News @ ID California gay-marriage ban ruled unconstitutional - UPDATE

Discussion in 'News @ ID' started by Bleys, Mar 14, 2005.

  1. Bleys

    Bleys Phoenix Takes Flight Staff Member

    In a blow to conservative groups, a San Francisco judge ruled that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. Stating that there is no rational reason to deny same sex marriages Judge Kramer's decision specifically calls into question the State's rule limiting marriages to "one man-one woman."

    No doubt this decision will be appealed to the State Supreme Court, but we are seeing more and more decisions be handed down that lead one to conclude that barring a constitutional amendment same sex marriage is here to stay.


    [Edited on 4-7-2005 by Bleys]
  2. mscbkc070904

    mscbkc070904 Premium Member

    No matter what happens now, it will happen with time. There is just too much political and religious conflicts involved. Time will pass and it will be put on the table time and time again until it gets a YES or Approved.

    And if it doesnt happen in the near future, gay marriages will happen elsewhere, outside the US, then there will be that legal battle of it not being recognized and so forth. When you want something and you want it real bad, you are going to get it, no matter what the cost.
  3. Bleys

    Bleys Phoenix Takes Flight Staff Member

    :bash: Such a divisive subject for even normally open minded people. I try to put everything into a "does it affect me or mine" frame of mind - I know that's selfish, but hey, I'm over 30 now. And how someone else's marriage could possibly harm me or society has got me scratching my head.

    Many years from now, regardless of what the states decide, this whole mess is going to end up before SCOTUS and barring a constitutional amendment - gay marriage will be upheld in the courts. Do we really want to be the generation that authorizes our constitution to be altered to discriminate against a group of people? I hope not.

  4. mscbkc070904

    mscbkc070904 Premium Member

    Thats sort of what I referring to, but didnt want to get detailed about it, cause its a very debatable issue.

    Like you said B, do we authorize it and go against the very religious aspect? If so what are we telling the future, i.e. our children, that this is ok? And do we rewrite and restate the very teachings of our religions that this is ok?

    And if we dont decide to do this, that we are going against the very Constitution that made this country, because a group that wishes to be recognized for their sexuality differences? Do we rewrite our laws and amendments, to favor those who want equality? Then again the question comes about, What are we telling our children, that its acceptable and ok?

    This is a very opinionated topic and can raise alot of moral and immoral thoughts and points. But at the same time will it make any difference? Will we change peoples minds or thoughts? I dont think so, if we could so easily, we would have changed minds already.

    I have nothing against gays, have some in my family, but I also have to look out for the welfare of those who are coming of age. Just a remark on something that happened a few yrs back, was some high schoolers thought it was a fad to be gay. Ummm hello, you either are or you are not! Its not a fashion statement of the year. But the point of that is, see what it has done to soceity as a whole.

    But like I said, if they want it they will get it, NO MATTER WHAT THE COST or Message it sends.
  5. Bleys

    Bleys Phoenix Takes Flight Staff Member

    California upholds domestic partner law.

    The 3rd circuit court of appeals has upheld California's domestice partner law stating that it does not affect California's Prop. 22 law which defines a marriage as between one man and one woman.

    The court found that marriage and domestic partnerships are completely unrelated and thus did not violate a ban on same sex marriages. The main reason for the domestic partners law was not just to allow same sex partners to protect property rights, but to allow older couples protections without having to enter into a marriage contract.

    Great news article and thoughtful decision.


    AP Wire story