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 If your religion is for whatever reason against it, then your religion is broken and outdated.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.