Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. judge refuses Prop. 8 backers' request to dismiss gay-marriage case
Mercury News ^ | October 14, 2009 | Howard Mintz

Posted on 10/14/2009 2:38:30 PM PDT by La Enchiladita

Edited on 10/14/2009 2:46:47 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

SAN FRANCISCO

(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: california; gayagenda; homosexualmarriage; prop8; sanfransicko
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last
To: La Enchiladita

The Supreme Court is the only thing left that will stop this, which means one person, Anthony Kennedy, will decide this case. Scary thought. But I have to be hopeful that Kennedy will vote in favor of prop. 8


21 posted on 10/14/2009 3:43:39 PM PDT by BlueStateBlues (Blue State business, Red State heart. . . . .Palin 2012----can't come soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
Marriage is not just a recent legal construct that was arbitrarily bestowed on certain types of relationships

Marriage is a social construct which existed long before the notion of a "legal construct" was even conceived. I am unaware of any evidence that, in the entire history of the world, more than a million people total have ever lived in societies which did not award particular recognition to marriages involving exactly one man. Most societies have required that marriages have exactly one woman, but that requirement was nowhere near as universal as the requirement that they have exactly one man.

If marriages not involving exactly one man would be beneficial to a society, there'd be some evidence of that. There isn't.

22 posted on 10/14/2009 4:42:35 PM PDT by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Most societies have required that marriages have exactly one woman, but that requirement was nowhere near as universal as the requirement that they have exactly one man.

Keep in mind that even in societies that allowed polygamy, the marriage was still considered to be between the man and each wife INDIVIDUALLY - each wife did not have some kind of marriage relationship to every other wife. Marriage was still one man/one woman even in polygamous cultures.

The fact that marriage is treated uniquely in society BECAUSE of what marriage is in its essence is the basis of our marriage laws.

23 posted on 10/14/2009 8:14:14 PM PDT by fwdude (It is not the liberals who will destroy this country, but the "moderates.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
What is THE purpose of marriage then?

Mutual emotional and sexual security. Procreation is completely incidental.

L

24 posted on 10/14/2009 8:44:08 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

>>What is THE purpose of marriage then?
>
>Mutual emotional and sexual security. Procreation is completely incidental.

Then why are children born out of wedlock termed “bastards”?


25 posted on 10/14/2009 9:35:15 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Then why are children born out of wedlock termed “bastards”?

Because some people are heartless bastards.

26 posted on 10/15/2009 5:53:54 AM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

>>Then why are children born out of wedlock termed “bastards”?
>
>Because some people are heartless bastards.

Hey, hey! Just because I’m heartless doesn’t mean I’m a bastard!
;)


27 posted on 10/15/2009 8:00:15 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateBlues

Yes, it will go to the Supreme. Isn’t that crazy? Even a vote in favor of Prop 8 won’t stop the homosexual activist agenda though, will only stall it.


28 posted on 10/15/2009 12:08:27 PM PDT by La Enchiladita (GO DODGERS!!! ALL THE WAY!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson