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.

[little jeremiah]

I don't know why you continually support the homosexual activists' attempt to destroy marriage and the natural family. Homosexuals are not a class of people like blacks or Asians. They are a changing, amorphous fluid (and very small) group of people defined SOLELY by their participation in unnatural sex acts. They don't need freakin' protection. They need to get back in the closet and out of our faces, and out of the schools. They need to quit indoctrination our children.

[little jeremiah]

They call themselves "queers" and worse.

[little jeremiah]

Here are the actual reasons homosexual activists are pushing for marriage. Anyone with any interest in "gay" marriage owes it to themselves to read the stated reasons homosexuals themselves are pushing for this.
Hint: It ain't about holy matrimony, or loving anyone ever after.

"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):

"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely."

"It's the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."

Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)

Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit." [Among these demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]

[jocon307]

Yes, of course this is what they want, and what they've always wanted. Homosexuals are perverts by definition, they are not just "nice people".

The thing that gets me is how the vast Oprah-watching public, esp. "soccer moms" and the like lets themselves be LIED to by these folks, over and over again.

Homosexual marriage must be prevented and homosexuality eventually forced back into the closet.

[stopem]

And if this anarchy is let to fester and than explode our country will be worse off than haiti.

The justices who are obviously Dems are allowing lawlessness to continue. If the g/l want something changed in the constitution to allow their lawlessness than let them try to change the constitution to allow for laws to be broken.

This is all so nuts!

Yes the constitution said "RIGHT" to life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness, so if someone said, gee it would make me so happy to go to a bank and steal millions of dollars and I have that "RIGHT" do they really? How much do you want to bet some Dem justice would allow it??????

[stopem]

EXACTLY!! And are we going to sit back and become complacent about this????

[stopem]

WOW! WTG!!!! Lets all follow suit and send a similar letter to all the newspapers. Except add that Marriage is for one man and one woman and that if lawlessness is continued to be allowed by justices than our country will become a country like Haiti is now.

[stopem]

AMEN!

[stopem]

How are appointed judges like the ones in CA removed????

[stopem]

Or in our nightmares!!

[stopem]

My thought exactly.

[BikerNYC]

Gay marriage is one more blow against marriage and children...

To propose a consitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage is so friggin' cowardly, when the real "blow" to children isn't caused by a group of people that forms such a small minority, but by the vast majority of us straight people who enter into and leave this sacred institution of marriage at the drop of a hat.

Someone with guts would address the real problem for children...divorce.

Britney Spears' casual walk down the isle, and the casual way her walk was legally made never to exist, does more to damage marriage then all the gay weddings in the country.

But this is so typical of people. It is so much more easy to point the finger and blame others for our problems than to face up and admit that we cause our problems ourselves.

[little jeremiah]

The war against traditional morality and the natural family has many battlefronts. The "gay" agenda is an important battle front. Take a look at what's been happening in Scandanavia for the last couple of decades. The general sexual libertinism [now they have a huge problem with animals getting hurt in sex acts with "humans"] was spearheaded by the normalization of homosexual behavior.

To minimize the danger that the promotion of homosexual behavior causes is to blind yourself to the whole picture. The truth is that the "gay" rights activists and their handmaidens in the media and elsewhere don't want tolerance or even acceptance. They want to dominate everyone else and change the entire moral climate of this country (and indeed, the world if they can, there are activists in many countries) into a sexual free-for-all.

Many homosexual spokespeople have stated clearly that their stated goal is to destroy the meaning of marriage and family and the traditions of sexual morality that are consistent in every religion. They are on a rampage of destruction, and THEY WANT OUR CHILDREN.

[Kozak]

To propose a consitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage is so friggin' cowardly, when the real "blow" to children isn't caused by a group of people that forms such a small minority, but by the vast majority of us straight people who enter into and leave this sacred institution of marriage at the drop of a hat.

A. Thats not me, I've not divorced.
B. I agree divorce is a terrible blow to children, and I detest the culture of "self fulfillment" that spawned it ( although illegitamacy is an even worse disaster).
C. Short of completely changing current culture WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE AS A SOLUTION?
D. WEAKENING traditional concepts of marriage is certtainly NOT THE answer to THAT question. THATS WHAT GOT US TO THIS POINT.

[DannyTN]

"Charges must be raised first(AG)."

Well don't police normally charge at the point of arrest for crimes in process. Then the arresting officer takes them before a judge who hears the charge. Why does that have to involve the AG?

[ellery]

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.

Did you miss where I said in my post my husband and I suffer from infertility? I assure you I know more intimately about both adoption and advanced reproductive technology than most people (and by the way, it's been a heartbreaking several years, so I'd appreciate it, if you care to continue this discussion, that you spare me the sarcasm).

I've learned through talking to many others afflicted with infertility that there are some people for whom fertility technology cannot work. There are also many reasons that preclude some people from adopting. It's a long, messy, bureaucratic process, and not everyone gets approved. So how do you propose to deal with the sad group of people who want children, but have exhausted all avenues in vain? Will you de-marry then? If not, how do you justify not doing so?

[Carry_Okie]

Did you miss where I said in my post my husband and I suffer from infertility? I assure you I know more intimately about both adoption and advanced reproductive technology than most people (and by the way, it's been a heartbreaking several years, so I'd appreciate it, if you care to continue this discussion, that you spare me the sarcasm).

My wife works in an in vitro clinic at Stanford. The sarcastic response on my part you earned inferring that my prposal would force childless couples to divorce. With as careful as that proposal was, you should have read it a little more carefully.

I've learned through talking to many others afflicted with infertility that there are some people for whom fertility technology cannot work.

That's true, but don't you think you should talk with an honest and qualified specialist? Need a referral?

There are also many reasons that preclude some people from adopting. It's a long, messy, bureaucratic process, and not everyone gets approved. So how do you propose to deal with the sad group of people who want children, but have exhausted all avenues in vain?

First, fix those "avenues," which larglely exist for the benefit of the poverty, race, and child welfare pimps (particularly by removing restrictions on interracial adoption). Second, there are other avenues to adoption besides the state, particularly as regards children from abroad.

Will you de-marry then? If not, how do you justify not doing so?

There is no tax, survivorship, or medical benefit distinction between married couples intending to raise kids and the life partnerships I envision. The distinction only applies to whether they raise kids. Thus, if you got married with the intent to have kids under that proposal, and then didn't succeed or chose not to have children and couldn't adopt, NOTHING would happen. NOTHING would change. If you chose to get divorced, the life partnership standards would apply to the dissolution.

[DannyTN]

"it's not a CRIME to do so, unless some other CRIMINAL code says so, or says "Any errors on the tax form are a CRIME."

Well someone posted legal language on an earlier thread that said anyone who solemized a marriage that illegal according to statute was subject to a $3000 and/or 3 months in jail. But I think the tread was about the Nevada clerk who was issuing licenses so it may have been Nevada law instead of California law.

[ellery]

That's true, but don't you think you should talk with an honest and qualified specialist? Need a referral?

Thank you, but I've been in treatment with a specialist for two years. I'm not sure how you inferred otherwise from my post. :)

First, fix those "avenues," which larglely exist for the benefit of the poverty, race, and child welfare pimps (particularly by removing restrictions on interracial adoption). Second, there are other avenues to adoption besides the state, particularly as regards children from abroad.

Again, I'm well aware of the particulars around international adoption. It still requires a very stringent qualification process -- one that some do not pass.

There is no tax, survivorship, or medical benefit distinction between married couples intending to raise kids and the life partnerships I envision. The distinction only applies to whether they raise kids. Thus, if you got married with the intent to have kids under that proposal, and then didn't succeed or chose not to have children and couldn't adopt, NOTHING would happen. NOTHING would change. If you chose to get divorced, the life partnership standards would apply to the dissolution.

Okay. So do you envision that couples who apply for a marriage license will attest to their wish to have children in order to get approval? Will there be a process in place to verify the truth of their declaration?

[Carry_Okie]

So do you envision that couples who apply for a marriage license will attest to their wish to have children in order to get approval?

They would already have done that via the selection of the type of license for which they had applied.