DescentBB

What are the laws regarding De Facto relationships in the USA? Here in NZ, any couple living together as partners are considered "married" for legal purposes after 3 continuous years of co-habitation. Mostly this provides protection for couples who have chosen NOT to get married.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Mobius:
What are the laws regarding De Facto relationships in the USA? Here in NZ, any couple living together as partners are considered "married" for legal purposes after 3 continuous years of co-habitation. Mostly this provides protection for couples who have chosen NOT to get married.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It varies from state to state. But even these "common law" marriages are denied to same sex couples.

The government never should have co-opted the position of authority on marriage.
Government is bound to serve all peoples equally, where a religion is not nor should it be forced to.
The government should provide community property laws and equal protection for all couples, etc. to serve it's citizens and leave the definition and declaration of "marriage" to the institutions that invented it.

If marriage *is* a union of one man and one woman then they should be able to say so without problems. If two men or two women want to live in a *similar* arrangement then we should be able to say it is similar but not the same as 'marriage'...without any problems.
But since government wants to be an authority on what *is* and what *isn't* marriage then they poison the process with the excess baggage they bring, a la the constitution.

Dedman, if you haven't been watching lately, my latest crusade is not to allow my contributions be led away from the topics at hand because of the very human (but irritating) tendency of muddying the waters with presumed parallels between disparate debates and different entities. I prefer to speak to this topic and this issue, not Roe v. Wade, abortion or the US Supreme Court. No offence intended.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Will Robinson:
<b> The government never should have co-opted the position of authority on marriage.
Government is bound to serve all peoples equally, where a religion is not nor should it be forced to.
The government should provide community property laws and equal protection for all couples, etc. to serve it's citizens and leave the definition and declaration of "marriage" to the institutions that invented it.

If marriage *is* a union of one man and one woman then they should be able to say so without problems. If two men or two women want to live in a *similar* arrangement then we should be able to say it is similar but not the same as 'marriage'...without any problems.
But since government wants to be an authority on what *is* and what *isn't* marriage then they poison the process with the excess baggage they bring, a la the constitution.</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ding ding! We have a winner!
It should not be the place of the goverment to tell us how to act and goveren ourselves daily or tell people how to live and how to love... ( We the people wanted this 100's of years ago, bash...) Gays should have the right to be considered by the US as a family unit or a couple. It should not be up to a public majorty to decide what to do about "genetic mistakes"... if that is so, why not start putting votes out there for the public to rip the rights from Blacks, Retards people who have cancer and other comman ills that are passed from generation to generation?

I really feel for some of the points bash bring out... but I feel he's hiding behind some of his reasons just because he doesn't like the idea of more Gay rights. The courts acted how they did because it's a no-brainer... And jeez bash, I for one think it's foolhearty and ignorant to claim that homosexuals are animalistic sluts. I persoanly feel and know that there are just many hetrosexual men sleeping around, spreading AIDS and enjoying the same sex with women. And, believe it or not.. just like hetrosexuals, there are quality homosexuals out there looking for someone to share their lives with.

-Gav

i didn't really get that bash was gay bashing. he stated that he lived in a part of town with a high gay population... and gave some observations. i live in a city with one of the highest per capita gay populations in the country. and just like the cheating husbands i work with (bilking the system for tax breaks), gays have their fair share of whores.

i've been to a wedding between 2 women... they did it as a spiritual union... they wanted their friends and family to be there to see it. it was one of the best weddings i've been to. who cares if it is legal?

my beef is that ANYONE is benefiting from a lifestyle decision... that includes hetero marriage. if you want to marry a cat i'm cool with it if the government isn't rewarding you with their special brand of social engineering. imho, the BENIFITS to be gained are at the heart of issue.

land of the free? free me from your decisions.

What have I been saying here for months? The activist Mass. court was just going to make things harder for gays by causing there to be more anti-gay laws passed, because they decided to go over the heads of the people and outside the normal bounds of their power and make a decision for society that society wasn't ready for. So now we see the first of these laws being passed in Ohio, bringing the total of states with laws specifically barring gay marriage up to 38. All because an activist court decided it was going to try to force society to conform to its views, even though society is still debating the issue. Brilliant maneuver.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by TheCops:
land of the free? free me from your decisions.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're arguing for a government with fewer laws and arbitrary benefits, then that's something we can both agree on.

Gav, I think it would be wise to re-write that statement where "Genetic mistakes" and Blacks occur in the same sentence. That is unless it was blatantly intentional and meant to show where you stand regarding race

KK, not that I need to provide you with credentials but having lived in Capitol Hill, Colorado, (massive gay community, probably outnumber straights 100 to 1) for more than 12 years (as well as being an art director for almost 20), trust me I've been *exposed* to plenty of homosexuals. In fact, they find me irresistible, unfortunately. But you're doing precisely what is the worst thing to do in this debate and that is emotionalize it and polarize it (*Oh, you mean bigots standing in the way of love*).

Sorry, dude, this concerns me in it's social implications of cheapening marriage by opening up the institution to almost anything you're currently putting your dick into to a grand scam to obtain inheritances, cheap no-questions-asked healthcare and tax incentives not currently available to groups generally not able to successfully produce a child (despite trying really, really hard) to the danger of a judiciary that is treating us all like children too backward to come to what they consider is the proper *enlightened* conclusion. So rather than risk we won't agree with them, they'll just cut us out of the debate and the decision-making process entirely and decide for us.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Tyranny:
Gav, I think it would be wise to re-write that statement where "Genetic mistakes" and Blacks occur in the same sentence. That is unless it was blatantly intentional and meant to show where you stand regarding race </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's called a sarcastic point. It's not where I stand, I was just trying show an example of how the US felt some 20, 30 odd years ago.

Bash, You've been exposed to plenty? Like, as a nude model or something?... I'm not getting it. There are allot of nice, decent homosexuals out there that don't hide behind the queeny sex-craved image... (just not a whole lot in Colorado, as you probably know )

Bash, lesbians are capable of having children via donor insemination (which is also used in cases of infertility in the male).

The prejudice against gays and blacks cannot even be remotely connected since a homosexual can pretend he isn't. There is a brilliant speech by Malcolm X on this issue, only he uses Jews instead of gays. However all the arguments he makes still stand. I can find the name of his speech if anyone is interested.


This is why I don't really see them as a valid minority to aquire jumping an entire branch of our government. As I said earlier, I do believe that gays should be allowed to be married. But it is the way in which it has come about that has me very troubled.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Gooberman:
The prejudice against gays and blacks cannot even be remotely connected since <b> a homosexual can pretend he isn't. There is a brilliant speech by Malcolm X on this issue, only he uses Jews instead of gays. However all the arguments he makes still stand. I can find the name of his speech if anyone is interested.</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay.. enough with this. This isn't about Gay marrige now.

That isn't fair. Prejudice is what it is... it's ugly and hurtful. For example, teenagers have an already hard time dealing with their feelings.. try throwing homosexuality in to the mix, allot those teens pretending not to be how they are are sadly not with us today because they have gone and killed themselves. I <u> HATE</u> when people cannot just try to understand this concept... it makes me sick. People, when YOU are in those shoes, only then YOU can know what it's like and how painful it is. It's bad enough for people like Gooberman to say he can relate because he thinks he's informed, it's even worse to see bash hold his whip while pointing and accusing gays of wanting some kind of tax-free ride that he himself probably enjoys! His song and dance of "Well, I saw some gays in CO and on NBC and I got em' all figured out!" just isn't going to work with the people out there that know better! Bash, while you lived in any of those areas, did you ever try to talk to these people, and, perhaps get to know them? Did you find out if they have something on their minds other than Gay Unions, Tax breaks and sex? These people are just like everyone else... they have dreams, they make plans, they buy houses, they have jobs in anything from being state Lawyers to Fashion Designers or the person flipping your burger.. and they also hurt & bleed emotinaly, they cry, they have familys, they have lovers and friends, they have sex, they want relationships, they want people to share their lives with, they want to raise kids, and in the end they get old, sick and they die like everyone else here will do. You want to deny these people the right to be happy.. it makes me sick bash.. it makes me sick to listen and read your uneducated, flawed posts that put a huge sign around your neck that says "biggot". Take your 'seperate but equal' standards elsewhere, I've had plenty my share.

