Anyone being affected by Proposition 8?

[sugarpop]

Yes, because straight people never have anonymous sex in public places...

[Pie]

Societally sanctioned relationships do obtain a social benefit in keeping the relationship going. External expectations of fidelity, duration, depth, value -- these serve to re-enforce what is already there.

In short, "my husband" carries far different connotations than "my boyfriend".

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Yes, because straight people never have anonymous sex in public places...

Yes they do...err...well, so I've been told anyway.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Pie

Societally sanctioned relationships do obtain a social benefit in keeping the relationship going. External expectations of fidelity, duration, depth, value -- these serve to re-enforce what is already there.

In short, "my husband" carries far different connotations than "my boyfriend".

yes, so does "my lover," which I would much rather say than "my husband." Of course, I wouldn't mind having a wife...

[Aliantha]

A lot of people refer to their husband or boyfriend or lover as their 'partner' these days which to me is somewhere in the middle and leaves a lot open for personal interpretation.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Pie

In short, "my husband" carries far different connotations than "my boyfriend".

Just make sure they don't meet each other, okay? Could be awkward.

[Pie]

A doctor, a lawyer and a physicist were discussing the relative merits of having a wife or a mistress.

The lawyer says: "For sure a mistress is better. If you have a wife and want a divorce, it causes all sorts of legal problems.

The doctor says: "It's better to have a wife because the sense of security lowers your stress and is good for your health.

The physicist says: " You're both wrong. It's best to have both so that when the wife thinks you're with the mistress and the mistress thinks you're with your wife --- you can go back to the lab and get some work done."

[classicman]

California high court upholds same-sex marriage ban

California's highest court upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages Tuesday but allowed about 18,000 unions performed before the ban to remain valid.
Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage in California, faced a constitutionality test but was upheld.

Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage in California, faced a constitutionality test but was upheld.

Supporters of the November ballot initiative Proposition 8 hailed the ruling, but about 1,000 advocates of same-sex marriages who gathered outside the court building in San Francisco met the 6-1 decision with chants of "Shame on you."

Proposition 8's supporters argued that Californians have long had the right to change their state constitution through ballot initiatives. But opponents of the ban argued it improperly altered the state constitution to restrict a fundamental right guaranteed in the state's charter.

Tuesday's ruling found the proposition restricted the designation of marriage "while not otherwise affecting the fundamental constitutional rights of same-sex couples."

"We further conclude that Proposition 8 does not apply retroactively and therefore that the marriages of same-sex couples performed prior to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid," California Chief Justice Ronald George wrote.

The court ruled in May 2008 that the state constitution guaranteed gay and lesbian couples the "basic civil right" to marry. That decision came four years after San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

But in November, state voters approved Proposition 8, 52 percent to 48 percent. The measure provided that only heterosexual unions would be recognized as marriages by the state.

[piercehawkeye45]

We'll see if it gets changed next year.

[Pie]

D.C. is planning to pass a marriage equality bill; it may get in front of the SCOTUS quickly (since the Feds operate the District's court system).

[richlevy]

It is now officially getting strange. The opposing lawyers who brought us Bush v. Gore are getting together to attempt to get SCOTUS to overturn Prop 8.

Gay marriage advocacy groups are not happy since they believe that this is the wrong court to make the argument to and a loss would be a large setback.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_w..._teams_up.html

LOS ANGELES - The legal eagles who fought on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore want to walk down the aisle together in federal court to overturn California's ban on gay marriage.
Theodore Olson, the ex-Solicitor General who represented George Bush in the 2000 ballot battle, and David Boies, who represented Al Gore, announced their partnership Wednesday, declaring Prop. 8 denies gay couples a "fundamental right" afforded in the federal Constitution.
The interesting bedfellows filed their lawsuit in U.S. District Court in northern California Friday and asked for an immediate injunction against Prop. 8 until the federal case is resolved.
"It's not about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. We're here in part to symbolize that. This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States constitution," said Olson, a prominent Republican.

[TheMercenary]

It really is quite entertaining. The same people who want to let the people rule by majority now want to reverse a legal states right issue to go the a minority. Should be quite interesting how they tap around this one.

[monster]

has anyone considered just banning straight marriage?

[TheMercenary]

Really not a bad idea. I think it would be much better to make all people who want to pregnant get a license.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Really not a bad idea. I think it would be much better to make all people who want to pregnant get a license.

Okay. Obama's crowd gets to decide who gets the license, right?

HAR HAR!