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 »
Just watch. A whole bunch of Christians in CA will have to choose to move out of state, rather than facing all of the hits on them. First, the ruling against homeschooling, now this. What’s next? Lawsuits against churches for not marrying gays?
There already is a shirt out there that says “So Many Christians, So Few Lions.”
newton on May 15, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Which is what is going on. The statute explicitly stating that marriage is between a man/woman is gone, but if the voters approve an amendment saying it’s so; that’s what it’ll be.
And if voters eventually overturn that and say its between 2 adults, then thats what it’ll be as well.
Conservatives need to get out of the business of telling people how to run their lives; and focus on the only thing that really matters - small government economic policies. Small government makes all your fears of black helicopters and gay nazi thought police impossible - even if someone wanted it.
But pounding on these pointless social issues (evolution/creation, gay marriage) just makes the entire message look silly.
lorien1973 on May 15, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Under the 14th Amendment, by legitimizing non-traditional marriage, it opens up the door for polygamy and everything else. Equal protection under the law. Do we, as a society, want to start allowing other forms of marriage? Where does it end? How would it end, under the law, if there is supposed to be equal protection?
Weebork on May 15, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Infertile woman and guys who had a vasectomy can’t marry!
lorien1973 on May 15, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Juan McCain will shoot a hole in your entrepreneurial idea when he allows anyone and everyone to run across the border willy nilly. They won’t need to be citizens in order to get benefits.
fossten on May 15, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Richard Romano on May 15, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Listen I was speaking as to the issue itself, not the court ruling. I have not had time to read the brief to come to an opinion on it. Also if you look at many of the comments many seem less worried about the procedural nuances than the effect of the ruling.
LevStrauss on May 15, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Ouch, I saw that one coming. Don’t use that argument, folks.
fossten on May 15, 2008 at 2:16 PM
So now why is polygamy illegal? Or a man marrying his son? How about a step-father and the son. If the son is young, all he needs is a parents permission…oh wait, the perpetrator is the parent.
right2bright on May 15, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Basically they are saying the Legislation already passed domestic partnership laws so gay marriage should be allowed and damn the will of the people and what they voted for.
JeffinSac on May 15, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Here’s hoping that all of this is worked out.
There are much bigger problems to be faced.
sheesh
bridgetown on May 15, 2008 at 2:16 PM
lorien1973,
It was a law passed by the people of California. It was a proposition, which, when passed, is integrated into our state’s constitution. The state supreme court just cut that part of the constitution out.
What’s the point of passing laws the people want when a tiny bunch of people can throw it out because they don’t agree with it ideologically?
Weebork on May 15, 2008 at 2:17 PM
I and Dennis Prager have been right all along.
There is only one solution -
an amendment to to the U.S. Constitution.
corona on May 15, 2008 at 2:17 PM
BECAUSE such laws were written when one man was the breadwinner and the woman stayed at home and popped out babies. The mother needed legal support if her husband died to get money without penalty because women of the day rarely held jobs. If they had known what goofiness was going on today about how the state is necessary to legally codify the definition of LOVE the laws would’ve reflected that.. but they don’t because everyone at the time knew what Marriage was and how unskilled mothers needed to be financially protected.
Marriage between two adults (who are both capable of generating an income) don’t need such legal support. (And this goes for hetero couples too). You gonna raise kids, fine, but I think its time we recodify the laws to reflect neo-society and not whine about “equal rights” when they’re NOT.
Skywise on May 15, 2008 at 2:17 PM
I know (and am related to quite a few) about 100 gays/lesbians/whatever. My mother is the one I am closest to, and while she is not dating right now, she only dates one woman at a time. Her best friends have been partners for l0nger than I’ve been alive (26-27 years). My cousin is actually a celebate gay, has been for decades, because he has yet to find someone he genuinely loves. I know more polyamorous straights than I do gays, and that includes some of my closest friends (one always has 2-3 boyfriends she strings along).
Don’t let your abject hatred of gays blind you. There are gays that lead respectable lifestyles, and there are bad seeds. That goes for straight people too.
the goddess anna on May 15, 2008 at 2:17 PM
What’s next? Hopefully nihilism.
LevStrauss on May 15, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Now apply that thinking to a child molester who 1) claims that his sexual deviancy is immutable, 2) is able to function in society, and 3) is a target of prejudice.
Are we then not allowed to discriminate against them?
Red Pill on May 15, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Gag me with a purple spoon! Is it 1985 again and no one told me?
its vintage duh on May 15, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Militancy/Radicalism wins a round. Not a good day for America.
RushBaby on May 15, 2008 at 2:18 PM
What about bi-sexual people? Isn’t it discrimination if polygamy is illegal? I mean how can you be bi-sexual and deny your feelings toward the other sex if you marry ONE person? If a man marries a woman, but is bi-sexual, isn’t it discriminatory to deny his right to also marry a man at the same time?
I do love the law. It is what it is, and this precedent opens up a whole big ole can o worms.
ThackerAgency on May 15, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Infertile women can have children. It’s not even an outside chance any more.
Men with vasectomies still have sperm. That sperm can impregnate a woman.
Two women cannot impregnate one another. Ever.
Two men cannot impregnate one another. Ever.
spmat on May 15, 2008 at 2:18 PM
That line of reasoning reduces marriage to nothing more than a child-producing partnership. And that is an important part of marriage. But fertility is a blessing, not a command.
Remember what God said when he created Eve - “it is not good for man to be alone.” When I think about my slovenly bachelor days, truer words were never spoken.
Slublog on May 15, 2008 at 2:19 PM
You are right, of course.
Any guesses who is the only Presidential Candidate who supports that solution?
Red Pill on May 15, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Democracy defined. Right here. 51% of the people get to take away rights of the other 49%. The wisdom of the founding fathers rears its ugly head again. This is why we have a republic.
lorien1973 on May 15, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Actually, it was more like a unified “Fabulous”. I’m sure Gavin “Any Twosome” Newsom is throwing the party tonight.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on May 15, 2008 at 2:20 PM
A child molester is able to “function in society”? I don’t think you’re getting what they mean by “function.”
Allahpundit on May 15, 2008 at 2:20 PM
That’s a faulty argument. There are many Adam and Eves who can’t either. We don’t allow for marriage on the basis of producing offspring, nor do we force those who can have children to have them.
Esthier on May 15, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Your previous 2 examples are because of science.
Your other 2 examples are almost possible because of science.
When the last 2 are possible, your objection to this will be nullified I assume?
lorien1973 on May 15, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Is there any greater threat to our freedom then activist judges?
You miss the point, the judges overturned a huge majority vote (please don’t embarrass yourself and bring up the slave issue).
right2bright on May 15, 2008 at 2:22 PM
True, but marriage in these cases were allowed because women couldn’t hold jobs and thus needed a man to support them.
Skywise on May 15, 2008 at 2:22 PM
I decided two or so yrs ago not to care about this issue anymore. My marriage to my wife is not threatened. Only I can do that. We’re safe. I don’t profess to understand what causes gayness, but I do know that as conservatives, we send odd messages to them. We blame their promiscuity (and rightly so) for STDs and AIDS, and then when some of them want to settle down, we tell them NO. What is the message here? I don’t hear any conservatives telling them that they are sinners and need to “change”. The last person to do that on a national stage was Anita Bryant in the late 70’s. I’d rather they settle down. If they want a civil marriage to do so, fine with me.
Gartrip on May 15, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Oh no. Not again.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on May 15, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Gay marriage is so popular on Hot Air, in a record time, look how many comments were made so far.
Too bad bestiality is not that popular, I’m stuck in here with my German Shepherd. We can’t get married and we can’t get puppy support from the government for our four little babies.
I believe any creature on earth should have the right to get married and have intercourse.
Every five days a week, I have intercourse with Chinese food. It’s my right to marry an egg roll if I want to.
Now that bring us to the biggest question.
Can Humans marry Aliens?
I think: Yes.
We have a perfect example: Dennis Kucinich’s wife.
Indy Conservative on May 15, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Sorry, THAT IS NOT MONOGAMOUS! One at a time. WOOOT!
kirkill on May 15, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Well there is at least something that the gay haters can take solace in. And I see you haven’t been biting from the tree of knowledge.
LevStrauss on May 15, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Heck, homosexuality doesn’t even pass the categorical imperative. It does not deserve specific sanction by the state. It does not deserve specific protection under the law. It falls under the same societal rubric as prostitution, gambling, drugs, alcohol and other extraneous, non-constructive behaviors.
spmat on May 15, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Get it? Because having sex with food (which isn’t alive), animals (which aren’t of the same species and don’t have souls), and aliens (which don’t exist) is exactly the same as having sex with a consenting adult of your same species who has a soul and does exist.
its vintage duh on May 15, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Only AIDS Spreads as fast as comments on HA regarding gays.
kirkill on May 15, 2008 at 2:26 PM
kirkill on May 15, 2008 at 2:23 PM
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This mo·nog·a·my Audio Help (mə-nŏg’ə-mē) Pronunciation Key
n.
The practice or condition of having a single sexual partner during a period of time.
The practice or condition of being married to only one person at a time.
The practice of marrying only once in a lifetime.
Zoology The condition of having only one mate during a breeding season or during the breeding life of a pair.
Go woot yourself.
the goddess anna on May 15, 2008 at 2:26 PM
I hope you or the egg roll wears protection…: )
Rick on May 15, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Does gay marriage= polygamy= sharia? I don’t know and, well, neither does Canada, but it certainly doesn’t help.
link
link 2
DFCtomm on May 15, 2008 at 2:27 PM
A woman without a uterus (ie a hysterectomy) cannot have children at all. There are still plenty of cases where marriages have nothing to do with having children such as elderly couples.
Seriously, that’s not the argument that’s going to work for you.
What are you going to do, dissolve marriages that don’t produce children after a certain amount of time?
Esthier on May 15, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Seems like legislatures hide behind them. Since those legislatures are elected, it’s the people’s fault.
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 2:28 PM
I saw this comment on volokh’s blog.
http://volokh.com/posts/1210871784.shtml#370679
ninjapirate on May 15, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Conservatives have lost nearly every major ‘ethics’ battle since I was born. America is by and large socially liberal and any argument to the contrary ignores the fact that the horse has already left the barn. Abortion is legal. Gays will certainly earn the right nationwide to join the rest of us in the bliss of marriage (lucky them). The war on drugs is lost..lot’s of very successful boomers still smoking weed guys. Take my word for it.
People are asking how to fix the Republican party? I say, build a coalition based on our shared belief in Economic Conservatism. Lower taxes, less spending less government regulation. These are the principals that bind us most strongly.
DrW on May 15, 2008 at 2:28 PM
You stay classy.
its vintage duh on May 15, 2008 at 2:29 PM
What’s interesting in the decision is that there is “no compelling state interest in defining marriage as between one man and one woman.”
Open Door to polygamy.
If there is no compelling interest, polygamy and any other marriage arrangement is justified. To quote Mark Steyn, there were few takers in Toronto for gay marriage, many for polygamous marriage.
Prediction: you’ll see many Muslims demanding recognition of polygamy, AND welfare benefits as in Britain. You’ll also see the FLDS moving there, demanding welfare benefits and recognition as well.
If Steve and Mike want to get married, who cares? is the traditional pro-gay marriage argument. But there is no legal way to allow gay marriage and disallow polygamy. This seems to be the view of the Court and it’s going to be …
Rove you magnificent bastard.
Since the GOP can argue, gay marriage = legalized polygamy, welfare for the same, using Muslims in Britain and the FLDS (both of whom are unpopular) as explicit examples, and urging Americans to avoid the “British PC Multiculti disease.”
whiskey_199 on May 15, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Just what the GOP needs. Another losing issue that makes us look like a bunch of bigots. Wonderful.
therightwinger on May 15, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Food is creature. Plants breeze and die if you don’t take care of them.
Animals have lives, it doesn’t matter if they are or not from our same species. If I want to marry my dog, I should have the right to do it. Tell that to the woman who married a dolphin in Europe lately.
As for Aliens, they do exist. Dennis Kucinich is Martian and he married a Human.
Indy Conservative on May 15, 2008 at 2:31 PM
You’re really not one to talk about haters.
What? Are you trying to say that the only reasons childless marriages were allowed in the past was because women couldn’t support themselves?
I’m completely unaware that there was ever a requirement that marriages produce children. I’m confused.
Esthier on May 15, 2008 at 2:31 PM
While they have a chance, the illegal alien amnesty supporters in CA should grab an alien, doesn’t matter what kind or sex, and sign up for a marriage license. Instantly legal and probably Democrat. (sorry for giving them a clue).
Also, it is probably time to disassociate marriage contracts with religious marriage. The first should be called something other than marriage, “civil union” works for me, and could involve any two consenting adults for financial and legal considerations.
Religious marriage should be limited or open to whatever the religion you happen to enjoy accepts, incest, polygamy, and beastiology excluded, of course.
AZCON on May 15, 2008 at 2:31 PM
LMFAO!
the goddess anna on May 15, 2008 at 2:32 PM
I hear the significance to this happening in California is precisely due to the size of the state. Gay marriage being “legal” is not as important as the need for those interested to make gay marriage “normal”. This is all about changing minds. That’s why all the fuss is not about the legal stuff, which is already handled by domestic partnership laws, but with the desire to change the definition of “marriage”.
Once “marriage” is redefined, the ramifications are enormous. Any reference to marriage must not assume male/female; any reference to parents must not assume mom/dad. In fact, references specifically to male/male or female/female must then be added to all aspects of life just so it appears as if there is balance. Textbooks will be changed; curriculums will be developed to place emphasis on the gay lifestyle to “correct the errors of the past”. Special practices to favor those who have “historically been wronged” will be enacted to level the field. Anybody who dares voice the opinion (especially if based on religion) that there is anything wrong with gay unions, will be labeled as bigoted, intolerant, uneducated, and most likely criminal.
Of course, California will enact laws forbidding educational businesses to do business there unless they adhere to all of this (think textbooks and curricula companies). No multistate educational supply business can afford to write off a state as large as CA, so they will have to submit. This will spread the word to all other states that those businesses sell their product, thus helping to spread the agenda.
If “gay marriage” was not so important, why would its proponents be spending so much time and effort on it? It’s all about forcing their thoughts on the masses.
AverageJoe on May 15, 2008 at 2:32 PM
A quoted post from APRIL 1, 2005, on Free Republic. The fact that the first word/name is misspelled should have been a tip-off….
calbear on May 15, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Gah, yes, I know, its always For The Children(TM). Look, its up to you as a parent and voter to take control, if Big Gay Uncle Al can’t help but run his big fat gay mouth about his gayness in front of your kids when you really don’t want him to, then you’ve got to either deal with it or step up and tell Big Gay Uncle Al to keep it to himself or get lost. Legalizing or barring state-sanctioned gay marriage has no impact on this at all, you do as your child’s guardian.
If militant activists are trying to adversely effect curriculum by imposing their agenda, then you as an individual and as a group need to take the fight to them, and if necessary, to the school board, perhaps even running for school board and seizing control that way. We are free people still, with free voices and we have the franchise. Use them.
Again, the cultural issue is secondary, the Constitution and our liberty is what matters here, and it looks to me like the CA Court decided to just make sh*t up as it went along to justify the decision. I’m more worried about the precedent that sets for some Nanny Stater or leftist down the road who wants to restrict speech, property rights, or guns down the road.
doubleplusundead on May 15, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Watch all those people out in ElDorodo, Texas move out to California and ask for equal protection.
michaelo on May 15, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Has it ever donned on anyone that maybe the reason that there is widespread promiscuity in the gay community is that they have nothing to save themselves for?
its vintage duh on May 15, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Awesome, I can marry my sister, my brother, my uncle or my dad! Whoo Hoo! Gotta love logic!!
ihasurnominashun on May 15, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Missed you, even though it’s been only days :) Long live individuality!!!
Entelechy on May 15, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Get it? Because all of those things are not “marriage” which is a specifically defined word having it’s basis in various religions and societies.
I don’t care what you have sex with but that doesn’t mean it’s “marriage”. At least, it didn’t used to be that way…
Nineball on May 15, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Huh?
JetBoy on May 15, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Hence, you just made the argument for the global climate change hysteria. Enter the Algore….
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on May 15, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Thanks for the analysis, AP. No matter what our opinions are, crystalline clarity is reassuring.
RushBaby on May 15, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Oh believe me, yes. And I lubricate it with Wonton soup.
Indy Conservative on May 15, 2008 at 2:34 PM
I agree that fertility is a blessing
Marriage creates the environment for the creation and rearing of children. That does not mean that it is nothing more than a child-producing partnership. It does mean that sex should not happen outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
P.S. Congrats on your marriage. Marriage is one of the best things that ever happened to me, too.
Red Pill on May 15, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Sure, but they’re hardly compelling issues. You don’t get 1.1 million signatures on issues regarding taxes.
People are passionate about things they perceive as rights. They are passionate about what they perceive as affecting their children. And they are passionate about things that affect their beliefs, whether they be moral, religious or scientific beliefs.
These are the things that bring people to the polls.
Esthier on May 15, 2008 at 2:34 PM
I was afraid you’d say Hot & Sour.
Rick on May 15, 2008 at 2:36 PM
The end is near; the will of the people, majority rule, a nation of laws are just words , no longer do these phrases mean or stand for anything. The foundation of democracy is quickly eroding, the constant acceptance of liberal activist agendas that seek to equate moral relativism as the intellectual calculus by which majority opinion and beliefs are attacked and ultimately destroyed can only lead to anarchy. The belief that today’s decision somehow protects minority rights from the tyranny of the majority is totally absurd and in fact backwards. Yet again the tyranny of the minority dictates, trumps, pisses down the throat of the majority. One person one vote has become nothing more than a rhetorical joke, we have lost control of the process and are to weak or afraid to act. Bye-bye LGBT American Pie……..
dmann on May 15, 2008 at 2:36 PM
How about early 1990s?
doubleplusundead on May 15, 2008 at 2:36 PM
No, science is not necessary for the other two to happen. Their probability is very slight, but it still exists and is possible only because of the underlying biological design.
The latter two are only possible insofar as the parties under consideration become the opposite sex. I.e., a woman’s egg must be inseminated by another woman’s genetic material; two eggs do not make a baby. For two men, the idea is humorous and creepy no matter what the mechanic.
Essentially, your point is that both child bearing and child rearing is an asexual affair. That fails both the biological and the logical laugh test.
Eventually we’ll be able to mix human and sheep genetic material. I guess that means marrying sheep will be a moral imperative as well? I mean, they can’t help the fact that they love their livestock… and who are you to say that those sheep don’t love them back?
Spare me the righteous indignation.
spmat on May 15, 2008 at 2:36 PM
What everyone is missing……
Will this be good for Michelle Obama’s children?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on May 15, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Add robust national defense and constructionist judges and I’m with you all the way.
Not that social issues are unimportant, they are, but most should not be within the government’s official scope.
Gilda on May 15, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Indy Conservative on May 15, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Still wiping off laughing tears. What a blessing you are to this blog, and to this world.
Entelechy on May 15, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Get me out of here!
baldilocks on May 15, 2008 at 2:37 PM
The zubas were the best uniforms for the arena football league.
lorien1973 on May 15, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Heh. No.
Red Pill on May 15, 2008 at 2:39 PM
I wanna marry my llama!
Akzed on May 15, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Undoubtedly where it is going.
I disagree with the Constitutional Amendment though. I don’t think marriage should be in the power of the government unless we concede it is a political institution. Which I do not.
Spirit of 1776 on May 15, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Those are the principles that bind us most weakly. When the Republican party has no other issues than fiscal ones, then it is dead. There is no faith in fiscal policy. Fiscal policy doesn’t inspire, or motivate.
From time to time in our history parties have disappeared This is about to happen again, and I use to think it was the Democrats who would disappear, but lately, I have come to realize that it is the Republican party that is not long for this world.
DFCtomm on May 15, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Allah, experience in Britain has shown that rapists and child molesters have sued and won the right to be placed in public housing near children with no notification, under “civil rights” so the idea that the government has no compelling interest in prohibiting certain things is a slippery slope in Britain.
I would not be sanguine about this issue. I think the argument can and should be made by Reps that this is indeed a slippery slope for child molesters and rapists as well. Britain’s experience should be cited specifically and the tendency of Judges to manufacture rights for criminals (along with Dem pols) should be highlighted for the public to judge for themselves.
whiskey_199 on May 15, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Absolutely, with Gay marriage there is no worry that they will be punished with a baby!
ihasurnominashun on May 15, 2008 at 2:40 PM
No. If a person, whether gay or not, can’t save him/herself for that one person without a sheet of paper telling him/her that their union is recognized, then that person is an idiot.
I’d agree with you, but if the state is asserting that homosexuals should be granted the same “rights” as heterosexuals, then what argument can you use for keeping “My Two Mommies” out of a government school?
By banning curriculum like that, aren’t you then treating gays as though they are less than heterosexuals? And isn’t treating homosexual marriages as anything but completely equal to and as acceptable as heterosexual marriage also treating homosexuals as less than heterosexuals?
I’m genuinely asking. I really don’t see how a state can assert that equality and then turn around and accept a petition against them.
Esthier on May 15, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Rick on May 15, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Glad you clarified. As you were :)
Entelechy on May 15, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Its not illegal if you do it in the Secular arena. See Hugh Hefner, benefiting from the Secular Theocracy we live in.
jp on May 15, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Ace of Spades DrewM. wrote that the CA Supreme Court is basing its decision on ipse dixit.
maverick muse on May 15, 2008 at 2:43 PM
I do not hate gays. I do not hate the homosexuals that I have been friends with since college. Sure, we have very different views of the world, but I don’t hate them, and they don’t hate me.
Love. Jesus taught it. You should try it.
I already know where you’re headed with the replies. Try your best not to be immature.
Red Pill on May 15, 2008 at 2:44 PM
I think Bugs Bunny sawed off the wrong state.
hillbillyjim on May 15, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Wisdom of Family Guy…
For you Indy Conservative
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on May 15, 2008 at 2:44 PM
That’s Ace himself, adding to the original fwiw.
Spirit of 1776 on May 15, 2008 at 2:44 PM
No, I don’t like Hot & Sour. At least not on the egg roll.
I prefer Beef Stick for butt-plugging.
Because I’m sweet and I like sweet stuff.
Indy Conservative on May 15, 2008 at 2:45 PM
WOOOT WOOOT! Yep, so only in an orgy is a person not monogamous.
I’ll take definition #3 thank you: The practice of marrying only once in a lifetime.
kirkill on May 15, 2008 at 2:45 PM
And that’s why I love Family Guy. An appropriate quote for every occasion.
the goddess anna on May 15, 2008 at 2:46 PM
I say that with my Absolute Moral Authority card in my back pocket. Haven’t you noticed that it’s hard to find a guy who’s actually looking for something long-term? I just always thought part of it might be a mindset of not having anything to look forward to. Once you are dating someone, that’s about as high as the relationship can go.
its vintage duh on May 15, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Are you comparing two consenting adults to predatory child rapists? Get a grip.
ronsfi on May 15, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Great idea! Just have to hope polygamy precedes amnesty.
Spirit of 1776 on May 15, 2008 at 2:48 PM
That’s up to those who don’t want it in their schools to figure out. If that means taking the school board in elections and creating a local voucher program for private schools, where you are more to make your own curriculum, then that’s what it means. This is up to you as parents and communities, and about how far you are willing to take things to see that your child isn’t raised in a manner you disapprove of. Again, liberty is yours only if you’re willing to take it.
doubleplusundead on May 15, 2008 at 2:49 PM
There you go again!
Who gonna pay for my broken mirror now?
I told you: stop inflating me.
Every time you do it, I French kiss myself in the mirror. My tongue get stuck and I break the goddamn mirror trying to unglue my swollen tongue.
Indy Conservative on May 15, 2008 at 2:49 PM
First off, the fact that a woman has her uterus proves that she at one point had a uterus. No man, if he is a man, has a uterus. Besides, even if that woman were to miraculously get pregnant, she did not have to change sexes to do so; she only had to regrow something that she naturally would have anyway.
Besides, that some benefit by meeting the base qualifications for the underlying justification for marriage as an institution does not prove that those qualifications are somehow wrong or faulty.
Marriage is about the production of and continued support of families in an optimal way. Two men cannot produce a family. They cannot rear them optimally, either. Children are reared optimally by a man and a woman. The institution of a marriage, as define by the union of a man and a woman, is something that society has a vested interest in supporting. It meets all standards of supportable social behavior. It’s spec. The redefinition of marriage to include any other types of unions is sub-optimal at best and counter-productive at worst.
Society gains nothing from same-sex marriage. It’s extraneous and not worth the effort it will take to support it as an institution.
spmat on May 15, 2008 at 2:50 PM
And has been established here, one of the goals of “gay marriage” is to further marginalize Christianity in America. And the other that has been pointed out are the financial benefits of marriage.
kirkill on May 15, 2008 at 2:51 PM
That’s great…it was so believable that you are the only one to comment.
right2bright on May 15, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 14 »