California ruling on Gay Marriage...

[vittoria]

What do you think?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage


Is it truly time to "party" ?

[TaylorMade]

No. Not yet.

You can take the liquor out of the cabinet, but don't pop the cork .

*Taylor*

[The Barefoot Contess]

Step by step, step by step... :)

I think it is great news, and the best incentive to keep fighting. The war is far from won, but this is big step forward. Let's not be discouraged if the November ballots overturn this decision.

[Papelucho]

This is awesome. So many people must be celebrating in California right now. Step by step is right, and this was a big one.

[jem_is_bi]

It is great to get respect for our rights especially from the courts.
But, the thought of me get married to anybody? :eek::eek::eek::eek:
I want to stay happy! :bigrin:

[12voltman59]

I think that this is great--but don't pop the corks just yet--an anti-gay marriage group already announced a campaign to amend the California state constitution such that it would permanently prohibit same-sex marriage---they know they have to do that because most truly objective readings of the California constitution show that it had to be allowed--I had heard some constituitional schloars talking about this case when it began four years ago on an NPR report-from both the left and right who did agree that the California constitution is one of the most expansive ones in the nation--that it goes well beyond the US Constitution in granting of rights.

I just hope that the attempts to get this as a ballot initiative either fails before it gets to the starting gate and doesn't make it to a vote and if the vote comes--that the people of the Golden State soundly reject the inititative by a wide margin such that it is obvious Californians see through such crap and stand firmly on the side of granting rights and not denying them.

What we also need is for Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama to become president next year and for there to be a major sweep of the House and Senate of Republicans being replaced by Dems so they can go back and make some changes in the federal "Defense of Marriage Act'' --with them at the very least---gutting the part that of the DOMA that does not requie each state to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages performed in states that might come to allow them.

The new president also needs to start making appointments to the federal benchs as well as appoint some new Supreme Court justices since many of them are said to be ready to retire so that hopefully--things will tilt strongly towards the more liberal side of the scale again and away from the rightward swing of the past few decades.

If these things all come to pass--then gay marriage is a fait accompli in the US--for even if states like here in Ohio, South Carolina, etc. don't allow same sex marriages to be performed or recognized--people who are gay/lesbians will flock to California where they will get married--and the other states under the "full faith and credit clause" would have to recognize and accept gay marriages providing a just a few favorable rulings in the various federal district courts that hold that the clause does apply to same-sex marriages and mandates that all states recognize such marriages performed in states allowing them.

The only problem with a California marriage--it's a community property state which makes divorces even more of a bitch than they already are!!

[jem_is_bi]

What we also need is for #### ##### ## Barak Obama to become president next year and for there to be a #### #### GREATER THAN AVERAGE REPLACEMENTof the House and Senate of Republicans being replaced by Dems so they can go back and make some changes in the federal "Defense of Marriage Act'' --with them at the very least---gutting the part that of the DOMA that does not require each state to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages performed in states that might come to allow them.

The new president also needs to start making appointments to the federal benches as well as appoint some new Supreme Court justices since many of them are said to be ready to retire so that hopefully--things will tilt ##### SOMEWHAT MOREtowards the more liberal side of the scale again and away from the rightward swing of the past few decades.

YES!! I AGREE WITH THAT !!

[shameless agitator]

I almost hope they do succeed in passing the amendment. It would be the perfect case to take to the [b[federal[/i] supreme court. I know people view the current composition as pretty conservative, which they are, but they're mostly constructionists & would strike down such an amendment. With the Brown precedent, we could get a ruling that supports marriage equality nationwide!

[FerociousFeline]

I guess I'm alone in wondering ....what the big deal is?

I mean. I refer to the need to call hitched couples who are of the same sex "married" instead of ...I dunno, "partnered", "handfasted"...or whatever?

It seems to me that the hets are making this huge deal over whether or not this happens because of the TERMINOLOGY, rather than the intent. Am I wrong?

I can't help but wonder if all the gay people who want to get "married" figured out a NEW term that is unique and their very own, if the resistance to this condition having the exact same legal rights would be NEARLY what it is with gays attempting to adopt the term "marriage".

When I think about how much money has been wasted over this (if indeed this is only about the hets claim to the word "marriage") It makes me kinda ill.

But, as a 43 year old single person with no prospects of ANY kind, I guess maybe I just don't get it.

FF

[shameless agitator]

I hear that argument a lot & it's usually where people say we should just fight for civil unions. The problem is, if we accept something other than marriage, it won't have the same rights/protections/responsibilities. As the Supremes held in Brown V Board of Education separate can not be equal. If it was left up to me though, we would have civil unions for everybody. I think we should create a civil union that is exactly identical to legal marriage & have that be the standard regardless of the gender composition of the couple. If you want to be married, that should be exclusively a religious thing. I view legal marriage as a severe violation of the separation of church & state.

[FerociousFeline]

I hear that argument a lot & it's usually where people say we should just fight for civil unions. The problem is, if we accept something other than marriage, it won't have the same rights/protections/responsibilities. As the Supremes held in Brown V Board of Education separate can not be equal. If it was left up to me though, we would have civil unions for everybody. I think we should create a civil union that is exactly identical to legal marriage & have that be the standard regardless of the gender composition of the couple. If you want to be married, that should be exclusively a religious thing. I view legal marriage as a severe violation of the separation of church & state.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!

I wholeheartedly agree.

I would like to see the term "marriage" left in the dust universally (in terms of the modern STANDARD for describing partnerships) By eclipsing that term, the argument becomes MOOT. (which, um...is kinda like WOOT!)

Then those who seek to use that term can still use it, but LEGALLY, the standard is set for ALL, with another term.

FF

[FalconAngel]

I am on a number of Fathers Rights and Parents Rights groups and one of the people in one group posted a (subtle) hate-filled right wing Christian bash on the ruling.
Here's what I wrote in response to that anti-equality rant (it got censored by the moderator, btw):

"The supposed "imposition" of same-sex marriage is pure right wing christian BS. No one is forcing anyone to get married to a same sex partner. All they are doing is enforcing the EQUAL right of gays to marry; Just like everyone else.

And I say why not.
Many of them have served in the military (albeit surreptitiously), just like the straights. Shouldn't they be given the same rights as those who they have defended?

I have many friends and they are of varied genders, races, religions and sexual preferences. None of them object to either mixed gender marriage or same gender marriage, so why is it that we should deny Gay couples the same rights that straight couples enjoy? What gives us the right to suspend equal rights to any social group in this country? NOTHING.

Right wing christian nuts say that to allow same sex marriage is an attack on marriage, but when you think about it, what is a marriage anyway?

If one goes with the right wing religious nuts, it is a contract between to people to procreate and thereby add to the congregation.

As I see it, a marriage is two people who love each other enough to stick together through life's ups and downs. Raising a family can happen even amongst Gay couples. They can raise children just as easily as straight couples. There is no empirical data to say that they are incapable of doing so.

And let's face it; gay couples are no more likely to split up than straight couples. That is a proven fact that is backed up by statistical fact from some of our most prominent Universities.

So maybe they can't procreate like straight couples, but there is adoption. And the gods know that there are plenty of kids out there waiting to be adopted by two loving parents. But then, maybe those kids deserve to be without a set of loving parents, right? (Notice that I said "two loving parents" instead of "a man and a woman") I believe that those kids all deserve a set of loving parents to teach them that you should share and play nice, that all people should be given a fair chance and all of the things that our parents taught, or tried to teach, all of us.

It takes a set of loving parents to raise a child; a pair of loving parents. Note that the word "parent" is gender neutral.
"Parents" is a word to identify more than one parent; Also gender neutral.

Basically, to deny gay couples the right to have a life together as partners in marriage, is to deny those same people equal rights based on something over which they have no control.....their sexuality. If we follow that same logic, then we can just as easily deny other groups because of their race, religion, gender, etc.

