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

Skip to comments.

FNC: California law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional
Fox News | March 14, 2005

Posted on 03/14/2005 12:16:45 PM PST by Dont Mention the War

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 421-438 next last
Comment #201 Removed by Moderator

Don't know why we Californians even bother with elections anymore. Just let the dictators in black robes decide our laws for us.


202 posted on 03/14/2005 3:28:40 PM PST by CounterCounterCulture (We shall overcome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Morty2005

This is great news for the republicans. The anti-gay marriage backlash will continue to push more and more of them into office just as it did in the last election. I also can't think of a better issue for getting minorities to vote for republicans.


203 posted on 03/14/2005 3:30:05 PM PST by Odyssey-x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: SilentServiceCPO
I don't really think those need addressing, they are flame bait,

That's because you can't, given your convoluted logic. Pedophilia has also existed since the beginning of time and only arbitrary law makes it illegal.

How about two consenting adult siblings, shouldn't they be permitted to marry too? That's been around since the beginning of time too. And save the lame genetic defect argument , they can always have an abortion. Either admit incestuals should be allowed to marry too or at least admit you're a hypocrite.

204 posted on 03/14/2005 3:33:53 PM PST by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: drungus
...and ultimately affirmed by the USSC.

As I recall,(going by memory only) the SCOTUS refused to hear the case - so they did not affirm, but in effect allowed the lower court ruling to stand.

Of importance here is a state judge sworn to uphold the State Constitution ruled against the state Constitution. O'conner has ruled against the Federal Constitution, which she swore to uphold, and instead ruled according to "state interest".

The rule of law no longer applies - we are under the rule of the courts and no one is safe from this horrible plague that will destroy this land.

Gays are not the cause of the problem, they are the curse promised when we forsake the ways of righteousness.

205 posted on 03/14/2005 3:35:01 PM PST by DaveyB (Professing to become wise they became fools!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: GVgirl

here in massachusetts, the gays circumvented the electoral process by equating their plite with the civil rights amendment of 1964. The obvious choice was to use the court system because the people shouldn't be allowed to vote on "human rights issues"


206 posted on 03/14/2005 3:36:29 PM PST by hondo1951 (i live in happy valley, but i'm not happy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: GVgirl

here in massachusetts, the gays circumvented the electoral process by equating their plite with the civil rights amendment of 1964. The obvious choice was to use the court system because the people shouldn't be allowed to vote on "human rights issues"


207 posted on 03/14/2005 3:36:31 PM PST by hondo1951 (i live in happy valley, but i'm not happy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: SilentServiceCPO
Spousal rights regarding testimony in a trial?

I'm glad you've brought this up, because it's a huge issue -- one that pretty clearly implicates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

There are two distinct marital rights as regards testimony; one is the privilege protecting private spousal communications, the other is the right to refuse to testify against one's spouse. Right now, so far as I know, same-sex couples do not enjoy either of these protections anywhere in the U.S. except (I assume) Massachusetts and (now, I further assume) California.

208 posted on 03/14/2005 3:38:03 PM PST by OhioAttorney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
What you stated is pretty much my position; though in practice there is going to be some untangling of the law. A concern I have is that gay "marriage" will be a tool to impose costs on third parties; ie employers or the taxpayers, of benefits that were created for a traditional marriage and family. While many large corporations now cheerfully provide equal benefits to gay "life partners" this should not be required; and the taxpayers should be spared another raid on their bank accounts.
209 posted on 03/14/2005 3:43:57 PM PST by MRMEAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks; SilentServiceCPO
I don't really think those need addressing, they are flame bait,
That's because you can't, given your convoluted logic. Pedophilia has also existed since the beginning of time and only arbitrary law makes it illegal.

Actually at least two other posts in this thread have addressed this (one of them is mine), and it doesn't seem hard to deal with at all. If the parties to a proposed marriage aren't legally able to give consent, there's no marriage.

As for incest, well, a limitation on marrying relatives isn't a limitation on the form of marriage, so I'm not sure it's relevant here anyway.

210 posted on 03/14/2005 3:44:17 PM PST by OhioAttorney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Morty2005
Really, of all the things we should be caring about, this is so far down the list..

This is just part of the leftist degeneration of American culture!

If you are bothered by the gay bias you are free to leave!

211 posted on 03/14/2005 3:44:21 PM PST by D-Generation X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket

My bad! I meant to ping someone else with my last post to you! Sorry!


212 posted on 03/14/2005 3:44:53 PM PST by Charles H. (The_r0nin) (Still teaching... or a reasonable facsimile thereof...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: drungus
I just read the opinion from your link, and it opens Pandora's Box. Using the rationale of this case, there's no reason why three people or an entire football team can't choose to get married.

Multiple marriage partners was not before the court, but I don't see how he would decide differently.

213 posted on 03/14/2005 3:45:06 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

Comment #214 Removed by Moderator

To: Defiant
Some wacko wants to override the desires of 13 Yemeni detainee attorneys and ship the prisoners off to Yemen, Afghan, Saudi Arabia... where they would assuredly be treated far better.

No different than the queer judicature, who is benefiting from all of these personal decisions?

215 posted on 03/14/2005 3:47:34 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection (www.whatyoucrave.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #216 Removed by Moderator

To: Morty2005
It's not arbitrary at all, and any claim otherwise is entirely disengenuous. Science tells us that the brains of people under a certain age are still developing. That, after all, was the crux of the USSC's recent ruling against the death penalty for minors. Same premise applies.

You obviously are siding with the wrong Judges because that USSC ruling was cherry picking scientific studies to back up their leftist agenda. You should read Scalia dissent unless you dont like Scalia which says alot!

217 posted on 03/14/2005 3:48:27 PM PST by D-Generation X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote.

Not trying to bring a fight over from another thread (feel free to respond to me back on the original), but I wanted your reaction to this article. Seems to me this is exactly what we were debating. Traditional marriage has served many purposes, some beyond the ken of the "rational" mind. Here we have the rational overthrowing the traditional (the tyranny of the "mind" you dismissed) and an event that a conservative would definately agree is immoral...

218 posted on 03/14/2005 3:48:30 PM PST by Charles H. (The_r0nin) (Still teaching... or a reasonable facsimile thereof...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: OhioAttorney
Just don't make it legally impossible for anyone to recognize them.

I think if two people of the same-sex want to be together, and they agree to do so, I don't plan to stop them. However don't ask us to change the definition of mariage so they call their "relationship" something that it is not.

More importantly, don't ask us to make their "union" equivilent to mariage.

219 posted on 03/14/2005 3:54:15 PM PST by davidosborne (www.davidosborne.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Damn straight Travis. It took generations, but this is the reward of the 17th.

There's a big assed fan out there.


220 posted on 03/14/2005 3:54:45 PM PST by glock rocks (WYGIWYG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 421-438 next 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