Reader comments
Court assails public virtue

Let's give a great big cheer for the self-rightous intolerance that pervades the writer's position. Why is it when the California State Supreme Court makes a ruling based on an interpretation of the United States Constitution, the charge of "activist court" is made when it's a decision conservative wingnuts don't like? However, if the same Court ruled their way on an issue, these same wingnuts hail the decision as "rightous"!

The writer is, obviously, interpreting the issue from a very religious perspective. This is understandable considering the strict application of so-called "divine work". However, in this instance, the Court saw the necessity to protect the rights of the minority.

If the writer believes that homosexuality is an "abomination and sin", then there is nothing further to be discussed except to say he takes a minority view on the issue.

Same-sex marriage is here and is irrelevant to most people who do not view it as a threat to the "public virtue". It certainly is not a threat to traditional marriage between a man and a woman. That deceit is a figment of the Religious Right's imaginative claim to Truth and God's Will.

David, I am sure that your Utah civics course taught you that even though the Declaration of Independence, which you cite, has no actual role in the governance of the USA.

I am also sure that you must know that the "California Supreme Court" rules on laws on the books in "California" and has to guide decision based on the "California Stat Constitution", so long as the laws do not conflict with previous rulings of the US Supreme Court.

Therefore, for the "California Supreme Court" to determine that a law on the books in "California" denying rights to homosexual citizens that are given to heterosexual citizens violates the "California State Constitution" is exactly what their role should be.

I thought one of the tenets of the Republican party was to be in favor of States rights. I find it amazing that people in the most Republican state in the US (yes Utah) are so upset about what another state has done.

And if homosexuality is against "God's Law" why did he make homosexual animals. Of course you know that animals including monkeys have been filmed in wild settings engaging in homosexual acts.

Its called jurisprudence not public opinion that the courts job.

More blah, blah,blah against same sex marriage - there are no substantive arguments against it, just conjecture. When those who argue against gay marriage come up with a substantive argument then I may take them seriously.

Gus,
for a refreshing change, give us a specific example of when an activist court held in favor of a "right wing" or "conservative wing nut" position. Would that be when the courts demanded the removal of the Ten Commandments from federal court houses, or maybe when they ruled that crosses on public property to commemorate fallen police officers needed to be removed. Or, maybe when the courts ruled that underaged females had no need to inform their parents when they aborted their grandchildren.
Oposition to your view Gus, in no way makes it a minority view, which is the very point of the reaction to the overturning of the people's view by an activist court..

There have been and will continue to be lots and lots of comments about the California Court ruling. How many people have commented on the ruling without reading the ruling? It is 172 pages long, but it is easy reading.

I found the dissenting opinion by J. Corrigan to be most interesting. He wrote: "The voters who passed Proposition 22 not long ago decided to keep the meaning of marriage as it has always been understood in California. The majority improperly infringes on the prerogative of the voters by overriding their decision. It does that which it acknowledges it should not do: it redefines marriage because it believes marriage should be redefined."

Of course, the word, "majority" is not referring voters who voted on proposition 22, but to the majority of the judges who ruled on the issue.

Read the whole document and then lets discuss the issue.

It may not be "self evident" to you, J. David, but I know discrimination when I see it, and so does the California Supreme Court, apparently. Is there no room in your religious perspective to support human rights and social justice?

ediddy:
Actually, the Utah Supreme court ruled that crosses on public property are legal and do NOT need to be removed, so, yes, there is a ruling for "right wing" conservatives.

Let this topic go conservatives. Mind your own business.
Focus on keeping this country from going completely in the toilet economically instead.

Thanks for the insight, Mike (8:33). What I understand is that the Judge Corrigan of the California Supreme Court also believes that the majority acted as "activist judges." So it's not just wing-nut rightists in Utah who think that? Crazy. It's just crazy that he thinks the courts need to let the people define their laws. Doesn't he want more power for himself?

The reason why people are anti samesex marriage is because it contradicts the rules of their religion. When the rules of their religion are contradicted the strength and power of that religion is decreased.

These same people often are heard praising "freedom" however never when freedom would allow a person to deviate from religious rules.

re: GWB | 4:53 a.m. May 21, 2008

Ive never liked the animal argument, I wouldnt even if I was fully pro gay-marriage.

Animals also mate with their own offspring and kill and canabalize their own children. They arent the best examples for higher level standards of living. "Gods Law" differs on the potential of the lifeform.

To Darin -
NEVER say the word "social" to conservatives.
It means something evil to them.

Mike I notice that you only present the dissenting argument against the ruling but not the majority opinion, are we suppose to take this as a possible bias. The reason you do not include it is that it does not fit into your narrow paradigm of right and wrong. Yes, I have read the ruling. The majority ruling was based on the simple point of law that substantially equal does not make it equal. The idea of separate but equal was struck down many years ago. So either they have the rights or they do not. Substantially equal is not equal. The dissenting judge�s opinion shows a lack of either willingness or understanding of the judicial branches role as a check and balance.

YBU,
Istand corrected, but as an interedting additional question, does that mean that left wingers, none the less were opposed to the crosses?
In concession, one thing that bothers me in the rhetoric here is the notion that if I oppose gay marriage, then I am homophobic. If I oppose abortion, then I am not pro choice. Often the positions taken here reflect accuracy only as framed by the position of the adversary, which is to concede that one side gets to decide which is right and which is left. I do not.

Suppose the citizens of California overwhelmingly voted (let's call it prop. 23) to outlaw Mormonism, because it's not normal. After all, it's only been around a relatively short time compared to mainstream Christianity and they don't want this new agenda shoved down their throats.
Then, suppose the California Supreme Court overturned prop. 23. Would you be outraged? Probably not, and for good reason because, just like prop. 22 it was deemed unconstitutional.

To Anonymous 10:39,

You have a name. I have a name. My name is not anonymous. I stand for certain principles and I use my own name so that anyone who wishes to investigate knows who I am and what I stand for.

I am 100% anti-same-sex "marriage". I am 100% pro-traditional marriage. I am 100% pro-family. I am 100% Christian and 100% devoted to noble principles given to us by God through His prophets, from Adam down to President Monson.

Yes, I am biased. I salute J. Corrigan, the Justice who wrote the minority opinion. I salute him for having the courage to stand up against situational ethics and to stand for the will of the people who voted on Prop. 22. In addition, I salute all who have the courage to state their cause and give their name.

Today I stand for anything that is good and noble among my fellow men. Someday I will stand before my Maker and report on how I lived my life. My hope then is that there will be evidence to show that I was not ashamed to stand for godly principles.

Do as you wish, but don't hide behind "anonymous".

Don't Like Gay marriage? Don't marry one! And if marriage is so sacred why not outlaw divorces except in special circumstances like abuse in the home? If I made the "choice" to be gay, YOU made the "choice" to marry the wrong person. Deal with it. The same way I've been told to deal with my "choice".

Why is it that every chance they get, Mormons want to talk about how bad crosses are?

Look at the bright side. Karl Rove has an issue to keep voters minds off the results of trickle down economics, presidential lies and a disillusioned public.

People bring up the will of the majority in California. I took time and I checked polls. Today, it is a coin toss. Gay marriage has gained 1.4% annually in polling. In five years gay marriage would pass.

The question arises; do you want to push for a vote you can loose in? Loosing the vote on gay marriage in California would be a real set back.