California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[RandomGuy]

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer
47 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in striking down the ban.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as the news spread.

Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"

"This is a very historic day. This is just such freedom for us," Rizzo said. "This is a message that says all of us are entitled to human dignity."

In the Castro, historically a center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt started crying while watching the news on TV.

"I've been waiting for this all my life," he said. "This is a life-affirming moment."

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted the monthlong wedding march that took place when Mayor Gavin Newsom opened the doors of City Hall to same-sex marriages.

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.

The challenge for gay rights advocates, however, is not over.

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court's decision.

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.

But, "Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court's majority, which also included Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said the court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.

The conservative Alliance Defense Fund says it plans to ask the justices for a stay of their decision until after the fall election, said Glen Lavey, senior counsel for the group.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would've granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, said in a news release that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
-------------------

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage)

WHEEEEE!!!! I don't have a lot invested in this either way, but find the whole thing interesting drama. :corn:

countdown to Xray or gtownspur saying something mean and over the top... 3...2... 1...

[Don Quixote]

Yeah, my objections to "gay marriage" are more moral, theological, and philosophical than they are political. If some judges think they have the power, and the responsibility, to overturn 6 millennia of human history that says marriage is hetero, and the people agree, then politically speaking, that's their call to make.

I am concerned, though, that the will of the people is not being respected here. How many democratically legislated laws against gay "marriage," or specifically defining what marriage is, have been struck down by the courts?

[RichardSimmons]

This is great news!!! :elephant

[PixelPusher]

Yeah, my objections to "gay marriage" are more moral, theological, and philosophical than they are political. If some judges think they have the power, and the responsibility, to overturn 6 millennia of human history that says marriage is hetero, and the people agree, then politically speaking, that's their call to make.

I am concerned, though, that the will of the people is not being respected here. How many democratically legislated laws against gay "marriage," or specifically defining what marriage is, have been struck down by the courts?

Marriage has had several definitions in the past 6000 years, many of them involving polygamy and women defined as property.

But please, enlighten us as to how two people of the same sex being married will destroy the remaining 50% of marriages that haven't already resulted in divorce?

[Don Quixote]

Yeah, you're right. Marriage has certainly evolved somewhat over the history of civilization. The ancient Hebrews, for instance actually had three classes of marriage, or at least ways in which a man could legally ... make whoopie.

But the notion of monogamous hetero marriage goes back a long way too, and its not exclusively Christian, or Western for that matter. But in the West, anyway, marriage has always been monogamous and hetero, at least since the Roman Empire. And, no matter what strictures or conditions we might want to put on it, it has never been homosexual.

But, like I said, my objections to homosexual "marriage" is more theological and philosophical than political. If the people want it (they mostly don't), then it should be legal.

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, my objections to "gay marriage" are more moral, theological, and philosophical than they are political. If some judges think they have the power, and the responsibility, to overturn 6 millennia of human history that says marriage is hetero, and the people agree, then politically speaking, that's their call to make.

I am concerned, though, that the will of the people is not being respected here. How many democratically legislated laws against gay "marriage," or specifically defining what marriage is, have been struck down by the courts?

What if the "will of the people" turns out to have a majority view in one state that such a thing should be legalized and codified?

All it takes is ONE state to set up the laws, and all the others HAVE to recognize such unions.

Sooner or later it seems inevitable to me that such a thing will happen in my lifetime. I think the debate should be less about "yes or no", but more about "how".

As I said in the OP, I don't have any strong feelings either way, I'm just calling it like I see it.

[Don Quixote]

This is great news!!! :elephant

Mr. Simmons! A New Orleans native! Good to hear from you!

I'll have you know that your alma mater, Brother Martin High School on Elysian Fields, has fixed up their campus rather nicely. You should come and visit sometime.

Bring Ellen Degeneres, too.

[Don Quixote]

What if the "will of the people" turns out to have a majority view in one state that such a thing should be legalized and codified?

All it takes is ONE state to set up the laws, and all the others HAVE to recognize such unions.

Sooner or later it seems inevitable to me that such a thing will happen in my lifetime. I think the debate should be less about "yes or no", but more about "how".

As I said in the OP, I don't have any strong feelings either way, I'm just calling it like I see it.

