Posted on 05/15/2008 10:31:42 AM PDT by PROCON
SAN FRANCISCO - A deeply divided California Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in an opinion issued Thursday morning.
Wild cheers echoed throughout City Hall and other spots where proponents had gathered Thursday morning awaiting the opinion, which came on a 4-3 vote.
The case stems from challenges to state law by gay couples who were married in ceremonies at San Francisco City Hall in 2004, when Mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Legal challenges to those marriages eventually led to the high court invalidating them six months later. California voters already had approved by a wide margin a measure in 2000 that declared marriage to be only between a man and a woman.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
I do not have a law degree but have family full of them(good enough for my standards).
Without going in to detail, this could potentially have huge ramifications on the definition of “Family” in the eyes of the law. Parental rights,the education system,and the overall governmental intrusion in to private lives of traditional families might be intense.
But McCain supports gay marraige.... and worked actively to prevent a Marriage Amendment to the US Constitution.
Anyone with a law degree know what this will mean for the rest of the country?
Sames sex couples married in California will have same family status in all 50 states who do not have gay marriage. Much like your drive’s liscense be recognized in other states, so will your marriage license.
Why do so many assume that McCain will appoint real Conservative/constructionist judges? He was one of the traitors that enabled the Democrats to obstruct the appointment of strong constructionist judges over the last 7 years.
“When the depraved becomes the norm what’s depraved anymore?”
The WRONG here is the seizure of power from the People to legislate as they see fit.
The issue of two men or two women pretending to be "married" is not what's at issue here. THAT issue was won with the voters of California, and re-arguing it here, under these circumstances, has NO CHANCE of changing the outcome.
What needs to be put in front of the People now is NOT how we feel, or think they should feel, about homosexual "marriages" or other homosexual behavior.
The People need to understand that this ruling is an illegitimate seizure of THEIR OWN POWER TO GOVERN THEMSELVES.
This has the advantage, once that battle is won, of putting an end to these rulings once and for all. If, in ten years and after ten billion dollars, you are able to amend the California Constitution, they'll just be back in court with gay scoutmasters, or polygamy, or heaven knows what.
Defeat the problem at it's source - end legislation from the bench. If you amend the Constitution to do THAT, there's a victory worth having.
Sounds like its time for another ammendment.
Yeah, what a surprise.
So the people voted against these faggots getting married? Well who in the heck do the people think they are? Don’t they realize that it’s 4 leftists on the court who actually run the state?
You got it exactly right. There is also the rather interesting problem that the IRS does not recoginize same-sex unions, nor does Social Security, so there may be a suit in the U.S. District Court under some unique theories that enumerated powers under the Constitution do not allow the federal government to fail to recognize a lawfully sanctioned marriage in any state of the union.
But it will be Full Faith and Credit that’s going to fast track it to the Supreme Court, I think.
I’m not a buddy, I’m a “buddette”.
And where was it ever written that a candidate has to stay the same on any issue? I hear Obama is now pro-gun and pro-flag-pin...
Of course McCain seems a little more dense than most.
Lots of homosexuals will be moving to California and lots of moral people will be moving out. Let them have California and suffer the consequences.
The way I read the decision, the justices are pretty clear that absent CONSTITUTIONAL provision for the definition of marriage (it’s currently found in the Family Code), under the equal protection clauses of the California Constitution, marriage should not be denied to two persons simply because they are of the same sex.
The 2000 vote simply advised the legislature that they didn’t want the current Code definition changed. It did not frame marriage as a constitutional issue.
Therefore, I think Napolitano is wrong - changing the Constitution of California changes the law itself and the California Supreme Court decision today will be rendered moot. Which is why I think the Court will be petitioned to hold off implementation of its decision until it is determined if the issue will be on the ballot (they’re checking petition signatures now) and if it qualifies, the Court will be petitioned to again hold off implementation until the vote in November.
Let’s hope what plays in California, stays in California. I know some homosexuals that I work with are already going bonkers with glee.
That would be a great thing.
Then when the big one comes and CA slides merrily into the ocean, we are rid of ‘em.
Obama is a lying SOS. He is not pro-gun or pro-flag. He hates America as we know it, just like all leftists hate American. He also is as anti-gun as any leftist can be. He is lying to try to win votes. The left has always lied and tried to act more conservative during an election because the country is center-right and they would not win without doing so.
Obama is for gay marriage (like any other liberal democrat), but he will lie and say he is not to win votes. Gay marriage is a losing position, and he knows it. He is already plotting a way to lie about his true belief on the issue. You can count on that.
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.