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 »
Again, why would one cause the other? It’s a coincidence, not a causal relationship. In fact, the only definite result of that campaign was the success of its aim - same-sex marriage. Whatever social changes were taking place during the time of that campaign are immaterial and not valid arguments against the campaign itself. Nor are they arguments against the validity of the campaign’s goals.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 15, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Ack. Having flashbacks of the readings from my wedding day. I think my sister just called me a gazelle.
Anyway, if I remember correctly I was in a church at the time and there was a priest somewhere so I am going to say it was a religous ceremony.
BohicaTwentyTwo on May 15, 2008 at 4:51 PM
I dunno…
Nah, I agree with you, but I reserve my right to still be a smartass.
doubleplusundead on May 15, 2008 at 4:52 PM
You are right, though I think it varies by state and by age group. Nationally, people are more against it than for it and additional ballot initiatives could help McCain in some states.
dedalus on May 15, 2008 at 4:52 PM
No of course it isn’t just for procreation but a lifestyle where procreation is 100% impossible is implicitly all about sex. To which you could say well whats wrong with that, unless you’re religious? To which I would have no response. If nothing is true, everything is permitted.
aengus on May 15, 2008 at 4:52 PM
this is so old and so lame. He came to fulfill the law…and guess what the law says about homosexuality?
He never once mentioned bar-b-queing your kids, if its so important don’t you think He would have said something??? sigh….
right4life on May 15, 2008 at 4:53 PM
I find those who will come out and say that they are uncomfortable with homosexuals to be much more intellectually honest than the “anti-actvist judges” set. Come now, just say it. At least you’ll be speaking what you think instead of faking some magical constitutional argument.
INFDL on May 15, 2008 at 4:53 PM
JetBoy,
It’s amazing how much you sound like I did!! I used to rage as you do now. You accuse ME of being un-Christlike? Pot, meet kettle…
Nolamom67 on May 15, 2008 at 4:53 PM
guess you missed this:
In an interview published in a Dutch newspaper on July 8, 2004, Dr. J.van Loon, a leading sociologist of Nottingham Trent University said, “It’s no coincidence both [the introduction of same-sex marriage and the devaluation of marriage] take place at the same time. Supporters of gay marriage often based their argument…on the separation of marriage and the raising of children. It’s difficult to imagine that an intensive media campaign based on the claim that marriage and parenthood are unrelated and that marriage is just one among a number of morally equivalent cohabiting relationships did not have any serious social consequences.”
right4life on May 15, 2008 at 4:54 PM
I don’t give a rat’s ass about this issue for me alone. But, as a parent, I need a country where the institutions aren’t all corrupted or perverted. Public schools are liberal, TV is liberal, courts are liberal, libraries are liberal, media is liberal, etc. And all you can tell me is it’s my responsibility, and I should fight/go it alone. That’s what we do, everyday. Since when did it become wrong to wish that our institutions cease having constantly changing values?
My nine-year-old had a “big” concert at the local HS. She was greeted with a banner strung across the door saying something like “Shhhhsh. Be careful what you say. 10% of your classmates are Gay.” I had to tell her that gay meant something other than happy. This wasn’t too long before I had to explain why we had a new Governor, and what a prostitute was, and why he lost his job, and why the new Governor also liked those ladies. She had heard all about it at school!
It doesn’t take a village to raise a kid. It takes the village to stay the F away from my kid!
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 4:55 PM
One in six? That does not bode well for society. There ought not to be a Folsom St. Fair. If they abolished the thing gay acceptance might increase.
aengus on May 15, 2008 at 4:55 PM
There is also a correlation between microprocessor circuit density and a rise in the divorce rate, though showing the cause and effect relationship would be harder.
dedalus on May 15, 2008 at 4:55 PM
and this:
However, there are good reasons to believe that the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in the Netherlands. After all, supporters of same-sex marriage argued forcefully in favor of the (legal and social) separation of marriage from parenting. In parliament, advocates and opponents alike agreed that same-sex marriage would pave the way to greater acceptance of alternative forms of cohabitation.
In our judgment, it is difficult to imagine that a lengthy, highly visible, and ultimately successful campaign to persuade Dutch citizens that marriage is not connected to parenthood and that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid ‘lifestyle choices’ has not had serious social consequences. There are undoubtedly other factors that have contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage in our country. Further scientific research is needed to establish the relative importance of all these factors. At the same time, we wish to note that enough evidence of marital decline already exists to raise serious concerns about the wisdom of the efforts to deconstruct marriage in its traditional form.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/netherlandsstatement.cfm
right4life on May 15, 2008 at 4:56 PM
I respect your position and understand why many people agree with it. I just have a problem believing we were born with any kind of sexual preferences.
From my own personal experience, the things that turn me on are very much conditioned.
I’m not saying sexuality isn’t something you’re born with. That’s just not an argument that makes sense to me.
Esthier on May 15, 2008 at 4:56 PM
and this:
On March 10, 2006, Catholic Charities of Boston quit providing adoption services when Massachusetts anti-discrimination laws forced them to allow married same-sex couples to adopt, which has been prohibited by church doctrine.
Swedish Pastor Ake Green was sentenced to jail in June of 2004 for one month having been found guilty of offending homosexuals in a sermon under Sweden’s law against incitement.
In April of 2004 it became illegal to publicly express disapproval of homosexual behavior in Canada under an amendment to the hate propaganda laws.
right4life on May 15, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Nice try, but sex is not the issue. Nor is procreation. The issue is a contract with certain privileges being permitted to two people regardless of their gender. Nice try on the “nothing is true” bit. That’s a non sequitur.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 15, 2008 at 4:57 PM
I agree with your points. Hopefully, you can keep your daughter away from the politicians in your state–at least until the former governer is indicted.
dedalus on May 15, 2008 at 4:58 PM
I never said that… Do you understand what I mean when I say Christ fulfilled the law? If you would like I can step through that.
Paul pointed out that God’s judgment often takes the form of men sodomizing one another. That is in the part of the Bible that comes after Leviticus.
Christ talked of “pornia” which covers all manner of sexual filthiness. Your particular form of deviance is included in that term. Your cherry picking of verses does nothing to alleviate your guilt before God. I urge you to repent and trust in Christ. He will deliver you.
al sends
afterdarknesslight on May 15, 2008 at 4:58 PM
The Bible prohibits men from sleeping with each other; God excoriates sodomites and rains down on fire on them. The reason Jesus did not denounce homosexuality is because they were no guys around wearing pink pastel shirts and or marching down Judea main street in motorcycle gear. Homosexuality is a created public identity, a lifestyle built around sodomy.
aengus on May 15, 2008 at 4:58 PM
haha! OK, I stand corrected with the Fab Five…
And no worries…you’ve earned your smartass badge, and no one can take it from ya :-)
JetBoy on May 15, 2008 at 4:58 PM
That’s entirely possible.
Esthier on May 15, 2008 at 4:59 PM
I so whole-heartedly agree with that. The number I mentioned, though, I made up. I have no idea how many closeted gays there are - but I do know of several that don’t wish to be known by their sexual orientation.
the goddess anna on May 15, 2008 at 4:59 PM
the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons
PrezHussein on May 15, 2008 at 5:00 PM
.
That is not the issue, either. The issue is that the state is getting involved in something they should not be.
Think_b4_speaking on May 15, 2008 at 5:01 PM
I wasn’t trying to pull a fast one on you. But to me the issue is not a contract with certain privileges irregardless of gender. It is a transcendental bond between a man a woman (two separate genders). I can’t really justify this with a non-religious argument. If I come up with anything I’ll let you know.
aengus on May 15, 2008 at 5:02 PM
The funny thing is, you’re making my point for me. I was illustrating how social arguments are irrelevant because the right to same-sex marriage is not based on societal choices but rather on equal protection. Whatever social consequences result from a campaign for or a right being extended are not valid arguments against that campaign or right. To put it another way, my campaign for same-sex marriage doesn’t force a teenage girl to have sex and get pregnant.
Also, if people want to have children and not get married, so what? Harm to society and any resultant burden to the taxpayers also have no bearing on same-sex marriage.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 15, 2008 at 5:03 PM
JetBoy,
…and besides, you are actually going to argue with me, a person whom you don’t even know, about what happened to me? Are you able to peer inside my heart and mind? Yes or no?
Nolamom67 on May 15, 2008 at 5:04 PM
How can you make the leap from what i said to terrorists planning something in a bedroom?(wake up)
Chakra Hammer on May 15, 2008 at 5:06 PM
I disagree. I would not want the state to dissolve all marriage contracts and not to issue them any longer as you suggest they should. I favor extending the right to enter into such contracts to people with no restriction based on gender. Doing so changes nothing to existing contracts.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 15, 2008 at 5:06 PM
The bond between the parents is weaker. They are less likely to stay together which is central to the child’s welfare. This is actually one of the few things that David Cameron gets.
aengus on May 15, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Christ talked of “pornia” which covers all manner of sexual filthiness. Your particular form of deviance is included in that term.
afterdarknesslight on May 15, 2008 at 4:58 PM
According to whom? If homosexuality were truly such an important sin, Christ would have mentioned it specifically. He did not.
JetBoy on May 15, 2008 at 5:07 PM
I can guarantee you this will not be a major issue in the fall. Oh, and McCain should be ashamed at appearing in that homophobic ad
Baphomet on May 15, 2008 at 5:07 PM
I understand where you’re coming from too. From my own experience, though, I know that while some things are conditioned, others are not. I’m straight, I have always been attracted to men, but I grew up learning to appreciate female beauty too. I joke that the only reason I’m not a lesbian is because I can’t stand sharing a bathroom with another woman. In seriousness, though, I could see myself falling in love with a woman. I don’t love my husband because he’s a man (though it’s a great perk), I love him for his character and for the person he is. That is something I know I learned from my mom.
the goddess anna on May 15, 2008 at 5:08 PM
nonsense
ninjapirate on May 15, 2008 at 5:08 PM
What a load of hate-filled crap.
Baphomet on May 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM
Thank you very much for honesty. I have no problem with your faith, but please think about trying to further your belief system by using the force of law. It doesn’t make you any more right to do so.
I hope you don’t think I lack respect for religious arguments about a sacred marriage contract. The reason I simply discard those arguments instead of try to pick them apart is that I do in fact respect them.
Good luck to you.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM
Honestly, I would love to talk to you further about this. Get your whole story. And are YOU able to peer inside MY heart and mind?
Don’t you think that I, while growing up, wasn’t scared to death about my gayness? I tried everything I could…and prayers galore…but I came to realize that gay people in general are good people. And that God created me. I didn’t choose gay, I wasn’t afflicted by anything to make me gay.
I came to accept who I am. But some seem not able to do that.
JetBoy on May 15, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Lindsey Graham, is that you?
- The Cat
P.S. What’s next, if you teach your children that homosexuality is wrong then they are called Brown Shirts?
MirCat on May 15, 2008 at 5:12 PM
.
A covenant, which marriage is, is more than a mere contract, and it debases marriage to reduce it to this level. Secondly, states do not have the right to license or restrict marriage; this right has been slowly ceded to the state, originally as a way for the state to discriminate against bi-racial couples, and now as a way to push the church out of one more aspect of life. As has happened with charity, once religion has been removed from the equation, the moral compass is lost, and the program leaves the users worse off. Finally, to say that extending the right to enter ‘contracts’ does nothing to exisiting contracts is naive. The issue is less about existing marriages, and more about attempting to force me to change my mores to fit those of an amoral and unaccountable government.
Think_b4_speaking on May 15, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Thank you.
I’ll be appearing at a press conference with John McCain shortly where we will both give a heartfelt public apology.
Okay, I’m out. Bye all.
aengus on May 15, 2008 at 5:14 PM
If a straight guy is fixated on breasts, or wants to be dominated by a woman, or enjoys dressing as a woman, etc, was he born that way?
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 5:14 PM
wow I can’t believe I read every comment. I think my head is going to explode.
upinak on May 15, 2008 at 5:14 PM
This is an entirely different can of worms. First, should we discriminate on the basis of gender in the case of marriage contracts because of observed or perceived likelihood of those contracts remaining undissolved? Legally, no we should not.
Secondly, child welfare doesn’t have an impact on the validity of extending marriage rights to same-sex couples. If those couples get divorced and have children, then existing law applies.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 15, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Which sexual interest is genetic, which is acquired? How do you know?
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor those who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. - 1 Cor. 6: 9-11
Were - past tense of ‘was’ as in was, but not any longer
Nolamom67 on May 15, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Wow, that’s both ultra-ignorant and ultra-nasty.
Nice two-fer, JB.
fossten on May 15, 2008 at 5:16 PM
This is my favorite comment so far…
“…a lifestyle built around sodomy.” That’s a pip. I’ve gotta get me some motorcycle gear and pink pastel shirts now? Oh, brother…
JetBoy on May 15, 2008 at 5:16 PM
The science of self classification is always shaky and will never show anything
PrezHussein on May 15, 2008 at 5:16 PM
I took the most extreme case I could think of in order to show that your comment was ridiculous. There is nothing about the bedroom which magically precludes government involvement. Your opposition to my reply indicates that you actually do believe that government should interfere in the bedroom, which ironically contradicts your casual “finally, we can get government out of our bedrooms!” sentiment. Once we have established that the government does belong in the bedroom in some instances, we must establish on what basis it should be involved and in what areas. And, assuming that gay marriage is simply about what happens in one’s bedroom (which it, of course, is not), we would need to establish why government cannot regulate or prohibit gay marriage.
Moreover, you should not applaud such an incorrect judicial decision as the one made in California today no matter what you happen to believe, whether upon policy preferences or political theory, about gay marriage. The judiciary has acted outside of its scope of legitimate authority. In applauding this abuse of power, you legitimize the next abuse of judicial power–an abuse which might not be so conducive to your personal policy preferences (which you evidently seem happy to impose on others through the judiciary).
medguy on May 15, 2008 at 5:16 PM
JetBoy,
If you really want to talk serious about this, I would be humbled and honored to speak with you about what Jesus Christ has done in and for me.
Nolamom67 on May 15, 2008 at 5:19 PM
So you can’t accept that fact that she no longer identifies as gay? Calvinism for gays. Once gay, always gay. If you change, you never were.
ninjapirate on May 15, 2008 at 5:19 PM
Which subset of gay sexual attraction (leather fetish or public sex for ex.) is genetic?
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 5:20 PM
So if it is against your will, then every time you have sex with someone of the same sex you are raped. Do you choose the specific same sex partner, or was that chosen for you too?
You came to accept who you ERRANTLY BELIEVE you are (likely with a gay support group). People are wrong all the time. People can actually live their entire lives and be wrong.
ThackerAgency on May 15, 2008 at 5:21 PM
The stuff about clothes was a little over the top and irrevelant. But yes homosexuality is a publicly created identity. Obviously you don’t agree. I don’t think that men who discreetly sodomise each other in secret would fit this definition and its probably not the definition that anyone else is going by. But as I said upthread my main concern - apart from the religious argument - is the effect homosexuality has on society. So if there were no gay marriage and no Folsom St. Fair I wouldn’t give it too much thought.
(I’m glad it was your favourite comment.)
aengus on May 15, 2008 at 5:21 PM
You mean the clothes are a choice, some kind of acquired or learned behavior, and not genetic?
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 5:21 PM
I agree with you.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 5:22 PM
South Park’s infamous Death Camp of Tolerance gets more prophetic and less funny every day. Our society has become very hard to satirize. I shudder to think what’s next.
Vote Sauron 08 on May 15, 2008 at 5:23 PM
If “terrorists” were given to staying in their bedrooms building bombs and blowing themselves up, I wouldn’t have a particular problem with that.
