Outstanding news for everyone in California!
Reshared post from +Samir Osman
It's about damn time! One more step towards ALL people being treated like humans again. It absolutely blows my mind that in this day and age this issue is even in question, but considering that only 50 years ago interracial marriage was still illegal in a lot of states I guess I shouldn't be too shocked that this country is still full of small minded bigoted hate mongering zealots.
Embedded Link
Appeals Court Rejects Gay Marriage Ban
A federal appeals court panel in San Francisco ruled Tuesday that California's voter-mandated ban on gay marriages, Proposition 8, was unconstitutional, in a closely watched case that could eventually…
Google+: View post on Google+
Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.
Surprising, coming from the WSJ, but this statement is emphatically false: "[They] had used the state's initiative power to target a minority group and take away a right the group possessed." The rights to benefits from legal marriage were never in question. Nobody is arguing against all people having equal rights. It was only ever about the definition of marriage.
The sole purpose of Proposition 8 was to define marriage as between one man and one woman. What effect does that have on heterosexual couples? None. What effect does that have on LGBT couples? Can't get married.
Prop 8 was never about the "definition of marriage"; it's about legislating the moral views of the extremely ignorant under the guise of defining marriage…for the purpose of limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
Being that this is a charged issue and the discussion of such would never end on good terms, I'll just say this: Extremely ignorant? Sickburn, bro.
Prop 8 1957 style: Marriage is defined as a union between one white man and one white woman, or one black man and one black woman.
Yeah, take out the race and it's still just as bigoted.
+Nathan Brown The WSJ statement is true because before Proposition 8 passed same sex couples had the right to marry, as decided by the California Supreme Court. To say that civil unions afford the same rights as marriage is unequivocally false.
"The federal government alone accords 1,138 benefits and responsibilities based on marital status, not on civil union status."
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/fact_sheets/civil_unions
Welp, at the end of the day, we're still not allowed to marry our cars, so I guess I'll have to stick with the good old fashioned adultery until then. 😉
…did you really just compare marrying your same sex partner to marrying your car?
Yeah, because those two things are TOTALLY alike.
"Hey everybody, did you hear? Bob married another man! *I'M GOING TO GO MARRY A TOASTER!*"
The joke: You missed it.
Just trying to keep things light around here! No I'm not retarded so as to make comparisons to those two things. I'm no Rick Santorum or anything.
If you did that, would Worting a press car still be considered an extramarital affair?