Breaking: California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage; Update: Opinion-skimming analysis added!
posted at 1:11 pm on May 15, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
An election-year bombshell, just across the wires. Rove, you magnificent bastard. Stand by for updates.
Update: Here’s the opinion. How does 172 pages sound?
Update: The AP story is thin on specifics since it’ll take awhile to digest the holding. Read this useful bullet-point background from the Journal to get up to speed on the legal posture. Note that six of the seven justices on the court are Republicans. Will the ruling stick?
“Pro-family” 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, the measure would go on the November ballot and, if approved by voters, would override any court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.
Proposition 22, the California ballot initiative that defined marriage in the state as between one man and one woman (even if the marriage was entered into in another state that allows same-sex marriage), passed in 2000 by a margin of 1.7 million votes.
Update: Sounds like a major win:
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 the decision takes effect in 30 days.
The ruling set off a celebration at San Francisco City Hall.
Update: A quick skim reveals that the opinion’s fairly straightforward. They start out by noting that California’s different from other states that have dealt with this insofar as it already has a robust domestic partnership law. All this is about, really, is whether gays should be allowed to “marry” the way straights do or whether they’re stuck with those partnership agreements that leave them married in effect but not in name. Conservatives like partnership schemes and/or civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage, but I’ve always thought that argument’s self-defeating since it leaves you with no substantive reason for drawing any distinction in the first place. Yes, (some) conservatives seem to be saying, gays can go ahead and have civil unions that grant them all the benefits married couples have — but for god’s sake, don’t let them call themselves “married.” To which a court can only reply, “Why not?” The right’s strategy, in other words, has been to concede 99 yards and then stand on the one-yard line and say “no further,” but that’s not how discrimination jurisprudence works. If you’re going to discriminate you need a good reason, and depending upon whom you’re discriminating against, you may need a very, very good reason.
That’s actually the key ruling here: The court holds on page 95 that because sexual orientation is (1) immutable, (2) unrelated to one’s ability to function in society, and (3) a target of prejudice, it should be treated as a “suspect classification” for purposes of the state constitution’s equal protection clause. Once it’s deemed a suspect classification then the state needs a very compelling reason to justify discriminating on the basis of it — and since, as I say, it’s already conceded those 99 yards, there’s no such reason to be had. (If you want to bore yourself with the vagaries of equal protection jurisprudence, read this old post about New Jersey’s gay marriage ruling.) All they’re doing is denying gays the label of marriage to preserve a sense of stigma, which is almost a paradigm case of what equal protection is meant to prevent. I have no problem with the ruling as long as other states aren’t compelled to recognize Cali marriages per full faith and credit, which, needless to say, is the battleground on which this decision’s going to be fought in the presidential race. Taking the federalist approach and letting each state decide for itself is an easy call for Maverick; what about the Prince of Peace?
Exit question: Remember this golden oldie from the 2006 midterms?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 »
If lusting for women is adultery, 99.97% of all straight men have committed adultery tens of thousands of times already.
doubleplusundead on May 15, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Exactly!
That is why it was necessary for Jesus to come..all mankind is guilty.
SaintOlaf on May 15, 2008 at 11:40 PM
At least you are sincere. A bit nuts, but sincere.
Krydor on May 15, 2008 at 11:42 PM
*facepalms*
doubleplusundead on May 15, 2008 at 11:44 PM
Buzz, I was wrong. The California legislature voted twice for SSM. The people may have voted against SSM in 2000, but since then they had several elections in which to make their will known via their representatives. Their representatives voted not once but twice in favor of it. Gov. Schwartzeneger vetoed it but agreed to abide by the court’s decision (a court, by the way, of which all seven members were voted in by the people and of which six were initially appointed by a Republican).
I think that you can put your argument to rest that this was imposed by an elite few. The people may yet speak again, but for now SSM is the law of CA.
DCGamer on May 15, 2008 at 11:46 PM
I’m not The Buzz, but as a Californian and a born-again Christian, my biggest complaint is regarding how the courts overruled the pertinent law created by California Proposition 22, passed by 61% of the vote. A different court did the same thing with California Proposition 187, which proposed to deny state services to illegal aliens and which passed with 59% of the vote.
My beliefs regarding homosexuality are somewhere on the hard-core side of the religious scale but I always try to remember the following: the Jesus’s words; “render unto Caesar…,” “For all have sinned…” and His purpose–to provide forgiveness and Grace to mankind. It’s equal protection for those who accept that protection. And for those of us who accept the Bible as true and who accept that Jesus Christ completed the Law, you shouldn’t be worried about the long run. You also shouldn’t be quoting Old Testament Law to make your points unless you mention, again, that Jesus is the completion of that Law.
