WE CAN GET MARRIED NOW!!!!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2010 8:51 PM GMT
    Prop 8 has been overturned at exactly 1:30pm today, its been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
    The Wedding Gold Rush begins!
    Somebody marry me, lol!!!! icon_biggrin.gif
  • yankeesblazer...

    Posts: 243

    Aug 04, 2010 8:57 PM GMT
    I am SO glad to hear this...I knew it was unconstitutional all along. When the Supreme Court ruled that a law banning interracial marriage was unconstitutional a long time ago, I realized this should be the avenue the lawyers should take. I was even more convinced when I read the decision:

    The crux of the argument was that it was unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage because a person couldn't choose his or her race. So, logically, if a person can't choose his or her sexual orientation or gender, it would follow that it would be illegal to ban same sex marriage.

    Obviously this is a very simplified way of putting it, but I just wanted to cut to the chase. I am so thrilled that the ruling turned out this way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2010 9:21 PM GMT
    I wish well to all those who will make use of this decision!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2010 9:23 PM GMT
    It is good news but it will just be over turned by the supreme court.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2010 9:24 PM GMT
    OMG>>>>> wedding bells..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2010 9:30 PM GMT
    Yay, but, the decision was made by a federal district judge, and will go on appeal to the Ninth federa circuit court in San Francisco and then to the US Spreme Court. Be optimistic!
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Aug 04, 2010 9:30 PM GMT
    The judge stayed the decision in terms of allowing anyone to get married yet. People will not be able to get married right away.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2010 9:43 PM GMT
    HIP HIP HOOOORAAAAAAYYYYY!!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2010 9:49 PM GMT
    antelope saidYay, but, the decision was made by a federal district judge, and will go on appeal to the Ninth federa circuit court in San Francisco and then to the US Spreme Court. Be optimistic!




    What 3 - 5 years from now?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2010 9:51 PM GMT
    Alpha13 saidTrust me you don't want to get married. It is not worth the "free insurance " coverage that guys seem to thinking is so important. What you save in insurance will be spent on the divorce lawyers.


    To me, I dont really care about marriage like that. I am just happy that people like me are able to do what ever they want to do if it makes them happy and arent hurting anyone and want to make that commitment - This is a free country and the constitution needs to be without bias.
  • EricLA

    Posts: 3461

    Aug 04, 2010 9:51 PM GMT
    I'm now accepting applicants.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2010 11:10 PM GMT
    I need a tux!

    Tom Ford, I need to order a couple of tuxes from you please....

    icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2010 11:13 PM GMT
    THANK GOD!!! Woohooo....it's time to shop at Tiffanys!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2010 11:41 PM GMT
    Forgive me. But was prop8 not put to a referendum, and the voters of CA voted yes to it. How can a judge from a low court overrule the will of the people. lets not forget when you put something to a vote more times than not you have a winner and a looser.

    Being an Aussie I myself am all for referendums. The last one we had we voted in Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, as our Head of State, instead of becoming a Republic; thank God for that, as how many republics are ruled by a dictator. yet the losers are still not happy and whinge, and mown, and want it over turned. Yet the will of the people have spoken, and no Judge from a low court can over turn that.

    But I will feel sorry for the guys who Rush out, and then one day find out it is all gone, Coz America is a christian Country and the roots of "marriage" are in religion. If only you had gone for Civil Unions, I'm sure this would not be still an issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2010 11:43 PM GMT
    Move to Canada... problem solved.
  • EricLA

    Posts: 3461

    Aug 04, 2010 11:49 PM GMT
    pattison saidForgive me. But was prop8 not put to a referendum, and the voters of CA voted yes to it. How can a judge from a low court overrule the will of the people. lets not forget when you put something to a vote more times than not you have a winner and a looser.

    Being an Aussie I myself am all for referendums. The last one we had we voted in Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, as our Head of State, instead of becoming a Republic; thank God for that, as how many republics are ruled by a dictator. yet the losers are still not happy and whinge, and mown, and want it over turned. Yet the will of the people have spoken, and no Judge from a low court can over turn that.

    But I will feel sorry for the guys who Rush out, and then one day find out it is all gone, Coz America is a christian Country and the roots of "marriage" are in religion. If only you had gone for Civil Unions, I'm sure this would not be still an issue.


    You are forgiven. Because, as an Aussie, you are not an expert in California let alone US law. Below is some of the analysis on Judge Walker's decision, provided by Are Ezra Waldman, a graduate of Harvard, College and Harvard Law School. I hope you don't mind if I defer to his interpretation over yours:

    When the decision of a trial judge like Judge Walker goes up on appeal, his legal conclusions are reviewed by the appellate court de novo, or "from the beginning." That means that Judge Walker can conclude that Prop 8 violated the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process clause for this or that reason, but appellate judges are not bound by his conclusions. However, Judge Walker's factual findings -- such as the effect of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts or statistics on thriving children of same-sex couples -- must be accepted by the appellate court unless they are "clearly erroneous." A clearly erroneous finding of fact is looking up at the sky, seeing it is blue and having a weatherman tell you it's blue, but concluding that the sky is, indeed, red. We do this because it was Judge Walker who heard the evidence and evaluated the trustworthiness of the witnesses with his own two eyes.

    Judge Walker's factual findings are breathtaking, if only for their sheer depth. From page 54 to 109, Judge Walker lays out his findings, eviscerates the testimony of anti-marriage equality experts and emphasizes the long list of statements where Prop 8 opponents conceded their factual case. In my years as an appellate litigator, I have never seen a factual record as detailed and well-documented as this. My compliments to Judge Walker and his clerks.

    Let me highlight a few striking points here:

    1. This case is about civil marriage. Religious belief has no place here.

    Right off the bat, Judge Walker found that "[m]arriage in the United States has always been a civil matter" (p. 60, para. 19). The pen is indeed mightier than the sword. We watched with dismay, anger and frustration as Prop 8 supporters screamed that marriage equality laws would forces churches and synagogues to cosecrate relationships contrary to their liturgy. In one line, Judge Walker does away with this nonsense. What we are dealing with here, he states, is civil marriage. After all, it is the "[c]ivil authorities [who] may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter to leave a civil marriage." (p. 60, para 19). The supremacy of civil marriage takes this conversation out of the church and onto the town square.

    2. Marriage is a state of commitment, not a construct in which to have children.

    Just as important is Judge Walker's findings about the nature of marriage. "Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple's choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents" (p. 67, para. 34). Absent from this definition, based on extensive citations to evidence offered at trial, is marriage based on procreation or gender-specific roles. A marriage is a partnership based on deeply held emotional love and, as an institution, channels benefits to the married couple, their dependents and society at large. What's more, each of those benefits -- facilitating order, creating a realm of intimacy, creating stable households, providing children with support structures, assigning caregivers, facilitating property ownership and incentivizing healthy behaviors -- exists irrespective of the gender and sexual orientation of the married couple (pp 67-71).

    3. Same-sex couples are just like opposite-sex couples.

    The entree to these appetizers came later. Judge Walker found that "[s]ame-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love to do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex" (p. 77, para. 4icon_cool.gif.

    And on the seventh day, he rested.

    Seriously, though, this profound description of equality is at the heart of the marriage equality movement. Judge Walker cites Prop 8 supporters' admissions at trial that gay partnerships are loving and commitment and that the capacity to commit and love "does not depend on the individual's sexual orientation" (p. 77, para. 48(d)). We are all the same and we all deserve to be treated as such.

    4. Domestic partnerships insufficiently recognize those relationships.

    Since marriage is not merely an economic union, or a procreative one, for that matter, domestic partnerships that assign certain economic benefits of marriage to nonmarried cohabitants is a separate, unequal and insufficient substitute. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States" (p. 80, para. 52).

    Judge Walker recognizes that we do not want to marry the loves of our lives for the joint tax return or the propsect of doubling our wardrobes. That might be part of it, but it's not the whole story. Citing expert testimony about the cultural importance tied to marriage, Judge Walker finds that marriage is greater than the sum of the economic rights associated with it. And, since same-sex couples are no different in their love and commitment than opposite-sex couples, there seems to be no reason to exclude them from this institution.

    In the end, it is hard to accept these facts and not conclude as Judge Walker did. Nothing here is clearly erroneous and any appellate court will be hard-pressed to upset any of these factual findings.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2010 11:50 PM GMT
    OMG I WANNA GET MARRIED NOW
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2010 11:55 PM GMT
    Great news guys!

    I realize this is not the last word as many have already pointed out; however, it is reason to celebrate. Bask in the victory and get ready for the next phase.

    Let's not grow complacent. Support the effort in any way you can.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 12:14 AM GMT
    Although I don't disagree with gay marriage, the people of California spoke and voted on an issue and won, despite how you felt about the people of California voted on the issue, one has to weigh the courts decision with all decisions that are left up to the people to decide.

    What will be the implications of this ruling outside of the marriage issue? The field of Economics tells us that there are always positive and negative outcomes from any action.

    PLEASE don't take this as an anti-gay marriage stance, cause it is not. Just looking at the over all implications of this, outside of the gay marriage issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 12:34 AM GMT
    Keith773 saidNow all we have to do is learn how to

    ask a guy out on a DATE instead

    of surfing for a quick on-line fuck...icon_evil.gif


    Don't be such a fuddy duddy, lol icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 12:41 AM GMT
    Keith773 saidNow all we have to do is learn how to

    ask a guy out on a DATE instead

    of surfing for a quick on-line fuck...icon_evil.gif


    HAHAHA, RIGHT!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 12:49 AM GMT
    MrNomore said
    Alpha13 saidTrust me you don't want to get married. It is not worth the "free insurance " coverage that guys seem to thinking is so important. What you save in insurance will be spent on the divorce lawyers.


    To me, I dont really care about marriage like that. I am just happy that people like me are able to do what ever they want to do if it makes them happy and arent hurting anyone and want to make that commitment - This is a free country and the constitution needs to be without bias.


    I feel the same exact way. I don't want to get married, but if you do, you should be able to.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 12:55 AM GMT
    GigoloAssassin saidSomebody marry me, lol!!!! icon_biggrin.gif
    Only if you're cooking for the honeymoon. And the wedding and reception must be "clothing not optional." Fuck spending shitloads of money renting clothes when you can just go nude. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 12:56 AM GMT
    paulflexes said
    GigoloAssassin saidSomebody marry me, lol!!!! icon_biggrin.gif
    Only if you're cooking for the honeymoon. And the wedding and reception must be "clothing not optional." Fuck spending shitloads of money renting clothes when you can just go nude. icon_biggrin.gif


    I like the way you think! icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 12:56 AM GMT
    collegekid2004 said
    paulflexes said
    GigoloAssassin saidSomebody marry me, lol!!!! icon_biggrin.gif
    Only if you're cooking for the honeymoon. And the wedding and reception must be "clothing not optional." Fuck spending shitloads of money renting clothes when you can just go nude. icon_biggrin.gif


    I like the way you think! icon_biggrin.gif
    Me too!