California Supreme Court Backs Gay Marriage

California Supreme Court Webpage ^ | May 15, 2008 | California Supreme Court

[NinoFan]

Opinion just released.

[windsorknot]

Ummmmm, which gun do I marry?

Big Bertha

[Mr. Silverback]

See post 419. :-)

[windsorknot]

Robert Bork was right.

Except now we are Sprinting Towards Gomorrah.

[AHerald]

Nice post. See the first couple of links in post 189

Thanks. Really appreciate you pointing out the links as I had missed those. Very useful references to have at the ready for us members of the "Bible-thumping fuddy-duddies".

[Mr. Silverback]

Very well said.

[Mr. Silverback]

Is ‘interesting’ your favorite word or something? Sheesh.

I've noticed gay marriage proponents can't win--or even hold down--an argument based on reality, so they have to pretend that the average gay marriage opponent is some sort of raving bigot.

[Mr. Silverback]

See post 189 for a couple of studies that show gay marriage leads to more single parent households...sure to increase the welfare rolls.

Then there's the civil rights damage:

Leo Childs, Scott Brockie, Ake Green, Scott Savage, Crystal Dixon, and Ene Kiildi.

[Mr. Silverback]

The majority determined the analogy does hold.

A majority determined that Dred Scott should remain a slave. A majority determined that a child was not a child, but a target if it was still in the womb. A majority recently decided that your government can take your property in order to help some merchant build his business. Before that, a majority told us that saying the Pledge of Allegiance at school is tyrannical theocracy. This month, a majority of the SCOTUS may decide that the 2nd Amendment means you have to join the National Guard in order to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights.

So keep telling us the majority is right because they're a majority, and I'm sure we'll start to believe you any time now.

[Mr. Silverback]

What's so bad is that 232 years after the declaration of independence someone has to explain this to people.

Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least. - Bill Number 64, authored by [Thomas] Jefferson and "Reported by the Committee of Advisors, 18 June 1779"

I believe the word you're looking for is "Oops."

[Mr. Silverback]

You could have saved us both much more time if you'd simply declared your intellectual superiority from the beginning. Then I could have proceeded directly to bowing and genuflecting in defeat before the overwhelming weight of your arguments.

Truly, you were robbed of much valuable and edifying bowing and genuflecting time. It's good for the soul, don't you know.

[AHerald]

I believe the word you're looking for is "Oops."

Delicious nugget. Thanks. I'm so gonna use that.

[AmericanInTokyo]

.

[Marie2]

Any thoughts on how this might impact the California vote in November?

We will have a constitutional amendment on the ballot, defining marriage as between one man and one woman, on the November ballot.

Does it put California into play? Will enough conservatives turn up to vote for that amendment, and go ahead and vote for McCain (presumably)?

We voted 61% to define marriage as between one man and one woman nine years ago. It was a referendum, not a constitutional amendment. I think the constitutional amendment is going to pass.

If this has already been addressed, please forgive.

[Mr. Silverback]

Well said.

[Mr. Silverback]

Glad to help, FRiend. :-)

[Mr. Silverback]

May I ask the meaning of your post, FRiend? Over at Aircraft Resource Center we often post an asterisk to indicate agreement, but I don’t want to just assume that’s what you’re doing.

[Mr. Silverback]

Does it put California into play? Will enough conservatives turn up to vote for that amendment, and go ahead and vote for McCain (presumably)?

Not likely, according to data David Brooks from the NYT presented in early '05. Traditional marriage amendments passed overwhelmingly even in a couple of states that Bush lost in '04...Michigan and Oregon, IIRC.

[LukeL]

The idea that God wouldn't punish anyone because they do good deeds is a very dangerous theology to hold to. It would belike saying my wife wouldn't leave me for cheating on her, because I buy her expensive jewlery and provide for her as well. It comes across as an insult.

I am not saying God is going to strike down and pour out his wrath on California any time soon, but he would be well within his right to do so.

I am glad to see other people don't buy into this idea that we can erase the bad by braging about all the good we have done.

[hattend]

I’m waiting for Ahhnold to come out and endorse the decision

He already said he won't fight the ruling or help the people trying to change the Cali Constitution, so he implicitely endorses it.

[Marie2]

Children would be possible. They can adopt. They can have a helpful friend carry a test tube baby for them.

They are already doing these things.