Therefore, bringing the conversation back down to Earth, I’m concerned with the precedents that are being set by this court and other courts, by the the way these judges made this and other decisions: by overruling laws that do not infringe on the pursuit of life, liberty, private property or other enumerated rights of California citizens. Prop 22 did not, IMO.
When are the judges going to stop? Were will any of the courts decide that they are straying out of their judicial lane and into the legislative or even the executive?
That’s what I care about in the short-term. And so should we all–especially those of you who don’t believe in God or an afterlife. Because, according to you, this life is all you got.
baldilocks on May 15, 2008 at 11:50 PM
To what are you referring?
baldilocks on May 15, 2008 at 11:53 PM
I think that it almost certainly will come back as another initiative. Probably as a state constitutional amendment. It takes a lot of ill will to turn out a legislature. It just takes money and a good marketing campaign to pass an initiative.
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 11:56 PM
No more laws than needed and no treatments unless requested. I might say more but it’s getting past bed time.
dedalus on May 15, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Thank you for your reasonable comments, Baldilocks. I, too, am generally concerned about judicial overreach. In this case, though, I think they made the right decision. (See my comment right above yours).
The people of CA expressed their opinion on Prop 22 in 2000, but you voted since then on your representatives. These same representatives voted twice in favor of SSM. Therefore this ruling did not come out of the blue.
Just for the record, Baldilocks, I am Catholic. We are not fundamentalists, so people like saintolaf scare me. My Church opposes SSM, but I disagree with my Church. I may be wrong, but I will let God judge the whole of my life when my time comes.
DCGamer on May 15, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Buzz, it will come back as a constitutional amendment. Opponents have already submitted the signatures for a vote this fall. The gov’t is verifying the signatures, but it looks as if they have enough to force the vote. The people will speak.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 12:02 AM
The first word that came to mind was simply Wow! Just my opinion but by far the best post of any I’ve read so far. I admit that I haven’t read them all though. You went right to the heart of the matter and put it into a form that anybody should be able to understand. My hat’s off to you. Not many people could do that with a subject like this.
Oldnuke on May 16, 2008 at 12:02 AM
And only slightly OT, I think that the initiative process is often misused in California. Many of the issues should be resolved in the legislature, but the initiative process is used by private interests to circumvent the legislative checks and balances.
The Buzz on May 16, 2008 at 12:04 AM
Actually they are trying to convince the government that they are a special class of people with special and extra benefits based on who they have sex with. They are certainly allowed to get married just like any other human being. . . that’s not discrimination. It’s that marriage is between a man and a woman. If they don’t want to get married to someone of the opposite sex, that does NOT mean that they are being ‘discriminated against’.
This is all going to eventually be very very interesting. Gays blame Christians, but Christians aren’t their problem. They will need to worry about Muslims complaining that it is against their religion and offensive to them to accept gays.
Also, it will be fascinating when the Blacks begin to request special ‘Affirmative Action’ rights from the growing Hispanic community.
All the bashing of the White Christians must be fun for now. White Christians aren’t the problem. White Christians created an awesome society. Everyone else is bent on destroying it.
ThackerAgency on May 16, 2008 at 12:08 AM
I agree, Oldnuke. Baldilocks articulated his/her position wonderfully. We may disagree on SSM, but I respect his/her opinion.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 12:09 AM
baldilocks: NoCal or SoCal? I lived in LA (Rowland Heights) for a few years back in the late ’90’s and I miss the land and people dearly. It was the crazy California government that drove me away…
The Buzz on May 16, 2008 at 12:11 AM
I agree that he’d be plenty bad. America is resilient but he’d screw things up for decades.
dedalus on May 16, 2008 at 12:16 AM
It sounds like you may be misunderstanding what Jesus meant by completing the Law.
Jesus did not come to abolish the Law but to MAGNIFY the Law.
Lust is adultery in God’s sight
Hatred is murder in God’s sight.
He intensified and magnified the Law and showed it as it truly is…as God sees us.
We are all guilty.
He completed it because He gave us a way to be righteous before God on judgment day (by being filled with His spirit and His righteousness) and in doing so He gave us a way to overcome sin.
We have the power to resist the devil and bind and cast out demons in His name!
He did not call us to be sinners.
Jesus says very clearly that HE IS TRUTH!
When we speak the Truth we are sanctified and empowered!
The accusers only power is the power of lies.
The Truth brings light to the darkness and will expose and destroy all lies!
Thank you Jesus!
SaintOlaf on May 16, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Thacker, that is a silly argument. Would you marry someone that you didn’t love? Then why would you think that a gay man should? If anything, your argument makes a mockery of the institution of marriage.
If a gay man wants to commit monogamously to a man he loves, he is showing respect for the institution of marriage, not mocking it.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 12:17 AM
Begone, Olaf! Unless you want to contribute to the topic at hand, take your Bible thumping elsewhere.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 12:19 AM
I think a she. I don’t see this as an issue about homosexuality or marriage. It’s about activist judges overruling the will of the people. The people have recourse here and should exercise it to the extreme.
This is the real problem.
Oldnuke on May 16, 2008 at 12:20 AM
Unlike you, banning gay marriage and abortion and social issues are by far the highest ranking issues for the majority of the republican party…
But you would not get a good idea of what our priorities are by this site’s demographics….most here are libertarians (i.e. leftwing extremists) or better put people brainwashed by leftist P.C.ism but still consider themselves conservatives because they believe in low taxes.
Unfortunately this makes some godless delusional people here think they can take over our party.
SaintOlaf on May 16, 2008 at 12:27 AM
DCGamer, weren’t you just arguing that for many years this was the definition of marriage? And we’re not saying they have to marry someone they don’t love, just that they can’t call a gay relationship marriage. Not as long as society defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
The Buzz on May 16, 2008 at 12:27 AM
Oldnuke, I’ve said this above, but repeating quickly, I do not believe the judges overruled the people because since Prop 22 in 2000, the legislature passed SSM twice. The people have had the opportunity since 2000 to speak (by voting for their representatives).
Baldilocks does not believe that Prop 22 infringed on “life, liberty, private property or other enumerated rights.” I very much disagree. Marriage is one of the most fundamental rights of a person. I assume that neither Baldilocks, nor you, are gay. Imagine, though, what you would think if the State refused to allow you the right to marry the person that you loved. Try to put yourself in the shoes of a gay person.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 12:28 AM
Buzz, you lost me. I’m not sure what you are trying to say.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 12:31 AM
SaintOlaf on May 16, 2008 at 12:32 AM
Well there’s a new twist. I think most libertarians are going to disagree with you on that one. At least I’m pretty sure I’m not a leftwing extreamist, but I have considered myself a libertarian. A gun totin Reagan votin libertarian…
The Buzz on May 16, 2008 at 12:33 AM
OK, gay people have just successfully overturned thousands of years of cultural tradition concerning marriage (the first relationship between humans in the Bible) and you say that I am making a mockery of marriage.
No, the gay community has done a wonderful job of that. I actually think that the concept of arranged marriage makes more sense than any modern sense of marriage that Americans have created.
Marriage is supposed to be a lifelong commitment. Why then are there so many divorces? This latest development is the latest in a long line of the government and society making a mockery out of the institution of marriage.
This will be probably the biggest thing that Muslim countries point to in order to give reason why they hate this country. It won’t be any military, or Christian Crusade. They will recruit more members and convince others of our evilness because of crap like this. But it’s OK so long as the gay people win. Yay gay.
Again I look forward to promoting my services as a facilitator of American citizenship through marriage. I can now offer it to men and women. Who defines what love is anyway? There is no technical definition in the law. I’m entering into a legal contract. With that contract comes citizenship. If the Republicans can sell citizenship to illegals for $5000, I figure I can to. Now that marriage isn’t between a man and a woman, it is whatever you want it to be. Again I say. . . yay gay.
ThackerAgency on May 16, 2008 at 12:34 AM
No, it isn’t. And nobody is saying that there are people that can’t get married. They just define who CAN get married. The state does that you know. The STATE sets the age limit for marriage. Why can they do that? Who is to say that the best thing for an orphaned 8 year old girl isn’t to be married to someone who can care for her for the rest of her life? The state says they can’t.
ThackerAgency on May 16, 2008 at 12:37 AM
Olaf, I am a practicing Roman Catholic who is here arguing in favor of SSM. I am not pushing a “homosexual agenda.” I told you to leave unless you contribute thoughtfully to the topic at hand. You appear to be more interested in pushing your fundamentalist agenda which does not add to the debate.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 12:37 AM
I see your point. However for me the central issue in this is still activist judges. I’m betting that this will result in a change to the state constitution in California. I’m pretty rabid about activist judges who think they hold ultimate power.
For me marriage is a state of mind not something written on a piece of paper. Whether the state sanctions my marriage or not is totally irrelevant to me. Of course I’d probably sing a different tune if they denied my wife social security benefits or some other perk. But that’s for a different thread.
