The California Supreme Court has overturned the state’s ban on gay marriage today, “paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.” The court stated that “an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”

good for CA.

 

Would much prefer The State get out of the marriage business entirely because I consider it to be a religious ceremony. I would rather see civil unions, then spiritual marraige through the church...if that's want you want, and can find a church that will marry you.

I think the gay and lesbian community has approched this from the wrong angle, and it leaves out all those in non-traditional relationships that need to have the same legal rights that they seek.  

-dale     

 

 

I was censored by M* !!!!

Honestly, I did not use any vulgar slang in my previous post, but now I look like a boorish moron because my word was replaced with asterisks.

Thanks a lot Morningstar !!!!

-dale 

Edit: I see I've now been uncensored, and look like a moron for originating this post !!! Thanks again Morningstar !!! 

  

 

Dale, you have never behaved like a boorish moron.  What could you have possibly said?  Something quite innocuous I'll bet.   I once used the word for the turkey's chest and found it censored.  Yet I mentioned the city of Brest and it went through.

Someone typed magna kummm laude (I've changed the spelling here) and got bluepencilled too.

Let's see what happens with this post now!

;)

Hetty

Village Idjitesse 

 

I feel the institution of marriage should be open to all, regardless of gender orientation.  Why should heterosexual couples be the only ones allowed to suffer? :)

Lets see shall we.

Magna - Great

laude - expression of approval

makes sense to me....:)
 

[quote user="drymartini"]

Lets see shall we.

Magna - Great

laude - expression of approval

makes sense to me....:)
 

[/quote]

He typed laude, Sir Dry, not loudly. 

;)

Hetty 

ahem...it all makes perfect sense. :) who censored it and why? LOL ROTFL.

[quote user="drymartini"]ahem...it all makes perfect sense. :) who censored it and why? LOL ROTFL.
[/quote]

Now if we can figure out how to turn this thread around and bring it back to subject of Myra's OP.

Be vewy, vewy careful there, Sir Dry.  

;)

qh1 the wicked of mind 

Back OT, at your service.

Myra, Myra, Myra.  You have not thought this one through.  Not a well-timed tactical decision on the California Supreme Court's part.  They weren't thinking either.  The way to advance the left's aganda is, indeed though the courts rather than the people's representatives.  But you have to do it at a time that you don't arouse and disturb the people enough at the wrong time.  They might just decide to be heard.

All the court had to do was wait.  All that four vote majority had to do was wait six months - until after November 4th.  Then they would have been home free.

But they didn't.

Now this whole thing again becomes an "issue".  It is, in fact, a quite legitimate issue for the fall campaign. 

You think not?  I suspect that quite a large percentage of the American public will disagree with you - quite vehemently.

I personally am waiting with great anticipation for our three presidential candidates are going to have to say about this.

I already know what two of them are going to say.  That "this is just a distraction from the real issues".  I can hear them say it already, and suspect those words will be quoted on the evening news NLT tomorrow night.

Not an issue?  Just a "distraction"?  Well, we shall see.

;-)

MWL

If it is a basic legal right to marry whoever you want, then why are incestuous marriages and polygamy, between consenting adults, still illegal?  The only difference is societal standards, and the court is taking it upon itself to decide which standards are correct are which are ridiculous.

MWL

Why is standing up for individual rights a "left agenda"?
Are not individual rights a concern of the right as well?

 

The radical left must be feeling cocky. Usually they wait until after an election to advance their agenda.

Might make things interesting in November. CA is now in play. 

I heard on the news tonight that people in committed same sex relationships in CA already have the same legal rights as those who are married, so this is about the perception of rights. One woman said that since marriage has a positive social connotation, not being able to use the word marriage for her relationship is discrimination. I think that is a little like me saying that because my hillbilly Appalachian Scotch-Irish ancestry clings to guns and religion, which has a negative social connotation, you should think of me as a Boston Brahman or my rights have been denied. Silly.

