This is disgraceful

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

I agree. So the California Supreme Court ruling that Xericx was condemning isn't judicial activism. It was properly executing their duty by striking down an unconstitutional law.

That gay marriage opponents found enough bigots to subsquently change the constitution is a shame. Fortunately, this is a losing battle for the gay marriage opponents in the long run. In two years, it will be back on the ballot to change the constitution back to its original, neutral wording (which would re-enable gay marriage). Both sides believe that once gay marriage has had a chance to happen for a couple of years, support will swing permanently in favour of gay marriage rights.

Again, there are the same legal rights under a civil union, which was the "basis" for the judicial activism. I see it as judges stepping into politics, not properly interpreting the constitution. They are legislating from the bench.

 

[maxiep]

I agree. So the California Supreme Court ruling that Xericx was condemning isn't judicial activism. It was properly executing their duty by striking down an unconstitutional law.

That gay marriage opponents found enough bigots to subsquently change the constitution is a shame. Fortunately, this is a losing battle for the gay marriage opponents in the long run. In two years, it will be back on the ballot to change the constitution back to its original, neutral wording (which would re-enable gay marriage). Both sides believe that once gay marriage has had a chance to happen for a couple of years, support will swing permanently in favour of gay marriage rights.

I wasn't commenting on the specific issue, but rather the issue of judicial activism in general. I prefer judges who stay within the bounds of their original duties outlined in the constitution. Of course, I'm no legal scholar, so I'm really out of my depth on the specifics.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

NO rights are not being denied.

A civil union/domestic partnership has the exact same benefits as a marriage in California. This is semantics.

 

[Minstrel]

NO rights are not being denied.

A civil union/domestic partnership has the exact same benefits as a marriage in California.

I disagree that no rights are being denied. The right to have the union called the same thing in the eyes of the law is being denied. "Separate but equal" has been out of vogue as a legitimate concept for decades. If it were "just semantics," both sides of this debate wouldn't care so much. The passion this generates, on both sides, shows that it is not just semantics to people.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

I disagree that no rights are being denied. The right to have the union called the same thing in the eyes of the law is being denied. "Separate but equal" has been out of vogue as a legitimate concept for decades. If it were "just semantics," both sides of this debate wouldn't care so much. The passion this generates, on both sides, shows that it is not just semantics to people.

What rights are being denied or taken away? By calling it "marriage"? Please, that is a fucking weak argument for all the "bigot, civil rights, etc" brouhaha that's being thrown around. This is simple semantics.

The law and constitution states that marriage = one man + one woman.

However, gays are allowed to have domestic partnerships, where they make the same lifelong commitment, with the SAME RIGHTS AND BENEFITS.

A domestic partnership offers every single, identical right that marriage does in the state of California. Its just not called "marriage".


I really don't see the big deal here. Go ahead and throw out your "separate, but equal" bullshit, but that is a huge afrontment to the civil rights struggles of the 1960s where there were whites only and blacks only bathrooms, drinking fountains, and what not. An irrelevant analogy. And those that were the victims of the separate, but equal movement see things the same way and have voted accordingly. This is just centered on the TERM and WORD "marriage". All rights, access to services are IDENTICAL.

 

[Minstrel]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. You didn't actually contradict anything I said, just rephrased your opinion with a few expletives.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. You didn't actually contradict anything I said, just rephrased your opinion with a few expletives.

sure i did, i contradicted your separate but equal bullshit!

 

[Minstrel]

sure i did, i contradicted your separate but equal bullshit!

I'm afraid not. You said "Don't give me that separate but equal bullshit! This is totally different! This is separate...but equal!"

 

[Dumpy]

sure i did, i contradicted your separate but equal bullshit!

Let's assume, for the moment, that you are correct. . . . as far as California is concerned. This thread is about more than California, it is about what occurred in states such as Florida and Arkansas. Don't narrow your focus. For the moment, for the purpose of this thread, and to advance this discussion, I'm willing to accept the premise that there is no difference between a marriage and civil union in California. How does that excuse the blatant bigotry that exists in the rest of the country?

