Calif. high court asked to hear gay marriage cases

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Calif. high court asked to hear gay marriage cases stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

LISA LEFF | November 17, 2008 09:01 PM EST | AP

I Like ItI Don’t Like It

SAN FRANCISCO — The state attorney general and sponsors of the ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California urged its Supreme Court to hear a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn the ban, saying the matter is too urgent to be unsettled.

"The petitions raise issues of statewide importance, implicating not only California's marriage laws but also the initiative process and the Constitution itself," Attorney General Jerry Brown argued in his filing.

"This court can provide certainty and finality in this matter," he said.

Proposition 8, which passed with 52 percent of the vote earlier this month, overturned the high court's May decision legalizing gay marriage in California. The measure inserts language into the constitution limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

Gay and civil rights groups, the city of San Francisco and other plaintiffs have asked the court to void the measure on the grounds that voters did not have the authority to make, what they say, is a fundamental constitutional change.

There is no deadline for the justices to decide whether they'll take the cases.

The litigation has made unwitting allies of supporters of the same-sex marriage ban and the attorney general, who voted against the proposition. Over the summer, anti-gay marriage groups sued Brown after his office changed the measure's wording to reflect that it would take away a right that same-sex couples then had.

Brown has since said that in his role as California's top public lawyer, he will fight to uphold Proposition 8 as an expression of public sentiment on same-sex marriage. The preliminary documents he filed Monday did not address that issue.

Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for the Yes on 8 campaign, said the measure's supporters are so confident the Supreme Court would uphold the initiative they want the court to take the cases and resolve the question quickly.

"There is no question Proposition 8 is exactly the type of amendment the framers of the Constitution envisioned for the people to be able to enact," Pugno said.

The Protect Marriage coalition is less confident about Brown's sincere interest in defending the gay marriage ban in court, according to Pugno. That's why the coalition asked the court for permission to intervene in the cases Monday.

"Everyone knows the AG opposed Proposition 8, did everything he could to undermine it and it still passed anyway," he said. "There is little hope he would make much effort at all to defend Prop. 8."

Both the attorney general and Protect Marriage asked the court to reject a request from gay marriage supporters for a stay that would allow same-sex couples to resume marrying in California until the broader legal issues are addressed.

Meanwhile, the interfaith California Council of Churches and the Episcopal bishops of Northern California and Los Angeles added their petition Monday to those asking the high court to invalidate Proposition 8. They argue that if voters are permitted to take away rights from a group based on sexual orientation, the same could happen to religious minorities.

SAN FRANCISCO — The state attorney general and sponsors of the ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California urged its Supreme Court to hear a series of lawsuits seeking to overt...
SAN FRANCISCO — The state attorney general and sponsors of the ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California urged its Supreme Court to hear a series of lawsuits seeking to overt...
Filed by Nick Graham  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
747
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
- fredamae I'm a Fan of fredamae 34 fans permalink

I am Christian, I am Old, I am White, I am not gay, I am Rural America.

I stand with the GLBT Family and Support their rights! Period.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:53 AM on 11/18/2008

bless you

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:57 AM on 11/18/2008
photo

And you are a warm, intelligent, and caring human being. Thank you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:05 PM on 11/18/2008
- Minako I'm a Fan of Minako 44 fans permalink
photo

Bless you sir or ma'am, you are truly following in the spirit of Christ.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:14 PM on 11/18/2008
- luvobama I'm a Fan of luvobama 229 fans permalink

There are more of us then them. Thank goodness and thank you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:16 PM on 11/18/2008
- mercury613 I'm a Fan of mercury613 40 fans permalink
photo

I thank you, too.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:57 AM on 11/19/2008

Gay folks, y'all just need better lobbyists. Or get some who wear shorter skirts. That'll clear this whole thing up. LOL.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:12 AM on 11/18/2008

It would have been OK for the Judiciary to step in if the outcome of the vote was undecisive.

It is a pity that humanity has sank so low spiritually that those who ought to realise that the Judiciary has no "life" of its own but is made up of men and woman, human beings like anybody else, turn to the Judiciary to decide on an issue that the majority of voters have decided already. For a few men and women(which make up the Judiciary) to think of having the final say after majority of voters have undisputably 'spoken' is to allow society to be 'hijacked' by the few that are most influential or most vicious.

The concern of the "interfaith California Council of Churches and the Episcopal bishops of Northern California and Los Angeles", that accepting the outcome of the vote is a risk that other minorities may have their rights taken away by the majority someday, simply reveals the folly of the American Nation abandoning­/disregard­ing the Holy Bible as the standard of right and wrong, good and evil, holy and profane. Once there is no acceptable standard to decide right and wrong, the most influential, the most powerful or the most vicious will impose their will on all, even if their will is obviously against that which a 'not seared' conscience would uphold.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:03 AM on 11/18/2008
- NoMercy I'm a Fan of NoMercy 56 fans permalink
photo

O boy. This thread is like flypaper for the kooks.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:08 AM on 11/18/2008
- peggyleg I'm a Fan of peggyleg 22 fans permalink

Actually, what Tenneysonkpohararor said is really scary...an­d it looks like this may be what we are coming to...to overturn the will of the people for the ney-sayers "rights" is exactly what this might come down to....

How wonderful it must be to be a minority, all you have to do is say you have been discriminated against. and the libs jump on your bandwagon. Remeber, when you stand for NOTHING, you will fall for ANYTHING..­..old saying that still holds true today....

And the "discriminated" against, in this case, have NOTHING to stand for....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:21 AM on 11/18/2008
- K.J. Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of K.J. Dwyer 102 fans permalink

LOL.

It's frankly the only thing that gives me hope. When you read the unbelievably pathetic arguments against gay marriage, you know that it's just a matter of time before they take their rightful place in the dust-bin of history.

Utterly substance-free blather.

It's sad that so many people have to suffer in the meantime, but the more I read their moronic screeds, I'm convinced that the anti-gay marriage crowd will go the way of all other philosophical trash. The closer the garbage truck gets, the more insane and irrational their diatribes, but there's something inexorable in their demise.

It's just a question of time. In the meantime we can pick their arguments apart like so much wet cardboard and shake our heads at their sad little perspectives.

Truly, truly pathetic.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:26 AM on 11/18/2008

The US has never held the Bible to be the basis for our laws.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:17 AM on 11/18/2008

I concur.

I would also like to state for the record that it seems that these folks are just hell bent on defining
those that do not agree as an "Us against Them" fight. In essence painting Christians and others as enemies.

When we are not.

Furthermore, I have to conclude that they, not being religious, are pretty clueless as to how we feel about this fight and that for some reason they cannot understand that we see their folly:

Recreating the whole of human civilization entirely not built around heteosexual families that bear and raise children and become the building blocks of nation states but a human civilization that for the first time sees two different paths...on­e heterosexual and one homosexual.

And gauging the anti-religious rhetoric from some of these gay marriage advocates here, I must wonder if they will stop there?

One needs only to look around...
Look at the United Nations site for world data on birth rates and you will see that they are BELOW the Replacement Birth Rate of 2.1...

Makes me wonder....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:47 AM on 11/18/2008
- MechaMike I'm a Fan of MechaMike 2 fans permalink

No other civilization recognizes gay marriage?

What about Canada, South African, most of Europe, Nepal etc

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:11 PM on 11/18/2008
- luvobama I'm a Fan of luvobama 229 fans permalink

And your latent tendencies become more clear with every post and interaction you seem hellbent on having with the people you claim not to like. Sounds like you need help.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:20 PM on 11/18/2008
- Minako I'm a Fan of Minako 44 fans permalink
photo

You need to understand that this is a secular argument. So long as straight couples can bypass the church and get married in civil court, there is no bearing on religion in the fight for gay rights.

Also, the United States was not, in any measure, founded on Christianity. This is not a theocracy, there is no state sponsored religion. We have FREEDOM of religion, which means if my religion supports gay marriage, your religion is infringing on the freedom of mine.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:07 PM on 11/18/2008
- HaloGuy I'm a Fan of HaloGuy 12 fans permalink
photo

I think you need to take a look at your holy books and see exactly how many of the institutions advocated during the times those books were written are now abolished:

SLAVERY
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
POLYGAMY

Please explain how our deviation from those "values" has turned our society into one of wrong, evil and profane attributes? I'm extremely curious.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:09 PM on 11/18/2008
- georgiaR I'm a Fan of georgiaR 17 fans permalink

The people have voted - twice. Doesn't that matter? So much for democracy

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:31 AM on 11/18/2008

that is mob rule. you can't vote to take rights away from someone in this country.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:38 AM on 11/18/2008

Exactly, if had gone to a vote the Voting Rights Act of 1964 wouldn't have passed, women wouldn't have gotten Suffrage, and its debatable whether or not Slavery would have been abolished.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:52 AM on 11/18/2008
- torrrep I'm a Fan of torrrep 12 fans permalink

Why not? Isn't it mob rule to have 9 judges rule based on their opinions rather than on what the constitution actually says?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:30 AM on 11/18/2008
- Quaoar I'm a Fan of Quaoar 28 fans permalink
photo

And it will probably come up for a vote again in a few years. 61% opposed gay marriage in 2000 vs. 52% opposing it this year. If another proposition goes before the California voters 8 or 10 years from now the pro gay marriage side will most likely win.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:47 AM on 11/18/2008
- tregibbs I'm a Fan of tregibbs 4 fans permalink
photo

Democracy works both ways. One group CANNOT vote away the rights of another. The State constitution is there to protect people from this exact form of bigotry and discrimination

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:49 AM on 11/18/2008
- randyjet I'm a Fan of randyjet 26 fans permalink

One group CANNOT vote away the rights of another

I see that you never heard of the DRAFT! The legislature and Congress took away some men's lives! So I know that the people have MORE than the right to decide who may get a marriage license which is a state granted charter. The state also has the right to give subsidies to some businesses. It thus does NOT make it a violation of ALL others businesses if they don't get them too. Marriage is NOT a right such as freedom of speech or the press. The state has the right to grant preferences to what ever group they wish for state purposes and benefits.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:23 AM on 11/18/2008
- torrrep I'm a Fan of torrrep 12 fans permalink

And the supreme court can NOT just randomly decide on its own as to what those rights are. Their job is to refer to WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION. They don't get to rule on what they think it SHOULD say.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:28 AM on 11/18/2008

Huh? Do you know ANY gay folks? They'll all tell you that it's no choice. Not a one of them woke up one day and DECIDED that joining the most reviled and abused group on earth would be loads of fun.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:05 PM on 11/18/2008
- luvobama I'm a Fan of luvobama 229 fans permalink

How did people vote in the 60s over black rights?

Oh that's right.

Civil Rights are not up for referendum. Get an education.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:17 AM on 11/18/2008
- torrrep I'm a Fan of torrrep 12 fans permalink

Gay is not a race. It is a choice.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:27 AM on 11/18/2008
- fredamae I'm a Fan of fredamae 34 fans permalink

Well, for one thing..you­r post seems to say that You are Better because You "haven't done EVERYTHING to prove you are different".

Well, in their eyes You are different for them. So what is your point? The Elements that need to be noticed in the fight for the rights of Gay folks to enjoy the Same thing WE enjoy is that WE ALL need to embrace these very differences and get the hell along!

Anything else is Meddling and Nosy.

I know many folks who are gay, both men and women. In no manner has MY marriage to my husband Ever been threatened.

Actually, If you examine this whole thing, they are Being traditional in the keenest sense of definition. They simply want the Ultimate Commitment and Rights that We take for granted.

Every Christian who fights to withhold these rights from any group should hang your "Anti-Christian" behavior. Jesus is NOT proud of You!

You seem to base this discrimination upon "Tradition". How can a people Progress if we don't allow for advances and change?

So, IF your friends and neighbors happen to want to spend the rest of their lives with another of the same sex....HOW Can this change Your life in any way???? Seriously.­.How Will Your Personal Life be Impacted any differently than it is now?
WHY do YOU Care?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:47 AM on 11/18/2008

Jesus was anti-tradition. He was hanging out with the lepers and the prostitutes and turning over the tables of the money changers at the Temple Mount.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:09 AM on 11/18/2008
photo

Don't try to confuse them with the behavior of Christ. They prefer to cherry-pick what they want to believe out of their Bible.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:32 AM on 11/18/2008

You can already spend the rest of your life with someone of your own choosing.
In some states you can have a domestic partnership.

Many people do it anyway without the frills etc.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:11 AM on 11/18/2008
- K.J. Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of K.J. Dwyer 102 fans permalink

The "frills?"

I wonder if you were denied access to your life-partner in a medical crisis, or if the inheritance of your spouse's estate was automatically conferred to next of kin, that you would be inclined to refer to such rights as "frills."

Keep talking; you make my arguments better than I ever could.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:36 AM on 11/18/2008
- Lemeritus I'm a Fan of Lemeritus 108 fans permalink
photo

SonofLiberty1, "without the frills", as you call it, is also without rights. Many argue that civil unions are equivalent to marriage in all but name; they are not in these regards (from FactCheck.org):
1. The right to federal benefits. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits.
- Taxes. Partners in a civil union aren't permitted to transfer assets & wealth without incurring tax penalities.
- Health insurance. Health plans governed by federal law permit the employer to choose whether extend benefits.
- Social Security survivor benefits. Same-sex couples are not eligible for such benefits
2. Portability. Because civil unions are not recognized by all states, such agreements are not always valid when couples cross state lines.
3. Terminology. "Marriage" is a term that conveys societal and cultural meaning. In this regard, it's important to note that many churchs will not perform weddings for same-sex partners; that is their right --others will. The impetus for many gays is to make their vows before God and "those here gathered". It's ironic that religious organizations who demonize gays for their promiscuity fail to regard or respect the appetite in the LGBT community for commitment.

If you extend the logic of "without the frills", I think you'll see the creation of second-class citizens. I doubt from your tone that this is what you want to promote.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:48 AM on 11/18/2008
- tregibbs I'm a Fan of tregibbs 4 fans permalink
photo

That's not for you to decide. I will decide if I want "the frills" or not.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:51 AM on 11/18/2008
- peggyleg I'm a Fan of peggyleg 22 fans permalink

It will chip away at the foundataion of marriage if gays are allowed to be "married".­..I don't know about you, but traditions and commitment and values mean something to me...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:24 AM on 11/18/2008
- luvobama I'm a Fan of luvobama 229 fans permalink

How will it chip away at the foundation of marriage?

I know a dult ery does, but i have never seen a proposition asking the state to ban it. That's the bandwagon you people need to get on.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:28 AM on 11/18/2008
- fredamae I'm a Fan of fredamae 34 fans permalink

For myself and my husband...­we Agree with you, but I do Not suppose for a Minute that My way/Our way is the Only or Right Way to the point of Imposing my beliefs upon another...­.....how valuable are they (marriage commitments) when adultery and incest are rampant?

How can you conscientiously Deny anyone the same rights you enjoy based upon some illusion of Sacred Unions when Half of men and women who get married will casually toss their "promise" aside as if it were meaningless anyway via divorce?

No! Stop with this Prejudice!
What ever is Right Or Wrong, It is Not for Us to Judge, Especially based on Religion!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:45 AM on 11/18/2008

So where's the proposition to ban divorce?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:07 PM on 11/18/2008

You must have a really shaky marriage if a few gay folks getting married can threaten it.
5 years of gay marriage in Massachusetts and the world hasn't ended yet. In fact, they have the nation's lowest divorce rate.
Oh, what am I thinking? You're not interested in facts, only emotion and ideology.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:12 PM on 11/18/2008
- mercury613 I'm a Fan of mercury613 40 fans permalink
photo

Explain to us all exactly how "It will chip away at the foundataion of marriage if gays are allowed to be "married"".

