Close Window Gay marriage opponents vow to fight Calif. ruling Friday, May 16, 2008 SAN FRANCISCO - Even as same-sex couples across California begin making plans to tie the knot, opponents are redoubling their efforts to make sure wedding bells never ring for gay couples in the nation's most populous state.
A conservative group said it would ask California's Supreme Court to postpone putting its decision legalizing gay marriage into effect until after the fall election. That's when voters will likely have a chance to weigh in on a proposed amendment to California's constitution that would bar same-sex couples from getting married.
If the court does not grant the request, gay marriages could begin in California in as little as 30 days, the time it typically takes for the justices' opinions to become final.
"We're obviously very disappointed in the decision," said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which is pushing for the stay. "The remedy is a constitutional amendment."
With a stroke of a pen Thursday, the Republican-dominated court swept away decades of tradition and said there was no legally justifiable reason why the state should withhold the institution of marriage because of a couple's sexual orientation.
The 4-3 opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald George said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.
"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.
Gay marriage opponents, meanwhile, derided the ruling as an example of judicial overreaching in which the opinions of a few justices trumped the will of Californians.
The last time the state's voters were asked to express their views on same-sex marriage at the ballot box was in 2000, the year after the Legislature enacted the first of a series of laws awarding spousal rights to domestic partners.
Proposition 22, which strengthened the state's 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law with the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," passed with 61 percent of the vote.
The Supreme Court's ruling Thursday struck down both statutes.
Still, backers of a proposed November ballot measure that would allow Californians to vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage said the court's decision would ultimately help their cause.
"(The ruling) is not the way a democracy is supposed to handle these sorts of heartfelt, divisive issues," said Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, one of the groups helping to underwrite the gay marriage ban campaign. "I do think it will activate and energize Californians. I'm more confident than ever that we will be able to pass this amendment come November."
To date, 26 states have approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.
In the past few years, courts in New York, Maryland and Washington state have refused to allow gay marriage, and New Jersey's highest court gave the state lawmakers the option of establishing civil unions as an alternative.
Massachusetts is the only other state to legalize gay marriage, something it did in 2004. More than 9,500 same-sex couples in that state have wed. The California ruling is considered monumental because of the state's population - 38 million out of a U.S. population of 302 million - and its historical role as the vanguard of many social and cultural changes that have swept the country since World War II.
California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households, according to 2006 census figures.
"It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom told a roaring crowd at City Hall after the ruling was issued. "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not."
The case was set in motion in 2004 when Newsom threw open City Hall to gay couples to get married in a calculated challenge to California law. Four thousand wed before the Supreme Court put a halt to the practice after a month.
Two dozen gay couples then sued, along with the city and gay rights organizations.
Gareth Lacy, a spokesman for Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office argued to uphold the ban, said Brown would "work with the governor and other state agencies to implement the ruling."
The justices said they would direct state officials "to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling," including requiring county marriage clerks to carry out their duties "in a manner consistent with the decision of this court."
By Thursday afternoon, gay and lesbian couples had already started lining up at San Francisco City Hall to make appointments to get marriage licenses. The county clerk's office in Los Angeles issued a statement saying it was awaiting legal analysis of the ruling and a timeline for implementation.
California's secretary of state is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors of the anti-gay marriage ballot measure gathered enough signatures to put the amendment on the ballot.
Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would have granted marriage to same-sex couples, said in a statement he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
posted
As well they should (fight it). Gay marriage is a big joke. Everyone knows that marriage is between and man and a woman. If gays want to shack up - FINE! If gays want to have the right to manage each other's healthcare - FINE! If gays want the same rights as married couples - FORGET IT!
Where does it end? What is a marriage? Two men and a woman? Five women and a man? Three men and a goat? RIDICULOUS!
This is EXACTLY what is wrong with our society - so many people don't have any common sense and can't understand the difference between right and wrong!
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: As well they should (fight it). Gay marriage is a big joke. Everyone knows that marriage is between and man and a woman. If gays want to shack up - FINE! If gays want to have the right to manage each other's healthcare - FINE! If gays want the same rights as married couples - FORGET IT!
Where does it end? What is a marriage? Two men and a woman? Five women and a man? Three men and a goat? RIDICULOUS!
This is EXACTLY what is wrong with our society - so many people don't have any common sense and can't understand the difference between right and wrong!
why am I not surprised?...Hillbilly
-------------------- jordan Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Three men and a goat.What kind of properties does he manage.Its a wonder he does much of anything with his warped religeous mindeset.Must be kind of nice to go around with with his eyes closed and hope someone believes like he does. I am stupid for a reason but his has no bounds.
posted
Which rights that married people have are the rights that you do not want same sex couples to have PM?
Can you even answer that question?
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard an attorney talk about this last night on KGO 810 am out of San Fransico and he said the decision came purely form a constitutional rights point. And thats the way the Judges see it.
And in reality the way I see it,is they are one hundred pcent right.
You can,t tell people who to marry and you have no right to tell some one how there right of property is to be handled.
I am a religous man but this does not offend me in any way,why may you ask. Simple I don't intend to marry another man. I married a woman because I am not gay and nobody said I couldn't.
Everybody in this country has rights they are born to and this is just one.
We are all human and may not agree with someone eles but the law protects us from the hate,greed,and the self rightous. Any the law is to suppose to do that.
Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't want gays to have ANY of the rights of married couples. Why? Because THEY ARE NOT A MARRIED COUPLE! Marriage has ALWAYS been an institution between one man and one woman.
Therefore, to answer your question: I don't want them to have tax treatment equal to married couples; insurance as a spouse; inheritance rights; or any other rights that married couples enjoy. I don't want them to be legally recognized as married - WHICH THEY ARE NOT!
All of this socialist nonsense is DESTROYING our society and there will be a big price to be paid down the road as our society disintegrates.
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
what you fail to see?...it is you, and the others like you,that are destroying our society, and slowing our progress.Why cant you let us grow, to become a full-blown,loving, caring, accepting, people?
Klan meeting today.Archie????
-------------------- jordan Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why cant you let us grow, to become a full-blown,loving, caring, accepting, people?
That's funny. I'm still hoping that you can grow past your 1st grade insults. If you can make it, maybe to a sixth grade level, maybe you will have something productive to say. Until then, it's just one step at a time.
Good luck!
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
As to taxes. These are the major tax breaks for spouses that you want to keep away from gay couples.
quote: Good benefits add to wedded bliss For most middle- and upper-income people, though, there are plenty of financial benefits to marriage, regardless of their income tax situation. Among them: Workplace health and pension benefits coverage. While some companies offer health coverage to domestic partners, this benefit is typically taxable as income. When spouses are covered, the benefit is tax-free. Social Security retirement and survivor benefits. A husband or wife is entitled to one-half of the spouses Social Security benefits and to additional benefits in the event of death. Lower insurance rates. Married people usually get a discount on auto insurance and may pay less for other types of insurance. Automatic inheritance rights. Die without a will, and your spouse gets your stuff. In many states, the surviving spouse has a legal right to at least one-third to one-half of your estate. Preferential estate tax treatment. The $1 million estate tax limitation doesnt apply to married people: you can leave an unlimited amount to a spouse without owing one penny of estate tax. In certain states, this benefit is multiplied by special capital-gains tax treatment for homes and other assets held by married couples as community property.
This is what we are withholding with such rancor???
Non-taxable health benefits? Why should this be the domain of hetero couples only? (Besides...if we switch to a national healthcare plan - which is likely given our odds of having a democratic president/congress/senate next year - this becomes a non-issue.)
Survivorship benefits in Social Security?
In a duel income family (which would include nearly all gay couples) the surviving widow chooses between his/her own social security plan or the survivorship rate of the deceased, depending on which one is higher. This means that there would be little to no substantive difference in giving gay couples this benefit. Remember also divorce (which happens in 50% of all marriages and would likely continue the average within gay partnerships) and remarriage DO affect survivor benefit elligibility which would create even less of an impact to the program.
Lower Insurance Rates? This is irrelevant as it is driven by the statistics gathered by insurance companies and voluntarily offered. They will create a new statistical category if gay couples are given status and adjust their rates based on the statistical evidence.
Automatic inheritance? Write out a will and this is a non-issue. It is mearly one less hoop to jump through. It has little impact.
Preferential Estate tax treatment? This is the only marriage benefit that has any significant value to my mind. And it is funny because the many of the folks who are fighting not to give this benefit to gay couples are the ones complaining how high the tax is regaring their children. The inheritance tax really only matters if the deceased is wealthy and then we get into a whole set of issues that trancend sexual orientation. If we are going to have an inheritance tax then I don't think relationship should really matter. Put a 1 Mil cap (yearly adjusted for inflation) on everyone or else do away with it completely. Really not worth the paperwork headache to my mind.
P.S. (I kept income tax brakes out of this example because it has been researched and proven that income tax break are only beneficial if there is a large disparity in income between the two partners. Further the closer the two are in income the benefit actually becomes a liability to a certain extent. It is unlikely to truely help the majority of gay couples.
So there you have it PM. Your big list of marriage benefits that you are trying to keep from those damned gay people.
Why don't you just admit that you beleve you are more deserving than they are and that this has nothing to do with numbers?
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why don't you just admit that you beleve you are more deserving than they are and that this has nothing to do with numbers?
You're close there Bigfoot. This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the numbers. What this has to do with is morality. Marriage is, and always has been, between a man and woman. Gays shouldn't get marriage benefits because by definition they are not married. Simple as that!
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why don't you just admit that you beleve you are more deserving than they are and that this has nothing to do with numbers?
You're close there Bigfoot. This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the numbers. What this has to do with is morality. Marriage is, and always has been, between a man and woman. Gays shouldn't get marriage benefits because by definition they are not married. Simple as that!
A man and A woman?
not:
Solomon had 700 wives. and 300 slave girls too...
1 Kings 11:3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.
Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think PMS is really hiding in the closet and does not want to face the truth about himself... Only a hatred that strong is a hatred of one's self from what they hate...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
A (wo)man and a (wo)man seeking a long term commitment do not deserve to have it recognized because YOU disagree with it.
Perhaps we should build separate water fountains for them to use as well? They are different after all.
What you don't get is that the benefits that are given to married couples are given by the government, not the church.
You don't want to call it marriage...that's fine by me. The term belonged to the church before it belonged to the government. But it IS discrimination for the state not to recognize the relationship.
And no, multiple partners and various livestock will not be next. There is enough precedence to prevent multiple partnership and livestock can't recite the vows.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: What you don't get is that the benefits that are given to married couples are given by the government, not the church.
You don't want to call it marriage...that's fine by me. The term belonged to the church before it belonged to the government. But it IS discrimination for the state not to recognize the relationship.
Exactly Big... Thank god (no pun intended) that we have separation of Church and State...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And no, multiple partners and various livestock will not be next. There is enough precedence to prevent multiple partnership and livestock can't recite the vows.
did Mr Ed die?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that it's odd that every time the debate over gay marriage is brought up, everyone seems to see it as yet another attempt by The Man (insert scary music here) to keep some minority from being happy.
Why do we keep trying to find alternatives to the traditional family instead of working to strenghten the very basis that has kept this country strong for so many years?
I'm not sure if I've posted this on this board so forgive me if I'm repeating myself. There is a social theorum that runs something like this: 'Any act, if practiced by all members of a group, causes more harm than good; that act is wrong.' Homosexuality, by that definition alone and not based on religion, is wrong. If all members of the species practiced it, we'd have the end of the race withing a short time span.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Raising a child in a same sex parental environment is NOT normal, and NOT healthy for the child.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if I've posted this on this board so forgive me if I'm repeating myself. There is a social theorum that runs something like this: 'Any act, if practiced by all members of a group, causes more harm than good; that act is wrong.' Homosexuality, by that definition alone and not based on religion, is wrong. If all members of the species practiced it, we'd have the end of the race withing a short time span.
hmmmmm.... how has homosexuality survived in thru evolution?
there must be some survival benefit or it wouldn't have...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're not suggesting you should practice homosexuality SF. And by that maxim you quote we could as easily state that if we were all heterosexual we would overpopulate and have a massive die off due to starvation therefore heterosexuality is wrong. Or if we all ate cheese every day there would be a huge incidence of heart failure therefore eating cheese is wrong.
There is no reason not to recognize a gay relationship beyond the belief held by many that it is not "normal". The same reason why women were denied equal treatment in the workplace and the same reason why black people were denied equal status as white people. They were different.
And you may believe that having a child raised in a homosexual home is not healthy. I can live with you believing that. Neither is it healthy to allow smokers to get pregnant. Neither is it healthy for a child to be raised in a home that abuses alcohol or drugs. You could even make a case that it is unhealthy for a child to be raised in poverty.
There is no prerequisite requirements for child-bearing. And until there are I would much rather see a child placed in a loving home (gay or straight) that is ready for the responsibility of raising the child rather than depend on the foster care system which is wholely unreliable. Some get placed with families that genuinely care. Many get place with families that need or want the extra check that comes with the child more.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
PM may have some tendencies he is trying to hide.If we get rid of the gays then we can add christians,jews,blacks,landlords,asians and europeans.While we are at it we should ban everybody that isnt 100% american indian. Propmanagers are included since they are hate mongrels...DUH
quote:Originally posted by glassman: hmmmmm.... how has homosexuality survived in thru evolution?
there must be some survival benefit or it wouldn't have...
Deviancy requires a norm, Glass; not the other way around. Homosexuality is not some insticnt bred into the species. It serves no vital purpose to the continuation of the race. Bestiality, bondage\intentional pain play, and other 'alternatives' (read deviancies) are just that. Diversions from the norm. By making them equal to the norm you are marginalizing the norm. You are saying there is no norm and anything goes.
That is not understanding and acceptance, that's decadence and hedonism given permission and social acceptance.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're not suggesting you should practice homosexuality SF.
Thanks for the confirmation, Big.
There is no prerequisite requirements for child-bearing. And until there are I would much rather see a child placed in a loving home (gay or straight) that is ready for the responsibility of raising the child rather than depend on the foster care system which is wholely unreliable.
Here's the issue though. A child's parents are his\her first and most powerful examples of their roles in society and how to treat the other gender. A mother figure and father figure are indispensable because neither is capable of teaching both roles.
How does a lesbian couple teach their daughter how to interact with men when their lifestyle choice precludes it? How does a gay couple talk to their son about girl when they choose to live without one in the home? And these two examples are only if the child and parents are of the same gender. Think if they are not.
The traditional family is formed for the purpose of procreation AND and to provide the basis for the child's social development. Without exemplars of the roles and social interactions between the genders the child has to find their teachers outside the home. And I think most of us here would agree that the current media\society doesn't seem to be offering very constructive examples for our children to learn from.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are saying there is no norm and anything goes.
not at all, i'm saying that the survival of the fittest laws define our genome.
and the 10% + or - of all human populations that is same-sex oriented would have been selected out long ago if what you said was true.. it hasn't been...
and it has been around for a very long time...
you made the value judgemnet
Homosexuality is not some insticnt bred into the species. It serves no vital purpose to the continuation of the race.
and
Bestiality, bondage\intentional pain play, and other 'alternatives' (read deviancies) are just that. Diversions from the norm.
putting bestiality into that group is actually off target, just as cannabilism would not belong in that group. Bestiality and cannibalism both have serious deleterious "social health" effects. (AIDS is not a gay disease just look at Africa.) Kuru and diseases like anthrax are INEVITABLE from cannibalism and bestiality.
Mendelian principles and evolutionary development require that we have "deviations" from norm. They have to happen in order to evolve. Nature determines the success of that deviation.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I think most of us here would agree that the current media\society doesn't seem to be offering very constructive examples for our children to learn from.
i agree in theory that kids should have their biological parents to raise them. it just doesn't happen much anymore in this country...
i don't think it's the media's fault tho....
how do you keep people from having kids and entering into a gay relationship tho? can't be done. adoption? that gets tricky. seems to me that the private adoption market is thriving. i don't think much of that either.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
will answer one, for now, from personal, painful experience:
G-E-Bozo posits inevitability:
how do you keep people from having kids and entering into a gay relationship tho? can't be done.
actually, it could be done.
