Not really Fratching.. But IT rocks

[ExiledV20]

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.

Well, this is a federal ruling on same-sex marriage, at least in how it applies to Prop 8.

[smileyeagle1021]

And of course Smiley is nowhere to be found.

That is because I have been offline all day (okay, so I did facebook mobile on my breaks and did read this online on AP in between calls).
Then after work I got a much needed massage (when the message therapist puts her hands on the small of your back and says 'holy shit' you know that you needed it).
And as happy as I am to see this ruling, which believe me I really am, I know it isn't over yet... this was just one of the first battles in what is going to be a long war.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

That feeling is universal my friend, 'cuz catch this: nothing is ever, ever, over... EVER.

Making the world a better place is a constant battle, and as difficult as it is, we owe it to ourselves and we owe it to the future to fight it as best we can or at least not get in the way. Embrace the suck, and proceed with the knowledge that what you may aide in achieving is by no means permanent, nothing is, but that it's no less important.

[BlaqueKatt]

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."

yup one of my lesbian friends on another forum said something similar*Used with permission from her*:

That's OK fellow LGBT community members. Don't listen to my suggestions. Keep pushing it as GAY marriage and same-SEX marriage, and framing it as a sexual orientation issue rather than a gender equality issue. The important thing is that you showed the breeders how important being GAY is to you, right?

Of course, if any of you would like to see marriage as a legal right for all people, regardless of gender, race, religion, or political affiliation, then perhaps you might CONSIDER my suggestions:

1. Call it same-gender marriage. NEVER same-sex marriage or GAY marriage. You're scaring the homophobes, and sadly, if you want to play politics, you need to learn to soften the blow for the breeders. They'll sign off on gender equality. They'll never sign off on GAY ANYthing.

2. Do not make it about being gay. Make it about being a tax-paying adult who should have the legal right to sign any contract, regardless of your gender or the gender of the others signing the contract with you. Sexual orientation should not be the point of this at all. No matter what you do, you'll never make some people accept you. Deal with it, and make it about the legal contract and not the emotions, sex, or LGBT community.

3. Remind the religious whackjobs that you're not asking for church-sanctioned same-gender weddings. You are asking for a court-sanctioned legal contract that has always been known as a certificate of marriage. It is no different than getting a driver's license or entering into an employment contract when it comes to the law. It's just a legal document; Not a sanctified rite.

4. Encourage the idea that a marriage should be allowed to anyone- even straight people- regardless of the gender of the two people involved. There is no other contract issued by our government that specifies the gender of the participants. If you were denied a business license because you happened to be two women starting a business, instead of a man and a woman, it would be un-Constitutional.

5. You want the slight majority of polite/private homophobes to at least PARTLY side with you? Stop being so GAY it's scary. You know what I mean sisters and Sisters. Stop associating this struggle with the glitter and gloss of GAY pride. Stop asking for the same rights as everyone else while dressed in buttless leather chaps. Stop flaunting it while you're trying to approach an understanding with people who are frightened of your lifestyle. The goal of this issue is not to make them like you, so stop trying. I love my fabulous brothers and sisters, and sister-brothers, and brother-sisters, but damned if some of you don't take the attention-whore thing too far. Nobody respects the rights of a queen in a glittery speedo. Nobody wants to know what you do behind closed doors, and as I stated previously, this is NOT about sexuality. Stop dragging the issue into the GAY jungle, and leave it in the secular courtroom.

6. This MUST be framed as a secular, legal, gender-rights issue. If you make it a sexual orientation issue, then you will continue to lose. It is time to change tactics. This is about the religious right refusing to accept that marriage is a secular legal contract and not a religious rite. That is all there is to it.

7. Finally, if you frame it as a gender rights issue, you can make the way clear for best friends of the same gender to seek marriage contracts for the purpose of next of kin, property rights, taxes, and so on. If you seek equality, then why not make it equality for ALL people regardless of sexual orientation? Procreation is not a condition of a marriage contract. Sex is not a requirement of a marriage contract either (although, as stated by others, it can be grounds for annulment. That could be changed.) A marriage contract should be a bare, cold, legal document. Leave the specifics of the relationship beyond that to the two individuals involved; Their feelings are not a matter of law.

But of course, you'll all continue to make it about GAY pride. You'll march in sparkly spandex pants and tassled pasties. You'll make it about putting your LGBTness in their faces, because you don't really want the legal right to marry. You want the straights to have to accept you no matter how incredibly queer you act, even though you'd shrink away if they brought their fetishes into the public eye like you do.

I've been in GAY pride events where the queens took over and made it a "we love manmeat" event, yet I've never seen a bunch of straight guys marching around in a "we love big titties" parade or a "Real Doll lovers" parade. Why is it that GAY kink is pushed into the streets in an attempt to scare the straights, but straight kink is usually kept behind closed doors.

Well... Except for hentai/yaoi/yuri manga/anime fans, and furries. But we all know the kind of respect they get, don't we?

Until the more outre members of the LGBT community can TONE IT DOWN, we'll continue to lose on this issue.

[The Shadow]

And of course Smiley is nowhere to be found.

Well who knows...he may just be laying low and cooling off a bit after his rabid tirade about going SC on Target employees. Hopefully he's changed his mind on that one.

[The Shadow]

Oops...didn't see smiley's post above.

[Boozy]

Well who knows...he may just be laying low and cooling off a bit after his rabid tirade about going SC on Target employees. Hopefully he's changed his mind on that one.

And of course Smiley is nowhere to be found.

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

Speculating about someone's lack of involvement in a thread is poor form, guys.

Some of us - and this may come as a shock - have a life outside the forum! I know, it's hard to believe. But sometimes real life makes it difficult for us to dive into a debate, no matter how close the issue is to our hearts.

In the future, please respond only to the arguments that have been made by the posters who are have decided to participate.

[HYHYBT]

I just read that the official defendants (the governor and attorney general) have put in a motion not to stay the decision. It's one thing when they kept out of the trial entirely, but their actively siding with the plaintiffs is good to see.

And, if for some reason they get their way on that and there is no stay, if I remember rightly the timing would be convenient for Smiley's wedding to be a legal one if they wish to make it so.

[smileyeagle1021]

HYHBT, that is one that depends, first it depends on how quickly the 9th District Court hears the case, whether or not the 9th District court places a stay during the trial, and what restrictions the state of California is going to place even if there is no stay (I am not a resident of the state, and I know that at least other states require you be a resident in order to be granted a marriage license).

[Mikkel]

(I am not a resident of the state, and I know that at least other states require you be a resident in order to be granted a marriage license).

How long time would you have to stay to be a resident? More important, would Utah have to treat you as a legally married couple if you moved back? Otherwise there isn't much point in staying the minimum time.
Anyway, if forbidding same sex marriages are unconstitutional, Utah will have to follow California some time, I suppose.

[HYHYBT]

Well, it wouldn't do any good in Utah for now... all it would really do would be to make it virtually impossible to divorce.

Probably better to wait at least until the federal government would recognize it (that Massachusetts case).

[Hyena Dandy]

Since the laws violate the Constitution. That's when it became a federal issue.