CA Supreme Court Refuses To Block Gay Marriages

Fox News

[William McKinley]

They refused the Attorney General's request that they issue an injunction preventing further gay marriages to be conducted in San Francisco.

[aruanan]

He made no mistake. He had no intention of taking action against the mayor. He just kicked the can to the Supremes. Whatever their decision, it wouldn't affect his political career aspirations (= CA Governor).

As I said: As it was, he passed the buck to the court.

[okie01]

Their FIRST Commandment (Genesis 1:28) is the obligation for man and wife to procreate and populate the earth -

There is a reason for that, is there not?

Speaking personally, I have no problem with so-called "civil union" -- conveying a few fiduciary rights that gay couples now contend they are being denied.

For example, the rights of survivorship, visitation, etc. Even "married-filing jointly" tax status.

But I am also very much against gay adoption -- which is something that is already approved in many states. I believe adoption should be reserved to those husband-wife couples who are married. Child-rearing being the primary function of the institution to begin with.

My sis is in the adoption business -- a bleeding heart liberal. I'm visiting her next week. I'm sure this will be a subject for family discussion and debate...

[DannyTN]

I thought the AG just prosecuted. Does he control the police force. I thought that chain would answer separately to Arnold.

[DannyTN]

Well Arnold is head of the Executive branch. And in most state governments, the Executive branch does the arresting and the prosecuting.

The question I have is, isn't there someone else in charge of the state police which can arrest these people and charge them with violating the State code? Is that the AG? or is it someone else?

[Arizona]

I liked your entire rant, but this line deserves repeating: "When we begin to tolerate any and all behavior we begin to rot from within. Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society."

az

[SierraWasp]

Oh, fer cryin in the bathtub!!!

Lighten up, will ya? Dubya's gonna get re-elected!!! Ok??? Good GRIEF!!!

I'm getting fatigued with your anxiety attacks, for Pete's sake!!!

[SierraWasp]

"Spitzer said."

Spitzer is just another dickhead Demonic-rat!!!

[Alissa]

Definitely a good catch phrase - "It's the judges, stupid."

[Carry_Okie]

Perhaps the only benefit to the growth in "alternative" family units is that the facts about their effects upon children are now becoming undeniable. We now have proof: There is no better institution for fostering healthy children than an intact, nuclear family. Whether it is easy divorce, sexual promiscuity, or celebrating "alternative lifestyles," ALL of these essential elements of social liberalism are destructive to raising healthy children into successful adults.

It may be true that there are some gay and lesbian parents who raise healthy, happy, and successful kids. However, the promiscuity, violence, and short life span, common among gays and lesbians does not lend itself to successful child rearing. That there are exceptions does not mean that designing our social systems around them is good policy. The effort to break down or broaden the historic institution of marriage is destructive to children and should be treated as such. It is high time for conservatives own that liberal phrase, "for our children."

They're not "the children;" they're not the government's children; they're ours. The best way to protect them is to foster intact heterosexual families. The legal system is set up to destroy them.

A married couple is a legal and financial unit, while the legal system operates upon an assumption that two married individuals are adversaries. That a family member can seek advice of counsel against the person to whom they are bound by a contract of mutual interest without a declaration of an impasse is in effect a conspiracy to commit a breach of a contract issued under State law. That lawyers advertise seeking to dissolve that unit for profit is beyond despicable. It should be illegal.

In all but the most extreme cases, no divorce should be granted to parents with children without an extensive period of counseling and mediation. If after all attempts have failed, the mediator could declare an impasse at which point the parties would be free to seek counsel. It would then be obvious that an attorney who actively worked to separate families in order to pad his or her wallet should be disbarred.

If a divorce of a married couple is granted, joint custody of children should be the default option. Parents who choose to move more than eight hours of travel-time from their former spouse should be faced with loss of joint custody. Sacrificing career aspirations for children has and must remain a fact. It shouldn't be such a hard choice.

There is no doubt that raising children is one of the most emotionally and morally maturing challenges an employee can undertake. Raising a child, forces an adult to confront bad habits before they are passed on. While it may be true that parents may have less time available for work, that doesn't mean that their productivity is less. Because of the maturity that comes with parenting, less of that work results in wasted effort or needless conflict

The obvious difference between heterosexual marriage and all other "alternative lifestyles" is that it is the optimal combination to produce productive future citizens. Both historic tax incentives and the other protections maintained by the State were dedicated in recognition of that distinction in licensing marriage in the first place.

Historically, the Church used to frown on second marriages among the elderly. Their reason was that such unions didn't serve the divine purpose of the continuation of humanity by which to spread the word of God.

The motives for these marriages among the elderly, or young heterosexual couples with no intention of raising children, are closely similar to those of gays and lesbians. It is thus only logical that we institute a form of legally sanctioned life partnership for these couples with the absolute provision that they may not raise children. Marriage must remain restricted exclusively to heterosexual couples intending to rear children.

The differences between these two types of unions would make drafting laws appropriate to each type much easier. Life partnerships would be subject to existing no-fault divorce laws and wave mandatory mediation, etc, as those features would not be necessary. Only full marriages would be eligible to adopt. If the woman in a life partnership became pregnant, the couple would have to get married or give the child up for adoption. Raising children is, after all, a life commitment.

