Jump to content

California ban on same-sex marriage struck down


HtownWxBoy

Recommended Posts

Now that a few days have past, there's quite a bit of analysis out there on the CA decision...

First, the petition to nullify the court's ruling. As noted here, the court did not mandate "gay marriage," rather:

The Court did not rule that California must allow same-sex couples the right to enter into "marriage." It merely ruled that if the state allows opposite-sex couples to do so, then same-sex couples must be treated equally. The Court explicitly left open the possibility that the state could distinguish between "marriage" (as a religious institution) and "civil unions" (as a secular institution) -- i.e., that California law could leave the definition of "marriage" to religious institutions and only offer and recognize "civil unions" for legal purposes -- provided that it treated opposite-sex and same-sex couples equally. The key legal issue is equal treatment by the State as a secular matter, not defining "marriage" for religious purposes.

...so if the amendment passes, the CA legislature (a representative body "of the people"), who has voted TWICE in favor of equal marriage, could simply enact legislation which would offer civil unions to everyone, replacing civil marriage statutes. There would then be no conflict with the court's decision, the initiative (that will probably make it into the CA constitution), nor the legislative in the effort to ensure that same-sex couples are treated equally under the law. Of course, no one should complain, at all, by not having access to civil marriage (civil unions for everyone should be just fine), because technically civil unions and civil marriage are basically the same thing. So no one will complain, at all.

Here is someone, Republican Mayor of San Diego, Jerry Sanders, who said he would veto his city council's resolution in support of the same-sex marriage case before the Republican-appointed CA Supreme Court (because he thought that domestic partnerships and civil unions were enough), but changed his mind at the 11th hour - and signed it. It really is different when you know someone who is, or would be, adversely affected by discriminatory laws. He and Dick Cheney have a lot in common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 271
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Oh poo. You single folk don't even have a say in this.

Just be happy some of us take the "natural cradle" of life seriously.

I personally wouldn't lend much credit to a religious institution, with that kind of "natural cradle" position, that requires men of the cloth to be celibate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that not everyone was meant to 'bear children' although many gay people feel the responsibility to do so.

That natural cradle is why you are here today. A man and woman get married to continue it.

No matter how hard they try, two men or two women together can't.

C'mon now ... there's always the left-over babies the straights didn't want (adoption).

Then there's invitro fertilization.

Agreed, two men or two women cannot MAKE a baby, but it doesn't mean they can't be good parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's what married people do. Make babies.

Which is why I would be fine with same sex civil unions instead of same sex marriage.

That's the big difference in my eyes.

Of course not all married couples have babies. Never figured those folks out myself. What's the point other than the money and benefits?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course not all married couples have babies. Never figured those folks out myself. What's the point other than the money and benefits?

They got tired of all the sex that us single people were having. The only way to make it stop was to get married.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course not all married couples have babies. Never figured those folks out myself. What's the point other than the money and benefits?

Exactly why I have no plans to get married, despite the fact that my relationship is, by most measures, a marriage. The social idea of marriage gets increasingly irrelevant the older you get. And as far as the money and benefits, right now we don't have a need to marry in order to secure benefits. One day we may, in which case we'll be the stress-free 58 year olds in front of the JP.

Having been married previously, and rather later than most, I have a couple of tidbits of advice for both straight and gay couples: pre-nup, and get married on vacation. Wedding guests are expensive, and highly overrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Society created the courts for this purpose.

Really? Society created the courts to decide what a marriage is?

In most societies, courts decide cases based on law - they do not make the law. Now which category does deciding what a marriage is fall into: deciding a case based on what the law is, or deciding what the law should be?

Except for all of those societies that defined it as one man and multiple women. I agree that we don't need to bring religion into it, but that doesn't mean we should bring every known society in known history into it.

The vast majority of societies in history have defined it as one man and one woman. But your point does raise again the question I asked before, that if it is discrimination to deny marriage to people of the same gender (even though marriage has almost never been defined that way), why is it not discrimination to deny marriage to unions of more than two people?

The point of bringing in every known society in history is that, when one does, a clear pattern is seen - a pattern which points to natural law.

Agnes Moorehead. She played my avatar's mom and Endora.

I can't believe I never noticed your avatar was Citizen Kane!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Of course not all married couples have babies. Never figured those folks out myself. What's the point other than the money and benefits?...

