FORUMS > Gay News & Events Forum Rules

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.

Crap the link didn't work right! I am so computer illiterate...

Hmm, it'll be an interesting outcome.

To link to a page: <a href="url_of_link">Text you want as the link</a>

Example: Original poster's link

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.....

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.

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.

Um -- the magic of federalism and its inefficiencies are part of the genius of the American system. I think it's great that people get to decide a lot of "general welfare" questions for themselves. Alabamans aren't Californians, and it's more democratic to let local majorities decide things.

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.

And, in a federal system, fundamental rights are guaranteed by the US Constition. Which means that the states can be different, but they can't violate constitutional rights.

So the problem isn't the states, it's that the right to marry regardless of gender hasn't been protected under the federal constitution. Yet.

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

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.

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?

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.

JPR,

I'm with you on the electoral college. Why we still have it is beyond me, though I bet the folks in Iowa and New Hampshire are glad we do.

I might even agree that the US Senate is undemocratic.


But I like states. A LOT!

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.

People move to new places all the time. They move to Florida for the weather, because the taxes are lower, because they're crooks and can protect assets better there. They move to California for the generous welfare benefits (or used to) and the great schools (used to).

And if what you want to do is get married to a person of the same sex, then move to Mass. It's a shame the rest of the country hasn't caught up, but the existence of states has made gay marriage a legal reality on US soil. Which it would not be if it were up to the US Congress or the Supreme Court.

Sure you hate states so much?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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....

wish I could be there.

and the vote should be a unanimous-yes!

jprichva saidNo 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.

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.

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.

correction "understanging is understanDing*"

Ok, so you take a look speach and think of grammar and there are rules to follow when you write. Does everyone follow the same rules of grammar in their banter?

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.

The fact is that if it weren't for states there would be no gay marriage on US soil.

Which, I might add, is a lot better than the so-called enlightened social democracies of Europe where uniform laws prevent gays from marrying anywhere.

In time, we can hope, that the rest of the country will follow the example of Mass and, to some extent, NJ.

Don't hold your breath.

And as for central power, it seems to be working really well in Myanmar.

Then stand up while you can and don't elect officials who promise to do nothing but appease the mob vote and increase Federal power. There are more than just democrats and republicans running.

I'm just waiting for the likely day when a Democrat takes office and declares it's time to "reorganize America into a proper socialist democracy for a safe, secure, and humane society."

Crying "socialism" is the refuge of fools.

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation
of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
Thomas Jefferson

I've already pointed out the foolishness of fetishizing every remark made by one of the "Founders". They weren't deities, just well-intentioned men who were sometimes wrong.

And yet their words ring true even today:

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a
day. But a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and
pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (administrations),
too plainly proves a deliberate systematic plan of reducing us to
slavery." Thomas Jefferson

Yep, the little actions and decisions of leaders for the past 50 years has led to to where we are today. In a place and time where socialism is claimed to be the needed savior of American society.

Like many people your forgetting America was an experiment. The founding document contained the tools needed to change it if need be. All I and others ask are that leaders follow those tools. If you want the government to legalize marriage then fine. Amend the constitution and give the government the power. Want universal heathcare? Fine, then try and amend the constitution to give the power.

If it's worth having its worth doing right.

California is the leading state in the nation... what we do matters.

NNJfitandbi> a lot better than the so-called enlightened social democracies of Europe where uniform laws prevent gays from marrying anywhere.

I think Denmark pioneered civil unions in 1989. The Netherlands (2001) may have been the first to recognize gay marriage per se, and now Belgium (2003) and Spain (2005) do, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage

I think under the principles of the EU, any other citizen of a European country can sue his government if he is deprived rights granted in another part of the EU. If this is true, it's no longer a "states' rights" issue over there, and perhaps the floodgates will open soon.


NNJfitandbi> the problem isn't the states, it's that the right to marry regardless of gender hasn't been protected under the federal constitution. Yet.

Well said, except I think the problem is the contention between "states' rights" and what gets to be protected under the "federal constitution".


Trance23> 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?

You are arguing against yourself. The same question could be asked about a state or city which restricts alcohol sales.


Trance23> 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.

And if I want to live in a state where black slavery is allowed (we haven't been able to find a houseboy, and really need some help in and around the house), and I get the majority (which is mostly white) to vote for this... then who is the "mob"? The hypothetical me or the Feds say no?


The concept being danced around here is known as the "tyranny of the majority". There is no more justification for the majority* to squash the rights of gay people than the rights of black people.

* Assuming in the first place that a majority of people in any state want to live only in a state that forbids gay marriage.


ep83> 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.

Exactly.

Trance23If 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.

Why shouldn't Bolton be allowed to have its own poll tax, even if it is intended to raise revenue? Well for starters that would almost certainly be a pretext for discrimination but more precisely the 24th Amendment prohibits poll taxes and was incorporated against the states by Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections. Anytime the state tries to limit or restrict a fundamental right that limitation is subject to strict scrutiny. This means the state must show that the restriction is narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest and could not be achieved by less burdensome or invasive methods.

The point I was making is that such laws were politically popular and it took intervention by the courts, in this case the Supreme Court, to protect minorities from the oppressive actions of the majority. It was true when the Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws, it was true when it struck down CO's hate-filled Amendment 2 (forbidding state or municipal protection against discrimination based on orientation), and someday it will be true of marriage equality. Some states and their backwards majorities will just have to get used to the fact that their archaic and bigoted world views will not be used as grounds for denying people fundamental rights, not just as Americans but as human beings.

