California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

[dbackjon]

SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court has overturned a gay marriage ban in a ruling that would make the nation's largest state the second one to allow gay and lesbian weddings.

The justices' 4-3 decision Thursday says domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage. Chief Justice Ron George wrote the opinion.

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march.

The case before the court involved a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn a voter-approved law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

With the ruling, California could become the second state after Massachusetts where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

"What happens in California, either way, will have a huge impact around the nation. It will set the tone," said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of the gay rights group Equality California.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_ ... y_marriage


Note - the California Legislature has passed gay marriage bills twice, only to have Ah-nuld veto them, reasoning it was up for the courts to decide.

So no cries of judicial activism here allowed. The elected representatives voted for it.

[Ibanez]

If gay means same sex, why don't they call lesbians...gay women?

Or does this mean that having a happy marriage is now legal?

I'm confused?

(not that confused Jon)

[dbackjon]

If gay means same sex, why don't they call lesbians...gay women?

Or does this mean that having a happy marriage is now legal?

I'm confused?

(not that confused Jon)

Gay can refer to either....


And I am quite gay right now!!

[Ibanez]

If gay means same sex, why don't they call lesbians...gay women?

Or does this mean that having a happy marriage is now legal?

I'm confused?

(not that confused Jon)

Gay can refer to either....


And I am quite gay right now!!

Yeah, I know.

I remember you sent me this picture of you last year:

[dbackjon]

Gay can refer to either....


And I am quite gay right now!!

Yeah, I know.

I remember you sent me this picture of you last year:

Crap - you weren't supposed to post that pic of AZGRIZ

[citdog]

bundles of sticks lead a lifestyle that is amoral and is a psychological illness. they need help...not rights.

[dbackjon]

bundles of sticks lead a lifestyle that is amoral and is a psychological illness. they need help...not rights.

I think I remember hearing that logic somewhere else...Buehler???

[travelinman67]

Good point made during a radio talk show tonight...this ruling (which overturned Proposition 22 requiring "marriage" to be between a man and a woman, and was overwhelmingly passed by California voters 61%-39% in 2000) doesn't just open the door to one partner-same sex marriage (opening the door for lawsuits to force employers to provide spousal benefits, tax benefits, etc...), based upon early interpretations, ANY marital situation (bi with two partners, even animals [lady that tried that with her schnauzer in SF a few years back, claimed 'platonic', but in effect beastiality applies]...which several have tried in CA could also sue to force spousal benefits for their partners.

One of the callers attempted to dodge the 'bi' issue, but it's legit. Ergo, once the 'non-discrimination' ruling becomes codified, from a legal and regulatory position, the "pandora's box" has been opened.

So, either the 'discriminatory' practice is allowed to remain, or it is entirely eliminated. If the latter, the economic impact is unfathomable.

Jon, I know you think this is entirely about orientation (homophobia). For some, obviously, it is. From another perspective, however, it's about the financial cost to government and businesses (and ultimately, all consumers/taxpayers end up footing the bill).

If the issue of moral or ethical propriety can be totally ignored for a moment;

Given that the percentage of gays and lesbians are a minority of the total population;
and
The majority of the population voted to recognize only opposite sex partnerships for the definition of "marriage";
and
The U.S. constitution has no 14th amendment provision providing for states to legislate marital status;
and
Given (arguably) the only "tort" against the "discriminated" party is denial of lawful marriage and the financial benefits afforded to "married" partners

Wouldn't you agree that the CA court overstepped it's authority in overturing the Proposition? If not, what specific legal authority empowered the court, absent the proposition chaptering a clearly unconstitutional act (something that's been unsucccessfully challenged repeatedly both before and after the 2000 election)?

I'm not trying to 'gang up' on you. I realize you are (effectively) the sole voice "representing the gay community" at CS. But akin to this Polar Bear stunt that will empower the "Green" lawyers to lay waste to every government action they choose to shut down, the potentially harmful economic ramifications of this decision cannot be ignored. Right or wrong...someone's going to end up paying for this.


(Sh!t...what am I thinking...let's just ask Cleets to pay for it. )

[dbackjon]

1) Economic consequences should have NO baring on the decision - either you have equal rights, or you don't. If you are worried about economic consequences, then the logical step would be to go the other way - prohibit/deny employers, governments to give spousal benefits.

