The California Supreme Court has refused to hear a legal challenge to the November vote on the marriage protection amendment by the ACLU and other pro-homosexual activists.
According to the Mercury News:
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a bid by civil rights groups to remove a measure from the November ballot that would restore the state's ban on same-sex marriage. Without comment, the justices unanimously refused to hear the legal challenge, filed last month by Equality California, a group opposed to Proposition 8.
There had been some concern that the same court which overturned the will of the people (who had voted in 2000 to specifically define marriage as between a man and a woman) would also overturn the people's opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment in November defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Apparently there is still some sanity floating around in California.
Now, if the voters reject marriage in November it will be on their heads, not an unelected oligarchy. But from the looks of polling results, that isn't likely to happen.
12 comments:
Oh, there's plenty of sanity left floating around California. And some of these same sane Californians are willing to do some homework before deciding how to vote.
Most of them don't like being scared into voting one way or the other. And they've got plenty of experience with these waste-of-time ballot initiatives.
This whole Prop 8 fiasco is a GOP ploy to get otherwise decent church-goers to cast their ballots for the GOP come this November.
Seriously, what has the GOP done for you lately? They've failed at everything, just like they're gonna fail at passing Prop 8 in California.
In the meantime, they'll keep filling your heads with stories of judicial tyranny and the like. Do you know the first thing about California politics? The biggest tyrants are the rich Republicans who use these stupid ballot initiatives as an under-the-table method for funneling money to the GOP.
Wake up.
You've been sold a bill of goods. Stop falling for the fearmongering coming out of the Yes on 8 campaign.
Do your homework. I did, and this is what I found:
Googling Gay Marriage: Putting a Fork in Prop 8
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/15/10959/0231/324/551909
The Prop 8 ATM: A Christmas Carol
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/3/22116/81016/323/545800
Meet Rameumptom, Inc: Schubert-Flint
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/30/73912/1147/89/544016
An invitation to show up or walk out on June 29th
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/27/11291/1484/408/542680
Mr. Ellis, the rights of the minortiy are not subject to any vote. They do not require popular approval.
The 14th Ammendment requires equal protection under the law for all U.S. citizens. Allowing monogamous marriages for straight people while banning them for gay people is a clear violation of this right.
Besides, name one way that a marriage between two people in California that you will never meet or see affects you at all. Please explain to me how their love life is any of your business.
Braden, homosexuals are not a "minority," or a group of people with immutable physical characteristics. They are people who choose to have sex with members of the same sex.
Homosexuals also already enjoy equal protection. A homosexual man has the same right to marry a woman that a heterosexual man enjoys. A homosexual woman also enjoys the same right to marry a man that a heterosexual woman enjoys. There is no violation of their rights whatsoever.
Homosexuals do not have the right to call a union which clearly cannot constitute a marriage, which requires a man and a woman, a "marriage." To do so would counterfeit the genuine article and devalue the original article, just as counterfeit money devalues genuine currency.
If homosexuals want to engage in homosexual sex, no one is stopping them. But marriage is a fundamental natural, religious, moral and social institution, the primary purpose of which is to create a family. Homosexuals by nature cannot create a family. At best, they can only adopt a child that a heterosexual couple created.
Adoption of such children into homosexual homes would be harmful to those children and extremely negligent of society to allow. Homosexual relationships are usually of very short duration, are seldom characterized by monogamy, and experience a much higher rate of domestic violence. Homosexuals also experience a much greater risk of AIDS, other STDs, depression, substance abuse and suicide. This is the last place we should put a child.
Finally, allowing homosexuals to call their unions "marriage" in California is to invite the exportation of this subversion of marriage to other states by people who may go there, get "married," then return to their home states and sue to force the same subversion on those states.
Further, since California is the largest purchaser of textbooks in the nation and sets many cultural standards for the nation, this erosion of marriage will quickly be exported to the rest of the nation.
It is in the interest of everyone in the nation, especially children, to bring an end to this insanity as quickly as possible.
Bob,
Gay people, or "homosexuals" as you so impersonally refer to them, are indeed a minority. Or have you forgotten the "3% statistic" you frequently use in your arguments? It's true that we are people who choose to have sex with people of the same sex, but it doesn't stop there. It's more than behavior -- it's an innate orientation (and before you go off on your "lack of evidence" tirade, remember that there's no scientific evidence that says people are born heterosexual either). Do you cease to be heterosexual when you aren't having sex? No. So why do you think the same logic doesn't apply to gay people?
What's this about textbooks? That's the first time I've ever heard someone use the delicate sensibilities of textbooks as a reason to deny gay people equal rights. There's no limit to the outlandish things homophobia will make you resort to.
I believe I defined what a "minority" is, Alex. I don't think I need to go over it again.
It could be said that I am "innately oriented" to abuse alcohol. I choose not to. Those who may be "innately oriented" to have sex with others of the same sex can choose not to.
The natural orientation of human beings is heterosexuality; both the Bible and nature illustrate that to us.
