California Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Gay Marriage »
Posted by: david_nwpa 2 months, 3 weeks ago265 CommentsReflectReport this Story
The California Supreme Court announced on Wednesday it will issue its ruling tomorrow on whether same-sex couples can marry in the state. The judgment is expected at 10:00 am PT, and LGBT groups throughout the state are making plans to be in San Francisco for the decision.
Read Full Story at 365gay.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 265
-
0%
david_nwpa2 months, 3 weeks ago
The whole LGBT community will be waiting patiently tomorrow to discover whether the people have been granted the same rights as others, or if LGBT Californians are also second-class citizens. If marriage equality is mandated by the court, then the governor should have no choice but to amend California law and ratify gay marriage.
Reply-
-
-
0%
smeejay2 months, 3 weeks ago
here's bigger news. the ban HAS BEEN OVERTURNED!!! the year that i was born the recommended course of action for a son or daughter coming out to their parents, was INSTITUTIONALIZATION. and that institution's recommended course of action was ELECTROSHOCK therapy. all of these changes within my short lifetime of 49 years. and please don't think that this is gloating. this SO does not mean that gays and lesbians have won. this means that ALL americans have won. this country remains the single greatest experiment in democracy and human rights in history. WOW!
Reply
-
-
-
0%
newbie04202 months, 3 weeks ago
Update:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us...
SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.
Good for Cali!!!
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
UnusualSuspect2 months, 3 weeks ago
Well...
As I recall, the "will" of the people voted Gore in as President in 2000, and a certain court (which shall remain nameless) declared the popular vote null and void.
Yes, the Electoral College is what rules national Presidential elections, but, the will of the people is not always followed, is it?
Reply-
-
0%
UnusualSuspect2 months, 3 weeks ago
Bush may have won Florida and square, but nationally, Gore ended up with more popular votes than Bush.
Guess the will of the people lost out again, huh...
Altho, I do think this...
I would prefer the popular vote to decide everything in this country...no courts, no Congress, no President. Just leave it up to us, the people, to decide on things, within each state.
Do I think majority rule is always good? No. But I will go along with the majority until such a time comes that, when I don't agree with them, I will fight to persuade them otherwise.
Reply -
0%
jordan112 months, 3 weeks ago
Bush won Florida fair and square. SCOTUS only confirmed that. It did not thwart the will of the people since the Electoral College is the will of the people.>>>
Nope, the SC confirmed nothing of the sort! They ruled on whether or not the recount could continue.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
smeejay2 months, 3 weeks ago
well i know that scalia sure does. this way, while he may have PERSONAL objections, he won't have to be remembered for them. you on the other hand...
Reply -
0%
jordan112 months, 3 weeks ago
For the umpteenth time. You live in a country where equal rights are guaranteed to ALL. The will of the people does NOT get to override that.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
DropkickaLib2 months, 3 weeks ago
Gay marriage ballot initiatives have failed in so many states that it's only logical that its supporters should attempt to end run the will of the people through litigation.
Reply-
0%
IanFraigun2 months, 3 weeks ago
In situations of human and civil rights the will of the people is often wrong.
If we would always let that will expressed through the ballot box rule then we would still have slavery. Even with that gone we would still have legal segregation and discrimination. All are aginst our desire that ALL people should have equal rights.
There are many other things the 'people' have voted for that are against the law and our constitution and have had to be overturned by the courts over the years.
Reply-
0%
Locky122 months, 3 weeks ago
They even legalized murder in Roe V Wade.
They're just people. They put their pants on one leg at a time just like you and me.
Sometimes they're wrong too. And if they recognize gay marriage, it's an outright attack on the family.
Reply-
0%
compassionatethinker2 months, 3 weeks ago
I find it so scary that people that think like this even still exsist in this day and age! Sadly many people will pass these damaging thoughts on to the next generation. It is a cycle of hate that can never lead to anything positive.
I wish a happy life for your "family" that is SO NOT being attacked by legally allowing other "families" to be happy.
I wish you could do the same for them!
Reply-
0%
Locky122 months, 3 weeks ago
It isn't discrimination. It's DEFINITION.
It's like saying nature is discriminating against men by not allowing them to bear children.
The buliding block of society has been the natural family. Anything else is not the standard and shouldn't be recognized as such.
Reply-
0%
compassionatethinker2 months, 3 weeks ago
Standards are changing every day. Family, now has many definitions. Our society can definitely use some new building blocks. Happiness is hard to come by. You should appreciate it now matter what form or family it comes in.
Reply-
-
0%
Goppy2 months, 3 weeks ago
We Christian Conservatives dont even HAVE any standards.
We even vote for politicians who trade on their religion -- liek its a chit to be turned in at Vegas!
Reply-
-
-
-
0%
raats66622 months, 3 weeks ago
What's NOT to understand?
You have Hagee, Robertson, and (had) Falwell preaching DAILY about hatred toward the PEOPLE (gays, abortionists, Muslims, even Catholics) and that's OK. No one is telling John McCain that the preaching of Hagee is AS offensive as those of Wright and by ASKING for that endorsement is WORSE because Hagee has been preaching that hatred of YEARS.
But when Wright says something bad about the country and Michelle Obama said that she's never been proud of THE COUNTRY everyone gets up in arms.
Most of the world who currently HATES the United States does so because of the ACTIONS of the people so by encouraging the HATRED of the you are encouraging the hatred of the Country.
It could be argued that the White Preachers, who the Republican Party has aligned itself with for DECADES, and who have spent their career teaching hatred and intolerance toward it's citizens, are responsible for the sermon that Rev. Wright gave.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
smeejay2 months, 3 weeks ago
Wow, Locky I never thought that you'd make such a shift in your ideology. Now that Haggee is starting to recognize his guilt and apologize, first to Catholics and who knows maybe gays next, it IS time for all conservatives to distance themselves from McCain. We're all so proud of your growth in such a positive direction!
Reply -
0%
Dionys2 months, 3 weeks ago
"Nah, we just tend to avoid the politicians whose preachers hate this country. "
You should listen to Hagee, then.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
newbie04202 months, 3 weeks ago
Have I???:
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/50148.html
He was raised in a Muslim family, albeit a rather liberal one, his name is Muslim, just like his father's who was a Muslim. His step father was a liberal Muslim, almost his entire family is/was, I don't think it's a far stretch to think he was either.
That being said, I don't care one bit if he was, where he was raised they teach tolerance of ALL religions, teachers wore skirts and they celebrated Christmas at his schools. I wouldn't care if he still was, heck I'm dating a Muslim, as long as he believed in tolerance and acceptance of all religions.
Me not like Obama has nothing to do with his religous views.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
hamy2 months, 3 weeks ago
I wish you or one of your compatriots in combating the equality of Americans could tell me how allowing two people who love each other to marry affects you or your family. Just once I would love to hear something other than "it's wrong" because that still doesn't tell me how it affects you or yours.
How personally does it affect your life?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
IanFraigun2 months, 3 weeks ago
Please tell me exactly how a gay marriage attacks my family and my 45 year marriage. If you can't which you can not since there is no relation then get of that pony.
If the court rules in favor of gay marriage it would most likely be on the basis of the state constitutional right of privacy. It will have no more impact on families or marriages than it does today in massachussetts. Do you see massive increases in divorce because that is allowed in that state?
Don't even talk to me about Roe V Wade. You religion may say one thing, but many say there is no human life until birth and the drawing of the first breath. You don't want abortion then don't have one but don't try to force your religions moral standards on those of other faiths.
Reply-
0%
tkyrchncs2 months, 3 weeks ago
How can marriage be a privacy issue? Marriage is a public institution; it is a union of individuals that changes their status under numerous laws and regulations.
Reply -
-
0%
Tangent0012 months, 3 weeks ago
So? Do we make staying single illegal? Do we say sterile couples can't get married?
Reply -
0%
hamy2 months, 3 weeks ago
So couples that don't plan on having children shouldn't be allowed to marry? Or couples who are infertile shouldn't be allowed to marry?
Is that where you are going?
Reply
-
-
0%
Dionys2 months, 3 weeks ago
"Please tell me exactly how a gay marriage attacks my family and my 45 year marriage. If you can't which you can not since there is no relation then get of that pony. "
It doesn't. The marriage of people like Brittney Spears presents more of a danger and attack.
Reply -
0%
DropkickaLib2 months, 3 weeks ago
It's called a popular vote and gay marriage has been rejected by an overwhelming majority of the American public. Each state has the right to determine marriage laws to match the will of its residents. Gay marriage proponents just can't accept the results of the democratic process.
Reply-
-
-
-
0%
DropkickaLib2 months, 3 weeks ago
As opposed to the condition of servitude to which the courts have subjected us.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
itsme52 months, 3 weeks ago
Don't even talk to me about Roe V Wade. You religion may say one thing, but many say there is no human life until birth and the drawing of the first breath.
i dont know what religion you are referring to. unless you count rules made up by people "in the name of their religion" no scriptures or holy books directly address abortion. i am a christian, but my bible doesnt talk about abortion at all. yet, how can anyone believe its not life until the first breath? what is it? a lump of tissue? do you know that the mothers blood does not flow through the baby at all. while in the mother's womb, a baby produces its own blood at pumps it through its own body- they dont even have the same heart rate as the mom. what is that then? would you have me believe its nothing more than the equivalance of a non-cancerous tumor? to be removed at your convenience? oh wait, tumroe are fed by the host body's blood. babies make their own. its not my religion's moral standards, its my own.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Tangent0012 months, 3 weeks ago
Apparently, it's enough to just SAY it's an attack on the family.
The only argument I've heard on this is that it is a 'slippery slope' that can only end in people marrying their dogs.
It's just more religious BS.
Reply-
0%
Locky122 months, 3 weeks ago
Changing the definition from one man and one woman to any two people, well, why not any three people? four? five? however many you want?
