Comments on: The California Supreme Court 4-3 pro-gay marriage ruling

By: NC Cop

NC Cop — Fri, 16 May 2008 21:35:34 +0000

Hmmmm….once again, aren’t the Republicans supposed to be the ones who throw the desires of “the people” to the wind and impose their will on others?

By: Severian

Severian — Fri, 16 May 2008 20:24:13 +0000

Who gets all the stuff in a gay divorce? Do they wait for a lesbian divorce and give all the stuff to them?

The “catcher” not the “pitcher.”

By: sanity

sanity — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:49:59 +0000

The Majority of CA did not want this, I believe it was voted on.

The CA supreme court discounted what the people wanted and instituded thier own.

Question: How will this play into other States?
If a married same-sex couple goes to another state is that state by law now have to recognize that marriage, because it is a ‘right’?

Question: How does this play with Barry O? He has consistently been very slippery on this issue of gay marriage, not giving any substanive answer because it would affect his ability to pull votes one way or another.

Could Barry O ‘outrage’ at Bush’s remarks be a cover for the CA supreme court decision to draw attention away from it?

By: teqjack

teqjack — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:29:37 +0000

OK, I have overstayed, yet one more thing.

If you church does not want to perform same-sex marriages, the State will not force it to.

If you want to refrain from viewing a same-sex marriage as proper, fine – except where the State has attached certain things, such as property and inheritance qualifications, to its certificate.

By: teqjack

teqjack — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:23:22 +0000

I wouldn’t mind objections to the “judicial activism” apparent. I am leery of such myself.

But reading the comments on a number of blogs (e.g. see multiple posts on Dean’s World) I have not seen this. I may have missed one, but that leaves hundreds that are about how the State should/must define marriage.

Well, I might be better disposed to listen to them if the majority did not belong to religious groups which define marriage in such a way as to say that my Christian forebears weree never married. The State[s] say they were. I do not want the State to accept the rulings of the groups which disagree.

No US State now requires a religious acceptance for its “marriage” papers. Indeed, my State will allow only some six religions to apply for permission to sign the State papers in lieu of a non-sectarian Judge or other State functionary. Want to be married in a Shinto rite? Fine – but the State does not recognize it, you will also have to have it signed by a State official. BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO – you can consider yourself married and accept that the State will not treat you as such – so if your spouse is in a hospital ICU you will not be allowed to visit because you are not legally “family.”

Slippery slope to polygamy, polygany, polyandry? Maybe. To pedophilic marriage, marriage with non-humans? Doubtful.

By: ck

ck — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:44:53 +0000

Who gets all the stuff in a gay divorce? Do they wait for a lesbian divorce and give all the stuff to them?

By: Gay marriage and the churches - UPDATED | The Anchoress

Gay marriage and the churches - UPDATED | The Anchoress — Fri, 16 May 2008 15:47:43 +0000

[...] coverage: Sr. Toldjah B. Daniel Blatt at Pajamas Media – I’m surprised there is no round-up. Glenn wonders, did CA [...]

By: clifto

clifto — Fri, 16 May 2008 14:16:41 +0000

Why does there seem to be surprise over this ruling? There could have been no other. My only surprise is now, as I first find that three sludges voted sanely. If the 4-3 figure had not come from here I would be actively checking the vote and fully expecting to find it to have been 7-0.

By: yo

yo — Fri, 16 May 2008 14:09:39 +0000

Not a good sign for america when judges can overturn laws to suit their social agenda. No provision for this in cal constitution, (i’ve been told by those in the know). Constitutions are supposed to give rights to gov’t to do this sort of thing when it is “specifically enumerated” to do so by their constitution. This ruling is a joke in that regard.

What are we going to do about these judges?

I know! Let’s impeach every last libtard one of them!