California Attorney General Asks State Supreme Court to Void Gay Marriage Ban

[RobertLGarrett]

What I don;t understand is why the state of California should ban same sex marriages, but it is OK for Catholic colleges to have gay ex-priests teaching that homosexual marriage is in accord with Catholicism and the Bible?

It isn’t. Why do you keep on that? You haven’t mentioned the college or the bishop, so what do you expect us to do about it? If you have a beef with them, take it up with them. Send letters to the Vatican.

 

[StAnastasia]

I don’t get it.If California is going bankrupt with USD40 Billion deficit and there would probably be not enough resources to get get by with basic services, why prioritize precious dollars to provide legitimacy to all immoral gay marriage?

Excuse me, but it was those who want to outlaw gay marriage who brought this to the ballot, wasting “precious dollars.” It’s the opposite of what you think!

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Excuse me, but it was those who want to outlaw gay marriage who brought this to the ballot, wasting “precious dollars.” It’s the opposite of what you think!

Okay, but the money spent was primarily private funding (getting it on the ballot, advertising, etc.). Now, the vote was taken…the people decided. What is your financial argument for having the government spend lots of taxpayer money to overturn the will of the people who paid the taxes?

 

[Chancellare]

Excuse me, but it was those who want to outlaw gay marriage who brought this to the ballot, wasting “precious dollars.” It’s the opposite of what you think!

I was talking about the appeal to SC. I think that’s the topic I commented on.

 

[rpp]

The only right that gays want is the right to use the power of the state to punish anyone who dares to say that what they do is wrong.

Absolutely correct. Just look at Canada’s hate speech laws as an example. Those laws are used almost exclusively to punish Christians who say the homosexual activities are sinful. (The only other use for the hate speech laws has been to persecute people who point out that the 9/11 terrorists were all Moslem.)

 

[rpp]

Yes. You would even have to boycott the Catholic church, since it allows married gays (single sex marriage) to teach theology supporting homosexual marriage in its Catholic colleges.

A Church that does this and teaches this is not authentically Catholic.

 

[rpp]

What is important is that the children of gay and lesbian couples receive protections equal to those given to children of heterosexual couples. And if marriage confers unique protection to married adults – e.g., property, inheritance, hospital visitation, medical powers, etc. – these ought to be accessible to non-heterosexual couples.

The best protection that children of homosexual couple can receive is to remove them from the homes. Pope John Paul said that when homosexuals adopt children “it does violence to the child”. Those are the Pope’s words, not mine.

 

[StAnastasia]

Who made that financial argument?

 

[StAnastasia]

The best protection that children of homosexual couple can receive is to remove them from the homes. Pope John Paul said that when homosexuals adopt children “it does violence to the child”. Those are the Pope’s words, not mine.

Remove a thirteen-year-old adopted Chinese orphan from her loving parents and the only home she has known since birth? Are you serious? And for what purpose? To satisfy the homophobic vengeful fantasies of a prurient few? I don’t think so!

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Who made that financial argument?

Do I need to go back and show you the back-and-forth posts? It’s not that long ago…

Chancellare: CA wasting money by trying to overturn the ban

StAnastasia: Those who put the issue on the ballot are the ones who wasted money.

Me: The group you mentioned = private money; The group Chancellare mentioned = taxpayer dollars.

Are you retracting your earlier protest, or are you just incapable of following a debate?

 

[rpp]

Remove a thirteen-year-old adopted Chinese orphan from her loving parents and the only home she has known since birth? Are you serious? And for what purpose? To satisfy the homophobic vengeful fantasies of a prurient few? I don’t think so!

Yes, I suppose calling Pope John Paul II a prurient homophobic is pretty much what I would expect from sexual deviants.

Oh, nice straw-man there, too.

 

[StAnastasia]

I was talking about the appeal to SC. I think that’s the topic I commented on.

Under the California constitution they have a right to appeal to the Supreme Court.

 

[pathia]

Yes, I suppose calling Pope John Paul II a prurient homophobic is pretty much what I would expect from sexual deviants.

Oh, nice straw-man there, too.

Not a straw man in Arkansas. They passed a retro-active ban on gay adoption. Up to 400 gay couples could have their children seized. Even if they’ve been together from birth to the age of 17.

Now, whether that’s actually enforced or not, we’ll have to see. I’m waiting for a couple to flee and have the state try to get them extradited for kidnapping a ward of the state.

 

[StAnastasia]

Not a straw man in Arkansas. They passed a retro-active ban on gay adoption. Up to 400 gay couples could have their children seized. Even if they’ve been together from birth to the age of 17. Now, whether that’s actually enforced or not, we’ll have to see. I’m waiting for a couple to flee and have the state try to get them extradited for kidnapping a ward of the state.

Pathia, that’s frightening. Can you post a link on that? I can’t imagine any state agency being so cruel as to do that in actuality. We have in our parish two infertile couples (one gay and one straight) who adopted girls from the same Chinese orphanage. Both in my son’s class, the girls are wonderfully bright, creative, resourceful, respectful people, reflecting their upbringing by their parents. I think there would be a major uprising were any state attempt made to remove one from her parents. Fortunately, we live in a very well-educated community in a liberal state, so I don’t anticipate that happening.

StAnastasia

 

[pathia]

Pathia, that’s frightening. Can you post a link on that? I can’t imagine any state agency being so cruel as to do that in actuality. We have in our parish two infertile couples (one gay and one straight) who adopted girls from the same Chinese orphanage. Both in my son’s class, the girls are wonderfully bright, creative, resourceful, respectful people, reflecting their upbringing by their parents. I think there would be a major uprising were any state attempt made to remove one from her parents. Fortunately, we live in a very well-educated community in a liberal state, so I don’t anticipate that happening.

StAnastasia

msnbc.msn.com/id/28439830/

ACLU is suing over it. You can find other articles related to it via this one.

Also of note, it doesn’t just ban gays adopting. It bans all unmarried couples.

 

[StAnastasia]

msnbc.msn.com/id/28439830/ACLU is suing over it. You can find other articles related to it via this one.Also of note, it doesn’t just ban gays adopting. It bans all unmarried couples.

Pathia, thank goodness they’re being taken to court over this. I hope no family has been broken up by this law as yet.

StAnastasia

 

[bobzills]

You haven’t mentioned the college or the bishop, so what do you expect us to do about it? .

Your allegation is false. See post #20. This college operates under the authority of the local bishop.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Your allegation is false. See post #20. This college operates under the authority of the local bishop.

My apologies.

Now, contact the Vatican and make a fuss about it. It has absolutely nothing with the fact that Catholics can boycott California and also boycott that University, complain about the Bishop, etc.

 

[psr13]

Pathia, that’s frightening. Can you post a link on that? I can’t imagine any state agency being so cruel as to do that in actuality. We have in our parish two infertile couples (one gay and one straight) who adopted girls from the same Chinese orphanage. Both in my son’s class, the girls are wonderfully bright, creative, resourceful, respectful people, reflecting their upbringing by their parents. I think there would be a major uprising were any state attempt made to remove one from her parents. Fortunately, we live in a very well-educated community in a liberal state, so I don’t anticipate that happening.

StAnastasia

Well-educated community in a liberal state? Seriously? CA is known to be quite a liberal state, but this bill passed there. That was a very condescending statement. I thought the liberal party was the party of tolerance? Not the party of name calling and being elitist.

Yes, the people of Arkansas voted on it. However, I have 100 percent certainty it will be overturned. Also, isn’t it unconstitutional or something for a law to be retroactive?

 

[pathia]

Well-educated community in a liberal state? Seriously? CA is known to be quite a liberal state, but this bill passed there. That was a very condescending statement. I thought the liberal party was the party of tolerance? Not the party of name calling and being elitist.

Yes, the people of Arkansas voted on it. However, I have 100 percent certainty it will be overturned. Also, isn’t it unconstitutional or something for a law to be retroactive?

In most cases it is illegal to do ex-post facto, yes, but not always. Most of the restrictions however seem to talk about the federal government, not the state, in ex-post facto. So they may have to ‘legislate from the bench’ to explain whether or not states can pass ex-post facto amendments/laws.