Skip to comments.
California Supreme Court Backs Gay Marriage
California Supreme Court Webpage ^
| May 15, 2008
| California Supreme Court
Posted on 05/15/2008 10:02:52 AM PDT by NinoFan
Opinion just released.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: caglbt; california; friberals; gaymarriage; heterosexualagenda; homosexualagenda; judges; lawsuit; ruling; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420, 421-440, 441-460 ... 601-613 next last
To: Osage Orange
Ummmmm, which gun do I marry?Big Bertha
To: CitizenUSA
422
posted on
05/15/2008 10:59:59 PM PDT
by
Mr. Silverback
(It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.)
To: LukeL
Robert Bork was right. Except now we are Sprinting Towards Gomorrah.
To: Mr. Silverback
Nice post. See the first couple of links in post 189 Thanks. Really appreciate you pointing out the links as I had missed those. Very useful references to have at the ready for us members of the "Bible-thumping fuddy-duddies".
424
posted on
05/15/2008 11:05:18 PM PDT
by
AHerald
("Be faithful to God ... do not bother about the ridicule of the foolish." - St. Pio of Pietrelcina)
To: LaurenD
425
posted on
05/15/2008 11:06:11 PM PDT
by
Mr. Silverback
(It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.)
To: NinoFan; TraditionalistMommy
Is interesting your favorite word or something? Sheesh. I've noticed gay marriage proponents can't win--or even hold down--an argument based on reality, so they have to pretend that the average gay marriage opponent is some sort of raving bigot.
426
posted on
05/15/2008 11:07:50 PM PDT
by
Mr. Silverback
(It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.)
To: RepublitarianRoger2
427
posted on
05/15/2008 11:17:47 PM PDT
by
Mr. Silverback
(It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.)
To: TraditionalistMommy
The majority determined the analogy does hold. A majority determined that Dred Scott should remain a slave. A majority determined that a child was not a child, but a target if it was still in the womb. A majority recently decided that your government can take your property in order to help some merchant build his business. Before that, a majority told us that saying the Pledge of Allegiance at school is tyrannical theocracy. This month, a majority of the SCOTUS may decide that the 2nd Amendment means you have to join the National Guard in order to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights.
So keep telling us the majority is right because they're a majority, and I'm sure we'll start to believe you any time now.
428
posted on
05/15/2008 11:26:42 PM PDT
by
Mr. Silverback
(It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.)
To: purpleraine; AHerald
What's so bad is that 232 years after the declaration of independence someone has to explain this to people. Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least. - Bill Number 64, authored by [Thomas] Jefferson and "Reported by the Committee of Advisors, 18 June 1779"
I believe the word you're looking for is "Oops."
429
posted on
05/15/2008 11:32:53 PM PDT
by
Mr. Silverback
(It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.)
To: AHerald
You could have saved us both much more time if you'd simply declared your intellectual superiority from the beginning. Then I could have proceeded directly to bowing and genuflecting in defeat before the overwhelming weight of your arguments. Truly, you were robbed of much valuable and edifying bowing and genuflecting time. It's good for the soul, don't you know.
430
posted on
05/15/2008 11:35:32 PM PDT
by
Mr. Silverback
(It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.)
To: Mr. Silverback
I believe the word you're looking for is "Oops."Delicious nugget. Thanks. I'm so gonna use that.
431
posted on
05/15/2008 11:37:07 PM PDT
by
AHerald
("Be faithful to God ... do not bother about the ridicule of the foolish." - St. Pio of Pietrelcina)
To: Mr. Silverback
432
posted on
05/15/2008 11:39:09 PM PDT
by
AmericanInTokyo
(Your cast vote: An oath sworn reflecting your closest philosophy on the ballot. Plan to LIE in 2008?)
To: NinoFan
Any thoughts on how this might impact the California vote in November?
We will have a constitutional amendment on the ballot, defining marriage as between one man and one woman, on the November ballot.
Does it put California into play? Will enough conservatives turn up to vote for that amendment, and go ahead and vote for McCain (presumably)?
We voted 61% to define marriage as between one man and one woman nine years ago. It was a referendum, not a constitutional amendment. I think the constitutional amendment is going to pass.
If this has already been addressed, please forgive.
433
posted on
05/15/2008 11:40:06 PM PDT
by
Marie2
(I used to be disgusted. . .now I try to be amused.)
To: DaveTesla
434
posted on
05/15/2008 11:40:25 PM PDT
by
Mr. Silverback
(It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.)
To: AHerald
Glad to help, FRiend. :-)
435
posted on
05/15/2008 11:42:14 PM PDT
by
Mr. Silverback
(It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.)
To: AmericanInTokyo
May I ask the meaning of your post, FRiend? Over at Aircraft Resource Center we often post an asterisk to indicate agreement, but I don’t want to just assume that’s what you’re doing.
436
posted on
05/15/2008 11:44:08 PM PDT
by
Mr. Silverback
(It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.)
To: Marie2
Does it put California into play? Will enough conservatives turn up to vote for that amendment, and go ahead and vote for McCain (presumably)? Not likely, according to data David Brooks from the NYT presented in early '05. Traditional marriage amendments passed overwhelmingly even in a couple of states that Bush lost in '04...Michigan and Oregon, IIRC.
437
posted on
05/15/2008 11:48:30 PM PDT
by
Mr. Silverback
(It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.)
To: Mr. Silverback
The idea that God wouldn't punish anyone because they do good deeds is a very dangerous theology to hold to. It would belike saying my wife wouldn't leave me for cheating on her, because I buy her expensive jewlery and provide for her as well. It comes across as an insult.
I am not saying God is going to strike down and pour out his wrath on California any time soon, but he would be well within his right to do so.
I am glad to see other people don't buy into this idea that we can erase the bad by braging about all the good we have done.
438
posted on
05/15/2008 11:53:46 PM PDT
by
LukeL
(Yasser Arafat: "I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize")
To: padre35
Im waiting for Ahhnold to come out and endorse the decision He already said he won't fight the ruling or help the people trying to change the Cali Constitution, so he implicitely endorses it.
439
posted on
05/15/2008 11:54:27 PM PDT
by
hattend
(We're so screwed)
To: TraditionalistMommy
Children would be possible. They can adopt. They can have a helpful friend carry a test tube baby for them.
They are already doing these things.
440
posted on
05/15/2008 11:58:10 PM PDT
by
Marie2
(I used to be disgusted. . .now I try to be amused.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420, 421-440, 441-460 ... 601-613 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson