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
500th comment! WOO HOO!
I must get a prize for that.
Now THAT is blasphemous.
Mookie, Mookie, Mookie…
Why must you make me agree with EQ?
Iced coffee, or coffee with anything other than COFFEE in it is disgusting.
Strange bed fellows, indeed…
What gives heterosexuals ‘the right to marriage’?
I have seen that question posed by same sex supporters.
Aw, come on. What’s better on a summer morning than a huge iced coffee with enough sugar at the bottom to make a crunchy sound with your straw?
Nature.
Homosexuals cannot reproduce - nature’s way of saying their behavior should not be passed onto the next generation.
The issue isn’t that heterosexuals are allowed to marry and homosexuals aren’t. It has been pointed out several times that homosexuals are free to marry people of the opposite sex. The issue is what we consider a marriage to be. Is it something that includes unions composed of two men or two women? If not, then “gay marriage” can’t exist.
A summer morning with a huge, cold gin and tonic.
Jio, I see your point, but I think we can assume they are not reproducing
They are flipping it around, asking what gives heteros the ‘right’.
Tony, if you don’t feel that heterosexuals should have the ‘right’ to marry, by all means write your congresscritter and tell him you want legislation to remove that.
We’ll be waiting
You know, I really can’t argue with this.
#485: englishqueenie, my post #406 was made at 5:28, not 7:00.
tonyr951:
I look at it this way - calling my Mustang a Ferrari does not make it so. Marriage is recognition of a natural relationship. I really could care less what homosexuals do as that is their business. But calling it marriage does not make it so.
also, englishqueen,
Take a look at the pdf you linked to. the complaint is against the business, not the person. that’s a fact. it does not matter if she had zero employees, one employee, or 100 employees. if it were against the person, then the pdf document would reflect that in the upper left corner. see for yourself.
Livewire, I thought my post was clear:
“What gives heterosexuals ‘the right to marriage’?
I have seen that question posed by same sex supporters.”
NOT my question, the other sides question.
Since we are some how denying their ‘right’ to marriage, they have flipped it around and asked what give us, heteros, the ‘right’ to marriage.
I think they are coming at it from a pure legal point of view. They want us to point at something, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, something, that shows heteros have the ‘right’ while gays do not.
How do you counter that without getting religion involved?
EQ extending this to proctected classes would undo the Civil Rights legislation from the 1960s. I don’t ever see that happening. Your view was also Barry Goldwater’s take. The same Barry Goldwater, who later came out for gays in the military. He was a complex Cat.
I see that you are very passionate about this issue without being cruel and unduly judgemental.
Mookie, Khan, and Chap you all make very good points. The photographer situation doesn’t sit right with me, but Chap you are right about corporate law.
Right here:
and good point here:
This is a difficult issue. Thanks to all of you for interesting reading, and reminding about my main joy in blog participation.
My wife came home a while ago and asked me if what she heard about this was true. I told her “yes.” Her response: “Let’s move to Florida.”
mistressjustice said:
Damn you’re a sad person.
Over 60% of Californians voted against same-sex-marriage initiative.
Now 4 communist stooges sitting on the State supreme court are declaring the law invalid!
Is this how the democracy is supposed to work?
I think there should be an easier Recall process for sacking any public official who is disregarding the will of people.
And strip them off of their lucrative retirement packages too.
This is the crux of the issue, it seems. The will of the majority has been overruled by special interest groups through these activist judges.
Forget the religious angle, the moral angle, the ethical angle. A handful of judges, against the will of a majority of voters, has created law out of whole cloth.
Oh, not just ANY state. They are from California. They are as Corrupt as they come. From our 9th Circut to the Supreme Circus.
Commies, all of them.
Yes, the court declared the law invalid. This is part of the checks and balances of our government - one branch checking the other. In this case, the judicial checking the legislative. Is this how democracy is supposed to work? No, but it is how our constitutional representative republic is supposed to work. We are not a democracy. Democracy is nothing but mob rule. What if the will of the people were to outlaw blue eyes? Our founding fathers rightly feared democracy. That’s why they didn’t create one.
So what is the end state of this? More specifically, what is the logical end for a society grounded on a relativistic moral system? If nothing is right or wrong, if the only virtue is total acceptance of all things, then what is the measure of growth in such a society? Can there be growth?
