Posted on 05/15/2008 10:02:52 AM PDT by NinoFan
Opinion just released.
I have stated clearly, several times, that I am NOT in favor of this ruling. I’m arguing against the ability of the courts to say anything about this issue by taking the power of defining marriage away from the government.
Abortion is a very different issue because there is another life involved. The reason it is such a difficult issue is because, unlike most issue where people may have differing morals, that variation makes a difference as to whether somebody else’s rights are being violated. Honestly, I don’t have the answer. My best solution is to let each state decide through their elected representatives (or perhaps ballot initiative in some states).
Once again, you are making the wrong argument, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
These are arguments that should be made, that have been made, to a legislative body. In California, these arguments convinced the legislative body known as the People, and they passed a law against allowing two people of the same sex to pretend to be married.
The California Supreme Court is not equipped to sift facts and arguments, integrate them with public opinion, and then to pass laws. That's not their job, and in fact the California Constitution specifically forbids them from doing so.
Therefore, the burning issue of the moment is not the compatibility of various body parts, nor the continuation of the species.
The issue at hand is the usurpation of the right of the People to legislate on matters that are within their competence. The prerogative claimed by the California Supreme Court, and by the SJC in Massachusetts before it, is the power to bind us, in all cases whatsoever, which leads back to Paine:
"Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER," and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth."
If you leave, you will have to contend with Austin as your jackball leftist city trying to push this sort of bs through your government. Good luck against them... The Berkley of Tejas.
LOL at “have to pretend.”
I’m not talking about changing the family arrangement. People already live in a variety of family arrangements. I’m just talking about taking government out of the equation to say what’s right and wrong for the family. If you give them that power, they can say gay couples are a proper family, as happened in California. You should be in favor of my position.
I’m afraid I can’t put too much stock into that study without seeing the raw numbers and methodology. I looked up that book on Amazon, and it’s pretty clear that this author has a bias, as does nearly everybody who conducts or sites a study, which is why I don’t trust any study that I don’t have all the details. I read a great book once called “How to Lie with Statistics”, a good read I might add. Never take any study presented by somebody else who has their own agenda at face value.
Furthermore, we’re talking about adults, not children, so it’s an irrelevant study. Also, as I said before, I wouldn’t imagine that many heavy-drinking, party-hard types of any sexual orientations are going to be very interested in raising children.
Reading some of the rest of your comments, I’m realizing this isn’t going to be a productive conversation until you get it through your head that I’m not pushing for gay marriage, because much of what you’re saying is based on the premise that I am.
We enable the government to protect the rights of others. You don’t have the right to harm somebody else or their property, or otherwise infringe on their liberty. Sexual relations between two consenting adults does not qualify.
I am concerned about the way this decision was reached. That’s why I’m saying we should be removing the government from these types of issues.
One of the dissenting judges should be nominated to the Supreme Court.
Her dissent stated that she was personally for gay “marriage”, but the people had voted on a law against it, and there was nothing in the California constitution that could state that this law was unconstitutional.
What a breath of fresh air. A judge that doesn’t approach all decisions from the standpoint of “what should be” in their opinion, then finding justification for it.
I haven’t read the supporting opinions, but I’m sure they include the personal viewpoints of the judges instead of an examination of the law.
“Seriously, if you think that homosexuality is just heterosexuality with one person having different genitalia, you’re really naive.”
Enlighten me, please. You seem to be more intimately acquainted with homosexuality than I am. Give us your expert analysis.
I fully agree. The court had zero constitutional authority to hand down this ruling. I was just expounding on some of the other arguments involved.
Is it possible to marry an inanimate object? Does your gun have feelings? Can we have another 170-page decision on this please...
Yes the ruling is referencing CA equal protection clause.
Thanks for those links. I had not seen a few of them.
Gee willigers, this forum is hilarious!
Who is ordering you to send your children “for homosexual indoctrination and training”, pray tell?
If you’d really prefer to live an Islamic theocracy, what are you waiting for? You can find Sharia law almost anywhere these days. Easy as pie!
But my point is, when we object to a court ruling of this nature with arguments properly directed to the lawmaker(s), we are acknowledging and accepting the court as lawgiver. IT IS NOT.
Not only that, there are people who are soft on the merits who can be brought along by the usurpation argument.
Not everyone who is anti-usurpation, not everyone who cares about the Constitution, cares about gay bowel syndrome.
I do appreciate that type of judicial restraint. I still feel that this isn’t an area appropriate for government intervention in any fashion.
The opponents already have a petition signed by 1.1 million people headed to the November ballot and your question will probably get answered then; I guess we have to wait and see.
Your reboot didn't work. Fatal flaw in your processor. Have hubbie replace forthwith.
When the state, in this case 4 small folks in black robes, puts it's imprimatur on homosexual marriage then the state requires that public schools treat homosexual unions and heterosexual unions as equivalent. This is called indoctrination. It is just another case of the secularists imposing their views on the religionists using the unlimited power of the state. I'll make you a urge your side from preaching secularism in public schools and I'll urge my side not to preach religion in public schools. Then you, me and the First Amendment are all happy.
No one else has spoken to this part of the statement released in the decision so I am not sure if that part was intended as a way the Court justified striking down Prop 22 or if it was included as a premptive warning to those who again try to use the initiative process to overrule the Court; should get real interesting in November about election time.
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.