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

I'm afraid not. You said "Don't give me that separate but equal bullshit! This is totally different! This is separate...but equal!"

"but that is a huge afrontment to the civil rights struggles of the 1960s where there were whites only and blacks only bathrooms, drinking fountains, and what not. An irrelevant analogy. And those that were the victims of the separate, but equal movement see things the same way and have voted accordingly."

but go ahead and trivialize it by relating it to the word "marriage". Not the rights of marriage, but the WORD itself.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Let's assume, for the moment, that you are correct. . . . as far as California is concerned. This thread is about more than California, it is about what occurred in states such as Florida and Arkansas. Don't narrow your focus. For the moment, for the purpose of this thread, and to advance this discussion, I'm willing to accept the premise that there is no difference between a marriage and civil union in California. How does that excuse the blatant bigotry that exists in the rest of the country?

I don't know what the situations are in the other states. However, in my state I live in, I am discussing and defending my vote and rationalization for it.

 

[Minstrel]

but go ahead and trivialize it by relating it to the word "marriage". Not the rights of marriage, but the WORD itself.

The fact that you keep talking about the "rights being the same" suggests you don't know what "separate but equal" means. The literal rights aren't the issue, it's the atmosphere created by the government singling a group out as apart from the others.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

The fact that you keep talking about the "rights being the same" suggests you don't know what "separate but equal" means. The literal rights aren't the issue, it's the atmosphere created by the government singling a group out as apart from the others.

Do you know what the separate, but equal rights were? It meant that there were separate FACILITIES that were used by blacks and whites. There were coloured drinking fountains. There were separate schools for blacks and whites. Clearly, this is highly contrasted to the use of "Separate But Equal" in this case of gay marriage.

In my opinion, your use of this term in this matter should be highly offensive to the civil rights movements in the 1950s and 1960s. The issues here is one of SIMPLE SEMANTICS, not the use of any rights whatsoever in any capacity or that can be derived from whatever you think or simply fabricate.

The government is not singling a group out as being apart from the others. They are simply defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. That's it. No rights are being infringed on EXCEPT for the right for gays to call it a marriage. Again, its a semantic argument, nothing more.

 

[Shooter]

As a new citizen of the state of California, I'm blown away by how the state goes 80%-20% (ok, embellishing this only a little) for Obama, yet votes 52%-48% to amend its constitution to ban gay marriage.

The passage of Prop. 8 was one of the bright spots of the election. It shows that Californians have not completely lost their minds yet, even though they voted for Obama.

 

[Minstrel]

Do you know what the separate, but equal rights were? It meant that there were separate FACILITIES that were used by blacks and whites. There were coloured drinking fountains. There were separate schools for blacks and whites. Clearly, this is highly contrasted to the use of "Separate But Equal" in this case of gay marriage.

Yes, I know. And while it was obviously a much bigger deal in the case of non-whites, the issue is the same: the proponents of separate but equal facilities back then said, "But the facilities are equal. Non-whites get exactly the same rights, so there's no rights violation taking place." The point was not whether the rights were different; the point was that by creating a separate set of facilities, the government was encouraging a divide and singling out non-whites.

Similarly, with gay marriage, the point is not whether the rights are different; the point is that by creating a separate designation for gay unions, the government is encouraging a divide and singling out gays.

 

[#1_War_Poet_ForLife]

I voted Yes on 8.

Primarily:

1. For me its semantics, I just believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. I am fine for civil unions with the duplicative rights for gays. I just have always held personally that "marriage" refers to a bond between a man and a woman. If it has to be administered through the church, so be it, while everyone has civil unions.

Yeah, it was just semantics when African-Americans had to sit in the back of the bus, or use a different fountain.


Equal and separate is not equal.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Yeah, it was just semantics when African-Americans had to sit in the back of the bus, or use a different fountain.

Equal and separate is not equal.

Actually it wasn't just semantics, it was institutionalized racism. This is CLEARLY different as there were definite restrictions as to where one could go to school, drink water, sit on a bus, etc. This is again, and I repeat it because you don't seem to get it, about the term "marriage". This has ZERO to do with rights, access to any services or anything else you can think of. It has to do with defining the word "marriage". Nothing more. All rights are the same outside the use of this terminology.

It is interesting and of note that those African Americans who actually went through the separate but equal doctrine, voted overwhelmingly in support of this measure.

 

[Minstrel]

It is interesting and of note that those African Americans who actually went through the separate but equal doctrine, voted overwhelmingly in support of this measure.

Not that interesting. Religious people voted overwhelmingly for it, and the black community is highly religious.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Not that interesting. Religious people voted overwhelmingly for it, and the black community is highly religious.

It is that interesting. the group that was at the center of the separate but equal injustices, voting for this, didn't think this is an injustice. they believe, that marriage should be between a man and a woman. if you want to call them bigots, go ahead!

 

[hasoos]

Can anybody explain to me why there are any laws on the books about marriage? I can maybe see laws about how old you have to be in order to get married, to ensure they are an adult, but that is it. But all other laws, are really, not necessary and could be replaced with a series of laws so this divisive issue, never comes up again. All it does it piss people off at each other. So why keep bringing it up, unless you want people to hate each other? So how do we fix it?

We take marriage laws off the books completely.

1. Tax laws could be re-written so that people with dependants could get tax breaks needed. People who are married without kids should pay no different taxes than anybody else, anyhow.

2. People who are married can enter into agreements similar to business partner deals indicating who owns what and if the "business" breaks up, who is financially responsible for what items. This would probably be a lot more responsible than what goes on now anyhow, since it would force people to documents said things before trouble arises and it's too late. This covers the divorce scenario.

3. Insurance laws can be re-written to accomodate the changes. Let's face the facts here. The people who don't want this done are actually businesses who would have to pay benefits for people they normally did not have to in the future. The insurance companies don't give a shit, they are getting another customer. If their business model didn't work by getting more customers, they wouldnt' still be in business.

4. Child custody is still handled the same way. No changes there.


If you go out and think about what you can do now, without getting married, what is the point of these stupid laws? Are you going to throw somebody in jail for "getting married"?

Remember, this isn't the United State of Straight Christian States. This is the United States, where people fled other countries in order to free themselves of religious intolerence. People have such short memories of the countries history and why we are even here to begin with. If you don't pay attention to mistakes made in the past, you are guaranteed to repeat them.

What next? Are we going to have a god damned spanish inquisition?

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

http://nomarriage.com/

 

[Minstrel]

It is that interesting. the group that was at the center of the separate but equal injustices, voting for this, didn't think this is an injustice.

I don't think that's particularly interesting. Religion has brain-washed many people. Blacks aren't some super-race, immune from the effects of organized religion.

if you want to call them bigots, go ahead!

I have no problem calling them bigots. People who want to restrict the right of others based on innate characteristics are bigots, whether white or black (or all the other lovely shades of human).

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

again, what right are we restricting other than simple nomenclature?

 

[e_blazer]

As I understand it, those who oppose gay marriage generally fall into three categories:

1. Those who oppose on religious grounds, believing that matrimony was instituted by God as being between man and woman. Catholics and some orthodox Christians consider marriage to be a sacrament.

2. Those who oppose because of social concerns about impacts to the family, believing that for the purposes of raising children, it is best for the children to be exposed to both male and female influences in their upbringing.

3. Those who are bigoted against homosexuals.

From my perspective, religious considerations are personal and shouldn't be mandated in a country that values freedom of choice of religion and separation of church and state. The second category iof folks would probably be hard pressed to make a case that a child raised in a loving relationship between a gay couple is somehow worse off than those in the multiple dysfuntional types of heterosexual relationships we see in today's world. The third category of bigots don't deserve to be considered.

While it may be a matter of semantics, I think that the best solution is for government to get out of the marriage game. Civil unions should be the norm for both heterosexual and homosexual couples who wish to formalize their relationship for legal purposes of shared property, inheritance, tax benefits, health care issues, etc. Existing marriages would be grandfathered in and recognized by governments as civil unions. Those who wish to have their unions considered a marriage consistent with their faith, would do so through their church, but it would carry no additional significance from a legal standpoint.

