California Supreme Court Backs Gay Marriage

California Supreme Court Webpage ^ | May 15, 2008 | California Supreme Court

[NinoFan]

Opinion just released.

[WayneS]

OMG!

I’m a polygunist!

[manc]

absurd to you not to others

marriage law is needed and enforced to stop this.
other wise we will have all sorts of marriages happening

in Massachusetts a man was caught having sex with a animal, in India amongst other places people have married animals.

We have Govt telling us the age of marriage yet you think the same Govt shouldn’t say what is marriage

hey if you think it’s OK and none of anyone’s business about marriage fair enough, but I think it is wrong to have say two men think they are married, to have 15 wives and so on

[WayneS]

25 years?

It won’t tale anywhere NEAR that long.

[WayneS]

...TAKE anywhere near that long...

SORRY.

[LukeL]

Robert Bork was right.

[manc]

exactly

we have people going mad because a man has more than one wife (note opposite sex)and yet some of the same people think it’s OK for two men to be married.
For two men to poke each other and commit their disgusting acts out in public like the san fran parades

mind boggling

[CharlesWayneCT]

It’s hard to argue that there is a compelling interest in denying marriage to gays if you have given them the exact same thing with civil unions.

In Virginia, our amendment explicitly prohibits civil unions and anything that resembles civil unions. And it’s a real constitutional amendment, not a law that can be overturned by a judge.

People can still make their own private contracts. They simply don’t get special treatment by government for their relationships, since the government doesn’t receive any benefit from their relationships.

In my opinion, the reasoning used by the court would equally apply to ANY benefit given by the state to one person over another. For example, my right to buy the car of my choice should trump the state’s “interest” in my buying a special hybrid car, so I should be able to get special tags and drive in the HOV lanes like everybody else.

[Mr. Silverback]

Hey, even if it’s a real guest worker program (come, work, go home) I’d still take it, the way Illinois is headed.

[old-and-old]

"Gay couple John Lewis, left, and Stuart Gaffney celebrate outside the California Supreme Court on Thursday." Wait till divorces start. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

First of all, let me say I appreciate an intelligent response on this issue, unlike most of the ones I've gotten.

However, the family is the foundational unit of society. Without families, society as we know it cannot exist. Government has a compelling interest in furthering society, and opposite-sex couples are how we do that.

I agree that families are the foundation of society. I disagree with the government engaging in social engineering - once you give them that power, they can take it in any direction, and that's what's happened here.

But I don’t think the state should have to give them special benefits. There’s no purpose for the state to encourage same-sex couples. However, there IS a purpose for the state to encourage opposite-sex couples. If they don’t people will procreate, but won’t get married, the mothers will be single moms which puts additional burden on the state, and children without parents of both sexes grow up generally less adapted than others.

I agree about special benefits, but I am very skeptical that the number of single mothers will increase. People of faith will still get married, and for the others, divorce is so easy these days, what's the difference? Also, I favor laws that make fathers legally responsible for their offspring - no walking away and making it solely the woman's problem. That's one of the biggest causes of abortion.

There’s no purpose in encouraging same-sex couples, because if a same-sex couple decides to sleep around, they can’t have children, so there’s no change they will end up as single parents.

True, but there's no reason to discourage it either.

It is so obvious why the state has a compelling reason to encourage long-term relationships between opposite-sex couples, for the good of society because they are the ones who can make children.

True, but same-sex couples can (theoretically) adopt. I'm of the mind that a child is better off in a two-parent same-sex household than a single-parent household or the horrible state institutions for the poor children who have no parents.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

I understand why it happens, but that was my point. Just putting it on the ballot gives no guarantee that it will even slightly help the Republican candidate.

[manc]

I don’t think Obama would go along with the homo’s either

If he did I bet the church he went to and many blacks would be disagreeing with him

One thing about the black community is that gay sex is not tolerated as it is in white liberal areas

[TomBeddingfield]

Californians are going to regret this deeply when a huge percentage of their budget starts going for AIDS care and treatment.

[manc]

I’d like to see the north east as well as parts of CA succeed and there should be no lives lost about that either

They have their liberal utopia and we have a decent, upstanding , law abiding country

brilliant bring it on please

[P-Marlowe]

Time to make sure your Earthquake Kit is up to date.

[P-Marlowe]

Will this now go up to the SCOTUS?

Nope.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

I think you're missing the point. All of these can already happen, just without government sanction. I'm not arguing for same-sex marriage - I'm arguing against government marriage, period. Once you give the government that power, they are able to define marriage, which most people regard as a religious institution. You may not like the way the define it, which is exactly what just happened in California. This is the inevitable result of trying to adapt a religious institution, which varies across faiths, into a one-size-fits-all government institution.

[P-Marlowe]

At least now it may go to the Supreme Court.

Nope

[don-o]

John and Stuart sittin' in a tree
K-i-s-s-i-n-g
First comes love, then comes marriage
Then comes John with....

never mind

[avacado]

"Hey, even if it’s a real guest worker program (come, work, go home) I’d still take it, the way Illinois is headed."

Oaky then... but you'll have to help build the fence. ;-)