Simon left in time... :)

[sailaway21]

California can do whatever it pleases with it's constitution; it's not required to either make sense or even be non-contradictory.

[sailaway21]

From the SF Chronicle, on why the ruling was not only wrong but leaves the door open for polygamy and incestuous claims. Note: this is from the very liberal SF Chronicle.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - City Hall of Love

[sailaway21]

While I would find it as distasteful as using the word gay for homosexual and I think it would open the door to untold depredations, I find nothing to object to in Justice Marvin Baxter's dissent in the case;
“Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means.”

California is free to do as it pleases and I'll defend that right to do so. I'll not be so sanguine about the Golden State's usual method of imposing such decisions; judicial fiat. Nor will I say that a decision to make marriage inclusive of homosexuals is the right decision but it is wholly California's decision if acheived properly.

[Stillraining]

Originally Posted by tdw

In the long run the churches will end up allowing gays to marry in their churches cos they get paid for doing so and there is nothing a church likes more than money in the bank. Collection plates can be more jangle than visa card docket and those damn pillow biters do tend to have disturbingly high disposable incomes.

tdw

Unfortunately this is very true and is happening already..( Hanging my head ).
I do not hate homosexuals but I do detest there act...And I do hate their pushing their ajenda in grade schools and above as a normal and exceptional lifestyle..The Bible is full of accounts of man inability to stay the high road and erode into something far less...as you point out...but this was not by design but choice...Oh how well we chose.

[chucklesR]

There is of course a simple answer.
Remove marriage from the state, make every union a civil union, recognized by civil law and courts (wait, it already is that!).

Those folks with religious convictions that believe a 'marriage' is required in the eyes of the deity of their choice can still be free to go to a church and get the deal sealed there.
The bible has nothing to do with my marriage, or civil unions, or the marriage of MOST people on Earth, past, present and current - and is not a required part of many peoples lives, it's time to really have freedom of religion in America instead of the lip service we currently have.
What happened to tolerance in America?

I quit on church when a Right Reverend Idiot of a baptist church told me I was not religious enough to get married in his church - the one my first wife and her family attended her entire life.

[camaraderie]

Originally Posted by erps

Can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional, like if it conflicts with another amendment?

Erps... first...lets deal with California. They have their own constitution which varies quite a bit from the one we have here in North Carolina. Under their rules...a simple majority of the people can change THAT constitution.
Under the US constitution and its' amendments...certain rights and rules apply to ALL citizens and states and any provision of a state constitution or any state law that is in conflict with a provision of the US constitution can be declared null and void by the US Supreme Court.

Fortunately, the Supreme court has not yet found the part of the US constitution that confers the right of homosexual marriage (though if Mr. Obama is elected we may get justices capable of so doing)...and so the California constitution prevails in this instance. And yes...one amendment can supercede and render void and earlier amendment...just as in the US Constitution with the prohibition amendments.
The US constitution if you back out the bill of rights and the prohibition hiccup...has only been amended 15 times in over 200 years...and mostly for political reasons rather than on human rights issues. It is extremely difficult to do and requires an overwhelming majority (2/3) of both houses of congress AND 3/4 of the states to agree. Thus...we see the court conferring more constitutional "rights" than the people. 9 people speak with a typically divided voice and overrule the will of the great majority time and time again. That is excellent in terms of preventing the tyranny of the majority. But the extreme difficulty in passing amendments also allows for the tyranny of the minority!

[sailaway21]

Perhaps the reason that the voters of California overwhelmingly rejected the notion of homosexual marriage is quite simple and may be found deep within the American psyche.

Americans strongly believe in the individual's right to live in whatever manner suits him or her. We, rightly I think, consider it none of our business what goes on in our neighbor's household. It is that idea, coupled with a notion of fairness, that has made the concept of civil unions not only palatable but popular.

Marriage on the other hand, and it's facile to say that the state can just opt out of a position on marriage by leaving it solely to religious organizations, implies a state or national acknowledgement of an institution and an official recognition of the institution and it's benefits to society. Americans consistently vote in the negative towards giving official state sanction to the behavior that is central to homosexuality.

These apparently conflicting positions are really not that hard to reconcile in that they merely reflect what all humans do in life. From everything from our driving laws to our laws governing marriage we acknowledge abberations and acknowledge their existence but we do not officially condone them. It may be that 99.9% of people choose to speed down a given road, we do not necessarily say that this constitutes evidence that either the speed limit should be changed or that there should be no speed limit.

Any parent is familiar with similar dichotomies in their daily existence. We grant and allow our children to act independantly in many cases but we do not condone or support all of their choices when doing so. And while we may impose sanctions to limit, control, or eliminate that behavior we certainly do not stop feeding or caring for those children. To the potential distress of the aetheistic community, this principle has a biblical basis in that we love the sinner while hating the sin.

[chucklesR]

Nice speech Sway,
I remain unmoved. Remove religion from marriage and it's just a civil union. While I frankly don't understand why G and L's need the word 'marriage' I do firmly support their position under the Equal protection amendment (even tho this particular idea was outside scope of it when passed). Equal means Equal. It does not mean Equal except for if it is wrong by a religious ideology.

The state (local or national) has no part sanctioning who I choose to partner with other than ensuring age of and the mental capacity to provide, consent.
Put aside the fear the pastor instilled and let folks live in their own way.

[sailaway21]

"Remove religion from marriage and it's just a civil union" overlooks the most defining characteristic of marriage and one of the state's compelling interests in the matter; procreation. It's difficult to discuss marriage in any historical or even modern concept without those pesky things called kids entering the discussion. The very definition of marriage, indeed it's historical definition of consummation, is the "marriage act" that results in the possibility of procreation. Civil unions, on the other hand, fulfill nicely that category that we refer to in polite company as, "other".

[chucklesR]

Procreation has not and never will require marriage despite what the bible says.
It happens.
Marriage is linguistically and legally a union based in civil law. My wife and I have not, nor never will have children out of our union.
Should sterile male and female couples not be allowed to marry - by your narrow definition that's how I read it.