Posted on 05/15/2008 10:02:52 AM PDT by NinoFan
Opinion just released.
It would be nice if that were the case but it isn't and won't be any time in our future. It is relatively simple to remove the state from the marriage process but virtually impossible to remove them from the dissolution of that marriage for what should be self evident reasons. So your argument is basically a waste of time.
Not this time. However, if the initiative to amend the state constitution gets on the ballot and is passed, then expect a challenge on Fourteenth Amendment grounds. In light of this ruling, I’d expect that challenge to come in state court.
Since the equal protection clause in Art. I, Sec. 7 of the California constitution is of identical language to the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, I wouldn’t be surprised if the California Supreme Court applied it the same way. It would have to involve a serious (even willful) misapplication of Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, but those holdings are commonly viewed too broadly.
If that happens, I’d expect it to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. With the current Court, I’d expect the California holding to be reversed, though there’s no telling what would happen if one or more seats turn over in the interim.
Another day, another empty ad hominem from you.
What on Earth are you talking about? What, in your mind, do the public schools have to do with marriage law?
And do you really believe it’s the job of the public schools to “preach religion”? Why would any religious person want that kind of state interference in the first place? And which religion would you have the public schools preach? Scientology? Islam? Buddhism? A little of everything?
It is no wonder religious/social conservatives are losing so many battles with arguments like this. Egads.
Congratulations of that honor.
Last time I checked, we won virtually every time this issue was put before the voters. We only lost this time because we were dealing with four totalitarian judges determined to substitute their personal opinion for the actual law, not to mention possessing the impudence to redefine an institution pre-dating the founding of our nation (i.e., marriage).
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You’ve got nothing, so your resort to personal attacks yet again.
“Congratulations of that honor,” indeed.
Joint ownership.
It's idiotic. And I'm sorry that your reply is idiotic but that's what it is nonetheless.
Hmm. Are you of the belief that the institution of marriage is static and hasn’t changed before, many, many times? Here’s the rundown...
Civil marriage has undergone significant changes in the United States since the country’s inception:
1830 - Right of married woman to own property in her own name (instead of all property being owned exclusively by the husband) in Mississippi.
1848 - Right of married women to own property in her own name in New York.
1854 - The Republican party referred in its platform to polygamy as one of the “twin relics of barbarism” (in addition to slavery). At the time, polygamy was a practice of some Mormons. See plural marriage.
1862 - The United States Congress enacted the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, signed by Abraham Lincoln, which made bigamy a felony in the territories punishable by $500 or five years in prison.
1873 - Supreme Court rules that a state has the right to exclude a married woman from practicing law.
1874 - Congress passed the Poland Act, which transferred jurisdiction over Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act cases to federal prosecutors and courts in Utah, which were not controlled by Mormons.
1879 - The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Reynolds v. United States
1882 - Congress passed the Edmunds Act, which prohibited not just bigamy, which remained a felony, but also bigamous cohabitation, which was prosecuted as a misdemeanor, and did not require proof an actual marriage ceremony had taken place. The law also allowed polygamists to be held indefinitely without a trial.
1887 - Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which allowed prosecutors to force polygamist wives to testify against their husbands, and abolished the right of women in Utah to vote.
1890 - Mormons in Utah officially renounce polygamy through the 1890 Manifesto.
1900 - All states now grant married women the right to own property in their own name.
1904 - Mormons in Utah officially renounce polygamy again, excommunicating anyone who participates in future polygamy.
1907 - All women acquired their husband’s nationality upon any marriage occurring after that date.
1920 - Right of women to vote.
1933 - Married women granted right to citizenship independent of their husbands.
1965 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting married couples from using contraception.
1967 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting interracial couples from marrying (Loving v. Virginia).
1971 - Supreme Court upholds an Alabama law that automatically changed a woman’s legal surname to that of her husband upon marriage.
1971 - Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to Minnesota Supreme Court ruling allowing prohibition of same-sex marriages (Baker_v._Nelson).
1972 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting unmarried couples from purchasing contraception.
1975 - Married women allowed to have credit in their own name.
1976 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting abortions for married women without the consent of the husband.
1996 - President Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act into law.
2004 - Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage.
2008 - California recognizes same-sex marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_civil_marriage_in_the_U.S.
You’ve been nice to me. Ha. I bet you really believe it, too!
You seem to be under the delusion that all my posts are directed at you. As you’ll see if you look back, another poster suggested he or she was giving up on the United States and would rather live under Muslim rule.
Public schools are secular entities, as they should be. Do you really disagree with that? Do you want the state promoting yours, or anyone else’s religion?
I understand now you’re not capable of posting without personal insults and namecalling, and that takes up a lot of space, but making a little room for common sense would do you good.
I can always tell an argument’s getting good when the phrase “Look, lady . . .” shows up!
You seem to be asserting that since marriage has been treated differently at different times, that defining it to mean something totally antithetical to its purpose is appropriate. Not only that, but you're arguing that appointed judges have some sort of supreme power to exercise this discretion. Until the recent imprinting of this particularly totalitarian strain of liberalism into our law and culture, I'm unaware of any time in Western history when same-sex "marriage" was considered acceptable. Don't you think that maybe....just maybe....we the people ought to have some say in the matter?
Country is a obsolete concept, immigrant means worker, war means peace, good means bad, money before country, morality is just a preference, courts are now the royal parliament, the governor is impotent, the people are just peasants and owe everything they have to the royal parliament in black robes, men want to be women, women want to be men, an abortion is like going to the dentist and loosing a tooth, government is a means to get rich and screw the people, state and local government are increasing in size which means taxes go up and businesses move out.
We need to put our collective foot in the arse of these bought and paid for government officials NO MATTER WHAT PARTY. To those who allow this to happen as well as those who make it happen.
God and Country!
What is “the” purpose of marriage? Are you suggesting there’s only one?
Take another peek at the history of civil marriage, especially the precedent for judicial determinations.
Since you’re admittedly unaware of the history of same-sex marriage, here’s another useful link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
Yes, the vermin that support such things deserve what they’re going to get . It’s everyone else that’ll be forced to suffer that I feel bad for.
The purpose of marriage is to bond people of the opposite sex together. There have been variations on that theme throughout history, but until the total loss of our common sense in recent years, marriage has never been between people of the same sex.
Take another peek at the history of civil marriage, especially the precedent for judicial determinations.
Well then, why don't we just do away with voting and legislatures entirely? We could slap a sign reading "oracle" in front of the nearest judge and just allow him to run the country by fiat.
Since you’re admittedly unaware of the history of same-sex marriage, here’s another useful link.
If you think same-sex "marriage" has any historical basis in Western civilization, you're badly mistaken. In other words, you're badly mistaken.
So you didn’t follow the link. That’s a shame. Facts are contained within. Facts are good.
Just a thought for you: How hard would it have been to find someone in, say, 1948, who’d claim, “until the total loss of our common sense in recent years, marriage has never been between people of different races.” Not very hard, I bet. In fact, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, 90% of people opposed interracial marriage at that point, according to the poll data. If left to a vote, interracial couples who wanted to marry would have been out of luck.
Ha! Exactly. The first “Look, lady” is usually my cue to break out the popcorn and settle in for the show.
Thank God for DOMA.
California probably needs a constitutional amendment to stop this, but as long as the children of conservatives, Christians and constitutionalists are enrolled in the pagan socialist pro-sodomite government (ie. public) schools, we are destined to lose this battle in the long run.
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.