[SuperCaleyGoBallistic]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-16935270

Proposition 8 is now ruled uncostitutional after it's ban was upheld 2-1 by the US Court of Appeals. Proposition 8 stated that: "only marriage between a man and a woman is recognised in California." It came into law in 2008 but was overturned in 2010.

Good to see the homophobes put in their place.

[Liam.]

SuperCaleyGoBallistic, on 08 February 2012 - 00:14, said:

Good to see the homophobes put in their place.

Get it up them.

[bullywee]

if you love someone enough to eat da poo poo then i see no reason why you shouldn't be able to get married.

[T_S_A_R]

2 - 1. they can't agree on whether or not something is black or white. it'll end up 5-4 to someone in the supreme court.

the simple solution is to just remove the civil component of marriage, let people have their religous, humanist or whatever ceremonies and sort out their legal arrangements independently.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

T_S_A_R, on 08 February 2012 - 01:20, said:

2 - 1. they can't agree on whether or not something is black or white. it'll end up 5-4 to someone in the supreme court.

the simple solution is to just remove the civil component of marriage, let people have their religous, humanist or whatever ceremonies and sort out their legal arrangements independently.

2 judges in the majority appointed by Carter and Clinton
Judge in the minority appointed by Bush II

The politicisation of the American legal system is so deeply entrenched that judges can't even agree on what is or isn't a fundamental constitutional issue. The Supreme Court will rule 5-4 in some way when it comes up with Kennedy having the deciding vote.

[Reynard]

Give California back to Mexico.

[the jambo-rocker]

Reynard, on 08 February 2012 - 08:08, said:

Give California back to Mexico.

Rafael Montero style

[Reynard]

SuperCaleyGoBallistic, on 08 February 2012 - 00:14, said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-16935270

Proposition 8 is now ruled uncostitutional after it's ban was upheld 2-1 by the US Court of Appeals. Proposition 8 stated that: "only marriage between a man and a woman is recognised in California." It came into law in 2008 but was overturned in 2010.

Good to see the homophobes put in their place.

I'm really delighted for Californians everywhere. Poofs can skip to their weddings now as long as they don't dare to smoke.

[Mozzamozza]

Reynard, on 08 February 2012 - 08:08, said:

Give California back to Mexico.

Haven't the Mexicans suffered enough?

[pub car king]

Can we annex it onto Scotland Ala Falkland islands

[Mrs M]

bullywee, on 08 February 2012 - 01:04, said:

if you love someone enough to eat da poo poo then i see no reason why you shouldn't be able to get married.

Yep, no reason why they can't suffer wedded bliss like the rest of us have to.

[Swampy]

T_S_A_R, on 08 February 2012 - 01:20, said:

2 - 1. they can't agree on whether or not something is black or white. it'll end up 5-4 to someone in the supreme court.

the simple solution is to just remove the civil component of marriage, let people have their religous, humanist or whatever ceremonies and sort out their legal arrangements independently.

Yes, that's simple, but isn't going to happen, because marriage is a well-established facet of public life as well as private. I agree with what you're saying in that it would be better to just leave it to people to decide but that realistically is not going to take place.

Jim McLean, on 08 February 2012 - 01:39, said:

2 judges in the majority appointed by Carter and Clinton
Judge in the minority appointed by Bush II

The politicisation of the American legal system is so deeply entrenched that judges can't even agree on what is or isn't a fundamental constitutional issue. The Supreme Court will rule 5-4 in some way when it comes up with Kennedy having the deciding vote.

I don't think the 9th Circuit court is appreciably more politicised than any other factor of American society, hence its liberal majority actually delivered an extremely nuanced - some (e.g. me) might even say tepid - holding. It restricted its focus solely to those who had already once held the right to marry (i.e. Californians, for around six months a few years ago), and that taking the right away was unconstitutional as it served no purpose but to discriminate, which is contrary to the Equal Protection clause. What they did not say was that in a case where no such right had already been granted - that is, the status quo in virtually every state in the Union - a right to gay marriage existed - excluding states who have given a ban despite not having it legal in the first place. So that's the downside. The good side, as you allude to, is that it serves as something of a "do you feel lucky, punk?" to Kennedy, as it drew on so many of his previous opinions.

[kiwififer]

Mrs M, on 09 February 2012 - 00:41, said:

Yep, no reason why they can't suffer wedded bliss like the rest of us have to.

Oh dear lol!

Yep, gay people should be allowed to suffer the joys of having the amount of sex they have curtailed by fleecy jammies and 'I'm working early and you never done the dishes' as much as the rest of us......

[THE KING]

SuperCaleyGoBallistic, on 08 February 2012 - 00:14, said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-16935270

Proposition 8 is now ruled uncostitutional after it's ban was upheld 2-1 by the US Court of Appeals. Proposition 8 stated that: "only marriage between a man and a woman is recognised in California." It came into law in 2008 but was overturned in 2010.

Good to see the homophobes put in their place.

Great news now two men can legaly put a finger in each others ring .