| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Do I hear Wedding Bells for Kenny? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 15 2008, 10:11 AM (1,672 Views) | |
| Mark | May 15 2008, 10:11 AM Post #1 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban The ruling paves the way for California to become the second state where gay men and lesbians can marry. Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na |
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| LadyElton | May 15 2008, 10:13 AM Post #2 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
W00T!
|
| Hilary aka LadyElton | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | May 15 2008, 10:14 AM Post #3 |
|
MAMIL
|
This will be the point at which Kenny announces that he prefers to live in sin. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| sue | May 15 2008, 10:16 AM Post #4 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I thought you were referring to his current visit to Canada.
|
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | May 15 2008, 10:19 AM Post #5 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Now that would be ironic
|
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | May 15 2008, 10:25 AM Post #6 |
|
Interesting the court overruled what the voters wanted. I guess there is a history of the court stepping in to overrule the popular vote when it conflicts with the constitution, etc. I wonder if they will be fair and grant other couples that want to marry the same right if the issue reaches their doorstep? |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | May 15 2008, 10:29 AM Post #7 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Srsly; good luck Kenny & Jose.
|
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | May 15 2008, 10:31 AM Post #8 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
If you're implying a guy and his donkey/imagination/5 daughters/whatever, I don't think the state has seen enough of those cases to require an official ruling. :rolleyes: |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | May 15 2008, 10:41 AM Post #9 |
|
Well that's why I said *if* it reaches their doorsteps! ![]() PS. Side topic - did you figure out the mystery yet? I'm curious who it was. |
![]() |
|
| apple | May 15 2008, 10:44 AM Post #10 |
|
one of the angels
|
[size=14]omg OMG[/size] [size=14]omg OMG[/size] |
| it behooves me to behold | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | May 15 2008, 10:46 AM Post #11 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
It's a bad ruling, one I hope is overturned. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Mark | May 15 2008, 11:03 AM Post #12 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Where exactly in the US or California State Constitutions does it say anything at all about granting the power of marital permission to any branch and or level of the government? It is a proper ruling. The government does not have the power to regulate marriage. If you want the government to have the power to regulate marriage then you need to ammend the constitution to give it that power. |
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | May 15 2008, 11:06 AM Post #13 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
State governments actually have the power to regulate marriage. The federal government has no such power which is why their attempts at regulating it are always framed as a Constitutional amendment. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Mark | May 15 2008, 11:11 AM Post #14 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Yes, individual states have that power depending on what each State constitution allows. I do not think that the State Constitutions permits the state to determine who can marry who, only that they have the proper license and pay the fee for the license. IOW even the states will need to amend their own constitution to permit the denial of license based on gender of the couple. |
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | May 15 2008, 11:20 AM Post #15 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
So what's the story with California's Proposition 22? It wasn't a California state constitution amendment then? What was it?
|
![]() |
|
| Mark | May 15 2008, 11:25 AM Post #16 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
It was a statewide referendum. They need to amend the constitution to stop the pendulum. Which reminds me, Our US Constitution was written to stop another pendulum but apparently those in power could not let that stand so the pendulum swings yet again. Except instead of it swinging back and forth between Anarchy and Tyranny it only swings between two different forms of Tyranny. |
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | May 15 2008, 11:27 AM Post #17 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
What's the point of a statewide referendum in California in this case? What force of law did it carry?
|
![]() |
|
| Mark | May 15 2008, 11:41 AM Post #18 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
It carried the full force until it was ruled unconstitutional. Which is how our system works. Lawmakers ignore or repudiate the constitutions (Fed and State) and hope they will get away with it. Instead of holding up their oath of office to protect and defend the constitution, they are always looking for ways around it. It should be treason to do so. |
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | May 15 2008, 11:44 AM Post #19 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Can you imagine the look on the Founder's faces when told what the California Supreme Court considers marriage to be? Some things were not enumerated in our Constitution because nobody who wrote it could ever conceive of marriage other than the institution they knew it to be. They probably didn't think the next pope would be Jewish, either... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | May 15 2008, 11:55 AM Post #20 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Of course the founding fathers couldn't have thought of everything else. But, hey, they were decent enough to leave a mechanism for us to change the constitution -- peacefully. Oh, the founding fathers weren't all saints either by today's standards... some of them thought slavery was A-OK. The way I look at it, some of the founding fathers' ideas we like and deem reasonable, we keep. Else we change them. |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | May 15 2008, 12:02 PM Post #21 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Some of them also thought slavery wasn't too hot, either. I think it is a mistake to lump the two issues together, in terms of what Congressional perception would have been at the time of the writing of the Constitution. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | May 15 2008, 12:06 PM Post #22 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Just high-lighting the founding fathers' imperfection, and our need to selectively retain, reject, or modify their original ideas, man. |
![]() |
|
| Luke's Dad | May 15 2008, 12:08 PM Post #23 |
![]()
Emperor Pengin
|
Can someone tells me the difference in regards to the State of California's recognition of married couples and their already approved civil unions? It seems a matter of semantics to me. |
| The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it. | |
![]() |
|
| OperaTenor | May 15 2008, 12:11 PM Post #24 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
AFAIK, Ca civil unions do not automatically confer the same rights and privileges as a legal marriage. One must still obtain power of attorney's and such to get to the level of rights built into a legal marriage. Yes, even in California.... |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | May 15 2008, 12:25 PM Post #25 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
You barbarians, you savages, how could you?! (from a resident of enlightened Massachusetts) |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |






I thought you were referring to his current visit to Canada.

Now that would be ironic





4:59 PM Jul 10