Should some people's relationships be more financially beneficial to them than others? Should you get a tax break on your spouse's health insurance solely because you are straight? Why should I have to pay taxes on my partner's health insurance? I paid more than $4,000 in taxes this year than we would have had we been able to marry.

Most major employers already offer DP benefits.

2) The other arguments are straw men. Marriage, from a state perspective, has always been a legal contract. You can not contract with a dog, or a minor, so those arguments have no merit.

As for polygamy, etc - allowing two people to get married, whether gay or straight, is a contract between TWO people. The laws of the land are designed for that situation - the sex of the couple is irrelevant. If marriage was expanded to go beyond that two people, then a whole new set of laws would need to be written. Gay marriage fits into the existing legal framework.

I assume California already has laws against bigamy, etc. Those laws were not struck down.

Do I think the California Court (6 Republicans, BTW) overstepped it's bounds? NO. The constitution is the ultimate law of the land - it doesn't matter if 90% of the people pass a law that violates the constitution, it is the judges DUTY to overturn that law. To not do so would be judicial activism.

[travelinman67]

Just to jump in, dback...

Why is polygamy 'wrong'? If my physiological wiring 'dictates' it, then isn't the government discriminating against me?

I dead f'ing serious here. You're saying that a person's physiological/psychological 'wiring' predetermines their orientation, therefore, it's discrimination to not recognize gay marriage.

What about polygamists? Beastiality? Pedophilia?

I'm not trying to 'dis' gays, just saying the argument that due to physiological makeup, two people of the same sex who love each other should be able to marry...

AND NO LAW CAN BE PASSED RESTRICTING THAT!

???????

I'd be willing to wager most polygamists love their wives and/or vice-versa. Isn't government discriminating against them? And the bi-sexual couple who NEEDS the third person to 'complete' their marriage. Who is government to restrict their ability to live a healthy bi-sexual married life?

And to say that a monogamus, same-sex relationship falls within 'normal' physiological design, but a person needing multiple spouses, or physically is attracted to animals, or children, is 'deviant' or 'miswired', is the absolute epitome of hypocrisy!

BTW, jon...welcome to the world of 21st century heterosexuals.

[travelinman67]

Forgot to add...

no, gay marriage DOES NOT fit into the existing legal framework...

that is why we are having this debate and laws are being re-written.

[dbackjon]

I am not knocking polygamy, per se. I am pointing out that our existing legal structure is based on a two-person contract. Allowing multiple parties would require a new legal framework.

For example:

You and Jenna Jamison get married. No problem, legal structure in place. Your assets are common property, etc.

Now, say you also want to marry Tyra Banks. Do you need Jenna's permission? What is the relationship between Jenna and Tyra? If you then divorce Jenna, does she get half, or a third?

Or say after marrying you, Jenna then decides SHE wants to marry Citdog. Does she need your permission? Are you and Citdog considered married as well? Jenna gets pregnant - who's the daddy? What if Citdog was also married to Miss Confederate South Carolina - does she enter into a big partnership? Who gets to claim who on taxes?

Many questions, legally with polygamy. No legal questions with two adults.

[travelinman67]

I am not knocking polygamy, per se. I am pointing out that our existing legal structure is based on a two-person contract. Allowing multiple parties would require a new legal framework.

For example:

You and Jenna Jamison get married. No problem, legal structure in place. Your assets are common property, etc.

Now, say you also want to marry Tyra Banks. Do you need Jenna's permission? What is the relationship between Jenna and Tyra? If you then divorce Jenna, does she get half, or a third?

Or say after marrying you, Jenna then decides SHE wants to marry Citdog. Does she need your permission? Are you and Citdog considered married as well? Jenna gets pregnant - who's the daddy? What if Citdog was also married to Miss Confederate South Carolina - does she enter into a big partnership? Who gets to claim who on taxes?

Many questions, legally with polygamy. No legal questions with two adults.

Young jenna or old jenna?

pre-nup. no brainer.

a pre-determined percentage of the familial assets at time of separation.

re; Cit...i doubt he would consider marrying jenna...she's slept with too many dudes, and Cit lives by a higher standard than that. i don't.