Originally Posted by Tannhauser

Then convince your fellow citizens to recognize your marriage. Don't ram it down their throats via the courts.
We've spoken, we don't want it. Don't force your views upon others, respect our opinions and convince us your opposing opinion is superior.

Originally Posted by john w k

The California Second District Court of Appeals had already held that the fundamental due process right to marry does not encompass the right to “same-sex marriage.” The Court of Appeal also held that defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman does not impermissibly discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation, does not violate the right or privacy or free expression, and furthers legitimate state interests. Based on those holdings, the Court of Appeals held that marriage statutes which define marriage as the union between one man and one women do not violate equal protection See: In re Coordination Proceeding, Marriage Cases (Cal. Superior 2005) 2005 WL 583129.


The truth is, no law was passed by the voters prohibiting homosexuals from getting “married”. Homosexuals, bisexuals, heterosexuals, transsexuals, and even asexuals were entitled to get “married” under the law and even have the state recognize that “marriage” so long as the couple involved was composed of one man and one women. The law, setting public policy, did not discriminate upon the sexual orientation of any particular person involved, it merely required that the couple must be composed of one male and one female for the state to put its stamp of approval on the marriage.


In the instant case the Court asserted there was no compelling state interest in differentiation between same sex “marriage“ and marriages of opposite sex. But that decision, (determining a compelling state interest) in our system of government, is to be determined by the legislature, and is responsible for setting public policy and determining what is and what is not serving a compelling state interest.

The Court hijacked legislative power in setting public policy, engaged in judicial tyranny and undermined the very fabric of a Republican Form of Government, guaranteed to every State in the Union by Article 4, Section 4.of the United States Constitution.

Even California’s own court stated over one hundred and fifty years ago with regard to public policy, “The public is interested in the marriage relation and in the maintenance of its integrity, as it is the foundation of the social system.” Baker v. Baker (1859) 13 Cal. 87, 94.

And in the case of Estate of De La Veaga (1904) 142 Cal. 158, 170-171[75 P. 790] the Court announced “that the marriage relation is the foundation of all society has been so frequently expressed by this court that it is entirely unnecessary to refer to the cases wherein it is so held.”

Also see Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, 684 [134 Cal.Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106]:“[T]he structure of society itself largely depends upon the institution of marriage....The joining of the man and woman in marriage is at once the most socially productive and individually fulfilling relationship that one can enjoy in the course of a lifetime.”


JWK



At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,'___ responded Franklin.

Originally Posted by EastChestnut

Pot legalization referendums have been struck down by courts, what makes this any different?

Originally Posted by EastChestnut

I recall we went through this before with interracial marriages.

Originally Posted by Colin P. Varga

If they can’t get married maybe we should ban Gays and Lesbians from combat, but the only way to make sure of that the fighting force is hetero is to force only married people into combat.

Originally Posted by Tannhauser

Originally Posted by Valley Twin

News Flash: Known homosexuals are allowed in the armed forces during wartime. The Pentagon is very happy to "look the other way" when they need soldiers.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3615278.shtml

Originally Posted by Valley Twin

The Pentagon is very happy to "look the other way" when they need soldiers.

Originally Posted by Tannhauser

Uh oh...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/us/13brfs-FOURMILITARY_BRF.html?ref=us
The Marine Corps far surpassed its recruiting goal last month, enlisting 2,233 people, which was 142 percent of its goal, the Pentagon said. The Army recruited 5,681 people, 101 percent of its goal. The Navy and Air Force also met their goals, 2,905 sailors and 2,435 airmen.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/05/airforce _recruiting_april_051308w/
The Air Force and its reserve components all enjoyed a successful month of recruiting in April, according to data released by the Defense Department on Monday.
The active-duty force met its exact accessions goal, bringing in 2,435 new airmen. All other active-duty services met or exceeded their goals as well.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/ 2008/05/military_drumming_up_the_recru_1.html
All military services met or exceeded their recruiting goals for April, with the Marine Corps recruiting 142 percent of its goal, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said here today.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/ 20080513/NATION/805130339/1020
The Marine Corps far surpassed its recruiting goal last month and could eventually be more than a year ahead of schedule in its plan to grow the force to 202,000 members. All military services met or exceeded their monthly recruiting goals in April, with the Marine Corps signing 142 percent of the number it was looking for, the Pentagon said. The Marine Corps enlisted 2,233 recruits against a goal of 1,577.