Breaking: California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage; Update: Opinion-skimming analysis added!
posted at 1:11 pm on May 15, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
An election-year bombshell, just across the wires. Rove, you magnificent bastard. Stand by for updates.
Update: Here’s the opinion. How does 172 pages sound?
Update: The AP story is thin on specifics since it’ll take awhile to digest the holding. Read this useful bullet-point background from the Journal to get up to speed on the legal posture. Note that six of the seven justices on the court are Republicans. Will the ruling stick?
“Pro-family” organizations have submitted more than 1.1 million signatures for an initiative that would amend the state Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. If at least 694,354 signatures are found to be valid, the measure would go on the November ballot and, if approved by voters, would override any court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.
Proposition 22, the California ballot initiative that defined marriage in the state as between one man and one woman (even if the marriage was entered into in another state that allows same-sex marriage), passed in 2000 by a margin of 1.7 million votes.
Update: Sounds like a major win:
Gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California, the state Supreme Court said today in a historic ruling that could be repudiated by the voters in November.
In a 4-3 decision, the justices said the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.” The ruling is likely to flood county courthouses with applications from couples newly eligible to marry when the decision takes effect in 30 days.
The ruling set off a celebration at San Francisco City Hall.
Update: A quick skim reveals that the opinion’s fairly straightforward. They start out by noting that California’s different from other states that have dealt with this insofar as it already has a robust domestic partnership law. All this is about, really, is whether gays should be allowed to “marry” the way straights do or whether they’re stuck with those partnership agreements that leave them married in effect but not in name. Conservatives like partnership schemes and/or civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage, but I’ve always thought that argument’s self-defeating since it leaves you with no substantive reason for drawing any distinction in the first place. Yes, (some) conservatives seem to be saying, gays can go ahead and have civil unions that grant them all the benefits married couples have — but for god’s sake, don’t let them call themselves “married.” To which a court can only reply, “Why not?” The right’s strategy, in other words, has been to concede 99 yards and then stand on the one-yard line and say “no further,” but that’s not how discrimination jurisprudence works. If you’re going to discriminate you need a good reason, and depending upon whom you’re discriminating against, you may need a very, very good reason.
That’s actually the key ruling here: The court holds on page 95 that because sexual orientation is (1) immutable, (2) unrelated to one’s ability to function in society, and (3) a target of prejudice, it should be treated as a “suspect classification” for purposes of the state constitution’s equal protection clause. Once it’s deemed a suspect classification then the state needs a very compelling reason to justify discriminating on the basis of it — and since, as I say, it’s already conceded those 99 yards, there’s no such reason to be had. (If you want to bore yourself with the vagaries of equal protection jurisprudence, read this old post about New Jersey’s gay marriage ruling.) All they’re doing is denying gays the label of marriage to preserve a sense of stigma, which is almost a paradigm case of what equal protection is meant to prevent. I have no problem with the ruling as long as other states aren’t compelled to recognize Cali marriages per full faith and credit, which, needless to say, is the battleground on which this decision’s going to be fought in the presidential race. Taking the federalist approach and letting each state decide for itself is an easy call for Maverick; what about the Prince of Peace?
Exit question: Remember this golden oldie from the 2006 midterms?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 »
I’m with Thacker, although I am a pessimist by nature, and am aware that I can bring a negativity to things. That being said, I think your Roman Empire comment fails because Rome failed. The critics were right. I’ve read many books about the decline of empires (Roman, Persian, British, Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, Chinese, Muslim, read Spengler on the general decline of the West) and lived through the fall of the USSR as an adult. It’s a hobby of mine actually. I see many many parallels with our own situation.
I think in general you are right that things have never been as good as they are now for the vast majority of people on the Earth. But that won’t last without the US, and I see the US in decline. In other words, I think we peaked. Now that’s not the end of civilization, just civilization as we know it.
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 11:44 AM
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 11:31 AM
I’m very PROUD to be a white Christian. I am no victim. I don’t have self pity. I’m not saying that YOU specifically are bashing me as a white Christian. I’m just saying this is the direction that society is going.
I wish everyone could be a straight white AMERICAN Christian because it is GREAT! Obviously someone will say that last comment means I’m racist KKK white power type. But I just wish there weren’t so many ‘victims’ in this country where everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed - but that isn’t enough for people because they continue to ask for SPECIAL rights like this case.
ThackerAgency on May 16, 2008 at 11:46 AM
I agree that it’s faulty reasoning there - a person being raised by a single guardian is not in the same circumstances as a person being raised by two. Two parents are the ideal. Also, you mentioned something from the UK. We’re talking about the US here. A bit of a difference.
the goddess anna on May 16, 2008 at 11:46 AM
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 11:18 AM
I have none to offer. However, I also think that the government should not even be in the marriage business. Let people make the social contracts they desire among themselves and have their cult’s incantations sung and magical spells pronounced if they so wish.