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:02 AM on 11/19/2008
- gaydm I'm a Fan of gaydm 8 fans permalink
photo

Where, in any civil marriage contract, is having sex between the two parties involved in the marriage contract, required of them?
Having Sexual contact is NOT a requirement to have a civil marriage. A civil marriage license is NOT a license to have sex.
A civil marriage license does NOT require that the two parties involved have children either. You do NOT have to procreate to join in marriage. You also are NOT required to have any child. You may aquire children after the fact. But you are NOT required to have them together.
Since sexual activity is NOT a part of the contract of MARRIAGE. Then what is the basis of any objection to the genders of the individuals involved in the marriage contract when sex is not a part of said contract? Whatever sexual ickyness occurs after said contract is signed has no bearing at all on the contract.
Stop discriminating based on gender. It is illegal for the state to do so in contract law.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:33 AM on 11/18/2008
- peggyleg I'm a Fan of peggyleg 22 fans permalink

No discrimination is going on....and I don't know about YOU, but MARRIAGE does mean sex...haha­ha

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:49 AM on 11/18/2008

How do you know that no discrimination is going on?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:24 AM on 11/18/2008

Traditionally you do have to consummate the marriage, and if you don't that can be grounds for annulment. But there is no requirement for conception.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:56 AM on 11/18/2008
- gaydm I'm a Fan of gaydm 8 fans permalink
photo

My partner and I have consummated the marriage, we neither one have conceived. I am talking about civil marriage. NOT a religious one. Your protest is still invalid.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:10 AM on 11/18/2008
- K.J. Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of K.J. Dwyer 102 fans permalink

The only arguments that exist against gay marriage are religiously based. Because the United States has conferred the power of administering civil contracts to people of the cloth, they have blurred the line between Church and State.

Marriage is first and last a civil contract. We understand this perfectly when someone seeks a divorce. Do they go to their priests, ministers or rabbis in such instances? No, they hire lawyers and go to court. Why? Because marriage is a civil contract. Period.

Clergy should not have the power to administer civil contracts. They are not government representatives and have no place in the power of the state. If people want to get married, they should go to a courthouse and stand in front of a judge. Period. If they then want to have a religious ceremony, that is, of course, their right. However, the only marriage that should be recognized by the state is that performed in front of a judge in a government venue.

Once marriage is truly defined this way, religion will take its rightful peripheral place in the discussion and the arguments against gay marriage that were deemed illegal by the California Supreme Court will be similarly marginalized.

As long as the Church has the power to administer this insitution, however, they will forever feel that it's "theirs" to protect. The State needs to, once and for all, inform the religious that they have no power here; "be gone before someone drops a house on you."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:26 AM on 11/18/2008
- NoMercy I'm a Fan of NoMercy 56 fans permalink
photo

Amen. This is exactly how it is in France. Only civil authority can marry people. Most couples *only* go to the town hall.

But of course the French really are republicans.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:34 AM on 11/18/2008
- K.J. Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of K.J. Dwyer 102 fans permalink

I am an American living in Argentina and this is how it's done here, as well. It's not a swipe at religion; it's simply the recognition that marriage is a civil contract.

If people want to have a religious ceremony, that's absolutely fine. No one is saying that such a ceremony is "illegal". The Argentine State is simply saying that the only recognized contract, from the government's point of view, is that performed by a judge at the Registro Civil (Civil Registry). In this way, religious tradition, which varies from religion to religion, is not at loggerheads with other traditions or that part of the population that is not religious at all.

It's remarkably obvious and simple, but like so many things in the U.S., is made unnecessarily difficult by the irrational.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:54 AM on 11/18/2008
- peggyleg I'm a Fan of peggyleg 22 fans permalink

Probably one of thousands of reasons I chose to live in the USA....thi­s is NOT Europe, and some things are best left "unchanged­"....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:55 AM on 11/18/2008

I have been giving arguments for the past 30 minutes that have nothing to do with religion. I do not represent any specific religion or religious belief.

Marriage exists in tradition to create a construct that furthers the contributions of male and female in the conception of a child. That construct exists to create a safe environment in which male and female contribute to raise a child to adulthood.

Marriage is the result of biology, and not religious bigotry as you imply with your post.

Your arguments about clergy are moot.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:34 AM on 11/18/2008
- K.J. Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of K.J. Dwyer 102 fans permalink

Marriage also exists, in tradition, to confer property rights, inheritance, powers-of-attorney, and any number of other rights and traditions that have nothing whatsoever to do with "the conception of a child."

Are Robert and Elizabeth Dole betraying the definition of marriage because they chose not to have children?

Marriage is not the result of biology, as you suggest, but rather the result of the evolution of societal and economic structures that recognize the concept of "private property."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:40 AM on 11/18/2008

"Create a safe environment in which male and female contribute to raise a child to adulthood.­"

Is this argument logical? I mean, really?

What about people who marry and cannot have children? What about people who marry and choose not to have kids? Furthermore, what about those who have children, but it for damn sure isn't a safe environment?

Should all those groups of people be stripped of their rights to marry because they don't fit into the neat little filing cabinet you made for those who marry?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:45 AM on 11/18/2008
photo

And your reaching for *any* argument to justify your bigotry is getting tedious.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:46 AM on 11/18/2008

Traditionally, marriage was a conveyance of property (i.e. the woman) from the woman's parents to her husband. Often a dowry accompanied her - meaning that the parents were "paying" the husband to take her off their hands because an unwed woman was a financial burden on the family. The concern for a "safe environment" for children is a relatively new concept that has little historical basis.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:49 AM on 11/18/2008
- truthforme I'm a Fan of truthforme 9 fans permalink

The arguements you have been giving have nothing to do with facts either.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:58 AM on 11/18/2008
- tregibbs I'm a Fan of tregibbs 4 fans permalink
photo

Right on!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:52 AM on 11/18/2008
- torrrep I'm a Fan of torrrep 12 fans permalink

The church administered this power LONG before this government was even around. Stop making it sound like marriage was something the government created that religion is trying to steal. That is a ridiculous argument . You mention the clergy having no power. The government has no business being involved in marriage because marriage was around long before civil contracts. Judges should not be married by judges. That is not their job. Your idiotic statements show that you have no concept of government, history or tradition.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:36 AM on 11/18/2008
- K.J. Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of K.J. Dwyer 102 fans permalink

Blather, blather, blather.

Keep talking; you make my point better than I ever could.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:17 PM on 11/18/2008
- mercury613 I'm a Fan of mercury613 40 fans permalink
photo

Check your facts. Marriage was around LONG before Christianity.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:56 PM on 11/18/2008
- Okieborn I'm a Fan of Okieborn 63 fans permalink

This could be GOOD News or this could be BAD NEWS !!
NO NO NO NO TO PROP. 8
A straight Baby Boomer who believes in "EQUAL RIGHTS" for "ALL" !!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:19 AM on 11/18/2008

I also believe in equal rights. I also know that gay marriage is not a rights issue.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:21 AM on 11/18/2008
- Dynamohum I'm a Fan of Dynamohum 59 fans permalink

What is it then?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:41 AM on 11/18/2008
- furryone I'm a Fan of furryone 19 fans permalink
photo

there is NO such thing as "gay" marriage---marriage is INANIMATE ya dork nozzle...i­t doesn't have a sexual orientation
nor a brain
kinda like you

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:49 AM on 11/18/2008
photo

Go read the Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia (the decision that allows inter-racial couples to marry) and it is clearly stated there that marriage is a civil right. Do some research. I have houseplants that are smarter than you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:57 AM on 11/18/2008

Prop 8 is not an amendment but a revision: it conflicts with California's Equal Protection
Guarantee, which protects minority groups from the whims of the majority by subjecting the majority to the same laws that it would impose on the minority. A revision requires a 2/3's house majority before it is given to the people. Prop 8 is unconstitutional and was improperly enacted.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:06 AM on 11/18/2008

Marriage as defined as a union between a man and a woman applies to all groups of people, gay or straight. If any individual, gay or straight, wants to enter into a marriage they can legally do so. All have equal access to this right.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:23 AM on 11/18/2008

seriously frictionle­ssmatter3, get your rhetoric straight (no pun intended). Is marriage a rights issue or not? Above you said that "gay marriage is not a rights issue". Here you say that "All have equal access to this right." Either marriage is a right or it's not (it is but anyway). You can't have it both ways (again, no pun intended..­.well maybe a little).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:46 AM on 11/18/2008
- darcy I'm a Fan of darcy 27 fans permalink

Exactly, ekw59. The ban is clearly unconstitutional on every level.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:29 AM on 11/18/2008
- torrrep I'm a Fan of torrrep 12 fans permalink

Gay is not a minority. Minority infers race. Gay is not a race. It is a choice. Get over it. It is NOT a revision because the constitution does NOT explicitly allow for "gay marriage". Try looking up the word "revision" before you use it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:40 AM on 11/18/2008

Actually I rather believe that gay activists want to change the definition of race to include gayness.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:05 PM on 11/18/2008

Actually, the court decision defined gays as a suspect class, which means that it is covered by the constitution and they are a minority.

Did you even look at the court decision you were trying to overturn?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:10 PM on 11/18/2008

Minority does not automatically refer to race, it is ONLY a number, and refers to any and every group of people who number fewer than the majority.
You can believe whatever you choose, but homosexuality is NOT a choice.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:18 PM on 11/18/2008
- Ohg I'm a Fan of Ohg 5 fans permalink

This is great news. The right to privacy has been clearly upheld numerous times. ..........­.....

http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/11/14/the-right-to-privacy-the-9th-amendment-gay-marriage/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:55 AM on 11/18/2008

Couldn't a proposition now be introduced to bring back slavery. If all you need is a simple majority to overturn essential freedoms, think of the harm this could do in some other states if California of all places is this judgmental. WOW - does this ever strike me as a scary tool.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:44 AM on 11/18/2008

No.

Marriage is open to all consenting adults gay or straight.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:46 AM on 11/18/2008

So, as a gay man, can I marry you daughter?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:51 AM on 11/18/2008
- bluekatz I'm a Fan of bluekatz 13 fans permalink

You need to stop taking those drugs. To compare marriage to slavery is an insult to the slaves. Get real and get a clue

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:12 AM on 11/18/2008

Indeed, homosexual marriage is incomparable to human slavery.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:23 AM on 11/18/2008

Someone needs to actually offer counter-arguments if they are going to complain so much.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:50 AM on 11/18/2008
- spartanmom I'm a Fan of spartanmom 13 fans permalink

i really don't understand how California can change their constitution based on a simple plebiscite. It makes no sense. Can someone explain this?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:40 AM on 11/18/2008
- peggyleg I'm a Fan of peggyleg 22 fans permalink

It is called "the will of the people"...­.

Majority rules, remember?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:08 AM on 11/18/2008
- darcy I'm a Fan of darcy 27 fans permalink

peggyleg, the "will of the people" is not allowed to infringe on civil liberties. For example, what if you were blonde and blue-eyed and your state passed a ban on blonde, blue-eyed women voting because the general belief is that they're too stupid to vote?

Would you like that? Of course not. The majority can't take away your civil liberties, and the majority can't take away the civil liberties of others.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:36 AM on 11/18/2008

The entire purpose of a democracy is to protect the *minority* from the *majority.­*

Otherwise, no minority would have ever gained a single civil right in this country.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:37 AM on 11/18/2008
photo

"They argue that if voters are permitted to take away rights from a group based on sexual orientation, the same could happen to religious minorities­."

Well, that's almost enough to make ya want to let Prop H8 stand! Fvck the mormons!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:35 AM on 11/18/2008

And yet, marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman, does not take away rights from anyone based on sexual orientation. Anyone, gay or straight, can enter into a marriage contract.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:37 AM on 11/18/2008
photo

You are remarkably unintelligent, and to call you disingenuous is the nicest thing that can be said about you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:42 AM on 11/18/2008

One does not have to be straight in order to get married. Anyone, gay or straight, can marry any other adult of the opposite sex.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:05 AM on 11/18/2008
photo

So, you would have no objection to the creation of a statute that defines "social contracts" between people of the SAME SEX, as long as the statute clearly states that 1) the statute exists to perpetuate social rights and privileges between any two persons--regardless of sexual orientation--who choose to co-habitate and/or otherwise enter into a domestic partnership, and 2) the statute clearly defines the contractually binding agreement as a "social partnership" rather than marriage?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:32 AM on 11/18/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect