The California Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.
The state high court’s 4-3 ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, while the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.
The long-awaited court decision stemmed from San Francisco’s highly publicized same-sex weddings, which in 2004 helped spur a conservative backlash in a presidential election year and a national dialogue over gay rights.
Overdue.
#93–gear==courts can be forgiven in expanding rights when they are “basic human rights.” Otherwise, they should leave the understanding of the language to be as the framers clearly intended.
On a more fundamental level, rights are very much about being “left alone” to live as “one” wishes. Given marriage does have privileges attached to it, it stretches the definition just a bit to say anyone has a “right” to any privilege==especially when not dealing with “basic human rights.”
This is all the fabric and weave of “rights” and judicial interpretation. Just expand what you rightfully perceive as insipid, and you may have it.
See folks, Bobbo is making what we call a “strawman argument”.
He’s putting up entirely unrelated things simply because they sound good, without actually putting any thought into them.
To answer your question, bobbo – what the ‘pro-gay-marriage’ camp is fighting for is more than just the name. You’re right, there is no “right to get married”. Human beings aren’t born on this earth, or at the very least, these United States of America, with the right to pick a person they want and declare them their husband/wife/whatever.
What they’re fighting for is the right that, when they’ve chosen a life partner, they’re treated the same as everyone else who has chosen a life partner, under the law. What this means is being allowed to share health insurance, being allowed the same tax breaks and tax incentives to remain together, and having the same rights to each other’s property should the worse happen and one of them *dies*. As it stands, “marriage” is the only way to achieve this – your much vaunted “civil unions” have catastrophically *failed* to provide these benefits to homosexual couples.
Confusing this issue with a “right to marriage” issue is admittedly the fault of the pro-gay-rights movement, but it’s a strawman nonetheless.
Also – your other strawmen (vis a vis military benefits and maternity leave) are moronic. You don’t get them because they’re “rights”, you get them because you qualify – you either did military service, or you had a child. (And I have known many men who have taken some measure of maternity leave.) The difference here, and this is the legally important point, is that the differentiation isn’t based on an arbitrary designation – anyone can sign up for military service, and anyone can (theoretically, anyhow) have a child. (Note, I didn’t say *birth* a child. Bad Schwartzenegger movies aside.)
And before you return with your “well nothing’s stopping gay people from marrying gay people of the opposite gender” routine – *that* union really *would* make a mockery of marriage, and harkens a barbaric and oft criticized culture of marriage for political and economic convenience, or worse yet “arranged marriages”.
You’re very close to being right, but your reluctance to accept that this goes beyond mere semantics is your downfall.
It’s interesting to read all this from a Canadian perspective. Civil unions in Canada (and US) do net equate to marriage in terms of recognition of spousal benefits across provincial/state lines (e.g. health, inheritance, power of attorney, etc). We made this simpler through a national law. The US is stuck in this state vs federal leg hold trap on this.
As for the whole “historical” definition thing – people didn’t get married in the west until the last 150 to 200 years when it became necessary for children’s access to schools. Rich people started getting married around 1400 to sort out land issues. In a survey recently 7% of people in the US who married last year listed health insurance as the main reason. Be careful what you mean by historical.
Legalization of same sex marriages has meant very little to me other than nobody talks about it anymore and we have all gotten on to more important things.
Question:
If I have to right to be married, why should I need a partner under this logic?
With the government, usually being married incurs more rights or benefits with any given circumstance .. whether it involves taxes or benefits or even insurance company rates.
If marriage isn’t defined as a “man and a woman”, why should it be restricted to 2 people. Why can’t individuals be married?
Why should someone who is married get a lower insurance rate? Is this not discrimination? Why should 2 people who are not married have higher insurance premiums.
The root of the problem isn’t whether or not gay people can get married, but rather the idiotic things done with this information by government and companies.
Forms should have …
[ ] Single
[ ] Married
[ ] WTF is the government doing with this information and why
[ ] WTF is this company doing with the information and why
[ ] WhyTF is this information relevant?
