California Supreme Court Backs Gay Marriage

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

[NinoFan]

Opinion just released.

[purpleraine]

How pretentious of you comment on whether or not I am serious and condescending to respond. I don't know whether you're serious or not. I'll respond to you until I decide not to do so. You're free to do the same.

So the courts are perverting the concept of liberty by applying it equally? That's a strange characterization.

The fact that you can't open up a brothel is another stupid thing we're preventing for no justifiable reason.

If people want to engage in that business, they should have the freedom to do so. You are not being forced to patronize their business.

No body said you could do what you pleased. You're engaging in hyperbolic illogic in an effort to win an argument. If we could do as we please, there'd be a lot more dead people.

You can flout any law you like it's a free country. In fact, when the law restricts the rights of others why wouldn't you flout it? Don't you support liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

In your last paragraph you extrapolate way beyond my meaning. Doesn't the constitution grant freedom of association? Doesn't that cover the boy scouts? You are arguing piecemeal and again it is illogical.

What makes you think the drug laws are legitimate? Who gave the government the right to restrict the ingestion of intoxicants?

The equal access comment I made was directed to the government granting various benefits to married couples and then telling some adult taxpayers they can't chose the person they want to marry. That denies them the same benefits I get because I married a man. But if some guy wants to marry a man, he can't do it? What's the legal basis for that position?

[puroresu]

So the courts are perverting the concept of liberty by applying it equally? That's a strange characterization.

No, the courts are perverting the concept of liberty by applying it to activities that are not protected by the Constitution. They're perverting the equal protection clause by taking it out of context.

The fact that you can't open up a brothel is another stupid thing we're preventing for no justifiable reason.

Then take it up with the legislature, it isn't a constitutional issue. Neither is same-sex "marriage".

No body said you could do what you pleased. You're engaging in hyperbolic illogic in an effort to win an argument. If we could do as we please, there'd be a lot more dead people.

You can flout any law you like it's a free country.

Then I invite you to try it. If you mean to scorn a law, you may be right, but if you mean we can ignore it, you're dead wrong.

In fact, when the law restricts the rights of others why wouldn't you flout it? Don't you support liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

I do, but that doesn't include any alleged "right" to change a multi-thousand year old societal institution because it doesn't accommodate a particular sex fetish.

In your last paragraph you extrapolate way beyond my meaning. Doesn't the constitution grant freedom of association? Doesn't that cover the boy scouts?

I've got news for you. The Boy Scouts won their court case 5-4, meaning that four judges ruled that the scouts do not possess freedom of association. That means we're one judge away from losing that right completely. You might also want to check out some recent cases where the scouts have been booted from public buildings and from marinas because of their sincerely held beliefs. In addition, check out the recent case of the Christian photographer in New Mexico who was fined for declining to videotape a lesbian commitement ceremony.

You are arguing piecemeal and again it is illogical.

No, I gave you a very good example of why the equal protection clause does not mean what you think it means.

What makes you think the drug laws are legitimate? Who gave the government the right to restrict the ingestion of intoxicants?

The rule of law, under which the use of such materials has never been considered a right.

The equal access comment I made was directed to the government granting various benefits to married couples and then telling some adult taxpayers they can't chose the person they want to marry. That denies them the same benefits I get because I married a man. But if some guy wants to marry a man, he can't do it? What's the legal basis for that position?

Oh, nothing more than several thousand years of human history, the entire body of Western common law going back to Bracton, the United States Constitution, and the laws of every state in the union other than Massachusetts, where the laws were changed by four outlaw judges. I might also add common sense, because only a truly dumbed-down society can't tell the difference between men and women.

[proudofthesouth]

If you look at the USGS earthquake charts on a daily basis like I do you will see that earthquakes are increasing not only in California but states bordering it and eastern states that don’t normally experience a lot of quakes. Usually when there is a large quake somewhere in the world not too long afterwards there is large quake somewhere on the opposite side of the world from it as well.

[proudofthesouth]

God is very angry (and I don’t blame Him one bit) and getting angrier.

Look a nature... We’ve always had a lot of ants (fire, black and red) in my area but this Spring I’ve noticed that their mounds are more numerous and larger. Also, I recently read about a new import to Texas called the Raspberry Ant that so far is immune to any kind of pesticide.

[purpleraine]

I'm getting tired on this issue for now.

Here's what I believe:

1. People have the right to pursuit of happiness. That includes choosing the adult they would marry. I do not think the government has a legitimate role in restricting polygamy unless the populations severely drops because of it. You can't marry animals or inanimate objects because they cannot give consent or engage in contracts.

I don't know enough about the harmful effects of incest upon children to judge whether or not it should be outlawed. Relatives that have sex with each other will do so whether or not they can marry. It may be necessary to reduce the harmful impact. The news I saw was that incest is not a very widespread occurrence.

Gays marrying may lead to less promiscuity and better health in the population. If gays want to marry and pledge to each other, I think that's a positive thing.

People who think that this is the end of civilization as we know it either are extremely paranoid or don't remember the other significant "end of the world" predictions when other freedoms were recognized; women voting, end of slavery and so on.

Our country is much more moral today than any I have read about. We abolished slavery, recognized women equal rights, helped defend freedom around the world for over 90 years, and we provide food, and other aide all over the world. So, it will not bother me one twit or harm my marriage in any way if two guys decide to be married.

I will not sign the petition in Cal and I will not vote to restrict someone's freedom in their pursuit of happiness. If ytou chose to do that, let it be on your conscience.

Out, in pursuit of my own happiness here at the beach.

[purpleraine]

Be careful with your wrathful God argument. It could mean when the quakes stop that God is in support of what’s going on. TATA for now.

[proudofthesouth]

As a former hard core feminist (and former liberal) I've come to realize that giving women the right to vote was one of the worst things to happen to this country. And no, I have no desire whatsoever to wear a burka....

[puroresu]

1. People have the right to pursuit of happiness. That includes choosing the adult they would marry.

Well, I'll address this one point and leave it at that. The right to pursuit of happiness does not contain within it a right to redefine the institution of marriage. Marriage involves the bonding of people of the opposite sex. It's why the institution of marriage was established in the first place. Marriage wasn't created so that totally autonomous individuals could "bond" with someone regardless of gender for their personal sexual fulfillment.

The marriage institution was created because people noticed (in the absence of PC ideologies, people tend to notice obvious things) that there are two sexes and that they are different. That, in fact, they are opposites and therefore can mate. Not only that, but it's a good thing they do this because it perpetuates the species. It gives the children who are subsequently born a mother and a father. This enables little boys to learn to be men and to relate to women in a proper manner. It enables little girls to learn to be women and to expect men to use their strength to protect them.

It doesn't always work perfectly. There are some bad people. Fathers die. Mothers die. But it's the ideal for raising children and the only way to create them.

But even if there are no children, marriage between a man and a woman symbolizes the foundations of civilization, the process in which men channel their greater physical strength and aggressiveness into the protection of women and children for the greater good of society. Marriages thus teach children in general what it means to be a man and a woman.

Same-sex "marriage" involves two people of the same sex pretending to be a man and a woman. They cannot mate. They cannot be counterparts to one another. They can only play act. They can never as a couple be a mommy and daddy.

In other words, these are not real marriages. They are just pretend. And it's absurd to treat them as real marriages. Just as it's absurd to treat boys who want to wear female clothes as if they're girls. We're now being told (believe it or not) that if a boy "feels like he's a girl", he should be able to come to school dressed like one and even to use the girls' locker room and restroom.

You might wish to check out some of the writings of Lawrence Auster on the subject of how extreme defense of individual rights can lead to an overall loss of rights for the population as a whole. The process is simple. A few homosexuals demand the "right to marry". People rise to their defense and insist that if it will make them happy and enhance their freedom, we should allow them to do so. But then, a strange thing happens. A photographer gets asked one day to film a same-sex ceremony. She declines, saying she is a Christian and can't in good conscience participate in such a thing. She finds herself ordered to pay a fine for "discrimination". Then someone starts up an adoption agency to help orphans. A state bureaucrat shows up and asks if they're placing any of the kids with gay couples. They say they are not, since they don't approve of that lifestyle. So the state shuts them down.

This is why the likes of Obama, Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein, and others are licking their chops at the prospect of "gay liberation". The result won't be more freedom for all. It'll be a loss of freedom for the general public.

[GOPologist]

As Ebeneezer Scrooge once say, “That’s a good way to decrease the surplus population.”

That is: Unless two MALE gays can figure out how one or the other can deliver a child.

[Forest Keeper]

Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.

THIS STATE VOTED to ban gay marriage! The people have spoken. Where do these clowns get off telling anyone what this state rejects! :) This opinion is truly stunning.

[HawaiianGecko]

"You really need to reread that. You think you’re much smarter than you actually are."

She's not that smart.  Her whole post was plagiarized, and from Wikipedia of all places.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

In fact if you Google "slippery slope scheme merely serves as a device of sophistry" you will find dozens of exact wording references including, but not limited to other forums about this exact subject. (CA ruling on gay marriage that is)

I'd say she's a liberal troll cruising the blogosphere.

[unlearner]

“It can still go to the US Supreme Court. All you need is one couple in California t move to another State and then sue for their marriage to be recognized by the other state.”

Not quite. California is different than Boston. California will allow out-of-state visitors to marry under the laws of California. This means that homosexuals who ALREADY reside in another state will be able to do as you say.

[for-q-clinton]

Not quite. California is different than Boston. California will allow out-of-state visitors to marry under the laws of California. This means that homosexuals who ALREADY reside in another state will be able to do as you say.

Not the way I was talking about. Get married in Cali then move to idaho...then sue in Idaho for your marriage to be recognized since they recognize marriages in cali of man and woman.

[modest proposal]

I think if God was that angry he could come up with more than a few ant hills :P Also I have always disliked the idea god comes up with natural disasters to punish humans. Something about it just doesn’t sound like the forgiving God that I believe in who loves his people.

I think the symptoms of trouble are caused by americans themselves via refusing to do sensible things like regulate the border.

So a decadent, thoughtless mob culture will often cause its own woes.

[rbosque]

Can’t wait to leave this &%@#! state. Moving to a red state as soon as I graduate.

[Bishop_Malachi]

I will not sign the petition in Cal and I will not vote to restrict someone’s freedom in their pursuit of happiness. If ytou chose to do that, let it be on your conscience.

_______________________________________________________

I guess that means you’ll vote to compel private businesses, private NPOs, and all government agencies/employees to recognize it too (even if they strongly oppose it). Yikes. Enjoy being self-absorbed at the beach!

[papasmurf]

I would like to encourage everyone to stop using the word “gay” when referring to homosexuals.

Here, here!

Hear, hear!

As well, the left has been stealing our language and replacing it with their own. I do remember when being gay meant you were in a jovial mood.

[purpleraine]

I said I was leaving the thread, but I couldn't resist pointing out the meanspirited erroneous reply about my self-absorption. I take poor kids in the neighborhood, who's parents work, to the beach. For some of them that's all they get.

Don't apologize, I wouldn't accept it from you anyway. I just wanted to point out what a hypocritcal person you are to call yourself a bishop.

[Judges Gone Wild]

God damn America!

Rev. Jeremiah Wright

[Bishop_Malachi]

Don’t hold your breath for an apology. Oh, and you can spare me the whole “I take poor kids from the neighborhood to the beach”. I suspected that you were a troll before...now it’s confirmed. And don’t lecture me about being “meanspirited”...this coming from someone who doesn’t accept apologies.