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
Mudville Gazette
» The Red Pill (Part Two)
Patterico
» Alito Whacks BidenNewsBusters.org
» NYT: Make The Mormons Walk To Wal-MartStop The ACLU
» Where Should Obama Give His Great Middle East Speech?Gateway Pundit
» Sweet!... Danish Navy Sinks Somali Pirate Ship (Video)Riehl World View
» Breaking News On Obama SpeechJawa Report
» Danish Warship Sinks PirateNewsBusters.org
» Matthews: It's 'Really Hard' to 'Salute Sarah Palin'Stop The ACLU
» Lawsuit Over Obama’s Birth Certificate Goes To SCOTUS FridayRiehl World View
» Is Barack Hussein Obama Going All Native On Us Already?Marginal Revolution
» Why do so many more women study abroad?Right Wing Nut House
» ISRAEL GOING THROUGH THE MOTIONS OF PLANNING IRAN ATTACK?
So Rusty,
If I understand your opinion of the scouts, freedom of association, assembly, religion, are all optional? They should be punished if they don’t meet your standards?
Given how the CA Republican Party operates, you can be sure they won’t leverage this issue come November.
Yeah, those damned activist voters who overturned Jim Crow laws. Those laws were the will of the people! Or those damned activist judges in Loving v. VA. The people of Virginia didn’t want blacks marrying whites. Who are we to stop them?
Dumbest thing I ever heard you say. Just because they don’t have our first amendment word for word as their first amendment doesn’t mean they didn’t have freedom of speech written into their documents. Why do you think MM posts about the bloggers and others being persecuted for their free speech rights there?
CINO strikes again.
As an example of the few winning over the majority, take this blog for example. I see a few who love this ruling over the many that do not.
Yes, our day will come when we will get hammered in the courts as we place children in 2 parent homes consisting of a man and a woman. We are Christian and, we will be shut down in the future - I am sure of it. And IT WILL NOT be because someone wants a Haitian baby but that they want to shut us down.
Personally, i dont. But dakine, you’re forgetting a small truth.
The people who are propelling this dont want to keep it there.
How many stories of teaching this lifestyle come in on the news, in places like elementary schools? or any school?
How about in childrens programming? Sesame Street isn’t what it used to be when I was coming up.
How about in literature? Or how if we disagree with homosexuality as a whole (and I do based on human biology and fact, not on a religious reason) are labeled as bigots and “homophobes” (which the roots of those words, i am certainly NOT fearful of much).
The “in the bedroom” argument falls hollow when people try to set policy from it. At least for me, its a retort to someone else shoving their lifestyle down my throat, and trying to indoctrinate my children.
2 cents, on the table.
Wait wait wait, we can solve everyone’s problems: get rid of “anti-discrimination” laws, and everyone’s happy. I’m for it. How about you?
They want legalized marriage for the same reason they went gay in the first place, out an exacerbated need for attention….
Livewire, the Scouts are free to discriminate against “the girls, the godless, and the gays.” Same for a bunch of other organizations. Freedom of association and all that.
But with that discrimination comes consequences. Private buildings who don’t buy the message don’t have to host them.
Catholic Charities had been placing children with with gay families and the board voted unanimously to continue the practice. It wasn’t until the bishops decided to petition for an exemption from the anti-discrimination laws that things went south.
Jim Crow laws are not a moral equivalent to this situation. 26 states have passed into their state constitution a definition of marriage as one man and one woman. So by your logic, those 26 states are all bigots? I’ll try not to laugh too hard at that one CINO.
And my party is the one associated with tinfoil hats?
Soap, I don’t mean to make light of adoption. What you do is heroic. But this ruling isn’t giving gays special rights. Gays aren’t automatically going to be first in line when it comes to adoption. They just have the same rights as us and I think that’s beautiful.
selawstudent,
So you’re saying that a society should not pass any law that restricts another?
Last time I looked Polygamy was made unlawful as a reaction to a religion. Murder’s still illegal, so those Aztec sacrifices are still out. Libs are so eager to ban guns and pretend the second ammendment isn’t there…
or in selaw land I can take my consecrated shotgun and go out and blow away heritics because practicing my religion is a right and “You can NEVER ethically abrogate someone else’s rights, by vote or otherwise.”
Weird. At least in Germany, a clear majority of the people openly backed gay marriage before it was put into law - not by a court fiat but as the result of the 1998 federal election. Also, clergy can still criticize the law openly without being sued for “hate speech”…
This court simply is forcing a minority view on to an unwilling state. This is rule by judical decree. This ruling is based solely on the demands of a special intrest group. This is WRONG. This over-rides everything this country was based on.
Yes, and in yonder days 13 states passed laws defining slaves as blacks; that was wrong, right? BTW, arguements ad populum should not be acceptable anywhere, AKGrizzly, especially on conservative sites. Just because you can get 51/100 people to say “yes” to something does not make it right.
couple of things.
I’m not religious and I disagree. Where do you argue that into the equation? That I make a rational argument because I find it distasteful or find that it is not congruent with natural processes in the scope of humans? Granted, its an opinion, but, just because someone thumping a bible at it makes it their cause, don’t speak for everyone in that respect. Cheapens the argument.
and by the way, and as a lawyer, you’ll instantly recognize this…
I wasnt aware that “homosexual” was a race. If i’m wrong, someone needs to update my biology books. Please define what race of homosexuals there are, and any pertinent data on the subject, so that we can call a few dictionary publishers and have this error changed.
Rusty, you argue the point well enough. I dont agree, but you’re being fairly civil, and for that, i applaud you.
Unfortunately (or fortunately), I can argue both sides of the fence (logical and biblical)…and also argue for the gay/lesbian side. My previous post about this being a private, in the bedroom matter, was posted previously.
I dont agree with it. That’s what it is for me. I’ll try and stick to the facts, but…thats where i am on this.
Statistics on Homosexuality Lifestyle
Polyamory in Sweden
Marriage in the Netherlands
Dutch (Marriage) Data
Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science Agree
Same Sex Marriages - Challenges and Responses (EXCELLENT!)
This is the problem that I have with gay marriage supporters. They justify it by comparing a MAN and WOMAN, different races… but still a MAN and WOMAN with MAN and MAN and WOMAN and WOMAN, which is clearly not the same thing. That’s the crux of the arugment. We oppose redefining marriage. Loving vs. Virginia had no affect on definition of marriage which is why it was overturned.
1. I don’t know what CINO means.
2. Yes, the majority of voters in those states are bigots. Denying someone equal rights, whether they’re black, Asian, women, or gay is bigotry.
Also bigotry: not allowing homosexual couples to adopt.
I don’t care HOW you “feel”. Foreign country’s have their standards. Haiti will only allow an adoption with a couple who are man and wife. Do you think I will be shut down because Haiti has specific standards? I will be shut down by some dumba$$ law firm that will want to make a name for themselves. And the babies will suffer.
Too bad you weren’t talking about private institutions, you’re talking about government discrimination.
Rusty, I’ve read this site a long time before I got to post. You seem to be one of the more erudite folks on the left who post here. I’ll be the first to admit that private organizations can act how they choose. This is different.
Just like 4 out of 7 judges in this 4-3 decision doesn’t make this right either now does it?
But, the argument is being made that activist judges are denying the will of the people. The will of the people is often, frankly, crap. The will of the people can lead to all sorts of stupid bigotry. Loving v. VA is a great example of that. The will of the people was worthless and activist judges had to step in.
Livewire, I’m not really sure what you’re saying. But, I’ll respond any way.
Your rights end where they start to violate another’s rights. Your property line ends where your neighbor’s begins, yes? So your right to religious carryings-on stops where it starts to violate any of my rights.
All of us that were born with good morals and values will just have to continue to instill those good morals and values into our children. This is only the beginning of the more horrible things to come.
#68
Relax. No I don’t want to ban religion. Get a grip. I’m just stating a simple truth. This ruling will mean nothing for gays across the country. Legislatures will act, because most of their constituency are christians. If I want full civil rights I’ll have to move abroad, period. You know I never mention freaking banning religion.
What you conservatives don’t understand is that, you should be rejoicing. This ruling makes gay marriage a political issue again for the fall. Now all of the bitter folk, will be voting against the majority of their interets to keep men from marrying men, and women from marrying woman, because their “good book” forbids it. This could easily be 2004 all over again.
So from this I gather that lawstudent and Rusty think the overwhelming majority of America are bigots. Got it. Thanks for the clarification and the slander to Americans everywhere.
Really interesting topic, and one I’m not sure of my own opinions on. Rusty, I used to believe precisely what you said:
Then someone argued with me and showed me that my beliefs were illogical. Why did I believe that gay people should be allowed to marry? Because marriage is special and they shouldn’t be denied that right simply because they want to marry another man/woman. Well, why is marriage special? Because, among other things, it is the union of two complements, male and female. So the very thing that I believe makes marriage special and sacred would be destroyed were we to fundamentally alter the definition of marriage such that men could marry men and women marry women.
I think also that the argument that gay marriage threatens traditional marriage needs to be addressed. This is another one at which I used to scoff. I mean, straight people get divorced all the time. Isn’t that a bigger threat? Well, yes and no. I think the point of this argument is that gay marriage is one of the last stops on the journey away from traditional families/marriages/values. Things like no fault divorce were an earlier stop. So I guess it’s not so much that gay people getting married is itself the threat, but that the threat is a culture that so little values what marriage historically and, as many believe, fundamentally is, and this damaging culture embraces gay marriage. Also, as I noted above, fundamentally changing the definition of marriage robs the institution of a lot of its power and sanctity, in my and many others’ opinions. Individual married couples’ relationships are not necessarily threatened, but the institution of marriage as such is.
Sorry for the long post, frankly I could go on and on, and also my apologies to anyone else who said the same thing as me–I didn’t read every comment, I’m afraid.
Why do people keep comparing this to Jim Crow laws? Homosexuality is not a race, they are not equivalent issues. Oppressing a group of people because of the color of their skin is absolutely not the same thing as defining marriage as one man and one woman.
Thanks Rusty, I’ll use your argument the next time the liberals try to use it as a basis of their claim that the majority voted for it so it must be respected.
To be sponsored by Miller Beer, no doubt.
sclaw,
On that definition I’ll agree. I think we must agree to disagree on if this act infringes on the rights of the majority of self determination. Again it’s the means that bother me more than the ends.
I’m confused. Haiti requires a child to be adopted by a married couple, correct? Why would you be shut out? Even if an adoption agency was mandated by law to accept gay couples, wouldn’t they still be required to obey the laws of the child’s country of origin?
Full court decision available here:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF
I appreciate the honesty. “The will of the people was worthless and activist judges HAD to step in.”
This statement nicely shows you contempt for democracy and why you are an elite liberal. Obviously you think you know best (as well as judges who think like you. The people are just ignorant, and probably suffer from years of Christianity.
But since the constitution was not the issue, it had to be some kind of social superiority argument.
From FOX: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he will support the decision.
“I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement. “Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355836,00.html
Marriage is not a right. It’s a privilege granted by governments and other authority structures through millennium because marriage has proven to be beneficial by improving the health, welfare, stability, and economic growth of society. ‘Progressives’ think they are proving how smart they are by restructuring an institution that predate written history, and gays seek to gain social stature by arrogating it from institutions that have earned it instead of earning it for themselves through their own society. The intellectual and moral hollowness of their arguments is emblematic of liberals, progressives, and ivory tower elitists.
Personally, I don’t think being ‘trendy’ is sufficient reason to dismantle an 10,000-year-old institution that is intimately tied to the procreation of the species. Liberals have already done enough damage to marriage with changes in divorce laws and welfare, but I guess they won’t be satisfied until they’ve killed it completely.
But they already have equal rights. You can get many (if not all) of the legal protections that marriage provides, through other legal means. And marriage is not being unequally applied to them. They can marry also… provided it is between a man and a woman.
Thus, they are not trying to get equal rights… they are trying to get a right they already have, changed to fit their lifestyle… which is a special case.
Please tell me you’re not saying that good morals and values are exclusive to people who have children.
AKgrizzly, Slander is Spoken; if it were actually defamatory, it would be “libel.”
As for the 4/3 split, they aren’t supposed to win because of numbers; they’re supposed to win because they’re right. While I’ll admit it takes a bit of suspension of disbelief, the voting process of judges is supposed to be based on who has the arguement most consistent with the laws; “regular” voting is, generally, not based on any rational arguements (voting for Clinton because his hair looks better, for instance).
This reminds me of dialog between two cabbies (on a coffee break) from the movie Taxi Driver (1976):
Cabbie #1: Then I pick up these two f*gs. They’re going downtown. They’re wearing rhinestone T-shirts. They start arguing, yelling. The other says, “You b*tch!” Starts beating him on the head.
I say, “l don’t care what you do in the privacy of your own home. This is an American free country. We’ve got a pursuit of happiness thing. You’re consenting. You’re adult. But in my f**king cab, don’t go busting heads.
You know? God loves you. Do what you want.”
Cabbie #2: Tell them to go to California. In California, when two f*gs split up, one’s gotta pay the other alimony.
Cabbie #1: Not bad. They’re way ahead out there. You know what I mean? California.
So affirmative action is bigotry right?
Very eloquent. Thank you.
You really do have a misconception about Christians, conservatives and what we stand for. Besides, I would rather this not have been an issue in the upcoming election… we’ve enough to deal with as it is.
Yes it is. A fundamental human right.
Mookie,
NO. Haiti (and most countries) have specific standards. Haiti has marriage standards that includes age and length of marriage as well. They will NOT change their standards because we lower ours.
mistressjusticeS&M Vigilante you will be able to marry your girlfriend and boyfriend before you know it.Great! Give the Muslims something else to blow up California over.
And I will say it again. If this is true Rusty, what is to stop people of NAMBLA who want their “fundanmental human rights”?
Rusty: Marriage is NOT a fundamental human right. If it is show where it is given.
I still have a hard time taking California seriously when they have a steroid filled body builder from Austria as governer (only because he married a Kennedy). The only thing odder is his being a Republican.
I think marriage is a right, just not redefining what marriage means.
I second dominigan’s sentiment. Miss Em… spot on.
I love people arguing the history of marriage, especially when people go all Mesopotamic on us. Marriage has been many, many things throughout history, and to claim it as your heritage is… laughable. Marriage in the last 10k years has allowed polygamy, marriage-by-rape, pedophilia, and all these other bad things that the anti-gay-marriage side is arguing against. You really want to preserve the abducting, raping, pedophilic polygamy institution? I didn’t think so.
The marriage we’re actually talking about in the modern, rational world, is a consentual contractual relationship between two loving adults that confers legal rights, privileges, and protections.
Can’t wait for me and my two girlfriends to get married in LA. There is nothing wrong with polygamy!
Just looking at this situation objectively, one can’t help but conclude that once gay marriage is mandated, to protect the “rights” of those who wish to marry someone of the same sex, then why WOULDN’T the next logical progression down this path be a mandated acceptance of polygamy? Why are the rights of a same sex couple superior to the rights of those who wish to create legally polygamous families through state sanctified marriage? Once you change the definition of marriage, accepted by mankind for thousands of years, then you have to open the door to all other forms of union. This is why I oppose gay marriage.
We can just look at that mess in Texas with that polygamous cult to understand the HARM caused by “marriage” alternatives to the traditional ONE man and ONE woman bound in marriage. The children suffer first, and then, in the long run, society suffers later.
Ok, I really want to address this, too. Rusty said:
Rusty was talking about Loving v. VA, which as others have noted is not analogous. Loving didn’t alter the definition of marriage (unless you think that the definition of marriage is a union between a man and woman of the same race. I don’t think that the same race is one of the things that makes marriage marriage.) So, the will of the people being “worthless” in that case is immaterial in this discussion. Second, activist judges were not necessarily needed. I personally don’t think that “activist judges” are EVER needed unless the circumstances are truly dire–for example to put a stop to slavery or some other gross violation of human rights and dignity. My personal belief is that anti-miscegenation laws were not such a horrible violation of human rights that it could not have been addressed through the proper and constitutional avenue, i.e. the legislature.
And one more thing, the will of the people in this case is not necessarily crap OR bigoted. You can’t understand why anyone would oppose gay MARRIAGE (as opposed to civil unions) except they hate gay people. But people have rational and genuine beliefs and values that tell them that marriage is one thing, and that thing does not include people of the same sex being married. I am not bigoted against gay people. I have several gay friends. I support civil unions/domestic partnerships (where the people of a state support it–it is not a federal or judicial issue.) If certain religious organizations want to perform religious marriages for gay couples, they should be free to do so. But I don’t believe that the government should change the definition of marriage in this way. Or in any other way, for that matter. That does NOT make me a bigot.
Marriage is a right. Read about it here.
As for the NAMBLA ridiculousness, that’s already been answered. Minors can’t consent. Period.
There is a great economic efficiency arguement in favor of polygamy… just sayin’.
Good points in your comment, MissEm.
Those who argue for redefining marriage with “well if anybody “loves” anyone else they should be allowed to marry” are also making the argument for incest-marriage, polygamy, adult-child marriage and a host of other like ills.
If in such an argument they say it can only be between two people, the question for you to pose to them is: “Why only two? Why deny 3 (or 4,5 - whatever nember - 1000) people who love each their rights? That’s discrinination!!”
Sounds to me like it is your “fundamental human right”.
OK, so you would still be able to adopt from Haiti, yes?
By the way, nothing but admiration on this end for adopting. I think it’s one of the kindest, most selfless things a human being can do. I hope to someday be in a position where I can do it.
But a lot of people did used to think that.
Maybe in 50 years we’ll have a more tolerant society that will look back at the days when people were actually against gay marriage and have a good laugh.
…but can get an abotion without the parents consent. So, what is ridiculous about it?
I feel the same way.
You know…the whole IN through the OUT door…..it’s just NOT natural……
On a side note, should the petition for the marriage amendment get enough signatures to make the ballot in California, would this put this state in play for a McCain win this fall? Would more conservative leaning voters be more likely to come to the polls? Just wondering.
694,354. That is a unique number. This is even larger in the sense, of state vs. federal statutes and if the federal doesn’t have a law banning something with implications of it never being overturned, we are lost. There was the Defense of Marriage Act by Mr.Clinton, but it still doesn’t have the strength to overturn some hemp shoed judge. So there is something I agreed with that Mr. Bush said,
The Amendment is the only way to make sure the Union stays strong and holds tight the moral fiber that guides us all.
Why not, Rusty? That’s age diecrimination. As I said, the argument made for redefining marriage also applies to a host of social ills.
(Writing “period” after a statement doesn’t make anything so, by the way.)
I’m still waiting for a gay marriage supporter to explain to me why I, a 48 year old male, should not be allowed to marry my 46 year old sister. After all, marriage is an evolving paradigm, correct?
Someone has made the argument “between two consenting adults” so, it fits. Period.
Rike101, Marriage cannot be extended to such an incestuous relationship because any children born to it would be physiologically harmed. It’s the same reason that pregnant women can be arrested for doing drugs or drinking while pregnant: it violates the child’s rights by physically harming it.
You may be surprised to learn that the state doesn’t recognize a marriage unless you have a license obtained from the state. I don’t recall seeing the word “God” on my marriage license. Plenty of heterosexual couples are married without the word “God” appearing anywhere in the ceremony.
On May 15th, 2008 at 1:48 pm, Mookie said: Please tell me you’re not saying that good morals and values are exclusive to people who have children.
No Mookie. I’m not saying that. I’m saying that the people with children and were raised with good morals and values will just have to instill those into their children. I know there are many people out there that don’t have children were raised with good morals and values. I was raised by God fearing parents and to know that homosexuality is wrong.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10(NIV),
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Sodom and Gomorrah anyone? Anyone?
I say we need civil unions for both gay AND straight couples. If Christians hadn’t injected Christian terminology into the state structure, there wouldn’t be a problem with this decision. Marriage is a covenant between God and man and woman, and the state doesn’t have the authority to grant covenant relationships.
I guess I am dumb. What is the point of a gay “marriage” anway? Wanna shack up, go ahead, but why insist on “marriage”?
#171: marry whomever you want as long as it doesn’t infringe on my life, liberty, or property. i couldn’t care less if you want to marry your sister. go for it.
So does this mean that a flameing transvestite and her bisexual lover can get married and adopt kids? Doe s this mean that my kids are going to have the gay agenda shoved into their education? No thanks! Its not normal and i have a responsibility to change my world for the better.
And on a further note, why “2 consenting adults”, why stop at 2? This is the slippery slope in spades here, once you begin to tinker with the definition of marriage.
So if it’s your job to instill values in your children, why do you want the state to do your job for you?
Apart from people wanting to change our Constitution to tell people what they can and can’t do, gay marriage has to be one of the biggest non-issues I’ve ever seen.
Babbledabble,
When a couple is married, any number of legal rights and protections attach. They can have tenancy by the entirety in possession of land, power of attorney, confidentiality protections in prosecution, medical access and control, not to mention taxation aspects such as dependants and joint filing. The “civil unions” currently available to gay and lesbian couples do not come near the same LEGAL relationship.
#180: how about tinkering with the notion of liberty, karen?
babbledabble - they want marriage because they want us to accept their relationships and lifestyle. They want to teach our children to accept it also.
We’re here, we’re queer and we’ll do it anywhere.
Well, why not, rike? If a brother-sister “love” each other, it’s not anyone’s place to deny them their civil rights!!!
I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me how the so-called “traditional” definition of marriage, as between a man and a woman, that most here seem to be relying on, excludes incest.
On May 15th, 2008 at 2:07 pm, sclawstudent said:
AHHHH, placing conditions from your previous definition (consenting adults) are we. Does that not discriminate? Is that not what is happening now? Throw out all the old definitions and make up some new ones to exclude conditions liberals don’t like?
SHEESH
#187: so will I.
On May 15th, 2008 at 2:07 pm, sclawstudent said:
Rike101, Marriage cannot be extended to such an incestuous relationship because any children born to it would be physiologically harmed. It’s the same reason that pregnant women can be arrested for doing drugs or drinking while pregnant: it violates the child’s rights by physically harming it.
Sorry, that doesn’t wash. We don’t want kids. We just want to live as man and wofe because we love each other. Tell me why I can’t. Plus, my other brother wants in. We’re all consenting adults. Who are you to judge me and tell me that the “marriage” I want should not be allowed to happen?
Oh God I feel like vomiting!!!Once again
“we the people” have no say so in any
moral decisions we put to a vote, just
ask any California judge. I am so thankful that here in Texas we put one
man one woman in our state constitution
and it can’t be overturned. I guess if
you want to marry your dog in California
just have it bark once for yes & twice
for no or how about 3 men and a woman,
oh I know how about letting a pedophile
marry your 3 year old its all the same
“SICK” STUFF.
Oh swank, now we’re equating gay marriage with incest.
Man, when I put these blinders on, I cant tell the difference between anything!
While it’s true that racial segregation has a long history, the institution of marriage is not historically defined as a union between two people of the same race. There are countless examples in human history of people of different tribes and nationalities marrying–but what made it a MARRIAGE was the fact that it was a man and a woman marrying. And this can’t be attributed to “homophobia” either–look at ancient Greece. There, it was socially acceptable for men to take younger boys as lovers, but marriages were exclusively between men and women. Even in cultures where polygamy has been practiced those marriages were between a man and women.
And no, I really don’t think that in 50 years we’ll all be laughing about those silly conservatives and their quaint, antiquated notion that marriage should stay what is has been for the entirety of human existence.
I recall one fellow who (jokingly) addressed “civil unions” by noting with all the time and money he’s spent caring for his dog, it should be eligible to have it deemed a “civil union”.
rike,
We will have to amend the states constitution for you case so as not to violate your “fundamental human rights”. I mean, after all, you are consenting adults!
Next, because a 14 year old has a right to have sex and get an abortion, NAMBLA will argue that the boys are consensual and they want to marry. What right do the voters have to keep them from realizing their “fundamental human rights”?
but sucking the child out through a tube can’t get the doctor or the mother arrested for violating the child’s rights…..?
sorry….off-topic…but I had to jump on that one.
Soap,
When you involve third parties, it is no longer “between TWO consenting adults.” The THIRD party there would make it different than what I was talking about.
30 pcs- Do a google search on the term “beasts of the field” with racist ideololgy and you will see how some of you good christian folk choose to interpret things. Many biblical teachings are discarded when they aren’t useful for one’s personal life, or are considered “allegorical”. I love the allegorical copout. Homosexuality grosses most people out. Justifying moral disdain for it by use of the bible is the American way. That’s your right. It’s freedom of religion and all that.
Abstract:
I’m not sure if you are purposly misinterpreting my point, but I never said homosexuality is a race. Good christian racists find “support” for their beliefs in the bible, and anti-homosexuals do the same thing. That doesn’t apply to you, since you aren’t religious. You have a “personal” philisophy on homosexuality where you say:
I find it distasteful or find that it is not congruent with natural processes in the scope of humans
Fine enough, that is your “personal” belief system that you came up with, without any psychological influence from the dominant judeo-Christian culture in your upbringing. In my personal opinion, you are an exception to the rule.