Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditAs expected the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 by a vote of 6-1. It also ruled that the 18,000 same-sex couples who got married last year are still married. It's a long and technical decision (about 180 pages) with two concurring opinions and a concurring and dissenting opinion--so I haven't fully digested it. But two things to note:
First, under California law, there is no material difference between marriage and domestic partnership. Not one of those 18,000 married couples got any new rights or benefits that California's DP did not already provide; they only acquired the term marriage itself. Of course, as a state, California cannot grant any of the federally provided rights and benefits of marriage, but as a matter of state law, the two categories are substantively equal. Indeed, in part, that's why the court held that Prop 8 was an amendment to the CA constitution, and not a broader, more fundamental revision, which would have required more than just an up or down popular vote. As the majority opinion argues:
Instead the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term "marriage" for the union of opposite-sex couples...but leaving undisturbed all the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship...
I know people's emotions are very raw now; there are dozens of rallies planned around the country tonight. That's all fine and good. But the decision on whether or not to sink massive dollars and resources into an initiative to reverse Prop 8 in 2010 (remember, Prop 8 was the second most expensive election in the country in 2008; only the presidency cost more), should take this relative equality into account. There are dozens of states where same-sex couples have no partnership rights whatsoever; states where it is still legal to fire someone because they are gay; a federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act is still stalled in Congress. Aren't those better and more inclusive movement goals than an uphill initiative that would give same-sex couples the M-word in one state only?
Second, Justice Kathryn Werdegar's concurring opinion contained a tantalizing thread of argument. She joined with the majority in upholding Prop 8, but also wrote:
...all three branches of the government continue to have the duty...to eliminate the remaining important differences between marriage and domestic partnership, both in substance and perception. The measure puts one solution beyond reach by prohibiting the state from naming future same-sex unions as "marriages," but it does not otherwise affect the state's obligation to enforce the equal protection clause by protecting the "fundamental right...of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other official recognized family relationships." For the state to meet its obligations under the equal protection clause will now be more difficult, but the obligation remains.
What does Werdegar mean? If same-sex domestic partnerships must be equal, in perception and practice, to opposite-sex marriage, and if Prop 8 denies the term "marriage" to same-sex couples only...then maybe this is the answer?
Sure, the Domestic Partnership Initiative, which would convert all heterosexual marriages into domestic partnerships, is a quixotic campaign. But it sure does have a certain brute logic to it.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
A moral victory today in California.
Not a complete victory, but a victory for morality and the sacrament of marriage.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 1:54pm
But, Larry...you support civil unions, you just want "the term 'marriage'" kept to straight couples, right?
Posted by Mask at 05/26/2009 @ 2:02pm
"a victory for morality"
it's hard to to take this claim very seriously, given that, despite the ruling, homosexuals will still exist, still live together, still make love to each other, still build families and communities together, still live down the street from you, still co-work with you, still run the entire entertainment and fashion industries, etc, etc.
so where is the "victory for morality," if supposedly immoral acts continue to occur, despite the ruling?
Posted by darladoon at 05/26/2009 @ 2:12pm
But, Larry...you support civil unions, you just want "the term 'marriage'" kept to straight couples, right?
Posted by Mask at 05/26/2009 @ 2:02pm
that's mostly correct. It's not so much that I "support civil unions", it's that I agree that state govt's have the right to define them as they wish in accordance with their respective state constitutions.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 2:15pm
"it's not so much that I "support civil unions", it's that I agree that state govt's have the right to define them as they wish in accordance with their respective state constitutions."
so then it isn't a "victory for morality"; it's a victory for state's rights and the rule of law?
Posted by darladoon at 05/26/2009 @ 2:27pm
antisocialist's unwitting slip of the tongue has revealed a glaring contradiction with respect to his position on gay rights.
on the one hand, he claims this is a "victory for morality," while also pointing out that the state's reserve the right to interpret their constitutions as they see fit (without, necessarily, a stated concern for morality).
you can't have it both ways, antisocialist.
Posted by darladoon at 05/26/2009 @ 2:30pm
so where is the "victory for morality," if supposedly immoral acts continue to occur, despite the ruling?
Posted by darladoon at 05/26/2009 @ 2:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You do prove that even though Jesus said " You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free" it does not necessarily follow that many will not just REJECT God's truth and make up their own moral code just to suit their perversions or sin!
The truth of God's laws and justice seems today to only in part be recognized by man's laws. That does NOT make it any less the ultimate truth as it has been for thousands of years. It continues to condemn those who refuse to recognize his truth and that is the qualifier in his final judgement.
Posted by BigPasture at 05/26/2009 @ 2:30pm
Victory for morality?Someone needs to find out what straight married couples are doing and take a look at the divorce rate.All people who see marriage as strictly a religious sacrament will not get the state issued civil marriage license because that lumps them in with those who were married by virtue of a civil ceremony done by Elvis in Vegas.Both get the same license and both are called married.Christians like to claim that other denominations are not really Christians so I wonder if those marriages count even if clergy performs the ceremony since the one group does not consider the other group to be real Christians.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/26/2009 @ 2:34pm
Christians like to claim that other denominations are not really Christians so I wonder if those marriages count even if clergy performs the ceremony since the one group does not consider the other group to be real Christians.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/26/2009 @ 2:34pm
Off the wall again IM. I have noted that all of the major faiths have the same tradition of a marriage sacrament as consisting of a man and a woman. I have never heard a Christian say that those marriages are not valid.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 2:40pm
antisocialist-What you have said is that some of those other Christians and people in other religions are being controlled by the devil and are going to hell which makes one wonder how those marriages could be viewed as valid by a real Christian.Does not seem off the wall at all,but seems to be a valid question and observation.You are going to hell,but your marriage is valid?Since you say that gay people are going to hell with the rest of those people then why not let them go to hell married like you will do with straight couples?
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/26/2009 @ 2:53pm
A good decision all the way around - and 6-1 no less.
Posted by pyeatte at 05/26/2009 @ 2:53pm
The assimilationist strategies that mainstream LGBT orgs have been pursuing -- despite their success in the northeast -- reinforce long-standing traditions of privileges for the few, not equal rights for all. Lisa Duggan put it this way in a Feb 2006 article in the Nation:
"In a bid for equality, some gay groups are producing rhetoric that insults and marginalizes unmarried people, while promoting marriage in much the same terms as the welfare reformers use to stigmatize single-parent households, divorce and "out of wedlock" births. If pursued in this way, the drive for gay-marriage equality can undermine rather than support the broader movement for social justice and democratic diversity."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040315/duggan
Even if the CA Supreme Court had overturned Prop 8, they would not have ushered in a new era of justice. All this gay marriage advocacy stuff does is support (and even INVITE) the State's interference in our vastly diverse and often non-traditional private lives.
Progressives, libertarians and conservatives CAN share common ground on the issue of so-called "same-sex marriage." Privatizing marriage (separating church and state) is a winnable fight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_privatization
Posted by fmsnyc at 05/26/2009 @ 3:02pm
"civil unions" are ALL the government should sanction and recognize.
"marriage" is the business of religion and churches.
problem solved!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/26/2009 @ 3:07pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 2:15pm
So would it be a "moral defeat", if civil unions for homosexuals with the full rights of "marriage", was implemented?
Posted by Mask at 05/26/2009 @ 3:12pm
In-so-far as I consider it immoral for judges to legislate from the bench, I guess this could be a kind of moral victory. I am glad that the judges recognized the soveriegnty of The People.
So, the GLBT community has vowed to get their own constitutional amendment. Maybe as soon as 2010. Good for them.
I'd say the probability of a CA constituional amendment legalizing same sex marriage in the next decade is 95%.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/26/2009 @ 3:22pm
So would it be a "moral defeat", if civil unions for homosexuals with the full rights of "marriage", was implemented?
Posted by Mask at 05/26/2009 @ 3:12pm
All immoral activity is a stain on a nation. All of the adultery, rape, child molestation, homosexuality, greed, theft, lust, and the like are equally immoral before G-d.
What I called the moral victory is merely the continuance of the history of mankind in calling marriage to be an institution between a man and a woman. Marriage was created by G-d, not man.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 3:31pm
antisocialist-the marriage that G-d came up with was a business transaction where monetary value was placed on the woman and her virginity and where she had no say in the matter and was property.That is not how we view marriage today in America nor does America have a history or tradition where marriage is viewed as a religious sacrament.That is a European tradition.Here both civil and religious ceremonies have been seen as the same and both called married and get the same license. .You still have not explained how you can view another denomination or religion as not valid,but see a marriage that was performed within that other denomination or religion as valid.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/26/2009 @ 3:55pm
antisocialist-the marriage that G-d came up with was a business transaction where monetary value was placed on the woman and her virginity and where she had no say in the matter and was property.That is not how we view marriage today in America nor does America have a history or tradition where marriage is viewed as a religious sacrament.That is a European tradition.Here both civil and religious ceremonies have been seen as the same and both called married and get the same license. .You still have not explained how you can view another denomination or religion as not valid,but see a marriage that was performed within that other denomination or religion as valid.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/26/2009 @ 3:55pm
1. Your position exists because you dismiss the Biblical record on marriage. In point of fact, the Bible records that Jacob fell in love with Rachel and married her out of love, not for financial gain. The statement of Jesus on the bond of oneness in marriage since Adam and Eve is a reflection on the spiritual and emotional attachment of two people in marriage.
The Song of Solomon is perhaps one of the most beautiful holy books on sensuality and passion. It is proof that G-d gives and wants us to have relationships that are passionate and filled with love.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 4:12pm
Well, given that "marriage" stats point to an apporoximately 50% shot at success, I'm guessing the old adage "misery loves company" STILL doesn't apply to our neocon friends re this august institution?
BOO HOO.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/26/2009 @ 4:20pm
Go Red Wings.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/26/2009 @ 4:20pm
antisocialist-The only place in the Bible that clearly states what marriage is is in Torah law.The occasional romance was unimpressive as was the song of Solomon,considering who wrote it and how many wives and concubines that he had.Paul,pretty much,reduced marriage as something you do to get sex,but wanted people to be celibate,like him.What is in Torah law excludes the idea that G-d wants us to have passionate relationships that are filled with love.Torah law permits those who have never met to marry by family arrangement.Still wondering about the other question that I asked you.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/26/2009 @ 4:22pm
You still have not explained how you can view another denomination or religion as not valid,but see a marriage that was performed within that other denomination or religion as valid.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/26/2009 @ 3:55pm
First of all, I have never spoken out against other Denominations. I speak out against those no matter their denomination who teach departure from G-d's word as is commanded in scripture.
As to other faiths; I don't know where you get this suggestion that any pastor or Christian in general has ever called the marriages outside of Christianity as invalid.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 4:25pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/26/2009 @ 4:22pm
Another reason why I still pity you.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 4:26pm
antisocialist-What I said was that you guys view other denominations and religions as invalid,but then claim that marriages performed within those denominations or religions are valid, which is illogical and you have not explained how you can have such a contradictory view..You have said that other denominations are influenced by the devil when I asked you about other denominations that can heal the sick(supposedly),but have different views than yours.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/26/2009 @ 4:31pm
antisocialist-Actually,you do not pity me,but are trying to avoid Biblical facts being presented to you and avoiding that nagging question about declaring other religions and denominations as invalid,but declaring their marriages to be valid because you know how illogical that is so you are trying the pity me thing in order to avoid these things.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/26/2009 @ 4:34pm
"That does NOT make it any less the ultimate truth as it has been for thousands of years"
what's the "ultimate truth"? that heterosexuality is the only biological fact?
that is clearly not correct, as homosexuality has existed for as long as humans have, and also has existed in other species as well.
anyone who claims that homosexuality is not a biological fact is walking down the wrong line of argumentation....
Posted by darladoon at 05/26/2009 @ 4:35pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 3:31pm </i>
The Bible's only statements that specifically address homosexuality say that a man having sex with a man is wrong. That's it. Again...how do you derive a full condemnation of homosexuality from this? We already know you can't simply point to Jewish law, and what clear definitions there are of marriage are generally inclusive rather than inclusive (just as John 3:16 is with respect to salvation). On what foundation does your categorical condemnation of homosexuality rest?
Moreover, how are the weddings of homosexuals in churches valid under your view? If the standard for a church is God's law rather than man's, and you firmly believe that gay marriage is a clear violation of God's law, how can you treat these marriages as valid? This question has been raised by others and I don't really see you addressing it effectively.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/26/2009 @ 4:42pm
You have said that other denominations are influenced by the devil when I asked you about other denominations that can heal the sick(supposedly),but have different views than yours.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/26/2009 @ 4:31pm
Again, I have never said other denominations are influenced by the devil. I speak at other denominations on a regular basis.
What you asked about was other religions, not denominations.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 4:48pm
that is clearly not correct, as homosexuality has existed for as long as humans have, and also has existed in other species as well.
anyone who claims that homosexuality is not a biological fact is walking down the wrong line of argumentation....
Posted by darladoon at 05/26/2009 @ 4:35pm
No one has said that homosexual behavior doesn't exist. It is just another form of departing from the good that G-d intended for mankind.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 4:49pm
antisocialist-I mentioned any others,including those in other denominations,who made the claim of healing,but had different views than yours.That would,in particular,include the Catholics who have very different views than you have,but make the healing claim..One more time,how can you view a religion as invalid,but view a marriage ceremony performed within that religion as valid?Same would apply to Catholics and "liberal" Christians.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/26/2009 @ 5:01pm
Posted by Thrawn at 05/26/2009 @ 4:42pm
We have gone ad infinitim in circles on this;
1. You remain incorrect. Jesus declared that all sex outside of marriage (and He stated that marriage was between a man and a woman), is a sin. You can try and twist that all you want. But it is clear and concise.
2. Since G-d has said that marriage is between a man and a woman, what two people of the same sex do in a ceremony may be many things, but it is not marriage and thus is not valid in G-d's sight.
In his three volume The History of Human Marriage (1921), Edward Westermarck defined marriage as "a more or less durable connection between male and female, lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring."
<From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties
In Judaism, marriage is viewed as a contractual bond commanded by God in which a man and a woman come together to create a relationship in which God is directly involved>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
You cannot cite any culture or religious faith that has any history of endorsing same sex marriage.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 5:05pm
antisocialist-Christians did not have female preachers until they decided to have them making your thing about no culture or religion endorsing gay marriage rather meaningless.Christians had no Christmas until they borrowed traditions and a season from pagans and created a new holiday and tradition.That's how it works with humans.We create new traditions.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/26/2009 @ 5:11pm
The ruling today was backward step for a very repressed group. In addition to homosexuals, we als need to remember other repressed groups. I would like to see the federal government remember the global impoverished and do more to address global poverty for strategic and humanitarian reasons.
The Borgen Project has good info on the estimated cost of ending global poverty:
$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget.
Posted by davidwaters at 05/26/2009 @ 5:31pm
antisocialist-Christians did not have female preachers until they decided to have them making your thing about no culture or religion endorsing gay marriage rather meaningless.Christians had no Christmas until they borrowed traditions and a season from pagans and created a new holiday and tradition.That's how it works with humans.We create new traditions.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/26/2009 @ 5:11pm
You are partially correct, but it is what you leave out that is so important.
There were many females in ministry in the early church. It was the Catholic Church that implemented the male domination of ministry out of their own will, not that of G-d.
Priscilla, Phoebe, Junia, the daughters of Phillip, the Elect Lady of 2nd John, these were evangelists and prophets.
Clement of Alexandria 2nd century leader explains that in this way the women assistants were the apostles' "fellow ministers in dealing with housewives. It was through them that the Lord's teaching penetrated also the women's quarters without any scandal being aroused."
Women had roles of evangelists and prophets which was the way G-d had them share in the ministry work without being inconsistent in His word on the role of men as Apostles and Pastor/Teachers.
Your point about Christmas is so trivial. Christmas was not obviously commanded by scripture, but neither was it prohibited. But scripture is explicit about marriage. So we can create traditions as long as they are not outside of what G-d has commanded.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 6:03pm
Posted by davidwaters at 05/26/2009 @ 5:31pm
As Mask, noted, we got your message months ago. Try something new if you want to post here.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 6:04pm
antisocialist-You do not go by G-ds version of marriage making your repeats of that rather meaningless nor do Christians go by what G-d commanded and your list of women is quite tiny and you missed my point about that and my point about Christmas was quite relevant when looking at what constitutes tradition.Again,how can you recognize another religions marriages as valid when you do not recognize the religion as being valid?
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/26/2009 @ 6:19pm
Who cares what your bible or any other collection of fairy tales has to say about a CIVIL matter? As outlined in this disappointing but necessary ruling, it is the constitution (in this case, California's) that is the go to reference for decision making.
Posted by Yashemus at 05/26/2009 @ 6:29pm
"No one has said that homosexual behavior doesn't exist. It is just another form of departing from the good that G-d intended for mankind."
if god created the universe, then god created homosexuality
Posted by darladoon at 05/26/2009 @ 6:30pm
if god created the universe, then god created homosexuality
Posted by darladoon at 05/26/2009 @ 6:30pm
So so wrong. G-d created free will which allows mankind to make good or bad decisions.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 6:59pm
Again,how can you recognize another religions marriages as valid when you do not recognize the religion as being valid?
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/26/2009 @ 6:19pm
Your question just has no meaning. other religions can recognize the evil or good that G-d commands without necessarily seeking to truly and fully know and obey G-d.
the institution of marriage points people towards a knowledge of the existence of G-d, but it doesn't ensure their salvation and that is the oh so critical difference.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 7:01pm
Who cares what your bible or any other collection of fairy tales has to say about a CIVIL matter? As outlined in this disappointing but necessary ruling, it is the constitution (in this case, California's) that is the go to reference for decision making.
Posted by Yashemus at 05/26/2009 @ 6:29pm
No one said it wasn't. the moral issues are separate from the legal ones.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 7:02pm
antisocialist-Actually,my question has great meaning which is why you have avoided it and are still avoiding it.Other religions cannot recognize the good or evil that G-d commands since they do not recognize G-d and,according to you,are being influenced by the devil.Your claim that marriage points people towards a knowledge of the existence G-d is incorrect and not reality based because these other people do not get married because of what G-d said nor do most know or care what G-d said nor do they become believers in G-d because they got married in a different religion.They do not even recognize your claim that G-d invented marriage.Please,this time try to answer the question.How can you claim that people who are married in a religion that you say is invalid have a valid marriage?That is an amazing contradiction.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/26/2009 @ 7:13pm
Can we get to the real matter here? No one will convince antisocialist he's wrong anyway, so why bother? He's obviously a bigot who has founded his bigotry in his religion, which is a very sad thing, because even Christ hung out with the prostitutes and the lepers (and perhaps a few fags, who knows...he didn't say). Just another christian bigot (and notice I did NOT capitalize the word, "christian" because his words are very un-Christ like). I've seen christian bigots all over the place.
The REAL thing that happened today is that bigotry and the tyranny of the (simple) majority were encoded into California law.
The underlying test of any true democracy is not in how the majority is treated, but in how its minorities are treated and whether their rights are protected in spite of the majority. The ill-informed people of California, by a simple majority vote, took away a RIGHT guaranteed to them by the California Supreme Court (the same Republicans who ruled today) of ALL the people to be married, not civil-unioned. Read the opinion from last year if you doubt it was a right.
So, what's to happen tomorrow if the ill-informed people of California decided to take away the RIGHT (by a simple majority vote) to be a Christian? Or a Jew? Or read the Bible? Or ANY book? I bet antisocialist would feel different then, the shoe being on the other foot and all.
We live in a nation that espouses the belief that all men are created equal. That belief is what makes us the greatest nation on the face of the earth, and it is a VERY Christian concept. Today, that belief was just thrown into the garbage can of history. It is a sad day for our democracy, and a good day for tyranny.
Jesus wept.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/26/2009 @ 7:36pm
actually, you missed a big one: under california law, when you try to get benefits for a "domestic partner" as opposed to a spouse, you have to declare those benefits as taxable income, as opposed to a non-taxed benefit, as you would with a spouse.
Doesn't sound like equal protection under the law to me.
Posted by johnnolan at 05/26/2009 @ 7:46pm
We live in a nation that espouses the belief that all men are created equal. That belief is what makes us the greatest nation on the face of the earth, and it is a VERY Christian concept. Today, that belief was just thrown into the garbage can of history. It is a sad day for our democracy, and a good day for tyranny.
Jesus wept.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/26/2009 @ 7:36pm
Nonsense-what the ruling said is that the term marriage was constitutionally held up as between a man and a woman.
However, it also noted that California law extends ALL of the same legal benefits in Domestic Partnerships. Therefore, homosexuals are not denied benefits that married partners have under California law.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 7:48pm
so to clarify, your claim of "no material difference" is false.
Posted by johnnolan at 05/26/2009 @ 7:48pm
if you have to pay taxes on a benefit because you are a domestic partner, and you don't have to pay taxes on a benefit because you are a spouse, and you are prohibited from being a spouse because you are gay, then you are NOT receiving the same "benefits."
your claim that california law extends "all of the same legal benefits in Domestic Partnerships" is false.
Posted by johnnolan at 05/26/2009 @ 7:52pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 7:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
so its the term, "marriage" that seems the big sticking point?
as i said above...
"civil unions" are ALL the government should sanction and recognize.
"marriage" is the business of religion and churches.
problem solved!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/26/2009 @ 7:58pm
ibb-That would solve the problem except that we have no history of separating those two things and both get the same license and are called married and that will not change.Of course,in America you will have problems when you try to separate these things based upon religious beliefs.Religions could only hand out a license that only they recognize.If you want the state to recognize your marriage it must be considered to,also,be a civil matter which then brings your marriage under civil law.You can,already,just have a religious ceremony and call yourself married.You are not required to get the state issued license,but if you get one then it is you that makes your marriage a civil and not religious matter.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/26/2009 @ 8:14pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/26/2009 @ 8:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person
thats the point. only religious organizations can marry folks - with no need for government interference at all.
CIVIL unions, recognized by CIVIL authorities, marriage left to the churches...
state has no business in "marriage" in the first place, if "marriage" connotes a religious sanction.
i actually think this MIGHT be acceptable to many who object on religious grounds to gay "marriage".
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/26/2009 @ 8:27pm
funny how one word can be such a pain in the ass...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/26/2009 @ 8:30pm
ibb-Religious people can already do that so what are they complaining about?Just do not get the civil license.Of course,gays and those who were joined by virtue of civil ceremony will still call themselves married,but that's life.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/26/2009 @ 10:04pm
A moral victory today in California.
Not a complete victory, but a victory for morality and the sacrament of marriage.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 1:54pm
Don't worry. It WILL be legalized sooner or later. Probably sooner rather than later. Soon enough DOMA will be overturned too. So call this whatever you want, "moral victory" is a BS term but I guess we will let you have it, it won't last.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/26/2009 @ 10:37pm
Good advice, Richard. Better to fight truly necessary battles and extend queer civil rights nationally than to waste tons and tons of time, energy and money on winning the right to use a frickin' word.
This whole emphasis on marriage equality has derailed efforts to extend domestic partnership rights and benefits to all sorts of non-traditional families (and I'm not talking about the polygamists). Sure, I support it as a democratic right, but would I have spent all of my energy on it? Hell, no.
Posted by cka2nd at 05/26/2009 @ 11:15pm
so to clarify, your claim of "no material difference" is false.
Posted by johnnolan at 05/26/2009 @ 7:48pm
try reading the ruling
<Contrary to petitioners' assertion, Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases -- that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to "choose one's life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage" (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 829). Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term "marriage" for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.>
http://tinyurl.com/qjs4xn
Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 11:22pm
thats the point. only religious organizations can marry folks - with no need for government interference at all.
CIVIL unions, recognized by CIVIL authorities, marriage left to the churches...
state has no business in "marriage" in the first place, if "marriage" connotes a religious sanction.
i actually think this MIGHT be acceptable to many who object on religious grounds to gay "marriage".
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/26/2009 @ 8:27pm
Exactly my point for years now. Glad we agree.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 11:35pm
antisocialist-Then you,obviously,never got the state license and do not marry people who have one so what is your problem with gays getting one?The problem that you have is that many of your fellow protestants who came to America first did not agree with you and did not believe that marriage was a religious matter and so we do not have any such history or tradition and you can keep making it up that we do,but our history proves otherwise.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/27/2009 @ 12:01am
anyone who claims that homosexuality is not a biological fact is walking down the wrong line of argumentation....
Posted by darladoon at 05/26/2009 @ 4:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person
That is just as clueless a statement as it is geneless!
Posted by BigPasture at 05/27/2009 @ 12:38am
bigpasture,
you need to think deeper...
Posted by darladoon at 05/27/2009 @ 02:07am
"G-d created free will which allows mankind to make good or bad decisions."
are you saying that gay people choose to be gay?!
oh man, you really should just shut the fuck up, right now, antisocialist.
seriously. SHUT THE FUCK UP!
there isn't a SINGLE doctor, on this planet, who argues that homosexuality is a choice.
every major medical organization has argued that homosexuality is genetic.
for bisexuals, and there are many (like myself), it's more complex, but by and large, gays are born gay.
Posted by darladoon at 05/27/2009 @ 02:10am
and if you want to argue that gays should just try and be straight......again, you have no idea what you are talking about, and your comments are offensive and stupid.
Posted by darladoon at 05/27/2009 @ 02:11am
Though some homosexuals are self-evidently "born that way", it is false consciousness (J. Calvin; J.P. Sartre) to think of one's sexual behavior as determined by genetics. It's no diffferent from "god" or "de debble" made me "do it". (Thought is cognitive; consciousness is presentational; most people don't distinguish them and talk about their 'religious belief' regarding this and that, or -- this is a good 'un for the lulzers -- "MORALITY" -- as if there were actually anything going on in their noggin whatsoever, except expression of various degrees of no doubt well taken hatred (anti-cathexis)) in a grammar tuaght by killer mommy dearests.
Where is Mark Twain when we need him? Now there was somebody who knew how to wiseacre.
And the Supreme Court Justice nominee is named Sodomayer.. .. With President Botstein at Bard, and Uncle Remus singing Mammy in the W.H.
(best line above: "funny how one word can be such a pain in the ass..."
comment: it's all in the words, all right. "gay marriage" is a double reverse sign use, a token of replacement of the image of sperm on cervix by semen on feces. Signature of the new default position, Zionists on top. lol.)
Posted by jones at 05/27/2009 @ 04:17am
Well, given that "marriage" stats point to an apporoximately 50% shot at success, I'm guessing the old adage "misery loves company" STILL doesn't apply to our neocon friends re this august institution?
BOO HOO.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/26/2009 @ 4:20pm
Again, this statistic is very misleading.
For people who have never been married before, the success rate is two-thirds, not one half.
So two-thirds of the people (not marriages) never divorce. The one third of people who do divorce do so multiple times so that equal numbers of marriages fail as succeed.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/27/2009 @ 06:57am
The ill-informed people of California, by a simple majority vote, took away a RIGHT guaranteed to them by the California Supreme Court
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/26/2009 @ 7:36pm
You got that right!
The only proplem is that the CA Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to grant rights. That authority is vested in The People and their duly appointed legislature.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/27/2009 @ 07:07am
Religions could only hand out a license that only they recognize.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/26/2009 @ 8:14pm
Ibb is right. Religions could NOT hand out a license. Only The State can license activities.
Of the three definitions of marriage:
The state's Domestic Partnership would not be marriage; it would be a civil contract obligating the party of the first part and the party of the second part to be bound by alimony and community property laws in the case of disolution.
The religion's celibration of the union would be called a "wedding" and would celbrate a "union".
The only true marriage is the committment two people make. This is the union celbrated in the wedding above.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/27/2009 @ 07:21am
" it is false consciousness (J. Calvin; J.P. Sartre) to think of one's sexual behavior as determined by genetics"
first of all, sartre did not say that regarding sexual behavior. and in any case, behavior isn't the point.
second of all, are you gay, jones? or straight?
Posted by darladoon at 05/27/2009 @ 09:56am
darin-What I said was that religions could hand out a license that only they would recognize.You can give out a license,but it would have no legal meaning as far as the state is concerned.My grand daughters doll had a license so you can give out a license.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/27/2009 @ 10:30am
What I said was that religions could hand out a license that only they would recognize.You can give out a license,but it would have no legal meaning as far as the state is concerned.My grand daughters doll had a license so you can give out a license.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/27/2009 @ 10:30am
Religious institutions here in the US have never given out marriage licenses. Why do you even suggest it?
Posted by antisocialist at 05/27/2009 @ 11:11am
antisocialist-Depends on how you define license.My paternal grandparents refused to get a state issued license and only had what the minister wrote in their Bible, after the ceremony, in the marriage section which I count as their version of a marriage license.That is how my grandparents saw it.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/27/2009 @ 11:18am
antisocialist-Depends on how you define license.My paternal grandparents refused to get a state issued license and only had what the minister wrote in their Bible, after the ceremony, in the marriage section which I count as their version of a marriage license.That is how my grandparents saw it.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/27/2009 @ 11:18am
That was a Certificate of Marriage, not a license. I give each couple a Certificate of Marriage signifying their completion of the Sacrament of Marriage.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/27/2009 @ 11:20am
antisocialist-I see no difference just because you call one a certificate and the other a license.My grandparents were just as married no matter what you call what they had.Call it what you want just as those who are joined by virtue of a civil union can call themselves married if they choose to do so..
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/27/2009 @ 11:31am
antisocialist-I see no difference just because you call one a certificate and the other a license.My grandparents were just as married no matter what you call what they had.Call it what you want just as those who are joined by virtue of a civil union can call themselves married if they choose to do so..
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/27/2009 @ 11:31am
You're just playing at contrarian again. Licenses are the province of govt. Churches in the US have never given out licenses. Now the exception to that would be the Anglican Church/Church of England. They use to issue marriage licenses in England, but I am a little fuzzy on whether they also issued them here. However, since 1836, the Anglican church has only issued Marriage Certificates. All other Protestant Denominations issue a Marriage Certificate signifying that the minister has united the couple in the sacrament of marriage.
It wasn't until 1911 that the American Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act came into effect as a means to standarize the civil applications of marriage.
http://tinyurl.com/qbzfak
I also have both new and some rather old (1938 and 1942) Minister's Service Books" on conducting services for various Christian Denominations.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/27/2009 @ 11:51am
Mr. Kim, The fact that you could boldly use the term "relative equality" without seeing the irony makes your opinion suspect. The whole point lies with the word "marriage". "Relative equality" is separate but equal and that should be anathema to you. Separate but equal has been proven to be inherently unequal. Your battle tactics are ridiculous and would lose any war. The opinion rendered by the court contradicted the opinion this same court handed down a year ago. They shifted into reverse not because their hands were tied but because they caved to the pressures of a loud battle and threats of recall. While they showed great courage a year ago, writing an historic, eloquent decision , they cowered yesterday and I, for one, was embarrassed for them. The most powerful portion of yesterdays decision was the lone dissent written by Justice Moreno. You would be well advised to spend time understanding the true nature of this battle by reading his dissent.
Posted by goforit at 05/27/2009 @ 12:00pm
antisocialist-I'm not playing at anything nor do I do that.You are obsessed with technical definitions and the letter of the law,but most people,like myself,are not and do not care whether you call it a certificate or license.You are never going to get most of the rest of us to become obsessed with technical definitions and the letter of the law so you may as well stop beating your head against that brick wall.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/27/2009 @ 12:08pm
Let me see... isn't your argument like... All water fountains are the same... you have your own water fountain, it bubbles up water like any other, so there's no need to make a fuss.
The word marriage is HIGHLY symbolic and this is the core of the struggle on both sides. (although I think the same sex side has failed at addressing this in our decision to plead for pragmatism) That's why there was so much money and effort committed to preventing same-sex couples the right to marry - to claim the symbolic content of the word. A relationship is taken more seriously in our culture if it is entered into both contractually and symbolically. The symbolic meanings in all struggles for equality are as important as the need for every day non-discrimination.
Also, if we give up on this struggle the opposed will be emboldened to take it a step further and deny our right to adoption and on down the line. See the case in Florida.
This take on our rights is indicative of how our supposed liberal allies still just don't get it....
Posted by ewanders at 05/27/2009 @ 1:00pm
"first of all, sartre did not say that regarding sexual behavior. and in any case, behavior isn't the point. "
Sartre said it about everything. It's part of his mistaken notion that consciousness is identical with intentionality.
Compulsion, and the rationalization of it as "genetic", "driven by mysterious forces" etc., are about behavior determined from dream-state contents.
Posted by jones at 05/27/2009 @ 1:16pm
The only proplem is that the CA Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to grant rights. That authority is vested in The People and their duly appointed legislature.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/27/2009 @ 07:07am
The CA Supremes did not "grant" the right to marry to anyone. It already existed in California's Constitution (the LONGEST Constitution in the history of mankind, due the the screwed up Proposition initiatives). Last year, the Supremes simply extended the right to marry to all people, because under the Equal Protection clause, EVERYBODY already had that right. Last year's ruling simply recognized something that was already true under California law: the right to marry belongs to ALL people. Prop 8 took away that right from gays and lesbians. The Surpremes upheld that illegal stance based on technicalities of law (i.e. was it a legal amendment or not?). Yesterday's ruling didn't deal with the marriage issue at all, except for the word "marriage." Words matter. Thus was discrimination and bigotry enshrined in the California Constitution.
So, if you're currently a gay person in California who is married, but decides to get divorced, you can't get re-married in California. Hmmmm....THAT'S certainly equal protection under the law, ain't it?
Personally, I believe the Supremes are very aware of what they did yesterday...and the gaping legal loopholes it created, so much so that a Fed case has already been filed. As was obvious last year, the Supremes believe gays have the right to marry in California, but because of the way Prop 8 was created and passed, their hands were simply tied by California's screwed up legal system which is essentially, mob rule. I know because I live here.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/27/2009 @ 6:08pm
<i>Posted by i'm nobody at 05/27/2009 @ 12:08pm </i>
He's wrong anyway. Licenses AREN'T the exclusive province of government; individuals give out private licenses all the time. That, for example, is what movie tickets are. There's legal precedent on this.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/27/2009 @ 10:43pm