 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
California Supreme Court Creates Gay Marriage Law
Gay Activists
|
"These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life - an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded union traditionally designated as marriage."
Read this carefully;
How does it affect two brothers who wish to be married?
Suppose one brother has a great job and excellent benefits, and the other brother is unemployed. They make an arrangement whereby one works and one takes care of the house. The latter brother, under *yesterday's* law, could not marry his brother or have access to his benefits.
Many large corporations today with domestic partner benefits, do not allow siblings under their rules.
Now that the California Supreme Court has ruled that anyone who wants to marry, should be allowed to marry anyone they choose, what prevents these two brothers from marrying?
Once you have absorbed this question, why did the California Supreme Court, in making this law, not put a plurality in the sentence "..opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person(s) with whom the individual..."?
How arbitrary these judges are to restrict marriage to only one person.
The ability for a court to arbitrarily create laws has come to a point where "We the People" should be very concerned.
Not registered? Click here
|
Share this
|
Report this
|
RSV_T: MY, what a sick man you are. I'm surprised you didn't get even kinkier to make your "point".
SeptUh9er: Wow. You are really a homophobic bigot aren't you?
You seem to have a problem with certain types of behavior.
Well guess what? I am no longer against the Supreme Court decision.
Yes, that is right, I am now a huge supporter of the right of one person to marry another.
It turns out my widowed mother has no health insurance. I am thinking that I can marry her, then apply for her be covered under my employer's plan. If they refuse, I will sue to the Supreme Court. Given their obvious understanding that any person can make a life commitment to another, and thus they should be allowed to marry, I am confident that I will win.
Beware of unintended consequences!
Read the supreme court's decision one more time, then think of how OPEN they have defined marriage.
C'mon... I know you want to immediately close your mind, but just think about it for a second. They are saying that any person who wants to marry another person cannot be excluded, regardless of any particular social construct.
Read it!
Maybe they made such a bad law so it will grt thrown out!
Little discussed in this issue is the fact that the Supreme Court overturned the will of the people and legislated law from the bench. I find it amazing that people who are usually for democracy over all are the owns defending this Supreme Court decision. Do we live in a democratically elected republic, or do we live in a court legislated, nepotistic oligarchy?
FK: It also amazes me that when its a 4:3 vote on the bench, and the minority is screaming that they are outraged by the abuse of the majority, the media treats it like it was a rock solid decision that should not be overturned.
"freedom"keeper - once upon a time we also voted to not allow black people to vote. You name claims to support freedom, yet this is a matter of constitutional rights. The constitution encompasses everyone, not just who you think deserves it.
And R_T, you should take your advice and beware of unintended consequences. If people like you hadn't tried to allow your homophobia to decide what boils down to a fellow American's constitutional right, the Supreme Court wouldn't have had to step in.
freedomkeeper _____ The issue is whether the government has the right, under color of law, to ban citizens from exercising their civil right to marry whomever they choose. We live not in a democracy, but in a constitutional republic where the wishes of the majority are limited to what does not violate the civil rights of even one citizen. If a law exists that restricts a right for anyone, it is for the court to declare that law unconstitutional and to invalidate it. That is the court's job. It does not make the judges activists: it just means they're doing what they're paid to do. The California Supreme Court invalidated a bad law that should have not existed to begin with.
In the case of In Re: MARRIAGE CASES, the Supreme Court ruled that sexual orientation, like differences in religion, race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."
You don't have to like it, but this is about an individual's fundamental human rights.
An annoying irrational pest
who tells others what he thinks is best,
Rational Thinker finds fault
and gay marriage would halt
with his weird fascination with incest.
This whole notion that homosexuals have been denied the right to marry is a straw horse! They have always had the right to marry, just like you and just like me. They can marry, and have always had the right to marry, any member of the opposite sex... legally!! I hope that common sense will prevail in the coming months and we can return this state to one governed by laws not by judges who rule arbitrarily from the bench.