Chico, sounds like you're already prepared for the new, marriage-equal California.  You're all set.

 IF you don't like same-sex marriage, then dint enter one, dint attend one  ~sfinbaston

OK  -- I dint. Won't either........................

Aud -- my  "bull" is a Holstein Cow..................

About as  "macho" as the momma llama I just found drug onto our property by someone who had used it as a pinata, stabbed it fulla holes, tied hindquarters off with barb wire, drug it with what looks from tracks to me like an ATV, and dumped it down one of our gulches....... for me to find.....

Never had a damn llama on our place EVER........... makes me wonder lots of things....... not the least of which -- who would do such a thing -- blood and snot still comin outa nose, but long enough dead ta start bloatin up already......... I'll find out who did it...... you betcha............... not happy here.........

Man is nothing if not a mammalian constantly seeking to lower my expectations thereof.......................

Nancy, did you know that here is MA the original request was for DP laws which were denied for over 2 decades? The state reviewed the lawsuit and said it was unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to marriage. Since same-sex couples have been having their relationships recognized by the state, now well over 50% support the civil right for same sex couples to marry. Civil Unions don't equal marriage, business don't recognize them and they are viewed as inferior to marriage.

Now for the rest.

Separate is not equal and denying fellow citizens their rights is un-American. 

This fight is not about religious marriage, it is about civil marriages provided by the state, please don't confuse the two!

This does not affect anyone but those who are getting married, this does not take away from anyone else's marriage.

IF you don't like same-sex marriage, then don't enter one, don't attend one.

The judges did not create law but ruled that the initiative passed by the voters was un-constitutional.

 BTW: What does it take to change the state constitution? Is it simple majority or super majority? Here is MA it take two consecutive legislator sessions votes and then goes to the citizens to vote on.

Are you willing to write discrimination into the state Constitution? What other groups are you willing to go after and deny rights too?

For reading on laws against marriage go to the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

http://www.foxreno.com/news...

Judge Overturns Controversial SF Hand Gun Ban

A state trial judge sided Monday with the National Rifle Association in overturning a voter-approved city ordinance that banned handgun possession and firearm sales in San Francisco. Measure H was placed on the November ballot by the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors, who were frustrated by an alarmingly high number of gun-related homicides in the city of 750,000. The NRA sued a day after 58 percent of voters approved the law. In siding with the gun owners, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge James Warren said a local government cannot ban weapons because the California Legislature allows their sale and possession. "My clients are thrilled that the court recognized that law-abiding firearms owners who choose to own a gun to defend themselves or their families are part of the solution and not part of the problem," NRA attorney Chuck Michel said. "Hopefully, the city will recognize that gun owners can contribute to the effort to fight the cri

So here's where the law is: People voted to pass a law that is against the Constitution.  The courts said, "If you want this law, you need to change the Constitution."  Now there are groups getting ready to put a measure on the ballot to do just that.  The court did not make law nor did they overturn law.  They pointed out that in the absence of a Constitutional discrimination clause, the state can't act against the equal rights of people who want to get married.

Chico

I should have realized the difference.  Your bull is more macho than Chica's steer.  

Thought you might be the inventor..........

Well, if anything..it should make for some interesting programming on ' Divorce Court '....just have those airline barf bags handy...

To all those wondering about my screen name, I can assure you "ghile" has absolutely nothing to do with "file suit" or camouflage or snipers. It just so happens to be my real name ...

And Nancy, I hope you mean when they don't sound like me that they sound like wannabe literary talentless types or merely pure talentless socialistic system suckabee's........

My oh my, what if some of these  "professors" at colleges today had to really contribute something of substance to the good of the order?

Something you could eat, drink, wear, count on (viz cops, firemen), drive, ride, etc.

They trade in BS................ pure Dee BS!

Obama............. can you hear me???????????   (your minions are minioning.........)

 Professors unite! If you cannot do, make, craft, fashion, etc.......... TEACH! (and then if you can't even do that right........... become a TH on TV............ it helps here if you're a minority group though.......... hmmmmmmmmmm............ I wonder if this is why white males are becomeing gay????? Now they can be a protected class?? Make money from it? Its not good enough in the halls of academe now to just be a flaming lib...... you have to flame IRL as well................

Chico..I didn't notice the one who mispelled the last name.  Cripes, now I have two to watch out for.  I've learned when it doesn't sound like you to look closer at the name.  Pain in the arse it is but something one must do.

Peddlers fair was good, BBQ Pit Beef very mediocre and a bit tough to my disappointment.  It's always been good in the past.  Not bad weather as long as one stayed in the shade.  All I spent was on food.

Audrey, were you there?  I thought I saw you and a redhead but they got away from me. 

Oooops again..of topic once more.

Right on OB............ send in the clowns

I can hear ol blue eyes singin it now when they post...........  ;=)

BTW, I meant to axe if you have used the new simushot or whatever the call it. It is a shooting simulator that shoots back!

Its quite an experience. sight picture - trigger control! Its amazing what you do under pressure. I think both SO & PD down there are getting it!

I thought the ghile suit was a play on our languages use of gh as a ' f ' sometimes. Making it "File suit".  Active imagination I guess.

Chico, you said clones. Didn't you mean clowns?

Nancy -- I have two clones on here ......... not sure what it is about me that makes people want to shadow me around, copy my style, emoticons, etc.

Were the clones to have a little more talent, it wouldn't be so bad .... kind of flattering even.

While the Chica with a C (in Esquela) is a little brighter than the one with the Q (the one Nancy mistook for me in the past), the difference is like that between a kernel of corn or a peanut embedded in fecal matter --  does it really matter which is which? The basic premise (medium in this case) renders the original object tainted and of no consequence.

I believe the original was Got Reality from CSUB who was highly offended for my outing of socialistic professors who have learned how to navigate the environs of academe but contribute nothing of substance to society. Either a staunch defender of the radio personality  "Dr." Mark Martinez (again relevant to the net worth to society thingy) or the good net worthless  "Dr." himself. 

Again, peanut or corn? Who cares? 

Pawn.  Thank you for answering for HRM.  Clarification is always nice.

Temptation, temptation.  ;)

http://gaylife.about.com/od...

So every other state in the "57" (snicker) is in violation of the constitution except these three?  Whoa..except, except,  New Jersey where it is a CIVIL UNION with the same rights as marriage.  I doubt it's occurred to many that if the movement would change their requests for equal rights to Civil Union, instead of Marriage, most people wouldn't blink a eye.

Keep pounding that shoe on the podium...alienate as many people as possible.

Oooops..I said I was through with this.  Sigh...I was wrrr...wr....wrrrooo...

He is talking about the commandments of Christ, Matthew 22:38-39.

About the topic itself, I really don't understand the problem.  Just let people marry as their beliefs allow.  We have enough problems facing our country without deliberately creating problems and friction for one another.

HRM...The Ten Commandments were in the Old Testament before Christ made his appearance.

Not commenting on the topic..just trying to keep it accurate.

We need to protect the civil rights of all~ otherwise it's what you cherish that they will come after next. Because a majority of people believe in something does not always make them correct~ does not always make them wrong either.

I am starting to agree with TomW.The State has no business with "marriage" at all.Civil,religious or otherwise.

Apparently, the full meaning of my post was lost on those commenting upon it.

While this particular topic is whether same-sex marriage should be legally acceptable, the greater question is: Does a judicial body have the right to create law or is their sole job to interpret law?

California judges seem quite comfortable in routinely invalidating the will of the people to accomplish a narrow political agenda. I find this judicial trend disturbing. Whether it is same-sex marriage, immigration or the death penalty, the judicial bench has no business creating law - that is the job of the legislature (and in California, the people's job via ballot initiative).

There has been a comparison made between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage. While disingenuous, it begs the question:

Do people's mores change over time?

Certainly - It is quite possible twenty, thirty or forty years from now, peoples mores may change to accept what is now unacceptable - whether it is same-sex marriage, illegal immigration, inter-species sex or a myriad of other currently unacceptable behaviors - but for this moment in time, as it pertains to same-sex marriage, the people's will is crystal clear - and by a narrow vote 4 to 3 vote, California’s Supreme Court has invalidated the will of California voters.

While this particular vote will make a small, albeit vocal segment of society quite happy, there is grave danger in blindly supporting judicial law-making simply because the hot-button-topic of the day is one you happen to support.
It is easily conceivable a group of judges could vote to strip you of rights or property because it serves their narrow political agenda. Without voices of opposition and outrage what is to stop them? History shows the Hitler’s and Stalin's of this world actually broke no laws in their country - their courts blindly supported their horrific actions by legislating from the bench to accomplish a political end.

I urge you to think of the broader implications of California's judicial excesses.

Paxchrist wrote: As for RF, how about you growing up and following Christ's advice to "go and sin no more"?

Pax - how about you do exactly what Christ said and "Love your neighbor as yourself", which is the second commandment of Christ, the first being "Love the Lord, your God..."

and in case that's too difficult a concept for you to understand, I'll quote everything Christ said about homosexuality for you: ""

That's right, not a single word is attributed to Christ on the subject, which was well known during his lifetime. Saul/Paul, on the other hand, had a lot to say about it, but he wasn't one of Christ's chosen disciples...

As for the actual ruling, it's about time, and congratulations to the folks who can now be legally wed to the partner of their choice in California. I have small hopes that Washington may some day join them.

Audrey, I don't know who it is but ChicA is usually a feces disturber more than a contributor.  I didn't notice and responded to him/her instead of ChicO.  I was surprised at what I thought was a ChicO remark...wasn't like him at all...and was chastised for not noticing the difference.  LOL.  You know me, I'm sensitve and shy so I slunk off with my proverbial tail between my legs.

I doubt it, Audrey. 

Ahhh Nancy

Is Chica PF?

May it last much longer for Ellen and her beloved than Britney's marriage to Jason Alexander did.  I hope they both wear white.

Yeah,same girlfriend that Steve Martin will not speak about,and now she is currently getting divorced,,,but have you seen Portia de Rossi? Mr.Sage went into mourning when he found out what her sexual preference was( to be honest,he did not stand a chance!)lol 

Ellen sure knows how to pick them..didn't one of her ' girlfriends ' miss her spaceship??? And which one is going to wear the suit and which one has the nerve to wear white??

Ellen DeGeneres to wed after gay marriage ruling

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Comedian and talk show host Ellen DeGeneres plans to marry her long-time partner, actress Portia de Rossi, after a California court ruling allowing gay marriage.

"I am announcing I am getting married," DeGeneres, 50, told the audience during the taping of her "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" on Thursday. The show was due to be broadcast on Friday.

To wild cheers and a standing ovation, DeGeneres said she was very excited at Thursday's ruling by the California Supreme Court overturning a state ban on gay marriage.

http://www.reuters.com/arti...

Audrey...a suggestion that I learned the hard way.  Look for the name difference.  ChicO vs ChicA.  Fun and games uh?  lol.

ChicoEsquela, wrote: "ghile suit?"

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

We'll see what the couples think once they start going through costly divorces.  That should be interesting.

If we did the right thing and stopped minding everyone else's business, I'd like to see some of that unused attention spent on inflation, too.  Inflation at 5%, they say?  Bunk.  Many of my food items have jumped 15-20% since Jan 1 alone, and I expect to see food price inflation finish the year at 35% or worse.

Right now, the best place to invest your money so that it won't lose value is in your pantry.

Everyone should stop concentrating on same sex marriages, if everyone would put the same concentration on high oil prices maybe we would not be paying almost 4 dollars for a gallon of gas. People think this is such a big sin, but everyone else in bakersfield is either raising each other kids, sleeping with one another, and wanting more than what there neighbor has. Am I wrong, but last time I checked all of these fall under the same category as same sex marriages - sins. A sin is sin and no one in this town is any better than gay people. We are all guilty of being sinners. Wake up people and really look at the reality of things.

Honestly, I am more worried about just shooting & hunting than self protection.

But for most, I imagine the  "self protection thingy"  is paramount

Chico, you shouldn't really worry too much. Support for gun ownership is pretty overwhelming. I personally could not care less. I've never needed a gun and I don't think it would really help me much if someone were to break into my house. But if you want one to protect yourself and your family then that's your business. Bans against gun ownership are still considered unconstitutional and if challenged, would be overturned by the Supreme Court (California or US). Inequality for citizens because of sexual orientation is still considered unconstitutional and if challenged, would be and was overturned by the Supreme Court of California. I know the whole gun thing is off-topic but seriously, if I were you I wouldn't worry about it. They may outlaw ordinary citizens from owning machine guns or other types of guns that are unecessary for protection but handguns and other types of guns won't be outlawed for a long time if at all. If put to a popular vote, gun owner rights would win.

ghile suit?

Ah, ChicoEsquela, it's only "judicial activism" when the decision goes against you! It's like being for state's rights, except when you need activist federal judges to create new law in Bush v. Gore.

266 comments on this topic? Unbelievable. Don't you people have something more important to worry about?

{sigh}  I don't give a sierra hotel early morning bowel movement about gay marriage myself (as previously stated)

As with many activist judge's pronouncements, there are always unintended consequences. Actually I don't care too much about most of them either.

What I DO care about is judicial activism, especially under pressure from certain segments of the populace. When this is allowed to bleed over into areas I DO care about (like gun & ammo rights) then I don't want to be the proverbial frog in the now boiling water who did nothing whilst the heat was being turned up.

There is already mucho pressure being brought to bear (by environmentalists [lead bans], anti-violence groups [with misguided agendas and misleading stats], etc.) on manufacturers, retailers, etc. to just 86 the doing of business in this regard in the state of CA -- too expensive -- too much  "paperwork"........

Not trying to be  "off topic"  here, but I can see where this kind of thinking-activism is leading -- AND I DON'T LIKE IT!

And yes, other than sfinbaston, it probably doesn't directly affect many on here. The more prescient issue of judicial activism does however!

Equal protction. Article 1, section 7(a) of the California Constitution provides "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws." The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution provides  "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It is interesting that no one here has been able to answer the questions I posed: (1) how does same sex marriage damage the institution of marriage, and (2) what are the specific teachings of Jesus that label homosexuality a sin? As to the first question, the supreme court couldn't find a reason that would satisfy the strict scrutiny necessary to justify treating people differently, either. That's why they ruled as they did.

As to the Jesus question, allRED did refer to Paul (but not to any specific passages in his letters). I do agree that, in one sense, Paul would not have encouraged same sex marriage. Of course, Paul would not have encouraged opposite sex marriage, either. He believed that the second coming of Christ was imminent and was pretty much against anything that might change the status quo.

I realize that it's unlikely many minds will be changed by this exchange. What I have hoped to accomplish was the notion that these kinds of theological issues are not at all black and white and that not all Christians think alike. Hopefully, what people will take away from this discussion is the idea that they need to take a closer look at what they are talking about. 

What does this do except try to destroy marriage?   Funny, I don't feel like my marriage is destroyed because someone wants to marry same sex.   Wow, such power.  Where can I get that?

I find it interesting that so many people make this a personal issue.  Does it really affect anyone personally in their own home if a man decideds he wants to marry another man?  Or a woman another woman?  Does it raise your taxes? Does it make you pay more at the fuel pump?  Does it take away from your childs education?( which is a totally different topic all together.)   Does it really give anyone the right to "judge" other people and their beliefs?  Where in the bible does it say we here on earth have the right to judge other people?  Just because some one is gay/lesbian doesn't mean they are not God fearing and are not God loving!  Many, many gay/lesbians are.    I find it interesting that the bible thumpers of the world who preach and preach to everyone are infact the  most hypocritacal of all mankind and do more judging than God himself.  What gives them the right?

When a gay marriage affects your life to the point you can no longer function, then I say the issue is with you personally, not the gay world.   When you can stand next to a person in line at the grocery store and can say, with out actually knowing if the person if gay or not, or gay and married, that he/she made your life unbearable because they were married to the same sex then let me know.  Because I'm quite sure that you will never know, unless they tell you and I'm quite sure the average person does not go around announcing their sexual preference/marriage status, that the person next to you is gay/lesbian.  Get off your high horse, your stack of bibles and just go on about living your life instead of butting into someone elses life.  Church and state need to be separated yet again.  One has nothing to do with the other.  Since when does the "majority" have the right to tell you who you can marry and who you can't!!!  Seems to me if that were the case we could just go back to arranged marriages. 

There, chew on that. 

Peace to all

Chico

Whenever  I take an aptitude test, I always do best on abstract reasoning.  Therefore when I see an issue like this one, where there's two entities involved (church and state)  I try understand  how the pieces are are related or unrelated.  The answer seems crystal clear ot me.

The US constitution has held that there shall not be collusion between the church and the state to bring about laws or the enforcement of existing laws.

And since the argument against homosexual marriages is basically a religious *one,  it's clear that to deny homosexuals their right to marry would be an infringment of the separation of church and state.

*  Nancy's argument that it's a biologically unnatual state comes under a different heading. I guess.

Guiding posters to the real issues.in this matter

I'll let the sludge bubble awhile, then come back.....................

c vs q?

noted yesterday

BTW, the question was more rhetorical than ministerial. Read ruling already.

Unintended consequences of legalistic only rulings catering to pressure groups I'm more interested in................

Look at my ID closely.  I'm on your side.

Here's the ruling: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov...

Start at page 9.  It's thorough and detailed in explaining its Constitutional basis.