How would we all feel if it was decided, for us, that people shouldn't be entitled to the same things as other citizens because they were Black, or a woman, or a man, or some other factor that we have no control of? These groups have all had to fight for their rights and we think nothing of it.

Here's the kind of nation we would have under those rules.

1) Hope none of you are handicapped. No more handicap accessible parking, wheelchair ramps, workplaces that no longer have to accomodate your handicap. There's alway begging on the streets.

2) Hope none of you are immigrants. No more taking your driver's licence in your native language. English only and no classes for you to learn the language, thus making it easier to aclimate to your new country, either.

3) Anyone here who's Black? Too bad. You get to sit at the back of the bus and you DO NOT get to use the White Only bathrooms, clubs, drinking fountains, etc. You want to serve your country? Sorry, but only white people can be trusted to fly fighter planes, bombers, command troops, etc., and don't get caught on the wrong side of town after dark. You will get linched for it. Good luck trying to vote, too.

4) You have a religion or political affiliation that is not "approved" by the right wing Christians? Too bad. Every business can blackball you just because they can. Good luck finding work or feeding your family with that over your head.

5) Are you a woman? Sorry but you can't become a doctor, lawyer, politician, pilot, ship's captain, serve in the military (except as a nurse or civilian cleck/typist), truck driver, dock worker, welder or any other "Man's" career. Oh yes, you don't get to vote, either.

All of those things existed in this country until enough people, who believed in equal rights for all, stopped and took a stand for our Constitution. All of our rights must be protected equally.

"Injustce anywhere is injustice everywhere." -- Dr. Martin Luther King.

In July of 1978, I took an oath, swearing my life to defend those rights. And even though I no longer wear the uniform, I will still defend those rights. With my life, if need be.

I had hoped that we, as a nation, had outgrown the backwards, medieval notion that a person was inferior or not deserving simply because of how they were born.

Unfortunately, there are still some who would return us to the dark ages with that archaic, idiotic notion that people are inferior because of their religion, color, gender or sexuality.

I applaud the California Supreme court for upholding the constitutional rights, of ALL of it's citizens, to have the same, equal, rights that the constitution promises and that my brothers and sisters serve to protect.

For those that do not believe that this is a good thing, let me give you a quote from another, very important document; The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America.

Paragraph 2:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness........"

Perhaps we should all remember those words when any of us tries to oppose the rights of others being supported and enforced. Of course, one can always go along with the curtailment of certain rights.......but when they take yours away, since you allowed rights to vanish for one group, you have no moral high ground with which to plead for the return of those rights for yourself.

I am no fan of the christian right, nor am I in favor of religious laws (aka "faith based" initiatives) being forced upon the the rest of the country.
But, as a veteran, I can and will support the rights of those same right wing christians to believe as they wish no matter what my feelings about their backward thinking ways.
I do, however, draw the line when those same groups want to take away the rights of any other group, or groups, based on their own religious beliefs over the rights of all other groups.

I support the equal rights of ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS over all special interest groups.
I do this because I believe in what I was taught; that our nation is supposed to stand for freedom and EQUALITY.
I do it because I am a veteran soldier.
I do it because I am a patriot that comes from a 245 year long line of patriots.

So when someone wants to take away the rights of a group because they don't like their religion, the color of their skin, their gender or their sexuality, then they had better be ready figure out how they can take the moral high ground from me. They had better be ready for a serious fight.
I am for equal rights for everyone without exception.

That is what our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution tell us that this country stands for. Anyone who doesn't like that is free to leave for any other country of their choice.

I won't stop you from leaving, but I will stop you from trying to discriminate against other citizens, no matter what you use as a prejudice.

Isn't equal rights what this group is about?
It is in the group's mane "Parents WITHOUT RIGHTS".
Every time we oppose the rights of other groups, we take a step away from getting our own rights restored.

When we want to deny equal rights to any group within our society, no matter what the reason, we lose the moral high ground that we claim for ourselves.

