Holy cow!

[Bob78164]

About an hour ago, the California Supreme Court overturned, on state constitutional grounds, the state's ban on same-sex marriage. When I was a first-year law student, I predicted that same-sex marriage would be legalized but that it would take 50 years. I'm glad I was wrong. --Bob

[BackInTex]

What is saddening is that most media outlets will report this like it is a good thing, and that it was a "well duh" decision.

It is not and it was not.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

It IS a good thing.

[Ritterskoop]

I concur it is a good thing.

If we agree people of varying skin colors should be able to marry, when they used to couldn't, then we should agree this is also OK.

We love who we love. As long as the people we love are human beings, the skin color and plumbing and any number of other things should not matter.

The issue is whether marriage is a legal arrangement or a religious arrangement. If it is merely legal, then we should extend it to all who qualify, regardless of plumbing and skin color. That's what California has done.

If the hang-up is that marriage is a religious arrangement, all I can say is that for some people, it isn't. It is a contract entered into in the eyes of the state. Not every religion observes monogamous heterosexual marriages, so that is not a common standard.

[Appa23]

Bob, it is my understanding that there will be a vote on a constitutional amendment this Fall. In that the California electorate passed a state statute defining marriage as being between a man and an woman, do you think that the constitutional amendment also will gets a majority of votes, thereby "overturning" this decision?

In that the federal government will not recognize the marriage, and state governments do not have to recognize the marriage, plus state laws already gave gay couples essentially all of the rights of hetero married couples (as noted by the court), this appears to be an opinion of more flash than actual substance and legal reasoning.

I might opine more when I get a chane to actually read all 172 pages of the opinion. (Brevity is a dying art.)

[gsabc]

As long as there's sharing of the various financial penalties of marriage. For example, the marriage tax when you combine incomes on your 1040, the heavy multiplier when you go from "single" to "family" medical coverage, etc. There are advantages to marriage in the legal areas, but there are also disadvantages in the financial ones. Can't have one without the other.

[Ritterskoop]

Bob, it is my understanding that there will be a vote on a constitutional amendment this Fall. In that the California electorate passed a state statute defining marriage as being between a man and an woman, do you think that the constitutional amendment also will gets a majority of votes, thereby "overturning" this decision?

In that the federal government will not recognize the marriage, and state governments do not have to recognize the marriage, plus state laws already gave gay couples essentially all of the rights of hetero married couples (as noted by the court), this appears to be an opinion of more flash than actual substance and legal reasoning.

I might opine more when I get a chane to actually read all 172 pages of the opinion. (Brevity is a dying art.)

Oops. I didn't realize there was still a vote pending.

[Bob78164]

Bob, it is my understanding that there will be a vote on a constitutional amendment this Fall. In that the California electorate passed a state statute defining marriage as being between a man and an woman, do you think that the constitutional amendment also will gets a majority of votes, thereby "overturning" this decision?

In that the federal government will not recognize the marriage, and state governments do not have to recognize the marriage, plus state laws already gave gay couples essentially all of the rights of hetero married couples (as noted by the court), this appears to be an opinion of more flash than actual substance and legal reasoning.

I might opine more when I get a chane to actually read all 172 pages of the opinion. (Brevity is a dying art.)

No one has yet picked up on the legal importance of the ruling. The California Supreme Court held that under the California Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, sexual orientation is a suspect classification, so that laws classifying based on sexual orientation must survive strict scrutiny. (By the way, the main opinion in <B><I>only</I></B> 120 pages long.)

The political landscape clearly has changed in California on this issue. For example, the Governator has announced his opposition to the amendment. Watching what happened, or more precisely, what didn't happen in Massachusetts helped normalize perceptions. When the Legislature gave domestic partners almost all of the substantive rights accorded to married couples (within the bounds permitted by federal law), it was a virtual non-event. Also, I believe that Obama's presence at the head of the ticket and Shrub's intense disrepute here will inspire a legion of first-time young voters who will be opposed to the amendment.

In short, I am very hopeful that the electorate will finally correct the mistake we made eight years ago by passing Proposition 22. --Bob

[Bob78164]

Bob, it is my understanding that there will be a vote on a constitutional amendment this Fall. In that the California electorate passed a state statute defining marriage as being between a man and an woman, do you think that the constitutional amendment also will gets a majority of votes, thereby "overturning" this decision?

In that the federal government will not recognize the marriage, and state governments do not have to recognize the marriage, plus state laws already gave gay couples essentially all of the rights of hetero married couples (as noted by the court), this appears to be an opinion of more flash than actual substance and legal reasoning.

I might opine more when I get a chane to actually read all 172 pages of the opinion. (Brevity is a dying art.)

Oops. I didn't realize there was still a vote pending.

There wasn't. They held the signed petitions until the decision came down. I believe they were submitted today. --Bob

[wbtravis007]

I'm with Kinky here. I don't see why they should be denied the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us.

[Bob78164]

What is saddening is that most media outlets will report this like it is a good thing, and that it was a "well duh" decision.

It is not and it was not.

Of course it's a good thing.

One of my colleagues started crying for joy when he learned the news. (My eyes teared up as well.) In his case, it was because he will now be able to marry his partner, so that the family they are starting will have two parents who are married to each other. It wouldn't surprise me if there are regulars on this Bored who reacted the same way for similar reasons.

His ability to marry will not in the least impact the strength of my marriage to my wife. Nor the strength of your marriage to yours. Just as the availability of same-sex marriage over the last few years in Massachusetts has had no impact on the strength of opposite-sex marriages there or elsewhere.

And in response to the preacher I heard on local radio news this morning, I'm still waiting for God to start his "redevelopment plan" (Sodom and Gommorrah were cited) on the fair citizens of the Bay State. When an earthquake sends Cape Cod into the Atlantic, I'll start to worry. But not before. --Bob

[BackInTex]

Of course it's a good thing.

One of my colleagues started crying for joy when he learned the news. (My eyes teared up as well.) In his case, it was because he will now be able to marry his partner, so that the family they are starting will have two parents who are married to each other. It wouldn't surprise me if there are regulars on this Bored who reacted the same way for similar reasons.

His ability to marry will not in the least impact the strength of my marriage to my wife. Nor the strength of your marriage to yours. Just as the availability of same-sex marriage over the last few years in Massachusetts has had no impact on the strength of opposite-sex marriages there or elsewhere.

And in response to the preacher I heard on local radio news this morning, I'm still waiting for God to start his "redevelopment plan" (Sodom and Gommorrah were cited) on the fair citizens of the Bay State. When an earthquake sends Cape Cod into the Atlantic, I'll start to worry. But not before. --Bob

Sick and deplorable that they are 'starting a family'.

Someone committing murder/suicide doesn't impact the strength of my life so I shouldn't consider that wrong? You logic is flawed, but that is apparent by your side of the argument.

I'm not concerned about my marriage. It has nothing to do with it.


No one on your side of the argument can successfuly argue for this yet argue against polygamy or incestual marriages. Yet your argument for gay marriage is tha 'if two consenting adults love each other ....'. Why not three, or four? Where do you base 'a marriage is between two..."?

And what is someone in their will says its O.K. for "Joe" to have sex with my dead body? There are two adults, both consenting.

No, wrong is wrong. Just because two people say they are fine with it and I don't have to get involved doesn't make it right.

[Appa23]

Bob, it is my understanding that there will be a vote on a constitutional amendment this Fall. In that the California electorate passed a state statute defining marriage as being between a man and an woman, do you think that the constitutional amendment also will gets a majority of votes, thereby "overturning" this decision?

In that the federal government will not recognize the marriage, and state governments do not have to recognize the marriage, plus state laws already gave gay couples essentially all of the rights of hetero married couples (as noted by the court), this appears to be an opinion of more flash than actual substance and legal reasoning.

I might opine more when I get a chane to actually read all 172 pages of the opinion. (Brevity is a dying art.)

No one has yet picked up on the legal importance of the ruling. The California Supreme Court held that under the California Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, sexual orientation is a suspect classification, so that laws classifying based on sexual orientation must survive strict scrutiny. (By the way, the main opinion in <B><I>only</I></B> 120 pages long.) --Bob

I had gleaned the "suspect classification" thoughts of the court.

In my view, it is an erroneous legal conclusion. One can not equate choice of sexual orientation with race and national origin, those being immutable characteristics, or even gender (which is quasi-immutable). Even religion can be viewed as being more deeply ingrained and "closely held", deserving a higher level of scrutiny than orientation.

Of course, I also realize that there are some people who think that orientation is not a choice. Still, when the basis for the decision is not based firmly in fact but rather a judge's personal opinion, I find fault with that opinion. (Whether it is viewed as "liberal" or "conservative" in scope.)

My initial thought is that California will join the long list of states that have defined marriage under the state constitution, but I state that as an outsider, who presumes that your state's citizenry will decide/think the same as the remainder of the country, less a couple of states. It might not be the huge numbers as the previous statute, but will be somewhere in the 55-45 range.

You are correct that it might become another issue within the greater context of the presidential election, which could have measurable effects in either that national race and/or this state amendment vote.

[Ritterskoop]

Of course, I also realize that there are some people who think that orientation is not a choice.

I point this out to my students, that no one would willingly choose to be persecuted for something like this.

A few young people experiment with it, to rebel, but that does not explain committed relationships lasting decades and showing all the characteristics of loving relationships.

[Appa23]

Of course, I also realize that there are some people who think that orientation is not a choice.

I point this out to my students, that no one would willingly choose to be persecuted for something like this.

I did a quick Google check on the definition for "persecution":

"In everyday usage, it characterizes all relationships in which one party, the persecutor, pursues the other, the persecuted, with malevolent intentions, cruelty, and hatefulness."

With the exception of rare-but-publicized events like Matthew Shepherd and Teena Brandon / Brandon Teena (and the Fred Phelps circus), do you actually think that homosexuals are treated with malevolence, cruelty, or hate by the general public? Even the civil rights movement pioneers tire of the attempts to compare the groups.

In addition, people consistently choose lifestyles that are not to their benefit. Drugs are a great example, as is gambling. Why would anyone choose to become a meth addict, so they never had a choice in starting the habit? So, your argument does not withstand scrutiny, strict or merely rational basis.

[SportsFan68]

I am all for same-gender marriage for the reasons I've talked about before. I've watched in dismay as two people I think a lot of got streamrolled when their non-legal partnerships ended. In the first one, the partner who bore the child walked away with the baby, the house, and all the other community property. Common sense, pleas by my friend, and pressure from other members of the gay community brought about a reasonable settlement and joint custody.

In the second one, my friend moved 50 miles away because her partner got a job there, they bought a house, and then the partner walked away with basically the clothes in her closet, leaving significant debt and emotional wreckage.

Same-gender marriage won't eliminate laws against having sex with a corpse, nor will it eliminate laws against polygamy.

What I remain puzzled about is how people who object to homosexuality on Biblical grounds aren't lobbying for the death penalty for men who have participated in a same-gender sexual relationship. The Bible is clear on both points -- it's an abomination, and anyone who commits this abomination shall be put to death. Yet even Cal states that he has gay friends in his theatre productions. I don't get it.

[Ritterskoop]

Of course, I also realize that there are some people who think that orientation is not a choice.

I point this out to my students, that no one would willingly choose to be persecuted for something like this.

I did a quick Google check on the definition for "persecution":

"In everyday usage, it characterizes all relationships in which one party, the persecutor, pursues the other, the persecuted, with malevolent intentions, cruelty, and hatefulness."

With the exception of rare-but-publicized events like Matthew Shepherd and Teena Brandon / Brandon Teena (and the Fred Phelps circus), do you actually think that homosexuals are treated with malevolence, cruelty, or hate by the general public? Even the civil rights movement pioneers tire of the attempts to compare the groups.

In addition, people consistently choose lifestyles that are not to their benefit. Drugs are a great example, as is gambling. Why would anyone choose to become a meth addict, so they never had a choice in starting the habit? So, your argument does not withstand scrutiny, strict or merely rational basis.

Yes, homosexual Americans are treated badly. Not by everyone, certainly. With education we are coming to be more accepting of each other's many quirks. But there is a long way to travel on this. Matthew Shepherd's murder was only ten years ago.

I think some of the statements in this thread toward gay couples constitute persecution, given the definition you cited. Certainly Shepherd is an excellent example of the lengths to which some folks will go when they are afraid of someone who is different. Fred Phelps' group comes up in my class all the time. Kids want to know why anyone would treat them that way for a genetic thing they do not choose.

10% of human beings are left-handed.
10% are red-green color-blind.
And 10% are homosexual.

These are genetic occurrences that simply occur; they are not a matter of choice. We have seen the damage done when parents make their kids perform as right-handers. Why can't we see the same damage, or worse, when we insist people perform as heterosexual?

I do not follow the comparison to gambling or drug addiction. I choose to gamble; it is not a genetic condition over which I have no control. I can stop. I choose not to try meth, knowing it is bad.

But if I had been born oriented toward a particular gender, I am not sure how I would go about stopping that attraction. That is not a matter of choice. In fact I was born oriented toward fellas, and if the situation were turned around and I was told I had to stop that, and instead be attracted to women, I don't know how I would go about changing that.

What makes my heart hurt is couples I know who are treated as second-class citizens because they are not legally wedded, and young people who must hide their attractions, for fear of being beaten up or worse. The rules on these areas smack of people needing to be right rather than people who are working on loving their neighbors.

[Appa23]

I point this out to my students, that no one would willingly choose to be persecuted for something like this.

I did a quick Google check on the definition for "persecution":

"In everyday usage, it characterizes all relationships in which one party, the persecutor, pursues the other, the persecuted, with malevolent intentions, cruelty, and hatefulness."

With the exception of rare-but-publicized events like Matthew Shepherd and Teena Brandon / Brandon Teena (and the Fred Phelps circus), do you actually think that homosexuals are treated with malevolence, cruelty, or hate by the general public? Even the civil rights movement pioneers tire of the attempts to compare the groups.

In addition, people consistently choose lifestyles that are not to their benefit. Drugs are a great example, as is gambling. Why would anyone choose to become a meth addict, so they never had a choice in starting the habit? So, your argument does not withstand scrutiny, strict or merely rational basis.

Yes, homosexual Americans are treated badly. Not by everyone, certainly. With education we are coming to be more accepting of each other's many quirks. But there is a long way to travel on this. Matthew Shepherd's murder was only ten years ago.

I think some of the statements in this thread toward gay couples constitute persecution, given the definition you cited. Certainly Shepherd is an excellent example of the lengths to which some folks will go when they are afraid of someone who is different. Fred Phelps' group comes up in my class all the time. Kids want to know why anyone would treat them that way for a genetic thing they do not choose.

10% of human beings are left-handed.
10% are red-green color-blind.
And 10% are homosexual.

These are genetic occurrences that simply occur; they are not a matter of choice. We have seen the damage done when parents make their kids perform as right-handers. Why can't we see the same damage, or worse, when we insist people perform as heterosexual?

I do not follow the comparison to gambling or drug addiction. I choose to gamble; it is not a genetic condition over which I have no control. I can stop. I choose not to try meth, knowing it is bad.

But if I had been born oriented toward a particular gender, I am not sure how I would go about stopping that attraction. That is not a matter of choice. In fact I was born oriented toward fellas, and if the situation were turned around and I was told I had to stop that, and instead be attracted to women, I don't know how I would go about changing that.

What makes my heart hurt is couples I know who are treated as second-class citizens because they are not legally wedded, and young people who must hide their attractions, for fear of being beaten up or worse. The rules on these areas smack of people needing to be right rather than people who are working on loving their neighbors.

I can respect your opinion, Skoop.

I only have two things to note.

First, you cite a 10% figure for homosexuality that is not backed by any census or reputable survey facts. IIRC, the actual numbers are around 2%-3%. Even homosexual advocacy groups have admitted that the 10% number has been a vast overestimate, utilized for political purposes.

Second, you can keep stating that homosexuality is genetic, and a person no more can help being gay than they can being left-handed, but there is no scientific proof of it. Moreover, a genetic disposition to being left-handed will not cause the extinction of the species. However, a genetic disposition that could lead to no procreation between the opposite sexes of a species can. Does that make sense?

[peacock2121]

Of course it's a good thing.

One of my colleagues started crying for joy when he learned the news. (My eyes teared up as well.) In his case, it was because he will now be able to marry his partner, so that the family they are starting will have two parents who are married to each other. It wouldn't surprise me if there are regulars on this Bored who reacted the same way for similar reasons.

