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 »
Well, pick and choose all you want. A gay person can’t really marry for life if it’s illegal, now can they? How awfully convienent for you.
Obviously, because there are several definitions for monogamy (I went to dictionary.com for reference), we’re both correct here. I somehow doubt you’d agree…
the goddess anna on May 15, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Absolutely correct.
Django on May 15, 2008 at 2:52 PM
All I know is Miss Hooter’s international contest is in town tonight and I hope they are ALL gay and ALL married to each other and they invite me along to play.
ThackerAgency on May 15, 2008 at 2:53 PM
“Woe unto them that call evil good…” Isaiah 5:20
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness…” Romans 1:26-29
Go ahead folks, eviscerate me. I don’t care. God said it, I didn’t.
Nolamom67 on May 15, 2008 at 2:53 PM
“Go forth and multiply…”
???
as Mark Steyn note in his famous book, the Post-Christian west is built on the need for the Christian Family to survive and reproduce. Instead the Family is in decline and the West has declining birth rates with loads of Welfare to be paid by people who don’t exist.
So, what do you do? In Europe you take Immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East, muslims. Here we are taking the Mexicans and hispanics from the South.
jp on May 15, 2008 at 2:54 PM
WOOF!! WOOF!!
You made my dog happy.
Wanna join us for a threesome?
Indy Conservative on May 15, 2008 at 2:55 PM
This is about what one would expect from the People’s Republic of California. However, the real problem is the monolithic, dictatorial, activist court system in this country. The will of the people no longer matters. It has been replaced by a system of courts that operate in their own best interests and without respect for the value systems of the populace. Until the courts are dismantled, reconfigured and brought under control of the people, things will continue to get worse. It’s a sad day for the Repubic.
rplat on May 15, 2008 at 2:55 PM
I would beg to differ with your statement. Polygamy is not just one man and 40 wives. It can be one man, 4 wives, 12 kids, with only one stay at home mom. That would be 4 incomes supporting the family. There are many advantages and disadvantages.
Then there is Bill Gates, all 40 of his wives can be stay at home moms. ;-)
PrettyD_Vicious on May 15, 2008 at 2:56 PM
I oppose domestic partnerships but support civil unions. The reason is that the first implies a family unit (your 99 yards) but the second is simply a legal relationship between two unrelated individuals. Gays have always pushed for marriage by pulling on your heartstrings with scenarios like the deathbed where the lover is denied entry because of no legal relationship. Civil unions solves that without sanctioning their lifestyle. For example, if two widowed women want to live out their golden years together, they could get a civil union to be “next of kin” for legal purposes and this does not imply an intimate relationship. Civil unions get gays everything they want except formal recognition of their relationship. They only want that last yard to stick it to us, as it were. I only came to that last conclusion after reading about last year’s Folsom street fair, which featured vendors selling “Baby Jesus” butt plugs.
Kafir on May 15, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Taking that miracle aside, what if she doesn’t want children? Does that make the marriage null?
Esthier on May 15, 2008 at 2:57 PM
How many wives did Saddam have? Bin Laden?
jp on May 15, 2008 at 2:58 PM
They could all be Hooters girls, or in Hef’s case, Playboy bunnies. PIMPIN AIN’T EASY!
ThackerAgency on May 15, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Depends. What does the b!tch look like?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on May 15, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Jeremiah 26:18 - Micah the Morasthite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and spake to all the people of Judah, saying, Thus saith the LORD of hosts;
ZionAmerica shall be plowed like a field, andJerusalemher cities shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest.Pray for this Nation. I fear that, for her celebration of adultery, divorce, abortion and homosexuality, she, too, will be plowed like a field. For her embrace of immorality and degeneracy, she is going to be judged by God.
OhEssYouCowboys on May 15, 2008 at 3:01 PM
the goddess anna — Sorry I “woooted” you. But it really was funny from my point of view. Life is much more fun having different points of view. I’ll show you mine, if you show me yours.
kirkill on May 15, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Volokh on the slippery slope.
http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_05_11-2008_05_17.shtml#1210877596
ninjapirate on May 15, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Again, whether she wants children or not, she meets the base specifications for having them. She benefits from meeting those specifications, society loses nothing by allowing her to. Besides, she could change her mind, like millions of women do every year, at which point society gains both children and an optimal environment for their rearing.
Two men cannot meet those specifications. Ever.
That which is optimal deserves specific sanction and protection by the state. That which is sub-optimal deserves neither. It can receive sanction and/or protection under the law, but only as far as is necessary to protect the special status of the optimal.
spmat on May 15, 2008 at 3:05 PM
I’m okay with letting gays marry IF extending the laws to include same-sex marriage does not wind up leading to the legalization of polygamy, group marriages, etc. Unfortunately, I fear that might be the unintended consequence.
The other thing that should happen is if gays are allowed to marry then the domestic partnership option should be removed. That has probably done more to damage marriage by making it easy for heterosexuals to seek “marriage lite” than anything else. If both gays and straights have the option of marrying their partners there is no justification for extending marital benefits to unmarried couples.
Jill1066 on May 15, 2008 at 3:06 PM
The government has no right to decide what marriage is, since it is a religious concept. They want to regulate how people can legally interact, fine, but lay off the marriage talk. Those who push for gay marriage are not acting for or against government, but against religion, and everyone should wake up to that fact. The only reason gay marriage is an issue is to try and take the power of marriage from various religions and co-opt it.
Think_b4_speaking on May 15, 2008 at 3:06 PM
That’s a dynamite holding with ramifications that reach far beyond this particular case, or the particular issue of same-sex marriage. Adding “sexual orientation” to the small categories of classifications deserving judicial strict scrutiny cannot be justified by text or tradition either in the federal or California state constitution.
medguy on May 15, 2008 at 3:09 PM
I am the opposite, I am opposed to letting gays get married unless it leads to plural marriages.
ninjapirate on May 15, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Marriage is a legal relationship. Pastors, captains, justices of the peace, etc. are given the right to marry by the state.
Think before you speak.
spmat on May 15, 2008 at 3:11 PM
.
Wrong
Think_b4_speaking on May 15, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Change sinners.
Not to get all J. Wright on yall, but an open sodomite culture is not reason for God’s judgement… it is God’s judgement.
al sends
afterdarknesslight on May 15, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Dr, you’re another good one for Vive la Différence!
Entelechy on May 15, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Relative importance of things. I reserve the right to shift things around at my whim. Pretty sure the last two will stay about where they are.
Iran is about to get nukes.
Thousands of people are dying in Burma.
Genocide is occurring in Darfur.
Kim Jong Il has nukes now, and is sharing them with anyone who has cash.
A terrorist organization is taking over Lebanon.
Syria is trying to acquire WMDs of some type.
Hugo Chavez is desperately trying to start something..he’s just not sure what.
U.S. Government is trying to screw up energy policy even worse than is already has.
China had a big earthquake, lots of people died.
The sex slave trade is prospering world wide.
Honey bees are dying.
American Idol is losing viewers.
So is that other silly reality show where people get stuck together in some remote crap hole and vote each other off.
Republicans lost another seat in the house.
McCain made another really stupid speech.
Fred Thompson is blogging for Townhall.
Obama called a female reporter “Sweetie”.
A whole bunch of other important stuff.
California is going to let gays and lesbians marry.
Anything the U.N. does.
Oldnuke on May 15, 2008 at 3:14 PM
There are thousands of gays and former gays who are living proof that sexual orientation is NOT “immutable.”
The most important thing to note here is that there is no discrimination whatsoever. Gay men have the same rights as straight men when it comes to marrying a woman. A lesbian has just as much right to marry a man as a straight woman does. That may be too fine a distinction for some, but to claim discrimination? There isn’t any here. Any single man (regardless of his orientation) can marry any single woman (regardless of her orientation.) The same rules apply for straights and gays, so any charge of discrimination is legally false.
Beo on May 15, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Sure…but it’s really that guys in general, gay or straight, that don’t start out seeking long-term relationships. I just don’t see how gay marriage is any threat to the “institution” of marriage, nor does it adversly effect anyone else. Why would John and Mary be concerned if Ted and Bill get married? Why deny two people (and yes folks…two human beings would define marriage, not animals or polygamy) who want to get married that opportunity?
JetBoy on May 15, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Let me elaborate. Marriage is before God. The fact that states began to get into the business was just the beginning of the slippery slope. There are various legal alternatives to marriage, as are allowed in many states (same-sex parterships are one example). The petitioners in this case made clear that their goal was not legal parity, but in fact the word “marriage”. Once we opened the door to undercutting religion in this matter (similar to welfare), we began the slip into the ‘anything goes’ mentality that occurs under government control.
Think_b4_speaking on May 15, 2008 at 3:16 PM
You’d think he’d start with the Middle East.
SouthernDem on May 15, 2008 at 3:16 PM
If we were single taskers, your list is important. We are multi-taskers, with a huge work force, so we can do many of these things. And some are out of our control, so we pick our battles.
You can concentrate on your top 6, and others will concentrate on the next 6, etc. And they all can all be taken care of.
You see, I don’t have much say about North K. getting nukes, but something like the gay marriage I can have input in. Which is why you are posting on here, so you do have input. Did you write letters to your congressmen on each of the above items before posting?
right2bright on May 15, 2008 at 3:19 PM
If marriage is relgious, how exactly are two atheists married, then? Did marriage not exist in the Soviet Union?
Why are contracts signed?
Why is alimony guaranteed in absence of a pre-nup?
Why is it that pastors say, “By the right given me by the state of , I now pronounce you husband and wife” if they have that right already?
spmat on May 15, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Bah, I’m not even married. I have no dog in this hunt. Have fun folks.
spmat on May 15, 2008 at 3:20 PM
I lean toward your thinking. It could be taken care of with contracts and agreements. They wanted to change the word marriage, and get it out of the church’s hands.
right2bright on May 15, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Because the state co-opted the role of the churches. The states did not begin to require licenses until the 1920s in the US.
Think_b4_speaking on May 15, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Call it what you want, it’s still not “marriage”. And if it makes you feel better, you can call me any name you want.
GarandFan on May 15, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Actually god didn’t say it, because he’s not real.
JHC on May 15, 2008 at 3:25 PM
One of the final steps as we stumble into total and absolute decadence. Why not? The multicultural state should be neutral in all matters of personal behavior, broadly defined, or so our betters tell us and they are always right by definition. The dictatorship of relativism is upon us. If it fells good and doesn’t hurt anyone, do it. What possible limits can there be to personal freedom (except of course to the freedom of dissent to the regime of freedom)?
Legalized polygamy, prostitution, euthanasia, the removal of all moral limits on bio-research (since any notions of morality are specific to a culture and hence not neutral in a multicultural sense). Does anyone but a pure hedonist want to live in a state without any sense of public morality? Where ethics is defined strictly by what is pragmatic?
We are becoming a parody of a free society, celebrating what was forbidden for 5,000 years and mandating respect for it. The future is laughing at us.
Vote Sauron 08 on May 15, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Actually it’s more like (depending on the service), “By the power vested in me by God and the state of (N.), I now pronounce you man and wife.”
The “by the state” part did not always exist, of course, until the states gobbled up marriage as their prerogative - y’know, like they do everything else.
Then cam “no-fault divorce” and voila! a divorce epidemic ensued. Now we have “gay marriage, and voila! divorce rates will quadruple. Plus, the polygamists will feel increasingly marginalized until they are allowed to do their thing with state approval, then three lesbians, then siblings, etc etc.
