Here's the story:

Link



Although this is a day of joyous celebration for many, including your humble narrator, I wonder if it also means that there will be a backlash against it.

To be debated:

1. Is this a sign of what many happen in other states? ("As California goes, so goes the nation")?

2. Will this judicial decision be overthrown by an amendment to the California Constitution?

3. Will this become an important issue in the Presidential election? Will it be enough to tip the balance in favor of the GOP?

1. Is this a sign of what many happen in other states? ("As California goes, so goes the nation")?

A few of the more liberal states will follow California's lead. The majority, I think, are going to take steps to prevent it. Already (as of 2005, anyway), 18 states have explicitly passed amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage

I just hope the u.s. supreme court doesn't misinterpret the Full Faith and Credit clause to require conservative states to recognize same sex marriages from other states.

2. Will this judicial decision be overthrown by an amendment to the California Constitution?

Probably.

Californians already passed proposition 22 in 2000, 61.4% to 38.6%. That indicates to me where the majority of Californians stand on the issue. A handful of judges are slapping voters in the face.

As it happens, the amendment process is already underway.



3. Will this become an important issue in the Presidential election? Will it be enough to tip the balance in favor of the GOP?

In California, it's sure to be a hot issue, yes, but as far as tipping the scales in the presidential campaign, I don't think it's going to have much of an effect. First off, there are too many huge issues to deal with that are much more important (economy, energy, terrorism, immigration). If you look at McCain's web page on the issues, it doesn't even show up.

Second, aside from the relatively low magnitude of the issue, McCain isn't exactly a stalwart defender of Marriage anyway.



link

For congressional seats, and state offices, it's a different matter. I'm sure it will be a major issue there.

First, I'd say congratulations to my gay friends here in California. I know a few who are directly affected by this, and I'm happy for them. I didn't think much of the Court's reasoning, and I'm afraid we will see backlash, but I can't say I'm unhappy with the result.

1. Is this a sign of what many happen in other states? ("As California goes, so goes the nation")?

Maybe, eventually, over time. The long-term trend is in the direction of accepting same-sex unions. Support for same-sex "marriage" is still pretty weak, though.

In 2006, Arizona rejected a ballot initiative that would have banned not just same-sex marriage, but benefits for same-sex partners of government employees. It seems that enough of the stigma has gone from homosexuality that the citizens of Arizona thought that too mean-spirited. But a narrower ban on same-sex marriage alone may make it to this November's ballot.

2. Will this judicial decision be overthrown by an amendment to the California Constitution?

I have to agree with jaellon: probably.

It's almost certain to be on the ballot in November, and it does not contain any punitive language that would limit the rights of same-sex partners in California -- rights that the California Supreme Court recognized were identical to the rights of married couples.

I will vote against this amendment, but I think it will likely pass. What then? Will the California Supreme Court rule that a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional? (I guess the Federal courts did something like that with a Colorado amendment a few years back, so anything's possible...)

3. Will this become an important issue in the Presidential election? Will it be enough to tip the balance in favor of the GOP?

No, I don't see it. It might make the Democrats spend some resources here in California that they otherwise wouldn't, but I don't think it will change the state from blue to red.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause allows Congress to "prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." They have done so with the DOMA of 1996. Upon initial glance, I'd say that the DOMA is Constitutional in regards to the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the DOMA allows states to choose not to recognize another states same-sex marriages.



That was in 2000... eight years ago. I don't think it's a good indication of where the majority of Californians stand on the issue today. As I recall, views regarding interracial marriage changed drastically within the same time frame. In some cases, it is the role of the courts to protect the minority from the majority - sometimes the voters need a slap in the face.

It should also be noted that California, by legislative action, already has de facto same-sex marriage. The domestic partnership laws essentially allow same-sex couples to have a formal legal relationship with all the benefits of marriage without calling it marriage. As the Court states, the question it had to answer was whether the limitation regarding the designation was Constitutional.

3. Will this become an important issue in the Presidential election? Will it be enough to tip the balance in favor of the GOP?

No. None of the candidates supports same-sex marriage.

Oh, and here is the decision for those interested:
California Supreme Court - In Re: Marriages

1. Perhaps, but it will take many decades before gay marriage is recognized in all 50 states. What's more likely is tomorrow there will be new DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) bills introduced in statehouses across America. Eventually, this will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court and I would suspect there is a majority of justices already on the bench that would overturn the state court.

2. One group opposed to gay marriage, The Campaign for Children and Families has already thrown down the gauntlet and they are in no mood to take prisoners.

"On a 4-3 vote, the California Supreme Court has destroyed the civil institution of marriage between a man and a woman, and law-abiding Americans must condemn it in the strongest terms. This arrogant judicial activism took 121 pages of contorted logic to explain and is no surprise coming from this San Francisco-based court. By bowing down to homosexual activists and the rebel city of San Francisco, the California Supreme Court has exchanged the rule of law for the rule of unbridled power to destroy all that is good and sacred. However, the terrible example of homosexual "weddings" should be short-lived. This extremely bad ruling will certainly spur Californians to vote in November to overrule the judges and protect marriage licenses for a man and a woman in the California Constitution. In the meantime, Governor Schwarzenegger should resist any temptation to sign any bill opposing the people's vote on marriage. This terrible opinion authored by Chief Justice Ron George makes him the chief target of California voters who know that marriage is only for a man and woman. George is up for reelection in 2010." link

Despite the apocalyptic language ( "...exchanged the rule of law for the rule of unbridled power to destroy all that is good and sacred") and the turgid hysterics, these conservative groups are very good and mobilizing their forces and organizing an effective resistance. Without seeing any polls, I'd bet they will be successful in passing a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to only one man and one woman, both presumed straight.

3. No and No. It's an emotional issue, but while McCain has already ruled out gay marriage and Obama and Clinton have kicked the problem back to the states, it remains a fringe issue, not a central one. It will help the GOP in some states as a wedge issue, but not enough to tip the scales in their favor.

1. Is this a sign of what many happen in other states? ("As California goes, so goes the nation")?

Well, it is inevitable that someday, all folks will have the same rights in western style democracy that moves towards more freedom and away from something else.

I don't see it as anything that can be stopped by anything but a national level amendment- and I think Loving vs Virginia made it inevitable for the entire nation- we are just in the earliest stage of a different civil rights movement.

2. Will this judicial decision be overthrown by an amendment to the California Constitution?

I don't think it is still possible- I think eventually we will have an loving vs virginia defining moment and the damn will burst. Besides- amending constitutions is hard!

3. Will this become an important issue in the Presidential election? Will it be enough to tip the balance in favor of the GOP?

I don't know if folks are that ready to embrace GW again at this point? I don't see it becoming a campaign issue.

QUOTE

1. Is this a sign of what many happen in other states? ("As California goes, so goes the nation")?

Well, that's what the activists are claiming.

To some degree, it's true. Taxing Cigs started in California. So did banning smoking in bars. So did banning cigarette machines in adult-only establishments. And so did suing bartenders if you drive drunk and they poured you. Not exactly the trend-setters of freedom, if you ask me.

Interestingly enough, Proposition 22 wasn't the first one. Prop 22 was a response to a different ballot measure, where Californians consistently vote against gay marriage, and the courts consistently over-rule the will of the people as "Un-Constitutional". California will do yet another bill, which will yet again be struck down again by the 9th district liberal heirachy. Whoever makes jokes about King G.W. probably hasn't lived under the iron hammer of the 9th District Court of Appeals.

I don't know why Californians even bother voting anymore. It's all decided after the election in the court system. Again, if you want to talk about Florida not getting your votes counted, imagine a couple of judges writing over your ballot with a big magic marker voting against the very thing you - and the majority of voters - voted for.

QUOTE

2. Will this judicial decision be overthrown by an amendment to the California Constitution?

As noted above, "yet again".

QUOTE

3. Will this become an important issue in the Presidential election? Will it be enough to tip the balance in favor of the GOP?

We all know where Hillary stands, I can only imagine what Obama's religious beliefs are about it (or Jeremiah's), and McCain hasn't voted for 8 years while representing Arizona, so we have no idea what he thinks about anything. Ever.

You think this will tip in favor of the GOP? If anything, this is timed so perfectly that it makes the leftys point to the GOP and exclaim, "See?! They're out of touch!" in front of the independents. That doesn't make sense when even liberal red-state California voters keep voting FOR Boxer and Feinstein, and AGAINST gay-marriage, and it STILL doesn't stick. You can't blame - or even CREDIT - the GOP voters for that. I dig you, Victoria, but face it: Liberals are voting against gay marriage as much as the conservatives.

Look at how progressive California is. Their economy is the hardest hit, their illegal population has decimated the schools, and their cost of living is laughable. In parts of California, water bottles and plastic shopping bags are outlawed. Freeways are grossly overcrowded, and the answer is FastPass and toll roads, which rewards the rich with a fast ride home, and punishes the poor by making them sit for hours in rush hour. They refine the gas, and it's more expensive there than it is after they truck it 300+ miles to Arizona. Yeah.. let's strive for what THEY do!

California can, and will eventually, eat itself. The only downside to that is that they will move here and try to impose that same crap here. It's already happening.

/beat it, Cali's
//and your tofu
///and your ugly shaved french poodles
////Boxer and Feinstein - good gravy, people. What ARE you thinking?!

I'll quibble against this contention. Let's look at a recent opinion poll in the Golden State.

Link (PDF file)

If you'll go down to page five, and look at table 7, you'll see that 58% of self-defined liberals are in favor of legal recognition of same-sex marriages. This is, by far, the group most in favor of such recognition. Contrast this with 12% of self-defined conservatives, and I hardly think you can say that liberals are voting against gay marriage as much as conservatives!

You'll also notice that almost exactly one-third of Californians favor same-sex marriage, almost exactly one-third oppose it, and almost exactly one-third favor "civil unions" for same-sex couples. Depending on your point of view, that may seem like two-thirds against same-sex marriage, or two-thirds in favor of legal recognition of same-sex couples. In any case, it's certainly not one-sided among Californian voters.

And as far as "liberal judges" go (setting aside for a moment the fact that the majority of judges on the California Supreme Court were appointed by Republicans), they're just doing what Supreme Court judges are supposed to do. The legislature or the proposition system passes a law; somebody challenges it on Constitutional grounds; the Supreme Court determines whether or not it violates the California Constitution. Now, you may certainly make the case that a particular decision by the California Supreme Court was a poor one, but you cannot accuse them of doing anything but what they are supposed to do.

And I like tofu.

1. Is this a sign of what many happen in other states? ("As California goes, so goes the nation")?
I live in liberal MA – we are there now.

2. Will this judicial decision be overthrown by an amendment to the California Constitution?

No doubt.

"Conservative and religious-affiliated groups denounced the decision and pledged to bring enough voters to the polls in November to overturn it. Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, called the decision "outrageous" and "nonsense."

"No matter how you stretch California's Constitution, you cannot find anywhere in its text, its history or tradition that now, after so many years, it magically protects what most societies condemn," Staver said.

The decision came after high courts in New York, Washington and New Jersey refused to extend marriage rights to gay couples. Only Massachusetts' top court has ruled in favor of permitting gays to wed."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ga...0,6182317.story

3. Will this become an important issue in the Presidential election? Will it be enough to tip the balance in favor of the GOP?
Not at all. The Dems will avoid it like the plague – if they can

Uh... this was the California Supreme Court... not the 9th District Court of Appeals. You forgot to mention the other first... the first interracial marriage ruling, so California got that judicial ball rolling as well.



And the Republicans will also avoid it because the justices who made the decision were Republican.

1. Is this a sign of what many happen in other states? ("As California goes, so goes the nation")?
Potentially, but a lot of states already have amendments on the books banning gay marriage, so its hard to say this is a bellweather.

2. Will this judicial decision be overthrown by an amendment to the California Constitution?
That's hard to say, depends on the language. I think it will make it on the ballot, though.

3. Will this become an important issue in the Presidential election? Will it be enough to tip the balance in favor of the GOP?
It will be an issue, but not a huge one. McCain's record on Doma isn't ironclad, even though it will likely be a usual plank on the GOP platform. I don't think the culture war will get the play that it did in 2004 when so many anti gay marriage initiatives were on the ballot. The economy, Iraq & Iran, & health care I think will be larger issues. I think the GOP will try and get mileage out of it, but that dog won't hunt as well as she did in 2004.

1) Possibly.

2) Very possibly. It is clear that these "will of the people" votes do not hold sway, and they really shouldn't, as this would open the door to all kinds of majority rule mischief (Should a majority vote that we should confiscate all oil company profits be upheld as the law? Of course not.). But, a Calif Const Amendment cannot be overturned by any Calif court (although it can be "construed" to death, I guess) and the poll numbers I have seen seem to indicate this is still a real possibility.

3) Maybe. To me, while I strongly disagree with the entire homosexual lifestyle on Biblical grounds, and while the homosexual activists proselytize and recruit at least as vehemently as any evangelical Christian (is there any other way to explain the gay activist pre-occupation with the Boy Scouts of America?), I think the main issues this fall will be the economy and the war and the polls I have seen agree. An issue like this may "fine tune" some voters' sensibilities, but I doubt it will be a leading issue. I think both parties will tip-toe on this issue unless some strong new poll numbers come out going one way or the other.

We'll have to see how the polls look on Monday.

As a practical matter, if homosexuals decided to forget being "out" and trying to live "in your face", I think 99% of all Americans are perfectly willing to ignore what they choose to do in the privacy of their own homes. It's the activists' desire to make this lifestyle as viable and accepted, legally and socially, as choosing Coke over Pepsi that has created the turmoil.

1. Is this a sign of what many happen in other states? ("As California goes, so goes the nation")?

I don't think so. This is a state issue in a state court and everyone thinks people in California are crazy anyway.



2. Will this judicial decision be overthrown by an amendment to the California Constitution?

I think it will. The people of California have already voted on the issue of same-sex marriage and rejected it. I think they will again this fall only this time it will be a California Constitutional amendment that our state courts can't rule against. Of course, there's always that crazy old Federal Appeals court we have out here.



3. Will this become an important issue in the Presidential election? Will it be enough to tip the balance in favor of the GOP?

I don't think so although I do think it might help McCain in California by bringing out people to vote on the amendment that wouldn't normally bother to come out to vote for John McCain.I still don't hold out much hope that he can win California because people are right. We really are all crazy in California.


Aquilla

while at the moment, the DOMA protects one state from having to recognize marriages from other states that it rules unlawful, all it would take is a Supreme Court case to strike down DOMA (or the relevant parts of it). while I don't think this is too likely in the near future, it is certainly possible, hence my hoping the FFC clause doesn't get mis-interpreted.

The proposed federal marriage amendment from 2003-2006 exists partly because of this possibility of requiring interstate recognition.



Some people's views are going to change over 8 years, but I don't believe they've changed that much, not to close a gap of 23%. Especially since the proposed amendment in California already has passed the the signature gathering phase and is now in the signature verification stage.



Although the original marriage amendment failed (1298), which was very explicit in denying any recognition of even same-sex unions, the new marriage amendment is well on its way. I think once the failed one is revised to not be so strongly worded, it has a fair chance of succeeding next time.



They already do. Everyone is free to marry anyone of their choosing, of the opposite sex. No one is denied that right, therefore all have the same right.

What you seem to be saying is that a new right should be created. Not the right to be in a committed relationship, or to do as they wish in the privacy of their own homes, I agree that's a freedom issue. Like quick said, I don't care what goes on behind closed doors; that's completely up to each individual and couple.

What I object to, is the call for State recognition of marriage for same-sex couples. Being treated as married, by the State, is a societal issue, especially with the implications that follow, such as same-sex adoption, which to me is a violation of the child's rights to both a mother and father. How could you possibly prevent such a thing, if same-sex couples were in all legal ways that mattered, married?

Err... California already has same-sex adoption. So, California has not attempted to prevent "such a thing" - even with a prohibition on same-sex marriage. In California, domestic partnerships are, in essentially all legal ways that matter, marriage.



The choice is the important part. So, considering that, in California, marriage is a fundamental right, is it necessary for California to limit the choice based on the gender of the choice? If so, why?

Victoria:

This is based on the assumption that Republicans in California are actually considered "Conservative".

That's like saying McCain represents conservatives. Nothing could be further from the truth. (I always wonder if liberals think that about Hillary and Obama)


Okay, but as long as you don't like those ugly shaved poodles, we're cool.

I actually tried it about 2 years ago. (Tofu, I mean. Not poodles.) I had a total vegan for a boss, and he insisted that "I expand my horizons". Naturally, me insisting that he do the same at a local Ruth Crist's was met with a pleasant resistance. I don't get the craze. It's tasteless lumps of bean curd. I had to douse it with peanut sauce, and then all I tasted was the peanut sauce. And this was at a top joint in Scottsdale.

It's pretty stupid for people to vote on something before they know it's even legal. What's the point? All you do is alienate people from voting because if 9 people decide that it's not "within California's doofass rules", they toss the whole thing out.

Instead of being backwards, why not have them do that BEFORE the ballots are printed, so that these decisions are made before Californians vote on something 2 or 3 times in a row before the law finally sticks? If our government was the private sector, it's inefficiency would have driven it out of business years ago.

It's late, so I'll check your PDF out later. But dang, Silverwolf. You always give me a run for my money.

There are lawyers in the government who are supposed to determine if a proposed law is constitutional. But if the government wishes to do something, they find a way to do it... they adopt a stance that will support the belief that a particular law is constitutional. The courts can't do anything until a law is challenged. That's just the system of government that we have.

Where in the Constitution does it mention either the right to one of each parent or denying a person equal rights based on sexual orientation?

Have we ever voted on the rules of marriage overall as a nation? Should we even allows the State to have any power over marriage which IMO is clearly no business of the State at all. It is a private religious ritual which should be up to the individuals involved.

The drive to discriminate against gays is just as evil as it when certain "americans" tried to do so based on race.

What "evil" discrimination? All males and females have the same marriage rights. Every single one of them.

I'm prohibited from marrying the same sex just like anybody else. The argument should be for an additional "right" as no discrimination exists because right now, all males and females have the same marriage rights.

You know, I really love these threads. The most invective dialog comes from the people who demand "tolerance".

That's a pretty clumsy two-step you're doing there, DaytonRocker.

When you stop playing games of semantics, maybe you'll share what it is exactly about two people in love who want to make a lifetime commitment---but happen to be of the same gender---that disturbs you so.

I support civil unions, not gay marriage, but I'm honest enough to take a stand. As you well know gays and lesbians are prohibited to marry their partners. How is that the "same right" as heterosexual couples?

You do realize that not only has the definition of marriage changed several times, but that your argument was made before- only dealing with inter-racial marriage? They said "oh, we aren't discriminating, white people can only marry white people, black people can only marry black people" etc- same old argument dude. Just one more group of folks struggling against the hate of a majority that doesn't wish for others to have the same rights and privileges of themselves.

And really- what is the problem with any child going to a loving home that wants them> I know plenty of hetero's that shouldn't be raising children either- however, we don't deny them that right either, even though we should.

Now- listen how similar your argument (and quicks) is to the old anti-civil rights arguments of the past?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_vs_virginia

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.

Now- your argument

Almighty God created the genders man and woman and He placed them on separate continents (ever been married? ) . And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the genders shows that He did not intend for the genders to mix.

Your argument:

Ignoring United States Supreme Court precedent, Carrico cited as authority the Virginia Supreme Court's own decision in Naim v. Naim (1955) and also argued that the case at hand was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause because both the white and the non-white spouse were punished equally for the "crime" of "miscegenation", an argument similar to that made by the United States Supreme Court in 1883 in Pace v. Alabama.

Sound familiar?

Oh yeah:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Not a jump to change that from "race" to "gender"- and pretty much any legal person can recognize this- though I am not one that is a lawyer- but it isn't exactly a logical jump to realize that the writing is on the wall for discriminating against others based on sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation is not something you choose- it is just a shame we didn't know that when this country was founded- you can change your religion- something we SHOULD be able to discriminate against- while you really can't do anything about your sexual orientation- something we should never be allowed to discriminate against.

willingly blind perhaps? exactly, there is no sane or logical reason to prohibit same sex marriage. So denying them the right to marry is not a demand for an "additional right" but one that is actively being denied. Sorry Jaellon and DR but you are denying them their right and trying to create a false argument that they are asking for an exclusive one be created. They are not, they are asking for you to please stop the Bull Connor act and remember Americans are not supposed to suppress freedoms.

By the way does Anyone have any proof that allowing gays to marry will destroy marriage itself and then America and the Western Civilization as you claim it will inevitably lead to? Anything not rooted in Babylonian fantasy or superstition?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Well, in California - I'd assume this exists elsewhere, but judicial precedent in California is pretty clear here... In California, the right to choose who we marry is an inseparable part of the right to marry. As with that case, the question here relates to the necessity to limit that choice based on a particular characteristic of the choice - in that case, race, in this case, gender. So, the question is: Does the State have a compelling interest in limiting that choice... if so, what is it? And in addition, the limitation must be necessary in order to fulfill that interest.

So, in California... same-sex relationships have virtually all the benefits and obligations of marriage already - and by legislative action, I might add... so the voters said it was okay for same-sex couples to have virtually all the benefits and obligations of marriage. So why is it necessary, to keep the two separate? Why is it necessary to restrict the choice of whom we marry to an individual of the opposite sex?

Thanks for the info, I was unaware.

However,





Let me again state: the right to free association is protected by the Constitution. Committed relationships, friendships, etc. exist outside of any formal government, and therefore cannot be denied by the Constitution. Gays are free to do as they wish.

The State recognition of marriage is not protected by the Constitution. This is my key point.




The definition has not changed, only an unreasonable limitation on who could marry. But race and sexual orientation are not two sides of the same coin. It's a completely different issue, your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

Denying the right of blacks/whites, asians/native americans, etc., to marry was simply a racial (and racist) issue. When that limitation was lifted, marriage still retained its exact same definition and purpose: a formal institution joining a man and woman together for the purpose of providing a safe haven for the rearing of children. All references to God and religion aside (which I never brought up, others did), this is an institution which has been proven over a period of millennia for being the ideal arrangement. If you want, I will post link after link to studies that show that children that lack either a mom or dad in the home have a higher incidence of social problems (crime, drugs, teen pregnancy, you name it). (I didn't bother, because I assume this particular point is beyond dispute?)

Lifting the ban on same-sex marriage is not just another step towards perfect realization of civil rights. It IS a redefinition of marriage, in such a way as to seriously cripple (if not destroy) the entire purpose of marriage.



See above. You can't tell me that they won't grow up with a different perspective on the world, and I assert it's not a healthy perspective.

And yeah, I also know plenty of hetero's that shouldn't be raising children. While I see the importance of giving parents a little leeway as they try to learn how to be parents, and in coping with the tremendous pressures of being parents, at the same time, we have to have a means to protect children from parents who are negligent or abusive. And we do. In fact, my next door neighbor occassionally talks about how her kids were taken away from her by the state. But this is all irrelevant to this topic.



Yeah, almost ten years, thanks for asking



Yeah, yeah, you make an excellent case for the unconstitutionality of denying inter-racial marriage. I read it, and said, yep, well done Supreme Court. But I maintain that race and sexual orientation are NOT the same old issue when it comes to defining marriage.



Well, no, I didn't actually try to impose my religious beliefs or personal philosophy on this forum. My reasons are social, not philosophical.



While it's true that sexual orientation is to some degree inborn, that doesn't necessarily make it a good thing. For example, I have a temper. I have a real temper! And when I get mad, people had just better GET OUT OF MY WAY! AND IF THEY DON'T, I'LL MAKE THEM HURT! I'LL MAKE THEM SCREAM! I'LL KILL THEM! THAT'S THE WAY GOD MADE ME, and I think ... (putting halo on my head) ... that's the way God wants me to be.

Ok, so I don't really, but consider this point: just because you are a certain way, doesn't mean you should be, even you're born that way.

As for the religion comment, why would you believe religion is ok to discriminate against? In other words, Idaho shouldn't hire someone because they're a Jew? We shouldn't allow Mormons to run for president? If you're Buddhist, you had better just pack your bags for your trip "home"? First you dump a truck load full of Constitution on my front lawn, and then you ignore the whole "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" thing? (I assume we're still speaking of State recognition issues, and not personal relationship ones?)




Bueller here. Yes, there are now 20 atomic bombs scattered around the globe, all set to go off just as soon as the 50th state performs a gay marriage. The nuclear winter that follows will destroy all life.

Seriously, though, no one has suggested an earth-shaking calamity will befall Western Civilization. What I suggested was that it will be a negative one. And yes, the definition of marriage (and its fundamental purpose) will be destroyed.

Jaellon- we have been over this territorey before I am afraid- DOM DOES NOT protect marriage- it protects divorce and inheritence laws upon death.

So what is the harm to society? What is the negative impact?

No one on this board that is anti-gay marriage has come up with a logical answer- just a religious one, or personal feelings- but no real reason other than "it may harm our society".

Same argument was made for the reasons for segregation.

Tired argument that the same people making the same argument were on the wrong side of history back in the fights for other civil rights.

Why our country has to have a minority to beat up on is beyond me.

It looks like there is some movement in this country away from those thoughts, thank whomever.

Our country won't be free until the least of us is free and all that.

Funny- Cali does seem to be leading the way to freedom, while taking away others, in a wierd way.

Can get married if you are gay, get weed if you are sick.

Sounds like considering some basic human rights to me.

Hopefully, after the last few years of assaults on freedom, perhaps some folks are starting to realize that freedom for realz means freedoms for everyone- not just whites, or the rich, or for men or for Christians- but all those folks that don't fall within those parameters.

I am not sure if a new DOM constitutional amendment will pass in many states, as long as the amendment proccess is sufficiently difficult. States that have a tough constitutional amendment proccess will keep demagoguery and the hate lobby in check.

Will never pass my state- too tough to amend- gotta call a constitutional convention- haven't been able to do it for some other issues the hate-gays crowd can't muster the support for- which is behind the line to illegalize marijuna, and a couple other lines of insanity.

I don't know any of these answers, but I'd like to ask why marriage matters so much? Whats the big deal?

Is it a legal consideration? because surely any argument that rests on emotional or personal experience has very little validity in a political or legal debate? I mean, why should I care if two people marry each other? marriage is a social crutch anyway...

...or is that it?

Does allowing homosexuals the right to marriage mean that many heterosexuals lose something precious that they need to hold on to? namely the notion that marriage, some how sacred, somehow special, is a crutch propping up their own insecurity.

After all if the accursed homo's are allowed to make a mockery of marriage, like dressing up chimps in clothing, then they are also making a mockery of the married. I can see the argument. Wearing clothes doesn't make a chimp a human, but it certainly makes a mockery of humans to see themselves so parodied.

For people using marriage as some kind of justification for their lives, I'm sure seeing homosexuals getting married must feel like they are the butt of a joke

The answer is, don't get married. Live together freely. Its much more honest.

Victoria Silverwolf

1. Is this a sign of what many happen in other states? ("As California goes, so goes the nation")?

("As California goes, so goes the nation")??? Yikes, If that was true of California id move to Europe or Australia. Not because of gays, but because of hippies, lol. hippies make me sad, if I had a big enough basement id throw them all inside and give them joints and a guitar to keep them from trying to bust out. Ok I admit thats mean an condescending, but it worked for Cartman on the show SouthPark, and some hippies do make me sad. << see look at that.

Anyway to be serious, I think slowly gay marriage rights will spread across the nation with some time. At least that much is probably true. I think its fine myself, Ive always been more pro choice than pro life and there is nothing in existing pro gay marriage laws that says I have to marry them, so I say let them do what they want. I don't understand the big deal regarding gay marriage with many, but then again I'm not religious either which probably explains it.


3. Will this become an important issue in the Presidential election? Will it be enough to tip the balance in favor of the GOP?

It's already a pretty big issue, it might not be as big as issues like the economy or war, and I guess I can understand gays wanting to get it out there as an issue, but it has been a large part of political debate in recent decades.

That's not true at all, CR. I'm against gay marriage because I believe that ultimately, the benefits that help offset the costs of conceiving children will go away. In other words, the benefits of marriage will no longer be a benefit because people will be allowed to marry people - period. There will be no restrictions on marriage at all. With gay marriage, I do not believe that any restrictions should exist because it would be discriminatory. I don't believe current marriage laws are discriminatory because hetero couples capable of conceiving children are physically different than gay couples. There are differences in the way females are treated because of physical differences (PMS, breast feeding, etc) that are not applicable to males. This is not discriminatory - it's because we're physically different.

My beliefs have nothing to do with religion or the "ick" factor. I firmly believe marriage helps creates the best environment to raise children. Because most married couples do produce children, we do not force the government to be involved in the personal aspects of why some married couples do not produce children.

Now granted, my position is a very, very unpopular one on this board, but it's not fair to say "No one on this board..." in making your point. You deny the premise of my argument just like everybody else and that's cool - that's why we're here. But there are disagreements based on reasons other than bigotry.

As a small government conservative, I'm loathe to create more federal legislation. But I think the feds need to be involved now. Not to stop or promote gay marriage, but to create a consistent foundation. Either allow gay marriage or don't across the board. I don't think it's beneficial to our society to have half the states allow gay marriage while the other half denies it's existence.

No, I said no one makes a good LOGICAL argument DR, again- there are literally millions of hetero parents out there that should not be raising kids- and really- what advantage does marriage have for raising families? Tax breaks? Seriously- the entire marriage issue is a bit silly outside the time when the marriage ends- protection for the kids and the spouses- who gets the kids, who pays child support, how property is divided- etc etc

There is no real difference except for the "automatic" factor in regards to homosexuals or hetero's raising kids- as far as the practical applications,

If I were not married with children- and just "shacking up" with my GF, and decided to have a baby- what is the difference betwween if we were married or not? Not really any at all, even for insurance purposes in some cases.

the only real advantage is that it is easier (and cheaper) for me to get my significant other on insurance.

Again, with our uber-strong libertarian constitution in this state- we HAVE to provide same-sex benefits (all state employee benefits) because our constitution does not allow discrimination like this, and our supreme court has spoken on this already.

Too difficult to amend our constitution- so now it is the law of the land, and everyone lives by it.

Guess what? No problems here. IF all the gays in Alaska got married tomorow- who cares? Nothing would happen except some church ladies would blow a gasket- which is good for them, they need to blow something anyway.

So, why did you actually get married CR?

same reasons gays want to get married I suppose- provide for my wife, her health insurance, allow her more rights to my kids etc.

If we didn't need to do it for the bennies- we wouldn't have asked the goverment's permission to do so, for sure!

Since this is my third marriage- I also had a pre-nup.

I believe ALL marriages should be NOTHING more than a pre-nup, we would have a much more healthy society for it as well- no more fighting for years in divorce court, no more fighting with family members over a loved ones belongings with the family on one side, spouse on the other.

Leave all the religious mumbo-jumbo in the church, let the goverment enforce a contract between consenting adults.

1. Is this a sign of what many happen in other states? ("As California goes, so goes the nation")?No, in fact many states have already taken actions to prevent such judicial actions.

2. Will this judicial decision be overthrown by an amendment to the California Constitution?Yes undoubtedly.

3. Will this become an important issue in the Presidential election? Will it be enough to tip the balance in favor of the GOP?It will increase trunout at the polls for conservatives where states add the gay marriage as a voter issue.

Many people view being born gay as a birth defect like polio for example and think there should be someone out there looking for a cure. When gays celebrate being gay many see it as a polio celebration of birth condition and it is a shock to the norm. If a person stands on the side of the interstate and pees waving facing traffic we have a law for it, not because it is harmful but because it is a shock to the norm. We need a law and a cure to protect the norm. Then again, I could be wrong? I think gay adoption or child rearing is child abuse because it is so far from the norm of society. Straits should reside in their norms, gays in their norms and people who stand on the side of the road peeing should be reported to police for violating the norm.

Try to get your facts straight, Zack. Polio is not a “birth defect.” It is caused by a virus.

The way you keep your nose glued to C-SPAN , Glenn Beck, etc. I’m surprised you didn’t know that.


http://www.polio.com/?fa=learn/polio/disease.

BTW: We don't have a cure for polio, but we do have effective vaccines - thanks to the work of Jonas Salk and Albert Sabine.


http://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/00178/med_1900s.html

Do you think we should have a vaccine to protect us from gays?

Well, yes I was aware of that information, I used the example since it is uncommon as related to many birth defects that families have association with in modern times. It was an example and nothing more and my point was simply that the gay community is that, the gay community. They are different than the community. Diversity is often celebrated but most white couples wouldn't like to be blessed with a black, Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese or any other type of baby than a white baby. The same is probably true of those races likewise with races in opposite combinations. While no one dislikes the diversity of the other race they very well may be very upset with a situation where a child was born of the wrong race. The gay reality falls into this example, a man at work walks up to you very happy and announces, my wife and I had a boy and hands you a cigar, you don't respond and ask was the child black or white, or say I hope he grows up to be gay because that would be an insult to the norm even if you complemented blacks and gays for positive attributes.

It is a reality that gay is not a norm, for if it were this debate wouldn't be taking place, they would be normally marring already. Until you can stand at a maternity window and tell a proud father I hope your child to grow up to be gay because they are such outgoing fun people and not get hit there will be a problem with them getting married because they do not fall into the norm.

I don't think you did know, but it is easy to say you did after you've been called. Is it that hard to admit you got caught with your pants down? If you knew polio is caused by a virus, then why did you say it was a "birth defect"?

Nice try, but I don't think you can cover your lack of knowledge here and I doubt anyone will buy it.

Cerebral palsy is an example of a birth injury or defect.


http://www.google.com/notebook/public/1448...Qs4SwoQut7hidsh

So, all those court decisions saying that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution mean nothing? Nobody has the right to have their marriage recognized by the state? That's an interesting point of view, can you support that?

1. Is this a sign of what many happen in other states? ("As California goes, so goes the nation")?

I don't know about the California part. If that's true we are in for a lot of trouble on a lot of fronts.

That aside, yes, it appears we are the process of finally deciding this, at least as a legal matter. Some states will go down swinging, and it will be several more years, but it seems apparent that this is a change that is going to happen on a national level.


2. Will this judicial decision be overthrown by an amendment to the California Constitution?

No chance. This isn't an issue that motivates California voters, in general.


3. Will this become an important issue in the Presidential election? Will it be enough to tip the balance in favor of the GOP?

Important, no. But it will provide excellent opportunities to avoid talking about important issues, so maybe that's the same thing. If the GOP gets loud on this, any benefit will be counteracted by charges of homophobia, so I think they pretty much cancel out. And the GOP is going to need something a lot better to get McCain, or any Republican, elected in 2008.

I was reading someone's point that no one against gay marriage had a decent reason, and it occurred to me that, to religious folks, one of the keys is how their church behaves and what it supports. Therefore, I would recommend to religious people to establish policy within their church, about whether they will perform these ceremonies or not. It's none of your business if gay people get married, but it is your business if your church performs the ceremonies. Get a policy statement, and then vote with your money and/or feet.

This won't stop anyone, but it is a reasonable, legal compromise. If you think gay marriage is a moral crime, you can't support a church that condones it, right? The same applies for those entering a gay marriage. I don't imagine you want to create this union in a church that finds your lifestyle an abomination.

Meanwhile, we Discordians will sit back and laugh at your nonsense, knowing full well that none of it will save a single pink on X-Day.

Well, if nothing else the gay celebrities aren't waiting around to jump the broom.

US actor George Takei is to wed his long-term partner after California lifted its ban on same-sex marriage.

Takei, 71, best known for playing Mr Sulu in Star Trek, said he and Brad Altman were going through the "delicious dilemma" of where to marry.

The actor and 54-year-old Mr Altman have been together for 21 years.

"We can have the dignity, as well as all the responsibilities, of marriage. We embrace it all heartily," Takei wrote on his website.

Following the Supreme Court's decision to legalise same-sex marriage, comedian Ellen DeGeneres announced plans to marry her girlfriend, actress Portia de Rossi.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7410431.stm

Here's a thought for you guys.

Since there were (I think) more REP appointed judges that passed this issue, Do you think that it is a Republican tactic to get more votes??????

I mean even after America knew how stupid and deceitful Bush was they still turned out
in large numbers to support him(the second time)!
Durring that election there were also a lot of gay issues being pushed. This election the
DEMS have not been pushing any Lib/gay social issues, but they have been doing interviews
from their churches! Even Hillary tried to look like a person of faith, Which was one of her
least convincing performances.

I just wonder if this is a way to get all the old school REPS and Religious poeple to get
back in line with what ever the REPS have to offer??

Just because in 2000 I thought it would be "Impossible" for some one like Bush to win a
second term!

There is a subtle difference between what I'm saying and what you're hearing, and I hope to clarify.

Yes, I recognize the SCOTUS decision, Loving vs Virginia, in which they stated:


The point here, is that the State has no authority to prohibit a white man and a black woman from getting married (as in Loving vs Virginia). Note the reasoning is that 1) it's "fundamental to our very existence and survival", and 2) denying "this fundamental freedom" based on race was "unsupportable", based on any rational argument.

However, the judgment does not declare that the State has to recognize the marriage, only that it cannot prohibit it, nor prosecute the participants. Granted, failure to recognize it when, white+white and black+black marriages were recognized would be unfair and unjust. But failure to recognize it or any other marriage would not be unconstitutional. Hence:



Now we come to the issue of same sex marriage:

• Is it fundamental to our very existence and survival? No.
• Is denying this fundamental freedom based on sexual orientation unsupportable? No.

As I stated earlier, it re-defines marriage in a way that interracial marriages do not.



Oh, so is that all marriage is for? To set up a good legal framework for when the relationship ends? Is this what you tell people when you counsel them? Geez, I could be a marriage counselor. The 3 years of accounting courses I took will sure come in handy.

I'll tell you the advantage. My kids have never had to wonder what they would do if I and my wife split up. To them, our relationship is as solid and fundamental as anything is possible to be. When a family is chopped in half, and the kids get yanked in two directions, it has a lasting negative impact on them. Sure, they find a way to cope, but at the same time, they will struggle with emotional issues for years to come, even if they keep them mostly hidden. I've seen it happen. Do you bring any of this up in your counseling sessions?

The children are fundamental to the purpose of marriage. I see no reasons for gays to even care. If they want the legal framework, they can get all that outside of a marriage contract.

1) Marriage counselling is frequently a misnomer- it is more like "relationship counselling" as many are not married at all.

2) "My kids have never had to wonder what they would do if I and my wife split up."- you just made my point there fella- you see, if you and your wife NEVER split up- what is the difference if you are married legally or not?

What you are doing is protecting the sanctity of divorce- you realize that, right?

You said " If they want the legal framework, they can get all that outside of a marriage contract."-

why should heteros' be a protected class over homosexuals? Why shouldn't Homosexuals be afforded equal protection from the law?

It is automatic freebie you get from the state- while Homosexuals are denied this freebie on what ground?

Come on please. The fact that they are in the most liberal part of the US just means that even “Republican” appointed judges are somewhat liberal by definition. And the Party is not the issue here – but Legislation from the bench – and its wrong regardless of the Party that appointed the judge.

So, what makes marriage fundamental to our existence and survival these days?



Okay. So, what is the compelling interest in limiting marriage to opposite sex couples? Why is that limitation necessary in order to serve that compelling interest?



No. This issue will not get the Republicans more votes in California. It was also a Republican judge at the Court of Appeals level that ruled the law unconstitutional. The argument they make is sound.

Wow, this is insightful. I'm glad to know I'm a part of "the" community and not a part of "that" community. And now you've equated homosexuals with having a birth defect. And Aquilla thought we had a food fight on the Rev. Wright topic...


I suspect the Asian father would be upset with an Indian baby, if his wife were Vietnamese, for reasons completely unrelated to that child's race or sexual orientation. This analogy is horrible (yeah, mine too). Unfortunately, it only gets worse...


Here is where you validate the inter-racial marriage analogy. Back then, it wasn't "the norm" either. Some may even argue today it isn't. "The norm" isn't a measure to determine equality or justice, thankfully. Otherwise our schools would still be segregated.

If nothing else, but for the principal of the subject, that as Americans, they deserve equal protections under the law and as long as marriage remains a legal institution, then that equality must be respected and homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Whether or not they could conceive children should not be the issue because many heterosexual couples unable/unwilling to conceive still have the ability to adopt and carry on a loving stable relationship for the child.

What you quoted is from Jaellon and not CruisingRam.

My response to that quote is, why should they have to go outside a marriage contract? Why is that necessary? Same-sex couples can and do raise children - you may not like that idea, but in California it's not a problem and that came about as part of the democratic process via legislative action, not what you would call judicial interference. There are also people who get married that are unable to have kids or have no desire to raise kids... the elderly, for example. If children are so fundamental to marriage, why allow people over 70 to marry? It's not like the state doesn't know how old they are, right? It's right there on the application. So, it must not be necessary to impose a restriction based on the fact that, for the most part, people raise children in a marriage. As such, any restriction based on that reasoning would be unconstitutional.

Ya, what entspeak said on the quotes my brutha- but I know how it happens- I have done it myself.

Again- to emphasize what you said- by Jaellon's logic- we should also not allow those that are barren to get married.

Jaellon- why not impose a fertility test though?

And could you get married if it was your kid from another marriage, and the other bio parent not in the picture, why shouldn't gays with children, or wanting children, be allowed to marry, you know, to protect the children better?

IF the gay parent is the custodial parent, wouldn't they NEED this extra protection from the state to help the child, since marriage is essential to the survival of the children?



So- if marriage is vital to children- shouldn't that be the only criteria?

What other tangible thing can you say "our society will fall apart if marriage is done away with as a secular institution"?

No one is saying you can't go get yourself married in a relgious ceremony?

There is no reason why gays should not be allowed to marry. Period.

I say this because all of the arguments I have seen for the prohibition of it hold no water whatsoever.

Any argument based on faith is flawed to the core because as long as the divorce rate in this country is as sky high as it is and staunch anti-gay marriage proponents aren't making a push to ban divorce, then there is an incredible double standard in that argument.

Malachi 2:16. "The Lord hates divorce".

And if marriage is so sacred, then I wanna know where they are on a Consitiutional ban on divorce.

Any social argument to the prohibition holds no water as well because, first off, the "definition" of marriage has been reshaped and tweaked for millenia. Going back to the time of Jacob up through today, while the production of children was a factor for marriage, it was surely not for the sole benefit of simply raising them in a healthy environment. Children were seen as a means for one to ensure financial and political stability. If a wealthy man has children he can ensure that his wealth and influence lives on. If a king has a son, his family stays in power.

Henry VIII wasn't interested in making sure his children were raised in a happy home. That's for sure.

Secondly, if procreation is not essential to the people involved in a marriage, adoption is a clear alternative, and there has been no evidence that homosexual couples are any less responsible as parents or that the children of homosexual parents are any more screwed up than we are.

Another argument that holds no water is the idea that the courts are "legislating from the bench" on this issue, and that it should be up to the people to decide, and that the people have in fact decided against gay marriage.

Slavery. Miscegenation laws. Laws empowering racial discrimination. Laws emporing gender discrimination. Laws encouraging religious discrimination. All these things were widely supported at one time or another in this country. And somehow, the very basic tenets that the Founding Fathers built this country on, have reared their ugly head and overruled the popular position held by the people.

If we allowed the majority to consistently enforce and legislate popular opinion, we'd still be living in 1860. Was Lincoln legislating from the desk? I mean, I don't like the idea of "legislating from the bench" either, but in cases like this, where the will of the people conflicts with the very principles of the country it's citizens call home, it is necessary, indeed essential to the survival of liberty.

I've kept this quote close to me since I've found it. And I'm gonna sig it as soon as I'm done posting.

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

- Thomas Jefferson

Did I kill this thread again!?