I agree on the separation of church and state, but you have to control it somehow because if everybody’s gay then there will be no more kids and the human race will end. Although im sure it will never come to that. If your gay your already going against gods law, so its a wonder why you would believe in god anyway.

Hi Marc,
Clarify something for me. As a native Californian I have seen the state change over the years and unfortunately it has not been for the better. I thought that this was already voted upon by the people. Or am I mistaken?

Ron, from an NPR article “The last time the issue was on the ballot in California eight years ago, voters rejected same-sex marriage by a wide margin.” but the Supreme Court (State) said that the law was unconstitutional. I’m not really sure why it has come up again or what the technical problem was.. There have been reports of it on CNN, MSN, and several other places I read. This does indeed seem strange.

Also, the entertainment pages are making hay with it, as Ellen Degeneres has said she will marry now.

I’ll research why the last decision was thrown out.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

The ruling came after litigation stemming from the city’s decision last year to allow gays to marry. Those marriages were ruled invalid by the state’s Supreme Court but it then referred the issue to a lower court.
____________________________________________________________________

The above is what I have been able to come up with so far - most of the hits I have been getting on Google are speaking of how it will affect the November election, and seem to assume that everyone is fully briefed on what caused the decision.

I’ve started the search for a second wife, as you know the next debate will be over that, and I want to be ready.

WE had this debate in Ontario Canada, some years ago after the Provincial supreme court ruled:
“This case and others are the basis for the recognition that same sex couples can and do already qualify for all the legal and financial benefits that normal married couples enjoy.

So, why the quest to change the marriage definition? McMurtry points out that these benefits accrue only after a waiting period of one year as in common law unions. He and his fellow judges felt this was discrimination based on the Charter and decreed that the remedy was the immediate change of the definition of marriage and the issuance of license to marry to same sex couples.”

Unfortunately, we are not allowed referendums; and many elected members baldly stated the even though the majority of their constituents were against the redefinition of marriage, they, the constituents, were wrong! and the politicos were right! . . . and many got re elected . . .

Marty, thanks for the comment - a couple of questions - 1) Who is McMurtry? 2) Common law unions take 7 years in the US (in those states that recognize them,) so a year waiting period would not apply - how long does it take in Canada for common law marriage, or union, to be recognized?

Marriage is a religeous sacrament which the state shouldn’t withhold from same sex partners.

I don’t see why the issue should revolve around whether or not marriage is normal, or more normal than civil unions. It seems to me it should revolve around whether the majority, acting through exercise of government power has a legitimate governmental purpose for withholding it from two people who are in love.

Why in the world would anyone care what others are doing in their personal life? It seems the most vehemently opposed are Religious Right leaders who would tear down the wall of church/state separation. This is a legal matter and not a religious matter. Keep them separate!

Chip.B, I think you miss the point here. There are people in this country who are already married in the eyes of their religion. The debate is whether the state should recognize the status of that marriage as a joining called ‘Marriage’.

One thought I have about this is something I joked about above, but it is very serious - once the law allows non-traditional unions to be called marriage, with all atending rights, the polygamists are going to start pushing hard for it. Also, if you say it is only between 2 people, many who are not otherwise living as ‘married’ will get married for tax/inheritance benefits. For example, 2 sisters, with no other family, could get married to obtain tax breaks and assure that whichever dies first does not have their estate seized by the state.

FJackie, most don’t because of the ‘nosy’ factor, but because of the tax/inheritance status I mentioned in my reply to Chip above. Thanks Chip and FJackie for the comments.

FJackie,

It isn’t the “religious right.” I am from California, which actually leans HEAVILY to the left. More than 60% of voters chose to limit marriage to a man and a woman. The problem is that the court created a constitutional right out of thin air. The California constitution prohibits discrimination based on race, gender, etc. But it DOESN’T mention sexual orientation.

Any definition of marriage will have limits that are arbitrarily set (e.g. only one spouse, no close relatives, etc.). The most upsetting part of this decision is that four people in robes have decided that they have the power to CREATE rights and laws that the people have overwhelmingly decided against. If a court has the power to change laws based one what they THINK is right (remember, there is nothing written in the constitution to justify their decision), despite voters’ wishes to the contrary, then it is no longer a democracy, but autocracy.

The constitutions of the United States AND of California dictate a clear separation of powers. The judiciary does NOT have the authority to legislate. But this court has usurped that authority.

Seriously, if the court is allowed to wield power in this way, what is to prevent them from ruling that a gubernatorial veto has violated the rights of the people?… or that the legislature’s fiscal irresponsibility has violated the people’s rights?