Thursday, May 15, 2008
|
|
ProtectMarriage.com
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
7:53 PM
|
A constitutional amendment to the California Constitution will almost certainly qualify to be on the ballot in November as more than a million signatures had already been turned in even prior to the Caluifornia Surpreme Court's putsch today. You can contribute to the effort and volunteer to help pass it and thus rebuke the out-of-control California Supreme Court at ProtectMarriage.com.
See Justice Baxter's ringing denunciation of the majority's usurpation of the People's rights below. Then get involved. You don't have to live in California to help deliver this message. Advocates of judicial imposition of same sex marriage will be pouring millions of dollars into defeating the amendment, and it will require an enormous effort to send the message that despite the ambitions of judges and cultural elites, majorities do matter in a Republic built on constitutional majoritarianism.
This will be an enormously important election for the future of the country. Marriage is of course a central institution that society must protect and nurture, but the idea of separation of powers and accountability for courts is also a bedrock principle of the rule of law, and it is eroding before our eyes. The California electorate will be asked to decide if it is willing to be ruled by judges, whether it will simply accept being told what they will do and when they will do it. I hope every interested citizen in the country, every religious leader fond of religious liberty, every legislator who takes his or her job seriously will grasp that the vote on the marriage amendment on the Califoria ballot is really much much more than just a marriage amendment and concerns far more than just California law --it is a vote on who rules, judges or the People, and its result will mark a decisive beginning of a rollback of judicial imperialism or a capitulation to the courts on this and on any other issue the courts decide to impose their will upon.
|
|
Didn't the California legislature twice pass laws allowing same-sex marriage? Last I looked, the legislature serves as the voice of the people and judicial fiat played no role.
Out of curiosity Hugh, in your capacity as a law professor, do you teach your students that Plessy v. Ferguson was an example of judicial imperialism and capitulation to the courts? |
|
|
What an innovative concept! Are we talking about all laws or just certain laws? Who gets to decide? Can voters have a say on it? Will politicians show even a little respect for voters? Especially those of us who actively participate and contribute to campaigns? Sounds like an idea that could take off! |
|
past?
Compare these two quotes:
No rational person can criticize the Court's decision here without having at least a basic understanding of the governing California precedents. Anyone who condemns this ruling without having that understanding will be demonstrating a profound ignorance of -- and contempt for -- how the law works. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/ 05/greenwald-on-ca.html
vs.
Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech was simply magnificent, and anyone who denies it is not to be trusted as an analyst. On every level it was a masterpiece. The staging and Romney's delivery, the eclipse of all other candidates it caused, the domination of the news cycle just prior to the start of absentee voting in New Hampshire on Monday --for all these reasons and more it will be long discussed as a masterpiece of political maneuver. http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/46d7121c-3471-48ba-8 c0a-b25a995d963f
Ok, Hugh got carried away with that one. But Greenwald is in a way even worse.
Now we can debate the merits of the Voter’s referendum, but the California Supreme Court overturned the will of the people. Sixty percent plus of voting Californians demanded that gay unions not be recognized as traditional marriage. I have no problem with the outcome of the case (like I said I would vote for gay marriage), but I would have preferred this passing by legislative or voter action, not by the Courts. It would have eventually passed, but the proponents of gay marriage will miss that opportunity because the Court took that away. This is bad precedent.
BTW Jeff Greenwald, are the three members of the California Supreme Court who voted against this profoundly ignorant and have a contempt on how the law works? Just asking.
|
|
Didn't the California legislature twice pass laws allowing same-sex marriage?
Answer: NO. The Governor vetoed the legislature and the legislature did not have the votes to overturn the veto. Hence, no law. Fair is fair. You want to pass gay marriage, get it through the legislature fair and square or get it through a voter's referendum. |
|
Lets be clear about what this ruling was not. It was not about the practical treatment of gays. Gays were already able to enter into domestic partnerships, which gave them virtually identical rights to married couple. (The primary distinction is domestic partnerships were not recognized by federal law, and thus gays were treated differently for federal tax purposes.)
So the issue is not discrimination. The issue is moral symbolism. By calling gay partnerships a different word than "marriage", society was saying that it is not the same. Society was permitting gays to be together, but refusing to endorse gay marriage on a moral level.
So, the Court today made a moral statement. It said that it is not OK for society to withhold moral approval for gay partnerships. To be blunt about it, the Supreme Court laid down a moral rule, and insists that the rest of us respect it. The Court is basically becoming a religious institution; it is not ruling on law, it is ruling on theology; it is telling us what we must believe.
Logically, the Court's next decision should upheld polygamy. The Court said that marriage is a fundamental right, so the State can not tell you can not marry someone of another race or the same sex.
