I'm against it, cause, y'know, you have sex with a guy once and he's gonna want to put a ring on your finger.

Seriously though. This is great, 'cause love is love is love, regardless of hardware.

I was going to post this but you beat me to it, you naughty manga girl. Oh well, as long as the story gets out; that's what matters. This is a great day indeed.

I'm kind of hoping that it gets challenged and goes to the US Supreme Court, with the hopes that the ruling is upheld, thus making gay marriage legal in all 50 states. However I'm also scared that it might get struck down because of the conservative tilt of the High Bench. That's why I'm only kind of hoping for this.

And schmawy: So those were all lies you told me by the dashboard light? Well mister, you better start praying for the end of time, because you ain't getting out of it that easy.

*politics

Adding video to channels (Politics) - requested by kronosposeidon.

better quality here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMPC9uamsvk

I love the ninth circuit court of appeals.

Ancient superstitions should not be legislated, and the book of Leviticus is nothing but garbage.

This (the news--not this video in particular) absolutely made my day when it popped up on my rss feed in the middle of a long boring meeting.

Moral slippery slope! Next they'll want to let woman wear pants

The only thing i disagree with here has nothing to do with gays but the statement that California is the leader of cultural change. Bullshit, they like to think they are, and i live here. This is the same state that is again trying to pass laws against video games after countless states deemed it unconstitutional. This is the same state that with Florida went after smoking like it was the equivalent of Nazi pedophiles giving heroin to orphan puppies. This state shouldnt be the leader cause its priorities are way out there, though in terms of gay marriage, go for it. Its their own business anyway so who am I to say they cant.

>> ^Jordass:
The only thing i disagree with here has nothing to do with gays but the statement that California is the leader of cultural change. Bullshit, they like to think they are, and i live here. This is the same state that is again trying to pass laws against video games after countless states deemed it unconstitutional. This is the same state that with Florida went after smoking like it was the equivalent of Nazi pedophiles giving heroin to orphan puppies. This state shouldnt be the leader cause its priorities are way out there, though in terms of gay marriage, go for it. Its their own business anyway so who am I to say they cant.


Those are different parts of california. The SF bay area, and LA/Hollywood area are the leaders of change. Newegg, Google, and lots of other good things come from either the LA area or the bay area. Together they're 63% of the population of California, and on average liberal. California minus those two areas would be as conservative as Utah.

Nice to know that courts can write their own legislation these days. Who needs direct democracy when you have 7 guys who know better?

It's like, when you know what's good for people more than they do.

>> ^ShakaUVM:
Nice to know that courts can write their own legislation these days. Who needs direct democracy when you have 7 guys who know better?


Try reading the decision before you jump to conclusions about it:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

yes and SF and LA should dictate, they are after all, the most shining and influential examples of morality and solid sensibilities-in November, the people will speak, and this unilateral action by a few ass-kissing worthless judges, will be overruled....Newsomes' a chump, San Fran's homicide rate has soared since he's been there, the city looks horrible,....wtf folks,

the poeple of any nation everywhere will continually put down the desires of a few for the sake of the many....what's next Cali? Polygamy??? Sure why not, after all, one unchecked Libido is as good as the next-The other voices of dissent here? Perhaps they just wanna be liked by the other monkeys...

I've got nothing against whatever consenting adults want to do to each other in their own bedroom, even if it's 2 girls and a guy. Legalize polygamy.

A prerequisite for making something illegal is that it harms someone against their will.

round and round and round....this dissent does not come from some roller j-ray, comes from a student of the human condition, societal history and evolution-we're in a portion of the spiral where bullshit like this manifests itself, and once great entities give way to greater or lesser ones-writing on walls, baby, signs and wonders-
" If there is to be a new understanding
of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of
our state and find its expression at the ballot box.
CORRIGAN, J.
...and it will-

what?

