May 16 2008
No Brainer alert: California declares marriage a constitutional right for Gays
The ruling comes as no surprise, really.
The California Supreme Court, striking down two state laws that had limited marriages to unions between a man and a woman, ruled on Thursday that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
The 4-to-3 decision, drawing on a ruling 60 years ago that struck down a state ban on interracial marriage, would make California the second state, after Massachusetts, to allow same-sex marriages.
Again, is anyone actually surprised?
The decision, which becomes effective in 30 days unless the court grants a stay, was greeted with celebrations at San Francisco City Hall, where thousands of same-sex marriages were thrown out by the courts four years ago.
And the issue will not go away…
It was denounced by religious and conservative groups that promised to support an initiative proposed for the November ballot that would amend the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriages and overturn the decision.
And that brings up a serious question: Is a mandate from the people really the important factor here?
So they vote to amend their constitution to ban it. What if California voted in a measure to ban people of a race, and to do so by constitutional amendment?
The Majority may rule, but they are not always right. Just something to thjink about.
My feelings on the issue hinge more from how the federal and state governments own marriage in the first place, rather than on moral or religious feelings. So the ruling does nothing for me except on one level: Once again the Courts are legislating from the bench, as the dissenting opinion makes note that the matter should be resolved by the legislature.
In a dissent, Justice Marvin R. Baxter said the majority should have deferred to the Legislature on whether to allow same-sex marriage, particularly given the increased legal protections for same-sex couples enacted in recent years.
“But a bare majority of this court,” Justice Baxter wrote, “not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves.”
Also dissenting, Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote that her personal sympathies were with the plaintiffs challenging the bans on same-sex marriage. But Justice Corrigan said the courts should allow the political process to address the question.
“We should allow the significant achievements embodied in the domestic partnership statutes to continue to take root,” she wrote. “If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find its expression at the ballot box.”
And rather than let the tide turn and peoples opinion change, they are instead forcing it to a death match vote in November.
He added that the decision did “not affect the constitutional validity of the existing prohibitions against polygamy and the marriage of close relatives.”
Wait for it…..
Trackposted to Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Kodera’s Korner, The Pink Flamingo, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Cao’s Blog, Democrat=Socialist, , Conservative Cat, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
4 Responses to “No Brainer alert: California declares marriage a constitutional right for Gays”
Leave a Reply
You can track future comments on this post via this RSS feed. You can trackback this post by pinging this URL.
Allowed HTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Since I have given up on legislating morality in an obviously amoral society, my only question is: will certain religious groups now be slandered, libelled and/or made pariahs in our country if and when they refuse to recognize such unions as marriages? I suppose they would have to recognize them as legal, but they would not be recognized as legitimate as the particular group defines it. Will there be suits brought against churches which refuse members of these civil unions, to exclude them from their community or from being able to work for the churches? This again, as has happened in other cases, muddies the boundaries between what is legal in the secular world and the religious beliefs of a religious groups, which causes me concern. The civil authorities have shown a tendency to trample religious beliefs in the name of what they consider civilly correct. I see nothing but more problems and divisions in our country as a result of this, and as long as the civil governments maintain “neutrality” concerning religion, religious groups will lose out.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with gay people being granted all the same rights as straight people. I’m tired of the lack of separation between church and state. Tired of the religious dogma that seems to be constantly shoved down the throats of those who are non-believers. Go California!
P.C. movements give me a headache. Ideally, there should be no fuss on either side. If two people love each other, then let ‘em get married. And people just have to accept that not everyone is going to believe in the same thing as them. Otherwise we just turn into a controlling tyranical state.
But of course, politics, religion, and just good ol’ stubbornness charge in to hit away at common sense.
And then I hit the motrin.
Fr Ron… Too late… Religious groups are already losing that battle. Suits have been filed, and won when gay couples wanted to be married on church grounds and the church refused. Churches with counseling centers have also lost suits when refusing pre-marital counseling to same sex couples. Lastly, several Catholic adoption agencies have closed their doors, after being ordered to place children with same sex couples.
Some kind of legal partnership, for any couple, straight or gay should be available. It shouldn’t have anything to do with a romantic relationship, because honestly that isn’t anyone’s business but their own. If you want to be one household, then that is where you should fall… My husband and I, My sister and her (male) partner of a decade, my cousin and her (female) partner of 5 years… Two sisters, who are living together, trying to help raise eachothers’ kids cuz their men ran off… A household, with all the tax breaks and recognition of benefits (health, life, social security). It takes the emotional/moral charge out of it AND helps people.
I have some dear friends, two women, who are both straight, but have been life long friends. One of them, has a 10 year old granddaughter, who needed a stable home when her parents were, less than stable. These two 60’something women, live together, work together, and are raising an incredible girl together. They deserve to have their household recognized, as non traditional, but still a home and a life for all three of them. Marriage, is between a man and a woman. A strong relationship (sexual, non-sexual, or just platonic but functional) is a partnership, that should be recognized and treated as marriages are. Figure out some standards, like same address, same bank accounts, guardians of the same children, joint property owners, something that proves they are more than just room mates for a week or two.
Legal partnership, in the eyes of the law, should be LEGAL not emotional and not religious, simply LEGAL… It eliminates all these problems, well most of them at least…