Gay marriage in California

[RecycleMichael]

I guess it is now legal...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

California's top court overturns gay marriage ban
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in striking down the ban. Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as the news spread. Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"

"This is a very historic day. This is just such freedom for us," Rizzo said. "This is a message that says all of us are entitled to human dignity." In the Castro, historically a center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt started crying while watching the news on TV.

"I've been waiting for this all my life," he said. "This is a life-affirming moment." The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted the monthlong wedding march that took place when Mayor Gavin Newsom opened the doors of City Hall to same-sex marriages. "Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.

The challenge for gay rights advocates, however, is not over. A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution. The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court's decision. California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.

But, "Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court's majority, which also included Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said the court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented. The conservative Alliance Defense Fund says it plans to ask the justices for a stay of their decision until after the fall election, said Glen Lavey, senior counsel for the group.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would've granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, said in a news release that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

[Breadburner]

Does that mean people are happily married.....

[cannon_fodder]

Technically all it means is the law banning gay marriage has been stricken.  So the issue is still open and there are no provisions for the State to marry same-sex couples. So it's in limbo...

I don't care who you marry.  I have yet to hear a logical argument against gay marriage:

1) Clearly marriage is no meant to "populate the earth" as the Bible says, since most couples use birth control.  And what of couples that can not procreate - does that mean they can not get married?

2) The "sanctity of marriage" argument is laughable, given the 50+% divorce rate.  Far be it for a few gays to ruin our sacred, holy, and eternal unions that we heterosexuals always uphold.

3) "Family values" is the same basic argument.  Even if you want to argue gay marriage is against family values... We split up families all the time, that's not a family value.  And what about wife beaters, alcoholics, drug users, or just plain old deadbeats... should we forbid these people form marrying because they do not have good family values?  Or is it OK so long as they aren't gay?

4) The benefits argument also falls short:  would you marry another man for health insurance?  Most people wouldn't.  Plus, this trick is still available to man-woman relationships, so the same sex ban doesn't really remedy the problem.   Ancillary issues about inheritance, visitation,  and family choice (pull the plug doc) are really non-issues and a gay man can contractual allow his partner most of these rights anyway.  So denying them marriage on that basis is just petty.
- - -

The issue comes down to either a religious argument (it's a sin!) or a personal disgust of gay marriage (or to be more PC "I just think it's wrong"), neither of which is a compelling argument nor a logical basis for a law.   It comes down to tradition and inertia at this point.  By the time my son has children I'm guessing gay marriage is no big deal.  I really don't see a reason why it's a big deal now (but what if people want top marry their Gold Fish next?  Not that it's the same... but so what if htey do?).

/ my $1.05

[RecycleMichael]

Gay marriage?

Haven't gays suffered enough?

[deinstein]

There is no argument against gay marriage.

[Gaspar]

You know, if we eliminated all of the crazy tax/property laws that pertain to marriage, there would be no argument on who marries who?  

Government vies for power over your property and religion uses government to enforce moral law.  Eliminate the control and the debate is over.  Why should it be government's business anyhow?

Everyone could just be happy!  

You could even marry your golden retriever or your lawnmower if you wanted to.

Property would simply pass to the next living relative or existing spouse.  It's already been taxed so why should the government have any claim on it.  

Funny how they use stupid Conservatives and goofy Liberals  to fuel this debate about nothing more than larceny.

Thieves!

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Gay marriage?

Haven't gays suffered enough?

That was damn funny....

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

You know, if we eliminated all of the crazy tax/property laws that pertain to marriage, there would be no argument on who marries who?  

Government vies for power over your property and religion uses government to enforce moral law.  Eliminate the control and the debate is over.  Why should it be government's business anyhow?

Everyone could just be happy!  

You could even marry your golden retriever or your lawnmower if you wanted to.

Property would simply pass to the next living relative or existing spouse.  It's already been taxed so why should the government have any claim on it.  

Funny how they use stupid Conservatives and goofy Liberals  to fuel this debate about nothing more than larceny.

Thieves!

It's more than property laws at issue, but I do think property is a big part of the debate; few of the anti-gay marriage folks understand how not being able to marry someone affects the distribution of property at death.  I know a lot of folks who were really anti-gay marriage until they heard the property issue.

Beyond property, it gets into things like adoption, the right to make medical decisions, and the right to file tax returns jointly.

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by Gold

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

You know, if we eliminated all of the crazy tax/property laws that pertain to marriage, there would be no argument on who marries who?  

Government vies for power over your property and religion uses government to enforce moral law.  Eliminate the control and the debate is over.  Why should it be government's business anyhow?

Everyone could just be happy!  

You could even marry your golden retriever or your lawnmower if you wanted to.

Property would simply pass to the next living relative or existing spouse.  It's already been taxed so why should the government have any claim on it.  

Funny how they use stupid Conservatives and goofy Liberals  to fuel this debate about nothing more than larceny.

Thieves!

It's more than property laws at issue, but I do think property is a big part of the debate; few of the anti-gay marriage folks understand how not being able to marry someone affects the distribution of property at death.  I know a lot of folks who were really anti-gay marriage until they heard the property issue.

Beyond property, it gets into things like adoption, the right to make medical decisions, and the right to file tax returns jointly.

Yup. And the so-called family values crowd wants to prevent homosexuals from using the very thing -- marriage -- that would promote those family values and household stability.

[PonderInc]

Speaking of family values...

Of the gay people I know, I've noticed a striking trend.  It's amazing how many gay people end up taking care of their aging parents and grandparents....instead of their straight siblings (who are, presumably, too busy with kids and soccer tournaments, etc).

I would love to see a study on this topic.  I bet that the percent of gay people who take care of their family members is huge.  (Not counting, of course, those whose parents disown them for being gay.) (Funny that the people who talk about "family values" a lot tend to do stuff like that...)

[Ibanez]

Good lord. What an abomination.

I mean seriously..who would want to marry a Californian?

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by wavoka

Good lord. What an abomination.

I mean seriously..who would want to marry a Californian?

Can Californians marry outside of their own?  If so, will the children be retarded too?

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

Speaking of family values...

Of the gay people I know, I've noticed a striking trend.  It's amazing how many gay people end up taking care of their aging parents and grandparents....instead of their straight siblings (who are, presumably, too busy with kids and soccer tournaments, etc).

I would love to see a study on this topic.  I bet that the percent of gay people who take care of their family members is huge.  (Not counting, of course, those whose parents disown them for being gay.) (Funny that the people who talk about "family values" a lot tend to do stuff like that...)

Well I am not taking care of my parents. I was the first child, they were poor when they had me and I got nothing, and they made all their mistakes on me lol. Now my youngest brother, bout 19 years younger than me, he was spoiled to dickens. Got to travel more, had help with college, lived at home years longer, etc. I and my younger sisters have voted that he gets to take care of my parents. He is straight btw, but still has to take care of the parents lol.

However, I may be chipping in to put my sisters kids through college. She breeds like a rabbit and keeps popping the things out. They live outside Tulsa county so can't qualify for the free TCC tuition, and they are very smart kids and doing exceptionally well in school. I dont know how many kids she has now, but I will make danged sure they all are able to do the college thing.  

As for getting married.... I can't even find a decent date in this town.

[TURobY]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


As for getting married.... I can't even find a decent date in this town.

LOL. Give it time. I finally found mine. []

[waterboy]

Artist you work too hard and think too much!