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

[Kilmer17]

People like to think that justice will be served in the end, even if they strongly disagree with each other on what justice entails. This is not new.



I'm citing the trend of public opinion, not the current state of it. You can certainly take issue with my projection if you'd like... but I should warn you that I am currently feeling far too lazy to defend it with gusto

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.

[Bliz]

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

Tyranny of the majority?

Hate to break it to you guys, but scotus will not take this case. Too narrow. What state other than Cali granted the right then took it away?

[Jumbo]

People like to think that justice will be served in the end, even if they strongly disagree with each other on what justice entails. This is not new.

I'm citing the trend of public opinion, not the current state of it. You can certainly take issue with my projection if you'd like... but I should warn you that I am currently feeling far too lazy to defend it with gusto

Here: to repeat myself--

While having a technical "majority" is not a madnatory qualification for such change (not counting the CA law), numbers do matter. But the power of social forces not always quantifiable in simple body counts also matters, and sometimes it matters a great deal. Sometimes a smaller voice hits on something perceived by enough people and especially in just enough of the "right places" to effect changes over even a resistant majority.

Per BK17's USA chant---love it or leave it.

Hell, marry it if you want.

[Kilmer17]

Here: to repeat myself--

Per BK17's USA chant---love it or leave it.

Hell, marry it if you want.

If I do, can it come visit me in the hospital?

[twa]

Tyranny of the majority?

Hate to break it to you guys, but scotus will not take this case. Too narrow. What state other than Cali granted the right then took it away?

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.

[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.