Court watch: California gay marriage ruling…Upholds SF licensing scheme, 4-3 decision in a favor of a “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship”
A California Supreme Court decision on San Francisco’s gay marriage licenses is expected within the hour.
Gay marriage supporters are prepared to hold a “celebration of love.” Social conservatives are prepared to go to the ballot box:
More than four years after San Francisco defied state marriage laws by allowing nearly 4,000 same-sex couples to wed at City Hall, the state Supreme Court is set to decide today whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California.
But the decision, due at 10 a.m., may not be the last word. Conservative religious organizations have submitted more than 1.1 million signatures for an initiative that would amend the state Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. If at least 694,354 signatures are found to be valid, a tally that is due by mid-June, the measure would go on the November ballot and, if approved by voters, would override any court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.
Californians have already voted once, in 2000, to reaffirm the 1977 state law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The 2000 initiative, Proposition 22, was not a constitutional amendment.
The marriage case is the most prominent and politically explosive dispute to come before the court in decades. The justices have largely managed to stay out of the public spotlight since 1986, when voters removed Chief Justice Rose Bird and two liberal colleagues who had joined her in overturning nearly all death sentences to come before the court.
The current court, with a 6-1 majority of Republican appointees, has a centrist record on social issues and has ruled in favor of gay-rights advocates in a number of cases, including three decisions in 2005 requiring equal treatment for same-sex parents in disputes over child support and custody. The justices seemed sharply divided at their hearing in the marriage case March 4.
Win or lose, supporters of same-sex marriage have scheduled a “celebration of love and family” at the San Francisco LGBT Center, 1800 Market St., at 5 p.m. today, with similar observances planned in Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Luis Obispo and Palm Springs.
The political consequences, summed up:
“If California issues a decision legalizing same-sex marriage, it will reinvigorate the fight for same-sex marriage” nationally, said Jordan Lorence, an attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund. “But if they affirm that marriage is for a man and a woman, then what has happened is that Massachusetts is leading a one-state parade.”
***
Update: Here’s the ruling.
To the ballot box we go.
More from SFGate:
Gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California, the state Supreme Court said today in a historic ruling that could be repudiated by the voters in November.
In a 4-3 decision, the justices said the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.” The ruling is likely to flood county courthouses with applications from couples newly eligible to marry when it takes effect in 30 days.
But it could be overturned in November, when Californians are likely to vote on a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. Conservative religious organizations have submitted more than 1.1 million signatures on initiative petitions, and officials are working to determine if at least 694,354 of them are valid.
If the measure qualifies for the ballot and voters approve it, it will supersede today’s ruling. The initiative does not say whether it would apply retroactively to annul marriages performed before November, an omission that would wind up before the courts.
The legal case dates back to February 2004, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the city clerk to start issuing marriage licenses to couples regardless of their gender, saying he doubted the constitutionality of the state marriage law.
The state’s high court ordered a halt a month later, after nearly 4,000 same-sex weddings had been performed at San Francisco City Hall. The court annulled the marriages in August 2004, ruling that Newsom lacked authority to defy the state law. But it did not rule on the validity of the law itself and said it would await proceedings in lower courts.
Some of the couples immediately sued in Superior Court and were joined by the city of San Francisco, which said it had a stake in ensuring equality for its residents. The case that ultimately reached the state Supreme Court consolidated four suits, one by the city and three by 23 same-sex couples in San Francisco and Los Angeles.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The Whole Bird
- California Supreme Court Rules Ban On Gay Marriage Is Unconsitutional | Popehat
- Perverts in perverted California MUST be allowed to marry | The TIW Blog
- California aprobó el matrimonio gay!! « El Hogar de Victoria
- California State Supreme Court Says Same Sex Marriage Is A Constitutional Right | THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™
- Gay Marriage in California « Axis of Right
- Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
- Church and State
- This Goes to 11
- Obama or Clinton, the Pedulum Moves Left: « Riggword Weblog
- Michelle Malkin » Worst. Republican. Senator. Ever.
- California Gay Marriage Ruling « Truthseeker
- Michelle Malkin » Public school politicking and Proposition 8
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Uncategorized
JustOneMinute
» Leaving Some Running RoomHotline On Call
» Oprah To Tape In DC Inauguration WeekGateway Pundit
» 81% of Americans Oppose Card Check-- But Obama Still Supports ItRight Wing Nut House
» OBAMA, THE PROMISE BREAKERMarginal Revolution
» Insurance markets in everything
Looks like I won’t be having dinner downtown tonight, I’ve seen how “the celebration” is preformed in Palm Springs and it isn’t pretty by any means. (rivals folsom)
We’re here, we’re queer and we ain’t going nowhere.
For you social conservatives out there…why do you care so much about what other individuals do in their personal lives?
No problem with civil unions of same sex couples…I personally don’t consider it a “marriage”… no mention of God during civil ceremonies.
I’m still waiting for MA to implode like everyone said it would when gay marriage became legal here.
Several corners of the country have already adopted “civil unions,” which as I understand, provide all the legal rights of marriage already. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck… If we’re going to confer all the same privileges of legal recognition of marriage, but call it something else, the battle is already lost.
Plus, the gay folks are persistent! No matter how many states pass constitutional amendments against it, this issue never goes away. And it never will, until they get their way, which is why they’re targeting elementary school kids now with their propaganda and shutting down opposing speech any way they can. If they can’t get what they want now, they’ll target the next generation to give it to them.
I know I’ll probably take a lot of flack for this, but regardless of how CA rules today, this battle is lost.
Why do you want to redefine marriage? Civil Unions have the same legal language in regards to rights (in most cases). Why change the definition for the other 96% of the public? You would think the 26 states passing a state constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman would be a clue.
This issue does affect every marriage out there. It fundimentaly changes marriage. Dakine, that same theory would then apply to incest, polgymy, and eventualy pedophilia. Because they all could also be considered “personal decisions”. My problem with gay marriage has to do with thousands of years of tradition and law being overthrown because its the “politcaly correct” thing to do at the time.
Personal lives dakine, it stopped being personal long ago. they have the same rights as everyone, they just want “special rights” marriage is between a man and a woman period.
One of the differences with civil unions as opposed to marriage is that you can’t file your taxes jointly. Couples that have been together for twenty and thirty years are still taxed separately.
What are the special rights that they want?
Bingo AJ. What other groups will want special rights if this happens? NAMBLA comes to mind.
If that’s all they have to complain about… I mean really.
Then push for legislation to allow for joint tax filing under civil unions instead of trying to redefine marriage itself because I garuntee you will find less resistance with the former than the latter.
What possible reason is there to have a different set of rights for one group than the rest?
As far as I can tell, all the homosexual community wants is a legal marriage, union, whatever (rose by any other name and all that). Whether they have a religious ceremony is up to the religious institutions performing them, and last I heard the government wasn’t any sort of religious institution.
this may upset a lot of people, but I have had it using our resources, time money within the government to cater to any small manority. Our congress should spend time on things that effect the larger group. As for marriage between gays - marriage is between a woman and a man - period! I do not judge an individual, but I will judge actions as I believe they are hurtful to society and individuals alike.
They have. There are several bills in front of congress right now regarding joint filing and ending the tax on health care benefits but they never make it out of committee because the IRS says the government would lose over ten billion dollars of revenue.
That’s easy to say when it’s not your money.
Why not add beastiality to your list of paranoid fears?
Incest, polygamy, and pedophilia are fundamentally abusive relationship. The same can not be said for homosexuality.
I’m very excited for this ruling. This is one issue where I will not budge. Gay marriage doesn’t effect straight couples. Period. Anyone trying to prevent a loving couple from being recognized by the government…I find it hard not to call that bigotry.
Ah. Misscheryl.
