California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

[editor]

There should be no laws regarding marriage at all (regulating who can and cannot enter in to marriage).

There have to be some laws, because it changes many things about a person's life and how the government treats them. Things like name, and tax status leap to mind.

In addition, we as a society add moral constructs to the legal framework and define a minimum age for marriage, also the number of people to whom one person can be married, and how closely related two married people can be. These are legal manifestations of social norms. It would be easy if we could divorce the law from marriage, but it's not going to happen.

OK. So civil unions for everyone then. And then get married in your church... Right? No arguments there.

That's how it works in some countries, Austria for example. You can have a church wedding, but it's not recognized by the government. You have to also have a small civil ceremony at the city clerk's office for it to be legal.

[TJones]

Under the same roof, just 2 years. I always understood common law in Texas to be as simple as considering yourself as husband and wife. I actually had never heard of the form Jax was talking about.

It is my understanding that if he or yourself has introduced each other, no less than 3 times, to people that "this is my wife/husband" then you are considered common law, there is no form that I know of to fill out, nor have I ever heard of one, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Again, I would call your or his HR dept. find out what they need from you.

[memebag]

It seems the best argument gays can provide for being married is having access to benefits and bank accounts.

That in itself shows me a need for recognized civil unions. We don't have to call is marriage becuae it is not.

I'm a straight atheist. I don't want a civil union; I want a marriage. Marriage is a social construct that has meaning outside any religion. Your religion doesn't get to define what is and is not a marriage for the rest of society.

[houstonmacbro]

I'm a straight atheist. I don't want a civil union; I want a marriage. Marriage is a social construct that has meaning outside any religion. Your religion doesn't get to define what is and is not a marriage for the rest of society.

Okay, so who do you want to marry you? A priest or a constable (or judgeship)?

[TJones]

I'm a straight atheist. I don't want a civil union; I want a marriage. Marriage is a social construct that has meaning outside any religion. Your religion doesn't get to define what is and is not a marriage for the rest of society.

Much cheaper to go down to the JP and get hitched, excellent idea. I am sure she is glad you won't have to spend all that money on decorating a church, so you'll have more money to spend on the honeymoon.

[Jeebus]

OK. So civil unions for everyone then. And then get married in your church... Right? No arguments there.

No arguement here.

I think I'd like my partner and I to have benefits (like health insurance, survivorship rights, etc.) but is 'marriage' the only way to obtain that ... even for straight people?

Can't you make your partner your beneficiary? It seems the only things gay couples can't share are some pensions, and social security. Everything else can be worked out with a lawyer - right Red?

Judges can never legislate from the bench. Ever. I am not aware of any judicial jurisdiction, local, state, or federal, in this country were a judge has drafted up, passed, and signed legislation. They render decision on law (passed and signed by other bodies of government), carefully weighing individual rights against constitutional principles so as to ensure that the contract that you have between yourself and your government (via a constitution) is not trampled by a tyrannical majority.

Sure they can, and they do every day. By doing exactly what you just described, some of the rulings judges make reverse laws in place by allowing personal opinion to dilute their neutrality.

[gwilson]

Judges can never legislate from the bench. Ever. I am not aware of any judicial jurisdiction, local, state, or federal, in this country were a judge has drafted up, passed, and signed legislation. They render decision on law (passed and signed by other bodies of government), carefully weighing individual rights against constitutional principles so as to ensure that the contract that you have between yourself and your government (via a constitution) is not trampled by a tyrannical majority.

Wow. It is a saying, not a literal term.

Bingo. Here is the what the good people of CA are going to be voting on, in Nov (more than likely):

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"

...and here is a link to the group, that is behind the amendment: ProtectMarriage.com

...To amend the CA constitution... all you need is 50%+1 vote to do it. Even if you think gays and lesbians should be afforded equal access to marriage... how many of us out there could actually answer "No" to that simple, 14 word sentence?

