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 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 14 »
bingo!! because its all about ‘taking care’ of the christians….
right4life on May 15, 2008 at 1:41 PM
There is nothing wrong with the state setting up structures to provide a dependable environment for children.
pedestrian on May 15, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Uh, it does matter. The Court said the law defining marriage as between a man and a woman only violated the California Constitution. Now, there is an initiative to amend the California Constitution on the fall ballot.
Blake on May 15, 2008 at 1:42 PM
So if the fine folks of SC don’t want to allow interacial marriage, that’s ok.?
Humm, I don’t think it ended up that way.
stenwin77 on May 15, 2008 at 1:42 PM
its only ’social engineering’ when its for a conservative goal….
right4life on May 15, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Since this is likely to be on the November CA ballot as an amendment to the State Constitution, it is very likely that the people of CA will override the State Supreme Court’s ruling today.
This is truly legislation from the bench since CA’s voters already determined (60.1% voting in favor) to define legal marriage as between one man and one woman.
Oh, can anyone point me to the specific clause in the CA State Constitution that provides a ‘fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship’ where that relationship is defined as a marriage? This seems as creative in logic as the Massachusetts Supreme Court making a similar discovery of a fundamental right that had been ignored for nearly 300 years. And based on this ruling, where is the limitation to have multiple members of that family relationship or the limitations of the family relationship to humans?
Athos on May 15, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Apparently you have never read the verse in this “old fable book” of yours I call the Holy Bible that speaks on the circle of the earth
ConservativePartyNow on May 15, 2008 at 1:43 PM
A religious wedding ceremony does not marry you in the eyes of the government. Signing a piece of paper with the state does.
lorien1973 on May 15, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Probably not. The Boy Scout case from a few years ago interpreting the negative right to association under the US Constitution (i.e. private organizations cannot be made to associate with people the don’t want to - also a case about homosexuals) should preclude any such liability.
BananaSlug on May 15, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Our courts have whatever authority they claim to have. The Massachusetts Supreme Court indicated that its decision was not reversible by constitutional amendment; the court said it would strike such an amendment as a violation of the existing provisions of the state constitution. I imagine the California Supreme Court would take a similar view.
paul006 on May 15, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Well said. These people make their own choices and expect us to be OK with it. Why aren’t drugs legal, people choose to do drugs all the time without consequence to anybody else. . . yet the government decides they can THROW YOU IN JAIL for choosing that.
ThackerAgency on May 15, 2008 at 1:44 PM
I think the founding fathers would be glad to see the Court protect minority rights against tyranny of the majority.
crr6 on May 15, 2008 at 1:44 PM
and?
right4life on May 15, 2008 at 1:44 PM
I guess the upside is that there will now be no gays in Nevada (if there were any to begin with).
ggoofer on May 15, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Ah….guys/gals…..Ian is a fixture here. What’s up with bagging one of our favorite guest bloggers?
Limerick on May 15, 2008 at 1:45 PM
marriage isn’t a ‘right’ sorry. what we have a is a tyranny of a well-funded, very influential minority, just like a normal communist country.
right4life on May 15, 2008 at 1:45 PM
churches cannot be forced to hold religious ceremonies. This is an entirely civil matter. As previously stated, there is a negative right of association.
lorien1973 on May 15, 2008 at 1:45 PM
These gay activists are going to turn me into polygamy activists.
ninjapirate on May 15, 2008 at 1:45 PM
If a supermajority of South Carolinians voted against interracial marriages being given state recognition, that’s SC’s problem. Would some people move away from there? Yep. Would interracial couples choose to not get a state sanctioned marriage? Possibly.
Why should I care?
funky chicken on May 15, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Anyways, it’s threads like this that make me sad to be a conservative. The argument against this is purely superstitious and biblical. It has very little to do with reality and real people.
lorien1973 on May 15, 2008 at 1:46 PM
churches cannot be forced to hold religious ceremonies. This is an entirely civil matter. As previously stated, there is a negative right of association.
they can be forced to hire gays, and give adoptions to gays…so why not?
right4life on May 15, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Yeah both sides of the “argument” are whacked out of their mind. You have the left trying to push hate crime stuff. You have the so called right wing calling themselves conservatives when they really want to maintain married couples a protected class so to say, giving them special benefits that single people do not have. To me that is the same train of thought as affirmative action, hate crime legislation, etc.
LevStrauss on May 15, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Churches don’t adopt. Single people can adopt a child too. I’d much rather have a child in a gay marriage household than moving from foster parent to foster parent till its 18 or whatever.
You are not forced hire “gays” - you simply cannot say “im not hiring you because you are gay”. If you don’t get the difference, I’m sorry.
lorien1973 on May 15, 2008 at 1:48 PM
so what people you disagree with is ’superstition’ but of course what the gays say is ‘true’ sure. you sound just like a typical condescending liberal.
truth is that this is just another part of the ‘gay agenda’ that will silence all opposition to their political goals. and yes its all about recruiting the next generation of gays because no one is born gay.
right4life on May 15, 2008 at 1:48 PM
The gay mafia lobbied Chief Justice George to have any California atty who belonged to the Boy Scouts disbarred based on the argument that it was membership in a discriminatory organization and against the state bar rules. They actually have a law in SF that says no city employee can belong to a discriminatory organization and got some poor judge to resign from his membership in the BSA. They’re jackasses.
Blake on May 15, 2008 at 1:48 PM
stenwin, uh, your analogy was exactly wrong anyway. CA was not providing state sanction to marriages because some (most?) folks think that the adult, consenting parters are weird because of the person they chose as life partner.
An anti-miscegenation law would be the same thing, right?
funky chicken on May 15, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Marriage isn’t a right.
Darth Executor on May 15, 2008 at 1:49 PM
I like the slippery slope argument being brought up here. If gay marriage means that in a few years polygamy will be legal, sign me up. I could use another husband to do the handiwork that needs to be done, and another wife or two to keep up with the kids, laundry, and dishes! The bonus - I’d be the first wife, so I get more say, right?
the goddess anna on May 15, 2008 at 1:50 PM
Nobody cares what happens in California (except, ahem, Californians). You think gay marriage is a national earthmover because people are angry that some guy is wearing a wedding dress in San Francisco?
Gay marriage is a national issue because the writing is on the judicial wall for the gay movement. They can establish one or two states where gay marriage is legal, then force other states to accept it through the various germane Constitutional clauses that mandate states respect the legal authority of over states (IS Commerce, Equal Protection, among others).
On the contrary. There’s a much better legal case that can be made for polygamy than gay marriage rights. Why should polygamy be illegal? It’s a natural marriage to facilitate the production of children and their collective fostering. Experts can be trotted out to attest to the benefits of growing up with a whole harem of mommies. It’s everything positive about a normal marriage, except with more than one woman.
And “it’s illegal”? Please. Did anyone in the country think gay marriage was something other than an oxymoron just 25 years ago?
If you don’t believe the slippery slope argument, you haven’t been paying attention to the rest of the planet. Either marriage means something, or it means nothing.
I’m all for giving gays (or anyone else) the right to enter into contracts with another person that give them whatever reciprocal rights they want, including all the legal rights of marriage. But that’s not what this movement is about. It’s not about securing rights, but about demanding universal recognition. It’s about getting “Heather Has Two Mommies” read aloud in every kindergarten.
HitNRun on May 15, 2008 at 1:50 PM
I really don’t care about this issue. Adults are capable of making their own personal decisions. But If this is in fact the new definition of marriage, it’s time to get the state out of it altogether and let it be strictly a matter of contract between the involved parties.
Gilda on May 15, 2008 at 1:50 PM
but of courses churches that say homosexuality is sinful, must be bent to the will of the tyrannical minority. oh I get the ‘difference’ some pigs are more equal than others.
what a ‘tolerant’ little tyranny you wish to impose upon us.
right4life on May 15, 2008 at 1:50 PM
they twist and twist, and rationalize, and eventually they come up with 172 pages that they think justify the result they wanted in the first place. Lawyers/Judges suck.
kirkill on May 15, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Yeah, well, so was gay marriage, correct?
Nineball on May 15, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Er…of “other” states, sorry.
HitNRun on May 15, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Do you not agree that you are more likely to contract AIDS if you are a gay man? Like SIGNIFICANTLY more likely? SCIENTIFICALLY?
It isn’t superstitious and Biblical, it is HISTORICAL, CULTURAL. It is government supporting poor choices.
Why do these people ‘need’ to be ‘married’? Isn’t it enough that they do what they want to do? Why do they feel a need for approval of their deviant behavior.
As I’ve always said, I actually support this because I’m going to start lobbying for polygamy. Why would you have a problem with polygamy (which is natural) if you don’t have a problem with homosexual marriage (which is un natural and by definition could not have EVOLVED).
ThackerAgency on May 15, 2008 at 1:51 PM
I would doubt that they would see this in that manner. Given the fact that same-sex couples in CA had the legal standing of domestic partnerships, the only restriction was the inability to use the term marriage. When did a person’s supposedly private sexual preference become a ‘right’ to be protected as race, religion, and ethnicity?
This is yet another case of the progressives using an inflated issue to push their agenda - just as the pressure to list polar bears as endangered to stop any more oil development in Arctic and gain economic redistribution in the mantra of ‘global warming’.
Athos on May 15, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Does this mean that if I move to california I can marry myself?
Darth Executor on May 15, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Don’t we have religious freedom here? It’s not just Christians. Many religious individuals and churches view homosexuality as a sin.
Esthier on May 15, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Excellent analysis HnR!
kirkill on May 15, 2008 at 1:53 PM
The outset of the opinion says that the court seeks
That being the difference between California’s designation of marriage vs. domestice partnership. Of which, between the two, as the court admits in its opinion, there is very little difference.
PresidenToor on May 15, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Yes and no. Contract law, for the most part, provides that each party must have the capacity to contract (which means that contracts with minors, and people with mental incapacities are voidable). Also, animals are not able to consent and legally contract. Additionally, contracts that involve acts forbidden by law are (in most, if not all states) void and unenforceable - most states have legal consent laws that apply to minors, which would likely make a marriage between a 45 year old and a 5 year old illegal and thus void and unenforceable. However, you are right in that this opens the door to re-evaluate these concepts, and many of these people that want to marry with kids, dogs, multiple people will be next in line to make their argument.
Rick on May 15, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Completely appropriate, if the voters choose to do so.
funky chicken on May 15, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Who is imposing what? Why does it bother you if 2 dudes wanna get married? Is it really any of your business at all? Nope. So why are you in a tuff about it?
Conservatives should let people run their own lives, as they see fit. If they are not sucking on my tax dollars, and infringing on my right to lead my own life. What do I care what they are doing?
lorien1973 on May 15, 2008 at 1:54 PM
NO! You’ll go BLIND!
kirkill on May 15, 2008 at 1:54 PM
I hate polar bears and think they should all be hunted down and killed with extreme prejudice.
Darth Executor on May 15, 2008 at 1:54 PM
We all love Ian but that doesn’t mean we can’t beat the crap out of him sometimes when he is WRONG, like in this thread for example. Ian just called all non-gays bigots…. did you catch that? That’s not the clear thinking Ian I know…. where is the real Ian?
Maxx on May 15, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Forget churches, let see them try to sue a mosque
ConservativePartyNow on May 15, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Lorien:
Exactly where did you come up with the proposition that marriage has to be between TWO (2) consenting adults????? How did you arrive at the number 2.. Where did that come from?
I’d be very interested to hear your explanation.
alwyr on May 15, 2008 at 1:56 PM
I’ve said for a long time that if they’re going to change marriage to include homosexual relationships that they should just start from scratch instead and change “marriage” into a legal contract that can be signed by anyone who can legally sign a contract, no matter the race, gender or number of people signing.
I’d even argue the same for incest. We have no laws against couples who carry genetic diseases from having children. Ignoring moral issues, incest should be no different.
Esthier on May 15, 2008 at 1:56 PM
I really do not have a problem with Gays marrying..
What I do have a problem with is the WAY they overrode the clearly mandated will of the people.
We purport ouselves to at least give lip service to being a democracy, and yet a small group of unelected people are now dictating Public Policy.
Marriage a RIGHT? I don’t see it… Marriage is a social and legal contract.
Live together is you want… sleep with whom you want, but the LEGAL priveleges, and problems, with marriage should be left to the state to decide.
Hmmm… actualy, this opens another can of worms for the Government… and one which the Polygamists are already exploiting… just when are you married, and what legaly does that mean?
