Gay Marriage Ruling Due Tomorrow In Cali

[NATO AIR]

This will be huge. The Governator has said he won't support any legislation or ballot initative that tries to take gay marriage rights away if they are granted by the court.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/05/14/state/n111151D62.DTL&type=newsbayarea

The California Supreme Court says it plans to issue its long-awaited decision on whether to legalize same-sex marriage on Thursday.

The high court announced the pending opinion on its Web site Wednesday morning. Justices heard oral arguments in a series of cases brought by gay and lesbian couples, the city of San Francisco and two gay rights advocacy groups in early March.

The court has been asked to decide whether the state's one man-one woman marriage laws violate the civil rights of same-sex couples.

If it rules in favor of the plaintiffs, California could become the second state after Massachusetts where gays and lesbians can legally wed.

[Little-Acorn]

If the Calif legislature passes a law saying it's legal for me to flap my arms and fly around the room with no other help, and the CA Supremes say that's OK, does that mean I can flap my arms and fly around the room with no other help?

Of course not. Flying by flapping my arms is impossible, no matter what a legislature says.

And a man "marrying" a man is also impossible, no matter what a legislature (or court) says. A marriage is between man and woman, remember?

Same-sex couples can form civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. etc. But they can no more marry each other, than I can fly by flapping my arms.

Gays and their advocates keep trying to pretend the issue is over "equal rights". But in fact, gays have the same rights in marriage as heteros have... and the same restrictions. See http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=237500&highlight=as+heteros+do#post237500 .

What they are really trying to do, is change the basic definition of "marriage". They want it to include men marrying men, women marrying women too... for the first time in human history.

[Yurt]

what is the exact definition of marriage? and what is a marriage defined as in a court of law?

[hjmick]

what is the exact definition of marriage?

What do I look like? Merriam-Webster?

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>


and what is a marriage defined as in a court of law?

Dude, you're the lawyer...

[avatar4321]

this is not only disgusting but its insulting to the people of california who already voted to ban gay marriage.

[Little-Acorn]

this is not only disgusting but its insulting to the people of california who already voted to ban gay marriage.

Anyone want to guess WHY gay advocates keep trying to change the fundamental definition of marriage?

[hjmick]

As you can see, Merriam-Webster has added to the definition (at least in their online dictionary):


(2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

[avatar4321]

Anyone want to guess WHY gay advocates keep trying to change the fundamental definition of marriage?

its to provide them with the legal leverage to persecute Christians. I guarantee you will see more Christians persecuted and prosecuted if gay marriage is made legal.

[Missileman]

its to provide them with the legal leverage to persecute Christians. I guarantee you will see more Christians persecuted and prosecuted if gay marriage is made legal.

Persecuted by whom and prosecuted for what exactly?

[NATO AIR]

To clarify, when I say this is huge, I mean in the national political debate. I doubt that the 6 Republican justices (out of 7) will decide in favor of the gays, but if they do, it will give Republicans a shot at better performance in November because they'll be able to turn out the vote from conservatives and virulently anti-gay forces in key states.

There is nowhere near the kind of pro-homo faction out there when compared to the anti-gay groups and blocs out there.

Personally, I find homosexuality abhorrent but I'm increasingly of the mind that they will face their time with God as will I so I'm not so willing to throw bricks in glass houses considering most of us live in some degree of sexual sin now or have in our past.

I've also known gays personally and served with quite a few in the Navy, Marines & Air Force who were fine patriots who served their country with distinction and honor. That some would be willing to say they could not have a relationship (we don't have to call it a marriage, it certainly should be something like a civil union I suppose) where they support and love one another is abhorrent to me. The fact that in some states a gay couple who has lived together for decades does not have the same legal rights as a straight one (with regards to matters of inheritance, insurance, healthcare, etc.) is abhorrent to me.

But I do not want some court to say they can get married and call it marriage. That's just wrong and certainly does not strengthen the institution as we know it. I'm not of the wingnut conspiracy theorist Kool-Aid drinker variety though that thinks this is all an assault on Christianity. If that's the case, we've long lost that war and might as well secede from the Union because we're not winning that war by bashing gays every chance we get.

[82Marine89]

The California Constitution say marriage can only be between a man and a woman. It was passed through a proposition by the will of the people and that should be the final say.

[hjmick]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/image.php?u=149&dateline=1210652703

Hey 82, is that little thing humping a hash brown?

[82Marine89]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/image.php?u=149&dateline=1210652703

Hey 82, is that little thing humping a has brown?

Sheep, the other wife meat. :laugh2:

[hjmick]

Sheep, the other wife meat. :laugh2:

Looks like one of the McDonald's hash browns. Whatever it is, it's cracking me up.


We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread...

[Yurt]

hjmick, you don't look like webster, but a parrot maybe....with salt rimmed glasses :laugh2:

that is the english definition of marriage....where did that stem from? in other words, where did the "traditional" definition stem from? i ask for an important reason -- i believe the traditional definition goes back to church, e.g., the bible. that being so, as you have said, get the government out of marriage (i think you said that).

i can't believe you don't like playing answer the question in debates...*simon cowell voice* bor-ring

in a court of law marriage is a contract. this has never been successfully challenged, in fact upheld under our constitution. what is a contract and by what power is a contract created? you have common law and you have statutory law. common law is where you and i make a deal for my old record collection (assuming UCC does not come into play), marriage, however, is a complete statutory creature, created by the state.

we have discussed before, nonetheless, it is good to do so again (not all members here and if we said this everytime, the board would be *SC* boring). if the state will allow people to divorce in three days for anything (CA no fault), then how is that traditional?

edit:

some states recognize common law marriages or putative spouse doctrines, but both now have statutory confines, as far as i know

[manu1959]

cant wait for the first edition of modern bride......

[Yurt]

cant wait for the first edition of modern bride......

or this one

http://vizu.typepad.com/vizuble/images/2007/12/24/britney_spears_drunk_britney_spears.jpg