No one wants to hear from hypocrites. Hypocrites are contemptible idiots.
How many of us have thought something like that about the hypocrites that we have met?

If you oppose any group that seeks to be given the same rights as everyone else, then you should remember this phrase: We have met the enemy and he is us.

We may all want to consider that.

Chris"

[TaylorMade]

Not everyone opposing same sex marriage is Christian. And not every Christian opposes same sex marriage.

Please remember this, Falcon. Because your constant linking of Christians and anti-gay and prejudicial rhetoric is starting to grate a little and is starting to feel like you're becoming one of them in your intolerance and stereotyping.

*Taylor*

[shameless agitator]

Excellent post Falcon. Kinda curious as to what the mods problem with it was.


Taylor, you'll notice that in every instance he referred to right wing christians, not to christians in general. We all understand not every christian is a right wing bigot, but there's no denying that the Jerry Falwell/Fred Phelps school of christianity is what's driving this bullshit.

[darkeyes]

Noted that mesel Shameless babes... fraid these clowns give the religion a bad name... aint religious in the least but since Taylor likes usin analogies...me use 1 for er... gettin uptite bout falcons comments on rite wing christians a bit like me gettin uptite an takin offence at peeps slaggin of Stalin or Pol Pot on grounds they clamed 2 b socialists...

Howeva..is triff news bout California..jus hope that sumhow it don get screwed... neva counta ya chicks until they r grown up an mature.. even hatchlings get snuffed out easy... yea me knows...we eat em wen mature an all.. so it aint finished till its ova...

[12voltman59]

Never mind--

[vittoria]

Picking nits is no picnic, eh?

:bigrin:

[allbimyself]

I almost hope they do succeed in passing the amendment. It would be the perfect case to take to the [b[federal[/i] supreme court. I know people view the current composition as pretty conservative, which they are, but they're mostly constructionists & would strike down such an amendment. With the Brown precedent, we could get a ruling that supports marriage equality nationwide!

I think you have a bit to learn about constitutional law. The Supreme Court can NOT overturn an amendment to the constitution as unconstitutional. An amendment becomes PART of the constitution. That is why the haters want an amendment, they know any laws passed could be struck down as unconstitutional. The only way around that is to amend the constitution.

[TaylorMade]

Excellent post Falcon. Kinda curious as to what the mods problem with it was.


Taylor, you'll notice that in every instance he referred to right wing christians, not to christians in general. We all understand not every christian is a right wing bigot, but there's no denying that the Jerry Falwell/Fred Phelps school of christianity is what's driving this bullshit.


I'm not curious at all.

But repeating it over and over does lead to eventual lack of discrimination toward the whole, leading to feed the cycle and turning those in the middle against our cause. Standing in admonition over them does nothing for them or us and makes us look even MORE like them.

*Taylor*

[The Barefoot Contess]

I hear that argument a lot & it's usually where people say we should just fight for civil unions. The problem is, if we accept something other than marriage, it won't have the same rights/protections/responsibilities. As the Supremes held in Brown V Board of Education separate can not be equal. If it was left up to me though, we would have civil unions for everybody. I think we should create a civil union that is exactly identical to legal marriage & have that be the standard regardless of the gender composition of the couple. If you want to be married, that should be exclusively a religious thing. I view legal marriage as a severe violation of the separation of church & state.


Agreed.

[Papelucho]

This is a concurrent opinion from an appellate court judge in California. She talks about whether "marriage" is the correct term...

(Conc. opn. of Parrilli,
J.) The concurring justice observed that in her view, the domestic partnership
1 8
legislation “seems to recognize that at this stage, we do not know whether the state
must name and privilege same-sex unions in exactly the same way traditional
marriages are supported. The nuance at this moment in history is that the
institution (marriage) and emerging institution (same-sex partnerships) are distinct
and, we hope, equal. We hope they are equal because of the great consequences
attached to each. Childrearing and passing on culture and traditions are potential
consequences of each. To the degree that any committed relationship provides
love and security, encourages fidelity, and creates a supportive environment for
children it is entitled to respect. Whether it must be called the same, or supported
by the state as equal to the traditional model, only time and patient attention to the
models at issue will tell.” Agreeing with the majority opinion, the concurring
justice concluded that “[i]t is the legitimate business of the Legislature to attempt
to close the distance between the parallel institutions (marriage and same-sex
committed domestic partnerships) as they develop, and to address such concerns.”

[12voltman59]

The anti-same sex marrage crowd has already begun their efforts to place a voter initiative to change the California Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage--

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90517600

[shameless agitator]

I think you have a bit to learn about constitutional law. The Supreme Court can NOT overturn an amendment to the constitution as unconstitutional. An amendment becomes PART of the constitution. That is why the haters want an amendment, they know any laws passed could be struck down as unconstitutional. The only way around that is to amend the constitution.You would be right if they were amending the federal constitution. However, state constitutions can in fact be in conflict with the federal constitution, in which case the federal supreme court can strike down the provisions. An example of this would be the southern states that had segregation laws written into their constitutions.

[allbimyself]

You would be right if they were amending the federal constitution. However, state constitutions can in fact be in conflict with the federal constitution, in which case the federal supreme court can strike down the provisions. An example of this would be the southern states that had segregation laws written into their constitutions.
OK, thought you were speaking of a federal amendment.

[the sacred night]

I am kind of happy, because in theory, this makes same-sex relationships equal to opposite-sex relationships in this one particular way, but there are still others whose sexual choices are being left in the dust, such as polyamorous people, sex workers, and those who choose not to get married, just to name a few. I don't think the government really ought to be granting benefits to any type of relationship. I mean, a tax credit for being married? Why? Is it the government's business to encourage me to get married as though that is somehow better than being single? Someone else mentioned the separation of church and state, and that's a good point, too. Honestly, for me, it comes down to the government not needing to be involved in my relationships. I like the idea of staying with one person or one group of people for the rest of my life, but I don't want some legal document to be the reason we stay together, and if for whatever reason we do want to split up, I don't want a legal document to stand in our way. I also don't want paired monogamy to be priveleged over other forms of sexuality. I think legal marriage should be abolished completely. If you want to have a ceremony, secular or religious, to symbolize your commitment to one another, great, but why involve the government? Plus, that way it wouldn't matter if you were a heterosexual couple, a homosexual couple, a group of three or four, or what, because anybody can rent a hall, buy fancy clothes and a cake, and have a ceremony; hell, people do that now. If you chose to have a religious ceremony, the church would have the option to refuse to perform it if they didn't approve of the relationship, but you could always go elsewhere to have your ceremony in that case. Any combination of people could still have any type of ceremony, but it would have no legal meaning. Simple.

[shameless agitator]

I agree with you completely Sacred, but I did want to point something out about this part

I am kind of happy, because in theory, this makes same-sex relationships equal to opposite-sex relationships in this one particular way, This still doesn't represent marriage equality for two reasons. First of all, there's no portability. A het couple can travel anywhere they want & know their marriage will be recognized. Not so for a same sex couple who gets married in Cali, Mass, or a foreign country like Canada. As soon as they cross the border into a state that doesn't have same sex marriage, theirs is null and void. The other drawback to the ad hoc state marriages is that they don't get federal recognition with all the rights & responsibilities that those entail.

[bisexualinsocal]

Both sides are going to lose on this. The gay marriage proponents refuse to accept anything but legal access to an institution that is historically and legally man and woman.

The gay marriage opponents refuse to respect the rights of all Americans... specifically the constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

But this equal protection does not extend to equal definition. Men are legally men and women are legally women. A woman can not legally refer to herself as a man and vice versa. Marriage is a hetero institution in this same way.

Give the gays equal protection as they are entitled to not only under the greatest living document ever written but give them protection because it's the right, human and decent thing to do.

[bityme]

I guess I'm alone in wondering ....what the big deal is?

I mean. I refer to the need to call hitched couples who are of the same sex "married" instead of ...I dunno, "partnered", "handfasted"...or whatever?

