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?
And this is a “good thing”?
Can’t they get POA for most of those other “rights”. Medical information? If one party signs a waiver, another person can get their medical info.
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.
Nope, Jeddite, we’re noting the fact the same argument being made for same-sex “marriage” can be applied to incest-”marriage” (amongst a plethora of other sick “unions”).
What third party?
Jeddite - you are free to pop in and mock any argument you like. But, have you considering actually staying a while to try to add to the debate?
Touche. I guess they better amend the laws to no drinking or drugs after the 24th week of pregnancy since that is when most liberals would agree the baby is viable outside the womb based on medical statistics.
Off topic, but nice dig at their hypocrisy. T.L.H. in action!
While I don’t really care if gays get the right to marry or not. . .and the arguments against it have always seemed weak to me. . .
Rest assured it’ll get overturned in November. Even in socially liberal California, previous efforts of this sort have always been overturned at the polls by large margins.
It appears that in many cases, even liberals’ “tolerance” for other ideas ends at the idea of homosexuality.
The child. If you are having children or are capable of doing so, intentionally engaging in conduct that will produce and harm that child is illegal and wrong.
I am just making an argument for everybody’s basic “fundamental human rights”.
There is no more line. It is gone. To exclude one group is wrong is your argument. Your side counts this as a victory and now is placing limits already. Why?
rike already said there would be no children. Still wrong for him to marry his sister?
Because the ultimate testament to a couple’s commitment to each other is marriage. It is the most profound statement any two people can make about the depth of their love. Gays and lesbians want to be able to similarly express their loyalty and affection for their partners.
So often, people wrongly criticize the gay community for its lack of morals — citing promiscuity as a common practice. But here we see evidence of so many gay couples’ desire to make concrete their unions in the same way that the rest of us do. Why, then, would we want to deny them access to the very institution that legitimizes their relationships?
My employer does expect some level of productivity from me. I could make the same arguments being made by others, but I don’t particularly feel any compelling need to post “OMGMETOO!” whenever somebody makes a point I agree with.
Again,
You conservatives have nothing to worry about. This will be 2004 all over again. This decision has probably put John McCain in the Whitehouse.
I don’t think it is actually just a “personal belief system” that homosexuality is “not congruent with natural processes in the scope of humans.” It’s actually fact. The natural relationship of the male and female bodies is undeniable. And, the dangers of gay sex are very real… whether or not they fit into anyone’s “personal belief system.”
If there is no issue of children, then I suppose they should be allowed to enter any legal relationship they wish that is available. However, it could get sticky because allowing a fertile, incestuous couple could lead to a catch-22: if they get pregnant, they must either abort the child or commit a crime by having it, which is dangerously close to forcing abortions, something I’m not willing to advocate. So, no fertile incestuous couples.
I have read all posts and stopped cold at Socratease 138. Marriage is not a priveledge granted by governments. A civil marriage is granted by governments. A marriage is two people coming together before God and public to “marry”. “What God has joined, let no man put assunder” No man, or government can marry, nor divorce. Two people do this together before God in a public forum. What we are discussing here, is a civil, government ordained and controlled situation, which, under the California ruling, WILL and must include the formation of a family, whatever you think that is. marry grandma before she loses her insurance and pension? So be it. Is this a marriage? no way! Is this a civil marriage? Yes, if the state says so. I can marry my fiance in a covenant ceremony and completely keep the state out of it, and the “divorce”. The state did not invent or create marriage.
I thought you said we had nothing to worry about? LOL
Sometimes, all I can do is sigh. I’m so glad I grew up in 60’s and 70’s, in a lower middle class suburb. I really don’t envy parents of young kids today. It’s all just so disheartening. We’ve reached a point where one can make a justification for just about anything, logic and morality be damned.
No need. I know what the Bible explicitly states. I cannot account for what rogue Christians do and nor should you expect me to. I will not defend the undefensible.
But that’s not what the Bible teaches. Jeremiah Wright has his own interpretation for what he thinks God feels and believes. I disagree with him and I disagree with any “Christian” who interprets the Bible in such a way that distorts its true meaning.
Yes. Yes it does. Just like the sight of blood causes people to faint. I’m not trying to draw any analogies here but you can’t make someone like homosexuality by creating laws. I understand the need for acceptance - do you think these laws will accomplish that?
There’s nothing to justify. You have your beliefs and I have mine. I don’t love my gay brother any less than I would if he weren’t gay.
Yes. Yes it is.
MJ,
Thank you. I try to at least live up to the moniker here
I’m not purposely skewing your argument, but, i’m taking issue with the fact that you’re calling it a racist issue, when its not. Even IF I were willing to say someone may be racist, I cant peg this one on skin color.
For instance, as was posted here on the site before involving the KKK (and they are rightly condemned here as well), they are both racist and dislike homosexuals.
And just because I dislike what someone does, as in this case, doesn’t mean I cant have a good discussion with them, or be friends. One of my best friends is a lesbian, and her and I have been friends longer than I’ve known about her sexuality. We agree to disagree, but should someone visit harm on her, they’ll have a rather pissed off, gun toting martial artist to deal with. And its not her..she hates guns LOL.
I just think pulling the race card into this doesnt help, thats all. I’m good with people living as they wish. I just dislike the attacks on straights, and the indoctrination angles, thats all. If i’m just missing something or not reading it right, then i apologize.
Nor did Jews or Christians, so not sure why you are quoting the Bible.
The world’s gone crazy.
Hold on there people! This is NOT about equal opportunity! This is about destroying the word ‘marriage’. Equal opportunity is already available in CA via civil unions. This ruling is only about destroying the word ‘marriage’. Look at the disenting opinions in the ruling for a ‘quick’ clarification. (page 154 2nd paragraph in the adobe attachment) What we are dealing with here is the HATE of the family by SOME gays.
You presume all of us want he there…
“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.”
LOL, Rike. It also doesn’t “wash” because if the argument is based on heatlh reasons or parent’s ability to cope we’d have to consider the AIDs epidemic still running rampant among homosexuals. That argument also excludes the disabled from marriage, along with people of African heritage (sickle cell anemia could be passed on to their children.)
Well, at least you’re consistent in your flip, insulting, and empty posts. I don’t know how many people simply post to say “OMGMETOO!”… Most people here actually seem to be making their cases and asking questions. Besides, I don’t think I ever asked you to simply point out a post you agree with. You have time to type insults, so I can only assume that you also have time to add to the debate but simply lack the equipment.
Why is it dangerous to legitimize gays w/ marriage?
It isn’t a phobia or racist to stand up and speak the truth. This is a deviant lifestyle. Love the sinner, hate the sin. I pray for all of them!
The gay community have an agenda: they’re influencing our children (public schools & literature), they’re in the Child Protective Services and the adoption agencies.(social workers prefer gays over “breeders,” esp. if they’re Christian!)
Allowing them to be considered “legally married” strengthens their foothold and breaksdown our society.
Come on libs. Insult my conviction.
Uh-oh. Siblings are okay but we need to make exceptions. Your slippery slope just went vertical.
45 year old man having consensual sex with a 16 year old boy. Parental consent okay or are all cases okay?
You are making the rules now BTW.
That was offensive and unnecessary. It’s bad enough to call us bigots, but to throw in an “argument” about racist Christians is incredibly insulting. What do exceptional outliers who happen to call themselves Christians have to do with true Christian beliefs? Also, Christians who believe that homosexual behavior is wrong are not simply using the Bible to justify their prejudices. You actually have to do a lot of linguistic contorting to come up with an ABSENCE of Biblical condemnation of homosexual behavior. I’m not sure if Jesus Himself says anything directly addressing it, but Leviticus and Paul’s letters do, I believe. And most Christians take the Bible seriously, as they should. To sneer at their sincere beliefs as just an excuse for knuckle-dragging bigotry is a deep insult.
RR- I’m not sure if you are talking about promiscuity, or the actual, inimate acts themselves. Either way heterosexuals engage in the same behaviors.
Exactly, precisely, thank you, Nyk.
Yep. I remember the last street orgy heterosexual couples forced on a city. Oh, wait…
#214: are you aware that homosexual behavior exists in other species? Is that unnatural as well?
MissEm,
Do you ever consider that what you call outliers, call themselves “true christians”? The Westboro Baptist Church call themselves true christians. I know LBGT true christians. Fight it out amongst yourselves.
According to South Park, only the Mormons have it right.
Whatever, I don’t care who, or what the true Christians are. You all define yourselves anyway you see fit.
Can anyone honestly say that gay marriage has a real effect on your life, your freedoms, your property, or your marriage? Are people really this scared of freedom?
I’m tired of the “gay animal” argument.
They’re ANIMALS!!! Both creationist and evolutionist would agree that we function much higher that ANIMALS!!!
Perhaps the argrument could be made that gay’s act like ANIMALS!!!
Thanks Khan
You seem pretty angry there, ace. But yeah, if you think these posts I’ve made are insulting, I could do much worse. I suggest you ignoring me if you’re that affected by my commentary. I mean, until you saw fit to call attention to yourself, that’s what I was doing to you…
it dies here in November…. again.
see you then… out.
To know the Bible is to recognize what a true Christian is and it isn’t in what we call ourselves….
“Why, then, would we want to deny them access to the very institution that legitimizes their relationships?”
The question - still unanswered - then is, MsJustice: “Why deny polygymists or siblings access to the very institution that legitimizes their relationships?”?
16<18. 18 or greater to be an adult, must be an adult to consent. NO children/infants under 18. Period. Any NAMBLA crap is illegal, and NO ONE is advocating that: quit beating the dead straw man.
As for the previous criticism about parents with infectious diseases, there are lines to be drawn: not every mother with a disease will pass it on to her child at birth. However, if there is a “substantial” (that’s more for MD’s to decide what that means than us) chance that the mother’s giving birth will cause bodily harm to the child, that’s child abuse, the same as smoking crack when pregnant.
I haven’t seen the “but the animals do it too” argument in a long time. Even atheist macro-evolutionists refute this one all the time. Need proof, go read abstractmind’s posts.
Good post here MissEm. My issue, is that belief has always been based on some reliqious doctrine(not always Christian obviously). That argument is useless here, and now I’m irritated about the election ramifications. have a nice day.
They aren’t.
Um… no. Promiscuity is dangerous for anyone. However, the simple act of gay sex between two young men is innately dangerous (as is, I suppose, straight anal sex.) And the same amount of partner switching is definitely more dangerous in homosexuals than in heterosexuals. This fact has actually been recognized by the FDA; due to the disproportionately high health risk for males practicing homosexual behavior, the FDA has banned blood donations from gay men.
I think they call it Mardi Gras.
ok, the bible quote was miss placed. My point, the government cannot have control over two people wanting to commit to each other, a “marriage”. We are talking about benefits, $$$$.
I din’t marry my wife for govenment dole, or her insurance…”…fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship” This will come to include polygamy. It HAS to! if i want 12 kids, and have 3 wives, look at how much better for the children’s welfare! When i home school, it’s a better student to teacher ratio! No child left behind!
Others who are involved in polygamy and incest don’t have a real effect on your life, your freedoms, your property, or your marriage.. So are you also for “equal marriage rights” for them or are you really this scared of freedom?
I’ll clarify my point. I don’t like that pro-football players can take the congress’ time to explain why they should get disability - is garbage. In that same vein, the pro baseball players go before congress to discuss their steriod use for crying out loud OR that small population of gay and lesbians who want to marry each other.
Marriage cannot be extended to such an
incestuoushomosexual relationship because any childrenborn to itadopted would be physiologically harmed.fixed
The courts turn a blind eye to a minor girl if she wants an abortion. So, if the courts turn a blind eye to minors getting married, you will be against it?
There are going to be numerous actions in the courts for other “fundamental rights” not the least of which will be by NAMBLA. Yes, I am beating that dead horse to death until you see that this is just a stepping stone of things to come. Four people can have their say as what the law implies. How many times has the gay movement brought this to the courts. Attrition is key not the will of the people.
“alaskangrizzly said:
On May 15th, 2008 at 2:40 pm, khan said:
#214: are you aware that homosexual behavior exists in other species? Is that unnatural as well?”
Anyone who’s ever had a dog latch onto their leg (or anything else in sight) and go at it should realize it’s not the wisest thing to take our moral cues from the animal kingdom.
LOL - can’t ever say I went but you naild me on that one!
One more “nail in the coffin” for Mexifornia. The only thing left to do is to legalize illegal alien gay marriages.
Yes it is. Out of the countless BILLIONS of animals on this planet….individual animals…..some of them are bound to have the…..well….I’ll call it a “glitch” in their brains. A species will not last very long if this was normal behavior. So….as it is in nature….we leave it up to the normals to continue the species…..the abnormals…well they cannot procreate so….eventually they will go by the wayside…..married or not.
#235: why are you tired of the argument? is it because it’s true? yes, homosexual behavior exists in other species. like it or not, man is an animal and is a part of the animal kingdom.
Don’t worry, your hit-and-run insults did not anger me. It’s just easy to get tired of commenters like you who add nothing to the debate. I have no problem ignoring you from here out, but I can’t help but point out that what you were doing was not limited to ignoring me or any other commenter… what you have been doing is ignoring the debate entirely except to mock one argument. Like I said at first, it’s none of my business if you want to do that to others - if you look back, I was just suggesting that you actually join in.
McPain will legalize gay immigration.
ROTFLOL
If you think mocking any [attempted] equation of homosexuality or gay marriage to incest is “insulting,” I wonder how “insulted” homosexuals feel when they see others trying to compare their sexuality to incest.
#248: I’m not claiming any of this to be a right, other than the right of liberty. No, polygamy doens’t affect me, my life, my rights, or my marriage. Neither does incest. Neither are things that I would engage in, but they don’t affect my life or my freedoms at all.
Okay, that’s hilarious!
With instances of Texan Polygamy sects in the news, polygamy will be legalized as well in order to have oversight so “no children are involved” I can’t wait!! I can have 2 or 3 more wives working in our office!! My sales will go through the roof!
I call for a homosexual jihad against those infidels who consider it sinful!
How dare we let them think its sinful.
Nope, khan - but I do agree that many act like animals. Not just sexually - you have things like “road rage” where someone will kill another person at the slightest perceived wrong.
ZING! Now that is a great post!
I’m apologize, I think I wasn’t very clear… I meant the terms mocking and insulting to be interchangeable in my comments. I did not comment on the content of the argument, just the content of your response. Sorry, sometimes I type faster than my little brain runs.
#252: no one in this thread has suggested that anyone take moral cues from the animal kingdom. morality is not the realm of government. i don’t agree with using government in telling people what they can or can’t do based on someone’s morality if that action is not infringing on someone else’s life, liberty, or property. that goes for drinking, gambling, drugs, marriage, etc.
#266: i do not say that we act like animals; we are animals. so with your saying “nope,” are you denying that man is an animal? are you denying that homo sapien is a member of the animal kingdom?
I have always agrred with that, Khan. You cannot legislate morality
Homosexuality is a sin. Homosexual marriage is an aberration on society, and insult to the moral conscience of Americans.
Call me a bigot. Do it. Liberals love it - it makes them feel superior. I know you want to.
The problem with queers (don’t you dare criticize for using that word - it’s been used many times already, by queers) is that they’re never happy. When you start giving in to them, they want more. Frankly, I’m surprised queers want marriage rights, since that would make them “equal” to straight people. They now have no cause to scream and yell about oppression and equal rights and whatever else queers yell about.
You want equality? Fine. Now go away and stop bugging the rest of us. We have lives to live.
Well, you can and you cant…its an odd symphony.
for instance, its immoral and against the law to kill, or rape, etc.
just saying
Purplepeep, here is my short answer.
Polygymists- I could care less, but I think the one adult w/ w one adult model makes things simpler for the tax system, and benefits. Also, with the current divorce rate, our courts would be clogged settling child custody and various support issues. I think the state has a legitimate state interest here. Again, I could personally care less, and will concede that polygymists will be the next in line once we hit a a fantasy utopia, and gay marriage is legitimized nationwide.
Incest- This is a public health issue. Promoting incestuous relationships makes it harder and irrational to criminalize incest sex, which can lead to procreation, which can lead to deformed children. What about brother/brother, sister/sister? Well lets try to be consistant on the whole incest thing, and not encourage opposite sex couplings. Again, a legitimate state interest is here.
NAMBLA- Frankly Soap, this is beneath you, but this whole marriage argument deals with consenting adults. Children are incapable of entering most contractural situations, and there is a legitimate state interest in preventing the mentally underdeveloped from falling under the coercive tactics of adults. You will find more agreement amongst doctors that pedophilia is more damaging to the makeup of the participants,(most importantly the children), then consenting, adult, homosexual behavior.
Beastiality- Won’t even dignify it. Next.
Sorry about whatever typos may appear in this post. I’m taking a late lunch.
So by using your own argument you would not be against sibling marriage, polygamy-group marriage then, khan?
I’m not baiting you but - if that’s so - rather applauding your intellectual consistency even if I don’t agree with it.
Okay. I’m convinced. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
If you are a man and you love another man and the two of you want to pledge your lives to each other, feel free to do so, but that is not marriage. It is not traditional marriage.
And, then, my certainty about this starts to waver. And the reason has to do with this “traditional” notion. This long history of marriage as an institution.
Why? Because over the years and decades we have mucked around with the institution. We’ve tied laws and benefits and rights of survivorship and financial obligation and many other things to marriage. It is a far more complex institution than the expression of love between a man and a woman (which I always thought was smooching).
There is no denying the religious component of marriage. It is a sacrament of the Roman Catholic Church and is a sacred ceremony in most, if not all, organized religions.
But the religious element is not what is at stake here. The issue is recognition by the government and being treated as equal to a heterosexual couple under the law.
I hear all the arguments about marrying animals, and relatives, and multiple people. I see where the give an inch, give a mile thinking comes from, but they are separate battles. They are not the subject of the court case. Those arguments, while emotional and seemingly strong, have no relevance to the discussion of same-sex marriage.
Back to the government and their fiddling with marriage as an institution. Divorce has never been easier. Women have far more rights in marriage, and after marriage by divorce or death, than they have ever had. Marriage doesn’t even require a preacher or a ceremony. In some cases, common-law, it doesn’t require anything but long-term cohabitation.
Maybe those are all steps in the slippery slope to widening the definition of marriage and making it a sad image of what it once was. I don’t know.
But I don’t know what the alternative is for two people who love each other, who want to make a lifetime commitment to each other, if they are not legally allowed to do so.
A heterosexual couple can get married, enjoy the rights and benefits accorded to married couples without ever having the slightest intention of procreation. They might even live the lives of complete hedonists, in an “open” marriage filled with debauchery. Yet, two women, friends and lovers, devoted to each other, are not afforded the same rights and benefits under the law?
I’m no longer convinced.
I can’t deprive you of your life, liberty, pursuit of happines. Killing would do that, marrying a gay, smoking weed, or marrying grandma
It’s the right decision. Soon conservatives in general, and Christians in particular, will come around and accept that marriage equality is a good thing, the right thing. I’m confident of that.
Yeah, of course, heaven forbid bishops enforce Catholic teaching.
There isn’t a doubt in my mind the day will come when same-sex couple A sues the Catholic Church (or any church) because it’s their “right” to get married. Any of you who think that’s an impossibility want to bet a year’s salary on that one?
Wait…it already happened in New Jersey!!!
I have yet to see any of you explain to me the ruling on the photog in NM and the church (Methodist, which is hardly conservative, by the way) in NJ that got in hot water for refusing to glorify homosexuality isn’t a direct violation of the First Amendment.
And I’d like to see the part of the constitution giving us the right to “form a family”…
I think any legislator who pens a “Defense of Religious Freedom Act” would have be wise to do so NOW. Make it illegal across the board for activists to sue churches, private business, and individuals in any capacity if they refuse to acknowledge gay marriage.
What say you, oh great defenders of “civil rights”? Would you support that and allow those of us who still have morals to have our beliefs and publicly express them?
The civil unions weren’t enough? The gays just want to stick it (figuratively) to the straights and say “ha ha, we won!!” via this decision. It’s like the government making an official apology to blacks for slavery. Not that it’ll change anything, but just to admit “we’re wrong and bad”.
#273: poor examples. our laws exist not for morality’s sake, but only if an act has infringed through force or fraud on our basic inherent rights enumerated by our founding fathers, in other words, someone’s life, liberty, or property.
#214: are you aware that homosexual behavior exists in other species? Is that unnatural as well?
pretty much only in captivity…otherwise it’s what we humans pereceive as homosexuality, actually more akin to a show of submission…
purplepeep:
refer to response #262.
Yes, I would. Absolutely. This ain’t Canada.
#282:
only in captivity? that is untrue.
MsJustice,
So your argument against incest-marriage is based on whether the parents can produce healthy children or not? i.e. exclude from marriage those who might produce children who might be born with some kind of “defect”?
#272 On May 15th, 2008 at 3:08 pm, fourstringfuror said: “The problem with queers (don’t you dare criticize for using that word - it’s been used many times already, by queers) is that they’re never happy.”
Who says queers are never unhappy? Gay used to mean “happy.” We’re so happy we’re gay.
At 47, I’m happier than I’ve EVER been. I’m married too, and that has everything to do with my happiness.
FWIW, my wife and I were married in a church, by a Christian minister. Just sayin’.
Now……IF they could just legalize illegals in CA, then maybe they’ll all move there.
What a bonus along with gay/happy marriages.
Well, as already stated, the difference is that killing, raping, etc, have victims.
It’s largely immaterial though. It’ll get overturned by the voters if it goes to the polls in November. . .unless there’s a major shift since the last time this issue came around.
Homosexuals are at greater risk of AIDS. Let’s outlaw it then.
Good. Then let’s get the ball rolling on this because I am absolutely serious.
There fixed it for you on the assumption that they are using the King County, Washington school of petition validation
I am totally against same sex marriage. Now all the sprippers will marry each other and my (and Slick Willies) life will come crashing down.
I believe I did in post 275, khan.
Now I’m off to the supermarket, excuse me since there won’t be much response from this quarter for awhile!
Correct - but you can legislate against immorality.
We agree! There’s nothing I would love more than for gay couples to not have to bug people over equality.
Thankfully we’re 1/25th of the way there.
But the founding fathers resoundingly fell back on their morals to craft such laws. By the writings we have from them, it was clear that the sake of morality, and the moral fiber of our country being strong, yet diverse and free, was of a paramount importance.
You want to see immorality in the law? Go through a divorce -_- not THOSE are immoral b@$7@rds right there.
I was baiting a bit, i admit. my point is, however, that while *I* dont prescribe to morals as people take it (i personally go on principle, because those are less easily moved and tend to guide my life better…but thats me), our laws, our way of life, and our Constitution were founded by people who by and larger were religious. Doesnt mean they ALL were. But it is clear from the wordings on those documents we hold in the highest regard, that morality was an obvious aspect to the process.
#294: then i see no reason why you asked, since the answer was already in my post.
#290 On May 15th, 2008 at 3:19 pm, cicerokid said:
“Homosexuals are at greater risk of AIDS.”
WRONG. *Sexually promiscuous people* are at higher risk of AIDS. The epidemic in Africa has little to do with same-sex promiscuity, but cultural norms that encourage male infidelity. This puts men and their wives at risk.
Persons in monogamous relationships, regardless of their gender make-up, have no risk of getting AIDS by sexual means.
No one is denying or arguing that the founding fathers were or weren’t religious, and no one is suggesting that they were without morals. All laws recognize that man is inherently free and has inherent rights. All laws, articles, and amendments reflected this. Morality wasn’t being legislated; freedom was being protected.