This will be on the ballot in November.
Going to be a great issue for the presidential election....was great for 2004..
Posted on 05/15/2008 10:18:34 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court has overturned a gay marriage ban in a ruling that would make the nation's largest state the second one to allow gay and lesbian weddings.
The justices' 4-3 decision Thursday says domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage. Chief Justice Ron George wrote the opinion.
The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march.
The case before the court involved a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn a voter-approved law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
With the ruling, California could become the second state after Massachusetts where gay and lesbian residents can marry.
"What happens in California, either way, will have a huge impact around the nation. It will set the tone," said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of the gay rights group Equality California.
California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support. It's therefore unclear what additional relief state lawmakers could offer short of marriage if the court renders the existing ban unconstitutional.
A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine California's current laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.
The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signature to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.
The cases before the California court were brought by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom's direction.
This would actually lead to freedom. That would be strange wouldn't it.
On the incest side, do you think that prohibition against relatives marrying stops those who want from having sex. I know that's icky, but the good news is that reportedly there's not much of that happening.
The logic fallacy of composition states that if it is (or isn’t) true for the one example, then it is (or isn’t) true for every example. So, your example of YOUR marriage is entirely irrelevant.
The INSTITUTION of marriage must be maintained, as I stated in my previous post, in order to maintain our society as a whole. Its definition must not be changed, nor watered down, and must not become meaningless.
The societal advantages are numerous, as many studies have indicated. Less crime, less poverty, better education - all are correlated with married couples raising children in that context.
“This would actually lead to freedom.”
Freedom of perversion is a good thing?
To an anarchist no rule is a good rule, no law just, and no one is an authority. How about we just go to the law of the jungle? Considering how mean I am I’d like that.
The IRS being a federal agency doesn’t have to recognize the marriages as such. Of course there will be a big fight on the federal level whether or not such marriages will be recognized in all fifty states due to the ‘faith and credit” clause of the constitution. The IRS tends to win many of the big battles....
Did you all have a second convention and not invite me?
Seriously, Cali is a mess, and I don’t see a clear way to clean it up. It’s still a fine piece of dirt, but the kooks and nuts inhabiting it make it a daily challenge.
It does however give people the opportunity to make the "wrong" decision. That's why we don't vote on other people's liberty. And we have to put up with stupidity and things you may think are immoral.
I don't get your anachist anaolgy. You're exaggerating.
No one is dismantling the institution. It is being expanded to let others get married.
I don't get it. Wouldn't gay marriage lead to more monogomous relationship amongst homos? Isn't that a good thing?
I don't buy that gays are destroying marriage by wanting to be married. I see it as them coming around to recognizing a good thing and wanting to have it for themselves.
From: http://www.wevotevalues.com/11arguments.pdf
The third reason marriage between homosexuals will destroy traditional marriage is that this is the ultimate goal of activists, and they will not stop until they achieve it. The history of the gay and lesbian movement has been that its adherents quickly move the goal line as soon as the previous one has been breached, revealing even more shocking and outrageous objectives. In the present instance, homosexual activists, heady with power and exhilaration, feel the political climate is right to tell us what they have wanted all along. This is the real deal: Most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to create an entirely different legal structure. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax‐free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, and much more) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would “couples” be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed. If you doubt that this is the motive, read what is in the literature today. Activists have created a new word to replace the outmoded terms infidelity, adultery, cheating, and promiscuity. The new concept is polyamorous. It means the same thing (literally “many loves”) but with the agreement of the primary sexual partner. Why not? He or she is probably polyamorous, too.
I'm aware of the slippery slope arguement. I say, draw the line at the schoolhouse and the playground and stop trying to restrict people on the basis of what you don't like about radical activists.
PS: Here's a tip, women vote now and blacks are allowed in town after dark.
SHAME! Shame and outrage. That’s all there is to say. This vile deed will not stand. The ballot proposition in November will pass, and it will stop this outrage.
I hope you didn't think I acepted this bit of illogic because I didn't parse every word. You do rely on logic don't you?
Based on the benefits of a heterosexual, two-parent marriage, how can you allow divorce and it's evil impact on children?
What should we do about all those single parents?
If gays marry wouldn't some of those benefits occur or would their children be little homo scouts running around bringing friends home so their parents can have sex with them?
Once the foundations of thousands of years of tradition defining marriage are removed,
all you have left are the whims of the judiciary.
Seriously, 1 man 1 woman is NOT just one point along a “slippery slope”. It is the platform that, once removed, allows all that is based on it to tumble without restriction to the lowest common denominator.
It is NOT a slippery slope argument.
Not going to happen. The President is not an entry level job. Alan Keys does not have a reasonable background to be POTUS. He needs to run for, and win, some other office. His miserable campaign against in Illinois gave us Senator Obama, so his track record is poor.
It must be tough being a single homo when those activists are forcing them to get married so that they can destroy our marriages and take over the country.
If you have some time to address the questions I asked, rhetorical as they may seem, have at it.
Women voting hasn't destroyed the country and that was said to be immoral. Now if we can just stop some of the men from voting, we can move along.
You just hang your hat on your little narrow view of history.
And you seem pretty animated about this, given the your inability to let it rest. Are you trying to convince me, or yourself?
“Why don’t we just let the poor homos get “married”, it won’t affect me none...”
Big picture - something you can’t see. Don’t worry, there are people that are more far sighted than you that will try to preserve our society for your grandkids.
And I’m not so sure how you can say “women voting hasn’t destroyed the country” when we’ve jumped on the bandwagon to socialism ever since.
Slavery
women voting
Women showing skin below the neck
Having sex with another woman when your wife can bear a child.
Taking land by force and killing the inhabitants.
Torturing and killing people who have the wrong beliefs.
Women wearing pants.
Dancing
Eating and vomiting to eat again
I'm getting tired.........
reversed some, but you get the point.
Your comment about women voting wrong is a good place for me the rest my case.
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.