California Gay Marriage Ban Lifted

[One of Many]

A victory for human rights! Hurrah!

But what of the human rights of the majority that voted to live in a state without gay marriage?


Anyways, I really don't care about the so called "Gay Marriage" or any marriage really. The government should keep their nose out of marriage and simply have people sign Civil Partnership Licenses, to provide legal protection and tax brakes.

Whether or not to oppress a large group of people isn't something to be voted on in the first place.

Oppression you say? Was there a clause that would allow the police to arrest homosexuals for being homosexual? Or to force them to wearing identifying badges on the fronts of their shirts? You know, I think we have laws that punish people for attacking or harassing homosexuals (or other minorities).

No what I think we have here is a population which does not want to change the definition of a legal institution (first from church law to civil law) that has existed for thousands of years. This change could be good or bad but the population does not want it.

You know, I hear a lot of people complain about gay marriage "changing the definition" of marriage. Why exactly is that a problem? Because we'll have to teach our children new things? Considering 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, it's not that holy of a union to begin with. Oh, and the definition of marriage has already been changed. Other states and other countries allow same sex marriage, and the number is rising. Stop clinging to tradition and come to the 21st century. Get with the times. And yes, denying homosexuals the right to marry the person they love because of their sexuality is certainly oppression, just as it would be if someone was denied marriage over their race.

Indeed, let us throw out all the traditions of the past.

The United States of America seems to have a tradition of voting for leaders and representatives in the government, this should be stopped.

Many families seem to have a tradition of holding large gatherings, called family reunions, where the far flung branches get to meet and mingle, this should be stopped.

Couples that love each other seem to have this tradition of getting married, we've seen it since before recorded history began. It must be the most antediluvian or archaic tradition of them all, it should be stopped.



As you yourself said, the definition of marriage has changed in other states and countries but the population (that being the people of California) doesn't wish to change it in their home area and that is their right.

Like I said before, the government should keep it's nose out of marriage and issue Civil Partnership Licenses that would provide the same legal protection to a couple (any couple) and tax breaks that that current marriage license does.

 

[pinkfloyd1770]

Truthfully I'm getting tired of the entire thing, truthfully I think what we need are laws in place to prevent constant legal appeals and people trying the same thing again and again after every failure... in any case, not just this one.


Besides which, the issue here is and always has been money. As someone pointed out early on (I haven't read all the responses) the whole "gay marriage" issue isn't one related to human rights and freedom, but the pursuit of the all mighty dollar. All of the stuff the judge mentioned in regards to that ruling have absolutly nothing to do with the central issue at stake. As things have stood for a while, there is nothing preventing a couple of homosexuals from exchanging vows during a party, and swapping rings or whatever. The meaning of which is totally between them and the community (and whether other gays consider the people involved 'off limits' being committed to each other). The issue of a marriage liscence comes down to legal recognition of the married status, and that legal status is generally only relevent in filing paperwork for tax breaks and the like. The tax breaks afforded to a married couple exist based on the presumption that they will be starting a family and having children, something that will not happen with a gay couple (pregnancy is not possible). Yes it IS true that not all heterosexual couples have children, but that was the intent of the laws and what happens in most cases. With homosexuals those tax breaks ultimatly come down to them being given free money for being gay, and one of the reasons why so many states waffle on the issue is when the bill comes due (so to speak) and they realize how much revenue it's going to actually wind up costing them.


Generally speaking this would only be a constitutional issue if the goverment was preventing gays from getting married at all, not simply refusing to legally recognize it for tax purposes and such. A case could be made if say we had the police busting gay marriages and arresting the people involved for having the ceremony, or arresting gays with matching rings, or claiming exclusivity to each other based on vows. That's not what this is, it's 100% financial and bureaucratic. The judge speaks well to the crowd, and I think a lot of people are still ignorant about this specific issue and what it's about, getting caught up in the intertia of other beliefs they might have followed.

As I said to begin with, I expect this is going to be tossed back and forth for quite a bit yet.

In the end, understand that for all the fancy politics and powerfu imagery, this isn't a human rights issue. It's a money issue. Whether your in favor of gay rights, against them, or don't care, as things stand now this ultimatly comes down to the simple issue of your tax money and whether you believe gay couples should pay less taxes than you (and have more money in their pocket) just for being gay. Dress it up, dance around it, or look at it through a carnival mirror, that is what it comes down to.

This more or less sums up my thoughts on the topic. Far too much emphasis is being placed on this as a civil rights or constitutional issue, when, as you pointed out, it really boils down to getting a certain set of benefits from the government. Very perceptively written, I must say.

 

[MongoBaer]

@theguiltyone

No, I don't think the MAJORITY of the gay community feel that way. IMO it a small miltian segment of their community. Personally I don't care what happens behind closed bedroom doors(unless I'm involved. sorry for the bit of snark there).

I've always thought it was kind of pitiful how the gay community chooses to present itself. Why would you allow one part of your being define the rest of your existance. I have never understood why it's better to be a Gay man rather than a Man who's gay. I say this as American of Hispanic decent.

 

[Soushi]

It's about damn time. Canada welcomes you to the future.

Not if stephen Harper gets his way. Canada is becoming more like teh states during the bush era, than the states is now, probably has something to do with the fact that mr. Harper has hired a lot of Bush's old advisors to help him out. The Conservatives are poisoning this country, and it is still getting worse.

And on topic, I'm not impressed. Yay, the states has entered the 2oth century, big fucking woop they still have a long way to go to undo all the theocratic damage they have been doing to themeselves for decades now andcontinue to do to themselves. I am glad that civil rights seems to have been victorious this time, but to me, the fact that we even have to discuss wether or not it is a civil right is just sad.

 

[Flac00]

Lastly: Tolerance isn't one way. If you do something I find objectible (for what ever reason)I should be forced into acceptance. The same holds true for you (swap Me for You in the previous sentance).

If you don't want to accept it, that's on you. People can be prejudiced if they want to be. The issue is when that prejudice interferes with their lives and the way THEY want to live, when clearly it's no one's business but their own. Live and let live.

ideally you're right. Unfortunaly current politially correct attidudes don't allow for disention from "acceptable" norms. If I disagree with the current president I'm a racist. If I don't suuport Gay mariage I'm a Homophobe. If I don't agree with tax increses on the "rich" I'm a greed, uncaring bastard. See my point?

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. "If I disagree with the current president I'm a racist." No offense, but I doubt that you actually get called a racist for, say, disagreeing with Obama's tax policy. It sounds more like something you imagine people'll call you even though they never have so far. But I'm aware that I could be wrong, and that maybe there's some incident in the past where you openly disagreed with Obama in a political matter and because of that was called a racist. So if that has happened, I apologize in advance for jumping to conclusions, but nevertheless it feels like you're reacting to hypothetical future reactions to your opinions rather than actual past ones. And like I said, I'm aware that I could be wrong.

Look guys, people don't call everybody who insults obama a racist, i certainly don't. But some groups seem to have some racist undertones ala: The Birthers, The People call Obama a muslim, The people who call Obama the anti-crist, and anyone who is against the president NOT for policy reasons. The people who aren't racist but I think are crazy: People who call Obama a Socialist, Facist, Communist, Tree Hugger, Ultraliberal, An Asshole, and other things based on the fact that we finally have a liberal president and not Dick Cheney's cabinet of horror.

 

[One of Many]

A victory for human rights! Hurrah!

But what of the human rights of the majority that voted to live in a state without gay marriage?

But what of the human rights of the people whose rights are taken away? Does the majority have the right to take rights away from the minority? I think not. If it doesn't affect you then you have no right to have a saying on the matter.

How do you take away what one never had before? Not even in ancient Greece or Rome, where homosexuals were accepted and even promoted in some city states, were same sex couples allowed to marry.

