Not really Fratching.. But IT rocks

[Kimmik]

But this for Smiley...

See there is reason to hope..

[Greenday]

Oh thank God. The Judicial Branch is showing some common sense.

[Hobbs]

Wait for it. Smiley will find the conspiracy.

[BigGiant]

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples. "

"Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as "the right to same-sex marriage" would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.

Bravo. Some common sense prevails.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I think we can safely call this one a Judicial WIN

[BigGiant]

http://corner.bigblueinteractive.com...&thread=380210

This is a link to a message board I frequent...Big Blue Interactive.

It is a New York Giants (American Football Club) fan site.

So, some football fans are discussing the ruling over there. I think most will be surprised to see that even "jocks" for the most part agree with the ruling.

[draco664]

Bravo California!

[Hyena Dandy]

I approve!

*dances* Here's hoping that continues down the line.

[Kheldarson]

I approve but...

Since when is approval of what constitutes a marriage a federal issue?

[Greenday]

I approve but...

Since when is approval of what constitutes a marriage a federal issue?

When a state makes an unconstitutional law?

[HYHYBT]

Praise God from whom all blessings flow!

Since when is approval of what constitutes marriage a federal issue?

Well, that depends. The federal constitution, specifically the 14th amendment, requires Equal Protection and... oh, what's the other one I keep forgetting... under state laws as well as federal ones. There is nothing in the federal constitution which says "except for marriage." We also have a long-standing federal court precedent, if not that many actual laws, saying that most forms of sex-based discrimination are disallowed. And if you think about it, restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples is, essentially, descrimination based on sex (or possibly gender), no need to bring orientation into it. What I mean is this: if Fred can marry Wilma, but Betty cannot marry Wilma solely because Betty is a woman, then the law discriminates against Betty solely based on her womanhood in exactly the same way that only hiring her as a secretary or whatever for the same reason (rather than, say, qualifications or what jobs are open) would be.

Edit: I read the other day that some people are trying to get the 14th Amendment repealed. Which, sure, would make deportations and such easier and eliminate arguments that you cannot use racial profiling and such... but talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater!

[daleduke17]

And of course Smiley is nowhere to be found.

[Greenday]

And of course Smiley is nowhere to be found.

LOL He knows. I know for a fact he's seen links about this.

[ExiledV20]

I approve but...
Since when is approval of what constitutes a marriage a federal issue?

It becomes a federal issue if a state law violates Due Process and Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment, such as Loving v. Virginia (1967), which struck down anti-interracial marriage laws.

Some fun excerpts from the ruling, which may be found here:

It's the findings of fact that really start to nail down the lid on Prop 8's coffin.
- Finding 54: The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships.
- Finding 55: Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.
- Finding 56: The children of same-sex couples benefit when their parents can marry.
- Finding 60: Proposition 8 reserves the most socially valued form of relationship (marriage) for opposite-sex couples.
- Finding 66: Proposition 8 increases costs and decreases wealth for samesex couples because of increased tax burdens, decreased availability of health insurance and higher transactions costs to secure rights and obligations typically associated with marriage. Domestic partnership reduces but does not eliminate these costs.
- Finding 76: Well-known stereotypes about gay men and lesbians include a belief that gays and lesbians are affluent, self-absorbed and incapable of forming long-term intimate relationships. Other stereotypes imagine gay men and lesbians as disease vectors or as child molesters who recruit young children into homosexuality. No evidence supports these stereotypes.
- Finding 77: Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.
- Finding 78: Stereotypes and misinformation have resulted in social and legal disadvantages for gays and lesbians.
- Finding 79: The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian. The reason children need to be protected from samesex marriage was never articulated in official campaign advertisements. Nevertheless, the advertisements insinuated that learning about same-sex marriage could make a child gay or lesbian and that parents should dread having a gay or lesbian child.

What's really fun about the ruling is how it declares that discriminating against sexual orientation is actually a discrimination against gender itself; you are discriminating against a man marrying a man not because he is homosexual, but because he's marrying a MAN. That puts it on the same level of "You can't be a soldier because you're a WOMAN."

[ExRetailDrone]

I saw something on the news about this. I can only hope that all the appeals that I am sure will occur will lead to a federal ruling in favor of same-sex marriage! It'll be about time.