Romeo13 on May 15, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Rick, you said
But we are talking about California
ConservativePartyNow on May 15, 2008 at 1:57 PM
trying to control other states isn’t very conservative….republicans should take the position of not caring, and letting individual states decide what they want to do. there should be no federal mandate for, or against on the national level. the current position makes republicans and conservatives look like a bunch of bigots..when in reality, most aren’t. let’s focus on bigger issues. not who can marry who.
therightwinger on May 15, 2008 at 1:57 PM
lol, yeah, it’s called a commune….I guess that would be a commune with benefits or something
funky chicken on May 15, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Your argument doesn’t make sense. Marriage (gay or otherwise) sucks on your tax dolalrs. EXTENDING it to even more people sucks even more of your tax dolalrs, so I don’t see why any fiscal conservative would support it. Of course, I think you’re just preteding to care about the fiscal issue when in reality you just support their cause more than you care about your tax dollars and lack the balls to admit it.
Darth Executor on May 15, 2008 at 1:57 PM
“Favorites” probably trumps seniority rights.
sloopy on May 15, 2008 at 1:57 PM
And the hits just keep on coming
Wade on May 15, 2008 at 1:57 PM
My God!
Now any two consenting adults can enter a contract giving them tax breaks and the ability to make medical decisions for their partner!
Civilization ends!
SouthernDem on May 15, 2008 at 1:58 PM
its about much more than that, and to try to limit it to ‘2 dudes’ is disengenous to say the least. its about a whole range of ‘hate crime’ laws, making it illegal for churches to refuse to hire gays, making it illegal to say anything that may offend a gay person….basically its about setting up a gay sharia type of law in this country, that allows no opposition of any sort to the homosexual agenda.
and yes it is my business when the homosexuals want to preach their agenda to my children. and force their views upon all of us.
maybe gays should do the same. instead of trying to pass thought control laws, and enact their political agenda.
right4life on May 15, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Yak yak threads
1. Evolution
2. Abortion
3. Gay marriage
See ya. Gotta souffle recipe that needs tweaking. I’ll post the results later. Keep marriage out of my kitchen while I’m gone.
Limerick on May 15, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Why are you talking about polygamy when we are talking about gay marriage? Is your only issue with gay marriage “what comes next?”
Just look at the recent history of polygamy in this country (the texas case comes to mind as well as others) and see why it’s not legal. One man cannot possibly, under normal circumstances, support 40 wives and 90 kids.
lorien1973 on May 15, 2008 at 1:59 PM
How about it’s because homosexual relations are basically JUST LIKE heterosexual relations for the most part.
You’re fairly ignorant of homosexuality, while at the same time being wildly stereotypical and judgmental of it.
Vyce on May 15, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Obtaining a marriage license is clearly not a right by definition. But if you want to live with someone no matter who it is without requiring the state’s stamp of approval which gives you tax breaks, then I think that is your right.
Maxx on May 15, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Sometimes - more and more, in fact - I get the feeling that Christians (we’re real, I assure you) are the ones that need protection.
So threads like this make me sad, too. I guess we have that much in common.
capitalist piglet on May 15, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Because, as simple as it sounds, we have defining words in our language. One of the them being marriage. I prefer to keep this word meaning man and woman. Why not say contract? The old analogy would be if I decided to call my dogs tail a leg, is he now a 5 legged dog?
Arnold already said he was for it (he was against it when running for Gov.), just call it a contract. That is what a legal society does, protect contracts.
They can re-write the tax laws that include a legal contract signifying unification of two people. And keep the word marriage to mean what it has always meant.
BTW, this means a man can “marry” a 16 year old boy…how nice, what do you want to bet NAMBLA was fully supportive of this bill.
right2bright on May 15, 2008 at 2:00 PM
I thought you were enlightened. Why does the man NEED to support 40 wives when all the wives can work too? The man doesn’t have to support anything, he just has to be THE MAN!
ThackerAgency on May 15, 2008 at 2:01 PM
In California it is.
crr6 on May 15, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Here’s what concerns me about these rulings, not the gay marriage itself, I’m fine with that and don’t get the hangup over teh gheys. Let consenting adults do what they want, as long as others don’t get forced to pay for it. I don’t think marriage should be a gov’t function anyway, leave it to individuals and religious institutions.
I just worry that this falls under the activist judge category, which could be just as easily used by any judge to restrict liberties next time around. I know I’m asking to be burned by supporting this because it’ll be abusive rulings on guns, voting, property or speech next time around if I support the precedent set by activist judges. If the voters in California or elsewhere want gay marriage, they should pass it in legislature or referendum, and I’ll be cool with it.
