CA Supreme Court to rule on Gay Marriage today (5/15) at 10:00am

[Alex]

It is a state constitutional issue. I don't think there is any appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

What we'll likely be voting on in November is a new amendment to the California constitution that explicitly allows defining marriages as between opposite sexes.

Barring anything I haven't heard about yet it sounds like gay marriages will just be able to start happening in 30 days when the ruling goes into effect.

I do imagine that all of the candidates will be asked to take a position on the amendment that will likely be on our ballot in November. Since all three have opposed gay marriage in the past I'm sure their answers will be something along the lines of "I oppose gay marriage, but it is for the people of California to decide."

[Strangler Lewis]

I haven't read it, but even if it is a state constitutional matter, if it borrows too heavily from federal constitutional principles, it's conceivable that the U.S. Supreme Court will take the case. If we amend our state constitution, that would have to be challenged at the federal constitutional level. Since the Lawrence v. Texas majority is still on the court, it could go well, although it might take a couple of years to get that far.

[flippyshark]

I sometimes hear fudamentalist preachers say that if gay marriage is legal, then the inevitable slippery slope will begin, and there will be nothing to prevent people from marrying their own children, their livestock, and so on.

So, if I move to California, can I marry my cat? My Nintendo Wii? A corn dog?

[BDBopper]

Originally Posted by flippyshark

I sometimes hear fudamentalist preachers say that if gay marriage is legal, then the inevitable slippery slope will begin, and there will be nothing to prevent people from marrying their own children, their livestock, and so on.

Who cares? No one is killing themselves. You're not physically hurting anyone. You're not absconding with anyone's property. Therefore it should be legal.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by BDBopper

Who cares? No one is killing themselves. You're not physically hurting anyone. You're not absconding with anyone's property. Therefore it should be legal.

Both parties have to be competent to consent. That's why bestiality is illegal.

It did occur to me that legalizing plural marriage would cut down on some of the welfare abuses >

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Originally Posted by flippyshark

So, if I move to California, can I marry my cat? My Nintendo Wii? A corn dog?

Yes. No. Yes, but not on Fridays.

[Alex]

I can think of good reasons why you shouldn't be allowed to (legally) marry your cat, wii, or corn dog.

But I can't think of any for why you shouldn't be able to marry your children (assuming they are of an age making consent possible).

So when the loving incestuous couples start clamoring for their right to marry, I'll support them too. If when they're legal you'd like to marry your son or daughter (or all of them; if you have them) then you have my support.

But I'm afraid when it comes to your corn dog you'll just have to live in sin.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Alex

But I'm afraid when it comes to your corn dog you'll just have to live in sin.

Geez Alex; you're so closed minded!

[GusGus]

Eat your corn dog and marry it too?

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by GusGus

Eat your corn dog and marry it too?

Somwhere there's a LOL-dog to be made.

"ur doing it rong!"