California Supreme Court’s Opinion is So Gay.

Well by now you have likely heard that the California Supreme Court struck down the State’s ban on gay marriage by a 4-3 vote.  The Court stated that “Our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation.”

What an interesting and completely flawed comment.  The State never kept any individual from establishing a loving and long-term committed relationship–it simply did not afford people rights related to marriage if they were the same sex–since that has historically, biblically, and socially never been considered “marriage.”

And immediately, Ellen Degeneres proclaimed that she and Portia were getting married.

Is it just me or does Portia look like the Joker from Batman?  Freaky.  So who is the man in that relationship?  I guess they are more like a gay couple than a lesbian couple–but I digress…again.

So what is next?  If we are going to change our entire system of laws based on the people we have sex with then I think we are headed for dissaster.  Remember–this is not about 2 people “loving” each other and wanting to spend their lives together.  THis is about benefits, divorce, community property, adoption, death benefits, property ownership, credit, income taxes, etc… It’s about providing benefits to people based on their sexual preference.  So how about bisexuals.  Shouldn’t a man who loves a man and a woman at the same time be able to marry them both?  What about a mother that loves her son or daughter, what about a man in India that loves his dog?  Remember that ridiculousness?

 

Well, the dog is cute I suppose–and it never talks back, doesn’t ever want its feet rubbed, can’t hold a credit card, doesn’t care if you drink beer and watch football all day on Saturday, but again I digress…

Of course, there is another side to this tale–for example how else could this person get married if not for the ability for all people to marry who or whatever they want?

I always thought Greg Proops was a man. (the guy from Who’s LIne is is Anyway?)

Greg Proops, 2005.

Guess not. 

Well, not to get into too much of a debate here–but seriously America is this what you want to see walking down the aisle?

I don’t think so.  Marriage is between a man and a woman–period.  Everything else is just plain silly.  James Dobson said it well today when he said, “”What an outrage. It will be up to the people of California to preserve traditional marriage by passing a constitutional amendment. … Only then can they protect themselves from this latest example of judicial tyranny.”

The big point here is that the California Supreme Court is out of control–Judges are supposed to interpret laws not create legislation from the bench.  It is and always has been a State’s right to define marriage—there is nothing unconstitutional about that.  In fact, it is quite constitutional.

The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution says:  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. ”

I believe the people of California, as wacky as they can be, actually voted on this ban and upheld it.–Seems pretty dadgum Constitutional.  But then, I’m not a wacked-out liberal with a social agenda sitting on the high Court of the State.

Good luck California-You will need it.

-Murphy

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Current Events, Democrats, Family, funny, God, Government, Humor, Law, Life, News, Thoughts on the World

22 Comments on “California Supreme Court’s Opinion is So Gay.”

  1. lifehealing Says:

    With all due respect, I disagree with the idea that only heterosexual people should have the right to marry. Love is love; it doesn’t know gender. Even the Bible says that God is love, and that human beings are made in his image. So, I respectfully ask you, If God is love, and if all humans are made in his image, why, then, is love between two people of the same gender so frowned upon? Doesn’t that contradict the teachings in the Bible?

    Also – and again, with only respect – I would like to know who it was, exactly, that decided that only heterosexuals had the right to marry. Was it God – or was it human men (meaning, the Church)? Why are people so fearful of things that are different from what society decides is “standard” (and thus, acceptable)? I don’t understand that, and I never have. It makes no sense to me to say on the one hand that God made us in his image, and then, on the other hand, proclaim that gay people are abberations. What does that say about God, then?

    I mean no disrespect to you or to your beliefs. I just don’t agree with the idea that marriage only belongs to “straight” people. I feel that gay people have just as much right to have their love and commitment to each other honored and accepted under the laws of the land, and that they also deserve to have the same rights and benefits heterosexual marriages afford…

  2. mklasing Says:

    Lifehealing-thanks for your comments, but you cannot use the Bible as much of an argument here. The Bible clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman. The Bible also clearly states that homosexuality is sinful and therefore not approved or sanctioned by God–which means that marriage between people of the same sex is likewise not approved or sanctioned by God.

    This does not mean that God does not love people that engage in homosexuality since God loves all people. But–loving someone does not mean approving of everything they do. I’m sure God is equally unhappy with me everytime I commit a sin-which I’m certain is daily if not more often.

    Marriage is not a right–it is a gift–from God and God alone. God invented marriage in the first two chapters of Genesis. It is not man-made. Our country has recognized and cherished that gift in many ways. Allowing it to be tainted with marriages between same sex couples is in effect disrespecting the gift itself. I appreciate your beliefs as well, but respctfully I completely disagree with them.

    Don’t confuse God with Christians. That is a common mistake. God does not think gay PEOPLE are abberations–he states that homosexual conduct is sinful–period. Christians, unfortunately, tend to take that further in a way that God does not sanction. It would be no more right of me to call a person (except maybe Obama-but that is a different argument-kidding) an abberation for a sin they commit than for me to think myself more righteous for not committing that particular sin. Sin is sin–we all committ it, just in different ways. The unfortunate lie of homosexuality is that it is genetic and can’t be helped–that is simply man’s way of justifying the behavior.

    I have many friends who are gay–they know where I stand–but I’m happy to be their friend and do not think any less of them than I do anyone else.

    -Murphy

  3. sharprightturn Says:

    Lifehealing…
    I think you need to go read a Bible….God is love and he loves us all….flaws and all…..and that is exactly what the whole concept of love is about. He loves us and died for us in spite of our sin….actually to take away our sins.

    And speaking of sin….some Old and New Testament passages from the Bible that may not have made it into your “New Liberal Relativism” edition of the Bible:

    Lev. 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

    Lev. 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them”

    1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

    Rom. 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

    If you want to be gay….go right ahead, But you do it against the word of God. Do you think it fair we should all be forced to accept what is against the word of God?

    God decided that a man and a woman should marry. He created Adam and then created Eve from Adam…that is the divine intention. God condemns homosexuality, but loves the person just as we all should.
    Instead of allowing the sin to perpetuate with state-condoned marriage, gay marriage should be rejected.

    Like it or not, this land was established on Judeo-Christian principles and we have survived well over 200 years on those principles. Murphy is also right about the roles of judges….it is not their role to project their beliefs into law…it is that simple.

    The people of California spoke in 2000 and that should be the law…..


  4. […] to stop acting like it is running the State–it is supposed to uphold the laws not create them.https://mklasing.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/california-supreme-courts-opinion-is-so-gay/California Courts: Courts: Supreme CourtOfficial web site providing information and decisions in […]

  5. Betty Says:

    Murphy, your explanation is very well put. I have found myself falling into that frame of mind that “I” would never commit “THAT” sin. As if any sin I’ve committed is any less damning. I think one of the differences is that I acknowledge and accept what God says is right and wrong and repent for the mistakes that I make, which isn’t the case with most homosexuals. As a Christian my main concern should be the rift a person’s homosexuality might cause between them and God rather than how wrong I think it is and it is easy to loose sight of that.
    But, as much as I am concerned for people’s eternal well being I can not WAIT to get my family out of the state of California. It is truly a sad, sad place to live.

  6. geist0 Says:

    I COMPLETELY disagree with your opinion. But you know what? Every day in this country I see people with non-liberal opinions having their rights taken away and being blacklisted. People like Dog The Bounty Hunter, who got fired because someone recorded a conversation where he expressed a private opinion that had nothing to do with his job. It happens everyday in this country and it’s getting to be an Orwellian nightmare. Just two days ago, I wrote a blog about how I’m sick of people saying that Obama should get a break on the Wright business and how people like me only hate Obama because he’s black. And some lib lab prick leaves an incredibly uninformed comment saying that white people are essentially racist… blah blah blah whatever. Because he disagrees with me.

    So here, I think you are just plain wrong. But you have a right to your opinion. And thank God that there are still people willing to express those opinions.

  7. sharprightturn Says:

    Betty,
    Well put….I was able to get my family out of California two years ago…..thank God!

    There are some really nice and normal people there, but the wackos in San Fran and the illegal immigrants have really tarred the place such that the average American is not welcome and/or is becoming very uncomfortable there.

  8. sharprightturn Says:

    Betty,
    Forgot to mention….I was also one of those people who voted for Prop 22 back in 2000!
    So I take this terrible ruling personally!

  9. pistolpete Says:

    What discourages me even more than the legal decision is the number of “churches/faith groups” who are all for gay/lesbian marriages. The homosexual political lobby is bad enough in the world. It’s even worse in the Church.

  10. Pathia Says:

    If my partner is hospitalized, I cannot always visit her. Don’t tell me this ‘doesn’t happen’ because it does, and it has happened to me. And don’t tell me ‘oh you can get legal paperwork that is equivalent’. We do, and I was still prevented. You try to wake up your lawyer at 3AM to get the ball rolling on straightening out the hospital, it’s not very easy.

    My partner and I are entirely financial intermingled, our bank accounts, our insurances, our car payments, mortgages, our jobs, everything money wise everyone considers us a couple, except state and federal governments. This makes everything a complete and utter nightmare every year at tax time.

    God is not mentioned once in the entire constitution. Why should the bible have any bearing at all on a LEGAL and CIVIL matter? The government does not bless a marriage in front of God, that is the job of a church or temple to do, letting other people do it does not infringe on the right of a church or temple to only bless those it wishes to, I don’t understand why religion should be mentioned at all in any of these debates, it has no place in law.

  11. mklasing Says:

    Geist: thanks for your words–I, like you, appreciate the differences we have on subjects like these because it helps the debate. Thanks for expressing it in a respectable way. After all–since your modd is Jedi, you have to be respectful. (ok that was dorky)

    Pathia: I’d love to debate you on this–but it is too personal a subject for you and therefore a debate will not be very healthy. We will never change each other’s minds. I would say, however, that although you are correct that the Constitution doesn’t mention God. The declaration of independence does and it is quite revealing…

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    Twice in that one sentence our Creater is mentioned. That same Creator endowed us with the right to marry–but as the Creator so ordained it–it is between a man and a woman. Not any other form we chose.

  12. Longing for Holiday Says:

    Hey, MK: first, thanks for stopping by and your good wishes, prayers, etc. Doing better.

    Next: Did you read that Michael Reagan (former Pres’s son) said he is sending his next vote to the CA Supreme Court, cause why bother voting of the Court can overturn the peoples’ choice? Interesting.

  13. Pathia Says:

    Then why don’t we drop the legal marriage aspect?

    Would you even let me form a domestic partnership, or a civil union. Anything at all? I have been prevented from seeing my partner in the hospital when they were in a COMA. Do you somehow think this is proper? That it was okay that his family that he disowned 8years ago came in, and then had me arrested for being in the hospital with him?

    We have an entire power of attorney, every single legal document that could be possibly made (We basically have a small LLC between us, is how we did it). However, this still does not do half the things we need in emergencies.

  14. mklasing Says:

    Pathia: as with your previous posts–addressing your individual issue is something I simply cannot do. As an attorney, I would say that if your partner has told the hospital in advance that you are a family member or otherwise allowed to visit and they won’t honor that, I’d say you have a problem. But your individual issues with your partner and your partner’s family are no basis for creating law that applies to everyone. Law is not written for the good of the one but the good of the whole and to answer your question, no, I do not agree with civil unions or domestic partnerships but I have no issue with such legal unions if the government wants to make them. My point is not about that, however, my point is that we live in a democracy with a checks and balances system. The Court in California has unbalanced the system by throwing out a law that was voted on by and for the people of the State, passed and put into practice. The Court has no right in this context to overstep the will of the people and overturn such a law. They are simply out of line. I’d be saying the same thing if they said a law allowing gay marriage, that was voted on by the people, should be overturned. It is not the Court’s role. It just isn’t.

    Sorry for your situation but everyone, regardless of creed, color, gender or sexual orientation has to overcome trials and tribulations in life–it is not the role of the law or the government to step in and attempt to fix them all.

  15. Pathia Says:

    My partner was in a coma at the time, you can’t very well give doctors instructions when you’re in such a state.

    As stated before, I’ve been assaulted, fired, and raped because of what I am, and what people view of my lifestyle. The government refuses to protect me, cops actively ignore me, or actively mistreat me. I just can’t take it anymore. It’s very sour grapeish, but I’m moving to Seattle, and likely from there to Canada. I just don’t feel safe in this country anymore. I’ve been brutalized to the point of hospitalization three times now because people ‘disagree very strongly’ with the way I live my life, and the police do absolutely nothing to the perpetrators. It sickens me, it absolutely sickens me. I just can’t take it anymore.

