• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Article: California Gay Couples Set To Wed

Mariposa

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Sep 8, 2002
Messages
24,740
Location
California Republic
I've mentioned before that San Francisco felt like a wonderful place to live when gay couples were wedding at City Hall. Now it would appear as though it will again be a wonderful place to be... June is the most common month for weddings and our Pride celebration is in a couple weeks! Happy, happy days!

Here's to radiant brides and handsome grooms, in any combination. :) Article in original form from BBC America; source below.

California gay couples set to wed

Phyllis Lyon (L) and Del Martin (R) celebrate their 2004 marriage, which was later declared illegal (File picture)
Ms Lyon's (L) marriage to Ms Martin (R) in 2004 was declared illegal

Homosexual couples in California are set to be granted marriage licenses for the first time.

The move follows a decision last month by the state Supreme Court to overturn a ban on same-sex marriage.

One of the first to exchange vows will be veteran gay-rights campaigners Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 83, who have been together for 56 years.

California voters will be asked in a November referendum whether the ban should be reinstated.

First to wed

San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, who has been a prominent advocate of same-sex marriage, will officiate at the wedding of Ms Martin and Ms Lyon.

It was Mr Newsom's 2004 decision to issue marriage licenses to gay couples - including Ms Lyon and Ms Martin - which began the long drawn-out political and legal battle that led eventually to the California Supreme Court's ruling last month.

The more people see their friends and family get married, the more they will be comfortable with the idea
Jeff Kors
Gay rights activist

A referendum in 2000 approved a law specifying that marriage in California could only be between a man and a woman.

The 2004 marriage ceremonies were a direct challenge to this law, and were ruled illegal by judges.

But civil rights campaigners appealed against the ruling, and their arguments were accepted by the San Francisco Superior Court.

And although the lower court's ruling was overturned by the California Court of Appeal in 2006, this ruling was itself reversed last month by the state's Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, state legislators approved a law allowing same-sex marriages, but it was vetoed by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said that the courts should decide the issue.

'Tight election'

Opponents of same-sex unions have now gathered enough signatures to put another law outlawing gay marriage before California voters in a referendum scheduled for this November.

But large numbers of gay couples - from across the US - are expected to get married in California before that time, partly in the hope that voters will be less inclined to vote for the law if it would mean splitting up married couples.

"It's going to be a very tight election come November," said Jeff Kors, executive director of the gay rights group Equality California.

"The more people see their friends and family get married, the more they will be comfortable with the idea."

Public opinion in California appears to be more favourable to gay marriage than was the case when the law banning it was passed in 2000.

A recent poll indicated that 52% of Californians supported same-sex marriages, with 41% opposed.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7457968.stm
 
should have started about 9 minutes ago by my reckoning.

i'm extremely happy for all of these people who get to do something that so many take for granted or even actively seek to prevent them doing: marry the person they love

:)

alasdair
 
The source below is a .pdf for the text of the ruling. Lengthy, but very well-written and an easy read if you ignore the cites. ;) 30 days had to pass before it took effect... and now here we are... :)

In re MARRIAGE CASES (six consolidated appeals)

Alasdair: yes, it took too long, but that's because justice takes time sometimes. ;) Our patience appears to have paid off. Fucking A, Pride is going to be more awesome than ever this year.

Newsom is going to have an incredibly easy run for Governor despite his womanizing and love of the sauce (not dealbreakers, clearly). Schwarzenegger went on the record (I lost the CNN link) by saying he wouldn't fight the ruling.

Did somebody spike the water in CA with acid?
 
Am I the only one who is seriously worried that when homosexuality is no longer taboo, and when homosexuals and heterosexuals are more or less indistinguishable in a culture, that we loose all that great sexual energy that makes marginalized gay culture so awesome?

Where will all the great art, music, literature, and criticism come from this century? :\


...That's pretty much completely in jest though. I'm very happy about the ruling, and happy for folks who want to wed. I know that if I was gay, I'd want to be on the fringe though-- having lots of anonymous sex, and calling straight people breeders. ;)
 
Why is this news? I realize that that culturally there is a big step of sorts and to be noted in the media, perhaps, but to me it has no more interest than if I heard of a male-female marraige. I guess I take laws for granted in that what some may call "progress", I call, ... " ... that's great" and eat some Cheerios. I love Cheerios.
 
Edvard Munch said:
Why is this news? I realize that that culturally there is a big step of sorts and to be noted in the media, perhaps, but to me it has no more interest than if I heard of a male-female marraige. I guess I take laws for granted in that what some may call "progress", I call, ... " ... that's great" and eat some Cheerios. I love Cheerios.
In other news, Ed, Cheerios have just been made Schedule I.

Happy now? :)
 
semantics

boo hiss. :\

it really irks me to see the word "wed" being used when gay couples confirm their relationship.

too me, the word "wed" only petains to hetrosexual relationships, much the same way as the word "gay" petains to homosexual personns.

i have no problems with homosexuals legally forming relationships. however, i feel it is wrong to use the word "wed" to define their relationship. afterall the marriage act defines marriage as between man and woman.

anyhooos.... the homosexuals have decided to deride hetrosexuals in their persuit of acceptance!

