Acknowledging that courts interpret law, not write it, the Court of Appeal in California voted 2-1 yesterday to uphold the state’s ban on homosexual “marriage.”
Presiding Justice William McGuiness wrote (emphasis added):
We conclude California’s historical definition of marriage does not deprive individuals of a vested fundamental right or discriminate against a suspect class…The time may come when California chooses to expand the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex unions. That change must come from democratic processes, however, not by judicial fiat.
Knowing the people of California, however liberal, won’t vote to redefine marriage to include “same sex,” homosexual advocacy groups plan to do what all such groups do: take it back to court. They’ll no doubt appeal to the California Supreme Court.
Call it the “wisdom of crowds” if you’d like, but I suspect “the people” think same sex marriage goes too far. Liberals also want Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court-written law legalizing child killing, upheld. Child killing advocates are scared to death to let states vote on the issue.
Also see this San Fran Chronicle article.
Later…Somewhat related is another growing “scandal.” Apparently, there’s a list of homosexual Republican Capitol Hill staffers floating around, and radical homosexual groups have sent copies to conservative Christian organizations. The so-called Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual advocacy group I mentioned in an Examiner column, is involved. More here.
Randy Thomas: “We have got to pay attention to the political power brokers, leaders and pundits. Why? Because if we are not willing to speak into all of this obvious degradation of our society we deserve the leaders we get. If we cannot demand a revolution in politics and society that extols honor, integrity and transparency, if we cannot or will not demand true leadership instead of partisan pandering … we deserve this chaos.”
Related posts:
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 31 comments }
If 100% of the world population were gay, the human race would be extinct in about 100 years. This is logical, enough so that supporting a union that encourages our demise goes counter to our survival and was justly and wisely declined.
Phew! That was a close call! 2-1 to ban gay marriage. What would have happened if gay marriage was allowed? We all know that it so weak as instiutition, it would have just fallen completely apart — Divorce rates would soar, domestic violence would increase, and children would be abandoned.
Now that THAT is settled, we don’t have to worry about married people any longer. Things are back to fine in nuptual land.
We showed those homos whose in charge, and let’s hope they don’t get any uppity notions that they think they can adopt children too!
Yup, so thank God only a tiny percentage of the world is gay, so we don’t have to worry about extinction. Still, that tiny percentage wields awesome amounts of power — they can destroy, utterly and completely destroy! — marriage. Just one gay couple getting married will force the divorce of millions of couples.
Thank God we are spared that.
All religious belief, ethics, morality, etc aside; homosexuality just does not biologically work! Tab A in Slot A = LIFE. Nothing else works for the purpose that it was designed. This holds true whether you believe it was designed by intelligence or accidental. Therefor….
Bring it to a vote of the people!! Let’s vote on this and abortion so we can end this crap now! Neither would never pass and they know it.
SO THE WAR IS COMING
Renewed Activity Seen at Suspected North Korea Test Sites, U.S. Intelligence Says
OK Randy, you have enough non sequiturs there to drive a truck through.
Sorry, but a homosexual relationship, whatever status it deserves, is NOT a marriage. If that makes me “heterosexist”, so be it, I am proudly so.
I’m not hostile to “civil unions” (depending upon the details, hospital visitations are one thing, marriage-in-all-but-name is another), but those things are to be decided legislatively, not by tyrants in black robes.
We conclude California’s historical definition of marriage does not deprive individuals of a vested fundamental right or discriminate against a suspect class…The time may come when California chooses to expand the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex unions. That change must come from democratic processes, however, not by judicial fiat.
Makes sense to me.
In response to #2: I disagree with gay marriage, too, but did you mean to say that legalizing gay marriage will encourage homosexuality? There are always going to be gay people, no matter what society’s views on homosexuality are. One doesn’t decide to become gay, but I assume you knew that.
In response to Randy: I was about debate your positions until I realized that you were more than likely a liberal poster who was being sarcastic. If that’s not true, then you need to calm down, man. Disagree with gay marriage though I do, it would NOT force couples to get divorced.
Somewhat related is another growing “scandal.†Apparently, there’s a list of homosexual Republican Capitol Hill staffers floating around, and radical homosexual groups have sent copies to conservative Christian organizations.
It seems that these days you can be “outted” for any reason – unless your name happens to be Valerie Plame. In that case it is a crime worthy of a federal special prosecutor spending a few gazillion taxpayer bucks to ruining the lives and reputations of a few innocent people.
Washington D.C. – gotta luv it!
You’re crossing the line now. Keep it clean, or get lost. – Admin
Just so everyone knows…. the Randy commenting on this thread is NOT me.
Thanks for the quote La Shawn.
Hey Mwalimu – Didn’t they spend like 6 million of taxpayer’s dollars to see if he got oral sex from Monica Lewinsky or not and still didn’t manage to impeach him?
This CA Appeals Court decision will be appealed to the ultra liberal CA Supreme. My guess is it will have to be finally decided at the US Supreme.
It is a good sign though we finally got a court to recognize they do not make the laws, we do.
Hey Zakia – Last time I checked, lying under oath, obstruction of justice, sexual harassment, and rape were still against the law.
Yes – even for Democrats named William Jefferson Clinton.
Bucktowndustry”If 100% of the world population were gay, the human race would be extinct in about 100 years. This is logical, enough so that supporting a union that encourages our demise goes counter to our survival and was justly and wisely declined”
It’s amazing how gays and their supporters don’t understand such a rational common sense argument like the one you made. I always get a kick when gays tell me that their lifestyle is “normal”. What is normal about it? We all came into existence due to be procreated by our parents. Those parents of course would be a “mother” AND a”father”.
For many, many years some militant gays have been pushing for a civil rights status for being gay. They want to get on the “victim hood” gravy train.
Well, if your second toe is longer than the big piggy toe, that ought to be worth something, as well.
I suggest that we amend our laws so that any gays who produce offspring without any outside help be given the right to marry. I am still open to miracles.
“If 100% of the world population were gay, the human race would be extinct in about 100 years. This is logical, enough so that supporting a union that encourages our demise ”
It’s outside my field and I don’t know the acceptance of the argument, but there is an argument that a population with 10% gays, who obviously don’t breed, procreates faster than a 100% straight population, since the nonbreeders help the breeders raising/protecting their children.
This argument was supported with animal examples, of some “gay†or non-breeding animals.
If being gay was being genetic and this trait was harmful to procreation, one would have expected this trait to have died out over time.
#17
“so that supporting a union that encourages our demise goes counter to our survival and was justly and wisely declinedâ€
Infertile couples shouldn’t get married either. Or the disabled. Or those couples who plan to adopt. Neither those who plan not to have children. They too, are hastening our demise!
Anyway, on top of all that…gays are evil and diseased. They wouldn’t be so militant in Islam.
y’know, every now and then i get asked, “ed, why is it that you grunble you were born 200 years too late?”
and me being a guy and all, i struggle for the proper words to explain, and usually end up grunting and pointing. but then, just when all seems lost, my favorite blogger does a post on the gay marriage debate. which is then invariably commented upon by the usual percentage of oh-so snippy, trenchant, witty-enough-i-suppose-but-in-the-wrong-way readers.
this is a great help to me. i can then just point to the ‘gay marriage’ article, or the ‘women bragging about their abortions’ article, or the ‘minorities groups battle for “most preferred” status’ article to the person i’m talking to and say, “that’s why i know i was born too late! stuff like that!!
many thanks, lashawn, and keep up the good work.
I really wish some would just stop with the homosexual criticism. I don’t know how their sexual orientation got reversed and niether do you. But please be logical and admit it is highly unlikely to be personal choice, though there may be isolated cases to the contrary.
Would you or anyone purposely chose a sexual preference that is clearly not normal and carries with it all the stigmatism we see in society? Would you or anyone purposely chose to display a handicap that would otherwise be unknown, in most cases, unless you NEED to to be YOU. And in order to satisfy your sexual needs and live a happy life. We all know just how powerful and important this is as a motivator too.
A homosexual cannot chose the opposite sex for a mate, though some have in order to appear normal-and even have families, anymore than you would chose someone from the same sex as a life-mate. It is just not ‘normal’ for them, sorry.
This doesn’t mean I approve of same-sex marriages. I want children raised by a man and a woman in a normal enviroment when possible, though I would not be against a same-sex enviroment where the preferred was not available. I have zero concern of them trying to raise a heterosexual child as a homosexual.
Aside from the sexual handicap, homosexuals are perfectly normal in all other respects and quite frankly, seem to be much kinder, gentlier, intelligent, and creative than the general population. This may be due to the drive to prove themselves worthy to the rest of us. I don’t know.
“I really wish some would just stop with the homosexual criticism. I don’t know how their sexual orientation got reversed and niether do you. But please be logical and admit it is highly unlikely to be personal choice, though there may be isolated cases to the contrary”
You’re mistaking criticism for facts, and the logic being used is based on facts.
FACT: Marriage was designed as a union between one MAN and one WOMAN. It is for what it is. A guy can’t go into a woman’s restroom and vice versa, it’s set up that way for a reason.
FACT: Homosexuals try to blur the line between
“civil rights” and “special rights”. Civil Rights are rights enjoyed by other citizens. When everybody is able to enjoy a certain right, then everybody have “equal rights”. Gays and Lesbians have the same civil rights as every other American citizen. They also have the right to marry like the rest of us. We ALL have the right to marry members of the “opposite”sex, and they do too. Homosexuals want “special”rights, but they want to hide it under the trojan horse by calling it “civil rights” or “equal rights”. Unless overnight Americans decide all of a sudden they want to marry members of the same sex, this will always be about “speciail rights”. Most Americans don’t have the “right” to marry members of the same sex, and they are not complaining about it either.
FACT: Hetrosexual couples do marry and don’t have kids. Thats their right as a married couple to make that choice. Also, its still a union between a man and a woman.
FACT:The true reason why gays want the right to marry is the legitimize their lifestyle to the American public. It can then be taught in the schools as a “normal” lifestyle. The orignal arguement was that they wanted the right to make medical decissions for their partners, and they wanted their panters to share their benefits. So to address these problems civil unions were offered, but that wasn’t good enough for them eventhough it addressed what was their orignal concern.
According to this Washington Times article
http://washingtontimes.com/business/20040518-120217-1233r.htm
A Government Accounting Office report lists 1,138 federal laws in which marital status conveys benefits, rights or privileges such as social security, food stamps, medicare, welfare, tax benefits, etc.
Health care and retirement benefits for domestic partners of federal employees was estimated to cost the government (you and me taxpayer) about $1.4 billion over the period 2004-2013.
Then, there are costs to employers for insurance benefits, etc. We all know that employers and insurance companies don’t absorb additional costs, they pass them along to you and me.
Based on the above, I not only object to gay marriage, I also object to civil unions. Why should I subsidize the lifestyle of homosexuals when I can’t get those same benefits as a single person? There isn’t any proposal on the table that I am aware of that would allow two heterosexual widows to share benefits. You would have to be gay to qualify.
The moral issue is bad enough, but don’t forget you all will be contributing financially as well.
Tyrone. I’m going to play devil’s advocate for a second and disagree with your second fact. Granting homosexuals the “right” to marry would not be a “special right” because you (and all other heterosexuals) would be allowed to marry members of the same sex as well, thus you would be equal.
Of course, you wouldn’t want to marry a member of the same sex for the simple reason that you’re not attracted to them, and that’s the same reason why a homosexual would not want to marry a member of the opposite sex.
So yes, currently we all have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. It’s just that some of us aren’t attracted to the opposite sex, so marriage is therefore impossible.
Personally, I’d be satisfied with civil unions (though personally I’m probably going to be celibate for a number of years…oh well). Marriage in itself is a religious institution, and therefore not a “right” for anyone. It is up to a specific denomination or church whethor or not they want to recognize a spiritual union. The government has no place in that at all.
#26 Jay notes that “marriage in itself is a religious institution…”
Every state in the United States has the power to marry one man and one woman in a state prescribed manner. It is not even necessary for both parties to be present. These are not civil unions; they are marriages.
Civil unions are essentially a document of partnership that are based on the same concepts as business partnerships. Only Vermont has ginned up a civil union that is marriage by another name.
The government does have a voice in what various denominations recognize as a legitimate marriage. For the marriage to be valid, the churches must stay away from polygamy, same sex marriages, children and other children or adults, close family members, animals, etc.
Heliotrope, you are entirely correct. I guess what I meant to say was that, if a denomination–such as the Unitarian Universalist Association–held a “marriage” ceremony for a same-sex couple, in order to recognize a spiritual union between the couple, the government couldn’t–and shouldn’t–do anything to stop them. There are two levels to marriage in my eyes–one that is spiritual and one that is legal.
Even if gay marriage was made legal in all 50 states, the government could not force denominations (like the Southern Baptist Convention) to recognize such unions. And as it stands, it cannot force liberal religious organizations to not recognize unions that are non-legal.
As a Christian, I hold marriage to be a spiritual, God-recognized union between one man and one woman. However, would I say that a non-Christian couple that got married weren’t married? No. Even though I wouldn’t think that their union would be recognized by God, it is recognized by the legal system. That’s the thing: If God doesn’t want to recognize a union, He won’t. It doesn’t matter what the law books say.
Now, what do I think the government should do for same-sex couples that want to be married? I think certain provisions should be made–hospital visitation and medical decisions being the main ones. I’m sure we don’t disagree there.
It all (please forgive me) comes back to a desire to justify sin. God writes His moral laws on our hearts, on all of our hearts, so it isn’t man’s law that the homosexual is trying to abrogate, but God’s. If the Bible did not clearly state that homosexualality was sin, we wouldn’t be having discussions about this subject. But it does, so gays continue to ignore the Bible,go against God’s law, suggest that it was only mean ol’ Paul who was anti-Gay, or the Old Testament laws don’t apply, or…
Paul was anti-sin. Pro-God. So am I. In all of its permutations.
#29 “God writes His moral laws on our hearts, on all of our hearts”
And He wrote it in a book. It’s called the Bible.
I have learned a great deal from this and will try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can.
When someone tries to defend the homosexual ‘lifestyle’, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination.
End of debate.
However, regarding some of the other specific Bible laws and how to follow them, some here may be able to help:
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality? I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)?
I know many of you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Regards,
John
JohnD, #30.
“I have learned a great deal from this and will try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can.”
In the immortal words of Yoda, much to learn you still have.
All of the scriptures you listed – or rather, copied from a web site – are from the Old Testament. Much of the Old Testament is legalistic. Lots of rules and regulations about how to become worthy in the eyes of God.
Jesus, by his death on the cross, abrogated all of the old laws because his sacrifice automatically makes all who believe in him worthy to God. Read the first 5 books of the New Testament for details.
The moral concepts, on the other hand, were not abrogated by Jesus’ sacrifice but rather upheld by it. The New Testament is fairly clear on that as well, though not quite as harsh as the Old Testament.
As someone else also wrote to me about the comment I made here, I’m glad that Chris Vachio answered John.
I’ve seen John D’s type of response before. The OT laws pointed up the fact that Man must rely on God for Salvation, as he is incapable of saving himself.
As Paul put it in the New Testament, “All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.”
Both Old and New Testaments are in agreement that homosexuality is considered an abomination by God.
My point was:what He calls sin, it is sin.
When I wrote:”If the Bible did not clearly state that homosexualality was sin, we wouldn’t be having discussions about this subject.” What I meant was that if God did not consider it sin, it would not be sin. But He does, according to His word, so it is sin.
I’ve known deluded fools who have tried without success to prove that God does not consider homosexuality an abomination.
If any of you think that I am simply a ‘homophobe’, you are wrong. I am following what the Bible clearly says, and it would be a sin to call evil good or something good evil. If you don’t like what the Bible says, yell at God, not me.
I wonder about Nancy Pelosi’s outrage over the Foley Scandal when she had no qualms about marching with NAMBLA advocate and ‘founding father’ of the gay rights movement at San Fran’s gay pride parade a few years back.
I’m also struck by the fact that in most states the age of consent is between 16 & 18, while in DC it is only 15. No wonder Studds could get away with claiming it was a consensual relationship, even with the attempted affair with a 15 year old girl.
That said, what’s with the leftist’s manufactured rage over Foley’s daliances with pages at 16 or 17? Keeping in mind that it is Congress that oversees and makes the rules for DC, why would they permit a lower threshold for consent than back in their home states? If they really want to protect the pages, the expedient thing would be to raise the age of consent to 18 for DC. Problem solved. And upon the next incident, the violator gets to do the Shackled Shuffle and doesn’t get to pass GO simply by resigning and avoiding censure/punishment.
Methinks we ought to go back to the rule for appointment of Senators by State Governors as originally conceived by the Constitiution. Since the amendment, politics has so upended such that Senators, who ought to be representing their State & Governors are now as powerful, if not more powerful than Governors. And we wonder about gridlock and obsession with petty things rather than the state of the federacy, that and the culture of corruption…
Andy! How the heck are you? It’s to hear from you.
Comments on this entry are closed.