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 12 … 14 »
So how long before someone comes up with the idea to start a gay religion? (well besides that idea right there)
When I was a waiter I used to have to marry ketsup bottles. Just sayin’.
- The Cat
P.S. I wasn’t a very good waiter. I mean grover was better than I was.
MirCat on May 15, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Not sure what kind of question this is supposed to be…OF COURSE I would stand next to you and protect this great nation. I’m all for the WoT, I vote Republican every time, I always fly the American flag (no rainbow flags here).
I thought I was standing up, here in this thread. I’ve said repeatedly that things like the Folsom Fair and gay pride parades and many vocal gay groups do more to harm our image. btw, it’s not a “lifestyle”, it’s a “life”. Should I tell straight people to “self-police” the liberals among them? Of course not.
Thank you. It’s hard not to listen, but I certainly don’t take it to heart. Anymore, that is.
Understood. And you’ll probably argue it for another 40 years. And for the record, the majority of my best friends are straight. And we argue it too.
None of that mentions anything Jesus said…
JetBoy on May 15, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Men have been engaging in sex with men since forever. Some of Plato’s dialogues contain subtle (or not so subtle) flirtations and insults based on these kinds of relations. I agree with you that homosexuality as a public identity is a very recent invention, largely dating back to the later half of the 19th century in Europe. It’s not that the sex act is new; it’s not, it’s always happened in private. What’s new, what’s the modern innovation, is the elevation of the preference for a sexual activity to an identity and the legal requirement to treat that identity as equal to other, time-honored public identities.
Clearly homosexual activity is a choice. Men throughout the ages engaged sex with men and at the same time had wives and children as required by their societies. Homosexuality, meaning the exclusive preference for sex with members of one’s own gender, is an innovation of capitalist societies, not a genetic trait or an immutable characteristic. Tribal societies and traditional cultures have men who engage in sex with men, but they do not have homosexuals.
Vote Sauron 08 on May 15, 2008 at 5:53 PM
BS. I’ll try again. If you wanted to marry a woman that you loved, and your state prevented it, you’d go elsewhere and get married. Argue all you want.
Gay marriage is an attempt to legitimatize a behavior that has traditionally been discriminated against, and to secure certain legal rights. Civil unions solve the latter, and society doesn’t have much prob. with private behavior, so I don’t see the need.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 5:54 PM
That’s an intriguing answer. So do you think you could choose to be oriented to other men (i.e., not just sexually attracted to them, but also emotionally and romantically interested in them)?
paul006 on May 15, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Your *belief* is that marriage is a covenant. Belief is not at issue here, who should and should not be allowed to legally marry is. By using a religious argument you rob yourself of any validity in a legal sense as there is precedent for the State overturning religious beliefs on marriage. Polygamy, for example. I don’t intend to argue about polygamy, as that isn’t germane to this discussion.
Should the US Gov’t restrict citizens’ rights based on religious preferences? That seems to be what you are insisting upon. Nowhere are your rights being infringed upon by today’s court ruling. Let me know if I’m mistaken.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 15, 2008 at 5:57 PM
No one chooses. You are too young. It happens. But it’s learned.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 5:57 PM
So you don’t believe that what the Apostles wrote was divinely inspired; the Holy Ghost speaking through them, as in prophesying?
- The Cat
MirCat on May 15, 2008 at 5:57 PM
May I suggest locking your kid up forever and especially keeping them away from libraries?
Nonfactor on May 15, 2008 at 5:58 PM
I’m probably reasonably close to your point on the nature vs. nurture question with regard to gay vs straight orientation.
Going back to boobs…I’ve seen infants make their way from the birth canal to their mother’s breast with little assistance. Certainly that is hardwired. I don’t know that a grown male’s attraction to breasts is unrelated to the very basic role that they play.
dedalus on May 15, 2008 at 5:59 PM
It looks like your perfectly ok with judicial activism. I don’t have passionate feelings on this issue, but I do strongly believe that the matter should be resolved via the democratic process, not by an intervention of judical oligarchs fabricating new rights ex nihilo.
phronesis on May 15, 2008 at 5:59 PM
Nolamom67,
Would you be willing to share your personal story here?
It could be helpful to many.
Red Pill on May 15, 2008 at 6:00 PM
I have trouble with psychology so help me get this into something I can understand. What you’re saying is that our sexual orientation is a function of sensory input and programming in that period. When the hormones hit it just boots the program that was loaded earlier. If that’s an accurate assessment then I tend to agree. I also believe that there may be some hardware differences that could tilt the issue one way or the other.
Oldnuke on May 15, 2008 at 6:00 PM
I always thought that’s what Ahmadinejad meant about having no gays in Iran. He knows about homosexual behavior– it’s apparently quite commonplace in Muslim countries. He meant, I think, that Iran had no separate and distinct society or culture based upon homosexual sex.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 6:00 PM
Nonfactor
MirCat on May 15, 2008 at 6:00 PM
.
Well, there probably is one already, but to your point, I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the government authorizing marriage. It is not their right to do so, a point that our founders would agree with. Especially galling is that the state got involved with this issue years ago in order to discriminate against bi-racial couples, and now this same government wants me to accept any combination of humans (or maybe worse in the future) as the same as a marriage. I have no problem with creating legal structures to allow groups of people to form their version of family, and have access to medical records, inheritance, etc. I do have a problem with government defining what should be acceptable in terms of a marriage.
Think_b4_speaking on May 15, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Damn good!
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Mahmoud has a secret crush on Obama. And I think the feeling is mutual.
phronesis on May 15, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Let’s be clear here that the question is about government sanctioned marriage so what the religious cults have to say applies only to their particular cult and its members.
That being said, once the state legalizes homosexual marriage using the basic argument of it being a contractual arrangement between consenting, loving adults then they must eventually approve of multiple parent marriage. For example, if two gay men “marry” and then contract for a woman to bear a child with one of the males providing the sperm then why, after the child is born, would one refuse that the natural mother of the child join the marital group if there is loving consent between all concerned? Similar arguments lead to generalized polyamory.
Annar on May 15, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Well my first reaction is good.
Personally I think the government should call them all civil unions but gays are entitled to the same benefits as heteros. They give the same benefits to society so they deserve equal status. Now if you want to argue it shouldnt be called “marriage” fine, but to me those rights trump any claim on the word marriage.
Dash on May 15, 2008 at 6:04 PM
.
My rights are being infringed by the government putting its imprimatur on marriage, period.
Think_b4_speaking on May 15, 2008 at 6:05 PM
That door was opened when judges allowed the parent who walked out, cheated, beat the other parent custody/shared custody.
- The Cat
MirCat on May 15, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Good point. But presumably men who are sexually attracted to other men (gay men as most people now say) were breastfed. They should love female breasts too. And they did! But when puberty hit, those organs didn’t become “sexualized”
At puberty, the female image and sexual organs become “sexualized” in the minds of most men. You don’t want those breasts anymore for milk. For some men, other things become “sexualized”– usually male sex organs, but sometimes objects or activities. That’s what fetishes are.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Actually, you could ask the same of heterosexuals.
According to the CDC, percent of married population is at 59%…down from 62% in 1990 and 72% in 1970.
Meanwhile, percent of divorced is at 10%…up from 8% in 1990 and 6% in 1980.
Unfortunately, the truth of that is more real than you think.
Oh, I could tell you my own tale of woe but I’m sure nearly everyone here has a story about an ex bleeding their bank account dry.
However, in my case, I got to see karma work her lovely magic.
The Ugly American on May 15, 2008 at 6:07 PM
I think we are using two different meanings of the term “marriage.” What you seem to mean by it is an affirmation of love and commitment between two adults. That is what I term the “religious” aspect of it which is not the purview of the State. What I mean by it is the bundle of legal aspects such as property sharing, insurance, power of attorney, child custody, etc. given force by a contract administered by the state called Marriage.
I am unconcerned with marriage as defined by your argument. It is the legal aspect which I am concerned with. I oppose using the first definition to argue on the basis of gender against the second.
As for civil unions, they have been tried and have shown themselves to be inadequate. They create a large tangle of problems because they are a new law. By making marriage simply between two adults you would simplify matters considerably.
I base this opinion on experiences in Europe and with European acquaintances. One was from Germany, which has a domestic partnership law. He said it caused nothing but problems for him and his partner. Another was from Finland, who said things were simple in his country because any two people could get married. So I favor ending gender-based discrimination rather than implementing civil unions.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 15, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Which right? Might someone else’s rights be infringed upon by government sanctioned divorce?
dedalus on May 15, 2008 at 6:08 PM
I always thought marriage was an act performed under the eyes of your god, your spouse and / or family.
I never really understood why the government even has anything to do with it.
Bigamy, polygamy and gaygamy/homogamy laws should be struck from the books.
TheSitRep on May 15, 2008 at 6:09 PM
No no, he’s got a new guy. It’s the talk of Tehran. Early June marriage I think.
Oldnuke on May 15, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Not just polygamy traditionally understood but a very post-modern kind of multiple-partner marriage with any combination of men and women, gay and otherwise.
On the up side, this is a windfall for divorce lawyers. Three or four partners divorcing each other will create nearly limitless complexity and litigation. Custody battles, alimony suites, paternity disputes, child support cases - I foresee lots of divorce lawyers driving up Ferrari sales.
Vote Sauron 08 on May 15, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Then we have nothing to discuss, as you seek an end to legal marriages and I seek to reform them.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 15, 2008 at 6:10 PM
Dude, many religions, thoughout history, have had there gay positive aspects. A religion just for gay people was first started in the 1960’s and it was fundamentalist Church church called the Metropolitan Community Church. It’s still around.
thuja on May 15, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Sure you have the time to worry about me? Aren’t you busy locking up those who don’t believe in global warming. Where’s your facts? I’m giving my theory. But if I don’t like yours, I’m beyond the pale? Liberal fascism.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 6:11 PM
That’s because, as you see in this thread, society is seeing marriage as just another contract or simply a peace of paper.
- The Cat
P.S. A friend of mine says, “I don’t understand how people can be afraid of commitment. You can easily get divorced.” And he’s serious. He’s been married and divorced twice so far and he’s just 34.
MirCat on May 15, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Thought it was just about equal rights…
Skywise on May 15, 2008 at 6:13 PM
.
Natural law. When you say ‘government sanctioned’ you have already entered dangerous territory.
Think_b4_speaking on May 15, 2008 at 6:13 PM
The most true statement in this entire so-called issue!
thuja on May 15, 2008 at 6:14 PM
.
Thank you, Skywise - touche
Think_b4_speaking on May 15, 2008 at 6:14 PM
I always thought marriage was an act performed under the eyes of your god, your spouse and / or family.
I never really understood why the government even has anything to do with it.
Bigamy, polygamy and gaygamy/homogamy laws should be struck from the books.
TheSitRep on May 15, 2008 at 6:09 PM
The reason the gov’t has a reason to do with it comes down to its function as an arbitrator. It allows for the classification of another person as a certain kind of familial relation, like a son, daughter, mother, or father. Add to that list “spouse.” Certain things, such as inheritance, insurance, property sharing, custody of dependents, etc. all are affected by a marriage. As these are legal issues, the gov’t definition of and permission to enter into marriage are a legal issue.
What you are referring to is the “religious” definition of marriage, a different subject.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 15, 2008 at 6:15 PM
Alas, I’m not too young. I’m 43. But I notice you didn’t answer my question. I asked whether “you think you could choose to be oriented to other men (i.e., not just sexually attracted to them, but also emotionally and romantically interested in them)?”
What’s the answer for you? Yes or no?
paul006 on May 15, 2008 at 6:16 PM
Another sad day for California.
We truly are the state of fruits and nuts.
And Feinstain just got her AGJobs 5 year amnesty attached to the Iraq Supplemental bill. It might be voted on tomorrow! We could have another amnesty by TOMORROW AFTERNOON.
NTWR on May 15, 2008 at 6:17 PM
Again, I’m either close to agreement with you or out of my field when it comes to developmental psychology and sexuality. Haven’t thought much about the dividing line between fetishes and routine sexual behavior, though my guess is that the line varies among people.
dedalus on May 15, 2008 at 6:18 PM
It happened when we let them start controlling us with the tax code and let that trump all. Foot in the door and all that.
That and code that delt with wills and whatnot. Back in the day they could only enfore wills instead of dictating what could and could not be done. In otherwords they went from protecting rights to saying what was and wasn’t a right.
- The Cat
P.S. Did you just say gaygamy?
MirCat on May 15, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Lots of interesting responses.
Let’s change to 21st century science. We have some complete genome sequences in great detail. How about some grant applications to NIH to look for genetic difference in straight and gay populations.
How about some detailed scans or assays of relevant brain sections to look for biological differences.
And if found, how about looking for small molecules (or receptor antagonists) to reverse gay orientation to straight.
Don’t just argue activist judges - get data to make the switch to a straight world.
NaCly dog on May 15, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Laws were reformed when they ended segregation based on race. Marriage law will be reformed when it ends discrimination based on gender. Then the right to marry will be equal for all people regardless of gender.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 15, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Marriage law doesn’t discriminate now. Any man or woman are allowed to marry each other regardless of orientation.
Love has NOTHING to do with it. Never has.
Skywise on May 15, 2008 at 6:22 PM
OK. We’d probably agree on limiting the role of government.
dedalus on May 15, 2008 at 6:23 PM
JiangxiDad,
I’ve always felt that most human behavior is the result of our programming. I also think that the hardware has a lot of influence on the programs. Tumors and disease can cause a file to become corrupt and result in changes or even influence initial programming. Continuing in that vein then a baby comes out of the womb with just a basic bios containing some rudimentary instinctual functions. Loading the OS starts immediately and continues for the rest of your life. You get continual updates. If this is true wouldn’t that mean that the programming be subject to change? In other words changing from straight to homosexual or vice versa. This makes more sense to me than being hardwired from the outset.
Oldnuke on May 15, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Redheads = Yes
Asians = Yes
Asian Redheads = Not so much.
Discuss.
- The Cat
P.S.
Read Crichton’s latest book ‘Next‘
MirCat on May 15, 2008 at 6:25 PM
Sorry. Wasn’t trying to ignore the question. The answer is no. Nobody chooses. The “choice” is thrust upon them. If your asking whether I think anything can be done about the “choice” once its been made, I think the answer should be yes. That is to say it seems like someone ought to be able to consciously chooose, later on, to “learn” what they previously didn’t. You’d have to want to I guess. Don’t think anyone would want to learn to be attracted to the same sex.The typical, normal sexual development is attraction to the opposite sex. Not only does biology dictate that, but internally, people have a masculine and feminine aspect (for lack of a better word), a Yin and Yang thing. Jung referred to it as the anima and animus.To properly meld the two, and to make a “complete” person, we initially seek our sexual opposite in a partner– a beautiful sexual woman for a man, a handsome virile man for a woman. (Once middle age hits, and you wake up next to someone who no longer fits that image, many divorces occur, or red sports cars are bought. But that’s a story for another time.) IMO, that’s how our development was meant to proceed.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 6:26 PM
I used to have lots of gay friends, going back to high school in th 1970s. Most of them died of AIDS. The ones that didn’t have been in longtime monogamous relationships and they don’t care about being “married.”
rockmom on May 15, 2008 at 6:26 PM
So, once again, four judges in black robes overturned the will of the people.
Four people, wearing robes, just decided to wipe away marriage. Just erase it. Four people. Four.
JellyToast on May 15, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Four: The People.
MirCat on May 15, 2008 at 6:28 PM
It does discriminate if one takes gender to be a class for discrimination. From the post, above:
Also from the linked article,
This is the entire thesis of my arguments in this thread. Good to see it turned out to be the actual opinion of the Chief Justice!
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 15, 2008 at 6:28 PM
I’m pretty sure that there’s an amendment to the state constitution already in the works for this year.
Oldnuke on May 15, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Yes. But if you believe this, then so-called gay people, through no fault of their own, are doing something abnormal, don’t know why, don’t want to, didn’t ask for it, and don’t know what to do about it in any case. I think that situation has given rise to the notion of being “gay.”
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 6:29 PM
As for why it is important to same-sex couples, again from the linked article in the main post,
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 15, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Hopefully it won’t pass the legislature. I’m new to California so I don’t know the state’s amendment process.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 15, 2008 at 6:31 PM
How about number of people? Is that now a class for discrimination? Partnerships are more than two people.
Skywise on May 15, 2008 at 6:32 PM
I’m sure that a lot of us here were raised back when traditional families where still the norm. A time that, for me anyway, America seemed at its best.
When the family started falling apart, so did our country.
If anything, we should be strengthening marriage, not diluting it with meaningless, feel-good, political correctness.
The Ugly American on May 15, 2008 at 6:33 PM
Encouraging women in the workplace and having two-income families probably has more to do with disrupting the traditional family than gay marriage does.
dedalus on May 15, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Not sure how you draw that conclusion. It’s not like any of us have control over our programming. It happens. Just saying technically that it would be possible to change orientation if it is indeed a programmed function. Not sure why anyone would do that in this day and age.
Oldnuke on May 15, 2008 at 6:36 PM
How about number of people? Is that now a class for discrimination? Partnerships are more than two people.
Skywise on May 15, 2008 at 6:32 PM
Hey, you want to argue for polygamy, go ahead. I’m just here for same-sex marriage.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 15, 2008 at 6:37 PM
My guess is the hardware and software in humans is more intricately intertwined than in computers.
dedalus on May 15, 2008 at 6:39 PM
America is turning into a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. God help us.
apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Wow. That’s really a weak argument. You might as well say that Saddam Hussein’s decisions were the will of the people because he’s a people.
Sheesh.
fossten on May 15, 2008 at 6:42 PM
Proposition 22 passed with over 60% approval. I think it’s a safe bet that the amendment will pass.
Oldnuke on May 15, 2008 at 6:43 PM
G’nite folks!
Be sure to tip your waitress!
The Ugly American on May 15, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Guess I misunderstood what you said. The pre-programming, hard-wired part, according to Jung at least, (and evident in so many cultures) is an internal masculine and feminine nature to the mind. If you have a same-sex sexual attraction, in essence you use half your nature. That’s the theory, anyway. Always made sense to me. Much more so than the new, but now conventional “I was born gay” idea.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 6:45 PM
I’ve read some of the ruling, and it’s very sound. Some of the text:
I recommend that anyone seriously thinking about this issue read the whole 172-page opinion.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 15, 2008 at 6:45 PM
I definitely wouldn’t argue with that. But all in all it’s still just a computer.
Oldnuke on May 15, 2008 at 6:45 PM
The 172-page majority opinion is a very good one. Here’s a snippet:
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 15, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Agh, sorry about double post. Thought the system didn’t accept my last one because it was too long.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 15, 2008 at 6:47 PM
You do know that was a satirical pun on “For the People by the People”?
- The Cat
Or in my case Satyrical
MirCat on May 15, 2008 at 6:47 PM
Good on you, California.
Krydor on May 15, 2008 at 6:51 PM
That’s because…
it’s not.