Oldnuke on May 16, 2008 at 12:38 AM
The ROMAN catholic church advocates homosexuality and homosexual marriage? Wow I knew something was seriously wrong when the pope came to town and didn’t excommunicate Pfleger.
SaintOlaf on May 16, 2008 at 12:39 AM
Where exactly do you find that in the ROMAN catholic Bible?
I didn’t know their Bible was THAT different than the REAL Bible.
SaintOlaf on May 16, 2008 at 12:40 AM
LA; in Maxine Water’s district. And I’m a girl, DCGamer. :-)
It sounds like you’re either a) not taking my words at face value, b) unclear on the definition of some words c) improperly taught by your pastor d) intent on sowing an argument or e) any combination thereof.
The words ‘complete‘ (definition 1) and ‘abolish‘ are not always synonyms. But even if they are meant in this instance to be the same, Jesus’s purpose is clear: to take your place when you’re under condemnation–that is, if you believe that this is what he came here to do.
Much of the rest of your comment needs some work in the comprehensibility area. I’m not trying to be mean. See, if you’re going to help save some souls, you need to be patient enough to articulate your points clearly so that others can at least understand what you’re saying. Whether they agree with what you’re saying is another matter, but that’s not what’s important here.
Take your time and explain what you believe.
baldilocks on May 16, 2008 at 12:41 AM
I was referring to this post.
The Buzz on May 16, 2008 at 12:41 AM
That’s not what he said. Your reading skills need some work. Perhaps if you read his post again and mouthed the words it would help.
Oldnuke on May 16, 2008 at 12:42 AM
The liberal judges forgot to consider how their friends the Islamists will view this ruling.
Halley on May 16, 2008 at 12:44 AM
I’m sorry…
The Buzz on May 16, 2008 at 12:47 AM
Thacker, I do not completely disagree with you. I say again that you must separate CIVIL marriage from RELIGIOUS marriage. Civil marriage is a contract recognized by the state that confers certain rights to two people. I argue in favor of SSM because I believe that the government must be fair in granting these rights. Gays are not arguing for special rights. They are arguing for the very same rights to marry the person that they love. (The Buzz would argue that gays have the same right to marry the opposite sex. We obviously disagree on that).
I also believe in the sanctity of religious marriage. I believe that it is sacrament of the Church that unites a man and a woman. Procreation should be a goal of this union.
To me these are two very different creatures. In fact, I would be happy if the government changed the name from “marriage” to “union” for ALL people equally. Let marriage remain something sacred that one enters into in church. Civil unions can represent the governmental contract that comes from the union of two people
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 12:47 AM
DC Gamer,
Do you have any links regarding the work that the CA Assembly has done in this area? (I realize that’s it’s a stretch to assume that the CA legislature “works” but it’s the best verb I could come up with.)
baldilocks on May 16, 2008 at 12:49 AM
LOL. I accept your condolences.
baldilocks on May 16, 2008 at 12:50 AM
You don’t always get to marry the person you love. Ask John Hinckley. ;-)
The Buzz on May 16, 2008 at 12:51 AM
OK, gotcha, Buzz. My point about the history of marriage is that it went through many changes over the centuries, and this last change will not destroy it. Marriage is about love now in the West, although in the Middle East and Asia marriages are still often arranged.
If marriage is indeed about love, then gay people should be able to marry the person that they love. If it is solely about procreation, then infertile people and post-menopausal women should not be allowed to marry.
That is my point.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 12:52 AM
What I did was cleared up a few loose ends in your post actually…
That is an ambiguous statement and could easily be misconstrued.
Too many “Christians” fall into the trap of not believing that we must keep the Law and believe that we can go ahead and sin as “we will always sin as long as we are in the flesh”….which is completely anti-Biblical!
We were given the power to overcome sin through Christ Jesus.
I’m not saying that you meant that but am clearing up loose ends in that statement.
SaintOlaf on May 16, 2008 at 12:53 AM
LOL. How ’bout saying that two people who love each other? Would that pass your smell test?
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 12:54 AM
Many churches now have “commitment” ceremonies. I’ve no problem with that. California had civil unions as law, I have no problem with that. I just don’t want some judge telling us he has decided what marriage means, and it isn’t what we thought it was…
The Buzz on May 16, 2008 at 12:59 AM
Homosexuality is a sin.
The moment a nation starts sanctioning sin and giving sin it’s stamp of approval is the moment it becomes an unrighteous nation and is the moment it is estranged from God.
That should worry you more than offending a tiny perverted minority of people.
SaintOlaf on May 16, 2008 at 12:59 AM
And I would agree completely with The Buzz. Let’s look at Jim Crow. The LAW was separate but equal. Rosa Parks got on the bus and sat at the front of the bus. . . the SAME bus. She didn’t ask to have a whole different bus just for them, in fact the civil rights movement was exactly opposite of that.
They aren’t denied any rights any more than polygamists are denied their right to marry who they choose. But most people are here arguing that gay marriage does not mean that polygamy should be legal without giving a reason why not. Some reasons were that they define it as between TWO PEOPLE. But by your definition it denies them the right to marriage the way they want. They probably love all of their spouses.
If you say now we must define it as between two people to deny the polygamist marriage, then you are discriminating. You say you can’t define it as one woman and one man, but you can define it as two people.
With this new polygamy law which will pass with this precedent, I should be able to marry about 5 foreigners for citizenship a day with my new business. At 5000/person, that makes 25,000 a day. YAY GAY! What a great new law. MORE please.
I’m not making a mockery of the law, I don’t even make the law, I just understand it and use it. If this is the new law, they can’t stop my new business that will generate more money than any other.
ThackerAgency on May 16, 2008 at 12:59 AM
I did a quick google search and found this article in the New York Times. This is an old article from September 2005. Since then Gov. Schwartzenager vetoed the bill and they voted again in favor. It’s late, though, and I am too tired to find a more current source.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 12:59 AM
Ha I’m sure there are people getting ready to do this today..
Unfortunately for you when the supply goes up your price for “marriage” will go down.
SaintOlaf on May 16, 2008 at 1:03 AM
Let’s hope you have a big house…. by the end of the year you’re going to have to have enough room for your 1,825 wives.
Joe smith would be proud.
SaintOlaf on May 16, 2008 at 1:07 AM
At least now you are addressing the topic at hand. Olaf, usury is a sin and yet the government has sanctioned banks from the founding of our contry. Thus according to you, our nation has been estranged from God from the beginning. I disagree.
Jesus recognized the difference between the worldly and the divine (”Render unto Caesar…”). Our government makes laws for all people, not just fundamentalist Christians. Thus the gov’t must address the issue of SSM. If you prefer to live in a fundamentalist theocracy, I would suggest that you consider moving to Iran.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 1:08 AM
And the reason why her act changed American society was because the vast majority of Americans thought change was the morally right thing to do. Gay marriage does not have anywhere near the same level of support, or moral backing.
The Buzz on May 16, 2008 at 1:09 AM
Thank y’all for the wonderful debate. It is late, and I must hit the sack. Have a great weekend.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 1:10 AM
Buzz I’m agreeing with you. I’m saying that changing the marriage for gay people is equivalent to Parks asking for a shiny new bus instead of riding on the one that was provided.
ThackerAgency on May 16, 2008 at 1:11 AM
goodnight gamer
ThackerAgency on May 16, 2008 at 1:12 AM
…and telling everyone we have to call the new bus an airplane from now on.
I see we are pretty much in agreement here.
The Buzz on May 16, 2008 at 1:15 AM
Of course you would also misinterpret Jesus’s “render unto caesar”.
Maybe you are unaware that the rest of that statement says “render unto caesar the things that are caesars and unto God the things that are God’s”.
What is God’s? What is Caesar’s?
Nothing belongs to caesar in comparison with what belongs to God.
Maybe you are also unaware of it’s context. Jesus bewildered the audience that tried to trap him.
We owe nothing to caesar as everything is owned by God.
SaintOlaf on May 16, 2008 at 1:18 AM
I’m done.
SaintOlaf, how’s about a bedtime prayer for all of us?
The Buzz on May 16, 2008 at 1:19 AM
Wow. You have issues…
eanax on May 16, 2008 at 1:25 AM
Puhlease…
eanax on May 16, 2008 at 1:27 AM
That’s a start. Thanks.
baldilocks on May 16, 2008 at 1:29 AM
Oligarchy.
29Victor on May 16, 2008 at 1:31 AM
Well, none of that was the main point of my comment so I felt no need to elaborate on them. However, if you’re going to pick up threads, it’d be nice if they made sense. Just trying to help, as you were also, undoubtedly.
baldilocks on May 16, 2008 at 1:33 AM
Californians have a:
but not to homeschool their kids.
29Victor on May 16, 2008 at 1:34 AM
You’re not the only one here who reads the Bible, you know. A little less bluster and a little more humility would serve you well.
baldilocks on May 16, 2008 at 1:36 AM
If it’s only about love, then why does the State need to sanction it? Why does there need to be a “civil contract”?
eanax on May 16, 2008 at 1:37 AM
a little hermeneutical skill wouldn’t hurt either…
29Victor on May 16, 2008 at 1:39 AM
Ruling something legal is not the same thing as granting it a “stamp of approval.” Mortal law is not the same thing as morality, though the law is based on morality.
Further, given that lust is such an omnipresent sin, I hardly think gay folk are somehow more “perverted” than straight folk. Their preferences are substantially different yes, but no more sinful than heterosexual sex outside the context of marriage.
Your choice of words suggests an active dislike and disgust for homosexual people - this runs very contrary to scripture. You would do well to reflect on the nature of those feelings and how they may represent sin within you. You are every bit as in need of the redemptive power of Christ, and have, I believe, overstepped with your comments. They do not advance the kingdom - they only reveal to watching eyes the arrogance of one who thinks himself better than another because he is not similarly afflicted. Perhaps I’m incorrect, in which case I apologize - but at the very least the tone, stridency, and word choice of your postings offers needless offense.
Now as for the law. If Christ only came to amplify the law (in its entirety), does that mean that we should still stone children who rebel against their parents, for example? Or is there a doctrinal justification for the discontinuation of that practice?
That said, I do believe that homosexuality is sinful according to scripture. But I do not expect those outside of Christ to live according to the standards of a faith they do not share, nor do I hold them in disdain or disgust, nor do I consider myself better than they. I can not call a gay person “perverted” without applying that same label to myself. To do otherwise - to attempt to separate them from me based solely on the category of their sin - is nothing but one of the most toxic of sins: pride.
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 16, 2008 at 1:40 AM
Because it’s not “only about love.” If it were, then it would be unconstitutional to outlaw polygamy.
29Victor on May 16, 2008 at 1:41 AM
That’s my point…
eanax on May 16, 2008 at 1:44 AM
a major civil-rights breakthrough. period.
next state, please!
homesickamerican on May 16, 2008 at 1:48 AM
I agree with most of what you say but, I have two points:
1) Then why not legalize beastaility & necrophillia? A societies laws reflect its ethics. Here, though, the ethics aren’t being decided upon by the people of California, but by a small group of liberals. Also, given the rights that homosexuals already had in California, then why do they want the right to marry also, except that they see it as a “stamp of approval?”
2) Buisness and property owners in California will now be forced to acknowledge the marital status of their employees, renters, etc. and give them corresponding benefits. So, now someone who is morally opposed to acknowleging homosexual marriage is not only banned from not hiring a homosexual, but now, if that homosexual chooses to marry, the employer has to give that individual the same benefits that they give heterosexual employees, even tho it may be against their beliefs to do so.
29Victor on May 16, 2008 at 1:51 AM
I’m afraid you are wrong Baldilocks. Your fellow Christian Saint Olaf is using the Law correctly, and you owe him an apology. Let me start by saying Christ did not do away with any part of God’s Law. In Matthew 5:17-18, He stated, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” The Lord Jesus, by His own words, did not destroy the Law of God; thus, it is still operable. Secondly, the law is a great tool we as Christians can use to show the lost they have sinned against God by violating the Ten Commandments. The apostle Paul said, “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” (Romans 7:7) A few passages later Paul says, “For I delight in the law of God.” (Romans 7:22) We know this could not be the sincere testimony of an unsaved man, it reflects the attitude of a true Christian who loves God’s law. God’s law is perfect and believers should honor it as representing perfectly the holiness and justice of God, even though our need is (not) justice but GRACE and MERCY. “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” (Romans 7:12) Saint Olaf is doing a fine job. God’s law is the most effective tool an evangelist can use to identify sin and point souls to the Savior. It is not possible to convince a person that he/she is sinning without reference to the law of God. Psalm 19:7 tells us, “The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul.” You oughta be doing something different baldilocks other than making it harder for your Christian brothers to witness to the lost. United we stand, divided we fall. It can’t be any clearer than that.
apacalyps on May 16, 2008 at 1:54 AM
God, J, you are precious. This and all the other comments you bestowed on this thread were simply laughing-tears substance. You’re so smart, and a benevolent ‘warden’ of HA and I’m so happy you come by.
p.s. my favorite Maxine Waters quote was/is “…they will close this hospital over my dead body”. You will know. Hugs,
Entelechy on May 16, 2008 at 1:55 AM
…and another decision made by unelected officials against the will of the governed…
…and another visceration of individual liberties by an already-too-powerful government…
29Victor on May 16, 2008 at 1:55 AM
Wrong is Right and Right is Wrong.
Red Pill on May 16, 2008 at 1:55 AM
Looks like the old Odnuke is back, stupider than ever.
apacalyps on May 16, 2008 at 1:57 AM
That is correct fellow Saint.
apacalyps on May 16, 2008 at 1:59 AM
You’re born with brown eyes and blue eyes. Taking your pants off to have sex is a choice. It’s a choice.
apacalyps on May 16, 2008 at 2:02 AM
Allah, is this a record number of postings for a HotAir blog post?
Tokyo Times on May 16, 2008 at 2:04 AM
You’re just repeating what I said and pretending that you’re countering it to sow discord to make yourself appear to be correct. (Fulfill and complete mean the same thing.)
You are pride personified, sir.
baldilocks on May 16, 2008 at 2:05 AM
Mine is “I have to march [in a pro-"choice" protest] because my mother couldn’t have an abortion.”
You’re the nicest person here.
baldilocks on May 16, 2008 at 2:08 AM
Using verses where Paul points out that the law leads to sin, from the book the main focus of which is God’s grace in contrast to the law to say that what we need is more law? Huh? Please use the entire chapter, not just the portions that you believe proves your point.
And why didn’t you quote the beginning of chapter 8, which is the conclusion of chapter 7?
To think that an unsaved homosexual is any worse off then any other unsaved person is to miss the message of the Gospel.
I’ll leave you with this:
and
and
So, if you are saying that, by the grace of God, the law can be used to show someone that they are a sinner in need of salvation, then yes, that is possible. But that’s about it.
But if they are not saved then who cares what they do? The homosexual is no worse off than the next unsaved guy.
29Victor on May 16, 2008 at 2:09 AM
Thank you, baldilocks, for your contributions to the thread.
sulla on May 16, 2008 at 2:09 AM
Two great shames here: That the California Supreme Court would make such a bone-headed ruling, and that people on this board actually defend it.
First, I realize the popular belief is that sexual orientation is immutable. It’s not. Why exactly would you think it would be? There is absolutely no evidence that someone who engages in homosexuality is incapable of changing.
Sure, there are many homosexuals who find it very hard to change. But there are many smokers who find it very hard to quit. Smoking is not therefore an immutable part of who they are.
So we have these judges making rulings based on facts that are not even facts.
There have been homosexuals throughout the ages who went straight. If you want historical evidence, read 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Note that some were effeminate, and some were abusers of themselves with mankind, but now they are sanctified and justified. Clearly, they were no longer what they were.
Absent the obvious spiritual application, this was still a historical document, a letter, written by a historical person, Saul of Tarsus, to a historical group of people, the Corinthians, where he said quite clearly that some who used to be homosexuals had changed.
So much for sexual orientation being immutable.
But more than that, we have the mind-boggling claim that since men who like women are able to marry women who like men, it’s not really fair unless men who aren’t interested in women are allowed to marry men instead, and women who aren’t interested in men are allowed to marry women instead.
As if we have to redefine what marriage is to accommodate those who want it to be something it never was before.
Worse, the supreme court has NO POWER to make such a ruling. Show me a constitution that gives the courts the power to decide not just how to interpret the laws, but what the laws actually are.
And it’s so incredibly short-sighted for courts to make a ruling that will affect millions of people across the state of California that could easily be reversed by a referendum within six months.
Try as you might, this ruling is wrong, and can’t be bent or twisted into being right.
If we don’t get a grip on the tendency of courts to trample the legislative and executive branches of government under the fig leaf of judicial review, it will be the ruin of this country.
All it would really take to put a stop to it would be for the other two branches of government to stand up. The legislative branch could strip the courts of broad judicial review, or declare that their decisions are only valid if ratified by the legislature. The executive branch could refuse to enforce a clearly overreaching decision.
Unfortunately, we all know that neither one will do anything. Apparently, judicial review is a higher law than anything found in any constitution.
theregoestheneighborhood on May 16, 2008 at 2:15 AM
1) You have stood the Gospel on its head.
2) The belief that one can “go ahead and sin as ‘we will always sin as long as we are in the flesh’” is not Christian, it’s Gnostic and it’s not the belief of the overwhelming majority of Christians in America.
Neither of your statements are “Christian,” but they are both self-righteous.
Christianity is not about keeping a set of rules, a big chunk of the New Testament is dedicated to dispelling this misunderstanding.
Christianity is about a relationship with God through Christ. Through Christ a Christian will be first justified and then sanctified, becoming more Godly as his relationship with God matures.
