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.
Thank you for the historical perspective. The only point I am discussing with you is that you can believe anything you want about idolatry, but the government is prohibited by the constitution from prohibiting the rest of us from being idolaters; and especially from codifying your definition.
I agree, and I don’t see how they can lose. Seems to me it’s wide open now to marry who or whatever you wish to. Any laws regulating marriage will begin to fall away like dominos.
Yup, and that’s exactly the plan, unfortunately. Not to join society, but to destroy it.
Homosexual activists have long understood the radical power of achieving official recognition for homosexual relationships as “marriage.” Here is a sample:
“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution."
—Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT magazine, December/January 1994, p. 161.
* * *
"[E]nlarging the concept to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new....Extending the right to marry to gay people -- that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage -- can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past."
—Tom Stoddard, quoted in Roberta Achtenberg, et al, "Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges to San Francisco's Families," The Final Report of the Mayor's Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1.
* * *
"It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."
— Michelangelo Signorile, "I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do," OUT magazine, May 1996, p. 30.
* * *
“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. …In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.”
—Paula Ettelbrick, “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?”, in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405.
And there’s this from pro-homosexual and pro-pedophile author Judith Levine:
“Because American marriage is inextricable from Christianity, it admits participants as Noah let animals onto the ark. But it doesn't have to be that way. In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the ‘repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.’ Would polygamy invite abuse of child brides, as feminists in Muslim countries and prosecutors in Mormon Utah charge? No. Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders.”
— Judith Levine, “Stop the Wedding!: Why Gay Marriage Isn’t Radical Enough,” The Village Voice, July 23-29, 2003. Levine declines to mention that the 1972 Gay Rights Platform also called for abolishing age of consent laws. This is a curious omission since Levine herself has written in favor of lowering the age of consent to 12 for sex between children and adults in her book Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex (p. 88). http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0330/levine.php
Good thing we all agree that marriage is a legitimate concern of the state. How many of you actually believe that there really is a “right to marriage”?
You're not thinking.
It depends on what you are idolizing. If you're idolizing illegal substances, for example, then there are definitely codes working against you.
This is about legitimizing homosexuality and therefore making it a “normal” way of life. It is no longer an “alternative” lifestyle. And with this normalization it will be so much easier to gain converts making it even more “normal.” It will be presented to children just as you said. The more the merrier. And yes it’s sick, and so very tragic.
So, did he (Rush) say anything more than 2 sentences about this?
That is the opposite of a successful political strategy where you build momentum and membership up over time.
It fits the definition of a romantic emphatuation. At first the voters heart is a-flutter with the wonderfulness of the new, uncorrupted, outsider. After the first blush wears off he starts to notice she's a little older and uglier than he first noticed.
Among my acquaintances I have a set who always go for the unsullied outsider. One friend voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and Ron Paul in 2008. What do they have in common? In terms of the issues: nothing. In terms of emotional appeal, a great deal. Both adopted the crusading outsider, heroic odds, etc. Both appealed to the self righteous seeking an iconic, uncorruptable candidate.
Nothing wrong with voting that way if it's what floats your boat. Still the POTUS is either going to be Obama or McCain. You can influence the choice the most by voting for one of them. Vote for Keyes, Barr, Nader or Ron Paul and you are "sending a message". Whether anyone is listening is a longer and very interesting question, but you have essentially abdicated your input to the question at hand. Again, no problem. It's a free country.
If the time for judgment on America has come, you're right.
But personally, I'm going to counsel that we go down the path of repentance, mercy, and revival for America (ala II Chronicles 7:14) right up until the minute the judgment falls, or I draw my last breath.
No offense, but, in my opinion, you need to give more thought and prayer to what the actual question is.
Not that I noticed, but I haven't watched the las hour yet.
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.