California Gay Marriage Ban Lifted

[Sovvolf]

c'mon people I just wrote 2 paragraphs about straight people marrying each other and you have nothing to say?

dude, did you see my post on pg 7? I spent an hour on that *****, and no one even read it.

-m

I don't know if it means much to you but I read it... I just didn't comment because well... You seemed to have done your research and there was no need for my input. Was an interesting read though I have to say.

 

[MaVeN1337]

Hooray for freewill!

 

[FreeDoM.]

They can call it whatever they want, but marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and will always be.

Look in the dictionary
"marriage |ˈmarij|
noun
1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
? a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex."

Its right and ethical and fair for anyone of age to marry whomever they love. To hell with anyone who thinks otherwise.

Ethical and fair by your standards? How much is that really worth? You're just a human being, how can you make such a bold statement? I never said "gay marriage" was right or wrong, nor did I say they cannot got married under state law. I don't pretend to have the authority to judge people on what they do. The fact remains though, it will never be marriage. It's a universal truth.

 

[ReincarnatedFTP]

They can call it whatever they want, but marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and will always be.

Look in the dictionary
"marriage |ˈmarij|
noun
1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
? a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex."

Its right and ethical and fair for anyone of age to marry whomever they love. To hell with anyone who thinks otherwise.

Ethical and fair by your standards? How much is that really worth? You're just a human being, how can you make such a bold statement? I never said "gay marriage" was right or wrong, nor did I say they cannot got married under state law. I don't pretend to have the authority to judge people on what they do. The fact remains though, it will never be marriage. It's a universal truth.

Except that's not a fact or a universal truth. That's your opinion.
That's like saying I don't like the hip hop genre or the metal genre, so it's a fact that it they will never be music. Because you know, it's a universal truth that hip hop and metal aren't music.

 

[zehydra]

I'm American, and while I generally dislike the Federal government telling the states what to do, I support this, as it was a breach of the constitution. Now, what's more important, is that people need to realize that any definition or tax breaks for marriage, by any government under the U.S. flag, is unconstitutional.

Ahh its a dark day for democracy.
Even worse since this already happened and Prop 8 had to come along to fix it.

yeah, that whole defence of the constitution thing, real bad news for democracy.

-m

I thought the law was a bad idea, but I have one question to ask. You both say it's a breach of the Constitution: which part? I don't think the Constitution or any of its ammendments have anything to say about marriage whatsoever. In fact, to the contrary, the Tenth Ammendment pretty specifically states that any power not specifically granted to the federal government defaults to the states or to individuals.

Where does the Constitution specifically give the federal government the right to dictate to whom states can grant marriage contracts?

I'm not being facetious. I think the law was a bad law, but I think it was perfectly Constitutional, so unless a federal law is passed to supercede the state law or the constitution is ammended, it should've been allowed to stand. Please explain to me why I'm wrong. Otherwise, I have to view the argument that it was unconstitutional as a slightly less defensible position than, "They shouldn't be able to be married because Jesus says so." At least people who say that can cite their sources.

touche. By "any power" not specifically granted to the federal government, does this mean that any power imaginable not covered by the constitution is an allowable power for a state to have?

In a word? Yes.

That's kind of why the language is intentionally vague in many cases, and why our courts have such powerful roles. But I would think that if marriage was as fundamental a right as we would be lead to believe, the founders might have mentioned it at least once in the framing, or it would have been added as an ammendment.

Well, then. It looks like ban wasn't unconstitutional after all... Then I suppose what is needed here is a constitutional amendment, not a court case.

did you both somehow manage to completely miss this post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.223637-California-Gay-Marriage-Ban-Lifted?page=7#7535671], which took me an hour to write, and clearly describes what amendment was violated by the law and why?

If so, go read it.

-m

Wow, nice post. To be honest, I admire the amount of effort you put in. However, I am still somewhat confused about the "equal protection under law segment.". My question is, does the idea of "equal protection under law" mean equal protection FROM laws? Or does it mean, that the execution of the law is the same for all. For instance, does it mean that prop 8 is illegal because it treats people unequally, or does it mean that no one is exempt from prop 8?

 

[Matt_LRR]

They can call it whatever they want, but marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and will always be.

Look in the dictionary
"marriage |ˈmarij|
noun
1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
? a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex."

Its right and ethical and fair for anyone of age to marry whomever they love. To hell with anyone who thinks otherwise.

Ethical and fair by your standards? How much is that really worth? You're just a human being, how can you make such a bold statement? I never said "gay marriage" was right or wrong, nor did I say they cannot got married under state law. I don't pretend to have the authority to judge people on what they do. The fact remains though, it will never be marriage. It's a universal truth.

Apparently not, since the judge in this case explicitly said,

The marital bargain in California (along with other states) traditionally required that a woman's legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband's upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage
now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as a union of equals. FF 26-27, 32. As states moved to recognize the equality of the sexes, they eliminated laws and practices like coverture that had made gender a proxy for a spouse's role within a marriage. FF 26-27, 32. Marriage was thus transformed from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and women as equals. Id. Yet, individuals retained the right to marry; that right did not become different simply because the institution of marriage became compatible with gender equality. The evidence at trial shows that marriage in the United States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples. The evidence suggests many reasons for this tradition of exclusion, including gender roles mandated through coverture, FF 26-27, social disapproval of same-sex relationships, FF 74, and the reality that the vast majority of people are heterosexual and have had no reason to challenge the restriction, FF 43. The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an
institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. FF 21. Rather,the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed. The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. FF 19-20, 34-35. Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage. FF 33. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses' obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.

-m

 

[Vredesbyrd67]

Even though we (Americans) haven't actually lived a day in a truly democratic society, I like that at the very least we've come far enough to realize when we've made a horrible, horrible mistake. That mistake was confusing the opinion of the elitist money-fucking conservatives in Orange County with what is "morally right".

 

[Agayek]

Wow, nice post. To be honest, I admire the amount of effort you put in. However, I am still somewhat confused about the "equal protection under law segment.". My question is, does the idea of "equal protection under law" mean equal protection FROM laws? Or does it mean, that the execution of the law is the same for all. For instance, does it mean that prop 8 is illegal because it treats people unequally, or does it mean that no one is exempt from prop 8?

"Equal protection under law" basically means that the law does not play favorites. If person A enjoys rights X, Y, and Z, then person B must also enjoy those same rights, regardless of the differing circumstances (gender, race, age, monetary worth, etc).

The court decision is essentially stating that because prop 8 specifically bars people meeting certain criteria from the right to marriage, that it is unconstitutional.

 

[Lineoutt]

They can call it whatever they want, but marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and will always be.

Look in the dictionary
"marriage |ˈmarij|
noun
1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
? a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex."

Its right and ethical and fair for anyone of age to marry whomever they love. To hell with anyone who thinks otherwise.

Ethical and fair by your standards? How much is that really worth? You're just a human being, how can you make such a bold statement? I never said "gay marriage" was right or wrong, nor did I say they cannot got married under state law. I don't pretend to have the authority to judge people on what they do. The fact remains though, it will never be marriage. It's a universal truth.

The "fact" does not remain as I just disproved it by looking in the dictionary. That definition is the general definition of marriage if you do not wish to believe it then that's ok for you.

 

[Matt_LRR]

Wow, nice post. To be honest, I admire the amount of effort you put in. However, I am still somewhat confused about the "equal protection under law segment.". My question is, does the idea of "equal protection under law" mean equal protection FROM laws? Or does it mean, that the execution of the law is the same for all. For instance, does it mean that prop 8 is illegal because it treats people unequally, or does it mean that no one is exempt from prop 8?

It means you and your rights are granted equal protection from infringement under the law as someone else, and that you are subject to the same laws as someone else, unless it can be demonstrated that a legitimate governmental purpose is served by distinguishing you from that other person along some classification. In this case it was found that sexual orientation was not a legitimate reason to distinguish, and so gays could not be denied their right to marry.

-m

 

[MoeTheMonk]

Once again, one judge overrules the will of the people. What a great world this is.

I bet you were just as upset when those damn judges said slavery and segregation and anti-miscegenation laws were wrong.
Damn activist judges and their refusal to stomp on the rights of the minority because the majority feels like it.

Well, as long as you and that judge think your way is better, go ahead and ignore the majority of the state, they're stupid anyways. It's just such a relief to know that one judge's opinion is instantly worth more than most of the state.

Yeah. I probably also have crazy ideas like blacks not being property or racial segregation is a bad idea even if the majority would vote for it.
I'm soooooooo sorry.

The issue is not what's important, what matters is that a single judge can overrule the majority with one swing of the gavel.
If those stupid, misguided, close-minded, bigoted idiots want themselves a gay-marriage ban, then they should have it without worrying that ONE judge with contrary opinion is their equal in terms of the law.

