Updated 09:38 pm.EST, Fri November 20, 2009

Society|Tue, Aug. 12 2008 09:27 AM EDT

Top Calif. Judge Faces Backlash Over Gay 'Marriage'

By Paul Elias|Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - California Chief Justice Ronald George has spent more than half his life cultivating an image of a cautious jurist and earning a reputation as a politically skilled court administrator.

  • Ronald George
    (Photo: AP Images / Paul Sakuma)
    California Chief Justice Ronald George put on his robe in his office in San Francisco, Friday, July 11, 2008. George has spent more than half his life in a black robe carefully cultivating an image of a cautious jurist and earning a reputation as a politically skilled court administrator. But his unlikely legacy as gay civil rights pioneer was sealed at 10 a.m. on May 15, 2008 when his majority decision legalizing same-sex marriage was announced.

But his unlikely legacy as gay rights pioneer was sealed May 15, when he heard the roar of a crowd gathered below his office as his majority decision legalizing same-sex "marriage" was announced.

Now, the law-and-order supporter of capital punishment is enduring from opponents of gay "marriage" the very complaints of "judicial activism" he has worked so hard to avoid during his 17 years on the high court and 34 years as a California judge.

He will likely have to mount an aggressive and expensive campaign to retain his seat in the 2010 election.

"Absolutely, Ron George should be thrown out for voting for gay marriage," said Mike Spence, president of the conservative California Republican Assembly. "He has a very radical view of what's a family."

George makes no apologies for taking the lead on a politically dangerous case.

"I really felt that as chief justice I had to have the broad shoulders because I knew there would be substantial controversy about it," he said in a recent interview.

The landmark decision overturned California's bans on same-sex "marriage," extending to sexual orientation the same civil rights protections afforded to race, religion and gender. Decisions by the California Supreme Court are often followed by state courts elsewhere.

Opponents have gathered signatures to put a measure on the November ballot for a constitutional amendment that would again ban gay "marriage." George declined to discuss the court decision in detail, citing the measure and the legal challenges expected regardless of the election's outcome.

Until he wrote the 4-3 majority decision, George was more noted for his administrative achievements and political prowess than his court decisions.

Four governors named him five times to higher judicial positions, starting with Ronald Reagan, who appointed him to the Los Angeles County Municipal Court in 1972.

Since 1996, when he was appointed the state's top judge by then-Gov. Pete Wilson, George has worked tirelessly with the Legislature to modernize the state's sprawling court system.

He shifted funding of the system from individual counties to the state, ensuring consistent budgets. He also combined the Byzantine municipal and superior court systems into one unified branch of government.

The marriage opinion surprised the legal community, which widely expected the court to uphold California's gay "marriage" ban, said Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen.

"Most people thought his legacy would be the modernization of the courts," Uelmen said. "I think the gay marriage decision will now be his principal legacy."

George began his legal career as a state prosecutor after graduating from Stanford University's law school in 1964. He appeared in 1972 before the U.S. Supreme Court in a futile bid to defend California's death penalty law; capital punishment was legalized five years later.

On the bench, George was noted as a tough-on-crime jurist. As a trial judge in Los Angeles, he refused to let prosecutors dismiss murder charges against "Hillside Strangler" Angelo Buono, who was ultimately convicted on nine counts of murder.

Yet George left hints of what some would call more liberal leanings.

In 1995, as an associate justice, he wrote the high court's majority opinion holding that private country clubs that conduct business with the public must allow women to join.

In 1997, he wrote the decision allowing girls under 18 to undergo abortions without their parents' permission.

The next year, George raised $700,000 to defeat a campaign to unseat him because of that ruling. His opponents raised only $40,000, and the chief justice easily retained his seat with 75 percent of the vote.

California's seven Supreme Court justices must be retained by voters every 12 years.

Political conservatives vow to organize a campaign to oust him because of the gay "marriage" decision, though they haven't formally started raising money.

Spence said his group and others will formally organize after the November election.

The impeccably mannered George, who rarely displays displeasure in public even when sitting through the weakest of legal arguments in his courtroom, becomes slightly annoyed with the subject of mounting a political campaign.

"I have no idea," he says when asked when he will formally launch his campaign. "It isn't anything that I have given any thought to. I will do what I should do when that time comes about."

Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
  • Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The problem is not sex. The problem is a rebellion against God.

    The use of relativism is one tool in the enemies arsenal. I'm having a discussion right now with someone on my blog that wants to pretend truth is relative, but is willing to admit that facts do not change. He confuses language with truth, never realizing that the definition of truth is in accordance with the facts.

    The latest attempt is to make language more fluid than it actually is. By redefining words, the hope is that people will not recognize the change and so be able to redefine morals without people noticing.

  • Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    But I think the core of the problem lies within the family itself. Removing contraceptives won't keep everyone from having sex. It will keep many unwed people from having sex, but the remainder would have sex regardless because it feels good. So unwanted pregnancies would remain the same, or even go up.
    Let's say for argument sake that 100 million unwed couples have sex every year. Of those, 85 million use contraception which greatly reduces the chances of pregnancy. The other 15 million have a much higher chance of pregnancy.
    So we take contraception off the shelves, and reduce the number of unwed people having sex by 1/2. But now instead of only 15 million people having unprotected sex, we have 50 million.
    Removing contraception from the shelves will not solve the problem. Use of BC is simply a symptom of a much bigger sexual problem. And merely removing that will not end unwanted pregnancies.
    It starts at home.

  • Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    msnchris,
    That's a good point. But I've also heard the same thing about when they took prayer out of school in the 60's.

  • Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Relativism at its best.

    Pope Pius once said that when contraception was made legal in many countries in the 1930's it began the slippery slope for the breakdown of the family.

    Contraception legalized, more unwanted pregnancies, Marriages breaking down, abortion legalized, now Gay marriage on the voting blocks.

    When are all Christians going to stand up together to defeat this evil??? Homosexual activity is disordered and the act itself is a grave evil that sepparates you from God.

    God loves you, but you love yourself more! This is the laymans' way of saying you worship your desires over God.

    McCain 2008!

  • Sun Aug 17, 2008 9:04 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    The problem that most homosexuals that I have met are with the fact that God claims that it is a sin(Lev. 20:13), which is the Old Testament, yet they claim (Lev 19:18) which states that you shall love your neighbor as yourself. We cannot pick and choose what parts of the Bible to believe. The premise of the Bible is that God wants us to worship Him. If we decide that He made a mistake when He made us and follow the urges within us to become homosexual, we are putting ourselves ahead of Gods plan, which in effect means you are worshiping your personal desires. Guess what God thinks of that? We all have urges and desires, the point is that we should control them with respect to what God has planned for our lives, and not follow the foolishness of the present age, but follow God's word. (I Corth. 3:18-20) oops, that's in the New Testament.

  • Sat Aug 16, 2008 2:08 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    dongard, the reality is we live in a sinful world and sinful people do sinful things and some try to justify their evil by throwing God into the equation. But if Christians are being totally obedient to the Word of God and specifically the Great Commandment much of their sinful behaviors come to a screeching halt. Not all mind you because we are still sinners and we still mess up, but because of the presence of God's Holy Spirit in our lives we have the help we need to effectively resist the devil and flee from any temptation he or anyone else throws at us. But for that to happen consistently a Christian must be wholeheartedly surrendered to the Lordship of Christ and the control of God's Holy Spirit which is a daily and choice by choice decision every Christian has to make. As for the dog thing to be honest if I had my way I much more prefer being a cat as opposed to a dog!

  • Sat Aug 16, 2008 12:14 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Dongard,
    True. Have you seen a dog cure polio? Create the light bulb? Do surgery on another dog? Investigate and find cures for countless illnesses? Learn how to improve farming for better crops? Build domiciles to live in? Mass communication? Surface and space exploration? A plethora of other things that humans have accomplished to make life better?
    Dogs in their natural habitat (the wild) run in packs and fight dogs of other packs for territorial rights (sound familiar?). Sometimes even turning on each other in the same pack if food becomes scarce. You use our pet dogs as an example. Why are they different than wild dogs? Because we humans have trained them to be docile and obedient.
    What differs us from dogs is that God created us in His image, and wants us to be like Him. Paul says that to be carnally minded is to be in opposition of God. One of the words for carnal that Paul uses means "animal".
    We are not like the animals. We are (should be) above them. We were created to have dominion over them, not be like them.

  • Sat Aug 16, 2008 10:57 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    ok so we have all pulled out the poop jokes, and on more serious note the tools and resources point. but i would ask the organized religion advocates to stop and for a moment think outside of their box. after trashing certain types of dog behaviour, do you really think that humans are doing better. correct me if i'm wrong, but a dog eating its poop has yet to nuke other dogs. and i have yet to see a dog strapping a bomb onto itself and killing dozens of other dogs and puppies because its god commands it.

    A while ago there was a great book "the secret life of dogs" which attempted to describe the rules and organization of dogs as they lived out their lives surrounded by a maladaptive control freak species aka humans. you are so quick to point out features of dog life that "you think are stupid" yet how long is the list of human failures. do dogs come anywhere close to that. more to the point. humans as you claim, are stand in the light and the benefit of a god. compared to dogs, sir to what good point is that? death is the goal of religion.

  • Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I'm gonna be out of pocket this weekend. You guys have a great one!

  • Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:51 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "how pathetically small minded and controlling of you. "they just want to satisfy their lust." "

    Because I spoke truth, you call me names. Somehow that is virtuous?

    "I would suggest that dogs are far more a successful species then humans,"

    Right. Please give examples of the mechanical or electronic devices they have invented, or the break-throughs in medicine they have discovered.

    " they have a rich and adaptive life, their species is growing and adapting. they have rules that benefit them and keep order without grievous harm to the population. but you are from a very maladaptive species, that does considerable harm to its own and others and presume to comment and control them because you consider your flaws a virtue."

    Dogs will eat other dogs;they will breed with what ever they can; they will kill their own young; the bigger dogs will sometimes torture the smaller ones they steal food out of the mouths of other dogs. These are virtues? This 'nature' at its best.

    God on the other hand has provided a better plan: God loves you. He wants to be in a relationship with you. The only thing He asks is you trust in the Son He sent to pay the price of your faults and failures.

  • Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    hahaha @ believer. I get a kick out of homosexuals who like to use the animal kingdom to justify their actions. They may not be above them, but God created the rest of us to be human, act human, be smarter than animals, and have dominion over them. It seems that homosexuals enjoy lowering their standard so that they will have someone (something) who is like them.

  • Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I like dongard. He never answered the question. He is just like the rest. He circumvents the question, trying to somehow make it seem that he has.
    It was a simple yes or no. As for the "clear and present danger"......what? Are you a politician? An engineer?
    As far as pushing our beliefs on you. I think it's rather rude for homosexuals to push their beliefs on us. The world doesn't need them pushing their twisted views on us.

  • Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    dongard, my sister just got a pedigree dog who eats it own poop, our dachsund use to follow our son in diapers around waiting for a tasty treat as well. I've seen dogs who truly enjoy humping on the legs of humans. I seen dogs entertain themselves for hours by chasing after their own tail. We had a dog who I loved to death, but who was dumber than a box of rocks. Every now and then he would get out of the yard and all we had to do was rattle his leash and bingo he was back in a flash since he thought he was going for a walk and he also had a great time rolling around in poop and of course sniffing other dogs behinds. And this is the species you believe humans should be emulating?

  • Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    wb moore

    You apparently never raised dogs. I have, different kinds, for years. You HAVE to keep the females separate from their brothers, or you will have inbreeding occur. Actually, the dad's will breed with the daughter dogs too. Dogs don't care about whether the other dog is related. They just want to satisfy their lust.

    how pathetically small minded and controlling of you. "they just want to satisfy their lust." i would suggest that dogs are far more a successful species then humans, they have a rich and adaptive life, their species is growing and adapting. they have rules that benefit them and keep order without grievous harm to the population. but you are from a very maladaptive species, that does considerable harm to its own and others and presume to comment and control them because you consider your flaws a virtue.

  • Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet

    rights, like everything else on earth are subject to limits that make a case for "a clear and present danger."
    i do not have the right to stand up in a dark theater and yell fire if there is not one. but i do have the right to yell yell fire if there is a "reasonable expectation of danger." you have the right to yell fire over ssm, but I do not believe that you have made the case for a clear and present danger.

    so to your question. incest within certain limits carries a clear and present danger. but it needs to be carefully defined to meet those tests. those limits must be based on tests that satisfy the general common good. not opinions of any group or majority.

    how does ssm meet that standard, not of some "harm to the institution of marriage or studies have proven" standard but a really and immanently immediate "clear and present danger?"

    you do not have the right to impose your beliefs on other americans simply because you construct vague slippery slope propositions and pass them off as "facts"

    like it or not not everyone accepts your facts and in order to claim that you are denying rights in order to protectthe common good you must meet the "clear and present danger" test and that test will be conducted with evidence from all parties, not just yours. otherwise you are simply imposing the tyranny of the majority.

  • Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:12 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "However, incest is NOT that way; even in the animal kingdom, there is pretty much an avoidance of close-kin mating."

    You apparently never raised dogs. I have, different kinds, for years. You HAVE to keep the females separate from their brothers, or you will have inbreeding occur. Actually, the dad's will breed with the daughter dogs too. Dogs don't care about whether the other dog is related. They just want to satisfy their lust.

    I've seen dogs kill their own young. I suppose its justification for infanticide.

    Incest, infanticide, homosexual sex - dogs do them. If its ok for dogs to do it, then its ok for people, right? This is the 'logic' that homosexuals want to use to justify their behavior.

    The sex drive can be powerful, but can be resisted, as most people would agree is appropriate in at least some circumstances. For instance, if we see someone in public who is extrodinarily attractive, we do not immediatly strip down and go at it. We resist the urge. Why? Because its wrong. But what makes it wrong? Simply a vestige of the morality God has placed in us that is slowly being eroded. There are things God has said to not do. As our society moves to deny God and rebel against Him, more and more of the so-called 'natural' activities will become common place.

  • Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:05 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    " I believe that gay people are biologically programmed that way"

    Everyone is welcome to their opinion. People believe that having their picture taken will steal their souls. There is nothing but propoganda to support your belief on.

  • Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:19 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "Will you support the rights of adult incestuous marriages when the time comes?" --- No, because that's a vastly different idea. I believe that gay people are biologically programmed that way; just look at the animal kingdom. However, incest is NOT that way; even in the animal kingdom, there is pretty much an avoidance of close-kin mating. So your question is culturally and socially moot.

  • Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:58 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    dongard,
    I'll ask the age old question I've asked all the gay rights proponents:
    Will you support the rights of adult incestuous marriages when the time comes?

  • Thu Aug 14, 2008 2:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    i have no problem with various christian congregations defining their faith and expectations of membership. nor do i have a problem with americans defining their beliefs and standing by them in the public square. but and, its a big but, everyone from the most radical communist to the most conservative paleocon should stop and think long and hard before they seek to impose a rule which well might be a strong arm attempt to impose their rules on everyone else.

    i see precious little reflection on the part of most christians in this board on this point. claiming that the bible is a source doesn't cut it. claiming that tradition supports it doesn't either. we have come too far and have far too many examples of the evils that tradition and good books have perpetuated and the lives they have cost.

    this is not to maintain that innovation is always good for that is clearly not true. but america, despite its puritan roots, to me is the embracement of the frontier. until the 20th century the frontier was geographic. now it is idealistic. I was very young in 1960, but the words still to this day ring in my ears, "We stand at the edge of a New Frontier—the frontier of unfulfilled hopes and dreams. Beyond that frontier are uncharted areas of science and space, unsolved problems of peace and war, unconquered problems of ignorance and prejudice, unanswered questions of poverty and surplus. So let us begin anew - remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belabouring those problems which divide us.And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavour, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved."

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:58 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    <try reading the comments on onenewsnow if you don't think that hate and bigotry rule in conservative christian groups. hate the sin love the sinner quickly gives way to love the sin, hate the sinner. and the most frequent and "original" thought that these kind people have is "toast them." >

    Sadly, there are many "Christians" who don't act with godly love and holiness. As a member of the Church at-large, I ask for your forgiveness where hate is being spewed forth against homosexuals.

    Still, part of the mandate in loving our neighbors involves advocating the truth.

    Supporting public policies that are moral, wise, & loving may conflict with the secular views of a secular society.

    Support for marriage policies that define the relationship as between one man and one woman stakes out a moral, biblical, and loving public policy.

    For that, I do not apologize and will not compromise.

    Just because certain "Christians" do not act in loving ways does not negate the wisdom and morality of a public policy position.

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    dongard--you have met a small group of people with a small view. I'm in a church of 7000 and we have no problem with gay people attending. We have Biblical expectations for membership. We expect people to accept the Bible as written for determining what is sin. As written, the Bible in Romans says homosexuality is sin.

    With all sin, we want healing from sin and a restored relationship with the Holy God. This is the basis of the Christianity in the Bible. Not all 'christians' are Christians....

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "One's sexual biological orientation is a human right which should be protected by law."

    The key phrase here is biological. There is no proof AT ALL that people are born gay. If there were there would be no question on this issue now would there?

    Biological orientation is determined (for lack of a better word) by what's in your pants. The question here isn't biological but how you use your biological orientation.

    Men with men is a use of biological orientation and not biological orientation itself.

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    SqueakyWheel

    try reading the comments on onenewsnow if you don't think that hate and bigotry rule in conservative christian groups. hate the sin love the sinner quickly gives way to love the sin, hate the sinner. and the most frequent and "original" thought that these kind people have is "toast them."

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:14 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

    <If "the people's will" was still being followed where I live, we would still have white and colored water fountains.>

    Racial differences should not be equated with differences with sexual behavior. The former is inherently immutable while the latter is behavioral choice and changeable. Just ask the former homosexuals about their change in behavior.

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:41 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Which is the loss of religious freedom in conservative Christianity."

    How and where do you feel that is being lost?

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:35 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "However, how is the dilema solved if being homosexual (aka sexual orientation) becomes a national civil right? A Church or other religious organization would legally Not be allowed to "discriminate" based on the law."

    One's sexual biological orientation is a human right which should be protected by law. However, a church or other religious institution would have the legal right to keep their hiring practices based on religious doctrine IF they were not receiving federal funding. If they receive Gov't $$ and are tax-free, they cannot discriminate. If they choose to pay taxes and not receive Gov't $$, then they can hire whom they choose.

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:04 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Danny is correct, too, when writing:

    "However, how is the dilema solved if being homosexual (aka sexual orientation) becomes a national civil right? A Church or other religious organization would legally Not be allowed to "discriminate" based on the law."

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:01 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    I am changing my view on gay "marriage" somewhat. (Maybe this discussion board is helpful, after all.)

    Perhaps all couples in the US should have "civil unions." There would just be one line at city hall. (You must admit that having two lines for marriage licenses at city hall would display something inherently unequal in government treatment of applicants.)

    Then, people could go to their churches to be married. The straight couples can go to their churches to marry. Gay couples could go to the United Church of Christ, to the Episcopal Church, to some American Baptist churches, to the Unitarian Church, to the Universalist Church (and to UU churches), to the Metropolitan churches and soon to some Presbyterian, Methodist and other mainline churches as they eventually begin to bless these marriages.

    The way to go legally might, in fact, be "civil unions."

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 9:57 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    WiccanTexas said, "All of them, gay or straight, should be civil unions legally. The blessing of a religious body to the union as a marriage should be left to the discretion of the individual religious bodies, and Gov't should keep out of it. "

    I'm following you, and I appreciate that you believe the Government should keep out of whom a religious bodies should choose the marry.

    However, how is the dilema solved if being homosexual (aka sexual orientation) becomes a national civil right? A Church or other religious organization would legally Not be allowed to "discriminate" based on the law.

    On top of that, in Canada they are running into the problem that if you want to get a license to marry people, you are not allowed to "discriminate" and choose only to marry heterosexual people.

    Currently alot of Pastors have "grandfathered in" there, however anyone who want's to get a license there, must agree to nondiscrimination policies.

    If we can find a solution to this problem, or prevent this problem from occuring here in America. Religious freedom can be protected, but we need the "left" to reach out and say "We're interested in protecting you too".

    In the end though, it's not entirely the fault of the "left" either. The "right" is at fault as well. The "right" is at fault for failing to identify what is the biggest concern with the homosexual movement. Which is the loss of religious freedom in conservative Christianity.

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 9:50 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

    Squeaky: Try putting the shoe on the other foot. How would you feel if you could ONLY get married to a person of the SAME sex yet you had absolutely no desire to do so?
    And this one judge did not disregard the constitution. A majority of the justices upheld it. And in November, a majority of Californians will vote to let same-sex couples keep these rights.

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 9:50 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    PhatDajuan wrote it clearly for all of us to see (unless you are blind or choose to be blind):

    "Sure, Chief Justice Ronald George could have played it safe with his political career and stuck with the status quo. Instead he was brave enough to acknowledge that there can't be a double standard with which the law treats Gay and Straight couples. He didn't create the "right" for ANYONE to get married, since "marriage" is not defined in the California constitution; what he acknowledged was that if Straight couples DO have a right to marry by default, there is no constitutional justification for withholding that right from Gay couples."

    Well stated....

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 9:47 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

    God protect us from "the people's will."

    If "the people's will" was still being followed where I live, we would still have white and colored water fountains.

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 2:33 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 4

    <He didn't create the "right" for ANYONE to get married, since "marriage" is not defined in the California constitution; what he acknowledged was that if Straight couples DO have a right to marry by default, there is no constitutional justification for withholding that right from Gay couples.>

    "Gay" couples do have the freedom to get married; the same freedom as "straight" couples. That is, the freedom to marry a person of the opposite sex. Everyone has the same rights. No one is denying anyone the freedom to marry a person of the opposite sex.

    Since the California Constitution does not currently define marriage, we need to pass the marriage protection amendment so that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman.

    One cannot withhold a "right" to marry a person of the same-sex since such a right does not exist under the constitution. Judge George merely created this right with a blantantly biased personal disregard of the state constitution. One arrogant judge rewrites the moral laws of society in absolute contradiction to the people's will.

  • Tue Aug 12, 2008 5:42 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    JTRAIN:"Live your life for Christ, Show them the Good news and help as many find eternal life as you can. "

    Amen, brother

  • Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:43 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    In 1997, he wrote the decision allowing girls under 18 to undergo abortions without their parents' permission.


    Sounds like Cal should have woke up a long time ago.

  • Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:18 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    What Mike Spence (of the California Republican Assembly) fails to grasp here is that "traditional" is not synonymous with "constitutional," nor is "radical" synonymous with "unconstitutional."

    Sure, Chief Justice Ronald George could have played it safe with his political career and stuck with the status quo. Instead he was brave enough to acknowledge that there can't be a double standard with which the law treats Gay and Straight couples. He didn't create the "right" for ANYONE to get married, since "marriage" is not defined in the California constitution; what he acknowledged was that if Straight couples DO have a right to marry by default, there is no constitutional justification for withholding that right from Gay couples.

  • Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:58 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

    "My question is, what is wrong with the term "civil Union". It offers the same rights and protections as Marriage but is a different word." -- I'm in agreement. All of them, gay or straight, should be civil unions legally. The blessing of a religious body to the union as a marriage should be left to the discretion of the individual religious bodies, and Gov't should keep out of it.

  • Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:42 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    My question is, what is wrong with the term "civil Union". It offers the same rights and protections as Marriage but is a different word. I believe that this is purely an attack on the Christian way of life. This is similar to what the Romans did to the early Christians (except we dont get thrown into a arena to be eaten). I think it is time for Christians to unite and lead by example rather than playing the secular game "war of words". If you dont agree with it, make sure to vote on it, dont just sit there and complain like alot of us do. In the end of time, will it ultimaltey matter if the secular lifestyle was given the title of "married" by a secular government? Nope. If you are a believer, you will still go out and preach the good word and show the masses what being a Christian is all about through action, not by what title you get. If "gay marriage" gets added to the dictionary, i agree, it is a sad day, but that doesnt mean they have defeated the Christian definition of marriage by a long shot, it merely means they are bestowing a title on themselves undeservedly. Live your life for Christ, Show them the Good news and help as many find eternal life as you can.

  • Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:23 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Mike said "Typical "Christian" fundamentalists, either he acts as their pawn or he's a Godless heathen out to corrupt society. "

    Where is that statement in this article? I merely see Christians displeased with the action of a Judge and will work to make sure he does not get elected.

    "typical" liberals do the same thing. It's America, that's what happens.

  • Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:41 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    "Until he wrote the 4-3 majority decision, George was more noted for his administrative achievements and political prowess than his court decisions."

    I love it, the "until now," as if this decision erases any good he's ever done. Typical "Christian" fundamentalists, either he acts as their pawn or he's a Godless heathen out to corrupt society.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links