And, get this, my answer will seem to contradict what I say later because I do *not* like same-sex unions being labeled a marriage.
Now that having been said, the grievous, tragically multifaceted heartbreak that awaits nearly all who attempt a hetero/gay marriage could most assuredly be avoided if homosexual kids/teens/young adults were *not* so horribly mangled by the "American-standard" ISO-bar, pressure-cooker that is and has been allowed to set the mold for societal norms.
Notwithstanding the various studies/statistics--cuz I'm not "in the know" on the DATA, lol--it *does* seem inherently logical to have a male/female adult-couple presence in the home...if nothing more than for the yin/yang interaction.
Look though the wrong end of the telescope, just for a second:
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Why do we keep trying to find alternatives to the traditional family instead of working to strenghten the very basis that has kept this country strong for so many years?
No one is trying to "Find" anything much less a alternative... do you seriously think that banning gay marriages would stop a person from loving someone of the same sex? Do you really think that a "traditional" family upbringing will prevent a child from becoming gay? ... Love has no boundaries... it does not discriminate based on gender or race... if someone loves someone of the same gender that is coming from the heart and not a deviancy as you call it... humans do "deviant acts" if you can call it that with their loved one (significant other) but that is a private thing between two people... that does not mean they go around doing it in front of a child... I am sure that if we could watch you with your significant other in a private moment we can point out a act or two of "deviancy".. what you are doing is shoving your morals down people's throats basically... morals are like a opinion... everyone has one and because it is right or wrong to you does not make it so for others who can form their own opinion or morals...
quote:I'm not sure if I've posted this on this board so forgive me if I'm repeating myself. There is a social theorum that runs something like this: 'Any act, if practiced by all members of a group, causes more harm than good; that act is wrong.' Homosexuality, by that definition alone and not based on religion, is wrong. If all members of the species practiced it, we'd have the end of the race withing a short time span.
Glass already touched upon this and he is right... by your statement since heterosexuality is the majority then we are all causing more harm then good and are "acting" wrong...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look within nature. Homosexuality exists everywhere. Even in species we had thought to "bond for life" with one partner have been recorded practicing homosexuality.
In certain species such as frogs it has been proven that environmental stress and overcrowding can increase the prevalence of homosexual behavior exhibited by the group.
I know many think homosexuality is a choice. And I do think that sometimes that may be the case. But there is biological evidence that it goes well beyond that.
If family dynamics is the reason for your disdain then I suggest to you that your argument is misplaced. In a gay relationship the two roles may be distorted by the same gender but they are still two roles.
In single parent home one of the roles is completely absent. If family dynamics is your argument then you should be even more adamant against single parent scenarios than you are against same sex couples.
But I am going to guess you think single parent homes are regrettable but not alarming...cuz they are 'more normal' than same sex couples.
(Do you see the hole in your logic?)
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
There are many models of child-rearing within nature and the two parent hetero model IS rare.
The male/female monogamous 'family value' home is a societal concept not grounded in reality.
However, if that is the mode of thought through which we are arriving at the determination that a same sex couple should not raise children then by that logic a single parent home should be even more of an anathema. A child may be confused by the "distortion" a same sex couple brings to that ideal, but it is closer to the mode of choice than when one role is completely absent.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[BadOne]](graemlins/headbash.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Do you really think that a "traditional" family upbringing will prevent a child from becoming gay? ... Love has no boundaries... it does not discriminate based on gender or race... if someone loves someone of the same gender that is coming from the heart and not a deviancy as you call it... humans do "deviant acts" if you can call it that with their loved one (significant other) but that is a private thing between two people... that does not mean they go around doing it in front of a child... I am sure that if we could watch you with your significant other in a private moment we can point out a act or two of "deviancy".. what you are doing is shoving your morals down people's throats basically... morals are like a opinion... everyone has one and because it is right or wrong to you does not make it so for others who can form their own opinion or morals... 
