Northern California District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker on Wednesday overturned California’s state marriage amendment that banned same-sex marriage. The amendment was enacted in November 2008 through Proposition 8 with 52 percent of the vote – five months after the California Supreme Court legalised same-sex unions and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples already had tied the knot.
Despite Wednesday's ruling, it remains uncertain when gay weddings will be allowed to resume in the state. The decision is thought to be just the latest chapter in what is expected to be a long battle over the ban.
Opponents of same-sex marriage such as Protect Marriage, a coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored the ban, said it would appeal Walker's ruling.
In a written 136-page opinion, Judge Walker ruled in favour of rights activists who argued that the 2008 referendum, which barred gays and lesbians from tying the knot, is discriminatory and therefore violated the US Constitution.
He concluded: "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."
On the overturning of Proposition 8:
"Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result...
"Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.”
Read Judge Walker's judgement in full here.
Chad Griffin of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, one of the plaintiffs in this case, who helped bring together Ted Olson and David Boise as attorneys representing these plaintiffs who challenged Proposition 8:
(An excerpt)
This decision strengthens marriage by expanding it to include couples that seek it and who would benefit from it. This decision reaffirms the power of marriage to strengthen responsibility and community and to ensure that all Americans in their golden and vulnerable years will be able to live their lives with more security, more dignity and more love.
But there is another powerful consequence of this decision that I hope all Americans take into account. Today, there are millions of gay people across the country -- they are your neighbors, your friends and your family. They see how marriage strengthens the bonds of family and community and they wonder, can they ever have that same strength and stability or will their government continue to say that marriage is not for them?
Today's decision gives gay Americans the hope and strength and comfort that they, too, can have a future filled with love, commitment and shared responsibility.
And so today, we begin the process of saying to the millions of people who are made to feel ostracized, besieged, bullied and ashamed of how God made them, be who you are. Love who you love. And marry who you wish to marry.
As gay and straight citizens take to the streets in celebration here in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, Dallas and New York, I know there are millions who must celebrate quietly across America. Places where merely taking the hand of a loved one still feels like a revolutionary act. To those quiet millions, to the teenager in Bakersfield who aches for acceptance, to the college student in Salt Lake who only seeks liberty and equality, and to the couple in Topeka who longs to openly share their commitment and love, this victory is for you. Because in ending the public sanctioning of discrimination in our laws, we render unacceptable the private discrimination you must bear.
This is not the only victory needed to close that gap between the lives you lead and the lives you deserve. But it is a critical victory, one that honors the principles that define America; the principles that stirred a convention in Seneca Falls; the principles that fired -- that fueled tireless marches through Selma, Birmingham and Washington, D.C.; the principles that sparked the fires of resistance at the Stonewall Inn; and the principles that inspire us in this urgent struggle to uphold the right to life, liberty, love and the pursuit of happiness.
Printable Version
RSS Feed: 
Reader's Comments
NOH8 & WORLD PEACE!!! =D
However sharing the same view with Aztlan_oz, I personally still questioning myself, why would gay marriage/wedding is so important to the gays, if we can come up with a Civil Union which will guaranteed the equal rights for everyone?
Marriage is an old beautiful art which should be preserved. It is when a man and a woman being united, being held and celebrated uniquely by different cultures and races across the globe.
Or maybe this is just an opinion from someone who live in a place where gay has no voice at all. Therefore, marriage will be the last thing we could dream or maybe shouldn't dreaming of at all.
How about the right of the bisexual, of having a husband and a wife?
Anyway, I'm happy for them! :)
Constitutional rights are always never specific and can always be considered a general "guideline". I think the US Constitution never specifically defines marriage as between "one man and one woman", but between two consenting adults. Something like that. Eventually, it is a panel of nine ("nine" is pronounced the same as "eternity" in Chinese... I like it) judges that can cause many things to be redefined.
"Rights" that are codified in the U.S. Constitution cannot be subjected to popular vote. California Prop. 8 caused the marriage -- a constitutional right -- to be voted. Gay people will always be a "minority" in any given population. A minority group can never come up with enough votes to win.
Therefore, it is ultimately not about "gay marriage" either. It is about upholding the important concept of "rights" that are considered "constitutional" and therefore should be applied to all legal citizens. No civilian groups can caused these "rights" to be voted on.
Proposition 6:gays knew they are in a bad situation,so all gay did their best,it helped gay won the rights...
we need "Harvey Milk II" for reject Proposition 8
As part of the painful march to civil rights in America, we tried this business and called it "separate but equal." Sure, the blacks were equal to the good ol' white folk, but they had to have separate water fountains and they had to sit at the back of the bus, they got public education, but only in segregated schools away from the white kids... so you can see, it really isn't true EQUALITY at all, is it?
If heteros get MARRIAGE, but gays have to just live with plain ol' CIVIL UNIONS, it's "separate but equal" all over again. Even if gays get the same 1,100+ federal and state benefits that married couples in the US now enjoy, it's still not really equality. After all, the blacks got their water, and they got transport on the bus... but we all know it wasn't QUITE the real "equality" deal.
