Posted on 12/20/2006 11:04:22 PM PST by Princip. Conservative
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The California Supreme Court unanimously agreed yesterday to decide whether the state's ban on same-sex "marriage" violates a constitutional ban on discrimination, though an outcome is not likely until late next year. The justices are reviewing an October decision by the 1st District Court of Appeal, which ruled that California marriage laws do not discriminate because homosexual couples can get most rights the state confers to married couples. Massachusetts is the only state that authorizes same-sex "marriage." California offers domestic partnerships, similar to civil unions in Vermont and Connecticut. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom authorized homosexual "weddings" at City Hall in 2004, but California's justices halted the ensuing spree and voided 4,037 marriage licenses, ruling the mayor did not have authority to make marriage law. About 20 same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco sued the state, and the case has meandered through trial and appellate courts. Had the Supreme Court not taken the case, the lower court's decision would have stood. San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said the city was "extremely gratified."
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Any comments, folks?
I know some of the socially moderate/fiscally conservative FReepers post how they wish us social conservatives would stop making a big deal out of gay marriage and abortion. However, to be fair, WE didn't start this fight. It was actually started a long time ago by liberal activists who used the courts to thwart the will of the people. We social conservatives didn't usurp extra-constitutional powers to take abortion legislation out of the hands of the states, nor did we create the right to gay marriage out of some twisted definition of civil rights.
kinoxi wrote: "I prefer voluptuous Caucasian women and feel that I am being unfairly denied here in Baltimore. I should sue..."
You really should. Your access to them is being unfairly restricted by marriage law. How dare they prevent you from having as many voluptuous wives as you want!
Don't sweat it -- the pols will figure out a way to cater to both groups via strategically placed code words.
kinoxi wants a harem. Well, once you take away the people's right to set community standards, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to have one. As long as the women consent, how can the moral barbarians possibly deny you? After all, the definition of marriage being the union of two people is completely arbitrary. You cannot help your desire for multiple wives--it's completely natural and undoubtedly genetic.
durasell wrote: "Don't sweat it -- the pols will figure out a way to cater to both groups via strategically placed code words."
No doubt, and then they'll go about doing whatever they want once elected.
It's also important to note that while it would be nice if Republicans didn't have to deal with issues like gay marriage now, failure to deal with such issues immediately makes it much harder to deal with them later.
I was born this way. Why should some queer have more rights to pervert marriage than I do? It's disciminatorialistic I tell ya.
Further, polygyny in no way undermines the most important purpose of marriage--identifiable offspring. If a man has three wives, he'll have no trouble knowing which children are his (all if his wives' children), nor will the wives have trouble knowing which children are theirs.
supercat wrote: "It's also important to note that while it would be nice if Republicans didn't have to deal with issues like gay marriage now, failure to deal with such issues immediately makes it much harder to deal with them later."
Agreed. I think we've learned a lot from the abortion issue. That's why social conservatives are considering something as unprecedented as a constitutional amendment to stop gay marriage. Frankly, it's probably only a matter of time before a court rules gay marriage must be accepted nationwide under the full faith and credit clause. Shoot, I'm not sure even a constitutional amendment will stop them after the way the SCOTUS did an end run around Congress on the Geneva Convention ruling. How much longer will Americans suck it up as the courts seize powers not granted by the Constitution? It's been going on for decades!
supercat wrote: "Further, polygyny in no way undermines the most important purpose of marriage--identifiable offspring."
Well, you've certainly convinced me. Seriously, there are far, far more historical precedents for polygamy than gay marriage.
Exactly right. The usurping of political power by the 'gay' movement through the judiciary is the first and overriding issue.
Judicial dictatorship was sought by the anti-traditional marriage movement because it will never win in the court of public opinion.
"I know some of the socially moderate/fiscally conservative FReepers post how they wish us social conservatives would stop making a big deal out of gay marriage and abortion. However, to be fair, WE didn't start this fight. It was actually started a long time ago by liberal activists who used the courts to thwart the will of the people. We social conservatives didn't usurp extra-constitutional powers to take abortion legislation out of the hands of the states, nor did we create the right to gay marriage out of some twisted definition of civil rights."
That's right. We can't let these people take over the government. They don't want us taking over the government but they want to. Now what kind of deal is that?
joeu wrote: "Judicial dictatorship was sought by the anti-traditional marriage movement because it will never win in the court of public opinion."
It gets even worse. The activist judges are supported by many of our senators and congressmen who stand by moaning how their hands are tied. In fact, liberal senators and congressmen LOVE activist judges. Why pass legislation when some judge will do it for you AND take the blame? It eliminates all that messy voting stuff, and you can claim you had nothing to do with it.
PC wrote: "We can't let these people take over the government. They don't want us taking over the government but they want to."
Conservatives don't want to "take over" the government. Conservatives want the rule of LAW. That means you stick to the clear meaning of the Constitution. If you disagree with it, then you amend it. What you don't do is subvert the nation's governing contract to get your way. Of course, what's right and wrong any more? Don't agree with something? Hire a bunch of lawyers to fight it, and you'll eventually find a judge somewhere who is willing to do your bidding. Disgusting!
I thought California already decided, and that the decision was that marriage was between a man and a woman.
Silly me. I thought the voters of California already made their decision overwhelmingly in June of 2000, wasn't it?
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.