"And back to the Supremes we go ..."
So here's what happened today in California:
That'll do it for today. Stay tuned for news as it breaks ... and yes, I do believe a little chorus of "Praise God, from whom all blessings flow" is in order!
So here's what happened today in California:
The California Supreme Court decided Wednesday to determine whether the sponsors of Proposition 8 have special authority to defend the anti-gay marriage initiative in court. The state high court, meeting in closed session, agreed to a request by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to determine the status California law gives initiative sponsors.And here's what one of my (attorney) Facebook Friends says that means:
The court was unanimous in deciding to accept the case. The court's order set an expedited briefing schedule to permit a hearing by "as early as September." The court must rule on a case 90 days after oral argument.
This is kind of a win/win for us. If the Court finds they don't have standing, Judge Walker's opinion becomes law in CA and Prop 8 is dead. If they do have standing, we continue with the 9th Circuit with a strong case articulated in Judge Walker's opinion. If the U. S. Supreme Court hears an appeal from the 9th Circuit (whatever the opinion), we've still got a strong case.Meanwhile, the poll numbers show majority support for marriage equality in California for the first time:
Just a few years after Californians went to the polls to pass Proposition 8, a majority of the Golden State’s voters now support equal marriage rights. 51% think same-sex marriage should be legal, and only 40% think it should be illegal. When [pollsters] last asked the question in September 2010, a 46% plurality was in support, but an almost equal 44% opposed these rights.Finally, this news from Hawaii:
HONOLULU (AP) — The Hawaii Legislature approved a bill on Wednesday allowing civil unions for same-sex couples, sending the measure to the state's Democratic governor, who has said he will sign it into law.
Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie's office said he intends to sign the bill within 10 days, and civil unions would begin Jan. 1, 2012.
19 comments:
In terms of Marriage as it is distinctly defined, I don't see it Prop 8 supporters as being 'anti-gay', any more than they are 'anti-woman', or 'anti-man'.
Marriage means... 1 Man + 1 Woman, and the marriage is lawfully valid when it is Consummated -- through sexual intercourse. Male & Female. Otherwise, there is no Consummation.
All have to abide by that definition. Plain and simple fact... we cannot marry whomever we wish to marry. We all must abide by distinctions that our God laid out in Genesis One.
I cannot marry any one or any thing I desire... As a follower of Jesus Christ, I abide by the distinction that God laid out for Marriage. 1 Man + 1 Woman. Supremely Logical on the face of it, and also supremely logical in the depths of it.
"All have to abide by that definition."
Plain and simple fact ... no, they do not.
You can. You may. And if those are core spiritual beliefs of yours you should.
But you have no more right to declare that "all have to abide by that definition" when it comes to civil marriage (which is what this post is about) than the Ayatollah Khomeini has to declare that we all have to abide by the definitions and proscriptions of sharia marriage in his tradition.
The First Amendment and Equal Protection ... Supremely Logical on the face of it, and also supremely logical in the depths of it.
And LG, really! Legally valid when consummated by sexual intercourse? It's legally valid when it is solemnized and the officiant signs the certificate. No "consummation" is necessary. If you're going to try and rely on law to support your position, please learn what it actually is. As for the rest, Susan said it quite well.
Marriage means...
Yeah, yeah, yeah: YOUR OPINION.
We get what YOUR OPINION is.
YOUR OPINION is dying out, LGM. While I wish you a long and happy life, I'm counting the days till YOUR (current) OPINION is Dead&Gone, LGM.
It's not going to last much longer.
Well said Susan.
The civil marriage question is "supremely logical" and supremely simple: All the arguments (that are not torn to shreds by science) against gay marriage are religious in nature, and religious restrictions on human behavior cannot be enforced on people of other religious beliefs.
Without the real legal freedom to act within the bounds of my religious belief (to marry a person of the gender I wish), then the entire "religious freedom" precept of this nation's very existence is meaningless.
Prop 8 supporters are, by definition, allowing their anti-gay bias (whether driven by their own faith restrictions or by an "ick" factor) to override their logical facilities.
Prop 8 opponents (me) are letting our freedom bias override our... um, nothing, actually. Ok, sure, some Prop 8 opponents are letting their freedom bias to override their religious beliefs about marriage (and would not allow such marriages in their houses of worship), however, this is only adding fuel to a logical engine, whereas Prop 8 supporters are just setting bonfires.
Every time I post here , your #1 message to me is... 'Shut up."
I can always tell if there are Biblical viewpoints posted on this Blog... because that's when Inch at a Time entries have more than 1 or 2 comments, if any.
Your bullying remarks come like clock work every time a Bible Believing Christian braves the waters and puts in a comment , you say... "Oh really!, Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm counting the days when your opinion is DEAD & GONE, please learn the facts!, your opinion is not going to last much longer!.....
ps-- I thought there were grounds for Marriage Annulment if the marriage is not Consummated, guess I was wrong, sorry.
I think that if we change the definition of Marriage, and we continue on the course we are on, Marriage will disappear [as already evidenced] ... it's going, going, gone.
