Not if you are 'liberal' and worship at the altar of a 'supreme' court: "In its 4-3 ruling, the Republican-dominated high court struck down state laws against same-sex marriage and said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough." My Way News - California's top court legalizes gay marriage

More liberal, judge-created law. Whew

excon

Hello tom:

In order to redefine something, it has to be defined first. I'll bet your state law isn't.

George, in his original post said he had a problem with them overturning a law that gave gay people almost the same rights as those who are not.

Maybe if the laws granted the same rights they wouldn't care what you call it. But it didn't, and you're fine with keeping some rights to yourself....

That's not very American of you. I thought everybody should have the same rights.... I know, you guys just can't subscribe to equality, can you?

Oh well, if you did, I wouldn't have a job.

excon

squeaks77

Keeping it simple:
A couple must get a marriage certificate from their STATE, and they do not have to have it "approved" by any kind of religion.
SO . . . marriage shouldn't be a religious issue at all, UNLESS the couple want it to be.

If people have to prove anything, it should be love. Why can't a gay couple, deeply in love and extremely committed, get married but any two idiots with interlocking parts who want better benefits or a green card can get married??

tomder55

because marriage is defined between man and women .That goes back longer than you and I and our country. I have no problem with the legal issues being equal .My state ;one of the bluest of blue does have a definition of marriage that the State's highest court upheld as Constitutional .

Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Out in New York, Georgia - washingtonpost.com

That doesn't stop this poser of a Governor to run roughshod over the will of the people . And as I pointed out ;the only legitimate claim he has is the 'Full Faith and Credit Clause ' to back up his decision.

squeaks77

Tomder55 said:
"because marriage is defined between man and women .That goes back longer than you and I and our country."
Soooo . . . by that logic all women should be subservient to men because "thats the way it used to be"?????
The world changes and those who cannot or will not accept change, will not survive.

tomder55

tell me where the dismantling of the traditional marriage has been a positive change ? But that is not really the point . The issue here is the will of the people . If your view of evolution is correct then it would not need courts to usurp the will of the people. If the people of California and NY voted for a legal redefinition of marriage I would at least think the law had a basis of legitimacy because it wasn't imposed on us by black robed appointed for life oligarchs.

excon

Hello again, tom:

You fellows keep on using terms line "redefine", and dismantle.... However, you haven't ever told me ONE thing that expanding the word "marriage" to include gays, takes anything from you, diminishes anything, or damages you in any way shape or form.

You just don't like sinners getting the same rights as you. If you would admit that, I'd have a lot more respect for you.

excon

tomder55

again I will repeat my position..... It is about the right of the people to make social value judgments, and the right of judgments to be made by the representatives of the people rather than by unaccountable judges appointed by the Government.They have chosen to make change without social consensus.

my definition :
The traditional definition of marriage is the union of man and women. Historically society determined it was in it's best interests to promote marriage as a stable way to procreate and raise children.It has been the foundation of every civilization in human history.

excon

Hello again, tom:

And when the social decisions you or your representatives make, conflict with the Constitution, it IS up to the judiciary to fix it. That's what they did. Good for 'em.

excon

tomder55

there is no conflict with the Constitution . I reject the idea that CUs are violations of the 14th amendment .You are only reinforcing the argument made by those who propose a Marriage amendment as the remedy to this usurpation of the will of the people . Me I don't think it's necessary because CUs are equitable in everything legal.

squeaks77

Not all change is positive in ONE person's point of view. Can you say that you truly think any group will be able to keep marriage to only hetero couples? The world becomes more open minded every day. And to address your issue with a judge issuing a decree that does not represent the peoples wishes . . . do you know the percentage of liberal, gay, hippy lifestyle people who just want equality and happiness for all in California? Even if the Governator is a republican, I bet that percentage is pretty darned high.