CA Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

[Stella_Omega]

I'm rusty on the details, but it's been used for things like preventing more rigorous ballot integrity measures from being imposed on corrupt jurisdictions like St. Louis. (I'm sure I have the details wrong on that because it's been a while since the issue was in the news - this is for illustration purposes, because it does sound weird, I know.)

can't you google it?

 

[AvoidingRealWork]

Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they are in love with. They have the right to marry the person they are most compatible with.

Simply not true. A heterosexual may be in love with her father. She may be compatible with a 14-year-old boy. But she doesn't have the right to marry either.

Allowing a man to marry another man or a woman to marry another woman is a matter of compassion, ethics, and the value of freedom, but to invoke equal protection is a misapplication of the law.

 

[Weird Harold]

Allowing a man to marry another man or a woman to marry another woman is a matter of compassion, ethics, and the value of freedom, but to invoke equal protection is a misapplication of the law.

Not true. it is an "equal treatment under the law" issue because so many things inheritance, medical power-of-attorney are tied to the word Spouse and 'Spouse' is in-turn defined in terms of "Marriage.'

What the CA supreme court said was "domestic partnership" is NOT equvalent to 'marriage" under the law (even common law marriage) and is therefore discriminatory and the CA constuition forbids discrimination.

If you want to reserve the word marriage for hetero commitments, then you need to redefine "spouse" in the legal codes to make "domestic partner" an equivalent term in all legal documents.


.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Simply not true. A heterosexual may be in love with her father. She may be compatible with a 14-year-old boy. But she doesn't have the right to marry either.

Allowing a man to marry another man or a woman to marry another woman is a matter of compassion, ethics, and the value of freedom, but to invoke equal protection is a misapplication of the law.

Are you telling me you wanted to marry your mother????

A lesbian does not have the right to marry her father either. Or a child. Or a dog, or a rock.

Nor does she have the right to marry the adult that she loves. The normal, loving relationship between two normal, loving adults is denied her. THAT is where the equal protection come in.

I understand what you are saying, and it's cute. It reminds me of a lot of those redneck ideas that Rush Limbaugh teaches his audience of the eternally ignorant. It's what we call a "doughnut truth'; there's a big, fat, lying, hole in the middle of it.

 

[AvoidingRealWork]

Nor does she have the right to marry the adult that she loves. The normal, loving relationship between two normal, loving adults is denied her. THAT is where the equal protection come in.

Is there some sort of legal/constitutional definition for "loves"? What you are really saying is that men ought to be able to marry other other men and women ought to be able to marry other women. This is a right that is currently denied in most jurisdictions regardless of the socio-sexual construction of "sexual orientation" of the men or women involved.

Should people be allowed to marry others of the same sex? Sure. Such marriages aren't going to hurt anyone or produce inbred offspring. No harm done. People have the right to live their lives as they see fit and love those they want to love when it doesn't harm anyone else. But to say it's discriminatory to deny that right, when it is denied equally to all citizens is an incorrect logical leap.

The logic:
1. A right to do something is denied to everyone.
2. Some people want to do this thing that is denied.
3. Therefore denying this right to everyone is discriminatory against those who want to do it.

...is inherently flawed.

I understand what you are saying, and it's cute. It reminds me of a lot of those redneck ideas that Rush Limbaugh teaches his audience of the eternally ignorant. It's what we call a "doughnut truth'; there's a big, fat, lying, hole in the middle of it.

Whatever.

 

[Stella_Omega]

... But to say it's discriminatory to deny that right, when it is denied equally to all citizens is an incorrect logical leap.

The logic:
1. A right to do something is denied to everyone.
2. Some people want to do this thing that is denied.
3. Therefore denying this right to everyone is discriminatory against those who want to do it.

...is inherently flawed.



Whatever.

Oh, I get it now!

By your logic, the miscegenation laws were not discriminatory, either, since both blacks and whites were equally prohibited from marrying each other. Unjust, yes-- discriminatory, no.

I am sure that you had some constructive motive for bringing up this point of usage. Damned if I can think of what it might have been, though. Or give a flying fuck.

Oh, except for this one;

People have the right to live their lives as they see fit and love those they want to love when it doesn't harm anyone else.

ONLY if they see fit to live their lives as heterosexuals. Those who do not want to love a member of the opposite sex do NOT have the right to make decisions regarding their loved one, care for their partner's children, or take their place in society beside that person. Those rights are generally given to spouses, not same-sex lovers. A parent, a sibling, a freaking third cousin can take all of a lover's rights away, and it doesn't matter how long the couple were together.

 

[AvoidingRealWork]

One more thing before I go to sleep...

A lot of people are comparing the right of same-sex couples to marry to the right of interracial couples to marry, and the similarities are actually greater than these people realize.

Back when states didn't allow mixed-race marriages, no one said "Well, there's a certain class of people who like to get it on with those of a different color, and laws against mixed-race marriage discriminate against these people. Jungle fever rights, man!!" Or "But I love black women, and if you don't let me marry a black woman, you are discriminating against ME as a black-woman-loving white man!" No, this was a basic human right that was being denied ALL people.

Likewise, the issue of same-sex marriage isn't a "gay rights" issue, it's a human rights issue. I'm sick of people being labeled and subdivided. There aren't gay people with gay rights, or straight people with straight rights, there are human beings with human rights. And that's what I'm on about.

The whole gay/straight thing is an artificial dichotomy, anyway.

Bottom line is, I can't stand muddled thinking, and I find muddled legal thinking to be dangerous.

BTW, Stella, your argument by associating me with Rush Limbaugh isn't all that different from the NRA associating supporters of gun control with Hitler and Stalin.

 

[AvoidingRealWork]

By your logic, the miscegenation laws were not discriminatory, either, since both blacks and whites were equally prohibited from marrying each other. Unjust, yes-- discriminatory, no.

No, by my logic, the miscegenation laws were not discriminatory against people in love with those of a different race. And they weren't. They were a denial of a basic human right, but no court ever struck down a miscegenation law because it didn't provide equal protection for people who were defined somehow as a separate class of people with separate rights on the basis of attraction to a different race.

 

[Pure]

Roxanne, here's a simple question: Do you favor the ERA?

you have stated you favor legislation establishing equality.

the ERA, establishing equality of rights for women, was approved by some 30 states, but did not reach the required number. (some version may be resurrected, see last url, below)
.
do you favor this amendment?

PS: I have no wish to quash you, simply want to know where you stand. I do not see why a "libertarian" should be concerned if she does not agree with mainstream US liberals. that's all my lists involve: stuff approved by the center and left.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.40:

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
`Article--

`Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

`Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

`Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.'.

===
the issue is still alive:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032702357.html

 

[Stella_Omega]

(eta; this post is addressed to ARW)

Okay, I see where you are coming from.

I am POSITIVE you could have worded your original post in a better way. I am so fucking angry about this issue that it made no goddamn sense, in the context of what we are talking about. but-- why the FUCK does it matter to you at all? Or is it fun to be tactless?

I don't care if you want to quibble about what, exactly makes hetero misanthropy immoral unconstitutional and part and parcel of millions of lives led in less than optimal states of happiness. You don't want to call it discrimination? You don't have to. You want to make a case that heterosexist laws just happen to benefit heterosexuals, and that it's only by accident that they make pursuit of happiness nearly impossible for non hets? Go for it. I say you are wrong.

You want to be exquisitely exact about the legal meaning of the word? You got it, baby. If it matters so much to you-- have at it. Myself, I have something else to think about. I'll use the words that make sense to me. Discrimination is just what it feels like.

Likewise, the issue of same-sex marriage isn't a "gay rights" issue, it's a human rights issue. I'm sick of people being labeled and subdivided. There aren't gay people with gay rights, or straight people with straight rights, there are human beings with human rights. And that's what I'm on about.

The whole gay/straight thing is an artificial dichotomy, anyway.

That is SO sweet!

I can tell you one thing from where I'm sitting. There are gay people without rights. There are straight people who can make an artificial dichotomy feel painfully-- even fatally-- real if they catch a faggot in a secluded space. There are women who would vomit if they had to be in bed with you. There are men who wouldn't touch me with a barge pole.

There are thousands of divorces that have taken place because one partner could not remain connected to someone of the opposite sex. Because they were, in fact, gay. And there are people who are denied the rights to companionship and custody with the human beings of their choice. Straight people, regardless of your daddy, child, and rock examples are not denied these rights. That's because the laws are written to benefit one group.

Look, your philosophy and mine are right on the same wavelength. But my philosophy bends for reality. And the reality is that there is a dichotomy and there will be for a long time to come. And since that dichotomy works to the benefit of the hetero majority, it is, indeed, discrimination.

BTW, Stella, your argument by associating me with Rush Limbaugh isn't all that different from the NRA associating supporters of gun control with Hitler and Stalin.

No, I compared you with his listeners. It's the kind of thing they always seem to pick up and hang on to.

 

[Boxlicker101]

you have stated you favor legislation establishing equality.

the ERA, establishing equality of rights for women, was approved by some 30 states, but did not reach the required number. (some version may be resurrected, see last url, below)
.
do you favor this amendment?