One man and one woman for thier ability to procreate- which gays cannot. Gay is not the standard and therefore cannot and should not marry. Being below standard should not be rewarded.
Reply-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.11 Replies
-
0%
Locky122 months, 3 weeks ago
Because if you change the definition for one group (gays) it follows that you'd have to change the definition for all (polygamists).
You confuse discrimination with definition. This is what you get.
One man and one woman express the perfect act of love which people of the same sex simply cannot.
Reply-
0%
Tangent0012 months, 3 weeks ago
"One man and one woman express the perfect act of love which people of the same sex simply cannot."
So love is only 'perfect' when a particular sexual act can be performed? Which act is that? Missionary position?
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
BTW, when you 'define' homosexuals as 'below standard' that is when definition BECOMES discrimination. That is exactly the sort of discrimination the 'looney left' is talking about.
Reply-
-
0%
Tangent0012 months, 3 weeks ago
Biology has very little to do with love. If you want to talk biology, by all means, let's. There is nothing 'unnatural' about homosexuality. It is a deviation from the norm of sexuality, but deviation is not necessarily perversion. That there is a very large element of heredity (as opposed to being learned behaviour) in homosexuality is very well supported. Homosexual behaviour is seen in several non-human species, particularly among social mammals (dolphins, bonobos, etc.).
Reply
-
-
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
-
-
-
0%
memestryker2 months, 3 weeks ago
That's why a new word makes sense to a lot of people instead of "marriage." Marriage in the U.S. has referred to one man and one woman for so long that even if the law didn't state it, it's the common understanding.
We know that polygamy generally results in jealousy and has resulted in the subjugation of women. Women have fled to the U.S. from other countries to escape polygamy.
Gay is not the norm, but it is consistently present in populations. There is no good reason I can see to bar these folks from enjoying equal rights to visit in the hospital, write wills, raise children, work, etc. It doesn't hurt my marriage.
Let them pay the marriage tax and be responsible for each other's debts! There must be another word that could be used so "marriage" can retain its meaning and not result in a charged emotional response for a lot of people.
Culture doesn't change overnight, no matter what the law says.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Natureboy2 months, 3 weeks ago
Oh, holy sh!t you are a tard.
Recognizing gay marriage is not an "attack on the family." Gay marriage is about two people committing to a loving life together, just as marriage betweeen straights is. It is an AFFIRMATION of family.
Reply-
-
0%
Tangent0012 months, 3 weeks ago
I don't buy your assessment of 'most homosexuals', but if one is concerned about homosexuals 'floating from partner to partner', then supporting if not encouraging same-sex marriage would seem to be a really, really GOOD idea!
Statistically, about 1 in 10 people are homosexual. Besides, is there a minimum threshold under which the Constitution no longer applies? As I recall, the Congress was more than willing to pass special legislation for ONE PERSON (Terri Schaivo).
Reply -
0%
jordan112 months, 3 weeks ago
So because of that little splinter of people we are to change the laws and recognize what to a majority of people is a repugnant act.>>>>
Marriage and commitment is a "repugnant act"?
Reply -
0%
Natureboy2 months, 3 weeks ago
"Only for the few of the less than 3% of the population who are homosexual."
The majority of gays and lesbians I know are in committed relationships. I don't know where you get your info.
"Hence the AIDS problem."
AIDS cannot be laid solely at the doorstep of the gay male population. It is also spread by heterosexuals, and through intravenous drug use. In Africa, the transmission is predominately heterosexual.
Reply
-
-
0%
Locky122 months, 3 weeks ago
two people of the same sex cannot love perfectly. Their love cannot create human life.
Homosexuality is a weakness that is fostered by a failed education in human love. It should not be reinforced through marriage as if they are living a true and worthy lifestyle, when it is just the opposite.
Reply-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.4 Replies
-
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
0%
Tangent0012 months, 3 weeks ago
If procreation is the standard for marriage, then sterile straight couples shouldn't be allowed to marry. Further, a fertile straight couple MUST have children if they want to be married. If a fertile couple doesn't have kids, are they punished? Is their marriage retroactively nullified? What happens if a fertile couple becomes sterile before having kids?
Reply-
0%
ZippySpincycle2 months, 3 weeks ago
It's clearly time to add a Mandatory Childbearing Amendment to the Constitution!
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Tangent0012 months, 3 weeks ago
"Homosexuality is a weakness that is fostered by a failed education in human love. It should not be reinforced through marriage as if they are living a true and worthy lifestyle, when it is just the opposite."
Your hatred is astounding. Who decides what is a 'true and worthy lifestyle'?
Reply-
0%
jordan112 months, 3 weeks ago
Their love cannot create human life.>>>>
Neither can heterosexual couples who can't conceive. Shall we discount their unions?
Reply -
0%
UnusualSuspect2 months, 3 weeks ago
Ah, Locky...
So...
perfect love = creating human life
wow...tell that to people who can't have children, and want them so badly, that their love is not "perfect"
Adoption is a good choice, but I suppose in your view, since they didn't "have one of their own", they still don't have a "perfect" love...
You are simply amazing...
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