Skywise on May 15, 2008 at 6:55 PM
The ruling today in California will open the floodgates, most every other state is going to follow and allow men to marry men and women to mary women. Just give it time. They keep pushing their destructive lifestyles on us, bit by bit, til they get what they want. Watch, you’ll see. Oh, and they’ll pass laws so if you object to men having sex with men they’ll call it hate speech. They’ve already got some passed now. Ah, but don’t worry friends, rampant sodomy brought divine destruction upon the city of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Lord will NOT let this go unpunished. Justice is coming!
apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 6:57 PM
Right, because that’s exactly what happened after the MA court made a similar ruling.
Oh, what’s that? It prompted many states to pass amendments to their state constitution to bar gay marriage? And there’s an effort to do the same in CA as we speak? Oh, nevermind then.
Go get buggered by Fred Phelps and keep your crazy to yourself.
Hollowpoint on May 15, 2008 at 7:05 PM
The Lord will NOT let this go unpunished. Justice is coming!
Why, I’ll bet he sends some mudslides, earthquakes and brushfires California’s way…
/snark
Krydor on May 15, 2008 at 7:06 PM
In spite of what Gavin Newsom says, this is NOT a CIVIL RIGHTS issue. Why would I expect something else from him? He is the Mayor up in ‘Frisco…
DfDeportation on May 15, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Judicial Tyranny!!!!
DfDeportation on May 15, 2008 at 7:07 PM
I was starting to get worried that you would not show up. Now the thread feels complete. : )
the goddess anna on May 15, 2008 at 7:07 PM
Man, I’m not a Christian, so can’t tell you much about the love the sinner business. But don’t you get that “gay” people didn’t consciously choose their sexual attraction?
Now it’s true that a mania has been created out of this whole sexuality business, with “gays” becoming a new class of people, and a protected class at that. And it’s true that do-gooding dumbass libs who need to feel good about themselves all the time encourage these excesses, and yes soon, laws will be passed restricting your speech on this issue. And it’s true that gays may be finding it convenient that sexual attraction is now considered genetically determined– it eliminates the necessity to examine what went wrong.
But for god’s sake, have some compassion please for people who didn’t ask for a same-sex attraction.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 7:10 PM
WIN
doubleplusundead on May 15, 2008 at 7:11 PM
Got that feeling :-) My mind just works in strange ways. I see everything in physical terms. To me the body is just a machine with valves, pipes and control systems. The mind is just a computer. I go blank on pretty much anything that I can’t get into that realm and I forget that other people don’t see things that way. I think the last time I read Jung was in high school. A friend who was more mental and less mechanical than me had spasms talking me into reading something or other by him. Don’t even remember what it was. Read it but can’t say it made an impression on me.
Oldnuke on May 15, 2008 at 7:12 PM
.
So, what you are saying is that judicial activism is ok, as long as they are actively pursuing policies that you like. I, on the other hand, as a conservative, oppose judicial activism. Heard a great radio conversation on the way home tonight. Caller (homosexual) thought the decision was great, and berated the host for being hateful. Host asked the caller if polygamy should also be legalized. The answer was ‘no - they are obscene’. The host responded, ‘Why are you being hateful? You only care about the courts interfering if they are backing your particular lusts.’ Devastating analysis.
Think_b4_speaking on May 15, 2008 at 7:13 PM
Hey, if there is no God anything goes, right? If it feels good do it! Seriously. If evolution is true (and I don’t believe it, but let’s assume it’s true), there is no purpose to life so you might as well have fun; if it feels good, do it. Get all the gusto you can get, you only go around once in life, you know? So why you don’t pass laws to have sex with animals? I’m a Christian and I am 100% against same sex marriage and homosexuality, but, if you are just going to the grave and you are going to get recycled into a worm or a plant, why stop at men having anal intercourse with other men. Why not include animals? I haven’t received a satisfactory answer yet.
apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 7:16 PM
How about marrying our sheep???? Don’t be a hater!!! ha ha ha
DfDeportation on May 15, 2008 at 7:17 PM
Also:
I don’t understand this argument.
Rape was against the law and he never said a word about that either. He didn’t need to.
