Progress: California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

[TURBO]

I have no fancy stats to back up my feeelings, just think it's wrong, and sets a confusing example for our childern.

funny your favorite band wheres girly make up and spandex and you are worried about setting a confusing example for your children...haha

the members of KISS are FAR from gay, do you know nothing?

[TURBO]

to me, it just signals one more notch in the belt of an imoral society.

my view on this has nothing to do with religion, or growing up, just doesn't mix with my moral code.

I'm sure you are going to fire a bunch of liberal stuff at me, however, you can't change what is deep inside of someone, and inside of me, it says homosexual marriage is just wrong.


I have no fancy stats to back up my feeelings, just think it's wrong, and sets a confusing example for our childern.

Bigots like you were saying the same things when California was the first to strike down the ban on inter-racial marriage in 1948.

eat poop you judgemental piece of garbage...

[ufojoe]

great news IF you believe in gay marriage Joe...

Believe? This isn't Santa Claus or Jesus. No belief needed. My state just legalized it.
And for the first time in my adult life, I'm proud to call myself a Californian. Right,
Michelle?

to me, it just signals one more notch in the belt of an imoral society.

Yeah, this right here signals the end of society as we know it and a one way ticket to
debauchery...

"We have waited more than 50 years for the opportunity to marry," said Phyllis Lyon, 80, referring to her partner Del Martin, 84.

The couple had been together 55 years and married in San Francisco on February 12, 2004, only to see their union later annulled.

"We are thrilled that this day has finally come."

Face it, Turbo, if I didn't post the link or start the thread and you didn't watch or read the
news, you wouldn't even know this happened. But now that you do, your life will not
be any different. Except maybe you'll see this decision for what it is: the right one.

my view on this has nothing to do with religion, or growing up, just doesn't mix with my
moral code.

And where does your moral code come from? Moses' 19 cousin coming down the mountain
with some new tablets? ;-) You should go research on how homophobia began. Very
interesting. And I'm not addressing that to you in particular. If I find the link, I'll
post it for everybody.

I'm sure you are going to fire a bunch of liberal stuff at me,

Liberal? I didn't know that equal rights was a liberal issue.

however, you can't change what is deep inside of someone, and inside of me,

You're right about that. But IMO, it's based on something that you experienced at a
younger age or were taught. I was anti-homosexual growing up (except for the
girl/girl stuff) and somewhere along the way, I woke up and realized that I was
being homophobic. You get a lot of that attitude in testosterone-filled Long Island,
where I grew up.

So, Turbo, do the girl on girl porno scenes make you sick when you've seen them?
Or, is it just the guy/guy thing that bothers you?

it says homosexual marriage is just wrong.

And as Illuminator alluded to, you might have said the same thing about interracial marriage
when IT was illegal. Lots of people felt like it was "just wrong" and they were wrong.
How do you feel about it?

I have no fancy stats to back up my feeelings, just think it's wrong, and sets a confusing example
for our childern.

Yeah, two people in love who want to get married is very confusing.

It's only confusing if you fail to explain it to your kids in a non-judgmental and un-biased manner:

Son, it happens in the natural world and humans are part of that world. A certain percentage
of animals and humans are just made to love the same sex. Not everybody is like mom and dad.
Gay and lesbians are no different than you and I except men fall in love with men and women
fall in love with women.

So glad the California SC stepped up to the plate. I think the US Supreme Court will do the same
one day. What a great day for the evolution of humanity. Well, for some of us.

I don't think I'm overstating this. It's a huge decision.

[bklynbucs11]

Gay marriage means gay wedding planners... for gay weddings.... in California. Guys, its time to go long any stock related to the wedding industry. Hmm, time to industry plan.

Sorry to lighten the mood. in truth, this is a major step toward humanizing humanity. I think a century-old definition of a term whose very meaning was lost long ago in a sea of "I want half" and "pre-nuptual agreement" can be sacrificed to allow freedom of expression to millions.

[ufojoe]

Good point on the stock. Quick, name a company that will benefit!

[Morgan]

lol orion.

Why shouldn't gay people be as miserable as the rest of us?

Curious if divorce rates will be as high as in hetero couples.

[escobar]

I don't really care about marriage but I am most definitely against gay couples adopting children. That's something that should never be allowed IMO. The moment two men or two women can go into a room and create a child of their own naturally then that is the day they should be allowed to raise children of their own. A man and a woman are necessary to create a child, whether you believe in Jesus, in the big bang theory, whatever, if two people of the same sex were supposed to create and raise children of their own then humans would have been created/evolved differently than we were. I'm sure someone is going to come back with "well with medical/science advances these days two men/women CAN create a child of their own". And to that I say who cares, that is NOT natural. I'm sure scientists can create a half ape half human if they wanted, I'm sure they could create a child with a tail, with gills, with whatever. It doesn't mean it's right or that it's supposed to happen.

[ufojoe]

So my friend's kid, who was conceived by IVF, wasn't natural? I'll make sure they
tell him that.

Gay couples are already adopting children. Have been for a while now. The cat's out of the
bag. Get over it.

Your analogies are very poor.

There are tons of children out there who need a home. And you want to keep gay couples
from adopting them? Thankfully, there are enough people out there who disagree with you.

[ufojoe]

This article points out why gay marriage needs to legalized at a federal level...

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/california-gay-marriage-ruling-not-slam-dunk/story.aspx?guid=4198406F-0153-4B83-A7E7-002A08E0FE24

Gay marriage ruling not a slam-dunk for benefits

Many couples' hassles borne of federal government's lack of recognition

By Kristen Gerencher & Andrea Coombes, MarketWatch
Last update: 9:05 p.m. EDT May 15, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- In a close ruling, California's Supreme Court on Thursday overturned the state's ban on gay marriage, clearing the way for same-sex couples to tie the knot.

