California courts finally get it right...

Nude_IHB

Nude_IHB

New member
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/15cnd-marriage.html?em&ex=1210996800&en=5d922aa6fa2307e3&ei=5087">California Supreme Court strikes down gay marriage ban</a>

<blockquote>?In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,? Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote of marriage for the majority, ?the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.?</blockquote>


It's about time. :coolsmile:
 
This was my favorite part of the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html">article I read</a>:



<blockquote>"There can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most consistent with our state's general legislative policy and preference," Thursday's ruling read.</blockquote>
 
<blockquote>"The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and instead legislating from the bench," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for the group Concerned Women for America, in a written statement.



"So-called 'same-sex' marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it's in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable."



The organization said that a constitutional marriage amendment should be placed on the November ballot and that national efforts should be made to generate a federal marriage amendment.



"The decision must be removed from the hands of judicial activists and returned to the rightful hands of the people," Barber said.

</blockquote>
See that? That's irony right there. In reading the opinion, it's clear that judicial activism DID NOT take place.

<blockquote>First, we must determine the nature and scope of the ?right to marry? ? a

right that past cases establish as one of the fundamental constitutional rights

embodied in the California Constitution. Although, as an historical matter, civil

marriage and the rights associated with it traditionally have been afforded only to

opposite-sex couples, this court?s landmark decision 60 years ago in Perez v.

Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 7114 ? which found that California?s statutory provisions

prohibiting interracial marriages were inconsistent with the fundamental

constitutional right to marry, notwithstanding the circumstance that statutory

prohibitions on interracial marriage had existed since the founding of the state ?

makes clear that history alone is not invariably an appropriate guide for

determining the meaning and scope of this fundamental constitutional guarantee.

The decision in Perez, although rendered by a deeply divided court, is a judicial

opinion whose legitimacy and constitutional soundness are by now universally

recognized.</blockquote>
 
"We know that it?s in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable.?



What a bunch of hooey. It's the quality of the parenting that matters, not the sexual preference of the parent.



It's about time the Court did something right. I hope, since it will probably go to a vote again, that Californians step up and vote against the amendment and show the religious right and other narrow-minded idiots that their backward ideas belong somewhere else.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1210907289]<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/15cnd-marriage.html?em&ex=1210996800&en=5d922aa6fa2307e3&ei=5087">California Supreme Court strikes down gay marriage ban</a>

<blockquote>?In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,? Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote of marriage for the majority, ?the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.?</blockquote>


It's about time. :coolsmile:</blockquote>


Amen to that.
 
Perfect, just in time so all the fall campaigns in the State can squabble over marriage and ignore the systemic problems in our government and finances.
 
Well, I have just returned from a 2 week jaunt, and look what we have here ! I am pleased to see the respectful comments left by several IHB bloggers....not sure if I'm the only one here who gets to benefit from this ruling (I think not...) so for what it's worth, THANKS !



I was in DC at a conference and actually sat in on a panel that was headed by the lead attorney in this case (Shannon Minter). He was discussing a different topic but I made sure to find him after and thank him for all of his hard work. Three days later the decision was announced....and I was out of state ! Ugh ! I should have been dancing in the streets of West Hollywood !



Now on to the important part. There has already been a backlash about this and enough signatures have been gathered by the folks that don't agree, to place this on the November ballot. The issue will be presented to the voters whether marriage should be only between one man and one woman. If this vote passes, it will amend our State Constitution and will nullify the Supreme Court ruling.



Please, from the bottom of my heart, discuss this topic with your friends and urge them to vote no on amending our Constitution. This document <em>guarantees</em> rights. It should not be used to take them away. Massachusetts didn't fall apart 4 years ago when marriage was allowed for all people, and it won't happen here either.



We are your children, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, neighbors, co-workers and friends. Marriage is one right I would like to have. Is it really asking that much?



Thanks again all. :cheese:
 
The anti gay marriage people keep saying that my marriage would be

harmed.



If that was true, I would be perfectly willing to be against it.



But I have have not heard one shred of evidence, one theory, one

hypothesis, or even one wild guess as to why some gays marrying

has ANYTHING to do with me or my marriage.



Except, it's new, and it's not in the bible. These are arguments

which are non-arguments.



Likewise, there is not one shred of evidence I've seen about kids being

harmed.



I'm sure there are bad mean gay parents. Well, there are also bad mean

straight parents.



I would actually like to hear some argument as to why the antis are anti.

I guess they haven't come up with one thing, because there isn't anything

to come up with.



Only thing I can think of gay marriage might be shortly followed by gay

divorce!!! It will be interesting to see if the gay divorce rate is more

or less than the straight divorce rate. If it's less (and actually I suspect that

may be the fact, especially at first), maybe we should prohibit straight

marriage!!



Actually, if I have a suspicion, it would be that marriage shouldn't be regulated

by the state at all, except to make sure kids are taken care of. And that

should happened whether the kids are the result of marriage or not.
 
LL, I understand the divorce rate amongst heterosexuals has reached 50% of all marriages. Of course, I don't have any stats to back this up, it is all anecdotal.



It is with tongue in cheek that I say.... seems to me like you all have done a pretty good job at "ruining" marriage all by yourselves ! I doubt my marriage will destroy it any further. :coolhmm:



I'm thinking that when gay parents are given the right to marry, their children will grow up in a more stable environment. To me, at least what has been pounded into my head since I was a little girl, marriage = stability. And that's a good thing.
 
Oh, yeah, Troop, you're right, in fact I think it's over 50%.



I think fear of aids (or coincidence) brought it down a smidge, like from 52 to 50%



Being a lawyer, I like to hear the other side of things. I'd like to hear

what they have to say. It's been years and I haven't heard anything, except

the bible and new is bad. I guess there is nothing to say. Hey, antis out there

there must be at least one of you, since so many people sign those petitions,

come on down and if you have arguement other than the bible sez Adam and

Eve, not Steve, here's a chance to tell me why my 42 year marriage will

be harmed if Troop marries.



Is there a special someone?



From a legal point of view, the states are supposed to give "full faith and credit"

to this so what happens in other states when



1. It is demanded that spousal rights are recognized. Or, even a pre-nup. (See,

look what you are getting into.)



2 Suppose a gay married in California wants a divorce in Fla, or to honor a

pre-nup?



3. Gays can't adopt in Fla. What if a lawfully adopted kid of gay parents moves

here, and the natural parent dies. There is probably an answer to this already,

but I don't know it.



4. Finally California has that community property thing. I suppose there are

ways to get around it, if you want to, now you have to pay attention to it.
 
As a married hetrosexual, I can't see how I'm harmed by this.



If a gay couple wants to get married and bear the same tax burdon as us straight DINKs more power to them. The state/feds need the revenue, and by not having kids, we'll pay it.
 
Lawyerliz, I don't think you're going to get an answer to your question b/c no one wants to be called a homophob/bigot. For that reason, I want to make very clear that the following is not my personal opinion.



This is simply what I see as the arguments to be made by people who are not anti-gay about this ruling.



1. Concern about the impact on children. I think there are non-homophobic people who honestly feel that a child generally does best when they have a male parental influence and a female parental influence. It has nothing to do with the parent's sexual orientation. In adoption, preference goes to a two parent home over a single parent home, not b/c they are anti-single people or b/c single people can't raise terrific kids. These people are not ready to call a same sex household and an opposite sex household equivalent (at least not yet).



2. Judicial activisim blows. To most people, this reeks of it. This comes at the same time as the polygamist cult thing. What's to stop the court from saying 1 husband and 3 wives is okay? It's the slippery slope argument. People don't want 4 or 5 guys deciding such things. Most people don't want the definition of marriage in a position where it can be monkeyed around that drastically, such that tomorrow you could have 8 husbands. It may scare off some people who otherwise would be okay with gay marriage. Similarly, some people may be pro-gay marriage, but hate these guys overruling the voters and work against it to send a message that judicial activism will not be tolerated.



Again, I'm saying this as a neutral person, not as my personal opinion. Don't argue with me personally about this, please.
 
Well, having grown up with no father (but a grandfather), I agree that to

have a male and female influence is a good thing, and I understand that

some gay couples with kids make an effort to have the influence of the

other sex around.



This is no different from single parents, however. In the past, single

parents were often single because the spouse has died.



The poligamy thing actually is an interesting argument. There have been

many successful societies with poligamy. I'd want some poliandry too,

can just one husband ever be enough? For an interesting sci-fi speculation

on all this, see Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. The grand master

swung 'way before the 60s.



But, none of those issues says anything as to why gays marrying has

anything to do with my marriage. They are always saying this. Am I

supposed to feel insulted? Even so, why would this make the marriage

hurt?



Perhaps it is an aesthetic argument? Well, as an old codgette, I would

like it if everybody acted a tad more staid in public.



I have a gay client with an extremely interesting foreclosure problem. I'm

always telling him to dial it down. More info than I need. I don't need

any sex info on real estate, except whther you're married or single, and

sometimes who is related to whom and where do you want the money to

go and why.
 
It's not about what's best for kids.

It's not about "dialing it down."

It's not about polygamy.



It's just about money. And trying to deny basic rights to ANYBODY is wrong.
 
Ok, I'll bite, how is it about money?



In Fla, and in most states you can leave your money to anybody.

Generally with no will, in most states your spouse gets a lot.



Most people don't make a will; are you saying that it will go to bro and

sisters if there's no will, or nieces and nephews? Instead of the

partner?



Er, it used to be that your main asset was your house--actually probably

still is; most states have joint tenancy with right of survivorship, so

you just title your real estate accordingly.



Of course, gays have kids and the kids would take.



Fla has that pesky homestead thing, but you can waive that.



Or is it that people give to anti gay religious types when they stomp

around and make a big fuss?



Ah, there's health insurance. This could make a difference of a lot of

money, if you extend rights to new gay spouses or domestic partners.



But I just don't see it being all about health insurance.
 
[quote author="Trooper" date=1211628950]



and urge them to vote no on amending our Constitution. This document <em>guarantees</em> rights. It should not be used to take them away. Massachusetts didn't fall apart 4 years ago when marriage was allowed for all people, and it won't happen here either.



We are your children, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, neighbors, co-workers and friends. Marriage is one right I would like to have. Is it really asking that much?</blockquote>


It's not asking too much! No Amendment!



<img src="http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/77345871.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1938DCDF9EF37AEBD7390D1B109C261DE6F284831B75F48EF45" alt="" />
 
Hi Lawyleriz!



Here's how I interpret the "hurting your marriage" thing. Family is the heart of our culture. Take the polygamy example instead. All of a sudden, now it's legal and your husband comes home and wants to add a nice little college student to your family. It's not a mid-life crisis anymore, the law says that's fine and normal. My guess is you would be none too happy. I DO believe that if anything and everything goes, family and society do fall apart. People would stupidly do whatever feels good (a la the housing market) and everything falls to crap (a la the housing market). To you and I gay marriage may not constitute a step in the direction of chaos, but to others it does. I think that's seen as the "harm".



I don't see gay marriage as a step towards chaos, but I do think it's unfortunate that good people with good intentions for all involved can't have these discussions without being villified. It helps no one, least of all the nice, hard-working gay couples just trying to have regular life. I truly believe most people really do just want what's best, but can't have reasonable discussions w/o being labeled anti-gay or a religious whacko. I think that's why you only hear the extreme religious opinions and arguments.



I 100% believe the marriage system in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress would never, ever work in reality. I love that book. But Heinlein is a pervert. In other books (yes, books plural) he goes on about how great father-daughter sex would be and how that should be A-okay in society. Yuck. Heinlein himself went on to have an "open" marriage his second marriage and guess how that worked out. Great book though. It's my favorite along with Starship Troopers. I never understood why Stranger in a Strange Land is considered a classic. I thought is was definition of lame.
 
4Walls,



With all due respect, can you <em>please</em> stop lumping my (now) legitimate thoughts of marriage in with polygamy ? :mad: (However, I am pleased that you refrained from throwing animals into the mix). The new law dictates only two people can join in marriage. Two people, regardless of gender. Two, not eight, not three.



I hear you telling us that you are ok with gay marriage, so why then throw out this ridiculous hypothetical "for discussion" ? It's not a reality. If people are thinking that my marriage will eventually lead up to legalized polygamy....well, I guess I don't even know how to respond.



Regarding "family". Of course, in your world, the ideal is to raise a child with a Mother and a Father. In my world this is not going to happen, so we've just adapted. I'm not sure where the idea that "Mom and Dad" raising a child was the best way to go. I realize it's the "normal" course of action, the accepted practice, but again...who says it's best and why? Plenty of single Moms (and Dads!) have done just fine. In fact, the last Democratic President of the United States of America was the product of a single parent household ! One Mom. No Dad. Not too shabby. (ok, ok....I know).



Most of my lesbian friends have children. They make conscious efforts to have male role models interact as much as possible...but THEY are the parents. Two loving, capable, respectable soccer moms. My perception is that a family revolves around love and there is plenty of that happening. These are well adjusted children and to my knowledge, every last one of them is heterosexual. (Myth # 458 debunked) In time studies will be done comparing them to the children raised heterosexuals parents. Until then, I'll just see the living examples I have in front of me and dare anyone to consider them less fortunate. I would laugh if you said you felt sorry for them. They are spoiled little brats ! ;) They want for nothing !



For the record, I don't think you are a homophobe at all. We can have discussions about this topic...I'll be glad to share my opinion because this is my reality. Open dialogue is always good. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top