California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

That's what they all say.

 

I don't.

 

Nah. I'm sure this is the last we'll hear of this.

 

Um, no not at all.

I have consistently said that this is a non-issue, that if homosexuals want to marry, let them marry, that if people want to marry more than person do so -- why is any of this the government's business?

And more to the point -- I have consistently ripped conservatives who want to use government as their moral bully pulpit in the same manner I've ripped liberals who want to use government to enforce their version of morality upon us all as well.....

 

He's right.
He has.

 

Maybe this will clarify the issue for the hypocrite liberals:
From the AP story:

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.
But, "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," Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court's majority, which also included Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.

This isn't about gay marriage. The rights thereof are already guaranteed Californians. This is about gay parents adopting or shopping for a surrogate female childbearer. I think I can recall a few in here who endorse gay marriage but pause on the thought of them being parents...citing, of course, that the sperm is needed to fertilize an egg, which same-sex couples can't accomplish of and through themselves.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said the court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.

There's hope that there are still sane, agenda-free, activist-allergic judiciary in this land.

 

Judge Baxter is a real profile in courage, isn't he?
Is that ital paragraph yours, because I don't remember many folks "in here" who thought gay people should marry but not adopt.

 

Then I claim tyranny of the majority and will sue to recall the 2006 congressional elections. After all, fuck the majority, right?

 

This basically shifted a few points to the McCain camp in polls. Watch and see.

 

What does that mean? If they have a referendum it's because the legislature enacted rules that enabled the referendum. Are you saying that they can't?

 

Get in your whining and complaining while you can. In another 10-15-20 years, this will be such a non issue we'll look back and laugh.

Think of how far this country has come in its views of homosexuality in the last 10 years, the last five years? Remember when thirtysomething had a gay couple in bed. It was shocking, shocking! And that was what, 1990-1991?

The ship has sailed.

 

I'll take this even one step further....

The fact that (let me qualify this by saying that if true and I think the exit polls sended some mixed signals about how real of an issue it really was) so many people showed up to the voting booths in 2004 in order to try and get or keep laws on the books intended to keep law-abiding citizens from getting married -- married for christ's sake -- scares the hell out of me about just how far away from our roots as a free society we've drifted......