So, on what basis does the State tell you that you can only marry one person? If our Court were logical, we would have a real problem here. But, I suspect we will be rescued from this result by the Court's lack of logic. Gay marriage is a fundamental right, because they know people who want to marry others of the same sex and they respect them. Polygamy is a disgusting perversion, because no one that they know belongs to the fundamentalist wing of the Mormon Church. Bottom line, gay marriage is cool and PC; polygamy is icky. That is about the level of logic to which today's decision reduces our law. |
|
I present to you the California Defense of Marriage Act of 2000 enacted on March 7, 2000 by initiative.
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/glrts/calfamcode308.5.html
Please note its very simple and precise language. |
|
|
After all, heterosexual marriage has all but ended in Massachusetts since May 14, 2004. |
|
|
Rick Gibson (above) seeks to decide this issue on moral grounds. But, isn't morality best served if gay couples take the same vows of commitment that hetrosexual couples make? Isn't it time to empty the closets and grant gays the dignity they deserve as part (albiet a minority) of God's creation? |
|
Look at one of your own getting owned on Hardball.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YK0d8ENS__c
He has nothing to say. He is completely vacuous; and insane talking head, spewing regurgitated rhetoric. Does he even know what he stands for, and why he stands for it? Shame on you for hiring such an oblivious cad. Kevin James, you are a true babbling idiot, and a credit to the Right in those regards. |
|
|
because the decision about gay marriage should be up to the elected representatives of each state -- so it should be up to the Cal state legislature whether or not to legalize gay marriage. But the Fed doma is wrong too, because if anything can be said to be a states rights issue, its marriage. |
|
|
Legislatures do. And when legislatures defy the will of those who elected them, voters do by the initiative process. The California Defense of Marriage Act is so simple and clear that there was no wiggle room for misinterpretation. This was clearly a case of judges imposing their own politics and morality onto society. Are supreme court judges recallable in CA? |
|
It's your Supreme Court, boss.
But marriage is a personal decision and an unqualified personal freedom.
Who cares, boss? |
|
...to the polygamist sects. If Marriage is a "Natural right", then how can the court allow any restriction, such as multiple spouses, minors, blood relatives???
Look out. |
|
|
How about we allow ALL CONSENTING ADULTS who want to marry to do so? Why stop with gay marriage? I think the polygamists may need the same level of FAIRNESS applied to them. While we are at it, let's allow brothers/sisters to marry. And it's not FAIR to discriminate against parents/children who may wish to marry - after all a parent can easily pass on their retirement benefits to their child if they marry them without any tax penalties that discriminate between the parent/child relationship by mandating that spouses be treated differently than children when it comes to inheritance laws. I say - LET'S NOT DEFINE MARRIAGE AT ALL then we can all live happily ever after..........the logic used by the california law to over turn the will of the people and to redefine marriage is FLAWED at best......and stalinist at worst. Marriage is defined as one man and one woman for multiple purposes that are not limited to 'morality'. If we decide to redefine marriage - why stop at gay marriage? After all, there are lots of other adults who want to marry and the laws prohibit them from doing so...... |
|
|
He slept with 10,000 women. Or maybe it was 20,000 women. Whatever. He was a pleaser. |
|
|
Marriage is a contract, and like all others, has parties that agree thereto. Contract law is law school 101; change it, and you change it all. |
|
With all due respect, VoiceofReason makes a pretty elementary logical mistake. Voice, please show us the gay rights analog to Plessy v. Ferguson which today's ruling fixed.
Second, slavery was debated pro and con at the founding of our nation, and is even discussed with some condemnation as far back as the old testament. (See e.g. freeing all slaves each jubilee year). So, getting rid of slavery and treating all colors the same was not a new concept pushed on the American public by Brown v. Board of Education. It was actually a return to a very old concept.
Please show me any similar historical notion in any civilization for the last 5000 years that said marriage should or might properly be between a man and a woman? Today's ruling is not similarly a return to an old concept, but is a brand new concept.
Third, please also explain why something so fundamental and foundational as marriage should rightfully be changed with anything less than a super majority vote?
You honestly don't see anything undemocratic or simply and plainly wrong in maintaining that, even though we can't change the constitution's words with anything less than 2/3rds of both chambers and 3/4 of all state legislatures, a single state court can change the definition of a family with a 5 - 4 vote?
If you don’t, then you are blind to the true risk of destroying democratic processes and the rule of the written law. If a court with a 5-4 vote can read into the constitution that marriage must be defined between 2 consenting adults (a ‘good’ thing) what is to stop a different court from suddenly also reading into the law that all gays should now be rounded up (a ‘bad’ thing)?
Where would you stand then, the laws all being flat? Do you think you could stand in the wind that would blow then? (citation omitted.)
|
|
I saw that exchange, and I don't disagree. But I have never heard of Kevin James; he seems like a complete lightweight. Is he some guy with a ham-radio show with two listeners?
For such an important subject--off this topic, by the way--I blame Matthews for scheduling such a moron. An alternative guest with half a brain would have provided a much better discussion. Yet I wonder whether Matthews really wanted that.
At any rate, Keith O-Whatever still has a show and I still can't get over that. |
|
The issue is not whether the law barring gay marriage as passed was clear or not. Clear or obtuse, it is the right and proper place of the courts in our system to review laws that are challenged on constitutional grounds.
I challenge those decrying so-called legislating from the bench to look into their souls and anser this question: if the scenario were a mirror opposite, i.e. the law passed had allowed gay marriage and the court overturned that law, would you be complaining today about judicial overreaching? Or would you be celebrating the system of checks and balances that worked to protect the 'institution of marriage?'
If marriage needs protecting, it's not from gay people. I don't care if every gay person from coast to coast gets hitched, it will not have one bit of impact on my life and my marriage. I'll still be straight, still a hard-working, church-going member of society. Yet for some reason, people who profess to be following a faith that promotes love and compassion seem hell-bent on refusing to recognize that this country is not of one mind and one view.
Straight people have done a great job messing up marriage all by themselves. Sure, there are the Hollywood 'marriages' that last less time than most of us spend in the shower each day, but let's not forget the politicians like Newt, who couldn't get done lambasting President Clinton fast enough so that he could go cheat on his then wife with one of his staffers.
Protecting marriage, indeed.
Tell you what, when you ban divorce, then let's talk about being serious about 'defending' marriage from some imagined threat.
http://homerjay.blogtownhall.com/ |
|
Just remember this, the people are sovereign, not the government. Laws get passed two ways, either by the Legislature or by the People (through referrendum). The law that the California Supreme Court overturned was passed by the People with a 60+% majority (after the California Legislature tried to pass a gay marriage bill twice and was twarted by Gov. Arnold's veto).
Is this a victory for gay marriage? Well not if the People in response to this judicial overreach go and change the California Consitution, which by the way they can do by referrendum this November! Had the gay marriage proponents waited, it is likely Californians could have been persuaded to pass gay marriage through legislative or voter action.
This goes way beyond gay marriage (like I said I don't have a problem with the outcome here)--it is about the government refusing to obey the rule of the People. |
|
Only one other American state recognizes the right the majority announces
today. So far, Congress, and virtually every court to consider the issue, has
rejected it. Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the
majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an
understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid.
California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the
substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change
in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur
by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic
process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF
This is way broader than whether your support gay marriage or not, it is the courts seeking to overrule the will of the people. The people are sovereign, not the government and definitely not the courts. Sometimes it is right that the courts over rule the majority (in order to protect life, liberty and property of the individual). This was definitely not one of those times.
|
|
|
You can vote those four justices out of office at the end of their terms. Alternatively you can vote on a referrendum to change the California Constitution. |
|
|
We vote for referendums at every election and the only one I can remember that took was Proposition 13 and THAT is even at risk of being overturned. What we have here IS tyranny. I know people think tyrants are always accompanied by public violence but cynicism and hopelessness are forms of violence too. Violence against reason and self-rule. |
|
|
|
|
The people of California vote heavily for prop 187. The court are blocking parts of it. The folks lose again. Illegal alliens win. |
|
1) Regardless if you are for or against this-this is an issue that should be decided by voters, not judges. The opinion of 4 judges should almost never outweigh that of 60% of the population of the state.
2)Since the dawn of mankind marriage was defined in almost all cultures as between a man and a woman. What makes this generation so arrogant to overturn this historic precedent?
3) On a more practical thought-Obama is already in trouble with Hispanic voters in California, and if the Catholic Church makes a push on this (as I suspect it will), and Obama ducks making a stand on this, it will drive them to the polls in November and will give this consitituency another reason to follow their gut instinct and vote for Mc Cain...the result is that Obama will have to spend money and time in California that he could have spent other places.... |
|
|
I hope you folks know your days are numbered, you're fossils among more evolved people. |
|
|
You are missing the point, you are the one who is not evolved. http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1641443.htm Chimp boy. |
|
|
I oppose any federal amendment or law that will stop state law. And I hope state law changes only by legislative or voter action and not by judicial fiat. |
|
I am a born-again, regular church-attending moderate Republican who has listened to your show regularly since 2003, and I very much appreciate all the interviews you've done with such intelligent people--especially those who write on foreign affairs and national security.