We've always heard, from those who oppose gay rights, that gay rights are "special rights." Well... if a majority of people amend the CA constitution, as can reasonably be expected, then what you'll have on your hands will not only be a case of "special rights" but an entire special class of people out there. That is, between roughly July and November, when equal marriage is legal, you're going to have a lot people getting married who couldn't do it before. And then, that will end in November, more than likely. Even if the amendment passes, you cannot retroactively reverse/annul those marriages - you just can't perform any new ones. Meaning, the younger, upcoming generation will be denied rights that the older, previous generation enjoyed; a step backwards. Way to go.

So in the zeal to "protect marriage" (from people who are armed with no weapons)... you create a special class. And by doing so... all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, over time, will be dissociated with the institution in an effort to level the inequality between classes of people who can and cannot marry. So in all your efforts to "protect" marriage and "defend" marriage - all you've really done is destroy want you wanted to protect, in the first place.

So enjoy the celebration... but it will be brief. I hope I'm wrong... but if Oregon is any example (they had a similar one-liner)... the amendment will pass, probably 51 to 56% in favor.

I try to look on the bright side. Divorce is probably the #1, single most destroyer of wealth in this country. So... it's not so much that straight America (not that all gay people are for gay marriage) is trying to "protect marriage" as it is that they are trying to protect gays and lesbians from having to endure the ravages of a nasty divorce case. No marriage, no divorce.

If the people decide to make it law, then it should stand.

[memebag]

Okay, so who do you want to marry you? A priest or a constable (or judgeship)?

We're getting married at the JP. My first marriage was performed by a witch, but we still had to go to the JP. Apparently Texas doesn't recognize the marrying powers of witches.

Much cheaper to go down to the JP and get hitched, excellent idea. I am sure she is glad you won't have to spend all that money on decorating a church, so you'll have more money to spend on the honeymoon.

More money to spend on my wall oven, you mean.

If the people decide to make it law, then it should stand.

So white people should get special drinking fountains?

[MidtownCoog]

My first marriage was performed by a witch, but we still had to go to the JP.

Oh good lord.

[crunchtastic]

Oh good lord.

but was she/he a good witch, or a bad witch??

just couldn't resist....

[MidtownCoog]

[crunchtastic]

What a great idea to have wedding performed by her! She could put a spell on all the cheap-ass guests. Re-gifters get turned into beetles.

If the people decide to make it law, then it should stand.

So you agree then, that George Bush is not the legitimately elected president?

I'm being a little hyperbolic, G. My point is, ya gotta be careful where you go with the idea of unchallenged, popular vote.

[memebag]

[Vertigo58]

Time out for some wedding cake everyone. take your pick! Mmmmm goood!

[H-Town Man]

The public has the same insight as the courts on this matter. There was a long list of amicus briefs filed with this case that addressed family structures, impacts on children, etc, etc, etc. And almost all of these briefs were from professional medical, legal, etc. associations.

Many so-called "family" organizations out there, that are hostile to gay rights, are doing more damage to their families than they realize. Their advocating, and writing into the constitutions of their states, policy that will affect their own gay children, when they grow up; effectively governing their children, in a harmful way, from the grave.

Really, the public has the same insight on the courts? Then I'm sure you don't mind letting the public decide.

As to those who say marriage is a "social construct"... if it is, then the whole society should get to construct it. Not a court.

Your religion doesn't get to define what is and is not a marriage for the rest of society.

On this issue, it doesn't need to... marriage has been defined by almost every society in known history (and the vast majority of this society) as involving a man and a woman. We don't even need to bring religion into it.

Mrs. Kane?

[memebag]

As to those who say marriage is a "social construct"... if it is, then the whole society should get to construct it. Not a court.

Society created the courts for this purpose.

On this issue, it doesn't need to... marriage has been defined by almost every society in known history (and the vast majority of this society) as involving a man and a woman. We don't even need to bring religion into it.

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.

Mrs. Kane?

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

[KinkaidAlum]

Crunchtastic-

It could be worse for you and your partner. Many companies in Massachusetts have used legal gay marriage as a reason to do away with all domestic partner benefits. Anything to save a buck.

[webdude]

Vertigo, got some more nice cakes here:

[Vertigo58]

Bet they taste good! Dont care about the figurines.

Have a great weekend everyone, hope you all figure this thing out. Catch the bouquet!

[BryanS]

No arguement here.

Can't you make your partner your beneficiary? It seems the only things gay couples can't share are some pensions, and social security. Everything else can be worked out with a lawyer - right Red?

Sure they can, and they do every day. By doing exactly what you just described, some of the rulings judges make reverse laws in place by allowing personal opinion to dilute their neutrality.

It's no where near that simple. For example, there are over 1,000 federal rights, married couples are entitled that all others are excluded from. Look at what you cited: pensions and social security. Those are probably some of the most important benefits that older, married couples need, beyond "everything else," especially as they get older. Denying those benefits to couples, who in some cases have been together decades, is morally wrong.

Here's another potential sticky situation... A gay couple... moves into a neighborhood. The neighborhood has strict deed restrictions: single family only. Both individuals have children from a previous marriage, or they are guardians of adopted children. They move in. Technically, they could be in violation of neighborhood deed restrictions: Person A and Person B are two families - not one. The gay couple, however, would argue they are really one family. Doesn't matter... because you can't get married, you can't get "unionized" (in this state)... so you are unrelated roommates, violating deed restrictions. The HOA sues, you get forced out of the house.

Would be interesting to see if there is any case law out there, to the contrary.

It doesn't stop there, though. There's hospital visitation, hostile relatives who may challenge your will, and list goes on and on.

[RedScare]

No arguement here.

Can't you make your partner your beneficiary? It seems the only things gay couples can't share are some pensions, and social security. Everything else can be worked out with a lawyer - right Red?

No argument here, either. Civil unions for all, marriages for the churchgoers.

As for beneficiaries, not quite so simple. Sure, there is life insurance, but also, spousal health insurance, hospital visitation, jail visitation (funny, but true), inheritance laws, and a whole host of other issues. Basically, anywhere where spouse is mentioned in the law, or in practical situations, those who cannot marry are excluded. Look at it this way....if it were so easy, do you think we would have such a huge divorce industry, complete with its own laws, courts and specialized attorneys?

EDIT: Oops. Bryan beat me to it.

[BryanS]

Vertigo, got some more nice cakes here:

Just as a general comment (not a criticism)... pictures like this, and B-roll footage from a 1979 gay rights parade in San Francisco, which may include men dressed as nuns, is what you see in the news too many times when it comes to gay rights, marriage rights, etc, etc. That, and the two wedding rings - in rainbow colors. It must be hard working in the graphics department at most news outlets...

Rarely do you see two attractive guys, or women, patiently waiting in line at the courthouse, in plain clothes, to sign their marriage, or union certificate...

[TJones]

Here's another potential sticky situation... A gay couple... moves into a neighborhood. The neighborhood has strict deed restrictions: single family only. Both individuals have children from a previous marriage, or they are guardians of adopted children. They move in. Technically, they could be in violation of neighborhood deed restrictions: Person A and Person B are two families - not one. The gay couple, however, would argue they are really one family. Doesn't matter... because you can't get married, you can't get "unionized" (in this state)... so you are unrelated roommates, violating deed restrictions. The HOA sues, you get forced out of the house.

Would be interesting to see if there is any case law out there, to the contrary.

It doesn't stop there, though. There's hospital visitation, hostile relatives who may challenge your will, and list goes on and on.

Can you show me one instance where this has EVER happened ?

Rarely do you see two attractive guys, or women, patiently waiting in line at the courthouse, in plain clothes, to sign their marriage, or union certificate...

So, are you saying that only the UGLY gay folks want to get married ?

AAAANNNNNNDDDD.........if the mostly seen ugly guys and gals waiting, didn't always have those ridiculous get-ups on, there would be nothing for the newshounds to report. Perhaps you should bring that up at the next parade, meeting, convention ?

[HtownWxBoy]

Absolutely right on that point. Who WANTS to get married?!?

Seems like an anachronism that needs to just die. And for gays to want to emulate the worst behavior of straights is mindboggling. I've heard figures as high as 50%-70% of marriages end in divorce.

Again, who wants that?

People who are in love want that. Just b/c it could end in divorce doesn't mean it's going to. Plus, with "marriage" comes additional rights that gay couples do not have. I am gay... I don't care if they call it marriage or if they call it hoopadoopaloppa... I would just like to be able to have the additional RIGHTS that straight Americans can get if they are married if I find someone I want to spend the rest of my life with. This is supposed to be America... where we all have equal rights... right?

[BryanS]

Can you show me one instance where this has EVER happened?

So, are you saying that only the UGLY gay folks want to get married?

AAAANNNNNNDDDD.........if the mostly seen ugly guys and gals waiting, didn't always have those ridiculous get-ups on, there would be nothing for the newshounds to report. Perhaps you should bring that up at the next parade, meeting, convention?

That's what my question is... It appears it can happen (whether it has ever happened or not is irrelevant), if I read the deed restrictions correctly. The only legal recourse would be to go to court (maybe this has happened already? maybe there is case law on this? - I don't know.) Federal "equal housing" provisions (in lending, renting, or purchasing property) do not extend to gay people. You can blatantly discriminate against a gay person, to their face, cite their sexuality as the reason, and you don't have to worry about a thing. You cannot do this based on family status, race, gender, national origin, religion, etc... An overzealous/homophobic HOA could make a gay or lesbian couples' life a nightmare - if they really wanted to (as they appear to be vulnerable and not afforded the same equal protections under the law.) If gay people could marry or had a similar legally recognized relationship, one could argue that you could no longer discriminate against them based on their "family" status, because they would be an official family.

You're right about the ridiculous get-ups and the newshounds. Showing average people on TV is just too boring.

[dbigtex56]

I'm confused.

Is marriage a matter of economics, or legal rights, or a social contract, or a spiritial union?

Further, where do we single folk fit in? Or are we irrelevant?

(Incidentally, I'm the product of a traditional marriage. My parents were each married once, to each other. For more than fifty years.)

I'm reminded of Zsa Zsa Gabor, and her nine marriages. I seem to recall someone asking her if she wasn't making a mockery of marriage. She said something to the effect, "At least I married them. I didn't just (sleep) around."

So, is Zsa Zsa an example we should emulate?

[memebag]

I'm confused.

Is marriage a matter of economics, or legal rights, or a social contract, or a spiritial union?

Yes. You left out dessert topping and floor wax.

Further, where do we single folk fit in? Or are we irrelevant?

Single people fit in as ... negative space? Dire warning? Dream weavers? What do you mean?

[CoolBuddy06]

That is odd - where I work, this is what I found - mentions nothing about same sex, though:

Q: What is the definition of "domestic partner" for benefits?

A: Domestic Partner must satisfy the following criteria:

* Have an intimate, committed relationship of mutual caring, and have agreed to be responsible for each other's welfare.

* Have lived together in such a relationship for a period of not less than one year at the same residence address.

* Are jointly responsible for debts to third parties.

* Are both at least 18 years of age.

* Neither partner is legally married

* Are not related by blood or adoption.

* Neither partner has another partner who meets this definition, and both partners intend to remain in this relationship indefinitely.

By the time you meet all of these conditions aren't you two better than 'married'? At least married couples now give a hint that they don't expect the relationship to last indefinitely, or how else do you define 'prenup'?

[dbigtex56]

That in itself shows me a need for recognized civil unions. We don't have to call is marriage becuae it is not.

Your spelling and grammar are an indication as to how seriously your sentiments should be taken.

[houstonmacbro]

I'm reminded of Zsa Zsa Gabor, and her nine marriages. I seem to recall someone asking her if she wasn't making a mockery of marriage. She said something to the effect, "At least I married them. I didn't just (sleep) around."

So, is Zsa Zsa an example we should emulate?

Don't forget Eddie Murphy's recent marriage and quick divorce to Tracy Edmonds (don't even think it lasted a week). And also Britney's much-publicized 24-hour marriage meltdown.