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 … 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 »
You can only say “obviously, no” now because courts made controversial rulings at the time.
DCGamer on May 15, 2008 at 9:10 PM
So you’re qualified to be God’s equal in judging who goes to heaven and who goes to hell? How humble of you.
Hollowpoint on May 15, 2008 at 9:10 PM
If homosexuality is “genetic”…then will you homosexuals be willing to receive gene therapy for your horrible “genetic” disorder?
SaintOlaf on May 15, 2008 at 9:11 PM
I wouldn’t call that liberal. He asked me if I was okay with (gay) anal sex, and I had a conditional yes. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is not my concern, and shouldn’t be the government’s concern either. I don’t think gays should be shoving sex down our throats (Folsom), but they shouldn’t have to hide in closets in fear either. I don’t care what you call it (gay marriage, civil unions, whatever), it should be dealt with on a state level.
the goddess anna on May 15, 2008 at 9:11 PM
If it wasn’t, would you do it?
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 9:11 PM
Afraid so. It is slightly amusing exploring how deep one can get them to dive in the crazy end of the pool though.
Hollowpoint on May 15, 2008 at 9:12 PM
You all know where this will lead, don’t you?
http://www.hulu.com/watch/7729/family-guy-alien#x-4,vclip,3
“They mostly come out at night, mostly”
VolMagic on May 15, 2008 at 9:14 PM
Don’t really mean to argue with you. My wife says I can discuss a loaf of bread for an hour.
I just meant that it’s a modern, liberal notion, to think that a person is born gay, and that a “person” is a homosexual, instead of his behavior. i.e. there are no gays in Iran, there are just some people having homosexual sex.
Also, your language about anal sex was blunt. Maybe apacalyps is older like me. I still think “sucks” is a bad word.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 9:15 PM
46 year old virgin checking in, so yeah, it can be done. I honor what the Deity I worship has told His followers to do. Not because I think He will hurt me if I have sex, but that He has a better idea of what humans, and I personally, really need and want.
talking_mouse on May 15, 2008 at 9:17 PM
I’m at the end of page three and doubleplusundead is the only one who’s talking about the important issue so far.
baldilocks on May 15, 2008 at 9:19 PM
I admire your discipline and devotion.
aengus on May 15, 2008 at 9:19 PM
baldilocks on May 15, 2008 at 9:19 PM
Just so. When we are a country ruled by fiat from the bench, we are much more like Iran than the America I grew up in.
VolMagic on May 15, 2008 at 9:21 PM
Apacalyps expects it of others, not himself. That is the part I find hypocritical in his argument.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 9:22 PM
I heard that over and over for 25 years. I was a Sunday School teacher, I spoke in tongues almost every day, and I was in the choir. My feelings for other men never left me, and I did everything I was told to do (pray) to make them go away. I finally came to terms with the fact that I’m gay and there’s nothing I can do about it, and I don’t think god will punish me for making me gay.
SouthernGent on May 15, 2008 at 9:23 PM
How many times must we go over this Hollowpoint?
God alone will give final judgment…I do not know if someone will repent on their deathbed(if they have the opportunity).
I’m not giving final judgment…you can repent and go to heaven, hollowpoint.
Do not forget, you will also be cast into the lake of fire HP.
Mormonism is an apostate cult that worships a false jesus and all mormons are sinners and live in idolatry.
Yes you have the opportunity to repent now. Repent while you still can.
SaintOlaf on May 15, 2008 at 9:25 PM
That only came after several properly ratified amendments to the constitution…
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 9:27 PM
I honestly did not think about that! I didn’t mean to offend, it was just easier to be blunt. I agree with the rest of what you said, though, now that I think about it. Except the bread thing. I’m not touching that.
That said, I think it’s time for me to go. These things get addictive, and I have laundry to fold and more Mario Kart to play. Who am I kidding, I’ll be back eventually.
the goddess anna on May 15, 2008 at 9:27 PM
“It’s about human dignity. It’s about human rights. It’s about time in California,” San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, pumping his fist in the air, told a roaring crowd at City Hall. “As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It’s inevitable. This door’s wide open now. It’s going to happen, whether you like it or not.“
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZmLBrL36NObNyMR0ghXN7vB5hYwD90MB6P00
Django on May 15, 2008 at 9:30 PM
This all started (and inevitably resulted in today’s court opinion) with feminism’s demand for equal gender rights.
Marriage always has been a union of a man and a woman but there was one other part also: the man was the head of the family unit. Feminism killed that by turning a unique design into a partnership of identicals.
Next came no-fault divorce, which is really just a probate proceeding (estate distribution) without a dead body.
And now we have this abomination. Make no mistake - it IS an abomination because it changes the common law in ways that no one ever anticipated.
Note: since the federal constitution incorporated common law as it existed when the constitution was ratified, I expect that any challenge to full-faith-and-credit restrictions will fail in federal court. Which means that no California decrees of divorce can receive full faith and credit in any state that has a defense of marriage amendment. Lots of problems there since there is no distinction between queer marriage and hetero marriage in California.
Oh yeah, this is DEFINITELY The Full Employment for Attorneys Imperial Wizards’ Decree.
platypus on May 15, 2008 at 9:31 PM
Wait a minute- I’m confused. You said that anyone who practices homosexuality will go to hell. No caveat about repenting, but rather that they’re condemned to hell.
Now you’re saying that only God can make that judgement. Which is it? Sounds to me like you put yourself on an equal pedestal with God in judging who will be saved- a very un-Christian thing to do.
And what any of this has to do with Mormonism is beyond me.
Hollowpoint on May 15, 2008 at 9:33 PM
The religious arguments against gay marriage are only germane to the argument to the extent that our common morality drove our society (pretty overwhelmingly) to enact via our elected representatives laws that established the rights granted married couples. The courts are pulling the “right” to gay marriage pretty much out of thin air.
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 9:34 PM
I expect that a Mormon group somewhere in California will now file suit to allow polygamy. And why not allow that as well? And brother and sister to marry? The arguments against that fall away pretty quickly once marriage means whatever you want it to mean.
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 9:39 PM
Thrust upon them by whom or what?
All I can tell you is that I never woke up one day and said, “You know, from now on, I think I’ll be gay.” By the time I was 12 or 13, I had the same sexual awakening every boy has, but I had no interest in girls. I didn’t choose that, and I most emphatically wasn’t taught it. I grew up in a Christian evangelical home in small town Texas. They don’t teach you to be gay there.
I don’t believe it can be taught. It’s hardwired into you. If you don’t believe that, I doubt I can convince you of it. But I know it to be the truth. I could no more learn to be sexually and romantically interested in women than you could learn to be interested in men; like you, the thought makes me wince.
That said, I don’t share Andrew Sullivan’s belief that marriage will domesticate gay men. As Mona Charen once observed, it isn’t marriage that domesticates men; it’s women who domesticate men. Still, I support civil marriage for the gay couples who want it; but I would have it come about organically, by democratic process.
paul006 on May 15, 2008 at 9:47 PM
And you know this, of course, because you read all 172 pages of the ruling, and all of your years of practicing law allowed you to form this opinion?
DCGamer on May 15, 2008 at 9:48 PM
If you think it is genetic…why not submit to gene therapy for your disorder?
Howe is it that every time a homosexual sinner (who lies and says it’s genetic) is offered gene therapy… they quickly change their tune and admit it’s a choice.
In all seriousness SouthernGent, lust is the sin that will probably bring most of us men to Hell. Albeit your lust is a sick perverted form of lust, but it is still lust.
Jesus said whoever looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
It is absurd for you to say that your lust is genetic and you can do nothing about it….it is a lie from the pit of Hell.
That would be as absurd as me saying “I will always commit the sin of lust as long as I’m in the flesh”…Even though I have overcome sin through Christ Jesus!
Jesus Christ did not tell us that we can overcome sin through Him just so we can go on sinning!
It is the knowledge of the TRUTH that leads to godliness!
Without the knowledge of the TRUTH you will not acheive godliness.
SaintOlaf on May 15, 2008 at 9:53 PM
Just for the record, Paul1006, the legislature of California did pass a gay marriage law that was then vetoed by Governor Schwartzenager. True, this did come after a public referendum that passed that expressed the opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman. However, we do not have a direct democracy in this country, we have a representative democracy in which legislators represent the will of the people.
Anyway, this ruling did not come out of the blue.
DCGamer on May 15, 2008 at 9:53 PM
No, I know this, of course, because I have read the constitution, and know that marriage is left to the states. And the people of the various states have overwhelmingly voted against this every time they have the opportunity, including California. If it’s not in the constitution, and the people don’t support it, where then, does this “right” come from?