Seems like he spoke more about the *misinterpretation* of laws, like the objection to his healing on the Sabbath, and such. If he agreed with the way something was being handled, he didn’t seem to bring it up much.
If I’m wrong, I’m open to correction…
sloopy on May 15, 2008 at 7:17 PM
I agree with all the commenters.
stonemeister on May 15, 2008 at 7:20 PM
This ruling is interesting. The term “immutable” really doesn’t apply since many who engaged in homosexual behavior give up the behavior. How does the court explain bisexuality?
In addition, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has maintained, for the most part, that homosexual behavior is innate/genetic but can no longer support that claim, since 40 years of studies have failed to prove that notion and the latest 2008 Finnish Twin Study (largest and most detailed ever conducted) appears to prove otherwise.
If I am correct, in 1973 homosexuality was removed from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) because it was suggested that homosexual behavior is innate/genetic/immutable. Now in the APA’s recent updated/modified brochure (available on its own website) the old statement has been changed, as follows:
The following statement is from the first document:
“There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”
That statement has been replaced with the following:
“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…”
(This information can be verified on the NARTH homepage and on the American Psychiatric Association website)
Is it possible that a scam has been perpetrated, on the American people by the APA with help from the ACLU and tyrannical courts, in this country?
If homosexual behavior was removed from the DSM in 1973 because mental health professionals claimed the behavior was genetic/innate, based on the new comment in the APA’s brochure, shouldn’t homosexual behavior be returned to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders?
You all may want to read “The “Trojan Couch”:
How the Mental Health Associations Misrepresent Science”. Just Google “Trojan Couch” to access the .pdf file. Parts I and II are especially interesting.
sinsing on May 15, 2008 at 7:20 PM
If you don’t believe the California Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage will help other states do the same, you are more deluded than I first thought. This man is depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.
apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 7:20 PM
As a gay dude, I just want the legal right to leave my partner (wherever he is…any gay, fiscal conservatives in Raleigh, NC? Let me know..lol) my social security benefits. I can leave whatever I personally own in a will. I’m not caught up on the word “marriage” as soooooooooooo many people are. I guess I’m middle of the road on this one.
SouthernGent on May 15, 2008 at 7:21 PM
I trust you. A guy in work told me hes gay a few weeks ago. I never would have guessed it even though he had said he was against anti-gay religious attitudes - I just figured he had a friend who was gay. Then ages later I was ranting against homophobia (you’ll have to trust me on that - I was giving out about the Phelps family) and he said it and I didn’t/don’t have any problem getting on with him.
aengus on May 15, 2008 at 7:22 PM
It’s California. Who cares? Let them pass legislation to enable folks to marry dogs, cats, brooms, pop cans, toothpaste, dinosaur bones, toilet bowl cleaners, their mother’s shoes, Christmas trees, action figures, tadpoles, glue, or even a photo of themselves. WHO CARES! As long as they don’t attempt to pass this crap in Ohio, It really doesn’t matter to me.
Vaporman87 on May 15, 2008 at 7:22 PM
I love you Anna. Please change your name though to just Anna or something else, take out the goddess.
apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Anyone notice the more morally bancrupt we become, as a country, the bigger our problems….
Just sayin.
“If My people who are called by My Name, will humble themselves and TURN FROM THEIR EVIL WAYS, then I will hear them and will HEAL THEIR LAND.” May God have mercy on us.
stenwin77 on May 15, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Legally, schmegally. The laws can be changed. We should be very discriminating in matters such as these and especially reject the liberal notion of placing equality as the ruling principle of society.
aengus on May 15, 2008 at 7:24 PM
You’re born with blue eyes and green eyes. Taking your pants off to have sex is a choice.
apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Why not include animals? I haven’t received a satisfactory answer yet.
apacalyps
If the only reason you are not having sex with animals is because you are afraid God will get mad, then you have some serious issues.
I’m an atheist, and I haven’t had the inclination to have sex with my dogs or another man. Go figure.
Krydor on May 15, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Comment pages: « 1 … 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 … 14 »