By a vote of 6-1 (with Justice Carlos Moreno dissenting), the California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8 -- while preserving the marriage licenses of 18,000 same-sex couples who wed in the months prior to the November election. Paul Hogarth is reading the 185-page Court decision as we speak, and will be reporting later today with his legal analysis of the Court's reasoning.

man i don't even know. honestly i can't comprehend how this could go a court and they could rule this way. it's an embarrassment really.

Yeah it's unbelievable it went this far, and it should have been a unanimous decision

lololololol rage time

and it should have been a unanimous decision

i agree. i don't even know what to say really besides that i'm disappointed.

I'm disappointed and disgusted. Talk about legislating from the bench. This is like Plessy v. Ferguson.

Yep, you guessed it, this wasn't decided by judges; it was decided by the people of California. Of course, the gay agenda attempted to use activist judges to try to legislate from the bench by throwing a shitstorm to try to get it overturned.

In all seriousness, I'm not happy with proposition 8 because I don't want the government to be involved in marriage whatsoever. But between right to freedom of religion and the privilege of getting married, I think the former trumps the latter.

Atheists can get married and religious gays can't?

Be that as it may: 1) If one group is being unfairly discriminated against by anyone, then it's the responsibility of the government to protect that group and 2) Religion has nothing to do with marriage. One party having a penis and the other having a vagina has nothing to do with religion. Atheists can get married and religious gays can't?

duh she has something to back it up, read what it says right after it

1) So then you agree with Proposition 8, as it protects religious people from unfair prosecution, right? After all, that's why prop 8 was made in the first place, wasn't it?

2) Maybe it didn't. But the problem is, gays think they can sue religious organizations for not allowing them to marry... and they're having success at it. The people of California decided that the free exercise of religion needed to be protected from activist homosexuals.

uh... and? She's making it seem like marriage didn't come out of religion..

she said religion has nothing to do with it. what don't you get, those are her exact words. sure it came out of it, but that doesn't matter now. you don't have to be affiliated with a church or religious to get married. they aren't related now like they were. i'm an atheist and i would have no problem getting married to my girlfriend, because it has nothing to do with church.

Again.. Religion has EVERYTHING to do with marriage. Jesus Christ for once... study a religion.. ANY religion. BRB gonna smash my face into a 10 inch blade repeatedly.

YOU'RE REJECTING REALITY. if it REALLY had EVERYTHING to do with it, then I, an atheist wouldn't be able to get married either. maybe in your world it has everything to do with it, but in the real world, religion and marriage are NOT that related anymore because non religious people can get married any day of the week.

BRB SMASHING MY HEAD AGAINST THE WALL

Right... technically, you can't get married in the Church. A conservative Church would have you fill out an application and more than likely if you admit you're an atheist, they would not wed you. Why? Because you don't even belong in the church to begin with lol...

i don't need to get married in a church. you don't need a church to get legally married to someone.

Churches do not marry people. States do. When you apply for a marriage license, you don't go to your nearest church, you go to a state agency, i.e. a city hall.

Right so this is really all about the term we're using... "Marriage" literally is a religious unity between man and woman.

What you non believers, including f****ts should call it, is something other than Marriage. The term Marriage simply has been brutally misunderstood and misused.

You know that if you don't file for a marriage license, your marriage isn't formally recognized right?

^ I'm not saying that marriage did or didn't come out of religion, but if it did, why can atheists marry and religious gays cannot?
But if marriage is a civil institution and marriage licenses are granted by the state, then how is it religious prosecution? Those against Prop 8 aren't suing the church, they're suing the state.

I see what you're saying, but the answer is no, not if it (unjustly) puts the rights of one group above those of another group, and especially not if precedent has been set (e.g. Brown vs. Board of Ed; Loving v. Virginia).

It's not selective memory because, honestly, I hadn't heard of Baker v. Nelson before, but, from what I've gleaned from googling, it seems decidedly at odds with the two rulings I stated previously. But then, I'm biased; I don't think there's a difference between racial discrimination and discrimination based on gender and sexuality. I'm not denying Baker as precedent, since it's fairly obvious that it is, but with the trend going the way it is, it doesn't seem like it'll be precedent for much longer.

So judicial precedent is only a valid argument when that precedent supports your views huh. How convenient.

Indeed, your bias is apparent. You can't have it both ways.

As much as the Amish may appear to be outside of the mainstream, they apply for marriage licenses, they just don't need an officiant. In that case, it's called a self-uniting marriage. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07271/821194-85.stm

And, apparently, they pay taxes, too.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm acknowledging that Baker is valid precedent ("I'm not denying Baker as precedent, since it's fairly obvious that it is"), but that with the trend leaning towards a legalization of gay marriage, I don't think it'll be precedent for much longer. Like how Plessy was precedent before Brown ruled it unconstitutional.

Property tax, ya... they have to pay for the large piece of land.

The reason why they don't need a marriage license is because it is their community who gives the yay or nay. The Amish don't depend on man made laws for civility, they depend on their religious laws.

To be recognized as legal by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, marriages must be performed under a valid marriage license duly issued by a Clerk of Orphans’ Court MUST BE OFFICIATED by one of the following individuals specifically recognized under PA law as authorized to officiate, to wit:

Sec. 1503. Persons qualified to solemnize marriages.

