Makes sense. If only marriage between one man and one woman is recognized and valid in California it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to have these 18k fiat "marriages" remain valid.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.
The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions. The document reveals for the first time that opponents of same-sex marriage will fight in court to undo those unions that already exist.
More here.
6 comments:
No, this is not taking away anyone's rights. All 18,000 have the right to be married - to someone of the opposite sex.
Eliminating one entire sex from an institution defined as the union of the two sexes is a quantum leap from eliminating racial discrimination, which did not alter the fundamental character of marriage. Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.
Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.
When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. . If the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the assault on marriage.
If feelings are the key requirement, then why not let three people marry, or two adults and a child, or consenting blood relatives of any age? . Marriage-based kinship is essential to stability and continuity in our state. Child abuse is much more prevalent when a living arrangement is not based on kinship. Kinship imparts family names, heritage, and property, secures the identity and commitment of fathers for the sake of the children, and entails mutual obligations to the community.
Mighty xtian of you.
People like you make me proud to be an atheist.
Christ, you are so full of sh*t I can smell it all way over here!
Mark my words. This "attempt" to nullify the 18,000+ marriages will fail miserably!
The good news is that the people "behind" the lawsuit are going to
have their names, faces and addresses published for all the world to see!
With every action these ignorant bigots take they show the world just how WRONG discrimination IS!
Now we have to work on having "religion" removed as one of the "protected classes" under existing hate crime laws! hehe...
So Oz is coming out from behind the curtain. You really are anti-religious - - that's your motive.
Sorry, buy 95 percent of the American public believes in a higher power. If you did, you wouldn't be advocating intimidation of people who exercised their right to vote their conscience.
I love people like Michael and X_USMC_Vet - they so transparently show the world how they are inclined to violence and motivated by anti-religous sentiments.
Bot - Excellent points.
Post a Comment