Same Sex Marriage Ban Overturned in California
 

I for one am 100% for same-sex marriages. If two people want to get married because they have found love, GREAT. Let them, who the hell cares if it's two guys, two girls, or a guy and a girl. If your religion is for whatever reason against it, then your religion is broken and outdated. I have a f/f married couple in my own family who got hitched before Prop 8.

Religion has nothing to do with the governments institution of marriage. It is just a legal contract between two parties. If people want to add spiritual elements to it and such, they are more than welcome to do so on their own.

And if your religion supports it, it besmirches the name of religion even moreso than the abomination that was given the approval of the moral reprobate in San Francisco today bastardizes both language and common decency.

There. We're now about even I think, and between us we've covered most of the relevant bases. We can resume our regularly scheduled programming.

I for one, am not against anal sex. Oh wait, it's not about that, it's about people being happy and being with the ones that they love and being treated as equals like our constitution promises.

IBTL

Your religion is not the religion of society. There is this little thing the Establishment cause is trying to explain. If you want a theocracy, you're in the wrong place. Its not a question of "you're entitled to your opinion" - its a question of right and wrong, and the trend in this war is only one-direction.

From the decision:


Hell yes.

PS - Ted Olson (as many of you know) was the lawyer who argued Bush v. Gore... for Bush. Interesting bedfellows no?

Certain travesties are so obvious even the masses can't prevent resolution.

Gay marriage is one of the few things where if you are against it I pretty much don't care what you have to say about anything.

I understand if someone is against it, but no one is forcing you to participate. I'm against smoking but don't think it should be outlawed.

+1

This is why I pretty much don't care what Jon has to say about anything for instance.

Score one for the good guys.

This.

(though I wouldn't mind if smoking in public places was outlawed. :D )

I still don't understand why the obvious isn't argued more in public; that there should be no government "marriages," only civil unions. That the government was ever or should ever be involved in the spiritual (or sexual) connection between two people is absurd and unconstitutional in my mind.

Give two people that want to live together and support each other for the long term the appropriate benefits and protections. If they cut it short, give them monetary punishments equal to the benefits and protections they might have received as a couple. Simple, clean, and let religions of the world decide what "marriage" means.

this has always been my position, and it's probably what will end up happening in practice in the end.

Marriage itself is an institution based on morals, and regulation of morality.

So it's kind of funny to hear the "keep morals out of marriage" rallying cry, (much like "keep the government out of medicare") Yes, we've incorporated the marriage tradition into our laws, but it's certainly a moral tradition.

I always have trouble thinking of theoretical reasons to be against gay marriage itself. I'd certainly vote pro-gay marriage in a state election, though I'm not sure anything marriage-related is a constitutionally protected fundamental right. It always feels off when an appointed judge strikes down the will of the people based on an interpretation of the constitution that wasn't controlling precedent yesterday. I don't think that was the way things are supposed to work. A good result at the end of the day, but in a way that always makes me feel like we're sacrificing a little more of our system.

Technically that is what it is. Marriage by law doesn't give anyone special sexual or spiritual benefits. It's just a contract you go down to City Hall to sign that allows you to file your taxes together and other legal benefits.

Religion is turning the government form of marriage into something it is not.

I don't know. There are ghosts in the machine in odd places. INS (or whatever it is called nowadays) having requirements to prove a "normal," and right now heterosexual, marriage as one example.

This is very good news for dangarion.

In religion and personal views morals are part of marriage, but not in government. There are no moral laws set to receive a marriage license. Most states require you to be 18 years of age, prove who you are, prove you aren't married to someone else, and sign a piece of paper together. Some require blood tests to rule out STDs.

There is no moral requirement. I can meet a stranger on the street and walk into City Hall and get married to her 10 minutes later. The morals you put on it are your own, not the governments. Saying morals are a part of the legal contract the government presides over is completely false.

This is why we aren't a Democracy and are a Constitutional Republic. What you mentioned is the precise reason we are setup the way we are. So that the majority could not take rights away from the minority. If we were a Democracy, I'd agree that this should not be overturned, but we are not. There are a lot of blacks, Asians, hispanics, women, and poor people throughout our nation's history who are happy for that.

