gay marriage in California

theist · 05-16-2008, 10:08 AM

This case was started by the mayor of SF 4 years ago, American Pyscho Gavin Newsom, when he started offering gay marriage certificates and performing gay marriages at City Hall. That was struck down and this is the result of the appeal.

American Pyscho

The American Pyscho, Mayor Gavin Newsom.
He sees himself as a campaigner for human rights. This shows what happens when such sentiments are divorced from God consciousness, al havoc breaks loose.

By Howard Mintz and Denis C. Theriault
Mercury News
Article Launched: 05/16/2008 01:35:58 AM PDT

For four years, the gay rights movement has clung to the hope that the California Supreme Court would reverse its flagging political and legal fortunes across the country and legalize same-sex marriage.
By one vote, the strategy worked. And gay couples across California can get up this morning and plan their own June weddings for the first time in state history. California then joins Massachusetts as the only states where gay couples can marry.
In a ruling that is certain to inflame the social, political and moral debate over gay marriage, a divided state Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointees on Thursday struck down California laws that restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. The 4-3 ruling, written by Chief Justice Ronald George, found that it is unconstitutional to deprive gays and lesbians of the equal right to walk down the aisle with a government-issued marriage license in hand.
"The California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," the court said in a 121-page decision that gives gays unprecedented rights.
The Supreme Court's ruling will leave an indelible mark on civil rights law, but the next few months may well decide how enduring the result will be for California's gay and lesbian couples, dozens of whom gathered outside the court Thursday morning awaiting the outcome.

While waiting, Shelly Bailes and Ellen Pontac of Davis, who are among the couples whose marriages were annulled in 2004, stood on the steps and linked arms. Together for 34 years, they both had trouble sleeping in anticipation of Thursday.
"I'm not giving this back," Pontac said of their newfound right to marry. "I'm keeping it."
Hundreds of people also filled the steamy City Hall Rotunda, where the legal fight over gay marriage began in February 2004. Plaintiffs and other gay couples packed the grand staircase while dozens of others leaned over balconies on two upper floors. Some held each other, while others wiped their eyes along with their brows.
"Real people won," Mayor Gavin Newsom told them.
The question now is whether the win will hold up. The Supreme Court ruling becomes final in mid-June, when gay couples will have the legal right to get marriage licenses at city halls from Eureka to San Diego.
But foes of same-sex marriage, following up on a vow to never allow the courts to have the last word, are moving to make sure the window for gay marriage will be closed quickly.
Groups aligned against gay marriage are on the brink of qualifying a ballot initiative for November that would amend the California constitution to confine marriage to a union between a man and a woman, a move that would effectively trump the Supreme Court's ruling.
Glen Lavy, a lawyer with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, said the ruling is fuel for the argument that California's constitution needs to "protect marriage from being changed by the Legislature, the courts or anyone."
With the prospect of thousands of gay couples marrying in the coming months, lawyers for the ballot backers are asking the Supreme Court to stay the ruling until after the November election. Legal experts doubt the justices will grant the request.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger quickly signaled he will oppose the ballot initiative and any attempt to undercut the Supreme Court. But if the ballot initiative is approved, it could toss the state's marriage laws back into the courts and once again cast doubt on same-sex wedding vows.
In the meantime, the most influential state Supreme Court in the nation, dominated by Republican appointees, has ruled in favor of gay rights advocates in the state with the largest gay population. The Massachusetts Supreme Court is the only other high court to permit same-sex marriage.
"It's hard to see how what happened today in California stays in California," said Marc Spindelman, an Ohio State University law professor and expert on same-sex marriage issues.
California was regarded by top gay rights lawyers as the "Gettysburg of the larger battle" over gay marriage, particularly with numerous courtroom setbacks in recent years in other states such as New York, Washington and New Jersey.
The Supreme Court's decision established unprecedented new legal protections for gays. It concluded that the state's domestic partners laws did not provide gay couples with the "equal dignity and respect" given to married heterosexual couples. George was joined in the majority decision by two other Republican justices, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Joyce Kennard. Justice Carlos Moreno, the court's lone Democratic appointee, also joined George's ruling.
The potential for political backlash for the justices who voted to overturn the gay marriage ban also exists, particularly for George, who wrote the opinion and is up for a retention election in just two years.
Legal experts say the generally conservative bent of the California Supreme Court could lend even more clout to the ruling.
"It's very meaningful in the court of public opinion because it's a moderate to conservative court," said Jennifer Rothman, a Loyola University law professor following the case closely.
Three justices, Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan, dissented from George's ruling. Corrigan, however, did not seem completely opposed to gay marriage. She opened her dissent by stating: "In my view, Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriages."
Corrigan, Baxter and Chin argued that it should be up to the voters or Legislature to sanction gay marriage, not the courts. A divided state appeals court reached that conclusion in 2006 when it upheld the ban on gay marriage. That ruling was overturned by Thursday's Supreme Court decision.
Baxter went so far as to say that the court overstepped its judicial powers by overturning existing marriage laws.
"There is no deeply rooted tradition of same-sex marriage, in the nation or in this state," Baxter wrote. There is no constitutional right to gay marriage "because marriage is, as it always has been, the right of a woman and unrelated man to marry each other," he added.
Newsom essentially invited the Supreme Court's intervention when he ignited a national outcry by marrying same-sex couples at City Hall. The Supreme Court quickly halted Newsom's edict, invalidating thousands of marriages. The justices found that Newsom had overstepped his authority by violating state law, but his action brought on a broad legal challenge to California's ban on gay marriage.
San Francisco city officials, civil rights groups and gay couples then filed a series of lawsuits challenging a state family code section that restricts marriage to heterosexual couples. It also challenged a 2000 voter-approved ballot initiative, Proposition 22, that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
California officials have defended the current law, despite the fact that both former Attorney General Bill Lockyer and current Attorney General Jerry Brown do not oppose gay marriage. State lawyers have argued that California's strong domestic-partnership laws essentially already provide equal benefits to same-sex couples.
Conservative groups opposed to gay marriage have taken a stronger view, criticizing Lockyer and Brown for what they consider a tepid defense. They argue the state has a crucial interest in restricting marriage to heterosexual couples for social cohesion and because they maintain marriage is rooted in procreation.
The lawsuits argued that the state has been denying gay couples equal treatment. One of the leading cases to back their cause was another historic civil rights battle - a 60-year-old California Supreme Court ruling that struck down the state's ban on interracial marriage. And indeed, George relied on that case in Thursday's ruling.

PS sorry for the ad. I cannot figure out how to delete it.

AncientMariner · 05-17-2008, 02:19 PM

California IS gay as far as I am concerned so I would not expect anything different out of them.

RadheyRadhey108 · 05-17-2008, 02:44 PM

Why should people (under a secular government) even be able to restrict marriage licenses to any two consenting adults? To me, California is just following what the American government stands for.

theist · 05-18-2008, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AncientMariner

California IS gay as far as I am concerned so I would not expect anything different out of them.

This came up as a statewide referendum several years ago and the voters soundly voted down the idea of gay marriage.

Now that this court decision came down (4 to 3) the voters will have a chance to vote again to amend the California constitution this coming November and establish it once again that marriage is between a man and a woman.

suchandra · 05-21-2008, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RadheyRadhey108

Why should people (under a secular government) even be able to restrict marriage licenses to any two consenting adults? To me, California is just following what the American government stands for.

Looks like the news media is propagating this movement but as pointed out below, facts are censored.

"We usually never read that, "Spousal violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples. Fifteen percent of gay and lesbian relationships experienced violence." (Statistics Canada, Oct 2006)

This is because they want the homosexual "lifestyle alternative" to appear as attractive as possible. Homosexuality is the inability to form a permanent bond with a member of the opposite sex due to gender identity confusion. The goal of social engineers is to spread this form of arrested development to society at large.

Also, social engineers want homosexuals to have the glamor of being "victims" of straight violence.

In her excellent "Crafting Gay Bisexual Children" (p. 291) Judith Reisman cites gay authors David Island and Patrick Latellier who estimate 650,000 gay men are battered by a partner every year. They estimate the rate of gay-on-gay violence is three times straight-on-gay intimidations or assaults. They estimate 20% of gay relationships are poisoned by domestic violence." ("Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them")

Henry Makow © 2008

RadheyRadhey108 · 05-21-2008, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suchandra

Looks like the news media is propagating this movement but as pointed out below, facts are censored.

"We usually never read that, "Spousal violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples. Fifteen percent of gay and lesbian relationships experienced violence." (Statistics Canada, Oct 2006)

This is because they want the homosexual "lifestyle alternative" to appear as attractive as possible. Homosexuality is the inability to form a permanent bond with a member of the opposite sex due to gender identity confusion. The goal of social engineers is to spread this form of arrested development to society at large.