This thread is very interesting
JPR, I'm not fetishizing the Founders by respecting and reading what they wrote. When *you* establish a system of government that's lasted over 200 years, I'll start listening to what you have to say over what they say.

Having said that, I'm a libertarian/Federalist. There are very good reasons the founding fathers did not create a central government that was all powerful.

1) Federalism helps enshrine the principle of due process by limiting arbitrary action from the state.

2) Federal systems limit the speed with which governments can act.
I think a knee-jerk reaction from any government is typically bad. With the exception of military decisions during a state of war, government should be thoughtful, slow, and laborious. Quick decisions are often bad decisions.

MunchingZombie saidI 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.

You bring up a very interesting point: that government should stay out of ALL marriages. I was reading a book titled "The Left Hand of God" by Michael Lerner (also key founder of the Network of Spiritual Progressives: www.spiritualprogressives.org ) and he suggested that the government should ONLY sanction civil unions for ALL (both straight and gay couples). In this model, marriages would be left up to the religious institutions so that each church could do whatever it pleases. This would help to separate the legalese aspect of unions from the deeply personal and spiritual ones. Nevertheless, it would still be nice to be able to marry your guy in a celebration of equal rights before the law and before society as a whole :-)

javaman9999 saidThis thread is very interesting
JPR, I'm not fetishizing the Founders by respecting and reading what they wrote. When *you* establish a system of government that's lasted over 200 years, I'll start listening to what you have to say over what they say.

Having said that, I'm a libertarian/Federalist. There are very good reasons the founding fathers did not create a central government that was all powerful.

1) Federalism helps enshrine the principle of due process by limiting arbitrary action from the state.

2) Federal systems limit the speed with which governments can act.
I think a knee-jerk reaction from any government is typically bad. With the exception of military decisions during a state of war, government should be thoughtful, slow, and laborious. Quick decisions are often bad decisions.

That's a straw-man argument. No one is advocating "quick" decisions. And my not having been around in 1787 to poke Benny Franklin in the ribs and stick in my two ha'pence is neither here nor there.

The fact is, there is nothing genius or even clever about the choice made in allocating certain powers to states and others to the federal government. And pretending that this was some form of wisdom instead of a desperate, cobbled-together mess to avoid the slave-owners from bolting (which they nearly did anyway) just shows a lack of knowledge about our history.

Much of what was created IS good--principally the separation of powers and the Bill of Rights. Some is just terrible, including the presidential power to bias the judiciary. Tell me, what is inherently better about having one co-equal branch (executive) name the members of another (judicial), as opposed to allowing the legislative branch to do so? It is very nearly a random choice, so please don't go on about the "genius" of our system. Anyone who talks like that is clearly parroting back what his junior-high government teacher taught him, instead of, you know, actually thinking.

And as far as being a libertarian, you might think about what I posted above about THOSE con artists.

Guys !!! I read this article comparing the State of Connecticut, and the California rulings for gay marriage, and the process of the states efforts from the republican side to overule the judges dicisions by legislation. Connecticuts legislative rules/process led to a lengthy effort of overule it, while californias legislative rules/process has only one major hoop to go through. Californians against this just have to bring up the ban of gay marriage legislation after a certain number of signatures/etc. prior to some deadline before this coming November, and if they accomplish this the voters could end the window of opportunity to get married quite quickly. BETTER HURRY !!!!! you can find this at http://www.slate.com/id/2191525/?GT1=38001 its titled-"RACE TO THE ALTER" (if someone would write me a very simple example of how to make such as this "CLICKABLE" I would appreciate it, and I'm sure the rest of you will too-LOL !!!)

caesarea4 saidNNJfitandbi> a lot better than the so-called enlightened social democracies of Europe where uniform laws prevent gays from marrying anywhere.

I think Denmark pioneered civil unions in 1989. The Netherlands (2001) may have been the first to recognize gay marriage per se, and now Belgium (2003) and Spain (2005) do, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage

I think under the principles of the EU, any other citizen of a European country can sue his government if he is deprived rights granted in another part of the EU. If this is true, it's no longer a "states' rights" issue over there, and perhaps the floodgates will open soon.

Thats not strictly correct. A citizen of the EU can sue their government if the government does not enact required legislation.

If the European Parliament created a Directive saying that the maximum working week would be 35 hours (and no Member State acquired an opt-out) States would have a certain amount of time to enact legislation in their national system which has the same effect.

Human Rights of European Citizens are generally governed under the European Convention on Human Rights and their State's own Constitution. This is separate to the European Union. However the new 'Lisbon Treaty' or 'European Constitution' has a whole section on Human Rights so the EU is seemingly taking over this area.

Although I believe that the European Convention does allow each individual the right to marry:

"Article 12

Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right."

Obviously the Article does not state that Men and Women have to marry each other, and the latter clause essentially gave the MS the right to do whatever they wanted under this section.

In the UK it wasn't until 2005 that the Civil Partnership Act came into force and allowed homosexuals to have Civil Partnerships, and if uniform rights were to be afforded across the EU then someone would have taken us to Court by now...the UK always seems to be getting sued!