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Justices can be recalled in California. It's a threat, pure and simple. They're trying to intimidate the justices. It was done here for the first time in 1986. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Bird" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Bird</a>
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains What is crazy is these Justice's are suppose to read the law and weigh the issues and rule based on this - not on threats.
Originally Posted By Mr X Interesting link. Wow, that's not a good system in place there (to say the least!). Talk about a conflict of interest! Any unpopular decision made by a judge could result in getting kicked off the bench, huh? Yeah, THAT leads to fairness and impartiality. This is gonna end up in the supreme court, I just KNOW it. Each side will just keep upping the ante on this one.
Originally Posted By Mr X The California constitution kinda sucks huh? This, coupled with that would 50%+1 to change the thing. No wonder the mormons sank their teeth into that state in particular. Smart move on their part, frankly. Very weak link.
Originally Posted By Mr F They are not going to rule at least until march, lets hope inequality will end in March or sooner.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad They are? So we should let an axe murderer vote and have the right to walk about society freely?
Originally Posted By DVC_dad He does have the civil right to escape inhumane death. But he lacks a few of the equal rights we enjoy as non-axe murderers. And don't even try to act like I am comparing being gay to being an axe murderer. I'm not. But I am looking at the difference between civil rights and equal rights.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Hoo boy. I'm really not in the mood to debate "how long is a piece of string?" But the question of gay marriage is about civil rights and equality. Gay couples are seeking equal treatment under the law. Axe murderers, on the other hand, forfeit certain civil rights by breaking the law.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <And in a pig headed, shoot the messenger tactic, Prop 8 supporters vow to recall justices who vote to overturn it. What these backwards societal devolvers don't realize is the law is the law. Idiots, all of them.> The chairman of Yes on Prop 8 issued a statement to the contrary. "What we are not doing is discussing the possibility of recalling justices who oppose us...We encourage all supporters of Proposition 8 to set aside any discussions about the possibility of recalling any justice of the Court. We see no need for such discussion. For now we must allow the Court to make the correct legal decision. Making threats to recall justices from office is counter-productive and harmful...."
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Again, I don't really care if gay people get married. Actually if Obama gets his tax plan passed, my wife and I could save tens of thousands of dollars in taxes alone if we get divorced and I put my momma's address down on my return. We might do it, file, then get remarried. Maybe do that once a year? I saw $499 uncontested divorce on some bilborad the other day. Hummm...pay $499 once a year to save $20K...sounds like a good deal.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan A definition of "civil rights" from answers.com: >>The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.<< So, as I said, civil rights are about equality. Let's not get all off topic debating a simple and accurate statement that wasn't meant to be controversial, okay?
Originally Posted By DVC_dad I will say this: If two same sex partners or ANY two people live together for a significant length of time, and are technically dependant as a household on each other, then they should be able to file "Married Filing Jointly." Also, I'm not against gays being able to adopt. There are soooo many kids in horrible terrible repulsive situations that cannot even begin to compare to a clean healthly happy home that could be provided by two partners of the same sex. Marriage? Whatever, but there are some rights that should be equal IMHO. 2 Gay parents are NOT going to "make" a child gay. That is more of the old homophobe opinion against adoption. If I keep thinking this through, I might talk myself into advocating gay marriage. As it stands now, I'm leaning that way but still on the fence. I'll stay there until I have to make a choice, and I really don't see this coming to GA for a long while.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<Let's not get all off topic debating a simple and accurate statement that wasn't meant to be controversial, okay?>>> Well said and fair enough.
Originally Posted By ecdc The vindictiveness of prop 8 supporters is now showing through after the Supreme Court announced they'd review it. They were all about protecting marriage, right? Well now they're going to go after any justice that supports marriage. Could they be any more misplaced? The antithesis of marriage isn't...marriage. It's divorce. Where's the laws trying to stop that? And I don't need to hear from Josh and Co. that he "thinks there's too much divorce too." The issue of what one thinks has never been the problem. It's the issue of forcing what you think on others. So if it's about protecting marriage, where are the laws stopping divorce? Where's the movement?
