Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: volslover

Perhaps I can answer some of your questions. The issue of gay marriage as a civil right under the California Constitution was not a problem until last May when four justices of the California Supreme Court determined that the California Constitution did not specify marriage could only exist between a man and a woman so, therefore, the state had to allow same-sex couples to marry. Licenses began being issued in June. Opponents of this judicial activism to redefine marriage worked feverishly to add a marriage definition to the California Constitution limited to heterosexual couples. Even though the matter was thrust upon the public rather suddenly, the gay activists believed it would not pass. When it did, they were shocked and angry and are now acting out their anger against identifiable groups they blame for its passage, including Mormons, Catholics, other Christians, Blacks and Latinos.

Ostensibly the argument seems to be grounded in the notion that there should be one type of union for heterosexual couples and another for homosexual couples; however, it is not just the two-tier issue that angers the gay rights people. They hoped to take marriage rights and privileges under the California Constitution and use them to demand federal benefits (now withheld under federal laws protecting heterosexual marriage) and to sue for discrimination any person or organization, including churches, which might distinguish between heterosexual marriages and homosexual marriages on the basis that the law doesn’t discriminate. They further wanted to use a California marriage as a way to sue for full faith and credit to force every other state in the union to recognize marriages contracted in California even if it were still illegal in the host state.


37 posted on 11/18/2008 9:01:58 PM PST by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]


To: caseinpoint

“Ostensibly the argument seems to be grounded in the notion that there should be one type of union for heterosexual couples and another for homosexual couples;”

Meant to say “argument seems to be grounded in the notion that there should NOT be one type of union for heterosexual couples and another for homosexual couples;” Need to really preview instead of lying about it.


39 posted on 11/18/2008 9:04:50 PM PST by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: caseinpoint

forgot about that full faith and credit thing. I haven’t had my second mornig cup of coffee yet. Thanks for responding


47 posted on 11/18/2008 10:16:13 PM PST by volslover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson