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.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
First Day of 2012 Open Thread & Aspirin-Swapping Roundtable
January 1, 2012 11:45 AM by Doug Powers
235 Comments
Reports: Miners trapped in Mullan, Idaho; 6 hospitalized
December 15, 2011 01:34 AM by Michelle Malkin
23 Comments
Sports and the sexual abuse of children; Plus: Rick Santorum makes things worse
November 8, 2011 02:29 PM by Michelle Malkin
89 Comments10 years ago: My generation’s bloody wake-up call
September 10, 2011 10:07 PM by Michelle Malkin
44 Comments
Hurricane/Tropical Storm Irene Open Thread
August 28, 2011 12:25 PM by Doug Powers
104 CommentsQuake alert: Shake, rattle, and roll!
August 23, 2011 02:03 PM by Michelle Malkin
231 CommentsHappy Mother’s Day!
May 8, 2011 11:07 AM by Doug Powers
57 CommentsChrist the Lord is risen today
April 24, 2011 09:32 AM by Michelle Malkin
100 Comments
Categories: Uncategorized
Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's war on conscience, cont'dRedstate
» Media MattersHot Air
» National Review to Newt: Get outAmSpecBlog
» Explosion Near Israeli Embassy in India
We’ll see how freedoms are being violated when people’s right to freedom of religion start being impinged like they already are in NJ, MA, and Canada.
ok then. Homosexuals are more likely to be promiscuous, which leads to a higher instance of AIDS. Let’s outlaw homosexuality. Again. I am legislated to wear a seat belt…in order to maintain my health?
#301:
What in the world are you talking about, and what the hell does Canada have to do with any of this?
“including three decisions in 2005 requiring equal treatment for same-sex parents in disputes over child support and custody.”
more rights than straight men already.
Read the above examples way back in the posts and get back to me. Bye.
#305: unable and unwilling to answer. gotcha.
#302 On May 15th, 2008 at 3:37 pm, cicerokid said: “ok then. Homosexuals are more likely to be promiscuous…”
Who says? Where are your facts?
But for the sake of argument we’ll suppose you are right, homosexual are more promiscuous. Isn’t a solution to give them a path to stability, permanency, legitimacy, via marriage or its equivalent?
America is AMERICA, land of the free, ruled by our Constitution. Y’all will come around one of these days, and marriage equality will be a no-brainer.
You misunderstand. The judicial tradition of awarding custody to the mother is a whole ‘nother ballgame and something that is ripe for good discussion. But it doesn’t fit with what you’re trying to say.
These rulings are just to ensure that both divorcing parents get a fair shake. It also protects the adoptive mother or father if their former partner was the biological parent but the child had both parents on his/her birth certificate.
Every law is a legislation of morality. If you pass a law that says you can’t drive faster than 25 miles per hour on a certain street, then you are saying it is immoral to drive 26 miles per hour on that street.
I don’t have time to go back and find the post numbers for you. If you had read all the comments you would have found the examples I was referring to about freedom of religion in New Jersey, MA, and Canada.
from an ap piece..
California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban (4-3)
But, “Our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation,” Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court’s majority, which also included Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.
—
Mr. George, if a man and a man or a woman and a woman could create new life without outside intervention or tools to assist,, I might buy that argument.
The curse of believing in a Judeo-Christion ethic is religion gets mixed in it, and these days, there are no shortage of those who avoid or make it conform to their needs and use the courts to do so. This decision only further undercuts traditional marriage and families.
it’s not immoral to drive 26 in a 25 if your wife is haveing a miscarriage and your on the way to the hospital. it is illegal, not immoral. morality is an etherial term: appropriate, virtuous, rightious, character, behavior…
Sounds like all the pro-same-sex marriage advocates who ignored my questions about NJ, MA, and Canada.
#310: you made the claim, not me. if you can’t back it up or are unwilling to, that’s on you, not me. i’m not going to go through 300+ posts to try and figure out which one you’re referring to.
#309: Nosferightu, i can’t stress enough how untrue that is. that is some seriously flawed logic.
i dont necessarily agree…just sounds like a “6 in one hand, half a dozen in the other” type of discussion.
i think those 2 things go hand in hand at some point.