The state does have an obligation to assure the defense of the helpless, the children, but there is no need to have state sanctioned marriage for that.
Annar on May 16, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Typical of a beggar. This is too all the unfaithful who have posted, the ungrateful group of unfaithful.
Tell me, the next time you or your family get ill, take them to a secular hospital, if you can find one.
Or if you want a “higher” education, take them to a secular University, one that was created by non-faithful.
You see, the “impositions” that Christians put on you, well, you readily accept and lap up the benefits. You embrace our faith, if it gives you comfort or health, or an education.
You guys who look down on Christians can’t wait (in fact demand) the services that the faithful in this country created, for all to enjoy.
Every night, more hungry are fed by the faithful then you could ever imagine. Every night the homeless woman with chldren are taken in and cared for, fed and loved. In poor weather we open our doors to house, feed and comfort. In disaster, often the first to arrive (at their own expense) is the faithful to help…but you whine about us wanting the unborn to live or marriage to be sanctified between a man and a women.
Quick to condemn, but even quicker to enjoy the fruits our labor and faith. The faithful are the glue that holds this country together, making it the most giving and caring country in the world…and the unfaithful have built how many hospitals, universities, fed how many people? How many orphanages, Boy/Girl scout troops, Children’s camps?
No, you sit on the sidelines and whine because we don’t give you everything you want…you, you, you, it’s all about you.
The things we want do not tear at the fabric of society, it is woven into it; is sustained and strengthens it.
Our “narrow” view built this country, and sustains it…and the actions of the unfaithful has produced what???…besides a few whining selfish bitches.
right2bright on May 16, 2008 at 11:50 AM
I agree that too many people view themselves as victims. As long as you see yourself that way, you will never be empowered to take charge fully of your life. Where we disagree is on SSM. I believe that gays are asking for equal rights to marry the person they love. You disagree, as do others, and so the debate will continue.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 11:53 AM
That’s kind what I figured you’d say.
I don’t agree, but I think I like you a lot, so I’ll leave it. But I am still wondering about the question I had above about your beliefs. It’s not important, I was just curious.
You are an Entire Sanctificationist aren’t you?
29Victor on May 16, 2008 at 11:53 AM
The institution was destroyed a long time ago…
ninjapirate on May 16, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Like what? The principle is the same. Liberalism is operating in many different countries with similar results. The results of gay marriage and non-traditional families in Holland, Sweden and Britain are instructive.
aengus on May 16, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Any word on what Carthaginian or Hittite writers said?
aengus on May 16, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Well, that’s pretty much the KKK platform in a nutshell, sir. I can understand saying your PROUD to be Christian. That’s a lifestyle, a way of thinking and acting that you’ve chosen. But why bring race into it? Do you think you would be something less if you weren’t white? You were born that way, it’s not some great accomplishment on your part, it’s just a genetic lack of pigment.
RightOFLeft on May 16, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Gay pride, black pride, latino pride blah blah blah.
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 12:00 PM
RightOFLeft on May 16, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Didn’t I put that in my post? The reason I bring race into it is because it is the entire premise of the homosexual ‘civil rights’ movement. I knew you would say that meant I was a KKK racist. . . but it’s OK, as a Southern white I’m automatically a member of the KKK racist stuff.
This is why I’m not going to care anymore. Don’t come to me when a gay person in a sharia area gets put on trial in America. I won’t care because I’m a KKK racist - you know.
ThackerAgency on May 16, 2008 at 12:01 PM
That is not that the KKK platfrom in a nutshell. If you were to meet an alien from Mars and tell him the KKK people who without self-pity are proud to be white Christians do you suppose he have would a good understanding of the KKK’s platform?
aengus on May 16, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Did the same person write both of these?
Are you saying that not allowing two men to marry are the exact equivalent to Sharia law?
Is that a leap of faith or ignorance?
Try this, just to help you (although you will ignore it).
Marriage by definition has been between a man and a women. Why change a definition by a couple of judges? When the exact same thing can be created by contracts and agreements.
Yeah, I know words change meaning, but usually over a course of time and history, not by 4 judges.
If I say my dogs tail is a leg, do I now have a 5 legged dog? By your standards, I do.
So I say, your narrow view is changing history, not the other way around. You want to impose your views, to the point of ruling that definitions of words are now no longer valid.
Please, do not impose your narrow views on society…
right2bright on May 16, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Different cultures, different ways of thinking, even a different form of liberalism.
I’m not trying to skip out on the debate, but I just caught sight of two of my three kids running naked and the third trying to take off his clothes. I’ve gotta run.
the goddess anna on May 16, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Don’t think they’re very different at all. And if they once were, they’re not particularly anymore. I don’t think that we’ll be saved from liberalism even if some part of it is homegrown.
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Nope. Same form of liberalism. Theres a reason why liberalism in Europe was adopted around 1945. It was imported from the US.
Good luck catching them. I’ve got to go and eat anyway.
aengus on May 16, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Yes, and I do not see an incongruity. Bringing up Sharia is an analogy. Some people here are trying to use their religion to influence a certain governmental policy. That is what some Muslims are trying to do in Europe. I was asking the difference between the two.
The legislature of CA passed SSM twice, but it was vetoed by the governor. One man thwarted the will of the people’s representatives. How is that different from 4 judges doing their job by interpreting the law?
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Read the post again; now you do know that NAMBLA fully supported this judgment, and has pushed for this for years.
But thanks for the kind remarks, you may want to take up reading comprehension as a form of study.
If he/she wants to change his/her post to read “any reason to deny two adults”, he can.
Otherwise, lets read the post as it is stated. If they want to clarify they will…and I won’t call them an idiot for not being totally clear.
right2bright on May 16, 2008 at 12:16 PM
I think it’s different because while the legislature has the constitutional right to pass SSM legislation, and the governor has the constitutional right to veto it, and the legislature has the constitutional right to override it. Does the CA judiciary have the constitutional right to legislate via interpreting the CA constitution as they please? This is Rowe v. Wade. Also, what would your take be if the referendum passes and the CA constitution is amended? What would your opinion be if the Court disallows the referendum, as they did with Prop. 227? (I think that was the #)
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Sorry…I had to fly yesterday. Dear gawd, over 1000 comments. I gotsta catch up!
JetBoy on May 16, 2008 at 12:17 PM
I’m not saying you’re a KKK racist. I don’t know you. I’m just saying: look at what you wrote, look at what the KKK believes, and tell me how it’s any different at all. Didn’t you write yesterday that everybody but white Christians was out to destroy America? Sorry, sir, that’s a little hard to let pass without comment…
RightOFLeft on May 16, 2008 at 12:18 PM
No, he supported the will of the people who voted not for gay marriage by almost 70%. So who has more power, the legislature or the people?
The system established a procedure for people to vote on this, they did, case closed.
Judges are not put in to overthrow the governing system, unless you believe in activist judges.
And before you issue the lame argument of “they should have voted out”, there are many other issues to consider when voting for a representative. This was easily resolved by a vote of overwhelming majority.
right2bright on May 16, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Those empires fell for various reasons–nepotism, inefficient taxation, overextended military, isolationism, technological obsolescence. In the case of Rome they were libertines before, during and after their peak. In the case of Great Britain it is arguable that their empire continues based on their success in exporting the values of the Enlightenment and liberal democracy.
I don’t think the marriage of homosexuals is consequential to a possible decline of the United States, not after there is already social acceptance of homosexuals.
dedalus on May 16, 2008 at 12:25 PM
And that he wishes everybody else could be white, and that everyone who’s not white is out to destroy America… Yep. Sorry to say, I think that’s an f’ed up way of looking at things. I have no further comment on the matter.
RightOFLeft on May 16, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Of course the judiciary has not only the right but the responsibility to interpret law. Where you believe that they were legislating from the bench, others believe that they were interpreting the law to the best of their knowledge and ability. Remember, 6 of these 7 judges were appointed by Republicans and all of them were confirmed by popular vote.
As I understand it, the vote this fall is for an amendment to the constitution. I’m not sure if their vote creates the amendment or if it tells their representatives to vote for it. Either way, I would find such a vote sad, but clearly within the law.
BTW, it is Prop. 22, approved in 2000.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 12:27 PM
right of left, I am saying I am NOT a victim. Other groups claim to be a victim of white Christians. The gays, the muslims, the blacks. . . etc.
I am not claiming that I don’t want other races. Asian women are sexy as crap to me. . . well I love all women of all races actually. . . how would that make me racist?
I see America as the land of opportunity for EVERYBODY. Gays see it as land of oppression from the Christians. SOME Blacks (Wright) see America as the white people oppressing of blacks. I am HAPPY that there are many different types of human beings. . . however I don’t believe that any race or sexual preference should be given SPECIAL privileges under the law.
Now I’m supposed to feel bad for being proud of who I am. I can’t be happy to be who I am without being accused of hating other people who hate me because of who I am. Comment all you want. I predicted a comment like yours directly in my post.
But the post was a response to DC claiming that I was claiming to be a victim. This post was explaining that in no way do I consider myself a victim. I am the most blessed creature on earth and I recognize that and am thankful for it. I wish other people would feel blessed to be American without needing SPECIAL rights.
ThackerAgency on May 16, 2008 at 12:28 PM
I do. But since I think liberalism will be triumphant (absent a devastating attack from the Muslims), we will undoubtedly get the chance to see if our culture/society changes because of the legitimizing of alternative forms of marriage. (There are some results coming in from Europe, Scandinavia in particular–others above have commented on it.)
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 12:29 PM
I can agree with that 100%. But you seem to lump all gay people into only one category. When that’s far from the truth.
JetBoy on May 16, 2008 at 12:31 PM
RightOFLeft on May 16, 2008 at 12:27 PM
I would hope that every American would wish that everyone were as fortunate as they are. Blacks say, woe is me because I’m black. Gay people say woe is me because I’m gay - after all who would choose to be so oppressed. Mexicans say woe is me because I am illegal and they want to enforce the law.
I wish people would say WHOO AAAAH it is GREAT to be me. I wish EVERYONE were fortunate enough to be like me! I feel bad for those who aren’t like me because it is SOOOO good. Instead we get a lot of people who are sad to be who they are. I’m not even though I get hated on all the time all my life like you just did.
ThackerAgency on May 16, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Reasonable.
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 12:33 PM
I seem to recall a time in American History where a significant portion of populous believed, with all of their heart, that slavery was right. Some even used the Bible to support that argument.
Merely because the majority supports something doesn’t make it Constitutional, and moreover, doesn’t make it right.
You say the Courts are “circumventing” the will of the people? What if the will of the will of the people is Constitutionally unsound?
your_worst_enemy on May 16, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Not to quibble, but the vote for 61.4% in favor of the amendment. That vote took place on March 7, 2000.
In September 2005, the CA legislature passed a bill eliminating the gender requirements for marriage. Gov. Schwartzenager vetoed the bill.
Five years separate the vote for Prop 22 and the legislative vote in 2005. I would argue that the people spoke again several times in electing legislators to represent them. It is the responsibility of the electorate to know their representative’s positions. If they disagree with those positions then they should vote for the opponent. We do not live in a direct democracy. We live in a representative democracy.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Ironic. I’ve thought the exact same thing about the majority believing that same-sex attraction is genetic, and that man-made global warming exists.
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 12:38 PM
ThackerAgency on May 16, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Sincerely, I don’t think you’re a racist. I let my compulsion for sarcasm get in the way of simply objecting to the way you worded your post, and the KKK slam was gratuitous. “White pride” has some very ugly connotations in America. I still don’t see why anyone would say they were “proud to be white.” I thought your comment was disparaging to people of other races and other religions, but if you say it wasn’t intended as such, I’ll take your word for it.
RightOFLeft on May 16, 2008 at 12:39 PM
JiangxiDad,
Its more ironic that you cant answer the question I posed.
your_worst_enemy on May 16, 2008 at 12:39 PM
we’ll leave it at that right of left. Maybe I should have phrased it differently. But that’s why I put in the post that someone would read that as a racist statement. And if the event ever occurred that I would run for office I’m sure the press would love to use that statement to prove I’m racist. Of course there are plenty of things I’ve written here that would disqualify me anyway so I stopped caring about that crap a long time ago.
ThackerAgency on May 16, 2008 at 12:42 PM
It’s true I was interested in one part of your comment than all of it. I wasn’t compelled to answer your question because I skimmed your comment and reacted kinda quickly, and because I don’t really get the question. I definitely wasn’t trying to avoid answering.
What if the will of the people is Constitutionally unsound?
I think it’s an oxymoron.
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 12:43 PM
So you believe that because the people vote on something that it should be enacted? That the will of the people can never be Constitutionally unsound. Is that what you are saying? That the majority always makes the right decisions?
wow.And what reasoning do you use to support that? “Might makes right”?
your_worst_enemy on May 16, 2008 at 12:46 PM
We live in a system that has checks and balances, thank God. And kudos to to California State Supreme Court for recognizing that the purpose of the state is not to support the disenfranchising 10-15% of the population.
your_worst_enemy on May 16, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Please be careful not to get indignant at your own words. Get indignant at the ones I use if you like.
Obviously, what is “right” is subject to debate. I was merely saying that if the majority want something, that’s what the Constitution will contain. So I was arguing with your use of the term “constitutionally unsound.”
As for whether the majority can create a reprehensible Constitution or enact vile and repugnant laws, of course. But you suggested that the majority can do the “wrong” thing, and has. I suggested that might just as well apply to the notion that global warming is man-made, or that homosexual behavior is genetically based.
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Thanks for the lesson in gov. So we don’t have a way for people to vote at the state level directly?
The propositions aren’t real? When a state elects a governor, it is by representative and not direct vote, when we vote for a mayor we aren’t voting for a mayor, when we vote for a proposition we are voting for elected officials to represent out vote?
Really? I didn’t know that…thanks for your “knowledge” of state constitution elections and policy.
Now what school did you go to? And where did you gain such vast knowledge of California politics?
right2bright on May 16, 2008 at 12:52 PM
How about 1%…
right2bright on May 16, 2008 at 12:53 PM
In the 1850s the slavery supporters sought to spread the institution of slavery throughout the whole Union. Like the homosexual activists there is no compromise with them.
The abolitionist movement was Christian. If it were not for Christianity slavery would have not diasappered from large chunks of the earth.
aengus on May 16, 2008 at 12:57 PM
is=was
aengus on May 16, 2008 at 12:59 PM
And do you think the judges of California represent the populace…do you think they are so right that they cannot be overturned, or proved wrong?
Now, this may be different judges, but the California mindset is the same…activist judges are activist judges.
right2bright on May 16, 2008 at 1:00 PM
right2bright on May 16, 2008 at 12:52 PM
The democratic form of government was never intended to be a tyranny of the majority. The will of the people is balanced by a constitution framework that guarantees equal protection under the law. The judicial system is necessary to decide which referenda fit that framework and which don’t. If you think the CA marriage proposition was constitutional, state your case. If you live in CA, you still have the remedy of supporting an amendment to the state constitution. It’s kind of pointless to complain about judicial activism at this point, though…
RightOFLeft on May 16, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Are you suggesting that as an actual figure or posing another scenario, right2bright?
If its the former, it’s a moot argument, as that number isn’t even close.
If it’s the latter, I’ll pose a question. If 1% of the population had been slaves back in 1862, would that have made slavery right, in your eyes?
your_worst_enemy on May 16, 2008 at 1:00 PM
right2bright on May 16, 2008 at 12:52 PM
How did I indicate the the people cannot make their will known? Look again at my timeline. The people voted in 2000 on Prop 22. The people’s elected representatives voted 5 years later to remove gender restrictions. Are you trying to say that laws should never change? Do people’s opinions not change?
The trend over the last 10-20 years has been to moderate views on SSM and gay issues in general. If the people of CA vote again this fall, they may reject SSM, but I would be willing to bet that the vote will be less than the 61.4% from last time.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 1:01 PM
arghh… constitutional framework, even…
RightOFLeft on May 16, 2008 at 1:01 PM
It’s not disenfranchising. I suppose you mean denying you the privilege of a marriage license. How do you answer the problem of those who wish a marriage license for polygamy, or bestiality? If you say anything goes, then you put being gay in the weirdo category. If you say no to the others, you put being gay as a separate minority, like being an American Indian. The thing is there’s no proof. So people are free just to argue about it without end.
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 1:03 PM
That’s right. But that is a far cry from this:
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 1:05 PM
ike the homosexual activists there is no compromise with them.
Gimme a break. Thats such crap. The only think I want is to have the same EXACT things you have. Dont you get that?
The average gay person doesn’t want anything special.
I want to be able to NOT be bashed when I walk down the street. I want to NOT be tied to a fence stake and beat. I want to NOT be shot and killed in cold blood and have my murderer get a 6 year sentence. I want to have the state RESPECT my union the same EXACT way it supports any other union.
And frankly, why should there be ANY compromise with THAT? It’s not a lot to ask.
your_worst_enemy on May 16, 2008 at 1:06 PM
How do you answer the problem of those who wish a marriage license for polygamy, or bestiality?
Cmon, you can do better than than, surely. The old OMG, the sky is going to fall, slippery slope argument.
I have one really long word for you.
Massachusetts.
your_worst_enemy on May 16, 2008 at 1:08 PM
You’re incorrect. 1% is an accurate figure.
You’re equivocating slavery with refusing to grant special government privileges to gays? Wow, now I’ve heard everything.
fossten on May 16, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Its a fricken piece of paper. You people need to get a grip. My marrying my girlfriend doesn’t take anything AWAY from you.
your_worst_enemy on May 16, 2008 at 1:09 PM
fossten,
You’re incorrect. 1% is an accurate figure.
Actually, no I am not, and Im sorry, but I OUGHTA know.
See you in CA.
your_worst_enemy on May 16, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Perhaps you made your point in an earlier email, but this dialogue is now so long that I cannot recall. Please tell me how SSM is an example of the government granting special privileges to gays.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Holy crap. Most comments in a thread - evah?
Is there a Cliffs Notes version.
Nah. I don’t need to read it. I already what everybody said. This poor horse was beaten to death a long, long time ago.
The only interesting point here is judicial activism run amok.
Professor Blather on May 16, 2008 at 1:12 PM
.
Marriage is much more than a piece of paper. Every one knows this. That’s why these debates get so hot.
Skidd on May 16, 2008 at 1:14 PM
I guess it’s because so many people are scared of the marriage part of gay rights. They know that if it was equal to str8 marriage, it would weaken the latter, by presenting to young people the idea that all types of alternative marriage are good.
But some are better than others, for society’s sake, and for the future of humanity. Childless couples, elderly couples, gay couples, older singles– none of them are as important to a society’s future than a heterosexual couple having children.
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Marriage is much more than a piece of paper. Every one knows this.
Sure. tell that to all the straight people that get divorced every year.
your_worst_enemy on May 16, 2008 at 1:16 PM
I learned today that MA has a residency reqm’t for marriage. Apparently that’s why some gay couples don’t go there to get married. Also, I don’t think many gay want to get married anyway, but all of this is my opinion. Finally, MA leads to CA, and leads to other states. CA has no residency rqm’t.