Regarding the textbooks, if California accepts homosexuality as normal, and accepts the concept of homosexual "marriage" then it will be considered "discriminatory" to teach anything else, including that mothers and fathers are the norm. Textbooks will have to be rewritten to accommodate this insanity for the sake of Californians. Of course, the book publishers won't have a "California version" and an "everyone else" version; there will be one version which will accommodate the insanity of California since it is the largest state and largest purchaser of textbooks.
And before you ask, insanity can be defined as losing touch with reality. To claim that homosexuality is normal, natural and healthy; to claim that either sex is irrelevant to child rearing; to claim that two men or two women can comprise a "marriage"...all of these notions have lost touch with reality.
I believe I defined what a "minority" is, Alex. I don't think I need to go over it again.
It could be said that I am "innately oriented" to abuse alcohol. I choose not to. Those who may be "innately oriented" to have sex with others of the same sex can choose not to.
The natural orientation of human beings is heterosexuality; both the Bible and nature illustrate that to us.
Regarding the textbooks, if California accepts homosexuality as normal, and accepts the concept of homosexual "marriage" then it will be considered "discriminatory" to teach anything else, including that mothers and fathers are the norm. Textbooks will have to be rewritten to accommodate this insanity for the sake of Californians. Of course, the book publishers won't have a "California version" and an "everyone else" version; there will be one version which will accommodate the insanity of California since it is the largest state and largest purchaser of textbooks.
And before you ask, insanity can be defined as losing touch with reality. To claim that homosexuality is normal, natural and healthy; to claim that either sex is irrelevant to child rearing; to claim that two men or two women can comprise a "marriage"...all of these notions have lost touch with reality.
You're right. I am "innately oriented" to have sex with men, but I can choose not to. Look at me, I'm typing right now and not having sex! And guess what? I'm still gay! Believe it or not, but some of us can exert self-control. Amazing!
If insanity is defined as losing touch with reality, then I guess Christianity fits the bill. Believing in things that are grounded in fantasy, not reality (assuming that "reality" consists of that which can be objectively, reproducibly observed and recorded) should be a one-way ticket to the asylum. Your padded cell is waiting.
I think someone who can't even accept the reality which is right in front of them and broadcast by history, medicine, science and nature--not even requiring an ounce of faith--is way ahead of me on the road to that padded room. :-)
History? The fact that gay people have existed from the beginning? Or that Western society is slowly yet finally accepting homosexuality as legitimate and normal?
Medicine? The fact that the APA and most respected medical/psychological establishments do not consider homosexuality a mental disorder or even a "problem"?
Science? Findings that suggest there are differences in brain chemistry/physiology between heterosexuals and homosexuals? Or that the likelihood of a boy turning out homosexual is positively correlated to the number of older brothers he has?
Nature? The universally and easily observable fact that many species of animals exhibit homosexual behavior? Organisms that, for lack of free will, must by default be acting according to their God-given instinct, suggesting that either God has a malicious disdain for his own creations if he would hardwire them for something that he finds personally offensive, or that homosexual behavior is, in fact, natural.
Now let's look at what you believe: You believe, based on wishful thinking, that the son of God performed miracles, that there is documented evidence of talking animals, that the world was flooded in 40 days (the force of rainfall alone would have caused the oceans to boil), and that an invisible friend lives in the sky and talks to you. As long as we're calling each other crazy, it wouldn't kill you to look in the mirror.
History - that homosexuality has been tolerated but never embraced, and never in recorded history (except possibly in the Antediluvian world) has a culture embraced the notion of homosexual "marriage"
Medicine - that homosexuals have far greater instances of AIDS, STDs, depression, substance abuse and suicide. A practice that fosters such suffering can't be a good thing.
Science - that the male and female bodies were obviously created to function together in a complimentary fashion for reproduction. That any other use for the sex organs is purposeless and possibly injurious. With no identifiable difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals (we don't know whether any physiological differences cause the homosexuality, or whether the homosexuality causes the physiological changes).
Nature - that the vast majority of organisms are heterosexual, that homosexual behavior is always a deviation (brought on by a fallen and damaged world under the curse of sin), and that reproduction and perpetuation of a species is impossible by this behavior. And that males and females function and act differently, and neither is indispensable to the good of the family.
As for what I believe, if you can accept Genesis 1:1, the rest is a cakewalk. For someone who can create a universe 28 billion light years (or more) across, talking animals and a global flood are light work, to say the least.
Ok just so I'm clear: the reason why two female penguins, who cannot choose and therefore cannot sin, are going at it right now on some remote glacier in Antarctica is because Eve ate a piece of fruit? You've said some asinine things, Bob, but today you've truly outdone yourself! It seems that the debate over insanity is finished. Now it's just a matter of sheer mental capacity.
Penguins can't sin, since they don't have a soul like humans do. They are, however, part of creation, which is in a broken state because it was under man's dominion when Adam sinned. When he sinned, he brought the curse of death and decay not only on himself, but everything under his dominion. Just as the misbehavior of a president or other world leader or a CEO brings trouble and disarray on whatever is under his dominion, so Adam's sin brought trouble on creation, which was under his dominion.
If you're interested in learning more, I'd suggest reading the first three chapters of Genesis, and then go and read the whole book of Romans; Romans sheds a tremendous amount of light on the ramifications of what Adam brought on the world.
But this is getting pretty far off topic for this post.
Post a Comment