What I am referring to is that in NJ, MA, and Canada that the freedom of religion was impinged by GLBT groups over gay marriage. And that I have no doubt in my mind it will only spread, the Constitution means nothing to those destroying it. It is the do as I say not as I do mentality of free speech for me and not for thee.
My post, for starters.
It’s rather scary to have some of you say “Well, Canada doens’t have the First Amendment, so it’s okay to threaten people with 2 years in prison of they say something that might offend a gay person”…
I’m writing every conservative legislator I can for a Defense of Religious Freedom Act, which would prohibit any individual or organization from suing or legislating against those who oppose or disagree with homosexual marriage.
Let’s see if other activists support it. My guess is no.
Sigh, I usually don’t stoop to doing the homework of morons too lazy to do it themselves but here goes:
#53
#67
#78
#279
EQ, I was at lunch and wanted to make sure I did some reading on the things you discussed before responding. You’re right about the NJ Methodist lawsuit. It’s without merit.
So what? The lesbian couple isn’t going to win. And I can’t find anything similar to that in MA which, unlike NJ, actually has gay marriage. There are anti-discrimination laws that have hurt Catholic adoption agencies (laws that I support), but those have nothing to do with marriage.
This discussion called to mind the case of former lesbian Lisa Miller being forced to share custody of her Isabella (the result of artificial insemination) with her former partner who lives in a different state and is neither biologically nor adoptively (?) related to the child.
Y’all can oppose same-sex couplings on religious merits or otherwise. And y’all can talk morality until you are blue in the face. It’s all moot.
Until heterosexual divorce rates are reduced to ZERO, y’all don’t have a moral leg to stand on.
Do us all a favor and clean-up the exclusively heterosexual institution of marriage so when this exclusivity is no longer tolerated in America, and all loving, committed couples have legal access to the the most important institution in our society, it will be something WORTH having.
I think You misunderstand. What you said proves my point. protect the adoptive homo parent but don’t protect the biological straight father.
alaskangrizzly: i seriously doubt anyone’s freedom of religion was impinged. i suspect a strawman being created. frankly, i couldn’t care less about Canada. we are talking about the United States here. i would argue that those looking to add amendments to our Constitution that tell people what they can and can’t do are the ones threatening to destroy it and threatening to destroy the founding principles of this republic.
I’ll put my challenge out again: tell me how gay marriage affects your life, your freedoms, your property, your liberty, and/or your marriage.
But those aren’t extra rights. Theoretically, a biological father has the exact same custody rights as an adoptive one (doesn’t matter what sexual orientation we’re dealing with).
englishqueen, i think some of your claims are a bit over the top:
Because marriage – marriage between a man and a woman – has hitherto been recognized as necessary and vital to civilization
traditional marriage…is the foundation and cornerstone of civilized society.
dang. messed up the quote function. wish there were an edit feature.
Arguments over polygamy, pedophilia etc are absolutely relevant here. This case is providing a precedent, a legal ruling that will be looked back at in response to future lawsuits.
Gay marriage fundamentally changes, or makes irrelevant, the traditional union of a man and woman. If a marriage now is simply the union of consenting adults, there is no moral or legal basis to restrict the unions of other groups of consenting adults, regardless of the group’s makeup. One simply cannot realistically deny this. The arguments in favor of same-sex marriage are all about privacy rights and freedom of association. How can these same arguments NOT be used to address other relationship configurations?
BS Rusty. don’t you think a biological father is the one that deserves equal treatment? No laws for them. But 3 laws for a homo-adoptive-parent?
This law discriminates against Bi sexuals. How come they can’t marry the person they love of each sex. This is absolutly absurd and bigioted!
This is a blow to tradition and marriage. Contrary to liberal propaganda, we are on a slippery slope.
The incest movement, small as gay marriage once was, has started elsewhere in the world.
Germany – Brother/Sister
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/27/germany.kateconnolly
Australia – Father/Daughter
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7334649.stm
I imagine the courts will eventually find its their ‘personal lives’ and government has no say
Matty, I understand your point, but it doesn’t quite work. As stressed before, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, and beastiality are all fundamentally abusive relationships. And with incest there is a clear public health issue as well.
I am perfectly fine with cousins being allowed to marry (it’s absurdly illegal in many states) for example for the same reason I support gay marriage. There has to be a huge state concern to take away someone’s civil rights. That concern is there with incest and polygamy. It’s not for gays.
I could really care less what someone does in their bedroom – but they keeping bringing their bedroom out in front of us.
As for homosexuality – can they reproduce by living their preferred “life style?” Nope – so on a purely natural argument (don’t libs love Darwin?) homosexual behavior is a deviation from nature not meant to live beyond one generation.
#327: gay marriage does not affect your marriage or mine. it certainly doesn’t make my marriage irrelevant nor does it make anyone else’s marriage irrelevant. and arguments of pedophilia are not relevant here, either. again, gay marriage does not infringe upon life, liberty, or property of anyone else through force or fraud. pedophilia does. i beg you to see the difference.
as for morality, morality is for the realm of your church and your family, not your government. you and you alone are to answer to your spiritual leaders and/or your god. the arguments of same-sex marriage are not all about privacy rights and freedom of association, they are also about personal liberty. recognize that you can get married by your church, minister, whomever, but the state does not recognize it until you get a license from the circuit court clerk. the state determines who is legally married, not the church.
This law is disriminatory towards them. They can’t help it that there brother and sister.
Part II:
Since nature would “select” homosexuals out of existence then it is not natural as they like to say. Therefore it is not normal nor should be honored as such with marriage.
Gay marriage redefines marriage and opens the door to having the government allowing laws to punish those who disagree with it or challenge it and as a result would squash my freedom of speech and freedom of religion like has already happened in the US and Canada and Europe. I know it would happen because IT ALREADY DOES. If I walk into my college campus with a T-Shirt saying “homosexuality is evil and a sin, repent now” I would at a minimum be confronted by students, most likely a teacher, and have campus security come see me. Freedom of speech anyone? How much more will the loss of freedom of speech be when this goes live everywhere in the US? Canada is a prime example of what will happen.
Gay marriage infringes on property (that I support financially) when gay activits sues my church for not performing a gay marriage and my church loses its tax exempt status and has to close down for not performing the marriage despite being against the beliefs of the church and a violation its freedom of religion, expression, and speech.
Gay marriage infringes on my marriage by giving it an equal footing in name and moral status with something that is evil and sinful and belongs on the same level as pedophelia.
Happy now?
Biologically speaking… There are two specific genders with specific differences between them both physically AND instinctively. The purpose of the existence of gender is very simple; to create new life. One of the normal instinctive differences is that males are naturally attracted to females and females are naturally attracted to males for the reward of sexual gratification.
I stand defiant of anyone to try to take away the words ‘normal’ and ‘naturally’ in that because, if it was not a natural instinct that causes the two complimentary genders to engage each other for the purpose of procreation, we wouldn’t be here and neither would many other of the higher brained sexual species.
That squarely places homosexual behavior among humans as a behavioral dysfunction – an errant behavior that accomplishes nothing. Some sexual dysfunctions are physical like missing ovaries or impotence; others are behavioral like excessive shyness or homosexuality or having no sexual urge at all.
I don’t see anything ‘wrong’ with homosexuals compensating for their lack of the normal instinctive attraction they are missing in regard to the opposite gender and think they have every right to enjoy sex as much as anyone else, (keep it to yourselves & leave my normal kids out of it too…)
But what they feel and do cannot possibly be the same as what heterosexuals feel and do because they are missing the very instinct that draws heterosexual pairs together. I wouldn’t expect them to understand what that feeling is anymore than I would expect a blind person to understand what color is.
Homosexuals simply CANNOT understand at all what the attraction to the opposite gender is like so where in the world did they ever get the idea that their compensation to their own sexual behavioral dysfunction is somehow the same as heterosexual behavior? It ain’t.
Next we’ll have people who like driving on the left side of the road demanding one day week when everyone must drive on the left. Just flip it all around and the rest of us must just ‘accept it’. No we won’t..
Just as much as those who would rather drive on the left side of the road are free to either drive on the right like everyone else or NOT AT ALL – so are homosexuals free to marry someone of the opposite gender like everyone else – OR NOT AT ALL.
That boys and girls IS equality under the law.
That’s why they spend SO much money lobbying to teach there homo life style in OUR childrens school to OUR kids.
Until all heterosexuals (regardless of their religion, political affiliation, views on homosexuality, etc…) are without flaw in marriage, they can’t discuss the morality and legality of same-sex marriage?!? How does that even begin to make sense?
With the CA Extreme Court’s “making new law” decision, CA has trumped the vote of the majority of people in this state who voted by 60% margin back in 2000 that marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman in the state of California.
How ironic that this Extreme Court has done exactly what John McCain said in his speech this morning about radical judges “legislating from the bench.” This court has overturned the will of the people in California.
This unrighteous decision just proves that the Alliance Defense Fund is correct in reclaiming pastor’s rights of free speech in the pulpit. Getting that passed will be of the utmost importance in order to prevent so-called “hate crimes” laws – that are currently being pushed into law by homosexual groups and their supporters – which are designed to criminalize any voices that share the fact that homosexual behavior as sinful, shameful, physically, emotionally and spiritually dangerous. Getting pastors who follow biblical morality (and, of course, preach against and oppose homosexual behavior) silenced, is the final goal of the homosexual agenda. If they can, literally, shut all opposition down, then they (believe) that they have won not only the battle, but the entire war against God’s Word and proper moral behavior.
There are two people who recently presented strong arguments against homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.
If you are interesting in reading them, please visit this post at Talk Wisdom
How are incest and polygamy “fundamentally abusive”? Also, how likely is it for a brother and sister to produce unhealthy offspring? Unhealthy offspring are always a risk–at what point do we start forbidding people from marrying because of it?
The point I’m making here is not that these unions should be considered marriages by the state, but rather to show that the “slippery slope” argument does have weight. The fact is if you say consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they like, there really is no argument against polygamy and incest. The distinctions you cited are not meaningful.
Yes. Freedom of speech. Yours hasn’t been infringed in the least. Are you looking to take away freedom of speech from those who disagree with you?
And the lawsuit argument is ridiculous. The state with that stupid doomed lawsuit doesn’t even have gay marriage! Blaming gay marriage for that lawsuit makes no sense.
Ah, here we have the real rub of your argument:
Ok then. Thankfully, your ignorant bigotry isn’t reason enough to deprive people of their rights.
You think its evil and sinful? Go right ahead. You can think whatever you want. Live and let live, buddy. That’s what the CA Court has done. They’re allowing gays to live their lives without governmental discrimination.
That’s rich coming from you CINO. At least even people like abstractmind can understand the fundamental flaw with homosexuality outside of morals that you obviously lack.
And yes, my freedom of speech in the t-shirt example is impinged since I shouldn’t have to remove the shirt or leave campus which happens more often than not. Hypocrite.
Polygamy is next. Count on it. Being able to petition for a gay partner from overseas is next. Count on it.
For one, gay marriage does not redefine marriage, but whatever. So you can’t say how it affects your marriage, your life, or your freedoms, you can only point to some speculative boogeyman scenario. as i suspected…a strawman argument.
More hysteria. So you’ll be confronted over your t-shirt. That is hardly the government taking away your freedom of religion or your freedom of speech. But again, another speculative scenario and another strawman.
Gay marriage is not taking away your property (and your church is not your property). but again you resort to some insane speculative strawman instead of reality.
Gay marriage does not infringe on your marriage at all, equal footing or no. You are talking in the realm of religion, and not government. Government does not legislate or determine sin or morality. Those are determined by your church.
No, because none of what you provided was a real answer. You claim that people’s “freedom of religion [are already being impinged] in NJ, MA” , and you have yet to give a concrete example. Not a single one. Only strawmen and hysteria.
Absoultely true. While some here may claim otherwise, it will be only a matter of time before group marriages will be the next hurdle, as it can be claimed it is a relationship between non-incestuous, consenting adults. What is so special about two consenting adults will be the line of attack. Those that dimiss this as nonsense and a twisting of the arguments ignore that even the idea of of civil unions was unthinkable twenty years ago. Opposition to general acceptance of homosexuality as just another lifestyle choice was mocked and accused of fearmongering when it was claimed it would lead to gay marriage. And yet here we are.
No, this is not the end, but only the beginning. We are in for things much more perverse down the road.
So the photographer in NJ isn’t being illegally sued for expressing their freedom of expression?
The law in Canada isn’t a direct violation of freedom of speech in Canada for speaking out against homosexuality?
Pfft. Moron.
I’m all for civil unions but all you gays out there don’t understand english. The definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Not a man and a man, or a women and a women. Why not change the defintion of all words so they benefit 1% or less of the population? This is an attack on the family by the left that has been going on for years in this state. The people have already spoken in 2000 and they said no to gay marriage. Why doesn’t that bother gays, that they are more concerned with ruining the family unit than accepting the will of the people. I have many friends who are gay who all think the marriage thing is total BS. Many of them voted against it in 2000. Are they bigots too?
I’m not equating homosexuality and pedophilia. The argument is one of relationships. If one type of relationship is allowable why is another not allowable? Because one of the persons is a minor? So what? Birth control is handed out to minors today, and minors are allowed to get abortions without parental consent. Implicit in such actions is the assumption that kids are capable of dealing with sexual matters. As such, what business is it of ours who they’re getting it on with? It’s completely arbitrary to say it’s ok for teens to bone each other, just not adults. If consent is now the threshold for a relationship to be acceptable, then why restrict a relationship simply due to age differences? I’m not saying gay marriage will lead to acceptance of pedophilia overnight, simply that it opens the door to future movements to advance it.
Do you think people 50 years ago would have seen the gay marriage movement coming? Probably not, but here it is. To suggest that similiar movements will not come about in the future as a result of societal changes is shortsighted.
As to the irrelevancy, gay marriage doesn’t make relationships irrelevant, but it does make the term “marriage” irrelevant. A union of two men or two women may be a union, but it is not “marriage.” Find a new term for it.
But whatever. As I said in my comment #6, this battle is over and conservatives have lost. I frankly can’t believe I live in a time and country where we even have to have this debate.
Hey, I never disagreed with you, Rusty. I simply do not care what the lesbians and queers do. But when they desire to equate their relationship on par with marriage, then it opens the doors to MY definition of what a family relationship is: three men and a baby, two woman and grandma, beastiality. You name it, if it does not involve a minor ( i think they are still protected, but that is also up to debate. Ask Miley Cyrus) Gay marriage does not take away from marriage or my property. It does a horrible job of emulating a marriage. What is the separation rate for gays?
#348: Ah, so now you resort to namecalling. How unsurprising.
So someone being sued = the government denying someone their constitutionally guaranteed right? That is simply brilliant logic. Brilliant.
Give me one example of the government taking away someone’s freedom of religion because to gay marriage. Just one.
I have no idea why you insist on bringing Canada into a discussion of American courts, Constitution, and sovereignty. I couldn’t give two ticks about Canada and their laws. This isn’t helping your very weak argument at all.
As i said earlier, polygamy is next in the line up.
Fixed it for you.
#350:
What part of infringing on someone’s life and liberty through force or fraud do you not understand? There is no victim in gay marriage. No one is being infringed upon.
I frankly can’t believe we live in a country where people want to restrict what adults can and can’t do when their lives are not affected by it at all. Apparently freedom is a very scary and threatening thing after all.
I have no idea. It can’t be that bad considering MA’s stellar divorce rate. I would be shocked if it were higher than straight relationships.
I sure hope so!
If the person loses their freedom to express themselves and their free speech is it not a violation of their rights? Why did a government court on the taxpayer dime even take the case if someone’s constitutional rights are clearly being violated?
