Breaking: California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage; Update: Opinion-skimming analysis added!
posted at 1:11 pm on May 15, 2008 by Allahpundit
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?
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: « Previous 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »
Pot, meet kettle.
29Victor on May 16, 2008 at 3:27 AM
SaintOlaf, reading May 16, 2008 at 12:16 AM, I have to ask (and I mean these things sincerely):
1) Are you an Christian Perfectionist or Entire Sanctificationalist?
2) Which do you believe is the greater (or perhaps only) source of human temptation: the heart of man, or demons/Satan?
29Victor on May 16, 2008 at 3:36 AM
Oh, and
Is purely a poor, KJV translation. All other English Bibles translate “converting” as “refreshing” or “restoring” or “giving strength to” or somesuch. It is part of a parallelism that continues in the next verse “The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart.” And has absolutely nothing to do with salvation.
And anyway, to think that the word “converting” as translated in 1611 would have the same meaning as it does to a modern Christian is just plain silly.
29Victor on May 16, 2008 at 3:45 AM
Sorry, forgot to point out above that (related to what I pointed out above above) the term “Law” to David would not have meant the “Ten Commandments.” It would have meant either the entire Mosaic Law (stretching from Exodous across into Deuteronomy) or, possibly, the entire Pentateuch or all of Scripture.
29Victor on May 16, 2008 at 3:49 AM
My response has told you nothing other than I love the Lord with all my heart, and want desperately to see people get saved so they don’t spend an eternity in hell. You have alot of nerve baldi trapsing in here with a “holier than thou” attitude criticizing your Christian brothers when they are using God’s Word correctly and in it’s proper context. And then when it is pointed out to you you have criticized your Christian brothers in error, instead of humbly saying, “y’know, maybe you have a point there apacalyps, or, I didn’t see that St. Olaf, thanks”, you continue to lash out at them. When Saint Olaf correctly said to you, “Nothing belongs to caesar in comparison with what belongs to God” (SaintOlaf on May 16, 2008 at 1:18 AM), You responded back to him:
Look, I don’t want to argue with you. These are Christians on the frontline of battle trying to save the lost. Maybe you should think about that for a moment before you criticize them on how they use the Law to bring the knowledge of sin. The Law was made for homosexuals, as well as other lawbreakers. Think about the bigger picture here baldilocks. This is not about you or me. It’s about them. Sorry if I came across a little strong. Let’s forget about it and move on.
apacalyps on May 16, 2008 at 4:24 AM
Now that I’m done with finals (yeah!), my two cents:
Let them get “married”. It’s not the responsibility of courts to restrict what institutions gays may/may not participate in, it’s the responsibility of Pastors, that if being gay is a sin, to not perform the ceremony.
PolitiNOOB on May 16, 2008 at 5:51 AM
A thread with 1000 posts!
Thats either shocking or awesome.
I vote awesome.
PolitiNOOB on May 16, 2008 at 5:53 AM
Most of what has been posted in this thread is off topic and sounds like a soap opera that could be titled “The Lonely Pastors Club.” “Sin” is nowhere defined in the constitution, all praise to the founding fathers, and thus the law should have nothing to do with legislating to prevent offending some cultish vengeful god: the last I heard there are at least a few U.S. citizens who are not christian fundamentalist loons. If their god is truly offended he should show up in person and say so. Sorry, no lunatic “I speak for god types” allowed. Until then let government by the rule of civil law prevail.
Annar on May 16, 2008 at 6:37 AM
29Victor,
God’s Law is written in your heart Vic.
If you break God’s Law you will know in all honesty that you did and that it is wrong.
God has said very clearly many times that He has written His Law in all man’s hearts.
There is no excuse.
Do you think that if you disobey that Law that it is not sin?
Or here’s a better question that will also answer most of your other questions to me……Do you think that it is possible for the Holy Spirit to stay in an unrighteous person and that those evil acts committed by the man are inspired by God?
Or do you think that if you sin the Holy Spirit will not flee from you?
You’ve entirely missed the point here….it is not the law that leads to sin…it is unregenerate man’s heart, lacking the Truth, and led by the demoniac that leads to sin(to answer your other question). Not the Law.
Yes. Seek and search the Word for Truth in the Spirit.
The Word of God is a deep ocean, with multiple layers of meaning and all Truth. Search it prayerfully in the Spirit,looking only for Truth, not to validate your own position.
Again back to the Law and depth of the Word….the ceremonial laws you quoted, all from leviticus are exactly that…ceremonial laws.
External ceremonial laws kept by the Jews, who only had the shadow of Christ at the time.
Why would we keep the ceremonial laws when we have the Holy Spirit dwelling within us now?
In fact it is offensive to God to practice the levitcan ceremonial laws….He has ripped the veil of the holiest of holies and dwells within the true believer today!
For that law was only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very image of the things!
We have the very image…we have the Holy Spirit Himself!
Your argument is a fallacious argument, used by non believers to try to trap believers.
Be careful not to downplay righteousness Vic.
Righteousness is vital.
Put this in your spirit…
It is righteousness that aligns the Son with the Father!
Jesus said:
If you run a dead power line (not connected to any source of power) above a live wire…if it is aligned above that wire… it will actually run power through that dead line just by being aligned above it!
What an amazing process!
God speaks the Word and the universe is brought into existence.
Jesus is the Word and maintains and upholds all things.
The Son can do nothing independently of the Father.