Either everyone gets marriage in the US, or the government gets out of the wedding business altogether and issues "civil union" licenses only -- to everyone -- and leaves the realm of "marriage" to religion. I assure you, in time, those will be the ONLY two options in America. History and the US Constitution each demand it.
expensive to get out of it? PRENUPTUAL!
domestic partnership? seperate is NEVER equal. For example...does not include immigration rights. Federal tax/benifits inclusion. On and on. Partnerships are local and piecmeal, and will never be same as federal marriage.
If you dont like marriage...DONT GET MARRIED! But point is, no one can force you and take away your rights to do so, its not right for another party to TELL you what you can and cant do. We need to have full equality in all things, full access, otherwise gay is never equal and never will be...unless we force it to be so. No one will do it for us
Yes, indeed, blow more smoke up "both" your trashy assholes. Since you like to f.u.c.k yourselves here with pollution, marriage is definitely not for you "two" quacks.
Gays that condemn same sex marriage and all the anti-gay discrimination efforts but cannot wait to enjoy the victories of our gay brethren, are nothing more than the usual hypocritical self hating lonely ugly anti-social insects on the fringe of existence. They are so predictable. Just cos they are losers, they want to drag everyone down. Same boring text book case studies taught in nursery rhymes. Sheez!
The decision, though an instant landmark in American legal history, is more than that. It also is a stirring and eloquently reasoned denunciation of all forms of irrational discrimination, the latest link in a chain of pathbreaking decisions that permitted interracial marriages and decriminalized gay sex between consenting adults. Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in their ability to form successful marital unions and raise children. Though procreation is not a necessary goal of marriage, children of same-sex couples will benefit from the stability provided by marriage, as will the state and society. Domestic partnerships confer a second-class status. The discrimination inherent in that second-class status is harmful to gay men and lesbians. These findings of fact will be highly significant as the case winds its way through years of appeals.
“Fundamental rights may NOT be submitted to a vote!”
Those who disagree, would you accept yours being submitted to one? Zzz.
Marriage is not a right, it is a regulated priveledge, as granted by individual state constitutions, according to the laws of a state, as approved by residents of that state.
For example, each state can set a minimum age for marriage, among many other criteria, such as how distant ( or close) blood relations can be before getting married.
Additionally, those wishing to be married in any particular state must apply for and receive a license to be married and conform to the terms of the license.
The horrific precedent made by this judge means marriage now has no definition or limits.
Federal law does not regulate marriage. For a federal judge to nullify this law is simply folly.
Needless to say, it will be appealed and by the time it reaches the Supreme Court, with a newly minted lesbian Justice, the decision is likely to be upheld, but it will not be the first, nor the last time bad decisions have come from the courts exceeding their Constitutional authority.
Kuman, we know you are a contrarian. Opposed to gay marriage, happiily engage in unsafe sex, etc., I just dont know why you keep stating your tired voice to an audience that at best finds you peculiar and at the worst a Judas. Now.. if I can just find someone to marry me.
As to your 'self-loathing' accusation, I am very much content with who I am and how I live my life. I do not need the affirmation of my government or others. I might proffer that those who seek approval of others for their conduct are actually probably the ones that might be "self-loathing, or why else would they need to constantly seek the affirmation of those around them to make themselves feel good?
In my daily circles, your views would be contrarian, so words like that really have little meaning or purpose in any conversation.
If Christianity forms a huge bedrock of the Western civilization, shouldn't it be considered natural to quote things right out of a book called the Bible? After all, everyone comes from the same cultural and historical background, isn't it natural to quote the Bible to affirm one's position? Moreover, unlike those Chinese books mentioned above, the Bible is considered by its faithful followers as words from the (Christian) God. So, shouldn't the Bible carry more weight within the Christian cultural context? As one of the above video shows, Christian values are frequently being used. And homosexuality is codified in the Bible as a "sin".
Luckily, European (French, I think) also came up with the concept of a separation between the religion and the rule of law. Because if there is no separation, religion will always win. How can you argue with gods, or God?
There is one article in Fridae about a Singaporean Christian minister saying things about gay people -- same old things that have been said by religious people in the West for years. I found it laughable in this case: Christianity is not a part of Singaporean cultural bedrock. Many folks who are not Christian and who do not know much about this religion will have to learn about it and to accept it in order to know why homosexuality should be considered a "sin" against (Christian) God's teaching. In short, there is no cultural context. It is a borrowed "sin".
And you are right.. in your circles my views would be contrarian. And so, I would not be posting my views on those sites ( tea bagger or otherwise ) that make up whatever circle you feel you belong to. Sure hope they don't find out you are queer.
In sofar as you pretend to know my sexual practices and my desire to do harm to myself or another, just because I ( like many others) have engaged in sex without condoms, does not mean I have some form of self-loathing that leads me to have a death wish. Does every man that engages in unprotected sexual activity have a self-loathing nature? Any sexual activity I engage in is mutually consenting and for the sole purpose of the pleasure of the parties involved. If we choose to exchange semen, or use a condom, as part of that, it is really little business of yours.
I was not aware that this is a censored site that accepts or promotes only one viewpoint. Go check the article about a lesbian Parliament member in Australia and see how many favorable comments about her non-support of gay marriage she garnered on this site. It is my belief that this site is a public forum that encourages tolerance and diversity, something you appear to be lacking in. My circle of friends are a most tolerant lot, by and large.
I am not quite certain what a teabagger is, but last I knew that was a slang word for something with the scrotum. If there is another meaning, please clarify.
Regarding your sexual practices, it is you who told everyone here how you quite enjoy unsafe sex and in fact you were quite surprised you hadn't contracted HIV. I think that clearly illustrates your view of yourself and your world.
This is not a censored site as far as I know. Please prattle on.
And a man who has sung the praise of none other than Sarah Palin, doesn't know what a Tea Bagger is? Yes I have heard the term as it relates to the scrotum. But I am, as you are well aware, referring to the the right wing half-wit/twits who belong to the group that finds itself just a few inches in back of the ball sack.
Judge Walker might be a good member of one's chosen family, though.
And so far as a more efficient glbt reform route is concered, should American gays prioritize the issue of the original family, marriage, the chosen family, the glbt community, politics, race or religion?
Although not as elequent as his comments, I'd like to add a couple of examples.
1. A lesbian recounted how, when she was a teenager, she had a part-time job in a nursing home. An elderly woman was trying to take an elevator to an upper floor to visit a friend, but was refused by the staff. The young girl later discovered that the woman was trying to see her lover who was also staying at the home. The two had shared a life together for decades, but because they were unmarried, had no legal right to visitation.
2. There are many stories of gay men whose families would not allow there long time companions access to see them in the hospital during their final hours.
3. Domestic partnership as Edsmale correctly pointed out, omits many rights not shared by marriage. In some states, these can be counted in the hundreds.
Laws can rectify social issues; laws can force one group to treat the other group equally (by making them, for example, drink out of a single fountain instead of two); laws can even flip-flop on a social issue -- an issue may be "right" for now but could be considered "wrong" in future. But laws cannot make one group to truly love and respect another group.
Don't some of us already get tired of limited venues to meet gay men? Don't some of us already get tired of the need to make use of and to sharpen our "gaydar" in nearly most places outside gay bars lest we should experience anything from being just embarrassed to being seriously harmed? Don't you want to just be able to say "hi" to a man whom you find interesting without using your "gaydar" in places such as, oh, the Union Square in San Francisco or while vacationing in a beautiful nature out in Montana?
Straight men -- oops, I mean to say heterosexual men -- have it naturally easy. So you get rejected once in a while. Big deal.
When a big majority of population dislike us, laws can only make them shut their mouth, while allowing us to enjoy the same legal treatments. Shutting their mouths do not mean getting their natural respect or natural love.
As to Sarah Palin - I do not recall "singing the praise" of her. I am rather neuteral to her past campaign. I was not an outspoken supporter of ANY candidate of either party in the last Presidential campaign.
And lastly to your charge that I am "surprised" I had not contracted HIV, that is absurd. You are delusional. Those words have never crossed my lips or been typed by my fingers.
I try to avoid personal attacks of any sort, but your memory must be clouded by your distaste for my thoughts, actions and beliefs, as the accusations you hurl are consistantly off the mark and delusional.
You seem to me to be the model of intolerance and bigotry.
everyone already knows , the judge in the case was appointed by George HW Bush, Arnold Schwartz is a Republican governor supporting gay marriage and a co-sponsor of this case, Theodore Olsen the Solicitor General under George W Bush and the guy that led the Supreme Court decision to get Bush in power in the first place made the most compelling arguement ever put in front of the California judicial system...it will probably go to the US Supreme Court and finally it will be the great legal mind of swing Justice Kennedy (another Bush appointee) that will make the difference
anyway, even Laura Bush and the Bush girls have supported gay marriage
so its the Republicans that seem to be the only social warriors on this issue worth a damn and unfortunately its the straight people with credibility that are moving this forward, what has Obama actually done??
the gay community is happy with this, but it this community in California really is messy and disorganized and a financial train wreck when it comes to getting things done
my gay older brother who is a so called gay activist and really rich strong armed me into donating a bundle to a bunch of disorganized losers-- good cause but shitty execution by the divided gay activist money wasters in California (anyway my gay brother is aleady married, divorced and getting married a second time, financially is he so worse off)
that's just my opinion and yes you can be Republican, pro-gay marriage and a hot gay Jew like me at the same time, the gay conservative movement is growing by leaps and bounds and we actually get along with lots of people in a classy way vs. tacky confrontation
by the way, I met Sarah Palin and she is a charmer in her own right, I think she's pretty tame and there is lots of room in our country to get along and concentrate on bigger issues like creating jobs and gettng the economy back on track
be who you are, love who you love, and marry who you wish to marry
be happy, be gay!!!!
Kuman, you and your views are plainly QUEER -- worthless, counterfeit, questionable, suspicious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D6rVTBo9M4
ANDERSON COOPER: Mr. Boies, for you, what are the most important points of the judge's decision?
DAVID BOIES, ATTORNEY FOR THE AMERICAN FEDERATION FOR EQUAL RIGHTS: The most important points in the judge's opinions were three.
First, the judge held that marriage was a fundamental right for all individuals. Second, the judge held that depriving gay and lesbian citizens of the right to marry seriously harmed them and seriously harmed their children.
Third, the judge held that depriving gay and lesbian citizens of the right to marry had no benefit, no legitimate benefit, to society. It didn't help preserve heterosexual marriage. It didn't help heterosexual couples. It didn't have any rational basis.