Akzed on May 15, 2008 at 3:26 PM
This is exactly right. There is no “sexual orientation” discrimination in marriage statutes to begin with. What these courts are doing is twisting the understanding of “discrimination” on its head, and where we’re going to end up (if we follow the logic) is with a constitution forbidding “discriminating” against people because of the number of people they wish to marry, the age of the people they wish to marry, or even the species of the one they wish to marry. Whatever one thinks of the merits of same-sex marriage as a matter of policy, or even whatever one thinks of the issue as a matter of federalism, any form of judicial activism should be vocally rejected simply because it is wrong.
medguy on May 15, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Huh. So you looked for Him everywhere and couldn’t find Him?
Akzed on May 15, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Men have a Penis. Women have Vagina’s. Biologically speaking gay’s were never meant to be. I don’t believe in polygamy either. My god, did you see those inbreds they keep interviewing in texas. Wow, no incest going on there. My point is, nothing good comes of things that were not meant to be. Wether you want to look at it from a religious perspective or evolutionary, the one man, one woman model has been the most successful combination since we crawled out of the muck, or Adam and Eve, however you want to look at it. Now politically, liberal policy always has second and third order effects years down the road. Welfare is a great example of enabling lazy folk. Just my opinion. If you wanna be gay, great, just dont ask me to subsidize it with my taxes. One second order effect, if two gays gays get married and receive tax breaks, this will be less revenue in state taxes. Who makes this up? Same thing with health care. Somebody has to make up the losses, you think the state is going to eat it? ROFLMAO.
gator70 on May 15, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Also, look for a wave of attacks against the tax exemptions of churches that will not “marry” buggers and groups.
Akzed on May 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Allah, you are 100% correct. All those who want to restrict marriage rights to a man and a woman are after is a continuance of their prejudices. It’s just like ye olde laws against whites marrying blacks. Both proscriptions argue from the basis of prejudice, not from any logic. Hopefully both attitudes will be consigned to the less-enlightened past.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM
From that bastion of right wing blather - widipedia:
Think_b4_speaking on May 15, 2008 at 3:29 PM
As if we aren’t already as f#$%@d up as Hogan’s goat.
Akzed on May 15, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Mark 10:6 - But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. [7] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; [8] And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are not more twain, but one flesh.
OhEssYouCowboys on May 15, 2008 at 3:31 PM
The destruction of Mexifornia is complete. Now, all they need to do is make illegal alien gay marriages legal. It’s time to give it back to Mexico. At least everything west of the mountains.
orlandocajun on May 15, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Huh? Because there might be one or two families out of 500 in my kids’ school who have a same-sex marriage, I now have to fight to keep their school from teaching that perversion is OK? Why don’t THEY find a private liberal school that “celebrates diversity?” Do you have any idea how much time and effort it takes to change a school district’s policies? My school district has 100,000 children in it. I can guarantee that one expensive lawsuit by an activist homosexual couple would be all it would take for this district to cave in and do whatever they wanted, regardless of the fact that this is a heavily Catholic community.
Sorry, but this is not my idea of liberty.
rockmom on May 15, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Allah, I’m surprised that this post didn’t get the pink nuke. (My apologies if somebody else already said that.) I bet you were tempted, at least.
Personally, I grind my teeth every time I read a comment about “the gays”, as if we don’t have any posters here that happen to be gay conservatives. Because we do, and it’s pretty rude.
ReubenJCogburn on May 15, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Stop right there!
Immutable - not capable of or susceptible to change.
This is a bogus argument. Homosexuality is a learned behavioral and lifestyle choice and should not be classified as a “suspect classification” subject to equal protection.
CliffHanger on May 15, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Jeremiah (Wright) 26:18 - Micah the Morasthite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and spake to all the people of Judah, saying, Thus saith the LORD of hosts;NO NONO NOT GOD BLESS AMERICA Zion America shall be plowed like a field, and Jerusalem her cities shall become heaps,GOD DAMN AMERICA and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest
SEE IT IS IN THE BIBLE!
Donut on May 15, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Are you a bigot towards the polyamorous?
ninjapirate on May 15, 2008 at 3:34 PM
.
As you can see from my previous post, actually the opposite is true - the government got involved in the marriage license business in order to keep ‘ye olde laws against whites marrying blacks’ in place.
.
Think_b4_speaking on May 15, 2008 at 3:36 PM
So well said. I hope cool heads prevail because sex preferences and even marriage rights are tangential to the enormity of this disaster. The disaster is the radicalism of the court.
RushBaby on May 15, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Ending that restriction didn’t change marriage. Two blacks getting married was still a man and a woman, a black and a white getting married was still a man and a woman. Arabs, Africans, Europeans etc have been marrying male/female forever and prohibitions against inter-racial marriage were relatively recent and short lived.
“Gay marriage” fundamentally changes marriage itself though. The institution that I entered with my wife is no longer the same as when we entered it if two men or two women can marry. The state didn’t invent marriage, the state has no right to redefine it.
Now the plaintiffs in CA think that they have redefined marriage in all 50 states given their remarks. This is as big a threat to civilization as can be imagined, and dopes like you are just whistling past the graveyard drunk on some perverse notion of modernity.
Akzed on May 15, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Exactly, that’s the principle point. The state took authority over marriage by integrating it’s status into various legal situations - tax breaks, etc. That has given the state an artificial power over what was previously acknowledged to be in the realm of natural law. So much so it is assumed as true by many these days. There was an earlier discussion on HA about this, my explaination, which I will not replicate here for length, is linked here, which I think addresses every angle.
Spirit of 1776 on May 15, 2008 at 3:37 PM
I’m fine with civil unions but this is a little much. Even societies that have been permissive of homosexuality didn’t promulgate same-sex marriages. I won’t cry if it saves us in Novemeber though.
phronesis on May 15, 2008 at 3:39 PM
It’s all good. I played 30 min of Mario Kart, and I’m good to go.
This thread lacks the passion and heart-felt agnst of the ID/evolution threads. Since dinosaurs were on the ark, maybe some survived and are still found in the wild. I want the right to marry one, while still having my polygamous/commune marriage.
the goddess anna on May 15, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Next stop, suing the Churches.
MarkJudge on May 15, 2008 at 3:40 PM
I noticed that too. That was an epic thread.
/me tips my hat
fossten on May 15, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Folks, a contract is arbitrated by the state.
A marriage “contract” only has meaning under the law. The purpose behind a more rigorous definition of marriage under the law in the 1920s is because of the problem of shared property and the newly emergent feminism of the day. Women began demanding compensation and some sort of state-guaranteed recourse after divorce.
Regardless, it’s a contract. A legally binding contract. Something can only legally bind under the law. The law is the realm of the state, be that tribal, city, county or state-wide.
Again, how do two atheists get married, if it is not, at least structurally, a secular institution?
spmat on May 15, 2008 at 3:44 PM
I’m getting so sick of nothing I support ever being even considered by our shitty government that all I can do now is try to find the positive in negatives.
In this case, the positive is that maybe we’ll get a gay divorce court show. That would be fun to watch once or twice.
NTWR on May 15, 2008 at 3:47 PM
I’d disagree with the characterization of gayness as perversion, I think that’s rather crude.
Of course I know how tough it would be to take back your school district, I never said it would be easy. Hint: liberty and democracy aren’t easy. Unless you and your community break the public school racket, you can expect that you’ll have no control over your child’s education, sucks, but there it is. You have a million reasons to take back control already, this is just one more.
You’re swimming against the current and have already been taken out far by it because of the choices made by others, that can’t be helped. It is still ultimately up to you and others in the community to make what needs to happen, happen. That’s how the game works, you’re fighting the inertia of government, you can win, but it isn’t going to be easy. Again, this comes down to the question: How bad do you want it?
doubleplusundead on May 15, 2008 at 3:50 PM
MarioKart Wii kicks ass.
doubleplusundead on May 15, 2008 at 3:51 PM
And winning:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=75547
ihasurnominashun on May 15, 2008 at 3:52 PM
.
A marriage is not a contract in the legal sense, unless we allow it to be. By putting quotes around the word, I think you are hinting that you can see the other side of the argument. The battle is not one of sensibly addressing the legal issues surrounding various relationships in existence, but to ensure that the traditional concept of marriage is not taken totally away from people and their God, and handed to the state to pervert in any way it chooses.
Think_b4_speaking on May 15, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Its not just Christians who are against gay marriage, its anyone who isn’t a liberal.
aengus on May 15, 2008 at 3:53 PM
It sure does.
the goddess anna on May 15, 2008 at 3:54 PM
No, they won’t sue the churches. People have always been able to get married by a judge so there is not a legal right to be married in a church. But the law can define speech against homosexuals as a hate crime, so religious speech can be restricted (except of course nobody will try to stop the imams from preaching against sodomy in the mosques or in public). The law can force Catholic adoption agencies to allow adoption to homosexuals. The law can force landlords to rent apartments to homosexuals even if they believe homosexuality is wrong. The law can force me to hire a flaming drag queen as my receptionist even though it will offend all of my clients. This will all happen in short order in California now.
rockmom on May 15, 2008 at 3:55 PM
heh…I just love the self-righteous cherry-pickers throwing selective Bible verses around. Never ceases to amaze me.
JetBoy on May 15, 2008 at 3:56 PM
It was a great post. I recall reading it twice the day you wrote it. I’ve added it to my del.ico.us tags for reference.
dedalus on May 15, 2008 at 3:56 PM
.
Spirit, that was an awesome post - I missed the earlier discussion
Think_b4_speaking on May 15, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Sweet.
Also: I read an article about this early this morning, and I would’ve sworn it said that they hoped to have a decision “by the end of June.” Since when do judges get anything done ahead of schedule?
Tanya on May 15, 2008 at 3:59 PM
OK. Let’s look at the biological question. Why don’t we make the hypothesis that homosexuality is a mutation?
Now………..discuss!
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on May 15, 2008 at 3:59 PM
You mean Andrew Sullivan isn’t a conservative? I’m shocked. And gobsmacked.
phronesis on May 15, 2008 at 3:59 PM
I’ve met several non-liberals with children or siblings who are gay. Some have sat through commitment ceremonies and don’t oppose marriage.
dedalus on May 15, 2008 at 4:00 PM
God Damn California!
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
doufree on May 15, 2008 at 4:00 PM
THE END IS NEAR! WE ARE DOOMED BECAUSE OF A CALIFORNIA COURT DECISION!
Seriously- hyperbole much? The result of this ruling will be the same as it was in MA- more states start adopting amendments to their constitution banning gay marriage. It’s already in the works in California.
The gay marriage activists made a tactical error by pushing the issue through the courts in MA, and have repeated the mistake in CA. They’ll be lucky if they don’t get the existing CA domestic partnership law scaled back.
Hollowpoint on May 15, 2008 at 4:00 PM
I am a Christian and morally opposed to gay marriage. I would like to bring in a quote from someone who I believe has a different moral perspective, yet who through study of marriage has come to the conclusion that heterosexual marriage is best for children. Thus it is always best for the future of society.
In other words, God has morally underwritten His universe and His laws of relationships hold true in consequences when they are obeyed and disobeyed whether or not someone believes in Him.
From an interview with David Blankenhorn, author of The Future of Marriage:
Here’s an article written by Dawn Stefanowicz: First-Person: Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ — Have the Best Interests of Children Been Considered? who grew up in a homosexual household. Read it to see consequences.
INC on May 15, 2008 at 4:02 PM
From Defining Marriage Down . . . is no way to save it.
by David Blankenhorn. In this article he makes his case from studying information from various countries. As you see he and I have differing moral perspectives, yet he still concludes that gay marriage is detrimental to a society.
INC on May 15, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Marriage existed before the government. No one is saying here that there is now no government involvement, rather, I think the sentiment is (not having read all 3,895,8942 posts in this thread), that govt involvement beyond registry has opened the unfortunate doors that these godless judges are now dancing through.
Akzed on May 15, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Finally, get Government out the bedrooms, and on to real business and problems.