Righteousness aligns the Son with the Father and he is filled with the Holy Spirit.
Praise Jesus!
Righteousness is key Vic.
It is true saving faith that produces righteousness not vice-versa.
We’re praying for you too Annar.
SaintOlaf on May 16, 2008 at 7:36 AM
And you miss the point again. Regardless of your examples, marriage was still between a male and a female.
fossten on May 16, 2008 at 7:55 AM
Nope. But are you willing to admit that the government has indeed blurred the lines between the two?
fossten on May 16, 2008 at 7:58 AM
Personally, I can’t think of any reason to deny two people in love to be married. If someone doesn’t believe in gay marriage, don’t marry the same sex.(yes I know it’s a simplistic view, but not unrealistic) I know a gay couple that have adopted two children, and I see no significant difference in those children and others their age. Maybe the only difference I see is that they have TWO loving parrents at home. I can not deny anyone else that privilage.
oakpack on May 16, 2008 at 8:19 AM
This thread currently has 1006 Comments.
Only 1364 more to go to beat the record…
Red Pill on May 16, 2008 at 8:40 AM
A dog is property. What do you have against someone marrying their property?
csdeven on May 16, 2008 at 8:40 AM
Because God says it’s wrong. And people who honor God don’t honor what He says is wrong. (Yes, I know it’s a simplistic view, but not unrealistic).
Red Pill on May 16, 2008 at 8:43 AM
The reason the word “marriage” is so important to gays is because it gives them equal standing with hetro marriages. This allows them access to all sorts of insurance rates etc, but they cannot be discriminated against because they are gay. Gays, males especially, have much more serious health issues and this allows them to get the same rates as hetros even though they are in a higher risk group. Of course, you and I will pay the higher rates to subsidize them.
csdeven on May 16, 2008 at 8:44 AM
Methinks you’re the last guy who should be using this line of attack.
Yours and Olaf’s whole spiel is literally nothing but “holier than thou” condemnation.
e-pirate on May 16, 2008 at 8:46 AM
Good. Then because they are gay, insurance companies can charge them higher rates because their life styles are much more risky and they have a higher mortality rate.
csdeven on May 16, 2008 at 8:48 AM
Speaking of dogs, look what the dog dragged in. The guy who single-handedly brought down the Republican party by destroying what’s his name (?!) :)
Welcome back. What’s the mission this time?
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 8:48 AM
The ONLY reason I see that Gov’t has anything to do with marriage is to subsidize the creation of children and to assure those children are raised in a stable environment by the men and women who had those children. This ruling will effectively convert all Gov’t sanctioned “marriage” into civil unions or business partnerships (in the eyes of the Gov’t). Can plural or polygamous marriages be that far behind in court? Of course they will call for the same “right” to marriage and why not? If it’s just a business partnership, anybody can do that. Nowadays anyone who wants to be “married” can find some religious organization to “bless” that marriage. Insisting Gov’t is necessary to “bless” anything anybody wants to call “marriage” defeats what I think was the original intent of having the Gov’t involved in marriage in the first place.
rhombus on May 16, 2008 at 8:49 AM
Been hiding from Fred. I heard he had a hit out on me. ;-)
csdeven on May 16, 2008 at 8:52 AM
I wake up to see the debate still going strong. Wow!
In my original post, I next said that some historians have found evidence that the early Church blessed same sex unions. There is debate on that, but it has not been definitively disproven. The Church did not become so dogmatic about sexual relations among men until the beginning of the medieval period. Prior to that the classical attitude about same sex relations prevailed.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 8:53 AM
I didn’t realize that God is a congressman whose job it is to pass laws in our society. CIVIL marriage is not RELIGIOUS marriage. They are two different things. CIVIL marriage is a contract granting two people certain rights. I believe it is wrong for the government to determine who may or may not access those rights.
Nobody is trying to force a church to marry anybody in a RELIGIOUS marriage against their will.
If you do not like the term “marriage” used in a CIVIL context, then rename everybody’s marriage contract a “civil union” or some such thing.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 8:59 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’.
I don’t see it. At one time, I was against SSM. Now, not so much. The social fabric of my country was not rent asunder because two dudes could marry. They are looking for the same protections under the law that my wife and I have.
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.
Muslims make up less of a percentage of the population than gay people. I have a hard time thinking that Pat Robertson and his ilk are holding the best interests and safety of the homosexuals to heart. Interesting twist on the argument. I would say that if it pisses of fundamentalists of any religion, then it must be doing something right.
Also, it will be fascinating when the Blacks begin to request special ‘Affirmative Action’ rights from the growing Hispanic community.
What?
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.
Except, you know, for all that crap they did to suppress science, women, other races and crap like that. Things were pretty good if you were a white Christian male with property in the Dark and Middle ages. For the rest of ‘em, not so much.
The Enlightenment was a rejection of that White Christian crap. Of course, we can thank Muslims for retaining our birthright of science and philosophy after the White Christians burned and otherwise destroyed it.
ThackerAgency
Krydor on May 16, 2008 at 9:17 AM
It’s been 1 man and 1 woman since at least the 2nd century AD. Just read some of the rhetoric of the early church fathers. They do a lot of “trash talking” against the pagans(Tertellian(sic) paraphrase:”You share nothing but your wives, we share everything but our wives”). There is evidence of Christian same-sex ceremonies in Syria in about ~300AD, but those are thought to be for “blood brother” type relationships.
ninjapirate on May 16, 2008 at 9:29 AM
LOL. Love all those Asian/African/Eskimo/Inca/Maori Enlightenment figures.
