Survivalist Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Looking ahead
Joined
·
2,178 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
San Francisco has voted that marriage can be between two of the same sex.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html

(CNN) -- The California Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."


Gay couple John Lewis, left, and Stuart Gaffney celebrate outside the California Supreme Court on Thursday.

In a 4-3 120-page ruling issue, justices wrote "responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."

"We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.

Don't Miss
FindLaw: Read the ruling
iReport.com: Share your reaction
Election Center 2008: Where the candidates stand
The ruling takes affect in 30 days. Watch what the ruling means »

Several gay and lesbian couples, along with the city of San Francisco and gay rights groups, filed a lawsuit saying they were victims of unlawful discrimination. A lower court ruled San Francisco acted unlawfully in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The ruling surprised legal experts because the court has a reputation for being conservative. Six of its seven judges are Republican appointees.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said he is "profoundly grateful" for the decision and for what he called the court's "eloquence" in its delivery.

"After four long years, we're very, very gratified," he told CNN.

Shannon Minter, attorney for one of the plaintiffs in the case, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the ruling "a moment of pure happiness and joy for so many families in California."

"California sets the tone, and this will have a huge effect across the nation to bringing wider acceptance for gay and lesbian couples," he said.

Neil Giuliano, president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, issued a statement saying, "Today's ruling affirms that committed couples, gay and straight, should not be denied the duties, obligations and protections of marriage. ... This decision is a vital affirmation to countless California couples -- straight and gay -- who want to make and have made a lifelong commitment to take care of and be responsible for each other."

Groups opposing same-sex marriage also reacted strongly to the ruling.

"The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and instead legislating from the bench," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for the group Concerned Women for America, in a written statement.

"So-called 'same-sex' marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it's in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable."

The organization said a constitutional marriage amendment should be placed on the November ballot, and national efforts should be made to generate a federal marriage amendment. "The decision must be removed from the hands of judicial activists and returned to the rightful hands of the people," Barber said.

A constitutional amendment initiative that would specify marriage is only between a man and a woman is awaiting verification by the secretary of state's office after its sponsors said they had gathered enough signatures to place it on the statewide ballot. The parties cannot appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Herrera said, as federal courts do not have jurisdiction over the state laws. "This is the final say," he said.

In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that while he agrees with some of the majority's conclusions, the court was overstepping its bounds in striking down the ban. Instead, he wrote, the issue should be left to the voters.

San Francisco officials in 2004 allowed gay couples in the city to wed, prompting a flood of applicants crowding the city hall clerk's office. The first couple to wed then was 80-year-old Phyllis Lyon and 83-year-old Dorothy Martin, lovers for 50 years.

"We have a right just like anyone else to get married to the person we want to get married to," said Lyon at the time.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom called the ruling a victory not just for the city, "but for literally millions of people. ... What the court did is simply affirm their lives."

CNN's Ted Rowlands reported "huge cheers" went up in San Francisco when the ruling was announced.

In California, a 2000 voter referendum banned same-sex marriage, but state lawmakers have made two efforts to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both bills.

"I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," Schwarzenegger said in a statement issued Thursday. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriages in 2004, and gay couples need not be state residents there to wed.

New Hampshire, Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut permit civil unions, while California has a domestic-partner registration law. More than a dozen other states give gay couples some legal rights, as do some other countries. Check the law in different states »

"It's a throwaway line, but I think it's true: As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation," Newsom told CNN. "And I don't think people should be paranoid about that. ... Look what happened in Massachusetts a number of years ago. Massachusetts is doing just fine. The state is doing wonderfully."

The state law in question in the case, which consolidated six cases, was the Defense of Marriage Act, Proposition 22. Oral arguments in March lasted more than three hours.

"There can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most consistent with our state's general legislative policy and preference," said the ruling.

"Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of Section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a 'union between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples."

Newsom compared the ruling to the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a Virginia case overturning that state's ban on interracial marriage.

"This is about civil marriage. This is about fundamental rights," he said.

The ruling may make the same-sex marriage issue more important in November elections.

Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain supports "traditional" marriage, but opposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, saying individual states should decide the issue. He also backs some legal benefits for same-sex couples.

Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton both oppose same-sex marriage, but support civil unions. They also oppose a constitutional ban.
 

·
Watchin tha world go by
Joined
·
8,151 Posts
once more a california court has overturned the will of the people ---prop 187 ring a bell
 

·
American fearmaker
Joined
·
14,245 Posts
Oh, good! Now Ted Kennedy and John Kerry can finally get hitched out there if nothing else. They've been holding back too long now. Kerry will make an ugly bride and Ted will... well... Ted will be Ted: fat, bloated, drunk and stupid. Ted plans to drive his new bride up to Viagra Falls where they will both participate in.... er... Maybe we DON'T want to know... On the way up there Ted plans to drive over the Chappaquidick Bridge to show his new bride how he managed to buy his way out of a reckless homicide beef many years ago. Too bad Teddy won't have a car loaded up with other liberals like Hitlery Clinton, Nancy "Plastic Surgery" Pelosi and Upchuckie Schumer.
 

·
Watchin tha world go by
Joined
·
8,151 Posts
its not about states rights its about judicial activism. an unelected body overturning the will of the people. the states rights (the people are the state) have been trampled. civil unions provide the same legal protections under California law as marriage, so why is it unconstitutional?
if a marriage between one man and one woman unconstitutional--then are other forms of "marriage" constitutional---such as polygamy?
this was not about the law but another strike at the institutions and culture of this country by those who thru with their enlighten vision wish to remake our nation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,268 Posts
For people who are supposedly all about personal liberty and freedom, I see an awful lot of judgement and sticking noses where they don't belong on this one...

Who cares what two consenting adults want to do with each other? Is it anyone else's business? I think those who oppose it should keep their noses out of other peoples business and home lives and focus more on their own. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,268 Posts
its not about states rights its about judicial activism. an unelected body overturning the will of the people. the states rights (the people are the state) have been trampled. civil unions provide the same legal protections under California law as marriage, so why is it unconstitutional?
if a marriage between one man and one woman unconstitutional--then are other forms of "marriage" constitutional---such as polygamy?
this was not about the law but another strike at the institutions and culture of this country by those who thru with their enlighten vision wish to remake our nation.
Frankly, IMO polygamy SHOULD be legal.

However- I support religious organizations having the right to refuse to marry people on the grounds that their marriage violates their religion's doctrines/morals/values.
 

·
Looking ahead
Joined
·
2,178 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
I don't particularly care how those people live or what they do in their homes what I do take issue with is calling a same-sex union a marriage when a traditional marriage is between a man and a woman. All of the benefits of marriage can be had with a civil union which is also the appropriate term for such a relationship. The terminology and definition can be nitpicked to support either position which is the whole reason this is still a topic. I guess that makes my real beef with this the fact that its called marriage and that those who are "married" in a same-sex marrying state are still considered married when they move to your state. I really don't recognize this as a real marriage any more than I would refer to a man dressed as a women as a "she".
 
  • Like
Reactions: jamesandjennie

·
Deo VIndice
Joined
·
6,108 Posts
Its all part of the concept of freedom.
Let the **** enjoy freedom and choose their way of life too. Doesn't bother me one bit.
Just another way this once great country is being destroyed from within... prep now my friend, time is short.:mad:
 
  • Like
Reactions: kajunman1

·
Registered
Joined
·
252 Posts
its not about states rights its about judicial activism. an unelected body overturning the will of the people. the states rights (the people are the state) have been trampled. civil unions provide the same legal protections under California law as marriage, so why is it unconstitutional?
if a marriage between one man and one woman unconstitutional--then are other forms of "marriage" constitutional---such as polygamy?
this was not about the law but another strike at the institutions and culture of this country by those who thru with their enlighten vision wish to remake our nation.
Another red herring. Why not ask if they can marry a lamp or a horse while your at it?
Marriage is a LEGAL institution first, a religious one second if at all?
It is a legal contract between two people for purposes of inheritance and taxes. Nothing more.
Heck, the church only got involved after it realized it could make a buck off of it.
And sorry to burst your bubble, but it IS about the law. Specifically, it's about being treated equally under the law. And finally, for same sex couples, it's starting to happen.
 

·
Information is Ammunition
Joined
·
22,122 Posts
cant we comprimise a bit, say no religeous weddings but a justice of the peace is okay? Let me back this up with my own experience:

My mom and father were married by a JoP, and because of it- my mom had to practically have an act of god (pardon the pun) to let the catholic church baptize me because I was 'born out of recognized wedlock'. Despite this, when she got a divorce from a marriage the church didnt recognize in the first place- they stopped letting me go to sunday school.

so I say let people pay alimony to anyone they like, but to be fair- keep it out of church.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,268 Posts
cant we comprimise a bit, say no religeous weddings but a justice of the peace is okay? Let me back this up with my own experience:

My mom and father were married by a JoP, and because of it- my mom had to practically have an act of god (pardon the pun) to let the catholic church baptize me because I was 'born out of recognized wedlock'. Despite this, when she got a divorce from a marriage the church didnt recognize in the first place- they stopped letting me go to sunday school.

so I say let people pay alimony to anyone they like, but to be fair- keep it out of church.
I'd certainly agree to that. Churches (and any other private organizations) should have the right to "refuse service" to anyone they choose. LOL @ the "let people pay alimony to anyone they like" part :p
 

·
Information is Ammunition
Joined
·
22,122 Posts
well you know, I'm mr. optimism... ;)
 

·
American fearmaker
Joined
·
14,245 Posts
The issue of gay marriage is NOT the main thing. What is the main thing is the WAY liberals do things.

Look, years ago there were surveys done about gay relationships and civil unions. Most people did not have a problem with gay people having a civil union at all. Where it got bad was when the liberal decided to make gay marriage, not a union, a mandated thing up to and including FORCING churches, ministers and priests to perform marriages. In other words, most people have zero trouble with gay people uniting in front of a judge or by contract but the liberals want religious groups to be FORCED into performing marriage rites that the religious groups don't want. It is a matter of liberals trying to dominate EVERYTHING under their control from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Liberals want their options to be the only ones that matter. That's why they don't want YOU to own guns. In order to further their unpopular causes, they can't get public support so they're forced to go to the courts to bypass legislative bodies and public forums. It is the liberal agenda and the liberals' ways of unfairly doing things that upset most people. Now in a few months when the liberals use the court system to get all of your guns banned, maybe then you will understand what everybody is trying to fight. IT IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE THE LIBERAL AGENDA, NOT THE ISSUE THAT THEY USE FOR A COVER, THAT WE FIGHT.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top