MovieChat Forums > Outrage (2009) Discussion > CA Supreme Court: 'No!' By 6 to 1 marg...

CA Supreme Court: 'No!' By 6 to 1 margin


(Seems the people spoke and the California Supreme Court heard its people speak. The answer, by the people and court was NO!

BTW, do we have to have this issue on EVERY ballot in California from now till the end of time? The people voted. Done. Finished. California now must ensure it's NOT back on the ballot having just done that. SAVE the money for more important issues: Like face stretches for Hollywood's, sardonicus-like, leading ladies!

reply

Clearly, you haven't actually read the ruling. This ruling was in favor of the legality of the majority vote to strip away the word "marriage", but embedded in the ruling is massive slap in the face to those who champion Prop 8. The justices are now UNANIMOUS in their opposition to inequality and have basically paved the way for the inevitable. Read the damn ruling, or at least try to understand it (that goes for the media too!). Do you realize that this ruling has created two classes of gay people? There are those who can be "married" and those who can't. That is blatant inequality that even you can't argue. It is, in itself, unconstitutional. The justices know this of course. I like the way people like you are eager to say it's over because you know that public opinion on the issue isn't stagnant. Either way, public opinion isn't really that relevant. Anyone with a basic understanding of the law knows where this is going. Anti-gay folk have tied themselves in a knot trying to deprive others of basic rights and make no mistake - for you folk, this ruling is bittersweet. Anyway, have you not heard the news today? The gay marriage debate is going federal. Won't it be wonderfully ironic if Prop 8 is responsible for a landmark ruling in favor of gay marriage? Thanks Prop 8!

reply

Wrong. I realize where this evil is going as the world ramps up in a complete lack of self control over body, parts and passions! I will never accept man o man marriages. It's a distortion of the man and woman union. It has nothing to do with human rights and you know it! (Americans already have them! What, you say? Is this really about co-insurance? Taxes filing jointly? No! Of course not.) Personally, if a man wants to lay with another man: Fine. If they want to have a loving, caring, sharing relationship: Great. If they want to share intimacies: Fantastic! On a very personal level, for me... no matter how much I recognize, accept and applaud the individual, free agency of every human being to do as he or she desires...I can not accept the vile, 'penis to anal' contact! To me, that act is not only a counterfeit-abhorrant and decadent act, the whole episode trys to mirror a real relationship between a man and woman...as in one having to try to 'be the female' in a man to man relationship. But, that's just me. I know, full well, that it's going to happen and homosexuals will continue to get more radical and beligerent about it. Just as they did anciently. That's my view.

reply

The point: Homosexuality breaks the Ten Commandments and in fact, to God, it is worse than killing your Mom and Dad, which of course is one of the Ten Commandments! (I know that's a bold statement. I'll try to explain.) One of the most important commandments is Thou shalt not 'take' the name of the Lord thy God in vain. It is worded differently in the Jewish scripture. "Thou shalt not 'take' upon yourself the covenant marriage in emptiness." That is in the Jewish Ten Commandments: "...emptiness" meaning where there is no chance of pro-creation, is an empty or hollow act to the marriage covenant. In that light, though most homosexuals won't accept the Bible, homosexuality is tanamount to mocking God. (A real, Living God that has only appeared to be vacated to mortal affairs, allowing us humans to act freely, while still sanctioned for good or bad, by covenant. With the commandment, Thou shalt not "take" the name of the Lord thy God in vain -- the action word (adjective) 'take' means, 'possession of'; 'taking upon yourself covenant' or before there were 'civil unions' ...marriage was actually sanctified by the churches; it was the governments that took away marriage authority from the churches as a way to get money from the subjects. Where that leaves us in this discussion is: Yes, people are free to choose and act for themselves, as we/they have always been permitted to do -- even Adam and Eve in the garden weren't forced into any action. Yet, they were held accountable to the choices they made. Example: Commanded not to partake of the forbidden fruit. They did. They learned of their nakedness; were cast out of the garden; would die mortally...but kept the greater commandment to multiply/replenish the earth. Had Adam not partaken as Eve did when deceived by the serpent, they would have been separated and you and I would not have been born. They suffered the consequences of the decisions they freely made. The same as us, we will also reap what we sew, so to speak. God will be and is our judge. Finished. Man can not judge another man. I won't judge homosexuals, but I will convey how I believe that practice is wrong, among a lot of wrong things we can all do. If homosexuality is mocking God; if this practice is worse than murdering our parents...it must be pretty bad for our eternal, spiritual well being, it seems.

reply

ladymoonpictures - but I am a member of the church of the flying spaghetti monster which teaches that same-sex marriage is a beautiful thing. How can you disrespect my faith like that?

reply

Ladymoonpictures,

"I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21 : 7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11 : 7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side-by-side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?"
-Jed Bartlet

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Oh, and starvation, we might all starve."

reply

So, you believe that the only reason anyone should ever get, or be allowed to marry, is to create children? Are you willing to proclaim that anyone over a certain age and even those unable to have children, should not be allowed to cohabitate, because of some mythological story? Would you go so far as to say that the act of intercourse without the intent and hope of getting pregnant is 'taking gods name in vain'? How about that most people are not Jewish and time has passed since the last proclamation was handed down from space? It could have some meaning to marriage, but it also is referring to using God in an argument to tell other people how to live and believe. If I decide to change my faith and become a Muslim, I would follow the dictates of that collection of concepts, but I would not expect the world to live up to my personal internal nonsensical standards.

reply

<< I will never accept man o man marriages...I can not accept the vile, 'penis to anal' contact! >>

Um, not all gay people have anal intercourse.

And are you saying lebian marriage is okay, then, because it doesn't have the "vile, penis to anal contact"?

reply

The California Supreme Court had its hands tied on this one and from a legal standpoint they made the correct ruling. However, there is a silver lining to all of this for those of us who support gay rights:

In 2000 Prop 22 was on the California state ballot. The intent of Prop 22 was to prevent California from recognizing same-sex marriages. Prop 22 passed by a large margin: 61.4% for, 38.6% against.

Fast forward eight years later to Prop 8 in 2008. Prop 8 was decided by a vote of 52.24% for, 47.76% against.

That means an 9.16% increase in voter support for gay marriage and an 18.32% total swing in the vote. Keep in mind also that Prop 8 got a late surge of support due to the outside influence of Mormon groups from Utah.

Such a large swing in only eight years is a good indicator of the way the California voting public's mind is heading on this issue. In another two to four years when this shows up on the ballot again there is a good chance that the results will be much more favorable.

Furthermore, recent polling data which suggests that those aged 18-34 support gay marriage by a wide margin. This is even more good news. As the older generations die off and younger generations grow up supporting gay rights things will change with time. There is no polling data on 15-17 year olds, but the data from 18-34 would suggest that they would have a similar mindset. As these 15-17 year olds come of age to vote in the next few years (especially in liberally minded California), it will mean even more support for gay marriage on a ballot question.

I'd look for Prop 8 to be overturned by way of the ballot box in California in the next decade, if not the next five years.

reply

For some statistical analysis on the issue that goes into far greater depth than I (with my non-math oriented mind) could hope to achieve check out this post from statistician Nate Silver:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.html

Nate basically builds a regression model based on the results of previous ballot initiatives regarding same-sex marriage mixed in with some other polling numbers regarding a couple of other variables. He uses the model to then predict by what year each of the fifty states would vote against a ballot initiative involving gay marriage.

His model predicts this will happen in California by 2010, coming in way before my guess with my crude analysis above. Furthermore, his model has 24/50 states voting against initiatives to ban gay marriage by 2012. Ten years from now in 2018 the model has only 10/50 states holding out on the issue. Mississippi becomes the last state to give up on the issue in 2024.

Nate concludes by saying:

"It is entirely possible, of course, that past trends will not be predictive of future results. There could be a backlash against gay marriage, somewhat as there was a backlash against drug legalization in the 1980s. Alternatively, there could be a paradigmatic shift in favor of permitting gay marriage, which might make these projections too conservative.

"Overall, however, marriage bans appear unlikely to be an electoral winner for very much longer, and soon the opposite may prove to be true."

He's been right on many things before, here's hoping he's got it right on this one too...

reply

[deleted]