Gay Marriages in CA

[Ecumaniac]

There isn't any reason to be sarcastic and take this to mean anything further then what I've said on this issue.

I tried to explain that I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, I was simply making a point. You expressed concern that "souls will be lost" because the law permits same-sex marriages, and my response was to point out that either you believe that saving souls in general is a legitimate concern for the legislature, or you are making a special case for homosexuality.

If you want to parse words and dance around the subject of what God deems sin, then that's your right.

Dance? I'm not dancing around anything! The law of the land isn't meant to save souls, but ultimately to protect the rights of individuals with respect to autonomy, property, the pursuit of happiness etc. The judges were tasked with interpreting it, and they did so legitimately and in good faith.

Nor do I see what's unreasonable about "pars[ing] words." How else are we meant to have a discussion, especially about the law?

[danield]

The judges were asked to interpret the statutory necessity of same-sex marriage with reference to the California Constitution, not work out how to bring more souls to God. After reading the judgement, I am reassured that those representatives are above reproach. I just want to make sure that we are clear on the facts: this is a legitimate interpretation of prior case law as it relates to the California Constitution, and has nothing to do with the judges' political or religious inclinations.

I want to make a comment about this if I may. I hope I do not take this topic to off course because it is an important topic, but what strikes me funny is how many men today do not stand up for what they believe in and just go along with what they feel is correct in their interpretation of a situation.

Case in point, there was a story on 60 Minutes a while back about men who have served time in prison for crimes that they did not commit. And the team at 60 Minutes had found two attorneys who discovered the innocence of a man through the information of another client. And because of attorney client laws they were not allowed to divulge this information to the courts. It would violate state laws and they could be held in contempt and loose their licenses to practice if they leaked this information.

So they sat on this truth for 20 some odd years while this man served hard time for a crime that he did not commit. Those attorneys stayed in touch with that client that brought to light his involvement in the original crime because I think he was in jail for another crime, and it was on his death bed that he allowed his attorneys to come forward with this new evidence to clear the original innocent guy. 20+ years had passed while they knew this and they did not come forward. And I just sat in awe looking at two men who took another persons life away just to save their career.

I have seen the bar association in several state reinstate attorneys licenses to attorneys who have committed felony crimes so it is not like they would have lost their licenses forever. And it could have been just a fine that those attorneys had to pay if they would have come clean with the information. What I am trying to say is that people are not standing up in what is right in today’s world. I do not care if someone was going to put me in jail, I still would not send a man to prison wrongfully. God puts these men in positions to make judgment over what is right and what is wrong. Is it possible that we have lost sight of this simple fact?

Just as the above poster clearly stated that these 3 judges made a ruling that was in compliance with the California constitution, what happened to doing what is right? I have heard many commentaries on fox news from attorneys that state that those judges stepped over the bounds of their interpretation of these rules, but beyond that they interpreted rules of nature wrongly and imposed it on society. Why are so many people who find themselves in a position of authority making such horrible decisions? I know life is not fair, but are we just sinking to new depths of deceit? All I can say is God help them!

God Bless.

Matthew 5:6 6 God blesses those who hunger and thirst for justice, for they will be satisfied.

[Gary Rake]

Dear Ecumaniac:

You stated above,

"would you support a further amendment to the effect that all laws should be evaluated to ensure that they align with mainstream Protestant doctrine? I realise that this sounds sarcastic, but it honestly sounds like the only way you could be sure that the souls will not be lost due to legal endorsement of sinful lifestyles."

Well while we can't quite do that today, I think I recall reading that Jesus will do that in His reign from Jerusalem...but of course it won't be with Protestant or any other religion's dogma, it will be Heaven's laws.

Just my 2 cents worth.
gr

[Ecumaniac]

…[W]hat strikes me funny is how many men today do not stand up for what they believe in and just go along with what they feel is correct in their interpretation of a situation.

[…]Just as the above poster clearly stated that these 3 judges made a ruling that was in compliance with the California constitution, what happened to doing what is right?[…]

These judges have a sworn duty to interpret the California Constitution faithfully, and not to subvert this interpretation in accordance to their own personal religious or political beliefs. What you seem to be advocating is that they should forswear this duty, by either resigning from their position or submitting an intentionally dishonest opinion. The latter option, in particular, seems like a particularly egregious outpouring of dishonesty. If, on the other hand, you are advocating resignation, then I sympathise.