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 9:32 AM
JiangxiDad,
You know as well as I do that the Enlightenment began when the works otherwise banned by the White Christians began to circulate once again.
Krydor on May 16, 2008 at 9:36 AM
I’m with apacalyps on this one.
As far as “converting” being a “bad” word choice in the KJV, here is what it is in Hebrew, the original language:
shuwb
1) to return, turn back
a) (Qal)
1) to turn back, return
a) to turn back
b) to return, come or go back
c) to return unto, go back, come back
d) of dying
e) of human relations (fig)
f) of spiritual relations (fig)
1) to turn back (from God), apostatise
2) to turn away (of God)
3) to turn back (to God), repent
4) turn back (from evil)
g) of inanimate things
h) in repetition
b) (Polel)
1) to bring back
2) to restore, refresh, repair (fig)
3) to lead away (enticingly)
4) to show turning, apostatise
c) (Pual) restored (participle)
d) (Hiphil) to cause to return, bring back
1) to bring back, allow to return, put back, draw back, give back, restore, relinquish, give in payment
2) to bring back, refresh, restore
3) to bring back, report to, answer
4) to bring back, make requital, pay (as recompense)
5) to turn back or backward, repel, defeat, repulse, hinder, reject, refuse
6) to turn away (face), turn toward
7) to turn against
8) to bring back to mind
9) to show a turning away
10) to reverse, revoke
e) (Hophal) to be returned, be restored, be brought back
f) (Pulal) brought back
According to the Hebrew word, “converting” will work.
Here is what several different dictionaries say about “convert.”
Looks to me like “converting” is a perfectly acceptable word.
abcurtis on May 16, 2008 at 9:41 AM
Krydor:
What are “White Christians” and what works are you talking about that were banned?
abcurtis on May 16, 2008 at 9:42 AM
The social fabric of the country aside, what about simple right and wrong? Is it perfectly natural for two men to marry, or two women for that matter. What is the purpose of marriage? Leaving the Bible out, it’s for procreation – the propagation of the species. If homosexuality was natural, then evolution (for those of you who believe in evolution) would have put an end to the human species many, many years ago. But we “evolved” male and female didnt we? So even leaving God out of the equation, human evolution just would not work with male-on-male or female-on-female.
Now, for those who believe, let’s put God into the equation. He says in the OT that homosexuality is an abomination. In the NT he says it is a sin, like any other sin that will keep the sinner from Heaven. Marriage is between one man and one woman, (Genesis Chapter 3) for the purpose of propagating and taking dominion on the earth. Again, if homosexuality is normal, then why did God create male and female? Two males or two females in the Garden would have ended the human species right there. Homosexuality is an aberration from the natural, plain and simple.
And yeah, I know the arguments about homosexual traits being seen in the animal kingdom. Humans are not animals, period.
abcurtis on May 16, 2008 at 9:50 AM
The White Christians come from Thacker Agency. Everything is fine when there are white Christians out and about, abcurtis.
What works am I talking about? Anything the White Christians (Roman Catholic Church) found to be heretical or contradictory to the Bible was destroyed. The reintroduction of these things lessened the power of the church.
The USA is a unique country in that it was founded on principles decidedly not Christian, and the Founding Fathers (specifically, Adams and Jefferson) were quite clear on that.
Krydor on May 16, 2008 at 9:52 AM
abcurtis,
Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with procreation.
Krydor on May 16, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Assume for a moment that the primary cause of the Enlightenment was the return of books previously banned by white people. Even if true (although not), who brought them back. Who are the famous figures of the Enlightenment? What does the Lib’s bible say about it?
But I get your central point. Whites f’d up everything (Christians mostly, right), others were victims who wisely saved us all.
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 9:53 AM
One other thing. As far as the social fabric of this country, I’ve seen it seriously decline since the free-wheeling sexual decade of the 60′s. The saying then was “if it feels good, do it.” Look at what we have now. Children without fathers, something like 50 million (I dont think anybody knows the real number) abortions, sexual predators on children, over 1000 std’s many have no cure, marriages broken through adultery and pornography.
So dont tell me SSM wont affect the country. We are reaping what we’ve sown from the 60′s on and as long as we sew seeds of destruction, that’s exactly what we will reap.
And I’ll say this, and you can brand me a religious lunatic if you want, but God is going to judge this nation. I pray He has mercy because we certainly dont deserve it.
abcurtis on May 16, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Well, I guess that depends on what your worldview is.
abcurtis on May 16, 2008 at 9:57 AM
You just knew (or least anyone paying attention did) that this would turn into another KKK / Know Nothings thread.
corona on May 16, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Ok, krydor, I get your point.
abcurtis on May 16, 2008 at 9:58 AM
One other thing, krydor – it seems you have your worldview and I have mine, and never the twain shall meet.
abcurtis on May 16, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Abcurtis,
Well, I guess that depends on what your worldview is.
Nope, it depends on biological imperatives. I know plenty of human beings who are unmarried yet managed to have children. Marriage is unnecessary to fulfill the function of pregnancy and birth.
JiangxiDad
The return of otherwise banned works led to the resurgence of the West. That’s just fact. Who banned them is also a matter of public record.
Krydor on May 16, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Judicial Tyranny!!!