The whole point of a Constitution and the whole “human rights” and individualism thing that our country kinda depends on for its glorious existence requires that we pay attention to the small minority. The law is supposed to protect men from man, no matter how small “man” is in comparison to “men.”
Has anybody tried to equate the legally-recognized commitment of two consenting adult males or two consenting adult females to polygamy, pedophilia, or bestiality yet? Because those equations are so hilarious.
LOL. I remember in October 1997 when I flew into DC for a Promise Keepers gathering. There was opposition to us and they were shouting, “NO SPECIAL RIGHTS! NO SPECIAL RIGHTS!…”
I asked that very same question Mookie. What special rights did we want since I was a husband and father and PK is about being a better father and husband.
I guess if women wanted to go and learn to be better fathers and husbands, they could have buy they were busy taking their tops off and parading abortion rights posters to distract us.
Or instead of voting for far left politicians who want to tax anything and everything, vote for real conservatives who will lower your tax burdern, regardless of your marriage status.
No…actually they just want the same rights that everyone else has.
SCLawStudent, well put. The “extra rights” argument is ludicrous. It’s called “equal rights.”
It’s like being against the elimination of Jim Crow laws. “Why do we cater to minorities always trying to get extra rights!”
That is what is at the heart of the issue. If I am free to define marriage as I choose, I can define as devoid of sex. Why not? Then I am free to “marry” my mother or brother and for those who get older and on social security it could make a lot of sense. We can make marriage anything we want it to be.
Which is a roundabout answer to your question. The reason the redefine marriage is to make it meaningless in the first place.
Soap, I had no idea what Promise Keepers were. Wikipedia doesn’t seem to be very neutral so I’ll ask you directly:
Is that true? Because that seems, uh, kind of scary.
Women were protesting the Promise Keepers gatherings?? That’s ridiculous. What was their complaint? That dads wanted to be equally involved in their children’s lives? Oh no, not that! Man, some days I’m ashamed of my gender.
Really, well tell me, why two. What is your bias against three? You are obvious bigoted towards two.
Would someone explain how gays getting married is in any way detrimental to us straight couples getting married? Do the people who are upset by that get upset when some scumbag has the same car that they do? B. Hussein Obama has a Ford Escape: If you owned a Ford Escape, would you be offended by his owning the same vehicle?
I would say you are very bigoted, by saying two people and couples. Also you equate marriage with sex. Who are you to limit its meaning to that.
I guess you’re right… my tax dollars have nothing to do with this.
My point just simply… they should be thankful for how far along they have come. If this is the least of their worries, I’d say they’ve made some strides… Regardless of whether or not I agree with said strides.
Um, I agree. It shouldn’t be limited to gender. As for equating marriage with sex, I guess I don’t follow. It’s not like there aren’t already sexless marriages.
Gay marriage will do far less to negatively impact heterosexual unions than, say, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, Divorce Court or any of the myriad other things we blithely accept that make a mockery of “traditional” marriage.
Come on, soap (#12). A NAMBLA leap? Really?
That’s insulting to same sex couples. There is nothing illegal about being gay. Sex with minors, hetero- or homo-, is, of course, against the law.
Can someone provide a link to an argument against same-sex marriage that they think describes it well? I can find plenty of babble pro and con about it on my own, but I’d like to read something considered definitive. (And, yes, I own a few Bibles, and referring me there would bring up a whole new debate.)
The problem is that I am not confident that the Left will simply take a live-and-let-live position. They never do.
If this is codified into law, how long will it be before continuing opposition to it is considered a hate crime? How will it affect what one is allowed to teach in public or private schools? Will accreditation for private schools be dependent on their views on the matter? These are just a few of the questions it raises. Unfortunately, we have years of speech codes on college campuses to indicate where the Left will take this for the society at large.
How disgusting. I thank God I am raising two daughters to live by the book. The Good Book that is. Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve (or Amanda and Eve for that matter)!
oh, baloney it doesnt, from family owned businesses on and on and on, your so wrong here it’s laughable.
