PDA

View Full Version : Nets ignore new Calif Supreme Ct case on same-sex "marriage"



Little-Acorn
03-06-2008, 02:25 PM
Gay advocates keep pushing for new laws to pretend their unions are somehow the same as a "marriage". Just when you though it was safe to go back in the water... >:-O

And the TV and radio networks quietly let it slide.

-----------------------------------

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertKnight/2008/03/05/nets_ignore_crucial_california_supreme_court_case_ on_same-sex_marriage

Nets ignore crucial California Supreme Court case on same-sex marriage

by Robert Knight
Wednesday, March 5, 2008

A landmark marriage case opened Tuesday in the California Supreme Court that could have profound legal and social consequences for the entire nation.

Yet the major news networks completely ignored the story on their evening newscasts and even on the Wednesday morning shows.

At issue is California’s marriage law, approved by voters in 2000 by a wide margin, which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Because of California’s history of liberal legal activism, court watchers are taking bets over whether the high bench will sucker punch the electorate and impose “gay marriage” on the state.

The big story in the news, not surprisingly, was the presidential primary election in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont. All three networks also found time to cover the retirement of Green Bay Packers quarterback Brett Favre.

That’s big news all right. But, surely, the networks could have squeezed in a minute to let Americans know that a court case threatening to tear apart the nation’s social fabric got underway in San Francisco. They even could have used great footage of the surging crowds of demonstrators from both sides outside the courthouse.

The California case would have far greater national impact than former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s decision to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004. While the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared in 2003 that the state’s traditional marriage law was unconstitutional, another Massachusetts law prohibits out-of-state couples from marrying in the Bay State if their own state’s law does not recognize such a marriage. Thus, “gay marriage” remained a Bay State oddity.

But California, the nation’s largest state, has no such restriction. If California’s Supreme Court allows them to marry, homosexual activists plan to flock to the Golden State, get hitched, then go home and flood their home state courts with challenges to their marriage laws. They also plan to go after the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which was enacted by Congress and signed by former President Bill Clinton in 1996. Since 1993, 46 states have moved to strengthen their marriage laws by enacting constitutional amendments or tighter statutes. Many political observers have said that the marriage issue played a major role in the 2004 presidential election.

But it’s not a story now? Apart from primary election coverage, CBS gave time only to Brett Favre. ABC had brief stories on Favre, the mortgage crisis, and problems women face from hormone therapy replacement. NBC reported on Favre, a health scandal over re-use of syringes, and also devoted more than four minutes (an eternity on network television news) to a piece about how learning to play an instrument might help kids do better in geometry.

On the morning network programs, the marriage case was ignored, but NBC’s Today Show had a feature on ways to keep toy rooms clean and a brief anchor mention of the Empire State Building jumper. ABC’s The View included the usual gabfest, highlighted by Joy Behar’s observation that Dan Rather is “a sex god.”

The print press did better, with major stories in USA Today, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. All suffered from bias, however, with photos of happy lesbian couples, lots of quotes from gay activists about the inevitability of it all, and no rationale from the marriage law’s defenders as to why marriage is uniquely the union of male and female.

If America wakes up one day and finds that marriage has been redefined away from its original, intrinsic meaning as the union of a man and a woman, people might ask, “When did this happen and how come we didn’t know about it?”

Or they’ll still be talking about the Empire State Building guy or perhaps Dan Rather.

manu1959
03-06-2008, 02:30 PM
the ruling is due in 90 days....the court appeared split.....cv is leaning towrds not changing anything as californias domestic partners law already gives them all the same rights as marriage....they just don't get to use the word....

they have the rainbow.....i think it is all pretty even...:laugh2:

hjmick
03-06-2008, 02:32 PM
The will of the voters be damned! We'll sue! Whatever. This state is so screwy.

bullypulpit
03-06-2008, 10:17 PM
Why...Oh why...Does anyone give a shit if a same-gender couple wants to enjoy the same rights and responsibilities enjoyed by traditional married couples?

Can ANYONE provide documented, peer-reviewed evidence that permitting same-gender couples to marry causes <b>ANY</b> demonstrable harm to society at large?

Unless no one told me, there has not been one documented case of straight people turning gay, dogs copulating with cats and vice-versa, nor biblical plagues sweeping America since Massachusetts legalized same-gender marriages.

manu1959
03-06-2008, 10:19 PM
Why...Oh why...Does anyone give a shit if a same-gender couple wants to enjoy the same rights and responsibilities enjoyed by traditional married couples?

Can ANYONE provide documented, peer-reviewed evidence that permitting same-gender couples to marry causes <b>ANY</b> demonstrable harm to society at large?

Unless no one told me, there has not been one documented case of straight people turning gay, dogs copulating with cats and vice-versa, nor biblical plagues sweeping America since Massachusetts legalized same-gender marriages.

in california they have those rights under the domestic partners law and in california the word marry is definded as a man and woman.....so far no one has seen fit to change the definition as changing the definition will not grant more rights nor take any away.....

manu1959
03-06-2008, 10:21 PM
The will of the voters be damned! We'll sue! Whatever. This state is so screwy.

i am curios what are they sueing for.....what rights do they not currently have under the law.....

avatar4321
03-06-2008, 10:47 PM
Why...Oh why...Does anyone give a shit if a same-gender couple wants to enjoy the same rights and responsibilities enjoyed by traditional married couples?

