Posted on 05/15/2008 10:02:52 AM PDT by NinoFan
Opinion just released.
Given what I've read from the opinion so far, if California's majority voters want to allow only man woman marriages then it is up to them to flex their voting muscle to amend their constitution to say so, the judges be damned.
The bottom line is that Californians can choose not to be slaves to their own constitution or the judges who interpret it.
And to think, people once made light of folks that married a cousin, and today condemn polygamy, while allowing the most disgusting, disease-ridden, subpopulation on the planet to legitimize their deviant behavior. Just as in ancient Rome, homosexuals will quickly access young boys, demanding leadership and access positions in the Boy Scouts. Already they enter schools to groom the little boys for what homosexuals have to offer—a version of the Will and Grace show.
OK guys, Bill Gates is mine. No prenups, no long courting period, bring it to me Bill. Did I say no prenup?
If he’ll have me.
The Republic continues to slip on a banana peel in slow motion.
You're right. The timing couldn't be worse for Obama and the Dems.
Naturally no one has read the entire opinion yet, at least not well enough to digest the whole thing. Clearly the judges are hedging their opinions and I think it will be narrower than first appearance, however it is a setback for traditional marriage advocates.
As I look at this strategy, I think the mistake California and other states are making is setting up a parallel legal relationship for gays, in California recognized “civil unions”. It appears to have been, as many warned, a camel’s nose under the tent strategy. Once ensconced as legally accepted, the gay rights organizations argued that there was no reason for a parallel relationship and attacked it as unconstitutional. The court looked at the constitution, said “by golly” and held that a two-tiered legal recognition of personal relationships wasn’t addressed by the Constitution and seems to violate the Equal Protection Clause which most, if not all, states have in their constitutions.
The way to attack this is to amend the Constitution and have it survive a legal attack by proving that marriage between a man and woman benefits the community in a different way than the homosexual relationship. That argument can be made but it would take years. In the meantime, look for a stampede of laws in the Assembly to forestall such a tactic.
One of the worse mistakes Conservatives make is underestimating the long-term strategy (and the evil intent) of their adversaries. I’m beginning to think that Conservatives needs to think long and hard about stopping the internecine sniping with each other and banding together in private political action committees to work on long-term agendas. California is almost totally dominated by liberals so there is little to be done in the short-term. In the longer term, we can work to get true Conservatives into the halls of power in spite of the fact that they might not be a clone of ourselves.
Moving to the national arena, I am very disappointed in McCain but I truly fear the repercussions to the nation if a Democrat is elected president. I think November is lost whichever way we go but I think it is time for Conservatives to flex their muscles by pulling money out of the Republican Party and putting it into strong PACs to make the Republican Party do their bidding, just as MoveOn and Soros’ Open Society have used concentrated funds to call the tune for the Democrat Party. We are a people who distrust large organizations but that is all we have to combat the liberal organizations who are now calling the shots for both parties.
It has to be appealed to go to the Federal courts. Ya think a liberal like Arnold is going to give the green light to that?
I find it interesting that Sean Hannity -- who helped that idiot get into office -- hasn't said a word about this decision to open his show today.
The good guys will file for cert. If at least four want to take on the case, cert will be granted (”rule of four”). I think Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts will want to hear this.
SCOTUS likes taking on cases where the law is in turmoil. This ruling is perfect b/c you have a federal law (DOMA) being overridden by a state law.
It’s not the individual part that’s the problem.
It’s that they have now ruled that COUPLES have equal rights.
You always had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex, whether you were gay or straight.
But they have now ruled that your rights are based on your status in RELATIONSHIP to another.
There were no individual legal rights being withheld. The state never gave the “right” to do what felt best to you, just the right to get certain benefits if you formed a monogomous heterosexual relationship.
I can think of no compelling state interest in encouraging same-sex couples. I can define the compelling state interest in encouraging opposite-sex couples.
The court has ruled that I can NOT find a compelling reason to encourage one, and not the other.
California needs a marriage amendment. Arnold is fighting it.
Did you have to put down your banjo to post that?
“I don’t speak lawyerese—can someone translate this ruling into plain basic English?”
Corrigan explained it pretty well in her concurring and dissentin opinion:
The voters who passed Proposition 22 not long ago decided to keep the meaning of marriage as it has always been understood in California. The majority improperly infringes on the prerogative of the voters by overriding their decision.
It does that which it acknowledges it should not do: it redefines marriage because it believes marriage should be redefined. (See maj. opn., ante, at pp. 4-5, 109.) It justifies its decision by finding a constitutional infirmity where none exists.
Plaintiffs are free to take their case to the people, to let them vote on whether they are now ready to accept such a redefinition. Californians have legalized domestic partnership, but decided not to call it “marriage.” Four votes on this court should not disturb the balance reached by the democratic process, a balance that is still being tested in the political arena.
A belated welcome to FR, friend.
If you do it, I'll be at your consulate in Illinois the day it opens to apply for a visa.
That’s the problem. Individuals had the right to be treated equally under the law, regardless of sexual orientation.
But there is no constitutional right to marriage of any kind. as a religious structure, marriage is outside the purvue of the state. As a state sponsored relationship, marriage is a benefit the state provides in exchange for doing something the state wants to encourage.
The state has decided that it is good for society to have stable heterosexual relationships, primarily for the purpose of procreation (although they don’t restrict it that way).
Frankly, this is a war that is going to be lost throughout the country. As much as we dislike it, people are conditioned through 50 years now of public training to NOT discriminate, and they believe this is discrimination. We can pass some constitutional amendments in states where there are good, moral older people training up good children.
But the public schools are brainwashing the kids to SUPPORT gay marriage. It’s just a matter of time before we can no longer get a majority to support marriage.
We can only hope that we can keep the state from interfering in RELIGIOUS marriage, and maybe simply have state domestic partnerships. Because this could easily turn into a requirement that churches marry gays or lose their tax exempt status.
“[I have] a problem with homosexual acts, as I would with what I would consider to be acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships . . . if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery.” –Rick Santorum on gay sex, AP interview
How dare you try to interfere with someone's sex life? What business is it of government's if they do it behind closed doors? And besides, animal cruelty is outlawed by most religions, so it shouldn't be a government issue, but a religious one.
If the same group gets out in November to vote for the marriage amendment, they can overturn this court ruling.
It’s usually good for Republicans if there is a marriage amendment on the ballot, unless the democrats successfully label the republicans as racists — blacks actually support gay marriage amendments.
All it will take is one gay couple whining that Wyoming doesn’t recognize their marriage and it’s off to the SCOTUS.
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.