CA Supreme Court Rules Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[palabravampiress]

To me, this is a big old "Duh!" I mean... democracy doesn't give the majority free reign to limit the civil liberties of the minority just because the majority doesn't like the actions of the minority. Ideally, laws that limit the rights of the individual citizen are supposed to do so only to protect the rights of other individual citizens. The majority rules, but the minority is protected. That's the basic idea behind American democracy.

How the idea that gay marriage should be banned just because it makes some people uncomfortable (largely on religious grounds) has lasted so long is, frankly, beyond my understanding. I just hope the anti-gay-marriage contingent doesn't succeed in amending the constitution so as to render the ruling invalid.

That's an incredibly simplified version of my take on it. What's yours?

 

[TabulaRasa]

I read this earlier today. It was a great thing to hear, but it doesn't mean the battle is over. I just hope it all goes well and that more states can follow in their footsteps. Now all that needs to happen is sponsorship for couples who are in other countries...ie, one in USA one in UK.

 

[Blondie Bear]

My feelings about homosexuality are mixed. On the one hand, I was raised Southern Baptist and taught that homosexual sex was the dirtiest thing possible, that it was the sin that made God destroy Sodom and Gommorah, etc. etc. On the other hand, I've had bi-curious feelings, myself (never acted on them) and can see how it might be interesting. On yet another hand (oh, crap, we're up to three now . . . can I borrow one of yours, PV?), evolutionarily speaking, it's kind of a dead end. But when it all comes down to it, individual freedom is individual freedom. The Bill of Rights was put in place to protect the unpopular stuff, because the popular stuff doesn't need protecting. So it's not really up to me whether people have sex with the opposite sex, same sex, or animals, as long as they're consenting adults. And the government should keep its greasy paws out of people's personal lives and treat everyone the same. EXACTLY the same. No discrimination, but no special privileges, either.

/rant

 

[Aethra]

This is great news to me. I remember when most of the US was shocked when Mass made its similar ruling, and how so many people flocked across state lines to be legally married. It's wonderful to see other states following suit, as I'm a firm supporter of the right to love whomever one wants.

 

[caitaintdead]

As a 'sometimes' catholic I am a bit iffy about gay marriage, but at the same time I could never understand a love between two people, nor is it my right to. Everyone should have the freewill to decide what is best for them if it is not going to harm others, whether it comes to religion or views on love. Perhaps I'm an idealist at times!

 

[palabravampiress]

My feelings were kind of mixed for a long time, too. I had openly gay people in my family. Nobody shunned them. Their partners were accepted at family events. No one hid their kids from their influence or anything (at least not that I saw). But people did sort of shake their heads and whisper. It was sort of a silent disapproval -- kinda like no one approved, but no one thought it was his or her place to object, either. It was just sort of uncomfortable, you know? The family treated gay people like they treated drunks, criminals, drug addicts, people of non-Christian religions, and people of non-white or non-native American ancestry (because, umm, we're hypocrites; apparently, we're allowed to be a mixed-race family, but only our combination of choice counts). To be honest, I have one gay cousin who is also a drunk, and the family was way harder on her for being a drunk than for being gay. The impression that I got as a kid, then, was that some people were different. You had to tolerate it, but it was best to try to avoid such differences, yourself. It's like, not optimal, but what can you do? You know? If this issue had come up when I was younger, I think my opinion would have been different. They would have been based on my feelings, which were decidedly uncertain and mixed, and so would have probably led me to resist change and maintain the status quo.

When I studied the Enlightenment, the American Revolution, and various civil rights movements in high school and college, though, my ideas started to solidify, and I came to the conclusion mentioned in my opening post. My opinion shouldn't be about whether or not I would choose a certain lifestyle or even whether I like or agree with it; my opinion should be about a well-reasoned assessment of the constitutionality of the proposed freedom. To be fair, though, I also adopted a different bias. High school and college introduced me to gay peers, not gay cousins and great-aunts that I only say once or twice a year. Having gay friends helped me to realize that not only did gay people deserve equal rights in marriage on theoretical and/or legal grounds, but also that gay couples were really just like the rest of us. Through interacting with gay peers on a daily basis, I lost the anti-gay bias with which I was raised. As much as I try to suppress my feelings and vote based purely on reason and constitutionality, I'm sure that also has something to do with my liberal opinion on this matter.

 

[Washburne]

I think this is great news. If you love someone why shouldn´t you be able to marry them? It´s like telling people "your love is not a "real" love." And that´s just plain stuid, not that I want to offend anyone. But I do understand that some people can a have a problem with it. It´s just the thing with someone being all superior and tell people who they can or can not love that just buggs me.

The so to speak "problem" with gay people in the long run is of the course the survival if the human race. But I don´t see it as a problem. First of all, nowdays you can make baibes without the having sex part. And there seem to be an endless line of children in need of adoption. Many peole who can´t take care of the their children do so anyway, so in that sence I think it´s pretty even. It´s not like we´re taking care of all the earths population as it is.

And even if the human race is doomed to survival because of gays in the end (which I don´t think) I´m pretty sure that we have killed ourselves long before that anyway (wars, climate problems etc).

 

[InsaneMystic]

Personally, I'm pretty much against the concept of marriage (no matter if straight, gay, or whatnot), but if a country wants to support marriage (yeah, I have to live with it, pretty much all of them do :sigh🙂, I see no justification in making it a "straight-only privilege". So I consider this ruling good news and hope this constitutional amendment nonsense won't happen. I mean, come on... a country like the US, who have always prided themselves about separation of church and state, modifying the constitution to better represent the interest of the religiously intolerant? Not good.

 

[palabravampiress]

Personally, I'm pretty much against the concept of marriage (no matter if straight, gay, or whatnot), but if a country wants to support marriage (yeah, I have to live with it, pretty much all of them do :sigh🙂, I see no justification in making it a "straight-only privilege". So I consider this ruling good news and hope this constitutional amendment nonsense won't happen. I mean, come on... a country like the US, who have always prided themselves about separation of church and state, modifying the constitution to better represent the interest of the religiously intolerant? Not good.

A world of agreement.

A friend of mine was recently married in Mexico, in which country church and state are so effectively separated that two separate ceremonies were required: one at the church (the groom was Catholic, so for the church to recognize his marriage, he had to be married within the church) and one civil union (performed at the reception) that would be recognized by the state regardless of religious affiliation. I think the U.S. should take a page out of Mexico's book on that one.

I think state marriage and religious marriage are two entirely separate things. One is a legal contract between two equal adult citizens. It creates a family relationship where none existed before and allows for next-of-kin rights, joint ownership of property, joint liability, etc. My husband and I are not religious at all, so pretty much the only reason we got married was to take advantage of that legal and financial status. There is no reason for which consenting adults of any gender should not be able to enter into that same legal contract with one another (especially considering the small subset of the population having an unconventional or indeterminate gender, like hermaphrodites). Marriage within a specific religion, however, often comes with additional rights and responsibilities or separation of duties and is considered a covenant between those entering into it and their deity of choice. I understand what the state has to do with a legal contract; I fail to understand what it has to do with a religious covenant. If a church wants to ban gay marriage, that's fine. For the state to do so is, in my opinion, a flagrant violation of the separation of church and state, not to mention a violation of individual civil liberties.

That said, to a very large and very powerful subset of the Republican Party (this known as the Religious Right), the separation of church and state means nothing. They are theocrats who have somehow convinced themselves that the separation of church and state is invalid, that it was not intended by our founding fathers, and that it is entirely legitimate to impose Fundamentalist Protestant Christian values on the rest of the nation. I have spoken with these people and even held some as friends. Many of them have actually convinced themselves that the founding fathers' original intention was to create a Christian state, not a free state (or a Catholic one either, apparently), and adamantly push that agenda. Quite frankly, I find that mindset the most terrifying thing to occur on American soil since the Salem witch trials. To them, religious freedom doesn't really exist or only applies to an individual's choice of Protestant denomination, thus rendering it entirely legitimate in their worldview to support and enact laws seeking to criminalize behaviors that, according to their religion(s), fall under the category of "sin." The power that this group has is enormous and is, in my opinion, a greater threat to national security than all of the world's terrorists combined. The sad thing is that many people in this group are told how to vote from the pulpit and have no understanding of the constitution beyond that which they derive from the church of their choice. As a citizen who has no religion, the Religious Right terrifies me beyond all imagining. I don't want to be forced to follow their religion -- and that is exactly what they're doing, forcing me to follow their religion, when they pass legislation designed to criminalize behavior that falls outside the bounds of their religion of choice.

 

[Vicariously]

In my opinion the "One man One WOMAN" law is a bit unfair. "Life partners" or any sort (gay or straight) should have the right to be married. Enter in the situation of heartache should the person you love be in a condition that might include life support...it is an issue that they have expressed to you their feelings and you KNOW what their wishes would be and you are unable to defend them. Because you are not their spouse and their next of kin would be someone other than you. Its horrible but homosexual partners as the constitution stands right now in some states would NOT be able to chose for their life partner. Not unless they had power of attorney over them.

My only question and one that I have extremely mixed feelings on is that of children in a gay home. I know a couple and their daughter who are gay and their daughter therefor has two moms and is chastisied by others. Is it fair to this little girl that she is treated this way? Not at all!!!! Is it fair to subject an innocent child to this type of torment because you desire a child and are not in a relationship that is the "natural way of reproduction"? but on the same hand is it right to deny homosexuals the right to have children stirctly because their children will be treated defrently than kids who's parents are straight?

 

[palabravampiress]

^ People used to make the same argument about interracial marriage. Some still do. For the most part, though, people now recognize the fact that bigots will be bigots no matter what, but that the bigots' reaction to others' freedoms should not be the determining factor in whether or not a minority group is granted equal rights.

For a turn-of-the-century example, look at my family: my grandpa was a "half-breed” (half white, half Native-American), which was sort of problematic back during the depression era in which he grew up (as was being a rural farmer), but my great-grandparents still married and raised 13 kids together and grew to be pretty respected members of their church and community, which was important to them. Most of us didn’t amount to much, I’m sorry to say, but several of their children served their country and one of their sons became an elected official. Many in my generation have even made it to a middle-class standard-of-living. I even went to college. My point is, as controversial as my great-grandparents’ relationship once was, no one thinks a thing of it now. Being part Native American has never harmed me in any way. In fact, I only think of it when the issue of racism comes up, in which case is causes me to think racism is dumb because it’s not like very many of us are all one race, anyway.

For a mid-to-late century example, look at the next couple of generations of my family: ironically, my Grandma wasn't thrilled with my aunt dating and marrying a black man (or with my cousin for dating black men or with my other cousin for dating and having a kid with a black man) for the same reason -- she thought it was unfair to the kids. As against it as she was, she did (eventually) learn to suck it up and cook Thanksgiving dinner for the white family members, the black family members, and the various shades of brown in-between (because, hello; we're all like a fourth Native American, lol). I've got my own issues with my aunt and with her husband, but I will say this: his side of the family really stepped up and supported us when my Grandma died. I don't think my Grandma ever quite outgrew her prejudice, but the rest of the family did.

I think gay marriage will eventually go the same way. I think some people will always be bigots, but that others will grow more tolerant over time as they are forced to face gay couples on a daily basis and that younger generations will grow up without even thinking to question it. Just as no-one really questions mixed white/Native American heritage anymore and fewer people question mixed black/white heritage, I think fewer and fewer people will question gay marriages and the children they produce. I don't think that shielding children from bigots is a good rationale for denying people equal rights. Ultimately, it is the bigoted person who should have to adapt to change, not the minority who should be forced to change or hide in order to make the bigot more comfortable.

I just hope we don't overcompensate like we do with race and end up making straight couples feel guilty and marginalized and as though they deserve to or must be penalized in some way. In some ways, I hate being white, and really, I don't think race should matter at all, let alone enough that I should hate being white. I mean, with my family background being such that it is, I get really, really tired of insisting that white, black, or somewhere in between, my family members all come from the same neighborhood, the same family, and the same socio-economic status, and that the various shades of skin color therein really don't amount to a hill of beans or entitle the darker colored amongst us to any more assistance or opportunity than the lighter colored amongst us. I’m sorry, but the fact that I sunburn more easily than my cousin means that I can’t spend as much time in the swimming pool, not that I deserve less scholarship money. But that is another topic for another thread. I just hope that my support of gay marriage doesn't mean I'll one day have to feel like I either have to defend or feel guilty for my heterosexual marriage, too. If the history of racism is any indication of the path that gay rights will take, that’s really my greatest fear.

 

[Blondie Bear]

^ My husband feels pretty marginalized all the time cause he's a straight, white male and therefore "evil." It's really frustrating, and I hope that we can all learn that skin color and gender and preference don't matter NO MATTER WHAT, not just if you're outside the "norm."

 

[palabravampiress]

^ I think we'll get there eventually. 🙂 I also think this new ruling is a step in the right direction.

 

[ckg927]

Think about this for a moment:

Around the time I was born(late 60s),there was quite the hullabaloo over couples of different races marrying. Gradually,as more and more couples wed,the tut-tutting over this died out.

The same thing,I think,will happen with "gay marriage".

Marty Klein(who writes the newsletter Sexual Intelligence,and keeps a blog)had a piece on this matter a few days ago here....

http://sexualintelligence.wordpress.com/

It's under the headline "Anti-Gay Marriage Activists-I Feel Your Pain". And he sums up my take better than I could.

 

[InsaneMystic]

A friend of mine was recently married in Mexico, in which country church and state are so effectively separated that two separate ceremonies were required: one at the church (the groom was Catholic, so for the church to recognize his marriage, he had to be married within the church) and one civil union (performed at the reception) that would be recognized by the state regardless of religious affiliation. I think the U.S. should take a page out of Mexico's book on that one.

It's pretty much the same in Germany, no matter whether or not you choose to have a church ceremony, you must also have a civil union at the Standesamt in order to have the marriage to be legally acknowledged.
Am I right to interpret what you're saying as that in the US the church ceremony is sufficient in itself? If so, I didn't know that.

That said, to a very large and very powerful subset of the Republican Party (this known as the Religious Right), the separation of church and state means nothing. They are theocrats who have somehow convinced themselves that the separation of church and state is invalid, that it was not intended by our founding fathers, and that it is entirely legitimate to impose Fundamentalist Protestant Christian values on the rest of the nation. I have spoken with these people and even held some as friends. Many of them have actually convinced themselves that the founding fathers' original intention was to create a Christian state, not a free state (or a Catholic one either, apparently), and adamantly push that agenda. Quite frankly, I find that mindset the most terrifying thing to occur on American soil since the Salem witch trials. To them, religious freedom doesn't really exist or only applies to an individual's choice of Protestant denomination, thus rendering it entirely legitimate in their worldview to support and enact laws seeking to criminalize behaviors that, according to their religion(s), fall under the category of "sin." The power that this group has is enormous and is, in my opinion, a greater threat to national security than all of the world's terrorists combined. The sad thing is that many people in this group are told how to vote from the pulpit and have no understanding of the constitution beyond that which they derive from the church of their choice. As a citizen who has no religion, the Religious Right terrifies me beyond all imagining. I don't want to be forced to follow their religion -- and that is exactly what they're doing, forcing me to follow their religion, when they pass legislation designed to criminalize behavior that falls outside the bounds of their religion of choice.

I've got the exact same reasoning on the German CSU (the very strongly Catholic Christian Social Union - one of the two parties forming the CDU/CSU Union Party here in Germany, both are center-right with the CDU being a bit more "center" and the CSU being quite a bit more "right"), even though they're nowhere near as rabid as the American Religious Right, they make me feel uneasy nonetheless, as they carve into the same notch, just not as deeply. You can imagine my sigh of relief when a couple of years ago Edmund Stoiber, then leader of the CSU, by a hair's breadth didn't win the election for chancellor.

 

[doppelgänger2]

I'm married, to my girlfriend. I do not consider her my "wife" for two resons:

1) We got married only to gain some legal benifits (her family is a little wack and do not like me much. Not only because I'm gay, but also because I came to Sweden as a refugee and I'm not white, married to a white Swedish girl a.k.a their daughter/grand daughter)

2) We as a same sex couple do not have the same rights as a straight married couple in terms of the law. Gay marriage in Sweden is like this silly make-believe-marriage where gay couple have some rights, but not as many as straight couples.

To me, this is a damn slap in the face. There are alot of injustice in this country which I unfortunately am a "victim" of, being a woman of color. But I don't feel like a victim, I'm not gonna break down and cry. Essentially; I have the same legal rights and obligations as any Swede, man or woman, and I'm prepared to fight for the social injustices that set us apart.

But, when it comes to me being gay (which to me is NOT a lifestyle and I friggin hate the consept of sexuality being something you choose) I don't have the same legal rights as straight people. I don't feel like a victim because of that either; but it's rather frustrating knowing that I'm a second class citizen because of whom I choose share my life with.

I am a very religious person; but when it comes to things like this, my oppinion is that religion has nothing to do with law. I don't give a damn about people's personal oppinions on my "lifestyle". I'm not gonna shove my gayness down anyone's throat, and I'm not gonna force anyone to accept me. What I do expect from EVERYONE, no matter skin color, sexual preferences et cetera, is respect. If you don't like me, fine. But at least respect me as a human being. And that presupposes that we are all lequal in legal terms.

There are a LOT of bad excuses for why gay marriage should be banned/illegal. One of the most silly is that gay people cannot reproduct and thus it's not natural (and against God's will) and shouldn't be allowed. Yeah, hi. Just because I'm gay doesn't mean that I don't have the proper instruments to reproduct. And just because I'm gay doesn't mean that I can't sleep with some random dude whenever I want to and get pregnant, just like any heterosexual woman can. Reproduction and sexuality are two VERY SEPARATE things; it's obvious if you look at animals and how they don't see reporduction as a sexual act, but can engage in same-sex sexual stuff with each other. And no matter how much megalomania human kind suffers from, we're nothing but mamals (ooh, song quote). Straight people who can't have kids still have sex, right? Straight people who can't have kids still can get married, right?

 

[palabravampiress]

It's pretty much the same in Germany, no matter whether or not you choose to have a church ceremony, you must also have a civil union at the Standesamt in order to have the marriage to be legally acknowledged.
Am I right to interpret what you're saying as that in the US the church ceremony is sufficient in itself? If so, I didn't know that.

Not quite. Marriage laws vary from state to state to the extent that a couple who is legally married in one state might not have that marriage recognized in another state (this is almost exclusively limited to gay couples). For the most part, though, every couple must go to the courthouse and obtain a marriage license. This is the basis for legal marriage. The marriage is not final unless the couple is led through the vows by some sort of officiant (religious or state) and observed in this process by some witnesses (two is my state, but that may differ from state-to-state), all of whom sign the license (as, obviously, must the couple). After the ceremony, the officiant submits the paperwork to the court. About a month later, the couple receives copies of the paperwork and confirmation. Since most people choose a religious wedding of some sort, the state grants religious officials the power to perform weddings mostly as a convenience to its citizens. Unfortunately, that renders marriage and religion inseparable in some citizens' eyes.

 

[Blondie Bear]

Technically, contracts entered into in one state are (Constitutionally) supposed to be recognized in all other states. However, the states have decided that it's their "pergative" (to use Dawn's word) to ignore that clause if they feel like it. They did it when mixed race couples were first starting to be legally allowed to marry, they do it now that gay couples are starting to (possibly) be legally allowed to marry, and they do it with lots of other stuff, like concealed carry permits and stuff. Our governments have the habit of ignoring the parts of the law that aren't convenient for them, but there's not exactly anything we can do about it.

 

[SintiKid]

Personally, I don't think marriage of any kind should have a "legal" status. It should have nothing to do with government and everything to do with the two (or three or whatever) people in the relationship.

 

[Vicariously]

Personally, I don't think marriage of any kind should have a "legal" status. It should have nothing to do with government and everything to do with the two (or three or whatever) people in the relationship.

In my opinion your right...but...

the legal status of "marriage" has everything to do with taxation and household size ect...

It also grants the other, rights as your Wife/Husband vs just a girlfriend/boyfriend who has none. In some "neccessary" instance.

There are a LOT of bad excuses for why gay marriage should be banned/illegal. One of the most silly is that gay people cannot reproduct and thus it's not natural (and against God's will) and shouldn't be allowed. Yeah, hi. Just because I'm gay doesn't mean that I don't have the proper instruments to reproduct. And just because I'm gay doesn't mean that I can't sleep with some random dude whenever I want to and get pregnant, just like any heterosexual woman can. Reproduction and sexuality are two VERY SEPARATE things; it's obvious if you look at animals and how they don't see reporduction as a sexual act, but can engage in same-sex sexual stuff with each other. And no matter how much megalomania human kind suffers from, we're nothing but mamals (ooh, song quote). Straight people who can't have kids still have sex, right? Straight people who can't have kids still can get married, right

While I understand what you are saying and mean absolutely no disrespect to you or any other person and please forgive me for once again using the "lifestyle" refrence but...your relationship does not obviously allow for natural reproduction...obviously your wife and you will never be able to share a child that is built up from both of your genes...in the same manner a heterosexual couple would.

Of course that doesn't neccessarily mean that you shouldnt be "allowed" to raise children together. There are plenty of straight couples or for that matter individuals, that have no business raising a child and they dont have to jump threw any hoops to have one the way you and your mate would. For them its as simple as having sex (in most cases) as you mentioned. So yeah....

But while I take the risk of sounding like a close minded individual I will say this...

I dont think being gay makes someone bad.

But I do sturggle to understand something my mind cannot comprehend...because I am not gay I look at it as a "WHY are they gay?" I always try to figure out some reason, some justification for someone who is, being the way they are...

I have many many gay/bisexual friends and they only further confuse me. In almost every instance they have at least at one point been involved with someone of the opposite sex and say that they just prefer their own. Its not that the CANT bring themselves to be with the opposite sex...its just a prefrence. I have also heard the term "I could go STRAIGHT for that..." and it baffles me...they know I appreciate them as a human being...while they know that I accept who they are...they also know that I just dont understand what makes them that way and they figure there is nothing they could say or do to make me understand and in many cases say they dont know themselves, they just are...but they do respect the fact that I TRY to understand and they do know that I truly love them for them! regardless. And I of course just dont really speak on the issue...

I will always think its not the natural way...but I accept it as a "just is"...

I dont think its right to abuse people for them being diffrent...and while I, as someone who is on the outside looking in and not being able to understand the reason for why something is the way it is...does not fear it...I wish that others would do the same instead of getting angry....

Instead of thinking its ok to torment someone who in many cases have already struggled within themselves to accept who they are...and to know that others might not...

In a long winded way though, I guess I just summed up why there is a ban on Gay marriag...why people vote against it...because they dont understand...the only diffrence is...is that they wont try....those same people will say that they dont want to world to accept it...that accepting it is wrong...and in my own personal opinion the argument that you used doppleganger about us being like animals...thats what alot of society does not want...thats where the church comes in...because humans hold themselves to a higher standard than animals...because sex is not looked at for what it is...a source for reproduction but instead passion...and the passion between a married couple...and reproduction an afterthought...the church specifies that you should not engage in sex before marriage...that that is a sin...obviously the majority of the world sins in that respect, but are redeemed once they enter into marriage...

The Church or course will try to convince its members to vote against turning in their words "marriage into a sham" if the gay marriage law is succesfuly overturned...Its not about law...its about sin...and according to the church someone who is gay shall always be a sinner. its very sad.

I dont agree with it...I dont think its mans right to determin what sin is...I think IF there is a God, it is his decision...I think no man is perfect...I think that at least one thing I learned in church is correct and that is...we are ALL sinners...All of us.