Well while we can't quite do that today, I think I recall reading that Jesus will do that in His reign from Jerusalem...but of course it won't be with Protestant or any other religion's dogma, it will be Heaven's laws.

I agree, and if I'm lucky, this will happen in my lifetime. But while we are being led by human beings, I would rather not submit to the edicts of ayatollahs.

[Athanasius]

These judges have a sworn duty to interpret the California Constitution faithfully, and not to subvert this interpretation in accordance to their own personal religious or political beliefs.

Of the Californians who cared to respond; when the issue of gay marriage was brought up, how many of them were for it?

[Ecumaniac]

Of the Californians who cared to respond; when the issue of gay marriage was brought up, how many of them were for it?

This is irrelevant. The judges were asked to make a decision based on the California Constitution, not take a guess at what the majority of Californians want. That's a matter for the ballot, not the courts.

Indeed, as explicitly noted in the opinion I linked to, one of the biggest reasons for even having a written Constitution is to protect minorities in the face of an oppressive majoritarian agenda:

In holding today that the right to marry guaranteed by the state Constitution may not be withheld from anyone on the ground of sexual orientation, this court discharges its gravest and most important responsibility under our constitutional form of government. There is a reason why the words “Equal Justice Under Law” are inscribed above the entrance to the courthouse of the United States Supreme Court. Both the federal and the state Constitutions guarantee to all the “equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Const., 14th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 7), and it is the particular responsibility of the judiciary to enforce those guarantees. The architects of our federal and state Constitutions understood that widespread and deeply rooted prejudices may lead majoritarian institutions to deny fundamental freedoms to unpopular minority groups, and that the most effective remedy for this form of oppression is an independent judiciary charged with the solemn responsibility to interpret and enforce the constitutional provisions guaranteeing fundamental freedoms and equal protection.

[Athanasius]

This is irrelevant.

How many Californians voted against gay marriage?

[EarlyCall]

The men of Soddom & Gomorah surrounded Lot's house, kicked and pounded at the doors demanding Lot send his guests out so the town could rape them.

We have a long way to go yet.

Jesus said it would be like the days of Noah - not like the g(ys in Sodom and Gomorrah. One thing to note from what you mention about that story is that persecution will come from the g*ys and others under the g*y umbrella. It is in fact doing so in England and Canada and other nations and already beginning here in the US.

I think there are going to be some very surprised people and that because they wake up one morning unable to any longer pretend we are not in the end times.

But, things take time. It is not God that moves wicked men to ever greater wickedness, so God tells us what will be and then God waits on man to do it. So how long it takes I do not know, but we are ever more moving in that direction God forewarned us of and things begin to take on a momentum.

[EarlyCall]

Personally, I think that it is more "activist" to presume that one is qualified to pass comment on the legal expertise of the judiciary without attempting a proper understanding of the relevant precedents, and how they directed the constitutional interpretation of "the right to marry." The question, simply, put, is: can California make a verbal distinction between the relationship of a same-sex couple and an opposite-sex couple without violating the state constitution?

The judges were not asked to establish if same-sex marriage is "tbewt" (a word which, according to one Jewish friend, is better translated as "incorrect" than "abomination"), but to determine its constitutionality. As you will note from reading the judgement, the judges take pains to point out that they are not trying to "decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy," that gay marriage should be legally permissible in California, but to determine whether or not calling it something else "violates the California Constitution." [pp. 4–5]

Reading through the decision, a key issue is whether or not homosexuality counts as a "suspect classification" for the purposes of California's equal protection clause. [p. 95] One general condition for any classification to be described as "suspect" is that it "be associated with a 'stigma of inferiority and second class citizenship[.]'" [pp. 96–97] To this effect, it is observed that "Outside of racial and religious minorities, we can think of no group which has suffered such 'pernicious and sustained hostility,' and such 'immediate and severe opprobrium,' as homosexuals." Reading the comments here, and knowing that most gay people do not perform sex acts in public any more than most Christians picket soldiers' funerals, it does not seem hard to discern how this precondition was so easily met.

Insofar as I've read the document, I can see no reason to criticise the judges from a legal perspective. Whether or not same-sex marriage should be specifically exempted by amending the California Constitution is a policy matter, and thus irrelevant to the integrity of the judiciary.

