California Supreme Court Backs Gay Marriage

California Supreme Court Webpage ^ | May 15, 2008 | California Supreme Court

[NinoFan]

Opinion just released.

[huldah1776]

It’s not only America that is heading into the darkness, it is the world.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

[Rennes Templar]

‘..the CA Supreme Court is actually very conservative nowadays.”

Voting for gay marriage is conservative in Kalifornia

[TraditionalistMommy]

I think you’ll have a hard time classifying homosexuality as a “sexual fetish” if you look up the definition of “fetish.”

That said, I have known some successful marriages in which sex was a crucial component. Haven’t you?

[jwalsh07]

Have your husband check your processor. Communicating with you is very difficult, you accept no inputs and output the same bad data repeatedly.

Perhaps he can reboot you?

[AHerald]

I do indeed think the issues are genuinely analogous, and remarkably so.

Come now, you don’t think I’m smart. ;)

Well, I sincerely did.

[RepublitarianRoger2]

Moral, religious, traditional, and “culture war” issues aside, can someone point me to a definitive list of the negative repercussions that legalizing gay marriage will have on a fiscal, tax law, and taxpayer-impact level?

[TraditionalistMommy]

Aw, you’re not really resorting to pedestrian ad hominem arguments, are you?

You haven’t been able to demonstrate that the data is bad. Nevertheless, I’m quite sure he would eagerly reboot me if I mentioned it, which is why I most certainly won’t be mentioning it tonight in my tired state.

[TraditionalistMommy]

Ouch!

The funny thing is, i think you’re too smart NOT to think the issues are genuinely analogous.

[huldah1776]

Just what is the difference? That Jesus is now in control? Did He not say,”...,I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
John 5:18-20
The New may have shown us the ultimate love of God, we often fail to see it in the Law, but it does not in any way negate the justice of the Old Testament. Since becoming a parent I see God’s love in the Old Testament much more clearly. Ever wonder why one of the first things we teach our kids is “HOT”? Because we don’t want our children to get burned. Just like God.

[SoldierDad]

Oh. I'm sorry for my assumption. Besides, it should have been “bigamist” anyway.

[pollywog]

NBC News just called it: “A big victory for gay rights!”

... WHOSE Gay rights???.. we who are moral and just have had " Gayity" stripped FROM OUR VOCABULARY EVEN!!!!!

[jwalsh07]

Have him reboot your sense of humor as well.

[Rockitz]

That staunch conservative governor of ours will certainly work to get legislation passed against this. /sarcasm

[TraditionalistMommy]

Oh, he would never do that. He’s a big fan.

Good night!

[jwalsh07]

"The majority refers to the race cases, from which our equal protection jurisprudence has evolved. The analogy does not hold. The civil rights cases banning racial discrimination were based on duly enacted amendments to the United States Constitution, proposed by Congress and ratified by the people through the states. To our nation’s great shame, many individuals and governmental entities obdurately refused to follow these constitutional imperatives for nearly a century. By overturning Jim Crow and other segregation laws, the courts properly and courageously held the people accountable to their own constitutional mandates. Here the situation is quite different. In less than a decade, through the democratic process, same-sex couples have been given the equal legal rights to which they are entitled.

In Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, we struck down a law prohibiting interracial marriages. The majority places great reliance on the Perez court’s statement that “the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one’s choice.” (Id. at p. 715.) However, Perez and the many other cases establishing the fundamental right to marry were all based on the common understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. (See maj. opn., ante, at pp. 54-63.) The majority recognizes this, as it must. (Id. at p. 66.) Because those cases involved the traditional definition of marriage, they do not support the majority’s analysis. The question here is whether the meaning of the term as it was used in those cases must be changed." Justice Corrigan

She writes better than I do and hopefully you will understand that your analogy fails constitutionally.

[cartoonistx]

[TraditionalistMommy]

The majority determined the analogy does hold. Dissenting judicial opinions are always worth reading, but often the minority opinion for good reason.

[darkangel82]

That’s why I’m not one, too.

[jwalsh07]

Which is exactly why I called you a supporter of judicial activism. Because you are. Fundamental rights have to be fundamental and traditional to qualify as such under constitutional law. Like I said you're a liberal. Liberals support judicial activism because constitutional democracy doesn't suit them. Your smarter than the rest of us and thus your will must be done.

Buenas Noches.