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.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. You keep using language of rights and discrimination to argue for changing this definition.
Somehow the burden of proof is on people who want to keep things as they are? Why should that be the standard?
MikeN, reread the statements you made and than think about what might be wrong with them.
#122 – bobbo,
#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.
And you already knew that listing these things will not get one’s partner into the hospital as a spouse in an emergency. Nor will it give one’s partner the ultimate responsibility and authority for making life and death decisions for their incapacitated partner. Nor will it convey title to all of the couple’s property should one party die intestate.
So, separate and severely unequal is true.
We call the contract that binds people together in this way marriage. Why invent something new and weaker or even new and as strong when those involved want the same thing? Why deny it to them?
Forgetting about any religious origins of “do unto others as you would have done unto you”, it exists across numerous cultures for a reason. It is simply a moral and decent way to treat people.
Would you like to be denied the right to marry the one you love? I wouldn’t.
Would you deny this to others? I wouldn’t.
#125 – MikeN,
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. You keep using language of rights and discrimination to argue for changing this definition.
Exactly so. The current legal definition is horribly outdated and in need of change in order to avoid denying rights to certain individuals.
Just as marriage was changed to allow marriage between individuals of different race, as we progressed and became more moral than we had been, so too must marriage change once again.
This is one of the fundamental problems with religions founded on 2K year old texts. Those texts do not change with the moral zeitgeist.
Our laws are designed to be changed as times change. Just as the moral zeitgeist has moved on and improved since biblical times, so too has the moral zeitgeist moved on since the time in which women were not allowed to vote, native Americans were not counted on the census, and members of different races could not marry.
Times change. Let’s change them for the better!
#124–Scott==how come OFTLO sees the humor immediately and even after I ramp it up a notch, it still eludes you?
Words have meaning. Read any dictionary. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Any change should come from the legislature, not the courts.
incest, mongoloid idiot, drunk person, and gay partner (gay as in no consumation) ==all grounds for annulment.
>>Times change. Let’s change them for the better!
I’m actually kind of surprised at Bobbolina’s recent revelation of his conservative/ religious mindset in this regard. Who knew he was a bigoted homophobe? Where’s “J” when you need him??
Btw, nice work on that blog of yours. Well done. I may have to read it more often.
What should most be highlighted by this decision is that the foundation of the institution of marriage is fundamentally flawed and that the entire structure has for years been slipping into the sea taking all couples, straight or gay, to a watery grave.
I do not say this because homosexuals don’t deserve the right to be married, they do, but because it would be better to completely strike down the very notion of being married.
http://www.futureosophy.com/2008/05/overturning-marriage.html
#131 – Mr. Mustard,
Thanks for the compliment! Stop by any time. I’ve been wondering when you’d start one.
#130 bobbo,
#124–Scott==how come OFTLO sees the humor immediately and even after I ramp it up a notch, it still eludes you?
I’m a geek. I read words the way I trace code, literally. Of course, this drives humans crazy.
Words have meaning. Read any dictionary.
This is entirely true. However, dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive. This is why it is now OK to say “I am nauseous.” Formerly, this would have meant that I cause nausea in others. Historically correct usage: The nauseous motion of the boat made me nauseated.
Older dictionaries might have specified one man and one woman of the same race. Current dictionaries do not.
It is now time to include same sex marriages. Some are already beginning to note the controversy and do so.
Why do you say “no consummation” for gay marriage?
I don’t see specification of a particular orifice. Do you?
#119 Scott
Anyone who uses refers to people with Downs Syndrome as mongoloid idiots who don’t deserve the dignity of marriage is not worthy of your time. Not only is the lowest form of prejudice it doesn’t reflect law and reality in most western countries: http://tinyurl.com/4nc95j
Bobbo,
You are being silly and your arguments can’t hold any water.
Jeff,
Don’t worry about MikeN. He is the resident troll around here and just posts garbage to get a rise out of people.
Good posts. Don’t be a stranger to DU.
http://tinyurl.com/5pgvn4
Again you engage in circular reasoning. You say times change and the laws should be updated to match that. OK, that’s true, but it’s not the job of judges to update the laws with the times.
#137, Lyin’ Mike,
…it’s not the job of judges to update the laws with the times.
That is only true when their interpretation doesn’t agree with yours.
#134–Scott==I agree that dictionaries are only descriptive. When one dictionary is hip and current while the other 856 report the “old” definition, the description is well settled.
Re consummation–if you marry a person of the opposite sex, but they are gay not wanting to consummate the marriage regardless of desired orifice, the marriage “may” be annulled at the option of the injured party.
Same with Down’s Syndrome and other mental infirmities as objected to by QB at #135. Since I don’t personally care about these issues other than objecting to judicial activism (in ALL instances–except in determining rarely those finally recognized basic human rights) I believe mongoloid idiot was the original statutory term–not mine. For all I know, mental retardation is no longer grounds for annulment or “invalid ab initio.”
>>objecting to judicial activism (in ALL
>>instances–except in determining rarely those
>>finally recognized basic human rights)
So, what are you saying, Bobster, that People of African Descent shouldn’t be allowed to sit in the front of the bus, drink from the same water fountain as you, or eat in your restaurants? That people of different races shouldn’t be allowed to marry? That “sodomy” (even the heterosexual kind) should be a hanging offense in Tejas?
Seems to me you just have your knickers in a twist only over this “homosexual” thing…laws enforcing discrimination of other sorts are fair game for judicial overturning? Hmm… that pretzel logic is killing me!
And no, allowing a gay man to marry a lesbian, or the sloppy seconds of “civil unions” doesn’t cut the mustard.
#140–Mustard==no, as posted repeatedly in this thread, I see all homo sapiens as human beings, sadly, all the same–and all entitled to “basic human rights.”
But the race issue is a bad example “for you” as the Court never did use its “activism” to find such a basic human right. That action was done by Amendment.
To go further might inflame too many sensitivities. I will remain however a prometheus unbound.
>>That action was done by Amendment.
What the 14th Amendment of 1868? Pfft.
>>I will remain however a prometheus unbound.
Prometheus unbound? I’m glad to see that you are answering to Zeus now, but don’t you think you’re treading a little close to “narcisisstic personality disorder” here? Sheesh.
As to the general tenets of your arguments, it’s hard for me to imagine where you get any support for them, other than from a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible (eg God hates fags. Dot com).
#142–Mustard==when all you know and can understand is the bible, its easy to believe you can’t understand anyone else knowing anything differently?===like 250 years of jurisprudence.
Still, I have led your sorry ass to the water. Drink or not as you will.
For those with an interest, C-Span 3 starting tomorrow Sunday at 800AM EDT has 12 hours of Same-Sex Marriage Programming.
Nothing like a fresh viewpoint with some expertise??? Its pre-recorded so won’t review the Ca Sup Ct ruling==but “should” still highlight the relevant issues.
#145–Pedro==I think thats right. Legislature cannot change what the court finds to be “constitutional rights.” Only a constitutional amendment can do that–ie, super majority of those voting.
I read the Ca Sup Ct case is about 175 pages long. I’m sure there is a lot of good info/history there. I’ll never read it. Can’t care about “everything.”
#139 – bobbo,
Re consummation–if you marry a person of the opposite sex, but they are gay not wanting to consummate the marriage regardless of desired orifice, the marriage “may” be annulled at the option of the injured party.
I didn’t realize you were still on that silly thread. I was talking about same sex marriage. Why should a homosexual marry a heterosexual? The days of a marriage to appear straight are long over.
Seriously though, why do you hate homosexuals? Why would you deny them the same rights you enjoy? Certainly we curtail the rights of criminals.
However, we have a moral imperative to protect the rights of law abiding citizens.
And again, regarding Down’s Syndrome, the only way it has any relevance is if you are making the claim that homosexuals are mentally incompetent to enter binding legal contracts. If you are making such a point, you are way the fuck off base and really need to do some serious reflecting about your own homophobia.
#137 – MikeN,
Again you engage in circular reasoning. You say times change and the laws should be updated to match that. OK, that’s true, but it’s not the job of judges to update the laws with the times.
Why is it not the job of the courts to determine constitutionality of laws? That was the question here, as well as in the link you cited. Constitutionality is determined by the courts.
#145 – pedro,
BTW, wasn’t this part of a referendum? I thought it was voted no?
If so, now the Supreme court can overturn popular vote? This is peaches!
(snark)
I thought the 2000 election proved that.
(/snark)
Seriously though, yes. The popular vote does not get to overrule constitutional rights. This is one of the checks and balances in our system. Neither the legislative branch nor a referendum can obliterate the rights granted to all individuals by the constitution. Else, we would see many states still with slavery and segregation, enforced religion, and many other abhorrent civil rights abuses.
#147–Scott==the original context is you asked why I included gays in my list of conditions. You have strayed too far afield in your word association.
Same with “hate.” My analysis even if wrong, says nothing about my personal opinions.
Scott and Pedro are on the crux of the matter (Back to Canada for a sec to illustrate). Several provincial courts and legislatures made rulings or passed laws with divergent results on same sex marriage. The problem is that the rights and privileges associated with a marriage need to cross provincial boundaries (tax laws, spousal benefits, next of kin, power of attorney, etc).
Before mayhem broke loose the federal government passed bill C-38 to create a national law which superseded the provincial cases and legislation. The current conservative government revisited the law and lost. I doubt that it will ever be challenged again.
Court cases in the US will start cropping up around conflicting state legislation. Eventually this will end up in the federal arena and that will be interesting for you. In Canada we have a parliament with 4-5 parties at any one time which makes “controversial” legislation possible. I don’t know if you can do it in the US even if the majority of your citizens are in favour of the change.
#148 – bobbo,
#147–Scott==the original context is you asked why I included gays in my list of conditions. You have strayed too far afield in your word association.
Not at all. You have failed to provide any connection between those with Down’s Syndrome and homosexuals. The only reason I see to deny anyone the right to sign any binding contract, including marriage, is mental incompetence. So, once again, what is your connection? Why do you think they should be denied the right to marry, and don’t skirt the issue with gays marrying lesbians, that’s silly. Why deny them the right to marry who they love? You have not produced a single good argument for that. Please do so or admit that you may be mistaken on this point.
Same with “hate.” My analysis even if wrong, says nothing about my personal opinions.
Bullshit. It’s all about your opinions. That’s what we post here. You feel same sex marriage should not be allowed. Please give a real reason, not an analogy. Why deny the right to marry to homosexuals? And, if doing so is not evidence of your hatred, then what exactly is it?
Note: I’m deliberately trying to cause you cognitive dissonance so that you can resolve it and come to a self-consistent opinion on the issue one way or the other.
#150–Scott==You say: “Not at all. You have failed to provide any connection between those with Down’s Syndrome and homosexuals.” /// Answered at #130.
you say: “It’s all about your opinions. That’s what we post here.” /// Speak for yourself. I spoke for myself at #7.
To rephrase slightly what has been posted repeatedly above, I’m all for gays having all the rights of marriage as developed thru the legislative process–not by the Court creating constitutional rights not previously recognized.
>>Bullshit. It’s all about your opinions.
Scottie, I think Mr. Bobbolina views himself as a latter-day Mr. Spock (or better yet, a pureblood Vulcan). Just logic. Or maybe like the Godfather…”nothing personal; strictly business”. Seems to me as though he just doesn’t like the idea of same-sex marriage on purely emotional grounds.
>>not by the Court creating constitutional
>>rights not previously recognized.
Bobster, if I read that article correctly, the court merely overturned a discriminatory Jim Crow law as being unconstitutional.
Not to worry, though. The hatemongers will have a second chance. They can try to forge new constitutional ground by amending the CA Constitution to TAKE AWAY rights, rather than to grant them.
Return volley from bobbo:
“I believe mongoloid idiot was the original statutory term–not mine.”
Nice catch. Smooth and utterly believable. You should look up the appeal to authority argument type. Rhetorically, you’re deep poop when you use it.
#151 – bobbo,
#150–Scott==You say: “Not at all. You have failed to provide any connection between those with Down’s Syndrome and homosexuals.” /// Answered at #130.
# 130 bobbo said, on May 16th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
[snip]
incest, mongoloid idiot, drunk person, and gay partner (gay as in no consumation) ==all grounds for annulment.
# 139 bobbo said, on May 17th, 2008 at 2:54 am
[snip]
Re consummation–if you marry a person of the opposite sex, but they are gay not wanting to consummate the marriage regardless of desired orifice, the marriage “may” be annulled at the option of the injured party.
I’m confused. Your answer presupposed that the marriage was between sexual incompatibles. We’re talking about same sex marriage here. Compatible gays or lesbians can consummate a relationship. Do you agree?
And, assuming that you agree that their sex would qualify as consummation, then their marriage has no grounds for annulment. So, comparing to any form of incompetent individual before the eyes of the court is completely ridiculous.
So, I go back to the main questions at hand.
Why do you want to take away the rights of homosexuals?
Would you want your own rights curtailed in such a way?
What makes you different from them?
I love. You love. Gays love. Lesbians love. Are we really so different in your mind?
#152–Thank you Mustard. On THIS thread, yes, my Vulcan ears are on as repeatedly stated.
I suppose you can interpret the article the way you say “but” isn’t the basis of the change that marriage should be thought of as not just between man and woman? And yet the historic record AND at the time of the framers, the concept of marriage was between man and woman just as at the time blacks were seen as not quite human and therefore not entitled to equal protection. When the court stuck to original intent on slavery they should judicial restraint. On a less important issue like gay marriage (with gay union as the alternative) they did not show restraint. They were acting in a clearly “activist/revisionist/legislative” mode. That should be left to the legislature otherwise you are approving courts making the law.
Now==if I were voting on this issue, I would think all the above and the other stuff I posted, but I would recognize I was being just a bit too anal. I would leave that ballot item blank and let the majority vote have its way.
#152–QB==when discussing statutory interpretation, its not a stretch to use terms in a statutory manner. You are now only one small step to your own understanding of what “context” means.