Gays can't marry in Cali or whatever.

[arg]

gays are responsible for AIDS! stop the gay plague!

 

[AchrisK]

@ AchrisK
I think you misunderstood me. Just because i don't think a cult should have to let people who doesn't fullfill it's cult acquirements take part of it's cult rites doesn't mean i support it. I'm questioning why someone who according to a cult's rules is trash would like to take part of it's rites to start with.

*edit* It's like if a black guy would get pissed because he couldn't join SS.

I understand, I was just messin' with you. Thus

 

[cookiecutter]

Yeah i realize i formulated myself badly, but my point was that people who throw shit at the church for not allowing gays to marry are wrong. Gays being married by law i fully support.

The reason churches, especially mormon ones, have been the object of protest recently is that they actively worked to take away rights from gay people, and now gay people are understandably pissed.

 

[skeptik]

mattson, legalizing gay marriage does not force any church to wed homosexual couples. This is not a discussion about religious marriage, though obviously it's a very confusing scenario for most people since they automatically associate marriage with religion, but in reality, this law should have nothing to do with religion and religious beliefs. And as cookiecutter said, the reason that religious institutions have come under fire after this is because of their campaigning for the banning of gay marriage. The Mormon church was the single greatest financial contributor for Proposition 8, for example, spending millions upon millions of dollars to ensure that a certain group of citizens cannot have a specific right that all others are entitled to.

Also:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081119/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_lawsuits

Calif. Supreme Court to take up gay marriage ban

SAN FRANCISCO – California's highest court agreed Wednesday to hear several legal challenges to the state's new ban on same-sex marriage but refused to allow gay couples to resume marrying before it rules.

The California Supreme Court accepted three lawsuits seeking to nullify Proposition 8, a voter-approved constitutional amendment that overruled the court's decision in May that legalized gay marriage.

All three cases claim the measure abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.

As is its custom when it takes up cases, the court did not elaborate on its decision.

Along with the gay rights groups and local governments petitioning to overturn the ban, the measure's sponsors and Attorney General Jerry Brown had urged the Supreme Court to consider whether Proposition 8 passes legal muster.

The court directed Brown and lawyers for the Yes on 8 campaign to submit their arguments for why the ballot initiative should not be nullified by Dec. 19. It said lawyers for the plaintiffs, who include same-sex couples who did not wed before the election, must respond before Jan. 5. Oral arguments could be scheduled as early as March, according to court spokeswoman Lynn Holton.

Both opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 expressed confidence Wednesday that their arguments would prevail.

But they also agreed that the cases present the court's seven justices — six of whom voted to review the challenges — with complex questions that have few precedents in state case law.

 

[AchrisK]

Anyone know if they make the arguments of those involved available for the general public to read? I would be interested in reading them.

 

[cookiecutter]

I'm optimistic. I don't see how the California Supreme Court can not overturn this ban but we'll see.