Posted on 06/16/2008 12:37:53 PM PDT by TheDon
Sixty gay and lesbian couples have arranged to get their marriage licenses in Santa Ana and Laguna Hills Tuesday when most California counties can officially issue same-sex marriage licenses.
...
In 2000, 61.4 percent of voting Californians approved Proposition 22, which stated that only a marriage between a man and a woman is sanctioned by the state.
In a 4-3 decision, the state Supreme Court ruled last month that the proposition was unconstitutional because it discriminated against gay couples and did not provide them with equal protection under the law.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
The voters will be overturning their edict on November with a proposition which will make the definition of marriage part of the state constitution. So much for those FReepers who thought such actions were unneccessary.
Gays are so yesterday’s yawn.
It’s close, need a lot of freepers to go vote!
43% Freeped
Fudge and clams for everybody !
I would imagine that this court ruling could be used by polygamists to argue for the legalization of polygamous marriage.
Lets say you work at a government agency and in the course of your job you have to make reference to someone in one of these perverted but “legal marriages” (you have to talk to an employee or customer about health insurance benefits, etc.).
Can you be punished if you refer to these people as being “married under the civil law” and the “legal spouse” of the other (being careful to never use the false terms “married”, “wife”, “husband” or “spouse”) but using the normal simple terms for people who are actually in a heterosexual marriage?
We know private employers will be firing people for this, but what about government empployers?
Santorum Alert!
6 Million CA Residents To Throw Up a Little in Their Mouth Tuesday
Another, but a dramatic and a destructive example of rule by fiat. Increasingly, the power to defy and control the will of the people, and to deconstruct America is being concentrated in the hands of a 4 or 5 of reckless social engineers. Future potential Obama appointees.
I remember reading that opposition to gay marriage dropped after it became legal in Massachusetts. I think this issue is losing its traction.
Yes, this legal ruling can and will be used by polygamists and others. In fact, the gay agenda calls for eventually legalization of group marriage, with any number of partners and any number of any gender of partners in a group. They see legalized two person same-sex marriage as a transitional step to having groups with any number and any gender of persons united into a family grouping, for which governmental recognition and approval will be required.
While they have successfully persuaded the Supreme Courts of Mass. and Calif. that limiting marriage to opposite sex couples is discriminatory, the fact is that, limiting marriage to two persons is also discriminatory, and will be challenged as such at some point.
“It’s close, need a lot of freepers to go vote!”
It’s imperative!
http://www.ProtectMarriage.com/
(My California State Senator Dennis Hollingsworth is my hero for all the work he’s putting into defending traditional marriage!)
Does anyone else wonder why they bother to vote anymore ?
No bias in the poll “questions.”
One more reason to move the hell out of California.
Maybe it did drop, but several polls consistently showed that a marriage protection amendment in Massachusetts would have passed handily. After 5 years of "gay marriage." Why do you think the homo-activist groups and legislators were fighting so viciously to keep it away from a vote?
I know of several families that vacated that great commonwealth to saner jurisdictions in the last few years. Perhaps many of those opposed are just no longer in a location where they are polled on the issue.
Opposition never dropped. It just was not covered by the liberal MSM. And conservatives who ran on in in 2004 abandoned it.
I stand corrected for assuming a trend towards acceptance when I don’t have the facts. The media really is an evil force in society for those who choose to listen with uncritical minds.
Anyhow, the new way to stick it to people with values is to push animal sex - and I assume animal/man marriage. Anything for attention.
I'm soooooooo tired of these people.
Equal protection means that everyone is allowed to marry? I guess that means that as a man I can take maternity leave because it is unfair that only woman can have children, or social security should be allowed for the young and healthy because that would be reverse age and disability discrimination.
It has failed everytime they allow people to vote. The only reason this became legal is because by a vote of ONE stinking leftist judge in each state they imposed it like jackbooted thugs.
Not to be combative, but I think there is a real momentum effect of something like the California case being allowed to go through, and thousands of same-sex couples getting "married." The homo-activist lobby counts on this - hoping that "when people see that no harm has come from our union and the sky doesn't fall, they will be more accepting of the whole thing." That being said, I think, ironically, if the California SC had affirmed the appellate court decision banning same-sex marriage, the amendment would have had a harder time passing as many people would be affirmed in their opinion that existing law is sufficient.
All this to say that there are a lot of variables in play between now and November - a lot can happen. How the homo-activists play their hand and how the MSM portrays this bilge will have a large effect on the result. I'm hoping the good people of this Country still have their good sense about this issue.
Having one judge rule by fiat to allow this filth is not ANY sort of momentum by any means.
Not to be combative, but I think there is a real momentum effect of something like the California case being allowed to go through, and thousands of same-sex couples getting "married."
The people of California ALREADy voted for a ban and are again putting another measure on the ballot to overturn these modern day Roland Frieseler judges.
I had to ask......."which one of you changed your name?"
"Neither "- said 'the bride' "we both have professional licenses, so it would be difficult."
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.