As has been pointed out here, marriage is a tradition founded in the Bible, specifically as one man for one woman. It’s been accepted for thousands of years this way. No polygamy, no pedophilia, no homosexuality, no bestiality, no incest, only monogamous, heterosexual marriages without family ties. This was how our society was founded and accepted by our founders and every preceding generation of Americans. Every society must have standards. These are ours. If you don’t like it, there are other countries that may fit your likings.
Though some may call this a “Hate Crime,” I will flat out say homosexuality is wrong, for physiological, public health, social, and moral reasons. Where in nature can one find homosexuality that is based upon something besides instincts of power/domination? If relativists want tolerance, how about starting by tolerating this view?
Marriage isn’t an issue of right or wrong, and marriage existed long before the bible did and it existed in many cultures.
I will tell you a standard our country was founded upon: liberty. Gay marriage does nothing to affect my liberty or freedoms at all.
Where in nature can one find homosexuality that is based upon something besides instincts of power/domination? Plenty of species. Just do a quick internet search of homosexual behavior in other species.
No, but dakine, Rusty, sausage, khan, and many others would probably call you a bigot. You’re probably hiding behind your religion, too!
God forbid.
Homosexual is not comparable to black…or female…or any other factor whose outward display is not under the control of its owner. I don’t know whether homosexuality is genetic or behavioral, but I do know that it’s not natural. Marriage is more than just the union of two people who profess to love each other; marriage is (as I’m not the first to note here) the foundation of our society. I’ve had it with being made to feel awkward or less-than-compassionate because I believe in the importance of traditional family values. And yes, this means a male dad and a female mom and whatever children they are blessed to parent.
Why would I call him a bigot? I’m not bothered by people who believe homosexuality is immoral and that it goes against their religious doctrines or personal belief systems. Only when those beliefs begin infringing on someone else’s liberty is there a problem.
Six of the seven judges were appointed by GOP governors. But they’re California GOP so your point might still stand.
If that photographer didn’t file articles of limited liability ot corporation, then what she refused to do would be fine and dandy (from a legal standpoint anyways). But, and everyone has mentioned this now, that wasn’t the case.
EQ, I don’t think any one thinks churches should be sued for refusing to perform gay marriages. That certainly isn’t happening in the only state with real gay marriage. The freedom of religion they have protects them from that kind of BS.
But you wanting that standard to apply to businesses is madness. That has the potential to take this country back to places we don’t want to go. As a Catholic, I’m surprised you aren’t more concerned with the crazy amount of discrimination the Catholic population had and has to deal with in this country. People would openly refuse to do business with Catholics. And with blacks. And Jews. Now gays.
Why go back to that? How can people criticize the Revrend Wrights and Michelle Obamas for bringing up our country’s history of discrimination when we refuse to learn from that history?
Six of the seven judges were appointed by GOP governors. But they’re California GOP so your point might still stand.
If that photographer didn’t file articles of limited liability ot corporation, then what she refused to do would be fine and dandy (from a legal standpoint anyways). But, and everyone has mentioned this now, that wasn’t the case.
EQ, I don’t think any one thinks churches should be sued for refusing to perform gay marriages. That certainly isn’t happening in the only state with real gay marriage. The freedom of religion they have protects them from that kind of BS.
But you wanting that standard to apply to businesses is madness. That has the potential to take this country back to places we don’t want to go. As a Catholic, I’m surprised you aren’t more concerned with the crazy amount of discrimination the Catholic population had and has to deal with in this country. People would openly refuse to do business with Catholics. And with blacks. And Jews. Now gays.
Why go back to that? How can people criticize the Revrend Wrights and Michelle Obamas for bringing up our country’s history of discrimination when we refuse to learn from that history?
Six of the seven judges were appointed by GOP governors. But they’re California GOP so your point might still stand.
If that photographer didn’t file articles of limited liability ot corporation, then what she refused to do would be fine and dandy (from a legal standpoint anyways). But, and everyone has mentioned this now, that wasn’t the case.
EQ, I don’t think any one thinks churches should be sued for refusing to perform gay marriages. That certainly isn’t happening in the only state with real gay marriage. The freedom of religion they have protects them from that kind of BS.
But you wanting that standard to apply to businesses is madness. That has the potential to take this country back to places we don’t want to go. As a Catholic, I’m surprised you aren’t more concerned with the crazy amount of discrimination the Catholic population had and has to deal with in this country. People would openly refuse to do business with Catholics. And with blacks. And Jews. Now gays.
Why go back to that? How can people criticize the Revrend Wrights and Michelle Obamas for bringing up our country’s history of discrimination when we refuse to learn from that history?