Oh so you're a believer in direct democracy who would support executing people who happened to be born with green eyes if the people supported the measure.
We're just gonna have to disagree.
America is a democratic-republic, not a direct democracy.

I'm not a believer in direct democracy, and I am well aware America is a republic. But I find it very strange if you believe it is right to have the will of the people overridden by one person.
And if the majority believed people with green eyes shouldn't be executed, while the minority did? Well, get ready for some executions, because apparently minority now rules.

No.
This isn't the minority ruling it's the minority's rights being protected.
I find it very strange you believe in the tyranny of the majority.

Giving an inordinate amount of power to a single person is beyond dangerous, and quite frankly I'd rather have laws decided by a vote of the people than by the opinions of a single person. But hey, the judge is clearly more enlightened than the people he serves, so why care about their opinions?
The majority is not an ugly word, no matter how much you try to dress it up. People will change eventually, and it will be allowed. But this ruling is just spitting in their faces. I believe gay-marriage should be allowed, but to do it in this manner simply makes people more firm in their beliefs, and angry that they are being ignored.

Which they are.

And they deserve to be ignored as much as they would deserve to be ignored if they voted for a proposition that said "The State of California will kill all black people".
The judge ruled based on previous laws and how the Constitution comes into play with the issue. Not how a bunch of backward assmunch bigots who should have no say in someone else's civil rights in the first place feel about the "icky gays".

"I'm right, you're wrong, end of story." I've always loved that argument. "People of California, you're all backward idiots, we know better, we'll take care of it."

Complain about the majority trampling the minority while a federal judge tramples on the majority.

 

[Prometheous]

Ahh its a dark day for democracy.
Even worse since this already happened and Prop 8 had to come along to fix it.

yeah, that whole defence of the constitution thing, real bad news for democracy.

-m

nice...

 

[HyenaThePirate]

Either way, gay marriage really only exists in the minds of the couple and the LAW.
Businesses will have to provide benefits, but they certainly don't have to HIRE gay people in openly gay marriages. We'll just start seeing more and more people quietly discriminating against gays they way they have done every other person that doesn't fit their ideal of "proper".
And to people who don't agree with homosexuality, a gay marriage might as well be something from fantasy land because just because the law says you are married doesn't mean I have to acknowledge it as a marriage personally. To me, you'd just be a gay couple, someone to distance at every opportunity. I wouldn't be inviting them to "couples nights out with the mates" or over to my house for parties. I won't refer to their significant other as their "husband" or "wife". I won't even acknowledge them as being married, although I'm hard-pressed to come up with any scenarios where any of that would come up or even matter.

This leads me to my main point about gay marriage.. who the hell honestly cares? How is it really affecting others? If you find something reprehensible, you just avoid it. It's not as if the government can MAKE you like "gay people" or force you to be their friends or invite them into your social circles. You see, the one right EVERY American has and will always have for all of time will be the right to be a complete and total bigot, harboring our little personal prejudices and hatreds. And it doesn't make me right or wrong, it makes me an individual. If I choose not to like homosexuality, that really isn't any different than me choosing not to like polka music, is it? Or not like seafood? Or apples? Are we not entitled to our own preferences? Just as gays prefer having sexual relationships with the same sex, can I not "prefer" not to associate with people who engage in things I do not believe in? I don't believe in drugs either, so I don't associate with drug dealers... does that make me a bigot "druggist?"

These are all hypothetics, to be honest, but if we are going to have an enlightened discussion on such topics, it behooves us to consider all perspectives.

 

[Matt_LRR]

Complain about the majority trampling the minority while a federal judge tramples on the majority.

State judge.

-m

 

[zehydra]

Wow, nice post. To be honest, I admire the amount of effort you put in. However, I am still somewhat confused about the "equal protection under law segment.". My question is, does the idea of "equal protection under law" mean equal protection FROM laws? Or does it mean, that the execution of the law is the same for all. For instance, does it mean that prop 8 is illegal because it treats people unequally, or does it mean that no one is exempt from prop 8?

It means you and your rights are granted equal protection from infringement under the law as someone else, and that you are subject to the same laws as someone else, unless it can be demonstrated that a legitimate governmental purpose is served by distinguishing you from that other person along some classification. In this case it was found that sexual orientation was not a legitimate reason to distinguish, and so gays could not be denied their right to marry.

-m

k thanks.

 

[ReincarnatedFTP]

Once again, one judge overrules the will of the people. What a great world this is.

I bet you were just as upset when those damn judges said slavery and segregation and anti-miscegenation laws were wrong.
Damn activist judges and their refusal to stomp on the rights of the minority because the majority feels like it.

Well, as long as you and that judge think your way is better, go ahead and ignore the majority of the state, they're stupid anyways. It's just such a relief to know that one judge's opinion is instantly worth more than most of the state.

Yeah. I probably also have crazy ideas like blacks not being property or racial segregation is a bad idea even if the majority would vote for it.
I'm soooooooo sorry.

The issue is not what's important, what matters is that a single judge can overrule the majority with one swing of the gavel.
If those stupid, misguided, close-minded, bigoted idiots want themselves a gay-marriage ban, then they should have it without worrying that ONE judge with contrary opinion is their equal in terms of the law.

Oh so you're a believer in direct democracy who would support executing people who happened to be born with green eyes if the people supported the measure.
We're just gonna have to disagree.
America is a democratic-republic, not a direct democracy.

I'm not a believer in direct democracy, and I am well aware America is a republic. But I find it very strange if you believe it is right to have the will of the people overridden by one person.
And if the majority believed people with green eyes shouldn't be executed, while the minority did? Well, get ready for some executions, because apparently minority now rules.

No.
This isn't the minority ruling it's the minority's rights being protected.
I find it very strange you believe in the tyranny of the majority.

Giving an inordinate amount of power to a single person is beyond dangerous, and quite frankly I'd rather have laws decided by a vote of the people than by the opinions of a single person. But hey, the judge is clearly more enlightened than the people he serves, so why care about their opinions?
The majority is not an ugly word, no matter how much you try to dress it up. People will change eventually, and it will be allowed. But this ruling is just spitting in their faces. I believe gay-marriage should be allowed, but to do it in this manner simply makes people more firm in their beliefs, and angry that they are being ignored.

Which they are.

And they deserve to be ignored as much as they would deserve to be ignored if they voted for a proposition that said "The State of California will kill all black people".
The judge ruled based on previous laws and how the Constitution comes into play with the issue. Not how a bunch of backward assmunch bigots who should have no say in someone else's civil rights in the first place feel about the "icky gays".

"I'm right, you're wrong, end of story." I've always loved that argument. "People of California, you're all backward idiots, we know better, we'll take care of it."

Complain about the majority trampling the minority while a federal judge tramples on the majority.

Well when something is wrong by law and precedent then it is wrong and it is the end of the story.
Courts do get to overshoot the majority vote in cases of civil rights as it should be. There's a reason the term "tyranny of the majority" exists.
The majority tried to trample the minority, the judge intervened.
The judge trampled on noone.
Tell me if a crowd gets together to lynch someone for being different and riot police step in and beat the shit out of/disperse the crowd would you whine as much about 'those damn police stopping the lynch mob'.
If not, you're a hypocrite.

 

[skitzo van]

It took them THIS long to realize it was unconstitutional?
Well you gotta start with baby steps.

 

[CLime]

Seriously guys.

Dude was playing you like a piano.

there are potentially debates to be had over this news. Nothing buxton had to say about anything was among them.

-m

I dunno, Poe's Law seems applicable here. I'm not sure the mainstream arguments against gay marriage are any more persuasive than this nutjob's. Hell, at least he has, ahem, "evidence" to support his positions. Have a conversation with an average Prop 8 supporter and you might hear something like this:

Rational Person: "So what's wrong with gays getting married?"
Prop 8 Supporter: "It will destroy America!"
RP: "How will it do that?"
PS: "By violating the sanctity of marriage!"
RP: "Wha-"
PS: "SANCTITY!"

Complain about the majority trampling the minority while a federal judge tramples on the majority.

But like the saying goes, two tramplings make a right.

And then there was that one guy, something about "Do unto others..." But he loved everyone, so he must have been one of the gays.

 

[KEM10]

It means you and your rights are granted equal protection from infringement under the law as someone else, and that you are subject to the same laws as someone else, unless it can be demonstrated that a legitimate governmental purpose is served by distinguishing you from that other person along some classification. In this case it was found that sexual orientation was not a legitimate reason to distinguish, and so gays could not be denied their right to marry.

-m

I am impressed by how much thought you have put into these posts and the amount of citing you are doing. How long have you been following this?

 

[coolman9899]

yay i think?