California ROCKS! Same Sex Marriage Legal!

[Veilan]

Too much ideology, too little pragmatism.

Also, pie.

[Mikayla]

cipher:

What I'm trying to understand is, what does marriage afford gays legally that a civil union/domestic partnership doesn't? Is there more to it than a different label?

The chief justice discusses the importance of the label much more eloquently than I can - I suggest you read the opinion.

cipher

The latter seems decidedly easier to establish, and in many cases, the laws are already in the books. But unlike marriage, there doesn't appear to be any outcry over it because "equal treatment" in and of itself doesn't encroach upon religious beliefs.

There IS an outcry over civil unions - the same people fighting same-sex marriage are and have been fighting against same-sex civil unions - they just don't get quite as much traction.

On the broader issue of discriminating by sexual orientation, are you saying that sexual orientation should never matter in any decision?

Nope, not saying that at all. But, for a law in California to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, it now has to survive strict scrutiny which requires a compelling state interest.


cipher

On a more general side note, that a decision by the courts overruled the will of the voters in California seems decidedly undemocratic to me, regardless of how strongly people feel about the particular issue at stake. To take the decision out of the hands of the electorate after the fact on the basis of who argued the best in court is like permitting referees to decide the outcome of a ball game rather than the players, which frankly IS unAmerican.

That decision was 7 years ago, and sold under false-pretenses. It was advertised as a bill that would allow California to decide for itself whether or not to recognize other states same-sex marriages. It was placed in the Family Code under the section for foregin marriages - but it reached beyond that of course. And note, since then, the California Legislature, the elected representatives of the people, have put forward and passed a billl legalizing same sex marriage not once but twice, only to have it vetoed by California's governor. Those representatives represent the will of the people, and the majority have now, consistently, voted to legalize same sex marriage. The tide of opinion has turned.

[ç i p h é r]

The chief justice discusses the importance of the label much more eloquently than I can - I suggest you read the opinion.

Is that online somewhere? There was no reference to it in any of the headline articles I saw.

That decision was 7 years ago, and sold under false-pretenses. It was advertised as a bill that would allow California to decide for itself whether or not to recognize other states same-sex marriages. It was placed in the Family Code under the section for foregin marriages - but it reached beyond that of course. And note, since then, the California Legislature, the elected representatives of the people, have put forward and passed a billl legalizing same sex marriage not once but twice, only to have it vetoed by California's governor. Those representatives represent the will of the people, and the majority have now, consistently, voted to legalize same sex marriage. The tide of opinion has turned.

Well, representatives do not necessarily represent the views of the voters. A referendum on the other hand is representative of the true will of the voters.

Now you may be right that the last vote was misrepresented somehow, but to overturn the will of the electorate through the courts? I admire your tenacity, but I don't think this sort of decision carries enough legitimacy to survive subsequent challenges. One way or the other, I suspect this will be decided by the voters in California at the ballot box.

[Burt]

I support lesbians. Providing they're actually bi (which if the internet has taught me anything, they all are).

[Mikayla]

The opinion is available online through the California Courts website. Go to the Cal. Courts website, select Supreme Court, and you should be able to find it from there.

As for the voters initiative, it was over turned because it was unconstitutional. Even the will of the majority is not allowed to trump the constitution. The constitution prevents a tyranny of the majority. So, no, I have no problem seeing the initiative thrown out by the court - its the way our system was designed to operate. Sometimes, the minority needs protection from the majority. Though, in November, I strongly suspect we will discover the tide really has turned and the initiative to amend California's constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage will be defeated.

[Joos]

I support gay marriage as long as both chicks are hot.

Also, congrats Mik. Does this mean that you will be able to hold a passport as well?

[Dorn]

I dont get gay marrige.

But then i think modern church doctrine* is a clusterf&ck itself so think marrige itself is just a hangover from the christian beginnings of our society (which we've moved past).

So i should perhaps say i dont get marrige!

I'd be happy for all of anyone to be able to get a 'something' which has all the same rights and respnsibilities as each other. Gay, stright, bent or curly.

Marrige should be the optional 'title' (ie the religious could opt FOR marrige rather than having to opt OUT of it and seem like a social abnormality).

*read churches...not the key principles of most of the main religions like 'be good to each other' whcih is a nice principle.

[Mulu]

On a more general side note, that a decision by the courts overruled the will of the voters in California seems decidedly undemocratic to me, regardless of how strongly people feel about the particular issue at stake. To take the decision out of the hands of the electorate after the fact on the basis of who argued the best in court is like permitting referees to decide the outcome of a ball game rather than the players, which frankly IS unAmerican.

Actually it is quintessentially American. Constitutional rights trump majority opinion. That's sort of the point, as Mik already stated but I wanted to emphasize.

Marriage is far older and more universal than Christianity, Dorn.

[Swift]

Today, the California Supreme Court determined that under California's constitution, same sex couples have the right to marry.


CALIFORNIA ROCKS!

I am proud to live in California today, and proud to work for the Judicial Branch which made this happen.

Today, I stood on the steps of the Supreme Court, with Jon Lewis and Stuart Gaffney, two of the plaintiffs in the case and two friends, and Molly McKay was there, one of the driving forces behind the marriage equality movement, and Kate Kendell of NCLR and many others and ... wow. WOW. I am so happy I am in tears. Yay!

So wheres your moment in the rabid newshounds light? I saw a story about it on our news tonight, but i was making dinner at the time so i was not really taking much notice.

Also, congrats Mik. Does this mean that you will be able to hold a passport as well?

Its ALFACon in sydney around mardi gras time if it does mean this

[Mikayla]

Also, congrats Mik. Does this mean that you will be able to hold a passport as well?

Nope. I still don't have a passport, nor is there any sign of me getting one any time in the near (or far) future. Alas.

I was supposed to be at Sydney's Mardi Gras THIS year as a part of the San Francisco Mayoral delegation (we are sister cities it seems) but I had to send our Treasurer instead. Woe is me - I have my own little red-white-and-blue iron curtain.

One battle at a time.

Oh, and as for me being in the news-hounds light - not likely. I am not a general in this battle, just a soldier. I suppose as President of SF Pride I could claim to be a Captain, but, I am not one of the real people of the moment - that belongs to the lawyers, like Shannon and Therese, the plaintiffs like John and Stuart, and the folks at Marriage Equality and Equality USA like Geoff Kors and Molly McKay. And of course, to Kate Kendell (ED of NCLR) who cannot seem to avoid the spot light if she tries. I am just one of the zillions cheering them on.

[HATEFACE]

Marriage is far older and more universal than Christianity, Dorn.

To understand marriage you need to understand humanity as a species. Why these unions take place. Why we have the ability to choose whether or not we remain faithful to those we love.

That is why it should be a respected institution of humanity, not to be tossed aside to a minority of people who serve no natural utilitarian purpose of child rearing. This isn't about equal rights because as far as I comprehend it homosexuality isn't a matter of genetics. There is a reason you're born that way, (Not you Mikayla, you're to complicated to be defined as homosexual or lesbian.) homosexuals serve absolutely no purpose outside the form of natural birth control. You are already part of the human condition, you just fail to realize it.

You argue that you need to be protected from the majority. Total bullshit in this particular case. We're (Republicans and those opposed to same sex marriage.) not nazis or muslims that fucking hang homosexuals or stone them to death for being "different. . ." While I will not argue that there are people, within the united states, that would gladly do that, they're hardly the majority.

The purpose of the constitution is to defend the liberties of everyone; the individual. Not to trump the majority, to put that damnedable majority in its place, to show that majority whose boss. Of course, this argument leads right back in a big old circle with homosexuals screaming "We want has all ur rights!!!11"

I couldn't begin to guess why homosexuals chose to claim marriage.

One battle at a time.

Indeed, on to change the constitution of the united states of America. . .

. . .I'll be on the side of the constitution defending it from radical ideologues who cloak the simple truth under the guise of altruism and freedom, as always.

May the moonbat lulz-inducing flames commence.

[JaydeMoon]

I don't even know what you said, because you really didn't say much of anything.

I shall break down what you said without a lot of the extra fluff (just the necessary fluff):

To understand marriage, we need to understand humanity.

This need to understand humanity is why marriage should be respected as an institution of humanity.

How does that statement make or break (or even poke softly) at either argument?

This isn't about equal rights because homosexuality isn't a matter of genetics.

There is a reason you're born that way...

Your second statement directly negates that first one...



And cloaking the truth under altruism and freedom isn't a bad thing...

"Look, we're altruistic and freedom loving..."

"OH SNAP! We GOT YOU! Really what we were doing all along was presenting the TRUTH!"

Wait, we got a hefty dose of the truth in an altruistic and freedom loving way? OH NOES!!!

Perhaps you meant that they are cloaking their 'personal agenda' or their 'deviant plots' or what have you under a cloak of altruism and freedom?

[Mayhem]

Marriage is far older and more universal than Christianity, Dorn.

To understand marriage you need to understand humanity as a species. Why these unions take place. Why we have the ability to choose whether or not we remain faithful to those we love.

That is why it should be a respected institution of humanity, not to be tossed aside to a minority of people who serve no natural utilitarian purpose of child rearing.

Make you mind up - is marriage about "the ability to choose whether or not we remain faithful to those we love"or about "the utilitarian purpose of child rearing."?

If the former, then why should it be a hetero reserve? Can gay folks not love each other and be loyal to each other too?

If the latter, surely we need to go the mormon route, many wives each to maximise the ladies as mere machines for utilitarian purpose of child rearing.

***

This is great news, Mik. At the simplest level, it simply means that 2 folks who love each other can do so in exactly the same legalised way, enjoying exactly the same status under the law as any other such couple.

[Rion of Erb]

Today, the California Supreme Court determined that under California's constitution, same sex couples have the right to marry.

[mishmash]

Glad to hear some good news
Offsets the disappointment of May 3rd and Boris Johnson a little