California's Prop 8 overturned...

[LiamMcConville]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonath..._b_671152.html

[EnchantedKiwi]

Justice and Equality. I'm so happy for California

[daniellaaarisen]

Thank God.

PS. Liam, if I knew what was good for me I'd steal your signature picture right now.

[LikeAWillow]

Originally Posted by LiamMcConville

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonath..._b_671152.html

Aren't you glad you're coming to San Francisco to celebrate? See you guys in a few hours Yes, I realize I'm embarassing you and you hate me. I don't care.

I'm thrilled for California for the time being and terrifed over what will happen when this hits the Supreme Court.

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by LikeAWillow

I'm thrilled for California for the time being and terrifed over what will happen when this hits the Supreme Court.

I'm especially interested in how this will be handled by the Supreme Court. If I were the guy in charge of promoting this horrendous bill, I'd be terrified of it getting to the Supreme Court, and would give up before it gets there.

Even though the court is leaning to the conservative side right now, Ruth Ginsberg has said something about the issue that is very revealing. Basically, she implied that the court's decision on gay marriage is really going to come down to a debate between status and conduct - if the court decides homosexuality is a status - like gender, race, eye color, etc... then marriage laws must apply equally to everyone regardless of sexual orientation because status is based on genetic conditions that cannot be avoided or conditioned through behavior.

On the other hand, if the court leans toward homosexuality being a conduct - a chosen or conditioned behavior -then no equal marriage rights would be extended.

No matter what backwoods hole you live in, you really must be completely ignorant to believe that anyone chooses to be gay. I don't feel like looking for sources to cite my statements here, but I'm pretty sure that most credible scientific institutions throughout the world have come to the overwhelming conclusion that homosexuality is a genetic status, unavoidable, with distinct diferences in brain makeup and hormone production when compared to heterosexual individuals.

If this issue makes it to the Supreme Court, I fail to see how the court could determine it to be a matter of conduct - they must, based on the evidence, determine it to be a matter of status. Thus, marriage equality must be granted. The impact of that judgement will be nationwide, and will likely lead to gay marriage in every state.

The proponents of Prop 8 would be fools to allow this to reach the Supreme Court; but hey - if they want to inadvertently give me the right to marry, so be it.

[bluefox4000]

This is fabulous but i'm not celebrating just yet......anything could happen.

Mick

[ILoveFM]

Yay! This makes me SO happy!

[MissLadyLoki]

(Stupid 10 letter at least in a post)

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

I'm especially interested in how this will be handled by the Supreme Court. If I were the guy in charge of promoting this horrendous bill, I'd be terrified of it getting to the Supreme Court, and would give up before it gets there.

Even though the court is leaning to the conservative side right now, Ruth Ginsberg has said something about the issue that is very revealing. Basically, she implied that the court's decision on gay marriage is really going to come down to a debate between status and conduct - if the court decides homosexuality is a status - like gender, race, eye color, etc... then marriage laws must apply equally to everyone regardless of sexual orientation because status is based on genetic conditions that cannot be avoided or conditioned through behavior.

On the other hand, if the court leans toward homosexuality being a conduct - a chosen or conditioned behavior -then no equal marriage rights would be extended.

No matter what backwoods hole you live in, you really must be completely ignorant to believe that anyone chooses to be gay. I don't feel like looking for sources to cite my statements here, but I'm pretty sure that most credible scientific institutions throughout the world have come to the overwhelming conclusion that homosexuality is a genetic status, unavoidable, with distinct diferences in brain makeup and hormone production when compared to heterosexual individuals.

If this issue makes it to the Supreme Court, I fail to see how the court could determine it to be a matter of conduct - they must, based on the evidence, determine it to be a matter of status. Thus, marriage equality must be granted. The impact of that judgement will be nationwide, and will likely lead to gay marriage in every state.

The proponents of Prop 8 would be fools to allow this to reach the Supreme Court; but hey - if they want to inadvertently give me the right to marry, so be it.

If the case makes it up to the SCOTUS by appeal, I believe Scalia and those other neocon thugs will have a very difficult time trying to make a case for invalidating Judge Walker's written decision, which basically said that the arguments for denying LGBT the right to marry have been utterly specious, unfounded and based purely on conjecture and propaganda. History is on the right side of this issue- in the case of Loving vs. Virginia (interracial marriage), similar arguments were made about the "sanctity" of the institution of marriage and the so-called "damage" to society inflicted by children born from mixed race parents. Also, it's a matter of the right to privacy. The potential swing voter, Justice Kennedy, has already gone on record as being a strong advocate to the right to privacy, even writing the majority opinion that shot down anti-sodomy laws as being unconstitutional. At the time of his decision, he got a lot of heat for his position because this completely decriminalized homosexual acts and supposedly paved the way for gay marriage to proceed. For Kennedy to somehow go against marriage equality is in a sense him backtracking on his earlier opinion. Another thing to keep in mind is that if the SCOTUS does rule against marriage equality, they will have to sort out all of the same-sex marriages that have already taken place in the states that legalized them- thereby creating a third class of civil unions (kind of like the mess that was in California since 2008).

I don't think there is ever going to be a "right" time to bring this to the SCOTUS. Now that the case against marriage equality has been dealt a severe blow, perhaps now is indeed the time to get some momentum going so that perhaps one day we can aspire to be Argentina.

[Zombie]

This pleases me greatly, but as others have pointed out - it could still go awry.

The idea is a downer, but to make up for that, here is a thing that made me happy - despite Arnold doing/saying things that sometimes annoy me, I was happy to read that he has stated couples shouldn't have to wait to get married. That coupled with his recent comments on being afraid to go to Arizona, lest they go after him for having an accent, have made me like him more than I have in a long time. Well-played, sir!