That a life partnership law might include homosexual unions serves an important purpose. It encourages gays and lesbians to build the stronger relationships that might slow the spread of HIV. More importantly, it exposes the demands of gay and lesbian activists to be the political smokescreen any sane person knows they have been all along. This was never about what two people do in the privacy of their home, hospital visitation, or rights of inheritance. The objective of homosexual marriage is about the right to control the future of society by shaping children. They must never have that privilege.

Gays and lesbians have chosen a lifestyle that is in general destructive to raising healthy children. The risk of abuse is too high to allow these groups to be parents. Give them what they say they want; let them effectively get married; but don't EVER let them raise children. Conservatives should sue under Proposition 22 to strike down the tide of recent legislation granting to homosexuals privileges inherent to marriage to bar reproductive medical procedures, child custody, and adoption to gay and lesbian couples.

[Carry_Okie]

Please cite the relevant statutory or constitutional provisions which empowers the California governor to have the SF Mayor, or anyone else, arrested...

From the California Constitution:

ARTICLE 5 EXECUTIVE

SECTION 1. The supreme executive power of this State is vested in the Governor. The Governor shall see that the law is faithfully executed.

SEC. 7. The Governor is commander in chief of a militia that shall be provided by statute. The Governor may call it forth to execute the law.

SEC. 13. Subject to the powers and duties of the Governor, the Attorney General shall be the chief law officer of the State. It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced. The Attorney General shall have direct supervision over every district attorney and sheriff and over such other law enforcement officers as may be designated by law,

[Jack Black]

In my experience almost no one except "us" is bothered by this. Even my mom, hardly a flaming liberal and certainly neither gay nor a gay sympathizer, doesn't see the harm in gay marraige. And is not outraged by the courts. Most of the sheeple have been well-conditioned by Dan Rather to view the courts as some sort of near-sacred preisthood that is always right. The Supreme Court is now open to question, due to Gore V. Bush, but even that is not really cause for too much concern to the sheeple.

I agree that Cali is a lost cause.

[Kerberos]

"So your argument is that the best course of action would have been to do nothing, to sit back and let these people destroy whatever shreds of decency, morality"

No, my argument was to not go into reactive mode and force this issue into center stage. By doing so we are allowing the opposistion to frame the arguments on their terms.

[Torie]

There is no emergency here. There will be an issue in time about the benefits received, tax returns, and the like, but there is no reason why this case shouldn't go to an appellate court first, if it has jurisdiction, to be decided on an expedited but not warp speed basis. The California supremes will strike SF down, ir need be.

[Happy2BMe]

"Please join me in contempt for contemptuous liberal courts.
We cannot have a Stable Society with their Rule!!!
Without a Stable Society, we will not prosper, or flourish! We've had it!!!
The Rule of Liberal Lawyers has reached the point of diminishing returns. It's time to end it, not mend it!!!"

* * * *

The next step in denying God's sovereignty over the United States will go to these nine people . .

"The question is or at least ought to be, how can such a small, godless, minority have such influence over our courts and legislative processes?"

Answer:

U.S. Supreme Court, 2003 - The Oligarchy*

(All Your Sovereignty Are Belong To Us!)

Back Row (left to right): Ginsburg, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
Front Row (left to right): Scalia, Stevens, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy

ol•i•gar•chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1542
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control

sov•er•eign•ty
Variant(s): also sov•ran•ty /-tE/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soveraineté, from Old French, from soverain
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is SOVEREIGN; especially : an autonomous state

[hedgetrimmer]

Its anarchy. And its coming to a city near you, I'm afraid.

[Carry_Okie]

There is no emergency here.

Frankly, I think that belief lacks compassion for gay couples. I suggest that those who will have had their marriages invalidated will indeed have suffered harm. They will have been offered the false belief that they were engaging in a lawful union by an officer of the law, willing to engage in a willful act of civil disobedience. Withdrawing that hope for legitimacy will be traumatic, perhaps leading to riots and loss of life. There is thus every reason to stop these illegal proceedings. Newsome could just as easily have sued over Prop 22 without them.

That is, after all, why we have a rule of law.

[timydnuc]

This is the perfect example of the judiciary overruling the will and the law of the People. Is this not judicial tyranny? Of course it is.

Impeachment, removal from the bench. You bet! Start the action now, the message will be sent through out the courts. Deny the law made and implemented by the People and you will have an early retirement, with disgrace.

[fr_freak]

No, my argument was to not go into reactive mode and force this issue into center stage. By doing so we are allowing the opposistion to frame the arguments on their terms.

This issue is at center stage already, whether we want it to be or not. The gay "marriage" proponents put it there by openly violating state law with the full aid and approval of the city officials of one of the largest cities in the state. They are counting on conservatives doing nothing to stop them. However, if these illegal and immoral acts go unchallenged, they become essentially legal, because there would never be a consequence for committing them. That is the path you are advocating.

[Godfollow]

If they (the left) rule by anarchy, then we should overrule by vigilantism. Either the laws are enforced by the proper officials or we enforce them via mob action. This country is headed toward a cataclysmic civil war if someone doesn't step in and put a stop to this insanity.

[Torie]

LOL. These "marrieds" know exactly what they are getting into. They are not freakin idiots. They also know that there is a law on the books in California making the marriages illegal. It was passed by initiative, and could hardly be missed.