I also happen to be gay.
I am so deeply put off by your response to this ruling that all I can say is that you have positioned yourself as a mortal enemy to me. I don't know how else to put it, and it saddens me that I have to put it that way, since you are a fellow believer.
I say this, because if the ruling was about the rights of students to have Bible clubs in schools, and the supreme court had ruled using the same legal logic it used today, you might have been slightly bothered by the reasoning, but you would have been grateful that the court ruled in favor of your opinion... and you'd worry about future court cases later, because it's Friday and you need to review new movies with Emmett.
The same is true for many of you who comment here. You all are totally and utterly disingenuous. You don't really care about the finer points of constitutional law... you care about "stopping those evil radical homosexuals," who just happen to be real flesh-and-blood people that many of you haven't even bothered to get to know. You don't care about "protecting marriage," because if you did, you'd push for harsher divorce laws and greater punishment for parental negligence. But you don't, because you're the heterosexual majority, and you don't care at all about how hypocritical you are. Then you have the nerve to hide behind your religious faith and call it love, when it's in many cases it's nothing more than uninformed bigotry. It's sickening.
CONTINUED |
|
It's sickening, not because you and I may disagree over the court's reasoning or even the validity of committed gay relationships. It's sickening, because you have the nerve to assume that all Christians must share your view on the issue of homosexuality, and those that are clearly "liberals" with a "watered-down Gospel" who couldn't POSSIBLY have an active prayer life or active connection to the risen Savior. You're so convinced that your interpretation of six short passages of Scripture is the only accurate one--despite ongoing controversy about the actual definitions of certain Greek words--and that there is simply no room for disagreement among committed believers. How arrogant!
Then you have the nerve to promote, and vote for, politicians who claim they will "protect the family"... even though they've been divorced several times, are cheating on their spouses, sending sexually suggestive instant messages to minors or looking for sex in bathroom stalls. I say, deal with the log in your own eye before reaching for the speck in ours. You have a lot more to answer for when it comes to destroying marriage and the family.
Well, we who are thinking, rational moderates are not buying your crap anymore. We can see through the arguments for what they are... you want to codify your particular sect of Christianity into law, regardless of the fact that a large portion of Americans don't live their life the same way you do. The Constitution is not a rubber-stamp for your particular conservative Biblical views. So stop with these so-called "constitutional" or "scientific" arguments... they're not only flimsy (especially the scientific ones that are based on junk science from discredited researcher Paul Cameron), but they're simply smokescreens for your real position... your problem with this ruling is purely based on religious objection.
CONTINUED |
|
It's a free country, and you're welcome to hold and espouse that position. But don't pretend that your objections are anything more than purely religious. We don't buy it anymore. Not that we ever did.
Unfortunately, purely religious objections don't carry much weight in the marketplace of ideas of a pluralistic society, so you have to make up other smokescreens to hide behind.
Some of you even create ridiculous slippery slope arguments about people marrying rocks and box turtles if gay people gain the opportunity to share in the rights and responsibilities of lifelong commitment and mutual love. Some of you still hold to the idea that we who are gay are a bunch of diseased, drug-addicted dangers to your children... when we're not watching Project Runway, of course.
"But what will little Jimmy become if he has two mommies or two daddies?He'll be soooo confused!" Hmm. I find it interested that in the Bible, Jacob happened to have several wives, and Joseph turned out pretty well-adjusted. Oh, right... it's okay that the definition of marriage changed quite radically over Biblical history, but somehow it's not okay if we broaden the definition now. Um... yeah, okay... that's really consistent. Not.
I realize that this has been quite the rant. But to Hugh and all those who agree with his thinking on this issue... I, and many other gay Christians like myself will fast, pray and will work as hard as we can and as many hours as it takes between now and November to morally persuade and explain our position to as many open-minded people that we can. We will not let an often-hypocritical majority steal such basic protections from us with such a petty, punitive amendment. It's cruel, it's not Christ-like, and it will be shameful if it passes.
Okay, flame away. |
|
Though Hugh may not want (or care for) this to turn into a theological discussion -- can you explain how you reconcile Romans 1 with your chosen lifestyle?
I'd really appreciate it if you would focus on the text itself. You can safely assume that I've heard the "I feel" God made me this way explanation. I want to know why you feel that Paul's instruction doesn't apply to you.
Note: I'm not questioning your faith. I would ask a similar question of a heterosexual who slept around a lot in light of Biblical admonitions not to do that either. |
|
Why do you make the automatic assumption that I sleep around?
Do you make that assumption about every young man in your church? If you don't focus on sex the first time you meet them, why do you do so with me? I certainly wouldn't do that with you.
And, it's telling that you use the word "lifestyle," when I have a life, not a lifestyle. There are as many "lifestyles" among gay people as there are among straight people. Not every straight person is married or has kids or votes Republican or enjoys snow skiing or goes to strip clubs.
Also, your use of the word "chosen" contains within it the assumption that I just suddenly woke up one day and decided to be attracted to the same sex. That shows a profound misunderstanding of the nature of sexual orientation. Even the Catholic church doesn't make that kind of foolish assumption, even if they do consider gay sexual behavior to be sinful, as I'm sure you do.
I'd be happy to square Romans 1 with my life once we can avoid such uninformative terminology and get out of the starting gate. Thanks.
|
|
I wasn't saying that you slept around Christopher.
Read it again for comprehension -- and not so defensively and quick to take offense.
The Bible says certain things about sexual activity.
I believe it says that homosexual sex is out of bounds, based upon my reading of Romans 1 (and Leviticus, but let's stick with Romans 1).
I also believe it says sex outside the bounds of marriage is out of bounds. This rule, I believe, applies exclusively to heterosexuals. At least, it did before today's ruling in California. (And the Massachusetts court's maneuver a few years ago.) Certainly at the time the Bible was written, there was no homosexual marriage.
So, getting back to my original question. I ask YOU, a homosexual why you believe Romans 1 doesn't apply to you just as I would ask some TOTALLY DIFFERENT HETEROSEXUAL GUY who slept around and said he didn't believe all of the Bible's prohibitions of that behavior didn't apply to him. |
|
Getting a little off topic, because I was interested in the theological question and not this one: Yes, I believe it is to some degree a "chosen" lifestyle. Maybe a better term would be "behavior."
(A lot of what I'm going to say is non-operative if you say you're a homosexual who has decided to remain abstinent because you interpret Romans 1 as I do. But I'm guessing you don't.)
I can understand people have tendencies or urges to homosexuality, but because that exists somewhere deep within us, at either a psychological or genetic level, doesn't mean that that makes it acceptable behavior according to God in contradiction to what the Bible says.
If that was the case, then I guarantee you there would be precious few heterosexual men who would choose monogamy. My basest instincts tell me to, for want of a better term, chase everything in a skirt.
Yet, I don't act on those feelings -- and trust me, during the So. Cal summer that can be a difficult urge to overcome.
So, I ask you again. Why do you apparently believe that Romans 1 doesn't apply to your situation? |
|
|
|
|
if a lefty approves of the outcome. |
|
|
As another true evangelical Christian, Hoystory is dead on. We are all sinners but we strive to not sin. If the creator of the Universe has said homosexual behavior is sin (stated numerous places in the Bible), as a true follower of Christ we should make every effort to avoid this behavior along with every other sin God has identified. Trying to justify behavior contrary to God's teaching is not what true Christians should do. |
|
What is it? And perhaps more to the point, *why* is it? As to the latter, we have a choice of two fundamental arguments:
1. There is a necessity to legislate such "related" questions as shared property, survivor benefits, etc. This clearly does not justify the decision because civil unions, or other contractual understandings, can already accomplish this.
2. Creation of a two-parent "family" for purposes of child rearing. Given that homosexuals are biologically aberrant and cannot, by definition, create children of their own, this becomes a specious argument. On top of the biology is a serious question of whether or not a child of either sex can be reared with normal heterosexual values, in what society considers a "normal" environment, when the two influential adults present are practicing same-sex. Advocates/activists argue "Yes, they can.", but only by redefining "normal".
There is an obvious correct answer to the child question, but it is regularly obscured by "but they are a loving couple" or "it's better than a single parent home or orphanage" protestations, both of which completely beg the question, presume outcomes not in evidence, and are made for the benefit of selfish adults assuming another "right" and not what will inevitably turn out to be a confused and conflicted child.
|
|
as the titanic sinks.
I think the issue of gay marriage is a matter of definition. Marriage as an institution is sacred and redifining the word marriage is just one more example of the bastardization of our language.
But honestly, what is the more pressing issue: California's courts legislating the definition of a word or the senate appropriations committee blocking domestic exploration of oil shale, congress getting ready to vote in cap and trade (lieberman-warner) and the republican nominee supporting it and vowing to block doemstic oil exploration?
The only lives that are going to be affected by gay marriage are the lives of the gays that marry and the divorce lawyers that get the addtional revenue stream. In contrast, every single american is going to suffer from the democrats and idiot republicans stupid, misguided, shortsighted energy policies.
I saw the outrage about the polar bears, but where is the outrage about this other stuff? Conservatives ought to be screaming out every window about this. Domestic oil exploration may not be a winning issue (because it would not yield immediate results) but pointing out the democrat's history of blocking it at every turn as americans are crushed by energy costs is.
It's unbelievable how people can get all whipped up about the gays marrying but not say a thing as the government purposefully tanks the economy and the american way of life.
|
|
Im not sure if this Judicial development will be the flash point to awaken the conservative moment or not. Just like the Rush Limbaough radio show exploded to fill a void for conservatives in the media, this may or may not be what drives new passion for conservative values. The attempt to use legislative remedies will be used to overturn the will of the people more as we go along. The left will of course use the argument that the will of the people is unjust and immoral and so this is appropriate. Appropriate until a ruling swings the other way then .... you dont want to know. There will always be points on where agreement will never ever be reached.
Im not as concerned about the issue of gay marriage per say, but I am concerned about the action of the court as it demonstrates what is possible to do if even one Jurist, chooses to rule based on how they personally feel on issues like this. Again its not at all how I feel about gay marriage, its the action of the court. Will there be a back lash? Its hard to say. If the Dems get The White House and the GOP looses even more ground in November, conservatives (much to the joy of their opponents) will loose even more ground. Lets not forget The Fairness Doctrine an attempt to silence conservative voices.
More of this is what it may take for a new level of passion amongst the right. Based on history Im not afraid. When conservatives are focused and energized and united, history has shown they will win most elections in which they take part, thats just a fact. So in the long run and in the broader sense the ideological struggle is hardly over.
In the meantime for the right, its going to be a painful time and regardless, some of this will take years to recover from. What should keep the leftist's up at night is the fact that when conservatives finally do bounce back, they will be much stronger than they ever were before. |
|
lost more than they gained.
Prior to Gay Marriage, they could never be bullied into a 'commitment' on the magnitude of Holy Matrimony, and when things fall apart in the relationship, they could pack a bag and go.
Now they will have to contend with alimony, attorney's fees and the like. Actually, if anyone here has ever born witness to a California Divorce Lawyer at his merry work, it really is a spectacle to behold.
Never in the history of human endeavor has any professional ever commanded higher fees for less actual work. A California practitioner of this dark art can rack up a bill for $100,000 in disentangling a truck driver from a cocktail waitress, and will gleefully do so.
This bit of legal sleight ought best be called "Omnibus Family Law Empowerment Act of 2008." The tire Biters currently trolling for dimocrats faking sick/lame through daytime TV adverts will now shift their sights to the pink triangle crowd.
Picture if you will Charles Nelson Reilly and Liberace slugging it out on Judge Judy over title to two coiffed poodles and some chanteuse drapes. |
|
The Grifter-Ambu Chaser Industry has just hit a gusher. They'll be airlifted into The Peoples Republic of Calilunacy ASAP from all other 49-states. Which, of course, makes DemDumbs happy, as they're in the same pockets.
Having observed, from my handy perch in the film industry, for 35-years the Wabbit-like mating habits of Gay Males--Frisky lil' Horn Guns--I guarentee record Matrimonial Law Revenues in Californication!
Happy, Giddy Divorce Chaser Law!! |
|
Of all the interesting posts here, yours caught me eye. I am a straight, married religious woman who worked like a dog for Prop 22. While I would not deny anyone their rights guaranteed by the constitution, I believe the definition of marriage should be decided by the will of the people. MY personal belief is that marriage should be defined as one/man-one/woman.
I also believe God proscribes homosexuality. However, I'm with you on the total hypocrisy on the part of most people on this issue. If people are going to cite the Bible, it seems to me they need to be equally horrified by adultery, fornication, and divorce.
What hurts society and society's children more? Of course it has to be divorce and out-of-wedlock births. And of course, few, if any, are going to get up in arms about violating God's laws regarding divorce and ANY sexual liaisons outside of a lawful marriage.
We only pick on homosexuality because we can. There are so few of you. And oh yeah, the polygamists. I'm not defending them either. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of picking on a small group of people whose notion of marriage is NOT prohibited in the Bible. |
|
S/A86...
The assertion that Gays have historically avoided establishing relationships recognized by the state and nation is baseless. A review of previous legislation and court decisions directly and broadly contradict this opinion. This approach taken by Conservatives, slandering the personal character of those seeking marriage, rightfully or wrongly, while remaining muted against the general American married public, is the exact cause for the recent decisions.
Conservatives would be best served by collectively building and consistently articulating an argument in defense of marriage beyond the casual insult to the general intelligence of most Americans.... i.e. "What's to stop people from marrying pets?", "What's to stop a Man from marrying as many Women as he want?" etc... I would welcome such a challenge to our Courts, instead, we get the same inane dribble from Conservative Radio & Media, resulting in less substance and more decisions like these.