(a) General rule. The following are authorized to solemnize marriages between persons that produce a marriage license issued under this part:

1. A justice, judge or district justice of this Commonwealth.
2. A former or retired justice, judge or district justice of this Commonwealth who is serving as a senior judge or a senior district justice as provided or prescribed by law.
3. An active or senior judge or full-time magistrate of the District Courts of the United States for the Eastern, Middle or Western District of Pennsylvania.
4. An active or senior judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit who is a resident of this Commonwealth.
5. A mayor of any city or borough of this Commonwealth.
6. A minister, priest or rabbi of any regularly established church or congregation.

(b) Religious organizations. Every religious society, religious institution or religious organization in this Commonwealth may join persons together in marriage when at least one of the persons is a member of the society, institution or organization, according to the rules and customs of the society, institution or organization. (Amish & Quakers if you are a member)

© Marriage license needed to officiate. No person or religious organization qualified to perform marriages shall officiate at a marriage ceremony without the parties having obtained a marriage license issued under this part.

IC 31-11-4-1
Marriage license required to marry
Sec. 1. Before two (2) individuals may marry each other, the individuals must obtain a marriage license under this chapter.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.3. [...]

IC 31-11-4-4
Application; sexually transmitted diseases acknowledgment; religious objections
Sec. 4. (a) An application for a marriage license must be written and verified. The application must contain the following information concerning each of the applicants:
(1) Full name.
(2) Birthplace.
(3) Residence.
(4) Age.
(5) Names of dependent children.
(6) Full name, including the maiden name of a mother, last known residence, and, if known, the place of birth of:
(A) the birth parents of the applicant if the applicant is not adopted; or
(B) the adoptive parents of the applicant if the applicant is adopted.
(7) A statement of facts necessary to determine whether any legal impediment to the proposed marriage exists.
(8) Except as provided in subsection (e), an acknowledgment that both applicants must sign, affirming that the applicants have received the information described in section 5 of this chapter, including a list of test sites for the virus that causes AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome). The

acknowledgment required by this subdivision must be in the following form:
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I acknowledge that I have received information regarding dangerous communicable diseases that are sexually transmitted and a list of test sites for the virus that causes AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome).
__________________________ ____________
Signature of Applicant Date
__________________________ ____________
Signature of Applicant Date
(b) The clerk of the circuit court shall record the application, including the license and certificate of marriage, in a book provided for that purpose. This book is a public record.
© The state department of health shall develop uniform forms for applications for marriage licenses. The state department of health shall furnish these forms to the circuit court clerks. The state department of health may periodically revise these forms.
(d) The state department of health shall require that the record of marriage form developed under subsection © must include each applicant's Social Security number. Any Social Security numbers collected on the record of marriage form shall be kept confidential and used only to carry out the purposes of the Title IV-D program. A person who knowingly or intentionally violates confidentiality regarding an applicant's Social Security numbers as described in this subsection commits a Class A infraction.
(e) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a person who objects on religious grounds is not required to:
(1) verify the application under subsection (a) by oath or affirmation; or
(2) sign the acknowledgment described in subsection (a)(8).
However, before the clerk of the circuit court may issue a marriage license to a member of the Old Amish Mennonite church, the bishop of that member must sign a statement that the information in the application is true.
(f) If a person objects on religious grounds to:
(1) verifying the application under subsection (a) by oath or affirmation; or
(2) signing the acknowledgment described in subsection (a)(8);
the clerk of the circuit court shall indicate that fact on the application for a marriage license.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.213-1999, SEC.8; P.L.86-2002, SEC.5.

OK, so if you acknowledge the current precedent, do you admit your previous argument is null and void?

Besides, I'm not quite sure there is a trend, given that for every state that votes to allow gay marriage, there are just as many that vote to ban it. Not counting the ones that keep the status quo where gays aren't allowed to marry.

But hey, I hope you're right about this trend thing when it comes to Roe v. Wade.

But they do get marriage licenses. Like with the state of Pennsylvania:
http://www.washingtoncourts.us/pages/roMarriageLicenses.aspx
http://www.tiogacountypa.us/tioga/cwp/view...Nav=|9605|9658|

And from the state of Indiana:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title31/ar11/ch4.html

OK, so if you acknowledge the current precedent, do you admit your previous argument is null and void?

Besides, I'm not quite sure there is a trend, given that for every state that votes to allow gay marriage, there are just as many that vote to ban it. Not counting the ones that keep the status quo where gays aren't allowed to marry.

But hey, I hope you're right about this trend thing when it comes to Roe v. Wade.

Eh.. I don't think you're understanding anything I've said.

As long as Baker stands, then yes, the majority of my argument is null and void.

Look up Montana and Texas... they're filing for sovereignty and have already started state industries for their states only.

Buuuullllllsshhiiittttt. The governor of Texas half-seriously suggested that Texas should secede, but it's not actually doing it (and I doubt Montana is, either). States can't "file for sovereignty" because states can't secede. We fought a war over this. Look it up, I think it's referred to in the US as the "Civil War".

Buuuullllllsshhiiittttt. The governor of Texas half-seriously suggested that Texas should secede, but it's not actually doing it (and I doubt Montana is, either). States can't "file for sovereignty" because states can't secede. We fought a war over this. Look it up, I think it's referred to in the US as the "Civil War".

Bullshit?

States can't secede? HA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, they can secede -- until the government, you know, sends the military to force them back into the Union.

At any rate, you don't "file for sovereignty".