California Supreme Court to Issue Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Tomorrow!

  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    May 14, 2008 7:54 PM GMT
    Hi guys, I know many of you really don't care for the idea of marriage, but this is huge.

    [url]http://www.towleroad.com/2008/05/california-supr.html
    [/url]


    If you are at all spiritual, say a little prayer.
  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    May 14, 2008 7:55 PM GMT
    Crap the link didn't work right! I am so computer illiterate...icon_sad.gif
  • ShawnTX

    Posts: 2484

    May 14, 2008 8:05 PM GMT
    Hmm, it'll be an interesting outcome.
  • MSUBioNerd

    Posts: 1813

    May 14, 2008 9:31 PM GMT
    To link to a page: <a href="url_of_link">Text you want as the link</a>

    Example: Original poster's link
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2008 9:50 PM GMT
    I've always supported same sex marriage, even in my slut period, out of respect for my friends in committed relationships, gay and lesbian. Now that I met Walt, it really strikes home.

    I'm an atheist so, my good wishes for success will have to do.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2008 9:55 PM GMT
    I feel about the same way as this responder in the link:

    I also think that the rest of the country considers California to be on another planet, and won't be surprised or particularly care what we wacky Californians do. At least I hope so.

    It's an issue of state rights, and other states can do whatever they like.


    Congratulations to the people of California if this happens. Nice to see an individual state taking on gay marriage without running to the Federal government.
  • ep83

    Posts: 144

    May 14, 2008 9:56 PM GMT
    I wouldn't get my hopes up. New York and New Jersey have courts with similar profiles and both declined to require marriage equality. New Jersey did make some overtures to separate not being equal but the New York Court of Appeals shamefully bought into the backward arguments that were so easily demolished in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (such as conservation of state resources, "optimal" setting for children, encouraging reproduction, and on and on).

    One ray of hope: Janice Rogers Brown is no longer sitting on the court. A blow to the federal judiciary for sure, but a glimmer of hope for equal rights in California.
  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    May 14, 2008 9:59 PM GMT
    Trance,

    True dat. The significance to me would be the sheer size of the population of gay folks getting married, and the impact of that large demographic on the larger society. They will be hard to ignore, unlike the small enclave in MA. Out here west of the Mississippi, New England is the other planet.
  • ep83

    Posts: 144

    May 14, 2008 10:19 PM GMT
    Trance23Nice to see an individual state taking on gay marriage without running to the Federal government.


    "States' Rights: It's not just for racists anymore."

    Though I bet the Right will have all kinds of hypocritical things to say if this does happen. And due to the population and cultural impact of California there would be a much greater chance of a Full Faith and Credit challenge in other states or an assault on DOMA. It may be putting the cart before the horse but Justice Kennedy has a rather open mind when it comes to us homos; he authored both Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2008 10:40 PM GMT
    ep83 said

    "States' Rights: It's not just for racists anymore."


    The Federal government has no authority to interfere with marriage. Of course many right wing christians have bent the Republican party into attempting to violate this at the Federal level. Just because violation is happening doesn't mean we have to sink that level and likewise demand the Federal government protect us.

    Which is why a ruling in California will be a major impact. A clear showing that we don't need to pack the Supreme Court with liberal judges to have the "right" to do something that shouldn't even be interfered with to begin with. The ruling here could be a starting step for future rulings elsewhere, as well as a change in general opinion. Hopefully combined with a population willing to combat the institution of christianity and its influence in government we can turn the tide in any state.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2008 10:44 PM GMT
    John43620 saidI'm an atheist so, my good wishes for success will have to do.


    See, I knew way down deep you were probably a sensible guy. Now if you could just lose the knee-jerk jingoism.....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2008 10:47 PM GMT
    No one on this site, or anywhere else that I've found, has ever articulated a reasonable and serious defense of the entire notion of "states' rights". The fact is that states have historically been the locales that have stood in the way of progress on nearly every issue. And certain rights and privileges, even to this day, are dependent on having the correct zip code. This is insane. It is no way to run a country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2008 10:52 PM GMT
    Sorry if I burst your bubble - but it is all intertwined. Unfortunately, the federal government does have some say in marriage. Taxes, immigration rights, federal benefits (Social Security) all fall under the purview of the Federal Government and each of these issues impact on marriage as well. Without action at the federal level, we will never be truly equal.