And the judge found those (INAUDIBLE) based not only on the extensive amount of evidence that we had put on, but on the things that the defendants' witnesses had actually admitted in court.
Full transcript: http://pddnet.com/news-ap-gops-birther-problem-tracking-a-killer-on-faceboo-080510/
COOPER: And Mr. Boies, for those who say why not have domestic partnerships, why marriage?
BOIES: Well, what the judge found and what all the evidence showed was that domestic partnerships were not equal to marriage, that when the state sponsors discrimination against gay and lesbian couples by saying, you have to have this second-class status, you can't have marriage like normal people, that's the worst kind of state-sponsored discrimination.
We have a lot of areas in this country where we still have a long ways to go before we achieve the kind of equality that our country was founded and believing in, that this is the only area in which the state actually has official state-sponsored, state-enforced discrimination.
And when the state says to gay and lesbian couples, you're not good enough for marriage you have to be -- settle for domestic partnerships, that is straight-out discrimination. And the judge found that it's harmed gays, it's harmed lesbian couples, it's harmed their children, and it has no benefit to anybody.
Yea, right. Tea-bag right. Go check past articles and see how many fake multiple profiles I've exposed here on this site.
There can only be 2 main reasons why one would deny others of equal rights.
1. Self loathing/hating: I can't have it (I'm repulsive to others) so no one can. My life sucks so everyone must too....etc
2. Insecure Over Superiority Complex: I don't see you as my equal so I deny you the privileges I enjoy. Even if you may be my equal or superior, I deny you to stay superior, It's all about ME!
If it were up to you bigots, can these pairs in LOVE get married? The Elderly? The Handicap? The Dwarves? The Colored? Interfaith? Interracial?
Duh? They DON"T/will never ever need your approval. They ALL just need YOU to SHUT he F.u.C.k UP- period !!!
SFBaysider: "When a big majority of population dislike us, laws can only make them shut their mouth, while allowing us to enjoy the same legal treatments."
Edsmale: "If you dont like marriage...DONT GET MARRIED! But point is, no one can force you and take away your rights to do so, its not right for another party to TELL you what you can and cant do. We need to have full equality in all things, full access, otherwise gay is never equal and never will be...unless we force it to be so. No one will do it for us."
Kellen's quote: "And when the state says to gay and lesbian couples, you're not good enough for marriage you have to be -- settle for domestic partnerships, that is straight-out discrimination. ~BOIES"
jammyboi: " Just shut the F.u.C.k UP - period!!!"
As Winston Churchill said, "eventually the Americans do the right thing." But the agony of waiting is not pleasant.
reagan and the bushes were liberal pinko commies for appointing walker and boies to high office... loving versus virginia was a ruling in the commie liberal 60s saying marriage was a right overturning a conservative judge who said..."Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."...ok he was a nutso judge...but its not like being against gay marriage at all!!!
guys your doing good derailing the homosexual activist juggernaut...keep doing as ***** says and blowing smoke into these debates - remember - distract, discredit, divide and destroy!!! Save the world!!!
ps...anyone who says Kuman atzlan_oz and others are just a gaybasher in a gay bar for being on here are just bashing them for having a different point of view anyway this is just a sex site not a community
"A sad day for America. Judges need to be bound and guided by the limits of our Federal Constitution and not the desire to be liked at cocktail parties"
This is nonsense, the role of the judiciary in American politics is to interpret laws against the constitution, not to be bound by it. A law maker, or in this case the public, voted for something and it was implemented. This is a democratic system, but what if a majority, no matter how small (52% in the case of Prop 8), voted and passed a law that made homosexuality illegal, would you support that? A judge needs to evaluate the law against the constitution to make sure it is, in fact, legal. After legal intrepretation against the constitution, it was decided that this was not the case with Prop 8 and rightly struck off.
"Marriage is not a right, it is a regulated priveledge, as granted by individual state constitutions, according to the laws of a state, as approved by residents of that state"
This is, again, nonsense. Clearly you want to maintain your closested life style and have no wish to marry, or even have the right to marry. That is fair enough, you don't have to. But please don't argue that it's just to deny the rights of any person who wants to marry simple because you don't want to, or that it's up to the law makers to decide who should marry. It used to be the law that interracial marriages in certain states were prohibited, that was the regulation, is that deffensiable or is it clearly discriminatory? You can seriously argue that because the law makers decided it was ok to prejidice based on skin colour than it should be respected and never challenged? Did the supreme court overstep their role when they decided that was unconstitutional? Yes, laws must be approved by resisdents of any state, but if a law approved by a small majority is discriminatory against a minority then that minority needs some protection from it, you can not have a just society where it is deemed OK to discriminate legally against someone based on something they have no control over.
"For example, each state can set a minimum age for marriage, among many other criteria, such as how distant ( or close) blood relations can be before getting married.
Additionally, those wishing to be married in any particular state must apply for and receive a license to be married and conform to the terms of the license"
The constitution regulates rights each citizen should have, federal law has to respect the constitution and be in compliance with it, otherwise it is illegal. If a law is introduced that declars some rights for the majority, but no rights for the minority then it is clearly discriminatory, against the principles of the constitution. Please do not confuse state law with the basic principles of law set out by the constitution, the constitution is not ammended in such a way as you seem to be suggesting.