Why does the dentist need to know if someone is single or married? Why do so many forms ask for this information? For what good purpose?
Why do wills and insurance rates and coverage medical decisions and taxes and other trivial common sense rights depend on “marriage”?
The wrong fight is being fought.
The ONLY thing that is truly being achieved when 2 people get married is that they are giving the court extra jurisdiction over them should they get divorced, plus a handful of silly legal rights that should nothing to do with marriage.
>>Legalization of same sex marriages has meant
>>very little to me other than nobody talks about
>>it anymore and we have all gotten on to more
>>important things.
Let’s hope we can manage the same thing in the US. I’m not too optimistic, but you never know.
#98
The government needs to know for a lot or reasons such as taxation rules. Or to give you a more unpleasant example, my father in law recently needed to have his life support stopped. Who’s going to make that decision?
Legal marriage is one way these decisions are made. If we had different laws we’d all be fighting over those laws with the same arguments. I understand your argument over personal intrusion, but I just don’t know of a better alternative.
#81, Sea Lawyer,
No, privileges are granted by a second party, a right is not dependent on somebody else to exist. That is the difference. There is no requirement that anything be earned with a privilege, just a willingness of the grantor to bestow it.
A State may not grant a privilege to one person it is not willing to grant to another unless it can demonstrate that it is the publics interest. The Government(s) are holders of the public trust and must treat that trust equitably and for the good of all the people.
Go back to the drivers license. Yes, the State may impose discriminatory restrictions. Those restrictions must, however, be reasonable and fairly applied. Discrimination includes good eyesight, traffic law knowledge, understanding of signs, and a demonstrated ability to drive a vehicle. All these discriminations are to improve traffic safety.
That is the whole base behind Board v Brown and Loving v Virginia. There are most likely other, even more relevant cases on States granting privileges, but these are off the top of my head.
#98, HMeyers,
Very good questions.
#90 – bobbo,
You’re kidding on this one, right??!!?
I’ve had a vasectomy==I cannot marry?
Women past menopause==same thing?
There are lots of examples of marriage not for progeny, mine among them. As far as I’m concerned, marriage is for lovers. It’s also a very personal thing. It involves visitation rights in the hospital, next of kinship, decisions of life and death, inheritance, and a host of other things I would not deny to someone based on their sexuality.
# 95 bobbo said, on May 16th, 2008 at 4:33 am
(1).
Courts can be forgiven in expanding rights when they are “basic human rights.”
(2).
On a more fundamental level, rights are very much about being “left alone” to live as “one” wishes. Given marriage does have privileges attached to it, it stretches the definition just a bit to say anyone has a “right” to any privilege==especially when not dealing with “basic human rights.”
============================================
So basically according to the argument you just laid out… gays have the right to marriage. I will agree with you that marriage is not a right by itself. It, however, is when placed into the context of historical history as an institution of privileged for select individuals.
To put it another way. Marriage is an acquired fundamental right because of the emotional and economic benefits that are associated with it. It has the potential to improve your quality of life. To deny this would violate the 14th amendment because it would deny privileges and immunities to the citizenry involved and in doing so would further violate the due process cause so said in the amendment.
Case example:
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
Bobbo,
Just to elaborate on #104, Jeff, Loving v Virginia is a case brought to challenge the misogyny laws in Virginia. That is where Whites and Blacks were not allowed to legally marry because it might pollute the gene pool with inferior genes. Shit, it was even a crime for them to have sex.
bobbo, good points, but marriage is also about protecting women, eg keeping men from dumping someone for a younger model. This is also another reason divorce weakens marriage significantly.
According to both Calif and Mass law, marriage is between a man and a woman. It is the courts that have declared it to be otherwise. You are engaging in circular reasoning. Some people want to redefine marriage to suit their lifestyle, and are using nondiscrimination laws as an excuse to make it happen.
#30 – Whats the divorce rate again?
And who is it highest among?
(cough)conservative Christians(cough)
#32 – The simplest solution that leaves no room for hedging or hawing is to simply call both marriage.
And why it’s right to do is because they are.
I don’t know what time of the morning you all get to dogpile on the hot button issues, but I’m not reading the rest of this 100+ thread before weighing in my first and last comments…
If you oppose gay marriage, then you are a bigot. I hope you’ll be first against the wall when the revolution comes.
And Bobbo… quit being a douchbag.
#103–Scott==the general purpose of a law need not be carried out with perfection, sufficient to say that encouraging marriage in general encourages social stability. Details at the edge not important.
#104–Jeff, once you agree marriage is not a fundamental human right, the argument is over. A million dollars would greatly help my emotional and economic benefits, but I don’t have a right to it.
#105–gawd==misogyny??? THATS funny. Try miscegeny? I don’t know what that contributes to the conversation, except white gays should be allowed to marry black gays? But no, marriage is between a man and a woman straight, gay, mullato, whatever.
#106–Mike, I don’t think marriage was ever about protecting women except as unavoidable consequence of protecting a mans property??? In the main, we have no fault divorce and protection is not in the picture except with pre-nup agreements.
#108–OFTLO===I got to be MEEEEEE!!
I know what the Court said. This is one of the first cases you review in civil rights issues. You did forget Brown v. Board II (BTW).
I never said that it was about gay marriage. What I said was that the basic framework of this case could be applied. It still applied, though a bit abstractly. I probably should have used a better test case. I do, however, stand by the same basic premise, however.
It should be noted for the record that the Court upheld a state statute that prohibited
sodomy in 1986, but recently overturned that decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003). I think you could make the argument that until 2003 it was technically illegal for a homosexual man or woman to have sex with a person of the same sex within a select number of states, though in practice the laws were rarely enforced.
Why I think this is important, is because it shows the mindset and legislative history and the trend toward privacy in relationships beginning in the 1960s. Marriage is a slightly different, though in principle the variant is not that different from a relationship, but is more because of the implied rights that are granted by our country to those who a valid marriage certificate.
============================================
MikeN, the last time I checked I was not practicing a so-called homosexual lifestyle. Just because you support the right of individuals to get married does not actually make you gay.
While I will agree that the mistreatment of gay people does not equate to laws that repressed individuals of other racial or ethnic backgrounds… it does qualify them as a protected minority status. The basic system of governance was designed to protect the minority from having its will hampered by the majority. Just because something is politically or socially unpopular does not mean that it can be prohibited.
Reasons why I support gay marriage:
1). Federal and state benefits.
2). Studies that show emotion benefits to long term, close relationships. This is much more likely if individuals are married.
3). Society is not going to collapse. This is communism… the dominoes are not going to all fall over.
4). I don’t care about religious arguments because I don’t believe they are relevant (or for that matter properly translated). Marriage is a cultural institution.
5). Protected status of homosexual individuals.
(On institution of marriage to protect women)
I think I recently read something on the Focus on the Family website that said the institution of marriage was designed to protect women. Utter BS. I think one could argue the fear alimony payments might be. The traditional vows might be as well when applied through the filter of cultural revisionism might work as well.
(State statutes)
You might want to actually take a couple of constitutional law class; you might be surprised how many statutes get stuck down because they violate their own state constitution or the United States Constitution.
#109 OFTLO===I got to be MEEEEEE!!
108 should have been my last comment, but I decided to break my promise only to award you points for openly displaying a healthily self-deprecating sense of humor 🙂
Good show.
THIS is my last comment of the day.
#104–Jeff, once you agree marriage is not a fundamental human right, the argument is over. A million dollars would greatly help my emotional and economic benefits, but I don’t have a right to it.
=======================================
That argument is so childish… I am not even sure where to begin. I think for starters we need to come to some form of understanding on what a fundamental human right is. I think what you might be referring to is a natural right. There is a difference, one is granted by God and other by society. I am not sure about whether God granted marriage to gay people because we don’t know. Translation issues.
As for fundamental rights, these rights change with society. They often are not popular and not be handled in a delicate matter by an accepting public. I will, however, simply state that fundamental rights are not granted in the court of public opinion.
(just one more thing)
But no, marriage is between a man and a woman straight, gay, mullato, whatever.
==========================================
Is that supposed to be cute. Just for the record it is mulatto.
#110–Jeff==if you don’t include who you are responding to, its like you are spitting in the wind?
Bit vague what your analysis is. Brown case is about separate and equal not providing equal rights? Still don’t know how that applies unless there is a right to be married. All your arguments go to the appropriateness of a legislative remedy, not the court stepping in and defining a new, first ever heard of, can’t be modified by legislation, constitutional right. THATS why the Ca Court is so wrong. The right morally thing to do gives us those types of outcomes===Just like Gore vs Bush for the other points of view?
#111–OFTLO==always enjoy your constant reprimands and occasional attaboys. Enjoy your weekend.
#109 – bobbo,
Marriage is not a basic human right only in the sense that both/all parties must agree to it. So, anyone wishing to invoke their right must find someone to whom they are an acceptable mate.
Other than that, why do you say it’s not a basic right?
Do you also not believe in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Can you really argue that infringement upon the rights of certain groups to marry is not an infringement of the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness?
I’d love to hear that one!!
#114–Scott==you would??? Well then, here goes:
1. Marriage, even in the strongest case as a full constitutional right would be no more absolute than any of the other recognized rights. Recognizing that reality, marriage can be regulated within permissable competing purposes.
eg–if you have a right to gun ownership, that does not include a right to a bazooka. if you have a right to marriage, that does not include your sister, mongoloid idiot, drunk person, or gay partner.
Right to life as you imply is irrelevant.
Liberty interest is also not relevant, and as we all know, that right can be taken by the state with due process as can the pursuit of happiness.
Now, the pursuit of happiness in the modern sense is so vague as to be of little guidance. If I get happy by drugs or by setting fires, too bad as both are illegal. Same with desiring same sex marriage partners. Now, in the original sense, happiness is defined as “a good life lived well” and at the time no body thought that included gay marriage.
Scott, I think the tote board is about 5 to zero?
#114 – bobbo,
1. Marriage, even in the strongest case as a full constitutional right would be no more absolute than any of the other recognized rights.
What do you mean by that? I would see it as a right, plain and simple.
if you have a right to marriage, that does not include your sister, mongoloid idiot, drunk person, or gay partner.
So, you view homosexuality as the equivalent of incest??!!? Or, are you instead equating being gay with being non compus mentis, as your other examples are?
Either way, no I will not grant either case.
You’re correct about a right to life. I included that only for completeness with the constitution, that little piece of paper that grants us many rights (and used to grant more).
Liberty interest is also not relevant, and as we all know, that right can be taken by the state with due process as can the pursuit of happiness.
How so? Aren’t our rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness only curtailed when we commit crimes? Are you suggesting that homosexuality is a crime?
I certainly hope not and would definitely not agree.
Now, the pursuit of happiness in the modern sense is so vague as to be of little guidance. If I get happy by drugs or by setting fires, too bad as both are illegal. Same with desiring same sex marriage partners. Now, in the original sense, happiness is defined as “a good life lived well” and at the time no body thought that included gay marriage.
Pursuit of happiness was always deliberately vague. This allows for the changing moral zeitgeist. Well, the moral zeitgeist has indeed changed. Most of us no longer view homosexuality as a disease, for example, and feel that homosexuals should be equally entitled to the protection of the law.
Also, you should not mistake pursuit of happiness, which is a right, with happiness, which is not. Were happiness made to be a right, I need $100,000,000 right now in order to be happy. Cough up Uncle Sam!!
As for the tote board, neither of us gets to judge that. You are clearly biased and have ignored all of my points or think you have addressed them, but have certainly not done so to my satisfaction. As I have also not made any inroads with you, I would call the score 0 to 0, a perfect tie.
Seriously though, you should look into why you hate homosexuals so much that you would deny them even the pursuit of a happy life. Then you should examine why you would like to deny billions of dollars to the wedding industry. Then you should consider the effect that your opinion of the law will have on the spread of AIDS by denying homosexuals the right to commit to a long term relationship as the rest of us do.
Then you should probably go back and think some more because you are still stuck in the repressed morals of a society long since past.
Seriously bobbo, on this one, you really don’t have a leg to stand on.
Scott, I can’t believe that you’re in an argument with a guy who just lumped women, alcoholics, gay people and “mongoloid idiot” into the same group.
Next thing you know, he’ll want to keep “Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay race” away from our woman folk.
Scott and QB–I have two legs to stand on. These are not “my” opinions, but the registry of history. My point is that we all have kumbaya in our hearts for all our fellow peoples==but those feelings of equality, hope and joy are not constitutional rights. A very precise and regulated analysis. Just because we may like the outcome of this particular case, it must be rejected because the same reasoning will bring us results we do not like.
In a democracy, there is a role for majority will as expressed by the legislative process. The minority rights ((and we all are minorities in one manner or another)) to be protected by the Bill of Rights. Marriage is not such a right regardless of how happy it might make you.
But, if 250 years and 48 other states is not evidence enough of this objective fact, then indeed, you have joined another minority.
#117 – QB,
History gives me a bit more reason to try with bobbo. Were he a newbie to this forum, I’d probably tear him a new one for that. Since he’s got a track record of intelligent posts on many other subjects==not necessarily the best punctuation==I cut him more slack and work a bit harder to get him to see that he’s somehow got some crazy Xian/neocon politics mixed into his otherwise liberal/atheist brain. Eventually, he’ll likely come around.
119–Scott==good thing I am made of sterner stuff than Mister Mustard or I would be forced to claim you are being condescending to me. Something of which I will not up with put.
How crazy can I be when I agree that all rights and privileges should be extended to gays under civil union? All rights and humanity recognized along with the desires of the majority==a win/win except for those who can’t stand winning unless someone else loses.
Surely the strongest position?
When a form asks if i’m married, or single (or divorced, for that matter), I never know which to put down. I’ve been in a committed relationship with my partner for 10 years.. living together for 7.. but I can’t say that we’re married… so i have to put down Single.. even though I’m not. I usually leave it blank and let them ask for clarification.
#121–Daniel==nope, you’re single. I think your committed relationship gets listed if ever asked for “who to contact in an emergency” or “significant other.” But you already know that.
Bobbo:
I was comparing the two Brown v. Board cases (Brown and Brown II). The Court slowed the process of integration because of the resistance by some individuals.
Congress can preclude the Court and lower courts from reviewing a statute, but there are a number of limitations. States has less ability to limit judicial review.
There are no “true” fundamental rights, it is a construct. It can be changed by society. Still, in order to be consider a proper statute it generally can not be seen as taking away rights without due cause (show standing/harm).
It is true that judicial review can be problematic, but the idea of leaving states to their own devices without the ability of the state courts to review their own laws is beyond scary. The ability of judicial review is seen as integral part of the check and balance system.
Without the ability to interpret law, how exactly does a court have any real authority? It is by no means the final word, the legislature is free to makes a statute within the limits of the court ruling.
The problem in Bush v. Gore is whether the Court had the power to even consider the case. This is not the same as a ruling that banned marriage outside of one man and one woman.
==============================================
The problem with civil unions
==============================
1). They are separate and unequal. It is impossible to have separate but equal. This is the Brown test.
2). Why not just call it marriage?
#120 – bobbo,
How crazy can I be when I agree that all rights and privileges should be extended to gays under civil union?
A rose by any other name …
Why do you have an objection then to calling it marriage? Why do you need a distinction?
Further, please seriously explain why you lumped incest, mongoloid idiot, drunk person, and gay partner together as if there was some similarity?
Oh, and sorry if I sometimes sound condescending. It’s sometimes intentional, but only with people I dislike.