INS isn't a moral issue, it's preventing people from circumventing the citizenship laws.

Vote Yes! on Proposition Infinity.

Agreed completely - everyone can define marriage as they please, but the civil unions are the base agreement. If you want to call your arrangement a marriage per your religious beliefs, more power to you.

If so, then we were doing that with Loving v. Virginia (Interracial marriage) and Brown v. Board (which directly overturned previous precedent). Do you really think it would have been preferable to wait however long it took for 50.1% to be okay with both of those things?

Also, how else do you expect the judicial branch to function if not a check on the other branches? Why does it matter that they're appointed? The constitution provided for that, so I've never understood why people keep bringing that up as if it's some sort of travesty every time an "unelected" judge makes a decision.

I don't get how anyone would be against gay marriage. they (the ones against it) are the confused ones. heh. Let people be happy.

Self-hatred?

It's not really a constitutional republic if the constitution doesn't have any fixed meaning.

That's not necessarily bad (as long as the judges are making law we like).

A judge can use the constitution to affirm or strike down almost any conceivable law. That makes them the supreme lawmaker, to decide what the rest of us should and should not be doing. It's a ton of power.

I'd love to start from scratch with a new constitution, new branches, new checks and balances. A longer, more easily amendable constitution would be a big part of that. We need a mechanism to determine which rights, in 2010, are SO fundamental (that there can be no dissention, even by the majority of voters in a state), beyond just the whims of a single judge, or panel of judges, who dress up their policy opinion in pseudo-constitutional analysis.

I was reading stuff on an anti-gay marriage website trying to figure it out, and what they came up with in this scholarly paper was really complicated. I found it tough to wrap my head around. It had to do with society, and family, and even evolution...

Just like with judicial constitutional analysis, they started with a narrow policy idea, "gay marriage is gross and evil!" and dressed it up with blabber to make it look like a legal opinion.

All that is pretty new though. The tradition of marriage is that god (and the state) give their blessing and authority to have sex, reproduce and have a legitimate family. It was, traditionally, a tool of governments to regulate morality, and to bring structure to people and their families. The whole idea of "legitimate" family was a big deal through most of history.

Governments have gotten out of the business of regulating those things, but continue to give their blessing and acknowledgment of marriages. For some reason. Government marriage is kind of having an identity crisis. We always hear about marriage "benefits" - but those are all kind of afterthoughts to the moral tradition of marriage.

Actually, God is pretty new in the marriage game. Marriage was typically a contract between families. It was done more based on financial reasons and social status than anything else. In fact, the early Church felt that marriage was a completely private matter that they had no business intervening in. There were a couple Bishops who disagreed, but for the most part, religion wasn't a part of marriage. It wasn't until the 1500's when the Church became involved in marriage.

If we're talking about tradition in this country, that's another story. In this country, traditionally women were allowed to marry and conceive as early as 12 years old. Blacks couldn't marry whites. Women couldn't file for divorce. Is that what you mean by traditional marriage?

You basically said what I was going to add to this one.

This.

Quite a close minded statement about religions. Not wanting to get into a debate about religions as I am not religious but I understand Christianity and I can understand what pissed Jon off in your statement which seems kind of like a trollish cheap shot to be honest.


Incorrect. Our country's interpretation of marrige has been based upon the religious union. Everyone wants to seperate religion and government they should also be in favor of it happening here. It is just a matter of phrasing but make anything a civil union and leave marriages to the religious ceremonies (but require a civil union to be filed for any of the legal protections and rights given).


You sound just as self righteous as the religious sector preaching against it.


Speaking of close minded...


Yes, yes and yes.


Sorry but the government form of marriage is taken directly from the religious form of marriage. Make it a civil union and everyone wins. The religious people can keep their marriage label and everyone has access to a civil union. It's win/win.


It's a matter of religious beliefs. Everyone wants to split religion and government on everything else. Split it here too and make it a civil union, that way it doesn't encroach upon the religious ceremony and everyone wins.