What if they've tried, but can't make babies? Should they not be allowed to be married? Or should they be forcibly divorced, for not "doing what nature intended" after, say 5 years? What if they are well into their retirement years, have already had babies, decades ago (from previous marriages), but don't want anymore, or may not even want any sex, at age 70? Should they not be allowed to be married? What about people who have tons of babies, but are not married... should they be required to be married?

And regardless of the money, benefits, religious arguments, or gender, the love is all the same. All families deserve equal protection, under the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Society created the courts to decide what a marriage is?

In most societies, courts decide cases based on law - they do not make the law. Now which category does deciding what a marriage is fall into: deciding a case based on what the law is, or deciding what the law should be?

The vast majority of societies in history have defined it as one man and one woman. But your point does raise again the question I asked before, that if it is discrimination to deny marriage to people of the same gender (even though marriage has almost never been defined that way), why is it not discrimination to deny marriage to unions of more than two people?

The point of bringing in every known society in history is that, when one does, a clear pattern is seen - a pattern which points to natural law.

I can't believe I never noticed your avatar was Citizen Kane!

Regarding unions of more than two people... that was clearly addressed in the decision.

"Natural law" ... the concept of humans wearing clothing is not natural. The concept of going to work in a concrete building is not natural. But we do not sit naked in the middle of grass fields trying to figure out how to launch the space shuttle into space, dig oil wells, or whatever it is you do for a living*.

Then there is this concept that somehow gay people just came out of blue, over the past 30 years, trying to change the "natural order" of the universe. Gay and lesbian people have been around just as long as straight people, thousands and thousands of years, and by that definition of centuries-long co-existence, have to be part of the natural order of things.

EDIT: *John Corvino.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are going to discuss "Natural Law", shouldn't we talk about the fact that monogamous relationships themselves violate "natural law"?

We are not the only species who choose a mate for life. And those that do, do it better than we do. I still say it is too easy to get married. Gay or straight, you should have to run the gauntlet to get the privilege, otherwise you make a mockery of it and end up wasting taxpayers money - either with divorce court or prosecutors and judges to try you for your own idiotic version of divorce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just be happy some of us take the "natural cradle" of life seriously.
That natural cradle is why you are here today. A man and woman get married to continue it.

No matter how hard they try, two men or two women together can't.

There's no danger of humans running out of willing breeding pairs, and marriage is hardly a precondition for reproduction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Society created the courts to decide what a marriage is?

Did I stutter? Society created courts to, among other things, decide the constitutionality of laws. That includes laws about marriage.

In most societies, courts decide cases based on law - they do not make the law. Now which category does deciding what a marriage is fall into: deciding a case based on what the law is, or deciding what the law should be?

Both. Those societies you mention that can't decide the constitutionality of laws have no constitutions. Our society created a constitution so we wouldn't be like them.

The vast majority of societies in history have defined it as one man and one woman. But your point does raise again the question I asked before, that if it is discrimination to deny marriage to people of the same gender (even though marriage has almost never been defined that way), why is it not discrimination to deny marriage to unions of more than two people?

Because 3 is greater than 2? The only difference between gay marriage and straight marriage is the presence or absence of a single Y chromosome. Saying that it is discrimination for the law to prohibit a woman from marrying a woman when it allows a man to marry a woman doesn't say anything about polygamy.

The point of bringing in every known society in history is that, when one does, a clear pattern is seen - a pattern which points to natural law.

:lol: If we used "natural law" based on the history of man, we'd have slaves and sell women for cows. Human law is created by humans to serve their needs. Natural law is all about quarks and stuff.

I can't believe I never noticed your avatar was Citizen Kane!

"The words of Meme Foster Bag are a menace to every working man in this land. He is today what he has always been - and always will be - a Fascist!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wholeheartedly believe that monogamy is not the natural state of being for humans.

Ok, so it's not natural, but are you saying the "natural state" is better? Lots of things are not the "natural state" of humans, I don't see how that matters at all. In a natural state, if I see someone taking my stuff, I get to kill them, keep my stuff and take theirs. In a natural state, the bigger, stronger man gets whatever woman he wants, whenever he wants. "Natural" or not, monogamy is a pivotal part of society and family. If there are kids involved, it's definitely not the only way, but I think it's the preferred way for having the stability needed to raise a child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so it's not natural, but are you saying the "natural state" is better? Lots of things are not the "natural state" of humans, I don't see how that matters at all. In a natural state, if I see someone taking my stuff, I get to kill them, keep my stuff and take theirs. In a natural state, the bigger, stronger man gets whatever woman he wants, whenever he wants. "Natural" or not, monogamy is a pivotal part of society and family. If there are kids involved, it's definitely not the only way, but I think it's the preferred way for having the stability needed to raise a child.

No, I agree that modern notions of monogamy are the best way to raise children. (especially ones as cute as yours).

I do, however, think that monogamy in the sexual context is, for the most part, unnatural. We overcome the whoredog urge because it benefits us socially to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word "natural" is at best meaningless, at worst poisonous. If you understand that humans are just another animal, there's nothing "unnatural" about anything we do. In fact, the universe is completely natural, making the word and its antonym are useless.

If you think of humans as somehow less "natural" than other animals, you set up a dangerous world view where we're special or separate from everything else. That sort of thinking can lead to all sorts of ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose since we are all beating up H-Town's statements, it should be pointed out that many societies have adopted polygamous relationships, and entire villages have raised children. The Inuit were generally not monogamous. Because of the small breeding pool, monogamy could have been disastrous. The harsh conditions made sharing of many things advantageous. Even today, Huskies and Malamute dogs tend not to be loyal to their masters only, but will wander off with nearly anyone.

If one limits his study of humanity to only Europeans, a belief that humans are monogamous could take hold, but even then, monogamy was imposed more by the church than the people themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I stutter? Society created courts to, among other things, decide the constitutionality of laws. That includes laws about marriage.

I'll refer you to my original post. The way in which the court decided the "constitutionality" of this law involved an arbitrary defining of what marriage is on the court's part, something that should properly be left to the majority.

The only difference between gay marriage and straight marriage is the presence or absence of a single Y chromosome. Saying that it is discrimination for the law to prohibit a woman from marrying a woman when it allows a man to marry a woman doesn't say anything about polygamy.

Sure it does. It involves defining what marriage is. The court said that same-sex couples had a "right to marry," even though marriage had only previously meant something that involves a man and a woman. If a union that wasn't covered by the original definition can arbitrarily be given a "right to marry" by the courts, why can't a polygamous union?

There are some pretty major attributes of human beings that are only caused by the presence or absence of a single chromosome. Seems pretty irrelevant.

:lol: If we used "natural law" based on the history of man, we'd have slaves and sell women for cows. Human law is created by humans to serve their needs. Natural law is all about quarks and stuff.

Neither of those examples even comes close to the universality of the belief, in both present and past cultures, that marriage is something that unites people of different gender. Natural law really has very little to do with quarks.

If we are going to discuss "Natural Law", shouldn't we talk about the fact that monogamous relationships themselves violate "natural law"?

Under what conception of natural law that has ever been written do monogamous relationships constitute a violation?

Regarding unions of more than two people... that was clearly addressed in the decision.

No it wasn't - see my first post.

"Natural law" ... the concept of humans wearing clothing is not natural. The concept of going to work in a concrete building is not natural. But we do not sit naked in the middle of grass fields trying to figure out how to launch the space shuttle into space, dig oil wells, or whatever it is you do for a living*.

I'm not sure you understand what natural law is. It is a moral norm recognized innately by people as having universal claim, and being involved in the plan of nature. You are welcome to ridicule those concepts if you like, but societies that adopt the view that there are no objective standards of right and wrong are generally chaotic and short-lived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll refer you to my original post. The way in which the court decided the "constitutionality" of this law involved an arbitrary defining of what marriage is on the court's part, something that should properly be left to the majority.

Why should it be left to the majority? Are you OK with the majority outlawing "miscegenation"?

Sure it does. It involves defining what marriage is. The court said that same-sex couples had a "right to marry," even though marriage had only previously meant something that involves a man and a woman. If a union that wasn't covered by the original definition can arbitrarily be given a "right to marry" by the courts, why can't a polygamous union?

That isn't what the ruling I'm reading says (http://www.bayareanewsgroup.com/multimedia...ews/S147999.pdf). The ruling says:

"It also is important to understand at the outset that our task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership (or some other term), but instead only to determine whether the difference in the official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution."

and:

"... in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should it be left to the majority? Are you OK with the majority outlawing "miscegenation"?

No I'm not, but miscegenation can legitimately be called a limitation of the "right to marry" to couples based on race. In this case, the definition of marriage itself is being changed, from an opposite-sex union to a union of any two people, without the public's consent.

That isn't what the ruling I'm reading says (http://www.bayareanewsgroup.com/multimedia...ews/S147999.pdf). The ruling says:

"It also is important to understand at the outset that our task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership (or some other term), but instead only to determine whether the difference in the official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution."

and:

"... in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I'm not, but miscegenation can legitimately be called a limitation of the "right to marry" to couples based on race. In this case, the definition of marriage itself is being changed, from an opposite-sex union to a union of any two people, without the public's consent.

You can say the same about miscegenation. Before it was found to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, marriage in some states was defined to be between members of the same race. If you're going to take that view then same sex marriage is a limitation on the right to marry based on gender and/or sexual preference.

It's funny that they say "our state now recognizes" when all that they really mean is "our court now recognizes." If marriage in our society has been defined as a union of people of opposite sex, and the court says that it is discrimination to deny marriage to same-sex couples, that most definitely involves a redefinition of what marriage is, from a uniting of people of opposite gender to a uniting of any two people.

Read the rest of the ruling. They really mean "our state now recognizes".

As far as denying rights, as long as same-sex couples can enter a "civil union" that has all the same benefits of marriage (which I support), I don't really see what right is being denied. The right to be called married? But marriage is a union of people of opposite gender. How is not calling two people of the same gender a union of people of opposite gender denying them any right? ...unless one redefines what a marriage is, but that should be left to the people, not the courts.

The court ruled that calling it marriage only for opposite sex couples is unconstitutional. California's constitution prevents using your definition of marriage.

I don't see any discrimination here.

Then look again. You want to prohibit a man from marrying a man while allowing a woman to marry a man. You want to base that entirely on gender, with no other qualifying factors. That's gender discrimination.

It's pretty near universal, and of all the major regions of the world, America and Europe are (if I'm not mistaken) the two in which this question is most in doubt (and only among a small minority even there). But I will concede that simple majority of numbers, no matter how overwhelming, does not mean that that majority is correct. On a question of definition though, I say the majority should rule.

Pretty near universal isn't universal.

How can you justify objective standards of morality without some concept of natural law?

There are many ways. You can measure the benefit, damage and risk, for one.

As far as the different versions, I believe that a clear commonality and convergence of those different versions can be seen. It is in those commonalities, among countless cultures spanning vast stretches of time and space, that I suggest we start building our conceptions of natural law.

And I suggest we discard the word "natural". It has no meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can say the same about miscegenation. Before it was found to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, marriage in some states was defined to be between members of the same race. If you're going to take that view then same sex marriage is a limitation on the right to marry based on gender and/or sexual preference.

It wasn't defined that way by those states. If you asked someone in Mississippi in 1890 what marriage was, I'm pretty sure that he or she would say something to the effect of, "the uniting of a man and a woman," without referring to race as being intrinsic to the definition. But due to that state's unfortunate views on race, which fall outside the subject of what marriage is and is not, this unification was not extended to people of different race.

Read the rest of the ruling. They really mean "our state now recognizes".

Then why doesn't the majority of the state agree with them?

The court ruled that calling it marriage only for opposite sex couples is unconstitutional. California's constitution prevents using your definition of marriage.

Now you're getting into circular reasoning, which signals to me that this discussion is nearing its end. "The California Supreme Court was right in its decision about what the California constitution says, because that's what the California constitution says, as decided by the California Supreme Court," is essentially what you're telling me.

Then look again. You want to prohibit a man from marrying a man while allowing a woman to marry a man. You want to base that entirely on gender, with no other qualifying factors. That's gender discrimination.

I want to base marriage entirely on gender! As it's been based throughout history, and by the vast majority of members of just about every society on the globe!

You, on the other hand, want to take a term that has always been related to gender, and turn it into something that does not apply to gender, and whine about discrimination when people object, even while there is no tangible right that is being denied anyone.

Pretty near universal isn't universal.

It doesn't need to be. If the vast majority of people define a word as meaning one thing, and you have your own definition of it, you are not in a position to impose that definition on the majority.

There are many ways. You can measure the benefit, damage and risk, for one.

And I suggest we discard the word "natural". It has no meaning.

Like I said before, you are welcome to believe that it doesn't. I for one don't think that society can get along without universal standards of right and wrong, which can only be founded on the belief that there is an inherent plan for them in the nature of things. We can agree to disagree on that, but it really doesn't matter to this argument.

What matters is the question of whether society can invent a word whose meaning involves people of opposite gender and incorporate that word into its law without it being called 'discriminatory', even when no actual rights or privileges are being given or denied to anyone other than the use of said word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't defined that way by those states. If you asked someone in Mississippi in 1890 what marriage was, I'm pretty sure that he or she would say something to the effect of, "the uniting of a man and a woman," without referring to race as being intrinsic to the definition. But due to that state's unfortunate views on race, which fall outside the subject of what marriage is and is not, this unification was not extended to people of different race.

It was defined that way by those states. That's what Loving v. Virginia was about.

Then why doesn't the majority of the state agree with them?

I think you're confused. That part of the ruling is talking about domestic partnership legislation in California, enacted by the legislature, elected by the people. Are you saying there's some other qualification for what a state recognizes in this case?

Now you're getting into circular reasoning, which signals to me that this discussion is nearing its end. "The California Supreme Court was right in its decision about what the California constitution says, because that's what the California constitution says, as decided by the California Supreme Court," is essentially what you're telling me.

Nope. You offered one definition of marriage that is unconstitutional in California, according to the California Supreme Court. That's perfectly linear.

I want to base marriage entirely on gender! As it's been based throughout history, and by the vast majority of members of just about every society on the globe!

I understand that you want to do that, but its discriminatory in California.

You, on the other hand, want to take a term that has always been related to gender, and turn it into something that does not apply to gender, and whine about discrimination when people object, even while there is no tangible right that is being denied anyone.

The right to marry is a "tangible" right. If you call my opposition to discrimination "whining", I'll call your opposition to my opposition "whining", too. That won't advance either of our arguments. Whiner.

It doesn't need to be. If the vast majority of people define a word as meaning one thing, and you have your own definition of it, you are not in a position to impose that definition on the majority.

I surely am if that majority definition deprives me of my civil rights. I find it contradictory that someone who believes in an absolute, universal moral code is so willing to let the majority decide what's right and what's wrong.

What matters is the question of whether society can invent a word whose meaning involves people of opposite gender and incorporate that word into its law without it being called 'discriminatory', even when no actual rights or privileges are being given or denied to anyone other than the use of said word.

Then read the ruling. The "right to marry" is a right in and of itself, not just the right to use a word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was defined that way by those states. That's what Loving v. Virginia was about.

I think you're confused. That part of the ruling is talking about domestic partnership legislation in California, enacted by the legislature, elected by the people. Are you saying there's some other qualification for what a state recognizes in this case?

Nope. You offered one definition of marriage that is unconstitutional in California, according to the California Supreme Court. That's perfectly linear.

I understand that you want to do that, but its discriminatory in California.

The right to marry is a "tangible" right. If you call my opposition to discrimination "whining", I'll call your opposition to my opposition "whining", too. That won't advance either of our arguments. Whiner.

I surely am if that majority definition deprives me of my civil rights. I find it contradictory that someone who believes in an absolute, universal moral code is so willing to let the majority decide what's right and what's wrong.

Then read the ruling. The "right to marry" is a right in and of itself, not just the right to use a word.

I am going to exit this discussion because we are talking past each other. You are saying that it is a violation of civil rights that a term means a certain thing. And you are using the very decision we are arguing about as your evidence that the decision is right - classic circular logic.

Before I take off though, let me put this whole thing in persective. Imagine a society invents a word - we'll call it "zerning." When a man and a woman decide to form a legal union, it is said that they are "zerning." When once they are in that union, they are "zerned." Imagine that there are also unions between two men and two women, with all of the same privileges and rights, but society merely doesn't call those "zernings." All that's different is a word.

So the question is... is it depriving those same-sex unions of a civil right to say that what they are doing is not "zerning"? When the word has no other meaning than simply to describe what it was invented to describe - a union between a man and a woman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...