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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 601-613 next last
Comment #151 Removed by Moderator

Comment #152 Removed by Moderator

To: NinoFan

he’s just reminded me not to vote ever for that party

I don’t want Govt interference all the time but I do want laws to go by to keep this country and our children in a normal ,, unperverted ,natural , upstanding moral way.


153 posted on 05/15/2008 1:28:49 PM PDT by manc (Most Republicans go on facts, law, constitution, many others go on the pitch fork mob mentality,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian
We were talking about marriage, not sex.

Well then, how dare you presume to tell somebody who they can love? As Helen Hunt sais in the first episode of "Mad About You," "Can you imagine being told that who you love is wrong?"

We don't currently recognize any legal rights for animals, so what's to stop this from happening right now? Furthermore, how is this at all related to the California Supreme Court decision?

Sometimes I wonder if Libertarians have all guided their political opinions by a history book called "The Founding Fathers, Prohibition and the Last Couple of Years," because if you and I were having this coversation in 1971 it would go something like this:

You: It's none of the state's business if these homosexuals are consenting adults, so we should repeal laws outlawing homosexuality and stop treating it as a mental disorder.

Me: Aw jeez, next thing you know, you'll be pushing for them to get married, and they'll be pushing this stuff in the schools as a healthy option!

You: Oh, that's just hyperbole, and besides, since there's no legal rights to marriage for homosexuals, there's nothing preventing it right now. Who cares?

Yep, you guys never seem to fgure out that "live and let live" only works with people who respect your life in return. In other words, people who care nothing about your freedom are swinging away at the foundations of society with a wrecking ball while you worry about whether the super of the building is a prude or not.

154 posted on 05/15/2008 1:29:23 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 104 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan; All

Were Californians misguided to belief that voting on a proposition would be the best way to reflect majority will concerning one man, one woman-only marriage when they should have directed their efforts to having their constitution amended?


155 posted on 05/15/2008 1:29:25 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

..I'm expecting the San Andreas Fault to open up and the whole state be swallowed up any minute...


156 posted on 05/15/2008 1:34:25 PM PDT by WalterSkinner ( In Memory of My Father--WWII Vet and Patriot 1926-2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian

you said
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.

Wrong you are way wrong

I was put into foster homes all my life growing up , So I know about this
I saw kids with mums and dads.
I did have a foster mum most times and so much wanted a father not another mum

I too wanted my own mum and dad, I wanted mum for comfort, love, sympathy etc
I wanted Dad to teach me about cars, sports, etc

I never would have wanted to mums or two dads
two dads cannot ever tell a girl how she will feel when she goes on her first date
they cannot tell her about puberty and how she will feel
they cannot tell her about how she feels on her first kiss
etc etc

So you are way off on what you said, totally way off

you might think so but I know so from experience

so best not to assume on this


157 posted on 05/15/2008 1:34:37 PM PDT by manc (Most Republicans go on facts, law, constitution, many others go on the pitch fork mob mentality,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: WesA; avacado
Actually, the probem is that secession without approval by the other states is not constitutional. If the Confederate rational for secession being valid had been accepted, it almost certainly would have led to balkanization of the U.S., with the South balkanizing internally first.

Maybe we can convince the big cities to secede from their states...most downstate/upstate voters will endorse it enthusiastically and at least the State governments will be sane again.

158 posted on 05/15/2008 1:34:38 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 105 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

Plus there’s the fact that sex with an animal would (or should) constitute animal cruelty.


159 posted on 05/15/2008 1:36:08 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 109 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Yep, you guys never seem to fgure out that "live and let live" only works with people who respect your life in return.

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.

In other words, people who care nothing about your freedom are swinging away at the foundations of society with a wrecking ball while you worry about whether the super of the building is a prude or not.

I'm afraid this analogy is not clear. Who do you mean by "people"? Homosexuals? The Supreme Court?
160 posted on 05/15/2008 1:36:51 PM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian
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.

161 posted on 05/15/2008 1:37:22 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 130 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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

162 posted on 05/15/2008 1:40:03 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 127 | View Replies]

Comment #163 Removed by Moderator

To: Mr. Silverback

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


164 posted on 05/15/2008 1:42:00 PM PDT by manc (Most Republicans go on facts, law, constitution, many others go on the pitch fork mob mentality,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: manc

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?


165 posted on 05/15/2008 1:42:19 PM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: sandyeggo

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.


166 posted on 05/15/2008 1:45:38 PM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian
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.

167 posted on 05/15/2008 1:45:45 PM PDT by Jim Noble (ride 'em like you stole 'em)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

Comment #168 Removed by Moderator

To: Angry Write Mail

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?


169 posted on 05/15/2008 1:48:21 PM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

Comment #170 Removed by Moderator

To: Angry Write Mail

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?


171 posted on 05/15/2008 1:49:48 PM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

Comment #172 Removed by Moderator

To: MinnesotaLibertarian
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.

173 posted on 05/15/2008 1:51:37 PM PDT by Niteranger68 (If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: AHerald
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"?
174 posted on 05/15/2008 1:51:37 PM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: pollywog

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!!!!’


175 posted on 05/15/2008 1:52:20 PM PDT by TraditionalistMommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: pollywog

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!!!!’


176 posted on 05/15/2008 1:52:20 PM PDT by TraditionalistMommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

“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


177 posted on 05/15/2008 1:52:47 PM PDT by Fishrrman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Angry Write Mail
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.

178 posted on 05/15/2008 1:53:18 PM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
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.
179 posted on 05/15/2008 1:54:05 PM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative

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.


180 posted on 05/15/2008 1:55:13 PM PDT by prayforpeaceofJerusalem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian

foster homes /orphanages
basically same thing with a different name
children who lost parents, children who was given up , children who were took away

go to the same place now

I met a kid who had two men has parents, , this kid was so messed up mentally
I never knew at the time about his parents so to speak, but thought sorry for this boy, always crying etc
One day while my oldest was playing on his bike, this boy just started to cry, nothing unusual as he always did.
I went over thinking he had hurt himself instead he told me that he hated himself, he hated not having a mother and hated having two men as parents.
He then used to come round to our house and he would attach himself to my wife, and one day said to her I wish you were my mum

This was when I lived in massachusetts, thankfully I escaped that state and moved south.

That episode speaks volumes and I will never forget it, so when I hear that argument I get high strung, as from being through with not a mother and father,seeing others like me and then meeting this boy only confirms to me just what is needed

A child having two men as dads is wrong and only serves to mess the boy up further in life


181 posted on 05/15/2008 1:56:04 PM PDT by manc (Most Republicans go on facts, law, constitution, many others go on the pitch fork mob mentality,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Angry Write Mail
It is better that the United States government does not impose an immoral union on a people who do not want to sanction it.

What is being imposed? I'm arguing in favor of removing the power to define marriage from the government.

Homosexuality is a lifestyle that is in direct opposition of the morality of the vast majority of the American people.

Doesn't matter. You don't have the right to tell others how to live their lives when it has zero effect on your own life.
182 posted on 05/15/2008 1:57:14 PM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: AHerald
I would argue that the world is much more moral today. We have equality of political power in many countries, slavery only exists is a small portion of the planet; evil dictators can be challenged by democratic countries and removed from power; education and medical care are available as never before; religious missionaries have spread doctrine around the world; more countries talk before they fight; the list can continue.

Yes, we see more skin and sexual behavior in public, but overall, I would argue, that we are much more moral.

What I see here is that we said that we believe in freedom, but some of us don't want others to have the freedom to commit sexual sins and we don't want homos to have the same access to society. We are afraid to practice the very freedom we subscribe to.

183 posted on 05/15/2008 2:00:10 PM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian

People sometimes stay married because of the benefits they get for being married. Otherwise, it’s just a religious thing. If the state offered NO benefits for marraige, there would be no point in anybody getting legally married, it would just be a waste of the 20 bucks for the license.

I guess it is a bit of “social engineering”, but the state’s very existence is “social engineering”. We adopted government to shape society. The society we chose 200+ years ago was one with very limited boundaries, but we did chose boundaries at both the federal and state level.

And the founders recognized that the structure they set of for the federal government, and the existing state governments, could not function without an underlying societal structure, one that is formed by marriage.

Maybe at one time the role of religion was so powerful that you would not need to encourage marriage. But that has long since past. Few churches frown on divorce in a serious way, and society has largely eliminated any stigma.

And yes, divorce is too easy. We forgot that marriage was not just so people could enjoy each other, but was a contract with society to maintain a social construct.

But the state still has a reason to want parents to stay together. By offering bribes of tax credits and access to special treatment, the state can encourage people to stay together.

It’s not just that the father supplies money for the kid. Kids grow up better adjusted if they are raised by their biological parents. And when that is not possible, they also grow up somewhat better if they have two members of the opposite sex in parental roles.

This provides a model for the children to grow up, marry themselves, and procreate, thus perpetuating the species AND continuing a population sufficient for our nation to survive.

Thus, the state has a good reason to “socially engineer” marriages, and the procreation of it’s citizens. I don’t generally like social engineering, but encouraging marriage seems the least entrusive thing the state could do. They aren’t forcing us to get married, just providing benefits for those who do the prefered thing.

As to “discouraging”, I don’t see how the lack of state recognition “discourages” people from forming a relationship. If the only reason you are forming a relationship is because the state gives you benefits, not giving benefits isn’t really “discouraging”.

If the state actually punished people for entering same-sex unions, then you could say it was discouraging them. But I don’t think the lack of encouragement should be equated with discouragement.

Yes, same-sex couples can adopt, and they can even use artificial means to procreate on their own (by “artificial” I simply mean any step which does not involve sex with their partner).

Then the question is whether the benefit of encouraging a same-sex couple to form a union and raise a child is compelling enough for the state to provide preferential treatment for it, over say a single parent.

I simply don’t have enough information to say that same-sex couples provide enough benefit to make it worth special treatment. I probably wouldn’t object to laws ALLOWING same-sex couples to adopt, but I don’t think we need to encourage it.

We have little history to see if same-sex couples form lasting marriage relationships, or how the children of those relationships turn out. In one case, two women got a civil union in vermont. The one woman was artificially impregnated, and had a child. Then she felt abused by the other woman, so she had the union dissolved, moved to Virginia which doesn’t recognize unions or parental rights, and got married to a man.

Now there is a bitter custody fight over the child — a child who does not know her real father, and is being taken part-time from a family which has a step-father up to another state to live with a woman who has no biological relationship with her.

It’s a hard case. I am guessing there will be a lot more hard cases. And when I say the following, a lot of people get mad at me who are on my side, but I believe it so I say it, adoption is better than nothing, but is not as good as biological parents.

There is something INATE in the biological relationship that provides bonding and a sense of belonging. We see that when so many adopted children seek to find their biological parents.

But the counter to that is that in SPECIFIC instances, a single mom can be better than a couple, a gay couple could be better than a straight couple, a group home might work out better than a real family.

But the state can act in generalities. It’s not prohibiting two gay people from entering a contract, settling down together, having a child if they are women, and doing those things that would make them a “couple”.

BTW, I would prefer the state simply get OUT of the marriage business altogether, than to start supporting same-sex unions. Because frankly, I think two biological parents who refuse to marry one another but together raise a child would be better for society than a married male couple adopting that child.

Heck, I think three of four biological parents living together and together raising their biological offspring would be better for society than to gay men adopting a child and raising them.

But that’s my personal opinion.


184 posted on 05/15/2008 2:01:02 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
"... 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"

I'm sure that California Attorney General Jerry Brown will be all over that.

185 posted on 05/15/2008 2:01:18 PM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian

I agree. And further, we shouldn’t be trying to get these on the ballot simply to help republicans. We should be doing it because it’s better for our country. (that’s my opinion, of course).


186 posted on 05/15/2008 2:01:57 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

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

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

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.

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

I agree about special benefits, but I am very skeptical that the number of single mothers will increase.

You're arguing against reality. See next post.

That's one of the biggest causes of abortion.

Can you cite data that supports that?

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.

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

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

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.

Really, I do love the "We're already in the stick house, so moving to the straw house is no big deal" argument. Really a classic.

187 posted on 05/15/2008 2:02:28 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 130 | View Replies]

To: WalterSkinner

Actually,
God is saving the big -really, really big- one up, for after the rapture.
Psalm 75:2,3, laqach mow`ed shaphat meyshar ‘erets yashab muwg takan `ammuwd celah

“When I rapture/take away from the midst [of earth] the Congregation/Church, then I will vindicate [my people] with equity. The earth and all it’s inhabitants will be dissolved. I will “make even or right”, [adjust to My standard], the pillars of it.” -meowntranslation


188 posted on 05/15/2008 2:04:22 PM PDT by prayforpeaceofJerusalem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian; CharlesWayneCT
Before supporting (or even failing to oppose) gay marriage, you might want to check these out:

Gay Marriage? What could it hurt?

Results of gay marriage in Scandinavia.

Results of gay marriage in Holland. (Note: Written before the Dutch decided to legalize polygamy.)

Where it will lead sociologically.

More on Holland (and why contraception, secularization, etc. aren't the reason for the European problems)

Why libertarians should stand up against gay marriage.

189 posted on 05/15/2008 2:04:59 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 130 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian
Just putting it on the ballot gives no guarantee that it will even slightly help the Republican candidate.

Slightly help? Tell me you're kidding. The issue is political manna from heaven for Republicans:

But the ballot measures also appear to have acted like magnets for thousands of socially conservative voters in rural and suburban communities who might not otherwise have voted, even in this heated campaign, political analysts said. And in tight races, those voters - who historically have leaned heavily Republican - may have tipped the balance. ( Same-Sex Marriage Issue Key to Some G.O.P. Races)

190 posted on 05/15/2008 2:06:05 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 131 | View Replies]

To: Niteranger68
According to my tax form, married is a government classification so they must be able to define it.

I got a better idea - let's get rid of the income tax too. :)

The biggest reason gays want the ability to be legally married is so they can get benefits through their partner’s employer.

This is an argument in favor of civil unions for any two individuals, as a government institution separate from the religious. I'm undecided on this, but lean in favor of it. However, I think employers and insurance companies can make the decision about who is covered under their benefit plans.
191 posted on 05/15/2008 2:06:59 PM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

Opponent calls ruling “worst kind of judicial activism”

..yep..


192 posted on 05/15/2008 2:07:06 PM PDT by dhot (I take life with a grain of salt, a wedge of lime and a shot of tequila.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: avacado

Sign me up, baby?

If I’m a good boy, is there a path to citizenship for a legal immigrant like myself? I have Texans who’ll put in a good word for me.


193 posted on 05/15/2008 2:07:14 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 140 | View Replies]

To: WesA

“California will be a third world country in 25 years.”

Umm... it is, NOW.

That’s why you see traditionally-minded Euro-Americans departing the state in increasing numbers.

I say.... let California go wherever it is going. We really don’t need it anymore, and California’s continued attachement to the “other 47” will serve only to drag the rest of the continental U.S. down.

Don’t agree? Then let me pose these questions:
If - today - California were no longer part of the United States, would the political “tilt” of the nation as a whole be more liberal, or more conservative?
If - today - California were no longer part of the United States, with its electoral votes removed, would Republican candidates have a better chance of winning the presidency, or worse?

Actually, I confidently predict that within 50 years, “Atzlan” (into which California will eventually be absorbed) will have become a reality, either as an independent nation, or a reunification with Mexico. The only way I can see it remaining part of the U.S.A. is by striking some kind of “autonomous home-rule” agreement, a la Serbia and Kosovo....

- John


194 posted on 05/15/2008 2:07:20 PM PDT by Fishrrman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian

Tell that to all the inhabitants of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the cities of the plain: every man, woman, child, infant, old person, dog, cat, parakeet, donkey, bat, worm, tick, louse... any and all any living things there, got ndiscriminately nuked, to salt, suddenly, and without warning.


195 posted on 05/15/2008 2:09:27 PM PDT by prayforpeaceofJerusalem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: manc

Maybe we have different understandings of those terms. I think of a foster home as a private home where a child lives in adoptive parents. I think of an orphanage as a place where children who have not been adopted live under the custody of the state.

As far as child damage, that is largely due to the stigma against gay parents. Of course, that shouldn’t be dismissed, and like I said, it’s definitely preferable to have one mother and one father. Don’t you think the kid would be more messed up he hadn’t been adopted at all? Wouldn’t that make him feel extremely unwanted?


196 posted on 05/15/2008 2:11:11 PM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Angry Write Mail
Moral Inversionism. Up is down, down in up. Good is evil, evil is good.

I expect a massive earthquake in California within the next two weeks. It has officially become Sodom and Gomorrah.

197 posted on 05/15/2008 2:12:29 PM PDT by Falcon28
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

I disagree with your application of what appears to be a general rule.

I DO think courts have a right to discard laws which are in opposition to the constitution of their jurisdiction.

If for example the Virginia legislature decided to pass a civil union law next year, I would expect our Supreme Court to throw it out as unconstitutional, because we have a constitutional amendment that says they can’t do that.

In another example, our state passed a bill last year that established “regional transportation authorities”, which were APPOINTED boards which had the right to enact taxes on the region.

Our Supreme court just ruled that law unconstitutional, because our constitution requires that ALL taxes be voted on by an ELECTED body (so we can elect them out of office for raising our taxes).

In this case, maybe the court has ruled outside it’s constitutional bound. But I disagree with the idea that a court has no right to ever overturn a law, even one passed by a ballot initiative. The constitution exists in part to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.


198 posted on 05/15/2008 2:13:47 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

I think one of the reasons that the power of the Church has declined is because we’ve increased the power of the government. People look to the government for the answers, rather than God. Church-run hospitals, homeless shelters, food pantries, etc. have all been on the decline ever since the “Great Society”.

I agree that children should live with their two biological parents in most cases - it’s just not always realistic. I don’t think there’s a lot the government CAN do about it, even if we remove the question of whether they SHOULD.

I think we’re more or less on the same page, even if our ultimate conlusion is different.


199 posted on 05/15/2008 2:17:45 PM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
The people of California have already deliberated on this issue. They've made a decision.

The Court has written a law, based on the Court's preferences, WHICH THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO.

Suppose the people of California voted to approve a law that allows involuntary servitude? Does that mean that the law is beyond judicial review simply because it was approved by the voters?

200 posted on 05/15/2008 2:18:23 PM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 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