Chakra Hammer on May 15, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Amen to that…
therightwinger on May 15, 2008 at 4:04 PM
As to footnote 52 on p. 79, which quibbles that this decision still would bar polygamous or incestuous marriages, all I can say is, wait till the FLDS, the fundamentalist Muslims, and the myriad other immigrant cultures that practice polygamy file their briefs disputing that.
Here we go…
PattyJ on May 15, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Oh. So two men buggering one another is not perversion? It’s right as the mail. What in your world constitutes perversion then?
Akzed on May 15, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Here’s an article from two years ago by Maggie Gallagher: Banned in Boston: The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty who connects the dots with religious liberty. My emphasis.
INC on May 15, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Jetboy is about to cherry pick some verses to show unedumacated Christians whats what.
al sends
afterdarknesslight on May 15, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Interracial marriage changed the notion of marriage by altering what a community had to accept. Many people felt that a mixing of the races through marriage and by creating offspring would have dire consequences to the established order.
Your marriage to your spouse is no more changed by mixed race marriages than by gay marriages. I think marriage is an important institution and wish the divorce rate among straight couples were lower. Whether a straight couple eventually divorces won’t be affected by gay couples having a marriage certificate on their wall rather than a domestic partnership certificate.
dedalus on May 15, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Ok, so who gets alimony when there’s a bugger divorce? Which bugger is defined by the marriage contract or license as the wife? The husband?
/o bugger all
Akzed on May 15, 2008 at 4:10 PM
JetBoy,
Self righteous? I’ll have you know I came out of a life of homosexuality and immorality when my eyes were opened to my unrightousness, sinfulness and desperate need of Christ. He set me free! Indeed, it is anything but self rightousness that motivates my quoting or as you say “cherry picking” Scriptures. I once felt as you did, until the Truth of God opened my eyes and set me free. Insult away, my friend, insult away.
Nolamom67 on May 15, 2008 at 4:10 PM
Judicial Tyranny in California!!! The voters already made their decision on “the nature of marriage”.
DfDeportation on May 15, 2008 at 4:10 PM
I’m of a similar belief. If we’re going to decide that getting to the person you want to get married to is a right, then let’s not half@ss it.
I am married, but I think that’s completely irrelevant. It’s true. Gays getting hitched won’t affect my marriage whatsoever. Someone else’s marriage does nothing to mine. That’s a pointless reason to be against or for homosexual marriage.
I don’t know about that, but if voting booths are any indication, close to three fourths of the population is against homosexual marriage.
Esthier on May 15, 2008 at 4:12 PM
It’s already adversely affected the marriage rate in Sweden, the first nation to permit “gay marriage.” People think, “Well, if two buggers can marry, I don’t need it. We’ll just shack up.” Bastardy increases with its own social pathologies, and so on and on.
Akzed on May 15, 2008 at 4:12 PM
AP’s perception about the impact on the presidential campaign is insightful. McCain is sufficiently insulated with the Federalist argument that each group of electoral votes can do what they want. Obama is in a tougher position. Hopefully, this can swing a couple of states McCain’s way.
dedalus on May 15, 2008 at 4:12 PM
More from Maggie Gallagher, and this is significant. It’s not just getting the government out of the bedrooms:
Here’s the BIG contrast:
And the conclusion of Chai Feldblum, “a Georgetown law professor who is highly sought after on civil rights issues, especially gay civil rights.”
INC on May 15, 2008 at 4:12 PM
It really gets on my nerves when the courts overturn the will of the voters.
SoulGlo on May 15, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Well once it became a personal thing I suppose they wanted to be supportive parents. But I’m not going to get into that because I’m only interested in the principle of the thing, whether or not it is good for society. I think it is extremely radical and harmful.
Gay people started by saying they wanted to be left alone - live and let live - but have been pushing a radical agenda to transform society in order to accomodate themselves. This is wrong, the minority should simply accept majority mores. They have individual rights and are free to live together and leave their possessions to each other in their last will and testament. That is enough.
aengus on May 15, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 14 »