I do not really like to use the word Gay. They are people. They are our neighbors. They deserve to be treated as equals. Religion be damned because of their views.
This is a sad view of people who do not conform to our view of society.
Apologies for the use of the term, "gay marriage" if it bothered you Kimmy, "same sex marriage" then, I understand.....
The thing about this ruling is that it didn't do away with CA's domestic partnership laws which the opponents of same sex marriage weren't going after. It's basically the same animal as most other "save marriage" proposals, begrudgingly they don't go after domestic partnerships but they want the word MARRIAGE only attached to heterosexual marriage. Where I find this whole thing interesting is that the CA supreme court had just ruled last year in favor of same sex marriage saying that the CA constitution protected same sex marriage under their equal rights, THEN they did some fancy footwork and basically are saying that this proposition/referendum can't be challenged because it is the will of the people which that same CA constitution allows for. CA was the first state to have the initiative process but as a Haynes scholar who has actually gone through the archives in the vault at UCLA for research on him I KNOW that John Randolph Haynes was a PROGRESSIVE and never meant for his initiative process to mean the will of the people over-rides the Constitution of the United States. In other words, I feel the use of the initiative in Prop 8 was a MISUSE of the initiative and the CA supreme court was schizophrenic in it's two rulings, the first one saying same sex marriage is protected by the CA constitution but then going on to rule EXCEPT in the case of the will of the masses. At least that's how I'm reading it as a non-attorney, only one who knows the goals of John Randolph Haynes when he worked so diligently to have the initiative process become a reality.
(SOAPBOX WARNING !!)
Hi Kimmy,
I’m going to apologize in advance if this comes out a bit harsh, but it is one of my pet peeves. It doesn’t matter whether you like the word ‘gay’ or not. You are merely trying to substitute one “politically correct” phrase for another. Hollow semantics. It is the contextual definition of a word, not the word itself, which conveys meaning. And the choice of words is an author’s editorial right. Robin was very gracious in her understanding. But you understood perfectly what she meant when you read her title. If you need to see more articles utilizing your preferred word choices, please pick up a pen. But remember, when trying to be “politically correct”, you are promoting a doctrine which proposes that it is possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
(now stepping down…..)
And Hi Robin,
Great topic. And very complex. As much as I was disheartened when Prop 8 passed, I agree completely with the Court’s ruling. And I have to disagree with you and say I feel that Haynes would also approve. The initiative process worked exactly as he envisioned. He wanted the public to be able to directly legislate law, including constitutional law. This is what has occurred. The people of California democratically amended the state constitution. The Court confirmed their right to do so. (Moreno, by the way, was way off base on this one.)
Cases like this are complicated because the basic issue is not the same as the legal argument used to support it. The best example is Roe v Wade. The issue behind Roe was abortion. But the legal argument was the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause. The Supreme Court confirmed that a state, Texas, did not have the right to pass a law which violated the protections of due process. But very few people recognize Roe as a state’s right case. It is recognized as an abortion case. Because the issue, and the emotion tied thereto, was abortion.
The issue of Proposition 8 was gay marriage. (I’m using your word choice because ‘same-sex’ is literally just an anglicized version of ‘homosexual’. Of course the PC crowd thinks they’ve coined something new….. But we won’t tell…..) But the argument before the Court was voters’ rights. Simplified, what the California Supreme Court was asked to decide was whether the People, via initiative, had the right to limit the legal definition of the word “marriage”. Not the religious definition. Not the institution of marriage. And not the rights associated with marriage. Just the legal definition of the word itself. That was the argument the Court decided.
...continued below...
(continued)
The issue at hand, however, is gay marriage. Marriage is a term used to describe a civil union. Last May, the Court upheld the basic civil rights of gay couples to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership with the same rights and responsibilities as a heterosexual couple in a civil union. This, at that time, was commonly referred to as a ‘marriage’. So, legally, gay couples and hetero couples have exactly the same civil rights. Hence, no violation of any equal rights. If you read the entire Prop 8 decision, you will see that the Court addressed this as an underlying issue to the argument. And basically indicated that the use of the terms ‘marriage’ or ‘civil union’ or ‘domestic partnership’ amounted to semantics only. The RIGHTS associated with all terms are EQUAL. Tomato, tomahto. Just as men are called ‘men’ and women are called ‘women’ but they both have equal rights, as persons, under the law. So, the gay marriages that took place after May 2008 and prior to Proposition 8 are legitimate marriages. Because, at the time, it was legal to call them marriages. Now it is not. Marriage partners and civil-union domestic partners have exactly the same civil rights, but are addressed legally by different terms. Semantics.
This is why the appeal on equal rights grounds will be unsuccessful.
What is important to note is that this decision will actually eventually benefit gay marriage supporters. Prop 8 passed by a very narrow 4% margin. This means that future attempts only need to swing 2% of the vote to repeal it. And when that happens, the gay marriage opponents will not be able to challenge the constitutionality of the proposition. It was just decided. Especially if they are smart enough to use the exact verbiage used in Prop 8.
It is also important to note that civil equities are developed over time. Societies don’t just change overnight. Issues such as these are progressive in nature. The slippery-slope argument you always hear about is very, very real. Years from now, when no one remembers a time when marriage was restricted to members of the opposite sex only, this argument will be about polygamy. Think about it.
One last point to think about, Robin. You stated that the US Constitution “guarantees the rights of ALL against the rule of the masses.” It does, in fact, guarantee the rights of each individual, but WITHIN the rule of the people. Within our democratic process. Because, as Ben Franklin once said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”
(Sorry for being so long-winded)
Cherry, boy did you give me food for thought and I'm always up for a delicious meal. Perhaps it's the idealist in me, the person who thinks gay marriage should be protected under the US Constitution who is reading it as I am. But we both know idealistic Constitutional interpretation and legislation don't necessarily coexist easily.
If you come back, and if you're reading you have (hehe) I'd like to ask you something. On Friday I caught something on the radio but not the name of the person speaking who was high up in LAMBDA (I probably have the acronym wrong, apologies, I have a hassle on this darn MAC going back and forth between windows so I don't want to lose my thought here). Anyhoo, this person was saying that LAMBDA is not encouraging the appeals process to the US Supreme Court by gay activists in the different states. He stated LAMBDA is wanting the fight to keep going at the state level, picking off as many states possible to win. For the life of me I can only come up with one reason (and I'm probably wrong!). Is it because they don't think the time is ripe yet for a Federal fight and a loss would be sheer devastation?
Also, as noted, domestic partnership affords the same protection as "marriage", tomato, tomahto, question again, because I honestly don't know, in CA do you go to the courthouse for a license for a dp just like you do a marriage? Couldn't a ceremony still be blessed by a religious official if wanted? I'm asking because I'm honestly CONFUSED if the two are identical legally why the HECK is, oh, I don't even know what question I want to ask it confounds me so darn much. OK, put it simply, ummmmm, is this a moral turf war only? (that's probably not what I want to say either but again, this just astounds me) Do the proponents of this Prop 8 REALLY think they have gotten away with not allowing "gay marriage" just because it's not called marriage? Or are they holding on to an illusionary thread in their zeal?
AHA Cherry, found this AP Youtube and I was right on why LAMBDA (Hey, I got the acronym right hehehe, YEAH cause' it was bugging me) is not in favor of the federal lawsuit being brought by Olson.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g...h?
v=gUBHu1NE56s
The federal lawsuit is also arguing exactly what I was stating, ALTHOUGH as the gal from LAMBDA states you can never be SURE of how the court would read it. Equal protection, yep, this gal agrees but it sure is a very fine line, hard to convince people, that "separate is not equal".
That's why I stated I didn't think Haynes would have approved Cherry, perhaps again it's my idealism, but Haynes as one of the leading Progressives in the nation over a hundred years ago. Fast forwarded to now I just think would be at the least uncomfortable over the process used in this manner. Sure would be interesting to have him here for a discussion over it don't ya think?
Robin, I want to warn you. This discussion can become very, very complicated. So I’ll try to answer your questions objectively, and avoid too much detail. We can expand as necessary.
Without going too deep into the argument, the fact is that the US Constitution was never intended to make the federal government superior to the States’ governments. It specifically grants to the States, any and all rights and powers that are not otherwise specifically included within its federal laws. Currently, the issue of gay marriage remains a States’ right, as long as no federal laws are violated. Which means there are no federal grounds upon which to appeal. Lambda (I think it’s the Greek letter by the way, not an acronym) is an organization dedicated to gay and lesbian legal issues. And although they frequently espouse emotional issues, they apparently recognize the lack of any real federal legal grounds. For an equal rights argument, you would need more than a semantic or other technical difference. It would have to be tangible fundamental difference.
California established domestic partnerships, called civil unions elsewhere, ten years ago. Yet the public remains blissfully unaware. A domestic partnership is registered with the state by sending in notarized application. Not much different than registering a marriage certificate. Once registered, the couple has all of the rights, and all of the responsibilities, afforded to a registered married couple. They divorce just like a married couple. And, yes, there may be some technical or administrative differences. But those are not legal inequalities. Can they have a religious ceremony? Of course. Marriage is no different. You can have a civil wedding, or you can combine the civil union with a religious ceremony. Also noteworthy is the fact that the identical California domestic partnership is also available to heterosexual couples over a certain age (not sure offhand).
Are Prop 8 supporters hanging on to an illusionary thread? You betcha. The actual intent of Proposition 8 was to overturn the Court's May 2008 decision in “in re Marriage Cases”. In that respect, the Proposition failed completely. They won a point of semantics. So they regard it as a victory. And some gay marriage proponents are just as bad. They insist that their civil union must be called a marriage. Again, why? It’s just semantics. It shouldn’t matter. All that should matter is what you feel in your heart. That’s what makes any couple’s commitment work. Not the name. Not a piece of paper.
Cherry, oh boy, I'll warn ya (smiles) you are surely correct, it is complicated! So in order for me as a layman to obtain a better understanding of an issue that admittedly I haven't followed CLOSELY I turned to Wikipedia (yes I am aware Wiki isn't the best source of info but it's a start)
As I am understanding this issue, the two parties are coming at it from both ends. In simple terms, please correct me if I am wrong, the "paper" they have in hand is the Defense of Marriage Act. The biggy that I am seeing in the DOM is that it allows individual states to not accept even the civil unions or domestic partnership laws that some states have passed.
Correct `me if I am wrong or use the wrong terminology (rusty) but this is exempting these unions from the full faith and credit act. So as I am reading it, this goes to your statement concerning federalism, ie, contracts (in this case marriage) are an issue left to the STATES and not the federal government. OK, with you so far, IF I am reading this correctly.
Now for my SIMPLE conclusion for an intro as to why a federal fight at this point will be an almost impossible task. I am seeing that with the DOM in place it would have to be overturned FIRST.
Am I reading this correctly Cherry? Because IF I am, it goes to my thoughts again that even though CA domestic partnership laws afford for all intents and purposes the same legal protections IN THE STATE, they are still separate and NOT equal. In other words, it's surely an advancement in their rights which is undeniable, but they've got a long way to go baby ala Virginia Slims to be fully accepted.
Caveat, I'm originally from Texas, the CA liberal exception to a VERY "Southern conservative" family for the most part so I "feel" the schism in the values on this issue-meaning oh brother can I see that a meeting of the minds is not coming any time soon. It's just impossible for the opponents of gay marriage to even entertain the thought due to the mindset, and I very much recognize that fact. On the other hand, there HAS been some movement in that some have decided (not my family) to toss a crumb, accept civil unions/domestic partnerships precisely because they are holding on to the "illusionary thread". But then you've got their ace in the hole, the fact that individual states can refuse to recognize them, so they really are NOT equal at the end of the day.
In other words, I'm getting it, it's COMPLICATED and I hope I am making sense of my attempt at trying to understand the intricacies of this issue,
OK, it just dawned on me, I'm probably talking "apples and oranges" here because the fight here in CA is only about the term "marriage" right? Please correct me if I'm wrong (and yes I know the actual fight was over whether or not the CA Constitution had been amended or not-hence my interest in this due to the initiative process, but the "issue" was gay "marriage")
But here's the rub, to my understanding a "marriage" performed in one state DOES fall under the Full Faith and Credit Clause right?
EXCEPT with the DOM in place "marriage" has a specific meaning.
So, I'm back in my own brain to the fact that with the DOM in place the opponents of gay marriage have the upper hand.
Now I THINK I have a better understanding of why Lambda (yep you were correct, not an acronym) is against the federal fight going forward at this time and their grasp of how dangerous a loss could be.
Am I "getting it" Cherry?
On another note, I think the general public is missing entirely the fact that this battle which was decided last week was as much about the initiative process as it was "gay marriage", in fact that was the ENTIRE case! (Thus my duel interest-thus the COMPLICATION)
One more question Cherry, purely hypothetical on my part because I am not aware of the legal intricacies of the fight for gay marriage. This is a "hypothetical stretch" in light of that: Could the fight for the legal term "marriage" to be attached to civil unions/domestic partnerships be going to the fight for federal acceptance of gay marriage under the Full Faith and Credit clause? In other words, if it is called "marriage" then it must be accepted Constitutionally?
PS I foresee YEARS of wrangling over this issue and am understanding Lambda's position more I THINK. (as smart legal maneuvering). Note, who won the race, the tortoise not the hare,
Exactly. Precisely. Yep.
It’s complicated.
But the thing to remember is that, because our legal system has become unnecessarily over-complicated, very few precedents are decided based on the perceived issues. Particularly emotionally charged issues such as this. They are decided, often indirectly, by the underlying case argument. Those piddling little details we call the law. And as humans, or even judges, when we are passionate about something, we tend to ignore the obvious. And we lose objectivity. The courts are intended to restore objectivity, not to legislate. That is why most causes, such as this one, tend to be more successful when they support new or improved legislation, rather than challenge existing case law in the courts. A ‘sue happy’ mentality often proves to be ineffectively subjective. And passionate emotions tend to be ineffective arguments in a properly objective court.
The waters of federal law tend to run deep and dark. Not to mention the fact that an appeal can only be based on argument presented in the original case, or on a violation of EXISTING federal law. I think Lambda understands this and realizes that the fastest and surest path is to create legislation at the States level. Which is already happening as we speak. I personally think your tortoise is already in sight of the finish line. History teaches us that social reform is a progressive process, not an instantaneous one. And people, societies, tend to learn from their own successive mistakes. You’re a student of government. Look at the ERA. Massive efforts to force federal legislation mandating equal rights. But eventually unnecessary because it literally became obsolete through equal rights legislation at the States level. Just as a 2010 Proposition will most likely negate this entire discussion.
And, yes, this decision was primarily about the initiative process. Which is why I previously stated that I felt Haynes would have approved. Whether he agreed with the issue of gay marriage or not.
A personal note of caution: Wikipedia, by its nature, tends to be editorially skewed. Be very, very careful. My theory is that it is better to review SEPARATE sources for each opposing view. And then be objective.
Hi Cherry, caution well taken on Wiki, I just went there for the short version to check for the general info to see which aspect of the law the different parties were taking on as their argument, Then dug into my rusty brain with a little searching as you suggested, trying to keep it simple.Here's the part I find absolutely off the wall ironic/laugh out loud sarcastically humorous. TED OLSON taking up the cross, OK, if I were a complete conspiracy nut I could go to town with that one Cherry, pick a brilliant jurist to fight the fight and LOSE because the time isn't ripe. Oh my, stop it Robin, you've lost it now LOLOL. Let's see, George Bush became president after Ted Olson...........now he's "BAAAAACK"
STOP IT ROBIN! (teasing)
Nope, those pesky little things called law are the basis of our civilized society. It's the interplay of the different levels of government that just flies right over people's heads most of the time, better to keep it that way sayeth the wolf. Don't even get me started on the ignorance of Americans on this or the lack of desire to "KNOW", blissful lives many people lead until it smacks em' upside the head for whatever reason
On a different note, and because I tend to be one who sees "connections", you've heard right? George Tiller. Shot dead in the lobby of his own CHURCH, WWJD? Same mindset, different degrees of extremism, murder justified in a sick SICK mind. "Suspect" in custody.
Yeah. I just read that on my CNN widget.... and had to stop reading and walk away halfway through ....
And Israel's rattling sabers. Not a good sign.
And don't even get me started on the ignorance of Americans. I can, and have, crashed the entire web on that one.....
Here ya go Cherry, it's a couple of years old but if you haven't seen it hold on to your dentures (just joshin')
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f...h?
v=fJuNgBkloFE
Some classic "knowledge" about the Middle East!
On a different note, there's actually news in the world besides Nadya Suleman
Cherry,
I am not trying to be politically correct. I am just conveying my views. I support marriages for everyone, no matter about their sexual orientation. As a Canadian I am confused about these subjects. I see everyone as equals. I do my best not to see colour, race, sex or political orientation.
As a perfect example, I was an usher at a family wedding and someone commented that you have one of those in your family. I brown greatly in the summer because of my work. They actually called me a Paki. I am a white Danish person. I hated the fact that they used the word Paki. If they would have used the word Pakistanian I would not have been upset.
Going back to the original argument. Gay marriage is just a title used to differentiate these people and I think it shouldn't be used. They are in love and want to get married and they should be allowed to do so. Drop the labels and forget the politically labels.
Commenting by HaloScan
