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
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.
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?
This must be in the "penumbra" becaue it's nowhere in the California constitution as written.
If you prohibit marriage on the basis of divorce rate, we’ll have a lot of people who can’t get married.
Polyguny........owning more than 1 gun.
What did Dick Cheney do? I missed that one. And why didn't you put apostrophes into "Foleys" and "Craigs?"
What about prop 22? 60% said no to homosexual marriage.
What good is the ballot?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
AMEN to this... Oh God Revive us again!!!!
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
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
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
Just makin' it up as they go.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
The Republic continues to slip on a banana peel in slow motion.
You're right. The timing couldn't be worse for Obama and the Dems.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did you have to put down your banjo to post that?
“I dont speak lawyeresecan 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.
A belated welcome to FR, friend.
If you do it, I'll be at your consulate in Illinois the day it opens to apply for a visa.
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.
[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
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.
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.
All it will take is one gay couple whining that Wyoming doesn’t recognize their marriage and it’s off to the SCOTUS.
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.