What in particular? The whole spiel or the use of figurative references? Lemme translate-
-I'm no holy roller
-I know humans, animals, and I know history
-the "spiral" refers to the evolution of societies, empires, iterations of civilizations and their time lines, all have a beginning, middle, and end.
-flagrant and open homosexuality has been invariably associated the decline of great civs, hence, the reference to Belshazzar of Babylon.
-and I added a bit to the last comment, from the court record you reference-
San Francisco is a showcase for many things-lived there for 6 years-
The current mayor(worthless yes-man, run the city into the ground during his admin. faster than others), the one emotionally commenting (sound bites)on this auspicious occasion which was pretty much a unilateral effort on the part of some of the most radical and out-of-synche examples of the homosexual activist community in San Fran, to undermine majority public opinion for the sake of their own-fuck em. They don't deserve preferential treatment-on the contrary, they already have it....a whole town to play in, walk down the streets publicly during city-sanctioned events wearing only a cock-ring and pasties-(not all of em, some still have some dignity)
This is not a sign that a country is strong, healthy, or resolute in furthering positive societal evolution with a view to longevity-on the contrary, it has been an historical invariability towards a lower path-self-realization and actualization being the universal imperative-

*nochannel
*gay
*politics

This video has been removed from all channels (Gay, Politics, Happy) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by choggie. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Gay, Politics) - requested by choggie.

I, actually, find this troubling, not because of the social issues but because of the political. There was a bill drafted to ban same-sex marriage in California. This became an initiative (that went on to the ballot because politicians didn't want to make that choice and piss off half the state either way). The people voted against same-sex marriage. The mayor of San Francisco demonstrates civil disobedience and performs illegal marriages. The people (not politicians) form a petition to get a measure on the ballot that would make ANY same-sex marriages void in California (regardless of where/why it is performed). This also makes it to the ballot and again passes. Now the supreme court says no?

Does that mean that no matter what the people (again, the legislature isn't the one who passed these two bills) say the court can decide what really *should* be what the people want? This is, of course, ignoring the social issue completely and focusing solely on the political process.

The ninth circuit is NOT an example of the process at work for anything more than agenda, bias, power and influence.....follow the $$$, hunny-Look at their track record-At face value, a lot of what they, lawyers for the ACLU, hell, The United Nations(oxymoronic) do, looks great. One has to look at the inception, evolution, and effects of what they actually accomplish, to see that the sandwich, with fresh, whole grain bread and veggies hangin' out to make you approach it, eyes-agape and mouth-watering....contains a shitburger served cold under all the dressing...
Code Pink, Moveon.org, mediamatters.org perhaps in their ranks, some well-meaning and no doubt thoughtful souls in their ranks, but agian, these folks tend not to understand the true mechanisms of what shaped their agendas, their virulent distaste for universal truths and ideals...nor could most of them work a shovel, change a tire, grow their own food or wipe their own asses without a choice between plys, scents, embossing and colors.

But hey man, Howard the Duck and Lord Whorfin, FTW, we all helped to make this world what it has become, a big chessboard on which a few influential, toxic, and un-human people play-

Now to the homosexuals-"Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law."-Crowley

Don't try taking this out of the Happy channel again, choggie.

The Happy channel is "the place for all things on The Sift that bring sincere happiness and joy, positivity, exuberance, and/or inspiration to the heart, mind and spirit. This is a place for things that beam with warmth and good feelings from the inside and out, as well as the ones that uplift and lighten the mood."

If you're so close-minded that this doesn't make you happy, then that's your pathetic problem, not a problem with the video channel assignments. Stop abusing your privileges.

http://www.slate.com/id/2191500

This article sums up the problems with the "direct democracy" theory (or the idea that the will of the people is paramount) is a very funny way, particularly the first paragraph.

And California still has the option of amending its own Constitution to prohibit the reading offered by the majority in this case. And re-amending it when another majority takes hold, and re-amending . . .

In my view, the California Supremes both made the right call and fulfilled the role of a judiciary which is not merely to read the polls on a social issue, determine the majority view, and protect the majority. The facts of this case are no different than the facts of earlier miscegenation cases. The Mildred Loving case did not lead to polygamy and dogs and cats marrying each other. Southern Virginians in wide majorities also believed that a black person marrying a white person would lead to Sodom, Gomorrah, and biracial people becoming President (even Southern Virginians are right some of the time).

I have never seen an argument that convinces me that a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman harms civil society. No advanced criminal statistics, no economic indicators of commodity prices plunging due to gay people forming families, no social indicators of degraded schools and poor music in church. There are no compelling rational arguments against permitting two homosexual people in love to be recognized as a family by the State.

I have seen plenty of irrational arguments -- ad hominems, mentions of Greece and Sparta, empty slippery slopes, hell . . . Choggie's whole thread here. But we should try the best we can to avoid organizing society on the basis of irrational arguments. If the Bush Administration has taught us nothing else, it has taught us this.

Stop abusing your privileges?? Sounds like a mandate-(requested by choggie) abuse of privs my white ass....the change-back was expected, kuga
So you need to see some studies?...read till yer blue, you won't need to work half as hard to see San Fran's foray shot down in flames-Closed minded is the last thing I am...and "hate" is one of the most abused labels of the nuevo-progressive maelstrom dancers....pathetics a good label for this current iteration of gaypower-to each her/his, he-she's own....

Surprising that comment above regarding Levitcus being nothing but garbage... and the positive response, should b for most, an indication that the writer, like all of us, have serious issues with understanding what the Bible, (or any written word)is is there for-
By the way, the "M" stamped on the head, does rub off with a lot more work than someone has done so far-try to figure it the fuck out-(This reminds me of all the atheist rants on the sift: frustrated, un-actualized, meat-bots, tittering like a Michigan coffee klatch,-
"Mob rules"-just because you can all agree that you really don't understand the dynamics of a subject, gives you license to get together for a masturbation session??.. like someone on the true path gives a fuck!! I must not be on the path, cause I still get pissed off when those silverfish come out of their holes to gnaw at the pages of the phone books and sport coats.....maybe I'm gay??? or *Happy lemme see.........nope, sucked my own dick-still want pussy.....

oh, by the way-most of the gay people out there who are my age??...they probably would not want anything about their current lifestyle to change....these are the radical few, the San-Fran gay folks have values that we all share--we walk among us...they live!!!

BOOOO!!! NOT GOOD!!! NOT GOOD!!!

YOU NEED TO UPHOLD THE BAN!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

-Our children, not yours-

We are making a MINT up here in Canada on American same-sex weddings...

Another prime example of criminal judgeocracy. These rubes in robes are only supposed to interpret the law, not write it. They are not paid to be social activists or eliminate all inequity from society.

This present violation of the rule of law concerns gay marriage, which is the issue at hand but not the root problem, which is courts overstepping their authority.

I'd be personally pleased if the same court legalized drugs and/or hookers, but it's not in their power to do so and as a majority of voters disagree with legalizing those things, I'm out of luck. ha ha ha.

Thank you, QM, I agree with you this time. That was my WHOLE point is that it's not right for the court to make this kind of choice. All it does is puts more crap on the ballot for next election and starts the whole process over again. I know this doesn't bother most of you because you're looking at the social issue and assuming the end justifies the means, but are we prepared to start saying that?

Let's look at it with a different issue. Let's say a proposition goes on the ballot for an end to the Iraq war. 61% of Americans vote in favor of it. The supreme court declares it unconstitutional and the war continues. I'm sure such a measure would never exist, but if we can ignore the issue then it's essentially the same idea.

Anyway, my point has been made.

One prerequisite for justly using the force of government to restrict an action is that it causes harm to someone against his will. Homosexuality does no such thing. We're not facing any kind of shortage of reproducing heterosexuals.

This a salient parody of anti-homosexuality politics:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/4510/futurama-anti-robot-propaganda

Aemaeth, the problem as I see it isn't that the court is legislating from the bench. It's that you can't simply change some things by vote or new law. If you could they could outlaw free speech tomorrow, or the right to own guns. It's not as simple as a new law because some rights are protected by the Constitution. As it states in the opening lines of the 172 page decision itself "The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution."

I'm not familiar with the California State Constitution myself but it seems the wrong argument is being made. You need to either show that they are wrong in their interpretation of the State Constitution or you need to change that Constitution. This doesn't seem to be a matter of legislating from the bench and neither are most accusations of the sort I've seen once you get into the details of the cases. Simply arguing that it could be ignored by act of legislation or petition would be a damned dangerous precedent if it worked. Personally I hope it never does.

Jwray, how many victimless crimes do we have? Prostitution, drugs, etc. Again, we're looking at the social issue and not the political.

Drattus, I'm just saying it's stupid. It's within their power to make that choice, but in November there will be ANOTHER measure on the ballot to add an amendment to the stat constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage (it's already set, it's going to be on the ballot). Everything we vote for costs money. Why did we need to vote THREE TIMES for what could have been one or two if the supreme court hadn't gotten involved?

Maybe I put that badly, Aemaeth. The "activist judges" thing has been beat to death as a talking point, used in cases where maybe it applied and maybe it didn't until too many people I'd think are sick of it just like they are getting with so many other talking points on both sides of the aisle. When you get down to asking them what activism they generally don't have the slightest idea. It's just another way to say 'I didn't like the decision'.

On the social merits I like it myself. Everyone deserves to be treated like a real human with real feelings and rights and I don't see how what they do in their bedrooms changes my life in the slightest. On the legal merits someone needs to show why it's wrong if they want to argue it's a bad decision and we do have precedent in Federal law for that sort of thing.

Amendment XV of the Constitution guaranteed equal rights by race some 100 years or so before it was ever enforced and when it finally was enforced I'm sure some claimed activist judges as well. It wasn't activism though, it was just the court finally doing their jobs. As I said before I'm not familiar with the California Constitution but it seems to me that's the argument they are making, they are simply enforcing what should have already been by State law. Rather than the "activist judges" argument which explains nothing and argue nothing we need something more to to go on if we're to assume it was a bad decision. Bad in what way, why?

I'm not a blind defender of the court, they make plenty of bad decisions too and sometimes with good intentions. Look no farther than the drug war for a dozen examples of it. But if we're to fight it there's process to follow. It can't be just our own activist judges or claims of them from the other side in the past as a justification. Take a shortcut in the process and it's a precedent now, the other side can shortcut your fix too. Bad news for both sides of any issue in the end.

Heheh...I love when stuff like this gets announced. I love to hear the boos from the gallery, as if they'll make a difference in the long run. Pot is illegal; people still smoke it if they want to. Gay marriage is illegal; gay people will still get married if they want to. Guns are illegal to be owned by felons; felons still get their hands on guns when the want to.

You want the answer to the meaning of life? Everybody bitching and moaning about what they can or can't be allowed to do. There's your answer. It's all masturbation.

That was voted in by about 62%, if I remember correctly. I put in a lot of hours to get that passed. Who do those dummies think they are?

That's why I moved away. California is full of crazies.

oh this is bad, i mean what's next?
- negroes marrying white women?
- a catholic president??
- females being allowed to vote???

>> ^Aemaeth:
Jwray, how many victimless crimes do we have? Prostitution, drugs, etc. Again, we're looking at the social issue and not the political.


Anything about what the law ought to be is political. We're talking about whether gay marriage should be legal.

Some drugs (and Truancy) ought to be illegal solely because they impair the ability of the actor to give his informed consent to future actions. Reproductive incest is illegal because it harms (via birth defects from inbreeding) the offspring without their consent. But prostitution should be legalized consistent with the principle before stated, because it harms no nonconsenting party.

Gay Marriage does not lead to any sort of harm PERIOD, let alone harm without the informed consent of the harmed, therefore it should be legal.

