California....Vanguard of Civil Rights

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

In our democracy of checks and balances, the CA Supreme Court did not change any laws today or give same-sex couples the right to marry. Rather, they interpreted the constitutions in a manner that indicates the current CA marital statutes are illegal. So now the state legislature has the prerogative of deciding what to do about it, and they don't have to conform to the court. As SU alluded to, language is so ambiguous (remember Bill Clinton testifying "that depends on what your definition of "is" is"), that the legislature can challenge the court's interpretation, and modify the language of the statutes however they want.

So this is far from over.

This is correct. Also, given that CA already (and fairly recently) voted no on this issue, it will likely be awhile before it happens.

But it is clear that the change is only a matter of time. It will not be stopped.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

In our democracy of checks and balances, the CA Supreme Court did not change any laws today or give same-sex couples the right to marry. Rather, they interpreted the constitutions in a manner that indicates the current CA marital statutes are illegal. So now the state legislature has the prerogative of deciding what to do about it, and they don't have to conform to the court. As SU alluded to, language is so ambiguous (remember Bill Clinton testifying "that depends on what your definition of "is" is"), that the legislature can challenge the court's interpretation, and modify the language of the statutes however they want.

So this is far from over.

As I understand the decision it interpreted the State Constitution not a statute. So the only recourse to voters or their representatives is a Constitutional amendment.

[MikeWaters]

It's been stopped (for a good time) in the 27 states or so that have changed their constitution.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

This is correct. Also, given that CA already (and fairly recently) voted no on this issue, it will likely be awhile before it happens.

But it is clear that the change is only a matter of time. It will not be stopped.

They won't amend the constitution. Game over dude.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

This is my rationale, as well.

Heterosexual marriage is not harmed if homosexuals can get married.

My guess is that, politically speaking, it is in the Church's best interest to keep gay marriage illegal. Once it becomes legal, the Church faces heavier scrutiny for condemining it.

From an operational standpoint, legalized gay marriage does not impede the Church one bit, any more than legalized alcohol, abortions, or stores being open on Sunday. The Church and its members will still go about their business as before.

Out of curiosity, what does your wife think about it? My wife disagrees with me on this one. She's generally more conservative anyway, so it's not a huge shock, but she feels that letting gay people marry does negatively affect traditional marriage. I think she (and maybe other women...hence my question) views marriage differently, although I'm not sure I can explain how.

I'm with you though--I think it's very akin to other legal activities that we don't participate in, and I think it's beneficial for all involved when the government stays out of legislating morality (to the extent that it's possible).

[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.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

They won't amend the constitution. Game over dude.

http://www.protectmarriage.com/index.php

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Out of curiosity, what does your wife think about it? My wife disagrees with me on this one. She's generally more conservative anyway, so it's not a huge shock, but she feels that letting gay people marry does negatively affect traditional marriage. I think she (and maybe other women...hence my question) views marriage differently, although I'm not sure I can explain how.

I'm with you though--I think it's very akin to other legal activities that we don't participate in, and I think it's beneficial for all involved when the government stays out of legislating morality (to the extent that it's possible).

My wife wasnt really for it or against it when we were first married. In fact, both of us kind of toed the company line, so to speak.

Then one of my best friends came out of the closet....around 2002. She was also affected by that because he was a close friend of ours. We have all stayed close and fortunately, our relationship is even better now (although not without some challenges).

Since that happened, we are both of the same mind on this issue. I dont judge your wife and I am sure she is a wonderful loving person. But I am grateful that my wife and I are on the same page because this can be a very polarizing issue.

If gays start getting married today, I just dont get how it changes anything my wife and I are doing in our home....what we teach our kids, how we interact with others, our dedication to each other, etc..my wife has expressed a similar sentiment.

[landpoke]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

If gays start getting married today, I just dont get how it changes anything my wife and I are doing in our home....what we teach our kids, how we interact with others, our dedication to each other, etc..my wife has expressed a similar sentiment.

Oh don't kid yourself, this takes us one step closer to forcing everyone to gay marry. Whether you're gay or not. That's how this affects you and your marriage.

[MikeWaters]

I'll bet the food at a gay wedding would be incredible.