Another Disappointment Brought To You By The State Of California...

[The Conquistador]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage

The California courts uphled the Prop.8 decision.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage

The California courts uphled the Prop.8 decision.

Yes, but it's also incredibly ironic that on a day when Obama named Sonia Sotomayor to be his choice for the Supreme Court -- where the debate over her selection is clearly going to center on how much of an "activist" judge she really is at heart -- that in California (of all places) the judges there DID do exactly what judges are charged to do: they passed a ruling that is based entirely ON the law rather than abusing their power and trying to legislate FROM the bench, which an overwhelming number of people clearly oppose.

As the article itself notes...

The justices said the 136-page majority ruling does not speak to whether they agree with the voter-approved Proposition 8 or "believe it should be a part of the California Constitution." They said they were "limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values."

That said, plain and simple and to avoid any charges of judicial advocacy...

The court said the Californians have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.


Truth be told, this was the expected ruling. Maybe there's anger in some parts, but no one should actually be surprised. Even as oral arguments were presented before the court, same sex marriage advocates realized they were on thin ice. They knew they had taken a bullet when Prop 8 passed, which likewise caught them totally off guard. Even the gay community realized the lawsuit was a stretch, but they had to try. So, now it's on to the next election, where we'll see how people will vote then.

All the same, it's still incredibly ironic that California -- which is constantly seen by the rest of the country as being the very epitome of liberal politics and beliefs -- turned out to be the state that voted down same sex marriage, and now a Federal Court has upheld the ban. I mean who would've ever predicted that same sex couples in Iowa would be able to get married before those in San Francisco?

[Bionca]

The judges were very clear in making their ruling as limited and narrow as they could. They essentially (as CM said) ruled that prop 8 was implimented fairly and that no Constitutional procedures were broken. The court DID fairly allow the existing marriages to be grandfathered into state marriage laws - ruling that at that at that time, the contracts were legal and binding.

The actual debate is if the majority really has the right to vote on the contractual rights of tax-paying adult citizens. We do after all live in a Democracy that understands "Tyranny of the Majority" - thus some things MUST be implemented without popular vote (one of the reasons that SSM should NOT be a "states' rights" issue.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Bionca

The judges were very clear in making their ruling as limited and narrow as they could. They essentially (as CM said) ruled that prop 8 was implimented fairly and that no Constitutional procedures were broken. The court DID fairly allow the existing marriages to be grandfathered into state marriage laws - ruling that at that at that time, the contracts were legal and binding.

The actual debate is if the majority really has the right to vote on the contractual rights of tax-paying adult citizens. We do after all live in a Republic that understands "Tyranny of the Majority" - thus some things MUST be implemented without popular vote (one of the reasons that SSM should NOT be a "states' rights" issue.

I know. I realize that the rulings were lawful but it is still kind of a bummer that "the pursuit of happiness" only applies to hetero couples. Oh yeah, I was not advocating it be a states right issue. I was just pointing out that it seemed like more of a direction that this issue will go is all.

Fixed it for ya. :P

[transjen]

Well so much for LIFE,LIBERTY AND THE PURSURT OF HAPPYNESS, Jennifer

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by Bionca

The judges were very clear in making their ruling as limited and narrow as they could. They essentially (as CM said) ruled that prop 8 was implemented fairly and that no Constitutional procedures were broken.

Bionca's nailed it and this is what everyone should remember before getting too upset, especially since THIS particular case was about legal semantics more than anything else. To echo Bionca's post, omebody doing an analysis on TV said it best and simplest: The Court was NOT deciding whether same sex marriage was constitutional. The Court was deciding was whether the WAY that Prop 8 was passed was constitutional.

And that's what they did. They ruled that the people who created Prop 8 and those that voted for it followed all the rules and -- regardless of what you think of the outcome -- California voters DO have the right to amend the state constitution. End of story.

