Comments

I think its always better to have the people choose to accept gay marriage (whether through legislative action or referendum). So I'm not excited about this judicial action. But I'm even more dismayed by the religious groups that want to put their faces on such an aggressive campaign against gay people with an amendment that, if it passes, will barely pass.

You really should check out J. Baxter's dissenting opinion. It totally annihilates the majority opinion's smoke and mirror approach. The decision was 4-3 and is just the latest egregious example of the tyranny of the judiciary. The social engineering by judges which began with Brown v. Board of Education is proceeding to its logical conclusion. Americans must rise up and take their country back!

What a sad day for our country! This is just one more sign that it is dying. And it is really too bad because we have been great and have done some wonderful things. We have not been perfect but we were at one time the best and an example to all others. Now, we have degraded ourselves by calling evil good and good evil. Will we ever wake up? There is nothing good or blessed in homosexual unions and activities. It is a perversion of human sexuality. Why must we accept it and now also condone it? What is going to be next? Polygamy? How about beastility? This is the direction we are are headed if we do not get our acts together.

God hasn't changed his mind about homosexuality no matter how many churches and preachers accept and promote it. Homosexuality as every other sexual sin should never be celebrated as something wholesome or right.

The gay agenda is not to stop with the right to marry, it's ultimate goal is to criminalize anyone or any institution that would oppose this lifestyle. Once states legalize gay marriage, laws that ban discriminating against homosexuality are soon to follow. If this attack on the traditional family is allowed to stand, churches will be sued, preachers will be personally sued and imprisoned because they stand against something a state now says is legal.

It's time for Christians to stand and say while we love the soul of sinners, we hate the sin and will no longer stand idly by and watch the foundations and instututions of our society be destroyed by those who have choosen to love their sin over the love of God.

Remember Justice, remember mercy. Remember your evangelical conviction of proclaiming the Gospel, also to Samaria!.

I am very happy with this decision as it represents the diminishing power of the Religious Right in America. Opposition to gay marriage has little to do with trying to be "biblical" and everything to do with conformity in the subculture created by organizations like the Moral Majority and Focus on the Family. There are a host of respected evangelical scholars who are fed up with the evangelical church's position on this issue and they represent a growing defection from the Religious Right subculture among evangelical youth. I predict that within 20-30 years evangelicals will look back with shame at their approach to gay marriage and will hold a position similar to their liberal counterparts, as occurred with environmentalism, civil rights, women's equality, and a host of other issues. The CA decision represents a triumph for Christianity and for America.

How long will we continue to sleep? Why our we so afraid? Justice, mercy, proclaiming the Gospel. It is good news for a reason. We have forgiveness with God and our sins are remebered no more. Homosexuality is sin! We should love our fellow man and share our message of hope, in truth.

Whether or not one accepts SSM the fact is that there are far more important issues that Christians should be focusing their time and money on. Poverty is a major issue in this country though it is not politically correct for a conservative to say so. Environmental issues should be a concern and I don't mean jumping on the global warning bandwagon, but only a fool denies that it is important that we take care of the earth that God gave us. Teen pregnancy, STDs,spousal abuse, child sexual abuse, on and on and on. These are the things that Christians should be part of the solution for. As much as some like to say it gay marriage is a threat to no one and time/money wasted on it is appalling. If you want to help the family then direct your energy to where the problem is - the "traditional" family.

Rachel, please explain how the opinion of 4 out of 7 judges is anything but tyranny when a sizeable majority of Californians had VOTED against gay marriage. Do you like trampling on the rights of the majority? Things have gotten so utterly backwards in America. We no longer have a democracy. I definitely ain't the moral majority, so save it. I just love freedom.

The 4 out of 7 judges held that the California Constitution protects gay marriage. Of course, it says no such thing -- it's just that these 4 judges think it should say that, so presto, now it does. Again, WAKE UP AMERICA! YOU'VE LOST YOUR COUNTRY TO TYRANTS!

I think we in the church need to wake up nad smell the sin. We have been faced with a ruling that defies not only the word of God but also our very constitution. It was never the intention of our four fathers that we would allow the ruling of four liberal judges to over power the voice of 70% of the voters in California. The voice of th california church has been silent for so long and in the process we have allowed our state to disecrate our conviction. I patiotion that we as california christians should speak out and coe into action. Whether that be by ballot or by demonstration. We must act and we must act now. If we do not speak out for the institution of marriage as God created it we will only condone it.

I'm so glad that I've left conservative evangelicalism long behind me. It was a sometimes arduous journey, and sometimes it seemed to cost too much, but I've reaped what I've sowed.

This is a secular country with no established religion...what the Bible says or doesn't say is merely interesting, gives some context, and is usually contested and controversial at that...why else are there myriad different denominations? Why was I baptized with a symbolic sprinkle of water as an infant, while my neighbor was fully immersed as a young adult in baptism? Brother has fought against brother on that issue, and they were both wrong.

If one was to go literally by the Bible example...adult baptism in a river, you couldn't be baptized where I live...the rivers in my high desert area aren't usually deep enough for full immersion...and when they are...they're much too dangerous. It's not the literal interpretation of baptism that's most important, it's what it means in the soul, whatever a "soul" is.

The Bible, while it has an antipathy towards same-sex intercourse in general, and seemingly all sexual intercourse in general in some books, doesn't say that "homosexuality" is a sin. The Bible, being an ancient collection written over a long period of time, has an antipathy towards a great many things, like my poly-cotton blend, no-iron shirt. So what? Follow Jesus' example on that. Would Jesus wear the Gant cotton-poly, no iron shirt I'm wearing today? We don't know, it wasn't invented yet...and he didn't wear shirts anyway. But I'm of ill health and busy...I have a need low maintenance, wash and wear clothes.

Sin is what I do, not what other people do. I'm not their judge. I don't walk in their shoes. I can advise them that what they're doing seems to be unwise and maybe dangerous, if not illegal, but...I'm not their judge unless I'm on a jury of their peers. In which case, I judge them by my understanding of secular law, not by my reading of religious law.

What does God prefer more than sacrifice? I think it's kindness.

When I was a kid, there were many people who said that having dark skin was a result of sin, ancestral sin. The Supreme Courts "Brown" decision was the worst calamity to ever befall the nation, I was told. God really hates race mixing, It's in the Bible...and we would pay dearly for allowing race mixing. Well, calamities, natural and man made, have come and gone, as they did before Brown, and will do so in the future. It rains on everyone, for good and ill...we're all in this together.

In any case, the calamities that came before "Brown" were worse than the calamities that have come after...but I wouldn't count on it staying that way. There has just been more "before" than "after." I can predict that God won't smite the nation any worse, or less, that God would have done anyway. The Big One will hit the West Coast...killer hurricanes will plummet the East. Volcanoes will explode...floods and droughts will happen. We need to study them all carefully and learn how to protect ourselves better.

In fact, while I won't speak for God, moral people don't care, and never did, if one's spouse is of a different "race." Dark skin is a result of having ancestors who didn't live in far northern places with really crummy winters. It's merely mildly interesting at most. I wear sun block, she takes vitamin D tablets in the winter...we adapt easily. (Actually, we both wear sunblock, the high altitude sun is really harsh on all skin.)

If God hated race-mixing so much, why didn't God make it impossible? If God hates "homosexuality" so much, why isn't it impossible? That would indicate a lack of planning on God's part. God must hate me licking my elbow, because that's impossible.

Moral people don't care if one's neighbor, or child, or one's self, is gay...it's merely interesting. It's loving your neighbor that's important, and gay people are as good and bad at that as anyone else.

Do tax paying, adult citizens of the USA have a civil right to marry or not? Is marriage a civil right for all, a religious rite not to be regulated by our secular government, and/or a privilege that one is born to or earns in some way? That's clearly an issue for the courts, as our founders probably more or less intended.

They also intended, in general, for slavery to just fade away...and how did they fare on that? In fact, the country was rebooted with the post-Civil War amendments...and it's the 14th amendment that gives courts clear intentions to rule on matters of civil rights, even if, as in "Plessey" they rule immorally, dangerously and with extreme prejudice...and discover almost 60 years later that they had been duped, by their "common sense" and a great many other things. (Don't forget that pretty much the same court that conservative evangelicals say proclaimed America to be a "Christian Nation" is pretty much the same court that proclaimed America to be a "separate but equal" nation. Equal is equal, separate is separate is not equality.)

Conservative evangelicals seem to often bring to their reading of the Bible their own feelings of a natural and God given superiority, of being God's royal race, and amplify them. It's pretty sad. "They" say that people who search for the "historical" Jesus often end up looking into a mirror...and what do conservative evangelicals see? Jesus as themselves...so do I, probably, but my Jesus is not their Jesus. Which Jesus is more Jesus?

Conservative evangelicals have a long history of opposing marriage...for interfaith couples, for enslaved people, for interracial couples...and they've always come up with the same arguments as they do with gay marriage...God approves of them, but not you; God forgives them for their little sins, but not you for your unforgivable sin. Civil rights is an evil conspiracy of "activist" judges and godless liberals, and that God will smite you and the country for not doing as they say, even though what they say is not about loving their neighbor as themselves.

Oops, I see that I added one to many words to my last sentence. It should be "...God will smile on you and the country for doing as they say, even though what they say is not about loving their neighbor as themselves."

Gregory Peterson

"Dark skin is a result of having ancestors who didn't live in far northern places with really crummy winters. It's merely mildly interesting at most. I wear sun block, she takes vitamin D tablets in the winter...we adapt easily. "

HAHAHAHA, great quote, I love it. Ohhh, and I agree whole-heartedly with everything you said. Look, if you want a country that has some moral standards, take care of yourself and be a good example to people. Everything else will follow, and stop being so worried about what other people are doing. Read, learn new things, work hard to improve yourself, teach your children a good set of morals, and enjoy life. Its that simple, Im not going to give you some sort of formula that lets you eradicate homosexuality in 5 years, because free will is available to all of us, either take it or not, but dont try to stifle everyone elses.

Greg, Greg, same ol' Marxist clap-trap. You speak as a demagogue, setting up straw men left and right so you can look so powerful in smiting them with your mighty, egalitarian inclusiveness. However, as usual, you avoid the real issue, which is the tyranny of the judiciary. Oh, you do understand the issue, I think, but you approve of the tyrants usurping the rights of the majority, so long as it comports with your leftist proclivities. But (oh, the horror of the thought), what if those tyrants were "conservative evangelicals?"

Now, your fixation with past evils, slights, discriminations, inequalities and various heartburns is highly righteous, dude (in fact, if I were a judicial tyrant, I would adjudicate you vastly morally superior to most mere humans, especially all those old racists of the past and those bad old "conservative evangelicals" of the present). But..., if you recall, we were discussing in the present tense something that is happening right now -- judicial tyrants having made from whole cloth the right to homosexual marriage of constitutional import, not, among other numerous irrelevancies, whether "mixed-marriage" is lawful.

"Brown," as you knowingly refer to it, was but the beginning of the tyranny. Laudable goals? Perhaps. The beginnings of a tyrannical judiciary that tramples the rights of the majority? Absolutely.

DiverCity... I think I must have missed the Marxism and demagoguery in Greg's post, but I pick up just a hint of the old ideologue in your comment.

Over the past few week I've heard the phrases "tyranny of the judiciary", "anti-democratic", and "rights of the majority" intoned easily and often, but without the slightest bit of substance behind them. So let me provide a mild corrective...

The judiciary is empowered to uphold the constitution of the land regardless of the will of the 50% plus one. And this isn't an accident of our history; it is the core of our politics. The United States Constitution established a democracy with one hand and with the other created a liberal state, one in which certain areas of life are protected from the majority.

In other words...

There is no such thing as the right of the majority over the constitutional arrangements of our nation. We are intentionally un-democratic (albeit to make our democracy long lived), and it is the "tyranny" of the judiciary that assures me that I will never be discriminated against or interfered with on the basis of my race, religion, or political leanings no matter what the majority bellows for. So viva la tyranny!

http://thenewpolity.blogspot.com

New Polity, your understanding of constitutional law is misguided. I well addressed the tyrannical nature of the California Supreme Court's ruling in my earlier post here, to wit, the right to homosexual marriage does not exist in the California Constitution. This, again, is the tyrannical aspect of the decision and all such decisions which locate such rights within the shadows of the constitutional text in order to effect nothing more than social policy. No, New Polity, you have imbibed at the well of liberalism and its necessary corrollary that the constition is organic and must change to fit the tenor of the political times. This once more illustrates the perniciousness of the ever-moving rights target. Of course, perhaps like you, I was taught that the will of the majority cannot trump the Constitution, and that's okay as far as it goes. But we've gone WAY, WAY beyond that point in constitutional jurisprudence in America. This, Mr. Polity, is the tyranny of the judiciary.

BTW, Greg and I have a history here, and my comments to him are not as mean-spirited as they might initially appear. I generally find him good-natured, but like your understanding of con law, misguided.

The California Courts regularly throw out the results from the popular vote in favor of the special interest agenda. I lived in California for over twenty years and it became clear to me that the vote of the seven was more powerful than the vote of the millions. As a refugee from the golden state this ruling certainly does not surprise me, it saddens me, but it does not surprise me.

Proposition 22, which defined marriage to be between a man and a woman and adopted by California voters on March 7, 2000 with 61.4% in favor, was hijacked along with the California Legislative Branch by the Tyrannical Justices of the California Supreme Court which legislated from the bench in direct violation of the California Constitution and managed to null the will of the people and declare Proposition 22 unconstitutional. It only took four tyrannical traitors to wrest the will of the citizen of California, these four judges are either being bribed, or blackmailed by the degenerates or they are homosexuals themselves.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Ronald M. George said: “In light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.”

The black robed tyrants had the audacity and the recklessness to stick their tongues to the majority of California voters and without an ounce of shame declared that a marriage between a man and a woman is unconstitutional, but marriage between a man and a woman becomes constitutional when coupled with same-sex couples, what a bunch of crap, these judges must believe that the California populace are nothing more than a bunch of moronic retards.

The people of California must demand the heads of these tyrants, they should be unceremoniously thrown out of the California Supreme Court and they should be forced to sweep the street of San Francisco for the rest of their wretched lives.

If unrestrained, someday in the near future these dishonorable black robed tyrants will grant the salivating perverts in a silver platter the age of consent lowered to eight years of age. Eureka, now the degenerates will be free to marry innocent little boys, which would be the pinnacle of all perversions, and also would open the doors to all kinds of unimaginable atrocities. How would you react Mom, Dad when someday Johnny, your little nine years old says to you? Good old Fred our next-door neighbor and I are getting married. It will happen very soon, check it out at www.nambla.org the North American Man/Boy Love Association.

Americans must reintroduce the Word of God in Public Education, also they must reverse legalized “premeditated murder” on demand, and they must agree with God with one mind and write it into the law of the land that homosexuality is an abomination and by overthrowing Executive Order 13087 signed by President Clinton, who with Bible in hand bypassed the U.S. Congress and the populace and inflicted on society one of the many things God abhors the most, cramming homosexuals, bisexuals, and the transgendered in the federal and civilian workforce, in an attempt to normalize what once was cosidered an immoral and filthy addiction. Homosexuals must also be prevented from corrupting the minds of the youth, therefore they must be prohibited to adopt, coach, teach or have any direct contact with children, and they must be redirected back to the closets they came from, where most appropriately belong.

Some of the comments here are disgraceful, filled as they are with hate and a complete lack of Christian charity. Moreover, the level of ignorance is dismaying. In the first place, the California legislature twice passed legislation permitting same-sex marriage. The Republican governor vetoed both bills, saying that the Court should decide the issue. To call the California Supreme Court's decision, which simply says that equal protection under the law applies to homosexuals as well as heterosexualxs, as "judicial tyranny" is not only absurd, but demagogic.