U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker today declined to continue a stay on his finding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, paving the way for same-sex marriages to resume after Aug. 18 unless the measure’s defenders quickly obtain a stay from a higher court, according to the Sacramento Bee.
This is awesome news for our state’s economy!
Gay marriages will certainly ensue, meaning hotel bookings, cake orders, tuxedo rentals, limo rentals, and the sale of lots of wedding gifts.
Thank you Judge Walker for helping to stimulate California’s economy!
May I suggest to Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido that he get with our local Chamber of Commerce and quickly figure out how we can best capitalize on this development! The Old Orange County Courthouse is a wonderful site for civil ceremonies. And we have a local church in Santa Ana, the Church of the Foothills, that supports gay marriage!
The 38 restaurants in downtown Santa Ana would certainly love to help the new couples celebrate.
Viva the downfall of Prop. 8!
“May I suggest to Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido that he get with our local Chamber of Commerce and quickly figure out how we can best capitalize on this development!”…….. Hmmmm
May I suggest to Santa Ana Mayoral candidate Al Amezcua that he get with our local Divorce Firm and quickly figure out how he can best capitalize on this development.
Fiala,
Al doesn’t practice family law, that I know of. Irvine Councilman Jeffrey Lalloway does.
You hate to see folks divorce, but that is part of marriage. Look at Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh – I think between them they have had seven spouses! So much for marriage being between one man and one woman…
Please notice statement above “get with our local Divorce Firm” meaning to become an “Of Counsel”
To me this issue is a circus to poke into the eye of otherwise pace full public.
If you look this objectively Art, the gays have nothing better to do than irritate the pace full majority an their traditions.
Like it or not there is historically a tragic end to this.
By the definition the Gays are Gay and nothing will change that no matter what will be their next public irritant, they will never be Non Gay regardless if I am Pro/Ata.
I should add that you would probably argue that the marriage is [not] between the Man and two Women……. Huh?
And the argument would be???
Fiala,
Why a man would want to burden himself with more than one wife is a real mystery to me. That said, some cultures condone that. I think it is demeaning to women.
But you are comparing apples to oranges. Where is the harm in letting gay people get married? I don’t see that this harms anyone.
In the state of Utah the Mormons are imprisoned for their polygamy marriages which are banned under the same principle (apples and apples) as are the gay marriages…. religious tradition.
Where is the harm in letting Mormons get married? I don’t see that this harms anyone.
There are many traditions based on which we have ours laws it is called common law.
There are also laws of nature.
However, the marriage is the law created mainly to protect offspring. I am sure that you are aware that children without parents were called bastards and gravely abused.
Gays do dot produce offspring thus gay marriage is an oxymoron.
There may be other cohabiting legal arrangements for gays but marriage is not one of them.
The harm in gay marriage is to irritate majority and destruct society from the more important issues. That is harmful!
So what of all the heterosexuals who do not, will not, and prefer not to “procreate”? You obviously did not read the findings of fact and the abscence of evidence provided in the hearing for your narrow minded reasons for denying people a right that you enjoy.
Rapscalion,
I am disusing original purpose of the marriage. In last century in the western culture the Child Social Services and the Government start protecting the children and marriage become something else.
Originally the marriage was arranged by parents and love was not involved. In late 19th century my grandmother was married against her will because her sister who was married to my grandfather died during her first pregnancy so my grandfather ask father of my grandmother to gave her to him instead of returning the dowry assets. And he did even though she was in love with someone else.
Marriage was also way how to join the kingdoms together.
Today the marriage is used mainly for divorce settlements and now as a irritant by gays to vandalize social structure so we will talk about the gay marriage and not about the economy and stupid presidents.
Of course it did evolve into the meaningless act for heterosexuals and only religious people and gays are clinching to it.
There are couples who divorced for tax purposes.
As long as marriage requires a license from the government it is a privilege not a right. Same as is driver license. When I was first time married 1970 in New York, I had to submit my blood test to show that I have no syphilis. If I would test positive I would not get license and would not be able to marry.
Get off your misguided emotionality and study the history.
I’ll try and respond to your peculiar ramblings.
“Today the marriage is used mainly for divorce settlements”
Well, if you’re not married, you can hardly get divorced.
“and now as a irritant by gays to vandalize social structure so we will talk about the gay marriage and not about the economy and stupid presidents.”
So there is a vast number of gay/lesbians who wake up every morning and think “how can we irritate society” as opposed to “it sure would be nice to be married to my long term partner and whom I dearly love.” If youwant to talk about the economy and stupid presidents, I’m assuming you’re focusing on Bush, whose wealthy folk tax cutting that helped produce a major deficit, and whose financial market deregulation led to a meltdown, now has to be rescued by the current administration.
“Of course it did evolve into the meaningless act for heterosexuals and only religious people and gays are clinching to it.”
I’ll be sure to pass this along to all those friends who happily chose to get married for all sorts of reasons.
“There are couples who divorced for tax purposes.”
Do you have a point here?
‘As long as marriage requires a license from the government it is a privilege not a right.”
No, and as you know absolutely noting about Constitutional law (such as minorities being denied equal protection under the law” I suggest you do a little research.
“Get off your misguided emotionality and study the history.”
If you can come up with one rational reason for denying these nice people a marriage license, go ahead. Why don’t you simply admit that you don;t like them, they make you feel all antsy and icky, and you wish they’d just go away. Like you probably feel about colored folks.
The picture speaks thousand words.
http://original.n-joy.cz/video/znelka-the-simpsons-ctyrrucne/wcxmhwn7xeam7bgb/
This is what the marriage is all about!
Two men playing a piano? It’s worth at least 8 or nine words, probably.
“This is awesome news for our state’s economy!” true, but the more important story, and what should have been mention first by you, is that this is awesome news for all those couples that are in love and until now have been treated like second class citizens.
I stand by the way Art reported this. Sometimes it’s all about how you tell the story. He’s obviously thinking of these graspy GOP business-types who offhandedly dislike the gay, but haven’t really yet thought things through thoroughly.
baxter,
Of course that is the most important thing – but we have a lot of Republican readers and you have to explain things like this in terms they will understand.
The only threat to marriage is conservatives who abandon their wives. And I say that as a progressive married happily for 23 years.
Understood. I thought the economic aspect was what first popped into your mind when you heard the news. Happy B-Day you old romantic.