Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FNC: California law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional
Fox News | March 14, 2005

Posted on 03/14/2005 12:16:45 PM PST by Dont Mention the War

Breaking...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: 1996; aba; adoption; amendment; behavior; children; dma; doma; father; federal; fma; gaymarriage; glsen; homosexualagenda; hrc; lamda; legal; marriage; mother; orgasm; pedophile; pflag; ruling; samesexmarriage; sex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 421-438 next last
To: heleny
To be put on the ballot by the legislature would require Democrats to support the referendum, since Republicans are less than half of each house. I really doubt that would happen.

I agree. The only possibility I could see is if there was high publicity and they were shamed into it with a "Let the people vote on what they want" campaign. After all, they would only be voting to allow it on the ballot, not to implement it.

341 posted on 03/14/2005 6:56:34 PM PST by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: WOSG

Nobody is mentioning that there is no "love test" for marriage. A homosexual man who marriage a woman will not be asked if he "loves" her. He is free to marry her and give her insurance or obtain her insurance.

I am sure there are f*g h*gs out there who would welcome the opportunity. (is there a male equivalent of a f*g h*g?)

The only way this judge could come this this conclusion that even the lowest standard does not meet the liberal needs, would be to ingnore all common law and all common sense. This just just made it up. His logic would not pass muster on a first year law school exam.

A constitutional amendment appears that it will be the first step in fighting back the judges.


342 posted on 03/14/2005 7:00:01 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: WOSG; SilentServiceCPO
"They are not meant to be a justification for polygamous unions in and of themselves, it is my assertion that polygamous unions need no justification other than some people love each other and want to spend their lives together and enjoy the same benefits as monogamous men and women. What I have sought from this discussion is a reason for that not to be the case, and I have addressed those reasons as they have appeared. Please don't take those responses and presume that they are the justification for polygamy. As I said, I believe it needs no justification other than it's existence."

Same thing for beastality and Pedophilia after all they exist so we must tolerate it!

343 posted on 03/14/2005 7:05:05 PM PST by D-Generation X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: SilentServiceCPO

Okay... Thanks for that, but I still don't quite get it. Like, it shouldn't have to do with judges distorting the will of the people. What I understand from the legal ruling itself is not about what a majority wants. It is that they are saying they do not find that the constitution says gay marriage is wrong. And to me, that's consistent with someone saying we need to amend the constitution to MAKE it illegal. Do you see my point? I mean, does it make sense? It seems like if we argue that the judges are wrong and so that gay marriage is against the constitution, then we can't turn around and say that we need to add something to the constitution so that it says gay marriage is wrong.

This seems so obvious to me that I know must be simple. :)


344 posted on 03/14/2005 7:05:59 PM PST by Rambler7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: WOSG

"Gays are pleading for employee benefit rights to health insurance for their partners. "

Yeah, and many big employers already provide that ... meanwhile those same employers are cutting jobs, outsourcing, and giving other folks less than they got before in other ways. I know. Been there, seen it.




I was actually following you on your earlier post about the constitutionality and judges, but on this one I gotta laugh. You think "cutting jobs, outsourcing, and giving other folks less than they got before' is because of large companies giving gay employees partner benefits? Wooo-weeee. earth to WOSG. that's some pretty paranoid ranting.


345 posted on 03/14/2005 7:10:27 PM PST by Rambler7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: DBeers; SilentServiceCPO; WOSG

Okay, I think between the three of you, I got a handle on it now. The constitution is always open to interpretation and so one can say or not say that gay marriage is banned by it. And when judges do that, their decision has some "teeth," of course. Meanwhile, if you add the specific amendment against a right for a group, you are making much more sure no one will ever be able to change it.

I have one remaining thought about amendments that give groups rights vs. an amendment that takes them away, especially pending additional scientific knowledge we may someday have on the matter, but I do now understand the logical explanation of my confusion.

Thank you, very much, ladies and/or gentlemen.


346 posted on 03/14/2005 7:15:28 PM PST by Rambler7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: SilentServiceCPO
Now who who you like living next to you, a quiet, loving couple, going to work each day, cooking out in the back yard, mowing the lawn, you know, normal people stuff OR a nominally married gay couple, hitting the bars at night looking for love/sex, different men/women over every night, and loud raucous parties?

Are you implying that gays cannot behave themselves without marriage ?

347 posted on 03/14/2005 7:15:41 PM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Rambler7

It does make sense to cut benefits if you are a smaller business and would have to provide it for homosexuals. Just like the increased costs of smokers drove that one business to restrict hiring them. It is only logical that a lifestyle choice that leads to a life expectancy of fourty with a prolonged and horribly slooooooow death would removed from the cost of insurance where possible.


348 posted on 03/14/2005 7:19:07 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: TheRedSoxWinThePennant

bttt


349 posted on 03/14/2005 7:24:01 PM PST by TheEaglehasLanded (S)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Rambler7
You can buy health insurance for anyone you wish also. You only have to be legally entitled to contract. Personally, I think the third-party pay system for health insurance is a big scam and I'm getting an HSA this year.

Employee benefits are not "rights".

350 posted on 03/14/2005 7:33:32 PM PST by GVnana (If I had a Buckhead moment would I know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: OhioAttorney
RE: judicial activism: ...even people who don't like it date it from at least as long ago as Marbury v. Madison (1803)...

I disagree and am of the same opinion as Justice Scalia that Marbury v. Madison was virtual plagarism of Hamilton in the Federalist Papers #78, in which Hamilton argued that the judiciary is the "least dangerous branch" and not a threat(overstepping its role).

Hamilton's Federalist Papers #78 argument defended judicial review of congressional acts -as such, the Marbury v. Madison ruling was not a deviation from the original intent of the Constitution nor an attempt to invoke a new general meaning of law or new law. [It] was simply the judiciary doing its job...

351 posted on 03/14/2005 7:33:50 PM PST by DBeers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: Rambler7

Why would same sex marriage be "constitutional"?


352 posted on 03/14/2005 7:34:53 PM PST by GVnana (If I had a Buckhead moment would I know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

Thanks for the ping!


353 posted on 03/14/2005 7:44:05 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

It is convenient that that trolls and MSM homo-adocates forget that UTAH was admitted on the condition they adopt one man one woman marriage. It was the FEDERAL legislature setting the standard.

I wonder what other recreational behavior is going to recieve such enhanced protection as homosexuals are demanding.


354 posted on 03/14/2005 7:51:59 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Rambler7
Anyway, it's the exact opposite of what you say. ("Gays don't want tolerance, they want equivalence.")
============================================

Did you read what you wrote? Did you read what I wrote? My comment is dead on --- they want equivalence. If it were the exact opposite, they would want tolerance, not equivalence. That is the exact opposite. Who taught you to frame an argument?

Gays want to be recognized having a marriage being the moral equivalent of a male and female. Sorry, it is not. I am not misinforming anybody. If gays want insurance together, a policy is available.

It is amazing when people "want" something just to satisfy themselves. Society and what is best for the propagation of the species be damned. There is going to be someone, as I said earlier, who is going to demand the right to marry a barnyard friend. Why can't he do that? Once you change the definition of an institution that has stood the test of time for centuries, that institution will be on a downward spiral.

It is the death of our civilization when a gay couple will get affirmative action for the adoption of children. It is beyond idiotic to think that children do not benefit from having a mom and a dad. I have heard the argument that it doesn't make any difference. That is unbelievable.

355 posted on 03/14/2005 7:52:54 PM PST by doug from upland (Ray Charles --- a great musician and safer driver than Ted Kennedy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: OhioAttorney
No, that's pretty much how the Constitution was intended to work, and I have yet to meet anyone -- conservative or otherwise -- who really thinks it's always a bad thing when the SCOTUS applies a Constitutional limitation in a new way.

Then you need to review the Lochner era supreme court. Obviously you support such extra-constitutional activism.

356 posted on 03/14/2005 7:52:56 PM PST by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

You can tell folks that until you're blue in the face and they will just slough it off Longterm. It's pretty frustrating to keep arguing the same irrefutable points. They just don't care about the facts, the law, the Constitution or the notion of rule by the people.


357 posted on 03/14/2005 7:55:00 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: Aetius

The act of this judge shows the need to outlaw domestic partner/civil unions equally with homosexual marriage.

It is worth noting that ALL marriage amendments and the proposed federal marriage amendments are positive. They say what marriage IS. The do not limit any rights any more than the voting age law limits the rights of voters.


358 posted on 03/14/2005 7:55:03 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: SilentServiceCPO
just rather pointing out that the Federal Government does have the right, even obligation, to step in when necessary

OK, under the 14th and 15th amendments, it has a limited obligation to guarantee that no state infringes upon the rights of a US citizen, assuming Congress has passed legislation specifying the remedies to be enforced, as the amendments clearly state.

Those amendments do not so much empower the courts to enforce the Bill of Rights against the states as much as the Congress, and the courts derived much more effective authority for enforcement after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than anything they managed to do in period from the 1954 Brown decision until that time.

The notion of the 'heroic' Supreme Court taking on segregation is a bunch of self-serving twaddle-- without the Civil Rights Act and an Executive willing to enforce the law, the Court wouldn't have been able to do much.

359 posted on 03/14/2005 7:55:07 PM PST by pierrem15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
Good post DB.

The Myth of Marbury persists with a new twist. Judicial review has now become judicial supremacy.

360 posted on 03/14/2005 7:59:37 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 421-438 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson