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 … 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 … 14 »
LOL. Have a friend, an architect, who had the same reaction when I said how great it was. I think the divorce rate would be drastically cut if people understood how much projection is used in choosing our spouses. When the projection fades, and the curtain is finally lifted, and we realize we married a plain, ordinary human like ourselves, most people freak out. Of course the task in the second half of life is to co-exist with another person, two people sitting side-by-side, not the “you complete me” stuff of the first half.
Have fun with your machines. I love the mind.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 7:26 PM
Precisely.
sinsing on May 15, 2008 at 7:27 PM
So that the fundamentalists among us don’t worry too much one need only point out that in a 20 or 30 years large communities will be governed by Shari’a law and there will be no gay marriage allowed. Make your alliances today!
/sarc
As others have said, the government should get out of the marriage business and leave such social contracts to individuals. Those who want the blessing of a cult can have it with no government interference.
Annar on May 15, 2008 at 7:27 PM
How long would you be able to stop hetero sex, assuming you are young and able? How would stopping affect you?
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 7:28 PM
It’s a nostalgia thing, my screenname. Been using it for nearly 11 years now. Besides, my husband thinks I’m a goddess, so the title sticks.
You can stick with calling me Anna. : )
the goddess anna on May 15, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Yeah but its not fair. I’m outnumbered two to one.
aengus on May 15, 2008 at 7:31 PM
I went without it for 28 years. Until I was married. It’s still possible, but as a society we’re too lazy and self-absorbed to do the right things in life anymore.
Vaporman87 on May 15, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Um, I’m a male… what if I’m at a friends place or something and some guy comes up to me and hits on me? What if I feel uncomfortable with men having anal intercourse with another men because it’s a dangerous lifestyle that can lead to the spread of disease. Promiscuous behavior in the gay community was largely responsible for the spread of HIV in the 80’s and 90’s. Now this same behavior seems to be spreading a killer form of Staph. Am I allowed to say that and warn my friends or will I be accused of hate speech? Please tell me what my rights are. Thank you.
apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Smile. I’ll assume the first 16 or so weren’t so onerous. The other guy wants it to never happen. Could you do that?
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 7:34 PM
I guess the debate is over. All I see lately in this thread is empty religious and social good arguments. I’ll be going now.
Something to ponder:
The California State Supreme Court can strike down constitutional initiatives. They hopefully will do so to any initiative which goes against this ruling.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 15, 2008 at 7:35 PM
Haha, the mind is just a machine! :-) Been married to the same woman for over 40 years. Can’t imagine life without her. Recently went back into the work force for a couple of months. She stayed in Virginia I went to Wisconsin. Both of us discovered that we were very uncomfortable being separated even knowing it was for a short finite time.
Oldnuke on May 15, 2008 at 7:36 PM
no surprise that you would favor having a tyranny of the judiciary.
you can’t get your way otherwise
right4life on May 15, 2008 at 7:38 PM
apacalyps,
You, sir, are a parody waiting to happen.
Krydor on May 15, 2008 at 7:38 PM
If another person hits on you, male or female, you should feel attractive. If it’s someone you are not attracted to, tell them so politely. I understand that you feel uncomfortable with dangerous sexual practices (I do too), and you have every right to express this discomfort. The key is to be polite about it. How one words their opinion says a lot about a person, and if it’s done in a respectful manner, it has a better chance of being considered.
I’m not saying you’re impolite, btw, this is just how I deal with these situations myself. I just think that if it’s said without malice, then it’s a lot harder to call hate speech.
the goddess anna on May 15, 2008 at 7:38 PM
Hi Krydor. I hope you are doing well. So you approve that humans should be allowed to have sexual intercourse with animals?
apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 7:39 PM
and you won’t. getting logic from a lib is like getting blood from a turnip
right4life on May 15, 2008 at 7:40 PM
we know he’s a marxist
we know he’s a closeted muslim
but what else may be coming out about (maybe we need an obama boy)
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/4766
or
http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/05/obama_caught_up_in_gay_murder.php
elduende on May 15, 2008 at 7:40 PM
30 years next August. What a wild ride. Very very grateful for my wife and children. VA huh? Charlottesville area is on my retirement list. Liked it.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Same here. I thought the objections to that remark were a load of hooey.
aengus on May 15, 2008 at 7:41 PM
you obviously don’t have a clue about what the gay agenda is. its to impose a gay sharia law, so that any who disagree are punished.
right4life on May 15, 2008 at 7:42 PM
There have been times and cultures in which homosexuality was tolerated, even encouraged. Greece, Rome, Sparta. And times where the relationship was considered equal or even superior to marriage. But even at those times and for thousands of years hence, marriage has been reserved exclusivley for one man, one woman. Equal protection is one thing, but what’s the rush to change the meaning of the word, or the tradition? This is new territory. The legal and social effect will impact not only the few who desire the word’s new definition, but also the millions (billions?) who do not. In a thousand ways we cannot even fathom yet. Is there a different agenda afoot, perhaps? Slippery slope, indeed. Avalanche.
Nikita on May 15, 2008 at 7:42 PM
I so resemble that statement. We’ve been married for nearly 5 years, but each (military) separation gets harder to live through. Of course, he’ll be out before we’ve been married as long as you - but our marriage will be stronger for it.
the goddess anna on May 15, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Marriage pre-exists our government. Marriage in fact pre-exists any government.
Therefor government ought to be very hesitant to change any fundamental historical element of marriage.
The fact that marriage is between a male and female is intrinsic to the definition of marriage. Therefor it is not a marriage when genders are the same, no matter what the government says.
Sackett on May 15, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Nice place, a little pricey but nice. I’m in Fredericksburg.
Oldnuke on May 15, 2008 at 7:43 PM
I’ve never seen someone so obsessed with the right to have sex with animials.
Ba-a-a-a means “no”, duder.
Hollowpoint on May 15, 2008 at 7:44 PM
apacalyps,
No dude, it’s just that I have no inclination to have sex with animals. Hell, if you want to have sex with animals, go right ahead. Just as long as the animal is “of age” and can give informed consent, then I have no problem with it.
Krydor on May 15, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Huh?
apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Virginia is beautiful, but personally, I hate living here. Can’t wait to move back to Maryland. It’s in our blood.
the goddess anna on May 15, 2008 at 7:46 PM
And then there was this ancient tale about an oldish guy who had a son with no female in sight …
Annar on May 15, 2008 at 7:46 PM
you said it was merely a choice to take your pants off. I asked how long you could keep yours on? You expect “gay” people to never have sex?
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 7:47 PM
Been there done that, long time ago. You’re around Virginia Beach now Right? Maryland has better crab cakes but the soft shells are best here! Soft shells rule!
Oldnuke on May 15, 2008 at 7:50 PM
I think many parts of MD are beautiful. But I’m in NY. Politically speaking, I’d like to get away from Libs, and I believe MD is as bad as here.. I’ve lived with them my whole life, and have become isolated because of them. I know VA is purple, but that’s an improvement.
Have heard great things about Fredericksburg. But one of those is that it has become a bedroom community for DC, so I’m not sure that once again I’ll find myself with the same types as neighbors. I’d like a place where people don’t buy expensive coffee.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 7:51 PM
Well, I don’t like it at all, when you start identifying yourself as a god (even in jest) this gets into humanistic thinking. The idea there is no Creator, the evolution theory is true and the universe was formed by chance, then there are no absolutes regarding right and wrong. Man becomes God. People who believe this are called humanists.
I will.
apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 7:52 PM
of course AHNOLD is all for it, and the republicans wonder why they keep losing elections…
right4life on May 15, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Very nice story.
apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 7:54 PM
Here we go again, 61% of the people(voters) wanted marriage between a man and a woman. Once again a judge went against the people. Question why do we vote? Why are Americas best dying in a war to allow others to vote and we cannot? This the third time in California.
The next 10 years are going to be hell with Dems like Polosi and Reid with do nothing Republicans.