It does seem inevitable -- but I'm not sure if it actually is. As far as I know, only 2 states have actually passed legislation for gay "marriage," Vermont and Hawaii. And Massachusetts? Every other state that's voted on it, either by referendum or in the legislature, has denied it. So the gay "marriage" movement still has a long hill to climb.

Your concern, though, about one state passing it, and other states denying it, is valid. This is the reasoning behind the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is not too different from the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Bill Clinton. Because of this dynamic, opponents of gay "marriage" feel they must raise it to the federal level.

At this point, though, I view it more as a court-imposed faux marriage than anything else. Still, if the people want it ...

[PixelPusher]

But the notion of monogamous hetero marriage goes back a long way too, and its not exclusively Christian, or Western for that matter. But in the West, anyway, marriage has always been monogamous and hetero, at least since the Roman Empire. And, no matter what strictures or conditions we might want to put on it, it has never been homosexual.

As I recall, Paul actively discouraged marriage in his letters to the early Christian churches.

...something about Christ's return being emminent, so there was no need.

[Don Quixote]

No ... that would be an incorrect reading of 1 Corinthians 7:7-9. Indeed, verse 28 says people who marry have not sinned. The overall point of this rather complicated passage is that marriage, while good and a privilege, may be given up for the sake of serving God and the church. I have a few friends and colleagues who have done just that -- they are called to be single. (God be with them.)

Actually, there's a bigger point in I Cor 7 -- Paul is saying that there are things in life bigger and more important than marriage. If you're already married, stay married, and enjoy fellowship with God in your marriage. And if you're single, that's good too, for you can serve Him in your single-ness.

[JoeChalupa]

What if the "will of the people" turns out to have a majority view in one state that such a thing should be legalized and codified?

All it takes is ONE state to set up the laws, and all the others HAVE to recognize such unions.

Sooner or later it seems inevitable to me that such a thing will happen in my lifetime. I think the debate should be less about "yes or no", but more about "how".

As I said in the OP, I don't have any strong feelings either way, I'm just calling it like I see it.

I agree with for the most part. When I think of marriage I naturally think of it as between a man and a woman and I don't really think I should need to add "to a woman" each time I say I'm married. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
But you know now a days if you go to a party and just happen to find yourself in a conversation with a bunch of guys you don't know and the topic of "who is married" comes up and everyone says yes or no and then everyone wonders.."is he married to a man or a woman?"...so you blurt out.."to a woman" to make your case and then they all wonder why you felt you had to say it which leaves an awkward feeling until the subject quickly turns to sports.

[Don Quixote]

Marriage has had several definitions in the past 6000 years, many of them involving polygamy and women defined as property.

But please, enlighten us as to how two people of the same sex being married will destroy the remaining 50% of marriages that haven't already resulted in divorce?

As for the second part of your post, I'm not really saying that a few gay "marriages" will destroy straight marriages. I think straights have done a fine job of tearing down the institution themselves. As a student of scripture, and a minister, I honor marriage and actively counsel people to avoid all kinds of sexual immorality -- not only homosexuality, but heterosexual misconduct as well.

Back to the secular sphere ... we're wrong if we try to treat gay "marriage" as some sort of universal civil right. The state has always regulated marriage -- we cannot just marry whomever we want. We cannot marry first cousins (in many states), we cannot marry someone else's spouse, we cannot marry more than one person. And in some places, we cannot marry people with certain diseases. So we restrict who can marry whom all the time.

I don't mean to say that these cases = homosexual couples, but I mean to show that marriage is, indeed, regulated.

I can go into the continuum implied between marriage and childrearing, but that's enough for now.

[JoeChalupa]

No, keep going.

[Ivan]

Don, does this mean that gays now get to come to your house and rape you? If not, why do you give a shit?

[Don Quixote]

I am not an ethical egoist, that's why.

I care about things beyond my front yard. If you don't care, then I would imagine that you're not interested in the conversation.

[Trainwreck2100]

But please, enlighten us as to how two people of the same sex being married will destroy the remaining 50% of marriages that haven't already resulted in divorce?



That 50% is gonna drop real quick in Cali

[DarkReign]

Look over here! Look over here!

http://www.jljmagic.com/stagemagicpic.jpg












...pay no attention to the man beind the curtain...
http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~ehearn/man-behind-the-curtain.jpg

[DarkReign]

TW, Ive seen a lot of your avatars.

Thats the best one ever, IMO.

[Don Quixote]

No, keep going.

Okay ... childrearing is implicitly part of marriage. It's generally assumed. Of course, you have infertile couples or couples who marry in old age, but they are the exception. (It's never good policy to use the exception to make the rules.)

In a very small nutshell -- gay "marriage" breaks the natural continuity that runs from marriage to childbirth to childrearing. Even if the gays are able and willing to lovingly raise kids (many are), they must do so by introducing other people into the reproductive matrix (surrogacy, test-tube babies, etc.). Furthermore, giving them adoptive kids raises a ton of ethical concerns, too, the largest of which is gay couples' inherent inability to give children BOTH a father and a mother. It's impossible for them.

Lastly, advocates of gay "marriage" say that it will allow gays to live together as couples. I reply that they already can. Nothing is stopping them. If one partner wants to, he can even write his partner into a living will and draw up some sort of civil union. I have no (political) problem with this. But, at least, the burden should be on advocates of gay marriage to show that their position benefits society,and so far they have failed.

[Don Quixote]

Okay, that's it for now.

As long as the courts are in favor of gay marriage, though, it looks like it will be the law of the land.

[Ivan]

I am a homophoebe

/end thread

[Don Quixote]

I'll discuss ethics and politics with the adults, then.

Run along now.

[BradLohaus]

The polygamists are getting a raw deal.

I don't know why the state needs to be involved in marriage anymore. Given that half of all marriages end in divorce, I would imagine that the amount of <18 year olds that are being raised out of wedlock is somewhere in the 40s% as it is. You want community property? Form an LLP; if you can't hammer out the details, then you shouldn't be together long term.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

See, this is where people's religion should butt out. I don't care what the bible says on marriage. Why should your beliefs prevent two people from doing what makes them happy?

The will of the people should not serve to deprive someone else of something like being able to marry, which IMO should be a god given right (if god exists). Why some people are so intent on denying others their right to be happy is beyond me.

[BonnerDynasty]

Do State Supreme Courts often veto the will of the people?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Do State Supreme Courts often veto the will of the people?

when the will of the people is unconstitutional, I imagine they'd have to

[Trainwreck2100]

See, this is where people's religion should butt out. I don't care what the bible says on marriage. Why should your beliefs prevent two people from doing what makes them happy?

The will of the people should not serve to deprive someone else of something like being able to marry, which IMO should be a god given right (if god exists). Why some people are so intent on denying others their right to be happy is beyond me.


you are absolutely right, it is so wrong that people can't marry 4 women, or minors, or their cousins.

[BonnerDynasty]

you are absolutely right, it is so wrong that people can't marry 4 women, or minors, or their cousins.

don't forget Dogs and Goats.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

you are absolutely right, it is so wrong that people can't marry 4 women, or minors, or their cousins.

I imagine the reasons for all those being against the law are intrinsically different. For example, the reason why adults can't marry minors has nothing to do with the reason why people are objecting to gay marriage. Minors are deemed incapable of consenting to such a thing as marriage or sex. Is it your opinion that gays shouldn't marry because of the same reasons?

As for the cousins and the 4 wives, I really don't see why it would be anyone's business either way. If in both cases, the marriage is consensual and all parties are of legal age, then what business is it to you? really

[RandomGuy]

don't forget Dogs and Goats.

... and box turtles.

aaaaah sweet Tine T Turtle...:p:

[Don Quixote]

Remember ... I am not making my case against the legalization of gay "marriage" on religious/biblical grounds. While such arguments work quite well in the seminary and in the church, and are somewhat useful in the public square, I don't expect the majority of people to accept them.

My argument against gay "marriage," politically, is purely secular. Right now, the burden of proof ought to be on the ones who want to legalize it. And they have not convinced the American people up to this point. The people don't want it. Liberal California even voted it down.

Right now, the only people the gay activists have been able to convince on this issue have been a few justices, and a minority of voters. Long term, that's not the way to go. Rather, you change things by expressing your ideas civilly and convincing us that you are right.

But, no, I am not bringing biblical exegesis or theology into this.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Remember ... I am not making my case against the legalization of gay "marriage" on religious/biblical grounds. While such arguments work quite well in the seminary and in the church, and are somewhat useful in the public square, I don't expect the majority of people to accept them.

My argument against gay "marriage," politically, is purely secular. Right now, the burden of proof ought to be on the ones who want to legalize it. And they have not convinced the American people up to this point. The people don't want it. Liberal California even voted it down.

Right now, the only people the gay activists have been able to convince on this issue have been a few justices, and a minority of voters. Long term, that's not the way to go. Rather, you change things by expressing your ideas civilly and convincing us that you are right.

But, no, I am not bringing biblical exegesis or theology into this.

I don't understand why you think its up to them to convince you of anything? Who are you to tell them they can't get married? seriously! By the way, what are those secular arguments? I sure would love to hear them

[possessed]

I guess that's one way to keep them from having sex. :D

[PixelPusher]

Remember ... I am not making my case against the legalization of gay "marriage" on religious/biblical grounds. While such arguments work quite well in the seminary and in the church, and are somewhat useful in the public square, I don't expect the majority of people to accept them.

My argument against gay "marriage," politically, is purely secular. Right now, the burden of proof ought to be on the ones who want to legalize it. And they have not convinced the American people up to this point. The people don't want it. Liberal California even voted it down.

Right now, the only people the gay activists have been able to convince on this issue have been a few justices, and a minority of voters. Long term, that's not the way to go. Rather, you change things by expressing your ideas civilly and convincing us that you are right.

But, no, I am not bringing biblical exegesis or theology into this.
60 years ago, those same arguments were used to argue against inter-racial marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Sharp), which certainly wasn't popular in 1948. Justice isn't supposed to be subject to the tyranny of the mob.

[Dim Tuncan]

Nice to see some liberty being restored in that communist hellhole.

[jochhejaam]

In the true spirit of democracy, there will probably be a vote this fall (in California) on whether same-sex marriage should be banned.

Government, of the poeple, for the people and by the people. Fair enough.
Why let 7 decide the fate of issues, when millions deciding is surely more representative of the will of the people of the fine State of California.

[DBryant88]

don't forget Dogs and Goats.

and birds and alligators and whales and horse and midgets

[Supergirl]

It does seem inevitable -- but I'm not sure if it actually is. As far as I know, only 2 states have actually passed legislation for gay "marriage," Vermont and Hawaii. And Massachusetts? Every other state that's voted on it, either by referendum or in the legislature, has denied it. So the gay "marriage" movement still has a long hill to climb.

Your concern, though, about one state passing it, and other states denying it, is valid. This is the reasoning behind the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is not too different from the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Bill Clinton. Because of this dynamic, opponents of gay "marriage" feel they must raise it to the federal level.

At this point, though, I view it more as a court-imposed faux marriage than anything else. Still, if the people want it ...

Your facts are wrong.

In chronological order:
Hawaii was the first state to rule AGAINST gay marriage.
Massachusetts was the first state to rule in favor of it.
Arizona was the first state to vote DOWN a ballot measure which would have banned gay marriage, but they haven't passed any ruling saying its OK.
California is the latest state to rule that marriage cannot be limited to opposite gender couples.

Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, New Jersey, and Connecticut have all passed various civil union bills, of varying degrees of clarity and usefulness, but none have ruled in favor of same gender marriage in their highest courts.

[101A]

Justice isn't supposed to be subject to the tyranny of the mob.

Yeah, that's only for tax policy.

[101A]

I guess that's one way to keep them from having sex. :D


seriously.

lol.

[Don Quixote]

I don't understand why you think its up to them to convince you of anything? Who are you to tell them they can't get married? seriously! By the way, what are those secular arguments? I sure would love to hear them

Their burden is for them to convince us, the voters, that they are right. If enough of us are convinced, we vote in their favor. So far, they mostly have failed to convince us. But, as always, I'll listen to your argument for it.

And it is not only me telling gay people they can't get married. It's 6-7 thousand years of human civilization saying they can't. The burden is on THEM to show that they CAN. But I'm not saying that Steve & Bruce can't buy a house together or be "life partners." They already can be. Good for them. But don't call it marriage.

Lastly, read page one for my secular argument. Honestly, I think the biblical arguments are stronger, but the secular ones are pretty good too.

[JoeChalupa]

Live and let live.

[Don Quixote]

Your facts are wrong.

In chronological order:
Hawaii was the first state to rule AGAINST gay marriage.
Massachusetts was the first state to rule in favor of it.
Arizona was the first state to vote DOWN a ballot measure which would have banned gay marriage, but they haven't passed any ruling saying its OK.
California is the latest state to rule that marriage cannot be limited to opposite gender couples.

Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, New Jersey, and Connecticut have all passed various civil union bills, of varying degrees of clarity and usefulness, but none have ruled in favor of same gender marriage in their highest courts.

Thanks for clarifying. I didn't think I was entirely correct as to which states had done what. Overall, though, my point remains -- no more than 2 or 3 states have okayed full-fledged gay "marriage."

[Don Quixote]

In the true spirit of democracy, there will probably be a vote this fall (in California) on whether same-sex marriage should be banned.

Government, of the poeple, for the people and by the people. Fair enough.
Why let 7 decide the fate of issues, when millions deciding is surely more representative of the will of the people of the fine State of California.

Actually, the good people of Califiornia already voted on it, in 2002. The referendum passed 61-39%. It was the judges who threw it out.

[Don Quixote]

60 years ago, those same arguments were used to argue against inter-racial marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Sharp), which certainly wasn't popular in 1948. Justice isn't supposed to be subject to the tyranny of the mob.

"Mob" is right! Are these judges controlled by the gay mafia? (I keed ...)

Anyway .... I've heard this argument before. Your analogy fails, however, because fertility (and sexuality) and race have nothing to do with each other. Fertility (remember the "continuity between marriage and childrearing") is not dependent upon race -- this makes race irrelevant in how the state chooses to regulate marriage. The sexuality of the partners, however, is very much relevant for the reasons I have already gone into.

At the very least, it is still on the gay community (who I do not hate, in case you were wondering) to show us why their sexuality ought to make them exempt from the regulation imposed upon other people who desire to marry (polygamy, child brides, etc.). Not only am I not convinced, but I think I speak for the majority of Americans on this one.

Lastly, I agree with your words on justice -- some things should be beyond the reach of majorities. A good example is the DH in baseball (most people want, I don't care, it's still immoral). But ought justice be solely in the hands of a few men in robes, either? They effectively stole the votes of 61% of California. How is that just?

But thanks for the thoughtful post.

[Supergirl]

"Marriage" is an entirely legal construct.

Historically, the purpose of marriage has been to deterimine property rights. In feudal times, that property ("Chattel") included women, children, and things. Marriage historically has had very little to do with religion, until the domination of the Catholic church, and its version of morality.

Today, religious marriage and civil marriage are two entirely separate things, which get conflated over and over again. Religious marriage is and should be decided by religious groups. I'm Jewish, and most rabbis won't perform a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew - by the way, that includes many Reform rabbis who will perform weddings between people of the same gender. Catholic priests won't marry a Catholic to a non-Catholic.

Civil marriage is a right that grants protection for children, protection for partners, vital health benefits, tax breaks, and all sorts of other benefits. Why should this civil right be limited only to some citizens and not to others? That is the very antithesis of why our democracy was founded.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, I think I have a unique view on the subject. Maybe someone else's mentioned this, I didn't read most the posts in this thread.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now to convert the old terminology to something modern, it would read something like this:


Congress shall make no law in regards to the system of laws of religion.


"Respecting" at the time meant "In regard to" or "relating to." "Establishment" is clearly more than just establishing:



establishment:

1) The act of establishing.

2) The state of being established; settlement; fixed state; ratification of what has been settled or made.

3) Settled regulations; form; ordinance; system of laws
(definitions 4-8 not related)


Now marriage has always been a union between a man, and one or more women, sanctioned by a religious body. I believe it is unconstitutional for government to allow or disallow a marriage. It is traditionally, as far as I know, 100% a church/religious leader function.

That said, there should be no benefits, privileges, or penalties created by the government concerning marriage.

Government has done it's evil deed in regulation marriage like it does with everything we allow it to do. Now that it has, and there are benefits, others want what should only be between one man and one woman. As a modern society, the need for one man to have more than one wife no longer exists as it once did. Still, if that is how some people choose to live, who am I to say different. I do however have a problem with those who want to change the definition. Since others want to intrude on the traditional values of marriage, I want the government to 100% separate itself from marriage.

Also why do people want to be called married? It's an offense to many who see marriage as a special sanctity.

I may be wrong here. As far as I know, every state calls a marriage license a "union" in one form, or another. At least I have never seen one that doesn't.

I would say with near certainty, that a marriage is a civil union, but a civil union is not a marriage. Just like a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.

I think we need to outlaw the government from recognizing marriage. Tax wise, individual filing for every one. Just my solid belief that marriage falls into the religious category, not government.

[SAGambler]

In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage

Not that I give a shit one way or the other as to same sex marriage, but this is just one more example of how "elected or selected" officials trump "we the people", and do whatever they damn well please.

Anyone who thinks there is a difference in Democrats and Republicans in office needs to take a hiatus to the loony bin. Makes not one whit of difference as to who is in office they are going to do whatever is best for "them" and the people be damned.

Politics is such a scummy thing. And politicians are what makes it that way. We have turned over our lives to a few "selected less evil" people and they are making hay while the sun shines.

[xrayzebra]

See, this is where people's religion should butt out. I don't care what the bible says on marriage. Why should your beliefs prevent two people from doing what makes them happy?

The will of the people should not serve to deprive someone else of something like being able to marry, which IMO should be a god given right (if god exists). Why some people are so intent on denying others their right to be happy is beyond me.


Yeah, you bet, makes sense to me. I guess if you want
to marry your dog, the little boy next door or have two
husbands or two wives or get married at 12 it should be
allowed. I mean after all everyone has that right. I mean
can we forbid anyone their happiness? Throw the rules
out which have been established for centuries and proven
to be the way things should be done. I mean a few guys have given their life to have sex with a horse. Just think we could have saved them if we had just allowed them to
live a normal life and married their lover.

I think that we should just go the route of abolishing all
laws and customs.

I mean it is all about sex anyway, right? Family really shouldn't even enter into the equation.

Oh, by the way. I read this morning that a move to
place a constitutional amendment on the ballot has
already started in California. And if passed it will Trump
the court decision. All that is needed is a simple
majority. Big fight looming. Standby for all the
fireworks.

[MannyIsGod]

In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage

Not that I give a shit one way or the other as to same sex marriage, but this is just one more example of how "elected or selected" officials trump "we the people", and do whatever they damn well please.

Anyone who thinks there is a difference in Democrats and Republicans in office needs to take a hiatus to the loony bin. Makes not one whit of difference as to who is in office they are going to do whatever is best for "them" and the people be damned.

Politics is such a scummy thing. And politicians are what makes it that way. We have turned over our lives to a few "selected less evil" people and they are making hay while the sun shines.

No its not. Judges have a responsibility to determine if something is constitutional or not whether they agree with it or not. I believe the people of California can pass a constitutional amendment if they feel strongly about it, but if you pass a law under the constitution and it doesn't adhere to what that constitution says then its going to be struck down and rightfully so.

[Supergirl]

I think we need to outlaw the government from recognizing marriage. Tax wise, individual filing for every one. Just my solid belief that marriage falls into the religious category, not government.

I would actually be totally OK with this. Eliminate any legal marital contract, and all tax benefits that come with it. Allow tax benefits for having children only, or eliminate that as well.

Then all couples would simply have to fill out medical proxy forms, giving their partner all the rights to medical decision making in event of emergency, and access to them in hospitals and ERs. And the progressive, non-fascist religious groups could continue to perform religious weddings, and other people could have secular ceremonies.

However, we're already on this path.

I might point out, as others have done before me, that had it not been for a few "activist judges" our schools would still be segregated and interracial marriage would still be illegal. The list of long when it comes to things judges have needed to take a stand on, as representatives of our judicial system and the principles laid out in our Consitution, because the people are too bigoted to vote the right way when given the chance.

[Extra Stout]

I would have no problem with a system wherein homosexual partners, or other kinds of households, such as an adult living with an elderly parent, or two siblings, etc., could apply to be declared a household according to the law with the concomitant legal status.

However, another poster once posed the question, which I could not answer, in part because I did not feel strongly enough to research it: what benefits are denied to couples who are not allowed to marry or form "legal" households, which cannot be obtained by other means?

Insurance partner benefits come to mind.

[Supergirl]

here's a start: http://www.buddybuddy.com/mar-list.html