Posted on 07/28/2009 6:26:47 PM PDT by Maelstorm
When the California Supreme Court in May decided to ban all same-sex marriages from that point forward, but keep valid the 18,000 gay marriages that already went down, it never addressed one other little matter: what to do about out-of-state gay marriage. Enter State Sen. Mark Leno, who wants to give the Mormon Church an aneurysm with a new bill that would recognize those unions.
Just like Washington D.C.'s City Council did, California could be en route to banning gay marriage in its own borders, but opening itself up to gay Iowans and Bay Staters who wed in their home states. S.B. 54 would amend state family law and, argues Leno, remain within the confines of the court's ruling.
The fine print: Only couples who wed out of state before Prop 8 passed would get to use the word marriage; couples who wed afterward would receive marriage rights, but not the M-word. The bill would seemingly encourage — or at least not disallow — Californians to travel to other states where gay marriage is legal, tie the knot, and return home demanding the same rights as married heteros.
Naturally, Prop 8 supporters are upset. Pacific Legal Institute president Brad Dacus calls the bill a "cheap shot." Which it totally is! But no cheaper than, say, his team's decimation of the wedding industry.
Anybody who wastes time to campaign for gay marriage must believe that no other problem in the political system is orders of magnitude more important. For that error, they are fools.
I agree. I personally dislike chasing the issue but what they count on is that we will tire and they will win out of pure diligence.
What?
"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
I swear I thought it was THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA who decided they didn't want male on male sodomy accorded the same status as holy matrimony.
Silly me.
What if the other 56? states made a law that gays could legally get married if they promised to move to Californication immediately and permanently and then when the earthquake hits we have many less gays. I know, just fantasy but....
I understand your frustration but we need to realize that we can win this battle just as we are winning the battle against the global warming nuts. Our biggest problem though is the lack of conservative champions for this issue. They are afraid I believe. Why else do they ignore increasing numbers of gay rapes of young adopted kids? Why else do they ignore the rampant gay indoctrination in places like Massachusetts and California and even throughout the nation because the little after school clubs are sprouting up all over the place.
Just look at this:
http://americansfortruth.com/news/breaking-no-nudity-crackdown-in-san-francisco-police-again-allow-rampant-public-nudity-sex-acts-at-deviant-up-your-alley-street-fair.html
That kind of thing just went on and not a peep. Not an arrest. Cops were cordoned off so they couldn’t enforce the law as perverts were getting each other off in the streets.
Not a peep from our vaunted conservative leaders. Not a call for Nancy Pelosi to do something about her district, nothing. Where is Glenn Beck? Where is Rush Limbaugh? Or even Michael Savage? Fox News occasionally reports on bits and pieces but they also seem to not want to offend the gay radicals.
I was 14 yrs old before I ever heard the word homosexual and when I asked my mother what a homosexual was she told me to look it up. Boy was I shocked!
I’m glad you think we’re winning because I’ve been pretty pessimistic today and then I had the TV on HGTV and they had a couple of queers on.
We can win. Do we have the will to that is another question. It is people standing up and just making rational not angry arguments. I get angry because of the lies and because of the innuendo if one dares question the gay party line. I don’t hate gays but I do hate the activism and I believe the lifestyle is without question wrong. That so many wish to deny basic physiology for the sake of political correctness is not a sign that we have lost only that we have allowed so many to remain naive on the matter. There are real costs to the permissiveness and that no one dares address those costs because those costs involve sex is a study in irrational denial.
Didn’t prop 8 already define marriage as between 1 man + 1 woman..
Then this bill is UnConstitutional.
Yes, but if you don't cover every nook and cranny of possibility, the activist courts will slide something completely contrary past the law.
What's needed now is an aggressive effort to amend the amendment to EXPLICITLY prohibit ANY same sex marriage in the state - period - as the original amendment provides for. This would take a Herculean effort, but I think it's do-able and necessary to push back the homosexual tide. But I don't think "conservatives" have the heart to do this.
Didn’t prop 8 already define marriage as between 1 man + 1 woman..
Then this bill is UnConstitutional.
Oh, please.
This is a non-issue, a clownish perversion (excuse the word) of public discourse.
Yes? If people were only passionate on one side of this issue then 1) That would be really weird & 2) You would be correct about people getting worked up over nothing. One sided passion is usually more about obsession. However, I think this is an issue that should make people on both sides feel passionate and motivated. They are both fighting for what they believe to be the proper future of the family.
Marriage is an institution meant to encourage (and reward) parents for creating families that can support not only children, and relatives of both partners.
In general gay partnerships do not have these characteristics. The unions are not stable enough to be places where relatives can hope to be supported in time of need. Nor are they created with this in mind.
The insistence of gays to undercut the original purpose of marriage is very selfish. It’s all about the them, the partners. If gays really care about future generations, they will enter into unions in the role of traditional parents, and attempt to be supportive of relatives and possible children.
Enough cycles spent on this.
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.