Largil on May 15, 2008 at 7:54 PM
Wins the thread.
aengus on May 15, 2008 at 7:54 PM
Which animals do you think is best to have sex with Krydor?
apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 7:57 PM
So you are recommending if a man wants to have anal intercourse with another man they should do it?
apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 7:59 PM
You know it.
apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Wow, I do not read HA for a few hours and I miss the mountain of comments. All I can say is that this is one conservative who is very happy with the decision of the CA Supreme Court. I see same-sex marriage (SSM) as a conservative position, as opposed to promiscuous, random, meaningless sex. I know that this will not sit well with you religious conservatives, but government sanctioned marriage should not include a religious component. Leave the church weddings for the church.
DCGamer on May 15, 2008 at 8:00 PM
I understand completely what you mean. I certainly understand reaching the point in thinking that without God, all is possible. Many people go down that road. And of course, your response, that you can avoid doing many vile things without God, is also true. That’s why philosophy is so fascinating. Relying on God to police all of my behaviors doesn’t work for me either. Living without a God causes me problems too.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Gotta run, later. Got a date with the wife.
Oldnuke on May 15, 2008 at 8:00 PM
My guess is that few men will marry. I further guess that it will have little effect on promiscuity, even among those married. There is something else afoot here.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 8:02 PM
Yeah, we’re in the Beach. True about the crab cakes, but I cannot do soft shells.
You know very well I don’t believe in divine beings. I do believe in right and wrong, and that when it comes to this debate, neither of us will convince the other. Btw, how did you like the answer to your question?
I know the politics are crap in MD. I could rant for days about how much I hate O’Malley and Dixon (I won’t, though). It’s where the inlaws are, where the kids were born, and where the husband is stationed (and where the jobs will be when he gets out). Also, cheaper to drive to visit my mom in DE.
the goddess anna on May 15, 2008 at 8:03 PM
Have fun! : )
the goddess anna on May 15, 2008 at 8:03 PM
Hey, California…
The wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah with their filthy conversation and rampant sodomy brought divine destruction upon them.
“Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven” Genesis 19:24. “Turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes… making them an ensample (example) unto those that after should live ungodly.” 2 Peter 2:6
Please, turn from your wicked ways. You do NOT want to learn the hard way.
apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 8:06 PM
Yes, with proper condoms (not all are safe for anal intercourse), good lube, and plenty of patience. Barebacking is a big no-no, though, and so is being rough. Those are the unsafe aspects to anal sex (whether gay or straight).
the goddess anna on May 15, 2008 at 8:06 PM
So 4 judges overruled the people of California on gay marriage? Niiiice.
Seixon on May 15, 2008 at 8:10 PM
It’s ok to have a religious response to questions. It’s not OK to throw stuff out, and when questioned about it, not respond. Weakens your argument, and more importantly for you, weakens the source of your opinions.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Marriage means a uniting of opposites — like sweet and sour pork. Gay “unions” are an oxymoron — like jumbo shrimp.
signed,
heteronormativeelviselvis on May 15, 2008 at 8:11 PM
I want to know where you draw the line? Men placing their privates in other mens rectal area is okay, but not to an animal? Why not. What gives YOU the right to make that decision!?
(I am a Christian against homosexuality. I only ask the question.)
apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Perhaps so, Jiangxi. Consider, however, the example straight people set. Many/most college kids are sex machines, yet most mature, marry, and settle down. Gay people come in all varieties. I know many gay couples who live in monogamous, committed relationships and who volunteer in churches and charitable organizations.
DCGamer on May 15, 2008 at 8:14 PM
Another adult can give consent. An animal cannot. There is the difference. I didn’t make that decision - apparently God gave humans the higher reasoning skills to consent to sex with each other, but did not give the animals those same reasoning abilities to also consent.