Can ANYONE provide documented, peer-reviewed evidence that permitting same-gender couples to marry causes <b>ANY</b> demonstrable harm to society at large?

Unless no one told me, there has not been one documented case of straight people turning gay, dogs copulating with cats and vice-versa, nor biblical plagues sweeping America since Massachusetts legalized same-gender marriages.

You don't need documented, peer-reviewed evidence because it's so freaking obvious even a child understands it. The family is important because it provides the medium through which future generations are created and instructed to their maximum potential.

Society is detrimentally effected when children are not born and are not raised correctly. All you have to do is walk into any prison and see that.

Yurt
03-06-2008, 11:00 PM
The will of the voters be damned! We'll sue! Whatever. This state is so screwy.

don't venturea out too far

what is interesting is the power of this state:

in lawschool (oregon) half the caselaw was california, professors called it: the californicating of the northwest

there are more people in cali than canada

the worlds 7th (last i checked) largest economy

and --> guvaaanator

gabosaurus
03-06-2008, 11:06 PM
You can always count on Town Hall to present an unbiased view of what is happening. :rolleyes:

pegwinn
03-06-2008, 11:17 PM
Marraige is a religious thing.

Take the .gov out of the equation and let the churches decide who they will or won't marry.

Every .gov related issue that hinges on "Marraige" can be modified with little effort or eliminated altogether.

Surely there is a "union of da boyz" rectory somewhere than can fill the need.

gabosaurus
03-06-2008, 11:37 PM
Why does marriage have to be "a religious thing"?
A lot of non-religious couples are not married in a church. Like my sister and her husband.
Keep the government out and allow marriage to remain a personal decision.

pegwinn
03-07-2008, 12:04 AM
Why does marriage have to be "a religious thing"? Because it is a religious thing. It was invented by religion, sustained by religion, and until recently was regulated by religion. Recently is within the last couple of centuries. Long time to us, but a drop in the proverbial bucket for history.
A lot of non-religious couples are not married in a church. Like my sister and her husband. That is actually a civil ceremony. Fine. They can find a non-denominational church and get hitched.
Keep the government out and allow marriage to remain a personal decision. I agree with getting the .gov out....... now go find the church of your choice and get r done.

Gov spins it as a family thing. Families being the building blox and all dat. Problem is that my copy of the constitution doesn't enumerate a power for the .gov to regulate or be the wedding planner.

DragonStryk72
03-07-2008, 12:21 AM
That’s big news all right. But, surely, the networks could have squeezed in a minute to let Americans know that a court case threatening to tear apart the nation’s social fabric got underway in San Francisco.

Seriously, tearing apart our social fabric? the only thing it really does is provoke pissy arguments. Slavery, and states rights tore our social fabric in 1860. This somehow seems less than on par with it.

PostmodernProphet
03-07-2008, 06:24 AM
Can ANYONE provide documented, peer-reviewed evidence that permitting same-gender couples to marry causes ANY demonstrable harm to society at large?

for me, imposing same sex marriages on society is a major change.....it is the government forcing acceptance of another's life choice upon the rest of us......it is one thing for someone to engage in an activity that I believe is wrong, but I tolerate because it is their choice.....and another thing for the government to say, you will accept this activity that you believe is wrong as the equivalent of activity that you believe is right.....

DragonStryk72
03-07-2008, 12:25 PM
for me, imposing same sex marriages on society is a major change.....it is the government forcing acceptance of another's life choice upon the rest of us......it is one thing for someone to engage in an activity that I believe is wrong, but I tolerate because it is their choice.....and another thing for the government to say, you will accept this activity that you believe is wrong as the equivalent of activity that you believe is right.....

so what, if we ban gay marriage, they'll stop being gay? I doubt, and they'll still get married, just done in secret, same as has happened the world over whenever a form of marriage has been banned. In the end, allowing gay marriage ONLY effects those getting married, as in the gay people. If you're against gay marriage, don't marry them

bullypulpit
03-07-2008, 03:19 PM
Gov spins it as a family thing. Families being the building blox and all dat. Problem is that my copy of the constitution doesn't enumerate a power for the .gov to regulate or be the wedding planner.

Since it's a "family thing", what's the problem? Same gender couples are forming families, and having or adopting kids and everything else that goes along with it. This being the case, there is no reason for the government to deny same gender couples the same rights, benefits and responsibilities granted to traditional couples.

Hagbard Celine
03-07-2008, 03:47 PM
If the gays get to marry each other I predict the end of the world.

PostmodernProphet
03-07-2008, 03:53 PM
so what, if we ban gay marriage, they'll stop being gay?

??...I feel no need whatsoever to stop anyone from being gay....but I do object to the government telling me what I will or will not accept as normal......