California Supreme Court upholds gay marriage ban
Early last year, the California Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. About 18,000 gay couples married before California voters passed Proposition 8 in November, banning gay marriage.
Today, the state Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 8, although it allowed the 18,000 or so same-sex couples to remain married. Gay rights activists pledge to resume the fight.
The majority 6-1 ruling made a very compelling statement, claiming they were “limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.”
Here are some questions worth considering:
Do you think the California court upheld its constitutional duty? Do you think the Government has the right to define marriage? What if a majority of voters passes a new proposition allowing gay marriage in the future?
Read here.
Alew said:
Prop.8
California Supreme Court,Say gay - YES ?!
The video from the scene:California Supreme Court-video-online
May 26th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Bend Tea Party (Lucy Brackett) said:
Absolutely, the court upheld its constitutional duty. The government need not define marriage–it already has been defined as “one woman, one man” by scripture, the churches (until recently,most), and the states. Thousands of years as such set precedent, not any one government. Our country’s foundations support Divine Providence and the place of Biblical teaching in our society.
The only way a majority of voters would pass such an amendment that would include ss couples, would be with the help of the MSM and Hollywood and their well-funded allies.
If California goes that direction with a ss campaign, I will leave my state to do everything I can to support traditional marriage.
On a lighter note, check out the “Two Roosters” YouTube video that I caught at another tea party site. Puts a lot of things in perspective. Corny, but gets to the point.
May 26th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Shane Hanson said:
All I can say is WARNING!!! WARNING!!! WARNING!!! WARNING!!!
The second you pass a constitutional amendment to stop the government from any action, they had no power to over see in the first place, you grant them the power to now over see it.
No government body in the United state had any authority to regulate marriage till that amendment. It was a right reserved to the People. Now Californians in their ignorance have subject they marriages and all that is produced from that marriage to the State. And worse yet when mob bigger than them repeals their folly they will have to eat the fruits of that folly.
Do not get me wrong the definition that has stood unchallenged for 6000+ years is the one I favor vehemently. But the ignorance of people on basic constitutional concepts is beyond all words of irritation and we will see our nation fall because of it.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Annette Green said:
Yes, I believe the government has to define marrage. For the last 6000 years or more marriage is legal between a women and man. The gays just want that title, and not happy with the few state that allow recognized partnership. The superium court of California upheld what the people wanted.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:33 am
FederalistLady said:
The government, state or federal, should stay out of the marriage business. Marriage is a RELIGIOUS sacrament and best left to religious leaders to rule and guide. The government should only be allowed to regulate civil unions. Shane Hanson has a point. we will regret this decision.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Scott Schneider said:
Okay, what would you rather have, the government defining marriage as homosexuals being allowed to marry or the government defining marriage as one man and one woman. I understand that there is the notion that the Federal Government shouldn’t be intervening in something that is a private, family-ordained institution; however, the government and the courts are intervening and trying to redefine what is marriage in this culture and so action has to be taken because if this is not stopped, it will ruin and destroy what is the defining factor for the building blocks of a free, self-governed society ie; the traditional God-ordained American family. Do you suppose that this wouldn’t have happened if we didn’t have the government defining marriage as a man and a woman versus polygamy or homosexuality or even bestiality? By defining it as such, the governement is upholding the notion that this is what marriage is and that that is what we will approach and support it as a culture. Well, a response to this might be “government can’t legislate morality, culture, etc.” I agree, however, the intervening size and of the federal governement on all levels tell us we HAVE to act to keep this from becoming the norm in our culture. Leaving it to a bunch of local/county/town/city enclaves would simply invite anarchy because nobody would be on the same page. There has to be a standard upheld and it has to be upheld by the laws made by a governemental body regionally and even federally. Would you want the government to no longer protect or prosecute murder in their jurisdiction and simply say, “Well that’s a local issue, you can all decide in each county/state whether murder is okay or not?” I certainly hope not. In my opinion, it is the same as marriage being upheld. The right to life, liberty, and pursuite of happiness is supposed to be upheld by the Federal Government as a protection of our God-given rights. If the right for homosexuals to marry is affirmed by the State and Federal government, then the rights of those who reaffirm traditional family and children are going to be trampled because we will no longer define marriage as thus and waters it down into a form of mere mockery. We are a Nation and a Republic one at that. We need to be on the same page on some things and be United on such things locally, State-wide, and federally. Finally, the constitutional ammendment process, was this not enacted by our Founding Fathers as a way of making changes/adding protections to the constitution as things change/evolve in a society? Nobody, I would think, expected us to be the same country in 200 years that we were in 1790 or so. And so the use of this process is the way we make additions to the core principles of our constitution that reaffirm challenges to our sovereignty and God-given rights.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Cherie Overbaugh said:
I want to marry a horse! And he should have the same benefits.
May 29th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
FederalistLady said:
The constitutional amendment in California should have defined marriage as a religious sacrament governed only by religious leaders. Simultaneously, it should have established the governments involvement simply as a course of performing and governing civil unions and civil union laws for all regardless of race gender or religion, removing the government from the marriage business once and for all. The US constitution should be amended to concur.
June 1st, 2009 at 9:40 am
on-the-rocks said:
I believe individual states do have the authority to legally define marriage as being between one man and one woman, as human cultures have recognized for some 6000 years. The long-term male/female bond is special and is central to our biology and culture and it should be offered some above-the-ordinary protections. The actions by voters is necessary because of actions of activist judges (and others) to the contrary.
Aside from the religious or civil ceremony, the government license is a legal recognition of a particular date and location of this ceremony, should official record be needed at a later date. This legal document is valuable to both parties and any resulting natural-born (or adopted) children, should any challenges arise later or if rights-of-survivorship need to be invoked upon the death of one of the spouses.
What individuals do in the privacy of their homes is between them and God. I don’t really have a problem with same sex “civil unions” as long as they don’t have the same “force-of-law” status as the male/female marriage.
What we are seeing with the screaming (by anti-Prop 8 people) in California is proof that mere tolerance by the mainsteam culture is not enough to satisfy the zealots. They are demanding full acceptance of behaviors that are contrary to human biology and the long-term sustaining of human cultures.
Traditions, such as the male/female marriage represent long-term successful behaviors, i.e., they have withstood the test of time. There are two genders for a reason and hierarchies exist for a reason.
Not to belabor the point, but the long-term male/female marriage has been uplifted as special because it is the relationship that is most beneficial to the successful rearing of children.
This is not to denigrate other arrangements. Long-term, monogamous male/male or female/female may offer some sort of stability for children, but ideally, children - for the sake of future generations - need to see the positive interactions between both genders, as all roles are not interchangeable.
June 7th, 2009 at 7:02 am
Udell Ross Burton said:
Do you think the California court upheld its constitutional duty?
Yes and no. Yes, because they stood by their constitution. No because the strong point of a republic is that it prevents(or is supposed to prevent) the majority from trampling the minority.
The Proposition 8 issue is complicated because it wasn’t only about homosexual marriage. It was also about forcing acceptance of homosexuality. Over and over the homosexual agenda has shown that it wants to indoctrinate very young children into accepting them. The fear of that indoctrination is one of the issues that drove the supporters of Proposition 8. The only thing worse than the majority trampling the rights of minority groups, is when the minority groups trample the rights of the majority.
Do you think the Government has the right to define marriage?
No, I don’t think they should be involved in it. We shouldn’t need to pay a “marriage license” tax, they shouldn’t be saying who can and cannot marry.
I believe that each state should be allowed to have different laws. I am also of the belief that I shouldn’t have to pay federal taxes to support such things as abortion, AIDS research, liberal news media, and the homosexual agenda. If a state wants to adopt those faulty cultural norms, they can sink in their own mire.
What if a majority of voters passes a new proposition allowing gay marriage in the future?
Then they would be allowed to marry…. and the homosexual agenda could use the government to force others to accept them. I believe homosexuality to be wrong, but is it my place to force others to live by my standards, is it their place to force me to accept their lifestyle?
June 8th, 2009 at 5:29 pm