In a decision that hearkened back to the 1948 opinion overturning the prohibition against interracial marriages, the California Supreme Court decided that same sex couples have a “fundamental right” to marry each other, just like straight couples. In doing so, the California Supremes struck down nearly any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.
The decision was a very pleasant and welcome surprise coming from the Republican dominated court. There are a zillion articles and opinion pieces about the decision, but the LA Times has a fairly thorough story, so you may as well start there.
Time Magazine has a good rundown as well.
Ah, once again, liberal judges overrule the wishes of the voters with a ruling based upon skewed thinking.
And, Celeste, please don’t equate the rights of people based on race with alleged rights of people with sexual preferences.
Homosexuals originally wanted just acceptance. Since then, they have formed a political force to get just about anything that they decide that they want, which likely was their undisclosed objective all along. Their left-wing agenda is dangerous for the stability of our society and nation.
Oh, and if there is any question, do you really believe that marriage was originally framed in our laws to apply to same-sex couples?
(The L.A. Times and TIME magazine–what great, unbiased sources!)
Ah, once again, liberal judges overrule the wishes of the voters with a ruling based upon skewed thinking.
Three of the four justices voting for this were initially appointed by Republican governors.
Another Republican comments:
I can do this in my sleep.
“Their left-wing agenda is dangerous for the stability of our society and nation.”
Since when is marriage a “left-wing agenda?” In fact, gay marriage is “stabilizing” given the proliferation of gay families parenting children. Promoting stable relationships between couples, whatever their sexual predilictions, is “normal.” This is common sense at this point in time. That said, I’d be perfectly happy with a legal code that calls marriage, whatever one’s sex, “civil union” in the eyes of the state and offers all of the existing privileges and responsibilites under the law, and allows churches or other affinity groups based on common beliefs to “sanctify” these unions as “marriage” in private ceremonies for family and friends. The civil union would be the legal requirement and the “sanctification ceremony” an option for those who desire further ritual, want to elaborate their vows and enjoy cake and presents in the company of close friends and family.
Oh…and do you really believe that voting, equal education or many other rights were originally framed in our laws to apply to women and “non-whites?”
Randy: …gay marriage is “stabilizing†given the proliferation of gay families parenting children>
Need I say anything in response?
Randy: …do you really believe that voting, equal education or many other rights were originally framed in our laws to apply to women and “non-whites?â€Â
No, just race, color, creed. The mis-named Equal Rights Amendment was defeated when people saw it for what it was, and there was no intention of including homosexuals in laws made long ago regarding marriage.
Randy: I can do this in my sleep.
Apparently, you are.
Oh, nuts. I got Randy and reg mixed up in my comment. Well, you can sort it out.
I guess the left will now be crying for “equal rights” for polygamists and underage marriages. NAMBLA is waiting in the wings.
Update: Liberals are calling for marriages between men and animals. This should be good news for some backers of the above ruling.
“I guess the left will now be crying for “equal rights†for polygamists and underage marriages.”
I think you’ve got us mixed up with fundamentalist Mormons. And all those guys in the Old Testament back, you know, when God laid out the rules for marriage.
“Need I say anything in response?”
“Update: Liberals are calling for marriages between men and animals. ”
You were better off before you changed your mind…
NAMBLA is waiting in the wings.
Maybe Republican Mark Foley will take the lead on that.
Apparently, you are.
With a significantly better grasp of the facts, erudition and clarity than you can muster on your best days.
The real issue shouldn’t be special rights for homosexuals but whether it is acceptable for activist judges to overthrow the will of the people as determined by their votes–just because you like the ruling. Isn’t it pathetic when words begin to mean whatever judges says rather than what the legislators intended, citizens approved, and dictionaries say?
If liberals depended upon legislators and referenda rather than activist judges, little of what they wanted would become law and this country would be a lot better off–and millions of kids would have lived, too.
“special rights for homosexuals”
What “special right” is at issue here ?
Activist judges ? Eye of the beholder…
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/opinion/09mon4.html
First the courts said Jim Crow was illegal and Woody was against it. Then the courts said you can’t discriminate against women, and Woody was against it. Then they said that you can’t outlaw interracial marriage, and Woody was against it. Today, the state court ruled that preventing gay marriage violates the state constitution, and Woody is against it. It comes as great comfort to me that the Woodys of the world are on the wrong side of history.
reg, a conservative court overruling a previous activist liberal court decision, because the liberal judges made law rather than interpreted law, does not connote an activist conservative court, but, rather, one loyal to intent of the legislature and against an activist judicial.
This brings to mind our on-site legal expert, Richard LoCicero. What happened to him?
Mavis, you have me on the wrong side of positions. I want equal rights–not special rights.
For example, affirmative action is a special right that helps one group by discriminating against other people based upon their race. The ERA was a sham that was exposed, but women did not need that for equal treatment under the law. What I don’t like about the Voting Rights Act is that it didn’t apply to all states and it doesn’t require something on the order of a literacy test. (Voting is not a Constitutional right, btw.)
I’m never on the wrong side of history. History is on the wrong side of morality and justice.
Oh, reg, I didn’t mean to ignore your question. The “special right” regarding gays is that two men or two women or two whatevers can be considered married and have related rights–such as adoption, which has to be one of the most perverted ideas for kids.
One last thing…we really shouldn’t be debating the wonders and privileges of homosexuality but, rather, activist courts overruling the people and making up laws.
This brings to mind our on-site legal expert, Richard LoCicero. What happened to him?
I e-mailed him about two weeks ago and haven’t heard anything back. I’m more than a little concerned, but have no other way to contact him.
Hmmm. I hope rlc is okay and not mad at us.
Randy, to add a story of interest to your site:
Un camion vuelca su carga en la Av. 9 de Julio y San Juan. Buenos Aires, 7 de mayo de 2008
LLuvia de limones
“a conservative court overruling a previous activist liberal court decision”
Read the article…it’s about activist conservative judges overruling “the will of the people”, i.e. legislation. Which was your beef.
“rights – such as adoption, which has to be one of the most perverted ideas for kids’
I know several of these kids and they’re fine. Nobody else wanted them. Nothing “perverted” about them getting two loving parents and a home of their own.
I agree. Kids should not be adopting.
reg: I know several of these kids and they’re fine. Nobody else wanted them.
I don’t think that you’re qualified to determine that the kids are and will be fine and that these kids had no hope with a normal family.
4-Block World: Gay Marriage: The Nullification of Democracy