Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California Supreme Court Backs Gay Marriage
California Supreme Court Webpage ^ | May 15, 2008 | California Supreme Court

Posted on 05/15/2008 10:02:52 AM PDT by NinoFan

Opinion just released.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: caglbt; california; friberals; gaymarriage; heterosexualagenda; homosexualagenda; judges; lawsuit; ruling; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 601-613 next last

1 posted on 05/15/2008 10:02:52 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NinoFan
Oh goody. Does this mean that I can practice Polygamy now?
What's the difference?
2 posted on 05/15/2008 10:04:57 AM PDT by Kickass Conservative (Guns don't kill people, gun free zones kill people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan
Speechless.
3 posted on 05/15/2008 10:05:12 AM PDT by afnamvet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

I’m SHOCKED!!! SHOCKED!!! I tell ya!


4 posted on 05/15/2008 10:05:28 AM PDT by tal hajus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

Queerly beloved in the land of fruit, nuts and cereal.


5 posted on 05/15/2008 10:05:36 AM PDT by mgc1122
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

Yet one more step toward hell.


6 posted on 05/15/2008 10:06:20 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan
Photobucket

The first wedding will be.....

7 posted on 05/15/2008 10:06:35 AM PDT by dragonblustar (Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God - G. K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative

What about a boy and his dog?


8 posted on 05/15/2008 10:07:28 AM PDT by sheik yerbouty ( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

Well I’m sure this will help their budget crises.


9 posted on 05/15/2008 10:08:36 AM PDT by the_devils_advocate_666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

When it rains, it pours, no matter the will of the people of Kalifornia, no matter the votes against this, Liberalism marches on in the People’s Republik of Kalifornia..

I’m waiting for Ahhnold to come out and endorse the decision.


10 posted on 05/15/2008 10:08:48 AM PDT by padre35 (Conservative in Exile/ Isaiah 3.3/Cry havoc and let slip the RINOS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

Should be interesting to read their opinion. The decision is over 170 pages.


11 posted on 05/15/2008 10:08:57 AM PDT by newzjunkey (Obama = Carter 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

I don’t speak lawyerese—can someone translate this ruling into plain basic English? Will this now go up to the SCOTUS?


12 posted on 05/15/2008 10:09:34 AM PDT by pillut48 (CJ in TX --Soccer Mom and proud Rush Conservative with no dog in the presidential race now *sigh*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheik yerbouty

Your just being “beastophobic”...

*grin*


13 posted on 05/15/2008 10:10:09 AM PDT by Crim (Dont frak with the Zeitgeist....http://falconparty.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

At least now it may go to the Supreme Court.


14 posted on 05/15/2008 10:10:15 AM PDT by svcw (There is no plan B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: svcw

I do not recognize my country.


15 posted on 05/15/2008 10:10:58 AM PDT by Blue Turtle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan
"Applying this standard to the statutory classification here at issue, we conclude that the purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California’s current marriage statutes — the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest."
16 posted on 05/15/2008 10:12:15 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

Sodom, Gomorrah and Kalifornia too!


17 posted on 05/15/2008 10:13:13 AM PDT by Reagan Man (McCain Wants My Conservative Vote --- EARN IT or NO DEAL !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: svcw

It won’t go to the Supreme Court because no federal question is involved. Marriage is a matter of state law which the State Supreme Court interprets. And I don’t see how this ruling could violate the federal Constitution. The matter will only come before the Supreme Court when a gay married California couple doesn’t have the marriage recognized by another state. Then it will be a federal issue.

But be of good cheer, Republicans. Nothing will get evangelicals to the polls to vote Republican like this ruling. Remember 2004?


18 posted on 05/15/2008 10:13:31 AM PDT by californianmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

I’d say the odds of the Next “ Big One “ just shot off the charts..

It doesn’t seem to matter how many times voters have spoken on any number of issues in California, and now a court that has 6 Republican Gub appointed Judges adds to the mess.


19 posted on 05/15/2008 10:14:42 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed ... ICE toll-free tip hotline—1-866-DHS-2-ICE ... 9/11 .. Never FoRget!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan
We need a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution to end this judicial tyranny. It's a shame the GOP couldn't muster the cojones to get done when the supposedly pro-family GOP was in charge of Congress and the Executive.

It would have made for a great issue for a national election. Too many Mark Foleys, Larry Craigs, and Dick Cheney's in the GOP to do the right thing politically, I guess.
20 posted on 05/15/2008 10:14:55 AM PDT by Antoninus (Siblings are the greatest gift parents give their children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest

Well, I should just call myself a doctor then, because it's just a traditional title right? And the court just ruled that "traditional and well-established definitions...cannot properly be viewed as compelling state interest".

21 posted on 05/15/2008 10:16:03 AM PDT by dan1123 (If you want to find a person's true religion, ask them what makes them a "good person".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: svcw

At least now it may go to the Supreme Court.
____________________

No chance.


22 posted on 05/15/2008 10:16:16 AM PDT by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: californianmom
IMO, the basic definition of key terms in law is a national issue, and suitable for hearing by the US Supreme Court. Those terms would include marriage, life, death, person, man and woman.
23 posted on 05/15/2008 10:16:23 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

California’s current marriage statutes — the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.”

Now Corrigan can marry her partner too.. what a deal!

Rome and Athens both had their days in the sun too,, and then the darkness.


24 posted on 05/15/2008 10:16:28 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed ... ICE toll-free tip hotline—1-866-DHS-2-ICE ... 9/11 .. Never FoRget!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative
Oh goody. Does this mean that I can practice Polygamy now?

Why yes. And now you can marry the Sheep of your choice, because to prohibit such would of course be a violation of your right to Equal Protection of the Laws.

I'm not sure how the sheep will take all that, but hey...who cares? It's civil rights, right?

25 posted on 05/15/2008 10:18:08 AM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Um. Corrigan dissented.


26 posted on 05/15/2008 10:18:30 AM PDT by j.havenfarm (Issuing my fatwas from the Holy City of Auburn, California.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Blue Turtle
I know how you feel.
Someone tell me something good, I am ready to eat chocolate cake.
27 posted on 05/15/2008 10:18:30 AM PDT by svcw (There is no plan B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

The more pages, the further they must reach in order to justify their endorsement of a perversion of the system. I would not doubt that there is something in there about European law.


28 posted on 05/15/2008 10:18:40 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

There is no argument for gay marriage that does not equally support marriage between two people who are already related by blood. If you support marriage between two men, you support it between a man and his daughter. Period.

Prove me wrong.


29 posted on 05/15/2008 10:19:04 AM PDT by Niteranger68 (If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: californianmom
Depends upon what statutes and/or constitutional issues they are addressing - I haven't seen the opinion yet but this quotation suggests they are relying upon an interpretation of the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment (US Constitution), unless CA also has an equal protection clause that they are referring to??

"the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest."
30 posted on 05/15/2008 10:19:10 AM PDT by Enchante (Obama: My 1930s Foreign Policy Goes Well With My 1960s Social Policy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

Good, something to galvanize both sides going into November.

Look for the resurgence in a call for an amendment to the U.S. consitution banning gay marriage.

If those in the GOP leadership have an ounce of brain between them they’ll use this opportunity to the fullest.


31 posted on 05/15/2008 10:19:21 AM PDT by Anonymous Rex ( For Rent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: californianmom

It can still go to the US Supreme Court. All you need is one couple in California t move to another State and then sue for their marriage to be recognized by the other state. Assuming that state rules against them...it can eventually go to the US Supreme Court. But the same applies for other gay marriage states.


32 posted on 05/15/2008 10:21:25 AM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan
"Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."

Sexual orientation - like a person's race or gender...(shakes head)

33 posted on 05/15/2008 10:21:30 AM PDT by HoosierHawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative

I’m going to marry my gun and take it everywhere I go. If I can take my wife to a school or courtroom, I oughta be able to take my gun since I’m married to her.


34 posted on 05/15/2008 10:22:54 AM PDT by CholeraJoe (You like Samurai swords? I like baseball!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

“If God doesn’t soon bring judgment upon America, He’ll have to go back and apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah!” - Ruth Graham


35 posted on 05/15/2008 10:22:59 AM PDT by OB1kNOb ("We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election." - Ahmed Yousef, Hamas PM advisor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

I really feel that the country has gone in the sh*tter this week. Very, very dark days, indeed.


36 posted on 05/15/2008 10:23:19 AM PDT by piperpilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

This country is finished.


37 posted on 05/15/2008 10:24:39 AM PDT by LowTaxesEqualProsperity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

“Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a
man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In
addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the
constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.”


38 posted on 05/15/2008 10:25:03 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Too many Mark Foleys, Larry Craigs, and Dick Cheney's in the GOP to do the right thing politically,

You forgot Lindsey Graham.

39 posted on 05/15/2008 10:25:26 AM PDT by CholeraJoe (You like Samurai swords? I like baseball!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

It would be nice to be able to blame this on an extremely liberal court, but in truth the CA Supreme Court is actually very conservative nowadays.


40 posted on 05/15/2008 10:25:30 AM PDT by DryFly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: j.havenfarm

I saw that, it’s a long document, way at the end.. appearance’s sake, imo, she was the Gub’s appointee and he likes tokeep his track record clean, damn near anyone he appoints is suspect. You can research her history or maybe someone else will.


41 posted on 05/15/2008 10:26:46 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed ... ICE toll-free tip hotline—1-866-DHS-2-ICE ... 9/11 .. Never FoRget!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: pillut48

Key sentence:

“...we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory
provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are
unconstitutional.”

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

Of course the AG could still choose to end the official use of the word “marriage” and all such unions would then be properly called domestic partnerships; maybe that would restart the circus.


42 posted on 05/15/2008 10:27:11 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
I’m going to marry my gun and take it everywhere I go. If I can take my wife to a school or courtroom, I oughta be able to take my gun since I’m married to her.

Ummmmm, which gun do I marry?

So many choices....

43 posted on 05/15/2008 10:27:19 AM PDT by Osage Orange (Molon Labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I’d say the odds of the Next “ Big One “ just shot off the charts..

We are already experiencing "earthquake weather" today in FRisco.

44 posted on 05/15/2008 10:30:58 AM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange
Polyguny..?
45 posted on 05/15/2008 10:32:00 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam

We had a real colorful sunset last night,, wow!

we should get close to 100 today,, dang.


46 posted on 05/15/2008 10:34:05 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed ... ICE toll-free tip hotline—1-866-DHS-2-ICE ... 9/11 .. Never FoRget!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

If the legislature now strikes “between a man and a woman” and does not replace it with something like “between one human and another” things will get interesting.


47 posted on 05/15/2008 10:36:00 AM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

And Sanda Day says it is wrong to target supreme court judges and all judges even if they make very stupid decisions?
These clowns need to be taken to the public square and held in stocks and have rotten veggies thrown at them at the very least.


48 posted on 05/15/2008 10:39:31 AM PDT by Joe Boucher (An enemy of Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative

Only if your partners are all gay.


49 posted on 05/15/2008 10:39:31 AM PDT by SouthTexas (If you are not living on the edge, you are taking up too much space!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange

Make sure it’s a pretty one with big barrels.


50 posted on 05/15/2008 10:49:30 AM PDT by CholeraJoe (You like Samurai swords? I like baseball!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 601-613 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson