Posted on 05/23/2008 9:12:25 AM PDT by The_Republican
This ruling gives lawyers and judges a bad name. Welcome to our elite rulers!
Now, the issue has moved to the front burner as a result of the 4-3 homosexual marriage decision of the California Supreme Court. Even more interesting, the issue is still on the front burner, a week after it came down. In short, this issue could be a major element in this fall's election, in part because the reversal of this decision by constitutional amendment.
Good. All good.
Congressman Billybob
The gay marriage ban is against the nondiscrimination ban in the state constitution. The citizens of California will just have to change the state constitution.
For example, the DC Gun ban, that was approved by the elected representatives, the cops and the citizens of DC. But that law conflicted with the US Constitution.
If we wish to say the Judges acted improperly in California gay marriage, then we must agree the Judges acted improperly in the DC Gun Ban case as well.
Show me in the “law of the state” where it says that homosexuals can not get married... It doesn’t! It does not allow for them to marry each other which is what this is all about. As far as I know, it’s also not legal to marry their siblings...or their kids...or their parents...or their pets. So, homosexuals are treated just like everyone else — within the confines of what society has deemed acceptable behavior!
No it's not. A marriage is between a man and a woman by definition. Any man, gay or straight, can marry any woman, gay or straight. There is no discrimination.
One detail - a big one - marriage is and always has been defined as the legal/spiritual union of a man and a woman. The only variations I know of in all of history have been over whether a person could marry more than one person of the opposite sex at the same time and over the age or degree of familial relationship at which marriage was permitted. As an unmarried adult American man, I had the right to marry an unrelated unmarried adult American woman, and I did so long ago. Every unmarried adult in this country has the right to marry under the actual definition of marriage (i.e., someone of the opposite sex). Most homeosexuals choose not to exercise that right, and some want the courts to give them a new right, the right to a legal union with someone of the same gender and to force others to call that union "marriage". Wishing or declaring that they had such a right won't make it so, nor will activist wishes put that right into the state Constitution.
If the justices shove this one down our throats, it'll be just like Roe v. Wade. The rulings will lack validity because there is no Constitutional basis for such a ruling, creating a perennial battle that will never be resolved. I will never refer to a pair of men or of women as "married" to each other. The people can amend their Constitution to redefine marriage, or their elected representatives can pass legislation that changes the requirements for what the law will recognize as marriage, and either would be more effective in the sense of resolving the legal question than a ruling from an oligarchy of justices. What will not work is for a small group to discover that such a right has always existed, unobserved since Thomas Jefferson enshrined it in the United States Constitution in 1787 or since Semple slid it into the California Constitution in 1849.
Rights we don't have: I cannot marry a second woman before divorcing my wife, not even if we're in love, even though an unmarried man would have that right so I could claim discrimination. I cannot marry my mother, sister, or daughter (ew! in all three cases). I cannot marry a pet or a farm animal, not even a cute one. Even if I actually wanted to do any of those things, my whim does not make such a desire into a Constitutional Right. Similarly, I could not marry another man, either after divorcing my wife or without divorcing her. Freedom of speech gives people with those desires the right to agitate for the creation of the rights they want, but it doesn't keep the sensible majority from thinking they are anywhere from a bit odd to phenomenally gross for wanting to do such things, not to mention self-centered pests for claiming that their wants are actual rights.
I will continue praying for God to protect the Constitution from the threat of activist justices. Once we decide that the Living Constitution is legally a document that means no more or less than the consensus interpretation of a small group of Justices, we will have decided that the Constitution means nothing at all. The United States will be a nation ruled by a few men rather than a nation of laws. Even those who like the outcome of activist rulings over the past four decades should be very afraid of what rulings the next four decades might bring in the absence of a meaningful Constitution.
but that definition is a legal definition and the legal definition of marriage is contrary to the state constitution.
The State Constitution defines what the laws can and cannot say.
So you would rather have thousands of Jim MaGrevies and Larry Craigs running around starting families and fooling around on the side or have Jim and Larry marry and leave more women for the rest of us.
You are completely wrong. The State Constitution was not drafted to restrict how legislators could define legal terms, including marriage.
Constitutions are designed to limit the power of the state.
For example look at the bill of rights. 9 out of ten tell the Federal government “No.”
Gays have precisely the same right to marry under the current definition of marriage as any heterosexual. I cannot marry someone of the same sex, and neither can they. They can marry someone of the opposite sex, as can I. What they have not suceeded in doing is redefining marriage. Homosexual activists seek to have their relationships elevated to as high a level of societal value and recognition as heterosexual marriages. They can only accomplish this by judicial fiat.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
But you can marry somebody you love and want to have sex with, they can not. What you are doing is in fact destroying marriage by encouraging sham marriages.
How does this stop a straight couple from getting married and having kids? How does this undermine the many legal and cultural protections we give maried couples?
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.