The California State Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriages deserve the same benefits as heterosexual couples. It's cool with me, is it with you?
The court, which consists mainly of republican appointees, voted 4-3 in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. The majority opinion was written Chief Justice Ronald George. He wrote, "The California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples
The judges voting with the majority were: Kathryn Werdagar, Joyce Kennard, and Carlos Moreno.
The three dissenting judges were: Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin, and Carrol Corrigan. They wrote, "There is no deeply rooted tradition of same-sex marriage, in the nation or in this state... because marriage is, as it always has been, the right of a woman and unrelated man to marry each other."
---There wasn't a deeply rooted tradition of interacial marriage when CA became the first state to legalize it.
Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vowed not to support a ballot initiative that would change the state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriages.
Same-sex marriages don't bother me, and they shouldn't bother anyone else. If gay people say they were made that way, how can people with no such experience disagree with them?
I am kind of hoping the frequent perpetrators of outlandish Public Displays of Gay Affection feel a sense of vindication now and take their act behind closed doors, that'd be a nice compromise.
Spouses with Benefits
|
Posted By: R. D. Briceland Posted on: May. 15, 2008 at 1:13 PM |
0.0 / 5
Based on 0 ratings.
|
Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.
Signup for an accountComments:
|
May. 15, 2008 at 06:09:13 PM
|
||
| No to same sex marriage and yes to civil unions. 50/50 compromise. Maybe I'm old school but I don't think two brides or two grooms walking down the isle should be recognized as a marriage. Civil union gives them the same benefits as a marriage without calling it a marriage. |
||
|
May. 15, 2008 at 08:55:48 PM
|
||
| Now you know what we mean when we say legislating from the bench. What the California Supreme court did today is unconscionable. It is a disgrace to the robes they wear that they would so readily overturn such a law passed by a majority of the people on the grounds of any kind of right. Marriage is and always will be primarily a religious joining of one man and one woman done so for the purpose (in most cases) of creating a family. Something two people of the same sex can not do. The idea of the state getting involved at all is ridiculous to begin with, but for them to then intrude into the ceremonial joining of two people by cheapening it is disgusting. Where is the separation of church and state here? I can only hope that those who believe that they are called by God (whatever God) to perform these marriages in California refuse to allow or participate in these disgusting unions. Force all Gays, Lesbians and whatever other label they like to call themselves to be married only by State Officials like the JofP. Any so called person of God could not perform these farce ceremonies. I hope the outcry from the voting public again rises up as it did with Judge Rose Bird. Remove these judges... Kathryn Werdagar, Joyce Kennard, Carlos Moreno and especially Chief Justice Ronald George for ever allowing this travesty to occur. "The California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples". Here's the result of your regulation Big Government Fans. there is no reason for this except as a show of power from the bench. Disgusting! No you understand why I left the state of Californication. I'm sure most liberal minded dip s***s will be giddy with joy over it. Once again a government arm has decided that the people to whom it answers is stupid and wrong. Is this an example of responsive government ? Is this what you want your government spending time on when there are hungry kids sleeping in trash tonight? What a bunch of f***ing s***. And you wonder why Muslims think we are of the Devil. RD, you especially disgust me for every touting this as somethigng positive. |
||
|
May. 15, 2008 at 10:55:21 PM
|
||
| Who would choose the gay lifestyle?Ahh them nasty donut bumpers.Iknow for a fact being in the porno business for 10 years,that a lot of models and strippers are bisexual.After being paid by men to do many goofy things all night,they seem to gather to a sort of antimen club when off work.Sure ive tried to get in the club,even as a mere spectator.But i do think that most men copping the noodle are doing so with instructions from upstairs.I mean its totally different for women to do the rotation,because it seems natural.Gays getting married?Why not?There will always be a demand for marriage counselors now...
|
||
|
May. 16, 2008 at 06:05:45 AM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by Average American on May. 15, 2008 at 08:55:48 PM]
Average American
May. 15, 2008 at 08:55:48 PM Now you know what we mean when we say legislating from the bench. What the California Supreme court did today is unconscionable. It is a disgrace to the robes they wear that they would so readily overturn such a law passed by a majority of the people on... View this Comment RD, you especially disgust me for every touting this as somethigng positive. Should have read: RD, you especially disgust me for ever touting this as something positive. I put the wrong em-fas-sis on the wrong syl-aable. It's from a movie, go with it. |
||
|
May. 16, 2008 at 07:13:06 AM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by Average American on May. 16, 2008 at 06:05:45 AM]
Average American
May. 16, 2008 at 06:05:45 AM RD, you especially disgust me for every touting this as somethigng positive. Should have read: RD, you especially disgust me for ever touting this as something positive. I put the wrong em-fas-sis on the wrong syl-aable. It's from a movie, go with... View this Comment I think it's great news. More gay men get married than gay woman, so the net effect will be to decrease competition for heterosexual woman willing to have sex with me. Less demand equals more supplies. Aw s***!!! I'm married. Now we need to make heterosexual marriage illegal, and my dream will be complete. |
||
|
May. 16, 2008 at 09:15:59 AM
|
||
| the whole marriage things is pointless. its about ownership really, on paper at least. when people get married they each have equal ownership over each others s***. houses, cars, etc. spiritually marriage is a pact between two people who love each other and make a vow to never leave one another. technically many people are married, but not on paper or through ceremony. my grand parents were never married, but were together for a very very long time until my grandmother passed away nearly 10 years ago. i do however disagree that people are born gay. it isnt genetic, its a personality flaw. if a person who honestly had split personalities and one was male and the other female - should they be allowed to marry themselves? or if both were male and attracted to each other, should they be allowed to still? multiple personalities are a personality flaw as well, but it doesnt mean that person should have special rights or anything. |
||
|
May. 16, 2008 at 10:03:47 AM
|
||
| Here's a link to a good article on Slate.com, the same web site that a particular radio host of VoA admired so much when an anti-Obama article appeared on it, that comprehensively explains the judicial process of the same-sex marriage decision.
|
||
|
May. 16, 2008 at 10:36:59 AM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by R. D. Briceland on May. 16, 2008 at 10:03:47 AM]
R. D. Briceland
May. 16, 2008 at 10:03:47 AM Here's a link to a good article on Slate.com, the same web site that a particular radio host of VoA admired so much when an anti-Obama article appeared on it, that comprehensively explains the judicial process of the same-sex marriage... View this Comment RD, Now why would I want to go and read tripe from a website that once saw the light when they have a long history of coloring inside the liberal lines? Wow Briceland, you really got me because I mentioned them once. A real zinger buddy. I'm on the ground now. Why don't you finish me off since you have my against the political ropes. What an ass... |
||
|
May. 16, 2008 at 10:48:41 AM
|
||
| I'll tell you who isn't a spouse with benefits.. Bitchelle O'Bama.
|
||







del.icio.us
Digg It!


Report Abuse