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.

[hocndoc]

You know, I kept thinking that "they" should have left Judge Moore alone in Alabama.....

No matter what, the 10 Commandments are here to stay.

[Labyrinthos]

OK, I don't give a pigeons' feather about gay marriages, but that photo is John "Effon"Kerry funny.

[gawd]

The people through legislation should define what marriage is, not lawbreaking mayors and tryannical judges

since homosexuals are a permenant minority everywhere, "the people", meaning the non-homosexual majority, could continue forever to define marriage in their own exclusive terms. that, my man, is democratic tyranny.

[MississippiMan]

Has everything I have ever learned about our Branches of Governmnet just been changed or is this just plain anarchy?

Apparently both. The city officials operating in blatant, proud defiance of the law, THOUSANDS of times in a week, should have been arrested and charged within a day or so. Yet NOTHING has been done. The left has been circumventing the rule of law for a long time through the courts, but now they don't even need them. They just do what they like and say to hell with anyone who doesn't like it. AND THEY GET AWAY WITH IT. Unbelievable.

MM

[Kozak]

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.

And how many laws passed by initaitive in California have been completely negated by the state or federal courts? Particularly when undermined from the beginning by local or state officials who disagreed with the initiatives to begin with? This rapidly heading to the area of an accomplished fact. Think of the chaos that will begin to ensue when these couples enter into contracts, sign mortgages and leases. Before too long at least one of these couples will have a death, and then escrow, wills, child custody will be involved.

[Carry_Okie]

ISA 9:16 For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed.

ISA 9:17 Therefore the LORD shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is an hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

ISA 9:18 For wickedness burneth as the fire: it shall devour the briers and thorns, and shall kindle in the thickets of the forest, and they shall mount up like the lifting up of smoke.

ISA 9:19 Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts is the land darkened, and the people shall be as the fuel of the fire: no man shall spare his brother.

[Kozak]

The logic of biology. One man + one woman = a reproductive unit. Thats the natural minimum that would suggest a basic "family unit".

[Carry_Okie]

No. Think of them as superset and subset. The distinctions would apply to a dissolution.

[BikerNYC]

I understand. But why does that family unit have to be married, with a license, with or without a church? Face it, the reason marriage is the way it is now is because of public policy, not logic. We simply prefer things this way. Moreover, how many children now are born out of wedlock? How many adults are actually married? These figures show that this "logic" you speak of is not air tight.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The AG made a mistake.

No, with Lockyer it would be intenional!!!

[the invisib1e hand]

I've never understood the "undermine the institution of marriage" argument. with divorce rates around 50%, there ain't much left to undermine.

well, many or most divorced people will remarry. and again, ad infinitum, in some cases.

driving on the sidewalk undermines the privilege of driving for all people.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality

[Kozak]

I understand. But why does that family unit have to be married, with a license, with or without a church? Face it, the reason marriage is the way it is now is because of public policy, not logic. We simply prefer things this way. Moreover, how many children now are born out of wedlock? How many adults are actually married? These figures show that this "logic" you speak of is not air tight.

The family is an institution that has endured for 10s of thousands of years. It has been shown to be the best method for protecting and raising children, and in most societies the building block of that family has been the nuclear family with extended kin. The fact is, that for a mere 30 years we have been busy destroying that structure and engaged in a huge sociologic experiment to see what happens when we try to raise children without any coherent family structure. And the early results are not good. Right now something like 80% of black kids live in a home without a father. Right now the rest of our society is at the point the black community was at in the late 60's and 70's regarding illigetimacy. One more generation and we can expect to be at that level in the rest of society. Think that will bode well for our future?

[ellery]

This seems inconsistent with your proposal to bar couples who don't plan to have children from getting married. If your objective is to tie marriage to children in all cases (to the extent that the elderly couldn't marry), how do you justify allowing younger people who can't have children to get or stay married?

[Carry_Okie]

This seems inconsistent with your proposal to bar couples who don't plan to have children from getting married.

It's not.

If your objective is to tie marriage to children in all cases (to the extent that the elderly couldn't marry), how do you justify allowing younger people who can't have children to get or stay married?

Ever heard of adoption? How about IVF? ICSI? If your intent is to raise children, there is no reason to believe that it can't be accommodated, especially when the supply of adoptable children under the policy would increase rather markedly. The point is for children to have parents. It's that important.

[Ol' Sparky]

There is no right to marriage guaranteed by the constitution. Further, no one is stopping homosexuals from getting married.

The issue is whether lawbreaking mayors and judges can force a redefintion of marriage against the will of the masses.

I'd prefer the people decide the issue, rather than have dictorial judges force a defintion on the nation. It's called freedom. Don't like? Move to China.

[VxH]

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit...

It's the only way to be sure.

[EdReform]

Bump

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

The Stamp of Normality

[spokeshave]

"What a shocker!!! A State Supreme Court refusing to enforce a state law!! And in Kalifornia of all places!!! "

So isn't it possible to file a Writ of Mandamus on the CA court....?

[VxH]

"States' rights" my arse.

What about the rights of the majority of the people of California who voted to make Homosexual marriage illegal?