Mass_SkinsFan Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Does this really suprise anyone?... The land of silicone and immorality simply extends it's lead as America's premier anti-morals and values State. I was actually somewhat surprised to find that they hadn't done this YEARS AGO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 I hear what you and some other people are saying, and actually maybe I overlooked it a little bit.But, isn't calling something "gay marriage," as opposed to just "marriage," already differentiating it? I mean, if I say California just legalized gay marriage, no one is confusing that with the possibility that yesterday a man and a woman couldn't be married. Maybe its a distinction without a difference, but I guess it just doesn't bother me.... not to tread on your own point though, which I think was valid. The problem is that there are at least 3 religions in this world that believe marriage was created by God as the union of a male and female. Therefore, by definition the word "marriage" is sacred. In my Church, it is one of the seven sacraments. Because of this, the state shouldn't be handing out "marriage" licenses... They should be handing out licenses for civil unions... Why use the word marriage at all? It just creates unnecessary controversy for the State. Let the religious folk battle this one out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Does this really suprise anyone?...The land of silicone and immorality simply extends it's lead as America's premier anti-morals and values State. I was actually somewhat surprised to find that they hadn't done this YEARS AGO. I haven't seen too many lesbians with silicone implants... :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 I haven't seen too many lesbians with silicone implants... :laugh:That's because only men are naturally attracted to boobies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 I haven't seen too many lesbians with silicone implants... :laugh: I really thought the "gay disease" would've solved this issue for us too... However, Lex Luthor's plan would've probably solved some of our immigration issues too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 That's because only men are naturally attracted to boobies. Men and hungry babies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 "Everywhere I look, something reminds me of her..." - NG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Anyone know how much this decision will cost the state govt alone in benefit increases? Hmmm. What percentage of the opoulation of California do you figure are gays who want to get married? 1%? 0.1%? 3%? Somehow, seems like a pretty small number, to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Hmmm. What percentage of the opoulation of California do you figure are gays who want to get married? 1%? 0.1%? 3%? Somehow, seems like a pretty small number, to me. They could pay for this by outsourcing the California State Government to Mexico instead of raising taxes.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 My question is, what effect does this have on how such unions are viewed at the federal-level in terms of federal income tax? Is it up to the state to determine if such unions are valid, and then the federal goverment must respect the legitimacy of the marriage when levying taxes? Just wondering how that relationship works. The Republican Party (the party of states rights and limited Federal intervention in the people's lives) has pushed through a federal law declaring that all federal laws that reference marriage will only apply to heterosexual marriages, even if one or more states chose to marry gays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Does this really suprise anyone?...The land of silicone and immorality simply extends it's lead as America's premier anti-morals and values State. I was actually somewhat surprised to find that they hadn't done this YEARS AGO. Says the person who continues to live in Mass, the FIRST state to allow gay marriage :laugh: It you didn't have such a high comedic value MSF, I would actually feel sorry for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 The problem is that there are at least 3 religions in this world that believe marriage was created by God as the union of a male and female. Therefore, by definition the word "marriage" is sacred. In my Church, it is one of the seven sacraments.Because of this, the state shouldn't be handing out "marriage" licenses... They should be handing out licenses for civil unions... Why use the word marriage at all? It just creates unnecessary controversy for the State. Let the religious folk battle this one out. I'm not religious one iota and I am going to get married. Marriage has nothing to do with religion to me, it has to do with the love I share with someone. If I had to be religious to be married, i would never get married :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Hmm. Happens the same day Romo sits to pee breaks up with Jessica Simpson. And he has been seen in Cali a lot lately. So has TO. Just saying. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted May 15, 2008 Author Share Posted May 15, 2008 Hmm. Happens the same day Romo sits to pee breaks up with Jessica Simpson. And he has been seen in Cali a lot lately. So has TO. Just saying. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It would be much more beautiful if they could tie the not as Valley Ranch or Texas Stadium though... :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 "Tony, I just love you so much. You're my quarterback, my husband, my catcher." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Not sure what that figure is, or where you could be confused, but that just doesn't make any sense. He thinks it is the 9th Circuit. He is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Well so much for our vote counting and listening to the voice of the people. I'm kinda tired of the supreme court being activists rather than upholding the law!! We here in California are really, really tired of voting and than having a higher up stike something down. It happened also when we voted to deny free healthcare for illegals!! This is kinda why I don't vote very often here in Cali. Everytime we pass something, some higher up thinks we are some sort of hick poeple and tell us our vote didn't count and overturn what we voted for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Well so much for our vote counting and listening to the voice of the people.I'm kinda tired of the supreme court being activists rather than upholding the law!! We here in California are really, really tired of voting and than having a higher up stike something down. It happened also when we voted to deny free healthcare for illegals!! This is kinda why I don't vote very often here in Cali. Everytime we pass something, some higher up thinks we are some sort of hick poeple and tell us our vote didn't count and overturn what we voted for. How dare they read the state's Constitution? Don't they know that public opinion is more important? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Well so much for our vote counting and listening to the voice of the people.I'm kinda tired of the supreme court being activists rather than upholding the law!! We here in California are really, really tired of voting and than having a higher up stike something down. It happened also when we voted to deny free healthcare for illegals!! This is kinda why I don't vote very often here in Cali. Everytime we pass something, some higher up thinks we are some sort of hick poeple and tell us our vote didn't count and overturn what we voted for. You understand, don't you, that when Proposition 22 was first being put on the ballot, lots of people pointed out that this might happen because the proposition did not amend the terms of the constitution, and the constitution trumps all statutes and intitiatives. Pete Knight (the guy who wrote prop 22) would not listen. In November, there will be a measure on the ballot that would amend the constitution. If it passes, this dispute will go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Actually, I have a problem with the word "marriage" used for any civil unions... The word "marriage" is born out of religious traditions. However, when I got married, my wife and I had a civil wedding (more like a contract) and a religious wedding that was my marriage.The state should just offer civil unions (contracts) to any type of human tax-paying couple and then leave "marriage" for the Churches/Temples/Mosques to fight out the spiritual/social ramifications there. Very much agreed, this is pretty much my opinion exactly on the entire gay marriage debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 The reporter is incorrect on his final point. No petition to the US Supreme Court is likely, and if one is made, it will not be accepted. The case was decided based on the California Constitution. The US Supreme Court decides matters of federal law, and cannot tell California what the California Constitution says or means (unless the California Constitition conflicts with the Federal Constitution). What IS going to happen is that people in California who do not like this ruling are going to put a measure on the ballot to amend the California Constitution, which is their right. What about the full faith and credit clause. Does that not apply to a marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 What about the full faith and credit clause. Does that not apply to a marriage? Yes, but that would just affect the secondary issue of the legal significance of a California marriage in another state. The US Supreme Court can't directly overrule the decision that came down today, because it was a decision about California law only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 As I understand it, all the full faith and credit clause says is that if a gay couple gets legally married in California, then moves somewhere else, then they're still married. And, as I understand it, it doesn't necessarily say even that. There are limits on how far that would go. For example, I'd certainly assume that if that California gay couple moves somewhere where gay marriage is prohibited in the state's Constitution, then they're not married. (If they move somewhere where gay marriage is Constitutional, but illegal, then I wouldn't guess.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 The last time gay marriage came up I asked a question that never got answered: I was wed by a judge and not in a church. Now, conservatives - am I married? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 The US Supreme Court can't directly overrule the decision that came down today, because it was a decision about California law only. Unless the "strict constructionists" on the USSC rule that, since people can get married in Las Vegas, for money, therefore marriage is "interstate commerce". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.