Skip to comments.California Supreme Court Backs Gay Marriage
Posted on 05/15/2008 10:02:52 AM PDT by NinoFan
click here to read article
>>My wife and I have been working very hard to get this marriage question on the ballot here in Florida and its good to know we did it plus know that many more people with a common decency are pout there who have morals>>
Thank you for standing up for what is right and not just what feels good for now. Observing that latest generation of college graduates leaves me less optimistic about this country’s future. They are lazy, self-serving, disrespectful and have no conscience. Is that because most of those girls have had abortions before they became adults and because the guys have earned a degree in wimping out to the feminist pigs? I think so.
I will still stand with McCain, because the alternatives are (more) unpalatable. Whether he or Osama Obama is elected, this nation’s borders are about to be dissolved. I hope FR readers can see this coming. There is no conservative running this year, folks.
The court HAS NO RIGHT to make a determination of whether or not pretended marriages of this type should be recognized by California law. You, and others, are arguing the merits, when what is required is to argue against the usurpation.
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.
The discussion here supposes that the problem is insufficient arguments against homosexual behavior and homosexual "marriages" in front of the court - but the problem is that the court HAS NO RIGHT TO LEGISLATE, whatever the arguments are and whoever makes them.
This doesn’t effect DOMA. DOMA protects states from OTHER states which institute gay marriage.
If any state court rules that the state must recognize other state’s marriages, then the USSC may have to rule.
I’m thinking another year, and maybe it will be better to move to Iraq.
A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples.
Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise now emphatically rejected by this state that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects second-class citizens who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest.
Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.
Somebody get me the hell out of this state!
We have a mess here because of the Massachusetts ruling and the Vermont law. The worst domestic cases the lawyers who do family law in my office have are the same-sex cases. They are more vindictive than the worst male/female divorces.
I can think of a REALLY good but cruel joke tha state of California could perpetrate.
ALLOW gay marriages, but refuse to recognize “gay divorce”
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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.
Plus there’s the fact that sex with an animal would (or should) constitute animal cruelty.
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.