LOL.

no wonder us hetros get the shits with the homo's whhen they force, their agenda on us.

maybe we should bann the word homosexual.....and call everyone hetrosexual?

yeah man...that'll be the day.

allah akbar
 
phlegm69 said:
it really irks me to see the word "wed" being used when gay couples confirm their relationship.

too me, the word "wed" only petains to hetrosexual relationships, much the same way as the word "gay" petains to homosexual personns.

i have no problems with homosexuals legally forming relationships. however, i feel it is wrong to use the word "wed" to define their relationship. afterall the marriage act defines marriage as between man and woman.


I'm opposed to gay marriage for the opposite reasons...
Gay marriage was NEVER illegal anyway - gay marriages happened anyway.
You didn't get arrested for having a gay wedding/marriage.

Gay marriage has ALWAYS BEEN LEGAL (my lifetime anyway...)

My issue is that "legally forming relationships" rubs me the wrong way. I don't see why the state needs to be involved in a relationship/contract between two private people.

Gotta ask though - what's it matter if two dogs "wed?"

Does it affect your life? At all?
If not - you have no standing to raise a complaint.
Gay marriage was NEVER a legal issue - it never should have become one...
And the state needs to get out of EVERY marriage it's dug its claws into.
Marriage is between a man and a woman.... a man and a man... a woman and a woman......
Or whatever.

A marriage is NOT between a man, woman, and their Country.
Occasionally, it's between a man, woman, and their god.
The Country is NOT a god - and it shouldn't be recognized in a similar manner.
Ever.

I've got to admit, walking through Pride in WeHo last weekend felt... weird.
I swear I was the only non-Obama supporter, and only person there that was against the gay marriage ruling.
Course... I talked to people.
And they said what I thought made sense.
Didn't do much to change their minds though. People want equal privileges (license to do things derived from the state's consent and permission being granted to the "free" individual) - not equal rights.
 
phlegm, methinks you got one too many labels stuck up your arse...er, ass....uh rear. The point is that if two people love each other and want to be lifelong partners, then they should have access to the same benefits and privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy.

Who are you or anyone else to deny them that?
 
Does that mean even more trips to the. . . gay bar, gay bar, gay bar?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I don't think those fags should be allowed to marry - they'll make the straight Normals look bad when everyone realizes that half of the straights - for whom marriage is such a sacred, divinely-granted sacrament - fuck up their own so badly they get divorced. At least once. If gays do better at marriage than straights, someone's going to have some 'splaining to do eh?

So when is zoo marriage coming down the pipeline, that's what I want to know! ;)

Peace,

Fausty
 
Pander Bear said:
Am I the only one who is seriously worried that when homosexuality is no longer taboo, and when homosexuals and heterosexuals are more or less indistinguishable in a culture, that we loose all that great sexual energy that makes marginalized gay culture so awesome?

Where will all the great art, music, literature, and criticism come from this century? :\

...That's pretty much completely in jest though. I'm very happy about the ruling, and happy for folks who want to wed. I know that if I was gay, I'd want to be on the fringe though-- having lots of anonymous sex, and calling straight people breeders. ;)

Well. . . you know what my (tongue in cheek) answer to this conundrum is going to be. =D

"Gay" is boring - someone else is going to have to take up the challenge of flying their freak flags in a genuinely freaky way. But who could that be. . . ?

Peace,

Fausty
 
Fausty said:
Well. . . you know what my (tongue in cheek) answer to this conundrum is going to be. =D

"Gay" is boring - someone else is going to have to take up the challenge of flying their freak flags in a genuinely freaky way. But who could that be. . . ?

Peace,

Fausty


Drug users.
Flaunt it.
;)

It wasn't so much being gay as it was being gay drug users anyway.
And then there were the straight drug users...
You know it's REALLY drug users that have it all together (creativity wise...)

Come out of the cabinet...
;)
 
Fausty said:
...So when is zoo marriage coming down the pipeline, that's what I want to know! ;)
You'll know the time has come when Scooby-Doo says, "Shaggy, I do!"

Always thought those two were kinda....an item.
 
main.jpg


polygamy too
 
phlegm69 said:
too me, the word "wed" only petains to hetrosexual relationships, much the same way as the word "gay" petains to homosexual personns.
banga, for somebody who seems so attached to the importance of words, your spelling is awful. "pertains" and "persons" (or people).

on topic, the meaning of the word "wed" and marriage is evolving. that happens to words - language is an organic thing. you are free to stick to your definition as the world progresses.
phlegm69 said:
afterall the marriage act defines marriage as between man and woman.
what does this even mean? again, the definition is changing.
phlegm69 said:
anyhooos.... the homosexuals have decided to deride hetrosexuals in their persuit of acceptance!
in what sense are homosexuals deriding others by doing this?

it's not always about you, you know.

alasdair
 
Kalash said:
I'm opposed to gay marriage for the opposite reasons...
Gay marriage was NEVER illegal anyway - gay marriages happened anyway.
You didn't get arrested for having a gay wedding/marriage.
................
Gay marriage has ALWAYS BEEN LEGAL (my lifetime anyway...)

My issue is that "legally forming relationships" rubs me the wrong way. I don't see why the state needs to be involved in a relationship/contract between two private people.
Gay marriage has not been legally recognized.
From the article:
A referendum in 2000 approved a law specifying that marriage in California could only be between a man and a woman.

The 2004 marriage ceremonies were a direct challenge to this law, and were ruled illegal by judges.

But civil rights campaigners appealed against the ruling, and their arguments were accepted by the San Francisco Superior Court.

And although the lower court's ruling was overturned by the California Court of Appeal in 2006, this ruling was itself reversed last month by the state's Supreme Court.
This will do several new thigs for gay couples. This is going to affect things like marriage benefits inheritance, property rights, the way taxes are filed, insurance, and whatever else heterosexual marriages benefit from.
 
socko said:
Gay marriage has not been legally recognized.
From the article:

Right.....
So it's legally recognized at this point...
The law saying it's between a man and a woman no longer exist...
So...
Gay people can get married at court houses/etc...
And have it be legally recognized.

It changes nothing at the Federal Level (tax season should get interesting...) but in Cali - it's fully recognized.


This will do several new thigs for gay couples. This is going to affect things like marriage benefits inheritance, property rights, the way taxes are filed, insurance, and whatever else heterosexual marriages benefit from.


And I'm all for that stuff - but I'm against it being driven by the state.
The state has no business in the private affairs of the citizens.

What marriage benefits does the government have a RIGHT to bestow upon people?
Taxes? They don't have a right to take them in the first place - they have a criminal privilege to violate the property rights of the people (Constitutionally - 16th amendment gave them that power OVER the rights of the people.)

Inheritance, property rights, insurance, etc...
Not one of those things (other than the protection of their rights to property) is province of the state.

Inheritance is contract law - I can leave whatever I want to whomever I want. If I'm not married - this isn't automatic. So WRITE A @^$&ING WILL.

If you can be married and leave everything to your cats..........
The government doesn't need to be involved in that.

Property rights; private contracts, private solutions.
Divorce? Well... if you don't want to be together any more and can't settle your differences yourselves, get a mediator - or file in small claims.

It's that simple.
Use government as its intended - to resolve conflicts arising between two sovereign entities in order to reduce/eliminate the use of violence in solving disputes.
Every situation is unique - applying broadly drafted laws to all situations is silly - and needs to be stopped.



You proved my point though - "heterosexual marriages benefit" - everything done by the state is a BENEFIT...
Not a RIGHT.

The state has no business handing out benefits to ANYONE - as that is socialism and is severely frowned upon (actually, it's just plain criminal) in the Constitution.

If insurance companies (private companies) want to offer differing benefits based on a perceived difference in one's status, that's their prerogative.
Health insurance for a boy costs more than health insurance for a girl.
Same with car insurance.

Is it FAIR?
Is it EQUAL?
Is it sexual discrimination?

No - the private company has no obligation to provide equal services to unequal people - so long as they do not openly discriminate based on personal prejudices.

People are not EQUAL. They have equal RIGHTS.
That's a hard thing to come to terms with...
For people to be equal (in status and wealth) is communism.
For people to have equal rights, status and wealth will NOT be equal - and providing benefits to the classes with less status and wealth at the cost of those with more status and wealth is an attempt to eliminate class distinction.

I don't hold that class distinction is a good thing - and am strongly opposed to any sort of development that would prevent class mobility - but striking down one's rights in order to benefit another - in order to make that other closer to the first's equal...

You have the epitome of the welfare problem - where you make more money doing less - or even nothing...
Than you would if you were working and paying taxes.

Now, the working man is penalized for working - while those who do not work benefit from that man's labor.

Not to mention the wealth of time freedom that the unemployed beneficiary maintains over the working man.


It's insanity. Total insanity.

Marriage - in any form - does not change that you are an individual. You do not obtain "extra" rights by getting married.
You do not obtain any "right" or "privilege" from those in the community...
Marriage is a private contract - witnessed by the community.
The community is not obligated to do anything because of the contract - they are an uninvolved 3rd party with no standing.

If the married couple suddenly demands more from the community - the community is not obligated to provide it.
Making laws demanding that the community contribute more while the married couple now contributes less?
Enforced - with guns - by the state?

That isn't something the state has the authority to do.
Marriage is a RIGHT (contract right) that the government cannot take away nor grant.
The privileges that come with state recognition of marriage are all illegitimately bestowed upon the couple by the state through use of violent threats/force against the community.

Spreading these benefits to everyone will only cause more problems - as more people will stand up demanding equal "benefits" and "privileges."

Eliminating these benefits is the only way to restore everyone's equal rights.
 
Top