To me the gay marriage question in this case is a distraction to what is the most important thing, which is making sure we keep our government’s power in check.
doubleplusundead on May 15, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Polygamy is already legal in California, see Hugh Hefner.
he just doesn’t honor his women with a ceremony and ring.
jp on May 15, 2008 at 2:02 PM
In CA, there was already protections associated to same-sex relationships in terms of domestic partnerships. These extended the same legal benefits of marriage without the term marriage. So, what is the particular focus on having to have the term marriage as opposed to a legal standing called domestic partnership?
Athos on May 15, 2008 at 2:04 PM
You’re all missing the point. It’s about MONEY. My colleague can cover his domestic partner of 20 years under our company’s healthcare policy. But since they’re not ‘married’, they don’t get the benefits of being a ’spouse’ on some healthcare items, their taxes, etc. If the government will recognize them as ‘married’, they can file their taxes under that category, become eligible for a whole list of benefits provided only to ‘married couples’ that aren’t available to ‘domestic partners’, etc.
And leave religion out of this dialogue please.
Biffstir on May 15, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Doesn’t bother me as in England in the middle to late 1700s marriage as we know it wasn’t edged in stone. However, this gives Californians a huge reason to go out an vote. I say again, Cali goes for McCain.
Entelechy on May 15, 2008 at 2:04 PM
If this were a free country (or, more specifically, if California were a free state) that would sound like the world’s longest suicide note.
logis on May 15, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Yeah, that’s why I stated “most states” - California is a different world (along with a couple of other states).
Rick on May 15, 2008 at 2:04 PM
As we discussed; its not illegal to not hire a gay person. You simply cannot do it because he’s gay. Just like you cannot be fired because you’re a christian.
See the first amendment.
Puh-lease.
This is when your role as a parent comes into play doesn’t it? Your kids are subjected to all sorts of negative messages every day. Should goverment take care all that for you, too?
Seems to me that you are the only one investing in thought control here.
lorien1973 on May 15, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Well you know what they say,
vice is nice
but incest is best !
that’s right your honor, we’re just trying to start/have a close family relationship.
patrick neid on May 15, 2008 at 2:05 PM
You obviously do not have young children. I have already had the “pleasure” of explaining to my 9-year-old how her uncle is actually married to the man he lives with. He’s too scared to tell his own parents, but not my young daughter.
And then we get into them adopting children, and then the militant gay parents start insisting that the schools teach first graders that it’s OK to have two mommies or two daddies, they must be allowed to bring both “moms” in for Mother’s Day, we have to remove the words “bride” and “groom” from all schoolbooks, etc. etc. ad nauseam. And if your religion holds that this is all horribly immoral, you cannot keep your children away from it unless you homeschool or pay for Catholic school. And that leads to further Balkanization of our communities, NOT increased togetherness and tolerance.
No, it doesn’t hurt anyone at all.
rockmom on May 15, 2008 at 2:05 PM
What a completely vacuous statement — you’re not even listing the issues at stake, such as the majority voice overruled by ONE judge.
Thanks for showing the typical intellectual vacuity of folks on the left.
Richard Romano on May 15, 2008 at 2:05 PM
How many monogamous gays do you know? I know, umm, zero. And I know many gays. They are all polygamous. And they’re all basically sex addicts. That’s all it is. So special rights for sex addicts is how I see it. Call me a bigot if you must, but I don’t loathe gays, I loathe their behavior, the same as those teachers in Tampa, or priests in the Catholic Church who seduce children.
kirkill on May 15, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Dissent
ninjapirate on May 15, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Only based on the creative assumption of 4 judges.
I am still waiting to see where the CA constitution specifically defines the “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.”
Athos on May 15, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Pelosi, hardly a surpise…
right2bright on May 15, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Yeah, I’d like to know where the number 2 came from as well. I’m pretty sure I know and I’d like to see the contorted reasoning why 2 adults is the correct way to handle it but having marriage between a man and a woman isn’t correct.
Nineball on May 15, 2008 at 2:06 PM
So true, most of the parts don’t fit.
The State can’t add or subtract. See the massive budget deficit.
And now they are losing the ability to multiply.
Zaire67 on May 15, 2008 at 2:07 PM
A radical overturning of thousands of years of Western tradition dating back before Homer. But hey, 4 unelected lawyers mystically intuiting “human rights” from the ether can do whatever the voices in their heads tell them, right? Did they consult the oracle or read the entrails of a sacrificed goat to get this ruling?
This is yet another step by the aggresive cult of “Human Rights” to decontruct the history and traditions of Western civilization and rebuild a new utopia on its ruins. Where these rights come from and how they can be known are not questions us little people should worry about. Our betters, deep in mystic contemplation inside the Holy of Holies, have receive this wisdom from the great Beyond and are delivering it to us through their most profound Rulings. We should be grateful to finally know that the entire course of Western tradition since the dawn of time has been wrong and incorrect. Finally, we can bask in the warm glow of true knowledge of Human Rights until the next great Ruling descends upon us from on high.
I’m going to throw up now.
Vote Sauron 08 on May 15, 2008 at 2:07 PM
For those of you bashing California, why is it then that 1.7 million voted with you? I live here and Cali, except for SF and LA is pretty normal. And, actually LA is not that bad, compared to SF. This initiative will pass in your favor, not to worry.
Entelechy on May 15, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Faulty Premise.
Red Pill on May 15, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Here we go - from the published decision (pg 117):
sloopy on May 15, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Not if he wants to live to enjoy those favorites.
the goddess anna on May 15, 2008 at 2:08 PM
So you are certain that this is as far as it will go, and the Left will not use this as a base point from which to force a change in the policies and personal beliefs of private organizations and individuals? You must know a different Left Wing than I do.
Also, conservatives believe these laws of this magnitude should be changed by the legislature or popular vote, not the courts.
Nosferightu on May 15, 2008 at 2:08 PM
I just hope this brings us a step closer to lifting oppression against the real victims of hetero-patriarchy: we who practice the joys of inter-species love. Fido and I have been so very, very patient. Society must be freed from the narrow strictures of oppressive and failed hetero tyranny. I, for one, demand to be allowed to join in state recognized, poly-amorous matrimony with my golden retriever Fido, my neigbor’s goat and the squirrels in my backyard.
Django on May 15, 2008 at 2:08 PM
That’s uncalled for. Before hearing any bigoted attacks against gays the atheists were out attacking Christians preemptively. “The fabled book” the “born agains,” etc…
Some of you here make KOS kids seem deeply religious.
Why only two people?
I’ve never liked the tax break argument. I can’t speak about state taxes, but the federal taxes are not any less. In fact, if my husband and I were wealthy, we’d actually have to pay more in taxes as a couple than we would separately.
Esthier on May 15, 2008 at 2:10 PM
If only there was a large group of immigrants in California with conservative social values that would help pass a referendum to reverse this decision and help elect representatives who share our values.
pedestrian on May 15, 2008 at 2:10 PM
Once polygamy becomes legal, you can bet I’m going to start a business selling American citizenships. I figure I could marry 7 or 8 people a day (men or women) and I’d be ‘in love’ with them all so long as they pay me and become US citizens for my work.
There are all sorts of nuances to this law that ‘protects the rights of minorities’.
ThackerAgency on May 15, 2008 at 2:10 PM
I guess Rick Santorum was right.
newton on May 15, 2008 at 2:11 PM
I see how your position is reasonable, but how do you respond to this?
This woman’s experience with her kids mirrors many others. Young kids are involved in these decisions, even if you don’t automatically see that.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 2:11 PM
I like California, and feel for the people there. I am not bashing them, I am bashing the politicians and judges there, who ignore the will of the people routinely because they have their elitist views they feel they must impose on the collective.
Rick on May 15, 2008 at 2:11 PM
God’s example of a family relationship was Adam & Eve.
Not Adam & Steve.
God told Adam & Eve to “be fruitful and multiply”.
Adam & Steve can’t do that.
It’s pretty simple, actually.
Red Pill on May 15, 2008 at 2:12 PM
I think what concerns people about the church issue is that they wonder how long it will be before this is forced on the church, as it has been forced on a society that once rejected it (and that largely still does). As we know, these things are not necessarily static…just because they say it won’t impact the church today doesn’t mean they’ll remain satisfied with that.
capitalist piglet on May 15, 2008 at 2:13 PM
DPUD, you need reeducation my friend. The Great and Honorable Judges can do whatever they want and there’s hardly a thing any of us plebs can do about it. They are the Human Rights theocrats ruling our society. The only limits on their powers are the limits of Human Rights itself. Of course, since the nature and extent of these sacred Rights are only knowable to the priesthood, we are left at their mercy. Only they have the power to tell us the limits of their power. Nice.
How did we get here?
Vote Sauron 08 on May 15, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 14 »