Republicans are the party of family values. Republicans are the party that protects the sanctity of marriage.
How come of the top 15 states for divorce rates in 2005, all 15 voted for Bush in 2004? How come of the 12 lowest states for divorce rates, 10 voted for Kerry? How come Massachusetts, where gay marriage is allowed (and where, according to Republicans, civilization would fall apart), has the lowest divorce rate in the country?
How come Republicans divorce so much if the sanctity of marriage is that important to them?
Then why shouldn’t one marry their mother or sister (or even brother)?
No…actually they just want the same rights that everyone else has.
They seem to want the right to be free from any and all forms of criticism.
When Sally Kirkland, an Oklahoma State legislator, critcized homosexuality, she was called all sorts of names, theatened, and her resignation demanded.
Any statement made that’s critical of them is automatically labeled as “hate speech”.
I once worked for a company that had many different company supported employee organizations. The Christian Association there was kicked out, though, when they said that homosexuals, though welcome to join, could not be leaders due to the Biblical Verses against it.
I could list other examples, but they demand the right to be completely free from criticism.
How so? And what are the “special rights” that gay couples want?
You mean a homosexual man cannot marry a woman? A lesbian cannot marry a man? Really? Ohhhhh… you’re talking about “love”. I love my dog… can I marry him?
And here I thought marriage was encouraged by our government since families (mom and dad, raising kids) are the foundational basis for a lasting, stable society. Silly me… it’s really about the ADULTS and LOVE. Talk about narcissistic…
That’s a different argument, tre. And I agree that, if true, they are taking a ludicrous position.
While I am ok with same-sex marriage (or civil unions, etc.), I am NOT ok with anti-discrimination employment laws. If you are gay or perceived to be gay then a private business can fire you. Now, I also feel that way about race, creed, religion, nationality, and age. Stuff most Americans consider sacred.
Freedom can be ugly stuff.
And other cities and jurisdictions refuse to host Boy Scout events because of their continuing gay and religious discrimination. Good.
marriage itself mookie for starters, and everything that comes with it.
Nosferightu, I’ll agree with you because hate crime laws are actually thought crime laws, and are inherently subjective and therefore immoral as laws.
Teacher/school accredidation should not be by the government in any case; it enforces no one’s rights and keeps no valid law; therefore it is not a valid governmental function.
/sarc on
And as for mommie of 2 girls, I just love when Christians go all “Al Gore energy bill” and say hateful, un-Christian things. Makes your points seem so much more believable when they totally contradict all of your moral and ethical values. /sarc off
What the Bible teaches and what people decide to do are two different things. We are fallible.
Besides, if the argument and support for gay marriage is strong - there is no need to muddy it up with what other people do. It should be able to stand on its own validity. Make the case for it based on it. And it alone.
Lastly, enough with the threadjack…
Hey, I see we’ve got one drone babbling the “if men can marry men and women can marry women, then I should be able to marry my dog” because that’s such a solid analogy!
That’s really what gays are after, after all, the right to marry their pets. We figure if we can sucker the country into allowing same-sex marriages and/or civil unions, we’ll have an easier time getting Fido or Muffin added to a bridal registry.
That is the extra rights you’re talking about. Let me again remind you of my Jim Crow example. Blacks in the South didn’t want extra voting rights. They wanted equal voting rights.
Gays don’t want extra marriage rights. They want equal marriage rights. If you can’t tell the difference then I just don’t know what.
Because it seriously erodes the moral foundation of families in our society. You can poo-poo this all you want, but if you want to see the future fallout, just look at some of the marriage/children statistics of European countries that have enacted these laws… marriage rates have plummeted drastically, most children are born out of wedlock and grow up in dysfunctional homes. Pornography and drug use has accelerated. Their society has been seriously damaged in those countries… this truly is a slippery slope.
But you said they don’t want equal rights, they want special rights. Marriage is a special right? It’s certainly not treated like one in this country.
Because the gay marriage debate has been formed arround the idea that what 2 people do in the bedroom should not be the states concern. Fine on the face of it till you understand that this statement does allow for mutliple wives/husbands, incest, and taken to the extreme, pedophilia. In fact, what is the difference between gay marriage and gay incestual marriage. None, because niether will produce children. This is also an issue I will not budge on. Not in the current context. I will not bow to the soft tyranny of poltical correctness.
Because marriage - marriage between a man and a woman - has hitherto been recognized as necessary and vital to civilization, provides for the needs of children, and benefits all involved (granted, it’s not always perfect, but nothing ever is).
One need look no furhter than Canada to see the latter already happening. Gay marriage and gay rights activists in Canada have all but criminalized an criticism or objection to homosexuality - in public and in private.
And, given the case of the photographer in New Mexico who was sued by a lesbian couple for refusing (on religious grounds) to photograph their “committment ceremony“, the church in New Jersey that lost property for refusing to allow a same-sex committment ceremony, or Catholic Charities in MA that shut down its adoption program because (again, for religious reasons) they didn’t want to allow gay persons to adopt, I don’t see that happening. Hell, in San Francisco, the City Common Council issued a resolution condemning the Catholic Church for preaching on moral issues - especially homosexuality - and it was rule constitutional by the 9th Circus.
I have a right - a Constitutional right - to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Which includes being able to say I disagree with homosexual behavior.
I believe allowing same-sex marriage undermines traditional marriage, which is the foundation and cornerstone of civilized society. I believe it also opens wide the door for all manner of alternative unions: polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc. because, hey, if a gay couple can marry who they hell are we to say it’s wrong for a father and daughter to marry? Or for some guy to marry a billy goat? Or for someone to marry a 12-year-old because that’s what they really want?
So to turn that question around on you: Why do liberals care so much about the personal religious beliefs of those who disagree with homosexuality?
First gay marriage through the state…
Then slowly try to “force” various religions to recognize marriage of gay couples through the courts.
It will never end. Don’t forget in San Francisco they have already been trying to force Catholic Charities to allow gay couple adoptions. I think in Mass. too they are using the premise that the religious institutions violate state anti-discrimination laws. They can do the same for marriage.
If the states recognize marriage you will incrementally see much more of this kind of stuff.
Mooki, marriage is not a right. You can’t issue licenses for rights.
You lost me on this one. Can you explain it further? If my wife and I divorced we would see a $20,000 a year raise immediately because of the tax on marriage.
Can you point me to some evidence that these issues in Europe are due to gay marriage?
So, Dominigan, your point is that gay marriage erodes the family by undercutting its moral foundation, which leads to the decline of the culture. Besides the obvious point that it’s most likely the collectivist, statist ideologies of Europe (and the moral principles that accompnay them) that are causing the downfall of Europe, how does allowing someone else to marry someone of the same sex affect all normal marriages? What is the moral impact on the hetero couple’s family, and to what result?
Why is that so hilarious? Why is it so hard for libs to see that if you radically redefine what “marriage” is, then you have no legal leg to stand on to restrict other types of relationships? How do you know that polygamous or polyamorous couples are not “consenting adults?” If marriage now includes two men and two women, just exactly how, based on the legal arguments that have been made in favor of gay marriage, do you restrict a relationship between 1 girl and 4 dudes or 3 girls and 2 guys or whatever else people come up with? If a 15 year old and 50 year old hook up, and the 15 year old says they want to be with the 50 year old, how is that not consenting? I’m sure you’ll say the 15 year old is a minor, but if we’re already giving condoms and birth control out to teenagers, we’ve obviously come to the conclusion that they can handle sex, so how is it any of your business who they’re doing it with? When you already have the ACLU defending NAMBLA, when we give out birth control to teenagers, is it really that far of a jump to a movement to legalize adult-child sex as just another “alternative lifestyle?”
This is the problem with liberalism: unintended consequences due to only looking at the short-term. If you give homosexuality the full protection of the law based on privacy rights and freedom of association, you open up the door for practitioners of all types of relationships to sue for the same benefits.
God defines marriage, not governments. I’d personally prefer to see gov’t get out of the marriage business altogether than legally sanction perverted definitions of it.
For the last time, marriage is encouraged in society, not for the adults, but to form stable families and thus, a stable society!
All factors considered, the most loving stable family environment consists of 1 father and 1 mother. Why shouldn’t our society promote best practices?
they overturned the will of the people of california again.
Really? Seems not long ago the matter of same sex marriage was held in the same light. That was equally a “leap”.
If you do not believe NAMBLA is not fighting for their rights, think again. If you have the stomach for it, visit their site.
/hurls
According to Drudge, the Court overturned the ban. Sad day for civilization.
As long as the very essence of a homosexual relationship is considered sinful, and immoral based on a selective biblical interpretations, things will never change. Rusty, you eloquently argue issues like Civil Rights and fairness, but this country is based on judeo-Christian beliefs, and if people like me or others want full rights as homosexuals, we have to relocate to another country. Luckily, racist bibilical interpretations like “beasts of the field” aren’t in the mainstream, or we’d still be under Jim Crow and pre-Loving v. Virginia.
This all comes down to religion, plain and simple.
Actually, it is a civil right and rulings like Loving v. Virginia* tend to emphasize that marriage is a civil right that’s older than our Constitution.
The license isn’t permission. It serves as proof.
*Speaking of marriage laws, Mildred Loving recently passed away. I can think of nothing greater for her amazing legacy than to have California affirm that marriage is a civil right that should be applied equally to all.
According to FoxNews, the ban has been overturned….
Copied from some of Jim Dobson’s talking points per DougT’s asking for talking points:
The civil right of Christians and Muslims and Jews and others who view homosexuality as a sin would have laws passed making their views illegal. See the point Dobson makes with Canada below.
But we all know freedom of speech has gone the way of the dodo in Canada as it is. And if liberals get their way it will be the same here. Thought crimes, hate crimes, replacing free speech against what a majority considers sins that they have the right to speak out against and teach their children is sinful behavior.
Once again the reprocussions of redefining marriage that impinges on the civil rights of churches and forces them to go against their convictions that homosexuality is a sin. And taking away the tax protection status of churches in the process, much to the delight of the atheistic liberals everywhere I’m sure.
Amen to that Dr. Dobson.
California become the second state in the country to allow gay marriage.
And, your point would be what then? Ban religion?
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YESYESYES!!!
Holy crap. More judicial action in place of the legislature, i.e., “the people”. I’m confused. How does this relate to the DOMA? Doesn’t DOMA void any gay marriages?
So Rusty,
License isn’t permission huh? I guess that means that all a Driver’s Liscense is is proof that you can drive huh? BS. It’s permission, which is why it can be taken away or given up.
Same with marriage. It can be given up, not taken in the first place and it can be taken away if one member of it decides to.
It is not a civil right.
Once again judges telling the rest of us how to think. I’m sure the people of California will get it back onto the ballot in November and finally supercede this legislating from the bench.
Shame on you, Rusty and Mookie.
Thanks for trampling my civil rights. No doubt you will shout
when I’m thrown in jail, or my church is shut down.
Great day for activists; horrible day for those of us who love the First Amendment.
The day a government starts forcing religions to accept gay marriage is…well, that day will never happen. So don’t fret too much about it.
What has happened to this country when the will of the people can be destroyed by a few activist judges who can write decrees based on thier own whims? SHAME ON CALIFORNIA!!!
RUSTY they will. Because this is where it is going. Welcome to the new dictatorship.
Rusty:
Did you see posts above? Specifically MY post?
Governments already ARE. In Canada, clergy are threatened with jail.
So, once again, I repeat: free religious expression died in MA and will die in CA.
Mark my words.
Go ahead and hate me, but male homosexuality seems sick to me. That’s how I feel. Maybe it’s in my genes to feel that way. Maybe I was born to feel that way. Gay activists, run that thru your tolerance matrix.
Based on that theory, shouldn’t couples that don’t want childen not be allowed to marry?
People need to understand that there is a difference between sane, consenting adults being allowed to do whatever they want amongst themselves, and bringing in the issue of children in sexual relationships. Children, by definition, are not capable of consenting. To say there is no step between “gay marriage” and “gay incestuous marriage” is like saying there is no step between “straight sex” and “forced straight sex.” One is perfectly fine, moral, etc. The second is repugnant, evil, and advocated by no rational person. Learn to draw some fundamental philosphical distinctions between consent and force before argueing issues that depend upon such a distinction.
Bring on the Constitutional Amendment! Activist judges must be taught that we the people, not robed elitists decide how this country is/will be run.
yes it is mookie between a MAN and a WOMAN. lol, it matters not what I think now until its on the ballot again. The dipsticks just approved it.
Social Justice in Action
Noam Chomsky, Saul Alinsky, Jimmy Cone, Barry Obama et al., must be thrilled.
What? Your civil rights? No one is requiring the Catholic Church to perform gay ceremonies.
Anyone who thinks this hurts free speech or their right to worship…that’s some tinfoil hat stuff right there. Free speech and religion remain as strong as ever in Massachusetts and other states with (unacceptable, but better than nothing) civil unions.
With enough traditional marriage voters coming out for that issue, maybe California goes Red this year?
There is a shock.
The California State Supreme Court just overturned the gay marriage ban. Obama can kiss the Presidency goodbye.
Based on yours, shouldn’t siblings, parents/children be allowed to marry once they hit consenting age?
Rusty, it is coming. Welcome to the atheist dictatorship.
Free religious expression died in MA? When did this happen? Did I sleep through it?
A Methodist Church in NJ refused to allow a gay couple access to some of its property for a wedding ceremony. The town council punished them.
And how do you explain Catholic Charities in MA - which is run by the CATHOLIC CHURCH - being sued into shutting down an adoption program for failing to accept homosexuality.
It’s not tinfoil hat stuff (and, if it is, no more so than folks accusing Christians of wanting to stone gays). It’s reality.
Doug T wrote
Others have already refuted the arguement, Doug. More eloquently than I could.
What bothers me about this is that it’s the courts overriding the will of the voters. That’s not democracy, that’s tyrany.
Whether you agree or not with the concept the way to address it is through the Legislature, like in CT, not the courts.
Rusty obviously missed the several real life examples in Canada of civil rights of churches being trampled.
Mookie missed them too, read EQ’s post noob.
For those that are disappointed with the Court’s ruling, we can at least take some comfort in the fact that they’ve pissed-off the radical Islamist around the world yet again.
EQ, Canada doesn’t have the First Amendment. And the only thing that died in Massachusetts was a discriminatory ban on a civil right. Massachusetts still has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country. Lower than Wisconsin, btw
The Live_Wire said: What bothers me about this is that it’s the courts overriding the will of the voters. That’s not democracy, that’s tyrany.
No, what you want would be tyrany. It is the MORAL OBLIGATION of any rational society’s legal system to protect the rights of minorities, without regard to how many or what people vote. You can NEVER ethically abrogate someone else’s rights, by vote or otherwise.
Not in the hearts and minds of Christians. Agreed. I don’t get this selective business that you speak of. It is explicitly stated; therefore, negating any need to interpret.
WTH? Beasts of the field does not refer to black people.
The rest of your post is just ripe with emotion and doesn’t make any sense.
Rusty
“What? Your civil rights? No one is requiring the Catholic Church to perform gay ceremonies.”
They are already doing it for adoptions. It may not happen tomorrow but using the using the premise that the religious institutions violate state anti-discrimination laws is not out of the questions.