San Francisco’s Gay Marriage Ruling Will Be Short-Lived

The Christian Post ^ | March 16, 2005 | The Christian Post

[DBeers]

San Francisco’s Gay Marriage Ruling Will Be Short-Lived

Just as Newsom’s arrogant decision to sidetrack California’s laws on marriage was struck down, the state’s high court should overturn Kramer’s contentious decision to redefine marriage without the people’s consent.

Same-sex marriage supporters lined the streets of San Francisco to celebrate a ruling that attacked California’s traditional marriage laws on Monday, in a manner reminiscent of last February’s scenes of gay-nuptial parades and rallies.

However, the gay marriage proponents’ jubilant celebrations are premature, and no one should think for a second that the battle for marriage is over.

First off, the ruling was only tentative. A final decision is not due until the end of the month – at the earliest. San Francisco County Judge Richard Kramer ordered the parties back to court for further evaluation on March 30.

Secondly, even if the ruling is finalized, it will be immediately appealed at the state level. And until the appeals process – which could take weeks or months to even begin – is completed, the ruling will not affect the state’s marriage laws in any way.

By that time, Californians may be given the chance to vote for a constitutional amendment that would protect traditional marriage from any further attacks from the courts.

Judge Kramer’s ruling comes exactly 13 months after Mayor Gavin Newsom unveiled his “Valentine’s special” for homosexual couples in the ultra-liberal city.

Just as Newsom’s arrogant decision to sidetrack California’s laws on marriage was struck down, the state’s high court should overturn Kramer’s contentious decision to redefine marriage without the people’s consent.

Furthermore, the advocates of traditional marriage must take this ruling as a warning – not a defeat – and make sure the state’s constitution is amended to include a clause defining marriage as it should be: a holy union between one man and one woman only.

[DBeers]

ping.

[Doc Savage]

Giving new meaning to the term "Back-door Homo Marriage"!

[Kozak]

We live in a judicial tyranny.
And they wonder why people are apathetic about voting?

[Uncledave]

It'll be as fleeting as most of their relationships.

[muawiyah]

Not just voting. Folks seem pretty apathetic when it comes to a judge getting shot right in court, or even having their families wiped out by mad-dog killers.

The ultimate risk for judges is that their profession becomes seen as arbitrary and capricious because at that point no one else cares for them as persons.

[krogers58]

If this ruling stands, how long will it be before someone wants to marry their dog? or cat? or whatever.....I mean, if we want to expand the definition of marriage to include this, why not animals? Should we preclude all those zoophiliacs their right to pursue happiness? Where does it stop, if this is allowed to stand?

[Hodar]

This is another case where we need to support our President.

I can see a very valid legal argument for allowing gay-marriage. We are all guaranteed equal protection under the law, thus gay couples need to have the same legal protection (rights) as heterosexual couples. This would mean that a gay couple can sign for medical procedures for his partner, would automatically inherit the mates possessions, estates and businesses - just like a married couple would.

I don't like this anymore than anyone else. I find this lifestyle repugnant, however from the cold-logic viewpoint; they have a legal point. Thus, the only way to stop this appears to be a constitutional amendment; at least until the Supremes declare it unconstitutional.

[sgtbono2002]

It doesnt take much to make gays jubilant and dance in the street , After all when the gathering is done the sex starts.

[acapesket]

You are so wrong!!
The Equal Protection clause is from the Bill of Rights and did not include Sodomy for a good reason!! Wasn't like it wasn't happening then!
We have a Supreme Court Justice ( not an American Citizen with "paid" Speaking Gratuiuties) here in MA who has been a great friend of GLESN, the attorney who brought the case for GLAAD and a Number of other ***holes for the moment shall remain nameless..
Unless "We the People" give up our Right to uphold the "Constitution" as it was written, then those who truly believe that Men having anal sex with other Men and/or Women who think pressing their pelvic bones together is A "RIGHT"..... will become the norm.. and that they some how are capable of having this "BLENDED FAMILY" B/S is in any way biologically "Normal"....
We as a Nation will have to get together and choose those who are Patriots to fight this genetic insanity.

[DBeers]

This is another case where we need to support our President.

Most like Bush already support a Constitutional amendment banning all homosexual couplings. Most also support banning any legal recognition of those whose only differentiating quality is depraved unnatural sexual gratification.

[doug from upland]

(from 4 years ago when Californians voted overwhelmingly for Prop. 22)

MIDI - HEY THERE LONELY GIRL

(musical intro)

Hey there lonely goat, lonely goat
Will you help defeat Prop. 22
Because lonely goat, lonely goat
If we win, someday I’ll marry you

Who’s to say what is perverse…right wing I curse
It’s none of their concern
Although I so enjoy your charms…in vacant barns
You have a lot to learn

Hey there lonely goat, lonely goat
Will you help defeat Prop. 22
Because lonely goat, lonely goat
If we win, someday I’ll marry you

I have enjoyed it one on one…but there’s more fun
Why don’t you ask me how
To do a threesome would be fine…indeed, bovine
Let’s find a cow from N.O.W.

Hey there lonely goat, lonely goat
Will you help defeat Prop. 22
Because lonely goat, lonely goat
If we win, someday I’ll marry you

Because lonely goat, lonely goat
If we win, someday I’ll marry you

[little jeremiah]

LOL!!!

[little jeremiah]

Actually polygamy has a lot more going for it than same sex "marriage". Each child would still have a mother and father, the sex acts are still normal, historically it has been accepted in various times and places, and there's no automatic disruption of the natural order.

Same sex "marriage" is more like child/adult sex - always taboo, all the time, always abnormal, always disruptive.

[doug from upland]

I make the case that if they change the definition of marriage, why can't the next person change the definition? Will gays say, "Oh no. You can't love your barnyard animal. That's unnatural."