Only if one equates sodomy with race, creed or country of national origin. I think that is a patently racist proposition.
It is true, what the government sees and what God sees aren’t always on the same page. I was married in the Catholic Church, the Sacrament of Matrimony, blessed by God.
AmyS, I would daresay that queer people don’t really see it as a competitive sport.
Why is the attire the same?
Because there is no law regulating who can wear the Roman collar. When I was a Lutheran, my pastor wore a collar (but not black shirts).
That kinda stinks…
I thought this was a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We will see what happens in November. Not like our vote matter anymore.
I just came from the Magic: The Gathering Forums (a trading card game). Right now, I wish I was back there… you can just play the card “Wrath of God” and make everything go away.
Where is that concept in the Court’s analysis?
How does a decision by a Court, established by a Constitution for the purpose, among others, of determinign whether statutes comport with the Constitution violate those ideas?
Clearly, the people can amend the Constituiton; but, until they do, what is wrong with the Court’s analysis of the conflict of the statutes with the Constitutional provisions?
What do you think their reasoning was?
Not all of the judges agreed with this decision, and some feel this should have stayed in the hands of the voters, despite their pro-gay-marriage stance.
In a separate dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Carol Corrigan said that, while she thinks “Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriages,” any new understanding of marriage “should develop among the people of our state and find its expression at the ballot box.”
That it was well established that the California Constitution protected a fundamental right to marry–in 1947 the Court had indicated that the Constitution protected the freedom “to join in marriage with the person of one’s choice.[FONT=Arial][size=3]”
However the dfinition of marriage in 1947 was a union between one man and one woman. When the citizens of California were asked if they wanted to change this defnition they overwhemingky said no.
I spoke with Friends in California last night. He and his partner of 15 years are planning on getting married June 17th. He is confident the same thing that occured in Massachusetts will occur in California…come Novemeber with gay marriage a reality for 5 months, most voters will realize straight marriage has not been impacted in any way, shape or form. He is confident that Californians do not want an ammendment to their constitution, they have more serious issues to contend with, unemployment, water, food, fuel, medical among a few that is impacting Californians far greater in their day to day lives than a few hundred gay people have been married.
I hope he is right.
In 1947, I doubt even California thought or meant same sex unions.
The Massachusetts legislature refused to let the people vote on it so there is NO comparison between the two. The amendment will pass overwhelmingly and your friends, one the miniscule number of homosexuals who will take advantage of the 5 month gap, will have a piece of paper that might fetch a nice price on Ebay.
You may be right, but Massachusetts wasn’t destroyed in a raging inferno and marriage was not effected…I think most people can see the effect that gay marriage has…no effect at all…hopefully Californians can see that.
The Gov of NY decided yesterday all on his own, that NY will recognize out of state and foreign marriages - forcing NYS agencies to cover same sex spouses on all benefits.
SOOOOO, I am betting that we shall see some couples jetting off to California and Canada to get married and heading back after the honeymoon to claim their benefits.
This is how NY is gravely affected by this ruling in California.
Makes me agitated.