  16. mklasing Says:

    Pathia: I told you before that moving from your area of the Country is a fabulous idea. Sorry things have been so rough–but that is the reality of being different in any part of the world. Be thankful you don’t live in Iran–that would be much more difficult I’m certain. I assure you, however, and you know this to be true–there are plenty of areas of our Country where you would not only be safe but celebrated–San Francisco, New Orleans, part of my town-Houston, Austin, Boston, etc…

  17. Pathia Says:

    Transsexuals are supported in Iran, there are no issues with it there, as it was given the OK stamp a couple of decades ago.

    I face discrimination from gays and lesbians, ironically, so going to one of their hubs is not exactly the best sort of move. Gays are furious with me, because I am a ‘traitor’ and changed myself into a ‘breeder’. Meanwhile, lesbians hate me and call me an invader and a rapist of womanhood’s essence.

    They are not my friends.

  18. rms42296 Says:

    Interesting conversations… (Pathia, I’m confused – in your first post, you referred to your partner as if s/he is feminine (“If my partner is hospitalized, I cannot always visit her.”), yet in the following post, you indicated s/he is a man (“That it was okay that his family that he disowned 8years ago came in, and then had me arrested for being in the hospital with him?) While it is tragic when anyone, regardless of who they are, is prevented from being with the one they love, this makes me wonder if you’re “posing” to make a point, which would be truly sad!
    As for the original post topic, it is extremely disturbing that the California Supreme Court is now acting as legislators (whatever happened to checks and balances?!?). Murphy’s point is well made – we depend upon our judges to interpret the laws, not write them. This latest trick of theirs is the equivalent of of changing the rules of the game.

  19. Pathia Says:

    My partner is in the middle of struggling to figure out their gender identity. Like me, they are intersexed, and is torn apart by the inability to just be as they want to be. We are forced to make a choice, when in reality we were both born in between, and have no real place in either gender. We feel no membership to either, both male and female are completely alien. I only identify as female because female is slightly less alien than male, but it is still alien.

    if you think I’m posing for example, so be it, but here’s a media documented case of it, and this involved someone who was outright dying in the hospital.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/legislature/2003542034_domestic26m0.html

  20. Stacy Says:

    Wow Murph. First, one of my best friends is a lesbian. She struggled with substance abuse, depression and suicidal thoughts for years before she decided to come out. I have supported her and her choices, because all I really want is for her to be happy. She is a better Christian than I’ll ever be, expect for this sin; no this abomination; in her life. Biblically an abomination is worse than a sin; sin squared if you will. I really have yet to make any firm decisions regarding homosexuality. I strongly recommend reading “The Man Who Would Be Queen” to anyone with an open mind.

    My concern regarding gay marriage is one of the stats that I read in that book. It stated, on average, gay men have 60 different partners in a year’s period. SIXTY!! A marriage cannot be functional with that kind of promiscuity. I have an easier time with lesbian marriage, women tend to be more faithful. But of course, you cannot allow same sex marriage for one gender and not the other.

    I think that civil unions are an excellent idea. But in reference to Pathia’s comment regarding hospital visitation; it really needs to be expanded. I’ve known people who had no association with their biological family, yet had friends that they were very close to. Those friends should be entitled to the same rights as a family member.

    This is a situation where the scenarios are endless.

    And Pathia? Your experience with gays and lesbians is indicative of what heteros extol. Many of them are a hateful, bigoted group. They refuse to see the hypocrisy.

  21. mklasing Says:

    Stacy: you are right the scenarios are endless. Problem is: the law was never meant to be a vehicle to address every specific scenario in life. If we truly want law like that then we may as well hand the keys to every freedom in our life to the government so they can regulate it.

    As for the homosexual issue-I see two big problems in society–Christians who damn the human being and not the sin and Homosexuals who wear a giant chip on their shoulder about their differences and their “right” to behave in any way they want. Flatly–I think homosexual conduct is wrong and I refuse to celebrate it on any level. On the other hand, there are lots of wrongs in society that I refuse to celebrate–creating laws for a group of people in an attempt to legitimize wrong behavior sounds like a recipe for a society on the downturn.

  22. Richard Says:

    my first post
    thank you for having me! 😀


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: