Total Members Voted: 54
Thanks a lot IrrX. I have some free time at work today, but not that much free time. (Edit) Reading a few pages does seem to shed a little light on that. "The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution.It is also important to understand at the outset that our task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership (or some other term), but instead only to determine whether the difference in the official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution."That seems odd to me.Hey whoa guys.... we're not here to tell you what gay relationships should be called, we just want to tell you whether or not you can legally call their relationship something different than a straight relationship.
It's true that they are different questions, I just find it a bit hard to understand. Maybe you can help me.In my mind, it's coming across as this scenario.A bunch of chiropractors want to be called doctors. The doctors have the people decide and the people decide that chiropractors, in fact, should not be called doctors. The chiropractors sue, and the supreme court says, "We're not telling you what to call chiropractors, we're just saying that your vote to call them something other than doctors is unconstitutional."So society doesn't have to call them doctors? We just can't make a law that says they aren't doctors?
You could make a law that says that no one can be called a doctor. Then you wouldn't have to call chiropractors doctors.
Quote from: goaliechica on June 05, 2008, 11:21:05 AMYou could make a law that says that no one can be called a doctor. Then you wouldn't have to call chiropractors doctors. So the people can decide to change the rights of all relationships, they just can't define the rights of a Certain type of relationship without a constitutional ammendment?
Sometimes I just can't believe it's 2008 in the United States of America.::shakes head::::throws hands in the air like a Sim::
I can't believe this discussion is necessary. I suppose it's interesting as far as the legality debate goes, but...seriously. It's 2008. It seems we just don't learn much from our past struggles with human/civil rights.