http://gamingtrend.com
November 28, 2014, 05:25:23 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: California Supreme Court strikes down ban on gay marriage  (Read 5747 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mr. Fed
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 985


View Profile WWW
« on: May 15, 2008, 05:27:44 PM »

As of about 25 minutes ago.  THe California Supreme Court found that the state's voter-approved definition of marriage limiting it to one man and one woman was unconstitutional under the state constitution.  I've posted the entire opinion here.
Logged

Popehat, a blog.  Now 35% less ugly!
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 15, 2008, 05:32:18 PM »

Very interesting (and laudable) decision.  Why is Moreno a former favorite of yours?
Logged
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1571


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 15, 2008, 05:34:45 PM »

About time this state got it right.  Yay California!

Fed, what are the odds on a new constitutional amendment petition and ballot measure, and could it have any effect should it pass?
« Last Edit: May 15, 2008, 05:37:18 PM by Pyperkub » Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
Mr. Fed
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 985


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 15, 2008, 05:39:33 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on May 15, 2008, 05:32:18 PM

Very interesting (and laudable) decision.  Why is Moreno a former favorite of yours?

He was a federal judge when I was a prosecutor.  He was fair, courteous, and impeccably prepared for every hearing.
Logged

Popehat, a blog.  Now 35% less ugly!
Mr. Fed
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 985


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 15, 2008, 05:41:17 PM »

Quote from: Pyperkub on May 15, 2008, 05:34:45 PM

About time this state got it right.  Yay California!

Fed, what are the odds on a new constitutional amendment petition and ballot measure, and could it have any effect should it pass?

The odds are quite high.  There's already one pending signature approval.  The prior ballot measure only amended the statute; this one would amend the state constitution, and wipe out this decision.  Regrettably I think it's likely that it will pass.  But I don't think social conservatives will be able to put the genie all the way back in the bottle.  Many, many people will get married before the ballot initiative passes.  (And the people of California could still pleasantly surprise me).
Logged

Popehat, a blog.  Now 35% less ugly!
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5109



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 15, 2008, 05:54:56 PM »

People who oppose gay marriage today will look just as ridiculous as these people look today.

Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 15, 2008, 06:03:54 PM »

Quote from: Mr. Fed on May 15, 2008, 05:39:33 PM

Quote from: Brendan on May 15, 2008, 05:32:18 PM

Very interesting (and laudable) decision.  Why is Moreno a former favorite of yours?

He was a federal judge when I was a prosecutor.  He was fair, courteous, and impeccably prepared for every hearing.

Ah, sorry - I read your statement as "he is no longer a favorite of mine."  I getcha.
Logged
leo8877
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 12853



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 15, 2008, 06:27:01 PM »

Quote from: Moliere on May 15, 2008, 05:54:56 PM

People who oppose gay marriage today will look just as ridiculous as these people look today.



I agree.  I never understood what people stood to gain by being against same sex marriage.  I'm glad the courts voted this way.  I'll vote to uphold this if it's ever on the ballot in CA again.
Logged
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 15, 2008, 06:28:24 PM »

So... assuming CA now goes the expected route and the morons decide to monkey with the Constitution, is it possible that another suit can be brought and could the CA supreme court theoretically find that the CA constitution is in conflict with teh United States constitution?  What happens in that case (or if anything in a state constitution is found to be in conflict with the US Constitution?)

As an aside, it bugs me that anyone would think that it's appropriate to start inserting random, specific laws prohibiting individual actions into a state's basic legal framework.  Discrimination is illegal.  Get over it, and stop trying to ammend the supreme law of the land to say otherwise.  Constitutions are supposed to be the framework that protects freedoms -- not an unappealable end-around to deny them.
Logged
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1571


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 15, 2008, 06:37:51 PM »

Quote from: Geezer on May 15, 2008, 06:28:24 PM

So... assuming CA now goes the expected route and the morons decide to monkey with the Constitution, is it possible that another suit can be brought and could the CA supreme court theoretically find that the CA constitution is in conflict with teh United States constitution?  What happens in that case (or if anything in a state constitution is found to be in conflict with the US Constitution?)

As an aside, it bugs me that anyone would think that it's appropriate to start inserting random, specific laws prohibiting individual actions into a state's basic legal framework.  Discrimination is illegal.  Get over it, and stop trying to ammend the supreme law of the land to say otherwise.  Constitutions are supposed to be the framework that protects freedoms -- not an unappealable end-around to deny them.

California's constitution is practically an infinitely malleable document.  It is pathetically easy to amend.  The transition from state law to federal law in this case is a tricky one and the jump hasn't taken place yet with the Massachusetts marriages yet, AFAIK, though I would think the tradition (law?) of states abiding by marriages performed in other states may well land this question in the Federal realm, quite possibly in the realm of tax law.
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1571


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: May 15, 2008, 06:39:28 PM »

Quote from: Mr. Fed on May 15, 2008, 05:41:17 PM

Quote from: Pyperkub on May 15, 2008, 05:34:45 PM

About time this state got it right.  Yay California!

Fed, what are the odds on a new constitutional amendment petition and ballot measure, and could it have any effect should it pass?

The odds are quite high.  There's already one pending signature approval.  The prior ballot measure only amended the statute; this one would amend the state constitution, and wipe out this decision.  Regrettably I think it's likely that it will pass.  But I don't think social conservatives will be able to put the genie all the way back in the bottle.  Many, many people will get married before the ballot initiative passes.  (And the people of California could still pleasantly surprise me).

That's what I figured, though as I recall it wasn't as big of a deal when the initial ballot measure was passed, and it might be tougher getting a new one passed in CA.
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: May 15, 2008, 06:44:07 PM »

I like Kurth's comment on PH - really, the way this should all work is that everyone (straight or gay couples) should be registering as partners via some sort of civil union process.  That'd afford you joint tax status, ability to make medical decisions, shared parental responsibilities, etc, etc.  Then churches could feel free to marry or not marry whoever they like.  Take the civil benefits and divorce them from the religious ceremony.
Logged
Mr. Fed
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 985


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 15, 2008, 06:53:36 PM »

Quote from: Geezer on May 15, 2008, 06:28:24 PM

So... assuming CA now goes the expected route and the morons decide to monkey with the Constitution, is it possible that another suit can be brought and could the CA supreme court theoretically find that the CA constitution is in conflict with teh United States constitution?  What happens in that case (or if anything in a state constitution is found to be in conflict with the US Constitution?)

Probably not.  Basing the decision of the United States Constitution would subject it to review by the United States Supreme Court.  Right now that court would probably overturn any such decision.  Caselaw does not currently support the proposition that the U.S. constitution prevents a ban on gay marriage.

There's a somewhat more complicated argument that could be made that by passing a ballot initiative to take away a state constitutional right that the California Supreme Court identified, the state is singling out and infringing on the rights of a particular group in violation of their equal protection clause rights.  THat argument would be based on a very problematical 1996 decision[/ur] striking down a Colorado ballot initiative which prevented localities from enacting gay rights measures.  It's complicated.  It's unlikely the current court would rule the same way.
Logged

Popehat, a blog.  Now 35% less ugly!
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: May 15, 2008, 06:58:19 PM »

Quote from: Geezer on May 15, 2008, 06:28:24 PM

Discrimination is illegal. 
No it's not.
Logged
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: May 15, 2008, 07:03:37 PM »

Quote from: cheeba on May 15, 2008, 06:58:19 PM

Quote from: Geezer on May 15, 2008, 06:28:24 PM

Discrimination is illegal. 
No it's not.

Uh.. When it comes to public institutions, yes, it is.   saywhat  Edit.. I think you are saying that discrimination based upon sexual preference is not codified into law.  I understand that.  But discrimination based on sex is, and I think an argument can be made that, by allowing me, as a man to marry a woman but not allowing a woman the same option, the state is advocating a sexually discriminatory position.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2008, 07:09:14 PM by Geezer » Logged
leo8877
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 12853



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: May 15, 2008, 07:21:31 PM »

Our Governator speaks:

Quote
(05-15) 11:30 PDT Sacramento, CA (AP) --

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is vowing to uphold the California Supreme Court's ruling striking down a state ban on gay marriage.

The Republican governor issued a brief statement shortly after the court announced its decision Thursday.

The governor said, "I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling."

He also reiterated his previously stated opposition to an anti-gay marriage initiative proposed for the November ballot. That initiative would write a ban on same-sex unions into California's constitution.

Last month, Schwarzenegger told a gathering of gay Republicans that he would fight the initiative.

The governor has twice vetoed legislation that sought to legalize gay marriage, saying the issue should be decided by voters or the courts.

Schwarzenegger did not address the court's ruling in his address to a technology conference in Sacramento Thursday morning.
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9297


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: May 15, 2008, 07:23:51 PM »

Now if they'd just widen the definition of "spouse" I could marry this Monte Cristo sandwich that I'm in love with right now...
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15586


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: May 15, 2008, 07:25:09 PM »

Quote from: Mr. Fed on May 15, 2008, 06:53:36 PM

Quote from: Geezer on May 15, 2008, 06:28:24 PM

So... assuming CA now goes the expected route and the morons decide to monkey with the Constitution, is it possible that another suit can be brought and could the CA supreme court theoretically find that the CA constitution is in conflict with teh United States constitution?  What happens in that case (or if anything in a state constitution is found to be in conflict with the US Constitution?)

Probably not.  Basing the decision of the United States Constitution would subject it to review by the United States Supreme Court.  Right now that court would probably overturn any such decision.  Caselaw does not currently support the proposition that the U.S. constitution prevents a ban on gay marriage.

There's a somewhat more complicated argument that could be made that by passing a ballot initiative to take away a state constitutional right that the California Supreme Court identified, the state is singling out and infringing on the rights of a particular group in violation of their equal protection clause rights.  THat argument would be based on a very problematical 1996 decision[/ur] striking down a Colorado ballot initiative which prevented localities from enacting gay rights measures.  It's complicated.  It's unlikely the current court would rule the same way.

What a great post....but you know what? It all just clicked. Fed is actually an AI that has passed the turing test.
Logged
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9010


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: May 15, 2008, 08:42:10 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on May 15, 2008, 06:44:07 PM

I like Kurth's comment on PH - really, the way this should all work is that everyone (straight or gay couples) should be registering as partners via some sort of civil union process.  That'd afford you joint tax status, ability to make medical decisions, shared parental responsibilities, etc, etc.  Then churches could feel free to marry or not marry whoever they like.  Take the civil benefits and divorce them from the religious ceremony.

That's always been my take on the subject.  It honestly baffles me that it's not the standard in today's times.

gellar
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: May 15, 2008, 08:50:31 PM »

Quote from: gellar on May 15, 2008, 08:42:10 PM

Quote from: Brendan on May 15, 2008, 06:44:07 PM

I like Kurth's comment on PH - really, the way this should all work is that everyone (straight or gay couples) should be registering as partners via some sort of civil union process.  That'd afford you joint tax status, ability to make medical decisions, shared parental responsibilities, etc, etc.  Then churches could feel free to marry or not marry whoever they like.  Take the civil benefits and divorce them from the religious ceremony.

That's always been my take on the subject.  It honestly baffles me that it's not the standard in today's times.

gellar

Agreed.  But *many* people think you're not "married" unless you're married in a Church.  They see the act of marriage as fundamentally a religious one, not a state one and cannot logically separate the two.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: May 15, 2008, 09:09:44 PM »

Quote from: gellar on May 15, 2008, 08:42:10 PM

Quote from: Brendan on May 15, 2008, 06:44:07 PM

I like Kurth's comment on PH - really, the way this should all work is that everyone (straight or gay couples) should be registering as partners via some sort of civil union process.  That'd afford you joint tax status, ability to make medical decisions, shared parental responsibilities, etc, etc.  Then churches could feel free to marry or not marry whoever they like.  Take the civil benefits and divorce them from the religious ceremony.

That's always been my take on the subject.  It honestly baffles me that it's not the standard in today's times.

gellar

With the exception of joint filing status, I believe you can accomplish most other issues via a preexisting power of attorney  and/or a living will, can't you?

 
Logged
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1571


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: May 15, 2008, 09:34:50 PM »

Quote from: Geezer on May 15, 2008, 09:09:44 PM

Quote from: gellar on May 15, 2008, 08:42:10 PM

Quote from: Brendan on May 15, 2008, 06:44:07 PM

I like Kurth's comment on PH - really, the way this should all work is that everyone (straight or gay couples) should be registering as partners via some sort of civil union process.  That'd afford you joint tax status, ability to make medical decisions, shared parental responsibilities, etc, etc.  Then churches could feel free to marry or not marry whoever they like.  Take the civil benefits and divorce them from the religious ceremony.

That's always been my take on the subject.  It honestly baffles me that it's not the standard in today's times.

gellar

With the exception of joint filing status, I believe you can accomplish most other issues via a preexisting power of attorney  and/or a living will, can't you?

 

And forcing some citizens to do that and others not to is discrimination.  And contrary to what geezer thinks, there is an equal protection clause in CA which has been seen as prohibiting that.
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: May 15, 2008, 09:53:25 PM »

Quote from: Pyperkub

And forcing some citizens to do that and others not to is discrimination.  And contrary to what geezer thinks, there is an equal protection clause in CA which has been seen as prohibiting that.

 saywhat  What does Geezer think again????
Logged
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9010


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: May 15, 2008, 09:54:01 PM »

Quote from: Geezer on May 15, 2008, 09:09:44 PM

Quote from: gellar on May 15, 2008, 08:42:10 PM

Quote from: Brendan on May 15, 2008, 06:44:07 PM

I like Kurth's comment on PH - really, the way this should all work is that everyone (straight or gay couples) should be registering as partners via some sort of civil union process.  That'd afford you joint tax status, ability to make medical decisions, shared parental responsibilities, etc, etc.  Then churches could feel free to marry or not marry whoever they like.  Take the civil benefits and divorce them from the religious ceremony.

That's always been my take on the subject.  It honestly baffles me that it's not the standard in today's times.

gellar

With the exception of joint filing status, I believe you can accomplish most other issues via a preexisting power of attorney  and/or a living will, can't you?

 

You can.  I just don't like that someone would have to just because of their sexual orientation.

gellar
Logged
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: May 15, 2008, 10:07:39 PM »

Quote from: gellar on May 15, 2008, 09:54:01 PM

Quote from: Geezer on May 15, 2008, 09:09:44 PM

Quote from: gellar on May 15, 2008, 08:42:10 PM

Quote from: Brendan on May 15, 2008, 06:44:07 PM

I like Kurth's comment on PH - really, the way this should all work is that everyone (straight or gay couples) should be registering as partners via some sort of civil union process.  That'd afford you joint tax status, ability to make medical decisions, shared parental responsibilities, etc, etc.  Then churches could feel free to marry or not marry whoever they like.  Take the civil benefits and divorce them from the religious ceremony.

That's always been my take on the subject.  It honestly baffles me that it's not the standard in today's times.

gellar

With the exception of joint filing status, I believe you can accomplish most other issues via a preexisting power of attorney  and/or a living will, can't you?

 

You can.  I just don't like that someone would have to just because of their sexual orientation.

gellar

Nor do I.  There's absolutely no practical reason why same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry in the state sponsored sense.  My point was that we already have the facilities in the law to allow for it and as such, opposition isn't based on anything but prejudice or misplaced fear.  There's no *change* taking place except for that of a name, and seperate but equal as a concept was thrown out long ago.
Logged
Gwar21
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 210


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: May 15, 2008, 10:42:05 PM »

Quote from: Moliere on May 15, 2008, 05:54:56 PM

People who oppose gay marriage today will look just as ridiculous as these people look today.

Eh, I dunno.  Racial stuff isn't condemned by the Bible (and yes, I know some people say the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality either - the majority view says otherwise, though, so that's what I'm going with), so I think opposition on this issue will have a lot more staying power, unless the Bible becomes irrelevant in the next thirty years.

Quote from: leo8877
I agree.  I never understood what people stood to gain by being against same sex marriage.

It's mostly a religious issue.  In their minds, they're trying to prevent society from giving a "stamp of approval" to a Biblical sin.  I think they also fear that their children will be brainwashed to accept homosexuality as normal and non-sinful.  So, by fighting it, they gain favor with God by opposing something wicked, and they protect their children.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: May 15, 2008, 11:10:46 PM »

Quote from: Gwar21 on May 15, 2008, 10:42:05 PM

Quote from: Moliere on May 15, 2008, 05:54:56 PM

People who oppose gay marriage today will look just as ridiculous as these people look today.

Eh, I dunno.  Racial stuff isn't condemned by the Bible (and yes, I know some people say the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality either - the majority view says otherwise, though, so that's what I'm going with), so I think opposition on this issue will have a lot more staying power, unless the Bible becomes irrelevant in the next thirty years.

Sadly, as is true of many of the ridiculous laws we've passed in this country, the bible was the source of a lot of the anti-miscegenation legislation.  The main biblical sources were Phinehas and the "curse of Ham", the latter of which was used until the late 70s by the Mormons to justify keeping anyone of "African descent" out of their priesthood.
Logged
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1571


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2008, 11:50:22 PM »

Quote from: Geezer on May 15, 2008, 09:53:25 PM

Quote from: Pyperkub

And forcing some citizens to do that and others not to is discrimination.  And contrary to what geezer thinks, there is an equal protection clause in CA which has been seen as prohibiting that.

 saywhat  What does Geezer think again????

What the hell did I read??? ooops!
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
Austin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1708


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2008, 11:58:09 PM »

Quote from: Geezer on May 15, 2008, 09:53:25 PM

Quote from: Pyperkub

And forcing some citizens to do that and others not to is discrimination.  And contrary to what geezer thinks, there is an equal protection clause in CA which has been seen as prohibiting that.

 saywhat  What does Geezer think again????
icon_lol
Logged
PaulBot
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1769


View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: May 16, 2008, 12:03:16 AM »

Glad I don't live in CA. I wouldn't want to be there when God strikes down the whole state for their immoral behavior.

The really important question is: how will this affect gasoline prices.
Logged

CEO of the GT Post Padders Club
Austin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1708


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: May 16, 2008, 01:20:41 AM »

Quote from: PaulBot on May 16, 2008, 12:03:16 AM

Glad I don't live in CA. I wouldn't want to be there when God strikes down the whole state for their immoral behavior.


Buy up all the ocean-front property in Arizona!
Logged
naednek
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 4717



View Profile
« Reply #31 on: May 16, 2008, 02:43:32 AM »

Quote from: leo8877 on May 15, 2008, 07:21:31 PM

Our Governator speaks:

Quote
(05-15) 11:30 PDT Sacramento, CA (AP) --

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is vowing to uphold the California Supreme Court's ruling striking down a state ban on gay marriage.



He lies.  He was at the GTC (Government Technology Convention) during that time, talking to me and about 500 other people in the room, and said nothing about the ruling during that time, in fact it was all about technology.
Logged
Creepy_Smell
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 652

Load"*",8,1


View Profile WWW
« Reply #32 on: May 16, 2008, 03:18:14 AM »

Quote from: PaulBot on May 16, 2008, 12:03:16 AM

Glad I don't live in CA. I wouldn't want to be there when God strikes down the whole state for their immoral behavior.

The really important question is: how will this affect gasoline prices.

Well, if CA was gone then more gas for the rest of us and refineries would have one less state to make special gas for. I'm all for it! smile
Logged

Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5109



View Profile
« Reply #33 on: May 16, 2008, 05:12:04 AM »

Quote from: Creepy_Smell on May 16, 2008, 03:18:14 AM

Quote from: PaulBot on May 16, 2008, 12:03:16 AM

Glad I don't live in CA. I wouldn't want to be there when God strikes down the whole state for their immoral behavior.

The really important question is: how will this affect gasoline prices.

Well, if CA was gone then more gas for the rest of us and refineries would have one less state to make special gas for. I'm all for it! smile

Except that CA accounts for 21 refineries.
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5375


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: May 16, 2008, 04:44:32 PM »

Quote from: naednek on May 16, 2008, 02:43:32 AM

Quote from: leo8877 on May 15, 2008, 07:21:31 PM

Our Governator speaks:

Quote
(05-15) 11:30 PDT Sacramento, CA (AP) --

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is vowing to uphold the California Supreme Court's ruling striking down a state ban on gay marriage.



He lies.  He was at the GTC (Government Technology Convention) during that time, talking to me and about 500 other people in the room, and said nothing about the ruling during that time, in fact it was all about technology.

Did you read the whole presse release?  It says that he didn't address it during the GTC, in the last line!
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
PaulBot
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1769


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: May 16, 2008, 04:45:28 PM »

Time to send the Daleks after the Governator.

Seek, Locate, Exterminate! Do not deviate!
Logged

CEO of the GT Post Padders Club
leo8877
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 12853



View Profile
« Reply #36 on: May 16, 2008, 07:31:48 PM »

So all the local news is showing how this decision will stir up the religious right into a voting frenzy come November.  I can only hope that this will in turn mobilize the sane voters of CA to counter their votes at the polls.
Logged
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3415



View Profile WWW
« Reply #37 on: May 16, 2008, 08:40:43 PM »

Carpe diem: Ellen Degeneris is marrying Portia DeRossi. How can anybody be against that?
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
Freezer-TPF-
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1372


First in war and peace, second in the NL East.


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: May 16, 2008, 08:52:49 PM »

Huge win for Big Catering.  And for civil rights.
Logged

Signature on file at the county clerk's office.
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9010


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: May 17, 2008, 01:08:12 AM »

Quote from: Ironrod on May 16, 2008, 08:40:43 PM

Carpe diem: Ellen Degeneris is marrying Portia DeRossi. How can anybody be against that?

I'm against it.  Portia can't do any better than Ellen Degeneris?  REALLY?

gellar
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.165 seconds with 104 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.039s, 2q)