San Jose Mercury News: California gay marriage ban struck down, appeals court cites equal rights

[Enter Apotheosis]

Re: justice, again I'll point out that is a reason behind alot of the pro life right.

Naturally. The pro-choice crowd also uses a variant of that reasoning. Really, that whole issue is about as sticky a social issue as there can be because it pits rights against rights. I'm not entirely convinced that there's any real resolution to that one in sight for that very reason.

To contrast, gay marriage is more of a rights vs. tradition issue and tradition tends to have a fair amount of flex to it over time.

[NoVaO]

Got it. I honestly have no idea how it's trending.

Re: justice, again I'll point out that is a reason behind alot of the pro life right.

70% of those 18 - 34 I believe are supportive of gay marriage. It's inevitable. I just don't know if it will be 5, 10, 15 years until it becomes legalized at the federal level.

Edit: I'm also sure there will be exemptions for individual churches. Don't believe in gay marriage? Don't perform them at your church.

[PokerPacker]

70% of those 18 - 34 I believe are supportive of gay marriage. It's inevitable. I just don't know if it will be 5, 10, 15 years until it becomes legalized at the federal level.

Edit: I'm also sure there will be exemptions for individual churches. Don't believe in gay marriage? Don't perform them at your church.

or hopefully marriage will be completely removed from law and we'll have two distinct categories. Marriage: Strictly religious. Civil Union: Strictly legal.

[Bliz]

I thought the Cali Supremes decided it had always been a right under their constitution,not one granted by law.

I don't think SCOTUS is any more restricted on this than they wish to be.

It's a common misconception about the court, that they look for excuses to decide the issues of the day when it's in fact the opposite. They will, almost always, rule on the narrowest grounds possible, and not use a case as a springboard to a broader ruling than is absolutely necessary. That's what this 3 judge panel did. That's what whoever gets it next will do.

Even if scotus does take the case, they will rule on the Cali situation specifically, not on whether any state may amend their constitution this way in any circumstance. Which is why they're highly likely to deny cert

[thebluefood]

or hopefully marriage will be completely removed from law and we'll have two distinct categories. Marriage: Strictly religious. Civil Union: Strictly legal.

This would make the most sense. This also probably won't happen.

[LadySkinsFan]

or hopefully marriage will be completely removed from law and we'll have two distinct categories. Marriage: Strictly religious. Civil Union: Strictly legal.

Marriage is strictly legal, it's only that some ceremonies that are religious.

Can't get married without a civil license, celebrant can't perform a marriage ceremony without being licensed by the state/locality, Can't get divorced without a civil proceeding. So far, what I've written doesn't involve religion at all.

[Bliz]

Marriage is strictly legal, it's only that some ceremonies that are religious.

Can't get married without a civil license, celebrant can't perform a marriage ceremony without being licensed by the state/locality, Can't get divorced without a civil proceeding. So far, what I've written doesn't involve religion at all.

That is a very superficial evaluation. Marriage, and that term, predates our legal system. Govt coopting the word doesn't change history. Perception is important too, and to a lot of people in this country marriage, as the word is used, is first and foremost a religious covenant.

On an issue that is important to you, and personally affects you, you need to better understand where opposition is coming from. It's not all blind hate and discrimination. One of my coworkers put it this way. He would have no problem with Georgia allowing civil unions, but he would be against his church conducting those ceremonies. That is an important line for a lot of people.

[LadySkinsFan]

That is a very superficial evaluation. Marriage, and that term, predates our legal system. Govt coopting the word doesn't change history. Perception is important too, and to a lot of people in this country marriage, as the word is used, is first and foremost a religious covenant.

On an issue that is important to you, and personally affects you, you need to better understand where opposition is coming from. It's not all blind hate and discrimination. One of my coworkers put it this way. He would have no problem with Georgia allowing civil unions, but he would be against his church conducting those ceremonies. That is an important line for a lot of people.

Not superficial at all, it's just the facts. And besides, no one forces churches to do anything, they are legally allowed to discriminate in many ways every day of the year.

And I know about "marriage" and have done my research, maybe you should do the same. It's not been one man one woman like forever.

My personal view: There is no such thing as marriage, that people can form their families by contract. But really, that's all marriage is now, a contract with lots of implied rules and benefits. If people had to write the contract without preconceived rules and benefits, they would know more about what they are signing up for. Believe me, gays and lesbians fully know what the rules and benefits are because we don't have legal access to them that heterosexual couples get. And I've never been legally married and am unlikely to get legally married. But that doesn't change the fact that I think people get to form their own legal families.

[Teller]

This is one of those rare occasions where you and I are in agreement, LSF. While on a personal level, I don't want the definition of marriage to change, I do believe that not allowing gays, polygamists, hell, ANY consenting adults to marry is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

I've adopted what I understand to be Larry's position. (Though he certainly can clarify if I'm wrong.) States should provide civil unions to anyone desiring them. And anyone who wants to have a wedding ceremony need only find a venue that will conduct it.

[Larry]

This is one of those rare occasions where you and I are in agreement, LSF. While on a personal level, I don't want the definition of marriage to change, I do believe that not allowing gays, polygamists, hell, ANY consenting adults to marry is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

I've adopted what I understand to be Larry's position. (Though he certainly can clarify if I'm wrong.) States should provide civil unions to anyone desiring them. And anyone who wants to have a wedding ceremony need only find a venue that will conduct it.

Actually, Larry does have a bit of a problem with that position.

But I'll confess that it's an aesthetic or a semantic problem.

Me? Right now, I look at the politics surrounding gay marriage, and I see a drinking fountain with a "whites only" sign on it. I see a courthouse with a "whites only" sign on it. I see the US Tax code with a "whites only" sign on it. I see people actually putting up signs in their constitutions. I see politicians standing in schoolhouse doors.

And I see those people losing.

And I see the position above as a kind of a fallback position.

Throughout our history, every time a despised minority has made a step towards equality, the folks who wnated to discriminate against them have always fallen back, and begun building the next barricade.

OK, blacks aren't slaves any more. But that doesn't mean we have to let them vote. OK they can vote. But we don't have to let them in our schools. OK, they can be in the military. But we can't let them be officers. Can't have one of them giving orders to a white. Well, they're allowed in the school. But not in my neighborhood. Not in our swimming pool.

I see the "make marriage a religion-only term" argument, and what I see is "well, if the government can't discriminate in who is 'married', then let's just move the word back to a place that's allowed to discriminate".

I see George Wallace arguing that, well, if Alabama public schools can't discriminate, then let's just announce that only private schools can hand out diplomas, and "graduate" people. And the public schools will hand out GEDs.

----------

That said, though, I also have to observe. There's plenty of historical precedent for marriage being a religious institution.

I observe that when the church didn't want to allow Henry to get married, he didn't have the power to pronounce himself married. Governments, not even Kings, didn't have the power to marry people. Only churches could do that. So, he had to create a church.

I observe that even today, we have what I mentally label as "married" and "church weddings". (And, the folks who get married at the courthouse do have a kind of, well, not stigma, but they aren't considered to be as married.)

Me, I'd really rather that the government certificate be called marriage. Anything less, to me, carries at least a taint of "well, if we can't keep gays out, then we'll just take it away from everybody".

So, I'm willing to concede that the concept of the government marrying people is a recent invention, and one that has only more recently come to be accepted by society was not being, say, married, but with an asterisk.

----------

So, something like that would sure go a long way towards depriving people like me of a lot of arguments.

Might shut me up.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Wouldn't want to uphold what people voted for. That would be.....

Let's have a vote on whether black people should have the right to vote.

[Zguy28]

Let's have a vote on whether black people should have the right to vote.

Or a vote on what a "fundamental right" actual is.

[Bliz]

Not superficial at all, it's just the facts. And besides, no one forces churches to do anything, they are legally allowed to discriminate in many ways every day of the year.

And I know about "marriage" and have done my research, maybe you should do the same. It's not been one man one woman like forever.

My personal view: There is no such thing as marriage, that people can form their families by contract. But really, that's all marriage is now, a contract with lots of implied rules and benefits. If people had to write the contract without preconceived rules and benefits, they would know more about what they are signing up for. Believe me, gays and lesbians fully know what the rules and benefits are because we don't have legal access to them that heterosexual couples get. And I've never been legally married and am unlikely to get legally married. But that doesn't change the fact that I think people get to form their own legal families.

It was superficial and you completely missed my point.

It's not a "fact" that marriage is strictly a legal term connoting a legal relationship officially sanctioned by the state. That is how it's used by government, but that's just one use.

My point, and I say this as a person who supports gay marriage, is that I understand why a lot of people do not share your view on what the WORD "marriage" means today. I'm not religious (and the part of me that is is Jewish) but it doesn't take a fundamentalist to believe that the term "marriage" implies a religious covenant.

