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.
Say now, having a Phd does give one a nice title!
It may not be a lost cause yet. I found this from The San Fransisco Chronicle:
“The court’s decision could be overturned in November, when Californians are likely to vote on a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. Conservative religious organizations have submitted more than 1.1 million signatures on initiative petitions, and officials are working to determine if at least 694,354 of them are valid.
If the measure qualifies for the ballot and voters approve it, it will supersede today’s ruling. The initiative does not say whether it would apply retroactively to annul marriages performed before November, an omission that would wind up before the courts.
Liberty Counsel, which represented the group Campaign for California Families before the court in arguing for the state law, denounced the ruling and said it would ask the justices to stay its effect until after the November election.”
Here’s the full article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/BAGAVNC5K.DTL&type=gaylesbian
You’re right about that, forget about Hannity, Rush, they caved in to the homo agenda long ago, otoh try Savage, he should be all over this today.
BTTT!
I cannot speak on behalf of the mostly Christian Founding Fathers. But I believe that Christian state lawmakers would have outlawed overt idolatry despite today's politically correct interpretation of our 1st A. religious freedoms.
The reason for this is as follows. Thomas Jefferson noted that the Founding States had actually written the 1st and 10th Amendments to reserve government power to regulate 1st A. protected speech, press, etc., for the states regardless that they forbade the federal government from doing so. See for yourself.
"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed; and thus also they guarded against all abridgement by the US. of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, & retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this state, by a law passed on the general demand of it’s citizens, had already protected them, from all human restraint or interference: ..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozooBut also note that the honest interpretation of Sec. 1 of the 14th A. now limits what the states can now do regarding the regulation of idol worship.1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Here in Long Beach we have to endure the “Long Beach Pride” festival this weekend.
Can you imagine - a whole city officially taking PRIDE in sodomy?
::::::::
Yes, it is sickening. I grew up in Long Beach and spent most of my life in California — thus I am old enough to remember when this WAS a respectable state, the model for the nation, without question. Now it is a disgusting liberal dung heap, feeding off of ignorance, illegality, illegal immigrants, law-breaking local governments, and an MSM that will pander to, and fawn over, these freaks of nature that represent such an apparent part of their supporters. The people of California spoke out with Prop. 22 a couple of years ago, expressing their rejection of, and outrage at, the very concept of marriage as ANYTHING BUT something between a REAL MAN AND A REAL WOMAN, and the government just IGNORED THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, and the so-called mayor of San Freakcisco subsequently broke the law and issued marriage licenses. Liberalism is a sickeness and a disease of the mind and certainly flies in the face of anything American that is NORMAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL.
We’ll we agree on one thing: that’s your belief. I suggest you start a petition drive to outlaw idolatry and use the founders to support your case.
It’s going to be on the ballot in November, so the voters
have a chance to set things right. This is not a matter the
judiciary shouls be involved in: it’s up to the legislature.
“Could you give a brief summary of why this is destroying marriage. Ever since Mass. started this stuff, my marriage hasn’t been effected one bit and I don’t see how it ever will.”
THANK YOU! this doesn’t affect my marriage or my family for that matter. I think what destroys marriage are things like Brittany Spears and her 24 hour marriage and the like. 2 gay people wanting to be together doesn’t affect me in the least.
I truly would love to see polygimists go to the same courts stating the same arguments based on gays
Now say they did do this and I hope they will would the homosexuals still go on about civil rights etc bla bla
then I want someone to go to court and say they want to marry their horse and sue the same argument
I also would like if normal straight couples who are not married sue for the same rights as homo’s get in civil unions
No I would not want any to pass and I certainly would not want to see to men who poke each other or two women have sex with strap ons get married
one of those people is me I would like to add
Yes I lived in Massachusetts before I escaped
the schools are now teaching that it’s alright to have two mums etc
they are also telling children that it;s Ok for boys to dress as girls
not long ago a man went for his bar exam and refused to answer a question on gay marriage as his belief does not recognise it
they failed him
catholic adoptions have had to stop due to a so called gay couple wanting a child.
the courts said that it is law and that they have to adopt to this couple of people
of course ignoring the religious rights of the ORG
As for destroying my marriage , no but if a man has 7 wives well that isn’t
a man got caught having sex with an animal in massachusetts, he didn’t destroy my marriage either
those polygimists didn’t either
I could go on
so basically anything goes as it doesn’t destroy my marriage, forget about morality, forget about traditions etc
hey they are not hurting anyone leave them be, the animal might like it
Every argument used by the gay and the gay lovers can be used to suit others for other weird marriages
“I wonder how the IRS is going to treat “married” homosexuals for purposes of the unlimited marital deduction? “
There is no box for “gender” on the form, and all the data personnel do is enter the names.. as they appear.. and the filing status.. there have been several times in the past where the first names on a “married filing jointly” form have been traditional male names.. I”m sure there will be more in the future now.
1846: the Bear Flag Republic
2008: the Blare F** Republic
Odd, that people don’t want to outlaw divorce or single parents, but they want to save marriage from poeple who want to marry.
What do you mean, MY case?
I substantiated my reply to your question concerning idols with an authoritative excerpt from the writings of Thomas Jefferson, the main writer of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United States.
Jefferson clearly stated some things about our constitutional rights that you evidently did not want to hear.
What I didn’t want to hear is that in the US there is someone like you who wants to outlaw the practice of idolatry which is based on a religious concept.
These sodomites want us to believe that redefining a word that has ALWAYS meant a man and a woman is a good thing, as though there was some kind of illogical reason is wasn’t already done before.
Next, they’ll want to redefine “homosexual” or ban it as a word.
To equate marriage between a man and a woman to anal sodomy between two queers is an insult to civility and marriage.
“God instituted marriage way back at the “beginning”. And, satan’s been trying to destroy it ever sense. But, we all know (or should) who wins in the end.”
When was this? And in what sense? Certainly not in the way David, or Abraham, or Solomon, or any of the other biblical polygamists practiced it.
Any argument saying God instituted marriage could be used to say He instituted slavery or any number of abhorrent institutions practiced by God’s people in the Bible.
Marriage is a contract recognized by the state, regardless of what any scriptural text might say. The laws that govern contracts supersede any “biblical” definition of what marriage is.
Given that I understand you correctly, I've been there. I was wrongly taught that the 1st A., the establishment clause in particular, meant that the Founders had intended for us to have church & state separation. But I have since discovered that such an interpretation was nothing more than a special interest, politically correct perversion of the establishment clause by "former" Klansman Justice Black.
In fact, in addition to what I have already indicated about Jefferson's acknowledgment of state power to regulate religion, here's two more Jefferson excerpts which indicate the same thing.
"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378 http://tinyurl.com/jmpm3So by quoting Jefferson to help justify his perverted interpretation of the establishment clause, Justice Black actually quoted probably the worst person that he could have quoted in order to pull off his dirty work."I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. http://tinyurl.com/nkdu7
The bottom line is that the states have the constitutional power (10th A.) to authorized public schools to lead non-mandatory (14th A.) classroom discussions on the pros and cons of evolution, creationism and ID, as examples, regardless that atheists, separatists, secular judges and the MSM are misleading the people to think that doing such things in public schools is unconstitutional.
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.