Hogwash. Tell me the originators of the constitution believed g*y marriage should be legal in the state. Go ahead and try to make a case for that. Good luck with that.

Here's what I'd like to see you attempt: make the case before God as though it were judgment day. Let's see if you can make it fly. You're trying awfully hard here to make a defense for these wicked judges. I'd love to see you do so before God.

Ready? Begin.

[EarlyCall]

This is irrelevant. The judges were asked to make a decision based on the California Constitution, not take a guess at what the majority of Californians want. That's a matter for the ballot, not the courts.

Indeed, as explicitly noted in the opinion I linked to, one of the biggest reasons for even having a written Constitution is to protect minorities in the face of an oppressive majoritarian agenda:

Oppressive majority agenda? Oh I think you just gave yourself away! Tell you what. After you tell us exactly what that oppressive agenda is, then you can explain why it ought not be so for incest, polygamy and pedophilia. After all, people of this immorality are in the minority and have been long suppressed by the agenda of the majority.

Good luck with that and I'm waiting.

[Ecumaniac]

How many Californians voted against gay marriage?

Define "voted". Are you referring specifically to the unconstitutional Proposition 22, introduced in 2000? In that instance, 61.4% voted in favour. As of 2008, the number of Californians who are against gay marriage is a decreasing majority—51% for, 42% against. Support is strongest in the 18–29 age group, at 68%, and lowest in the 65+ age group at 36%. I can safely say that within ten years, barring fire or brimstone, a firm majority of Californians will support gay marriage.

But like I said, this is completely irrelevant to the judges' decision, so I'm rather confused why you're asking me about it! If enough signatures are collected, a motion for a constitutional amendment will be on the ballot come November, which I suspect will be the real decider.

[Athanasius]

Define "voted". Are you referring specifically to the unconstitutional Proposition 22, introduced in 2000? In that instance, 61.4% voted in favour. As of 2008, the number of Californians who are against gay marriage is a decreasing majority—51% for, 42% against. Support is strongest in the 18–29 age group, at 68%, and lowest in the 65+ age group at 36%. I can safely say that within ten years, barring fire or brimstone, a firm majority of Californians will support gay marriage.

But like I said, this is completely irrelevant to the judges' decision, so I'm rather confused why you're asking me about it! If enough signatures are collected, a motion for a constitutional amendment will be on the ballot come November, which I suspect will be the real decider.

Do courts serve the people, or do people serve the courts?

[Ecumaniac]

Hogwash. Tell me the originators of the constitution believed g*y marriage should be legal in the state. Go ahead and try to make a case for that. Good luck with that.

1. The California Constitution is not the US Constitution, and since the latter document leaves a wide scope for individual states, the former takes precedence.
2. Constitutions are intended to cover those rights and rule on decisions which the original framers were not aware of; just look at how the "right to bear arms" has evolved.

Here's what I'd like to see you attempt: make the case before God as though it were judgment day. Let's see if you can make it fly. You're trying awfully hard here to make a defense for these wicked judges. I'd love to see you do so before God.

Ready? Begin.

You're being awfully rude, Early, but very well. The judges, in good faith, considered this to be the only constitutionally defensible position. The judges swore an oath that, regardless of their own personal beliefs, they would interpret law in good faith. If the judges said otherwise, they would be breaking their oath and lying, which is manifestly sinful.

I'm also very sad to see that you presume to call the judges "wicked" because they didn't lie when faced with an extremely tough call. Why do you focus so on the mote of dust in your brother's eye?

[Ecumaniac]

Oppressive majority agenda? Oh I think you just gave yourself away! Tell you what. After you tell us exactly what that oppressive agenda is, then you can explain why it ought not be so for incest, polygamy and pedophilia. After all, people of this immorality are in the minority and have been long suppressed by the agenda of the majority.

This, like many other questions I've already answered, is addressed in the opinion, which is publicly available on the web through the link I provided above. I invite anyone who wants to have a discussion on this to please read the document. It's not badly written, and will save me a lot of time.

The short explanation is that these would not qualify for "strict scrutiny," nor would they pass it even if they did.

[Ecumaniac]

Do courts serve the people, or do people serve the courts?

I've already answered this. Read the paragraph I quoted earlier, when you first brought this up.