California Supremes Invent Right to Marriage

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

While I don't like courts performing social engineering, California has a healthy plebiscite tradition. That is where this sort of thing belongs. Once the voters speak, I have nothing to say about it.

In a 4-3 decision today, the State of California has become the second state in the nation to allow same-sex couples to be legally married. Previous laws prohibited same-sex marriage, and now California becomes the seventh jurisdiction in the world to recognize same-sex marriage, joining Massachusetts and five foreign nations—Canada, South Africa, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain.

In his opinion, Chief Justice Ron George wrote that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage. In this decision, the California Supreme Court ignored the voices of millions of voters who stand against homosexual marriage. In March of 2000, 61% of the state voted to ratify Proposition 22, the California Defense of Marriage Act. This defined marriage as a contract specifically "between a man and a woman."

"By changing the marriage law in this manner, the California State Supreme Court has decided to take the issue out of the hands of its citizens and claim the authority to decide these matters in the future," said Attorney David Gibbs of the Christian Law Association. "The people of the State of California voted on this issue eight years ago, and not only is the court now saying that their vote doesn't count, it is saying that their votes don't matter."

Judicial oligarchy.

Another reason to be thankful I don't live in Cali.

The California "Supremes" didn't invent anything. They simply confirmed the natural right of people to pursue happiness and to live their own lives, unencumbered by the social agendas of relentless ranting religionists.

Ziggy,

Don't you agree that marriage is primarily a religious institution?

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

Don't you agree that marriage is primarily a religious institution?

It may have been at one time. But today it it a civil institution. Other than polygamist Mormans, what religions in the USA recognize marriage other than that sanctioned by civil law and government license?

Some Wiccans do.

Ziggy,

I certainly do. I do not consider myself "married" because of my legal status; in fact, I would rather not be married at all in the eyes of the government. My wife is a gift from God, and not the state, and we are answerable to Him as far as our marriage goes, and not to the state.

I wish the state would get out of the marriage business entirely. I didn't ask them to sanction mine. If a liberal church wants to bless two men, three men, two women, three women, two Eskimos and a kangaroo, or whatever, it's not for me decide. I reject same-sex marriage but then again I also reject apostate theology. I still would not ask them to change their ways for my sake. I ask that they afford my church the same courtesy (which they most assuredly will not) of being able to uphold Biblical marriage. The only benefits I think people should get from being married are either religious or personal; if the law is favoring the married over the single I dare suggest that there is discrimination going on against the single, and gay Californians are now part of the group of perpetrators.

I wonder how Mr. STRAIGHT Talk will come down on both sides of this issue??

SheikBen wrote:I wish the state would get out of the marriage business entirely. I didn't ask them to sanction mine. If a liberal church wants to bless two men, three men, two women, three women, two Eskimos and a kangaroo, or whatever, it's not for me decide. I reject same-sex marriage but then again I also reject apostate theology. I still would not ask them to change their ways for my sake. I ask that they afford my church the same courtesy (which they most assuredly will not) of being able to uphold Biblical marriage. The only benefits I think people should get from being married are either religious or personal; if the law is favoring the married over the single I dare suggest that there is discrimination going on against the single, and gay Californians are now part of the group of perpetrators.

And "straight" couples married under the civil laws are perpetrators of discrimination against the single, too?

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

I certainly do. I do not consider myself "married" because of my legal status; in fact, I would rather not be married at all in the eyes of the government. My wife is a gift from God, and not the state, and we are answerable to Him as far as our marriage goes, and not to the state.

And people who do not recognize your God- or maybe not any any God at all- to whom are they answerable? If not to the general society through its government, then to whom or what?

Marriage, historically, has been a SOCIAL institution, not a religious one.

There are many types of marriage and the word has varying definitions (an alloy is a marriage of two or more metals).

The religious right of Cali tried to get the word re-defined strictly along Judeo-Christian lines and got smacked for it.

This isn't making law, here. It was the religious right that tried to do that.

Judicial oligarchy, indeed. If the judges had ruled to define marriage as one man, one woman, you would be dancing in the streets.

Opponents of this bill say it will destroy "traditional" marriage. Setting slippery slope arguments aside, I must ask, "How?".

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

I certainly do. I do not consider myself "married" because of my legal status; in fact, I would rather not be married at all in the eyes of the government. My wife is a gift from God, and not the state, and we are answerable to Him as far as our marriage goes, and not to the state.

And people who do not recognize your God- or maybe not any any God at all- to whom are they answerable? If not to the general society through its government, then to whom or what?

Why must they be answerable to anyone, in terms of their marriage?

Your question demonstrates that when God is removed, the state then takes the role of god.