STAY HOME ’08
DfDeportation on May 16, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Assuming you are correct, this refutes the argument that marriage has always been between a man and a woman. My argument is that marriage has changed drastically over the centuries, and this last change will not destroy the institution.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Their are a huge number of thing people do that put them at higher risks for sickness and death.
Are you willing to propose that all manner of activities, by hetero’s as well, be carefully scrutinized by insurance companies to reduce insurance rates? How about promiscuous single hetero’s? Or is it just the homosexuals?
How much intrusion into individual lifestyle would you tolerate?
SouthernDem on May 16, 2008 at 10:12 AM
their = there. Hate it when I do that.
SouthernDem on May 16, 2008 at 10:12 AM
This decision has nothing whatsoever to do with religion — except as it applies to the secular religion that is becoming the national religion, courtesy of the tyrants in black robes.
There has never been a recognition of same-sex unions as a marriage in any major civilization in the history of the world. Therefore, opposition to same-sex marriage cannot be termed the position of any particular religion. It is, rather, the near-universal position of the human race, until recent madness set in.
The claim that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle determined by nature is a triumph of faith over fact. There has been no major scientific research establishing this; the claim that homosexuality even has a genetic component, let alone is completely determined by genetics, is razor-thin. It was accepted uncritically by a social movement that is philosophically committed to legitimizing homosexuality as part of its agenda of radical egalitarianism.
And today, despite explicit legislative initiatives stating the will of the voting public (1977 and 2000), the court is jamming that initiative down the public’s throats.
Advocates of the separation of church and state should, if they were logically consistent, be coming down universally against the California Supreme Court. However, since intellectual consistency is as far from the social advocates of radical egalitarianism as the east is from the west, they will abandon their commitment to a secular state and applaud this affront to human liberty.
Hypocrites. You deserve the tyranny you are applauding.
philwynk on May 16, 2008 at 10:13 AM
I’m not interested in fight over religion, but I would just like to mention that assertion is false. Adams’s worldview was decidedly Calvanistic, his distrust of man and the assumption that he held his entire life (resultant from his early religious philosophy) was that man would garner power to himself whenever possible so that a checks and balances system was absolutely necessary. His MA Constitution is the precursor to the US Constitution. Our checks and balances system is due to Adams and due to his Calvanistic beliefs.
Jefferson, who famously excerpted all of the miracles and supernatural events out of the New Testament, called Jesus the world’s greatest philosophy, etc. The tenets of the NT certainly did influence Jefferson, regardless of Jefferson’s views of the supernatural.
Jefferson, near the end of his life, berates people always putting words in his mouth regarding religion. Of all the public people who have lived in this country, I can’t think of a single one that held his religious views so privately. He lambasted clergy, etc quite frequently because he thought the influence of state-religion (like what was in England) was about the worst thing possible, but that is totally separate from religion itself – which is why he was such a champion for religious liberty.
And Adams denied any Christian influence, not because it wasn’t present, but because he preferred to think (due to his ego) that his thinking was his own. He was a genius to be sure, but not a genius that footnoted his work, if you will allow the metaphor.
Spirit of 1776 on May 16, 2008 at 10:13 AM
philosophy = philosopher; apologies
Spirit of 1776 on May 16, 2008 at 10:14 AM
If marriage is solely about procreation, then laws must prohibit infertile or post-menapausal women from marrying. Procreation is one reason to encourage marriage, but it is not the defining reason. Furthermore, scientific study has shown that many animal species exhibit exlusive homosexual behavior. Homosexuality can be argued to be a natural activity.
You are correct that if any species evolved to become completely homosexual, the species would die out. However, what if a certain percentage tended toward homosexuality the same way a small percentage show the recessive genes of green eyes or bright red hair?
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 10:15 AM
This statement is ignorant of history. Completely false.
Fjordman: Islam, the Greeks and the Scientific Revolution, part 1
Fjordman: Islam, the Greeks and the Scientific Revolution, part 2
Fjordman: Islam, the Greeks and the Scientific Revolution, part 3
aengus on May 16, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Sheer bullshit, from an interpreter too biased to read accurately.
Which ones?
I’ll bet a fair amount of money that the quote-mined crap you produce in defense of this claim specifies churches and ecclesiastical institutions, and not the moral and ethical requirements of Christian faith.
And whether they made such a claim or not (I’m fairly sure they did not), the simple fact is that they were swimming in an ocean of culture created by Christianity, and could not have produced a Constitution uninfluenced by Christianity if that had been the fondest desire of their secular hearts.
philwynk on May 16, 2008 at 10:21 AM
“Tyrants in black robes?” Drama queen! You may really believe your hyperbolic statement, but I will remind you that the California legislature voted not once but twice for SSM. This vote came after the 2000 Prop 22 initiative voted for by the people. If the people of CA strongly objected to SSM, they could have voted their reps out after their first vote in favor of SSM.
At least in CA, you cannot argue that SSM was forced upon the state by “tyrants in black robes.”
As an aside, would you describe the U.S. Supreme Court as tyrants in black robes? After all, they ended the debate between Gore and Bush that gave Bush the presidency.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Homosexuality is a birth defect. Something didn’t develop properly in the brain while being a fetus. Homosexuality is not normal. If homosexuals are 10% of the population, and that is a big number, then that alone says it is not the norm. IMHO.
cjs1943 on May 16, 2008 at 10:25 AM
You’ve made this about yourself, sir. And though you have styled yourself as some sort of Christian warriors, you and Saint Olaf are harming the Body of Christ rather than helping it using scripture to do it. And I will not be silent while you do it.
baldilocks on May 16, 2008 at 10:28 AM
No credible scientist or doctor would agree with you. This statement is at best sheer ignorance or at worst mean-spirited bigotry.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 10:32 AM
This is disingenuous nonsense. You would know better if you wanted to. You’re trying very, very hard NOT to recognize what every honest interpreter would know.
The primary legal and historical reason for a public protection and subsidy of marriage is the protection of procreation and child-rearing. Of course the people who passed the laws recognized that some couples will not reproduce; they were neither stupid nor blind. But they recognized those instances as exceptions, not major categories, and they agreed to subsidize them out of respect for the institution, not because of sentimental public recognition of “the sanctity of love” or some similar pap.
In the cultures where such laws were born (note the plural, “cultures” — it’s not just the West, it’s every culture on the face of the planet) couples desired to reproduce, it was considered more or less of an obligation, and the failure to succeed in doing so was regarded as a curse. It’s been only fairly recently in the West, where affluence has made us selfish and lazy and human-hating philosophies have poisoned the public conscience, that couples have actually CHOSEN not to reproduce.
philwynk on May 16, 2008 at 10:33 AM
As far as I can tell gay marriage hurts absolutely no one. Can anyone give me a specific example of how gay marriage will hurt them? I really want to understand why this matters to so many people. Say you’re married (to someone of the opposite sex) and someone else you’ve never met gets married (to someone of the same sex), what difference does it make in your life?
RightOFLeft on May 16, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Bravo!
Red Pill on May 16, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Incorrect. And you should make both the “ignorance” and the “bigotry” charges in the mirror.
There was once general agreement in the scientific community that homosexuality was a compulsive sexual disorder. No major scientific research or discovery has overturned that assessment; a great deal of political posturing has convinced a majority of social scientists (but by no means ALL of them) to change their assessment of it. Cjs1943 understands this, and has added some recent research that suggests that there’s a developmental component affecting sexual desire for the individual’s own gender.
I don’t mind a different point of view; I do, however, mind a pretense that your political and philosophical commitment to egalitarianism constitute some sort of triumph of reason over ignorance and science over superstition, especially when the facts are exactly contrary to your self-important, arrogant preening.
philwynk on May 16, 2008 at 10:40 AM
The primary legal and historical reason for a public protection and subsidy of marriage is the protection of procreation and child-rearing. Of course the people who passed the laws recognized that some couples will not reproduce; they were neither stupid nor blind. But they recognized those instances as exceptions, not major categories, and they agreed to subsidize them out of respect for the institution, not because of sentimental public recognition of “the sanctity of love” or some similar pap.
In the cultures where such laws were born (note the plural, “cultures” — it’s not just the West, it’s every culture on the face of the planet) couples desired to reproduce, it was considered more or less of an obligation, and the failure to succeed in doing so was regarded as a curse. It’s been only fairly recently in the West, where affluence has made us selfish and lazy and human-hating philosophies have poisoned the public conscience, that couples have actually CHOSEN not to reproduce.
philwynk on May 16, 2008 at 10:33 AM
You only only partially correct. Procreation was an important reason for the development of the institution of marriage, but it was not the only reason. It was also a property contract. A woman, her father’s property, passed from her father’s control to her new husband’s control in exchange for other property (a dowry).
Regardless of the historical development of marriage, legislators and judges must interpret the institution for 2008. Societies change. Laws change to adapt to the new realities.
True, homosexual couples cannot procreate on their own. They can certainly adopt, however. This makes them no different from an infertile heterosexual couple.
Therefore, no lawyer who has argued the SSM issue on either side has used procreation as the sole reason for or against SSM.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Just some examples…
Full Acceptance Will Be Mandatory
Speech Control Is Next:
•Swedish Pastor threatened with jail
•Canadian activists successfully passed C-250
•“Children need a mom and dad” = Hate Speech
Red Pill on May 16, 2008 at 10:48 AM
From where I sit, it hurts the gays engaging in it the most. Research establishes that the average gay is compulsive, depressed, anxious, and likely to die of any one of a number of debilitating diseases (a great deal more likely than if he or she was straight but a smoker, actually). If, as a great deal of research suggests, homosexuality is a compulsive and life-threatening sexual disorder, then public recognition of it as normal has the effect of locking the homosexual into a lifestyle which will probably kill them early in life.
Not today, but soon, the law will take the recognition of gay marriage and produce a right for gays to adopt children; at which point a number of children will be consigned to life in a grotesquely dysfunctional family system, saddled with gender role confusion, and a great deal more likely than normally at risk of sexual abuse (3x more likely to be sexually used, and I’m guessing 20 or more times more likely to be exposed to pornography and/or parents’ sexual predelictions).
Is that harm enough for you?
philwynk on May 16, 2008 at 10:49 AM
There was once general agreement in the scientific community that homosexuality was a compulsive sexual disorder. No major scientific research or discovery has overturned that assessment; a great deal of political posturing has convinced a majority of social scientists (but by no means ALL of them) to change their assessment of it.
philwynk on May 16, 2008 at 10:40 AM
There was also agreement in the scientific community at one time that the world was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth. All major professional mental health organizations have gone on record to affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition (DSM II). The action was taken following a review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts in the field. The experts found that homosexuality does not meet the criteria to be considered a mental illness.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Proof? Are these the same researchers that are trying to persuade the scientific community that the earth is only 6,000 years old or some other such mumbo jumbo?