Exactly. One of the fundamental flaws of many liberals is that they refuse to accept objective reality. I frankly won’t be surprise when they say that, because only 1% of the population is gay, there must be discrimination at work and we need to put affirmative action laws into place in order to ensure equal representation of gays in society.
It didn’t need fixing, AG; it was accurate and it was the way I intended it. But whatever, the point remains no matter how cute you want to get with strike outs.
Forgive my ignorance here but what exactly is the history of “marriage.”
AG,
Can you leave the world of “ifs” and enter the world of reality for a change? Let me remind you for the millionth time that you said people’s freedom of religion are already being infringed by gay marriage. Being sued is not an infringement on freedom of religion. Government has not taken away anyone’s freedom of religion.
Not that anybody will read down this far, but…
I have a big issue with people saying, “This is a personal issue,” or “These people just want the same rights you have.” Both of these statements are false.
FACT: This is not just a personal issue. This is not about sleeping arrangements, who you are going to spend the rest of your life with, or who you choose to live with. Homosexuals can currently live with whoever they want, have sex with whoever they want, and remain monogamous until death if they want. Redefining marriage is specifically about changing things that are not personal, things like inheritance, taxation, visitation rights, etc. Given this, the argument is not about a bunch of conservative weenies wanting to control what goes on in somebody’s bedroom.
SECOND FACT: Homosexuals already have all the rights I do. They have the right to get married. Specifically, they have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. What is at stake here is the right to redefine “marriage” to be anything that they want it to be. Realize that there are already tremendous restrictions on what marriage is, even for us heterosexuals. When I got my marriage license, I had to swear that my bride-to-be was no closer to me in my family tree than second-cousins. I can’t marry my sister or my mom. Further, I can’t marry two wives. I can’t marry my dog. I can’t marry my daughter. Those are all prohibitions currently in force today. And realize that all of those prohibitions also have people that would love to be able to redefine marriage to include them (cf. the stuff with the fundamentalist LDS cult down in Texas). By what right would you allow a homosexual to marry but deny that right to a polygamist Mormon? Or a NAMBLA member that wants to “marry” a 12-year-old boy? If you find yourself saying, “but those are different!” then the burden on you is to explain why.
Exit question: if we’re going to start redefining words willy-nilly, why don’t we redefine words like “stealing,” “murder,” and such? One might reasonably argue that we have redefined murder already (“pro choice”). Definitions are important. If you don’t believe this, then I have a ton of words I’d like to redefine.
It was in New Mexico, she was sued, and has to pay $7000 to the couple whose wedding she wouldn’t photograph.
I just did. A government body ruled that she could not refuse to shoot a ceremony her religious beliefs disagreed with, and they financially penalized her for doing so.
Got another straw man I can knock down?
It makes as much sense as you judging me and my marriage, MY FAMILY, based on a “lifestyle” of some gay sort that represents debauchery, promiscuity, infidelity, perversion; when I am in a long term stable marriage, a marriage that I treat like communion with God, and we are raising a daughter. When you think “gay” or “lesbian” which is the image that first comes to mind?
Do you imagine a woman who has conservative political views, and who agrees with a lot of views of MM and her readers? Do you imagine a devoted mother? Do you imagine a person, perhaps like you, who came from humble roots, and is making it? I am from Hillary Country in PA (Johnstown PA, Rep Pork’s district) and I can’t stand the Clintons. I’m not a liberal by any stretch. I believe in family. And I agree with and believe in 90% of what you believe about family, the remaining 10% being our different views on what IS a family. I’m not trying to be smart and pull the “it depends on what *IS* is…
Just as you feel unjustly scorned, and your own marriage so scorned, by America’s poor performance in marriage, I feel unjustly scorned every time someone says “gay lifestyle.” You aren’t the heterosexual woman, putting her breasts on display for a string of beads at Mardi Gras. I’m not the militant lesbian sporting a mullet, wearing a wife-beater and a chip on her shoulder. I just want to be left alone to care for and support my family, through every legal means, like by providing my own health insurance. I don’t want government to provide it for me. That is the LAST thing I want. But I would appreciate being able to include my wife, my partner, in my insurance package, whatever the price. The problem is, that’s not an option here in Virginia on account of the law. That is, she cannot be included in a FAMILY policy. I want to take care of my family, but the laws make it HARDER for me to be responsible. So we have to buy a family policy to cover me and our daughter. And then we have to buy a single policy to cover my wife.
