California Supreme Court strikes down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.

California Supreme Court strikes down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.

www.cnn.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A ruling on whether California should legalize same-sex marriage is expected Thursday from the state's Supreme Court.

California's Supreme Court is expected to rule Thursday on whether to legalize same-sex marriage.

The decision will be announced about 10 a.m. (1 p.m. ET), according to the court's Web site.

Several gay and lesbian couples, along with the city of San Francisco and gay rights groups, sued to overturn state laws allowing only marriages between a man and a woman..

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 15-5-2008 by jsobecky]

[edit on 5-15-2008 by worldwatcher]

California now joins Massachusets as the only two states legalizing gay marriage. An appeal to the SCOTUS is likely.

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

cool,
Im happy for all the homosexuals that can get married now
Keep it real my gay brethren

Being a Non Denominationsl Ordained Minister I guess I stand to make a bit of money from this.

If it lasts the appeal.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by ATruGod]

hope the above helps.. CNN article quote

and the now the latest headline from FOX on this story

California's Top Court Overturns Same-Sex Marriage Ban

SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

The justices released the 4-3 decision Thursday, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

[edit on 5-15-2008 by worldwatcher]

This makes me a happy person today. It's nice to see everyone get an equal share of the American Pie. But there's a long road ahead. Good luck to California and to every effort to put the point across that the Constitution applies to everyone, and that it was never meant to take away rights.

I am not surprised this happened in Cali. This is just aweful and I hope it gets appealed.

Originally posted by WhatTheory
I am not surprised this happened in Cali. This is just aweful and I hope it gets appealed.

Why is it so awful? This country is about creating and perfecting a free society. Not a society that takes away that freedom just because we don't agree with what they do in the privacy of their own homes, like you and me and everyone else.

Again, why is this such an awful thing? If the Constitution only favored people you like then there'd be alot of slaves in America. The Constitution includes everyone.



[edit on 15-5-2008 by projectvxn]

Originally posted by projectvxn
Why is it so awful? This country is about creating and perfecting a free society. Not a society that takes away that freedom just because we don't agree with what they do in the privacy of their own homes, like you and me and everyone else.

Umm.....Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. End of discussion.

Being homosexual is just not natural and is a defect within the body, like when someone is born with a physical or mental handicap. Like all species, we are born to multiply and two men cannot.

If the Constitution only favored people you like then there'd be alot of slaves in America.

Please.......comparing slavery to being gay is just ridiculous.
There are already law that prohibit incest and humans with animals and I think gay marriage should also be banned because its just not natural.

reply to post by projectvxn


This is not a constitutional issue, its a states' rights issue.

Cali, NY, Vermont etc are no doubt going to legalize gay marriage.

Texas, Montana, Nevada etc are probably not going to.

Works fine that way- keeps everyone happy. That way the views of conservatives in texas are not forced upon gays in san francisco, and neither are the views of gays in san francisco forced upon the conservative communities in texas.

But there are many initiatives to put it into the US Constitution and this is just a failed litigation by anti-gay groups to lay the ground work for a national ban, one state constitution at a time.

reply to post by WhatTheory



I didn't make any comparison. But when you remove rights from the people little by little they become slaves. A sub-class, which is NOT the American way. And your hate-filled pseudo-scientific rant is hardly something to justify rampant discrimination of a large population of our Country. That's going backwards.


[edit on 15-5-2008 by projectvxn]

reply to post by jsobecky


Glad it happened again. Love is Love. I have never understood why anyone would be troubled by this. How it could affect anyones life in a negative way is beyond me.

Yay! this is very good news. Congrats to all those homosexual couples who can now marry.

Originally posted by projectvxn
But when you remove rights from the people little by little they become slaves. A sub-class, which is NOT the American way

Ok, then do you think it's ok for a dad to marry his daughter or for brother and sister to marry? What about people marrying animals?
If you so no to any of these then why are you taking their rights away?

And your hate-filled pseudo-scientific rant is hardly something to justify rampant discrimination of a large population of our Country. That's going backwards.

Hate? I did not say anything hateful. I don't hate gay people, I only believe they should not get married.

reply to post by WhatTheory


well then we need to redefine marrage to say it is about two people in love. whether they are two men or two woman or a woman and a man shouldnt matter and its disgusting that for some people it does matter. men and woman dont love each other more because they are of different genders. All we are doing by segregating gays and straights is going back to seperate but equal logic when by definition seperation is not equal.

Originally posted by caballero
well then we need to redefine marrage to say it is about two people in love.

Well isn't that convienent. Why don't we change the definition of 'dog' to also mean wolves and hyenas.

whether they are two men or two woman or a woman and a man shouldnt matter and its disgusting that for some people it does matter.

Then is it ok for a father to marry his daughter or brother and sister to marry. What about humans and animals?
Is that disgusting to you?

Cool, nice to see Cali taking a stand on something again...And this very much is a constitutional issue, any one remember Separate But Equal during the Brown Vs. the Board of Education case in 1954?(the verdict handed down May 17th actually)

"Civil Union" IS TO "Marriage"
AS
"white's only" schools ARE TO "Colored" only schools

Legalizing gay marriage will not cause people to become gay. It will only make it more difficult to tell other people who they can or cannot love. It's no threat to anyone. If we made Constitutional amendments to ban everything that's not considered "natural" by some then we'd live in a most oppressive society.

reply to post by WhatTheory


What, you yourself said that a marriage 'should be between a man and a woman'. Isn't the father a 'man' and his daughter a 'woman'? [edit to add] Of course incest is reprehensible...

But, you're trying to conflate and equate incest with something else entirely. And your rant about dogs and wolves and hyenas....that was incredibly laughable (no pun)....hyenas are not related to canines. Ah, ignorance is bliss....

Are you not 'disgusted' by that religious sect in texas that has been on the news of late? Women as young as 13 being forced to 'marry' men old enough to be their father?!?!? Do you not think they are vile and heinous?

[edit on 5/15/0808 by weedwhacker]