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 previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 601-613 next last
To: NinoFan
"California Supreme Court Backs Gay Marriage"

Of course this also means that they also back Gay Divorce along with all of the love and joy associated with it.

I wonder what the stats are on how many gay marriages end in divorce.

51 posted on 05/15/2008 10:49:57 AM PDT by R_Kangel (`.`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

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.

>>>>>ALREADY THERE! Over a year ago I saw a man out there wanting to get married to a tree. The thing is, you couldn’t tell if he was serious or trying to make a point and I thought, in Cesspoolifornication...how would you know?


52 posted on 05/15/2008 10:50:05 AM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing-----Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: HoosierHawk
the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship

This must be in the "penumbra" becaue it's nowhere in the California constitution as written.

53 posted on 05/15/2008 10:50:34 AM PDT by Argus (Obama: All turban and no goats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: R_Kangel

If you prohibit marriage on the basis of divorce rate, we’ll have a lot of people who can’t get married.


54 posted on 05/15/2008 10:52:23 AM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

Polyguny........owning more than 1 gun.


55 posted on 05/15/2008 10:53:24 AM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

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

What did Dick Cheney do? I missed that one. And why didn't you put apostrophes into "Foleys" and "Craigs?"

56 posted on 05/15/2008 10:54:29 AM PDT by webheart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: webheart
What did Dick Cheney do? I missed that one.

Dick Cheney supports homo-marriage.
57 posted on 05/15/2008 10:58:21 AM PDT by Antoninus (Siblings are the greatest gift parents give their children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

What about prop 22? 60% said no to homosexual marriage.

What good is the ballot?


58 posted on 05/15/2008 10:58:33 AM PDT by BigFinn (Isa 32:8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: R_Kangel

I was thinking about the same thing, the gays will now have to deal with divorce. Somehow, I think that after a few years of watching the trials of divorce, many gays are going to decide that getting married was not worth the effort.

I haven’t known any male gay couples who got married, but I knew one lesbian couple who were married in Canada, and got divorced, they used one of those professional mediators to determine the division of property and child visitation. Yes, they had a child through artificial insemination. It was the mother of the child who decided that she didn’t want to be gay any longer.


59 posted on 05/15/2008 10:58:41 AM PDT by Eva (CHANGE- the post modern euphemism for Marxist revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

Ya’ know...I truly don’t care that there are homosexuals in our world, our Country, or our State.

I really, and honestly do not care if they “do” each other all day long, and into the night...in the privacy and BEHIND the closed doors and curtained windows of their abode. It bothers me, not in the least.

My problem is my Constitutionally guaranteed right to pursue happiness has been abrogated by a Court in favor of the homosexuals’. And that ain’t right.

I have lived 55 years abiding by the Constitution, and the cultural traditions of this Country that we’ve had since, even before, it’s founding. And now, I’m forced into relinquishing my right to appease this minority group of immoral, unclean, unsafe, tools of satan.

Worse, I’m forced to pay for it, and I’m NOT even ALLOWED to voice my opinion in public; Or to or within earshot of, the object(s) of my discomfort, lest I be arrested and charged with hatred, which of course, is immoral also, but is made a crime by the same appeasers that force me to subjugate my happiness and rights to the more immoral minority filth and disease spreaders. And as a fine how do you do, kick in the pants, to top it all off, our children are being taught that their parents are bad people, and the same sexers, homesexual knee benders, are righteous and, gee whiz, just good, decent folks!


60 posted on 05/15/2008 11:04:44 AM PDT by papasmurf (Unless I post a link to a resource, what I post is opinion, regardless of how I spin it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Niteranger68
If you support marriage between two men, you support it between a man and his daughter.

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.
61 posted on 05/15/2008 11:05:14 AM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DryFly
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.

Conservative being such a relative term, these days.
62 posted on 05/15/2008 11:06:28 AM PDT by papasmurf (Unless I post a link to a resource, what I post is opinion, regardless of how I spin it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

They tried it twice already, didn’t go anywhere. It’s main back the second time, David Vitter, obviously takes the “sanctity of marriage” very seriously, cheating on his wife with a hooker. It may have been a useful issue in 2004, but it didn’t work in 2006, and sure as hell won’t work this year. The GOP seems to have learned absoultely nothing from 2006 and the special elections, trying the same old tricks that don’t work. I think it will be very funny if there’s a ballot initiative and it fails, like in Arizona.


63 posted on 05/15/2008 11:09:11 AM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Eva
Gay couples here in California have been trying to argue that the tough State divorce rules are not in effect for gay couples since the so called "Marriage" they entered into was not recognized as being lawful.

Well, that is about to change.

California is a "Community Property" state which will be divided equally (50-50) by the court if the parties are not able to come to an agreement.

64 posted on 05/15/2008 11:10:19 AM PDT by R_Kangel (`.`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: BigFinn

It was a mistake to use a merely legislative approach on Prop. 22. I knew from the start that the only way to get the homogamy ban to stick was to use a constitutional amendment, which is available to the voters in California.

We passed a constitutional amendment in Oregon. They have kind of circumvented that by legalizing civil unions, but that’s as far as they can go.


65 posted on 05/15/2008 11:10:32 AM PDT by B Knotts (Calvin Coolidge Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: OB1kNOb
“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!!!!

66 posted on 05/15/2008 11:16:14 AM PDT by pollywog (I will lift mine eyes to the hills from whence cometh my help. My help comes from the Lord...Ps 121)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: svcw

can you help me out here

since the court in Mssachusetts and now california say it’s legal, ARF
then why isn’t this going to the supreme court and how on earth can a court over turn the law.

plus if an appeal goes ahead of which I hope it does then does this ruling by the court get put on hold until it does get to the supreme court which can take years can’t it?

sorry for the questions but wanted to clear this up


67 posted on 05/15/2008 11:18:44 AM PDT by manc (Most Republicans go on facts, law, constitution, many others go on the pitch fork mob mentality,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

remember their argum,ent is they love each other

well you can love a sheep

they are not hurting anyone
well neither are you with the sheep

it is their buisiness what they do in their bedroom
well it is yours to with your sheep

every argument they use can used for having more thna one wife or marrying an animal

maybe the polymists should get the law changed in Utah using the very same arguments and see how the homo’s will go mad and not say about civil rights after all where is their civil rights

another sham marriage comes to a state


68 posted on 05/15/2008 11:23:03 AM PDT by manc (Most Republicans go on facts, law, constitution, many others go on the pitch fork mob mentality,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

hey the polygamists should get their way of life legal

after all homo’s say it’s about civil rights

then their are muslims who say they should have 4 wives so let them have 4 wives, civil rights and religious rights you know

would the homo’s back them then


69 posted on 05/15/2008 11:26:12 AM PDT by manc (Most Republicans go on facts, law, constitution, many others go on the pitch fork mob mentality,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Argus
This must be in the "penumbra" becaue it's nowhere in the California constitution as written.

Just makin' it up as they go.

70 posted on 05/15/2008 11:26:44 AM PDT by HoosierHawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian
It may have been a useful issue in 2004, but it didn’t work in 2006, and sure as hell won’t work this year. The GOP seems to have learned absoultely nothing from 2006 and the special elections, trying the same old tricks that don’t work. I think it will be very funny if there’s a ballot initiative and it fails, like in Arizona.

Yeah, it'll be hysterical. I always laugh when my country goes collectively insane enough to confuse two sodomites with a husband and wife.

Of course, you're wrong. Arizona is the only example of someplace where a ballot initiative on this issue didn't pass. And if you research why, it's because all sorts of riders were tagged onto the initiative which were only peripherally concerned with homosexual faux-marriage.

Plus, it looks like the traditional marriage initiative will be back on the ballot in Arizona in November without the riders.

Butt-sex marriage is not popular with the voters and should absolutely be an issue so that we do not remain at the mercy of these black-robed dictators.
71 posted on 05/15/2008 11:26:45 AM PDT by Antoninus (Siblings are the greatest gift parents give their children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: R_Kangel

well look at the homo’s who got a sham marriage in massachusetts

half of them nearly are divorced

what about the civil rights of a kid, I grew up in foster homes and I always wanted a father and a mother, so what about kids today does a girl have to settle for two daddies

bizarre
to think outrage about a man having more than one wife at that ranch yet no outrage from libs about two men poking each other and thinking they should get married

very bizarre indeed


72 posted on 05/15/2008 11:29:52 AM PDT by manc (Most Republicans go on facts, law, constitution, many others go on the pitch fork mob mentality,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
We had a real colorful sunset last night - We live on the beach in SF and it truly was spectacular
73 posted on 05/15/2008 11:30:34 AM PDT by SF Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian

maybe I should turn muslim and have 4 wives then

we have a law defining marriage already but the libs and homo’s want to over turn the law to suit their perverted mental sickness


74 posted on 05/15/2008 11:32:00 AM PDT by manc (Most Republicans go on facts, law, constitution, many others go on the pitch fork mob mentality,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative
"Does this mean that I can practice Polygamy now?"

If you haven't noticed Polygamy has been practiced for a long time, without anyone coming after them. It isn't until the charges of child abuse that action is being taken.

75 posted on 05/15/2008 11:32:13 AM PDT by Spunky (You are free to make choices, but not free from the consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
By funny I meant ironic-funny, not “ha ha”-funny, but that's not really relevant. We'll see what happens with ballot initiatives this year, but even if they pass, it's not going to be nearly as powerful an issue as in 2004. In Wisconsin, a gay marriage ban passed in 2006, but that didn't stop the voters from overwhelming re-electing a Democrats to virtually every statewide office. This election pony trick isn't going to work anymore.
76 posted on 05/15/2008 11:35:00 AM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

I think it’s time us Texans just close all borders surrounding Texas: the Mexico southern border and the U.S. north, east, and west borders.

It was a nice ride U.S.A. but it’s just getting too blue out yonder.


77 posted on 05/15/2008 11:35:00 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan
MSNBC staff and news service reports updated 22 minutes ago SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.

Biggest state????
You mean Alaska????

Biggest Socialist state, maybe.
Damn, those hippies sure think a lot of themselves.

78 posted on 05/15/2008 11:37:11 AM PDT by KSoldier (IRAQ WAR VETERAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manc
maybe I should turn muslim and have 4 wives then

Knock yourself out. It's none of my business.

we have a law defining marriage already but the libs and homo’s want to over turn the law to suit their perverted mental sickness

I'm against the whole idea of marriage as a government institution. The government has no business engaging in social engineering by getting involved in family, personal, and religious issues.
79 posted on 05/15/2008 11:37:54 AM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian

so by that logic marriage could be anything

people marrying animals, as what as happened elsewhere in the world namely India

we can have more than one wife or husband

Kids as young 5 could get married

you need laws

if we don’t have a law defining then anything goes and anarchy happens


80 posted on 05/15/2008 11:43:11 AM PDT by manc (Most Republicans go on facts, law, constitution, many others go on the pitch fork mob mentality,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative; All
Will somebody please indicate page of the California Supreme Court's opinion says yes to gay marriage?

Given what I've read from the opinion so far, if California's majority voters want to allow only man woman marriages then it is up to them to flex their voting muscle to amend their constitution to say so, the judges be damned.

The bottom line is that Californians can choose not to be slaves to their own constitution or the judges who interpret it.

81 posted on 05/15/2008 11:48:59 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

And to think, people once made light of folks that married a cousin, and today condemn polygamy, while allowing the most disgusting, disease-ridden, subpopulation on the planet to legitimize their deviant behavior. Just as in ancient Rome, homosexuals will quickly access young boys, demanding leadership and access positions in the Boy Scouts. Already they enter schools to groom the little boys for what homosexuals have to offer—a version of the Will and Grace show.


82 posted on 05/15/2008 11:49:31 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Hallmarks of Liberalism: Ingratitude and Envy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

OK guys, Bill Gates is mine. No prenups, no long courting period, bring it to me Bill. Did I say no prenup?

If he’ll have me.


83 posted on 05/15/2008 11:55:52 AM PDT by BlueStateBlues (Blue State for business, Red State at heart..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

The Republic continues to slip on a banana peel in slow motion.


84 posted on 05/15/2008 12:05:34 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

You're right. The timing couldn't be worse for Obama and the Dems.

85 posted on 05/15/2008 12:06:59 PM PDT by AHerald ("Be faithful to God ... do not bother about the ridicule of the foolish." - St. Pio of Pietrelcina)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: manc
so by that logic marriage could be anything

It's a religious institution. Some churches had gay marriages long before it was legal in any state. I saw keep the government out of it.

people marrying animals

This is an absurd comparison, though that doesn't stop it from being a favorite for many. We're discussing an agreement between two consenting adults; an animal doesn't have the ability to consent. Furthermore, we don't apply any other human statutes to animals; why would marriage laws be any different?

Kids as young 5 could get married

Same as above. Also, if somebody's faith allows that, and their parents consent, there's really nothing that can stop this from already hapenning without government recognition.

if we don’t have a law defining then anything goes and anarchy happens

I agree we need some laws, but I don't see a compelling case for marriage laws. I see it as government overstepping its proper role.
86 posted on 05/15/2008 12:07:09 PM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

Naturally no one has read the entire opinion yet, at least not well enough to digest the whole thing. Clearly the judges are hedging their opinions and I think it will be narrower than first appearance, however it is a setback for traditional marriage advocates.

As I look at this strategy, I think the mistake California and other states are making is setting up a parallel legal relationship for gays, in California recognized “civil unions”. It appears to have been, as many warned, a camel’s nose under the tent strategy. Once ensconced as legally accepted, the gay rights organizations argued that there was no reason for a parallel relationship and attacked it as unconstitutional. The court looked at the constitution, said “by golly” and held that a two-tiered legal recognition of personal relationships wasn’t addressed by the Constitution and seems to violate the Equal Protection Clause which most, if not all, states have in their constitutions.

The way to attack this is to amend the Constitution and have it survive a legal attack by proving that marriage between a man and woman benefits the community in a different way than the homosexual relationship. That argument can be made but it would take years. In the meantime, look for a stampede of laws in the Assembly to forestall such a tactic.

One of the worse mistakes Conservatives make is underestimating the long-term strategy (and the evil intent) of their adversaries. I’m beginning to think that Conservatives needs to think long and hard about stopping the internecine sniping with each other and banding together in private political action committees to work on long-term agendas. California is almost totally dominated by liberals so there is little to be done in the short-term. In the longer term, we can work to get true Conservatives into the halls of power in spite of the fact that they might not be a clone of ourselves.

Moving to the national arena, I am very disappointed in McCain but I truly fear the repercussions to the nation if a Democrat is elected president. I think November is lost whichever way we go but I think it is time for Conservatives to flex their muscles by pulling money out of the Republican Party and putting it into strong PACs to make the Republican Party do their bidding, just as MoveOn and Soros’ Open Society have used concentrated funds to call the tune for the Democrat Party. We are a people who distrust large organizations but that is all we have to combat the liberal organizations who are now calling the shots for both parties.


87 posted on 05/15/2008 12:07:14 PM PDT by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: svcw
At least now it may go to the Supreme Court.

It has to be appealed to go to the Federal courts. Ya think a liberal like Arnold is going to give the green light to that?

I find it interesting that Sean Hannity -- who helped that idiot get into office -- hasn't said a word about this decision to open his show today.

88 posted on 05/15/2008 12:12:54 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky (Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative

The good guys will file for cert. If at least four want to take on the case, cert will be granted (”rule of four”). I think Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts will want to hear this.

SCOTUS likes taking on cases where the law is in turmoil. This ruling is perfect b/c you have a federal law (DOMA) being overridden by a state law.


89 posted on 05/15/2008 12:16:47 PM PDT by conservativeinferno (My SUV is the urban squirrel's worst predator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HoosierHawk

It’s not the individual part that’s the problem.

It’s that they have now ruled that COUPLES have equal rights.

You always had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex, whether you were gay or straight.

But they have now ruled that your rights are based on your status in RELATIONSHIP to another.

There were no individual legal rights being withheld. The state never gave the “right” to do what felt best to you, just the right to get certain benefits if you formed a monogomous heterosexual relationship.

I can think of no compelling state interest in encouraging same-sex couples. I can define the compelling state interest in encouraging opposite-sex couples.

The court has ruled that I can NOT find a compelling reason to encourage one, and not the other.

California needs a marriage amendment. Arnold is fighting it.


90 posted on 05/15/2008 12:19:26 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian

Did you have to put down your banjo to post that?


91 posted on 05/15/2008 12:22:03 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: pillut48

“I don’t speak lawyerese—can someone translate this ruling into plain basic English?”

Corrigan explained it pretty well in her concurring and dissentin opinion:

The voters who passed Proposition 22 not long ago decided to keep the meaning of marriage as it has always been understood in California. The majority improperly infringes on the prerogative of the voters by overriding their decision.
It does that which it acknowledges it should not do: it redefines marriage because it believes marriage should be redefined. (See maj. opn., ante, at pp. 4-5, 109.) It justifies its decision by finding a constitutional infirmity where none exists.
Plaintiffs are free to take their case to the people, to let them vote on whether they are now ready to accept such a redefinition. Californians have legalized domestic partnership, but decided not to call it “marriage.” Four votes on this court should not disturb the balance reached by the democratic process, a balance that is still being tested in the political arena.


92 posted on 05/15/2008 12:24:21 PM PDT by rwa265
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: manc

A belated welcome to FR, friend.


93 posted on 05/15/2008 12:25:01 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: avacado
I recall seeing an email (I'm not certain of its accuracy) that showed how Texas could be self-sufficient on Day One if she seceded.

If you do it, I'll be at your consulate in Illinois the day it opens to apply for a visa.

94 posted on 05/15/2008 12:27:34 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Argus

That’s the problem. Individuals had the right to be treated equally under the law, regardless of sexual orientation.

But there is no constitutional right to marriage of any kind. as a religious structure, marriage is outside the purvue of the state. As a state sponsored relationship, marriage is a benefit the state provides in exchange for doing something the state wants to encourage.

The state has decided that it is good for society to have stable heterosexual relationships, primarily for the purpose of procreation (although they don’t restrict it that way).

Frankly, this is a war that is going to be lost throughout the country. As much as we dislike it, people are conditioned through 50 years now of public training to NOT discriminate, and they believe this is discrimination. We can pass some constitutional amendments in states where there are good, moral older people training up good children.

But the public schools are brainwashing the kids to SUPPORT gay marriage. It’s just a matter of time before we can no longer get a majority to support marriage.

We can only hope that we can keep the state from interfering in RELIGIOUS marriage, and maybe simply have state domestic partnerships. Because this could easily turn into a requirement that churches marry gays or lose their tax exempt status.


95 posted on 05/15/2008 12:28:20 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative

“[I have] a problem with homosexual acts, as I would with what I would consider to be acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships . . . if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery.” –Rick Santorum on gay sex, AP interview


96 posted on 05/15/2008 12:29:21 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian
This is an absurd comparison, though that doesn't stop it from being a favorite for many. We're discussing an agreement between two consenting adults; an animal doesn't have the ability to consent. Furthermore, we don't apply any other human statutes to animals; why would marriage laws be any different?

How dare you try to interfere with someone's sex life? What business is it of government's if they do it behind closed doors? And besides, animal cruelty is outlawed by most religions, so it shouldn't be a government issue, but a religious one.

97 posted on 05/15/2008 12:30:49 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
If you're already married to your wife, and then marry your gun, doesn't that make you a polygamist?
98 posted on 05/15/2008 12:31:42 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a 2nd BCT 10th Mountain Soldier home after 15 months in the Triangle of death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BigFinn

If the same group gets out in November to vote for the marriage amendment, they can overturn this court ruling.

It’s usually good for Republicans if there is a marriage amendment on the ballot, unless the democrats successfully label the republicans as racists — blacks actually support gay marriage amendments.


99 posted on 05/15/2008 12:33:32 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky

All it will take is one gay couple whining that Wyoming doesn’t recognize their marriage and it’s off to the SCOTUS.


100 posted on 05/15/2008 12:33:35 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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