>> ^Aemaeth:
I, actually, find this troubling, not because of the social issues but because of the political. There was a bill drafted to ban same-sex marriage in California. This became an initiative (that went on to the ballot because politicians didn't want to make that choice and piss off half the state either way). The people voted against same-sex marriage. The mayor of San Francisco demonstrates civil disobedience and performs illegal marriages. The people (not politicians) form a petition to get a measure on the ballot that would make ANY same-sex marriages void in California (regardless of where/why it is performed). This also makes it to the ballot and again passes. Now the supreme court says no?
Does that mean that no matter what the people (again, the legislature isn't the one who passed these two bills) say the court can decide what really should be what the people want? This is, of course, ignoring the social issue completely and focusing solely on the political process.


THE REASON THE USA HAS A BILL OF RIGHTS IS TO PREVENT TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY. Even if 99% of the people support a law that violates the rights of the other 1%, that law must be struck down. If the Emancipation Proclamation had been put to referendum in all states (including the south) in 1863, it would have failed.

>> ^choggie:
The ninth circuit is NOT an example of the process at work for anything more than agenda, bias, power and influence.....follow the $$$, hunny-Look at their track record-At face value, a lot of what they, lawyers for the ACLU, hell, The United Nations(oxymoronic) do, looks great. One has to look at the inception, evolution, and effects of what they actually accomplish, to see that the sandwich, with fresh, whole grain bread and veggies hangin' out to make you approach it, eyes-agape and mouth-watering....contains a shitburger served cold under all the dressing...
Code Pink, Moveon.org, mediamatters.org perhaps in their ranks, some well-meaning and no doubt thoughtful souls in their ranks, but agian, these folks tend not to understand the true mechanisms of what shaped their agendas, their virulent distaste for universal truths and ideals...nor could most of them work a shovel, change a tire, grow their own food or wipe their own asses without a choice between plys, scents, embossing and colors.
But hey man, Howard the Duck and Lord Whorfin, FTW, we all helped to make this world what it has become, a big chessboard on which a few influential, toxic, and un-human people play-
Now to the homosexuals-"Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law."-Crowley


Mind backing up any of your accusations with references?

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
Everybody bitching and moaning about what they can or can't be allowed to do. There's your answer. It's all masturbation.


They go and get married underground or in Canada, but that doesn't get their employer-provided family-insurance to carry over to the spouse, or let them file taxes jointly (in most states). We have a duty to oppose official bigotry anyway.

Man, my opinion of choggie just gets lower and lower. I see a lot of people arguing over the way in which this came to pass (law wise), which I'm not going to enter, as I'm not American or pretend to know your legal system. But for choggie to state "flagrant and open homosexuality has been invariably associated the decline of great civs, hence, the reference to Belshazzar of Babylon." and to downvote this on apparently that measure... well, that's a lot of hate there.

Please demonstrate where homosexuality has brought down civilizations outside of fairy tales and fantastical retelling of real world events.

And why the F*ck does it matter if two guys or two girls get married, how does it affect you AT ALL? Geeze, let people love each other regardless of race or sex, just let people be. They aren't hurting you, they aren't hurting me, they certainly don't seem to be hurting each other, just leave them be.

[edit] and as usual, Jon Stewart says it very eloquently.

Notice how there is not moral outrage from the Republican Party about this.

Had this been 2004 there would have been a huge backlash, but its 2008 and they know no one likes them bullshitting anymore.

There is no moral outrage from the RNC because their candidate voted against the Federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1997. Unlike Bill Clinton, I could add.

If Bush were running again, Choggie would be assigned as his speechwriter for this particular issue and Fox News would be in full wedge-issue Chicken Little mode.

you're all fucking retarded. the court is there to protect the rights of all from dipshits that want to enforce their opinion where it doesn't belong. That's all. Choggie, you're forgetting that majority rule is the tyranny of the majority. Hence, the Bill Of Rights. (well put jwray)