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 10:53 AM
I wish I could say that I’m surprised a thread about gay marriage has been hijacked by a bunch of Christian wankers.
For the last time – gay marriage doesn’t affect you, it doesn’t affect your children, it doesn’t affect your piddling little god. You are bigots. Stop embarassing real conservatives with your childish superstitious nonsense.
Congratulations to the California Supreme Court, hopefully this can never be undone.
Enrique on May 16, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Thank you for confirming my point that homosexual adoption was next on the agenda.
If you examine the psycho-social profile of the average homosexual couple, and compare it to the profile of the average infertile heterosexual couple, you will find that they are very, VERY different. So different, in fact, that I would consider any legislature allowing homosexuals to adopt children to be criminally negligent. It would be like allowing a pair of acknowledged alcoholics, not in recovery, to adopt a child.
philwynk on May 16, 2008 at 10:55 AM
To all you fundamentalist Christians out there who are trying to impose your narrow view upon the rest of us, how is what you are doing any different than what Muslims in Europe are trying to do by enacting various forms of Sharia law? You are arguing that a majority of people should decide the SSM issue. Let the rights of the minority be damned. Well, once Muslims are the majority in European countries, shouldn’t they be able to enact their views?
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 10:59 AM
What agenda are you talking about? Do you honestly believe gays get together over coffee to plan some nefarious agenda?
News flash for you…gays already adopt all over this country. In fact, they often adopt the crack babies, minorities, and cast offs that good-hearted fundamentalist Christians will never touch.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Indeed: “primary” not sole reason.
On the contrary, impotence and infertility were considered barriers to contracting marriage both in matters of law and religion. Furthermore, you are ignoring chaste marriages, wherein the husband and wife do not engage in sexual intercourse. This was known since at least the 2nd century BC in both Judaism and later Christianity. Any wonder that St. Paul’s ideal was celibacy and not marriage?
JohnAGJ on May 16, 2008 at 11:04 AM
I thought that’s what most people now do believe, that being gay is determined before birth. What did he say wrong, using the word “defect?” Now I don’t believe it’s determined before birth, so I don’t buy the argument. But I thought he was stating the majority opinion, seriously.
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 11:06 AM
I asked how it hurts you, specifically.
Public recognition (I think what you mean is acceptance) can only improve the health outlook for homosexuals. It encourages monogamy and openness, and would eliminate a tremendous amount of social stress.
I didn’t ask about gay adoption, so I really don’t see why you’re bringing it up. If the risks you suggest are real, that would be compelling enough reason to oppose gay adoption. I’d be interested in seeing the most recent research that’s been done. Just a note: slippery slope – don’t know why, but this confuses people – it’s a logical fallacy.
RightOFLeft on May 16, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Thanks Aengus. I knew I had read that somewhere, forgot it was fjordman. (btw, see what’s happening to him over at lgf? Wow!)
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 11:08 AM
I take exception to the word “defect” because I believe his intent was to use it pejoratively and condescendingly.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 11:11 AM
What a NON ISSUE! Gay marrage has been legal in Mass for what 2 or 3 years now. It it’s impact on my life 0, nada! nothing! I know plenty of Gay people and NONE of them have bothered to get married. A hell of a lot of hoopla over nothing.
Masscon on May 16, 2008 at 11:13 AM
aengus on May 16, 2008 at 10:17 AM
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 11:13 AM
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 10:59 AM
The same will happen here with, perhaps a 10 to 15 year delay due to the Mexican immigration situation (almost all Catholics). Very soon Muslims will outnumber Jews in the U.S. and if they congregate and reproduce like their European cousins, they become a swing vote in local elections and that influence will grow to one on national policy in much the same way as the Black and Hispanic groups have set the agenda of the identity politics driven Dhimmicrat Party.
Annar on May 16, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Sorry, last comment was for DCGamer.
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Dude, we can’t even stop the KKK from sponsoring adopt-a-highway signs. Don’t worry, your first amendment right to tell everyone how much you hate homosexuality is safe.
RightOFLeft on May 16, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Annar on May 16, 2008 at 11:13 AM
I definitely do not support Muslims’ enacting Sharia Law. I think the government should be absolutely neutral on religious issues. Many of the people here are arguing against SSM on religious grounds. That is why I believe their arguments are wrong. Give me a non-religious reason why the state should disallow SSM.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 11:18 AM
I was wondering. You had me baffled.
No harm done.
aengus on May 16, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Krydor on May 16, 2008 at 9:17 AM
Here’s the thing, if it weren’t for White Christians, there wouldn’t be America. If there wasn’t America, you wouldn’t be able to bash White Christians. There are getting to be less and less white Christians. Some see that as a good thing. I see it as an Atlas Shrugged thing. I’ve been bashed all my life for being white in the South. I’m at the point now where I don’t care. I’ve seen society go downhill and I just don’t care anymore. Don’t come to the white Christians when it all falls apart for help.
Other countries still have slavery. Other countries still have oppression and human rights abuses. Not America. And it isn’t because of anyone but white Christians.
Again I get called a bigot for not thinking we should grant special privileges to a group based on what they do. It opens the door to lots of things that you might not think is appropriate.
And this shows your ignorance of actuarial tables and how they work. HEALTH Insurance companies ask if you skydive, they ask if you have traffic tickets or accidents, they ask if you smoke, they ask if you are a race car driver. They SHOULD ask if you are a homosexual because it is MUCH more likely that homosexuals get AIDS than any other group of people. However explaining that FACT is considered ‘hate speech’ by the gay community. It’s as though they WANT everyone to be at a greater risk for AIDS. It’s akin to an organization promoting smoking and the courts saying that they should be allowed to do it.
Anyway, ultimately homosexuality is a greater public health risk than smoking ever was. You can’t give someone else lung cancer, but you can give someone else AIDS. Truth be damned though because it is necessary that GAYS FEEL GOOD at the expense of the health of society.
And OBVIOUSLY I’m a religious bigot for saying that. Just don’t ask the white Christian community to save you from yourselves when we get to the point of no return.
ThackerAgency on May 16, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Actually, I’m beginning to worry about a trend in the other western democracies (Canada and EU) to block hate speech. Look what Steyn is going through now, or somebody like Oriana Fallaci or even Bridget Bardot in France. Those kinds of influences arrive here via their socialist brethren.
As others have pointed out in this thread, the CA court’s decision to nullify the will of the people can be used in areas other than homosexual marriage. Even our humble Dem. candidate, Barak Obama, said during one of the debates that local governments have the power to regulate your 2nd amendment rights. Can you imagine an American politician believing a county, for example, can modify the Constitution? Insanity. It’s not such a stretch to imagine the CA nitwits disallowing hateful speech.
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 11:20 AM
That is precisely the language of those who want to “Defeat the Ultra-Right“.
Red Pill on May 16, 2008 at 11:20 AM
But they will, and when they do, you know who the gay community will come to to get them to quit it? The white Christians that homosexuals hate so much for allowing them to do whatever they want. Guess what, in 20 years there will be a gay person in a sharia area of America on trial for homosexuality. The Christian community will say – TOO BAD! STATES RIGHTS!
ThackerAgency on May 16, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Sweet, so you think a 40 year old guy and a 15 year old boy who are in love…
Or how about a 40 year old step-father and a 13 year old girl…
There are two examples that you would embrace.
right2bright on May 16, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Yes.
Barack Obama intentionally misquoted the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States in his “A More Perfect Union” speech. (“We the People
of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union“)Can we trust a man who so blatantly alters the words of the Constitution to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”?
No, we can’t.
No, we can’t!
Red Pill on May 16, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Don’t be an idiot, he was obviously referring to two consenting adults.
Savage on May 16, 2008 at 11:28 AM
What other outcome was possible? You see democracy’s faults and excesses and flaws. It’s why they choose Putin in Russia. So will we one day. Your most noble impulses are for freedom for all. Even for those who just end up throwing it away. I have reluctantly decided that benevolent dictatorship, is arguably as good, as least to the extent that it provides security, and has staying power. Also, there’s the whole issue of just having been born at this point in time to witness the decline. It was always happening I think, just not noticeable–like aging usually is. But sometimes it bites you in the ass.
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Actually, I’m beginning to worry about a trend in the other western democracies (Canada and EU) to block hate speech. Look what Steyn is going through now, or somebody like Oriana Fallaci or even Bridget Bardot in France. Those kinds
Ok, I agree completely that any possibility of a “Star Chamber” situation in the U.S. is positively chilling. We have to protect our 1st amendment rights at all costs, even if it means allowing speech that any reasonable person would find abhorrent. I think the political history of free speech is a little different here than in Canada or Europe, and I honestly can’t see Americans (even liberals) backing away an inch from our speech rights. We’re not doing as well protecting our second amendment, but that’s another story.
I don’t know California law, or law in general, but it seems like the proposition was legitimately unconstitutional – according to California’s constitution. I’m not going to touch the judicial activism angle because I haven’t given it enough thought yet…
RightOFLeft on May 16, 2008 at 11:29 AM
This is a tough topic to handle without inflaming people’s passions, but I feel it’s my duty as an American to help get this baby over 2000 posts, so here goes: I think the central problem with the gay-marriage debate is a general confusion over the difference between accepting a behavior, and venerating it. To use a less emotionally charged metaphor, we understand that proclaiming Tiger Woods to be the world’s greatest golfer does not imply that other golfers are hopelessly inferior; to acclaim Stephen Hawking as the world’s smartest man does not mean other men are mental defectives. I believe society has an interest in venerating and celebrating the traditional family. Traditional marriage is the tool by which these families are forged. The real battleground here is the family. After all, very few of the gay activists pushing the gay-marriage agenda have the slightest genuine respect for traditional, religiously consecrated marriage ceremonies, and would participate in them primarily to mock or deconstruct them. I support the civil union concept because I have no animosity toward homosexuals, and believe they should have the same right to enter legally and officially recognized personal contracts as everyone else. However, I strongly oppose calling this “marriage” or making any assertion that it is equivalent to marriage. This is not because I look down upon lasting relationships between gay people, but rather because I celebrate and cherish the importance of men and women marrying and forming families, and I believe society’s interest in celebrating traditional marriage does not have to be viewed as an insult to gay people. As to why traditional marriage is so important, I think those who suggest procreation are on the right track, but slightly off target: it’s the formation and strengthening of family bonds, which in turn provide the building blocks of a responsible democracy. It is difficult to function as free people without a sense of absolute trust in those closest to you, and the blood relationships of family and clan are the best mechanism for creating those networks of trust. The family has stood the test of ages as the foundation for civilization, and while traditional families are not universally perfect (nothing in human society is) they are vastly superior to any other alternative that post-modernist theories have produced. Gay relationships, unmarried hetero couples cohabiting, communes… all of these things have proven ephemeral. We all know that blood is thicker than water, and it turns out to be thicker than the ink on legal contracts, too. Membership in a family is the best way to encourage the most people to become responsible citizens, able to think beyond their own needs and make responsible decisions as voters in a democracy. I would go as far as pointing out that the rise of irresponsible liberal socialism tracks very closely with the “sexual revolution” and the decline of respect and celebration for traditional marriage. The voter who lives without the bonds of a supporting family, and a sense of family honor, is more likely to view government as a source of handouts and benefits. The traditional family is not a perfect solution to this problem… but it is the best one, far and away. Somewhere during the last forty years, we became so obsessed with seeing the problems of marriage and family that we lost sight of their virtues, and that’s how we arrived at a moment when many of us don’t even know what “marriage” means any more, or believe it to be completely meaningless.
Doctor Zero on May 16, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Lemme guess: the thoroughly discredited “research” of Paul Cameron with a touch of NARTH thrown in are your “sources”? Besides, you should rejoice at these “facts” since they “prove” how awesome your god is and that the lil’ buggers won’t be around for long.
You’re not keeping up with the news: gays adopting children is already legal in 8 U.S. states (including California), almost all of Canada, 7 European countries (including the UK) and Israel.
; at which point a number of children will be consigned to life in a grotesquely dysfunctional family system, saddled with gender role confusion, and a great deal more likely than normally at risk of sexual abuse (3x more likely to be sexually used, and I’m guessing 20 or more times more likely to be exposed to pornography and/or parents’ sexual predelictions).
JohnAGJ on May 16, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Oh, please, your self-pity is nauseating. I, too, am a white Christian. I am not bashing you for being a white Christian. I am debating you on the civil issue of SSM. Please realize that your fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible is only one interpretation. There are other Christian denominations that disagree with you. Whether you are right or wrong will be determined by your Creator. All I ask is that you do not try to impose your hard-line interpretation on me.
As for your nihilistic viewpoint that this country is going downhill, do you realize that ancient Roman writers said the same thing? People from the beginning of time liked to harken back to a simpler, golden-age when everything was so much better. This is mytholody. Things have never been as good as they are now. You are lucky to be living in the greatest country on the Earth and you are complaining? This world is not perfect, nor will it ever be, but the beauty of God’s creation is still very much evident.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 11:31 AM
In neither of your examples are both parties adults. If the 15yo loves the older man, he can wait 3 years to be married. The other example is more squeemish, yes, and I think it’s wrong, but it’s not incestual (a bad choice in marriage by the mother though).
If you’re going to throw out objections, throw out something legally feasible.
the goddess anna on May 16, 2008 at 11:31 AM
yep. It’s the ultimate irony. Never before has the life of people who consider themselves a sexual minority been better. Same of course for the feminists, who have nothing to say about Islam. It will all come crashing down. You know it, I know it. I’d just like to find some high ground for my loved ones when it does? Got any ideas?
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Doctor Zero on May 16, 2008 at 11:30 AM
You made some good points, but your post was difficult to read. Next time please use paragraphs to break up the text.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 11:36 AM
This “circular firing squad” attitude is why Christians and conservatives are losing freedom to the monolithic liberals.
fossten on May 16, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Well said.
To the person insinuating that children of gay parents turn out pretty much frakked up, I take exception to that. I’m the only child of gay parents I know of that had a horrible childhood – and there’s little proof it was soley because of my mother’s sexual preferences (it was more to do with her horrible taste in partners, something straight women suffer from too). Children of gay parents nowadays have it a hell of a lot easier than I ever did too.
the goddess anna on May 16, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Bravo. Best comment so far.
aengus on May 16, 2008 at 11:37 AM
A Labour MP in Britain justifed Labour’s policy on single parenting and gay adoptions by saying that he had been raised by his sister and had turned out fine and therefore non-traditional families should be promoted. This became their poilicy. The result has been a complete disaster.
aengus on May 16, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Which is why it is futile to discuss Biblicial interpretation here.
Your really long post reveals that the Hebrew word “scuwb” means “to restore,” as in “to bring back to something that already existed.” Which is how it is interpreted in every English Bible except the KJV.
The definitions in the link you provide for “convert,” on the other hand, have to do with transforming into something new.
One is restoration, the other is transformation. But, because you approach the verse with preconcieved notions and refuse to interpret it how it was intended, the verse winds up saying what you want it to say even tho the definitions that you, yourself, provide indicate that the KJV translation is inadequate.
Even if the Hebrew word handn’t been looked up, the interpretation is obvious from the context, from the parallel structure of the poem. But, as is often the case here, the context was ignored by the quoter, the meaning of the verse not nearly as important as its usefullness (when taken out of context) to prove a point.
29Victor on May 16, 2008 at 11:43 AM
What do you propose? I am a conservative on many issues, but I very much disagree with your position on SSM. I believe SSM is the conservative position (for the reasons I listed many times above). I will still vote for the Republican candidate, even though we would probably disagree on the issue of SSM.
If you read other threads here, though, you will find many social and religious conservatives refusing to vote for McCain because they think he is not conservative enough. Their non-vote is essentially a vote for Obama. They complain because he is not a “true” conservative, but yet they will allow the election of the most liberal Senator in Congress. Makes me question their motive.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »