Calif. court refuses to stay gay marriage ruling

AP via SFGate ^ | 6/4/8

[SmithL]

San Francisco, CA (AP) --

California's highest court has refused to stay until after the November election its decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.

Conservative religious and legal groups had asked the California Supreme Court to stop its order from becoming effective until voters have the chance to weigh in on the issue.

An initiative that would amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage has qualified for the ballot. Its passage would overrule the court's decision.

The Supreme Court says its ruling will be final at 5 p.m. on June 16.

[1035rep]

I heard one of the talking heads on FOX opine that it might put California in play for McCain.

That's what we're hearing. I know that many people voted for Obama in the primary, but honestly, I know severals Democrats and not one of them is voting for Obama. It would not surprise me if McCain wins this state.

[gidget7]

Of course it will cause confusion. Just as it did in MA. That is why the courts won't stay the decision. Then they can claim you cannot take away a right since some phony marriages have already taken place. And they will whine and carry on “Don't take away our rights! Don't make us second class citizens” and on and on and on. Don't be surprised if CA voters never get to vote.

On a more positive note, the SCOTUS accepted David Parkers parents rights lawsuit!

[gidget7]

That’s what bothers me most about this. That and what happens when they start suing religious institutions who refuse to recognize them?

It's time for Churches and religious organizations to proclaim they will perform "Holy Matrimony" ceremonies ONLY! Homosexuals do not qualify no matter what Judges rule from their high and mighty benches of tyranny.

[The Ghost of Rudy McRomney]

Why also do we not see this being covered on the likes of hannity, on fox etc?

---

They’re far too busy over there campaigning non-stop for the Clintons.

[1035rep]

President Bush won that election fairly. Apples and oranges lefty.

[1035rep]

Why do the homo’s need to call this abomination a marriage?

[LearnsFromMistakes]

Well, activist judges worked in our favor in swearing in President Bush at the 2000 election

Welcome to FR. I see we have our work cut out for us. But if you stick around a while, you can learn a lot...and you have a lot to learn...if not about what it means to be conservative, at least get a talking-points memo from the DNC from the past 6 months...

[1035rep]

KOS kid got nuked. That was a stinky one.

[SoldierDad]

The liberals occupy our coast, one good Tsunami and California goes red.

Or, a major earthquake along the San Andreas fault from LA to above the SF gay (bay) area.

[messierhunter]

"I’m a heterosexual God fearing married man, and I still see no reason why Bob and Steve getting married would affect my marriage in any way."

It's not your marriage you should be worried about. What happens to a church that refuses to rent out its facilities to a gay couple that wants to wed? Will they be found civilly liable? Or worse, will they forfeit their tax exempt status? That would not only affect your church, but it would make any offerings you made to the church part of your taxable income. I doubt you care what happens to a stupid church anyway, but just so you know, it IS our business.

Well, activist judges worked in our favor in swearing in President Bush at the 2000 election.

"Activist judges" realized it wasn't fair to selectively recount the vote while simulataneously trying to suppress the military absentee vote.

As far as the churches are concerned, they are private institutions, that are NOT required to perform gay weddings. If the Catholic and Protestant churches refuse to perform such ceremonies, they are completely within their rights to refuse to do so.

Nonsense, private institutions cannot discriminate against protected classes of people, and non-profit private institutions can not violate "established public policy" without sacrficing their non-profit status.

"Gay-Activist Suit Prompts Loss of Church Group's Tax Exemption

Two lesbian couples who were denied permission to use a church group's seaside pavilion for civil-union ceremonies have persuaded New Jersey officials to punish the group through revocation of the tax-exempt status of the pavilion."

You're full of it lobster. You accuse others of being ignorant of the law while plugging your ears and pretending there are no examples of gay marriage threatening a church.

"I hope you have a blessed day."

It's painfully obvious that you're just trying to be smug, you wish nothing of the sort.

[mngran2]

As far as the churches are concerned, they are private institutions, that are NOT required to perform gay weddings. If the Catholic and Protestant churches refuse to perform such ceremonies, they are completely within their rights to refuse to do so.

Nonsense, private institutions cannot discriminate against protected classes of people, and non-profit private institutions can not violate "established public policy" without sacrficing their non-profit status.

Actually, I think you have this one wrong. When was the last time you heard of a Catholic church forced to perform, say, a Buddhist wedding? Religion is a protected class, but churches aren't forced to accommodate all other religions. Similarly, the Mormons disallowed blacks until the late '70s, long after race became a protected class. The government didn't force them to elevate blacks to their priesthood, it respected the church's freedom of religion and association. There are many reasons to oppose gay marriage, but I really don't think churches that don't want to are going to be forced to perform gay weddings.

[messierhunter]

Actually, I think you have this one wrong.

Right, so the blurb from that story I posted was just made up then? Good to know...

When was the last time you heard of a Catholic church forced to perform, say, a Buddhist wedding?

When was the last time you heard of a buddhist who was itching to get married in a catholic cathedral?

Religion is a protected class, but churches aren't forced to accommodate all other religions.

Why would they ever NEED to accommodate another religion? Anyone requesting accommodation from a separate religion should be found to be "insincere" about their own religion. Therefore, anyone attempting to use religious protection on another religion is by definition no longer protected. With homosexuality it's another matter entirely. Deny it all you want, lawsuits like the one I posted above are already happening and they're being won by the homosexual movement.

[messierhunter]

I really don't think churches that don't want to are going to be forced to perform gay weddings.

There's a difference between being forced to perform gay weddings and being forced to allow gay weddings. The former implies involvement on the part of the minister (though there is a school of thought that says it's possible to revoke the ability of a minister to sign off on marriage certificates if they refuse to sign a gay couple's certificate) and staff, the latter is simply the willingness of the church to rent out the grounds (the facility) for the purposes of a gay wedding performed by the couple's own officiator. I've been to several weddings that took place in a church other than the couple's home church and with a minister not in any way affiliated with the church it took place in. Sometimes a couple chooses a wedding location for purely aestheic reasons (shocker, I know). If a church refuses to allow their grounds to be used for that reason, they might lose their tax exempt status. Lawsuits are already starting to prove my point.

[mngran2]

Yes, many churches allow non - parishioner to use their facilities for wedding ceremonies, but it's always the churches' choice. Once again, I ask you, when is the last time you saw, for example, a Catholic church forced to allow a Buddhist (or any other religion's) ceremony to take place (whether the Catholic priest was involved or not) in a Catholic church? When was the last time a church was forced to admit any person it didn't want because of that person's "protected class"?

[messierhunter]

Once again, I ask you, when is the last time you saw, for example, a Catholic church forced to allow a Buddhist (or any other religion's) ceremony to take place (whether the Catholic priest was involved or not) in a Catholic church?

Once again I ask YOU to SHOW US a case of a buddhist suing a catholic church to use their facilities. Furthermore, as stated before, any buddhist attempting to do so makes themselves look insincere about their own religion, removing their religious protection. There's no such thing as a case where religious protection can be cited against another religion because it's impossible to do so sincerely, which is a requirement for religious protection.

When was the last time a church was forced to admit any person it didn't want because of that person's "protected class"?

When was the last time a person in a then-protected class sued a church and lost? It's not up to me to disprove something exists, it's up to you to prove it exists. The government is not going to go out and actively search for cases of discrimination nor should it, it's up to the plaintiff to file suit. Otherwise, the government can (and should) do nothing.

[mngran2]

The question in the New Jersey case you refer to is not whether a church has to allow or perform gay weddings, the question is whether property owned by a Methodist-affiliated organization was in fact commercial property or religious property. The beach-side pavilion that the gays wanted to marry in was rented out for profit for concerts, performances, as well as weddings. The court has been asked to decide whether this was a commercial premises, in which case the state’s anti-discrimination laws apply, or whether it is a religious premises, in which case the church is free to allow or disallow whatever they want. As well, there appears to be some evidence that the organization voluntarily ceded the property (or part of it) to county in 1908 for use as public land, thus avoiding taxation. If it’s public land, then, again, the state’s non-discrimination laws apply. As far as I can find out, the trial hasn’t happened yet.

So it’s not as simple as you seem to imply in your post.

[mngran2]

It's not up to me to disprove something exists, it's up to you to prove it exists.

Exactly, except it's you who has failed to prove the existence of churches being forced to perform or allow gay marriages against their wishes.

[newzjunkey]

Wow that’s SHOCKING. I did not expect this.

[seprgs]

Churches have got to be careful about allowing their buildings to be used for weddings other than by their congregation or faith. If for example they rent out their church sanctuary for wedding services to other people, then they are very close to being a public accomadation, like a hotel’s ballroom. As a public accommadation they are subject to the non-discrimination laws of the state. In that instance the church, by law, might have to rent out the sanctuary for a same sex wedding if asked. The church should be be very thoughtful before going into the business of renting out its sanctuary for weddings or other purpuses.