Government should stay out of the private behavior between consenting adults, though gay marriage isn’t about private behavior.
dedalus on May 15, 2008 at 5:23 PM
science of self classification example
“Even the identical twin of a gay man has a 50 percent or more chance of being heterosexual—even though he has the exact same genes and is reared by the same parents”
PrezHussein on May 15, 2008 at 5:23 PM
A marriage is a “covenant” in your opinion. It is a contract in legal terms. Whatever you want to make of it, all I care about is the contract.
Secondly, the past uses of marriage as law don’t impact today’s discussion.
You seem to be falling into the trap of wanting to use the force of law to impose your opinions on others. Extending the right to marry to same-sex couples on the basis of equal protection may negatively impact your feelings, but it does nothing to the legal status of existing marriages.
What benefit it would have is to make inheritance, adoption, property-sharing, and other legal and financial issues more simple for same-sex couples. As it is, being denied the right to marry forces same-sex couples into legal contortions if they want to bequeath property, share insurance, or do many other things jointly.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 15, 2008 at 5:24 PM
OOPS. You’re wrong. He didn’t have to. Your yardstick for what is important is irrelevant, as is your knowledge of the Bible.
Matthew 4:4 - But he [Jesus] answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Also read Genesis 19 to see God’s viewpoint of homosexuality.
fossten on May 15, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Is that anything like regular sharia? Except instead of burqas the women have to wear tank tops and mullets?
RightOFLeft on May 15, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Old Testament Leviticus 18:22
New King James: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
New International: ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Other translations say as much.
New Testament Romans 1:26-27
New King James: 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due
New Century: 26 Because people did those things, God left them and let them do the shameful things they wanted to do. Women stopped having natural sex and started having sex with other women.27 In the same way, men stopped having natural sex and began wanting each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and in their bodies they received the punishment for those wrongs.
Amplified: 26For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,
27And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another–men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own [d]bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.
Again, read other translations as well.
- The Cat
MirCat on May 15, 2008 at 5:27 PM
This has probably been said already (I haven’t had time to read all the posts)
California will probably land in the Republican column this November. And the Nancy Pelosi “Family values” liberals who are celebrating at San Francisco City Hall today will be weeping then.
Red Pill on May 15, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Don’t conflate behaviors with orientation. For one thing, sexual orientation isn’t limited to prurient acts. In addition to a fixation with breasts, a heterosexual male might also enjoy romantic dinners. His orientation — which includes not just his sexual interests, but also his romantic and emotional ones — is part of his identity; his behaviors are incidental to the identity.
paul006 on May 15, 2008 at 5:28 PM
JetBoy, I hope this thread has cured you of trying to use a holy book against those who use it as a shield.
Also, don’t listen to anyone telling you that you are doing anything wrong if you are just going about your business and not infringing on anyone else’s rights.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 15, 2008 at 5:29 PM
Which is s anice way of saying bi-sexuality is a behavior not some nebulous orientation
Skywise on May 15, 2008 at 5:30 PM
.
No, the homosexual lobby is the one wanting to use the force of law to impose their opinions on others. Inheritance, property-sharing, etc can be addressed without the imprimitur of marriage being placed on gay couples (adoption is a different can of worms entirely). The whole point of this thread is (or should be) about the fact that a group is trying to use the court to create law, and this law has the effect of trying to 1. de-legitimize the religious aspect of marriage into a mere contract that becomes the sole purview of government, and 2. use the force of government to impose a set of mores on others.
Think_b4_speaking on May 15, 2008 at 5:31 PM
argh! OK, hold up, JiangxiDad…those are pertinent questions, but they’re coming rapid-fire.
As for your last question tho…
So, is being straight a “choice”? Did you acquire, or learn, to be attracted to women?
No, oh wise one…I’ve only been to a gay support group once, and it wasn’t for me. Yes, people are wrong all the time…think about that….
Trust me…I’m no Folsom Street Fair fan. I don’t even like gay pride parades. I’m just your average Joe who likes sports, dresses without flair, prefers rock to techno…someone who if you met, you’d never guess I was gay.
I honestly would like to hear your story.
JetBoy on May 15, 2008 at 5:31 PM
Do I care if you are gay, no… not one iota.
