Posted on 03/14/2005 12:16:45 PM PST by Dont Mention the War
Breaking...
I know, but never give up never surrender.
I have fun at bar conferences arguing with mentally unarmed lawyers.
That is actually a damn fine argument against this I hadn't considered. I will remember that if it passes and my father or grandfather becomes a widower...then I'll tell my little brother to consider it. BTW, I will also be recording your ISP just in case my grandad, dad and little brother gang up on me to beat the crap out of me for even suggesting it. :)
Probably the first time she's worn makeup in years.
Well, when the SCOTUS or any other court suddenly finds new rights and penumbras of emanations of legal principle that the previous two centuries of legal history failed to discern, then they are making law. Or can you point out exactly where the constitution (California or Federal) says that any court has the authority to overturn a law it finds 'unreasonable' on general grounds? Or, has the legislature suddenly redefined marriage?
I'm sorry, but if the Constitution now means the rest of have to bow and scrape and ask 'by your leave' of robed frauds every time a piece of legislation is passed, then we need a new Constitution.
I've had these discussions before with other attorneys on FR and (as appears to be the case here) they seem unable to stop thinking like a lawyer and to start thinking like a citizen.
lawyer slang call this situation "black robe fever". Essentially the autority of the judgship causes the lawyer holding the judgship to believe they are "god". (if not THE "god") The start to worship themselves.
What legal status do you support for gay couples?
Marriage 41%
None 36%
Civil unions 23%
Total Votes: 72,500
because they think people are misinterpreting the constitution, and want to make sure it doesn't happen again.
I found nothing in the California Constitution mentioning marriage.
If the courts adopted common law as their seed precident then the common law of one man one woman controls and has to be given broad leaway.
By throwing their buttocks Heavenward, it is, by definition, mooning!
Employee benefits are not "rights".
---
You go, GVgirl... I had the same reaction to that phrase!
For a fairly liberal (but definitely variable) state, that seems about right. What does that mean?
A ban on gay MARRIAGE would likely pass and be written into the constitution. (I think it would pass in all 50 states, 9 of 10 Canadian provinces if the vote came up and most Western countries)
A deeper legislation banning civil unions as well would have a harder time passing. It would be a squeaker...it may only come up with 45% or so.
Something WILL happen though, and it won't be legal gay marriage. (Massachusetts was a fluke, I don't think it will stay there forever)
"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."
Well said... When Brown v Board of Ed was passed down, the nation was starting down the path of desegregation and cultural change already - Jackie Robinson, integrated army, etc.
To see a Supreme Court "profile in courage" would have been if the Supremes had properly interpreted the 14th in Plessy v Fergesun in the 1890s. No such luck ... or for the court to admit they are wrong and overturn their abomination called Roe v Wade.
Wont happen. The Judicial branch could be a wonderful branch of Govt, but has been corrupted ever since FDR tried to pack it. Liberal activism has replaced jurisprudence. The legal profession itself is now mostly corrupted with bad ideas about the law. Consequently, there is little that can be done but to patiently fight these battles one by one.
I agree, regardless of where they politically lead, the Supreme Court is out of control. They are an unelected, unaccountable body whos main purpose is to oversee and confirm, not revise or especially not force changes on the population.
No jurisdiction (that I can name) has legalized gay marriage by democratic decision...
You think "cutting jobs, outsourcing, and giving other folks less than they got before' is because of large companies giving gay employees partner benefits?
---
No, but all of above happened at my employer, and you miss my point.
Your phrase "employee benefit rights" is nothing but a big joke to 20-year employees who found out their pension is not what they planned it to be, where GE/Enron-style RPA are installed to get rid of 'overpaid' workers who built up tidy salaries based on loyalty and seniority. I say it because I've seen it first hand; not me but people I know.
If Gays are pleading from "rights" from employers, they are pleading for something that NOBODY ELSE HAS. There are no "employee benefit rights" except the right to leave your job if you dont like what your employer is handing out.
I think you underestimate the civil union ban. EVERY state that also baned civil unions had that pass with ease.
Personally when I explain how civil unions are just homosexual marriage without the M the person generally "gets it". (unless they have been a leftist lawyer)
In fact the "whisper" at the last bar convention has been that judges would just allow marriage to stand and impose marriage lite by going "around" the constitutions. Thus a ban on civil unions is no longer a potential compromise. it is inevitable.
I wonder what other recreational behavior is going to recieve such enhanced protection as homosexuals are demanding.
You hit the nail on the head. What the judge has done is set aside the law restricting marriage to certain individuals. It opens a huge can of worms.
If there can be no laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman, there can be no laws banning polygamy, or banning marriage between individuals with close bloodlines.
Legally, Marriage is: "The civil status, condition or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex." Black's Law Dictionary, (Fourth Edition)
No matter what the MA Supreme Judicial Court or the activist judge in Kalifornia want to pretend, homosexual relationships, no matter how "loving", are not marriages. They can never be marriages. Marriage is unique in that it is founded upon the distinction between the opposite sexes.
If I have an Orange in my Hand, and I insist to you that it is an apple, That doesn't make it an apple. No matter how much I personally believe or want what I have in my hand to be an apple, it does not make it an apple. No Court, No Law, No Edict and No amount of insistance can change the fact, that what I hold in my hand is still an orange.
Marriage is a unique relationship between a man and a woman BASED ON THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IN SEX. That last point, of which I keep harping is key.
Without the fundamental difference in sex, you can't have a marriage. What makes a marriage a marriage is the unique relationship based on the Distinction of the sexes.
This is the precise conclusion that the Kentucky Court of appeals reached in Jones V Hallahan when they said:
In substance, the relationship proposed by the appellants does not authorize the issuance of a marriage license because what they propose is not a marriage.
This is the precise reason that the Baker Court (a position that was affirmed by the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT in Baker V Nelson) stated:
[I]n commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.
It is not the job of Congress to help a minority play pretend. It is not the job of any court, it is not a function of government.
This entire issue is soley about a small and vocal minority trying to use the power of government, to rewrite the definition of a word so they can gain acceptance and approval.
Just as government doesn't have the power to issue edicts pretending that the Sky is Red, neither do activists have the power to use government to pretend that their relationships are a marriage.
Kalifornia and MA can play pretend all that they want, but it doesn't change reality, and guess what else, under the Constitution, the People of Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Utah, and the other 33 states that have expressly defined marriage what it really is, don't have to play pretend with perversion either.
The leftists may not like it, but it is fact.
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.