It seems to me that the hets are making this huge deal over whether or not this happens because of the TERMINOLOGY, rather than the intent. Am I wrong?

I can't help but wonder if all the gay people who want to get "married" figured out a NEW term that is unique and their very own, if the resistance to this condition having the exact same legal rights would be NEARLY what it is with gays attempting to adopt the term "marriage".

When I think about how much money has been wasted over this (if indeed this is only about the hets claim to the word "marriage") It makes me kinda ill.

But, as a 43 year old single person with no prospects of ANY kind, I guess maybe I just don't get it.

FF

The California Supreme Court decision addresses this very issue. It says that the California legislature had the opportunity to scrap the term "marriage" and make a single set of laws applicable to everybody. Instead of this the state enacted a separate set of statutes for same-sex relationships and called them "domestic partners." In doing so they creates a constitutionally suspect class and legislation placing this group in a position that required constitutional protection.

There was a time when the state had nothing to do with the regulation of marriage. You just went to the priest or minister and got hitched. When the states wanted to begin keeping statistics, they began making laws about it. And when they found they could make some money by requiring a license and regulating it, so much the better. The legislatures put together laws based on their own knowledge and upbringing, so naturally, they adopted a religious term "marriage" and the definition that came with it. I have often wondered why the term, along with its definition, hasn't been banned as violating the establishment clause which prohibits government sponsored religion. Unfortunately, the Court still hasn't gone that far yet.

Uniquely, the court did state that everyone had the constitutional right to establish a family. It includes both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships within that term.

[TaylorMade]

Because marriage can exist apart from religion. All religions have it, but so do those that have no religion at all.

And that is why a "religious" term is not banned.

*Taylor*

[12voltman59]

I found this great column on the subject of same-sex marriage while surfing about the 'net--

http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blogitics/19969/gay-marriage-where-the-right-is-wrong/

I could not have said it better myself.

[FalconAngel]

Great article, Volty.
It does put the issue in a legal perspective for all to understand.


And to Taylormade;
I'm sorry I did not respond to your post sooner. I never meant to imply that all Christians are opposed to gay marriage. I was specifically talking about those particular Christians that we call "Fundamentalists" or "Dominion Christians". Those are the ones that have been and still are opposing marital equality for those who are not straight.

I had thought that I made that clear, but it does appear that I did not.

If I had offended any Christians that are not opposed to gay marriage, then I offer my humble and sincere apologies.

[jeancarleo]

I don't care anymore on getting married. Studies have shown that single people living with their sweetheart are far off better than those who are married in the long run. If anyone cares to find out about the study made check it out on msn.com

I just wanna live with a man and a woman maybe, depending if he's ok with that lol cuz you know if the guy is not bi he might not like me being with a girl. Anyway, I do think it's nice for people to get married but it's not something I want to go through again.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

Oh Hell..Love knows no genders, recognizes no Social need. If a same sex couple loves each other and wants to be with each other for life(Like Wolves, Dolphins and Eagles) then what the big damn deal?? They should be Free enough to be able to do so without having to adhere to the dictates of small minded individuals who cant see any other idiology other than their own!
If they love each other, then so be it!
If I've ruffled feather, oh well..:rolleyes:
Cat.

[FalconAngel]

I don't care anymore on getting married. Studies have shown that single people living with their sweetheart are far off better than those who are married in the long run. If anyone cares to find out about the study made check it out on msn.com

I just wanna live with a man and a woman maybe, depending if he's ok with that lol cuz you know if the guy is not bi he might not like me being with a girl. Anyway, I do think it's nice for people to get married but it's not something I want to go through again.

Do you have the link to that article? We would love to read it.

[jeancarleo]

Falcon Angel: fo sho, let me look for it...

[jeancarleo]

Do you have the link to that article? We would love to read it.

As I promised, here's the link:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/SuddenlySingle/WhenItPaysToStaySingle.aspx

You tell me your advantages as married man. :cool: