Don't move to Californication

[buttstroker]

By The Associated Press
Article Launched: 05/15/2008 06:05:42 PM PDT
Some important dates in California's battle over same-sex marriage:
— 1975: Gov. Jerry Brown signs legislation repealing criminal penalties for adultery, oral sex and sodomy between consenting adults.
— 1977: Responding to claims that the state's "gender-neutral" marriage statute left room for gays and lesbians to wed, the California Legislature amends the Family Code to define marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman."
— 1999: The Legislature establishes domestic partner rules giving registered same-sex couples limited rights previously available only to married spouses, including the right to visit each other in the hospital.
— 2000: Proposition 22 further amends the Family Code to state that "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" after passing with support from 61 percent of voters.
— 2000: Legislature grants more benefits to registered domestic partners, including the right to make medical decisions for a partner, the right to use the stepparent adoption process to adopt a partner's children and the right to sue for a partner's wrongful death.
— 2002: Domestic partners given additional rights under state law, including the right to draft wills for each other and to receive copies of each other's birth and death certificates.
— 2003: Gov. Gray Davis signs legislation granting registereddomestic partners nearly all remaining rights and responsibilities available to married spouses under California law. The measure, which took effect on Jan. 1, 2005, requires domestic partners to pay alimony and child support in a divorce.
— Feb. 12, 2004: San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom directs city officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Couples from all over the country line up for the chance to wed. In Sacramento, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, introduces legislation to amend the Family Code to define marriage as an institution arising out of a civil contract between "two persons."
— March 11, 2004: After four weeks of gay marriages and more than 4,000 wedding licenses issued, the California Supreme Court halts San Francisco's same-sex weddings. The city and gay advocacy groups respond by suing to overturn the state's marriage laws.
— May 19, 2004: Lacking support for his gay marriage bill, Leno withdraws it until the next legislative session.
— Aug. 12, 2004: The California Supreme Court voids all gay marriages sanctioned in San Francisco, ruling that the mayor lacked the authority to go against state law. The ruling does not address questions about the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban.
— Dec. 6, 2004: Leno reintroduces his marriage bill, renamed the "Religious Freedom and California Civil Marriage Protection Act," with backing from Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and nearly 30 co-sponsors.
—Jan. 1, 2005: The 2003 Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibilities Act, a law granting gay couples who register as domestic partners nearly all the benefits and obligations afforded married spouses in California, takes effect.
—March 14, 2005: San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer rules that California's law limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.
—April 4, 2005: A state appeals court rules that California's domestic partner law doesn't conflict with a voter-approved initiative defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
—June 29, 2005: The California Supreme Court lets stand a new state law granting registered domestic partners many of the same rights and protections of heterosexual marriage.
—Aug. 10, 2005: The California Supreme Court says it will not immediately decide whether a state ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, leaving the case to a state appeals court.
—Sept. 29, 2005: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, leaving the issue up to voters or judges.
—May 5, 2006: A federal appeals court sidesteps whether it's unconstitutional under federal and state law to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, leaving the issue to state courts to decide.
—Oct. 5, 2006: A state appeals court rules that California's ban on gay marriage doesn't violate the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians, overturning Judge Kramer's ruling.
— Dec. 20, 2006: The California Supreme Court agrees to decide the constitutionality of same-sex marriage ban.
— Oct. 12, 2007: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes a second bill to legalize same-sex marriage, saying voters and the state Supreme Court should decide the issue.
— March 4, 2008: California Supreme Court hears arguments by same-sex marriage supporters and opponents.
— May 15, 2008: California Supreme Court overturns voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for California to become the second state to allow gays and lesbians to marry.

[buttstroker]

California Has More Than 99% Chance Of A Big Earthquake Within 30 Years, Report Shows
... think'n more like 30 days now... look'n forward to fish'n San Joaquin Bay... it'd just be a couple few hours from Vegas

[Bree]

Originally Posted by one-eyed-fatman

So what your saying is our court system is perfect in every decision they make unless we make an amendment to the constitution? Go blow dude. Money plays a big decision in many court cases. Which lawyers putting money in which judges pockets plays a big part on many decisions made in the court system.

Originally Posted by one-eyed-fatman

Who cares if he did? If he did does that mean he's going to save the world? NO. Does that mean he's going to make a difference in politics? NO. Does it mean he has common sense? NO. It just means if he gets into politics he'll suck butt to get where he wants to go in politics which means he'll take money to get where politics takes him. Same old political crap.

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

[Bree]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

10-4 good buddy.
Live and let live...They are not infringing upon my freedoms.

It's about time gays got to experience the joy of divorce court and the full experience of what it means to be American.

[Bree]

BTW Team...

You guys should take some time and read the opinion which is published on the California Supreme Court website. It is quite well argued both for and against. When you read the opinion I think you will see the difference between what a Supreme Court Justice does and what a legislator does.

All in all I am very impressed by the document and the legal reasoning that went into the decision. I think you all will be as well. Those on the opposition side will also see that the issue is not framed in the way that most people reading the newspaper imagine. I won't tell you why here. You will have to read the actual document.

It is a long read... over 170 pages but well worth the time.

[SpringfieldXD.40]

Originally Posted by Pugs

Agreed. The fact of the matter is that we live in a republic in which the rights of EVERYONE, even the smallest minority are protected. That's the difference between a republic and a democracy. In a democracy the majority can oppress the minority. In a republic, even a minority of one is protected from the tyranny of the majority.

WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY!!

We live in a Constitutional Republic that utilizes Democratic processes.

There's a significant difference between the two.

If you don't like homosexual marriages, then don't have one. That's your choice. I know homosexuals (male couples and female couples) who have incredibly loving and stable relationships. I also know homosexuals who are just as messed up as Britney Spears. Britney's hetero and has participated in hetero marriages (or was it just one?). Does that make her marriage(s?) better than a homosexual couple who've been together, supported each other, loved each other, and made each other better people for their entire adult lives?

What about that hetero couple at Wal-Mart with kids they couldn't afford, didn't know how to be a parent to, and were sniping at each other and cussing each other out in front of the kids. Is their marriage more sanctified than some of my friends who've got over a decade plus and truly care about each other?

You don't like homosexual marriage? Fine. Why should you get to define who gets to benefit from the LEGAL (not moral) institution of marriage? Your church doesn't have to perform homosexual marriages. But why should these couples be denied the legal status of a marriage? And don't give me any of that "domestic partnership" and "civil union" crap either; our history is rife with examples of the inequality of "separate but equal."

Marriage is a LEGAL issue not a moral one. Your church, your morality, your personal biases can define the ritual and ceremony and meaning behind it however they want. There are very real LEGAL ramifications to marriage, though.

For instance if either I or my wife dies, our house, cars, etc... automatically transfer to the surviving spouse. If either of my friends die, her widow will receive any property/possessions ONLY if they are willed to her or she can show joint ownership and ONLY after she pays taxes on this sudden "income" that she's received.

Or how about being able to make end of life and other medical decisions? I can do that for my wife and vice versa. A homosexual couple can't.

What about hospital visitation? There numerous cases of one half of a homosexual couple being denied visitation because they aren't "family."

How about health insurance? If my wife or I were to stay at home or be self-employed, we'd be eligible for insurance through the other's employment. This doesn't hold true for a homosexual couple.

How about just filing annual taxes? Or getting a lower rate on car insurance? Or being able to transfer license plates without renewing registration? Or being able to transfer a vehicle without paying that stupid tax? Or any of the other LEGAL rights associated with marriage?

This is a legal issue of one segment of the population being denied legal rights. Denying them the right to marriage is just as discriminatory to denying someone the right to marriage because their skin color differs. That was a legal issue, too. That was struck down by the courts, in spite of the MAJORITY at the time supporting it.

We live in a REPUBLIC. Our REPUBLIC preserves the rights of even the smallest minority. Even when the majority would like to DEMOCRATICALLY oppress them.

The difference between a republic and a democracy is material covered in Sixth Grade Social Studies, people. C'mon!

Excellent post...

[Bree]

That Pugs could have been a California Supreme Court Justice! They argue many of the same points.

[Frenchy]

Agreed...It is well thought out. Your view is skewed when it's your Ox that is being gored.

[yeahYeah]

Thought i disagree 100% with homosexuality and gay marriage, there is an issue aside from the moral one which is the courts overruling what THE PEOPLE SAY.

The courts have become the go-to people for the left to push their agendas. the same thing happened in Massachusetts. The people voted NO, and the govt. told them all to go to hell.

We've got courts run by PC'd radical leftists.

[Bree]

Originally Posted by yeahYeah

Thought i disagree 100% with homosexuality and gay marriage, there is an issue aside from the moral one which is the courts overruling what THE PEOPLE SAY.

The courts have become the go-to people for the left to push their agendas. the same thing happened in Massachusetts. The people voted NO, and the govt. told them all to go to hell.

We've got courts run by PC'd radical leftists.

You didn't read the opinion... did you? If you had, you would realize that what SCOC did has little if anything to do with what Massachusetts did. The people of California already spoke. They passed a domestic partnership law granting the rights of marriage to gays some time ago.

If you had read the opinion you would recognize that this isn't what it was about at all. The issue decided was quite narrow.

So you have simply demonstrated that your accusation of judicial impropriety is utterly baseless since you don't even know what was decided.