Which is why the electoral college needs to stay in place.

1. Prop 8 was a citizen initiative so it has little to do with lobbyists, but I do like how classic got his ACORN dig in.

2. Only 10-15 states have such an initiative process to amend the state constitution, so I dont see the slippery slope on this one.

3. The Cal Supreme Court has yet to rule on its constitutionality. although evidently the Court is not looking favorably to overturning it, but might very well prohibit it from being retroactive...a small victory for those same sex couples now legally married in Cal.

4. Congress and Obama can and may repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which woulld nullify much of the impact of state constitutional amendments like this in everything but name only (ie gay couples would have equal rights just w/o the formal marriage.)

Thanks :) I learned that from tw.
Once one state has passed it, it will be much easier for other states as the precedent will have been set.
Agreed
That would be a start.
This issue is headed in the right direction. It will happen soon.

What the too-conservative are missing here is that a "union" encourages a lifestyle of commitment to one other, and thus encourages a life that isn't sexually promiscuous. Therefore, it's a social institution that causes gay people to be more like straight people -- and where would straight people complain on that score?

Even Saint Paul would approve.

X-Lydia sez to me rather often that the most determined support for Prop. 8 seems to come from the people who overdo on gender roles within marriage, and are made very itchy at visualizing a marriage that doesn't hew so rigidly to the gender roles they've been taught since babyhood. She regards this as a terrible intellectual failing.

They don't want gay people to be more like straight people. They view the evolving attitude towards tolerance as "defining away deviancy".

The 'too conservatives' are threatened by gay people appearing to be ordinary in any way. It's the differences that make conservatives or anti gays feel superior. If they're the same, how will they then define their own relationships?

You think?
Women-should-worship-God-by-worshipping-their-man St Paul?
The-reason-the-Catholic-church-can't-countenance-women-priests St Paul?
The-reason-evangelical-Christians-believe-women-should-be-barefoot-and-pregnant St Paul?

Of course I give him leeway for having written what he did a v-e-r-y long time ago. But given that the Church allows no such leeway I think you may have another St Paul in mind.

Oh yeah...the other St Paul.

So homosexuals are more sexually promiscuous then straight people?

This law will not change the lifestyles of homosexuals, it will just allow them to gain a social status and the benefits from that. The ones that want to be in a relationship are in a relationship. The ones that don't want to be in a relationship aren't.

Pre-AIDS, gays were notoriously more promiscuous. There were bathhouses in every city where gays could go get laid anonymously. Bette Midler started her career entertaining in them.

Many of UG's notions of culture are decades old.

Straight people can get laid anonymously in my bathroom.

That's just begging to be a sigline...

True. Too long for a user title, do you think?

If it'll fit in I think its great lol

Robbie Williams said he completely understood George Michael getting a BJ on Hampstead Heath (notorious London open-air gay hangout), despite being in a relationship. He said if he was gay, and he knew somewhere he could get anonymous sexual acts, he'd be there with bells on!

Lesbians decide how to split the household expenses at the end of their second date.

I think it's more a male thing than a gay thing.
Just saying.

Yes, because straight people never have anonymous sex in public places...

Societally sanctioned relationships do obtain a social benefit in keeping the relationship going. External expectations of fidelity, duration, depth, value -- these serve to re-enforce what is already there.

In short, "my husband" carries far different connotations than "my boyfriend".

Yes they do...err...well, so I've been told anyway. ;)

yes, so does "my lover," which I would much rather say than "my husband." Of course, I wouldn't mind having a wife... :D

A lot of people refer to their husband or boyfriend or lover as their 'partner' these days which to me is somewhere in the middle and leaves a lot open for personal interpretation.

Just make sure they don't meet each other, okay? Could be awkward.

A doctor, a lawyer and a physicist were discussing the relative merits of having a wife or a mistress.

The lawyer says: "For sure a mistress is better. If you have a wife and want a divorce, it causes all sorts of legal problems.

The doctor says: "It's better to have a wife because the sense of security lowers your stress and is good for your health.

The physicist says: " You're both wrong. It's best to have both so that when the wife thinks you're with the mistress and the mistress thinks you're with your wife --- you can go back to the lab and get some work done."

California high court upholds same-sex marriage ban

We'll see if it gets changed next year.

D.C. is planning to pass a marriage equality bill; it may get in front of the SCOTUS quickly (since the Feds operate the District's court system).

It is now officially getting strange. The opposing lawyers who brought us Bush v. Gore are getting together to attempt to get SCOTUS to overturn Prop 8.

Gay marriage advocacy groups are not happy since they believe that this is the wrong court to make the argument to and a loss would be a large setback.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_w..._teams_up.html

It really is quite entertaining. The same people who want to let the people rule by majority now want to reverse a legal states right issue to go the a minority. Should be quite interesting how they tap around this one.

has anyone considered just banning straight marriage?

Really not a bad idea. I think it would be much better to make all people who want to pregnant get a license.

Okay. Obama's crowd gets to decide who gets the license, right?

HAR HAR!

Now THAT'S funny.

Instead of just letting the Gays do their thing, the right would rather abolish their own marriages, do you think?

Schwarzenegger calls for same-sex weddings
By PAUL ELIAS Associated Press Writer © 2010 The Associated Press
Aug. 6, 2010, 8:04PM

If Arnold says it's so, so be it... :cool:

I completely support same sex marriage. Have at it.

So ... they're supporting the appeal to overturn the rejection of a decision which rejected the bill which overturned the ban on same-sex marriage ... is that it?

I'm more confused than a closet gay baptist.

Are illegal immigrants allowed to get married in CA, as long as they're straight?

:lol2:

You trouble maker!

How's this - illegals can ONLY have gay marriages. This would defeat the anchor-baby thing. :lol:

Excellent - get the paperwork started.

FOX News Poll
 

FOX News Poll;
It would appear even FOX's viewers are thinking Prop 8 is crap.

Damm those evil Fox people....

Let me see....

One very popular new site vs....

everyone else.

Tell me again why they are the most popular News site over all others?

"We don't put the Bill of Rights to a vote"

Fox News / Mike Wallace interview with Ted Olson

http://cllr.me/KyV

California Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down As Unconstitutional

This is a good decision. I'm not gay, I have no intention of marrying a man. But I believe the government does NOT have any legitimate interest in saying what sex my partner may be in **ANY** consensual activity.

I'm not so sure the proponents of gay marriage want this to be decided by today's Supreme Court. Scalia, Thomas, et al. are cavemen. Going to the Supreme Court now could set the gay rights movement back a decade or more.

In four years, after Obama has had a second term and the opportunity to appoint a couple more justices, the court will be much more likely to have a progressive view on social matters like this.

... perhaps.

I still do not understand the Constituitionality of such an argument. What is the interest of the United States of America to permit a man to marry a woman, but forbid a man to marry a man? What is the country's interest and what is the constitutional basis for such an argument? Cavemen or not, I do believe they know about the Constitution.

Because married gays will sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.

promises, promises.

If we allow gay marriage then we are opening the door to legalization of polygamy and humans marrying animals or inanimate objects. Of course, studies show polygamy has a strong negative effect on society, hurting basically everyone (children, women, and young poor men) besides rich older men and marrying non-humans has absolutely no value to the state since people will not spend and save differently as opposed to the marriage of two humans. I'm not exactly sure how either those relate to gay marriage but I'm sure there is some connection....

Or you can go the sanctity of marriage route. In that case I'm pretty sure The Bible makes it perfectly clear that gays should not be allowed to marry at any cost and we should just forgive adulters. I mean...its not like the "sin" of adultery was written in stone or anything like that...I think. Sorry, I always get confused which particular religious doctrine we are imposing on the population.

I've always wondered why people think that the only thing stopping the polygamists is that it's illegal.

Doesn't seem to have stopped them at all, really.

Obviously, having three wives at the same time is wrong. If you want to have three wives, you have to do what Gingrich did and dump them one at a time.:right:

It's called serial monogamy

Or, more importantly, a woman marry a woman. ;)
Many of god's chosen were polygamists. If you support the ban on uni-gender marriage based on the bible argument, you'd be hypocritical to oppose polygamy.

I'm not sure of the connection - where polygamy comes in to it - anyway.

Frankly, I think it’s plausible that Jesus was gay.

This polygamy question is interesting to me.

I support gay marriage. I think it's ridiculous that the government would let some consenting adults enter into a legal contract but not others.

But I oppose polygamy, because everything I've heard says that, in practice, it is bad for women and children. Basically, it's only good for men rich enough to take on several wives. And those wives live in virtual poverty.

So how do I, from a legal standpoint, embrace gay marriage and oppose polygamy? How can I say that adults can only enter into a contract with one adult and not more than one? If I'm entering into other contracts, I can do so with multiple people. I can divide my plot of land into smaller plots and sell them to multiple buyers. I can go into business with a bunch of friends and create one partnership with all of them. The government recognizes those contracts. If marriage is opened up to gays because they are consenting adults with equal rights, why wouldn't marriage be opened up to all consenting adults, including polygamists?

reductio ad absurda or ponzi scheme is the argument.

In a finite population, if some males have multiple spouses then other males are lacking.
In small polygamous communities, such boys are driven out by one means or another.

I'm not following you on either point. Can you flesh those out at all?

I think there are two approaches you can take. The first is kind of a 'cherry picking' approach. There is more than enough studies that strongly show that polygamy is, overall, bad for society. It hurts everyone besides rich old men. Then, we can ban it the same way as we banned other things that are bad for society. Those reasons do not apply to gay marriage therefore it should not be made illegal. I would even make the argument that gay marriage is good for society. The downfall of this approach is that it is biased and someone make an argument how gay marriage or interracial marriage, etc are bad for society and should be banned.

The second approach is to step back and ask why the government should recognize marriage in the first place. Marriage is a contract that tends to make couples more stable and more likely to invest, bettering society. As long as a certain type of marriage does that, it should be legal. Polygamy and marriage of non-humans doesn't have the incentive to invest and stabilize, therefore it should be treated differently. I prefer this way since it is more objective.

well, we don't even have to talk about those or even children. If you aren't a consenting adult, you can't enter into a contract. Dogs can't sign contracts. And children have very limited rights under the law.

Good point. I just wanted to cover the entire slippery slope argument.

Support the reduction of the human population = support for gay marriage.
GO GAY for the PLANET!
They should start their own PAC like moveon.

I was making the argument against polygamy, not gay marriage,
in a finite (small) population... and assumed there were "multiple wives"

If there are 100 men and 100 women, and 30 men have a total of 60 wives,
there would be only 40 single women left to wed among the remaining 70 single men.
The married men (in power) see this problem coming,
and so force the excess males (boys) out of the community.

Of course, gay marriage would be one solution to this situation. ;)
as would reversed polygamy where those 40 women have multiple husbands.
Don't laugh, supposedly the latter happened in isolated Eskimo families

In other (very large) cultures this "ponzi scheme" kind of problem is not as apparent,
particularly if the polygamous males are only a minority among the male population.
The bachelors probably still aspire to polygamy, so they are content with hope and dreams :rolleyes:
.