"The horrific precedent made by this judge means marriage now has no definition or limits.
Federal law does not regulate marriage. For a federal judge to nullify this law is simply folly"
Wow, you've really been swayed by the rights "if you allow this then you'll allow marriage to dogs" argument, are you sure you're a homosexual man?
"Needless to say, it will be appealed and by the time it reaches the Supreme Court, with a newly minted lesbian Justice, the decision is likely to be upheld, but it will not be the first, nor the last time bad decisions have come from the courts exceeding their Constitutional authority"
The self-loathing in this paragraph is palpable, but I'll ignore that. The Supreme Court does not exceed its constitutional authority by striking down, or defining rights for people, that IS its constitutional authority (for example, the previously mentioned interracial marriages case, Loving v Virginia, was deemed to be unconstitutional, so no state could implment such laws because these laws would violate the constitution). I assume the Obama administration has kept quite on the issue of gay marriage because it fully expects some rednecks to bring the case all the way to the supreme court, where, thankfully, it probably will be decided that it is unconstitutional to prohibit marriage based on sexuallity.
EDIT : Edited for clarity, needed a bit of formatting
Well that's wonderful, but it's not really a valid point is it? If you don't want to get married, or dislike marriage, then fair enough. However there will be people, couples, straight, homosexual, who do want to get married not just for any financial or security benefits that may entail, but because they want to show a commitment to each other in a legally binding way, they want to show their love for each other in the same way other couples can.
You may feel the whole marriage thing is outdated and pointless, and not worth the debate, but some people don't. The argument here is whether or not the laws of a country should specifically deny the people who DO want that. You've taken the stance that because you don't want to, or don't like the idea, you don't care, and don't really mind discriminatory laws. I find that pretty pathetic and extremely sad, especially for a gay man.
"...A sad day for America. Judges need to be bound and guided by the limits of our Federal Constitution and not the desire to be liked at cocktail parties. ..."
I am Canadian. In 1982, Canada established The Chartered of Rights and Freedom because historical proven that the most harmful bully was government (law maker). The law makers can be from a government body or public like California case. The Chartered is above all laws, it is extremely unlikely anybody can create a new law that contradict with the Chartered. Canadian Supreme Court is safe guiding the Chartered to protect Canadian being abused by the law makers. Canadian Supreme Court judges do not create law but protect the basic rights and freedom guaranteed by the Chartered. It is the Chartered that guiding all Canadians including the judges and law makers. I believe American Chartered has almost the same power as Canadian Chartered. No one is above the law. The writer is very narrow minded, you as an American, Don't you know your own American Chartered? Well, All American judges and law makers have to respect American Chartered. Northern California District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker did not create the law under his power, he does not have power to create law but he has the power to protect the Chartered/American Constitution even the law maker (52% California voters) overturned California Supreme court's decision to allow gay marriage.
I would like to remind all the law makers, either the elected government agencies or the people, your majority opinion IS NOT ABOVE above the Chartered. Look at our human history, all kind of bullies. Black in America, Women without education, Head Tax for Chinese labor in Canada, Immigration law against certain races in Canada and so on. Weren't they the same issue we are arguing now? The majority impose their belief and opinion against the will of minority even gay marriage has no impact of their hetero marriage life. Please, 21st Century, don't come into my bedroom and interfere my sex life. Take good care of your hetero wives and husbands, make sure you don't end up divorce. Well, statistics show it is an upward trend for straight marriage. Please take good care of your own trouble issue. Leave Gay marriage in the hand of American Constitution, Don't repeat the bully. Sad, never learned from history.
In Canada, anyone can take the government to court to challenge the law that takes away his or her rights under the Chartered. If a court finds that a law violates Charter rights, for example the law is found to be discriminatory under the equality rights section, the court can declare that law has no force. Nooooooo force. California voters, listen, Noooooo force. Why? Because you are the typical bully like in those days, against the will of minority, limit others' private matters. Below is the information of The Canadian Charter Rights and Freedom.
The Charter regulates interactions between the state (federal, provincial and territorial governments) and individuals. It is, in some respects, Canada's most important law because it can render invalid or inoperative any laws that are inconsistent with its provisions. For more than 20 years, the Charter has been the driving force of change, progress and the affirmation of our society's values. Canadian courts have rendered more than 300 decisions in which they invoke the Charter to bring Canadian laws into accordance with the principles and values of Canadian society.
The Charter has had a major impact on the promotion and protection of human rights in Canada. With respect to language rights, it has reinforced the rights of official-language minorities. With regard to equality rights, it has led to the recognition and enforcement of the rights of a number of minority and disadvantaged groups. In penal matters, the Charter has clarified to a considerable extent the state's powers with respect to offender rights.
I am sure the Supreme Court of USA will in favor in gay marriage not because they accept their lifestyle. It is just a simple issue, American Chartered. Who can take it away? The law makers? The judges? Nobody. Stop arguing. Otherwise we are back to those days, black issue, Chinese issue, Womens' right to go to school, marry to the same race and so on. I don't see any difference. If those against gay marriage, perhaps the majority white should ask you (minority immigrants) to leave USA back to your country of origin or impose every fucking things in your life, Your job, pay and so on. Do u want it? If NOT, Stop B.... like a dog.
Kuman 0127 (23). I am sure you are a minority race if you live in USA or any western world. Do you mind someday 52% of white people feel that you should get lower pay than them, limit to certain kind of job opportunities and so on. If you do, then I support your opinions. You are very childish. Hope you are not Canadian or American. Shame!
I have no objection to creating a new social institution, such as are termed "civil unions", recognizing that those in same gender relationships may wish to pass property on to another after death ( after all this is what the debate is really about - money, money, money - benefits grab).
I have never felt a need to seek the approbation of others in who I may choose to enter into a relationship with. If others are so self-loathing that they cannot find value in their own identity without seeking approval of those around them, I might suggest looking inward and seeing if you have any redemptive qualities to love yourself for.
The few benefits accorded by marriage can easily be secured by a few free and low cost legal documents ( such as power of attorney, health care proxy, estate executor, joint ownership etc).
Long ago I realized I am responsible for myself and my life, while others whine and bemoan it is not fair, I work hard and provide for myself and my future, under my control, not that of mindless self-serving bureacrats.
You're happy to lead your life privately, that's fine, but the debate is about whether or not gay people should HAVE to do such a thing because of the laws of the land. You suggest that marriage is well defined and shouldn't be changed, but how recently was this definition of marriage you have in your country last changed? 1967 the supreme court decided that it was OK for black people to marry white people. Were you around objecting to that decision because it changed the well-defined definition of marriage as it was previously? Just because something has a definition now does not mean it can not be allowed to change, nothing is set in stone.
This is not about seeking the approval of others, this is about equal rights, nothing more. You may suggest other legal channels to get similar benefits (although the main one still lacks, legal recognition in the eyes of the STATE) but why SHOULD a gay couple have to do that?
I find it infuriating that there are members of the gay community willing to defend unjust laws that deliberately target them, specifically. I don't know what the term is for the gay equivalent of an "Uncle Tom", but perhaps we should coin one now. May I suggest a "Kuman"?
Eipi, you should work at my law firm.
Apart from "eipi" being a fun word for me to say in my mind (eepy!), he has it correct: The right to marry is not remotely about "seeking approval from others." It's very simply about equality. In America, everyone is supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law. Now, obviously in actual practice, there are plenty of deviations from that, but where we see it, should it not be corrected?
I have no personal desire to get married. I don't see it happening. But I believe if others want to do so, they should have that right, whether gay or straight.
I've actually read most of the Prop 8 ruling, and it's pretty well devastating to the case for gay marriage bans. It's clear, strongly-worded, incredibly fact- and precedent-based, and I don't see a scenario where the 9th circuit appellate court will overturn or invalidate the ruling. It's epic.
As for Kuman's blathering about siblings marrying, or three-way marriages, they have just as much right to their day in court, too. We call that "due process" and every American has that constitutional right. However, in those particular cases, it perhaps could be argued that the state DOES have a vested interest in prohibiting such marriages. There are plenty of scientific studies addressing the genetic problems of close blood relatives procreating. And a three- or four-way marriage would be a nightmare from a taxation standpoint. But, should someone want to sue the state in order to marry their sibling, they at least should be able to be considered by the courts. That's what happened here, and the gay marriage foes lost spectacularly.
"eipi" will in time fall in love with an American. But his work visa has a term limit.
He and his partner will be very heartbroken, if "eipi" cannot stay here. We, too, will be heartbroken to see the parting of a lovely couple.
Gay marriage comes to their rescue. Eeeepidoda!
I will stick with my law firm any day over any firm that would consider such mindless blather as espoused by Max,eipei and Chad.
And even in the end, when this moves up the ladder and is litigated again and again, if the decision stands, that does not make it a correct decision, as the decisions of the Supreme Court are just opinions.
Poor Hamilton and Jay are surely spinning in the graves.
If cold scientific logic is the only way to see things, then sex can only legally occur between a man and a woman -- and for procreation. Pleasure is a feeling and thus is an illogical consideration. Therefore, if you legalize sex between two men or two women, then you might as well legalize sex between any two entities.
Even defining "marriage" specifically between one consenting adult man and one consenting adult woman is loaded with "emotional" considerations: the "adult" age and strictly between two opposite sexes. What scientific logic is being used to work out the "adult" age? What scientific logic says that "marriage" can only be between two opposite sexes?
Because human compassion is necessary, you can only hope that it be administered by the "right" group of people. It is this human compassion that will cause the "marriage" to be redefined so as to include adult same-sex couples.
Will it be redefined again to allow, say, polygamy? Possibly. Will it include incestuous relationships? No. Because human compassion and cold scientific logic will now work against it.
Mr. Hamiltion and Mr. Jay were in fact early abolitionists. I choose those I admire very carefully, particularly on the issue of the dignity of human life.
My career is based on the foundation of the dignity and unique value of every human life
Strange so few seem to support him HERE. Another delusion maybe???
speaking of fake profiles --- kumabro_oz is certainly hiding behind something.
As for me, I have never suffered from a lack of pride in my beliefs and values, as they are markers of how I live my life.
Furthermore, Hamilton was a Federalist harping for a strong Federal authority, that is something you would be very much opposed to today.
As I say times change.
These means that marriage is no longer defined as a man and a woman at the federal level. So no the US government must give all married couples (no matter how they're made up) the same rites.
PS: Why is dynhoyw so obsessed with jammyboi? Geez. Get a life or create another fake profile already. Fcuking moron !
Know them. Expose them. Be wary of them. Fight them.
But, DON"T, for a second let your guards down and try to understand them. Nor listen to them. Nor get into their diatribe of "free speech".
They will strike you down and bite you and destroy you.
Same thing to all the loser contrarian anti-gay self loathing gays ( I spit on your spineless guts) and multiple fake profiles here to rally fake "support" to deliberate controversial flame baiting agendas.
Know this. Your self existence don't matter. You know it, we know it. STOP perpetuating your anti-social, anti-progressive, anti-equality stance. We DON't and never will need your approval.
Just do it ! Just shut the F.U.C.K up!
Now go do something useful for a change.
Go stop your hamsters from getting married.
PS: I view your anti-equality stance like tolerating the sub-perversion of FISTING in gay culture, here's my tribute to ALL you contrarian losers! Enjoy ! LOL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On3etueeGIg&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On3etueeGIg&feature=channel
;) with profiles like kuman around, we need people like you around too! ...
im very happy prop 8 was overturned ... and im very glad i was and still am part of it, however little that be ...
support marriage equality ...
Courage Campaign in California ... and,
Marriage Equality Ireland ... and,
Pride Agenda in NY!
Donate online ... and or make a continuous monthly donation ... spread the word ... get involved ...
xoxoxo
yong
_________________
Love your post, but need to correct this on two counts. Number one, this wasn't California. It just happened there. This was the United States Federal District Court, which is why the decision was so huge -- it's the first time a Federal judge had ever really weighed in.
Second, even if it had been California, they're hardly "leading the way." They're about a decade behind the curve. Want to give kudos for truly leading the way? See Massachusetts, the first state to grant real gay marriage (2004). See Vermont, the first state to do so by way of a legislative vote (2009), and also the first state ever to recognize gay unions at all (2000).
To wrap up, because I think this will be my final post on this subject, I would encourage any of you with questions to actually read part of the ruling. Not the whole thing, because it's really long, but click here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL) and go to page 109, which is Section III -- the legal wrap-up. From there to the final conclusion, it's only 27 pages in double-spaced Courier 10 font. Very easy stuff. It's really well-written, not all full of incomprehensible legalese at all, and Judge Walker really makes the case pretty solid, even to the point of using previous US Supreme Court decisions to frame the ruling that Prop 8 was complete unconstitutional and wholly incompatible with the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.
I'm no legal expert, but I do have an idea of how law works in the United States, and after reading most of this ruling, I simply don't see how it will be overturned or revoked. Ever. It's that solid, and gay marriage WILL take place in California, and indeed throughout America. Only a matter of time now. As Judge Walker concludes in his ruling: IT IS SO ORDERED.
Because when we go to the Zoo it's difficult not to stare at the snakes!
Because when we go to the Zoo it's difficult not to stare at the snakes!
i think REPETITION is the key ...
if u tell someone the sky is pink long enough, the sky will seem pink to him ... or her ... whether or not the sky is truly pink is irrelevant ...
viz a viz ...
if you continue to let people (organized teams, especially those with motives and hidden agenda) to keep playing down equality and marriage rights ... sooner or later, we will have a generation (or two, or more) of LGBT people who think such is true ...
if you are gay, and you dont agree to marriage being accessible to all, and that marriage is strictly for dual sex individuals, the least you could do is not stand by the other's side and make our job more difficult than it already is ...
let us do our job ... who knows, one day you might decide to marry, but ALAS, you cant, because you decided to casually brush aside and defeat what others were fighting for; people who sacrificed and continuously doing so ... their time away from family and friends ... from work ... money and efforts to make sure that, if you DO someday want to get married, or your gay friends, or your children (Hey, gay people have children too! who might or might not be gay themselves! etc etc etc), you would find that THE DOOR would be closed to you and them, maybe permanently by then ...
Helping out, in any way ... and being united is crucial in the fight for equality. If you cant see it just yet, please just let others who believe and want marriage for all, do their work ... I would rather that you stay idle, sitting on the fence than sharing similarity with the oppositions (who are well organized, loaded (in cash) and armed with an army of steadfastly anti-LGBT people who has only one aim in mind ... ... ... that is to refuse LGBT people of equal treatments and rights).
try not to belittle our work and efforts ... ... ... who knows, just in case u fall in love madly one day and your partner wants to marry ... ever thought of that prospect ?
you do know how to fall in love still, dont you ? ....
Sincerely,
Yong
PS: Think of the right to marry ... maybe as important as ... retirement planning, healthcare, insurance etc etc etc ie. some / many people dont want them and dont give much thought to them till it is too late
*this is a re-post*
No matter how much some homosexuals wish to define a relationship marrige, it is not the same. Even if the concept is the same it is different. Much like a Chevrolet can never be a Ford and a Ford can never be a Chevrolet, no matter that they are both automobiles, they are different.
Why waste time and energy trying to redefine the simple word marriage? Just simply choose to pursue securing the same benefits of marriage for same gender relationships. It seems a no brainer
I find it ironic with a democratic majority controlled house, senate and white house, they did little for gay rights these past two years
its is ironic that a bunch of straight ex-Bushies and Arnold a Republican are getting things done
fall in love and get married cause times are achanging, just don't have sex in parks where dogs poo
I think its sad people think this forum is infiltrated, are we all suppose to think the same way like gay robots?
alot of people are practicing the art of Argumentum Ad Hominem here, but that's life
every generation has its role ...
without stonewall in the 70s ... where would we be now ? ...
deal with someone like kuman as if you would a republican ... an ex-gay minister ... or a religious extremist ...
judging from his consistency, his sheer level of insensitivity, and his determination to influence ... he is NOT REGULAR by any measure ... he is here with an intention ... and not a good one ...
xoxoxo
Yong
At the age of 42, I am self-employed, a leader in social, civic and charitable organizations in the community where I live and work and I owe my success to patience, tolerance, hard work and refusing to allow others to devalue me by bigotry or intolerance.
If you allow your heart and soul to be corrupted by hate, anger and resentment, you destroy only yourself.
I consider my homosexuality to be a wonderful gift and blessing, as my struggle to accept my sexual identity ( 18 years ago this week in fact) led me to a period of personal growth unparalelled by any other life experience to this point.
Accepting what I once considered a mental, moral and physical failing has opened up a new world to me, which enabled me to be understanding and compassionate of the trials many others face in this world and the hard work morally, physically and mentally one must endure to overcome these challenges.
If someone places an obstacle in my way, I ignore it and move over it or around it my by own initiative, not by looking for others to carry my load.
If this makes me a man of evil intention in your eyes, or those of others, so be it. I have little time in my life to dwell on haters of any stripe.
I deflected nothing. I addressed a remark directed towards me. My messages here are always consistent in expressing be responsible for yourself and your own success. Do not seek the approbation of others, solely because you seek to be liked. Do what is right because it is right, not because it is popular. Even if people around me dislike homosexuality, I endeavor to live a life as such that they will respect me for things I can control in my life, such as my integrity, my charity and my concern for others, not by the fact that I am mentally and physically attracted to my same gender by what seems to be a random roll of the genetic dice.
One more follow up to Kenmy84, I would respectfuly suggest that the epidemic of AIDS has done more to advance the awareness and advocacy of homosexual acceptance, more so than a bunch of drag queens fighting with some NYC police outside of a bar. From my perspective the only outgrowth of that event is a parade of fetishes down 5th Avenue. The impact of AIDS on families, neighborhoods and workplaces brought a very human side to our sexual behavior and brought many sons, fathers and brothers out of the closet to their families and friends.
Do we live in a perfect world? - no ! Work hard, be accountable for your own actions and forge ahead without waiting for others to do for you and let the others wallow in the mire of pity and want.
Again, just like clockwork - spoken like the true C.U.N.T that you are. LOL!
Geez, at your old age still going to the zoo to get some snake? Man, your pathetic life must really suck. We have eat da poo poo, fisting and now you just have to add to the sick list - bestiality. Can't you just leave those poor animals alone and shut the f.u.c.k up?
Go contact kumabro_oz and lagunabro for a 3some. Maybe you 3 c.u.n.t.s can rub up some fire for this coming winter. Yawn !!! Moron ! zzz.
Kuman – The fact that marriage has been regulated by the states with different states adopting differing laws with regard to marriage is a good reason for it not to be in the hands of the states in the first place. Unfortunately this is unlikely to change anytime soon. The only reason marriage was historically regulated by the states was because county and state governments were the only visible government in the early days of the country and because religious beliefs demanded control. In the early days of America most counties did not even record births or deaths but kept very accurate records of marriage because of religious conservatism. We are now in the 21st Century and times have changed. Marriage confers certain rights and privileges that civil unions do not. I personally believe that the government should only register civil unions as is done in many Asian countries. The whole concept of marriage and/or civil unions is corrupted to begin with by common law marriages and palimony lawsuits. These days you cannot even cohabitate with a partner without being possibly subjected to a palimony lawsuit. The problem with most people is that they cannot separate the concept of marriage being a legal entity or a religious one and this has confused the issue. Those benefits which heterosexual married couples enjoy should not be limited to this group alone. This is why the gay marriage thing is important. It is all about equal treatment. I would have no way legally of bringing a partner which was from another country to the United States but if I was heterosexual and met a woman I could marry and go through the process to get her to the United States.
You stated: “The horrific precedent made by this judge means marriage now has no definition or limits.” I suggest you read the judge’s ruling as it does not say that at all. It only indicates that state law cannot make laws with violate the US Constitution under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.
Times are changing and the gay marriage issue is just one more way to change the way people think about homosexuals. When this reaches the Supreme Court and they hopefully rule in favor of gay marriage, we will look back in ten years and all the allegations that have been brought forth for not letting homosexuals marry will be seen as complete rubbish. Gay marriage, gays serving in the military, etc. are all necessary now so that future generations will not have to go through the discrimination that currently occurs. Even today young homosexual individuals are living a better existence than I did as a youth in the 1960’s. This is progress, which while you may disagree, will put one more nail in the coffin of discrimination against the homosexual community.
Please log in to use this feature.