California Supreme Court Backs Gay Marriage

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

[NinoFan]

Opinion just released.

[AHerald]

I agree that families are the foundation of society. I disagree with the government engaging in social engineering

If the family is indeed the foundation of society then the interest of the state in protecting that foundation is self-evident. It's not social engineering but self-preservation. A state which would stand idly by in such circumstances is one not worth standing.

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?

The historical evidence against this "Hey, they'll do their thing and we'll still do ours" argument is simply overwhelming. The very same arguments were once used against abortion, cohabitation of the unmarried, out of wedlock births, premarital sex, birth control, pornography, homosexual acts, and on and on. The warnings that these behaviors could become commonplace behaviors in America were ridiculed as the hyper-alarmist rantings of puritans mere decades ago. The world we now live in stands as a testament to precisely why the government should be concerned with this matter.

[Mr. Silverback]

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.

Which is exactly why Bible-thumping fuddy-duddies like myself have fought civil unions.

[manc]

civil unions

mmm

well I wish a straight unmarried couple would go to court and get the same rights as gays when it comes to civil unions

after all we should all be treated the same, isn’t that what they say, civil rights bla bla

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

I’m not speaking about foster homes. I’m talking about oprhanages, or whatever the new PC term they use for them is. I agree that it’s best for kids to grow up with a mother and a father, but it’s not currently realistic for that to happen for every kid. Which is better; a safe home with two same-sex parents, or state-run pit?

[purpleraine]

Where have you been? I remember when we voted to lower the budget and benefits of the legislature and Willie Brown and company went to court against the voters. Remember no benefits for illegals, where did that go? Our initiative process is just seen as another poll in Sacramento and not to be followed.

[Jim Noble]

By making marriage a legal right, that leaves the courts fairly wide sway in deciding what all the ramifications of that right are.

A) It's not a right.

B)The limits of the privilege are defined by the People, through their representatives.

If you are a libertarian, you should be first in line to deny courts any power to intervene in matters of this nature - legislation by a tiny, unrepresentative minority is the ultimate in anti-Liberty action.

[purpleraine]

How is an immoral union being imposed upon you because two other people can get married? Shall we hide all immorality from sight, so you don’t get imposed upon?

[purpleraine]

How is an immoral union being imposed upon you because two other people can get married? Shall we hide all immorality from sight, so you don’t get imposed upon?

[Niteranger68]

As long as she's not still a minor, quite frankly I don't see how it's any of my business, no matter how screwy I think it is. The government has no business engaging in social engineering by defining marriage in any way - it's a religious institution.

Agreed on the minor, but minors can't married anyway. The gay factor doesn't apply. I was using the father/daughter combination as a blood relative example.

According to my tax form, married is a government classification so they must be able to define it. The biggest reason gays want the ability to be legally married is so they can get benefits through their partner’s employer. No one is stopping them from living together and playing house.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

If the family is indeed the foundation of society then the interest of the state in protecting that foundation is self-evident.

For the sake of argument, let's say I concede this point. Is the allowance of gay marraiges really a threat to the existance of straight marriage?

The historical evidence against this "Hey, they'll do their thing and we'll still do ours" argument is simply overwhelming. The very same arguments were once used against abortion, cohabitation of the unmarried, out of wedlock births, premarital sex, birth control, pornography, homosexual acts, and on and on. The warnings that these behaviors could become commonplace behaviors in America were ridiculed as the hyper-alarmist rantings of puritans mere decades ago. The world we now live in stands as a testament to precisely why the government should be concerned with this matter.

I think this is the heart of our disagreement. With the excpetion of abortion, I don't have a strong opposition to anything on your list. Why should government oppose these things? Even if illegal, these are victimless "crimes" between consenting adults, which is why it is extremely rare for anybody to be arrested for them even in the state where they are illegal. Who's going to report them? How else are you going to catch them? Are we going to start having goverment raids on people's homes to make sure their sex life is "acceptable"?

[TraditionalistMommy]

Is that you, Fred Phelps?

‘“If God doesn’t soon bring judgment upon America, He’ll have to go back and apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah!” - Ruth Graham
AMEN to this... Oh God Revive us again!!!!’

[TraditionalistMommy]

Is that you, Fred Phelps?

‘“If God doesn’t soon bring judgment upon America, He’ll have to go back and apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah!” - Ruth Graham
AMEN to this... Oh God Revive us again!!!!’

[Fishrrman]

“Earlier they also stated that this conclusion states that the initiative process cannot be used to change any laws challenging this subject”

I’m not in California and don’t know the ins and outs of the initiative process there, so, I’ll ask:
Can the initiative be used to amend the state Constitution?

If that is possible, and if Californians choose to amend their Constitution to define marriage (and to outlaw gay marriage) - how could ANY state court, even a “Supreme” one, declare the state’s own Constitutional provisions to be “unconstitutional”?

- John

[purpleraine]

LOL> I'm now trying to rid the country of all moral judgement and mocking God. My God let's people make decisions and then they are judged when they die, by God, not you.

You don't know what I care about, but here's a hint: freedom, governmental power restricted, and people not sticking their nose in other people's decisions; not imposing my religious beliefs on everyone else.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

If you are a libertarian, you should be first in line to deny courts any power to intervene in matters of this nature - legislation by a tiny, unrepresentative minority is the ultimate in anti-Liberty action.

I definitely AM against the courts intervening. However, I'm also raising the larger question of whether government should be involved at all, especially in a day and age when courts re-write laws as they see fit.

[prayforpeaceofJerusalem]

The chaining of angels in Sheol below and the nuking of Sodom were warnings and examples to those who would commit the same kind of fornication. Though it is delayed, it is coming to those who do not flee fornication, and every evil work

Jude: verses 6,7
And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;
7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Ecc 8:11 Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of Adam is fully set in them to do evil.