How does that make sense? How is that consistent with conservative principles like less government interference? And why is that such a threat to society, that I want to be able to provide for my family, so that no one else has to?
What’s wrong with polygamy? (it’s a serious question)
See # 364
Thanks
Nothing, it’d be wrong for us to judge, after all!
All I know is that in the Old Testament, when they wanted God to bless them, they killed all the sodomites.
Then there’s that pesky time that God made crispy critters out of the sodomites.
I don’t think sodomites are a good thing to have around, do you?
#366: AG, another dodge and non-answer. to be expected since that’s all you’ve given so far. you have yet to give one example – a real example, not a hypothetical example – of something you claim has already happened.
I’m going to go ahead and make an “OMGMETOO” comment at Trop’s Post#364.
kahn, are you illiterate?
I already gave you several examples. But one more time:
In New Mexico, a government body – a court – ruled a photographer had to pay a lesbian couple $7,000 because she declined to shoot their ‘commitment ceremony’, on the basis of her religious beliefs.
Please explain to me how this is 1) “hypothetical” and 2) not a violation of this woman’s First Amendment rights?
I dont *think* i was being attacked? LOL
Sorry, long day.
I believe in things i can prove and see. the science of it, if you will. I try as much as I can to stick to the fact of the matter. I think that the post On May 15th, 2008 at 4:26 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said: pretty much hit it on the head.
With that said, its the end of my day…time to go enjoy some much needed rest!
I have been torn by this subject for a long, long time. I’m torn between my concern and caring for those I know to be gay and love someone and would like to solidify thier relationship via marriage. I am torn by the fact that my belief is marriage was instituted by God to replicate His relationship with His church. It was instituted as a vehicle to work out His principles and tenants as they are for our good and it was therefore a good thing.
Well, I don’t need to read about the Fall of Rome anymore, or any great civilization of the past. I’m seeing it in action. When morality is thrown out the window, in the face of the voters, we all know (those that know history) that the end isn’t too far off. When a civilization has an “anything goes” attitude, it will fail…always did, always will. We’ve got kids dressing up as hookers, gays flounting marriage, people wanting to marry animals, and environmentals bent on the destruction of the society, along with politicians refusing the Constitution in favor of Marxism. I don’t give this country much of a chance anymore. It has become a joke.
Don’t worry EQ, he is incapable of reading anything else, even if we give him the post number to look at.
Neither is there necessarily any force or fraud between consenting persons of different ages. I’ve explained my position as clearly and succintly as I can. I can’t help it if you don’t see it.
But don’t talk down to me.
Here I’ll quote you EQ since his eyes only seem to be able to see the name AG:
I do take comfort in the fact my sacramental marriage cannot be dissolved by the state for any reason.
Agreed. Natural law abhors a vacuum. We’ll see how far gay marriage goes under shari’a law…probably all the way to the nearest stoning pit, gallows, or wall.
Good. If she refused to photograph an interracial couple, she would have been in hot water too. If you have a business, you can’t discriminate. That isn’t too hard to understand.
Thanks, Rusty, for proving you really don’t care about religious freedom.
#371: englishqueen, no, i’m not illiterate; i didn’t read your posts since i wasn’t involved in a discussion with you. AG made a claim, and I’m asking HIM to back it up. something that he has refused to do. bringing lawsuits against someone is not infringing or taking away someone’s freedom of religion. providing nothing but hypotheticals is not proof of someone’s freedom of religion being infringed upon.
as for your New Mexico example, I’m trying to find a reliable news source for the information – and there isn’t much. but this commission is just that; it’s a commission and not a court.
Uhhh its a private business. Just like the Boy Scouts, and just like a gay bar would likely throw out someone trying to buy a drink who had a Christian t-shirt on. Get a clue, and stop trampling on her 1st amendment rights.
Misscheryl, me too. And my beliefs are challenged by what Trop wrote. I would respond, your family sounds like a good one. It sounds like you and your partner have a union before God, a promise to Him and each other. And I think that is ONE thing that a marriage is. But it’s not the only thing. A marriage is also a union between a man and a woman. And nobody likes to hear that their relationship isn’t what they want it to be. But those are my beliefs, and it’s where I end up when compassion and reason work together.
I just want to highlight that compassion for gays is not inconsistent with a firm conviction of what marriage is.
Like, I work at a law firm, but we only take white clients. Goodness gracious would we be getting our butts sued left and right.
Oh, for Pete’s sake.
http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/ElaneRuling.pdf
And, Rusty, I’m going to go to the nearest gay bar or atheist meeting and demand the allow me to worship there. Since they can’t discriminate, I can pretty much do whatever I want and they can’t throw me out, right?
Link for you Khan:
Ok, just looked at it a bit further and no, this NM woman’s freedom of religion is not being infringed upon.
NAACP?
The short answer is that it greatly complicates property rights and inheritance.
What if you think you will inherit your husband’s estate but he takes another wife right before he dies? What if your wife marries another guy right before your divorce is final? Is he entitled to a share of the divorce bounty?
Should you have a say in your partner taking another spouse? Such an act would certainly dillute your share of their wealth. What if you do too? How do you handle a situation where you have 10 people all married to each other, in one big twisted hairball of “marital” relationships?
Today, all those issues are avoided. The law allows you to marry multiple times, but you must do so serially, and that greatly simplifies all the issues surrounding divorce, inheritance, visitation rights, child care, etc.
why is the government even involved in marriage? marriage should just be a contact between two individuals, without any interference from the state.
What? That’s madness. How would you feel if there was a Muslim photographer who would only take pictures of women if they covered their faces? That isn’t religious freedom. It’s imposing your beliefs on others. And it’s clearly against the law.
What you’re advocating is honestly no better than the ridiculous Muslim cashiers who refused to touch bacon. But worse. Since that photographer wasn’t discriminating against meat. She was discriminating against two people. Two customers. That’s not acceptable.
Big difference between a law firm, a hospital, or police/fire department.
A private business, run by a private citizen, should have the right to decide what business he/she will and will not do. If they discriminate and people don’t like it, they can not patronize the business and – guess what – it will close up shop.
A Google search shows this woman wasn’t the only photog in NM, so now it’s a “right” of a gay couple to specifically select (read: harrass) a business because they want their demands met?
Time for a MAJOR defense of religious freedom act.
So sayeth the might KHAN, all hail the wisdom of KHAN!
khan, Rusty, and the rest need to take a basic course in Constitutional law and First Amendment rights.
Rusty, race is a protected class, meaning that there are laws in place specifically prohibiting discrimination on that basis, even by private businesses. I honestly don’t know what kind of discrimination is prohibited, i.e. employment/housing only, or can a business simply refuse to enter into any contract with someone based only on race? In any event, sexual orientation is not a protected class, so even if the NM woman would have faced penalties for refusing to photograph a black couple’s wedding, those penalties would not apply on to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Why is it that heterosexuals are mysteriously NOT ALLOWED to apply the EXACT same reasoning that homosexuals apply in regard to their being equal under the law to marry someone of the opposite sex?
They say: “We do not like that.” That’s all they can come up with that I’ve ever heard.
So why is that the majority who say in regard to homo ‘marriage’, “We do not like that.” are pummeled for our feelings?
We are the majority – yes we CAN ultimately get what WE want.
First of all, AG, the woman is operating a business. The complaint was filed against the business. But that’s probably lost on you as well.
Yes, it is. She wasn’t the ONLY photog in NM. If a she turns away business, she’ll lose her business.
More to the point, you said above this ruling would not impugn religious freedom. Now you say it’s discriminatory to decline business on the basis of religious belief.
Which is it? And if a private business has to accomodate gay couples how do you conclude this wouldn’t be forced on churches?
I bet the sc*mbag judges will overturn it again if this is passed.