What about hetero anal sex, apacalyps? How is that any different? Or are you against that too?
the goddess anna on May 15, 2008 at 8:16 PM
Well, there you have it. One man for animal-human sex. Will the perversion ever end!!!!! Coughing, cough… coughing… stands up gasping for breaths.
apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 8:16 PM
Seems mostly lesbians to me. IMO, they can’t settle down, and/or find it hard to be monogamous, because homosexual sex doesn’t provide what “gays” are primarily looking for–that being “masculinity” for men, and “femininity” for women. It a constant, never-ending search.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Do you realize how crazy this makes you sound? How about men who put their privates in women’s rectal area? Is that OK? How about men who put their mouths on women’s private areas? How about women who put their mouths on men’s genitals? Are these OK?
All of this is irrelevant to SSM.
DCGamer on May 15, 2008 at 8:19 PM
I think the jokes go something like:
–What does a lesbian bring to a 2nd date?
–A moving van
–What does a gay guy bring to a 2nd date?
–What 2nd date?
dedalus on May 15, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Holy Father in heaven, we pray for you “To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins..” Acts 26:18
apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 8:22 PM
“of age.” “informed consent.” Don’t you get it??
I’m beginning to think you’re some kind of agent provocateur– offering up the dumbest type of religious objection, to make other religious people look silly. Your arguments aren’t well-thought-out, or well-argued, you don’t respond to questions about your posts. This is absurd.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 8:23 PM
Ha. See, I’m right:)
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 8:24 PM
So you are happy with a judiciary that abuses its power by substituting its policy preferences for the electorate’s? You are happy to have a judiciary ignore the text, history, and tradition of its constitution, choosing instead to “evolve” the meaning of the text in order to conform to some subjective perception of alleged new cultural norms? You are happy to have a constitution that effectively has no meaning at all since its meaning is ever-changing at the whim of four highly unrepresentative people? And this makes you conservative how?
medguy on May 15, 2008 at 8:30 PM
You’re being dishonest and avoiding the subject. Here’s what you said before:
You imply people are “born” gay.
And I responded, “You’re born with blue eyes and green eyes. Taking your pants off to have sex is a choice.”
You’re not gay. You just choose to have sex with other men.
apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 8:34 PM
Even the devil can quote scripture, apacalyps. I will not play that game with you, except to say that “judge not lest ye be judged.”
Once again, civil marriage is a different creature from religious marriage. Civil marriage must give everyone an equal opportunity to marry the person he or she chooses.
DCGamer on May 15, 2008 at 8:34 PM
its like when the democrats call Rush, and pretend to be republican, they’re dishonest and they think we’ll believe their lies better if they pretend to be one of us.
right4life on May 15, 2008 at 8:36 PM
so you think Paul was sinning when he turned that corinthian over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh??
right4life on May 15, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Excactly. And with the Dems in the white house as you say, watch out. America is changing quick and not for the better. No moral compass anymore. Can no longer be a beacon of hope to the rest of the world, only a beacon of immorality.
apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 8:37 PM
why only marry one person…how intolerant of you!
right4life on May 15, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Who decides right and wrong for you? And where did you get that ability to choose right and wrong?
apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 8:39 PM
If a gay person prefers the companionship of a same-sex partner – fine. If a gay person prefers sexual relations with a partner of the same flavor – fine. Want to buy a house together or file joint tax returns – ok by me.
But – to ignore the obvious differences between the sexes is ludicrous to the extreme. Our bodies are physically designed by (evolution or creation, your choice) for procreation. This most basic physical ability is built into our bodies to assure continuation of the species. Period. End of story.
An attempt to position a same-sex union as the exact equivalent of a male/female union can hardly be taken seriously. There is every reason to respect the same-sex union and to afford the participants the same benefits available to hetro couples up to a point, but the hetro couple’s benefit to humankind outweighs the gay variety.
The hetro union has the human physical capability to produce offspring – the gay couple does not. It seems to me that that trumps everything else.
Garnet92 on May 15, 2008 at 8:40 PM
I made it clear in this thread that I don’t think people are born gay. But unlike you, I don’t assume that means that sexual orientation is within their control, anymore than your’s is in your control. The fallacy in your argument is believing that people who have same-sex attractions “chose” that, just as they choose to have homosexual sex. How do I know? Every “gay” person says so, that the feelings just came on, just as every “straight” person says the same about their hetero attractions. No one chooses this stuff. So stop condemning people so much.
That being said, the whole gay notion and agenda and rights stuff is BS, as is this stupid liberal CA court.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 8:40 PM
What’s permitted in terms of the law is decided by elected officials who write the laws. Animals are off limits as they can’t consent and not in accordance with public acceptibility and thus laws banning it were put in effect. Don’t want gay marriage in your state? Vote accordingly as did 13 states that passed constitutional amendments barring the practice in response to the MA decision. As stated, there is an effort to do so in CA that began before this ruling even came out.
In any case, this thread pertains to a California ruling that legalized gay marriage- not the ethics of gay sex. Your fire and brimstone, hyper-judgemental attitude does no one any favors- if anything, you are harming Christianity by making Christians look like obsessive, extremist nuts. You’re not exactly winning any converts.
Hollowpoint on May 15, 2008 at 8:40 PM
Ignore the above post Jiang, it was meant for Anna.
apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 8:40 PM
You’ve misunderstood that quote. It means do not pronounce final judgement on someone. You can’t tell someone they are going to hell - God decides that. It does not mean that you should reserve judgement of someone’s moral conduct. In fact as a Christian you are supposed to steer people away from immoral acts and point out to them if they are on the wrong path.
aengus on May 15, 2008 at 8:40 PM
You got me confused with Anna. That wasn’t my quote.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 8:42 PM
I’ve never understood how this has become an issue of discrimination. Gays have the same rights as everyone else: they can marry one person of the opposite sex at a time. It would be discrimination if the law said gays couldn’t marry anyone at all. Gays are actually asking for special rights here.
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 8:44 PM
It is the job of the judiciary to interpret the constitution and laws of the country. I agree that judges should not “legislate from the bench.” However, there are occassions where judges must make the correct, but difficult, decisions.
Loving vs. Virginia (1967) was one such case. Until the Supreme Court ruled on this case, it was illegal for mixed-race couples to marry in Virginia. Many of you would argue that it was the job of the legislature of Virginia, not the courts, to change the law. But consider the facts, the legislature of Virgina was not about to change that law in 1967. I bet there would be congressmen today who would still not vote to change that law. It was the right thing for the Supreme Court to do then, and for the same reason, it was right for the California Supreme Court to make their ruling today.
DCGamer on May 15, 2008 at 8:45 PM
They should marry a spouse who they have no desire for intimacy with? Is that fair to the spouse?
dedalus on May 15, 2008 at 8:47 PM
Happens every day.
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 8:48 PM
Sweet Maria… okay folks… I’m oughta here. I’ve had about enough for tonight. The above post did it for me. I feel sorry for your children Anna. Please don’t teach them this… God help protect them.
apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 8:49 PM
I guess. Helps explain the divorce rate. Doesn’t seem optimal to design a system where one spouse isn’t sexually interested in the other–or anyone of that gender.
dedalus on May 15, 2008 at 8:51 PM
But that couple was being denied the same right that everyone else had to marry one person of the opposite sex at a time. They were being discriminated against.
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 8:51 PM
Blacks have the same rights as everyone else: they can drink from one segregated water fountain at a time. It would be discrimination if the law said that blacks coudn’t drink from any water fountain at all. Blacks were actually seeking special rights there.
DCGamer on May 15, 2008 at 8:52 PM
You mean, where do I personally get my sense of right and wrong? Or where I believe humanity in general gets it from? I study philosphy, linguistics, religion, and mythology (for fun!). I have based my personal beliefs, including what is right and wrong, on what I have studied over the years. I think society has gotten its lessons in a similar fashion - there are the rules of religion, the customs of earlier society, and even just plain old debate. I think what defines right and wrong is not set in stone across humanity - different cultures have different views on right and wrong. There are similarities as well. There have been vast amounts of people who have lived their lives without your God who also lived with the notion of rights and wrongs.
To answer your first question more bluntly: I decided right and wrong for myself, based off of my beliefs and my studies.
the goddess anna on May 15, 2008 at 8:54 PM
Everyone equally had the right to marry within their race.
dedalus on May 15, 2008 at 8:55 PM
do you people complainging that the court is changing the will of the voters not seeing the stark parallel between yourselves and the liberals complainging about the ‘injustice’ in Florida?
Please stop the stupidity.
The court is there to turn over laws that violate the constitution of the state or country. Most people supported laws to disallow blacks from sitting with the ‘normal’ people in the south but the courts overturned many of those laws as well, was that a judiciary running wild counter to the will of the people?
Ed hit it on the head, CA decided its position long ago when they gave up everything but the word ‘marriage’
bingo.
I personally think marriage is a religious sacrament and the government has no business calling anything they give out the ‘marriage’ moniker.
you miss the greater point. Is it your assertion that up until the day of your nuptials, you had no firm position on which sex you desired to be physically intimate with? Did you not know from the time of puberty that you ‘kidna liked those girls’ or did you have to choose that or was it a natural instinctual thing for you?
MannyT-vA on May 15, 2008 at 8:57 PM
I see you’ve left, without answering any questions but demanding answers from others. And damn right I’m going to teach my children about safer sex practices. Gays aren’t the only ones into that sort of thing, you know.
And there I was, starting to almost respect his opinion. Easy come, easy go.
the goddess anna on May 15, 2008 at 8:58 PM
Obviously, no.
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 8:58 PM
well played. well, well played.
MannyT-vA on May 15, 2008 at 8:59 PM
There you go. Without the fire and brimstone, you almost sound human. Anna’s liberal take on this is learned. But consider the possibility that “gays”, at least initially, are the totally innocent, unwitting victims of some part of human sexuality gone awry. And society offers no help. Libs only offer “gay liberation.” That unfortunate state-of-affairs should be the source from which to draw some compassion.
(Turning it into a lifestyle, based around sex, as some other commenter stated, is obviously wrong, and damaging to other people in society– primarily kids.)
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 8:59 PM
So now the wicked inhabitants of sodom(west hollywood) and gommorrah(san francisco) think they can overrule the vote of the people of california?
SaintOlaf on May 15, 2008 at 9:04 PM
Gay rights is not in any way related to racial rights.
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 9:05 PM
Oops, sorry, I missed the irony. Looking back, yes, that was clever. My bad. I see now you were making fun. [blush]
fossten on May 15, 2008 at 9:05 PM
So that’s what it takes to get rid of him. Good work.
Hollowpoint on May 15, 2008 at 9:06 PM
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you spout this drivel? Any sort of distinction between any activity is the same as making blacks drink from segregated water fountains? You’re drunk on your hyper-liberal insanity.
aengus on May 15, 2008 at 9:07 PM
My brother and his wife live there. He’s a pharmacist. You may even know him.
Connie on May 15, 2008 at 9:07 PM
Homosexuality is a sin and all people who practice homosexuality will be cast into the lake of fire!
SaintOlaf on May 15, 2008 at 9:08 PM
You cannot make the jump from Loving to this case. If Loving was correct (and it was) it was only so because the text and history of the 14th amendment clearly addressed racial discrimination. Problem is that no such provision of the Federal constitution or any state constitution (save for the ones that have defined marriage in their constitution) can be reasonably shown to apply to gay marriage. It certainly is not in the text or history of the California constitution, and it certainly is not in the tradition of the nation or the state of California. Bottom line, this decision was wrongly decided (especially with its decision to announce “sexual orientation” as a suspect class). This is constitution making, not constitution interpreting. You are free to support the ruling, of course; but that support cannot reasonably be construed as a conservative outlook.
medguy on May 15, 2008 at 9:08 PM
I made that comment… but on second thought asking gays not to force their hyper-sexualised sub-culture onto to the mainstream would be like asking blacks to pick cotton in the fields all day long. /DCGamer
aengus on May 15, 2008 at 9:10 PM
Can these people be serious?
phronesis on May 15, 2008 at 9:10 PM
Comment pages: « 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 … 14 »