San Francisco Marrying Gays

[ShiplordAtvar]

San Francisco marrying gays?

Damn, I thought a marriage was between two people, not between a legal entity and several people.

/lame attempt at humor

 

[Sims2789]

Originally posted by Speedo
For all the cheers, you do realize that they're not actually married unless CA changes their laws?

yes but the pro-gay marriage people can take this to court and probably prove that it is unconsitutional(by the state constitution) to ban gays from getting married. the law that banned gay marriage in California can be overridden by the state Constitution.

 

[Speedo]

If CA law says that gay marriage is not legal, they can't try to sue for it. (well they can, but they have nothing to stand on) The marriage license they were issued is no more valid than one that they scribbled out on a napkin.

 

[capslock]

Originally posted by sims2789
the law that banned gay marriage in California can be overridden by

another activist court.

 

[Sims2789]

@capslock

that to.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

What's the old saying? "Everyone be GAY and MARRY!"

Ok, I changed the spelling of merry for the situation, but hey, that is my poor attempt at humour.

Seriously, good on them. The Bay area should join Canada, (along with some of those small British colonies in the Carribean that want into our great.......er....dominion.)

 

[amadeus]

So, by breaking U.S. law and effectively saying "screw you" to the rest of the country, we should congratulate San Francisco?

 

[King of England]

Yes. I personally think this is great. Even though I supported the other guy (who would have also done the same thing, as would any righteous SF politician), I think whay Newsom did was a step in the right direction. We need to take this to the courts, and see what kind of response it will get, cuz I bet they won't be able to find anything that would prohibit gay couples from marrying.

frankly, my own interest in this is simply because if gays marry legally, that undermines the "morality+religion should play a role in government" argument of the Christian Right. I'm obviously suspicious of any attempts to introduce religion into secular govt affairs (school prayer, 10 commandments monument, etc)

My own preference would be if we just created all civil unions, for gay and straight couples. Marriage is a religious institution, let the churches handle it. But if that's not the case, then just let gay people marry.

also, it's cool to break the law . And its for a good cause. Unjust laws should always be fought.

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
So, by breaking U.S. law and effectively saying "screw you" to the rest of the country, we should congratulate San Francisco?

San Francisco is being congratulated for being forward thinking and progressive and being bold enough to take difficult steps. You know, the sort of thing that made America great in the first place.

 

[Johann MacLeod]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
So, by breaking U.S. law and effectively saying "screw you" to the rest of the country, we should congratulate San Francisco?

so by breacking british law and revolting you applauded the american colonists and their declaration of independance? yuo applaud those blacks that tryed to free by running aaway form their masters, that was against the law. how dare you think that is right!

 

[capslock]

I would not compare the fight for gay marriage to the War for Independance or the suffering of slaves and blacks before civil rights. It just doesn't seem like a fair comparison.

 

[Syterion]

I would not compare the fight for gay marriage to the War for Independance or the suffering of slaves and blacks before civil rights. It just doesn't seem like a fair comparison.

Really? I would say it is apt. All are people revolting against unfair laws. The Revolutionary War was less justified than this rejection of the ban on gay marriage, IMO.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

another activist court.

COURTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ACTIVIST!

Does this need to be spelled out in neon on Times Square before your average neocon parrot stops quacking the daily line and starts USING HIS BRAIN, at which point the truth of the matter should hopefully become so obvious that even Antonin Scalia can get it into one sentence without the aid of Ritalin?

Courts have done FAR more damage to American democracy by defending the status quo than in the VERY FEW instances where massive protest led to VERY small changes in that status quo.

After one hundred years of ACTIVIST COURTS stepping in and "changing" the status quo, the same percentage of African Americans lived in poverty in 1995 as did in 1880. Fact, my friends.

What exactly DO these "activist courts" change? Do they tell you what to think? Who cares, right? You're still free to be a bigot, or a defender of the saving faith, or just plain crazy. Depending, respectively, on whether you ask the mayor of San Francisco, Pat Buchanan, or me.

 

[capslock]

Originally posted by Syterion
Really? I would say it is apt. All are people revolting against unfair laws. The Revolutionary War was less justified than this rejection of the ban on gay marriage, IMO.

But so few people deem it unfair. Is everyone revolting against a law justified simply because they think it is unfair?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

If people like you used that argument every time people bypassed the laws, the courts, and all the bastards in suits, to actually achieve justice....

Well, I'm afraid it's not a hypothesis, because they have.

 

[Sims2789]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
So, by breaking U.S. law and effectively saying "screw you" to the rest of the country, we should congratulate San Francisco?

yes, we should, because the law banning gay marriage is wrong. just like how we congradualte the patriotic abolishionists ran the underground railroad even though it was illegal(obviously slavery is a trillion times worse then banning gay marriage, but still, the concept is the same). then again, we aren't saying "screw you" to the USA. this is in violation of California law but not our Constitution.(the Constitution overrides state law). anyway, they said screw you to us by messing with our personall lifes and forcing their religion down apon us in our secular nation, so we have every right to say screw you the rest of the state and to the whole country if Bush gets around to banning the right to gay marriage.

 

[Peri]

Considering that more than 1 in 3 heterosexual marriages end in divorce, it is clear that men and women aren't suited. Therefore everyone should embrace homosexuality and they will find happiness.

 

[Sims2789]

@Peri

i hope you're kidding, since i'm never gonna be gay.

 

[Peri]

It was supposed to be funny. I was just trying to scare the homophobes.

Btw You have probably just broken a lot of hearts with that statement.

 

[Sims2789]

my slightly funny(hopefully it's this much) joke in response to yours:

well, religion says that divorce is immoral, so we shall ben divorce forever, to save the sanctity of marriage!