Posted on 05/26/2009 11:05:33 AM PDT by DesertRenegade
The California Supreme Court today affirmed a voter-approved state constitutional amendment that limits marriage to one man and one woman.
But in a decision today that essentially was a 6-1 vote, the court upheld the estimated 17,000 to 18,000 same-sex relationships that were formalized last year between its approval of "gay marriage" in May and the November ballot initiative that overruled the decision
"We conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision. As a quantitative matter, petitioners concede that Proposition 8 which adds but a single, simple section to the Constitution does not constitute a revision," said the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald George.
"As a qualitative matter, the act of limiting access to the designation of marriage to opposite-sex couples does not have a substantial or, indeed, even a minimal effect on the governmental plan or framework of California that existed prior to the amendment. Contrary to petitioners' claim in this regard, the measure does not transform or undermine the judicial function; this court will continue to exercise its traditional responsibility to faithfully enforce all of the provisions of the California Constitution, which now include the new section added through the voters' approval of Proposition 8," he said.
"Furthermore, the judiciary's authority in applying the state Constitution always has been limited by the content of the provisions set forth in our Constitution, and that limitation remains unchanged," said George.
At issue was the Proposition 8 state constitutional amendment adopted by voters in November. At its adoption it became part of the state constitution, defining marriage as being between one man and one woman only.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
OK, I'm wandering a bit far afield from the topic now: I don't believe that Marriage "represents" that relationship, in the sense of that being the purpose of Marriage.
Jesus was using Marriage as an analogy for our relationship with God. But Marriage was instituted in order to form societal units, not simply so that centuries later God could reveal that it was a symbol.
I would contrast that with Baptism and the Eucharist, both of which are instituted as symbols of our relationship with God.
I was simply providing the verse I was quoting since you wondered where in the Bible it "said that". Maybe I misunderstood what the "that" was that you were refering to. It did come to my attention that I seriously gunked up my last sentence about love, so that many people thought I was saying that Marriage had nothing to do with love, when what I was saying was that love will remain in heaven and be perfected, while marriage will not.
The libs at digg and reddit must be blowing gaskets by now. (’specially reddit, where the atheists seem to run the place.)
you’re preaching to the choir here, but you said marriage isn’t about love. The text clearly states that it is.
The text said that husbands should love their wives, not that men should marry the one they love.
I do agree with you, however, I think you took my post a little too literally. I would love to marry Jennifer Love Hewitt. My chances however are pretty slim, actually I don’t have a chance at all.
I understand your point and I appreciate your approach to posing your view. I believe that none of us are born gay. I believe that gays make a choice to be gay. Whether it’s just feeling more comfortable with the same sex, not having good experiences with the opposite sex, what ever the case may be. It’s a choice. I have met some women who have told me that it’s so much easier being with a woman than being with a man. They said that they never thought of women, but after having bad experiences with men, they CHOSE to go to women. I had a friend growing up who told me that he was gay because he felt more comfortable with men. The gays that I have met, not one has said I born this way. Maybe they think they were, but they never said that.
Will employers now be required to give them benefits, and will the government have to pay Soc Security survivor benefits to these "spouses?"
Also, do other states have to recognize these 17,000? marriages..
“and can a gay who is now legally married, one of the 17,000, and then gets divorced..is he somehow “grandfathered” and eligible to get married again..”
No. It’s the marriages that are being recognized. The court didn’t create a class of marriage-eligible gays. If they divorce, that’s it.
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.