CA Supreme Court Refuses To Block Gay Marriages

Fox News

[DumpsterDiver]

Mark this post and we will revisit the issue in a year.

I think you may be right. Anyway, I use an online e-mail reminder service and I have it set to mail me next February rgarding this subject. If we're both still posting here, I'll get back to you then.

[King Black Robe]

Prop 22 passed by a 2 to 1 margin in 2000. I do not have a copy of it.

[Datom]

As long as this stays alive the liberals will go nuts. They ie: Barney "our boy lollipop" Franks do not want an issue that 60% of the population is against to stay in the news.

It creates problems for the Dims with blacks and Hispanics. It is proveing the conservatives point that judges - many appointed by Clinton - are not enforcing law but making it.

Kerry and the liberals are in deep trouble with this. So let them go. The more gays do "in your face" and the more judges support them the better off conservative are.

[dc-zoo]

The trouble is they're not MF'rs. If they were we wouldn't have a problem.

[longtermmemmory]

You have not seen the model divorce code that will come to pass. This is about defining how children are raised. This is about basing marriage not on a social nucleaus but on what gets you an orgasm.

Homosexuals are only about sex.
Homoosexual marriage is only about imposing acceptace of homosexual sex into the public.
A private sex act in public.

if you want an emotion based sound bite.

Homosexuals will take grandma's social security.

[Carry_Okie]

I bet under equal protection any 2 non-married persons can get married.

So you think that equal protection means that adults can marry children? That brothers can marry sisters?

Get a grip. That's what the liberals want you to think. Are you going to help them?

[okie01]

"I've never understood the "undermine the institution of marriage" argument."

Think about it.

The institution of marriage developed over millenia and has remained unchanged for several more. For what purpose was it originated? And, then, having apparently worked, why was it retained?

The correct answer is: to provide a secure nest for the raising of children.

"Gay marriage" undermines the institution of marriage because it separates the role of parenting from the responsibilities of marriage.

Divorce, however, does not undermine the institution. If children are involved, the role of parenting is contained and reflected within the divorce decree. At the same time, nobody is getting divorced so as to undermine the institution. But the "gay marriages" are designed to accomplish exactly that.

Taken to its logical conclusion -- as it has been done in several European countries -- gay marriage has contributed to some disturbing trends. Like over 80% of children being borne outside of wedlock -- and a disproportionate share of their care being given over to the state.

Marriage is a fundamental organizing principle of a free society. It behooves us to defend it.

[chiller]

That thought occurred to me, too, as I hit the post button.

[fr_freak]

"Now having played a hand they did not need to, those opposed to gay marriage have lost the issue."

My thoughts exactly, conservatives have played right into the democrat’s hand, which incidentally is being well orchestrated.

So your argument is that the best course of action would have been to do nothing, to sit back and let these people destroy whatever shreds of decency, morality and sanity we have left in this state (and soon the country). For a conservative, that is a bad attitude. For a "conservative" on a conservative activists' forum, that is a pathetic willingness to accept failure without even trying.

For God's sake, the groups who have launched legal action to stop these marriages are only appealing to existing law! If you can't reasonably expect existing law to be enforced, except when it suits the agenda of the officials, then you no longer have a free society. It may yet be possible to correct these kinds of tyrannical injustices within our legal system, basically by getting the corrupt officials out of office. I hope so. But there are basically two choices left to real Americans with a spine: either restore true representative government by peaceful means, or restore it by whichever option is left to you. Acceptance of defeat and failure is not an option.

[CounterCounterCulture]

So your argument is that the best course of action would have been to do nothing, to sit back and let these people destroy whatever shreds of decency, morality and sanity we have left in this state (and soon the country). For a conservative, that is a bad attitude. For a "conservative" on a conservative activists' forum, that is a pathetic willingness to accept failure without even trying.

Exactly.

"It is necessary only for the good man to do nothing for evil to triumph"

[wilmington2]

The governor can simply arrest the SFO mayor. Then the mayor can go to court.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

So a violation of the state constitution is no problemo for the CA Supremes.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

BUMP to you both!

I'm seeing an altogether dismaying (to say nothing of stomach-wrenching) postings hereabouts of late, from (ostensible) conservatives braying and bleating, in essence: "...like, whatever turns them on, dude," and "... by standing up for moral principles, we're playing right into the 'Rats' hands!," and similarly anti-conservative piffle.

Question: when, exactly, did Li'l Andy Sullivan sign up at Free Republic, and under how many screen IDs...?

[VRWCTexan]

In the Jewish faith they have 613 Commandments taken directly from the Torah (First five books of the Old Testament) -

Their FIRST Commandment (Genesis 1:28) is the obligation for man and wife to procreate and populate the earth -

[Hotdog]

"Its time for California to break off into the ocean"

I've always told everyone that...along with Massachusetts

[DannyTN]

"Excuse me but gay marriage is against the law in California. What's to decide?"

yeah, I don't understand why Arnold doesn't order the people arrested, or at least charge them with the crime. When they start looking at thousands of dollars in fines and months in jail, they'll think twice about continuing this charade.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

The AG made a mistake. He put the legal ball into the court's hands. What the mayor of S.F. is doing is illegal. The AG should then have initiated legal proceedings against the mayor. As it was, he passed the buck to the court.

He made no mistake. He had no intention of taking action against the mayor. He just kicked the can to the Supremes. Whatever their decision, it wouldn't affect his political career aspirations (= CA Governor).

[So Cal Rocket]

Text of Proposition 22



This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.

This initiative measure adds a section to the Family Code; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.



PROPOSED LAW

SECTION 1. This act may be cited as the "California Defense of Marriage Act."

SECTION 2. Section 308.5 is added to the Family Code, to read:

308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

[ambrose]

Please cite the relevant statutory or constitutional provisions which empowers the California governor to have the SF Mayor, or anyone else, arrested...

[SierraWasp]

Please join me in contempt for contemptuous liberal courts.

We cannot have a Stable Society with their Rule!!!

Without a Stable Society, we will not prosper, or flourish! We've had it!!!

The Rule of Liberal Lawyers has reached the point of diminishing returns. It's time to end it, not mend it!!!