Prop 8 ruling may lead to civil unions for all, no cake for you.

Now I imagine something if this happens, and it would show the hypocrisy of the people who were actively against gay marriage. And it would go something like this:

Pro-Marriage People: We want our rights!
The Supreme Court: So you want extra rights over the people you tried to remove the rights of?
PM: Absolutely!
SC: Hahahaha! Fuck off.
PM: This is unconstitutional!
SC: That's not what you said last time.
PM: B...B....BUT
SC: But nothing, now get off my lawns and go protest the next funeral you bastards.

I have no clue why it ended like that. It just took control, and I couldn't prevent it. Anyway. Would you be cool if only civil unions were recognized for all instead of marriage? Hell, if some people (And bureaucrats) don't consider civil unions real bonds, it sure would help if everyone was joined in a civil union. Those little indiscretions of being unable to visit your loved one in a hospital because some bureaucrat doesn't think your bond is real, will be ended once and for all!

I hope this happens.

bunch of bureaucratic bull shit.  I believe in liberty, If you want to marry a goat, and it's consensual, knock yourself out.

"bunch of bureaucratic bull shit.  I believe in liberty, If you want to marry a goat, and it's consensual, knock yourself out."

I don't see what the big deal is.  The state should only be concerned with legal bonds.  I can see issues with religious bonds (marriage), but why is it such a big deal for two people to get a civil union and have it recognized the same way by the state?

"I don't see what the big deal is.  The state should only be concerned with legal bonds.  I can see issues with religious bonds (marriage), but why is it such a big deal for two people to get a civil union and have it recognized the same way by the state?"

The way you put the dialogue makes it pretty funny, actually. I don't know the probability of that happening, but it would sure be interesting.

Hopefully, that's not how its going to go down.

I've been following these hearings carefully, and it seems that right now that most of the justices are in agreement that the California Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to overturn the voters' decision in this case. This is an important case because California has a history of activist judges that like to legislate from the bench.  Surprisingly, at least three of the Supreme Court justices realize that they serve at the whim of the people and that they have very limited power and were quoted as saying such.

If the State is so concerned with protecting "inalienable rights", what about the peoples' inalienable right to amend their Constitution? I have a feeling that the Court is going to eventually side with the voters on this one.

"The people established the Constitution.  As judges, our power is very limited." - Justice Kennard, California Supreme Court

"I've been following these hearings carefully, and it seems that right now that most of the justices are in agreement that the California Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to overturn the voters' decision in this case. This is an important case because California has a history of activist judges that like to legislate from the bench.  Surprisingly, at least three of the Supreme Court justices realize that they serve at the whim of the people and that they have very limited power and were quoted as saying such.

If the State is so concerned with protecting "inalienable rights", what about the peoples' inalienable right to amend their Constitution? I have a feeling that the Court is going to eventually side with the voters on this one.

"The people established the Constitution.  As judges, our power is very limited." - Justice Kennard, California Supreme Court"

California über alles!!

You mean, their inalienable right to deny inalienable rights to entire groups of people based off of a religion-dictated intolerance? That's the most backward thing I've heard this week."

MB, it is hard to argue that judges should never legislate from the bench. The verb 'to legislate' means to amend, edit, and make laws. A judge's job is to assess the legality of an act of law. A Supreme Court Justice is not involved in the process of making laws, but their constitutional role is the defense of individual rights in the face of majority oppression.

It is one thing to argue for the legitimacy of majority rule as it relates to the personnel make-up of of a government body, but to suggest that who a person chooses to live their life with should be the subject of majority approval is diametrically opposed to the spirit in which the United States of America was founded.

It is 100% unamerican to build a government mechanism to prevent a person from adhering to their personal desires and choices.
The Church has no more of a right to legislate such personal choices than the Courts, but the Courts DO have a constitutional obligation to defend individual rights whenever possible.

It is a wilfull disregard for the fundamental legal issues at hand to say 'the voters had their say and that's that', because according to the spirit in which the United States was founded to allow the people with whom a person shares jurisdiction.

What if homosexuals were the majority? Would their majority right to prevent people of opposite sexes from integrating be seen as legitimate by you? Is the collective approval of society really what determines whether an act is right or wrong?

Let me be clear - I voted No on 8, not Yes...but I'm leaving the house and I've said all I'm going to say on this subject, we'll just have to wait and see what the courts decide.

I don't understand why this is still an issue, people are so homophobic in this country is scary.

There's always some people you just can't please....

Slow... so slow. Let the chips keep falling.