Activist judge issues activist ruling and overthrows CA prop 8

[Nitrogen]

Marriage is a right?

If you were denied a marriage license due to your religion, skin color, tax filing status, hair color, or the fact that you wanted to marry the Sheriff's daughter, you'd raise hell, too.


You'd raise hell if she couldn't get on your health insurance

You'd raise hell when your would-be wife suddenly was admitted to the hospital, and you were denied visitation because you aren't family.

You'd raise hell if she was terminal, and were denied the right or ability to make end-of-life decisions for her.

Living wills, medical directives, visitation directives (which are commonly ignored by hospitals in many states), and multiple other directives.  That smacks of Plessy v. Ferguson to me.

You'd raise hell, and rightly so.

[Perd Hapley]

I get it that some folks don't like gays, and think their lifestyle is sinful, wrong, or whatever.  They think that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Tough.

"Some folks don't like gays"?  I don't know how it advances the conversation to make nebulous claims that have nothing to do with the issue, and only seem to accuse people of attitudes they may not have, but whatever.

Agreed, though, it will be tough to live in a nation where non sequiturs are suddenly proclaimed to be rights AND HOW DARE YOU BIGOTS DENY ME MY RIGHT TO GOVERNMENT SANCTION OF SOMETHING THAT MAKES NO SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!   Yeah, it will be kinda tough.

[MechAg94]

Equal protection, 14th amendment. 
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I get it that some folks don't like gays, and think their lifestyle is sinful, wrong, or whatever.  They think that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Tough.

Yeah, tough; right.  That is the best argument on this whole thread.      

So what is next?  Are you going to force pastors to marry homosexual couples?  If you read that amendment as a "right to marry" for homosexual couples, how can you say otherwise?  Since that amendment doesn't mention sexual orientation, what other sorts of relationships are going to get thrown into this?    

I really don't care about gay marriage beyond that, but I get so tired of the pro-gay-marriage people calling into to talk shows with those same BS arguments.  They normally start with some convoluted logic then get on the "Tough, you will just have to live with it." rant when they realize that most still disagree with them.  

[MillCreek]

roo=ster? this was a gay judge? who didn't recuse him/herself? hows that work?  even in the land of granola thats gotta be a bozo no no

In that case, a heterosexual judge should clearly recuse him/herself from any issues related to heterosexuality.  A male judge should recuse himself from any issues having to do with male gender. A female judge, etc.

[MechAg94]

If you were denied a marriage license due to your religion, skin color, tax filing status, hair color, or the fact that you wanted to marry the Sheriff's daughter, you'd raise hell, too.


You'd raise hell if she couldn't get on your health insurance

You'd raise hell when your would-be wife suddenly was admitted to the hospital, and you were denied visitation because you aren't family.

You'd raise hell if she was terminal, and were denied the right or ability to make end-of-life decisions for her.

Living wills, medical directives, visitation directives (which are commonly ignored by hospitals in many states), and multiple other directives.  That smacks of Plessy v. Ferguson to me.

You'd raise hell, and rightly so.

Yet, instead of trying to fix those issues, you just want to make marriage mean anyone + anyone.  Problem solved.  Do you work for the govt?

[Nitrogen]

Yeah, tough; right.  That is the best argument on this whole thread.      

So what is next?  Are you going to force pastors to marry homosexual couples?  If you read that amendment as a "right to marry" for homosexual couples, how can you say otherwise?  Since that amendment doesn't mention sexual orientation, what other sorts of relationships are going to get thrown into this?    

Nobody's calling for that.
The point is, many rights and priveleges are based on being married, like the ones I posted above.
If you want to keep the status quo, then you need to be pushing to end tax statuses, right of survuvorship, and other rights based on marriage.

As long as certain government recognitions are based on marriage, then you cannot deny that to other people for whatever reason you come up with.

[Nitrogen]

Yet, instead of trying to fix those issues, you just want to make marriage mean anyone + anyone.  Problem solved.  Do you work for the govt?

Yes, I do.  (want GovMarriage to mean anyone+anyone) I do not work for the government.
You fail to see that marriage is NOT just a religious institution, it is a government sanctioned institution, also.

See, there are really 2 institutions with the same name, different things.
There's GovMarriage, which the government recognizes, and makes many things easier for those involved, involves taxes, etc.
Then there's ReligMarriage, which churches and mosques and temples recognise.

GovMarriage, as long as it's a government sanctioned status should be for anyone who wants it.

As long as any GovMarriage is a government sanctioned institution, the government portion cannot and should not be restricted.

your church can and should be free to ReligMarry (using their rites and rituals) whoever they want.
  The government should not restrict "GovMarriage", the government institution, to anyone.
Religious institutions should be allowed to do just that.  I don't want Baptist ministers forced to ReligMarry  gay people or anyone else if they don't want to.

As I said before, the 2 institutions really need to be separated, with marriage being a purely religious institution, and "civil unions" being a purely government institution.   Marital status meaning nothing to a government, and "civil union" status meaning nothing to a religious institution. 

[Jamisjockey]

roo=ster? this was a gay judge? who didn't recuse him/herself? hows that work?  even in the land of granola thats gotta be a bozo no no

Easily.  Shop around for a friendly judge, file suit in that jurisdiction, watch the will of the people and the law of the land be overturned.

As for the rest of you, I didn't intend to turn this into a debate on gay marriage.  Dead horse being beaten ahead.
Lockity Lock.