PS: I have no wish to quash you, simply want to know where you stand. I do not see why a "libertarian" should be concerned if she does not agree with mainstream US liberals. that's all my lists involve: stuff approved by the center and left.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.40:

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
`Article--

`Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

`Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

`Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.'.

===
the issue is still alive:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032702357.html

I remember the ERA quite well. It passed overwhelmingly in Congress, and went bandwagoning out to the state legislatures. There was even some competition among some states to see who could ratify it the most quickly. However, after the initial rush of enthusiasm, some of the other states took a long and sober look at it. The law meant well, but it might have meant women losing protections they had always enjoyed. It might have meant that, if the draft were ever imposed again, women would be handed rifles and put into the direst peril. It might have meant the elimination of gender segregated rest rooms. It would definitely have meant the elimination of many laws, such as the Mann Act that protected women. One law that it would not have eliminated would have been the law of unintended consequences, because of the multitude of changes that would have been required.

I believe 35 states quickly ratified it, but the others did not. In time, some of that 35 actually rescinded their approvals. There was originally a seven year time limit to garner the ratifications, but that failed. The time limit was extended, probably not legally, by three more years, but it failed to get a single ratification in that time. The extension was probably illegal because it did not pass by the required super-majority the way constitutional amendments are required to do.

Eventually, it died, or went into a coma, but there are still some who want it enacted. At the time, I thought it was an overreaching, because of various reasons, and the draft was one of them. The laws that make a gender distinction usually favor females. For instance, in some startes, 16 year old females can wed, with parents' consent, but their grooms must be 18, whether parents approve or not. Some states allow women to be excused from jury service without needing a reason. The Mann Act specifies women. Some states actually had laws requiring women to be granted child custody if they wanted it, unless they were clearly unfit. If you wanted, you could probably find many laws that favor females, and these would have all been repealed. There may even be some laws that favor men, although I don't know of any. I did say "LAWS", you know, not customs.

Okay, FLAME AWAY!

 

[Stella_Omega]

*sigh*
Laws like the ones that award custody to the mother first-- are all of them reactions to previous laws which favoured men. For generations, women were not allowed to sue for divorce. Then, when the laws began to allow for women's complaints, they had to prove the abuse-- the burden of proof was entirely on the woman, and if her husband could discredit her, he could send her away from her children. So, if you want to talk about stupid laws which have unintended reactions, let's talk about that.

Lets talk about the Mann act. Does it protect women? Sure, it does. From what? From men.

Why do women need protection from men?




When you think of how many societal norms there are that do NOT favour females, it's no wonder that so many laws have had to be passed in order to compensate somewhat. Women handed rifles and put on the battle lines is one kind of dire peril; women who cannot make a living wage to support their families-- that's a far more common peril, and one which the ERA addressed.

 

[Pure]

note to box,

thanks for your reply on ERA. i have no wish to flame you. you're out there with your arguments, and i'm sure Roxanne A will be along soon with similar ones.

so i'd like to help you both.

here are a couple speeches of Phyllis Schlafly, outspoken opponent of the ERA, who helped mobilize the "no" side in the 70s and after.

Schlafly in Arkansas, 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAxuOd-8NzU

Schlafly at DePaul U., 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoREAuSu_h0 pt1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzpbkGL1pKk p2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g7IYamDzrM p3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsgAnaHRisk p4

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Stella is our champion of anarchism. If it feels good, do it.

What Stella fails to get is society organizes itself for whatever it wants or doesnt want. If it doesnt want smoking in public places it prohibits the conduct.

If Stella wants to conquer America and impose her will, I suppose we'll do things her way.

 

[Pure]

a footnote re ERA and gays

Schlafly (see above) who gave all of box's arguements decades ago--WOMEN WILL BE DRAFTED!-- held out the following as a likely consequence of passing the ERA:

GAY MARRIAGE WILL BE LEGAL!!

guess it's happening anyway, Phyllis.

waiting for ROXANNE to weigh in on this one. no doubt the ERA represents a socialist or 'big government' attempt-- one that will surely backfire with Phyllis and her buds-- to "solve" a problem that the free market ('pure capitalism') could solve overnight if the legislators would stand aside and leave it to entrepreneurs and the 'traders' (merchants; buyers and sellers).

... just as they would have solved the gay marriage issue.

you see, "organic evolution" and the market will solve all bias problems if big government doesn't ham-handedly stir up the traditional-minded and bigots.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

America is pretty conservative and traditional mon ami. Back in the 1800s (and in the 60s) we tried to get communes and such established; it didnt fly. Gay marriage wont fly for the same reason. Gay is about who you fuck NOT commited relationships. All Gay is, is a piece of ass. But mostly it will fail because it adds nothing to the commonweal.

 

[Pure]

note to jbj

jbj re stella

Stella is our champion of anarchism. If it feels good, do it.

What Stella fails to get is society organizes itself for whatever it wants or doesnt want. If it doesnt want smoking in public places it prohibits the conduct.

If Stella wants to conquer America and impose her will, I suppose we'll do things her way.

as a matter of fact, Stella and her anarchist crowd have already taken California and are "imposing" gay marriage on the good Republican males, starting in Orange county.

up here in Canada the same has been happening; daily i'm harrassed by militant anarchist vigilantes to dump my wife and marry a male. can't hold out much longer.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

Nations do what the polity want.

I dont think the opposition to homosexual marriage is a Republican male obsession. I suspect the animus is across the board.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

ERA would give federal courts and the federal government enormous new powers to reinterpret every law that makes a distinction based on gender, such as those related to marriage, divorce, alimony and much more. Single-sex schools and colleges, boy scouts and girl scouts and other gender-separate organizations, countless other institutions (in both senses of the word) would be subject to endless legal harassment.

That's enough.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ROXANNE

IRL circa 1982 I worked at a nuclear power facilty that was under repair. However it happened the sexes were tossed together in the showers, dressing areas, and for contamination screening.

That is, boys & girls undressed together, showered together, and had their body cavities examined (in public) for nuclear debris.

I was surpised at how subdued the men were, and wondered if the women were stressed from the exposure.

 

[Boxlicker101]

*sigh*
Laws like the ones that award custody to the mother first-- are all of them reactions to previous laws which favoured men. For generations, women were not allowed to sue for divorce. Then, when the laws began to allow for women's complaints, they had to prove the abuse-- the burden of proof was entirely on the woman, and if her husband could discredit her, he could send her away from her children. So, if you want to talk about stupid laws which have unintended reactions, let's talk about that.

Lets talk about the Mann act. Does it protect women? Sure, it does. From what? From men.

Why do women need protection from men?

When you think of how many societal norms there are that do NOT favour females, it's no wonder that so many laws have had to be passed in order to compensate somewhat. Women handed rifles and put on the battle lines is one kind of dire peril; women who cannot make a living wage to support their families-- that's a far more common peril, and one which the ERA addressed.

The previous laws you mention were all eliminated many decades ago, most of them in the 19th century. The pendulum has since swung back to the other side, with women getting mostly preferential treatment when there is any reference to gender.

The ERA had nothing to do with equal pay. That was included in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Mann Act was to protect women from those who would abduct them and force them to work as sex slaves. The abductors were criminal organizations who would always include some women, although the majority of the members were probably men.

I have always been 100% in favor of equality for everybody, including those of different genders. I have said so many times. I also believe that, if women were really honest about it, they would mostly reject the idea of total gender equality, because it would mean giving up the perks that women have traditionally enjoyed in the USA.

As Rox described, the ERA would have been a can of worms, with nobody knowing what would be the final result.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well, Box, there are perks-- and then there is autonomy.

I'm sure, autonomy is more difficult than perks. But how would I, a mere woman, know?
Sure, it's scary to open a can of worms, But believe me, the worms that are outside that can-- they are pretty well understood. And not all of them are very good for us.

...who would always include some women, although the majority of the members were probably men.

I always get a kick out of this comment. Damn near every man brings up something like this when talking about sexual equality.
Yes, Box, some women participate in the subjugation of their own sex. The market, however, devolves upon men. Men created the market. Some women have made an opportunistic place for themselves in it. Some black slaves became overseers of their fellows, and some Jews survived the holocaust by supervising the decimation of the rest of them. A few native Americans put on suits and moved to the white man's cities.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

STELLA is full of it again.

In hunter-gatherer societies men work cooperatively hunting; the meat they acquire is shared. The women toil independently and trade their produce with each other. Markets were created by women to exchange surplus produce between households.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I have never met a school psychologist that wasn't damaged by his job. One man I know has been drinking himself to death for ten years-- a painful, protracted way to do it. He's nearly there now. He began drinking five years into his job, and stayed in the job four years after that.

I wish jbj had some help, but I doubt that there is any real support for his profession. I wish he hadn't landed here because his anger self-therapy is pitiful to witness and no one here can help him by being the target of it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

STELLA

I think I'm gonna place coin cannisters at all the Quickie Marts around town, begging for donations to help me be cured.