What I Learned This Week
http://whatilearnedthisweek.wordpress.com/ |
|
Brob... You're Correct.
And I would expect few to actually review the Ruling and Opinions in detail, as it well reasoned, and thus, presents a challenge to the easy insult and slander.
The CA Court did find, upon the application of Strict Scrutiny, that the State [AG] did not provide a sufficient Compelling Interest to recognize the recent Statute as Constitutional thus the Right of Marriage cannot be restricted by the Suspect Class [not my words] of Sexual Orientation.
Relying upon poorly articulated arguments of Tradition when addressing the Courts is a losing strategy, greatly attributed to the influence of Pundits who, lean heavy on insult and lightly on substance. Judges, thankfully so, are obligated to justify their conclusions beyond the tripe filled rhetoric of pundits, thus are subject to scrutiny. Instead, Americans must build strongly arguments to defend Traditions that withstand the rightful scrutiny of the Courts.
What I Learned This Week
http://whatilearnedthisweek.wordpress.com/ |
|
Few Judges turned down the will of the People.
|
|
Gay marriage
This is my take on the California ruling:
I want to be clear. I don't want to run the lives of others. The sexual acts they perform in private is not my business. That is between the individual and God.
California already gave FULL RIGHTS to people who formed domestic partnerships. Full rights--the same as heterosexual couples. Noone's rights were being limited.
However, I read some of this ruling. This isn't about changing the LAW in California. It is about removing the "stigma". It makes homosexual relationships special and protected from any discrimination. That means if a church teaches that these acts are sinful in the eyes of God that is going to be discrimination.
This ruling gives no new "rights". It bestows MORAL EQUALITY. It condricticts religous teaching and takes away the rights of religous people to practice their religon.
The stated purpose of the ruling is to take away the "stigma" of gay relationships. Where does that "stigma" come from? Religion.
Therefore it removes the "stigma" from gays and puts the "stigma" squarely on those who consider homosexual acts sinful and not equal with heterosexual marriage. In my opinion this legislates religon. These judges want to control religous teachings.
Yes, it does say that Churches don't have to perform these "marriages", but that is beside the point. It is now offically "discrimination" to TEACH OR BELIEVE that one family relationship is favored by God.
The courts outlawed freedom of religous conscience! This is a time honored and well established religous principle: homosexual acts are sinful and they remain sinful no matter the current trends of society. This is a religous and cultural tradition that is beyond Christianity it exists in many many religons the world over. But by fiat it can no longer be taught in California without breaking the law.
|
|
IndependentAZ...
The CA Court Ruling in NO WAY infringes upon any person's Right to practice their religion.
To suggest that the practice of your religion is by default a Discriminatory Act is a poorly reasoned argument, and when considered, one could assert that the practice of any Moral Judgement is a Discriminatory Act and thus constrains your Freedom of Religion... equally wrong.
Please clearly explain how your Rights are being constrained beyond hyperbole.
What I Learned This Week
http://whatilearnedthisweek.wordpress.com/ |
|
Where were the people of California when it was time for these gay judges to be seated ? did they allow it ? Seems to me they were too busy to take note of what was happening. This is how they infiltrate government to get their adgenda
approved . Better wake up America ! |
|
I agree that when people's arguments get mixed with their Bible-based beliefs, their arguments go awry. Under that thought, divorce, and adultery, fornication should be illegal. Polygamy, which is not condemned in the Bible, should be legal.
The qustion is: Who in a democracy decides the definition of a "marriage?" Issues of slavery are different. The Constitution guarantees the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of all men. It doesn't not guarantee the right of anyone to be married to anyone.
States set marriage laws based on the mores of the people. My great-grandmother was married at the age of 15 to my great-grandfather, who was 25. What was perfectly fine 150 years ago is now considered child sexual abuse.
Even in CA the majority of the people do not want same-sex marriage to be seen as equivalent to one man/one woman. I believe we have the right to order our society the way we want on this particular issue.
I understand the Equal Rights argument, but I don't see it as an Equal Rights issue since that would open the door to polygamists and others making the same claim.
At present, CA homosexual couples have all the legal rights according to hetero couples except the right to call it a "marriage." I understand why gays wants to throw off the stigma of being gay and this would pretty much do it.
But even here in CA we are not ready to do that. The people should have a say in the definition of marriage.
You may be right. In the future all this may seem as bizarre as a 15-year-old marrying a 25-year old. But for now the voice of the people should play a role.
|
|
|
Please ignore the double negative in paragraph #2. |
|
if not based upon "morality" and "custom" and "tradition."
how are you going to define marriage from now forward.
since we do not use "morality" and "custom" and "tradition." it cannot be defined by the need to allow all those who love each other to marry. since that would be based upon a "morality" and "custom" and "tradition."
how do you define it now? you are falling into the moral relativism void. soon you will have no tools to define right from wrong or good from evil since we cannot use "morality" and "custom" and "tradition" to do so.
you have argued yourself into oblivion. |
|
|
Don't get your shorts in a wad. At the rate we are going. Soon Mexico will take over Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California making the Bu ttsuffers their problem and they will handle it as they see fit. |
|
to have same sex marriage. and that is what it is since we cannot judge based upon sexual orientation.
is to legitimize same sex relations ships and to insist that they are the same as oposite sex relationships.
of course they are not and never can be the same, not even the same beyond the biological differences.
If a gay insists that they are different but equal then they will have to accept that the sexes are different but equal. If the sexes are different but equal the relationship between two men or women is different that the relationship between a man and a women. |
|
if gays and lesbians are so proud of who they are why do they insist that the can join the lowly state of matrimony. Wouldn't they want to have thier own "group" they can belong too, wouldn't thay have been happier to develope thier own tradition?
don't all pro same sex marriage people say how terrible marriage is and how t has become a failure?
why not start your own tradition and make ours look as bad as you insist it is? |
|
Brob.... Thanks
Ironically, I have yet to determine where I fall on this matter, and equally, important the supporting reasoning. |
|
Back in 2000, California voters by 61% approved a proposition asserting that the state could only recognize a "marriage" between man and a woman.
Recalling 2003, Massachusetts Supreme Court also had a similar outcome, then in 2004 voters backed Bushes position, they favored "union" over "Marriage".
"Ironically" this "Judicial Fiat",
will be the 08 "wedge" issue. |
|
It's amazing how conservatives view equality as infringing on their own rights. That may be why we're soon to be in the last throes of this 30-year conservative insurgency--people are finally waking up to it.
Yes, it would have been better, I suppose, if the California legislature had passed, and the Governor signed, a law providing for marriage equality.
Just as it would have been better, in the Loving v. Virginia case, if Virginia's legislature had passed, and the Governor signed, a law providing for racial marriage equality.
But they didn't, and it was up to the courts to enforce the Constitution and overturn those laws.
If you don't like the Equal Protection Clause, then pass a Constitutional Amendment that removes it. Until then, however, the courts will be the avenue to make sure it's enforced. |
|
Christopher never did return with an answer.
Disappointing. |
|
|
Now I know where to send the small donation that I would otherwise have made to a conservative presidential candidate. |
|
a guy on another blog said "The Ca. Supremes interpreted the State Constitution correctly. The State and its citizens may not deprive rights from one group of citizens that are enjoyed by another." then gave ART and Sec:
"CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 7.
b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked."
If this is true then this whole discussion is moot, it's the law and the Supremes were right no matter how morally repugnant some may feel it is.
|
|
|
but has anyone really thought about what this whole gay marriage fuss is about? Where does it state that the definition of “marriage” contains any reference to the gender of the participants? In my mind marriage is a lifelong union of faithful love, that marriage vows are a commitment to this union, for better or for worse, to the exclusion of all others. I personally believe that this union is established by God’s grace, after all something brought these 2 together. When two mindful people enter into such a covenant they declare their intention of fulfilling its purposes and exchange vows to be faithful to one another until they are separated by death. The purposes of marriage are mutual fellowship, support, comfort, and the possible procreation and nurture of children. This covenant is made, in the sight of Creator, whether acknowledged or not, and in the presence of witnesses and of an authorized celebrant. I realize there are many definitions out there and that many mention gender. |
|
My point is think about what the reality of marriage is, what are we asked to do in a marriage, how do we behave? I would think/hope all definitions would include the concepts of lifelong, faithful, loving, committed, exclusive, for better/worse, for the purpose of mutual fellowship, support, and comfort, and the bit about kids and yeah, like a good book, some sex thrown in for good measure. Why can’t 2 men or 2 women fulfill these requirements? I understand it is not “traditional, the way we’ve always done it” etc. ; there are lots of things that have changed with time. Why do we assume that, based simply on gender, a segment of the population is not entitled to this union? How are 2 people who love one another and have lived together longer than 50% (that would be the divorced segment) of the heterosexual population any less loving, committed, faithful? And lastly who in their right mind would prefer helpless children to live in the foster care/CPS system rather than with 2 people who would love and nurture them as their own simply because those 2 people happen to be of the same sex. We’ve got to do better.
|
|
|
"granted on the same terms to all citizens" It seems gays have the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex like everyone else. If they have the right to change the definition of marriage to suite their preference, doesn't the polygamist have the same right? |
|
|
|