« previous   misc   next »

Supreme Court essentially OKs gay marriage in California


By tvgnus   Follow   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 12:42am PDT   481 views   32 comments
Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=23698

Narrow ruling expected to restart same-sex marriages in the state •  Petitioners have no role Marriage between gays in California could resume soon in California, following a decision announced Wednesday by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Comments 1-32 of 32     Last »

CaptainShuddup   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 12:49am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 1

No they just allowed benefits to their partners, which is fair and just IMO. This should also include siblings who have lived together all of their adult lives, and surviving long term room mates or house companions where no other family is involved.

Marriage is still between one man and a harem of women.

Quigley   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 1:04am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 2

No, I think this sets a precedent that state governments can allow gay marriage through whatever legal means are available, and citizens have no right to oppose it.
I said it before: universal gay marriage is inevitable no matter how much the majority may oppose it. Of course it won't stop there. The gay agenda is universal acceptance through whatever means necessary, and preferential status if possible. They model their movement on the civil rights for racial equality, so we all know that affirmative action is the next step.
Someday people may have to lie on their job or college application and say they are homosexual to get an acceptance letter or an interview.

Automan Empire   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 1:26am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 3

The gay agenda
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Seeking equal treatment under the law = an agenda!

Paranoid much?

Quigley   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 1:37am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike     Comment 4

18 years ago when I was filling out college applications and applying for scholarships, I learned pretty quick that being white was really hurting my chances. Affirmative action was in full swing, and poor white kids were royally fucked. My black female classmate (who I liked just fine, but was only an okay student) won most of the scholarships in the area, totaling around $40,000. I got one, for $2400, though I had an exemplary scholastic and extracurricular record. This proved to me that institutional racism was alive and working against me.
If I'm paranoid it's because history repeats itself and I would like to see my kids have a better chance. Racial preferring programs are less strong now, but are due to be replaced with a newer trendier class of "minorities." I see gays as the most likely choice.

dodgerfanjohn   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 2:09am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 5

Automan Empire says

The gay agenda

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Seeking equal treatment under the law = an agenda!

Paranoid much?

No, he's pretty much correct. Californians supported civil unions in polling as far back as 20 years ago...and I'll note that California was still pretty conservative at that point. It was actually put into legislation in 2000, but only passed with limited rights. The reason was that it was opposed by various homosexual interest groups who actively lobbied against it.

The fear of those interest groups was that if civil unions were fully implemented, it would hinder any movement to achieve "Gay Marriage". And whats important to note here is that while either gay marriage or civil unions(Were it fully implemented) would have accomplished the exact same thing in legal terms, without allowing gays to legally "marry", there would be no civil rights movement and no effort to create a specialized and protected class. Therefore no ability to shake down business and other entities that would oppose the notion of marrying people of the same sex.

I'm guessing this ultimately ends with the feds demanding that churches conduct homosexual weddings or lose their tax exempt status.

As usual, it basically boils down to greedy shyster attorneys who want to fuck society.

FortWayne   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 2:22am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 6

CaptainShuddup says

No they just allowed benefits to their partners, which is fair and just IMO. This should also include siblings who have lived together all of their adult lives, and surviving long term room mates or house companions where no other family is involved.

Marriage is still between one man and a harem of women.

Just wait till people start marrying their sons and daughters on deathbed to avoid a "deathtax". Waltons will be all over this in a heartbeat!

New Renter   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 2:27am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 7

FortWayne says

CaptainShuddup says

No they just allowed benefits to their partners, which is fair and just IMO. This should also include siblings who have lived together all of their adult lives, and surviving long term room mates or house companions where no other family is involved.

Marriage is still between one man and a harem of women.

Just wait till people start marrying their sons and daughters on deathbed to avoid a "deathtax". Waltons will be all over this in a heartbeat!

No need - their lawyers are plenty good enough to find less dramatic measures to avoid paying tax.

lostand confused   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 2:49am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 8

Good for them. I don't like govt intrusions into the life of private, consenting adults. Now for the flip side-welcome into the world of govt intrusion through alimony, property seizures etc.e tc. IN CA, for example, if you are married for over ten years, the Judge/courts has jurisdiction of you for life and can reopen anytime-sigh.

rooemoore   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 3:02am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 9

Quigley says

18 years ago when I was filling out college applications and applying for scholarships, I learned pretty quick that being white was really hurting my chances. Affirmative action was in full swing, and poor white kids were royally fucked. My black female classmate (who I liked just fine, but was only an okay student) won most of the scholarships in the area, totaling around $40,000. I got one, for $2400, though I had an exemplary scholastic and extracurricular record. This proved to me that institutional racism was alive and working against me.

