California....Vanguard of Civil Rights

[Flystripper]

Looks like we can put you into the retarded camp. His post has nothing to do with homosexuality being a choice.

excuse me as I wipe my drool but this is what he said

The largest negative effect this will have is by further confusing and misleading the children of California and America to go down dangerous life paths.

Do we choose our life's path? I don't because I am retarded, but do high functioning humans choose their life paths?


mumble mumble *wipes drool* *picks nose*

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

excuse me as I wipe my drool but this is what he said



Do we choose our life's path? I don't because I am retarded, but do high functioning humans choose their life paths?


mumble mumble *wipes drool* *picks nose*

Well of course everyone has the choice to pack some dude's fudge or not.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

Well of course everyone has the choice to pack some dude's fudge or not.

You may not be all bad after all.

[NorCal Cat]

What is really wrong about this decision is these judges are over-ruling the voice of the people. The stench from the bench is making me clench. FOUR people are making their opinions count more than the millions of us who voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman. They are inventing a basic human right that does not exist in the constitution, namely the right for gays to marry.

This actually may end up hurting the gay agenda and gay marriage in California more than helping it in the long run. This decision is going to rally, and energize all those against gay marriage in the state to come out and vote in November to pass the constitutional amendment.

It will be very interesting to see the Church's position on this election. When the marriage proposition was on the ballot several years ago the boys from SLC were very clear in their directives to the local leaders here. The stakes, and wards all over California were VERY active, and organized in supporting the proposition. Each ward had a person in charge of campaigning activities. Things like getting people yard signs to post, collecting signatures, etc. It was pretty ugly during the campaign last time. I remember one guy in our stake kept having his yard sign stolen, and he finally caught the people stealing it one night. I can only imagine it will be ten times worse this time.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by landpoke

He's a Penn State alum, for what it's worth.

Sounds about right. The Klan is still strong in Central Pennsylvania.

[scottie]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I don't think homosexual marriage will harm traditional marriage. I think it will raise taxes to pay the increase in benefits.

That's the reason I'm an opponent. I'll give myself props for being honest.

IPU, you're an opponent of equal rights because the number of recipients of benefits would increase? And you gave yourself props?

[MikeWaters]

The best argument I can really come up with is that marriage is not a right. It's a benefit provided by the state. The state provides it, because the state believes it benefits from it. The state has the right to promote certain kinds of marriages, while prohibiting other kinds of marriages (such as consanguinous marriages). Therefore the state can determine that it has no compelling interest in promoting gay marriages becaue of perceived lack of benefit to the state.

Could gay couples live together and have sex? Yes. Could polyamorous folks live together and have sex? Yes. But they could not marry.

Well, some might argue that it is a benefit to the state to have gays marry. But the state does not benefit froma polyamorous marriage. (I can't think of a reason for the discrepancy, perhaps you can help me out).

The compelling state interesting in promoting heterosexual marriage, is that it forms the basis for stable reproduction. Does the state have an interest in stable reproduction? Yes it does. Some countries are so worried about the lack of fertility that they are paying couples of have children. It could be argued that generally speaking, a homosexual marriage is not the basis for stable reproduction, therefore the state has no compelling interest in providing "marriage status."

I'm not saying I believe all of this, I'm just trying to provide a framework that can be discussed.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

I really wish the church wouldn't fight this so hard, because honestly, I'm not sure how two gay people being married affects the sanctity of my marriage or family AT ALL.

BUT,
for the attorneys out there, how is limiting marriage to a man and a woman unconstitutional? What constitutional right is this limit violating?

I'm just curious what the line of reasoning is.

I didn't read the entire 120+ page opinion, and I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so your question may have been answered already, but here's how I understand it:

Because California statutes allow for domestic partnerships for same-sex couples, which are basically marriage without the name, the Supreme Court held that California law recognizes that same-sex partners have virtually the same rights as heterosexual partners. Therefore, there is no compelling state interest in giving the relationships different names, when they're virtually the same in effect.

It's not an activist Supreme Court here, as many are claiming. The activism was done years ago by the legislature in enacting the domestic partnership statutes.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I didn't read the entire 120+ page opinion, and I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so your question may have been answered already, but here's how I understand it:

Because California statutes allow for domestic partnerships for same-sex couples, which are basically marriage without the name, the Supreme Court held that California law recognizes that same-sex partners have virtually the same rights as heterosexual partners. Therefore, there is no compelling state interest in giving the relationships different names, when they're virtually the same in effect.

It's not an activist Supreme Court here, as many are claiming. The activism was done years ago by the legislature in enacting the domestic partnership statutes.

Yes, it's a fight over symbols. Pro-gay want the symbol, anti-gay marriage don't want the symbol given to them.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Yes, it's a fight over symbols. Pro-gay want the symbol, anti-gay marriage don't want the symbol given to them.

This will stop the Church from ever standing up for moral principles again. We will become more insular, not more involved.

The concern I have is activist legislatures compelling Churches to recognize gay marriages within their congregations or losing their tax exempt status. It won't be enough and everybody will be compelled to think and behave alike. Judicially compelled conformism in some cases doesn't make sense.