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 1:17 PM
You don’t deserve any of those things to happen to you. But it has no bearing on your next statement:
The State would be fool to do that.
It is a lot to ask. Once its passed society has to be turned upside down in order to make everything equal. In Britain parents who think homosexualiy is immoral are not allowed to adopt. In Sweden priests are forced to perform gay “marriage” ceremonies.
Quoting Leviticus in a letter to the editor or a magazine article gets you hauled up in front of a judge in Canada and England. Even if you are a priest. They’re scrapoping religious exemption in the UK because of gay “marriage”. So its not just something that doesn’t affect anyone. It affects everyone, I would argue, negatively.
aengus on May 16, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Ask any black person if they think skin color is the same as behavior. LOL.
That’s a white liberal idea.
Django on May 16, 2008 at 1:18 PM
And if you think the mindset has changed, have another vote. Let the people resolve it, like they did the first time. If you are so sure the sentiment has changed…obviously the Well, you are getting desperate with your arguments, so that says something.
Was gay marriage the only issue to elect someone? No, it was resolved by a overwhelming majority of votes. It was not an issue. Immigration, health care, budget, loss of manufacturing, was the over riding issues. The gay marriage issue was resolved. Sheeesh.
legislature doesn’t think the sentiment has changed.
And just to be sure, you little constitution expert, these Judges are not part of the “representative” part of government, they are the judicial branch.
Now, in California, can the public vote for a proposition, or do only “representatives” vote?
right2bright on May 16, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Gee, you are so clever…if only 1% of the children were raped would you be for raping children…if only 1% of the elderly were killed, would you be for that…if only 1% of boy scouts were burned at the stake would I be for that…
Try another argument that makes sense.
right2bright on May 16, 2008 at 1:21 PM
For argument’s sake, let’s say that you are right. We should encourage heterosexual couples to have children. So why does this mean that we should not allow gay couples to marry? After all, the other couples you mention are legally allowed to wed. Why discriminate against gay couples?
SSM would only weaken str8 marriage if there was a legitimate choice between the two. Do you honestly believe that a young str8 man will be tempted to marry a man and thus weaken str8 marriage? Do you believe that gays can “convert” str8 people and thus remove them from the potential child-bearing pool?
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 1:22 PM
You’re denying something that is glaringly obvious. You are rhetorically tearing down an institution because you want to change it.
Skidd on May 16, 2008 at 1:22 PM
I’m not really sure what he means there.
The way AP summed up the decision, it sounds like a pretty convincing argument that the ban really was unconstitutional.
It’s weird, ironic, whatever…, but after all this controversy, gays would probably be better off with a civil union system than being lumped in with traditional marriage anyway. A from-scratch marriage system for gays would be more responsive to some of the particular needs of a committed homosexual relationship (not speculating what those are, but there are bound to be differences beyond the obvious). just a thought…
RightOFLeft on May 16, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Turkey might be the more interesting country to watch so see the conflict between secularism and fundamentalism.
dedalus on May 16, 2008 at 1:26 PM
JiangxiDad,
Unless I am mistaken, the only people that want an alternative to marriage, as it exists fro straight people, are the people that dont support this..
Look, Im done with this, and have no cause or need to debate something so simple, that is lost on so many people.
The sad fact is that when a court does something that you right-wingers dont agree with, you call it judicial activism. I could, if I were so inclined to argue that point, find examples of cases where the courts ruled in your favor, and you would not call it the same.
You yell gay activism when, in fact, this is merely a case of wanting the same things straights have,
Of course, its more than a piece of paper, and it comes with protections. I dont want extra .. I just want what you have.
You just dont want to share your privilege.
your_worst_enemy on May 16, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Yes, unlike other states, CA’s constitution allows people to vote for propositions. So why not vote for immigration, health care, budget, loss of manufacturing, etc? Why only SSM?
I do not believe that 61.4% is an “overwhelming majority.” Nevertheless, Prop 22 passed. Truth be told, a majority will probably pass an amendment this year. I doubt the percentage will reach 60%, but we’ll see. Just because a majority passes a bill, it does not make it morally or ethically correct. It just means that the majority has spoken.
Please refrain from your petty little ad hominum attacks. It makes you, not me, look like a small person. You do not know me. For all you know, I could actually be a constitution expect.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 1:32 PM
17% of 7% (stats say between 5 and 10% of population is gay) of the population is…about 1%.
right2bright on May 16, 2008 at 1:34 PM
I’m not 100% sure we should. I just don’t see how this doesn’t open the door to other forms of marriage because people sincerely argue that’s how they feel, and don’t see any reason why their feelings should be denied. I can’t get around this.
No. NOt at all. I think that is a terrible argument against gay marriage. But do you want gay marriage as the sole legitimate form of alternative marriage? How do you justify that? Finally, I’m against it because I think same-sex attraction is unconsciously learned behavior. But if it’s not, and sexual attractions of all kinds are pre-determined, why deny marriage to anyone, regardless of how “unique” it might be?
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 1:36 PM
I understood the rest of your comment, but not this part.
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 1:38 PM
You are the one with the snotty “representative” comment. I am holding your feet to the fire.
And you ain’t no expert on constitution…
You feel activist judges carry more weight then the voters? That is where you and I disagree.
right2bright on May 16, 2008 at 1:39 PM
I’m pretty much in agreement with you.
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 1:41 PM
This frickin’ thread is addictive, but I must run. I would not be suprised to see it going strong when I check back in later tonight.
Have a wonderful afternoon, y’all.
DCGamer on May 16, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Do you know what they call spouses in Spain? Progenitor A and Progenitor B. So because of gay marriage there is no longer husbands and wives in Spain. You see the concept of husband and wife is discrimination against gay married couples. And on it goes…
aengus on May 16, 2008 at 1:43 PM
But the state does restrict who can and can not get married. The STATE determines the age at which someone can get married. It doesn’t support a union of anyone under a particular age regardless of the maturity or appropriateness of the union. Even 1 year under age (or 1 day under age) is not supported by the state.
Also unions between polygamist marriages are not supported. Also unions between people under a contract specifically for them to be legally married for citizenship. The state considers marriage for citizenship a FELONY (ie. not supported).
You want something different than the union which is supported. Everyone has the same ‘right’. You want a new and special ‘right’ for your special type of relationship. A relationship that is borne out of behavior that is known to be detrimental to the literal health of society through greater risk of AIDS.
ThackerAgency on May 16, 2008 at 1:48 PM
How many other propostitions have been voted with a larger majority?
Prop 13 had 65% (with 70% of the people voting), a landmark case for States. That also was attacked by judges and found constitutional by the supreme court.
61% is a huge majority for a proposition, read some prop history.
So you tell me, does San Fransisco make the laws for all of California?
Look at these numbers, places like Santa Cruz, and S.F, the liberal area pull the numbers down, otherwise you are into the 70’s without S.F. (S.F. not exactly the center of reality)
right2bright on May 16, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Given that marriage implies sex all marriages involve behavior that can transmit STD’s.
To the extent that marriage involves monogomous commitment it would tend to decrease the spread of STD’s.
dedalus on May 16, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Honestly, Thacker you can’t use the risk of disease as an argument against gay marriage. Even hetero sex itself is a great risk of disease, and I don’t want the government to attempt to regulate that. Inviting the government into your bedroom is never a good idea. I oppose gay marriage, but I don’t want to give the government any ideals.
DFCtomm on May 16, 2008 at 1:56 PM
The FACT is that homosexual lifestyle of men puts them at a greater risk for AIDS. If you want to argue that we should have laws that prevent sex outside of marriage to beat AIDS, you wouldn’t get support.
The state supports this behavior if they recognize these unions. The behavior that leads to the ‘marriages’ is detrimental to the health of the entire society.
Arab and muslim countries do not have problems with AIDS (other than maybe India which is not technically a Muslim country) because of their social views on pre marital sex. While heterosexual people do contract AIDS, they are not at as high of a risk statistically. We haven’t been allowed to talk about that because we’d be called bigots by the PC police even though it is factual - without regard to religion.
I would think that behavior that is detrimental to the health of society would be criticized and shunned by the government instead of embraced. Smoking is not as dangerous as being gay for a man.
ThackerAgency on May 16, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Here’s one of the votes McCain missed:
20. Hate Crimes—Cloture
HR 1585 (Roll Call 350). The Senate voted to stop debate and vote on an amendment establishing a special category of crime if it was based on the victim’s race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender or disability. ACU opposes efforts to criminalize thought, but on September 27, 2007 the Senate invoked cloture on the amendment by a vote of 60-39, after which the amendment was adopted by voice vote.
Red Pill on May 16, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Those defending the appropriateness of the Court’s decision in this case have apparently not read the case. I recommend to you the summary at the Volokh Conspiracy.
The Court was out of bounds. “Marriage” at the time the state Constitution was written meant a man and a woman, and everybody knows it. The Court, in order to support their reasoning, had to pretend that “marriage” already pertains to same-sex as opposed to cross-sex relationships.
This is a clear case of judicial activism. There is no right to same-sex marriage in the California Constitution; it was invented out of thin air by the Court.
However, social progressives will never admit this.
philwynk on May 16, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Those who are of the opinion that the judges have usurped the will of the people by essentially nullifying the governator’s veto still have a few options. One would be to call for a constitutional convention to readjust the powers of the three branches of government and/or make the results popular referendums non modifiable by the courts. I personally thik this would be stupid and I refer those who disagree to study Switzerland where such a system is in place.
If the good cultists think the system is beyond legislative repair then another possiblilty would be to follow the recommendation of Thomas Jefferson:
But the cultists don’t like Jefferson and know full well that their 70% would evaporate to 0.07% were they to suggest such action over something as insignificant as gay marriage.
So I guess it’s back to animal sacrifice and prayer to get god to strike down the sinners. I’m waiting with bated breath for the action.
Annar on May 16, 2008 at 2:08 PM
There, I think, we have the very heart of the problem. The opponents of gay marriage don’t believe they’re being asked to share a privlige - they feel they’re being asked (in fact, ordered) to surrender a right. Earlier you mentioned various things you wanted to be free of, such as being beaten or killed. Those things were all illegal, as much for you as for anyone else. It would be equally wrong if society were debating a law to prevent you from having a same-sex partner.
I believe the same legal recognitions should be available to same-sex civil unions - if the government is going to be in the business of handing out benefits or setting insurance rates, there is no ethical or legal reason to discriminate against same-sex unions. I don’t think you’d have much trouble getting solid majority support for that concept throughout the country - even the staunchest elements of the Religious Right would do little more than express their displeasure.
Gay marriage is a different proposition. Marriage is an act of consecration, explicitly based on the special relationship of men to women. It is intimately connected to religious faith - to virtually every religious faith the world has ever known - but its importance transcends religion. Religions honor marriage in recognition of this importance, rather than deeming marriage important because it is religious. It’s a celebration of the unique union of men and women - one man and one woman, making a vow that transcends every other loyalty either one of them feels. It is especially important to women, and is a mark of the respect and esteem in which a society holds its women. On the day a man marries a woman, he promises her that he will never again be a beast.
Of course, the ideal is not always lived up to. I’d even sadly agree that it’s not often lived up to, these days… but the ideal must be there, so that we may aspire to it. Re-defining marriage to include men marrying men, women marrying men, men marrying many women, or men marrying animals would destroy it, by simply re-defining it out of existence. To the traditionalists, the sincerely religious, and even the hopeful youth with fairy-tale dreams, this privilege cannot be “shared” with you, without denying it to them. You have every right to demand respect and tolerance, but no right to demand celebration, and the vast sea of heterosexual Americans has the right to hold their traditions sacred without being told they cannot do so without insulting you.
Doctor Zero on May 16, 2008 at 2:14 PM
The marriage age moving later to where it averages about 27 men in the United States also increases the risk of STD’s. Should the government be doing more to get sexually active citizens into marriage earlier? Should the government regulate marriages based on what is best for the state–perhaps restrict marriages involving individuals with certain diseases, physical disabilities, mental disabilities, or inability to reproduce?
dedalus on May 16, 2008 at 2:25 PM
That is great, it makes sense…that is the way the slippery slope works.
right2bright on May 16, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Its allowed the Swiss people to keep their country out the EU so it can’t be all bad.
aengus on May 16, 2008 at 2:25 PM
That is how government bureaucracy’s work. In the U.S. we are often referred to by numbers.
dedalus on May 16, 2008 at 2:30 PM
You can have it, just call it a couple contract, change a couple of lines in the tax code and you have it.
So what’s the big deal? Because the gay activists, NAMBLA, ACLU, want the word marriage. They want to own it, and it isn’t theirs to own.
Once again, the word marriage means man and women…find your own word, call it gayliage, it is a different animal.
If you have cats and dogs, do you call them all cats or all dogs? No, they are different, so you have different names.
right2bright on May 16, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Here’s a link. It wasn’t Husband and Wife. It was Mother and Father. Socialism is ruining Spain.
aengus on May 16, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Hahaha. My gayliage is on the rocks, my husband ran off with the milk man.
aengus on May 16, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Better then the ice man…”every woman has an ice man, and every ice man has his pick”.
My dad delivered ice when he was just a kid and that was his little ditty.
right2bright on May 16, 2008 at 2:48 PM
All I can do is shake my head…this is what they want, to take apart the family unit.
right2bright on May 16, 2008 at 2:50 PM
dedalus on May 16, 2008 at 2:25 PM
The government shouldn’t be doing ANYTHING. But promoting ‘GAY MARRIAGE’ is promoting behavior that is detrimental to the greater good health of the society as a whole. I KNOW you wish more straight people had AIDS so that this wouldn’t be factually true. You’re so philanthropic and empathetic like that.
Your argument is that instead of simply not encouraging behavior that has negative health results, the government should regulate more. You set up a straw man without addressing the FACTS as they are based on what this ruling does to how the government ‘protects’ the society’s health with the law.
But why don’t they rule on a law that allows smoking in public buildings? Isn’t it unconstitutional to ban the ACTIVITY of smoking? Why then are there laws that restrict smoking if the health of the community is not important to the courts? This ruling shows no concern for the health of the community. In fact it shows that the courts are willing to put the community at greater risk by promoting this behavior.
Smoking is less dangerous for a man than being Gay. If you can ban smoking. . . . in any event you shouldn’t support being gay as a government policy through marriage or civil unions if you care about public health.
ThackerAgency on May 16, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Comment pages: « 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 »