Same Sex Marriage Ban Overturned in California

[molson]

Originally Posted by claphamsa

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.

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

[flere-imsaho]

Especially since on a personal level Schwarzenegger supports gay marriage.

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

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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 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.

[Neon_Chaos]

Haven't we learned anything from Footloose?

The bigots always lose.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!

[ISiddiqui]

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.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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.

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?

[molson]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

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.

[flere-imsaho]

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

[flere-imsaho]

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.

[molson]

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?”

[molson]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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.

[JediKooter]

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

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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

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

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

[molson]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

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

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?

[Sun Tzu]

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.

[flere-imsaho]

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

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

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.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

Yup.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

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)

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

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

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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.

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'.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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.

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.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

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

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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.

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

This is like a 100 year war. Both sides win battles, but never win the war.

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...

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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.

Originally Posted by cartman

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'.

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.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by molson

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

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

[ISiddiqui]

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.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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?

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.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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"

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

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.

Married people are no better than single people.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Married peoplea re no better than single people.

+2!

[Ksyrup]

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

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

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?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

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.).

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.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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

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.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

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

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

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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.

Promoting happiness meets the rational basis test?

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

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

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.

me and my friends could adopt a foreign kid..

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

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.

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.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

Promoting happiness meets the rational basis test?

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

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