California's top court to rule on gay marriage

[No Stimulus Here]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>
What you fail to grasp is that while a majority voted in favor of this proposition, that does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that the majority was right or that it was something that they actually had the power or the authority to do. You see, the state Constitution of California, like those of all of the other states and even our national one has a statement that all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law. This guarantee is not something that can be taken away from anyone by simple legislative act, neither by vote of elected representatives or by the public voting on a referendum. Our court system has the authority to review such legislative actions to ensure they are acceptable in terms of our constitutional guarantees and in this case they found that however well intentioned, the resulting law violated the guarantee of equal protection to lesbian and gay Californians. It really doesn't matter if this referendum was approved by a margin of one vote or with 99.99% of the vote, "the will of the people" cannot violate the Constitution. That is one of the least appreciated aspects of our system of governance that the rights of the minority in this country are protected from the whims of the tyranny of the majority.

Gee..Why don't you use this logic when people scream about Bush stealing the 2000 election?

[Killjoy]

No Stimulus Here wrote:

<quoted text>
Gee..Why don't you use this logic when people scream about Bush stealing the 2000 election?

Exactly! I can answer it for you. Liberals only approve of things that fit their ideals. So libs out there. If the US Supreme court ruled to abolish abortion would you agree? I mean, they would be speaking for the rights of the minority...the unborn child.

[Patrick in Texas]

Wally Cleaver wrote:

Relax. The people can and will turn it around again. The voters will be heard and override the court's decision.
We can also hope the next 7.9 quake shakes Kalifornia loose from the mainland and we can all watch it float away.

Actually, polls show a majority of Californians are against a constitutional amendment. Even the Governor, a Rebublican, has said he is against a constitutional amendment and will fight it. Your last sentence in your post speaks volumes about you. The idea that you would wish the death of 35 million of your fellow Americans is just disgusting.

[Patrick in Texas]

No Stimulus Here wrote:

<quoted text>
Why bother to have a referendum at all if it is the "constitutional duty of the courts to intervene?" The will of the majority has been usurped. Another point. That was voted upon about 8 years ago. The world has changed a lot in 8 years.
This was voted down when the clintons were popular. Look at how popular they are today. Things have changed.
It sure would be interesting to see if the question were put to referendum once again what the results would be.

Nationally, acceptance of gay marriage continues to increase year after year....not decrease. Take a look at the polls.

[Anthony]

Adam wrote:

to me, the term marriage is specific to a man and woman because it has to do with the physical and spiritual ability of two people to share in the custody of a child that carries both their DNA.
Two guys or two women can say legally that they are married. But it doesn't mean to same to me.

Please explain that to the millions of heterosexual people that get married with a) no intent to have children and b) a defect in their reproductive systems, thus rendering them sterile.
It works both ways, Adam. If marriage is strictly for reproduction, then we need to start limiting the amount of marriage licenses we're handing out.
While we're onthis subject, please get a hold of your fellow heterosexuals and please tell then to stop getting pregnant if they have no intention of keeping the child. This has caused a bit of a headache for homosexuals, who have been forced to step in and start adopting babies that we never wanted by their parents.

[Anthony]

Sorry - should have read "that were never wanted by their parents".

[Gab]

Patrick in Texas wrote:

<quoted text>
Nationally, acceptance of gay marriage continues to increase year after year....not decrease. Take a look at the polls.

Because kids are being indoctrinated at such a young age with books like Timmy has 2 mommies in our public schools.
Every where kids look bad behavior is being normalized.

[Shawn M Lang]

Gab wrote:

<quoted text>
Because kids are being indoctrinated at such a young age with books like Timmy has 2 mommies in our public schools.
Every where kids look bad behavior is being normalized.

Funny how you focus on what you think of as indoctrinization. I doubt that many or any kids ever hear about the book "Heather (not Timmy) Has Two Mommies". What about being a lesbian or gay parent do you believe is "bad" behavior? All the kids I know who are growing up in gay and lesbian households are on the honor roll, playing little league, enrolled in gymnastics, etc. So, how does that fit in with your "bad" paradigm?

[Shawn M Lang]

Nimrod wrote:

Anthony, you are very uninformed, as shown by your statement:
"Homosexuals... have been forced to step in and start adopting babies that were never wanted by their parents."
"Homosexuals" LOBBIED our legislature for the "right" to adopt about 10 years ago. Our liberal legislature then granted that demand--to the DETRIMENT of children. The lawmakers ordered that DCF consider gay couples and singles on an"equal footing" with married couples seeking to foster and/or adopt children in CT.
"Homosexuals" were in NO WAY *"forced* to step in and start adopting babies." And there are DCF-licensed foster and adoptive married (man and woman) couples who are being DENIED the opportunity to adopt a particular child, because DCF is required to give "homosexuals" equal consideration, despite what is in the *best interest of the child.*

In fact, lesbian and gay parents have NOT been sought out but have stepped forward in ways that non-gay parents have not, to be foster and adoptive parents for kids that YOUR people (the non-gays) can't be responsible for (as biological parents), or won't consider adopting. One couple in my family of friends has adopted four kids through DCF. Those kids have been blessed to come into one of the most amazing and supportive families I've ever known.

[Wally]

"What is morally wrong, can never be politically right." —Abraham Lincoln

[Sinister]

Shawn M Lang wrote:

<quoted text>
In fact, lesbian and gay parents have NOT been sought out but have stepped forward in ways that non-gay parents have not, to be foster and adoptive parents for kids that YOUR people (the non-gays) can't be responsible for (as biological parents), or won't consider adopting. One couple in my family of friends has adopted four kids through DCF. Those kids have been blessed to come into one of the most amazing and supportive families I've ever known.

I what "ways" have they (non-straights) stepped forward more than straight couples?

And what does it mean when you write "non-gays" can't be responsible for or won't consider adopting? I know several straight couples personally who have adopted children of races different than their own and one couple has adopted a baby girl with Downs Syndrome.

Your post is very vague.

[Shawn M Lang]

Nimrod wrote:

Anthony, you are very uninformed, as shown by your statement:
"Homosexuals... have been forced to step in and start adopting babies that were never wanted by their parents."
"Homosexuals" LOBBIED our legislature for the "right" to adopt about 10 years ago. Our liberal legislature then granted that demand--to the DETRIMENT of children. The lawmakers ordered that DCF consider gay couples and singles on an"equal footing" with married couples seeking to foster and/or adopt children in CT.
"Homosexuals" were in NO WAY *"forced* to step in and start adopting babies." And there are DCF-licensed foster and adoptive married (man and woman) couples who are being DENIED the opportunity to adopt a particular child, because DCF is required to give "homosexuals" equal consideration, despite what is in the *best interest of the child.*

Do you have any REAL facts to back any of that up? I doubt it, because it's all incendiary nonesense! I am one of those who worked on and benefited from the co-parent adoption bill which passed about 8 years ago. I adopted my son shortly before his 4th birthday. On the DCF foster/adoption issue, good friends of mine have fostered and adopted 4 kids through DCF. I can tell you unequivically, that these kids are in one of the most stable loving families, with an incredibly supportve extended family which is completely unlike their families of origin. Again, show me the facts that non-gay people are being denied foster/adoptive kids...I would bet that the reality is that DCF would love to have MORE families interested in taking kids in...the majority of whom are kids that non-gay people have no ability to care or be responsible for.

[Shawn M Lang]

Nimrod wrote:

Shawnzo, you are right about ONE thing, that "the reality is that DCF would love to have MORE families interested in taking kids in."
There are not nearly enough licensed foster parents in Connecticut to adequately take care of the thousands of foster children in the state.
BUT, your statement "the majority of whom are kids that non-gay people have no ability to care or be responsible for" is TOTALLY ILLOGICAL, preposterous, and without merit! You are in effect saying that ONLY "gay" foster parents or "gay" adoptive parents are able to foster/adopt well.
If that is not what you meant, pray tell--what DID you mean?

Sorry, no. I'm saying that gay and lesbian families are adopting/fostering kids that non-gay people have had and cannot or will not be responsible for. That's all.