The question is, would you stand next to me if something happened to this country and we had to protect it?
upinak on May 15, 2008 at 5:33 PM
The state recognizing the marriage of a straight couple who chose to not marry in a church or abide by its marital guidelines would also be de-legitimizing the religious aspect of marriage.
dedalus on May 15, 2008 at 5:34 PM
I simply disagree with this. I’m perfectly happy, for example, with government interfering in a consenting couple’s personal, private decision to kill one another (or themselves) in the privacy of their bedroom under some sort of suicide pact.
But alas, this is a digression from what the constitution requires.
medguy on May 15, 2008 at 5:34 PM
Yes.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 5:35 PM
I agree, and cured is a strange word to use.
However, ones propensity to hop in the sack with whatever or whomever can be cured. Many men are married and do not fool around (save the stats we all know them). Many women are committed and do not fool around. Monogamy is not the strong suit of the gay man’s lifestyle. Maybe yours, and others, but the vast majority are very sexually active.
Dancing on floats, dressed in leather or less is not genetic. Having explicit sexual sex in public, as in the gay parades, is not genetic. Being whipped in public is not genetic. Being a cross dresser is not genetic. The feelings may be genetic, but the actions are not. Surely you are not saying if you are gay, you are not responsible or have control of your actions.
Until you and the majority can stand up and say your representatives actions are obscene, until you can “self police” your life stlye, it will be abhorred. Until you can say “gay parades” are reprehensible, promiscuity is wrong, you are doomed to be “second class” citizens.
It is the actions that is offensive.
right2bright on May 15, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Behaviors, orientation, identity. All learned.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 5:37 PM
Nearly all of the straight guys I know well are fixated on breasts, involuntarily fixated on breasts. It’s fairly amazing what a nice pair can get an otherwise rationale guy to do.
dedalus on May 15, 2008 at 5:37 PM
.
A valid point, though most states before 1920 recognized that marriage was a natural right, and accepted the concept of ‘common law’ marriage, and merely accepted the fact of their marriages, instead of licensing or approving them. I think it was the introduction of marriage licenses where be began the slide down the slippery slope.
Think_b4_speaking on May 15, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Pearls, meet Swine.
- The Cat
P.S. Pointing out an invalid remark is not the same as using it as a shield.
If someone said that Ghandi would be ok with war against the natzis then another pointed out his comments about WWII, would that be using his words as a shield?
MirCat on May 15, 2008 at 5:39 PM
You can twist your logic and demand your rights all you want but you know that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong! The Law is written on our hearts by God. Choose to continue down your path at your peril, or come back to a loving and mericiful God through Christ. Repentance leads to forgiveness. Just don’t ask us to agree with your actions because no amount of “we demand our rights” will convince us to support you!
sabbott on May 15, 2008 at 5:39 PM
And Jetboy, just to put things in perspective…the God Father of my children (as I am of his) and my deepest dearest friend for over 40 years is Gay, a Gay activist in Mass (if you don’t know him, you would know his acquaintances). He and I have fought over this for 40 years.
right2bright on May 15, 2008 at 5:39 PM
We disagree, but it is off topic.
dedalus on May 15, 2008 at 5:39 PM
It’s not involuntary.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Yannow…some of us queers thought the whole reason for coming out was that we wouldn’t have to get married.
I mean really — what’s the point of being gay if you’re gonna have a husband/wife nagging you about leaving your hair on the soap?
Civil Unions are perfectly acceptable to me.
The Ugly American on May 15, 2008 at 5:40 PM
I think there is much to your point.
dedalus on May 15, 2008 at 5:41 PM
fossten’s right.
Jesus is one part of the triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
So JetBoy, your assumption that the words have to be from Jesus Christ in order to important are wrong.
Fossten is right that God makes it pretty clear how he feels about homosexuality in Genesis 19:1-29.
I’m not your judge. God is. But after reading Genesis 19:1-29 you shouldn’t have any questions about how God has judged that sin in the past.
Red Pill on May 15, 2008 at 5:42 PM
JetBoy,
I am walking out the door to pick up my daughter. How do I get in touch with you?
Nolamom67 on May 15, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Just wait for the gay golddiggers out for alimony :) I kid I kid.
- The Cat
MirCat on May 15, 2008 at 5:42 PM
I believe what the same-sex marriage lobby is trying to do is to obtain for same-sex couples the same right granted to different-sex couples to marry. If you’re saying that it’s their opinion and that they are trying to use the judicial branch to implement it, I agree with you. That doesn’t make it valid or invalid, legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional.
The reason the small minority of homosexuals must use the judicial branch to overturn discrimination against them is that other branches are controlled by elected officials. Those officials must appeal to as large a population as they can in order to get elected. Thus they are responsive primarily to the will of the majority, be it legal or illegal, valid or invalid, constitutional or unconstitutional. Since the majority is convinced that they should discriminate on the basis of gender in the case of marriage, their will be laws passed which enforce this prejudice. It is the duty of the judicial system to evaluate law based on Constitutional principles first, justice second, and lower law third. Because they are not elected they can do this even when the majority is against it. See the history of desegregation for an example.
Finally, religion has nothing to do with marriage from the standpoint of the government. See Amendment 1:
You can have any religious connotation to a legal contract you wish, and exclude me from that contract based on any criteria you select. You cannot do the same with a legal contract given force by the US government.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 15, 2008 at 5:43 PM
If I wanted to be in a gay marriage, I wouldn’t wait til my state legalized it, I’d go to someplace where it’s legal and get married. Why aren’t more gays getting married?
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 5:43 PM
It’s not uncontrolable, but the stimulus prokes a reaction that is often outside the reach of conscious decision.
dedalus on May 15, 2008 at 5:45 PM
Being straight is just the evolutionary “default.” People tend to imprint the default position as being the correct one. Yet that doesn’t make it so.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 15, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Undermining the basic, historical meanings of words (in this case- marriage: a union of gender opposites, usually for procreation) and their basic reality opens the doors to social and mental chaos.
Same sex unions are something other than “marriage”, since that already has a meaning and clear definition and historical truth.
Social manipulation of age-old realities by eltist judicial fiat will not change anyone’s beliefs about “marriage”.
If this issue had slowly mutated to an acceptance of a broader understanding of “marriage” (beyond genders and procreation) it might have eventually occurred naturally.
But this arrogant and forceful alteration of the timeless meaning and the norm will win no minds or hearts.
To the Supreme Court it will have to go.
profitsbeard on May 15, 2008 at 5:47 PM
.
I highlighted the section most often glossed over in these discussions. My most salient point is that whatever anyone says, marriage is a covenant between two people and their God, and existed long before ANY government anywhere existed. That previous generations ceded authority to the state to license or regulate marriage is no excuse for me to accept this and not fight to restore my natural rights.
Think_b4_speaking on May 15, 2008 at 5:49 PM
Finally! I thought everybody on the “other team,” as it were, must be crazy for not keying into this. Why do so many homosexuals want to ruin their own good thing? If anything the law should stop recognizing straight marriage, not invent new permutations. Hell, I wish I were gay myself.
Blacklake on May 15, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Or to the Constitution…
Red Pill on May 15, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Because there is no guarantee that every State in the Union will honor that marriage. In fact, some have passed laws and even amendments to their State constitutions explicitly invalidating those marriages if made out of state. Until it is resolved by the Supreme Court it will not be secure. This decision in California is a step towards that resolution.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 15, 2008 at 5:51 PM
yup!
Oldnuke on May 15, 2008 at 5:51 PM
I just meant that you were too young and your developing sexual attraction to women was so slow that you didn’t know it was happening. Nobody does. That’s why when puberty hits, it seems to strike out of nowhere. So-called Gays and str8’s are made, during the period from birth to puberty. Just because you aren’t consciously aware how you came to love boobs, doesn’t mean you didn’t learn.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 5:51 PM
If a man can marry a man then why not 2 women instead? Bring back poligamy, it’s no worse a taboo. At least it’s male-female.
hanzblinx on May 15, 2008 at 5:52 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 … 14 »