I'm okay with the idea of government getting out of the "marriage" business altogether, in order to consolidate support for equal treatment.

[LadySkinsFan]

Or a vote on what a "fundamental right" actual is.

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia wrote that marriage is a fundamental right. Last full paragraph in the opinion, if you care to read it.

---------- Post added February-8th-2012 at 12:17 PM ----------

It's just a word, Bliz, that means the civil, legal joining of persons to make a family. Changing the word does not change the definition. It is not superficial, it is the legal definition. Religion has nothing to do with it and hasn't since this country was formed. And I didn't miss your point.

[Slateman]

Solution: Marriage as a government and legal term is abolished. From now on, all persons wishing to be in "couple" will get a domestic partnership agreement from the government.

The church can continue to unite people in "holy matrimoney" When said ceremony is done, the minister will sign a certificate saying that it is done. The government will then recognize said certificate and issue the couple a domestic partnership agreement.

Thus, the church can keep the gays from getting married, but gay couples (and even platonic couples) can garner all the legal benefits that they should be.

[LadySkinsFan]

Why change an entire system just to placate some religious organizations, because not every religious organization has a problem with same sex marriage or in performing same sex marriage ceremonies? They would have the same right of refusal that they have now. Some religious organizations won't marry people of a different faith for goodness sakes. It's all an arbitrary discrimination anyway.

[PokerPacker]

Why change an entire system just to placate some religious organizations, because not every religious organization has a problem with same sex marriage or in performing same sex marriage ceremonies? They would have the same right of refusal that they have now. Some religious organizations won't marry people of a different faith for goodness sakes. It's all an arbitrary discrimination anyway.

My purpose is not to placate religious organizations. Its to further remove religion from government. By using the term marriage which has religious connotations, it just removes one of the bonds giving religion power over the government. At the same time, it gives religions the freedom to discriminate as they will (which they'd probably do anyways citing the 1st amendment, and because of the bond between religion and government, they'd take us down with them).

I also believe that being a religious institution should not be grounds for tax exemption to remove another bond between religion and state, but that's another topic.

[Teller]

Actually, Larry does have a bit of a problem with that position.

But I'll confess that it's an aesthetic or a semantic problem.

Me? Right now, I look at the politics surrounding gay marriage, and I see a drinking fountain with a "whites only" sign on it. I see a courthouse with a "whites only" sign on it. I see the US Tax code with a "whites only" sign on it. I see people actually putting up signs in their constitutions. I see politicians standing in schoolhouse doors.

And I see those people losing.

And I see the position above as a kind of a fallback position.

Throughout our history, every time a despised minority has made a step towards equality, the folks who wnated to discriminate against them have always fallen back, and begun building the next barricade.

OK, blacks aren't slaves any more. But that doesn't mean we have to let them vote. OK they can vote. But we don't have to let them in our schools. OK, they can be in the military. But we can't let them be officers. Can't have one of them giving orders to a white. Well, they're allowed in the school. But not in my neighborhood. Not in our swimming pool.

I see the "make marriage a religion-only term" argument, and what I see is "well, if the government can't discriminate in who is 'married', then let's just move the word back to a place that's allowed to discriminate".

I concede that my personal position is "wrong." It's not easily defensible, and I understand why that position puts you in the mind of the analogy you used. No sarcasm at all, I get it. And in some ways, I'm disappointed in myself that -- personally -- I don't want to change the definition of marriage.

I often think about explaining different positions that I have to my kids. And while, in my mind, I've justified my position to myself, it's tougher to justify it to a more critical, more inquisitive, and more impressionable audience.

Now, my kids are too young to dive headlong into this debate. But when/if they ask, I'll tell them simply, "People who love each other should be able to get married." But even that is avoiding the issue. Even that is trying to "kill" debate, and in a lot of ways take the easy way out. I don't believe it's dishonest, but it's not FULLY honest.

The word "marriage" is important to me, for a lot of reasons that I won't get into here. But if nothing else, I would assert that my position is at least constitutional -- you're treating everyone the same under the law. But again, I get what you're saying. And frankly, you're probably right.

That said, though, I also have to observe. There's plenty of historical precedent for marriage being a religious institution.

I observe that when the church didn't want to allow Henry to get married, he didn't have the power to pronounce himself married. Governments, not even Kings, didn't have the power to marry people. Only churches could do that. So, he had to create a church.

I observe that even today, we have what I mentally label as "married" and "church weddings". (And, the folks who get married at the courthouse do have a kind of, well, not stigma, but they aren't considered to be as married.)

Me, I'd really rather that the government certificate be called marriage. Anything less, to me, carries at least a taint of "well, if we can't keep gays out, then we'll just take it away from everybody".

So, I'm willing to concede that the concept of the government marrying people is a recent invention, and one that has only more recently come to be accepted by society was not being, say, married, but with an asterisk.

I can see that too. I don't look at people married at a courthouse as "less married," but I do look at it differently. I'm sure how to describe exactly how, but I do. But this is probably a result of my own biases, and upbringing in a church. It's just different to me. I like the pomp and circumstance of a ceremony, and in my case, allowing the woman I was committing my life to (well, 8 years of it anyway ) to have that day where she was put on a pedestal by everyone who loves her.

*aside* I would also like to unceremoniously Russian-Ninja-***** slap those who say divorcees ruin the sanctity of marriage. It wasn't my choice. I kept my vows. Ahem...moving on.

So, something like that would sure go a long way towards depriving people like me of a lot of arguments.

Might shut me up.

We should be so lucky.

I kid. Thanks for the reasoned discussion on a tough topic. I appreciate it.

[Slateman]

Why change an entire system just to placate some religious organizations, because not every religious organization has a problem with same sex marriage or in performing same sex marriage ceremonies? They would have the same right of refusal that they have now. Some religious organizations won't marry people of a different faith for goodness sakes. It's all an arbitrary discrimination anyway.

Thats fine. Justices of the Peace as well as other officials can oversee the ceremony. Couples still apply for the domestic partnership agreements.

That way, you don't have to get married in order live with someone. You can put a bf/gf on your insurance plan, or even a long term roommate.

In other words, who freaking cares what a particular church does? They're within their rights to refuse service to whomever they wish. Same as any other private organization.

Discrimination by private citizens isn't against the law. If I own a convience store, I don't have to allow black people/women/gays/straights/priests/ect in if I don't want to.

[Dan T.]

This was the inevitable result, and the expected and hoped for result by both sides.

Now the SCOTUS will take it and decide it once and for all.

Question though, if the SCOTUS overturns the 9th and rules that Prop 8 is Constitutional, will that be the end of the debate?

I heard discussion that the decision was written so narrowly that is an unlikely candidate for Supreme Court review.

edit: As Bliz pointed out in post #47...

[Larry]

My purpose is not to placate religious organizations. Its to further remove religion from government. By using the term marriage which has religious connotations, it just removes one of the bonds giving religion power over the government. At the same time, it gives religions the freedom to discriminate as they will (which they'd probably do anyways citing the 1st amendment, and because of the bond between religion and government, they'd take us down with them).

I also believe that being a religious institution should not be grounds for tax exemption to remove another bond between religion and state, but that's another topic.

I may be able to state Lady's argument better. (Or maybe simply present my own variation on it.)

Why do we need to change the system?

Right now, people can get married down at the courthouse. And they can get married in a church, but only if the church wants to.

So why do we need to change things? Let gays get treated equally at the courthouse, and it won't change the church's position a single bit.

I can only see one possible reason for why we have to allow gays to get married at the courthouse and announce that all such ceremonies aren't marriages.

To placate people who want to be able to say "I'm married, but gays aren't"

---------- Post added February-8th-2012 at 03:19 PM ----------

Discrimination by private citizens isn't against the law. If I own a convience store, I don't have to allow black people/women/gays/straights/priests/ect in if I don't want to.

Actually, in many places, yes, you do. (You also have to hire them.)

Different places have different rules for who's covered by such laws and who isn't. And I think that every place, religious institutions are exempt.

But I suspect that convenience stores have to let everybody in, pretty much everywhere.

[grhqofb5]

Link.

Oh, near as I can tell, the court ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional, but did not order it removed, pending appeals.. So it's been ruled unconstitutional, but apparently it stays in effect, anyway. (No, I have no idea why.)

Only the legislature can repeal a law. Court can deem it unconstitutional, which makes it unenforceable.

[mjah]

But I suspect that convenience stores have to let everybody in, pretty much everywhere.

This is also true of such privately owned establishments as lunch counters and theaters, as a matter of Federal law since 1964.

[Slateman]

Really?

Then how come a private store can keep me out if I have pistol holstered to my hip (in accordance with state laws)

[USS Redskins]

Good for the gays.

now they, too, can be as miserable as half the heterosexual population.