Don Basore:

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

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 ???????

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 ???????

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. 
 

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 

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?!

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.”

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