But because the federal government doesn't recognize gay marriage and California already has a strong domestic partnership law, the new ruling's nuts-and-bolts impact on gay couples' personal finances is expected to be limited, analysts said. For example, Social Security survivor benefits and Cobra, the continuation of employer health insurance after a job loss or divorce, still apply exclusively to the traditionally married.
     
California's Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the ban on same-sex marriage was discriminatory and not legal. The ruling takes effect in 30 days. Massachusetts is the only other state to allow gay marriages.

By contrast, the federal government defines marriage as only between a man and woman because of the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by former President Clinton in 1996.

Legal experts who advocate for same-sex marriage say the ruling is an important symbolic and cultural victory that could make it easier for employers and health insurers to comply with what California's domestic partnership law already mandates.

"I believe the change in the language and change in status is going to make a genuine difference in people's lives," said Emily Doskow, a Berkeley-based lawyer and co-author of "A Legal Guide for Lesbian and Gay Couples."

Gay couples who register as domestic partners in the state have many of the same legal rights as married straight couples, she said. But the word marriage has more currency because people immediately know what it means.

"There's a lot of meaning in the name, and there definitely have been instances of employers and insurers not respecting what the law says because all their systems and processes are set up for marriage and the words [domestic partnership] don't have meaning," Doskow said. "There's been a lack of compliance simply because of the language."

Doskow helps same-sex couples adopt children and said she's had problems with employers and health insurers that refuse to allow a adoptive mother to get health insurance for her child before the adoption is final as opposed to when the child is placed, which is when the state's insurance code says coverage is to start. Since adoptions can take six months or longer, families often have to scramble to pay for legal fees and an extra health insurance policy for the child in the interim, she said.

"That's the sort of thing you wouldn't have in a heterosexual marriage and most likely you won't have anymore" among gay parents in California, Doskow said.

Tax implications

When it comes to filing taxes, same-sex couples who are already registered as domestic partners will find the court ruling doesn't change much. California law already requires registered domestic partners to file either a "married filing jointly" or "married filing separately" state tax return, said Lynn Freer, president of Spidell Publishing, an Anaheim, Calif.-based publisher of books for tax professionals.

This year for the first time, registered domestic partners were allowed to file joint state income tax returns to California's Franchise Tax Board, Doskow said. But they also had to do separate federal returns as though they were single, creating extra layers of paperwork and expense, she said.

Gift taxes also are problematic, said Lillian Gonzalez, a certified public accountant in Boston.

"Married couples can transfer property between themselves in an unlimited way," she said. But because the federal government doesn't acknowledge the marriage, same-sex couples can give only $12,000 to each other before starting to tap the lifetime gift-tax exemption.

"A lot of same sex-couples enter into the equivalent of prenuptial agreements to try to hold their property in ways that protect them as much as possible from the hassles that come from a lack of federal recognition," Doskow said.

The state Supreme Court's ruling is not expected to end the legal and political battle over gay marriage in California. A group of socially conservative and religious opponents has vowed to collect signatures to try to get a measure on the November ballot that would ban gay marriage in the state constitution. Voter approval on such a measure would overrule the court's decision.

Kristen Gerencher is a reporter for MarketWatch in San Francisco.
Andrea Coombes is an assistant personal finance editor for MarketWatch, based in San Francisco.

[Lamond]

I miss the good old days when whites could only marry whites and blacks could only marry blacks.
Let's just vote on it and try to bring back those laws.

These people are a threat to the fabric of society! It's not a toooomer!

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jwkOsl_2iOFpsbrsdrjnSRYcZynw

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which included the City of San Francisco, were overcome with emotion after the ruling.

"We have waited more than 50 years for the opportunity to marry," said Phyllis Lyon, 80, referring to her partner Del Martin, 84.

The couple had been together 55 years and married in San Francisco on February 12, 2004, only to see their union later annulled.

"We are thrilled that this day has finally come."

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has previously vetoed attempts by lawmakers to legalize gay marriage, said he respected the court ruling and vowed to "uphold its ruling."

"Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

Phyllis is a strange name for a dude.

[MrFreakinMiyagi]

Firts off....... If you aren't gay, then why do you care? How is this an issue for heterosexuals? It does not effect you in any way whatsoever.

There are couples getting married all over the place, who have no business doing so. What is the point in denying marriage to many gay couples that do share a strong love for one another, when there are hetero couples all across this country who are getting married when they really shouldn't be?

[Biggs3535]

That won't happen throughout the country.

Sure it can if it becomes precident. Just a few gay guys in each state files suit.

That's the way the courts work.

We'll see.

[TURBO]

sorry, you can call me anything you want, but I can not get on board with the "marriage" part of gayness...

I have no issues with gays, just don't think they should be allowed to be legally married.

[TURBO]

OK I am old fashioned I guess. Marriage is a union between two adult for the purpose of raising a family. If I didn't have kids or never intended having kids there is no way I would waste my time getting married.

Absolutely no need for gay marriage other than gays desperately wanting to be 'normal', which in the eyes of many they will never be.

yup, agreed...

[MrFreakinMiyagi]

sorry, you can call me anything you want, but I can not get on board with the "marriage" part of gayness...

I have no issues with gays, just don't think they should be allowed to be legally married.

Not thinking that gays should be able to be legally married is having an issue with them.

Why do you care?

How does it affect you in the slightest bit?

If you had your say, would you vote against it?