California court upholds Prop 8
posted at 1:25 pm on May 26, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
In what looks like a Solomonic and almost unavoidable conclusion, the California Supreme Court acknowledged that voters in the state properly amended the Constitution to bar single-gender marriage. The ruling signals a victory for democracy over judicial fiat, as Proposition 8 reversed the same court’s declaration of the right to gay marriage. The court split the baby, figuratively speaking, by reaffirming the marriages conducted by California in the interim:
The California Supreme Court today upheld Proposition 8′s ban on same-sex marriage but also ruled that gay couples who wed before the election will continue to be married under state law.
The decision virtually ensures another fight at the ballot box over marriage rights for gays. Gay rights activists say they may ask voters to repeal the marriage ban as early as next year, and opponents have pledged to fight any such effort. Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the vote.
Although the court split 6-1 on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the justices were unanimous in deciding to keep intact the marriages of as many as 18,000 gay couples who exchanged vows before the election. The marriages began last June, after a 4-3 state high court ruling striking down the marriage ban last May.
In an opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, the state high court ruled today that the November initiative was not an illegal constitutional revision, as gay rights lawyers contended, nor unconstitutional because it took away an inalienable right, as Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown argued.
The 6-1 split is significant. The previous ruling declaring gay marriage a right under California’s constitution was very narrow. Three of the judges who voted for that decision went the other direction today. They had little choice. California allows constitutional amendments by referenda, and the backers of Proposition 8 followed the law scrupulously in getting it on the ballot.
Confirming the marriages also appears to be the correct decision. When the couples got their licenses and had the ceremonies performed, the law in the state (as dictated by the court) allowed for those marriages. Proposition 8 changed the law, but it cannot apply ex post facto. Since those licenses were valid and backed by the state at the time they were issued, the court had little choice but to approve them — and their unanimous judgment speaks to the common sense conclusion.
However, that does set up an interesting point for a federal appeal. If the plaintiffs in this case argue against this dichotomy on an equal-protection basis, a federal court might find that intriguing enough to consider. Even if that doesn’t work, the plaintiffs plan on a new referendum that will reverse Proposition 8. Something tells me that this will be a more or less permanent feature on California’s ballots for the foreseeable future.
Update: I meant judicial fiat, not legislative fiat. Thanks to RBJ in comments for correcting me.
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: « Previous 1 … 6 7 8 9 Next »
Does Cuba recognize homosexual marriages? Or China? Not sure why I ask. I think I’m just throwing some bait out to try and hook a troll. If this doesn’t work, I’ll have to chum.
BobMbx on May 26, 2009 at 7:26 PM
If you have to tell people you’re straight, you’re not.
MadisonConservative on May 26, 2009 at 7:28 PM
Petunia is a Democrat?
DWB on May 26, 2009 at 7:28 PM
Who’s on first?
Mom always liked you better!
And that’s another fine mess you’ve gotten us into, Ollie!
BobMbx on May 26, 2009 at 7:29 PM
Whoa.
Thread over. You win.
MadisonConservative on May 26, 2009 at 7:30 PM
Lord, You invite all who are burdened to come to you. Allow Your healing Hand to heal the young friend of blatantblue and comfort all who love this boy.
Most loving Sacred Heart, touch their souls with Your compassion.
Most loving Sacred Heart, touch their hearts with Your courage.
Most loving Sacred Heart, touch their minds with Your Wisdom.
Dear Lord, touch gently this life which you have created, and bring health to his body and spirit.
Amen.
Loxodonta on May 26, 2009 at 7:31 PM
I apologize for killing the buzz, but I just cannot let a prayer request go unanswered.
Loxodonta on May 26, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Beautiful my friend, I would like to be a co-signer to that.
thomasaur on May 26, 2009 at 7:38 PM
Can someone explain to me why 1%–ONE FREAKING PERCENT–of the population of this nation, a group of people who CAN change their sexual orientation (it is possible folks) is vying for “favored minority status?” Hmmm? Anyone, anyone. If I were Black, or Asian, or Latin or anyone else who could not change the characteristics that have made them targets for hatred, I’d be pretty insulted. And can you explain to me where in the Constitution HETEROSEXUAL marriage is guaranteed—BY NAME? If you’re going to claim the “life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as the portion of the Constitution that guarantees hetero. marriage rights, then may I point out 1) YOU ARE WRONG, and 2) that marriage (of any kind) doesn’t guarantee happiness! IMOHO: the government should stay out of the marriage business! Change the tax laws. Change benefits policies. Geez: next thing you know some rancher out in the sticks is going to want to make it legal for him to marry his Holstein cow named Daisy because it will make him “happy”.
Driefromseattle on May 26, 2009 at 7:44 PM
Whoa 700 comments! I think we’ve reached the limit?
Oh my…I hope nothings fractured! Well you tend to your friend and we’ll continue praying for him.
FontanaConservative on May 26, 2009 at 7:58 PM
You got it.
ladyingray on May 26, 2009 at 8:05 PM
Prayer is never a buzz kill
ladyingray on May 26, 2009 at 8:06 PM
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000
doriangrey on May 26, 2009 at 8:13 PM
Great news but where’s the babe in the teaser pic? :-)
DaMav on May 26, 2009 at 8:17 PM
blatantblue on May 26, 2009 at 7:17 PM
He’ll be in our prayers. Stay strong. You can trust Him.
kingsjester on May 26, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Currently in the Federal Witness Protection Program because the Militant Homosexual Activists found out she donated to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign.
doriangrey on May 26, 2009 at 8:24 PM
@doriangrey
lol. Wait, that isn’t funny. It’s too close to the way the “Happy” Mob does business. (Gay is a sales term; most of them obviously aren’t).
DaMav on May 26, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Petunia is a Democrat?
DWB on May 26, 2009 at 7:28 PM
*snort*
Bishop on May 26, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Each human life is precious. Even the lives of those with whom we disagree, or whom we believe are acting immorally.
We are a nation of individuals, with many differences. And who amongst us is without error or sin? Homosexuals should not be slandered or slurred or stigmatized simply for being who they are. Nor should people of faith be bullied, ridiculed or sued for our beliefs.
There is no denying that homosexuals are different than heterosexuals. One might as well deny there are no differences between men and women. However, equal protection under law is an important American value and right. So, in nearly all situations, men and women should be treated equally by the law. The only exceptions are those in which the real differences between men and women are so profound that equal treatment has profoundly unequal results.
Similarly, in nearly all situations, homosexuals should be treated equally to heterosexuals under law. There are a very few exceptions, however, where reasonable accommodations and compromises should be adopted.
In the armed forces, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” seems a reasonable, if imperfect, accommodation. For couples, civil unions with equal treatment for tax purposes seems a reasonable compromise, as long as they include clear conscientious objector protections for private individuals and organizations of faith. With adoptions, I believe children should be adopted by married, heterosexual couples, and do not yet know a reasonable compromise for this. And perhaps there are other situations in which different treatment must occur or compromises must be made.
I know my views on this are not shared by many others. However, rather than living as targets and victims of attack in an uncivil cultural war, I pray that people of good will and differing opinions can work at finding compromises with which the vast majority of us can live our lives as fellow individual citizens.
Loxodonta on May 26, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Not only can you write musicals, but you are scary smart!
ladyingray on May 26, 2009 at 8:34 PM
Has it been said yet?
Blacks in Cali who are being held down by whitey are now in turn holding down homosexuals, and not in a good way.
Bishop on May 26, 2009 at 8:34 PM
thanks guys. Word is he is going to be alright, but haven’t heard much. Thanks again.
blatantblue on May 26, 2009 at 8:38 PM
This is a sadly morally relative position. The human life that tries to rape my fiancee or kill me, or even just break into my house desperately looking for a few dollars, is not precious. It is forfeit.
MadisonConservative on May 26, 2009 at 8:38 PM
Loxodonta on May 26, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Soooo…execute Bin Laden or not?
Bishop on May 26, 2009 at 8:47 PM
I wouldn’t be so sure if that is consistent with the historical record. Religious freedom, of course. But the founders’ of the American society and culture (distinguished from the Founders of the country) up to the the build up of the nation, contribution was extremely influential.
The reasoning behind the journey to go forth with the colonies and leaving England is important context for a full appreciation and understanding of our history. It certainly wasn’t because the Church of England was too fundamental for the pilgrims’ taste. It wasn’t fundamental enough. Originally they sat out for Holland but that country was less hospitable in this regard.
As stated before, religious freedom was the key component. The freedom to practice their religion in a far more fundamental manner than was accepted in England.
There is definitely a reason why these particular pilgrims were called Puritans.
anuts on May 26, 2009 at 8:50 PM
I live in California and have since 1970, if the militant homosexual community would compromise then I might agree with you, but sadly their idea of compromise is the exact same as Al Queda’s. In their world compromise consists of everyone submitting to their agenda or being accused of intolerable intolerance and homophobia. In their world not agreeing with them means you are a legitimate target for violent attack, public ridicule and persecution in the work place and even prosecution through the court system.
Over the last 30 or more years the radical militant homosexuals have put measures before the people of California at least 7 times to legalize homosexual marriage and every single time the people of California have told them no yet the still refuse to accept that the majority of Californians reject their requests.
Enough already……………. No more………….
doriangrey on May 26, 2009 at 9:03 PM
I apologize, but I purposefully avoided using the word illegal in that sentence, as it didn’t fit my theme, which had nothing to do with criminal behavior.
There are obviously differences between criminals and law abiding citizens. And it is right that criminals lose substantial freedoms and rights, sometimes for the rest of their lives.
I know it may seem irrational to you or others, but I do try to find the precious human life within criminals, most often without the results I seek, but there are instances in which criminals can indeed redeem themselves. I have counseled both criminals and their victims, as well as loved ones left behind by murderers.
As a person who has been the victim of many crimes, in which not a single one of the perpetrators has ever even been tried, I have experience with the challenges of forgiving others who get away with the most heinous of crimes. But I do my best. If this makes me a fool or moral relativist to you, so be it. I respect your opinion on many matters, but on this we shall disagree, as I am speaking from my faith.
Loxodonta on May 26, 2009 at 9:04 PM
And neither do you. The no on 8 goofs could only attack a constitutional amendment by falsely claiming it was a revision. However, it was not even close. A revision to the constitution can not be done by a voter proposition but by the legislature only.
Blake on May 26, 2009 at 9:13 PM
It depends on the situation. Killed while trying to shoot us or escape capture? Certainly. However, I do not support the death penalty.
There are clearly circumstances when people must be killed. I am not opposed to war. And I support police and private citizens shooting or even killing people when a reasonable person would consider such a person posed an immanent threat to life or safety. I do have trouble with killing an unarmed person for theft.
Loxodonta on May 26, 2009 at 9:14 PM
Living in a very liberal state, and working for many years in academia, I too have been harassed, bullied and threatened for my dissenting opinions. The bigotry and bullying of the Left is stifling and hypocritical. I just don’t want to replicate it.
Loxodonta on May 26, 2009 at 9:21 PM
Thanks for the update. As I was uncertain you read my earlier response, I left a message for you at your blog on your “About” page. There’s no need to post it. Take good care of yourself, your friend, and his family.
Loxodonta on May 26, 2009 at 9:24 PM
OMG. I just heard someone on the radio, I’m not sure if it was a city rep or a sheriff’s rep say that businesses should put rainbow flags up or we support gay marriage signs in their windows so their businesses don’t get vandalized. in
Blake on May 26, 2009 at 9:24 PM
THIS pretty much says it all.
JetBoy on May 26, 2009 at 9:36 PM
What says it all?
ladyingray on May 26, 2009 at 9:39 PM
decision time is fast approaching, I am thinking that there may well need to be an organized pushback against this domestic terrorism on the part of the “act uply nonviolent as they allow it, but the notion that the gays should be allowed to run riot needs nipped in the bud.
sven10077 on May 26, 2009 at 9:41 PM
Birth defect…find the cause and fix it in the future. Next?
ClassicCon on May 26, 2009 at 9:43 PM
That was clearly written by someone who has no clue who Jesus really is, nor do they know his heart.
GoodBoy on May 26, 2009 at 9:44 PM
Part of why they want severe and total government influence in future eugenics…
go read their internal pap “who’d want a gay baby?”
well other than radical gays who indeed?
sven10077 on May 26, 2009 at 9:49 PM
It’s amazing the things the layman thinks they know about His glory….I suspect we have failed in spreading His message and story.
sven10077 on May 26, 2009 at 9:50 PM
Well, well, well…..chalk one up to defeat the militant gay agenda. I guess the gays are going to have to pay insurance premiums that reflect their risky lifestyles instead of piggy backing on hetros.
csdeven on May 26, 2009 at 10:14 PM
What ignorant douche wrote that?!
csdeven on May 26, 2009 at 10:16 PM
who knows?
The extra special moron shoutout is we all have “two dads” in the sense Jesus does not….ie we have a human father and we are all His children….
Jesus had no human father and was the direct Son of God….
just another day in paradise
sven10077 on May 26, 2009 at 10:20 PM
Jesus had a Father and a step-father (his mother’s husband). I think I am missing what that has to do with gay marriage. It doesn’t seem very well thought out.
darcee on May 26, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Yes, but that’s what the discussion has been about, whether or not California was correct. If you believe it is correct, then my comments aren’t directed at you. If you don’t, then they do.
And yet you don’t seem to take serious those who argue that homosexuality is bad, not just for those who engage in that form of sex but also for society at large. Why should your views on polygamy and incest be listened to but their’s on homosexuality shouldn’t?
You haven’t provided more data or any concrete proof that incest is any worse for society than women over 40 having children and only made statements about a history of abuse, one that homosexuality isn’t exactly immune from.
And yet you know homosexuality once was illegal (some sodomy laws still exist in some states, though I don’t believe they’re enforced anywhere). Not only that, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder.
That depends on how it is decided. If the government simply decides that it just wants to add homosexuality to a growing list of approved marriage relationships then that makes sense. If, however, it’s treated as a right, then I do not see how that could be.
Actually, it doesn’t work that way. Your odds don’t increase as you have more children. For every child it’s 2%, and that’s still a 98% chance of getting a healthy baby every time. Many incestuous couples have children completely free of any defect.
Besides, that still says nothing of siblings who cannot have children, like homosexuals, those who are sterile, or women past menopause.
Esthier on May 27, 2009 at 12:13 AM
No need to apologize – well said/prayed. :)
Midas on May 27, 2009 at 12:14 AM
LOL, please tell me you don’t think that’s a good argument, roflmao.
Midas on May 27, 2009 at 12:17 AM
The funny thing about this is that if the decision had gone the other way, the libs would be just as angry and venom spitting as they are now.
Bikerken on May 27, 2009 at 12:20 AM
You have one life, let it be gay
Shouldn’t one do as one’s told to?
No, let the moment enfold you
Grab up every golden chance
Life is such romance
Give this world a sweeping glance
Let it set your soul a dancing night and day
Live, here’s to life, let us all be gay
Let go of each inhibition
No one need give you permission
What are you waiting for?
Vivez!
What of propriety?
There are rules we obey in society
Lady Knucklehead prefers to live calmly and quietly
But Sir Bblatantblue’s heart wants to play
These tender hearts of theirs
May be endlessly naive
But will grow strong if they believe
PercyB on May 27, 2009 at 12:50 AM
Christophobe, straight up. A bunch of teabagging rednecks.
Daggett on May 27, 2009 at 12:52 AM
You do your earthly father and your Heavenly Father. So what does that have to do with anything?
petunia on May 27, 2009 at 1:22 AM
These damn silly faggots will stoop to ANY vile tactic to justify their perversions.
csdeven on May 27, 2009 at 1:31 AM
Hey can we outlaw divorce while we’re at it? I mean isn’t divorce the number #1 threat to marriage?
Terry Silver on May 27, 2009 at 2:33 AM
It’s not bigotry. You have the same marriage “rights” as anyone one else in this country has. Just because you choose not to exercise them doesn’t mean you are being denied them. Marriage laws have absolutely NOTHING to do with the emotional, sexual, or physical attraction you have for another person. You can marry anyone of the opposite sex you want to. No one will stop you. That fact you DON’T want to is not bigotry. Now, “separate but equal” regarding blacks marrying whites? That was bigotry. Get it? I didn’t think so.
Fed45 on May 27, 2009 at 2:46 AM
You can. Now is one of them God, or are you going to replace him?
- The Cat
MirCat on May 27, 2009 at 4:17 AM
If Proposition 8 has been upheld, because the CA Constitution was amended correctly by “the People”, the marriages should not have taken place. Why are the 18,000 marriages legal, in this case? Was it legal to marry these homosexuals or was it not? Was upholding the marriages a “feel good/save face” decision or was the letter of the law followed by the CA Supreme Court?
sinsing on May 27, 2009 at 7:07 AM
Classy as ever.
MadisonConservative on May 27, 2009 at 7:44 AM
So two guys can only get married if the mother of their child is a virgin?
Bobbertsan on May 27, 2009 at 7:46 AM
It’s an ex post facto ruling. A judge in California usurped the will of the people of California and legalized homosexual marriage, the people of California responded by amending our state constitution, during the interim 18000 homosexual couples exploited what they knew was a temporary loophole in the legal system.
doriangrey on May 27, 2009 at 8:05 AM
The law has much to do with those qualities for straight couples, and there is little the state can do to interfere with their right.
dedalus on May 27, 2009 at 8:38 AM
What is it they say? Its easier to get out of a marriage than it is a cellphone contract?
Well, I’d let this little law do its thing then nix the existing one sex marriages. What I really want though is to get my hands around the neck of the troublemaker who starts all this crap. Does Russia deal with this? Make same sex marriage legal in their country and move over there.
johnnyU on May 27, 2009 at 8:57 AM
“Straight” sexuality is the norm over the planet. Most laws are established in that framework.
If the claim is that gay marriage is a basic human right, then the case has to be made in that framework.
Its not a right. If it was you wouldn’t need a license.
The only valid point imo would be for immediate granting of Civil Unions which would grant all legal protections…and responsibilities..as marriage.
If you argue for basic human right angle of gay marriage, then you have to allow all humans to “marry” whatever and however many they choose.
For gay marraige advocates: Who should not be allowed to marry, and why? Why do they not have the same rights as you?
Itchee Dryback on May 27, 2009 at 9:00 AM
Under such logic, nothing that is currently legal, can ever be made illegal. Nor could anything that is currently illegal, ever be made legal.
MarkTheGreat on May 27, 2009 at 9:08 AM
There are licenses for guns and for peaceable assembly. Yet, individuals are protected by rights to those.
dedalus on May 27, 2009 at 9:10 AM
Let them enter the same legal contract that hetero couples are given the right to enter into. I think conservatives are on the wrong side of this issue. THIS issue could save our party. Let’s practice what we like to preach, upholding the Constitution.
lostinjrz on May 27, 2009 at 9:44 AM
And guidelines for both.
But that seems like an apples to oranges comparison. The claim of a basic human right is different than that of state by state or even community based particulars of assembly and such. No state can regulate away a basic human right…nor grant one out of thin air, which is what it seems is the basis for the gay marriage “right’ angle.
Itchee Dryback on May 27, 2009 at 9:54 AM
23 away from my estimate…
MadisonConservative on May 27, 2009 at 10:00 AM
And even then it’s something of a long distance relationship shared mostly through her child.
But yeah, Jet, that’s really not a good example. We all have a Heavenly and Earthly father.
Esthier on May 27, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Homosexual “couples” advocating for homosexual marriage as an “equal rights” or “discrimination” issue are stretching the legal system. If the United States Constitution guarantees equal protection and rights for all citizens, that means that a person cannot be denied rights given to another person because of race or gender. A person is born male or female, or born of a certain race, and should not be denied rights because of their gender or race.
But homosexual behavior, or homosexual relations are a CHOICE made by a person, and such behavior has been generally scorned or condemned throughout history by major religions, although it has existed for thousands of years, as witnessed by the destruction of Sodom in Moses’ time due to homosexual behavior. It is clear that homosexuals are generally more promiscuous than heterosexuals, and homosexual relations increase the risk of transmission of many diseases, including AIDS. For this reason, those who do not desire homosexual relations should be protected from predatory attack, which is one reason why single-sex organizations like the Boy Scouts should be allowed to ban homosexual men from being Scout leaders, since pubescent boys on a camping trip in an isolated area could become defenseless targets of a homosexual Scout leader.
States that do not allow homosexual marriage do not discrimate against homosexuals. Current law allows two people of the same sex to share a house or apartment, and such arrangements are common among young heterosexual people trying to save rent money while being independent of their parents. If two roommates of the same sex decide to have homosexual relations, the law doesn’t discriminate against them.
In the United States Constitution and most State Constitution, “marriage” was never formally defined as being between a man and a woman, because societies at that time ASSUMED marriage to be between a man and a woman, according to prevalent religious beliefs. Marriage was designed as the context in which children could be conceived, cared for, and raised by their parents, who are committed to each other as well as the children. Marriage between a man and a woman guarantees that any child will be raised by one same-sex parent (which the child will tend to emulate) and one opposite-sex parent (whose qualities the child will eventually seek in a spouse).
But homosexual “marriage”, if defined as such, opens a thorny issue for children adopted by such a “couple”. A child has a right to a mother and a father, or an adoptive mother and father if either or both natural parents die or abandon the child. If two men adopt a child, the child is deprived of its mother; or if two women adopt a child, the child is deprived of its father, and this is trampling on the rights of the child.
Steve Z on May 27, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Along with reproduction and privacy SCOTUS has identified marriage as a fundamental right. The rights aren’t there in the Constitution but they are recognized a precedent.
The question courts currently deal with is whether gay people are being denied the right to marry or if the definition of marriage is inherently immutable or if states have a compelling interest that can only be achieved by denying licenses to gay couples.
I agree with you that civil unions are the best approach and, to my mind, address the due process and equal protection claims.
dedalus on May 27, 2009 at 10:18 AM
The latest Rasmussen poll shows support for gay marriage has actually declined slightly over the past two years. I find that surprising given that all we keep hearing from SSM supporters is that their side has all the momentum in the court of popular opinion. I have to say I have always agreed with that assessment although I’m wondering if that’s still true. Has support for SSM reached some type of ceiling? Has some type of backlash started to form?
frank63 on May 27, 2009 at 10:28 AM
After Prop 8, what happened with Carrie and eHarmony, it’s certainly plausible.
But what most point to are the trends for younger people, which they assume will remain steadfast.
Esthier on May 27, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Consider this
What happens if David Gergen and say Jack cafferty got married.
What would happen to the world if they somehow reproduced.
Wouldn’t there offspring rise up and destroy the world.
Little grumpy drunken babbling little idiot orcs. We can’t have this, please reconsider your support of gay marriage.
kangjie on May 27, 2009 at 10:33 AM
What about Olberman and Rick Sanchez getting together and populating the world with little rug rats with big heads babbling incoherently and laughing at inappropriate time.
Do you really want this to happen?
Stop the madness. Vote no to gay marriage
kangjie on May 27, 2009 at 10:36 AM
I think the end goal of the gay rights movement is not ‘marriage’ nor equal protection claims, but a desire of gays to become fully integrated into society, and no longer be seen as ‘outcasts’ or ‘other.’ These are perfectly reasonable and human aspirations.
Because of this, for as long as gay people are treated as less ‘equal’ than the rest of us, they will be dissatisfied and continue to agitate for that recognition. This is the same condition that drove the original civil rights movement.
Gay people do not consider themselves as deviant nor as ‘damaged goods,’ but as real people deserving of real rights. Continued ‘discrimination’ will not make them go away, nor end the desire for complete normalcy.
And there is I think the underlying issue we need to deal with as a society. Should we continue forever the fight, and it will always be a fight, to keep them away from what they naturally and normally desire? Or shall we make accommodations that may satisfy us, and the law as it stands, but not deal with the fundamental and central desire to be equal in all respects?
My guess is that over time, our generally very fair-minded citizenry will not be able to deny them what they seek. We would therefore find it far more productive to use our time and resources, not to fight this integration, which is likely inevitable, but to understand and deal with the real effects on society it will entail.
trailboss on May 27, 2009 at 10:41 AM
That’s what I always assumed too. But lots of older people have died in the last 2 years and there are lots of new younger voters too. I wouldn’t expect to see a huge shift in 2 years but I wouldn’t expect support to decrease unless something else was going on.
The other thing about the younger people argument is that it assumes opinions remain static. The truth is that people do tend to get more conservative as they get older. Many young people leave religion but then return to it when they have children of their own.
frank63 on May 27, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Not sure..but I think you’re referring to the interracial marriage issue as far as the SCOTUS finding that marriage was a fundamental right? The discrimination in that is undeniable.
Gay marriage as a fundamental right is not only a stretch of logic imo, but potential Pandora’s box of other groups who would claim the same “right”.
A case could easily be made for the standard of compelling interest of a state or a community based on the likely disruption of a fundamental social framework.
If the case is truly about law and property or visiting privileges etc, these can all be settled in the wording and enforcement of Civil Unions.
Why is that functional compromise not enough?
Itchee Dryback on May 27, 2009 at 10:45 AM
If a right established by a court cannot be negated by popular will because it would create via ex post facto a privileged caste, then no right established by a court could be overturned by popular will once a single person claimed privileges of that right
This would transfer creation of all privileged rights to the courts, excepting by Constitutional amendment, and an amendment of a State constitution might be overturned by Federal Court, by the same logic.
The California decision allowing established unions to stand does not create the equal protection argument, unless of course, the case is being judged by a certain Federal circuit where feelings trump law
entagor on May 27, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Certainly. The youth vote is notoriously unreliable and has always trended liberal.
Esthier on May 27, 2009 at 10:47 AM
…”wake and bake”?
Itchee Dryback on May 27, 2009 at 10:48 AM
The problem with that line of reasoning, is that its a false premise that exists in their minds and is another psychological aberration, imo. As long as that false perception exists unchecked it will remain and one demand will just lead to another. You can see this in the agenda they try and shove down everyone’s throat. In 2009 gays are mostly ignored in all aspects of society. Compared to a couple of decades ago, gays are really a social yawn. So what is the point in jamming into school curriculum?..making monsters out of people who have a different view?..(that one is really odd, all things considered)..strong arming businesses who express the “wrong” stance..crashing into churches or communities in order to offend the people there or intimidate the community values? Imo, its a combination of their inability to cope with reality and an a thuggish anger and intolerance.
Its Bullshiit.
Itchee Dryback on May 27, 2009 at 11:05 AM
On this ruling, the far-left suddenly does not like following the rules of law. Goodness, but there’s such a lot of confusion as to the whys and wherefores of the ruling.
The Court had no choice, unless they were actually going to strip away the right of people to amend their own constitution.
That’s certainly not going to happen.
Prop 8 opponents simply must go back and try to reverse this amendment with the voters. It was very close, and it was a year of HUGE turnout. I am convinced that hurt them.
AnninCA on May 27, 2009 at 11:22 AM
I agree. I believe there are other issues that should be focused upon, such as clearer separation of Church and state. Marriage, yes. Insisting that churches must perform ceremonies, which some have tried to do….no.
That type of discussion is more useful, in my opinion.
AnninCA on May 27, 2009 at 11:26 AM
AnninCA: Gays will never be satisfied, never ever ever, until they can be the Pope, get sealed in Mormon temples, and generally run everything.
Not all gays, but all the ones driving all this. They hate religions who condemn homosexuality as a sin, and they will never rest until those religions either change or are destroyed.
Gays are, I’ve noticed, generally unhappy. They need to be accepted. I have my own opinions on why, but it remains the case–as long as they are celebrated or accepted, they are ok. But any form of disapproval is to be stamped out.
Not all gays are this way, of course, but a large chunk are. And I see no valid reason to give a bunch of babies veto power over society.
Vanceone on May 27, 2009 at 11:38 AM
I disagree with your premise that all gays are psychologically deficient. All scientific evidence says they are normal human beings. Even scripture does not term gays as ‘aberrant,’ at least I don’t recall every seeing that stated nor implied.
What I would assert is that such intractable and unsupportable beliefs are little different from those used to justify racial discrimination, and that the fight against those beliefs is coming from the same source – the need to be treated as real people, not ’2nds’ or ‘alien.’
The overreach, the despicable acts of gay rights supporters you outline are indeed unjustifiable. However, the anger and frustration are understandable on normal terms, not as resulting from ‘aberrant’ thinking.
We are going to have to deal with this sooner than later. Why not get on with making the best of it?
trailboss on May 27, 2009 at 11:45 AM
In the same way, their males also abandoned their natural sexual function toward females and burned with lust toward one another. Males committed indecent acts with males, and received within themselves the appropriate penalty for their perversion. (Romans 1:27 NIV)
This sounds like aberrant language to me.
By the way, asserting that same sex attraction is aberrant does not mean gays are any less human. Individuals are far more than their sexual orientation. Most christians do not see gays as people to be hated, but people with a weakness just like some people are driven to other “aberrant” behaviors whether it be a violent temper or proneness to drug abuse. None of these things make anyone less of a person. We are all sinners in need of redemption.
frank63 on May 27, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Too bad this logic isn’t applied to Global Warming, eh? But, since it isn’t and the apparent solution is a carbon tax, let me be the first to suggest a Gay Tax.
The Gay Tax is targeted directly at homosexuals, the group most responsible for gayness. I propose we institute a cap and trade plan, where the total US gayness is capped at a certain level. Everyone would then be able to buy or sell gay credits. If you’re not gay, then you can sell your credits to someone whose gayness exceeds the limit for a single person. The purchased credits can be used to off-set the over-gay condition.
Over time, the annual limits would be reduced. This will eventually reduce the total amount of gayness being produced. There is certainly the opportunity to discuss exemptions for extremely gay regions of the country, such as San Francisco, where being gay is a large part of the local economy.
BobMbx on May 27, 2009 at 12:43 PM
This sounds like aberrant language to me.
Thanks for that. I wonder if the ‘perversion’ is referring to the act or to the being of the homosexual. My guess is that it is the act.
And indeed, that gays are not less human, but it is the act of homosexual behavior that scripture decries.
That said, how should we treat gays in public policy – by scriptural reference or by common consent? I think the common consent is what will happen over time.
trailboss on May 27, 2009 at 1:05 PM
SCOTUS has identified marriage as a fundamental right in at least three cases during the past 40 years.
I think civil unions are the way to go. Church marriages are different than establishing legal status with the state.
dedalus on May 27, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Since gay marriage supporters have been saying that marriage is a civil right, I thought this would be a good place to show where they get that quote, in context:
FWIW.
Bobbertsan on May 27, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Oops. Sorry about the blockquote.
Bobbertsan on May 27, 2009 at 1:43 PM
I don’t think you can separate an act from the desire to commit it. Desires are what drive us to commit specific actions, whether sexual or otherwise. If the desire is normal then how can we say that following through with the act is abnormal? Either both are normal or both are abnormal. Again, this does not diminish a gay person as an individual any more than any other sin does. For example, all kinds of married people cheat on their spouses but we don’t relegate them into some separate class of humanity. They are just people who have fallen into a trap and committed an act that scripture considers sinful. It’s all part of the human condition. We all have desires within us that go against the grain of what God would call normal. Our job is to restrain those desires rather than celebrate them. That’s the problem with the SSM movement. It’s trying to celebrate and affirm these abnormal desires. On the other hand, the problem with some christians is that they can become holier-than-thou about this all and fail to recognize that we all fall short of perfection as human beings. I know it’s an overuse cliche but the reality is that as christians we need to hate the sin but love the sinner. That means understanding that most gay people did not ask to be the way they are. They need to be treated with dignity and respect while at the same time not letting the militant among them run roughshod over traditional Americans and their values.
Well we don’t live under a theocracy so I don’t think we should expect the state rule by scripture. However, we do live in a society whose culture and traditions have been shaped by Christianity. In as much as this is true, comment consent will still be shaped to some degree by scripture. This may change if our society becomes less religious over time. So to answer your question I would say yes we need to be ruled by comment consent within the bounds of the Constitution of course.
frank63 on May 27, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Well said, I appreciate your very thoughtful remarks. I am personally trying to come to grips with the issue and it is helpful to have such a conversation. I would say I grew up very homophobic (also Chinese-phobic, Vietnamese-phobic, and German-phobic. Idaho is still pretty homogeneous.)
But time and experience is challenging that way of thinking – it is not easy to let go of old prejudices, especially if they have a rational basis, but this one is becoming less rational for me.
trailboss on May 27, 2009 at 2:02 PM
If everybody thinks alike then someone isn’t thinking
Rush just said this and I’m am typing it. Because I blindly follow rush and I can not help it..
I summarize his show thus far today
People say ‘tone it down’ about Sotomayer
Rush says ‘F&& U’ and this ladies and gentlemen is why he is a good man.
He hates blue blood rockfeller repubs and so do I, we are compatico. We are in sync(but not gay) more in a manly hetro way.
kangjie on May 27, 2009 at 2:13 PM
I didn’t make myself clear.
The aberrations that I was referring to and the false premise, was that they are having their rights violated and that they are victims. Not the choice of sex partner.
That being said, I really see no valid comparison with gays and the civil rights struggle. None.
Itchee Dryback on May 27, 2009 at 2:19 PM
I understand. It’s very hard to strike a balance on this issue. On one hand we have Scripture which lays down moral principles which are sometimes at odds with much of our popular culture. SSM is an example of this. Here I think we really need to stand firm and swim against the tide if necessary, standing up for the traditional meaning of marriage. On the other hand, we have to guard our hearts and make sure we are being motivated by love and not by hate when it comes to judging the actions of others. If we’re being motivated by love then we don’t disapprove of homosexuality because we hate gays, but because we see them as engaging in behavior that has destructive consequences both for themselves and the rest of society.
As far as the term “homophobic”, I do think it is quite overused. It’s thrown around to describe anyone who does not approve of homosexuality which is ridiculous. I don’t approve of adultery, does that make me “adulteraphobic”. Phobia denotes irrational fear, not mere disapproval. It’s beyond outrageous how much mileage the Left has been able to get by throwing that label on people. But that’s how liberals think…anyone who sees the world different from them is irrational and must be motivated by some deap seated fear. It’s crazy.
frank63 on May 27, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 6 7 8 9 Next »