California Supreme Court Backs Gay Marriage

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

[balch3]

God’s judgement will soon fall on this country.

[DoughtyOne]

It’s time to clean house in the California State Supreme Court again.

[purpleraine]

can you put a date to that projection or is it just a gradual ordeal?

[Falcon28]

“I think one of the reasons that the power of the Church has declined is because we’ve increased the power of the government.”

That’s right...and I have no idea how to stop this slide in to Marxism short of armed revolution. I’d like to restore America at the ballot box. Lord, help our country.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

First of all, be fair to CharlesWayneCT; I said this stuff, not him, so no need to drag him in.

OK, keep deluding yourself into believing that pointing out the absurdity of "sheep humping is a protected right" constitutes an unintelligent response.

I never said it was a protected right. I was speaking abstractly about the power of government to enforce morality.

Yeah, states have only had the power to marry since the Reformation. We got screwed immediately...give or take 500 years.

First of all, I never said it would happen immediately. Secondly, we didn't have governemnt involved in so many other aspects of life that your marital status become relevant. Was there any debate over whether same-sex partners should qualifiy for marital employer-based health insurance benefits? We're living in another world now.

1. You may be of the mind, but we have no data to support it.

Do you have any to oppose it? It's hard to quantify. I think it's reasonable to assume that having some parents is better than none.

2. Given the prevalence of drug/alcohol abuse and other destructive behaviors in the gay community, I think that's not a safe bet.

Speaking of supporting data, you have any credible data on this? More importantly, any proof that they're the same people that are trying to adopt? Most hard partiers, gay or straight, have no interest in raising children.

3. I believe most kids who have a single mom would be better off raised by my wife and me, so why don't we remake society's laws so that I'm their dad? All we'll have to do is set up a big federal check for me each month.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, so I'm not touching this one for now.

[Skooz]

bump

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

I already said it was helpful in 2004, but it didn’t work in 2006 and won’t work in 2008.

[Mr. Silverback]

I'm afraid this analogy is not clear. Who do you mean by "people"? Homosexuals? The Supreme Court?

Homosexuals, and only a segment of them. While you dig "live and let live" they want everyone to approve how they live, even if it means forcing it on us. To the gay activist, the idea that they should keep their activity in their bedroom and leave the rest of us alone is one step removed from deciding to lynch them.

No, you guys (social conservatives) never seem to figure out that once you give government the authority to enforce morality, they can cram pretty much whatever they want down your throat, even if you find it objectionable.

Do you realize how silly you sound when you use that load in a discussion of gay marriage? Here's a clue, sparky, it used to be ILLEGAL for these people to even hook up. Then we decided that we couldn't legislate morality, and the next thing you know we've got people teaching kids fisting in the schools. And why is that? It's because when someone says, "I don't want to put these folks in jail, but we have got to put a stop to this" we get the "you can't legislate morality" routine and the "tolerance" routine and the "it's for the children" routine.

Lastly, the idea that we can't legislate reality is the biggest pile of horsecrap in politics. We do it all the time. Is stealing immoral? Cheating on your taxes? Beating your wife? Abusing a child? Flashing your groin at passersby? The only question is who's morality will be the one guiding the legislation.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

That’s your belief. Not everybody else in this country shares it, and that’s their right. I think the First Amendment is pretty clear.

[manc]

no foster homes can house many children from many backgrounds
I met many children there who had been abused, let out alone, parents died, taken away etc

basically a foster home is a place where you go while waiting for a nice couple, man and woman to be adopting you

I remember many times looking out and wondering if I were going to be taken away from the foster home and be adopted

Also foster homes are run by the state

the breakdown of traditional family is sad and if we don’t get a federal amendment then you can bet society will only get worse.

look around today
men who think they’re women
men who act like a woman, boys dressing as girls
women more manly than a man
etc etc

I now have three children
my job is to teach my boys to be men
my wife will teach my daughter to be a woman

I could not do her job nor could she do mine
I am surprised that you as a libertarian feels like this
you I would have thought you would be disgusted that a select few ignore the majority and rule of law so to appease a small few

Tell me do you really think that the founding fathers would have wanted this?
do you think that if they had knew that this would happen they would have been more to the point

it’s wrote a man and a woman, right?

so because it doesn’t say between the gays think they should marry,, and do their perverted sexual acts

I guarantee that they would have said between if they had ever thought we would have come this disgusting

[goldstategop]

There's a constitutional amendment now on the ballot that would override today's decision and reinstate the marriage law. Its not lost yet.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

even if it means forcing it on us

How is it being forced on you? Unless somebody attempts to rape you, it's not being forced on you.

Do you realize how silly you sound when you use that load in a discussion of gay marriage? Here's a clue, sparky, it used to be ILLEGAL for these people to even hook up. Then we decided that we couldn't legislate morality, and the next thing you know we've got people teaching kids fisting in the schools.

Barry Goldwater didn't believe in legislating morality. Neither did Ronald Reagan. Neither does anybody who's actually a conservative. As far as the schools go, you're again not looking at the source of the problem, which is that we allowed government schools to start teaching sex education in the first place.

Lastly, the idea that we can't legislate reality is the biggest pile of horsecrap in politics. We do it all the time. Is stealing immoral? Cheating on your taxes? Beating your wife? Abusing a child? Flashing your groin at passersby? The only question is who's morality will be the one guiding the legislation.

People's rights and property still have to be protected. This is implicit in the statement that government shouldn't enforce morality. With the exception of cheating on your taxes (which I don't necessarily consider immoral - just illegal), these are all things that harm another person.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

I stand by what I’ve said. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

[manc]

Ok help me out please

this does not go into affect straight away I know but would this go into affect in a bit then later this year it could be changed again due to the amendment?/????

did the homosexuals rush this through knowing it was on the ballot???????

is there anyway that this decision could be put on hold until after the election and the amendment has been voted on

also does this mean that the marriage certificate say now man and man

what a bizarre state this country has come to when we get outraged over a man having more than one wife yet think it’s OK for a man to poke another man and get married or a woman to get the strap on and then get married

bizarre times indeed

we need a federal amendment ASAP

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

You don’t understand the issue in this case. Once again the courts have played fast and loose with the constitution in order to destroy the moral fabric of America.

I afraid you're the one not understanding. I'm not in favor of the courts legislating from the bench, and I'm not in favor of legalizaing same-sex marriage. I'm in favor of eliminating marraige as a governmental institution, and leaving it solely as a religious one.

Once the courts strike down the definition of marriage - one I might add, that has stood for thousands of years - in order to accommodate a lifestyle choice - then it has no option but to open up marriage to all other lifestyle choices, no matter how abborant (ie: man-boy, father-daughter, man-dog, etc.)

This is why the definition should be left to religious institutions, which have varying rules regarding marriage. Also, the examples you site are absurd; we're talking about an agreement between two consenting adults, not a child or animal.

[Mr. Silverback]

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?

Why is it that a society is not allowed to define for itself what it is or isn't, but must instead suffer under the tyranny not merely of the minority, but of a vanishingly small minority? How is it that them trying to rework the whole fabric of society with the leverage of judicial fiate NOT an imposition?

[purpleraine]

First off, if they're vanishing, then you are protesting way too much.

Our society defined itself in the declaration of independence and the constitution. It took us a while to actually live by those principles.

Our you suggesting the fabric of our society has not changed since the late 1700s?

I don't see how we can vote to restrict the freedoms of others. We did that in the past and it was wrong then and wrong now.

[Mr. Silverback]

Is that you, Fred Phelps?

How is it, exactly, that worrying that God will judge our sin is the same as telling a dead Marine's family that he was humping other men?

Fred Phelps is an evil, sick bag of crap and has no connection to decent Americans concerned about the curse of the country.