    However, a state like CA taking this to a real level would have drastic repercussions to DOMA. Unfortunately, this is all happening in an election year - making us gays the perfect targets for all those Republicans out there.
  • joeindallas

    Posts: 484

    May 14, 2008 10:56 PM GMT
    I will just quote Robin Williams when he was asked if he supported Gay Marriage. He said, "YES. why shouldn't Gay be as misirbles as all the rest of US." Love Robin can make a joke about the most seroius item
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2008 11:01 PM GMT
    NNJfitandbi said
    And remember that the US Constitution guarantees the fundamental right of interstate travel, which means that you can live in any state you want. If you don't like the liquor control laws in Pennsylvania, move to freewheeling New Jersey. Nebraska's got you down -- move to permissive Iowa.


    That's a form of the "why didn't they just get in their cars and leave New Orleans?" argument.

    Not everyone has the money, education, or resources to just pick up and move where they choose. And many of those who do have family nearby that they can't or won't leave. And why should they be forced to uproot themselves from their social network?

    No, this is archaic, and it was a bad choice made by the Founders, a choice made largely to satisfy slave-owners. We're still paying for the consequences of that. This isn't about "the genius" of our system any more than the ridiculous Electoral College is "genius". Blind veneration of a system simply because the Founders created it does no country a service.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2008 11:10 PM GMT
    jprichva said
    That's a form of the "why didn't they just get in their cars and leave New Orleans?" argument.

    Not everyone has the money, education, or resources to just pick up and move where they choose. And many of those who do have family nearby that they can't or won't leave. And why should they be forced to uproot themselves from their social network?

    No, this is archaic, and it was a bad choice made by the Founders, a choice made largely to satisfy slave-owners. We're still paying for the consequences of that. This isn't about "the genius" of our system any more than the ridiculous Electoral College is "genius". Blind veneration of a system simply because the Founders created it does no country a service.


    No, the founders were men from different states who all knew very well every state would not fall the same way on every issue. The constitution was designed with such in mind, allowing room for modification as needed since the government was more or less a kind of experiment.

    Why should everyone be bound by the same standards in every state? What about people who want to live in a town where Alcohol isn't sold after 9PM or on Sunday's or where the speed limit is only 55? Does making simple majority rules at mass scale lead to any better kind of world?

    If 51% of the nation want a federal law legalizing gay marriage what about the 49% of americans who don't want that law. Tough luck to them?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2008 11:14 PM GMT
    growingmuschou saidSorry if I burst your bubble - but it is all intertwined. Unfortunately, the federal government does have some say in marriage. Taxes, immigration rights, federal benefits (Social Security) all fall under the purview of the Federal Government and each of these issues impact on marriage as well. Without action at the federal level, we will never be truly equal.

    However, a state like CA taking this to a real level would have drastic repercussions to DOMA. Unfortunately, this is all happening in an election year - making us gays the perfect targets for all those Republicans out there.


    Immigration, taxes, and social security only have party to do with marriage, two of them are products of the federal government anyhow. Marriage itself also resides in states hands. Thats why in CT you can have benefits from the state but not federal benefits.

    Fact of the matter is some people WANT to live in a state where marriage is kept opposite sex only. If a state and its population majority want that then just taking the power and placing it on a universal federal level just violates peoples rights and hands power to whatever majority is the popular opinion at the moment. True rule of the mob.
  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    May 14, 2008 11:17 PM GMT
    This thread has wandered away from the topic yet is still fascinating. I think that the concept of states' rights is a holdover from when the "United" States was a loose confederation of free and independent states, that is, nations unto themselves, each with it's own specific laws and sovereignty. The resulting hodgepodge of local laws has bedeviled us ever since. If we have decided that marriage is a state issue, fine, then the government should not be in the business of supporting it. If we decide that marriage is a religious issue, also fine, then the state should get out of that business also and sanction only civil unions for everyone.

    The institution of marriage is riddled with Full Faith and Credit Clause and 14th Amendment issues. The thing is no one cared about it until now.
  • ep83

    Posts: 144

    May 14, 2008 11:20 PM GMT
    jprichva is right about the Constitution. It is not a perfect document or something sacred to be fetishized. It is the product of social and political compromises that were made in order to replace the chaotic Articles of Confederation. Those didn't work at all precisely because they gave each state far too much power, over both the central government and the interactions between the states.

    As for the comparison to alcohol laws, that is a specious analogy. Marriage involves fundamental rights that must be protected, whether it be unpopular with 10%, 49%, or 90% of the population. Disfavored minorities need the most protection. Alcohol restrictions are a simple exercise of economic regulation. We've been down this road before. Remember anti-miscegenation laws? What about poll taxes? Are those things that should be brought back if they are locally popular?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2008 11:41 PM GMT
    ep83 saidjprichva is right about the Constitution. It is not a perfect document or something sacred to be fetishized. It is the product of social and political compromises that were made in order to replace the chaotic Articles of Confederation. Those didn't work at all precisely because they gave each state far too much power, over both the central government and the interactions between the states.

    As for the comparison to alcohol laws, that is a specious analogy. Marriage involves fundamental rights that must be protected, whether it be unpopular with 10%, 49%, or 90% of the population. Disfavored minorities need the most protection. Alcohol restrictions are a simple exercise of economic regulation. We've been down this road before. Remember anti-miscegenation laws? What about poll taxes? Are those things that should be brought back if they are locally popular?


    If Bolton, CT and the majority of it's 5000 citizens wants to add a poll tax to help with revenue then why shouldn't they be allowed?

    If your going to cite examples such as white majorities trying to deter minority voters in a given district thats a poor example since a law clearly aimed with that goal in mind would be struck down.

    Anyways this is off topic so I'm done. After finishing up scheduling work I might start a state related thread. I'm kinda interested in people's opinions on states and wether they should have powers of their own or be just states in name only.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2008 11:49 PM GMT
    Baby steps... you have to learn to walk before you can run!!!

    California has the sixth largest economy in the world...this coupled with population, entertainment,
    etc... just might cause someone to sit up and take notice!!!

    - SanFranMuscle icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2008 11:53 PM GMT
    NNJfitandbi said The notion that people are too poor to move is a liberal piety that in fact has been debunked by social science. There are some people who are too poor to move, but usually what keeps people in a place are family ties and love of a place. In fact, poverty is one of the great causes of migration. Just look at the immigrants coming to the US every day.


    Liberal piety? Sorry, that's rich, and it can only be said by someone who has no idea of the real, grinding, day-to-day misery of genuine poverty.

    The only fantasy here is that of imagining that we still live in some Dust Bowl time when the Joads could load up their truck and strike out for California. And I bet when they did, they had to leave their families behind.

    Whether people of means choose to retire to Florida or spend their latter days kayaking in Alaska has no bearing on the real-life quagmire of the people who were trapped in the Ninth Ward, or who can't afford to gas up their vehicles, if they even have them, and move to another state, which for a lot of people can be hundreds of miles away.

    Liberal piety? Wow. You're lucky you've been so privileged.

  • HereNBoston

    Posts: 221

    May 15, 2008 12:04 AM GMT
    here in massachusetts when the debate hit, some people needed to be reminded that the first marriages in massachusetts were performed by the governor and then designated officials. the puritans didn't like the idea of civil marriage being handled by clergy. and even now religious clergy technically act as agents of the state when they officiate marriages. so given that it seemed odd to me for the catholics to try and dictate public policy. The supreme court also recognized that there are several religious groups in massachusetts that perform same-sex marriages and that to ban them entirely would take away the rights of those churches. the courts opinion seemed pretty solidly backed, and society hasn't quite fallen apart yet so i guess we'll be okay.

    personally i dont like the idea of "the people" voting on matters of civil rights. that gets into mucky territory. I'll be interested to see what the CA courts decide.. and then they can see that the world doesn't collapse once a lesbian puts on a tux and walks down the aisle....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 15, 2008 1:02 AM GMT
    gettoknowit said[quote]
    I agree with you in some aspects here. Familiarity and understanging amongst people, with communication as my focus here, would be much easier to accomplish with a general curriculum in every United States school, which in turn would make it easier to learn from eachother if I'm not mistaken.


    well said.icon_question.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 15, 2008 2:09 AM GMT
    I agree, the federal government should have absolutely zero voice in the marriage issue. Which is why they should repeal all 1,138 federal rights guaranteed by marriage.

    Sorry, the federal government got its hands dirty with marriage years ago and crying state's rights now is like debating the constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase: moot.

    Move on, there is nothing to see here.