California Supreme Court Backs Gay Marriage

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

[NinoFan]

Opinion just released.

[cartoonistx]

Gay marriage isn't about creating "equal rights" for gays. It's about destroying a society they are alienated from. If you can't recognize this is a cultural war, you're going to help lose it.

Well said! If marriage is ONLY about love, not the safety and ancestrial rights of a couples' offspring, then how can the state deny my right to love and marry 54 other people? Or my own brother? Or my own daughter? What gays have done is akin to pulling down Lot's front door! Somebody is gone be a pillar of salt before too long!

[Mr. Silverback]

Ah, the guy who says that countering terrorist propaganda is the same as being a Nazi has decided to call me a clown.

Yeah, that sure hurts. Why don't you call me a ham sandwich while you're here.

To quote Commandant Edwin Spangler, "Oooooowwww, make it stop."

[AHerald]

Traditional marriage is a thought crime and thus the state of california deems parents who teach it as abusing their children.

Well written.

[Eric Blair 2084]

I'm not vomiting because I care if somebody is gay or not. It's not my business what a consenting adult does with a manatee or a water buffalo in the privacy of their own home. I'm only physically ill because in the Democratic People's Republic of California, homosexuals rank higher than me in the pecking order. I'm just jealous.

Politicians

Unions

Environmentalists

Liberal Media

Homosexuals

Illegal Immigrants

Criminals

Terrorists

IV Drug Users

Mentally Retarded

Transvestites

Military

Private Property Owners

Unborn Children

Christians

Gun Owners

Smokers

Taxpayers

[1035rep]

"What I object to is society being forced to accept it as natural and normal."

My thoughts exactly.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

Forgive the length of the response. I started to write something brief and it turned out not so brief. It's my weakness.

I do that too. Oftentimes I find myself having to go back and edit for brevity.

We're talking about the law of the land.

The problem is, my whole argument is against having a "law of the land" for marriage to begin with. It's a religious institutions, and the definition and meaning of marriage vary in different faiths.

Now, I would argue that it's a verifiable fact that all of these behaviors I listed have had as their natural outcome the harm of the family and the society at large. You obviously don't agree with that assessment. But regardless of what your or I believe about the moral character and/or destructive nature of those behaviors, it's a historical fact that they were all once the behaviors of an extreme minority which stood in opposition to the larger society which shunned and condemned those who practiced those behaviors.

I think this is the heart of the reason we can't reach a consensus. There are many behaviors, including homosexuality, that you consider to be a threat to the family and I do not. I think that's the reason why we can't have government involved in these types of issues - reasonable people have a variety of values and beliefs. When I have kids (hopefully, gotta meet the right woman first!) I intend to teach them that there's nothing wrong with being gay. You have the right to do differently. The government shouldn't push one way or the other.

I could probably say a lot more, but I think I've made my point - gotta work on keeping in short and simple!

[1035rep]

I don’t want an earthquake, I live in California. I want a Tsunami. Once we lose the coast, California will be a red state. The liberals can rebuild their basements elsewhere.

[Repeal 16-17]

What I object to is society being forced to accept it as natural and normal.

Liberals don't care if you accept their way of thinking. They just want you to obey and not express a contrary opinion.

[Mr. Silverback]

How is it being forced on you? Unless somebody attempts to rape you, it's not being forced on you.

I didn't say homosexuality was being forced on anyone, I said that gay marriage is being forced on us. Really, you don't think acceptance is being forced when a court legislates from the bench and overrides 61% of the electorate?

Barry Goldwater didn't believe in legislating morality. Neither did Ronald Reagan.

Really...because Ronald Reagan was a pro-lifer. Or is that different? Also, I must have missed those times that Reagan and Goldwater endorsed major, unnecessary changes to the social fabric in the name of libertarianism.

Neither does anybody who's actually a conservative.

Here's a tip: The first sign you're off course as a conservative is that you become one of those people who tells other people they aren't real conservatives because they don't agree with you on one or two issues.

People's rights and property still have to be protected. This is implicit in the statement that government shouldn't enforce morality.

Whoa, wait a minute. Who's rights are damaged by the flasher?

As for people's rights and property being protected, meet Leo Childs, Scott Brockie, Ake Green, Scott Savage, Crystal Dixon, and Ene Kiildi.

Go on feeding the alligator. Maybe it will eat you last.

[purpleraine]

The freedom is to select your mate not the one you want them to select. Doing away with slavery was a monumental change, women voting was a monumental change, how many times do I have to say this, shall I go on?

In a free society the right is there unless you can justify the restriction. Your religious beliefs or because you think it's icky is not sufficient to continue the restriction.

What's so bad is that 232 years after the declaration of independence someone has to explain this to people.

[purpleraine]

I have been asking this all day, how does gay right to marry destroy society or your marriage? The answer is, it doesn't. It just makes you mad that "they" would get away with doing something you don't like.

If you're so concerned about two-person hetero marriage, then outlaw divorce, single parenting. There's far more of that and it's far more destructive than any two gals or guys who want to marry each other.

[The Ghost of Rudy McRomney]

My oldest Sister lives in SF, and has for decades-since the late 60s. she comes here for a vacation every year, and has kept me updated throughout that time. I say ten years.

[NinoFan]

Yep, I have family there. They’re looking to move. The whole state is going to crap thanks to the RINO scum and Democrats. I try to visit there as little as possible.

[The Ghost of Rudy McRomney]

I believe this is the second time you recieve my nomination for a post of the week, sir. That was brilliant.

[Mr. Silverback]

First off, if they're vanishing, then you are protesting way too much.

The phrase "vanishingly small" means that a group is very tiny, not that they are actually disappearing. BTW, How big does a minority have to be before it's not OK for them to screw the rest of us out of our sovereign right to self-government?

Our you suggesting the fabric of our society has not changed since the late 1700s?

A civilization is built with bricks called "families." The Left prefers those bricks to be made of Gummi candy.

I don't see how we can vote to restrict the freedoms of others. We did that in the past and it was wrong then and wrong now.

1. One is not any more free to marry a person of the same gender than they are to take a cucumber to the the DMV and register it as a Ferrari.

2. So...if 61% of Californians voted that a man can't marry his sister, would that be wrong? If 61% of Californians voted that a man can't marry two women, would that be wrong? If 61% of Californians voted that a man can't marry his dog, or a 12 year old, would that be wrong? If not, why not?

3. Yes, freedom. Tell that to these folks: Leo Childs, Scott Brockie, Ake Green, Scott Savage, Crystal Dixon, and Ene Kiildi.

Keep on feeding the alligator. Maybe it will eat you last.

[purpleraine]

You have no sovereign right to unnecessarily restrict the pursuit of happiness by others. Did you go to public school or were just sick when the important stuff was being taught?

If you're so interested in families, campaign to outlaw divorce and single parents.

The rest of your post is nonsense. In fact, do what you want, I'm through with you.

[Mr. Silverback]

What’s the problem?

The probem is that calling someone Fred Phelps is calling them "evil." Either you think someone is evil because they believe America is playing with fire or you don't. If it's the former, then you should say so. If it's the latter, then you shouldn't use Phelps name any more than you would say "Hitler, is that you" when someone said Germany is their favorite country.

The handle is a bit tongue-in-cheek.

Fair enough.

[wardaddy]

Well done!

[Mr. Silverback]

Merci, mon ami.

[Sloth]

It would mean that interracial couples would have been denied the right to marry until about the 1990s, according to all the poll data regarding attitudes about interracial marriage.

I'd like to see this data (including the exact wording of the question). I don't buy it for a minute.

BTW, for what it's worth, I am of the opinion that the government should have nothing to do with marriage except allowing individuals to designate heirs, 'next of kin' status, etc., to whomever they want -- most of which can probably be done right now via wills, contracts, powers of attorney, and so on.