Anyone think in states where there are no legal barriers for same sex relationships, this marriage controversy might be manufactured by the wedding industry? The last wedding I went to probably cost the parents of the bride $30,000 - $40,000, so making gay marriage a social norm opens up a new large market for florists, caterers, etc...not that there is anything wrong with that :)

-dale

Hetty- Thanks for your support.






   

Is anyone here actually affected personally by this? Will this change your life irrevocably? Cause you physical discomfort, mental or monetary distress? Two women contractually kissing in San Diego is really that earth-shaking an event in your life? Well, I guess this catapults The Homosexual Menace up there with The Islamofascist and The Illegal Mexican as the quadrennial scare-the-s***-out-of-you greatest threat to white, Christian America. Just imagine if the fearful ones could find a gay Mexican Muslim. Vaya con Allah

Is anyone here actually affected personally by this?

By the decision per se?  No.  However, the fact that the courts once again act to set very fundamental public policy, in defiance to the will of the people acting through their elected representatives, very much affects all of us.

Pud, if the decision is not "earth shaking", than I assume that you would not consider it earthshaking if the people of California pass a constitutional amendment in November negating the courg's recent decision.  Am I correct?

MWL

A mother and daughter or a father and daughter or a father and son or daughter, or a grandparent and grandchild, or a sister and or brother...

After all that we could go with a person and pet, you get the picture now, right?

Lulu

MWL, Absolutely. If the people of California want to pass an amendment AND it passes constitutional muster then why not? I guess I will never understand why some self-proclaimed ( and usually hypocritical ) moral guardians are so obsessed with other people's sex lives. Life is too short..

Pud, some people could care less about other people's sex lives (count me among them).  However, some of these same people care deeply for the structure of marriage.  If two or more concenting adults want to enter into a relationship, that should be (and is) none of the government's business.

Marriage, however, is more than that.  This is not a question of what the government PERMITS, but what government ENDORSES.  You might ask why ANY such relationship should have special status or special benefits.  From a Libertarian standpoint, that's a fair question to ask.  However, in our democratic republic, the people long ago decided that traditional marriage - involving one (1) man and one (1) woman, plus children, deserved special status and special protection.

In this case, the measure the California voters passed overwhelmingly in 2000 even allows for civil unions, with virtually all the rights and priviledges of marriage (at least on the state level).  Such civil unions are becoming more prevelent, and while I have some mixed feelings about that, I am willing to acede to the decision of the voting public in the individual states.

Heck, pud, if the public wants to redefine the marriage to include same sex couples - OR to extend to polygamy (another issue slowly winding its way through the courts - give it time) or to any other manner or types of "alternative family arrangements" - or even to abolish marriage and all its special perogatives in civil law altogether, and let marriage become entirely a private or church matter - I will stand by the will of the people, even though it may be a bit grudgingly at times. 

As long as these basic decision are defined by the people, acting through their elected representatives, I will accept that decision.

We are, and should be, led by our elected representatives, acting under our Constitution.  We will not be ruled by judges, unelected and accountable to no one.

A "distraction"?  Hardly.  Rather this is perhaps the most important and fundamental question facing our Republic.

MWL

This court decision is a sad day for Ca.  The good news is that the people of Ca. are preparing a state constitutional amendment to ban it. Reportedly, the people have already voted to ban gay marriage, but did not place the ban in the constitution.

hondo

Gotta look at he bright side.Gotta look at what was not on tv.There are thousands of divorce lawyers dancing in the streets at the thought of all the new potential divorce clients they will have in the future.

But back to the point.It seems that there is nothing that one can do anymore without litigation.Throw all the lawyers ,judges and politicians in a huge pot and what have you got?  It sure ain't mulligan stew,is it?

Today just about every aspect of our lives is being determined by someone else.Where one can smoke,seat belts,geraniums or marigolds,whether one should make house payments or rent payments for that matter.

It all stinks!!

These lawyers,judges and politicians are convinced that they know how we should run our lives better that we know.Personal freedoms are eroding and worse.......the ability to take on personal responsibility is being taken away.

All these blood suckers make their livings of the backs of real people and laugh all the way to the cayman islands banks.

What ever happened to good old fashioned common sense?

Ray 

 

[quote user="Berner"]

It seems that there is nothing that one can do anymore without litigation.

