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.

[Revel]

Very true, and the conservitives had the heart of many people not long ago. Now we are associted with the failure of liberal policy put forth by Rhino's. Everyone will just laugh at us in the future. Say hello to Socialist Dem Rule, and the end of the USA as you know it.

[claudiustg]

---Mark this post and we will revisit the issue in a year. I'm sorry, but the issue is lost.---

No this will not stand. The homosexual social revolutionaries have bit off more than they can chew this time. Mark this time; their high-water mark has come and they have missed the tide.

[BlazingArizona]

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

The dispute between California and the City of San Francisco is California's problem. Are you old enough to remember when Republicans, especially, supported the idea that this should not be Washington's problem?

[Godfollow]

I heartily agree... I remember hearing Rush Limbaugh say during the Clinton years, "don't worry folks, he can't destroy this country in 8 years"... damn near Rush, damn near...

[jocon307]

"...these people love each other like any other couple..."

I hate to put is so bluntly, but marriage is not about Love, marriage is about children, and society, and primarily the taming of men and their sex drive. In fact, it would probably be fine to let lesbians get married, but the establishment of male homosexuality as "normal" is a very bad road that we will very much rue taking.

I'm sorry, homosexuals cannot and do not have sexual intercourse, reproduction is impossible, and they cannot and do not "become one flesh". In addition to the pure and irrefutable physiology of it, the fact remains that people in general do not and will never see homosexuality as "normal". They may see it as a harmless vice, like some see gambling, or drunkeness, drug addition, topless dancing, prostitution, etc. but not as normal.

And, full disclaimer, my beloved brother was a homosexual, until he died. Of aids. Do I think contact tracing could have saved his life? You bet I think it might have.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

As far as I'm concerned, the mayor of SF should be under arrest.

[BikerNYC]

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 yet I hear no call for a consitutional amendment prohibiting any state from granting a divorce to married people, or banning single people from conceiving or, better, raising children.

You seek to prohibit marriages between gay people which, more than likely, will not involve children at all, yet feel perfectly content with not prohibiting those actions by straight people who actually do produce children that deeply affect the quality of live children enjoy. You believe the boat has sprung a leak and is sinking, but you use a teacup to bail out instead of plugging the hole.

The fault lies in ourselves, not in our stars. If you really cared about children, you would be addressing the problems that actually affect them, the problems us straight people cause, instead of prohibiting gay marriages as some sort of symbolic act to put a bandaid on a problem.

You favor symbolism over substance. Are you a politician?

[risk]

Mark this time; their high-water mark has come and they have missed the tide.

I agree. Didn't Rosie O'Donnell's speech on our courthouse steps today turn your stomachs as she blithely cast aside thousands of years of tradition and said "she had her rights?" I have nothing against her and Kelli on a personal level, but she's now saying she has a right to demand that as a citizen of California that I must support her lifestyle with my tax dollars, the time of my elected and appointed officials (who should be concerned with other, more important matters), and my moral blessing.

She and Kelli must get none of the above. The lines are drawn. Even tolerant people like me are unable to agree to these terms.

The state has no interest in same sex "long term dating." What these mean-spirited people are doing in the name of "love" is demanding our resignation. They are already winning the right to teach our children in school that morals taught at home are simply obsolete. Now they want it on TV, in church, in the chambers of our justices of peace, and in our divorce courts.

This is nothing short of a rebellion, and it is not tantamount to abolition. They want to enslave us to their experimental morals. She wants to take my right to withold support for her lifestyle and crush it under her thick, black jackboots.

I say to every one of you: this must not stand.

Rosie championing a betrayal of another essential liberty.

[No Dems 2004]

Another spineless court ... when r they going to stand up for what's right and enforce the law? What's next ... declaring Proposition 22 as 'unconstitutional'? Honestly, I'm so sick of the spineless courts.

Ironically, half of me hopes they do legalize it because I want the FMA to pass in Washington. The Dems in swing states are going to have to wake up on the issue sooner or later.

Some of you might find it interesting that both the leading Dem candidates in the Louisiana and South Carolina senate races have endorsed the amendment (Breaux is against it).

[aruanan]

No, with Lockyer it would be intenional!!!

Still doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake, ie, the wrong thing to do.

[P-Marlowe]

You are right. He should have just arrested the mayor and the city clerk for conspiracy to violate Penal code section 359. Then the mayor and the clerk would be on the defensive. Now it's the state that is on the defensive.

By the time they get around to stopping this there will be tens of thousands of married homos asserting their rights to be married all over the united states.

This action is going to have a ripple effect throughout the whole country. Those of you on the east coast, don't think that this doesn't affect you. It does. Rosie O'Donnell is going to take her marriage license to New York and demand that New York recognize that marriage. Someone in authority in New York undoubtedly will, then they'll be lining up at the New York City Hall getting their licenses and travelling to New Jersey.

[Kozak]

Nonsense. To use your analogy I see the boat sinking and do not think it wise to set the boat on fire. You make a breathtaking straw man argument. To talk of a constitutional amendment to ban bastardy, or divorce is idiotic and you know it. Most of the factors affecting those are beyond law and in the realm of culture.

As a physician, my first rule is " do no harm". When I can't cure a patient, I am obligated to do my best not to harm that patient. By encouraging further social decay gay marriage is a harm to society. Defining marriage by a civilized standard going back thousands of years does no harm, and may help to protect that society.

As to addressing the problems that affect children, first off I walk the talk as the married father of two. I've taught my kids to respect marriage and try to do the same when it's their turn. I support organizations such as the Boy Scouts who are trying to instill traditional values in children. I support laws that strengthen those values, oppose those that don't and vote for politicians who support my viewpoint to the extent possible.

I'm a physician I live in a practical world where I try to do the possible.

You make innane arguments and faulty assumptions, are you a lawyer, or a liberal?

[BikerNYC]

Neither a lawyer nor a liberal. Just tired of people throwing stones in glass houses.

It would be quite easy to change divorce laws, but I see no effort to do that. And that is the primary problem for children. But, as changing divorce laws would be a solution that would limit the choices for a majority of us, better to go for the easy mark and just limit the choices of others, and claim that the problem is fixed.

I guess the next couple of years will determine if society goes to hell in a handbasket because gay people get married. When the gay folk who do get married in those few places where they will be allowed to move out and become neighbors to us straight married folk, we will see just how much worse the lives of children become.

In the meantime, you go about your business, rasin hell about gay folk gettin married, while the lives of children are being wrecked, not by gay marriage, but by divorce.

[Kozak]

Another straw man to be set up and knocked down by yourself. Change divorce law? The same judicial tyranny that has been busy inventing a right to gay marriage would overrule any law that restricted divorce.

Massachusetts has had a constitution for 2 centuries and SUDDENLY a few judges discover a "right" to gay marriage.
The reason marriage is not spelled out as a union of man and woman in our laws is that the concept was so self evident, that no one thought to codify it in the law. Just like no one thought to specify marriage didn't apply to the live stock .

California overwhelmingly passes a law defining marriage and a local official thumbs his nose at the law and the court refuses to act. Nothing as simple as a law will overturn that, the justices, our masters, have spoken.

Just when did we pass a law legalizing abortion in the US? It was illegal, by law in almost every state when the SCOTUS discovered an "implied right" in the "penumbra" of a right to privacy.

And once those "few areas" legalize it, you know damn well the SCOTUS will force the recognition of those marriages in EVERY state because of Article VI "full faith and credit clause" in the constitution.

The same groups pushing the gay agenda are those that have relentlessly championed every other assault on marriage. Now that those have born their bitter fruit, they move on and make the very concept of marriage an obscene joke.

Cause thats what's really going on here. It's not about marriage per se, thats the smoke screen. It's about trying to get us all to have to accept homosexuality as normal and acceptable. THATS the real agenda here.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

What is needed here is a constitutional amendment to LIMIT THE SCOPE AND REDUCE AUTHORITY OF THE JUDICIARY!All rulings should be decided on the demands of THE MAJORITY.

[BikerNYC]

Then we agree. The issue of gay marriage has nothing to do with protecting children or defending the institution of marriage, which is supposedly so sacred but is entered and left at will in this country (you would think that if people thought it really was sacred they would take it more seriously).

All of this claptrap about a constitutional amendment (something which, if passed, is destined to mimic the history of the 18th Amendment) is really about whether or not we approve of people having sex with a member of the same sex. I agree. That's exactly what this is about. And it is disgusting to me that we would tinker with the most cherished and venerated public document created over the last 200 years over something so crass.

[ZULU]

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

I don't know. Actually, I don't even know what a Writ of Mandamus is.

[RobbyS]

A more useful comparison would be the 19th Amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a woman from voting in a federal election or being elected to federal office. The 19th Amendment simply took away the authority of the states to keep women from voting and holding federal office. When the 19th Amendment was passsed, all but a handful of states had already given women the right to vote. The basic problem is, as everyone has been pointing out, that the Courts are now acting as sitting constitutional conventions. If the gays want to be married, it OUGHT to be THEY who must get an amendment to the Constitution, not their opponents.

[Kozak]

I absolutely disagree. Gay marriage is one more blow against marriage and children which are already reeling from the prior damage done, and I oppose it. It's been pushed to the point of a need for a constitutional amendment because a samll group of elitists is bent on imposing their will on the majority.

[concerned about politics]

these people love each other like any other couple..

LOL. They're demanding the definition of a perverted sex fetish to be renamed "love?" LOL.
That's like saying "is" is the same as "elbow.""