California Supreme Court Backs Gay Marriage

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

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

If you support marriage between two men, you support it between a man and his daughter.

As long as she's not still a minor, quite frankly I don't see how it's any of my business, no matter how screwy I think it is. The government has no business engaging in social engineering by defining marriage in any way - it's a religious institution.

[papasmurf]

It would be nice to be able to blame this on an extremely liberal court, but in truth the CA Supreme Court is actually very conservative nowadays.

Conservative being such a relative term, these days.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

They tried it twice already, didn’t go anywhere. It’s main back the second time, David Vitter, obviously takes the “sanctity of marriage” very seriously, cheating on his wife with a hooker. It may have been a useful issue in 2004, but it didn’t work in 2006, and sure as hell won’t work this year. The GOP seems to have learned absoultely nothing from 2006 and the special elections, trying the same old tricks that don’t work. I think it will be very funny if there’s a ballot initiative and it fails, like in Arizona.

[R_Kangel]

Gay couples here in California have been trying to argue that the tough State divorce rules are not in effect for gay couples since the so called "Marriage" they entered into was not recognized as being lawful.

Well, that is about to change.

California is a "Community Property" state which will be divided equally (50-50) by the court if the parties are not able to come to an agreement.

[B Knotts]

It was a mistake to use a merely legislative approach on Prop. 22. I knew from the start that the only way to get the homogamy ban to stick was to use a constitutional amendment, which is available to the voters in California.

We passed a constitutional amendment in Oregon. They have kind of circumvented that by legalizing civil unions, but that’s as far as they can go.

[pollywog]

“If God doesn’t soon bring judgment upon America, He’ll have to go back and apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah!” - Ruth Graham

AMEN to this... Oh God Revive us again!!!!

[manc]

can you help me out here

since the court in Mssachusetts and now california say it’s legal, ARF
then why isn’t this going to the supreme court and how on earth can a court over turn the law.

plus if an appeal goes ahead of which I hope it does then does this ruling by the court get put on hold until it does get to the supreme court which can take years can’t it?

sorry for the questions but wanted to clear this up

[manc]

remember their argum,ent is they love each other

well you can love a sheep

they are not hurting anyone
well neither are you with the sheep

it is their buisiness what they do in their bedroom
well it is yours to with your sheep

every argument they use can used for having more thna one wife or marrying an animal

maybe the polymists should get the law changed in Utah using the very same arguments and see how the homo’s will go mad and not say about civil rights after all where is their civil rights

another sham marriage comes to a state

[manc]

hey the polygamists should get their way of life legal

after all homo’s say it’s about civil rights

then their are muslims who say they should have 4 wives so let them have 4 wives, civil rights and religious rights you know

would the homo’s back them then

[HoosierHawk]

This must be in the "penumbra" becaue it's nowhere in the California constitution as written.

Just makin' it up as they go.

[Antoninus]

It may have been a useful issue in 2004, but it didn’t work in 2006, and sure as hell won’t work this year. The GOP seems to have learned absoultely nothing from 2006 and the special elections, trying the same old tricks that don’t work. I think it will be very funny if there’s a ballot initiative and it fails, like in Arizona.

Yeah, it'll be hysterical. I always laugh when my country goes collectively insane enough to confuse two sodomites with a husband and wife.

Of course, you're wrong. Arizona is the only example of someplace where a ballot initiative on this issue didn't pass. And if you research why, it's because all sorts of riders were tagged onto the initiative which were only peripherally concerned with homosexual faux-marriage.

Plus, it looks like the traditional marriage initiative will be back on the ballot in Arizona in November without the riders.

Butt-sex marriage is not popular with the voters and should absolutely be an issue so that we do not remain at the mercy of these black-robed dictators.

[manc]

well look at the homo’s who got a sham marriage in massachusetts

half of them nearly are divorced

what about the civil rights of a kid, I grew up in foster homes and I always wanted a father and a mother, so what about kids today does a girl have to settle for two daddies

bizarre
to think outrage about a man having more than one wife at that ranch yet no outrage from libs about two men poking each other and thinking they should get married

very bizarre indeed

[SF Republican]

We had a real colorful sunset last night - We live on the beach in SF and it truly was spectacular

[manc]

maybe I should turn muslim and have 4 wives then

we have a law defining marriage already but the libs and homo’s want to over turn the law to suit their perverted mental sickness

[Spunky]

"Does this mean that I can practice Polygamy now?"

If you haven't noticed Polygamy has been practiced for a long time, without anyone coming after them. It isn't until the charges of child abuse that action is being taken.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

By funny I meant ironic-funny, not “ha ha”-funny, but that's not really relevant. We'll see what happens with ballot initiatives this year, but even if they pass, it's not going to be nearly as powerful an issue as in 2004. In Wisconsin, a gay marriage ban passed in 2006, but that didn't stop the voters from overwhelming re-electing a Democrats to virtually every statewide office. This election pony trick isn't going to work anymore.

[avacado]

I think it’s time us Texans just close all borders surrounding Texas: the Mexico southern border and the U.S. north, east, and west borders.

It was a nice ride U.S.A. but it’s just getting too blue out yonder.

[KSoldier]

MSNBC staff and news service reports updated 22 minutes ago SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.

Biggest state????
You mean Alaska????

Biggest Socialist state, maybe.
Damn, those hippies sure think a lot of themselves.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

maybe I should turn muslim and have 4 wives then

Knock yourself out. It's none of my business.

we have a law defining marriage already but the libs and homo’s want to over turn the law to suit their perverted mental sickness

I'm against the whole idea of marriage as a government institution. The government has no business engaging in social engineering by getting involved in family, personal, and religious issues.

[manc]

so by that logic marriage could be anything

people marrying animals, as what as happened elsewhere in the world namely India

we can have more than one wife or husband

Kids as young 5 could get married

you need laws

if we don’t have a law defining then anything goes and anarchy happens