[/quote]

"We already have at least 10 times as many lawyers as any rational society can tolerate, which doubtless accounts for the triumph of irrationality in American life."  - Russell Baker

" Sodom is identified in Scripture with Gomorrah and the cities of the plain ( See Genesis 13:10 - 14:12 ) Sodom was known for its moral wickedness. The ancient site has not yet been clearly identified, but is thought to be possibly submerged under the waters of the Dead Sea south of the El-Lisan peninsula, in what was originally the vale of Siddim ( 14:3 ). Jebel Usdum (" Mount of Sodom" ), a salt mountain at the southwestern end of the Dead Sea, seems to preserve the ancient name. Excavations at nearby Bab edh-Dhra were begun by William F. Albright in 1924, and were completed by Paul Lapp for the American Schools of Oriental Research ( 1965-67 ). They revealed an enormous cemetary with over 20,000 tombs and several hundred thousand burials. Evidence of an extensive population in this area totally ceased after the twenty- first century B.C. ( about the time of Abraham ). Historical references to Sodom have been cited among the clay tablets from Ebla found at Tell Marikh in Syria. There can be no doubt that a flourishing civilization once existed in this area and came to an abrupt halt at the end of the Middle Bronze Age." The Liberty Annotated Study Bible pg.31

It is nice to have a religious faith that gives your life meaning and helps you to be a kinder more loving person. But lot of people in this country don't share your faith or your version of it. Those people have civil rights to.

 

While I am not wanting to know what happens, concerning others sexual preferences, I will stand by the definition of marriage, that has always been, between a man and a woman. This fact has been corroberated by the nature of the self preservation of mankind, for all time.  Best regards, Don

The Supreme Court is in place to interpret the law, not make laws.

By your reasoning, murder could be a "civil right".

[quote user="Don Basore"]While I am not wanting to know what happens, concerning others sexual preferences, I will stand by the definition of marriage, that has always been, between a man and a woman. This fact has been corroberated by the nature of the self preservation of mankind, for all time.  Best regards, Don[/quote]

Don,

I'm just curious about your view on a couple marrying where one of the partners is transexual.

[quote user="Quien"]

The Supreme Court is in place to interpret the law, not make laws.

By your reasoning, murder could be a "civil right".

[/quote]

If you actually look at the published opinion of the court in this case , you will see that interpreting the law is exactly what they are doing. They are not making a new law. 

I have no idea what you mean by "murder could be a civil right."  Marriage is considered by the court to be a civil right under the CA constitution. Murder is not.

 

MWL, r.e. "traditional" marriage. Many things that were - in context - traditional, change. Slavery, suttee (widow burning), wife beating, powdered wigs, etc. Now whether these were customs, fashion or tradition I leave to you but traditions evolve and change. It's inevitable. If it wasn't we'd still be living in the brutal world of the Old Testament (death for touching a pigskin on the Sabbath? Tough for the NFL) and except for Don I don't think anyone wants that. BTW, Mildred Loving (what a name!) died last week. She helped change the "tradition" of  no-mixed marriages which was supported and accepted up until 40 years ago. Life goes on. If the Republic can survive Jimmy C., George W. and Lite beer I think we'll survive Ellen DeGeneres and superbabe Portia De Rossi doing the connubial cuddleclamp. Oh ye of little faith!

[quote user="danielTX"][quote user="Quien"]

The Supreme Court is in place to interpret the law, not make laws.

By your reasoning, murder could be a "civil right".

[/quote]

If you actually look at the published opinion of the court in this case , you will see that interpreting the law is exactly what they are doing. They are not making a new law. 

I[/quote] The 2000 statute was in conflict with the California Constitution so the latter prevailed. The 121 page opinion was carefully done, considering precedents, etc.

FWIW, six of the seven jurists were appointed by Republicans. 

Myra 

What about the "civil rights" of the boys scouts that have been banned from using public parks because they believe in God ???????

[quote user="Don Basore"]What about the "civil rights" of the boys scouts that have been banned from using public parks because they believe in God ???????[/quote]

Obviously that wasn't the case before the court. The court can only pass judgment on the case before them. I don't think the BSA anything to do with gay marriage. 

Whaaaaa? Sorry Don, completely nothing-to-do-with-this different topic. That goes under the "Persecuted Christians" thread. Salaam aleikum.

If  naming transexuals as meaning ie the " man" that was pregnant on the Oprah show ? That was a farce !  It was not a man, rather a pregnant woman in the middle of trying to get sex change operations. Which is still homosexuality, per the word of God. To homosexuals the word of God is " hate speech "., which in Canada, today ,can get one incarcerated for reading the Bible aloud.  Whereas to us Christians " Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my pathway."

It most certainly does because the homosexuals are trying to force their lifestyles to be accepted by the boyscouts. Whereas ,they think they have the "  civil rights " to be scout leaders which could put them alone with boys. Where in the consttution does one have to accept anothers morals, or the lack thereof ???????

[quote user="Don Basore"]It most certainly does because the homosexuals are trying to force their lifestyles to be accepted by the boyscouts. Whereas ,they think they have the "  civil rights " to be scout leaders which could put them alone with boys. Where in the consttution does one have to accept anothers morals, or the lack thereof ???????[/quote]

Don, with all due respect this is the kind of muddled thinking that would get ripped to shreds in a court of law.  I know of no "they" that claims the CA constitution considers being a scout leader a civil right. Totally bogus and off topic argument. 
 

[quote user="MyraL"]

The 2000 statute was in conflict with the California Constitution so the latter prevailed. The 121 page opinion was carefully done, considering precedents, etc.

FWIW, six of the seven jurists were appointed by Republicans. 

Myra 

[/quote]

I've been reading the opinion and it is very carefully done, sober, and rational.  Wouldn't it be something if more people would actually take a look at it before jumping to conclusions about it.

It's like people who condemn a book they haven't read or a movie they haven't watched. Hello.
 

 

We do agree that it IS muddled thinking that the ACLU did in fact take the bouscouts to court, to get them banned from public parks. And whereas the ACLU could not use the arguement of civil rights for homosexuals, they rather used the belief in God aguement as an excuse, which I agree is bogus. Whereas the ACLU has not taken the Muslims to court, even though they are teaching Islam in CA. public schools. Best regards, Don  *** P.S. google : Islam taught in CA public schools

The Boy Scouts have been banned from getting married to each other in state parks? Is there nothing The Islamofascist won't stoop to?!

[quote user="MyraL"]The California Supreme Court has overturned the state’s ban on gay marriage today, “paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.” The court stated that “an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”[/quote]The ruling is disgusting!!!!!!!!!

Pudman: 

MWL, r.e. "traditional" marriage. Many things that were - in context - traditional, change. Slavery, suttee (widow burning), wife beating, powdered wigs, etc. Now whether these were customs, fashion or tradition I leave to you but traditions evolve and change. It's inevitable

Indeed they do, Pudman.  Change IS inevetible and traditions evolve.  Eventually, the law changes to follow tradition.  However, what is CRITICAL is HOW such changes are implemented.  I am not so conconcerned about old traditions (not all of 'em, at least)..   I am very much concerned about our Constitution.

You might recall that at one time women were not considered full citizens of our country.  They had no right to vote.  That right was NOT inherent in our original Constitution.  No it was NOT! - neither the text nor the intent of the Founding Fathers served to grant women the franchise.  So the Constitution changed.  How?  Women (and some men who agreed) demonstrated, pressured their state legislatures, and started winning the right to vote for women. First they won that right in a few states, then in more.  Finally, our Constitution CHANGED the law for the whole US, guaranteeing women the right to vote nationwide.  The change was made, as it is supposed to be, by a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. (That was the 19th amendment, ratified in 1920). 

There is NO right to same sex marriage in the US Constitution.  The Founding Fathers would have had you comitted if you had even suggested it. (There IS, by the way, a right to interracial marriage - though ithe logic is hazier.  That was enshrined by the text of the 14th amendment, among others.  The "Loving" case was a close call IMO, but I think the US Supreme Court made the correct decision in that case.) 

danielTX:

I've been reading the opinion and it is very carefully done, sober, and rational.  Wouldn't it be something if more people would actually take a look at it before jumping to conclusions about it.

I DID read the opinion, Dan.  The whole thing.  It was, to put it bluntly, absolutely loony!  The California Supreme Court majority opinion was first of all a textbook example of defensiveness; they tried mightily to claim they were not making new law - when that was exactly, EXACTLY, what they were doing.  They claimed that the principles they used to mandate gay marriage could not be applied to, say, poligamy, when all you need to do is READ the WORDS, to see that the same logic would apply EXACTLY applied to poligamy, were an equivalent case to be brought (and just give it time!).  Of course, the the California court might or might not rule differently - based on their OPINION and PERSONAL PREFERENCES.  That is EXACTLY what the majority did here.

If there is a better example of judicial activism and judicial tyranny in ANY major decision of a state supreme court in recent years, I am unaware of it.  If I were a California voter, I like to believe there is a good chance I might vote for for the proposed state constitutional amendment this fall to overturn this decision even IF I was in favor of eventually changing the marriage laws to include same sex couples.  I think that amendment, while not a sure thing, stands an excellent chance of passage this November.  The combination of arrogance and constitutional ignorance of the 4-3 majority in this case exceeds that of almost any case I have ever studied. 

MWL

In my great state of California GAYS may apply.

This is a money maker move for the government of my great state of California.  And remember, as California goes so goes the United States, so, this ruling could be coming to a court near you.

Now, can we talk about the REAL hot issue affecting everyone in my state? Okay, I will start, the cheapest gas in my area is now at $4.09 9/10 a gallon for the regular unleaded.  Don't blame the oil companies, they are in the business to make money!

See, I told you so, politics is FUN, and watching the oil companies making a killing is REAL fun. 

Thanks for reading.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu6glRiMR2Q

Quote from the decision:  "We conclude that, under this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process."

What can this mean other than the court is asserting its sole right to define marriage?  And if a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is passed, will this court declare that the amendment itself is unconstitutional?  Oh, now I'm just being silly.  Right?

And if a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is passed, will this court declare that the amendment itself is unconstitutional?

Naw, jcahoy, I wouldn't worry about that one.  Even the courts - even the California courts - cannot short circuit the amendment process.  (In California, that process involves only a majority vote of the electrate.  That would under normal circumstances be an almost appaling way to amend a Constitution.  However, in THIS case, in THIS state, and the court doing what it has, it is fully justified.)

What I would look for is the Secretary or State of California trying to figure out some way to disqualify the initiative before it gets to the ballot.  He could, perhaps, get the court to engage in real tyranny and somehow support such a ruling, despite the fact that they have over TWICE as many signatures as needed.

However, once the amendment initiative gets on the ballot, it stands an better-than-even shot a passing.  At that point, the Court will have been defanged and justice and the Constitution will finally have prevailed.

MWL

Two Democrats in IN. kept this issue from coming up for a hearing, so that the same sex  marriage issue could be put on the ballot this fall in IN. They know that the voters will overwhelmingly vote down same sex marriage. It is only through such munipulations and pseudo "civil rights laws" that these laws are being passed. The deck IMO is always stacked, even though they declare  that this ruling was made by Republican appointees.

Where is separation of church and state here? Marriage is a religious ceremony, no? Has the STATE overstepped its bounds?

I'm Catholic, I don't see this type of marriage happening in my church.

I do see hotels and other venues in the wedding business just salivating about all that stupid money spent on a wedding...

Where are you investing?  Your vote for your soul or your pocketbook? Which is it?

Lulu

The soul, Lulu!  The Catholic Church offers compassion, but I hope never acceptance.

Catholic also.

Tim

Tim,

It boggles the mind that this issue has gone this far, I can only say that money is propelling it in my mind, some lobbyist is really pushing this for the big bucks.

Most Americans are against it ...so why the push? Big Bucks Want It?

Compassion is truly the Christian outlook here, acceptance can never occur in the church under those terms, but we can pray for minds to turn to God.

Lulu