Cali high court upholds gay marriage ban

[LegalSmash]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage

LOL. I called it

[Red]

Thank fuck they actually upheld the voice of the majority and not the vocal minority.

Big fuck you to Perez Hilton for chiding Miss California for giving the same answer that the majority of the public actually agreed with you fat fudge packing piece of shit.

[LegalSmash]

Thank fuck they actually upheld the voice of the majority and not the vocal minority.

Big fuck you to Perez Hilton for chiding Miss California for giving the same answer that the majority of the public actually agreed with you fat fudge packing piece of shit.

Perez Hilton: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL (breathing in) LMAO LMAO LMAO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL (coughing hard) LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL LOL LMAO (heart attack)

[LegalSmash]

Thank fuck they actually upheld the voice of the majority and not the vocal minority.

Big fuck you to Perez Hilton for chiding Miss California for giving the same answer that the majority of the public actually agreed with you fat fudge packing piece of shit.

The BAAAAWfag's response


What's Next?????
Filed under: Gay Gay Gay



Tonight, we protest!

All over California (and across the U.S.), dozens of rallies will be held in reaction of the state Supreme Court's decision this morning to uphold Proposition 8.

Gay and lesbian residents of this state are being denied the same rights, privileges and protections that heterosexual couples have when they marry civilly.

That is NOT right! That is not fair! That is wrong wrong wrong!

This is about equality!

Tonight we will be heard. And tomorrow we will be heard. And we will be loud until we are all treated the same!

CLICK HERE for information on a rally near U.
CLICK HERE for information on a rally near U.
CLICK HERE for information on a rally near U.
CLICK HERE for information on a rally near U.
CLICK HERE for information on a rally near U.

Perez and some of his celeb friends will be at this demonstration in West Hollywood tonight. PLEASE join us!

Time: 7:00 pm this evening, May 26th
Place: 647 N. San Vicente Boulevard
Santa Monica and San Vicente Blvd
West Hollywood

After the rally, some will be marching towards another demonstration at Hollywood & Highland at 9:30 PM.

There will be some speeches at the West Hollywood rally, and everyone is encouraged to wear white.

Bring signs, bullhorns, ribbons, chalk, anything you want to make noise.

But, most importantly, just show up!

Posted: May 26, 2009 at 1:26 pm

[Red]

lololol he just doesn't get it

[Itch]

Thank fuck they actually upheld the voice of the majority and not the vocal minority.

Big fuck you to Perez Hilton for chiding Miss California for giving the same answer that the majority of the public actually agreed with you fat fudge packing piece of shit.

I couldn't agree more!

[LegalSmash]

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.PDF

[Omar]

This is why, sometimes, you have to use the sharia! :P

[LegalSmash]

This is why, sometimes, you have to use the sharia! :P

LOL. If sharia allowed this all the gays would be muslim... hell, i wonder how that would work, given the whole "getting PORKED in the ass" thing.

I think the law is where it needs to be.

[Omar]

LOL. If sharia allowed this all the gays would be muslim... hell, i wonder how that would work, given the whole "getting PORKED in the ass" thing.

I think the law is where it needs to be.

Appearently, you don't get my point, It's called disallow, and when something is disallowed, then it's bai bai to life, in other words, banish them from the land or die, in shorter GTFO OR DIAF!


btw, homosexuality is not right in every religion?, it doesn't matter if it's islam or christianity.

[LegalSmash]

Appearently, you don't get my point, It's called disallow, and when something is disallowed, then it's bai bai to life, in other words, banish them from the land or die, in shorter GTFO OR DIAF!


btw, homosexuality is not right in every religion?, it doesn't matter if it's islam or christianity.

Except many christians and jews like to make exceptions to scripture to appease people.

I get what you meant by the way. While I agree that people should just deal with the fact that most other persons do not like homosexuality, I think they should have to live with it, rather than not be it, get what I mean?

[Omar]

Except many christians and jews like to make exceptions to scripture to appease people.

I get what you meant by the way. While I agree that people should just deal with the fact that most other persons do not like homosexuality, I think they should have to live with it, rather than not be it, get what I mean?

Yea, I get it,



do YOU like homosexuality?

[LegalSmash]

Yea, I get it,



do YOU like homosexuality?


Personally, I do not condone it. I do not hate people for being gay though, I just really believe that if you are going to try to be different, you should be ready to deal with the inevitable social backlash for doing so.

[Omar]

Personally, I do not condone it. I do not hate people for being gay though, I just really believe that if you are going to try to be different, you should be ready to deal with the inevitable social backlash for doing so.

I'm the kind of guy who BRINGS the social backlash to them :D


Yea, by the time you've E-known me , you should know this... I don't like gays, but I'm not a gaybasher or anything, it's not like if i see a gay guy on the street, I would go punch him, nah.. but if he tries to hit on me, i'd tell him to BACK THE FUCK UP!




There.

[phatman76]

It was a foregone conclusion that the court would uphold the vote. If they had not, it would have been criminal. I am not sure it will really stick though. National Review predicted, rightly in my opinion, that states will soon be divided not by whether or not they support gay marriage but by how easy it is to amend the state constitution. Soon enough gay marriage will be constitutionally implemented in California, which is the way it should have been done in the first place. The sting of their defeat last November will cause some real voter mobilization, might happen within two to three election cycles. If not immediately, then in about 5 to 10 years.

[LegalSmash]

It was a foregone conclusion that the court would uphold the vote. If they had not, it would have been criminal. I am not sure it will really stick though. National Review predicted, rightly in my opinion, that states will soon be divided not by whether or not they support gay marriage but by how easy it is to amend the state constitution. Soon enough gay marriage will be constitutionally implemented in California, which is the way it should have been done in the first place. The sting of their defeat last November will cause some real voter mobilization, might happen within two to three election cycles. If not immediately, then in about 5 to 10 years.

This pretty much sums it up.

I want one lesson to be learned by CA (which they won't learn, because the state as a whole is fucking retarded), and that is that they cannot just crayola law in place, and expect the majority to sit idly by and take it. People put the issue on the ballot and voted that sucker out, thankfully the court upheld it.

I tire of groups trying to get a shortcut through the courts. If there are a large enough group in cali that want gay marriage, itll happen, but until then, the standing majority rules.

[Slavic]

I'm the kind of guy who BRINGS the social backlash to them :D


Yea, by the time you've E-known me , you should know this... I don't like gays, but I'm not a gaybasher or anything, it's not like if i see a gay guy on the street, I would go punch him, nah.. but if he tries to hit on me, i'd tell him to BACK THE FUCK UP!




There.

...

[PotshotPolka]

I think Omar gets hit on because he wears his jeans with socks pulled over them.

[Red]

I think Omar gets hit on because he wears his jeans with socks pulled over them.

:thumb:

[Omar]

I think Omar gets hit on because he wears his jeans with socks pulled over them.

It's popular here??? It's not like i put tons of gel in my hair and looks like one of those gay people you see in san fran

[LegalSmash]

Re this case, I am glad the court framed the issue as what it really is "whether a court should overrule a constitutionally passed amendment to the state constitution" rather than a litmus test on gay rights. The court did a good job here in my opinion. I sincerely wish the gays the best of luck, really I do, but do it on the ballot. If the state of X or Y decides its what they want, then let it be, but attempting to force acceptance of a largely offensive concept on an unreceptive majority by a really loud minority is not the way of the world.

[Omar]

But I don't understand why homosexuals even WANT to get married, when marriage is a religious thing and religion is also against homosexuality, so why bother?

[Itch]

But I don't understand almost anything

^ fixed.

Marriage isn't only a religious thing.
There are many reasons they want to get married.
Financial issues.. IE taxes and credits.
Recognition.. wanting acceptance for what/who they are.
etc.. etc.. etc.. I won't waste my time writing out page after page of reasons why they might want it.

[Omar]

^ fixed.

Marriage isn't only a religious thing.
There are many reasons they want to get married.
Financial issues.. IE taxes and credits.
Recognition.. wanting acceptance for what/who they are.
etc.. etc.. etc.. I won't waste my time writing out page after page of reasons why they might want it.

I know what!

They can make their own religion, umm... homoinity, Elton John as their prophet... or the guy from top models..


something in that direction...


:P

[zero]

But I don't understand why homosexuals even WANT to get married, when marriage is a religious thing and religion is also against homosexuality, so why bother?

Exactly, which is why I don't fully understand why the state gets involved in marriage in the first place, whether its between a man and woman or whatever.

[Omar]

Meh, I'd still vote yes to ban it, just to be an asshole :)

[Slavic]

Exactly, which is why I don't fully understand why the state get involved in marriage in the first place, whether its between a man and woman or whatever.

Should be handled entirely within the religious institutions. The state shouldn't deal with marriages per se, but legal unions because that is all that should matter to the state.

Marriage as a religious symbol is quite laughable in this country to begin with considering the huge rise in divorce rates and infidelity.

@ Omar you ass

[Omar]

@ Omar you ass



Hehehehe :P

[LegalSmash]

Exactly, which is why I don't fully understand why the state get involved in marriage in the first place, whether its between a man and woman or whatever.

No, its a state construct governed by the state's police powers, according to this country. lol. All that white dress and cake shit is celebratory.

[Omar]

No, its a state construct governed by the state's police powers, according to this country. lol. All that white dress and cake shit is celebratory.

Oh yea, btw, did you pop the question yet?

[LegalSmash]

Oh yea, btw, did you pop the question yet?

No, money and job required. I'm responsible, remember something important omar: "
"Romance without finance is a nuisance"

[Frostbyte]

It's popular here??? It's not like i put tons of gel in my hair and looks like one of those gay people you see in san fran

Don't you dare make fun of Fonzie.

[Elleon]

But I don't understand why homosexuals even WANT to get married, when marriage is a religious thing and religion is also against homosexuality, so why bother?

Amusing statement. Religions have been taking in Gays for quite some time now. It is hypocritical and contradicts plenty of "traditions", but accepting all of "God's children" has been a message of peace for awhile. Marriage isn't just a religious thing and isn't used soley or within those bounds either. You comment sounds a bit sheltered in my opinion, no offense.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage

LOL. I called it

Postponing the inevitable.

Nothing directed towards you Legal, simply the the situation when I state this.

I am a realist and although some can laugh, point, and cry out in victory concerning this outcome, it is merely a battle, not the war, and that is what is and will be valued as actual significance.

Some people have to be fairly optimistic if they believe bans against gay marriage are going to stick forever or for much longer.

[LegalSmash]

Amusing statement. Religions have been taking in Gays for quite some time now. It is hypocritical and contradicts plenty of "traditions", but accepting all of "God's children" has been a message of peace for awhile. Marriage isn't just a religious thing and isn't used soley or within those bounds either. You comment sounds a bit sheltered in my opinion, no offense.



Postponing the inevitable.

Nothing directed towards you Legal, simply the the situation when I state this.

I am a realist and although some can laugh, point, and cry out in victory concerning this outcome, it is merely a battle, not the war, and that is what is and will be valued as actual significance.

Some people have to be fairly optimistic if they believe bans against gay marriage are going to stick forever or for much longer.


If you were around during other debates on this, you would realize that my "calling it" had to do with Red's insistence on the California court's likelihood of overturning voter chosen initiatives in the face of political pressure, which is honestly, not a completely unbelievable assertion, given california's weak kneed and weak budgeted approach towards everything but allowing celebrities to live under different laws.

That being said, you being a realist has little or nothing to do with the framed issue of the court, its not about gay marriage, it was simply whether the court should over rule voters. I could care less about gay marriage in a state where the electorate CHOOSES to make that the way of the state. As a matter of fact I welcome it, if that is what they want to do, because homosexuals have money, due to the lack of kids, and generally higher paying jobs.
I don't have anything against them, however, they are not an insular minority who deserve the status that aliens, racial minorities, and religious minorities receive under equal protection of the law. If I did not know perez hilton from the media, and just saw him on the street, or elton john, I would not know more than they were white males, THEY would have to volunteer the fact that they suck cock in order for me to be aware of it. This being the case, gay people don't have a badge of inferiority readily available for view, they freely volunteer their "orientation", often in inappropriate ways.

Your "battle and not the war" comment is somewhat pointless, because there is no war. They chose to try to overturn a voter initiative that was constitutionally passed after an activist judge in california forced gay marriage on the population at large, which was the first mistake of their lobby to begin with. The fact they are more vocal in California than the millions of staunchly catholic mexican americans, chicanos, filipinos, white religious persons and muslims who all are indoctrinated to find their "lifestyle" counterintuitive does not give them the right to overrule that majority. It was a cheap attempt to get around a rule passed by people who were pissed that they were trumped the time prior by an overzealous judge, nothing more.

I am proud of the fact vermont legalized it, because its THAT state's voters that decided THAT state's police power should recognize homosexual civil unions.

There is another issue: Civil union is the same legal concept, but the gay lobby, knowing the religious implications of the term marriage insist on calling it that. The legal benefits of marriage are three things, the ability to take property jointly, with right of survivorship, the abililty to inherit at the death of spouse through intestacy, and the ability to request, and receive support, in the event of a divorce/dissolution, thats pretty much it. All of these things can be achieved with "civil unions" as the term,a nd I guarantee you nearly all of the states would have passed it.

Currently, homosexuals are able to have the above rights, they just have to file the proper paperwork, namely a durable power of attorney, a healthcare power of attorney, and execute a will, as well as list themselves as joint tenants with the right of survivorship on a deed. These are the SAME things that spouses in marriage must do to avoid needless waste of resource unfucking their legal indiscretions later when one of the couple dies and a two bit judge in Frogballs, anytown USA has to set up court mandated administration of estate.

The gay lobby likes to leave that out of the argument though, because it is not in their interest to bring up the fact that lawyers, for the past 100 years have been doing these things for them in this country. No law states you HAVE to leave shit to your biological family.

The gay lobby's greatest issue is that they are not trying to get tolerance, or for that matter, simply secure "rights" because they have them in alternative form, but rather attempting to *force* acceptance by the rest of america of their behavior. When schools in Boston are having parents removed and detained for stating that they do not wish their child to read a newly printed children's book with two men kissing at the end at a wedding on an illustration, it violates that parent's right of raising their child as they see fit, an actual guaranteed right under ALL states constitutions, as well as one recognized consistently by the high court of the united states of america, the SCOTUS.

Needless to say, these are fellow americans, and I believe they should receive the dignity and respect afforded to all americans, but the same way the town whore will get talked about, avoided, or otherwise chastised if she goes around talking about how much she enjoys putting parking cones in her ass, so will homosexuals when they so flamboyantly express what they do in their private lives, or attempt to compare themselves to the minorities in this country who REALLY went through shit to gain the status under the law that they have, like indians, blacks, asians, the handicapped.

[Elleon]

I just about skipped everything you said Legal; you may want to keep things down to a few sentences, maybe a paragraph or two if you feel like making a point or something along those lines. If you want someone's attention, that isn't a very difficult step, but keeping that attention, is a bit more complex.

It matters very little to me whether or not that vote was passed, considering it makes no difference in the overall spread of things, in my opinion. As I said, it is a battle, and if gays were generally accepted into the community beforehand, nothing else would would make a difference. Taking a closer look at the little things can hardly be considered a serious debate, and when the "little things" actually turn into a debate, it moves all the way back to the origins: aka "The War". That is what the debate is about, that is what people are actually paying attention to in the end, and the rest is merely void.

[PotshotPolka]

I just about skipped everything you said Legal; you may want to keep things down to a few sentences, maybe a paragraph or two if you feel like making a point or something along those lines. If you want someone's attention, that isn't a very difficult step, but keeping that attention, is a bit more complex.

It matters very little to me whether or not that vote was passed, considering it makes no difference in the overall spread of things, in my opinion. As I said, it is a battle, and if gays were generally accepted into the community beforehand, nothing else would would make a difference. Taking a closer look at the little things can hardly be considered a serious debate, and when the "little things" actually turn into a debate, it moves all the way back to the origins: aka "The War". That is what the debate is about, that is what people are actually paying attention to in the end, and the rest is merely void.

tl;dr

If you can't take the time to read someone else's posts why should we read yours?

[LegalSmash]

I just about skipped everything you said Legal; you may want to keep things down to a few sentences, maybe a paragraph or two if you feel like making a point or something along those lines. If you want someone's attention, that isn't a very difficult step, but keeping that attention, is a bit more complex.

It matters very little to me whether or not that vote was passed, considering it makes no difference in the overall spread of things, in my opinion. As I said, it is a battle, and if gays were generally accepted into the community beforehand, nothing else would would make a difference. Taking a closer look at the little things can hardly be considered a serious debate, and when the "little things" actually turn into a debate, it moves all the way back to the origins: aka "The War". That is what the debate is about, that is what people are actually paying attention to in the end, and the rest is merely void.


If you want to not read people's posts, then gtfo out of politics.

[Slavic]

I just about skipped everything you said Legal; you may want to keep things down to a few sentences, maybe a paragraph or two if you feel like making a point or something along those lines. If you want someone's attention, that isn't a very difficult step, but keeping that attention, is a bit more complex.

It matters very little to me whether or not that vote was passed, considering it makes no difference in the overall spread of things, in my opinion. As I said, it is a battle, and if gays were generally accepted into the community beforehand, nothing else would would make a difference. Taking a closer look at the little things can hardly be considered a serious debate, and when the "little things" actually turn into a debate, it moves all the way back to the origins: aka "The War". That is what the debate is about, that is what people are actually paying attention to in the end, and the rest is merely void.

actually I find his posts to be quite informative and doesn't merely reduce the issue into Buzz Words that the illiterate public loves to fight over like competing sports teams.

If you actually read what was stated, or even looked into why Prop 8 was formulated you would know that the rights of gays to marry was not the important issue. The issue was concerning whether or not state judges could in effect legislate laws; which the first judge did with the allowing of gay marriage with out legislation.

The issue was a balance of power; and even though I support the rights of gays to marry, I do not support these rights being granted by unorthodox practices that undermine the fabric of our constitution with regards to governmental balance of powers.

Politics is about making informed decisions, not knee-jerk reactions. Don't expect any sympathy for the latter.

[Red]

Politics is about making informed decisions, not knee-jerk reactions. Don't expect any sympathy for the latter.

Not this last election cycle

[Slavic]

Not this last election cycle

or any for the last few decades for that matter

[MtrxMn]

Ha. Shove that in the faces of all those San Francisoans

[Slavic]

Ha. Shove that in the faces of all those San Francisoans

...?

More like shove that into the faces of Judges who feel the need to legislate.

Do people actually read these articles???

[sheriff]

Should be handled entirely within the religious institutions. The state shouldn't deal with marriages per se, but legal unions because that is all that should matter to the state.

Marriage as a religious symbol is quite laughable in this country to begin with considering the huge rise in divorce rates and infidelity.

THIS

GOVERNMENT GTFO RELIGION AND RELIGION GTFO GOVERNMENT END OF STORY

[LegalSmash]

...?

More like shove that into the faces of Judges who feel the need to legislate.

Do people actually read these articles???

This and no they don't they just spout off shit.

[Kamakazii101]

Wow. Just wow. Why can't they just realize that what they are doing is discriminating gays. It's just not fair to them! It's up to them to make these decisions in life and they get harassed for it. Is this what the human race has come to??


EDIT: I'm sorry for my post, I didn't realize that this thread had been bumped.

[Omar]

THIS

GOVERNMENT GTFO RELIGION AND RELIGION GTFO GOVERNMENT END OF STORY

My god.. STFU AND GTFO THE POLITICS SECTION

I'm muslim, BUT JESUS CHRIST



GET OUT!!!


I'm sorry if i offended anyone, BUT SERIOUSLY?!

[Caution]

Wow. Just wow. Why can't they just realize that what they are doing is discriminating gays. It's just not fair to them! It's up to them to make these decisions in life and they get harassed for it. Is this what the human race has come to??


EDIT: I'm sorry for my post, I didn't realize that this thread had been bumped.

It has nothing to do with that. Personally, I don't give a damn if gays get married, but the majority of people said no, therefore it should NOT be allowed.

End of story.

[LegalSmash]

Sheriff, marriage is a creature of the state, in each state. It IS government business. Thats the law... newfag.

Kamikaze: Gays are not an insular minority, its a desire to fuck someone with the same weaponry you carry... I generally cannot tell a gay from a straight person through looking at them... whereas I CAN tell a black person. See the difference?

Equal protection of law is for ACTUAL minorities, not for flamboyant imbeciles that wish to be considered different.

Gay marriage should be a state issue, if a state wants to legalize it, good for them, through their legislative bodies, not due to judge's wanting to make a political point. Period.

[Kamakazii101]

Gay marriage should be a state issue, if a state wants to legalize it, good for them, through their legislative bodies, not due to judge's wanting to make a political point. Period.

That is true.