It brings to mind what Dennis Kucinich said during his campaign:

<font face="Arial" size="3">If you're against gay marriage, don't be gay and don't get married. Other than that, mind your own business.</font>

Goodnight.
-Gav

I agree with just about everything there except that they have sex. No, they don't. Are we redefining sex as well as marriage in this debate? Are you trying to claim that sodomy is the same as sexual intercourse? Heh.

You can cry bigot till your rectum bleeds but I'm not a bigot nor a homophobic nor any other boogieman and it means nothing to me when you say I am. In actuality, I'm much, much worse than that. I am mainstream America and the devil you have to strike your deal with. But neither do I care that you're trying to put me on the defensive for what I believe based on decades of observation and interaction with homosexuals. Sorry, I just don't feel the bigotry you claim I possess and I guess I ought to know better than you what groups I like and which I dislike. But rant away if it makes you feel better. I won't deny how I feel about gay *activities*. The *mind your own business* quote is a classic. No wonder the man is doing so well at the polls. So now, if we find something offensive (such as child rape, incest, altarboy buggery (buggering?) or any other sexual deviation) we're simply supposed to not participate in said activities ourselves but *mind our own business* and let others enjoy them without comment. Ha, you should be so lucky.

But, once again, you're trying to make this an emotional issue, a guilt issue. Pfft. Yea, that strategy will win hearts and minds and get legislation passed in your favor.

KK, I know you'd like to believe this is only about bash's revulsion over men putting their turtles in the mud but, really, it's mostly about a few arrogant liberal appointees trying to rob me of my right to participate. Circumventing the majority is a losing proposition for both this court and the morality it is trying to shove up all of our asses without the benefit of lubrication. By trying to hoist this precedent on us the Massachusetts Supreme Court is virtually ensuring that this debate and any substantial progress within the gay community could be postponed for decades due to the resentment folks have over being told that what they consider anathema today, tomorrow they are supposed to regard as pleasant and normal. That, combined with the frantic legislative activity this will spark in other state governments not wanting to be dragged into court because someone holds a Massachusetts marriage certificate means that you're all fooling yourselves to see this as a victory for gays.

When it's all added up I predict gays will actually lose ground because of a few activist judges with good intentions but no patience and no respect for the will of the people.

What bash said. (See also: my last post, and the article I linked.)

And KK... don't go telling anyone they "don't understand" how hard life is, or that they "don't understand" discrimination. That's one of the biggest lies there has ever been.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by bash:
I agree with just about everything there except that they have sex. No, they don't. Are we redefining sex as well as marriage in this debate? Are you trying to claim that sodomy is the same as sexual intercourse? Heh. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol clinton didn't have sex with monica.

sexual relations != sexual intercourse

Nice attempt to derail the thread, though.

I was referring to the *other* sodomy, anyway (as I'm sure Tetrad knows). As far as Lewinsky is concerned, Clinton was fortunate he wasn't charged with bestiality for screwing that pig. Oh, yea, I forgot, the impeached former president and convicted perjurer never f*cked her. Riiiiight.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by bash:
Dedman, if you haven't been watching lately, my latest crusade is not to allow my contributions be led away from the topics at hand because of the very human (but irritating) tendency of muddying the waters with presumed parallels between disparate debates and different entities. I prefer to speak to this topic and this issue, not Roe v. Wade, abortion or the US Supreme Court. No offence intended.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No offence taken. You recognize your intellectual limitations. I respect that.

Yes, Mr. Eastwood, that's precisely the obstacle.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by bash:
<b> I agree with just about everything there except that they have sex. No, they don't. Are we redefining sex as well as marriage in this debate? Are you trying to claim that sodomy is the same as sexual intercourse? Heh.

You can cry bigot till your rectum bleeds but I'm not a bigot nor a homophobic nor any other boogieman and it means nothing to me when you say I am. In actuality, I'm much, much worse than that. I am mainstream America and the devil you have to strike your deal with. But neither do I care that you're trying to put me on the defensive for what I believe based on decades of observation and interaction with homosexuals. Sorry, I just don't feel the bigotedness you claim I possess and I guess I ought to know better than you what groups I like and which I dislike. But rant away if it makes you feel better. I won't deny how I feel about gay *activities*. The *mind your own business* quote is a classic. No wonder the man is doing so well at the polls. So now, if we find something offensive (such as child rape, incest, altarboy buggery (buggering?) or any other sexual deviation) we're simply supposed to not participate in said activities ourselves but *mind our own business* and let others enjoy them without comment. Ha, you should be so lucky.

But, once again, you're trying to make this an emotional issue, a guilt issue. Pfft. Yea, that strategy will win hearts and minds and get legislation passed in your favor.

KK, I know you'd like to believe this is only about bash's revulsion over men putting their turtles in the mud but, really, it's mostly about a few arrogant liberal appointees trying to rob me of my right to participate. Circumventing the majority is a losing proposition for both this court and the morality it is trying to shove up all of our asses without the benefit of lubrication. By trying to hoist this precedent on us the Massachusetts Supreme Court is virtually ensuring that this debate and any substantial progress within the gay community could be postponed for decades due to the resentment folks have over being told that what they consider anathema today, tomorrow they are supposed to regard as pleasant and normal. That, combined with the frantic legislative activity this will spark in other state governments not wanting to be dragged into court because someone holds a Massachusetts marriage certificate means that you're all fooling yourselves to see this as a victory for gays.

When it's all added up I predict gays will actually lose ground because of a few activist judges with good intentions but no patience and no respect for the will of the people. </b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well bash, It is a emotional topic! Hell, it's about gay marrige.. there are people on both sides of the argument who hate and love it because it touches on nerves. I'm not trying to get anyone to feel gulity... if anything, I was angry last night.

Bash I also need to point out that what your saying here is that pedophilia, bestiality and homosexuality are pretty much the same. Pedophilia is a sexual perversion and a explotiation of young people, bestiality is just nasty, animals used for objects should be unlawful... you have some active imagination if you think a supreme court is going to pass laws making sexual perversions like pedophilia legal. And while I'm here talking about it.. please, stop speaking out of both sides of your mouth on this issue. I just don't think you are making valid points.

<font face="Arial" size="3">And KK... don't go telling anyone they "don't understand" how hard life is, or that they "don't understand" discrimination. That's one of the biggest lies there has ever been.</font>

Further proving my point... thanks lothar.

Anyhow... it's how I feel. I dont' expect anyone to agree with it.

-Gav

I have a crazy idea, let's get back on topic. KK, do you consider the MA court ruling a victory in regards toward promoting the gay agenda, or do you see the danger I see of a backlash?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by bash:
I have a crazy idea, let's get back on topic. KK, do you consider the MA court ruling a victory in regards toward promoting the gay agenda, or do you see the danger I see of a backlash?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure.. why not... to get to your question, I try not to look that far ahead. Right now, the only benifits seem to be for the gays is MA... could there be problems ahead? Oh sure... but I doubt one of them is that the courts will be making it legal for people to get married to their daughters or some nonsence. Although, I have found it interesting to watch this unfold... IMHO gays will be allowed to marry in the US, it's really a matter of when... while this whole thing might have not the been the best action, but it's better then nothing at all.

-Gavotte

I tend to agree that eventually same-sex marriage will become legal in this country. But not quite yet. The American p\eople need more years to mull over such a radical redefinition of a traditional institution. But, in the short-term, I think gays will end up getting what they want through the back door (no pun intended). If I'm correct in my assessment that this is really about money, I would imagine you'll see all sorts of whacky *civil union* type local laws that will provide separately what legally-recognized marriage would provide all in one swell foop; namely, full rights to each other's property and benefits. It just won't be as portable from state to state, community to communtiy as marriage would be. I wonder if the push for official marital status will fall by the wayside once those financial matters are settled by other means. We shall see.

I'm with Gav on this one (WTF)

Mind your own business is correct. Pedophilia, beastiality, and homosexuality are three very different things, as Gav just pointed out. Marriage is a decision made between two consenting adults who care for one another. I don't see why it's any different for a gay couple. If they wish to make that commitment, who is the court to deny them? They're not doing anything illegal. They're just living their lives, like everyone else.

<font face="Arial" size="3">The prejudice against gays and blacks cannot even be remotely connected since a homosexual can pretend he isn't. There is a brilliant speech by Malcolm X on this issue, only he uses Jews instead of gays. However all the arguments he makes still stand. I can find the name of his speech if anyone is interested. -My Original quote</font>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Okay.. enough with this. This isn't about Gay marrige now.

That isn't fair. Prejudice is what it is... it's ugly and hurtful. For example, teenagers have an already hard time dealing with their feelings.. try throwing homosexuality in to the mix, allot those teens pretending not to be how they are sadly not with us today because they have gone and killed themselves. I HATE when people cannot just try to understand this concept... it makes me sick. People, when YOU are in those shoes, only then YOU can know what it's like and how painful it is. It's bad enough for people like Gooberman to say he can relate because he thinks he's informed, it's even worse to see bash hold his whip while pointing and accusing gays of wanting some kind of tax-free ride that he himself probably enjoys!
-KK's response</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never claimed to have empathy for homosexuals. Undoubtedly they have it rough, but I can never know to what extent. I cannot claim to know what it is like to be gay growing up, just like I cant claim that I know what it is like to be short, black, Jewish, or any other persuasion that I am not a member of that society ridicules in highschool. The issue at hand is not whether or not gays are being persecuted, they are; no one is arguing with you there. My issue (and if you read my other responses you would know this), is the courts forcing their will on the people. Gays keep on using the analogy of the civil rights movement, and how it was done back then to give blacks rights that went against the main stream, but my argument was that the two cannot be compared. Here is a quote from the speech I was mentioning, I urge you to read it all, however, the only relevant part I will quote below for you. (They have an option to hear it on that page)

<font face="Arial" size="3">But when you just judge a man because of the color of his skin, then you're committing a crime, because that's the worst kind of judgment. If you judged him just because he was a Jew, that's not as bad as judging him because he's Black. Because a Jew can hide his religion. He can say he's something else -- and which a lot of them do that, they say they're something else. But the Black man can't hide. When they start indicting us because of our color that means we're indicted before we're born, which is the worst kind of crime that can be committed. -Malcolm X</font>

link

With black civil rights you are talking about an inescapable persecution. If they were putting a rope around a gay man's neck he would undoubtedly claim to be straight. But blacks were not entitled to the luxury of "a lie for your life". If at the voting booth gays were not allowed to vote, many would once again just claim to be heterosexual. Blacks are not entitled to an option that would let them pass through. This is why the courts had to go beyond the norms and force the people's hand when it came to civil rights for blacks.

Like I said from the beginning, I support gay marriages 100%. But do you not see the danger in this? (A danger that also existed back then). I do not believe that this is an unrealistic slippery slope. I can foresee courts ruling abortions as unconstitutional; I can see courts ruling the death penalty unconstitutional. Assisted suicide? Gun Control? Any controversial issue that they feel strongly about!! Law is not as cut and dry and people like to pretend. Just like the bible, it can be interpreted many different ways. Do you disagree? Do you disagree that this slippery slope exists?

This is an extremely dangerous, and in my opinion careless, action that the court has undergone because of the unintended consequences that could very likely follow. In the time of blacks being lynched on a daily basis, and a country in gross civil unrest, I believe that what the courts did then was the only alternative. It was the only way to save lives, and to create peace. I do not see the urgency for bypassing the other branches of the government in this case. Gays arenâ??t asking to go to schools with others; they arenâ??t asking to not be hung from a tree, they are not asking for the right to vote! They are asking to be married. And while I support that endeavor, I do not see the urgency that would cause me to support the method in which it has come about.

-Goob

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Gooberman:
This is an extremely dangerous, and in my opinion careless, action that the court has undergone because of the unintended consequences that could very likely follow.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a polarizing issue and I can appreciate the strong feelings people have regarding it. There are really two issues here. 1) same sex marriage and 2) perceived judicial misconduct. I am not going to get into the first one. The second one however I think is being blown out of proportion by those opposed to same sex marriage.

You seem to be forgetting the fact that the court was merely doing its job. Their main reason for existence is to interpret the state constitution. That is what they did. They didn't spontaneously make this ruling because they thought gays were being discriminated against. They made it in direct response to a case that was brought before them. No case = no ruling. It is that simple. Regardless of how you feel about same sex marriage, donâ??t make the mistake of thinking that the courts are overstepping their bounds and are out to circumvent any separation of powers.

If people in Mass. honestly felt that their State Supreme Court committed judicial misconduct and overstepped its bounds, why hasnâ??t there been any punitive action started against the court? Surely there must be an impeachment (or something similar) process that is used on corrupt courts. Why hasnâ??t this happened? Because those that know how the system is supposed to work realize that the court did nothing wrong. They ruled on a controversial issue. That is what they put in place for and what they gets paid to do.

Dedman,

The constitution is not that cut and dry in most cases to say conclusively if something should be law or not. That is why we have people that create new laws. Which I believe will be done and ultimately hurt gays. Do you think the people writing the constitution thought to themselves,

"Oh what about a gay's right to marriage?",

"Oh don't worry, we got that covered Under Part II, c. 3, art. 2, of the Constitution of the Commonwealth, as amended by art. 85 of the Amendments".

(I'm not intending to be sarcastic)

Courts are allowed to come back and say it is simply inconclusive. I believe that each judge knows that, with a high probability, a different random set of judges could have come up with a completely opposite view point.

I remember Lothar and I awhile back got into some biblical homosexuality debate, and I was able to throw him source after source of web pages that strongly believed that not only did the bible not oppose homosexuality, but it advocated it! This is the same with the law, you will get a rogue set of judges that just have a different view point on things and are able to string together a case for gay marriages being unconstitutional.

I am not arguing that the judges didn't have the power to do what they did. I am arguing that they should of recognized the situation. (I believe 3 out of 7 of them did).

I am arguing that they have a different set of standards then most judges on what can be seen as unconstitutional, and what can be declared as unconstitutional. I fear other judges may also lose sight of this vital distinction.

I do admit that this is a matter of opinion. This is mine.

The backlash wont be against the judges. But I do expect to see it against gays. I also wouldn't be surprised to see some other extremely controversial issues deemed, "unconstitutional" in the near future.

Goob,

I know the constitution is not cut and dry. I never meant to imply that it was. If it was, we wouldnâ??t need a Supreme Court. It is open to interpretation. It was meant to be. All I am saying is that I donâ??t think the court overstepped it authority as some would argue.

The only reason this is even an issue is because of the polarizing nature of the issue. I maintain that most people who believe the court overstepped its authority believe so because they donâ??t like the ruling.

I asked Bash a few posts ago if he would feel the US Supreme Court would be overstepping its authority if it ruled to strike down Roe v. Wade. He refused to answer because he thought I was trying to cloud the issue. I wasnâ??t. I was merely using that as an example to gauge whether he really thought the Mass. court overstepped or if he just didnâ??t like the ruling.

I suspect if the USSC were to overturn Roe, a lot of the people you now see opposed to the Mass. courts ruling would feel that the USSC was well within it right to do so. As I said before, I see this as two very distinct issues. While I realize that on some level they are linked, I feel that each issue should be viewed and analyzed separately.

The issues as I see them are 1) same sex marriage and 2) Judicial misconduct. Ignoring the polarizing and controversial nature of the first issue, I can only conclude on the second, that the Mass. court did not overstep its authority.

Just out of curiosity, do any of you that supported this decision also think the mayor of San Francisco acted correctly?

*crickets*

As much as I support same sex marriage, I don't think he is acting correctly. His job is to uphold the law. In fact, I think he probably took an oath to do so. What he is doing is circimventing it completely.

I read yesterday that despite all the controversy, morality discussions, mock heroics, etc., it's likely the marriages will all be invalidated simply because the marriage forms were altered manually to make them gender-neutral. The CA *form office* (I forget it's actual title) has already said unequivably that it will reject them all and it has the legal authority to do so. As any observer of bureaucracy can tell you, you just don't mess with the form or you'll have to start all over again. Oh, the banality of evil.

I wanted to say in response to the "the same people angry with this decision would be happy if a court overturned Roe" argument... (and I would've if the DBB would quit 503'ing)

First, Roe was itself created by an activist court. I wouldn't mind another court overturning it any more than I'd mind another court overturning the Mass. court's decision in this case.

Second, it's not Roe I care so much about -- it's Doe v Bolton. In Roe, congress said abortions were OK late-term for "health" reasons. In Doe, congress defined "health" so broadly that most people who get abortions now aren't even aware that they supposedly need a "health" reason.

Third, in *both* cases (really all 3), I'd like to see the thing go to a legislative bill that spells out what is and isn't cool, and that gets voted on by the people (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.J.RES.56: anyone?) Roe v Wade should go to the people -- should abortions be legal? Doe v Bolton should go to the people -- what are the criteria on "health" reasons for abortions? Gay v marriage should go to the people -- what is a "marriage" and can it involve people of the same sex?

Fourth, LOL @ the edited forms. pwn3d by a technicality.

Fifth, attempt #3 to bypass the 503's...

The people can voice their opinion and vote for a bill all they want. If the top court rules it unconstitutional it was all for naught.

Please define for me what is meant by "activist court". It seems to me that that term is really in the eye of the beholder.

We really still talking about this?

Yes, Tyr, we are. Don't crap on our thread -- the mayor of SanFran decided to make it an issue, so we're talking about it again.

Dedman, the word "activist" plays no important role in my argument. I use it to refer to courts that push through an agenda that's not really clear in the constitution and that's still hotly debated (this may be a good thing, or a bad thing, for the courts to do.)

A good article on the subject:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Rep. Barney Frank said San Francisco's decision to challenge state law and grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples could damage efforts by gay rights advocates to defend the Massachusetts court decision legalizing gay marriage.

<b>"I was sorry to see the San Francisco thing go forward," said Frank, an openly gay congressman from Massachusetts who shared his concerns with fellow Democrat and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom before the city began marrying gay couples last week.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Frank expressed concern that the image of lawlessness and civil disobedience in San Francisco would lead some in Congress to support a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.</b>

Frank said he had hoped Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court decision upholding the right of same-sex couples to marry would serve as a national model for orderly, legal protection of gay marriage.

"If we go forward in Massachusetts and get same-sex marriage on the books, it's going to be binding and incontestable," Frank said Tuesday.

Instead, Frank said, San Francisco's move promotes the notion that unpopular laws can be broken or ignored.

"When you're in a real struggle, San Francisco making a symbolic point becomes a diversion," he said.

California law defines marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman." In addition, voters approved a ballot measure in 2000 that said only marriages between a man and woman are valid.

Newsom spokesman Peter Ragone praised Frank as a respected leader on gay rights issues but denied that the mayor's decision to issue same-sex marriage licenses promotes illegal behavior.

"We don't view this as breaking the law," Ragone said. "We view this as upholding the state's constitution, which explicitly prohibits any form of discrimination."</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMO, the only mistake Frank makes (other than having sex with men) is that he thinks the Mass. court decision is a "model" for how things should be done. It wasn't nearly as polarizing as the SanFran thing, but it still wasn't a smart move...

Oh, by the way... is there anyone here who thinks the SF mayor is in the right? That he's right for standing up for what he believes in, and that they should let him continue? What about those who think he's absolutely wrong and shouldn't break the law, that he should obey the rule of the governor and the courts?

Once you've answered (either way), highlight the following line:
<font color="#000000">Did you think the same of the Ten Commandments judge?</font> You don't have to answer here -- just think about it for yourself.

not allowing gays to be married is the same as not allowing blacks to be married. Just because they're different doesn't mean you can treat them as a second-class citizen by denying them certain human rights.

And can you honestly tell me that a run of the mill man and woman have treated marriage as sacred? I know there's gonna be an exception to the rule... but generally...