I'm running to a 3pm meeting but quickly and for the record:
You are not being "bullied." You're being disagreed with.
And no one is changing the definition of marriage. We're expanding the number of people who WANT to be married to BE married.
Some argued we were "changing the definition of priesthood" when we started ordaining women.
Wrong then.
Wrong now.
Gotta run
Well, I've been called hateful, a bigot, ignorant, stupid, even had my miserable childhood thrown in my face by you Susan. And so much other hateful browbeating ... those above are just from recent memory.
I would never dream of throwing someone's childhood into the 'dialogue'-- how cruel that would be.
Not at all sure about the "miserable childhood" reference but to be fair, if you come into a conversation and claim for youself the authority to dictate to others how they can and should live their lives, read their Bibles and form their families, you really have to expect some "push back."
And to be clear about defining our terms, here's what "bullied" means -- according to Merriam-Webster:
"Bullying is a form of abuse. It involves repeated acts over time attempting to create or enforce one person's (or group's) power over another person (or group)."
I repeat. You are not being bullied. You are being disagreed with. Some folks may not be diasgreeing with you as politely as I'd like them to but -- in point of fact -- that's what's happening here.
Thanks for stopping by.
{Argh, I PROMISE myself not to respond to LGM or MartinT anymore!}
LG,
Why can't you see the RATIONAL DISCONNECT in your argument?
YOU are permitted to legally marry in California.
I am not.
YOU are for keeping me in state of legal inferiority to you. To LITERALLY have the badge&gun to ENFORCE your power-over me...
...yet you say *I* am bullying *you*?
This.Makes.No.Sense!!!
WHEN we are EQUAL, THEN I might be in the position to "bully" you. With Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, I hope and pray I would {future conditional} not do so.
Until then, I am not ABLE to bully you...because you're standing on my neck. Hope that clarifies!
Susan, You continue to call me names to shut me up... 'dictator', 'mean-spirited', 'religious' [in the worst sense], 'bible idolater' [which is a compliment for me -- but you mean it as an insult], 'homophobic', and you also said... 'One can only wonder what was done to you and by whom..."
You call it 'push-back'?
I call it Bullying someone into Silence.
Look, LGMarshall, at worst you are getting here what you - and people like you - give us every day of our lives!
If you feel so put upon, perhaps you might make some effort to help you develop understanding and compassion than using it as an excuse for self-pity.
Everyone can already marry, no need to expand anything. Everyone can marry someone of the opposite sex, as you well know Susan.
LG ... I'm flummoxed. Please point me to where I used any of those terms directed at you OR used the phrase 'One can only wonder what was done to you and by whom..."
I'm abundantly willing to stand by my words and positions ... just not have things I haven't said attributed to me.
Awaiting clarification.
And Martin ... do you really think having gay people marry enter heterosexual marriages "because they can" makes sense for ANYBODY? If you want to "protect marriage" then protect it from people having to choose between living a lie or living alone and let them marry the love of their life and get on with it.
Best sign at a no- prop8 rally, carried by a very gay guy:
Do you really want me to marry your daughter?
The bullying is being done by those who would impose their religious beliefs on others who do not share them.
LGM, you are frankly being the bully. As is MartinT.
And when those you bully stand up for themselves, and disagree, you claim the mantle of victim.
Over and over again.
I'm sorry if you had a miserable childhood; first I"ve heard of it. But that doesn't justify you being given a free ride in bullying in turn.
I never claimed to be a victim of anything. The far left is welcome to their own opinions, it's not like it's going to change my own beliefs. It's not the government's fault that gay folks wasted the time of their heterosexual spouse in a false marriage. It's not just the rights you want, it's acceptance. You want people to look at homosexual relationships on the same level as heterosexual ones. It's not going to happen. You can't pass a law for that one guys.
LG, 'One can only wonder what was done to you and by whom..." was me, I believe, in a post some time ago. In my experience, most people who feel the need to beat up on others, whether literally or figuratively, were in turn beaten up by someone else. In other words, people who insist on passing judgment on others were often judged harshly themselves.
As I said, “one can only wonder,” meaning speculate. I don’t claim to know anything about your childhood. Perhaps, since it has been brought up, the words struck close to home. Perhaps not. However, this is a far cry from repeatedly coming here to pass judgment by comparing LGBT marriage to marrying a “thing,” equating an LGBT life with a “lifestyle,” or claiming to possess “Truth” not available to the other 4000 world religious denominations. If you were being “bullied into silence” your posts would not be posted. The response to your posts is not “Shut Up.” It is “Please listen.”
Christian fundamentalism, an organized and widely disseminated response near the turn of the last century to scholarly biblical criticism and Darwin is, by definition, reactionary. So attempting to debate LGBT issues with those who believe their argument is made by simply capitalizing some of their favorite words is tough. Using knowledge based on a scholarly reading of the Bible and current scientific knowledge simply doesn’t work. It’s a bit like trying to talk with those who believe the President is a Kenyan Muslim. The facts don’t apply.
Offered as a toxicity cleanser---
Struggling for True Love, on Valentine's Day
Post a Comment