And if a Christian must keep all of the Law, I must ask, do you keep all of the Law? Do you honor the Sabbath and keep it holy? Did your wife stay out of church for a month or two after having kids (Leviticus 12)? Do you keep from wearing clothing woven of two different materials (Lev 19:19)? Do you keep from cutting the hair at the sides of you head (Lev 19:27)? Do you treat “aliens living in your land as if they were native-born (Lev 19:33)? Do you kill anyone that you hear cursing his mother or father (Lev 20:9)?
There is a bunch more, I only went over the highlights of two chapters, but it makes the point. Remember:
So, do you keep the whole law, or just the parts that are convenient for you to keep, the parts that you would keep anyway?
29Victor on May 16, 2008 at 2:30 AM
theregoestheneighborhood on May 16, 2008 at 2:15 AM
well said.
29Victor on May 16, 2008 at 2:31 AM
Your argument starts with the presumption that it was government that was blocking gay people from getting married. Since it wasn’t, your claim that government is preventing gay people from getting married is a false claim.
In fact, I don’t think you can find any law that prevents men from marrying men, or women from marrying women. There was simply never any provision for it in the past for the rather obvious reason that two men or two women would not be a marriage.
The requested government action is not to ALLOW gay marriage, but to RECOGNIZE gay marriage. Therefore, it’s the advocates of SSM that are pushing a radical change.
Worse, it’s one that runs headlong into Christian doctrine. Marriage came before the institution of government, the founding of the church, or the first schools or lawyers. “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.” What’s going to happen when Christians (rightly) refuse to acknowledge a marriage that the state says is valid? Does the new-found “right” trump the First Amendment?
theregoestheneighborhood on May 16, 2008 at 2:32 AM
I’m very dissapointed in you baldi. Full of pride. I expected more. These are your words not mine. Own up to them.
As Saint Olaf pointed out for you, what you’ve said is ambiguous and can easily be misconstrued. I’ll go further one step further, it’s STUPID advice. You’re tying the hands of a Christian when you say he MUST point out that Jesus is the completion of that Law. Of course we are saved by GRACE and MERCY (we know that), but it is NOT POSSIBLE to convince a person that he/she is sinning without reference to the law of God. Psalm 19:7 tells us, “The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul.” Instead of interfering, you should leave the Christian alone who is using the Law to win the lost to Christ, and worry about trying to save some people yourself!!
Then you add a bit of arrogance to your Christian brother:
What a joke. You criticize fellow Christians on the frontlines of battle. Grow up baldi.
apacalyps on May 16, 2008 at 2:35 AM
Hey, that’s excellent.
baldilocks on May 16, 2008 at 2:36 AM
Relax, Pharisee.
baldilocks on May 16, 2008 at 2:37 AM
What a bonehead. Reread my post. That’s NOT what i’m saying at all. And while you’re at it, reread baldilocks and Saint Olaf’s post, because it was there conversation I was responding too.
apacalyps on May 16, 2008 at 2:41 AM
Wow. I wish I had the spare time to read this thread entirely.
Saltysam on May 16, 2008 at 2:46 AM
DING! DING! DING! BINGO!!!!
And a belated, DUH!
What the … ? That’s all the Ten Commandments is good for? It’s only good to show a person they are a sinner and in need of salvation?? You better read your Bible again Victor because, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” 2 Timothy 3:16
“
apacalyps on May 16, 2008 at 2:50 AM
Excellent post, ThackerAgency. We need more people like you fighting along side us. Thank you.
apacalyps on May 16, 2008 at 2:54 AM
The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from. Isn’t that right? Yeah, thought so.
apacalyps on May 16, 2008 at 3:00 AM
You response tells me that my short estimation of you as a Pharisee is correct and tells observers who understand that designation everything we need to know about you. Much obliged for being honest about it.
baldilocks on May 16, 2008 at 3:10 AM
Read it a few times, actually. I especially like Romans 3:19-20 which says:
And how do I rate a “DUH” from someone who seems to think that the “Law” consists entirely of the Ten Commandments? The Big Ten are just the tip of the iceberg, Forrest.
Do you “teach, rebuke and correct” your brothers on how they should trim their hair and what kind of clothes they should wear? Do you teach them the chapters and chapters of dietary laws, after all, that’s Scripture too and “useful for…”
Yeah, I’d say that’s what you were saying. Whether or not you intended to is another matter. And now we’re calling names. Wow. Is “bonehead” anything like “fool?” If it is then:
But this is the way it always is with the legalists. Christianity is about rules and winning and instead of about a change of heart that leads to righteousness expressed, as Scritpure says, in “loving your neighbour as yourself.”
29Victor on May 16, 2008 at 3:25 AM
Comment pages: « 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 »