Also, social engineers want homosexuals to have the glamor of being "victims" of straight violence.

In her excellent "Crafting Gay Bisexual Children" (p. 291) Judith Reisman cites gay authors David Island and Patrick Latellier who estimate 650,000 gay men are battered by a partner every year. They estimate the rate of gay-on-gay violence is three times straight-on-gay intimidations or assaults. They estimate 20% of gay relationships are poisoned by domestic violence." ("Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them")

Henry Makow © 2008

I guess you don't have many gay friends, since I can assure you that there are many people who are friendly toward me, both male and female, who are homosexual and would never even hurt a fly. Don't paint all homosexuals with one brush. You're a follower of ISKCON... you know how wrong the media can be about a group and you know how hurtful it can be. Maybe you need to think before you type.
Oh... and, by the way, you didn't answer the question as to why a secular government (as we have in the U.S.) should have to listen to nosy people's religious views when it comes to two consensual adults getting married.

indulekhadasi · 05-21-2008, 04:30 PM

I am just an immature 14 year old, but this is my input.
I had said the purpose of marriage and sex life was to produce Krishna conscious children and since homosexuals do not do this, it goes under illicit sex.
Radhe Radhe pointed out that this is an imperfect world and they should not be discriminated against for fulfilling their desires. After all many heteroexuals also participate in sex life and not always is it for producing Krishna conscious children. More often than not, it is simply for self gratification. And the heterosexuals never get discriminated against.
My opinion is a little harsh about this matter. I think ANYONE whether they are homosexual or heterosexual should be stopped from sex life if their object isn't to produce Krishna conscious (or God conscious depending on the case) children.

realist · 05-21-2008, 04:32 PM

I liked the word better when I was growing up in the 50s, gay simply meant a lovely day

mahak · 05-21-2008, 04:33 PM

I agree with the point about secular rights. I vehemently object to the (anti) christian fanatics who impose their false doctrine on all. This country is founded on the philosophy of freedom FROM religion. The reason gays are so interested in this is that they are presently prevented from even visiting their partners in an intensive care ward of a hospital, along with rights that should be afforded all LIFE partners. Straight people should also be interested in this, especially those who refuse to let perveret priests preside over their marriages, or secular judges. Those heterosexual couples who prefer a raksasa or other types of marriage that do not entail formal vow exchange suffer from the same human rights abuse.

Im not about to approve gay lifestyle, but I dont approve of straight lifestyles where promiscuity is the focus of the relationshiop. But there are perfectly good folks with great spiritual attributes who are gay, and they may not be perverted at all. So, I find it disingenuous for some to decry gay marriage and yet make no comment on the straight perverets who get their rights intact just because they prefer the oppisite sex to get all perverted with.

I dont care for most laws like this because of hidden agendas. The gay pervs see it as an opening to prey on young boys to even a greater degree. But folks like Carl Rove love this legislation as well because it incites the right wing fascists who listen to their closet queen preacher pedophiles to overreact to nothing more than a just cause where equality under the (secular) law is afforded to all regardless to race sex, etc.

Fact is to most who hate gays, they hate hare krsnas more.

hare krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

PS Before yall jump to support me views on this subject, let it be known that I think GALVA and other gay promotion operations are a fraud and an abomination. My views above are based on constitutional law alone, without regard to proper behavior in this temporary form.

realist · 05-21-2008, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mahak

let it be known that I think GALVA and other gay promotion operations are a fraud and an abomination. My views above are based on constitutional law alone, without regard to proper behavior in this temporary form.

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 3.20.26

pāhi māḿ paramātmaḿs te
preṣaṇenāsṛjaḿ prajāḥ
tā imā yabhituḿ pāpā
upākrāmanti māḿ prabho

SYNONYMS

pāhi — protect; mām — me; parama-ātman — O Supreme Lord; te — Your; preṣaṇena — by order; asṛjam — I created; prajāḥ — living beings; tāḥ imāḥ — those very persons; yabhitum — to have sex; pāpāḥ — sinful beings; upākrāmanti — are approaching; mām — me; prabho — O Lord.

TRANSLATION

Lord Brahmā, approaching the Lord, addressed Him thus: My Lord, please protect me from these sinful demons, who were created by me under Your order. They are infuriated by an appetite for sex and have come to attack me.

PURPORT

It appears here that the homosexual appetite of males for each other is created in this episode of the creation of the demons by Brahmā. In other words, the homosexual appetite of a man for another man is demoniac and is not for any sane male in the ordinary course of life.