Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban

[HAL 9000 96]

Just another example of legislating from the bench. The vast majority of American society at large does not support this nonsense. It's mostly a White, upper class, yuppie, cause celebre. Put it to a popular vote and it would be defeated hands down.

Banning gay marriage is unconstitutional...that's not legislating, that's common sense.

That's the problem with the popular vote route. Minorities are not exactly in a position to protect themselves and their individual rights at the ballot box. One of the reasons we have a constitution and in it certain unalienable rights that are extended to all. Regardless of what the majority says at the polls. And we have courts that watch over the compliance of the laws that are passed. Some just don't meet the muster and the courts are in their right to strike them down. That's not legislating from the bench, it's called checks and balances.

I don't buy that logic. Nudists are the minority and most people don't want nude people running around wherever the heck they feel like going sans clothes as if they have the right to do so. Why? Because society has deemed it unaccceptable. Ditto for homosexuality. Both are not illegal, but there are boundries and limits to both. This is not a constitutional issue some make it out to be. I just don't see it. Most people don't see it either.

Not the best example there. Nudism is illegal for all members of a population by legislation due to "decency laws" in place in many areas- save reserved public spaces for that kind of self expression. Something that is personal and private has no real legal jurisdiction and hence, repealing anti-homosexuality laws as well as offering reworded legal language via laws are not covered by the jurisdiction of laws pertaining to the entire population.

Constitutional and other legal benchmarks are in place precisely to afford protections under such documents precisely to those targeted by said laws.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

This will at some point end up at the SC. Once they make a decision then that will be that. I can live with whatever they decide.

Yeah, living with it and liking it are two different things... I'm reading between the lines... ... and describing myself...

Edited May 15, 2008 by Sheriff Uling

[Marc and Olga 0]

I want to know what tests we should use to make a relationship/"marriage" legitimate?

Steven and everyone saying bravo for civil rights, what about the rights of the polygamist? why should he/she not have the right to multiple spouses?

Incest, why can't first cousins have the right to live happily ever after together?

whose rights do we legitimize and whose do we condemn?

I know where I stand on this issue but I am curious where others who support this ruling have decided to set their limits.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I want to know what tests we should use to make a relationship/"marriage" legitimate?

Steven and everyone saying bravo for civil rights, what about the rights of the polygamist? why should he/she not have the right to multiple spouses?

Incest, why can't first cousins have the right to live happily ever after together?

whose rights do we legitimize and whose do we condemn?

I know where I stand on this issue but I am curious where others who support this ruling have decided to set their limits.

Mark, marriage is recognized between two people and while the argument has been successfully made that denying marriage to two people of the same sex is a violation of civil rights, you can't make the argument that limiting marriage between two people is also then a violation of civil rights.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I want to know what tests we should use to make a relationship/"marriage" legitimate?

Steven and everyone saying bravo for civil rights, what about the rights of the polygamist? why should he/she not have the right to multiple spouses?

Incest, why can't first cousins have the right to live happily ever after together?

whose rights do we legitimize and whose do we condemn?

I know where I stand on this issue but I am curious where others who support this ruling have decided to set their limits.

The simplest explanation is that consensus dictates truth; and while you can certainly make an argument that acceptance of one non-standard social/sexual practice logically requires acceptance (or) at the very least consideration of all of them - the simple fact remains that (in the western world at least) homosexuality has gained mainstream legitimacy - for the obvious reason that if it hadn't we wouldn't be even having the conversation about whether or not gay marriage should be allowed and recognised.

Quite simply - for homosexuality, the debate has evolved. For all those other things - beastiality, incest, child-sex etc there may come a time - thousands of years down the line - that these things achieve some sort of mainstream legitimacy, even if that idea seems totally abhorrent to our 21st century morals and sensibilities. However - the debate today is about homosexuality, not those other things.

[HAL 9000 96]

I want to know what tests we should use to make a relationship/"marriage" legitimate?

Steven and everyone saying bravo for civil rights, what about the rights of the polygamist? why should he/she not have the right to multiple spouses?

Incest, why can't first cousins have the right to live happily ever after together?

whose rights do we legitimize and whose do we condemn?

I know where I stand on this issue but I am curious where others who support this ruling have decided to set their limits.

The simplest explanation is that consensus dictates truth; and while you can certainly make an argument that acceptance of one non-standard social/sexual practice logically requires acceptance (or) at the very least consideration of all of them - the simple fact remains that (in the western world at least) homosexuality has gained mainstream legitimacy - for the obvious reason that if it hadn't we wouldn't be even having the conversation about whether or not gay marriage should be allowed and recognised.

Quite simply - for homosexuality, the debate has evolved. For all those other things - beastiality, incest, child-sex etc there may come a time - thousands of years down the line - that these things achieve some sort of mainstream legitimacy, even if that idea seems totally abhorrent to our 21st century morals and sensibilities. However - the debate today is about homosexuality, not those other things.

Quite simply put I believe that if the observer is mature and rational enough to make a conclusion that is sensical to the times, then what is "normal" for the target audience is technically and temporally logical.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't believe society evolves in a logical way - there's no reason to expect that legitimisation of gay marriage (when we have already - mostly - come to terms with homosexuality) will automatically lead to legitimisation of pedophilia, beastiality etc.

The "slippery slope" argument relies on the false assumption that society doesn't really change.

[HAL 9000 96]

I think that some segments of society just have a difficult time at not imposing their values where they don't necessarily belong.

[dalegg 143]

I can't believe people think gay marriage will be banned FOREVER. We have become steadily more and more tolerant of Gays over this past century, or half century. Its inevitable. You have to know that.

We've become no more tolerant of Incest or beastiality over the years though. Cultural evolution does not point to more acceptance of these acts. In fact, as a society we've become LESS tolerant of pedophilia and incest over the past several hundred years. It was long ago that Royalty regularly married their kin. Not so today.

[HAL 9000 96]

I can't believe people think gay marriage will be banned FOREVER. We have become steadily more and more tolerant of Gays over this past century, or half century. Its inevitable. You have to know that.

We've become no more tolerant of Incest or beastiality over the years though. Cultural evolution does not point to more acceptance of these acts. In fact, as a society we've become LESS tolerant of pedophilia and incest over the past several hundred years. It was long ago that Royalty regularly married their kin. Not so today.

Good points.

I mean, all that yuckiness aside, gays can't procreate so I don't know what the big deal is with some folks.

[Jack and Barbara 0]

This will at some point end up at the SC. Once they make a decision then that will be that. I can live with whatever they decide.

Unfortunately, even though the SC is the highest court of the land, I wouldn't go so far as to believe they are infallible and free from political bias. Therefore, I would not necessarily want to live with whatever they rule on.

One decade, the Supreme Court may rule in favor of homosexuality, the next they may rule aganst it, depending on what party is in power and which justice is retiring.

Edited May 16, 2008 by Jack and Barbara

[peejay 327]

I can't believe people think gay marriage will be banned FOREVER. We have become steadily more and more tolerant of Gays over this past century, or half century. Its inevitable. You have to know that.

We've become no more tolerant of Incest or beastiality over the years though. Cultural evolution does not point to more acceptance of these acts. In fact, as a society we've become LESS tolerant of pedophilia and incest over the past several hundred years. It was long ago that Royalty regularly married their kin. Not so today.

As I said all along...this is a societal and cultural issue, not a constitutional or civil rights issue some make it out to be. Homosexuality is not illegal and they are free to be homosexual. However, the issue is that they want the state seal of approval and societal acceptance that marriage conveys. The courts should not be legislating from the bench or imposing societal norms on society at large. That's the way I see it.

I don't buy into the "we need to evolve as a society" logic. Why change an arrangement that has worked well in the past just for the sake of change for change's sake.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I can't believe people think gay marriage will be banned FOREVER. We have become steadily more and more tolerant of Gays over this past century, or half century. Its inevitable. You have to know that.

We've become no more tolerant of Incest or beastiality over the years though. Cultural evolution does not point to more acceptance of these acts. In fact, as a society we've become LESS tolerant of pedophilia and incest over the past several hundred years. It was long ago that Royalty regularly married their kin. Not so today.

Excellent points.

[Jack and Barbara 0]

I can't believe people think gay marriage will be banned FOREVER. We have become steadily more and more tolerant of Gays over this past century, or half century. Its inevitable. You have to know that.

We've become no more tolerant of Incest or beastiality over the years though. Cultural evolution does not point to more acceptance of these acts. In fact, as a society we've become LESS tolerant of pedophilia and incest over the past several hundred years. It was long ago that Royalty regularly married their kin. Not so today.

As I said all along...this is a societal and cultural issue, not a constitutional or civil rights issue some make it out to be. Homosexuality is not illegal and they are free to be homosexual. However, the issue is that they want the state seal of approval and societal acceptance that marriage conveys. The courts should not be legislating from the bench or imposing societal norms on society at large. That's the way I see it.

I don't buy into the "we need to evolve as a society" logic. Why change an arrangement that has worked well in the past just for the sake of change for change's sake.

Going by that arguement, slavery was an arrangement that worked well in the past for plantation owners, but I think most would agree that change was for the best in that case.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As I said all along...this is a societal and cultural issue, not a constitutional or civil rights issue some make it out to be. Homosexuality is not illegal and they are free to be homosexual. However, the issue is that they want the state seal of approval and societal acceptance that marriage conveys. The courts should not be legislating from the bench or imposing societal norms on society at large. That's the way I see it.

No it's not...it's equal protection under the law. Either the state of California discontinues recognizing marriage between two people or it allows any two adults to marry...simple as that.