Prop 8 Overturned!!

I would have guessed that, and I'm happy with it, but there are two more levels..

Overjoyed about the ruling

And I hope they (either side) drag it all the way to the Supreme Court. With Keegan on the bench (she's a virtual lock for the nomination), I feel positive they will end up declaring every state law banning gay marriage unconstitutional.

Well that's just dandy. Now they will feel miserable just like straight married men...

I generally dislike the idea of a vote being overturned by one person - but this is the best use of a judge I've seen. It is clearly unconstitutional to hold a set of people aside for discrimination. This guy is a hero.

by looking at a2k one could conclude that nearly all Americans approve of gay marriage being legal...the fact is that 42% do.

There are nine....they still manage to get a lot wrong but it is at least better than one.

Well, ****, that's an improvement.

I was talking about Vaughn Walker ..."one person"... I do realize a lot of people might not approve of gay marriage...but it's a human rights issue that supercedes voter preferences. I don't think Walker's argument can be bested. But, I do wonder if it opens the floodgates for all the crap we've heard will come next: polygamy, Fido the bride, and daddy and daughter nuptials... Interested to see how this unfolds.

Well done!!! Hopes for the next bits.

and women, you doofus.

Why in hell should gay people be allowed to be any happier than the rest of us, dammit?

Lash, That would be "impossible." It's about "all men are created equal."

I am aware, but he is not the decider, SCOTUS is.

I wonder what institution is next to lose a definition from the collective, that will no longer have any agreed upon meaning. The collective voluntarily gave up defining family during my lifetime, we are likely about to lose the ability to define marriage by way of the courts and a lot of people want to dedefine marriage anyway so we might get there even if the court goes the right way this time. So what is next? Religion I assume, which given the Constitution will make things interesting around here. I can look forward to for instance the making of swinging a religion and so the clubs can be run tax free and partly protected from the law, so I guess this will have an upside for me. The lovers of weed will certainly form a religion, that one I might join as well. After religion gets dedefined IDK what comes next, or if we will finally have had our fill of this stupidity.

I don't know, but it seems to me this all could have been avoided instead of next going to the the 9th Circuit and eventually to the Supreme Court. All it would have taken is to have forsaken introducing the word "marriage" into the discussion.
If the advocates of same-sex unions had simply advocated for the same legal rights (joint tax returns, inheritance, end of life decisions, etc) this issue would be behind us. But they insisted on including the word "marriage."
That brought out the folks arguing on religious grounds that "marriage" is between a woman and a man and any attempt to define it otherwise is wrong.

If the word "marriage" (a religious ceremony that the government should probably not be involved in) was taken out of the equation, would this really be such a hot-topic issue?
I guess I am being more than a bit naive, huh?

DUH.....The gay rights crowd has demanded to prove that the rest of us do not have the right to tell them no, they are not open to compromise,,,,they want what they want when they want it.

This has to impact the law in Texas, where a transgender widow has been targeted by the man's mother and ex wife in a lawsuit. Texas law states that only a man and woman can be married. A judge has frozen the assets of the marriage.

But would you agree that a couple, even if they are of the same gender, should have the same legal rights for such things as joint tax returns, inheritance etc as a couple of opposite sex?

Very few people do not agree, it is marriage and the fact that Gays claim that no one can tell them no is what gets my objection. Although in an a2k thread a couple of years back I did say that so long as gays continue to be snotty little bastards then **** them...my answer when ever they demand something is no. I have also said that we should move slowly, as the evidence that gay unions are not a problem for the collective is iffy..

RJB deleted this post but I will respond anyways..

for me yes...it is the foot stomping, fist banging, yelling "I WANT-IWANT-IWANT NOW SO HURRY THE **** UP" that we keep getting out of the groups that claim to represent all gays that gets me to "**** off!".

EDIT: I might or might not be willing to go along with redefining marriage, I will not go along with the claim that the majority has no right to continue to define marriage in the traditional way.