California Supreme Court Rules that Separate is NOT Equal

[Altalia Slosky]

Because the people of California don't want to.

Back in the 60s, people in some states didn't want interracial marriage to be allowed either. Should interracial marriage have been banned in those states?

 

[gengwall]

Often times the majority doesn't want to allow things to the minority. But the rights of everyone need to be protected.

If it doesn't matter what it is called, then why do you care if they are calling it "marriage"? I can understand you not getting excited over this, but why are you getting upset? (Or, rather, I thought you seemed a bit upset at the beginning.)

Lol - maybe it's a little male PMS, not sure. In this case, again, it wasn't a matter of rights.

 

[gengwall]

Back in the 60s, people in some states didn't want interracial marriage to be allowed either. Should interracial marriage have been banned in those states?

Again, the opinons cover that ground.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Lol - maybe it's a little male PMS, not sure. In this case, again, it wasn't a matter of rights.

I disagree, but only slightly (since I feel that two adults being allowed to "marry" is a civil right).

It's one of those days, I think. I know I'm feeling a bit "ornery" myself, today.

 

[selfinflikted]

IHomosexuality is a disgusting and repugnant act (and also vaguely comical when you think about it). It utterly boggles my mind how someone could desire to sleep with someone of the same gender.

That's because you're straight. I can't believe you can be so naive that you can't for one minute imagine that's probably the way most gays view heterosexual sex.

It is a strange sexual disorder.

No, it's just different.

All things in nature have a purpose -- the purpose of sex in a natural scope is procreation and the formation of a family. Homosexuality flies in the face of this.

No, it doesn't. It's something that two people who are attracted (and are oftentimes in love) to one another do to satisfy a natural urge, the same as heterosexuals.

 

[Ramona]

In other news, the California Supreme Court justices are actually doing their job. Isn't this sort of like applauding a doctor for writing prescriptions? If they ruled any other way, they wouldn't be doing what they were hired for.

 

[CaDan]

I find it interesting that those applauding this opinion keep referring to "separate but equal" when the majority never used the phrase or referenced Brown v Board of Ed. This was not a "separate but equal" case and the majority used no such reasoning in their decision.

Slip Op. p. 116; see also p. 103 (citing Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S.
629, 634 (1950)).

 

[aotn]

So with the ban struck down, gay-marriage is now a go in the state? There's no more to it than that?

 

[CaDan]

Really. You imply that the court is using the precedent of one of the biggest civil rights cases ever, a case cited whenever anything close to a "separate but equal" mistake has been made in the law, and yet the court in the decision neither invokes the phrase "separate but equal" nor makes even a passing or footnoted citation of the case. That's quite an oversight by the court if a righting of a "separate but equal" violation was their intent. Usually, courts don't relie on us to read between the lines and get the "gist" of what they are saying. They are pretty good at documenting the use of a precedent when it exists.

*sigh*

The argument was that the institutions were not equal. Hence, the California Court relied on Sweatt v. Painter rather than Brown.

 

[selfinflikted]

So with the ban struck down, gay-marriage is now a go in the state? There's no more to it than that?

For now. Of course you'll have those that are going to fight the ruling. But for now, all is well it seems.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

I'm really proud of California over this.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Well, fine then. "Ban" is a word that has such a negative connotation,

Gee…prejudice and discrimination phrased negatively. Who would have thought it possible?
I have to wonder if you could phrase racism as a jolly, happy affair

that I thought you believed homosexuals actually were being "banned" from some service or civil right that heterosexuals have. As long as you recognize that all this fuss is over the use of a word, I'm happy for your victory.

as noted trev has his work cut out for him confronting the many fabrications

 

[BigBadWlf]

Why is it such a big deal? It has absolutely no practical effect. Not that I care, call your unions what ever you like. But really, why such wailing and nashing of teeth over a simple word?

Here the practical effect is that the thousands of same sex couples who were married in California now have equal rights. Additionally the tens of thousands of same gendered couples marrying in California’s further will also have equal rights .

And people like you are left to try to come up with some justification for discrimination…BTW trying to play down the significance of equality really isn’t working



in the meantime, why not ask interracial couples what effect the Supreme Court had when the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds and ruled that anti misogyny laws were unconstitutional.
Seems appropriate as your complaints and protests today are the same as those fired off in 1968 by those supporting discrimination

 

[BigBadWlf]

Homosexuality is a disgusting and repugnant act (and also vaguely comical when you think about it).

So is bigotry…yet you happily engage in it (and there is nothing funny about bigotry)

It utterly boggles my mind how someone could desire to sleep with someone of the same gender.

It boggles my mind you some could hate others just because they are different

All things in nature have a purpose -- the purpose of sex in a natural scope is procreation and the formation of a family. Homosexuality flies in the face of this.

So is infertility. That’s why it is acceptable to discriminate against women who have survived cervical cancer…right?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Because the people of California don't want to.

And the good people of Virginia didn’t want to call married interracial couples married either.

The good white people of Arkansas didn’t want their children to be educated with black children in the room

The people of countless states didn’t want blacks voting at all

Its sad how the arguments used to support racism get reused time and again

 

[BigBadWlf]

Oh, oh, oh, I really want to pursue this line of reasoning (something like, "if 'certificate' and 'diploma' have no impact on me getting into college or getting a job..."), but I agree, my foul mood is just mucking things up. I got to go for today anyway. Maybe tomorrow I'll be less ornery.

If equality means so little to you, as you keep claiming, why do you protest equality so?

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Equality and progression 1, other side 0.

 

[gengwall]

Here the practical effect is that the thousands of same sex couples who were married in California now have equal rights.

No it isn't. They had equal rights all along.

And people like you are left to try to come up with some justification for discrimination…BTW trying to play down the significance of equality really isn’t working

What is more equal now than before? Where was the disparity prior to this decision?

 

[gengwall]

If equality means so little to you, as you keep claiming, why do you protest equality so?

Equality means plenty to me but this case has nothing to do with equality, it's all about one simple English word.

 

[HannahBanana]

Homosexuality is a disgusting and repugnant act (and also vaguely comical when you think about it).

How so? Also, I fail to see what's so comical about someone being naturally attracted to people of their own gender.

It utterly boggles my mind how someone could desire to sleep with someone of the same gender.

Why is that so mind-boggling to you?

It is a strange sexual disorder.

Maybe if you're living in the 1970s, it is. But now, in the 2000s, it is not.

All things in nature have a purpose -- the purpose of sex in a natural scope is procreation and the formation of a family. Homosexuality flies in the face of this.

Infertility and old age fly in the face of this, too, yet I don't see you getting all up in arms about infertile or elderly people getting married.