|
Post by 1dbigjim563 on Jan 29, 2009 0:03:11 GMT -5
For some it's easier to play the professional victim than it is to deal and move on, and I guess if you have too many victims those who revel in it become less unique. Then what do they have left? Oh dear, am I being too sarcastic?
|
|
|
Post by tbgalileo on May 26, 2009 18:39:10 GMT -5
I'm not really surprised. To be honest, the challenge did not have much legal merit. I try to keep in mind that the court did not say that denying gay people the right to marry is a good thing; what they said was that the proper procedures were followed to amend the constitution. It was merely a technical issue in the ruling. This is going to have to be fixed by a ballot repeal of prop 8 or a federal court decision. Public opinion is constantly shifting in our direction on this one, so just hang in there!
But, how WONDERFUL is it that the court did not vacate the marriages that have already taken place! I was truly worried most about this because if they had nullified the marriages, it would have been the most incredible addition of insult to injury.
|
|
|
Post by TheBear on May 26, 2009 20:36:08 GMT -5
I believe the court leaving the current marriages in place sets a very important precedent. For now, it's a partially open door, rather than a door slammed shut. It's a solid stepping stone in the process - actually 18,000 stepping stones of currently MARRIED couples!
And, from what I read about the judicial opinions following their ruling, in my view, there is considerable "invitation" to encourage next year's initiative. In essence, the court ruled they "cannot as a matter of law overrule the voted will of the people, no matter what the court's personal convictions may be." I read an implied "wink wink" as if to say, c'mon... get you act together and WIN this thing!
The climate could again change, of course, but there has been amazing strength in the growth of public viewpoint favoring equal rights in marriage rising from 27% to 48% since 2004 to last November. I believe that trajectory will continue with varying degrees of velocity. Prop 8 was enacted by a slim 52% majority vote. A mere 4% increase in our favor would negate the amendment with the same "overwhelming majority" that is claimed by the side sustained by the court ruling today.
Even since the November election, several more states have now granted equal marriage rights. I believe a vote, if taken today, might be closer to 50-50 and, by next year's initiative, will have a better chance of success.
Have courage. Change may not be instant, but it WILL happen!
Bear
|
|
|
Post by burner on Jun 10, 2009 1:52:28 GMT -5
Let there be no mistake about it. With judges in CA being elected, not appointed, this decision has the stink of politics written all over it. If not it's hard to conceive how the court could NOT consider this a substantial change requiring a "revision" rather than an "amendment" to the state's Constitution.
In May 2008 the court, itself, declared that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution . It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution.
The court ruled that the right of same sex couples to marry was already incorporated in the Constitution. A rational view, not a political one, would dictate that by this very statement any "change" nullifying that right was indeed a "revision" of what existed...requiring approval of the state legislature BEFORE being put before a vote of the electorate. Adding an article to the constitution making the horsefly the state's insect... now THAT would be an amendment!
But really, the court's split decision has opened up a pandora's box. Here is the text of Proposition 8:Full Text of Proposition 8 This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution. This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new. SECTION 1. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act." SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read: SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. The emphasis is mine. With the court's decision that those marriage's performed prior to the passage of Prop 8 are valid, it contradicted the very words of the "amendment" it upheld! And what of those marriages performed in other jurisdictions (MA, Canada etc.) prior to the passage of Prop 8, and recognized by CA under the court's previous ruling? Are THEY recognized? If not, what makes them different than those performed in CA?
This circus is far from over.
|
|
|
Post by hoosiercop on Sept 24, 2009 0:20:29 GMT -5
I wonder if he's trying to tell us something?? Yeah, that is perhaps why some str8 people don't come out in support of us.... Probably now this guy will have to deal with people thinking he's gay. But then again, that's why I'll give him kudos. To state his opinion regardless of what people might think is very honorable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2009 9:02:09 GMT -5
Oh please. I'm so tired of these strait people telling me who I can and can't marry, when they can't even get their marriages to last. I have a niece who gets married so often, she might as well have a wash and wear wedding dress. !!!! Meanwhile, I know of many gay couples that have been together for 20, 40, and even 50 years. We have to try harder than most to make our relationships last because we're not supported by society. And yet. against all odds, many of us stay committed, and stay together. And strait people talk about "the santity of marriage". Oh pleazzzzzzzze, give me a break. !!!!
|
|
|
Post by flblue09 on Sept 24, 2009 9:44:00 GMT -5
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
Section 1. : All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
|
|
|
Post by burner on Sept 30, 2009 2:18:17 GMT -5
When one thinks of the hysteria and paranoia displayed by those who opine that same-sex marriage will destroy "traditional marriage" it is ironic to see statistics showing that Massachusetts... yes MASSACHUSETTS!... has the lowest divorce rate in the country. Maybe the way to reduce divorce among straight couples is to legalize gay marriage nationwide!
|
|
|
Post by flblue09 on Mar 8, 2011 23:58:27 GMT -5
So, let me get this straight, Charlie Sheen can make a "porn family", Kelsey Grammer can end a 15 year marriage over the phone, Larry King can be on divorce #9, Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage, Jesse James and Tiger Woods, while married, were having sex with EVERYONE. Yet, the idea of same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage? Really? Re-post on Facebook, Tweet and the NEW YORK TIMES if you are proud to support equal rights!
|
|
|
Post by bluepride on Apr 1, 2011 15:25:32 GMT -5
Former Police Chief for Marriage Equality Former New York City, Los Angeles, and Boston police commissioner Bill Bratton and his wife, Rikki Klieman, join the New Yorkers for Marriage Equality video series from the Human Rights Campaign, saying the issue is a matter of “safety.” “I believe in law and order,” says Bratton, who won widespread praise for reducing crime statistics in New York City in the 1990s. “I’ve spent my life working to keep communities safe. Marriage equality under the law will make families safer and stronger.” As a law enforcement official, Bratton brings a new voice to the video series, which has mainly featured prominent New Yorkers from the worlds of politics and arts and entertainment. The 30-second spots, which play online and on the city’s Taxi TV, urge viewers to lobby their state lawmakers for marriage equality. Read article and view video here: Former Police Chief for Marriage EqualityAnd.......since it's April fools Day...go to the members area and see the photo of Bratton with some GOAL members from a long time ago!!
|
|
|
Post by TheBear on May 7, 2013 10:09:50 GMT -5
Regular readers of BluePride know that ol' Bear has his causes. This YouTube covers several... health, mortality, SSM... and a dynamic experienced by many LEOs: a life shaped by early familial and societal expectations.
Bear
|
|
|
Post by edmontongreg on May 7, 2013 17:57:15 GMT -5
Thanks Bear, I put a pile of Oreo Cookies and a glass of milk outside your cave. Boo Boo will be over later.
|
|
|
Post by TheBear on May 8, 2013 5:21:25 GMT -5
Thanks Bear, I put a pile of Oreo Cookies and a glass of milk outside your cave. Boo Boo will be over later. LOVE Oreos. Boo Boo is welcome anytime. ;D
|
|
|
Post by edmontongreg on May 8, 2013 17:55:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by TheBear on May 8, 2013 18:45:02 GMT -5
FAAAABULOUS! Uh, wait... was I married to him once?
|
|