Calax

GD, what about the fact that if a married couple turns around and goes to California, and loses the benefits of actually being married. In theory the "civil Union" is the same as a marriage but you still gotta pay more for the same benefits (there's at least a 15 dollar fee just to fill out the medical forms in the Los Rios CC district).

This will really blow your mind then Monte. Civil Unions between same sex partners are completely legal in California (and in 47 of the 50 states). So all the befefits of marriage are already there for gay couples. Prop 8 and the subsequent court fight is over a word. They are literally fighting over a word. It's not just the word really, it's the sanction that comes with it. Giving them the word marriage is in effect saying it's ok to be gay. You are not abnormal or atypical. It seems a little silly to me since what two people do with each other is their own concern and none of anyone elses. If they want to get married, who cares? As to sexuality being fixed, I don't buy that. I think this is just what they like and thats their choice to live that way. Trying to claim that sexuality is genetic is too much like making an excuse for why people are they way they are. It's a back door to aggrieved minority status that they do not need and do not deserve. You like what you like, there is no need to apologize or make excuses like "I can't help it". Seperate is inherently unequal there bub.

Fear 3 trailer looks slightly awesome.

I keep harping on it bacause I am right. The mistake you are making my friend is that this case is not about whether or not same sex marriage should be legal. It was NEVER about that until Walker made it that. The question before the court was whether or not California had the right to make it illegal. And they do, right or wrong. Walker totally ignored the merits of the state power argument and found on the basis of his own "morality" that it was wrong for it to be illegal. Actually it was kinda about that. You can hardly say that the overturning of a law about a specific topic isn't about the topic. As to states rights vs the rights of the feds, Feds trump. If a court decides that the support of marriages from government standpoints (taxes etc) should be applied to both gay and lesbian marriages, and that the majority have no right to unreasonable enforce their own personal brand of morality upon the minority, then they don't. The state cannot have the legal right to make a law that is illegal according to the feds.

I fail to see why you keep harping on this. The supreme court exists to trample on those laws that they determine to be unconstitutional on a federal and/or state level. The only difference between this and Brown in terms of what is being killed is that Brown was a State Law and the Prop 8 was a state Constitutional amendment that got through the ludicrously easy to amend proposition system. Hell, the Supreme court already has shown that it's a bastard who doesn't care about people in Bush V Gore where Bush (who had 47% of the popular vote to Gores 48) was basically put in office by SCOTUS because of the Florida fiasco in 2000 where SCOTUS went against Gore.

Never happened. Both true and not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Pr...n_22_%282000%29 in 2000 Prop 22 went through enacting a straight only marriages law, that was quickly struck down by the court as unconstitutional. This is what triggered the initial wave of marriages IIRC and ultimately culminated in the Prop8 fiasco. Interestingly Prop8 and 22 are both basically the same thing, AND (for those interested) appear to nullify any marriage performed in say, Boston, between same sex couples within the state of CA. So a gay couple ties the knot Iowa and gets a job opportunity in CA? Well, they're screwed because they have to do everything as single men/women again.

I've gotta say, that is dead wrong. I know quite a few gay couples, in pretty much every stage of their lives and relationships, and it is a big deal to every one of them that they cannot tie the knot. It is a major part of a person's life, for better or worse, and it is very messed up that an entire group is not legally allowed to take part in it. and Gromnir knows numerous homosexual couples who managed to get hitched before prop 8 came down the pike and they admit that while official marriage is extreme important from a pride and emotional pov, the actual impact on their day-to-day is minimal. if real estate hadn't tanked, that capital gains issue would be a more substantial factor for those selling & buying homes, but as it is, capital gains is less an issue today than it has been since the 80's. very important pride and emotional, but not as big for most daily stuff. HA! Good Fun! What about health insurance, filing taxes jointly, and the instant position of legal guardianship of the other partner that are given by a legal marriage? For health insurance you have to pay extra than a standard couple simply to have the exact same benefits (At least in the Los Rios Community College District). And for Legal Guardianship this can be a major stickler because if one partner keels over and the other wants to help them and make decisions they know the other person wants, but the homophobic parents want this guy out of his lovers life, he can't do crap all because he has no legal leg to stand on. There are a few people I know who got married before prop 8 went through, and they're doing ok. Several couples who didn't, really want to be married for emotional reasons. Are you saying that this issue would be more pressing and should be moved on faster if the housing market hadn't tanked? Also, What adoption agency will give permission to an unwed couple for adoption of a child? Or if they get it through as one particular member adopting, what happens legally if parent and child (legally) are in an accident? Do grandma and grandpa arrive and call the shots? Most people don't see issues because they're too used to their current situation and wouldn't notice it till it's gone.