Um, crud. Sorry.
According to what world view is this not a “right or wrong” issue? We can get into issue of why the Bible is the true, infallible, Book of God if you like, which provides the foundation for my views of right and wrong. If the Bible states that homosexuality is wrong, then it’s wrong.
True, the Bible has not been in print as long as homosexuals have been on this earth. However, you must realize that if the Bible is true, as I’ll show you if you like, then God gave his guidance in His creation of man and woman: the first man and woman, which would be before homosexuals.
You’re working off of a secular world view. I’m working off of a Biblical world view.
“Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies.” ~John Adams
In terms of nature: my dog mounts other dogs from time to time. Why would he do this? My dog is not gay (he’s neutered for one thing.) He’s trying to show his dominance of the other dog. Besides this, what reproductive future would a homosexual animal, or human, have? Kinda hard to pass on this trait to offspring you don’t have. This shows how biologically incorrect homosexuality is.
532 comments in 12 hours! Methinks this is going to be a BIG issue in November.
Face it. It’s about forcing a belief and abhorrent behavior down our throats.
It goes against the laws of nature, not to mention God. But no, we are forced tolerate it and act as if it is normal. Children are forced to learn about anal sex and BJ’s along with why Johnny has two dads.
It’s pathetic. Screw the will of the people, get some queer judges to make a behavior something special.
Queerness is not genetic, it’s a belief, otherwise they would be able to procreate.
Ever see to male tigers having at it?
I think every free American ought to have the right to choose with whom they do business. I am married, and had a photographer refused to work my wedding, I wouldn’t want her. Fine. She has that right, or ought to.
Likewise, I would not want to be compelled by government to do business with Rev. Fred Phelps, or Dr. James Dobson, or Rev. Pat Robertson, or Rev. Al Sharpton, or Rev. Jeremiah Wright, or the VP that bullies me at my job…
If it is solely about procreation,then why did God give women a clitoris? The sole function of the clitoris is sexual pleasure.
And why are marriages of post menopausal women legitimate? They won’t bear fruit.
And consider this. In Biblical times, if the marital union was incapable of procreating, the union wasn’t made illegitimate. Rather, norms allowed that a man could take another wife, or father children with a slave. How are these extra-marital forms of having and raising children, the technology of that day, different from the extra-marital means by which loving, committed couples can produce children today?
Not sure who you’re responding to there, Trop, since you didn’t quote anyone. But to answer your question - who says making babies shouldn’t be fun?
The question here is of the biological norm, Trop. It’s the biological norm for post-menopausal females to be past the age when they could conceive. This could be linked to a like objection; “Well, what about infertile couples?” Again, that’s the exception that proves the rule (the biological norm). A man and a woman are expected to have children - that’s just the rule of nature.
If you went to “Gilligan’s Island” after a 100 years you’d likely find a group of people who bore distinct likenesses to The Skipper, Gilligan, Mr.Howell, the Professor, Mary Ann and Ginger. If the Minnow had been a men-only or women-only cruise, you’d only find a bunch of skeletons.
As it relates to the topical question of marriage here; with technology you could probably take a fetus, place the fetus into an octopus with a Frankenstein-Orwell interface - tubes, tentacles, wires and such and manage to deliver a healthy child. But then how could you deny the octopus and it’s “signifigant human other” a marriage license? (If not a special holiday to “celebrate their love”.)
At any rate I’m guessing that whomever you were responding to was merely stating an undeniable biological fact; by nature’s law, two humnan males or two human females cannot, by their preferred sexual activities, reproduce. (Unless they swap partners, of course.)
That’s the bottom line.
According to a sane world view. Marriage is not a matter of right or wrong anymore than taking one’s coffee with or without cream is a matter of right or wrong. As for “getting into” this issue about why the bible is the infallible word of god…no, thanks. You have your beliefs and I have mine. Just know that the bible is not the law of the land.
Again, no thanks. For one, I don’t believe it’s true, certainly not in a literal sense, and for another, I don’t believe you could prove that it is true. Yes, you can prove that you have faith, but beyond that you can’t prove anything.
Yes, I get that. I am not; and again, the bible is not the law of the land. The bible is the realm of religion. If you believe it provides you with a moral code in which to live your life, that’s great. If you use it as a tool to impose your beliefs and values on others and to infringe upon their liberties, then not so great.
YTrue, the Bible has not been in print as long as homosexuals have been on this earth.
MJ and i disagree on some things, and agree on others. She did make some good points yesterday. Credit where its due.
Am I likewise as sad to agree with her? Does it make me less of a person to choose not to subject myself to these things?
I don’t believe so. I dont think my life is detracted from because I choose not to go listen to someone on sunday mornings, evenings, etc. I dont feel my life is “sad” because I choose to think for myself, make choices about my life that dont include organized religion, and dont feel bound to an institution that seeks to dictate my actions and thoughts to me.
That’s just the way it is. Was it always this way? no. I went to a private christian school. I was accepted at BJU and Liberty (hence why a while back, i went after them specifically, if 30 will remember *grin*). I have read the bible in english AND greek. I want to get an aramaic version so i can read that too. I choose not to subscribe to organized religion. But that doesnt make me some knuckledragging idiot. It doesnt make me “sad”, either in demeanor nor in the quality of my life.
While i dont agree with MJ on some things, i respect her right to do as she chooses, like the rest of us. Saying her life is sad, when there are conservatives in your midst that dont follow religion either, detracts from us all.
And that, my friend,IS sad.
abstractmind said:
Let me expound a little, this is directed at mistressjust-ice and her squalid world view, not everyone in general. She reminds me of the type that would feed Christians to the lions.
Her religion is her self and the dollar, nothing else and that’s why I browbeat her constantly. Everything thing she says on this blog has a dollar value attached and I firmly believe she says nothing that has to do with any core values she has as a human. In my honest opinion she is the most hateful, dangerous type of person in America. The type of person that believes in nothing but thier own power and will do nothing to help other people; yet pontificate like they’re the end-all-be-all. It’s hillarious how her only rebutal to my browbeating is I’m mentally ill. It goes to show how devoid of spirit she really is.
I’m am not a religious person but it’s obvious why religion would excoriate homosexuality. Homosexuality spreads disease at a greater rate than any other type of sexual activity. If your an ancient priest, you’d know this, and being the authority figure you are, you’d not condone it. It’s common sense why ancient religion outlawed homosexuality.
I truly didn’t intend to insult those who are agnostic on this blog.
What’s wrong with that?
Abstractmind,
You go about defending your beliefs, you can expect that we will do the same. With that said, I take issue with your statement regarding Christians having their actions and thoughts dictated to them… The belief that Jesus Christ died and rose again does not constitute having my actions and thoughts dictated to me. Believing that murder, adultery, etc… are wrong doesn’t constitute having my thoughts and actions dictated to me and so on and so on.
Getting up early on Sunday morning to hear the Word of God being preached does not constitute having my actions and thoughts dictated to me. I choose to do any or all of these things.
Yes. I recall.
undrsiege, (I refuse to spell it wrong)
You have quickly become the most tiresome poster here.
You continually come on here and interrupt actual rational, intelligent discussion with your pathetic personal attacks, e-tough posturing and bluster, not just on Mistress, but on any number of posters as well.
Okay…we get it. You have established your Hannity-like-tough-guy- I’m-just-telling-it-like-it -is-I-hate-libs- street cred. You are now officially the “Bad Boy” of the board. Is that what you wanted to hear?
Maybe now you can post something thoughtful and intelligent? Please? Just once?
chapoutier you can blow out your a$$ Frenchman.
Which is to imply that a Biblical world view is insane? What are the foundations of your “sane” world view? I’m assuming you do not believe in absolutes. That’s fine. So if you’re ever robbed or “wronged” in any way, then I ask that you consider why you think you’ve been wronged. How can you apply any moral standard to anyone else if you are a relativist? By what authority do you say that I’m wrong in saying that homosexuality is wrong?
I am not some peon who sees the Bible as this fanciful document that gives me inspiration and guidance, but hey, I understand if you do not wish to hear the reasons behind its truth and infallibility, which is based upon historical, archaeological, prophetical, and statistical evidence. However, as was referenced in the 2nd part of my previous post, you must recognize that the Bible was seen as one of the founding principle-layers in terms of the moral fabric of this nation. Without morality and religion, we have no liberty, to summarize what Adams was saying. This truth has stood for many a year with this country. Are you implying that our nation should leave its founding Christian principles behind for the sake of a very small minority of the population? Many atheistic nations in Europe may better suit their world view.
Thankfully we don’t live in a theocracy that would also ban shellfish, clothes of made of more than one material, or have a government system on how to sell your daughter into slavery.
The lesson here boys and girls is that regardless of what the citizens of a state or the US want, the Judges know better than all of us and it doesn’t matter the issue, we’re all screwed.
Guess not.
You sure are making an awful lot of presumptions in order to build up and attack some strawmen. I’m not going to play that game. Twice now you’ve attributed words to me that I have never said nor believe.
Funny that you bring up archaeology to an archaeologist. Let me assure you that archaeology, history, and statistical evidence (whatever that is) do not prove the bible’s “truth” or “infallibility”.
You needn’t summarize what Adams said; I got it the first time, and I disagree with him. The founding fathers wrote that “these truths are self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
None of that requires a foundation of religion, not even if one recognizes that there is a creator. I do not subscribe to any religion, yet that doesn’t mean I am without morals nor does that mean I am without liberty.
A word of advice, I wouldn’t get into minority/majority opinion for your argument. At no time during the American Revolution did the majority of colonists want a revolution.
And this is why you are a cino, go look up books on hermeneutics and try and understand context for a change.
Herman Who?
#547: the lesson, terrig, is that the judicial branch has the authority to interpret the laws written by the legislative branch and the authority to declare those laws unconstitutional, regardless of how many people voted for it. it’s called checks and balances. that goes to the genius of our founding fathers in that they correctly created a representative republic and not a democracy.
30, thanks for your post…
I dont believe all people who go to church are some mindnumbed robots. I know how things were in my church (was southern baptist). I was 17, and got into a phase where i started questioning things. I was expelled from the christian school for questioning the existance of god, after having asked for something of substance, was given this:
Pastor: Do you see that tree?
Me: yes?
Pastor: well, god created that tree.
Me: ok?
Pastor: well, he has to exist if he created it.
I cant tell you, after even talking to his old professor from liberty (apologies, its been 13 years, i dont recall his name) gave me the same line…how utterly disgusted i was with the process. I was expelled a short time later for “nonconformity”, and graduated from public school with honors.
But there IS, i feel, an element involved with the doctrine preached in churches today. And 30, you and I agree in a great many things, so its not like i’m trolling. I agree that there is a definite right and wrong. and on the issue here, we likewise agree. its more complicated that any of us could post here in a day really. But i do feel there’s, even if its just a hint, of dictation. I experienced it firsthand, most likely to a larger degree that most.
I do certainly believe people can worship as they choose. I just choose to keep searching. Who knows, maybe i’ll come back one day. I believe in something larger than myself…i just dont know what to call it. So, I continue searching, for now. Maybe someone can sway me otherwise. Who knows.
Just my 2 cents. Didn’t mean to push a button, 30, and you and I always have good conversation
Always a pleasure.
Hey, Grizzly. I hope you had a good night’s sleep. Now that you’re bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, maybe you can now show me an example of how “people’s right to freedom of religion start being impinged like they already are in NJ [and] MA”.
After you explain how believing in Christ is less than “sane”. That ought to be a good read worth a few laughs.
Oh, boy! Another straw man!
Your the one who made the statement? Back it up sunshine!
Your = You’re
I made no such statement, snookums.
Me: Marriage is not an issue of right or wrong.
Dude: According to what world view is [marriage] not a “right or wrong” issue?
Me: According to a sane world view.
Nowhere did I say anything about Christ or one’s belief in Christ.
Now, about that claim of yours that you keep dodging and refusing to answer…
Shellfish represented a serious health issue. Shellfish, languishing in the sun of a desert environment would have made a lot of people sick.
The mixing of materials for clothing specifically referred to linen (vegetable) and wool (animal) materials… which resulted in poor material. God wanted people to have the best, and not settle for inferior materials.
The Bible never condones “selling your daughter into slavery”. Slavery was widely practiced in many cultures. Most Biblical verses about slavery indicate that you are to treat them well… as servants, not as things. Carnal slavery is NEVER condoned in the Bible. In fact, those practicing such a practice were to be punished. There were two times when a person could become a slave… they sell themselves to become a servant, and settle a debt… and as the spoils of war.
If you came to adulthood in a culture of that time, without an inheritance, there was very little you could do to get ahead in the world. Servant hood (in your mind slavery) was an option where one could get started… since the Bible mandated that when a servant was released, the former owner had to provide payment to them (a years salary?). Thus if they were a shepherd, they might get part of the flock as payment. In any case, this never lasted longer than 7 years (the year of Jubilee).
In times of war, captured men were kept as slaves to replace their own men who may have died in the war… to allow the society to continue to function after the loss of so many males. This is treated differently than self-servant hood, but they were still to be treated humanely.
In all cases, “slaves” could be adopted into the family and could even convert to Judaism, becoming a member of the family. A “slave” could also choose to remain with an owner after being released if the owner allowed it.
As you can see, the Bible makes a lot of sense when you try to understand it.
I’m not refusing to answer, you just keep claiming my argument is a strawman because it involves lawsuits and examples where Catholics are being persecuted for their beliefs since those beliefs don’t match up with laws passed in Massachusetts.
NJ
MA
Straw man
So how is it a strawman sir if I conclude that in the NJ case that the private land owned by the church is wholly their own land and they have right as a religious institution to set the rules on how that land is used?
abstractmind said:
I can’t disagree with anything you’ve said here and how it would damage any faith you might have had; even Mother Teresa had a ‘dark night’ with her faith. I do applaud you for getting dismissed from school for nonconformity it’s more of a blessing than a blight.
hehe…for a while, I wasn’t sure. Years later, I still have questions that aren’t answered.
The blessing was, however, that I was removed by force from a school for asking a single question…removed me from a situation that wasnt healthy for me to be in. And i’ve grown alot since then
Everyone has a crisis of faith, I suppose. The fact that mine is 13 years old seems bad…but i’ve spent alot of time learning and researching.
And it continues even today.
good posts folks
No, no, no. I do not think I’ve said that your claim is a strawman, but some of your other posts and responses have been.
You made a claim, I have repeatedly asked you to back it up. You have refused to do so. You’ve come back with “so and so is being sued, so there.” Again, being sued does not equal one’s freedom of religion being infringed upon. The NJ case to me is not one of freedom of religion but property rights.
Regardless, from your link: “Mark Tooley, Executive Director of UMAction, said the suit is an effort to defend the church and the camp ground “against a potentially intrusive arm of a state government that may try to override church policies in the name of ‘tolerance’.”
No one’s freedom of religion is being infringed upon.
So your saying if the group that owned the land was the local BBQ club and refused to let a gay couple get married on their land they bought for their weekly BBQ’ing it would be no different?
I think you too easily dismiss motives.
That MA example is another god-awful one (pardon the pun). No one’s freedom of religion is being infringed upon there, either.
Whew. You saved me alot of trouble.
Well, that’s unacceptable and frankly, I’d expect more from a man of the cloth. But just because he didn’t have the appropriate answer doesn’t mean there aren’t acceptable answers out there. Of course, I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know, but it bothers me to no end when people lump Christians into the category of being ill-informed, bible-thumping idiots. Admittedly, the burden of proof differs from one person to the next. However, that’s why we have faith. We wouldn’t need faith if God chose to lay it all out.
Well, I can tell you this much (for whatever it’s worth) God isn’t angry with you for seeking answers. I think it’s crucial for all Christians to have a thorough understanding of why they believe in the Triune God. It’s rather unfortunate that they couldn’t offer up anything better. That’s why Christian apologetics is so important to me. It’s just like Peter declared “that Christians must be ready to give a reason for their faith.”
You have to be able to defend your beliefs… not only against secularism but be able to explain for Christians who are still seeking.
No, I won’t disagree with you. I believe my husband experienced it as well when he moved from VA to PA. He attended a church that told him that he needed to be baptized (again), that wherever he was baptized before doesn’t count and if he doesn’t get baptized in their church that he is going to hell. Well, needless to say he never went back there. Human beings are fallible. I don’t put my faith in man, (and I am not suggesting that you have) my faith lies with Jesus. I’m getting all preachy so I’ll stop here.
All the best on your journey… I’ll be praying for you.
We’re still e-friends. Likewise.
#564:
Well, I didn’t say that, but I agree: it would be no different. I see this as a property rights issue and not one of religion. Frankly, I don’t care what the motives are; it doesn’t change it being a property rights issue. The owners should win, but not on religious grounds.
#564:
To explain further, the couple is infringing upon the property of another through force. in this case, they are trying to use government as force.
30,
excellent post
didnt think you were getting preachy. but there are ALOT of people who arent as lenient with the discussion of finding answers. i’ve gotten everything from “you’re going to hell for turning your back” to “well, you already know the answers and you’re a retard for not admitting the truth.” but you can preach to me a litle here and there…you’re the first person other than my family in a decade to react as you have. and for that, you are to be commended. monikor has a link, the contact goes to me
dont mind the page construction 
if memory serves, its hebrews 11..
faith is the substance of things on which we hope, the evidence of things not seen.
i didnt lose hope. just faith in the process.
anyway, no more threadjacking on my personal religious issues LOL. and work calls
A
#568. Just curious, why isn’t someone’s property being infringed on if a business is sued to take a contract?
#570: that’s pretty vague. i don’t know what you’re talking about.
If there is a constitutional right to form a family, then this ruling not only means that the definition of marriage is anything anyone wants it to be, but that a family is anything anyone wants it to be. Why not have the entire FLDS cult move to California and declare that everyone is married to everyone - problem solved. How about the Manson family, this murderous bunch could declare that they were all married to each other and, therefore, constituted a family. This ruling is so far reaching that it is impossible to judge the impact — but it is clear that communism is alive and well in California.
Oh, please. Can we dial down the communist tags? As much as I abhor communism and believe it to be rooted in evil, yesterday’s ruling is not an example of communism.
Abstract,
Thanks. Never know how much is too much.
Went to the webiste and I couldn’t find any contact info. If I missed it, my apologies. It’s Friday and I’ve already started the weekend… in my head anyway.
Fair distinction. Again, all the best.
The judiciary was never intended to make law but to judge the constitutionality of law. The founders of this country recognized that a powerful judiciary could easily become dictatorial in its own right - overriding the interests and will of the people as well as the interests and will of their elected representatives. This California decision is but another example of a judicial dictatorship operating outside the very constitution they are sworn to uphold. This is why strict constructionists are needed not people who play games with the constitution to support or undermine a particular interest.
but to judge the constitutionality of law.
I have thoughts on these recent posts as well. But here says it better than I ever could: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/
30,
ACK! sorry, its not there.
i have a dummy account i use that i dont care who has it lol, and i doubt anyone who’s here is gonna blow it up, so…
pwnedwithstyle@gmail.com
there ya go 30
I dont, but when you bring your “personal life” out into the street and into the schools, and demand that my family and myself accept your “personal life” as something normal and moral, then you’re in MY territory.
What you do behind closed doors is none of my business, but keep it behind closed doors.
#571 Sorry, thought it was clear, forgot how long the thread is. INAL, but what is the difference between a person being told they must allow their land to be used for a commitment ceremony/cross burning/briss/etc and being told their business must service a particular client? Isn’t their business their property?
I guess I should be clear. I’m all for free enterprise to be allowed to discriminate. The Taxi cab is/was different because the government restricts the supply artifically.
And anything else is a fraud and a mockery.
It’s not communism, but an unaccountable court essentially voided California’s constitution. If this “right” can be manufactured, then others can be too, and real God-given rights can be eliminated. Too bad you cant vote in a judge.
Just wait until some court “finds” the right of illegal aliens to obtain citizenship, or tax payer funded medical care, or education. And dont think it cant happen.
Not so sure there is artificial supply restriction. Certainly you have to get a license, but that is not the same thing as capping the number, or further capping the number such that there is a real supply problem. But even conceding your point, I don’t see how this is a valid distinction at all. I guess you are arguing that the poor guy trying to get home from the airport is somehow going to be stranded there because the Muslim cabdriver won’t take him. That is absurd. He’ll take the next one in the queue. The issue was never a practical one of members of the public not being able to obtain the service, it was an ideological one. Which is fine, and actually I agree with.
If you want a more realistic situation where someone’s religious beliefs actually has a meaningful impact on one being able to get the services they need, look no further than the many reports of some Christian pharmacists refusing to give out birth control or emergency contraception. This often happens in places where there is no or little choice in pharmacies. But I doubt I will find much opposition to those folks here.
Your hyperbole aside, you are simply wrong about the judges not being elected:
Source: Marc Ambinder
So you’re saying a Muslim or Christian pharmacist should be forced against his will and personal beliefs to give out medication that he/she believes (and rightly so) causes an abortion after fertilization of the egg has occurred?
It’s a Rhetorical question, I already know your stance and your bigotry.
If you’re so worried about the above scenario take the capitalist approach and open your own pharmacy and serve whatever meds you want and drive the other guy out of business if he wants to limit the drugs he sells.
i can understand the argument there, and i can see the point. personally, i think that doctors, as well as pharmacists, have a duty to inform patients of harmful things and should be able to step back if it conflicts with their beliefs (giving meds to harm a child would be one such idea) without fear of retribution.
However, you’re painting it as its just people who are religious that cause restrictions. In general, what about all of the anti-christian movements in our country at large, who seek to shove those who hold faith as their standard into a hole somewhere. in this case, it is the lack of those beliefs that are being used to attack those who do.
Even looking sometimes at this blog demonstrates the point. Religious people are painted at times as bigots, idiots, racists…the list goes on an on.
Both sides have a problem. Its finding a compromise that is important. And most likely, wont happen. People of true faith or conviction wont move on principle. people who are on the other side wont move because they want to do as they please without reproach or condemnation.
Rock, meet hard place.
They were appointed, not elected. The only voting process is to decide whether they stay in or not. If they are voted out, the governor decides who the next judge is, not the people.
Nice spin chap.
OK take emergency contraception out of it. I admit that is a bit dicier. What about regular old birth control? Why did you conveniently ignore that?
And why are you assuming that I don’t think the pharmacists have a right to not give those out if it conflicts with their beliefs?
And why should Christians sticking to their religious beliefs get a pass when the Muslim cabbies don’t? I actually don’t care what way you feel about the issue. All I want is some intellectual consistency. Or a good explanation as to how the situations are different. So far all I have seen is some pretty thin justifications to mask the fact that most of the people on this board find it offensive when Muslim sensibilities inconvenience them but look the other way when Christian sensibilities inconvenience someone else. Spin it however you want. That is the crux.
I didn’t criticize the Mulsim cabbie, to my limited knowledge to how cabs operate there are countless choices in cab companies to chose from. If the cabbie wants to refuse to make money that is his call. If it isn’t his own cab company he faces getting fired by his boss, and that is a risk he must weigh before taking such a job. If I were the guy in the instance of the story, I would have written down the name of the cab company and written an e-mail asking for an explanation and if I didn’t like the response I would have added the company to my growing list of places I will never buy from.
since i’m guessing you’re talking to griz..
Depends on the person, if you’re addressing birth control. some religions dont allow that, either. thats they’re way, and they’re entitled i guess.
something i would point out tho is that regardless of the source, be it christian or muslim, that people should address what the offense is, and go from there.
And I know I personally don’t give *anything* a “pass”. I will defend what I believe is right, and attack when I believe isn’t, regardless. On the boards here, i’ve both attacked and defended religion, with equal enthusiasm. I base those on the principles of right and wrong. not on whose religion has the biggest…well, you get the idea.
Anyhow, it’s been a crazy couple of days with the mud slinging. But this time I really do have to go, despite my pre-emptive goodbye last night. Got my fishing pole ready, just need to swing by Bass Pro Shop for a trout stamp.
See y’all Monday.
#580:
I think the discussion in this thread regarding the NM photographer is a good example and reference point.
I don’t see the government’s “restricting the supply” at all. Again, the issue wasn’t about the government licensing a cab; it was about someone imposing their religious beliefs on another and refusing service. People are rightfully outraged about it, but some of these people don’t see the photographer in NM doing the same thing. I don’t think government is telling business that they must service a particular client, just that they can’t exclude that client based on sexual orientation.
latah grizz
#582:
The court did no such thing. They didn’t manufacture a right, nor did they create law or legislation. They ruled that a law is unconstitutional. No god-given rights were violated by yesterday’s ruling.
You know, this is an example of someone deliberately unwilling to have an honest discussion. You may find these strike-outs cute, I find them intellectually void. In other words, you are unable to win on your own ideas; instead, you must twist or distort another’s views.
There are no successful societies currently in the world where family can be any combination of people. It has taken thousands of year to work out the simple premise that a man and a woman make for family and societal stability.
California has defied this simple premise at a cost that cannot be measured and with no appreciable benefit to society. This is a horrific decision and I suspect that the citizenry of California will tell the courts and the Governator just exactly where they can go in November when a constitutional amendment is on the ballot.
Many states have run into this kind of judicial arrogance — and it has been obvious from the beginning in California that the only solution is a constitutional amendment banning anything that is not a marriage between a man and a woman. No domestic partnership will be allowed when the blowback occurs here.
Khan,
It’s my understanding that the local government does control the number of cabbies and who is allowed to. I can’t take my pickup, slap a meter in it and charge a fare. (Why, I don’t know)By the majority (or a plurality) denying the service, without a means of replacement by market forces, that impacts service.
Sure, just as the local government grants licenses to people who want to cut hair or do nails, but the government is not manipulating supply in doing so. I guess I fail to see your point. Government isn’t denying property nor are they infringing on someone’s property.
Khan, the point is a local government grants a permit to operate a cab to a company, corp. or individual. many such jurisdictions limit the number of permits issu