Gay Marriages: San Francisco California Superior Court Ruling

[dannubis]

morons ?



it gives away your feelings for religion...

[DeathByTheSword]

damn i mean mormons...right?

[MarkG]

what's the difference between the superior and the supreme court?

[DinoDoc]

One has the final say in this case and the other one doesn't.

[MarkG]

and what about their members?

[DinoDoc]

They are different.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
i already asked this in a another thread...is it true that morMons or some other religion is allowed to marriage one or more partners?

Officially, no, unless you belong to one of the splinter churches. De facto the church allows it, unless there's a lot of media attention, in which case they crack down on an especially egregious case or two in order to be seen as doing something.

The only real problem I have with Mormon polygamy is that, especially in the splinter sects, these marriages are often incestuous and coerced. Frequently cousins and nieces are forced to marry other cousins or uncles, often when they are as young as twelve. When it's a practice between consenting adults, I've no problem with it.

[DeathByTheSword]

so they are not marriaged by the state? and it isnt legal...hmz...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
so they are not marriaged by the state? and it isnt legal...hmz...

Correct. Polygamy is illegal in 49 states. Interestingly enough, it is legal in New York, in a back door way. In NY, it is not illegal to be married to more than one person. It is illegal to get married to more than one person. The statute of limitations is five years, so if you can escape justice for that long, viola!

[Ned]

Before I comment, I will read the decision itself. I was impressed by the fact that the judge was a Catholic Republican appointee, just like the Mass. Supreme Court justices who earlier ruled on this issue. Republican Catholic judges seem to be taking the lead on this issue, which belies the smears of opponents of gay marriage that the issue is being driven by looney leftist judges.

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/glrts/inremarriage31405opn.pdf

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Oerdin
To be fair the state goverment repeatedly proved they were to partisan and/or incompetant to be trusted with the funds. They kept cutting education to pay for junk special interest programs so voters passed a law saying 40% of income must be spent on education. In order to save those pet projects the politicians continually raised property taxes until they were through the roof so voters passed a law which capped property taxes at a certain percentage and made it require a 2/3 majority in order to raise taxes.

True, the government under several governors has mismanaged funds quite a bit, but the system should at least be receptive to good governance, if we ever get it. With so much of the budget tied up in voter-initiated programs, there's not really even a chance that a good government could potentially solve this thing. Though I think a higher majority for raising taxes would be a good thing, certainly.

I don't think some republicans are so bad; what I don't get is the seemingly neurotic obsession with lowering taxes. It seems to defy all sense to cut taxes when confronted with a massive revenue shortfall. I may never understand exactly why the governor cut the car tax as his first act in office... well, I guess I do, it was a campaign promise.

[Ned]

I've now read the opinion. I think it is well written and fundamentally correct. The greatest problem the traditionalists have in justifying opposite sex marriage is illustrated in the two paragraphs beginning at page 22, line 15. There the asserted reason of "procreation" for justifying the gender classifications distinctions is rebutted by the observation that the ability to procreate is not required for opposite sex couples.

I think a constitutional amendment is probably the only way to keep traditional marriage.

[Ned]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
I don't think some republicans are so bad; what I don't get is the seemingly neurotic obsession with lowering taxes. It seems to defy all sense to cut taxes when confronted with a massive revenue shortfall. I may never understand exactly why the governor cut the car tax as his first act in office... well, I guess I do, it was a campaign promise.

cyclotron7, I have no idea why this thread got into Republican bashing as the Judges who have been writing these opinions both in Mass. and in California are Republicans.

[Ned]

C, as to taxes, the Republican urge to lower taxes (particularly tax rates and other taxes that amount to social engineering) is a reaction to the Dems mania for raising them not just to fund governmental programs, but to conduct social engineering, i.e, socialism.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

states rights *****es.