CA says same-sex marriage is OK (kind of)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html

California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

In a much-anticipated 4-3 ruling issued Thursday, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.

The ruling clears the way for the state to become the second to legalize same-sex marriage.

Several gay and lesbian couples -- along with the city of San Francisco and gay rights groups -- had sued, saying they were victims of unlawful discrimination.

 

It comes as no surprise. California is always very progressive.. I mean look at all the good things they continue to give us in the other 57 states...

 

7 more states and it will be very hard to get a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage through. And rightfully so. More states should stop criminalizing consensual behavior and monopolizing (social) contract rights.

 

Unlike Massachusetts, California has no residency requirement for obtaining a marriage license, so gays from around the country will be able to get married there.

There is a grass root movement to get a state constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would reverse the California Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.

 

I don't call all the in the closet Republicans and Christian rights, a grass root movement.

 

Yeah, I seriously doubt the voters of California are going to get outraged and overturn that decision. The real damage done to individuals by a lack of legal recognition is far worse than some outraged sense of traditionalist morality.

 

The voters can't overturn it once the California Supreme Court has ruled. They can probably take it to the Federal Supreme Court for another ruling, but it may just be viewed as a state issue.

"In California, a 2000 voter referendum banned same-sex marriage. . ."

Once again, the will of the majority of the people has been overturned, which shows that we do not live in a democracy.

 

The referendum changed the statuatory law - and the judges ruled that the statutes created by that proposition weren't permissable under the state's constitution. If the voters want to change the constitution, they are free to over-ride the judges but they will need a higher vote margin than they got in 2000.

And no, its not a democracy. We should be celebrating that fact every time the rights of a minority are held up against the legislative whims of a majority.

 

Woah woah, woah woah.

Korr, are you saying that the majority shouldn't necessarily trample the rights of the minority? That's crazy!

The next thing you know, we'll be protecting religious freedoms, letting women vote and abolishing slavery!

I don't see how we can become a proper tyranny if we keep protecting the rights of the minority.

 

Keep in mind that California is it's own country. It's own island and planet too.

Ultimately there is likely no need to BAN same sex marriage, as it is already likely illegal or at least no recognized under current law which defines marriage as a union between a man and a women. Personally, I could care less. If you want to marry your dog, fine. Blow up doll, yourself, whatever..

Point being, if you are going to make an exception to the rule, for gays, you have to do the same for inter species marriages, the marriage of siblings, inanimate objects, imaginary lovers, etc..

I've always taken issue with an institution that puts an issue to a vote via a referendum, then does the opposite of the referendum.

The Judicial Branch of the US government is often times filled with legislators. There in lies the problem.

 

So, gays are now another species; or incestuous; or a rock or stone; non-existent, but for fantasy, and so forth.

Yes, you do, apparently. Your first quote above, shows the problem. One either allows that the issue of gay couples wishing marriage isn't any of one's damn business, one's personal feelings about homosexuality notwithstanding; or one accepts that committed gay couples are the same as committed straight couples, are not "abnormal"; or one does not. To say one couldn't care less, while mounting a "slippery slope" argument along these lines - "what's next, marriages to dolphins?" - is simply disingenuous.

 

Sometimes when I read your posts lately I wonder if you fell, hit your head, or smoke crack regularly.

Do you ever even read a post completely before responding? Take the time and common courtesy to digest a post before responding.

If you read the marital laws of a given state, they typically define what "Marriage" is. In that capacity, as currently defined, a gay marriage BAN, is NOT needed, given current marital law on the books, by definition typically stipulates and defines who may or may not be married.

That said, enacting a BAN is retarded, its trite, redundant and useless.

If you want a BAN, simply leave the law alone.

If you want to allow gay marriage you need to take the existing law/s and redefine them.

How you found a comparison between gay and inter species is beyond me. I'm assuming it is the result of one of the reasons I defined at the beginning of my response.

So again, to clarify. If you are going to allow other forms of marriage outside of the definition (WITHOUT) re-defining the existing definition, then you will need to make exceptions to every other marital concoction in existence.

Personally, I have no issue with gay marriage. Never have. I've got a pretty clear history over the last 4+ years here that illustrate that fact.

Please stop reading things into my posts that aren't there. You have a hard on for Obama and any time I say anything in any post, Obama related or not, you go off on a tangent. It's getting ridiculous, counter productive and is making you look like a total knob.

Save face, drop it...

I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you really did mis-interpret my post. However given the past overly defensive obama-rantasms you've gone on, I'm not confident that is the case.

The reason I say I could care less is because to me, it's a non-issue. Call your congressmen, get them to introduce legislation that will re-define the existing marital law on the state level and go from there. The fact that anyone ever wasted time and tax payer money on instituting a BAN on something that is not allowable to begin with (again, according to laws already on the books) is quite disturbing.

We could have used that time to further clean and alternative fuels, work on our infrastructure, bridges, roads, etc.. tax relief...

What needs to be changed is the definition of marriage. We don't need to keep adding new laws where existing ones are. It's counter productive, and again, will lead to setting of precedents, like your dolphin example.

 

Jeeeeeeeeeezus, Jeremy.

Who's the knob? Dude, you're writing more and more inane crap all the time, and to be honest, I just don't post too much on it as it's all you seem to be doing these days. But as the above shows, you cannot say you don't give a crap, and then toss in the "as long as you do this, you have to allow marriage to a rock ("inanimate objects"), or another species ("inter-species"), incest ("siblings")or..or...etc.

On Obama, again, dude, your words, and you hang yourself. When it's pointed up, you simply dodge for cover, as I just pointed up in the other thread. Months and months of this crap. As to "hard on," it seems to me this is your particular fetish - the amount of time you waste posting bilious horseshit on the man is enough to fill a major tome.

 

This is turning into an interesting conversation.

Mia basically takes part of Ron Paul's position on marriage. It's already been defined as heterosexual.

The other fella, is arguing that marriage should be open to other associations and relationships.

They are both right, and they are both wrong.

The "other fella" is wrong because the state should never be in a position to favor married couples over unmarried singles. Every citizen should be treated equally. So by positively defining marriage, it creates endless rounds of inequality, as there is no way to positively define every single relationship, without defining them all, which makes the law redundant.

I believe Mia is wrong, because the state need not dictate who is or is not married. It's a private, consensual relationship, if necessary, can be built around or be dependent on a contract. Who cares what other people do in their bedrooms, or with their personal relationships? Who cares what they call their relationship?

The issue comes in, when the state turned marriage into a licensing process, instead of a religious/community ceremony and private personal contract.

If there is no advantage to be gained from marriage, then who was married would not be such an important dispute. Of course, we can all agree people should be treated equally, married or unmarried, so why marriage seems to confer tax, legal and social advantages as prescribed by law seems unfair to me.

And as typical with assigning positive rights by government mandate, creates a struggle for government resources, advantages and power. Instead of discriminating and creating inequality, why not remove the cause of the inequality?

 

Reactions to California Supreme Court gay marriage ruling

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Some reactions to Thursday's California Supreme Court ruling that overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage. The ruling would allow same-sex couples in the biggest U.S. state to wed.

---

"At the end of the day, this is about real people and their lives. This is about their families. It doesn't get much more personal than this. ... This is an extraordinary day. This is an extraordinary moment."

-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom

---

"President Bush has always believed marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision by the California Supreme Court illustrates that a federal constitutional amendment is the best way for the people to decide what marriage means."

-White House Press Secretary Dana Perino

---

"I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling."

-California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

---

"What an outrage. It will be up to the people of California to preserve traditional marriage by passing a constitutional amendment. ... Only then can they protect themselves from this latest example of judicial tyranny."

-James Dobson, chairman of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family

---

"Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law... We're going to get married. No Tupperware, please."

-Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case along with her partner, Diane Olson

---

"This is what the California Supreme Court has said: Children have a new role model - homosexual marriage, aspire to it. This is a disaster."

-Randy Thomasson of VoteYesMarriage.com, a campaign to amend the California Constitution to ban gay marriage

---

"Because the California Supreme Court is looked to by other states as a leader in family law, we hope and expect that this decision will be persuasive and influential in other states throughout this nation."

-Gloria Allred, lawyer for two Southern California plaintiffs in the case

---

"Today's decision of California's high court opens the door for policymakers to deconstruct traditional marriage and create another institution under the guise of equal protection."

-Ned Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference

---

"I welcome the California Supreme Court's historic decision. I have long fought against discrimination and believe that the state constitution provides for equal treatment for all of California's citizens and families, which today's decision recognizes."

-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco

---

"This ruling is a conservative one. The justices have ensured that the law treats all Californians fairly and equally. This decision is a good one for all families, gay and non-gay."

-James Vaughn, director of the California Log Cabin Republicans

---

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody - not just in the state of California, but throughout the country - will have equal treatment under the law."

- San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who helped argue the case before the Supreme Court

---

"We won. Today is the day we've been working for - a watershed for basic fairness and human dignity. Profound social change starts in California, and does not end here. It influences the rest of the nation."

-Maya Harris, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

---

"We all know that love knows no boundary. Today, in the great state of California, neither does fairness and opportunity."

-Lorri Jean, chief executive of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center

 

TK, what do you think about my last post?


~~~

In a way, the definition of marriage is really quite silly. Take for instance polygamy. There are women who prefer being in a polygamous relationship with a single man. But they cannot, because it is against the law.

It's a victimless crime, just like having consensual anal sex, is a victimless crime. In fact, I argue that without a victim, you have no crime.

We're never going to progress as a species as long as we keep enforcing behavioral and moral standards on others, even when those behaviors and morals we find undesirable or distasteful are done of free will and cause no harm.

An intelligent people, would be pushing their elected representatives to start removing victimless crimes from the law books (like in Texas, where sodomy is a crime), instead of adding more.

 

I agree - polygamy, for instance, between adults freely choosing to enter into the relationship - such a relationship should be no one's business. In such an agreed upon relationship between adults, coming to their choice by informed, free will - no one is a victim, and no one should bar such a private choice.

 

I couldn't care less if its legal or illegal. I suppose, making it legal opens more benefits to more people. Frankly, I bow to the interests of the three or four gay couples that I know or have known, only one of which is in California. Hope this makes their lives better.

Its unfortunate in my mind, how these social issue concerns have exploded across the US for decades and impacat the social fabric and rest of politics. Out of curiousity how do different European nations and/or Canada deal with this?

(......and in Iran.....according to Ahm a dinner jacket (or whatever is name is) they have no gays)

 

I suspected the EU had something which generally favored the legal status of gay unions. Just came across this:

http://www.marriagedebate.com/print.php?page=/2004/11/european-union-rift-over-gay-marriage.htm

More - interesting pattern, geographically, with respect to sentiments on the issue:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/18/europe/EU_GEN_EU_Public_Opinion.php

 

You should have an interest in protecting everyone's individual rights. That you don't, speaks volumes.

Actually, it stops government from depriving people of benefits.

However, making it legal is still not correct. A married gay man or woman, should have no more rights or privileges, including special treatment from government than an unmarried gay man or woman.

The argument here, is that if married couples continue to realize an advantage, then gay couples will have more advantages than single straight citizens. Is this consistent with why we (sic) "reward" marriage?