If I'm paranoid it's because history repeats itself and I would like to see my kids have a better chance. Racial preferring programs are less strong now, but are due to be replaced with a newer trendier class of "minorities." I see gays as the most likely choice.

If you take the time to study what affirmative action is and why it was implemented you will see that your fears are completely baseless.

thomaswong.1986   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 3:11am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike     Comment 10

Quigley says

This proved to me that institutional racism was alive and working against me.

Just dont call it Racial Profiling.

thomaswong.1986   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 3:25am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (4)   Dislike     Comment 11

robertoaribas says

yeah, i heard the same thing at every company I consulted at... "you got the position because they need a hispanic..." really? so you did your graduate work at berkeley too? you published papers on how this type of engineering works? You were the first to demonstrate it too? Didn't think so!!!

The reality is this...

WE in the west have been, as some say, educated into racial sensitivity, equality and anti racism in the work place. However many, foreigners brought in for diversity sake and easy promotion to management have no such ethics or similar views to racial equality. Its a free pass to hire anyone of "their kind" they like and they take advantage of this. They have no concept of equality.

So forget any American be it white, black, latino getting a shot... Ever wonder what you see today in the work place when groups of similar backgrounds, that really lacks skill sets/experience, still gets hired. It has alot to do with race.

Might as well throw a hood on them and call them KKK, cause thats what it is.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 3:40am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 12

Lesbians should enjoy equality under the law if they are smoking hot and let us watch. This is the kind of principle our founding fathers would have understood.

FortWayne   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 3:47am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 13

Straw Man says

If I understand it correctly Supreme Court just opened the door for any proposition passed by People of California to be easily defeated by executive branch simply by refusing to defend it in court. So will Prop 13 be the one to fall next?

Prop 13 isn't same, because prop 13 affects everyone financially. If they try to throw prop 13 out they'll get a revolt I guarantee you that. And governments know this too.

It's a fight between unions and taxpayers. Will be nasty, but prop 13 is a sacred cow today.

thomaswong.1986   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 3:48am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 14

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

if they are smoking hot and let us watch

LOL! Keep dreaming they are 'smoking hot' ...
or they like the idea of having men around them...

thomaswong.1986   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 3:54am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 15

Straw Man says

If I understand it correctly Supreme Court just opened the door for any proposition passed by People of California to be easily defeated by executive branch simply by refusing to defend it in court. So will Prop 13 be the one to fall next?

They refused to hear Prop 8 because the parties that brought it to the courts
" did not have the legal standing to appeal ". Had this been the State taking it to
the Courts, it would have been different.

news clip.....

Federal courts in San Francisco had struck down the measure on the grounds that it unfairly discriminated against gays and lesbians who wished to marry.

Usually, the governor and state’s lawyers defend state laws in federal court, but both Gov. Jerry Brown and Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris refused to defend Proposition 8.

Several sponsors of the ballot measure stepped in to defend the law, but there were questions about whether they had legal standing to represent the state in court.

A Supreme Court decision is generally final after 25 days. The 9th Circuit would then presumably lift its hold on Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s injunction against Proposition 8.

Gov. Jerry Brown is expected to enforce Walker’s order statewide and allow same-sex marriages to resume, possibly late next month.

Automan Empire   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 3:58am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 16

thomaswong.1986 says

or they like the idea of having men around

Hahahaha, so true.

*Some* men have ridiculous unstated notions about lesbians, including
-They'd turn hetero, if only they slept with meeee!
-Befriending a lesbian opens the door to threesomes! (Frankly, such men probably could not handle the left-the-fuck-out rejection that is the reality here!)
-Lesbians are not penis-tainted; they could be with a different partner every night for years and still not "be a slut" in their estimation.

Vicente   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 4:02am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 17

The Prop8 ruling seems pretty wishy-washy to me. They took a pass on the basis the party bringing the case didn't have standing.

Automan Empire   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 4:14am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 18

Straw Man says

if People who voted the law into existence don't have a standing to defend it
in court

And therein lies the crux of the issue, once again.

Simply having voted on the issue does not bestow the legal standing that the original proponents have. Nor has anyone's heterosexual marriage suffered tangible harm, nor has an opponent of the measure suffered loss, hardship, or denial of their own constitutional rights because someone else married someone of the same gender.

As one wag said on the radio this morning, "Gay couples are now free to be just as miserable as straight couples in California!"

Quigley   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 4:22am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 19

Democracy is the enemy of the oligarchy. How would Skull and Bones run the nation if they had to actually listen to the people they rule? Much better to just support deeply flawed politicians for office, then have the NSA spy out all their dirt and blackmail them into doing whatever the Yalies want them to do! Food for thought?
I still say gay rights are a red herring, meant to distract the public from truly important issues, like if anyone will have any rights anymore.

Ceffer   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 4:32am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 20

Lesbians should not allowed to be lesbian unless they agree to perform on camera for horndog pervs. For this, they will receive free supplemental government benefits.

thomaswong.1986   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 4:38am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 21

Automan Empire says

As one wag said on the radio this morning, "Gay couples are now free to be just as miserable as straight couples in California!"

Divorce courts will get an ear full... oh the drama!

thomaswong.1986   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 4:40am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 22

Ceffer says

For this, they will receive free supplemental government benefits.

LOL! No way.. forget it.. not my Tax dollar... This is not New York City.

zzyzzx   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 5:01am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 23

Anal hazing is apparently a thing in American high schools now
http://news.yahoo.com/anal-hazing-apparently-thing-american-high-schools-now-140040056.html

CaptainShuddup   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 5:04am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 24

You know the butch and hot lipstick lesbian couples?
The hot one's usually likes a little sausage on the side.

If a Hot Lesbian hasn't gone out of her way to look hideously manly, it's usually because they are keeping their options open.

Ellen DeGeneres and Anne Heche comes to mind.

Ceffer   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 5:28am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 25

CaptainShuddup says

You know the butch and hot lipstick lesbian couples?

The hot one's usually likes a little sausage on the side.

If a Hot Lesbian hasn't gone out of her way to look hideously manly, it's usually because they are keeping their options open.

Ellen DeGeneres and Anne Heche comes to mind.

Sometimes, a strap on just doesn't cut it.

Salami, Salami Baloney!

thomaswong.1986   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 12:44pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 26

CaptainShuddup says

Anne Heche

pass... my right hand looks far better than her.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 1:12pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 27

The Poo-See! We want to see the lady slurp and slopper convincingly.

sbh   Wed, 26 Jun 2013, 1:29pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 28

Ceffer says

Lesbians should not allowed to be lesbian unless they agree to perform on camera for horndog pervs. For this, they will receive free supplemental government benefits.

Fair enough, but now you have to make good on the underlying justification, and propose the corollary performance criteria for hetero men and women, and homosexual men. Then, what's the payoff and for whom?

CaptainShuddup   Thu, 27 Jun 2013, 12:19am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 29

I still think there was a ton of money left on the table.
They should pass a law that allows gay marriage only after efforts to cure them at the ACA Degayulator clinics have failed and reported them as a hopelessly homo.
Like they say everybody needs to pay their fair share in Obamacare.

Fat ones
skinny ones
really really really sick ones
and Gay ones.

dodgerfanjohn   Thu, 27 Jun 2013, 12:26am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 30

sbh says

Ceffer says

Lesbians should not allowed to be lesbian unless they agree to perform on camera for horndog pervs. For this, they will receive free supplemental government benefits.

Fair enough, but now you have to make good on the underlying justification, and propose the corollary performance criteria for hetero men and women, and homosexual men. Then, what's the payoff and for whom?

What would be the point of that?

No one wants to see two dudes go at it except other gay guys. Even women are grossed out by gay male sex.

That's why...just like farts...a man blowing another man is ALWAYS going to make for great laughs. No matter how much the pc police try to change things, gay male sex will always be funny.

MsBennet   Thu, 27 Jun 2013, 1:17am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 31

So the state refused to uphold a law the people of california voted for? That's like taxation and without representation.

Bap33   Thu, 27 Jun 2013, 6:45am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 32

yep .. it was Prop 187 in 1994 that was passed by Cal voters and then stuffed up their butts (no pun) by the liberal court.

On the subject of public sanctioned coupling of perverts and those suffering from birth defects, I still wonder how the law proves the assertion. Self proclaimation dont work in any other arena.

tvgnus is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email

home   top   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net