No it hasn't. There are over 1,000 provisions the Federal government offers married couples and not one of them is religuous in nature. That is unless I missed the verse in the Bible about who Medicare benefits go to if a spouse dies.

So please backup your statement with some fact. Show me where our country interprets in it's laws that marriage be religuous.

It is seperate. There is nothing in our marriage laws that require anything religuous at all. All marriage is in our country is a contract between two people that allow them certain benefits and provisions through the government.

And as stated earlier, marriage isn't a religuous act. It was used for financial and social means. So pretending like religion owns the word marriage is a clear ignorance to history of marriage amongst our species.

This is like a 100 year war. Both sides win battles, but never win the war. Gay marriage will be legal for awhile in California, until it isn't again. I expect the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that this is a state's rights issue (5-4), making it illegal again.

It's a stupid issue because it'll be legal everywhere in 20 years. It's like people who opposed the Civil Rights movement. Yeah they save a few years here and there, but everyone saw where the tide was shifting. So even if it's overturned by the Supreme Court, it'll eventually be legal and we'll all look back on it like we look back on interracial marriage laws.

I personally don't believe the government should treat any citizen different from any other based upon a given citizen's legal behavior. The state should be essentially indifferent toward an individual with regard to their sexual preference. One sexual preference over another should not confer or revoke privileges offered by the state.

That said, I didn't like the way the state courts acted leading up to Prop 8. I think the way this turned out, is a good outcome. I do hope that the judge's opinion is actually factually and legally sound. I haven't read it yet, but I do agree with a lot of the excerpts I've seen. I especially like the one JPhillips posted above.

I am a bit surprised by the Prop 8 proponents failing to really put forth much of a case here. By some accounts they sort of laid down when it came to making their case. I'm suspecting this was intentional, but don't see how they make any long term gain here. Perhaps they can pull out all of the stops and win at the Supreme Court level. I guess you'd have to admit they might consider their chances of prevailing before the SC better than with the 9th circuit.

Also notable, David Boies, who represented Gore in Bush v. Gore, opposed Ted Olson again in this case, representing the Prop 8 proponents.

Yeah!!!!


Wait.


What???

That's not true. Boies was with Ted Olson against Prop 8. The Bush-Gore lawyers were on the same side.

Ah I misunderstood that. Sorry to mis-lead. I believed they were opposing each other again here.

wow lots of fun! Im too lazy to read all the posts.... but I would like to point out that from facebook (where i first saw the news) the SAME people who were all about the courts "correcting" the gun rights cases, are also the SAME ones who are blasting the judges for over ruling democracy.... right there is why im a liberal. at least be consistent.

That is hilarious. I don't care if you call it a marriage or re-name it a civil union to keep the religious happy, gays should be able to do it. If you disagree with that you forfeit the right to call anyone close minded on any topic ever.

Of course the bitch of this "civil union" argument is that making that change won't make most religious people happy. They don't want the government to condone homosexuality, period. Allowing gay "civil unions" instead of "marriages" isn't any better to these people because it's legitimizing something they think should be hidden or fixed.

It's also simply a sign that religion is less powerful in the government than it has been in years past, which is undesirable to them as well.

Am I the only one who did a double-take and re-read this to NOT include the word transvestites?

I'm all for the governmental legal union being separated from the religious aspect, whether or not it's traditionally been viewed a different way. It's pretty clear that under the law, marriage/union affords certain personal advantages and societal benefits (passing property, inheritance, life/health insurance benefits, etc.) that should be afforded to all adults, regardless of who their partners are.

Sadly, the main arguments I read on other sites in opposition to this is that it will pave the way for stuff like adult/child marriages and human/animal marriages. I'm not sure what those have to do with the union of two consenting adults and how you make the leap (aside from the disengenuous bogeyman aspect of it), but whatever.

If they rule that it's a state's rights issue it'd be legal again since the Calif. Supreme Court tossed out Prop 8.

Nate Silver's Take:

to your last point....yes. super nuts.

Nobody's stopping families from making contracts. Obviously it's the government recognition of the union that's at issue here. And the government/church got involved to regulate morality and family structure.

If they're being inconsistent, how can you have the opposite view on both issues and be consistent?

Especially since on a personal level Schwarzenegger supports gay marriage.

Edit: This post was in response to #48 and #49.

I wonder if we lived in a country where states were more responsible for the rights of their citizens, if they would have guaranteed more rights like this to their citizens decades ago.

I know the knee-jerk reaction to that is of course not, Alabama would still have slavery if it was legal and homosexuality would be a capital offense in Idaho. Maybe that's true. I'm not so sure though. Maybe there's something more complicated going on. Maybe it's easier to cling to, and have support for, old-timey government ideas when you know that ultimately, you have no power to actually enact them.

The U.S. is a very rich country, relatively on the progressive side of culture. Most other countries in that kind of position have the kind of rights that our federal government guarantees. But we apparently, wouldn't have those rights if people in half the states were left to their own devices. Not sure I buy that.

Haven't we learned anything from Footloose?

The bigots always lose.

Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!

Going back to religion and marriage - while I agree that marriage has not always had religious connotations, I'd like to chime in that linking marriage and religion doesn't necessarily mean that gay marriage does not fit. There are Christian denominations and churchs who have no problems with homosexual marriage and think it is something that should be not only accepted, but also celebrated like any other marriage under God.

I would assume that in the ruling, they would decide that the courts do not have the say, but the people in the state's?

I don't know what the California Supreme Court based its decision on, but they could certainly determine that prop 8 violated their state constitution.

A view on this case's future, all the way to SCOTUS: News Analysis - In Same-Sex Ruling, an Eye on the Supreme Court - NYTimes.com

Fascinating. Andrew Sullivan seems to think that part of the way Judge Walker phrased his decision was in direct correlation to some of the arguments used by Justice Scalia in dissent in Lawrence vs. Texas (the 6-3 decision which struck down Texas' anti-sodomy law - also famous as the law Justice Thomas called "uncommonly silly").

I don't think Sullivan is suggesting that Scalia is going to change his opinion (in fact, he almost says as much), but rather that Walker has pitched his decision squarely at Kennedy that almost serves it up on a platter to that Justice.

In other same-sex union legal news, I thought this was kind of interesting.

I like these decisions because they represent the government taking small steps out of the marriage business. Marriage, same sex or otherwise, has nothing to do with the support of a child. These are very difficult cases, appropriately dealt with on a case-by-case level by the states.

Same-Sex Partners In New York Can Be Liable for Child Support - Law Blog - WSJ

If you read one legal opinion today dealing with same-sex couples and the law, it should probably not be the one we are about to discuss (The Prop 8 ruling probably deserves a first look.)

But if you have the appetite for two such rulings, read on.

A New York state appellate court on Tuesday became the first in the state to rule that a same-sex partner may be liable for child support.

The case of H.M. v. E.T involved a one-time lesbian couple who allegedly agreed to conceive a child through artificial insemination.

But after the baby was born, E.T. — the non-biological parent — ended the relationship. H.M. argued that she relied on her former partner’s promise of support when she decided to give birth to the child.

H.M. has stated a viable cause action for child support, a New York appellate court ruled. In prior ruling in the state, the court noted, fathers who have denied paternity have still been required to pay child support if they had developed a relationship with a child and had promised to support the child.

“By parity of reasoning, we hold that where the same-sex partner of a child’s biological mother consciously chooses, together with the biological mother, to bring that child into the world through [artificial insemination,] and where the child is conceived in reliance upon the partner’s implied promise to support the child, a cause of action for child support . . .has been sufficiently alleged,” the court ruled. Here’s a copy of the ruling.

“This is first time in New York that a state appellate court has recognized child support obligations between parents of the same sex,” said Peter Sherwin, a Proskauer attorney who represents H.M.

We have a call into E.T.’s lawyer, but have yet to hear back.

Linda McClain, a Boston University law professor who specializes in family law, said the ruling “is very much in keeping with the notion that it’s better for children to have two parents, than one, and why deprive a child of a source of parental funds?”

Duh, I had the procedure all wrong. California passed a "protection of marriage act", the State Supreme Court said it violated the state constitution, so the people changed the state constitution - then we went to federal court.

Can someone please point me to the patent number that says religion owns and or has a monopoly on marriage and the word marriage?

They don't, but why should the government want it if they're not regulating sex and family values anymore (or as much)?

It's kind of like there's this long, gradual divorce between government and religion, and they're trying to decide how to share custody of their child, "marriage". Maybe government needs to just move on and let it go, marriage would be happier with religion.

Duh, EagleFan says so - isn't that proof enough? :D

Of course its stupid - the concept of marriage existing long before Christianity, and pretending that it is a Judeo-Christian construct is ridiculous.

Ya, it's more accurate to say that marriage is about cultural tradition, than specifically religion.

But tradition shouldn't be a basis for government regulation either, that's what this recent ruling is all about, right?

So why do they need to be the authority on a cultural and/or religious institution?

Nice to see so many people here with morals.

I'll stick to my original post too. If your religion feels that gay marriages aren't kosher, then your religion is broken. The notion that all people are not equal because your little book says so is ridiculous and bigoted. You can dress it up with fancy arguments that date back to the year zero if you like, but it still amounts to the same thing.

You are better than someone else, look, it's even written on this piece of paper.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought for certain that the origin of marriage was really mostly about property rights and effectively a business transition as opposed to having anything to do with morals, sexual orientation or even love.

No it didn't. There are no moral rules at all with our marriage laws. Please show me them since you are certain they are there. A convicted child rapist or murderer has the same ability to get married as the family man who volunteers at the Children's Hospital in his free time. There are no requirements in our marriage laws to maintain a proper family structure.

I'm fine if the system goes back to private contracts between families. But that would require getting rid of the over 1,000 benefits that are given to married couples. That is the issue at stake.

Religion has never (legally) been a part of our government, regardless of how much people have been trying to, excuse the pun, marry them...1st amendment and all that jazz. Maybe religions should quit grasping onto something that was never theirs to begin with.

Let's make a deal, anyone that gets married in a church, that marriage should not be recognized by any governmental agency in this country. Anyone that gets married at any governmental agency by a government official, that marriage is recognized. Problem solved.

They don't. They need the benefits associated with being "married" in this country. Our laws mention nothing of cultural or religious institutions. Just of tax breaks, medical proxies, etc.

Yup.

I've never said there's moral requirements to get married, I said that governments have traditionally used marriage as a legal status to regulate all kinds of things, including morality and "family values". (i.e. crimes against adultery, ect)

It had different functions in different parts of the world, but I'm still not sure what point that makes.

That's how it is done in France.

Myself, I'd prefer if it was broken out into the government handles 'civil unions' and religions handle 'marriages'.

That would be a good plan. I think it would require people to really think about what marriage means, and why they give a shit which entities honor and recognize it.

The terminology would be confusing at first, but we'd get used it.

As for all these incredible legal "benefits" married people receive, that always felt like a tacked on argument to me, and it's not what really drive people, usually, to desire marriage

And those "benefits" might actually be unconstitutional. I mean, what is the trait really being protected by decisions like yesterday's, sexual preference or marrying preference? It's not sexual preference, because we don't discriminate based on that. We discriminate based on your preference regarding WHO you marry. And if I don't want to marry, why shouldn't I be allowed to access all these incredible "benefits" with whoever I want, without marrying them? If I want to file my taxes jointly with someone, or share medical insurance, but don't agree with the cultural and traditional norms of "marriage" - than I'm kind of being discriminated against.

agree

That's the same argument that was made in regards to interracial marriage. If you're a black man, you're free to have sexual preferences, but you just can't marry a white woman.

I agree 100% on this. But government marriage is exaggerated by people. It literally is just a legal contract that you sign with someone that lets you do the things you mentioned above.

I disagree. Looking at voting patterns by age, seems clear that younger generations are more accepting of homosexuality and gay marriage, and that within a generation or two, the tide will have turned to where gay marriage is legal throughout the country. Well, most parts anyway...

I agree with making people really think long and hard about getting married. I also have to agree that it's very rare that people get married because of the benefits that come with being married. I know I didn't.

As for the taxes, I've always been curious as to why I get taxed at a higher rate because I'm single. Just because I've chosen not to be married or haven't found someone that I want to marry, why am I being penalized by it? I go to the store, there's not a married price for things and a single price for things. If anything, I think it should be harder to get divorced once you are married. Things like abuse and that stuff not being ignored though.



Wow, France got something right?

I think it should be one or the other, not both. Having two will continue to perpetuate the myth that one is more important than the other. But, I'm also going on the assertion that religion does not own the definition or the rights to marriage.

The government DOESN'T want it, it's just telling religions "you can't have it all to yourself".

And who says the government isn't regulating sex and family values? It is just that what they are incentivizing, through marriage, are stable pair bonds, which are better for the raising of children or even the happiness of the members of that relationship (the added stability helps with happiness - I think there have been studies on that).

The government has interests, they just aren't religious.

You're not being penalized. It's a benefit given to married people for making a commitment that our society, by way of the government, believes makes this a better place to live, by encouraging couples who want to live together to be legally bound to each other and for families to raise kids (whether born of the two parents, adopted, conceived by one of them, etc.).

It's no different than you paying regular price for a phone while I get $200 off the same phone for making a 2-year commitment. You're not being penalized; you're choosing not to make a commitment deemed beneficial to the entity offering the benefit.

First off you are implicating that same sex marriage is in any way immoral. I've seen same sex relationships have a very loving home environment while I've seen tons and tons of completely horrible hetero relationships based on nothing, let alone love. So this element really has nothing to do with morality.

The will of the people argument is just foxnews hogwash. Just buzzwords to put in people's heads and people's mouths. I extremely dislike people using the phrase "The people want this"...."America wants this", "blahblah"

Married people are no better than single people.:rant:

+2!

It's not the people, it's the societal benefits from reaped from legal co-habitation.

why can't i legally co-habitate with friends then and get the benefits of it, if society is getting benefits from it?

YES, that's what I was trying to get at about marriage being a government tool. The U.S. government has always favored marriage and given those who do so "benefits" - which is a lifestyle/moral family value regulation. It promotes a certain kind of lifestyle above others. That's the government's interest in marriage.

It has to do with money. If you are a male/female couple you will probably eventually have kids which means you are creating more taxpayers which benefits the government. I think it's a bunch of BS, but that's what has been explained here on FOFC before.

Of course it's a big fuck you to those that never marry out of looks, family issues, illness, choice, etc.

And what's your point then? Maybe you didn't read the opinion, but if the government has a rational basis for favoring people (well, aside for distinctions on race, gender, etc), it can do so. The judge said that there is not even a rational basis for banning homosexual marriage. It is rational to benefit people who are married for purposes of raising children in stable homes or promoting happiness by providing an individual with the stablity of a legally enforced pair bond.

The problem is where one tries to fit his/her religious or other morals into how the government should define what an appropriate lifestyle or family should constitute under the law. The government can promote a beneficial lifestyle, but not arbitrarily determine who can participate.

It is? I suppose food stamps are big fuck you to people who have money, too.

Well I wasn't explaining my personal opinion. I don't think there should be any tax breaks for being married. But in the sense of the way it's done, I feel it sort of is. Of course I don't think food stamps solve anything either, but that's another subject for another day.

Promoting happiness meets the rational basis test?

"Stable Homes" kind of terminology just screams out lifestyle/family value regulation.

me and my friends could adopt a foreign kid..

So it is a penalty? Especially if I have to contribute a higher percentage of my income than married people do. It's saying that single people do not contribute to society as much as married people, so here's your higher taxes. The tax should be the same regardless of marital status with the consideration of the number of exemptions.

I totally understand what you are saying, but, the problem with your analogy is, I can not opt out of paying taxes. Where as, I don't have to buy the phone at all, if I don't want to participate.

Ding ding ding. Maybe I should try filing as married on my tax return and then when it gets rejected I should sue and take it to the Supreme Court?

It's a rational basis test. Why wouldn't the promotion of happiness pass the test?