Originally Posted by Bionca

The court DID fairly allow the existing marriages to be grandfathered into state marriage laws - ruling that at that at that time, the contracts were legal and binding.

Which is the interesting part since THAT will now open an all-new can of worms. Because now, with today's ruling, the California court really has created a separate class of citizens -- namely, same sex couples who are married where the state will honor their paperwork versus other same sex couples who CANNOT marry AT ALL and thus join the club. Or as someone phrased it on TV, it's as if California held a "limited time offer" sale and if you didn't take advantage of it, you're screwed. So, that's going to spur a whole new wave of discrimination lawsuits.

Originally Posted by Bionca

The actual debate is if the majority really has the right to vote on the contractual rights of tax-paying adult citizens. We do after all live in a Democracy that understands "Tyranny of the Majority" - thus some things MUST be implemented without popular vote (one of the reasons that SSM should NOT be a "states' rights" issue.

True -- unless you're on the opposing side. In which case taking this to a national level (and NOT letting it be settled on a case by case basis as a "states right" issue) means you feel that a Tyranny of the Minority is in effect. Which the Constitution ALSO protects against. Personally, I see this as one giant mess. I can see Bionca's argument for taking it national and saying "Look, we just have to make this fair and equal across all 50 states at once"...and yet, on the other hand, I do believe in a strict observance of our actual Constitution, drafted by our Founders, which recognized that we are not a true democracy -- we are actually a Republic, held together state by state, where elected representatives set the law so that the will of the people is enacted.

Frankly, when you stop and think about the freedoms that we have in America overall...but ALSO think about the way that our country is actually set up legislatively...and THEN factor in the sheer amount of people that live here now (all the different groups, each of whom have their own beliefs or wants)...it's sort of a miracle that in its history America has only had one civil war. I mean, seriously, it's amazing and a tribute to our Founding Fathers that the system has worked (and held together) for as long as it has.

[smc]

As soon as the decision to challenge the Prop 8 vote in court was announced, I expected this outcome, because the court case was based exclusively on the "merits" of California's system of having citizen ballot propositions, and not on the "merits" of a civil rights issue. I'm sure the plaintiffs knew what they were up against, and in some ways I think it might have been better not to pursue remedy in the courts but rather to seek a referendum repeal of Prop 8.

I say this because the court ruling -- although it absolutely does not decide on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage -- will be seen as a feather in the cap of those who want to limit marriage rights. In the face of what is happening here in New England, where I live, those forces are looking for any positive news they can use to rally their hateful troops.

Had the anti-Prop 8 forces organized immediately to overturn Prop 8 via referendum, through a signature campaign that had them speaking with people all throughout California, it might well have been a better expenditure of energy and campaign funds.

According to newspaper reports I have read here in Boston, one of the things that convinced legislators in Maine to approve same-sex marriage was that they met lots of same-sex married couples from Massachusetts who, in their very "ordinariness," put to rest the notion in these legislators' heads that passing such a law would topple hetero marriage as an institution. This is a story that is repeated throughout the country. In Massachusetts, we have devout Catholic legislators who changed their mind on same-sex marriage because they met neighbor couples against whose civil rights they could then not bring themselves to vote. At the state level, legislators are typically just like regular people. Imagine the 18,000 same-sex married couples in California fanning out around the state to talk to people, calmly and rationally, while gathering signatures for a new proposition. In concert with other efforts, it could have quite an effect.

Just my two cents ... on a sad day when good friends of mine who live in California are feeling very, very low.

[megawatty101]

Anyone here from California? I'm surprised that this stuff passes.

[new believer]

What should be a target is not to be hell bent on the term marriage.
I know of many people,straights and even a couple of gays, who are all for the 'pursuit of happiness'.
What the objection is about , is the term 'marriage'.
It has been written,ruled over and lived accordingly for centuries by just about every conceivable country that marriage is between a man and a woman.
My point being all those people I know,without a single no, have no problem with a term such as a 'civil union', made to carry all rights and privilages as 'married' couples.
So why is it so important to 'some' to demand with an in your face attitude to insist on a terminology. A FREAKIN word. If all that is wanted is to live in peace as a couple, I know of no other nation with as many laws already protecting gays. If rights and privilages are the key factor, settle for the term civil union and be happy and gay as you please. The ONLY reason I can see no compromise to terminology is to alienate those who would openly accept gays already, as long as those arrogant,I want because I want, idiots believe THEY won.
What ever happened to sticks and stones may....?
I say this with all respect to gays and their lifestyle. And I would say this to all in any lifestyle save harmful acts or against minors.
One final comment, If my wife were to pass on before I do, I would probably share a home with either or both, my brother or my best friend(male). And yes ,I would like to have them cared for as my reciprients to my estate without predudice.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by new believer

What should be a target is not to be hell bent on the term marriage.
I know of many people,straights and even a couple of gays, who are all for the 'pursuit of happiness'.
What the objection is about , is the term 'marriage'.
It has been written,ruled over and lived accordingly for centuries by just about every conceivable country that marriage is between a man and a woman.
My point being all those people I know,without a single no, have no problem with a term such as a 'civil union', made to carry all rights and privilages as 'married' couples.
So why is it so important to 'some' to demand with an in your face attitude to insist on a terminology. A FREAKIN word. If all that is wanted is to live in peace as a couple, I know of no other nation with as many laws already protecting gays. If rights and privilages are the key factor, settle for the term civil union and be happy and gay as you please. The ONLY reason I can see no compromise to terminology is to alienate those who would openly accept gays already, as long as those arrogant,I want because I want, idiots believe THEY won.
What ever happened to sticks and stones may....?
I say this with all respect to gays and their lifestyle. And I would say this to all in any lifestyle save harmful acts or against minors.
One final comment, If my wife were to pass on before I do, I would probably share a home with either or both, my brother or my best friend(male). And yes ,I would like to have them cared for as my reciprients to my estate without predudice.

The reason why they are so adamant about it being a "marriage" and not a "civil union" is that the civil union does not provide for the same benefits and protections that would be awarded if it were a marriage. It's not just about terminology.

[Bionca]

Originally Posted by new believer

What should be a target is not to be hell bent on the term marriage.
I know of many people,straights and even a couple of gays, who are all for the 'pursuit of happiness'.
What the objection is about , is the term 'marriage'.
It has been written,ruled over and lived accordingly for centuries by just about every conceivable country that marriage is between a man and a woman.
My point being all those people I know,without a single no, have no problem with a term such as a 'civil union', made to carry all rights and privilages as 'married' couples.
So why is it so important to 'some' to demand with an in your face attitude to insist on a terminology. A FREAKIN word. If all that is wanted is to live in peace as a couple, I know of no other nation with as many laws already protecting gays. If rights and privilages are the key factor, settle for the term civil union and be happy and gay as you please. The ONLY reason I can see no compromise to terminology is to alienate those who would openly accept gays already, as long as those arrogant,I want because I want, idiots believe THEY won.
What ever happened to sticks and stones may....?
I say this with all respect to gays and their lifestyle. And I would say this to all in any lifestyle save harmful acts or against minors.
One final comment, If my wife were to pass on before I do, I would probably share a home with either or both, my brother or my best friend(male). And yes ,I would like to have them cared for as my reciprients to my estate without predudice.

Civil Unions were only brought up as a solution after gay marriage became a realistic goal. At this point the idea of a CU isn't and hasn't been fleshed out enough to constitute anything more than diversionary tactic. Much like the tired meme that gays will sue churches for not performing a ceremony.

The word "marriage" is not monolithic, and has changed quite substantially over the centuries. In fact the early Catholic church would not allow the ceremony to be performed within a church. I don't need to get into the tried and true comparison on inter-racial relationships, women as property of their husbands, multiple-wife marriages, arranged marriages and on and on to show that the institution of marriage is not static.

[smc]

Remember "separate but equal" as a proposed solution, embraced even by racists, who saw it as a way to resolve the legitimate demands of Black folks for their civil rights without having to relinquish white privilege?!

There's no difference between that and "civil unions but not marriage."

[new believer]

a respectful reply to mine. Although I had thought I mentioned that with careful legislation, a civil union would be able to grant the same rights and benifits as a marriage. Unfortunately, I think faster than I type and omitted it. I did however lean into the matter a little with one of my final comments...

"One final comment, If my wife were to pass on before I do, I would probably share a home with either or both, my brother or my best friend(male). And yes ,I would like to have them cared for as my reciprients to my estate "without predudice.

Another comment I should correct is the sticks and stones, it would better be described as 'a rose by any other name would smell as sweet'

And about seperate but equal...please explain to me WHAT white privilages? The only white privilages that do exist are the ones that allow white males to shut up. And even that has limitations. I am white as most my peers, we have none, never have nor ever expect to. Some 'white privilages may have existed(as tody) but they have expanded to include ALL wealthy persons. They are the true elitist. What's good for them but not for you,Hollywood leading the pack. But now that you bring it up, does the term reverse discrimination ring a bell? Trust me it's not the Avon lady, but that's another topic for another thread,and I doubt I'll comment to that if it appears.
IF I appear a little po'd, it might be because I am also discriminated against in ways you do not or wish not to understand. But I struggle on without putting demands against innocent people minding their own business.
Yes I am a Libertarian and a Constitutionalist, but I also believe in laws, traditions and respect for others of theirs. NB

[smc]

Originally Posted by new believer

And about seperate but equal...please explain to me WHAT white privilages? The only white privilages that do exist are the ones that allow white males to shut up. And even that has limitations. I am white as most my peers, we have none, never have nor ever expect to. Some 'white privilages may have existed(as tody) but they have expanded to include ALL wealthy persons. They are the true elitist. What's good for them but not for you,Hollywood leading the pack. But now that you bring it up, does the term reverse discrimination ring a bell? Trust me it's not the Avon lady, but that's another topic for another thread,and I doubt I'll comment to that if it appears.

IF I appear a little po'd, it might be because I am also discriminated against in ways you do not or wish not to understand.

A history lesson is in order here, although I suspect that any white man who so readily buys the "reverse discrimination" argument will not be of a mindset to deal with facts. (I am, by the way, a white man.)

"Separate but equal" comes from a Louisiana law, dating back to before the turn of the 20th century, that established separate public facilities and institutions for Black and white people. It was an important component of keeping non-whites "in their place" in the post-Civil War era. The "equal" part was never really adhered to, because resources were under white control and were allocated to white facilities. One need only to see a typical photograph of something as mundane as a "whites only" drinking foundation next to the fountain for "colored" to see how the allocation went. Now imagine that writ large, as in a school. Most public schools for Black students received far less per-capita funding than did their nearby white counterpart schools. And almost without exception, all other facilities and social services for Blacks were of lower quality than those for whites.

"Separate but equal" was also used in social contexts to forbid interracial marriage and underpinned every effort to keep Blacks from exercising the right to vote, by creating "equality" in the right to register to vote, but keeping things "separate" by establishing all sorts of ridiculous hurdles for "colored" registration.

Hence, white privilege. And I haven't even mentioned housing, jobs, or many other things I could bring up.

I would be happy to take on the "reverse discrimination" argument, but I agree that it is not appropriate in this thread. However, using the "separate but equal" argument, as I first raised, absolutely is appropriate. The federal lawsuit filed by Boice and Olson (see an earlier post of mine) is predicated on Proposition 8 representing a violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause. Many scholars of legal history have discussed how various courts, ruling on same-sex marriage, have employed some of the same arguments as when they were asked to rule on marriage between people of different races. Much of the current debate regarding domestic partnerships and civil unions versus marriage are precisely about the "separate but equal" issue.