California Legalizes Same Sex Marriages

  • Thread starter Thread starter zerinus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ralphinal said:
I have heard all kinds of ways to fix the issues, from electing judges to review panels. I am really not sure what to do.

I think one way to start is to get rid of the appointment for life issue. I know that the Pope is that way, but we beleive the Holy Spirit guides him. Who guides the courts? Besides, show me a pope with a worse track record that the California courts.
Click to expand...
Actually, here in CA we get to vote for the judges on the Supreme Court of the State of CA. Not sure when or how long their tenure, but I suggest all like minded folks here in the “pink” state vote them, the 4 of 7 who were in favor, out the next chance we get.

Also, there will be a measure on the ballot in November defining marriage in the CA Constitution. If it passes, and I hope it does, the Supremes of CA will not be able to do a thing about it.

In my opinion, this may wake up the conservatives here in CA to actually get out and vote this coming fall. Just trying to find a silver lining.
 
ralphinal said:
You know, after I posted it, I thought it would cause trouble. I’d still rather deal with the bad popes: you see the knife coming.
Click to expand...
Or, in the case of some of the popes in history, an axe. 🙂
How about recent popes? Can we agree with that?
Click to expand...
Most certainly. Unfortunately, most of our U.S. politicians could care less what His Holiness, or any other religious leader for that matter, has asked us to consider or act upon. We Americans love our democracy and don’t like to be told what to do my anyone.
 
O.S.Luke said:
Or, in the case of some of the popes in history, an axe. 🙂

Most certainly. Unfortunately, most of our U.S. politicians could care less what His Holiness, or any other religious leader for that matter, has asked us to consider or act upon. We Americans love our democracy and don’t like to be told what to do my anyone.
Click to expand...
And that is why activist judges make us so mad. They short-circuit democracy in the name of protecting others.
 
Oh, good to see another Californian on here.

Personally, I don’t think that the state should be privy to one’s marital status.Because all gay marriage is is right to be consider in the eyes of the law equal to a straight marriage. And thus all the fuss about civil union, and what not goes away, and we can focus on more important issues like education.

All should be fair in civics after all.
 
This came to me a little while ago. Why not let the state and only the state marry, then have the church service to recognize it. You are not married as a Catholic unless you wed in the church and you are not wed as an American until you have the proceedure done at the courthouse. Then, the state can regulate that any way they want while the church can regulate who gets married within its walls.
 
Well to barrow a bit from Jay Leno we have a major earth quake in China the massive cyclone that hit used to be Burma. Do we really think its a good time to be making laws contrary to what he Bible teaches?
 
ralphinal said:
This came to me a little while ago. Why not let the state and only the state marry, then have the church service to recognize it. You are not married as a Catholic unless you wed in the church and you are not wed as an American until you have the proceedure done at the courthouse. Then, the state can regulate that any way they want while the church can regulate who gets married within its walls.
Click to expand...
Uh. This reminds me, I don’t think the Church lets you marry in the Church without having a civil marriage. Who would want to do this, you ask? Well, the elderly for money reasons. I don’t know if this is the case in other countries, though. However, currently you can be married by the state and not by the Church. So I think your idea only goes one way right now, at least in the US.

Anyone have further info on this? I wonder if this is related to the idea that marriage is a public, community sort of thing. I think, though, that secret marriages were possible before. Maybe they still allow them in rare cases? Anyone?
 
Pug said:
Uh. This reminds me, I don’t think the Church lets you marry in the Church without having a civil marriage. Who would want to do this, you ask? Well, the elderly for money reasons. I don’t know if this is the case in other countries, though. However, currently you can be married by the state and not by the Church. So I think your idea only goes one way right now, at least in the US.

Anyone have further info on this? I wonder if this is related to the idea that marriage is a public, community sort of thing. I think, though, that secret marriages were possible before. Maybe they still allow them in rare cases? Anyone?
Click to expand...
Currently, a Church wedding is a public ceremony. It does both, married to the church and to the state. This is the issue: sooner or later, someone will challenge that as being illegal.
 
teancum79 said:
Well to barrow a bit from Jay Leno we have a major earth quake in China the massive cyclone that hit used to be Burma. Do we really think its a good time to be making laws contrary to what he Bible teaches?
Click to expand...
:eek: Good point.
 
ralphinal said:
And that is why activist judges make us so mad. They short-circuit democracy in the name of protecting others.
Click to expand...
Our founding father’s didn’t create a democracy, they created a republic (ok, that’s another rant)

However, they also wanted to protect us ALL from tyranny, including tyranny of the majority. Democracy in this country is limited, limited by the individual rights guaranteed to each of us under the state and federal constitutions. No majority can vote away your right to worship as you please for example.

Judges like these protect the rights of all. While I don’t like this Court’s decision, I have am reading it (it is 172 pages long) and it is not based on the justices social leanings but instead on the rights contained in the California Constitution, rights that are intended to protect all of us from tyrrany.
 
khutcheson said:
Our founding father’s didn’t create a democracy, they created a republic (ok, that’s another rant)

However, they also wanted to protect us ALL from tyranny, including tyranny of the majority. Democracy in this country is limited, limited by the individual rights guaranteed to each of us under the state and federal constitutions. No majority can vote away your right to worship as you please for example.

Judges like these protect the rights of all. While I don’t like this Court’s decision, I have am reading it (it is 172 pages long) and it is not based on the justices social leanings but instead on the rights contained in the California Constitution, rights that are intended to protect all of us from tyrrany.
Click to expand...
And under what US Law are they when they uuse foreign courts and laws to base their rulings? This has happened in state and federal courts.
 
ralphinal said:
And under what US Law are they when they uuse foreign courts and laws to base their rulings? This has happened in state and federal courts.
Click to expand...
This assertion is hard to dispute since you’re making a very general statement. However, I am an attorney, and have been litigating cases full time for 20 years and I am aware of ONE occurrance where something like what you allege has happened. In one recent case, the US Supreme Court referred to foreign laws to justify one of it’s decisions–I am not aware that their decision was BASED on foreign law, but it was cited in support.

Moreover, why did you bring this up? The California supremes didn’t refer to foreign courts or laws, in their decision, hence even if there was a valid point underlying this assertion (and I don’t think there is) it certainly isn’t on topic.
 
khutcheson said:
This assertion is hard to dispute since you’re making a very general statement. However, I am an attorney, and have been litigating cases full time for 20 years and I am aware of ONE occurrance where something like what you allege has happened. In one recent case, the US Supreme Court referred to foreign laws to justify one of it’s decisions–I am not aware that their decision was BASED on foreign law, but it was cited in support.

Moreover, why did you bring this up? The California supremes didn’t refer to foreign courts or laws, in their decision, hence even if there was a valid point underlying this assertion (and I don’t think there is) it certainly isn’t on topic.
Click to expand...
It is not on topic, per se. It raises the question to me about how well the rights of any American are protected if foreign influence can occure. What if some goofball cites Shiarah law in a case?
 
I heard it that it is going to happen one day earthquake in california which let california drawn in ocean. May be this is the sign of that prediction.
 
tomshaikh said:
I heard it that it is going to happen one day earthquake in california which let california drawn in ocean. May be this is the sign of that prediction.
Click to expand...
I hope that if that ever happens, people repent FAST.
 
ralphinal said:
It is not on topic, per se. It raises the question to me about how well the rights of any American are protected if foreign influence can occure. What if some goofball cites Shiarah law in a case?
Click to expand...
In 20 years of (23 years if you count law school) of watching courts, litigating cases and reading opinions, I have never seen that happen. Our problems are much closer to home. Your original objection illustrates the conflict between democracy and individual rights. That’s a legitimate issue.

If some goofball cites Sharia law we would all laugh at him/her and I would expect the judge to ignore it.
 
ralphinal said:
Currently, a Church wedding is a public ceremony. It does both, married to the church and to the state. This is the issue: sooner or later, someone will challenge that as being illegal.
Click to expand...
You mean that someone will challenge that the state lets ministers and priests marry people in a legal sense, on the grounds that they selectively marry people, I think. If the state were to no longer allow the priest to be a proper official for a state wedding, then I suppose a new category of job could open. The couple could pay for a state witness to sit in the pews and sign the form for the state. How annoying for everyone if they had to traipse to the courthouse for another ceremony.
 
I’m wondering if anyone is aware of a society in the past that had same sex marriages of some kind. There have been some which accepted/endorsed homosexual relationships, but I’m not aware of any calling them a marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top