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 9:57 PM
If they played back their delusional posts at Guantanamo it would be considered torture.
Annar on May 15, 2008 at 9:59 PM
SaintOlaf on May 15, 2008 at 9:53 PM
You worship a very fire-and-brimstone, Old-Testament, variety of God, don’t you? I prefer to focus on the faith-hope-and-love, New-Testament God. You remind me of the Phelps people who carry signs around saying “God Hates Fags.” Anybody who can use “God” and “Hates” in the same sentence doesn’t seem very Christian to me.
Anyway, this is unrelated to the issue at hand. It is the job of government to decide upon the rules of CIVIL marriage. The government does not - nor should not - tell churches who they can and cannot marry.
CIVIL marriage is a contractual issue. If you want to separate the legal, contractual union from the sacred, religious bond, then change the name of all civil marriage. Call it something else. Let church unions be “marriage,” and let government unions be something else.
DCGamer on May 15, 2008 at 10:01 PM
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 9:39 PM
I’ve been thinking about marrying my pet Shar-pei for tax purposes. After all, if she fools around on me once a year and has 6 to 8 pups I can claim them all as tax deductions. In fact, if you throw in polygamy, in no time at all I should have enough dependents to never pay federal taxes again:)
/sarc
dawgyear on May 15, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Thrust upon people from a decade of unconscious influences,
unconsciously learned, unconsciously taught, as is all sexuality. NOBODY CHOOSES. THAT’S WHAT THRUST UPON YOU MEANS.
Sexual attraction is not taught, it’s a consequence of something that missing that should have been taught, that should have been passed on from father to son, from mother to daughter. Many people have a teenage same-sex attraction. It passes. It’s a sexual phase, hardly noticeable in most people. For some it doesn’t pass, and they don’t move on to opp. sex attraction. Those people don’t get to the next stage because something they needed wasn’t learned/acquired– namely the sense of being masculine or feminine. Many other cultures actually have rituals where young men are “initiated” into manhood by spending a night out in the forest, or something with the other men where they are welcomed into the fraternity of men. They leave as boys, in the mothers’ care, and return as men, free of their mothers. Masculinity is taught and learned. So is femininity. At puberty, people sexualize that which they don’t have. If your masculinity or femininity is secure, you sexualize the opposite sex, since that’s what you don’t have. If you lack a sufficient masculine sense, you search them out in other men. Dad’s have a vital function and responsibility in the lives of their sons. Their absence(physically or emotionally) is a disaster for boys.
Anyway, gotta go. Don’t think anybody will agree with me. It’s old stuff, before the whole gay rights thing. It’s still true IMO, just no longer kosher. CYA
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 10:04 PM
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 9:57 PM
So, Buzz, if the people of California vote to create same-sex marriage, you will accept it unquestioningly? Is your only complaint that it was decided by the court and not the legislature?
DCGamer on May 15, 2008 at 10:04 PM
I appreciate your thoughts. I’ve heard all of this before. I’m perfectly happy as I am.
SouthernGent on May 15, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Actually, California has a process where the people can vote on initiatives and if passed becomes law. This process is used when the representatives are not responding to popular will.
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Which animals do you think is best to have sex with Krydor?
apacalyps
There is no way you can be a real person. For the longest time, I thought that whole “super dislike of homosexuality=closeted homosexual” was crap. However, I think that little axiom was invented because of people like you. You are absolutely obsessed with where gay people put their dangly bits and the notion of sex with animals. How gay marriage leads to legalized beastiality is a logical leap beyond my means.
BTW, I know of no animal that can give consent. When you do, it’s ok for you to have sex with it. I think you might be utterly mad.
I’ll stay within my species and enjoy the company of my wife.
JiangxiDad
Who knew that we could agree, even in principle, on anything? Neat.
Krydor on May 15, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Your assumption being, he chooses to do it voluntarily, but shouldn’t because it’s a sin. So I ask you again, if it wasn’t a sin, would you do it? You didn’t answer me the first time I asked you.
Obviously we know the answer. It’s no, because you don’t have the urge. So the question becomes, why does someone have the urge? You’re not interested.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 10:09 PM
I would feel a lot better about it, yes. This is something for the people to decide, not the courts.
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Lake of Fire party at my house. Bring any of your Mormon friends too. BBQ and beer supplied.
That blinding light from the podium……what kind of SPF factor is required to survive?
AS for the thread topic………I don’t like it, but I can live with it.
Limerick on May 15, 2008 at 10:11 PM
I don’t recall that I did but I will just for you….God hates sin!
According to YOUR standard Jesus Christ wasn’t a very good Christian then.
Actually the God of the old testament and the God of the new testament are the same God!
The difference is there is a new covenant now.
God hates sin. God is a HOLY God. No unholiness can stand in His presence!
SaintOlaf on May 15, 2008 at 10:11 PM
When my two male dogs can have a puppy all on their own, I’ll vote for gays and believe gay marriage is a God given right.
And not until.
shooter on May 15, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Did anyone consider the children?
-
More cultural rot
diogenes on May 15, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Since you’ve already placed yourself as God’s equal in judging who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, perhaps you can answer us a question:
How do you rank which sins are worse than others? Where do homosexual acts rank compared to, say, murder, theft, heterosexual adultery, cursing, etc? I’ve never quite taken the time to rank them so perhaps you can enlighten us as you have when you declared that homosexuals are doomed to hell.
Hollowpoint on May 15, 2008 at 10:18 PM
I also believe in nurture, not nature. My perogative.
Connie on May 15, 2008 at 10:20 PM
Oh good grief. Any gay person lurking, don’t think the Brimstone Brigade represents us. A good number of us are even fine with gay marriage.
doubleplusundead on May 15, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Buzz, the people of California voted in 2000 for Proposition 22, which stated that marriage should be between a man and a woman. In 2005 the CA Assembly voted to legalize same-sex unions.
The New York Times
The CA Supreme Court made this decision because a Superior Court ruled that California’s law was unconstitutional.
California’s route to SSM involved all three governmental powers. It involved the legislative branch in passing the law, the executive branch in vetoing it but agreeing to abide by the ruling of the courts, and the judiciary branch.
The people of California may yet pass an amendment overturning this process, but that is yet to be decided.
DCGamer on May 15, 2008 at 10:25 PM
It’s not always clear where one stops and the other starts. Still, even in the case of nurture, if environmental factors before puberty determine adult sexual attraction, the adult is experiencing something that is ingrained.
dedalus on May 15, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Well, no beer for the Mormons(unless they want ‘em of course), but save ‘em for us evil Papists, surely we’ll join you in the Lake of Fire!
doubleplusundead on May 15, 2008 at 10:25 PM
You beat me to it. I’m taking lessons from her!
Oldnuke on May 15, 2008 at 10:26 PM
No problem. I forgot about the beer part!
Seems some here have forgotten the most deadly of the seven cardinal sins…..pride.
Limerick on May 15, 2008 at 10:27 PM
The three main internal evils menacing America today are:
-Political correctness
-Multiculturalism
-Religious extremism
The third option may be the most dangerous since it implies that the majority should subjugate civil law to a subjective interpretation of an old internally contradictory book by a delusional minority throwing out menaces about flaming lakes and other nonsense.
Annar on May 15, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Sure I’ll take your bait.
All sin is equal before God.
But there is a difference between sin against God and sin that effects man…(though all sin is against God)
For instance when David sinned and committed murder and adultery…He repented and was accepted as righteous by God.
But his sin against man was also evident through what happened to his son.
SaintOlaf on May 15, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Jesus said whoever looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
SaintOlaf
Wow, so I’ve done it with perhaps thousands of chicks… I’m a stud. Really, though, I blame the women. If only there were some kind of sack they would wear so I wouldn’t feel all lustful. Damn uncovered meat and their HAIR RAYS.
Krydor on May 15, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Seconded. A lot of us have objections to using the courts to fulfill an agenda (and considering the backlash after the MA ruling, it’s a poor tactical choice as well), but most of us aren’t obsessed with condemning gays. I couldn’t care less which way California goes so long as the will of the people is respected. Gay marriage don’t affect me and thus is pretty far down on my care-o-meter.
Besides, as a Minnesotan it’s my God-given right to assume that all Californians are gay vegans anyhow.
Hollowpoint on May 15, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Is there gene therapy available for that too?
Hollowpoint on May 15, 2008 at 10:31 PM
BINGO! That’s why so many are absolutely convinced it must be genetic. It would hardly feel differently if it was.
Now, if you assume, for a moment, that this is indeed true, how should we deal with adult homosexuality? What laws, rules, treatments, etc, if any?
I’m sorry. Really gotta go. Tks.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Is there gene therapy available for that too?
Hollowpoint
Only if I was born blind.
Krydor on May 15, 2008 at 10:35 PM
Yes, and all three went against the express will of the people. That will most likely not stand.
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Can’t help you with the males. Females however… are a different story.
Oldnuke on May 15, 2008 at 10:37 PM
All of this is irrelevant. Everyone is welcome to accept homosexuality or not, this is about the government recognition and accompanying benefits.
Governments grant benefits to married couples because they are good for a society. They are more stable, more productive and more likely to produce little taxpayers. So, the government subsidizes marriage, because they want more of it.
Now, homosexuals confer the same benefits on society. As a union they are more stable and productive. they are also quite capable of either reproducing via various methods or adopting. This is a good thing. Not only that but it is simply “fair” for the government to give them the same benefits as hetero couples.
None of us have any right to impose our views on others. You can argue it should be called marriage or it’s a sin or whatever you wish, but gays should get the same benefits from the government as heteros since they give the same societal benefits back.
Dash on May 15, 2008 at 10:38 PM
OK, so why the focus on this one particular sin- one without this additional component of being against man since it entails activity between consenting adults?
Since homosexual acts are equal to cursing (taking the Lord’s name in vain), stealing a candy bar, or murder- why is it this one sin is worthy of fire, brimstone and the overall obsession with gay sex? After all, it’s no better or worse than me (a single guy) having sex with a woman, right?
Hollowpoint on May 15, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Well, that’s nice. But the people who live in California do. How many times do we have to vote that we want marriage defined as between a man and a woman? On to a constitutional amendment.
Blake on May 15, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Really, you should have known better to begin with.
SouthernDem on May 15, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Since homosexual acts are equal to cursing (taking the Lord’s name in vain)
Hollowpoint
“All I said was that the ‘fish was fit for Jehova’”
Sorry.
Krydor on May 15, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Actually, the people, through our representative government, granted these benefits. And it will be the people who will decide what marriage will mean, and who it will apply to.
It is gays who are attempting to impose their views on others. It won’t work.
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 10:45 PM
OK, so it’s blindingly obvious:
Stuff Christians don’t like #2
corona on May 15, 2008 at 10:45 PM
CA has the referendum (unlike a lot of States). Use it to pass new judicial selection rules.
Limerick on May 15, 2008 at 10:45 PM
STONE THE BLASPHEMER
Hollowpoint on May 15, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Perhaps, Buzz. What I find sad, however, is that the states that passed amendments made it much harder for people in the future to express their will. If you look at the Gallup Poll on the HA Headlines, you will notice that people’s opinions on SSM and gay issues in general has been moderating over time. Many states in the near future would probably vote to allow SSM. With amendments in place, it will be more difficult for their governments to fulfill the will of the majority.
This reminds me of prohibition. A group of do-gooders persuaded a majority of people that outlawing alcohol would be good for the country. An amendment was passed. You know the rest of the story.
DCGamer on May 15, 2008 at 10:46 PM
It is gays who are attempting to impose their views on others. It won’t work.
The Buzz
Gad… The only view the gays are attempting to impose on anyone is that they are full human members of society.
Krydor on May 15, 2008 at 10:46 PM
You guys did it once before with the tax proposition. Do it again. Decimate Sacramento, kick ‘em all out. 61% percent of your voters is a pretty overwhelming number even for a bunch of brain dead elected officials. Get rid of them and then impeach the judges!
Oldnuke on May 15, 2008 at 10:48 PM
This is NOT a CIVIL RIGHTS issue!! Ask the black people who suffered through the Civil Rights Movement…
DfDeportation on May 15, 2008 at 10:49 PM
This focus has nothing to do with the sinful nature, it has to do with the granting of special privileges to a specific group of people. The societal norm has stated for thousands of years that marriage is recognized as a union between a man and a woman. Yes, the Bible makes this clear as well.
So now you have a small group of people, around 1% of the population of this country, who want to be included in that sacred definition. But in doing so, you have to throw out the entire meaning of marriage. It is overturning a societal norm, and it will doubtless have unintended consequences, such as legal challenges to the polygamy and molestation laws.
fossten on May 15, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Judicial Tyranny in California!!! We voters already voted on “the nature of marriage”. Four judges decide they can make up rules as they go???? I think not!!!
DfDeportation on May 15, 2008 at 10:51 PM
Exactly. And the reason why blacks were granted equal rights is because the vast majority of Americans believed it was the morally correct thing to do.
That is not the case with gay rights. That is why they will not succeed.
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 10:53 PM
This is NOT a CIVIL RIGHTS issue!! Ask the black people who suffered through the Civil Rights Movement…
DfDeportation
Yes, because the tolerance toward homosexuals in the USA is a thing of legend. They certainly aren’t targeted by others because of their sexual orientation, and never dragged behind trucks. Why, I hear the quality of life for a teenage homosexual is just awesome, with absolutely the lowest rate of suicide in that age group.
No, wait that’s completely wrong.
Krydor on May 15, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Gays already have the same rights as everyone else (especially in California). They could marry one person of the opposite sex at a time. Just like everyone else.
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 10:56 PM
And prancing around saying “we’re married and there’s nothing you can do about” is going to eliminate intolerance?
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Gays already have the same rights as everyone else (especially in California). They could marry one person of the opposite sex at a time. Just like everyone else.
The Buzz
Oh brother.
Krydor on May 15, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Fossten, are you suggesting that it is the government’s role to decide what is sacred and what is not? Civil marriage is a contractual issue. There is nothing sacred about it. It is like a business agreement between two people. Religious marriage is a special, sacred bond usually conducted at a church.
The Christian church was not involved in the marriage business during its first few centuries. That was something that was handled by the Roman government. The early church taught that celibacy was the preferred method of living in preparation for Christ’s second coming.
DCGamer on May 15, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Tell that to our resident members of the Fire and Brimstone brigade who’ve cluttered up this thread obsessing over how sinful and hellbound gays are.
I understand the legitimate arguements against gay marriage- I agree to an extent. Mostly, however, I just don’t care very much at all.
Hollowpoint on May 15, 2008 at 11:05 PM
And my point is that it is not discrimination. It would be discrimination if gays were not allowed to marry at all. This was actually the case in some states in the past, but those laws have all been overturned (I think). It is not discrimination if gays have the same right under the law to marry as everyone else. They just don’t like the description of marriage and want to change it. And Americans, pretty overwhelmingly, do not support this.
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 11:07 PM
And prancing around saying “we’re married and there’s nothing you can do about” is going to eliminate intolerance?
The Buzz
Them gays sure can be an uppity bunch. Man, it’s going to be like the urban black movement subverting the suburban youth, only with more pastels and fewer attractive women.
Krydor on May 15, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Likewise. Christians and heteros in general have abandoned marriage; the divorce rate is what, 50% or so? Cohabitation stats are similar. Seems a bit dog-in-the-mangerish to have a hissy about gay marriage when we obviously don’t care about it ourselves.
Now, no church should ever be required to conduct one or rent out the space for one. But dividing up civil marriage vs. church marriage the way it’s done in France is fine with me.
Laura on May 15, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Fossten, what you and others fail to consider is that the concept of marriage has changed and developed repeatedly over human history. In fact, it is only recently in Western history (I cannot speak for the East), that marriage became about love. It was, for the most part, a property agreement between two families. Marriages were arranged. Property was exchanged (with women being part of that property). The couple might have come to love each other, or maybe not.
Some historians (e.g. John Boswell) have even argued that the early medieval church recognized same sex unions. That is currently being debated, but it has not yet been refuted convincingly.
So to predict the end of the world because the definition of marriage may change again to allow two men or two women to marry is just crazy. Has Massachusetts fallen into the ocean yet because they have recognized SSM for a few years now? Have straight couples stopped getting married and having children in Massachusetts?
DCGamer on May 15, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Actually, I’ve known some smokin hot lesbian girls ;-)
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Actually, I’ve known some smokin hot lesbian girls ;-)
The Buzz
Yeah, they all moved to California. They certainly don’t live around here.
Krydor on May 15, 2008 at 11:15 PM
It is astounding how little knowledge the unregenerate man has about the spiritual world!
Where do you think the suggestion comes from Jiangxi?
The “urge” you speak of..is a lie and like all other lies proceeds from the mouth of the father of lies, satan!
Why do the dead (unregenerate man) know nothing about the spiritual world?
When they come to LIFE they will see and pay attention.
Here is a hint: You are a soul!
There is a spiritual war!
It is happening now in the spiritual atmosphere and in your mind.
Why does man have a conscience?
Why is there unrighteousness and evil?
Why is there righteousness?
Why does man feel suggestions to commit unrighteous acts and what must one do to conquer it?
Do some people think they can practice unrighteousness and continue to talk about knowledge of God?
Does anyone see the relationship between false teaching and unrighteousness? Where are they getting their power?
Pay attention….put this deep in your spirit….
Satan the accuser(our adversary) has only one weapon!
IT IS THE POWER OF LIES!
In the case of homosexuals it is the lie..you were born this way…you were born this way..
It is a lie and like all other lies comes straight from the pit of Hell!
Your conscience tells you it is wrong yet the lie tells you were born this way and that you can’t resist!
A lie cannot stand in the presence of TRUTH!
The TRUTH will destroy all lies!
There is much more to this world than your sin allows you to see!
when you come to LIFE you will thank me.
Do this and it will be today: Repent, turn from your sin and put all your trust in Jesus Christ the Living Word of God made flesh.
Jesus came to earth, was born of a woman, lived completely righteous in thought, word and deed and was sacrificed for our sins. He rose from the dead in three days and conquered death!
By accepting His Spirit to come and live in you..you will take on His righteousness on judgment day!
If you do this He promises to manifest himself to you and come and abide in you!
He will give you a NEW HEART with NEW DESIRES…you will be a NEW CREATURE…all of your old hurt and pain will be gone!
Praise God!
Jesus is the ONLY WAY in which man will be saved!
We have all sinned against God and all who have not accepted Jesus will be guilty on judgment day and cast into Hell!
Repent and accept Jesus tonight… you will pass from death to life tonight!
SaintOlaf on May 15, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Funny, I don’t drink, smoke, do illegal drugs, or steal. I’m still going to hell…why I don’t at least drink is beyond me…lol. I do, however, LOVE some bbq!
SouthernGent on May 15, 2008 at 11:18 PM
And the reality is that in this society, at this time, marriage is defined as one man with one woman. And until a new definition is accepted by the vast majority of our society, gay marriage will not be accepted by society.
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 11:19 PM
Buzz, if Americans overwhelmingly oppose SSM, then why have the people of Massachusetts not yet voted out their legislators and amended their law? Why did the people of Arizona defeat an anti-SSM amendment in 2006. It is because Americans, for the most part, are moderating on this issue. We are behind Europe and Canada, but I do not believe it will be that many more years before we adopt SSM.
For those of you who are terrified at that idea, then you better be voting for McCain this year, even though he is not a “true conservative.” With Obama making the next Supreme Court picks, you will get SSM even sooner. (Just a prediction).
DCGamer on May 15, 2008 at 11:19 PM
SaintOlaf on May 15, 2008 at 11:16 PM
What does this drivel have to do with civil law?
Annar on May 15, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Conservative bigot here Ian. It may not be a “top issue” for you, but to us bigots, simply another indicator of cultural implosion.
labrat on May 15, 2008 at 11:26 PM
SSM is about #4378 on my priority list when selecting a candidate. Definitely ranks below his position on shade grown coffee…
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 11:26 PM
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 11:26 PM
Was that before or after reversing low flow toilet mandates?
Annar on May 15, 2008 at 11:29 PM
SaintOlaf,
You would think that a fellow like yourself would be pleased as heck that this sort of thing was happening. Surely, this is one of the signs of the Apocalypse and perhaps the Rapture.
Krydor on May 15, 2008 at 11:29 PM
LOL @ Buzz. SSM is not the issue I meant, Buzz. It is the next president’s supreme court picks that should concern you. Obviously we disagree on SSM. However, for most other issues I would prefer that McCain nominate the next justices.
I may be in favor of SSM, but I am a conservative on fiscal issues, national defense issues, and most other areas of governmental concern. An Obama presidency scares me.
DCGamer on May 15, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Sigh, I fear we’re stuck with that one forever.
Have to save the polar bears you know…
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 11:32 PM
Concerned for all humanity left behind would be a more fitting description…..the tribulation that is soon to come will be the most horrific event in human history…most of you who will be left behind will die horrible deaths!
I am continuously shocked at how many people are heading for eternal torture in Hell.
SaintOlaf on May 15, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Honest truth is I’m so much against SSM as I am against the methods being used.
And President Obama would be the end of America…
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 11:35 PM
By which I mean “not so much against SSM”
The Buzz on May 15, 2008 at 11:37 PM
Comment pages: « 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 »