Anyways does the minority have the right to take rights from the majority? Like the right to vote on an issue of law and have the winning vote become law? I think not.

 

[Matt_LRR]

Well, you cited the decision itself, with which I've already said I disagree. I assume you included it because you thought I didn't read it. I had.

This judgement is largely based on the assertion that decisions based on the Constitution and the Constitution itself are the same thing. Or to rephrase, that the words of judges are equal to, and sometimes more important than, the words of the framers of our founding documents. The 14th ammendment refers to "liberty", while the judgement eschews this language entirely and speaks of "fundamental rights". This is largely langage established in legal rulings. Legal proofs, like geometric proofs, are always more impressive if you can trace your logic directly to the underlying axiom, rather than leaning on a corollary of a corollary

If same sex marriage is to be the law of the land, as I think it should be, make it so. Pass a law or pass an ammendment. Don't have one person dictate the law of the land.

Fair enough then, we pretty much have to simply disagree on the ruling - as I'm not better qualified than this judge to interpret the constitution nor the precedent currently in place (nor, I'd say, are you). I took a guess at where I figred the judge had drawn his conclusion of unconstitutionality, confirmed it, and built my post specifically to answer the question,

"You both say it's a breach of the Constitution: which part?"

attempting to identify how and why this judge found the law to be unconstitutional. (and given the current status of the law as having been ruled as such, whether you think the law was unconstitutional or not, it is so until the ruling is overturned in appeal.) If you had read the ruling at the time then you would have known exactly what part of the constitution the law was found to breach. Whether you agreed with the ruling or not, the question as phrased above was at the very least intellectually dishonest.


With regards to your concern over daisy chaining precedent, I really don't consider it to be a significant leap from:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

to a ruling that argues that enacting a law banning same sex marriage is denying a priivilege (or, in the case of the ruling, a "fundamental right") to some, that is extended, by law, to others. the amendment is pretty clear: States cannot make laws that infringe citizen rights, deny them life, freedom, or property without due process, or unfairly advantage/disadvantage individual groups under the law. This law fails to meet no less than two of those clauses on it's face.

Ultimately this is almost certainly going to come to a supreme court ruling, so it's also not entirely fair to perpetuate the claim that this is a single judge "dictating the law of the land".

This is a step along the way to creating a law of the land - it's a far cry from a dictation.

-m

 

[Seydaman]

It's about damn time. Canada welcomes you to the future.

Sup Canada
Still 2000 years ahead of us I see
):

 

[MongoBaer]

Lastly: Tolerance isn't one way. If you do something I find objectible (for what ever reason)I should be forced into acceptance. The same holds true for you (swap Me for You in the previous sentance).

If you don't want to accept it, that's on you. People can be prejudiced if they want to be. The issue is when that prejudice interferes with their lives and the way THEY want to live, when clearly it's no one's business but their own. Live and let live.

ideally you're right. Unfortunaly current politially correct attidudes don't allow for disention from "acceptable" norms. If I disagree with the current president I'm a racist. If I don't suuport Gay mariage I'm a Homophobe. If I don't agree with tax increses on the "rich" I'm a greed, uncaring bastard. See my point?

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. "If I disagree with the current president I'm a racist." No offense, but I doubt that you actually get called a racist for, say, disagreeing with Obama's tax policy. It sounds more like something you imagine people'll call you even though they never have so far. But I'm aware that I could be wrong, and that maybe there's some incident in the past where you openly disagreed with Obama in a political matter and because of that was called a racist. So if that has happened, I apologize in advance for jumping to conclusions, but nevertheless it feels like you're reacting to hypothetical future reactions to your opinions rather than actual past ones. And like I said, I'm aware that I could be wrong.

Look guys, people don't call everybody who insults obama a racist, i certainly don't. But some groups seem to have some racist undertones ala: The Birthers, The People call Obama a muslim, The people who call Obama the anti-crist, and anyone who is against the president NOT for policy reasons. The people who aren't racist but I think are crazy: People who call Obama a Socialist, Facist, Communist, Tree Hugger, Ultraliberal, An Asshole, and other things based on the fact that we finally have a liberal president and not Dick Cheney's cabinet of horror.

You kind of shot the holy hell out of you're own arguement there. It's not ok namecall the current adminstration but perfectly acceptable to do for the last adminstration? Wrong on both counts.

 

[cobra_ky]

Why hasn't this thread been moved to R&P yet? So many pointless bannings could've been avoided ;_;

A victory for human rights! Hurrah!

But what of the human rights of the majority that voted to live in a state without gay marriage?

But what of the human rights of the people whose rights are taken away? Does the majority have the right to take rights away from the minority? I think not. If it doesn't affect you then you have no right to have a saying on the matter.

How do you take away what one never had before? Not even in ancient Greece or Rome, where homosexuals were accepted and even promoted in some city states, were same sex couples allowed to marry.

Anyways does the minority have the right to take rights from the majority? Like the right to vote on an issue of law and have the winning vote become law? I think not.

Homosexuals did have the right to marry under the constitution of the state of California. That is what the California Supreme Court ruled in <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Marriage_Cases>In re Marriage Cases. What Proposition 8 did was "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry." (quoted directly from the ballot). The people of California simply do not have the right to strip the rights of a minority population through a popular vote.

 

[runnernda]

I'm glad the Prop 8 was overturned. I don't know about unconstitutional, but it was wrong.

As for the debate raging...I will admit that I am a socially liberal female, so my view may be biased. But here goes:

Both sides are guilty of crying "judicial activism!" only when they disagree with the ruling. There's nothing harmful about allowing gays to marry. Sure, they can't procreate, but a lot of the couples who can really shouldn't be. Besides, we allow people who are infertile or past the age of fertility to marry, don't we? They have the same issue. There are plenty of children out there who need parents. A child needs a mother and a father? Sure, to be created, but there are millions of single parents out there. My mom lost her mother at the age of nine, and she's a perfectly normal, functional member of society.

Those of you who disagree with gay marriage for religious reasons, that's your right. But you can't use that as a reason for gay marriage not to be legalized. America was built on the separation of church and state. Also, I believe most of you call upon the Bible as your reason, right? Leviticus says homosexuality is an abomination. It also says shellfish is an abomination. It also says you can't cut your hair or wear clothes made of two different fabrics. If you're going to adhere to Leviticus, I suggest giving it a read.

Those of you who oppose gay marriage because it's "icky" or suchlike. Cool. Don't get one. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't mean they're going to outlaw straight marriage.

I read up on the trial. Apparently the plantiffs had 8 layperson witnesses and 9 expert witnesses, and the defendants had two expert witnesses who presented their opinions with no basis in science. The plantiffs presented cold hard fact, and the defendants couldn't back up their view. The majority may have voted for Prop 8, but in the courts, you have to back up your view. In the long run, it appears the supporters of Prop 8 couldn't. Because the plantiffs have facts on their side, the ruling is more likely to be upheld in the Supreme Court. Here's hoping

Outlawing gay marriage isn't going to make homosexuals go away. They're always going to be here, and they're people. They deserve the same rights straight people have.

 

[Flac00]

Lastly: Tolerance isn't one way. If you do something I find objectible (for what ever reason)I should be forced into acceptance. The same holds true for you (swap Me for You in the previous sentance).

If you don't want to accept it, that's on you. People can be prejudiced if they want to be. The issue is when that prejudice interferes with their lives and the way THEY want to live, when clearly it's no one's business but their own. Live and let live.

ideally you're right. Unfortunaly current politially correct attidudes don't allow for disention from "acceptable" norms. If I disagree with the current president I'm a racist. If I don't suuport Gay mariage I'm a Homophobe. If I don't agree with tax increses on the "rich" I'm a greed, uncaring bastard. See my point?

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. "If I disagree with the current president I'm a racist." No offense, but I doubt that you actually get called a racist for, say, disagreeing with Obama's tax policy. It sounds more like something you imagine people'll call you even though they never have so far. But I'm aware that I could be wrong, and that maybe there's some incident in the past where you openly disagreed with Obama in a political matter and because of that was called a racist. So if that has happened, I apologize in advance for jumping to conclusions, but nevertheless it feels like you're reacting to hypothetical future reactions to your opinions rather than actual past ones. And like I said, I'm aware that I could be wrong.

Look guys, people don't call everybody who insults obama a racist, i certainly don't. But some groups seem to have some racist undertones ala: The Birthers, The People call Obama a muslim, The people who call Obama the anti-crist, and anyone who is against the president NOT for policy reasons. The people who aren't racist but I think are crazy: People who call Obama a Socialist, Facist, Communist, Tree Hugger, Ultraliberal, An Asshole, and other things based on the fact that we finally have a liberal president and not Dick Cheney's cabinet of horror.

You kind of shot the holy hell out of you're own arguement there. It's not ok namecall the current adminstration but perfectly acceptable to do for the last adminstration? Wrong on both counts.

Arguing is a bithc that way. Plus, my point was that it is not right to insult a administration or person in the administration based upon anything but what they did, have done, or their policies as a whole. The people who i think have racist undertones are those who dislike Obama because of the color of his skin, making them jump to conclusions like he is a muslim or he wasn't born in america etc. I insulted Dick Cheney because of the fact that he completely took the vice president and changed it's whole meaning. The fact that he ran and facilitated ops without Bush's knowledge showed that Cheney was doing illegal stuff. I dislike Bush's policies but I know that they were legal so I don't insult him. I understand that people don't like Obama's administration. Calling him Hitler is unneeded but I really don't think it is not OK. Sorry if i didn't specify my point but that is a more clear version of it.

 

[Meander112]

Hooray! I just hope that the appeals of this decision (all the way to the Supreme Court) have the same judgment as this one.

 

[OceanRunner]

Great for California. How many states allow gay marriage now?

 

[Queen Michael]

Besides which, the issue here is and always has been money. As someone pointed out early on (I haven't read all the responses) the whole "gay marriage" issue isn't one related to human rights and freedom, but the pursuit of the all mighty dollar. All of the stuff the judge mentioned in regards to that ruling have absolutly nothing to do with the central issue at stake. As things have stood for a while, there is nothing preventing a couple of homosexuals from exchanging vows during a party, and swapping rings or whatever. The meaning of which is totally between them and the community (and whether other gays consider the people involved 'off limits' being committed to each other). The issue of a marriage liscence comes down to legal recognition of the married status, and that legal status is generally only relevant in filing paperwork for tax breaks and the like. The tax breaks afforded to a married couple exist based on the presumption that they will be starting a family and having children, something that will not happen with a gay couple (pregnancy is not possible). Yes it IS true that not all heterosexual couples have children, but that was the intent of the laws and what happens in most cases. With homosexuals those tax breaks ultimatly come down to them being given free money for being gay, and one of the reasons why so many states waffle on the issue is when the bill comes due (so to speak) and they realize how much revenue it's going to actually wind up costing them.

Even if I wasn't anti-gay men, I wouldn't support gay marriage (and over the years I've met a number of very pro-gay people who I've debated with whom agree with me on these points). 10-20 years ago when hospitals were refusing visiting rights to homosexual "life partners" and such and similar kinds of issues there was more defense for seeking gay marriage laws. However as time as gone on most of those issues have been addressed and policies have changed greatly.

Generally speaking this would only be a constitutional issue if the goverment was preventing gays from getting married at all, not simply refusing to legally recognize it for tax purposes and such. A case could be made if say we had the police busting gay marriages and arresting the people involved for having the ceremony, or arresting gays with matching rings, or claiming exclusivity to each other based on vows. That's not what this is, it's 100% financial and bureaucratic. The judge speaks well to the crowd, and I think a lot of people are still ignorant about this specific issue and what it's about, getting caught up in the intertia of other beliefs they might have followed.

My general opinion on homosexuals aside, I do sort of agree with an earlier poster that has mentioned that we should probably do something about the tax breaks for married couples in general, and remove the entire issue of "goverment recognition of marriage" from the table entirely, and only see such benefits provided when they have kids. That would end a lot of this, as well as removing the fair point that there are heterosexual couples that wind up exploiting the marriage benefits without ever having kids (though I do believe they are a minority of people).

As I said to begin with, I expect this is going to be tossed back and forth for quite a bit yet.

In the end, understand that for all the fancy politics and powerfu imagery, this isn't a human rights issue. It's a money issue. Whether your in favor of gay rights, against them, or don't care, as things stand now this ultimatly comes down to the simple issue of your tax money and whether you believe gay couples should pay less taxes than you (and have more money in their pocket) just for being gay. Dress it up, dance around it, or look at it through a carnival mirror, that is what it comes down to.

You're saying that it's about "whether you believe gay couples should pay less taxes than you (and have more money in their pocket) just for being gay", but like you admit yourself, this is by no means about homosexuality, it's about married couples having more money if they don't have any children. And that's true about all married couples, straight and gay. And believe me - one thing a lot of gay people want is for the extra money to disappear thanks to their having kids, artificially inseminated, adopted or any other. One thing that bugs me is that you claim homosexuals are allowed to get married, they just don't get their marriages legally recognized. But the thing is, in most people's minds a marriage that isn't legally recognized isn't a marriage at all. You don't seem to understand that in most people's minds, "not being able to have your marriage legally recognized" is synonymous to "not being able to marry".

So to sum up my thoughts, this isn't about gay people having more money, it's about wanting gay love legally recognized. Your "more money for gays" argument has one fatal flaw - you don't realize that all the tax breaks given to gay married couples are also given to straight ones. The only way a straight couple won't have more money is if they choose to lose it because of their kids - so in fact gay people will still be on the losing end, since they'll have the same tax breaks as straight couples and less freedom. (Unless they live in a place where it's possible for them to have kids, of course. Adoption, insemination, etc.)

 

[Treblaine]

Well if gay men and lesbians are insistent on fundamentally undermining their healthy relationships by buying into the insane concept of state-sanctioned-partnership (known as "marriage") then so be it.

Well, I suppose there is SOME significance of having a day of celebration where you all make explicit and public promises of remaining faithful for the rest of your life... it shows commitment. But why - straight or gay - would you want the state (or church) to come in and recognise it?

Get a joint bank account, that means more.

(also: just because the state of California recognises it, doesn't necessarily mean any of the churches in California recognise it, so still a long way to go. Plus I bet the Guvernator is going to be pretty embarrassed now his own law is ruled as un-constitutional)

 

[MongoBaer]

@Fac00

Cite your sources, sir. From my perspective your bias and arugements are sounding more and more like the left wing verison of the right wing conspirancies you're deriding.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

How do you take away what one never had before? Not even in ancient Greece or Rome, where homosexuals were accepted and even promoted in some city states, were same sex couples allowed to marry.

Anyways does the minority have the right to take rights from the majority? Like the right to vote on an issue of law and have the winning vote become law? I think not.

Whilst prop 8 was active gay marriage was banned. Before the proposition gay marriage was allowed. Therefor, proposition 8 took the right of marriage away from people.

Your second sentence makes no sense. How is the minority taking rights away from the majority? The majority has no right to force their beliefs upon the minority when it comes to issues that do not affect them. Not only that, but the majority forced their beliefs upon the minority. They took established rights away from people.

Let's look at the polls a bit:

Yes: 52.24%
No: 47.76%

Are you suggesting that 52% of the population have the right to impose their beliefs upon the remaining 47%?