CA Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

[Belegon]

The California Supreme Court has ruled that the ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

In its 4-3 ruling, the Republican-dominated high court struck down state laws against same-sex marriage and said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.

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

I am proud of my State.

....and even of it's Republican Governor; Arnie said:

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a statement that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Well I'll be switched. They did it! Equal protection rules. Now when the US Supreme Court rules that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals, not some silly "collective", Libertarian ethics will have been established nearly in full. Y'gotta love it!

 

[Svenskaflicka]

This is as shocking-in-a-pleasant-way news as when they tore down the Berlin wall - out of the blue, suddenly Good wins a victory when we didn't even know they had a weapon.

Perhaps Ronald George also has a lesbian daughter..?

 

[Misty_Morning]

I read about this at work today. What a wonderful step forward.


Hopefully one day soon the DOMA will be ruled unconstitutional as well.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Now when polygamous marriages are legalized, things will really be going our way.

 

[fieryjen]

Wooooh!

 

[rgraham666]

Sweet.

 

[impressive]

Now when polygamous marriages are legalized, things will really be going our way.

No -- when the government gets out of the marriage sanctioning business ENTIRELY, things will really be going our way.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

No -- when the government gets out of the marriage sanctioning business ENTIRELY, things will really be going our way.

Uh, when that happens things will have goneour way. Legalization is merely a step along the process. Sorry to be quite so picky about usage but I am a teacher, after all.

 

[impressive]

Uh, when that happens things will have goneour way. Legalization is merely a step along the process. Sorry to be quite so picky about usage but I am a teacher, after all.

I stand corrected.

 

[TE999]

This is indeed exciting news. And a giant step towards legitimizing same-sex marriages nationwide.

I imagine the fundamentalists will be seething, but tough toenails.

One day soon we will live in a mature, tolerant society.

And be the better for it.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Not so fast.

When priest-judges side-step democratic procedures to impose their particular preferences on unwilling populations - in particular on hot-button social issues - the record has been popular backlashes that have set this agenda back by decades.

That's what happened when Massachussets judges imposed their will - a bunch of states where unwilling populations feared they would be next passed Constitutional amendments banning marriage between anyone but a man and a woman. Those things will be on the books for the next 30 or 50 years at least - anyone wanna bet money on what will happen should one of those states put a measure to repeal their ban on the ballot during that time? It's an easy issue to demagogue . . .

Thank you sir, may I have another . . .

~~~~~~~~

Now it may be that CA is different enough that, (1) populations elsewhere will just roll their eyes and conclude "what do you expect?" and (2) CA's own population won't get very excited themselves. (Plus, it may be that the court actually made a reasonable interpretation of what the statute actually says - I don't know the details.) And, the climate of public opinion on this issue is gradually changing. But that's the record, so be careful what you wish for when courts take on issues of this nature.

 

[Belegon]

Not so fast.

When priest-judges side-step democratic procedures to impose their particular preferences on unwilling populations - in particular on hot-button social issues - the record has been popular backlashes that have set this agenda back by decades.

That's what happened when Massachussets judges imposed their will - a bunch of states where unwilling populations feared they would be next passed Constitutional amendments banning marriage between anyone but a man and a woman. Those things will be on the books for the next 30 or 50 years at least - anyone wanna bet money on what will happen should one of those states put a measure to repeal their ban on the ballot during that time? It's an easy issue to demagogue . . .

Thank you sir, may I have another . . .

~~~~~~~~

Now it may be that CA is different enough that, (1) populations elsewhere will just roll their eyes and conclude "what do you expect?" and (2) CA's own population won't get very excited themselves. (Plus, it may be that the court actually made a reasonable interpretation of what the statute actually says - I don't know the details.) And, the climate of public opinion on this issue is gradually changing. But that's the record, so be careful what you wish for when courts take on issues of this nature.

Not quite sure what you're "not so fast"-ing, unless it's the giant step talk.

Anyway, this is a positive step. Perhaps a couple more small-minded rabble-rousers will use this to try and get more discriminatory amendments passed. But there were once constitutional passages protecting slavery in many states, or saying who could legally cast a ballot... and those were eventually struck down.

I don't pretend to believe that this means that Billy Ray and Bobby Jim are going to have the right to marry next year in their state that passed one of those amendments.

But precedents must be set. Someone must say that the emperor has no clothes.

 

[MagicaPractica]

I just hope for the day when it isn't even an issue anymore. But I know that's a long way off.

 

[amicus]

There is a petition in Caleeefornia with over one million signatures to place this issue on the ballot in November. The voters in California will reinforce the legislation banning same sex marriage, which was their desire in the first place and the liberal court overturned the law.

As it has in a dozen other states, this ballot issue will bring out the radical right and California will go for McCain.

Amazing, eh?

Amicus...

 

[Misty_Morning]

Not so fast.

When priest-judges side-step democratic procedures to impose their particular preferences on unwilling populations - in particular on hot-button social issues - the record has been popular backlashes that have set this agenda back by decades.

That's what happened when Massachussets judges imposed their will - a bunch of states where unwilling populations feared they would be next passed Constitutional amendments banning marriage between anyone but a man and a woman. Those things will be on the books for the next 30 or 50 years at least - anyone wanna bet money on what will happen should one of those states put a measure to repeal their ban on the ballot during that time? It's an easy issue to demagogue . . .

Thank you sir, may I have another . . .

~~~~~~~~

Now it may be that CA is different enough that, (1) populations elsewhere will just roll their eyes and conclude "what do you expect?" and (2) CA's own population won't get very excited themselves. (Plus, it may be that the court actually made a reasonable interpretation of what the statute actually says - I don't know the details.) And, the climate of public opinion on this issue is gradually changing. But that's the record, so be careful what you wish for when courts take on issues of this nature.

Sorry Rox, but IMO you are wrong!

The DOMA and all the state equivalents were pushed though by a bunch of loud mouthed fundamentalist christian groups who utilized their solidarity to bully their representatives and provide a voting block.

Unfortunately, MOST folks do not get out and vote unless it's a major campaign. So these fucking A-Holes that want to keep the US in an outdated mindset are able to succeed.

I see this as a giant step forward in compelling the US Supreme Court to strike down the federal DOMA as well asall the narrow minded State constitutional amendments outlawing sam sex marriage.



Ya know...just a couple of weeks ago I was reading about the woman that was responsible for overturning laws against inter-race marriages passing away.

I can't but to wonder if she is doing a jig up in heaven or where ever she is after hearing about this news.

 

[Belegon]

There is a petition in Caleeefornia with over one million signatures to place this issue on the ballot in November. The voters in California will reinforce the legislation banning same sex marriage, which was their desire in the first place and the liberal court overturned the law.

As it has in a dozen other states, this ballot issue will bring out the radical right and California will go for McCain.

Amazing, eh?

Amicus...

You're blind or dreaming if you think that will make enough difference to get McCain California.

There was one on the ballot here in '04. It passed with 61% and was overturned today.

Ami, you're so delusional sometimes... I thought you claimed to be libertarian?

The government has no place in marriage. As an advocate of individual rights to the extreme as you sometimes claim, shouldn't that be your position?

One of the few functions I believe makes government necessary, along with things like fire departments, is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Liar]

The government has no place in marriage.

Just to make things clear: Marriage as in jucidial institution or as in cultural? Or both?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Not quite sure what you're "not so fast"-ing, unless it's the giant step talk.

Anyway, this is a positive step. Perhaps a couple more small-minded rabble-rousers will use this to try and get more discriminatory amendments passed. But there were once constitutional passages protecting slavery in many states, or saying who could legally cast a ballot... and those were eventually struck down.

I don't pretend to believe that this means that Billy Ray and Bobby Jim are going to have the right to marry next year in their state that passed one of those amendments.

But precedents must be set. Someone must say that the emperor has no clothes.

Maybe I wasn't clear. You casually say, "Perhaps a couple more small-minded rabble-rousers will use this to try and get more discriminatory amendments passed." Now consider exactly what that means should they succeed: In jurisdictions with millions or tens of millions of people reside, provisions banning gay marriage will be put in their constitutions, making it extremely unlikely that gay marriage will exist there for several generations at least. In the absence of such provisions, given the gradual change in public opinion on the issue, it's likely that over the next 10-20 years laws in those states would drift in the reform direction to the point where it was virtually a done deal.

Remember Asimov's Foundation novels? The galactic empire was irretreivably collapsing, leading to a 30,000-year dark age, but with some modest 'pyschohistorical nudges' the inter-regnum could be reduced to 1,000 years? That's a good analogy for this (in reverse) - the MA court ruling launched the equivalent a 30k dark age in broad swaths of the nation, whereas if the judges had butted out the natural drift of social change would have seen the issue advancing in a steady, relentless fashion, kind of like the way ever more restaurants are choosing to not allow smoking.

BTW, your slavery example isn't very heartening: Reversing that took a war with 600,000 dead. On the other hand Reconstruction is actually a good example of the phenomenon I'm describing. When the radical Republicans pushed the southern populations beyond where they were willing to go by imposing political systems that embodied full 14th amendment "priveleges and immunities" for blacks, it took 100 years to reverse the Jim Crow backlash. It's always so easy to say, "We'll make them!" and the consequences are almost always much worse than anyone imagines.

 

[Belegon]

Just to make things clear: Marriage as in jucidial institution or as in cultural? Or both?

cultural, really... I understand that government will always be involved in the judicial side...at least, for the foreseeable future.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I refer you to the writings of John Boswell. Until the Vatican needed extra money to build St Peter's, marriage was a contract between two families, if they were rich or nobel, or two people if they were commoners. It isn't a sacrament, it's a contract and as such comes under business law. That's all. It's okay for the government to say how old you have to be to sign a contract but so long as there is no fraud involved, that should be it. Between consenting adults, your contractual choices are your own. No one elses.

 

[Belegon]

Maybe I wasn't clear. You casually say, "Perhaps a couple more small-minded rabble-rousers will use this to try and get more discriminatory amendments passed." Now consider exactly what that means should they succeed: In jurisdictions with millions or tens of millions of people reside, provisions banning gay marriage will be put in their constitutions, making it extremely unlikely that gay marriage will exist there for several generations at least. In the absence of such provisions, given the gradual change in public opinion on the issue, it's likely that over the next 10-20 years laws in those states would drift in the reform direction to the point where it was virtually a done deal.

Remember Asimov's Foundation novels? The galactic empire was irretreivably collapsing, leading to a 30,000-year dark age, but with some modest 'pyschohistorical nudges' the inter-regnum could be reduced to 1,000 years? That's a good analogy for this (in reverse) - the MA court ruling launched the equivalent a 30k dark age in broad swaths of the nation, whereas if the judges had butted out the natural drift of social change would have seen the issue advancing in a steady, relentless fashion, kind of like the way ever more restaurants are choosing to not allow smoking.

BTW, your slavery example isn't very heartening: Reversing that took a war with 600,000 dead. On the other hand Reconstruction is actually a good example of the phenomenon I'm describing. When the radical Republicans pushed the southern populations beyond where they were willing to go by imposing political systems that embodied full 14th amendment "priveleges and immunities" for blacks, it took 100 years to reverse the Jim Crow backlash. It's always so easy to say, "We'll make them!" and the consequences are almost always much worse than anyone imagines.

I really do not believe that the current climate of communication and the state of the world make comparisons to the effects of the reconstruction valid.

Our kids are growing up more aware than ever before. The consequences are not all positive, but the idea that a person is different because they LOOK different or LOVE different is in decline...

The greatest enemy of tyranny and prejudice is knowledge.

 

[Liar]

cultural, really... I understand that government will always be involved in the judicial side...at least, for the foreseeable future.

Goverment's role in legal marriage, civil uinion or whatever it is called, is kind of crucial in my opinion, as long as it's the general consensus that long-lasting solid relationship commintments, which a marriage is some kind of indicator of, is something good, that should be sanctioned.

The Guvment's role is to define what kind of legal benefits (next of kin, inheritance rights et al) those in a marriage is to be granted, and to make sure that those benefits are applied in a fair and legal way. That means, among other things, non-discriminatory. Because there are laws, constitution or other binding documents in almost all modern nations that says you can't discriminate. Which is where this ruling is a step in the right direction.

Thankfully, the Guvment is an often self-correcting tool. That's why it has several branches. So that one can smack the other on the fingers when it starts to stray.

I'm just curious what a situation when state was not involved would look like. Do away with legal unions and make it a symbolic gesture alltogether?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

While there may yet still be a majority of Californian's who oppose same-sex unions, there aren't two thirds of them. Additionally, the vast majority of voters who have come of age since the overturned law was passed are not opposed. A constitutional amendment would pass but not with enough votes to put it into the constitution.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I really do not believe that the current climate of communication and the state of the world make comparisons to the effects of the reconstruction valid.

Our kids are growing up more aware than ever before. The consequences are not all positive, but the idea that a person is different because they LOOK different or LOVE different is in decline...

The greatest enemy of tyranny and prejudice is knowledge.

I'm not saying that all olf reconstruction is a close analogy, just that part about the bad outcomes that come when force is used to push populations further than they are willing to go on a social issue. In that aspect the analogy is quite good, because in both cases - civil rights for blacks then and gays now - the outcome was almost certainly to delay by many decades a positive outcome that would have evolved "organically" and democratically. Once again, it's soooo easy to holler, "That's wrong! We must undo the injustice right now!" Yeah well, as with many destructive dysfunctions we see in family or friends, sometimes you just have to accept your powerlessness to "make them change!" Sometimes accepting it can make you powerful and effectual, too.