Look GD you may rail all you want against the ruling as being judicial activism and over-reaching. But the point still stands that there is the judicial precedent set by other court cases that allows for a judge to rule on this item. Hell isn't the judiciary supposed to be a guard against the masses decisions to infringe and/or discriminate against others? As to the whole "not recognized as a descriminated party" doesn't that also work for the black man circa 1890?

Can't be any more horrifying than the excesses of the previous presidential administration.

I think that saying that the Supreme Court doesn't have a position to defend the rights of those who are being discriminated against kinda goes against the point of the Supreme Court. The court is there to knock down laws that are considered against the constitution and the Court, via precedent, has shown that these issues are a matter of constitutional merit weather you like it or not. Saying that "things will get worse if you do this" is not a justification for allowing discrimination to continue under any circumstances.

Wouldn't this also apply to the rights of minorities looking for work and housing in different districts, but get discriminated against because of skin color? And yet those rights are constitutionally guaranteed, even if they don't fall under the strict application of the constitution. Thats a little different because it IS against the law to discriminate solely on the basis or race, gender, etc. It is not against any federal law to bar same sex marriages because there is no federal law recognizing marriage. That is a state perrogative and the supreme law of the state is ultimately the voters, who in this case have been usurped. It wasn't until an "activist judge" declared it against the law to discriminate. I mean hell, schools aren't even mandated in the lovely constitution people love to squeal about and yet a persons right to access a school equally was confirmed as a constitutional right by Brown v Board of Education. Are you trying to seriously tell me that marriage (a religious institution at its core and probably shouldn't have any form of state support or benefit inherent to it) isn't in a similar situation constitutionally as the access to public schools/equipment/facilities?

Wouldn't this also apply to the rights of minorities looking for work and housing in different districts, but get discriminated against because of skin color? And yet those rights are constitutionally guaranteed, even if they don't fall under the strict application of the constitution.

*remembers when he had 32 posts per day* *sighs*

None of those are reasons to deny gays marriage. Not saying they were. But those were the objections by people to the ruling. Palin was "The will of the people has been quashed by the third branch of the government!" (who's just doing their constitutionally mandated duty, go figure). Cavuto thinks that nobody married should have a job, and random woman thinks that the judge is incredibly bias.

Interestingly enough, in the Daily Show commentary they were amazed at a couple of the objections brought up. Obviously there is the political/moral one (the judge apparently said that prop 8 was unfairly imposing a particular moral belief on anyone in the state), and then Cavuto of Fox said that there are economic implications because all of a sudden gay couples get married and companies have to pay insurance for two (and yet somehow "normal" folk don't have this happen...). And the last one raised by a woman on Anderson Cooper (the guest obviously) was that the judge was bias. When pressed why on TV she said "I don't know" but Stewart went to her web site where it turns out the guy is an openly gay judge... An openly gay judge who'd been shot down as a nominee under REGAN for being TO CONSERVATIVE. That takes a little..... soaking in to really hit home.

I have learned today, that if you want to move a crap car, post it on craigslist with the KBB value, then your value 500 bucks cheaper and it'll sell within an hour and a half.

this is untrue. stoopid people are discriminated against every day when they attempts to get jobs or university admission. poor people is discriminated against when they attempt to buy cars or houses. athletically-challenged people is discriminated 'gainst at every school campus in America. ugly people is suffering discrimination and so is drug users. ... the Constitution does not view homosexuals as special; they don't get the benefits of heightened scrutiny. perhaps homosexuals deserve special protection, but please do not fool yourself into believing that homosexuals is the last remaining identifiable group that suffers discrimination, and keep in mind that discrimination ain't necessarily a bad thing. lord knows that Gromnir would rather not have a fat, stupid, and uncoordinated person trying to save us from a burning building or operating on our heart. HA! Good Fun! But you see people get up in arms if it is suggested that fat, ugly, or stupid people shouldn't be allowed to marry or have kids due to eugenics.

I've had serious depression and laziness problems... to the point where I was so depressed I was suicidal but to lazy to actually do it.

Onslaught I've found is a pretty good turtle map if you're into that, but several of the maps are simple carry overs from the SC1 and War3 map series.

So you think it's effects will be similar to those where "corporations speech is money" was entered into a line by the court clerk?

I know... it also feels kinda freaky going to Hades old stomping grounds. Also gots new phone.

I am seriously scared of my impending move

I wonder what leg the pro-ban will stand on to get the appeal.

thing about war3 was that the heros go in the way of those who wanted to have a pile of small units.