Official Thread: Federal judge rules California ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. (attorneys, abortion)

[twinArmageddons]

Originally Posted by BucsLose

but the sanctity of marriage should be upheld.

The "sanctity of marriage" was defecated upon long ago by the Vegas "drive thru" marriages.

Gay marriage does nothing to harm the "sanctity" of marriage.

However, I will say that I do believe that government should withdraw all support of marriage no matter what gender, race, sexual preference, number of partners, etc.

Keep "marriage" for religion.

Civil unions for all.

[LuckyGem]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Not to be pedantic but you the case will have to go the appellant division before approaching the Supremes.

It will end up in the Supreme Court whether it's the next or last top.

It will get there.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by betamanlet

so much for the will of the people.

The constitution was around long before any of those people were even born.

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by tpk-nyc

This case was argued by Ted Olson, Bush's solicitor general (who also argued Bush v. Gore), and the opinion was issued by a Bush appointed judge. If it's judicial activism, it's by members of Bush's team.

That is a remarkable point. Also the Chief Justice of the U.S, supreme court, Roberts, has already sided with pro-gay rights in a Colorado case. This is the beginning of the end for bigots.

[twinArmageddons]

Originally Posted by LuckyGem

It will end up in the Supreme Court whether it's the next or last top.

It will get there.

And once it does, and gets ruled for in Gay Marriage's favour, it will likely legalize gay marriage around the country.

So, I'm hoping for it to end up in the Supreme Court.

So badly.

[BucsLose]

Originally Posted by californio sur

That is a remarkable point. Also the Chief Justice of the U.S, supreme court, Roberts, has already sided with pro-gay rights in a Colorado case. This is the beginning of the end for bigots.

So if you want to preserve the meaning of marriage between man/woman but are okay with civil unions, that person is a bigot in your book?

[renault]

Awesome! Now people can marry whoever and whatever they want. Soon, we'll be able to marry our pets and inflatable dolls, too. Hurray for the USA!

[lifelongMOgal]

Originally Posted by TruthBeautyGoodness

As a Catholic, I believe in equal rights for gay through civil unions, but I believe the sanctity of marriage is between a man and a women.

And I think this is the key. Civil unions are a legal contract while marriage is a religious sacrament.

The demand seems to be for the legal rights of gay partners when it comes to child rearing/custody, medical PoA, and insurance benefits. These are all legal contract issues not religious sacrament challenges.

* I am not Catholic either.

Is it really necessary to prevert the sanctity of the marriage sacrament in order to have legal/social equality under the Constitution? I think not. I think this is a matter to be left with the states and the state Constitutions.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by BucsLose

So if you want to preserve the meaning of marriage between man/woman but are okay with civil unions, that person is a bigot in your book?

Then why aren't heterosexuals allowed to have civil unions? Shouldn't heterosexuals be allowed to have civil unions also?

Or for that matter, why not make ALL marriages civil unions, and those who want religious ceremonies can always have them in addition to civil marriage?

[BestintheWest]

Originally Posted by sanrene

So, ONE judge gets to nullify the will of the people of California.

Outrageous.

This is liberal judicial activism at it's core.

The decision should not surprise anyone. The decision was made by an openly gay judge. Surprise, Surprise.
No bias here