California Gay Marriage Opponents Seek 5-Month Delay

[Pale Rider]

California Gay Marriage Opponents Seek 5-Month Delay



Thursday, May 22, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO — A conservative legal group asked the California Supreme Court on Thursday to put off finalization of its decision legalizing same-sex marriage until voters got a chance to weigh in.

The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund wants the ruling stayed until November, when voters will probably encounter a ballot measure that would amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage. That amendment would overturn the justices' ruling.

In court papers submitted late Thursday, the group warned that the state would suffer "great public harm and mischief" if it began allowing same-sex marriages on June 16, when the court's decision would ordinarily become final.

Defense Fund attorneys also said implementing the ruling in the meantime would be an unnecessary expense for the state and cause unneeded confusion for couples.

Article continues here... (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357401,00.html)

[dread]

We Arizonians HAVE to worry about California because what happens there doesnt seem to stay there.

[Pale Rider]

We Arizonians HAVE to worry about California because what happens there doesnt seem to stay there.

Well from what the article says, those liberal, activist, shit bag judges in kullyfornia have their hands full trying to legislate from the bench. They pissed off the people that voted by majority already to ban faggot marriage. They might as well give it up and drop the idea or there's going to be huge trouble, and they'll eventually lose anyway.

And we have the same shit here in Nevada. The moonbat kullyfornia liberals come over here and try and make Nevada kullyfornia, and it really pisses Nevadians off.

[Yurt]

i think a 5 month delay is entirely reasonable and necessary. the court puts off cases all this time for lesser public policy reasons. in this case, thousands could get married, only to have that voided later should the voters amend the const. what an incredible waste of state resources.

[gabosaurus]

This is such a gay thread.

[avatar4321]

seems a reasonable request. There is no need to waste all those administrative costs if they are going to be voided in a few months anyway.

Then again, when has any government ever been reasonable with finances?

[Yurt]

seems a reasonable request. There is no need to waste all those administrative costs if they are going to be voided in a few months anyway.

Then again, when has any government ever been reasonable with finances?

when eating pork?

[Pale Rider]

seems a reasonable request. There is no need to waste all those administrative costs if they are going to be voided in a few months anyway.

Then again, when has any government ever been reasonable with finances?

But when was the last time the militant homos did anything reasonable. They fight, scratch, claw, kick and slap anyone in their way, and God and normal people be damned.

[bullypulpit]

Given the precedent set in Massachusetts, It seems unlikely that a delay will be granted. After all, when same-gender marriages were permitted in dear old MA, straight people didn't wake up gay...cats and dogs didn't openly copulate with each other in the streets...no meteors fell from the sky...people didn't marry their pets, cars, houses, nor did any of the other asinine examples of weirdness thought up by the Rick Santorum crowd...divorce rates didn't change.

The great strength of America is that as we progress as a society, we extend rights to those members of our society where they have previously been denied. Such is the case with same gender marriages, civil unions, what have you. It is not a creation of "special rights", but rather the extension of rights to same gender couples that have long been extended to traditional couples. By denying some members of our society from making the public and legal commitment marriage entails, the institution of marriage is weakened...not strengthened.

[bullypulpit]

But when was the last time the militant homos did anything reasonable. They fight, scratch, claw, kick and slap anyone in their way, and God and normal people be damned.

Which "god" and define "normal". :D

[glockmail]

Which "god" and define "normal". :D There is only one God, and "normal" is what most people do.

[avatar4321]

Given the precedent set in Massachusetts, It seems unlikely that a delay will be granted. After all, when same-gender marriages were permitted in dear old MA, straight people didn't wake up gay...cats and dogs didn't openly copulate with each other in the streets...no meteors fell from the sky...people didn't marry their pets, cars, houses, nor did any of the other asinine examples of weirdness thought up by the Rick Santorum crowd...divorce rates didn't change.

The great strength of America is that as we progress as a society, we extend rights to those members of our society where they have previously been denied. Such is the case with same gender marriages, civil unions, what have you. It is not a creation of "special rights", but rather the extension of rights to same gender couples that have long been extended to traditional couples. By denying some members of our society from making the public and legal commitment marriage entails, the institution of marriage is weakened...not strengthened.

Nothing that happened in Mass is binding as precedent on the California Court. But I see you dont really have any problem wasting tax payer money do you?

[bullypulpit]

Nothing that happened in Mass is binding as precedent on the California Court. But I see you dont really have any problem wasting tax payer money do you?

Money will only be wasted in the event that a voter referendum to ban same-gender marriage is placed on the ballot and passes. Let the ruling stand until such time as California voters decide the issue. With 5 months time, it will be fait accompli, the sky will not have fallen, and people will not awaken gay, abandoning their spouses for a homosexual relationship. In fact little will change save that same-gender couples will be able to enjoy the same rights, priviledges and responsibilities their traditional counter parts have long enjoyed.

And, since the Alliance Defense Fund is based in Arizona, its complaints aren't likely to carry much weight with the California SUpreme Court.

[Yurt]

Given the precedent set in Massachusetts, It seems unlikely that a delay will be granted. After all, when same-gender marriages were permitted in dear old MA, straight people didn't wake up gay...cats and dogs didn't openly copulate with each other in the streets...no meteors fell from the sky...people didn't marry their pets, cars, houses, nor did any of the other asinine examples of weirdness thought up by the Rick Santorum crowd...divorce rates didn't change.

The great strength of America is that as we progress as a society, we extend rights to those members of our society where they have previously been denied. Such is the case with same gender marriages, civil unions, what have you. It is not a creation of "special rights", but rather the extension of rights to same gender couples that have long been extended to traditional couples. By denying some members of our society from making the public and legal commitment marriage entails, the institution of marriage is weakened...not strengthened.

i think MA is a bad example to compare precedent. CA, unlike MA, already had an incident where a flaming communist mayor allowed gays to marry in front of the whole nation only to later have those marriages voided. if the leftist justices have any compassion, they will not repeat such a mistake, however, it is unlikely given their activist approach to making law instead of interpreting the law.

[Pale Rider]

Which "god" and define "normal". :D
The one and only God, and normal as what you are not.


Money will only be wasted in the event that a voter referendum to ban same-gender marriage is placed on the ballot and passes.
That statement right there shoots your whole argument bull. It unveils your agenda, which is "anything anti homo is a waste of time and money." You have NEVER come up with a good argument why it is you so vehemently defend this perversion. Is it your wish to see mankind sink into the unnatural, immoral toilet until there is no distinction between us and the devil himself? If so, keep it to yourself.

[bullypulpit]

i think MA is a bad example to compare precedent. CA, unlike MA, already had an incident where a flaming communist mayor allowed gays to marry in front of the whole nation only to later have those marriages voided. if the leftist justices have any compassion, they will not repeat such a mistake, however, it is unlikely given their activist approach to making law instead of interpreting the law.

Ummm...it was a Republican majority court that handed down the decision. Secondly, absent "judicial activism", women would never have gained the right to vote, Jim Crow would still be in effect and anti-miscegenation laws would still be in effect.

[bullypulpit]

The one and only God, and normal as what you are not.


That statement right there shoots your whole argument bull. It unveils your agenda, which is "anything anti homo is a waste of time and money." You have NEVER come up with a good argument why it is you so vehemently defend this perversion. Is it your wish to see mankind sink into the unnatural, immoral toilet until there is no distinction between us and the devil himself? If so, keep it to yourself.

I don't have an "agenda". The "agenda" lies with those who would prohibit same gender couples the right to enjoy the same rights, responsibilities and priviledges straigh couples enjoy absent <i>any demonstrable reason for doing so</a>. My arguments have been cogent and supported by empirical data provided by independent and independently verifiable studies.

You, on the other hand, have made no argument based in anything but your own revulsion, your own religious doctrine and the religious dogma of the sources you have cited.

[bullypulpit]

C'mon back...

[Pale Rider]

I don't have an "agenda". The "agenda" lies with those who would prohibit same gender couples the right to enjoy the same rights, responsibilities and priviledges straigh couples enjoy absent <i>any demonstrable reason for doing so</a>. My arguments have been cogent and supported by empirical data provided by independent and independently verifiable studies.

You, on the other hand, have made no argument based in anything but your own revulsion, your own religious doctrine and the religious dogma of the sources you have cited.

Tell me bull, what "rights" don't queers have, and don't tell me marriage, because first off marriage isn't a right, and second, they have every "privilege" heteros that marry do with civil unions, and see if you can do it without inane, valueless, insults against my religion or normal revulsion of homosexuality.

[bullypulpit]

Tell me bull, what "rights" don't queers have, and don't tell me marriage, because first off marriage isn't a right, and second, they have every "privilege" heteros that marry do with civil unions, and see if you can do it without inane, valueless, insults against my religion or normal revulsion of homosexuality.

Marriage/civil union...what's the diff?

Either case entails specific rights. Currently there are quite a number of rights on the state and federal level denied the partners in a same-gender couple...

<blockquote>
<a href=http://www.hrc.org/issues/5478.htm>Rights and Protections Denied Same-Sex Partners</a>

Because same-sex couples are denied the right to marry, same-sex couples and their families are denied access to the more than 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities automatically granted to married heterosexual couples. Among those are:

-The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship.

-The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents.

-The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.

-The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup.

-The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships.

-Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits.

-The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will.

-The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.</blockquote>

And those are but the tip of the iceberg.

[Pale Rider]

Marriage/civil union...what's the diff?

That may vary from state to state.