I suppose that makes too much sense to ever get implemented.

 

[Ed O]

Is there anything in the California constitution about homosexuality being a protected class?

If not, it seems fair to me that Californians can allow or disallow, through the democratic process, homosexuals (or polygamists, or whomever) the right to marry one another.

I would hope that Californians would not do that, but it's their state and, in spite of four activist judges who overturned the previously stated will of the people, it looks like they are going to.

Hopefully they see the error of their ways and reverse this decision.

Ed O.

 

[Minstrel]

I would hope that Californians would not do that, but it's their state and, in spite of four activist judges who overturned the previously stated will of the people, it looks like they are going to.

There was no activism. The "previously stated will of the people" was unconstitutional at the time. The purpose of the state Supreme Court is to strike down laws that are unconstitutional.

 

[crandc]

Is there anything in the California constitution about homosexuality being a protected class?

Ed O.

Ed, the State Constitution forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation. That was the basis of the State Supreme Court's decision on marriage equality. If the State Constitution forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, then you cannot have a right for people of one sexual orientation that is denied to individuals of another. That is why it took a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision.

Incidentally, it has nothing to do with any church. Religious bodies can and do decide whom they will marry. Catholic priests will not marry divorced people and most rabbis won't marry a mixed couple, although both types of marriage are perfectly legal in civil law. What this hate law does do is remove from those clergy who do marry same sex couples the right to follow their conscience and their interpretation of their faith.

It is sickening that people can vote for Obama and vote for hate. I saw the celebrations last night. The joy and unity. An hour later, it was as if those celebrants were telling me "oh, but you're not part of it". Obama in his speech referred to his wife as the love of his life and his best friend. That was how Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon referred to each other for 55 years. They finally had legal recognition for two months before Del died. It is sickening that people can vote for Obama and dance on her grave. In his speech, Obama referred to his love for his children. It is sickening that people can vote for Obama and deny the children of gay and lesbian couples the protection of having married parents (and for all the "protect children from horrible gays" crap, gays and lesbians will continue to be parents, they just won't have legal rights to protect their children). In his speech, the new president was inclusive, referring to Black, white, Asian, Latino, Native American, gay and straight, men and women, old and young, disabled and non-disabled. It is sickening that people can listen to that speech and say that gays should be removed from the description of American. California passed a law, which I support, to protect farm animals. It is sickening that people in my state can vote to protect the rights of animals, but take away my cousin's marriage.

There is only one real reason for saying some people should be denied a right that you take for granted for yourself. Bigotry.

 

[STOMP]

That kind of hypocrisy is always here in Cali, you just gotta get used to it. It sucks, I know.

there is a whole lotta California and a good proportion of the population lives outside of the major cities. Most of these rural communities are pretty blue so I wasn't that surprised to see this pass.

The thing of note about this measure is that a majority of the 30M in funding for the the YES vote was supplied by the Mormon church... seems a strange way for a tax exempt entity from outside the state to behave. Their ads were typically fear mongering/distortions of facts POS.

STOMP

 

[Minstrel]

The thing of note about this measure is that a majority of the 30M in funding for the the YES vote was supplied by the Mormon church... seems a strange way for a tax exempt entity from outside the state to behave.

And even stranger for a religious group who has been angry about being persecuted for their own non-standard marriage arrangements.

 

[hasoos]

And even stranger for a religious group who has been angry about being persecuted for their own non-standard marriage arrangements.

Yea and you know whats absolutely stupid about that. It is illegal for them to marry multiple partners. But I can have 18 girlfriends with kids, all at the same place, and there is nothing they can do about that.

The thing I guess I am saying is, you can pass all the laws you want about crap. You are not going to stop them from living their lives as they will. All you are going to do is make it harder for them to do the same things you take for granted every day. Want insurance? It is harder to get now. Want visitation rights? Can't get them. Does anybody of this stop folks from practicing what they are going to do? Hell no.

So exactly what are you accomplishing?

IMO, somebody should just make up a religion, and challenge the laws in US Supreme court as a violation of religious freedom, and the promotion of one religion over another. That would end it right there.