California’s supreme court ruled that a ban on gay marriage was unlawful Thursday, effectively leaving same-sex couples in America’s most populous state free to tie the knot in a landmark ruling.
In an opinion that analysts say could have nationwide implications for the issue, the seven-member panel voted 4-3 in favor of plaintiffs who argued that restricting marriage to men and women was discriminatory.
They are flouting the fact that “marriage” has always been understood to be between a man and a woman. Well, we won’t have to wait long for intra-family marriages (re: incest) and polygamous marriages. Hey, as long as they’re consenting adults.
But the good news is that it could be overturned in November, when Californians are likely to vote on a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. Conservative religious organizations have submitted more than 1.1 million signatures on initiative petitions, and officials are working to determine if at least 694,354 of them are valid.
If the measure qualifies for the ballot and voters approve it, it will supersede today’s ruling.
Here’s what some of the blogs are saying:
Check out Paul from A Regular Guy’s Thoughts saying “Men And Women Interchangeable, California Supreme Court Finds.”
within three months, religious freedom will essentially come to an end in California. Catholic adoption agencies will be forced to either abandon their missions, or abandon Catholic teaching. And the Church will be pressured to do the same with marriage itself; we will not get through the summer without a suit against the Archdiocese of San Francisco demanding that the Church perform gay marriages. And the Archdiocese, if it fights, will lose (personally, given the tendencies of Archbishop Niederauer, I expect that, rather than give up performing weddings altogether, he’ll give in and allow gay “weddings” in Catholic Churches). Any and all dissent on the propriety and desirability of gay “marriage” will be quickly and fiercely repressed. This will be especially apparent in the public schools, as the now-dominant gay culture wields its intolerant power in ways that heterosexuals would never have dreamed of doing.
Check out Jay over at Pro Ecclisia. California Supreme Court Puts State In Play for McCain.
There will be a ballot initiative to overturn the court’s decision on the November ballot in California. Such an initiative to define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman in Ohio 4 years ago helped put Bush over the top.
Karen Hall’s response over at Some Have Hats is just perfect. You have to go see it to really get it.
McCain’s campaign spokesperson (though not technically a blog) said, “John McCain supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona. John McCain doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions.” If McCain pursues this right-headed line of clear thinking, California may have just become a swing state.
Or Hot Air.
Note that six of the seven justices on the court are Republicans. Will the ruling stick…Proposition 22, the California ballot initiative that defined marriage in the state as between one man and one woman (even if the marriage was entered into in another state that allows same-sex marriage), passed in 2000 by a margin of 1.7 million votes.
May 15, 2008 at 11:58 pm
“CA. Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban” a headline as surprising as “Rain Is Wet”.
The Holy Spirit works in mysterious ways–nothing like judicial tyranny to stir the pot of righteous indignation at four otherwise fine PI attorneys in black robes running roughshod over democratically made, majority decisions. Let’s get it all out now especially considering the other two PI attorneys who are wrestling each other for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
May 16, 2008 at 4:13 am
The Church will never perform gay marriages, and the State could never violate the First Amendment to force the issue. And even if it did happen, the attempts would be invalid.
We answer to a higher law. Whether we want to act like it on a particular day or not.
May 16, 2008 at 4:39 pm
…”Hey, as long as they’re consenting adults.”
Ah, that’s the thing! The next moral collapse issue will be reducing the age of consent!
May 18, 2008 at 11:12 pm
It is the claim that homosexuals are in fact born to mate with same-sex entities, perhaps, but to what end? Is theirs’ the same “Inalienable” purpose as a Father-Mother endeavor or does their gay reality have its inalienable short comings that inherently define them as different.
We call all sorts of machines “vehicles” but we can’t operate a moped on the freeway because it has a limited function….
My point being including same sex relationships into an established domain inherently changes that domain (some might say, “diminishes” or “dilutes” the inherent potential of that domain) and that alienates those who have found peace and serenity (happiness)in the Sanctity of Marriage…
Certainly we cant deny Heterosexuals their prosuit of happiness, yet, Clearly (born or chosen) the Gay domain is absolutely different from that of a “Straight” domain… and should be accommodated as a categorically unique Human endeavor or civil venture and should be defined and protected by the Constitution as for its Inalienable Characteristics…
Perhaps it is time to create a “Gay Ammendment”.
May 18, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR used to establish dominance and breeding rights. It is also a survival behavior that submissive or the weaker of the male species uses to gain entry or status in a pack or family…
This Is the “nature” of “Gay Politics”. And so in the “nature” of “gay marriage”.
The bottom line is that the “certified” intent between a “Married” Man and a Woman is inherently different from that of samesex couples… Homosexaulity excludes its self as a “Marital” function and that fundamental “truth” can not by litigated into reality.
Gay unions must be defined and addressed for the social values and contributions that they bring to bare, based on their own Inalienable “human characteristics”. It is their own standard that “inherently” seperates them (not seperated by men but by their nature) from “Marriage” and should be addressed as such buy the Government, both Judicially and Constitutionally.
May 18, 2008 at 11:24 pm
“There are no adverse affects to “Straight Marriage” by allowing Gays to Wedd”…
I believe that “civil union” is an appropriate interpretation of the relationship between same sex commitments and if this gives them the means to their ends (no pun intended) then it is a logical conclusion…
However, to redefine Marriage is to nullify the States’
responsibility to preserve the oath taken by Men and Women through out the authoritative history of that Agent’s (STATE’s)implementation of marital certifications. And I would equate this act against the People of that State; “A Breach of Contract”, and for those who believe that unwed sex is morally wrong, alienation of affection is implied, and lets not forget mental anguish for the retro-active “Illigitmacy” of countless Marital offspring…
HOW’S THAT FOR AN ADVERSE AFFECT?
I WOULD HIGHLY SUGGEST that anyone who is serious about the oath you took to Consistantly, Honor and Respect your Spousal Union in your solemn effort to establish and protect the rights of a legitimate family in the support of its relative offspring, contact your Family Attorneys and petition for a “BoC” suit against the State of California…