California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

[mar5195]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html

[Sazoo]

I just watched a brief video on Yahoo of Ellen announcing on her show that she and Portia DeRossi are getting married now that gay marriage is legal in CA. She seemed really excited and the audience was cheering like crazy. Kind of sweet, IMO. :)

[bookworm]

I think it's the right answer, but I wish they hadn't done it in an election year.

[Delta]

I think it's the right answer, but I wish they hadn't done it in an election year.
Exactly. But really it was Rove who instigated it (the amendment) as a wedge issue in 2004. He's not around this time. But no doubt this is not what Obama wants to be asked about as he's going into Kentucky this weekend.

[Renee34]

Hopefully, it will get turned around again.

[dionysia]

Hopefully, this indicates a turning tide. CT and NJ to follow soon, perhaps? :D

[imagirliegirl]

We know that it's in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable.

Ah, when I read this I had to laugh. Anyone ever know someone who had a mom and dad and still turned out whacked? Show of hands?

Anyway, I really hope this doesn't get turned around again.

[Niobe]

Hopefully, it will get turned around again.

I'm misunderstanding you, right? :confused: You WANT our legislature to waste time, and taxpayers money - which we're really not doing to well with if you haven't noticed - to write ANOTHER bill banning people from getting married, AFTER the State Supreme Court has ruled such a ban unconstitutional? WTF? Even if you don't personally support gay marriage, you can't come up with anything more important for our government to be spending its time on?

I don't get it. I just don't get it. :(

[Ribbit]

Ugh, if gay marriage turns into the hot button issue again for the election this year I'm going to vomit. Religious organizations have all the right in the world to make their own rules about marriage, but it has no place in our government. Even if you believe gay marriage is immoral, it doesn't mean it should be illegal. Lots of immoral things are perfectly legal, and that's the point...we're supposed to have a choice and free will. Trying to force everyone in the country to live up to a certain religious/moral standard is NOT what this country is about (although clearly many think it is). There are so many more important issues our elected officials should be focusing on...the war, our economy, the state of public schools...legislating personal relationships should not be a priority.

[Niobe]

I will only ever support a gay marriage ban IF there is a ban on ALL second marriages as being adulterous. God's rules are God's rules, dammit.

Actually, I STILL wouldn't support a gay marriage ban. Adultery is one of the Ten Commandments. Clearly, God has a much bigger problem with THAT than with gays. ;)

[wendalah]

Ugh, if gay marriage turns into the hot button issue again for the election this year I'm going to vomit.

Ditto. I'm so sick of this issue. The only passion I have for it is how intensely sick I am of hearing about it.

[kedzieb]

I guess after a few years of noticing that Massachusetts didn't explode, other states are realizing it's no big deal for gays to marry.

[Scooter]

I guess after a few years of noticing that Massachusetts didn't explode, other states are realizing it's no big deal for gays to marry.

I think California beat MA to it by a few months, IIRC. Unfortunately, it's spent this long progressing through the courts in CA, though.

I thought I'd heard somewhere that Hawaii was working on this issue, too--anyone know?

[dionysia]

CA just passed this law, MA's has been in effect since May '04.

[phoenics]

Please, PLEASE don't let this turn into an issue for this election. I just paid 4.15 a gallon for gas this morning.

[Scooter]

CA just passed this law, MA's has been in effect since May '04.

Yeah, I know, I was just saying that the SF mayor started allowing it in Feb '04, which was before it passed in MA. It's not even a big deal, it's just that CA hasn't been waiting for 4 yrs to see how it works out in MA first before making the change.

[mrschica]

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the crotch issues myself, at least not in politics.

[phoenics]

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the crotch issues myself, at least not in politics.

:D Now that is a funny way to put it, lol.

[dionysia]

Yeah, I know, I was just saying that the SF mayor started allowing it in Feb '04, which was before it passed in MA. It's not even a big deal, it's just that CA hasn't been waiting for 4 yrs to see how it works out in MA first before making the change.

Yikes, ok.

[j*east]

I thought I'd heard somewhere that Hawaii was working on this issue, too--anyone know?

I thought so too, but according to my more-informed sister, they have civil unions, which aren't the same.

Wikipedia:
Massachusetts has recognized same-sex marriage since 2004, and California since May 15, 2008, though this only affects state law; the U.S. federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages in Massachusetts or California as being marriages under federal law, by means of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, and New Hampshire have created legal unions that, while not called marriages, are explicitly defined as offering all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state (though not federal) law to same-sex couples. Maine, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, Oregon and Washington have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions.

Wow, that's more than I thought...yahoo! (Although a "civil union" is NOT the same as a marriage.)

[PinkMartini]

though this only affects state law; the U.S. federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages in Massachusetts or California as being marriages under federal law, by means of the Defense of Marriage Act.

I'm confused... What does that mean? When you get married in Ca/Ma as a same sex couple, you're only considered married IN Ca/Ma? :confused:

[Niobe]

I'm confused... What does that mean? When you get married in Ca/Ma as a same sex couple, you're only considered married IN Ca/Ma? :confused:

Pretty much. So much for the Republican Party and respect for state's rights. :rolleyes:

[j*east]

Pretty much. So much for the Republican Party and respect for state's rights. :rolleyes:

Yup, and thus no federal tax benefits.

[dionysia]

Yup, and thus no federal tax benefits.

Including a tax break on Section 125 benefits (e.g., health insurance premiums).