His ability to marry will not in the least impact the strength of my marriage to my wife. Nor the strength of your marriage to yours. Just as the availability of same-sex marriage over the last few years in Massachusetts has had no impact on the strength of opposite-sex marriages there or elsewhere.

And in response to the preacher I heard on local radio news this morning, I'm still waiting for God to start his "redevelopment plan" (Sodom and Gommorrah were cited) on the fair citizens of the Bay State. When an earthquake sends Cape Cod into the Atlantic, I'll start to worry. But not before. --Bob

Sick and deplorable that they are 'starting a family'.

Someone committing murder/suicide doesn't impact the strength of my life so I shouldn't consider that wrong? You logic is flawed, but that is apparent by your side of the argument.

I'm not concerned about my marriage. It has nothing to do with it.


No one on your side of the argument can successfuly argue for this yet argue against polygamy or incestual marriages. Yet your argument for gay marriage is tha 'if two consenting adults love each other ....'. Why not three, or four? Where do you base 'a marriage is between two..."?

And what is someone in their will says its O.K. for "Joe" to have sex with my dead body? There are two adults, both consenting.

No, wrong is wrong. Just because two people say they are fine with it and I don't have to get involved doesn't make it right.

Wrong is an opinion. Just like right is an opinion.

I appreciate your 'line in the sand' argument. I do not appreciate your 'wrong is wrong' argument.

I say it is right for two people who love each other to be allowed the honor of publically and legally commit to one another.

You say it is wrong.

Now what?

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Second, you can keep stating that homosexuality is genetic, and a person no more can help being gay than they can being left-handed, but there is no scientific proof of it. Moreover, a genetic disposition to being left-handed will not cause the extinction of the species. However, a genetic disposition that could lead to no procreation between the opposite sexes of a species can. Does that make sense?

There are plenty of genetic characteristics that don't favor survival that still keep showing up. This isn't exactly a slam dunk argument. If the characteristic is a variation of a characteristic that does relate to a characteristic that is related to the survival of the species it will keep turning up, and plenty of gays have had children.

[peacock2121]

Second, you can keep stating that homosexuality is genetic, and a person no more can help being gay than they can being left-handed, but there is no scientific proof of it. Moreover, a genetic disposition to being left-handed will not cause the extinction of the species. However, a genetic disposition that could lead to no procreation between the opposite sexes of a species can. Does that make sense?

There are plenty of genetic characteristics that don't favor survival that still keep showing up. This isn't exactly a slam dunk argument. If the characteristic is a variation of a characteristic that does relate to a characteristic that is related to the survival of the species it will keep turning up, and plenty of gays have had children.

goodness

That sounded like something I would say.

[NellyLunatic1980]

How's this for a federal marriage amendment:

"Marriage will be defined as the joining of one adult human being with one consenting unrelated adult human being."

So any moron (I'm looking at you, Rick Santorum and Jon Cornyn) who says that the legalization of gay marriage would lead to legalized marriages between man and dog, man and box turtle, man and child, man and blow-up doll, three women, etc. will have their arguments shot down by the simple yet specific wording of that amendment. All of those marriages will explicitly be declared illegal.

[Bob Juch]

How's this for a federal marriage amendment:

"Marriage will be defined as the joining of one adult human being with one consenting unrelated adult human being."

So any moron (I'm looking at you, Rick Santorum and Jon Cornyn) who says that the legalization of gay marriage would lead to legalized marriages between man and dog, man and box turtle, man and child, man and blow-up doll, three women, etc. will have their arguments shot down by the simple yet specific wording of that amendment. All of those marriages will explicitly be declared illegal.

But I'm related to everybody!

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Second, you can keep stating that homosexuality is genetic, and a person no more can help being gay than they can being left-handed, but there is no scientific proof of it. Moreover, a genetic disposition to being left-handed will not cause the extinction of the species. However, a genetic disposition that could lead to no procreation between the opposite sexes of a species can. Does that make sense?

There are plenty of genetic characteristics that don't favor survival that still keep showing up. This isn't exactly a slam dunk argument. If the characteristic is a variation of a characteristic that does relate to a characteristic that is related to the survival of the species it will keep turning up, and plenty of gays have had children.

goodness

That sounded like something I would say.

No, you would have said "Then why do men have nipples"

[peacock2121]

I already know why men have nipples.