California Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

[NicholeW.]

There are a number of cases in NJ where the premise is that "in the eyes of companies and people being civilly unionized does not, regardless of legislative action, (in that case) make the unions equal to marriage."

Separate but equal was struck down by the Supremes in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954,) but it took another 10 years for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to pass and at least another 20 for that law to become "accepted" by a huge majority of people.

"Marriage" has something around 1900 years of cultural and societal head-start on civil unions. It will be seen for many generations more as being "better" and "realer" than civil unions, regardless of who has what.

USA has never, since the initial generation at least and I'd still go with "never," been a strong secular republic. Church and State have been inextricably mixed since the ink to write "total separation of the church from the state" dried after Madison wrote it.

The law may change in 5-7 years, I have my doubts about that as well. People do seem to be trending toward acceptance of gay unions as being valid and legal. But, I suspect the social barriers will remain in lotsa places regardless of law.

N~ 

[lisagurl]

Yes Marriage is a contract, but because it is sanction by the church, it is legal.

The church does not make it legal. The constitution as stipulated by the democracy, it is what makes it legal.
CA has big problems when it allows the demos-mob rule. Most states allow the demos to elect leaders and they make the decisions that is a big difference.
I do not care what they call the contract. Perhaps all contracts that are legal should not use the word marriage and let that be an exclusive religious term with no legal meaning.

People do seem to be trending toward acceptance of gay unions as being valid and legal. But, I suspect the social barriers will remain in lotsa places regardless of law.

That is correct. Even in MS most concede to let same sex couples have the same rights. However Joe Redneck would not want to invite them into their homes. The law can not change peoples culture only marketing seems to .

[tekla]

As tekla mentions, the pro- campaign is likely to find more success when it focuses on humanizing same-sex couples rather than arguing about LDS or other outsiders exerting influence.

I never said that, I said it will be successful when the pro side gets serious and runs a real campaign and does not underestimate it's opposition.  And getting out of their white middle/upper middle class mindset would be a positive first step.

And, at that, I think its going to take two, or three victories to win in the end.

[NicholeW.]

I said it will be successful when the pro side gets serious and runs a real campaign and does not underestimate it's opposition.  And getting out of their white middle/upper middle class mindset would be a positive first step.

Just getting out of SF and Marin wouldn't be a bad idea. 4% even when you're focussing on people who already support you is pretty fair. When you start finding ways and using them to get close to people who are not your "type" you may find that you do way better.

NO on 8's hugest problem was that they relied on "self-evident" truths and coddling their own fears of "those people." Have to admit that Catholics and Mormons didn't do all that and managed to pull what seemed certain defeat in June to victory in November. My self-evident truth is often not quite so evident to people not me.

What was the swing according to polling between those dates?

I think tekla pretty much has the right of it. No on 8 was too busy planning victory parties to do the hard work on continuing the campaign.

[tekla]

Putting out a huge effort in San Francisco, San Mateo, Marin and Sonoma counties was not needed, they needed to work LA, Fresno and Modesto.  It's like the Obama campaign focusing on Chicago, of course he was going to win Chicago, he was from there (offer not good if you're Al Gore) and Chicago has been voting Democratic like forever.  At least a few people seem to understand this:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/27/MNSK17RGTS.DTL

The opposition has the two Bs, buck and bodies.  And thinking they could not get out the vote was silly.

It's sad though to the extent that its become the entire focus of the gay human rights campaign, and when its over people will lose interest in the rest of the agenda, when the other stuff actually affects more people.

[Genevieve Swann]

Julie Marie, I see nothing wrong with marrying my dog. He listens and does not talk back. He finds me funny when I come home drunk. When I have him wear a studded collar he doesn't call me a pervert.

[NicholeW.]

It's sad though to the extent that its become the entire focus of the gay human rights campaign, and when its over people will lose interest in the rest of the agenda, when the other stuff actually affects more people.

Agreed. Marriage doesn't add much to anyone's life. Partnership or union is possible and in some ways perhaps even stronger when it's not tied to a state sanction. (Just my experience.)

I mean it's all well and good to be married, but when there's nothing to eat because you cannot get employed, nothing to do because you're in a hospital consistently for the ways others physically attack you, feel totally alienated because people have great fear for the way you look, act, with whom you keep company. Well, those things seem to be more acute problems.

The focus for the entire "marriage' thing is basically on those who already have status, mostly professional gay males and some lesbian couples. It's another point in their status system of points.

In the lives of most LTBGers marriage is either already an accomplished fact or not a huge priority. It's like having access to the display window at Macy's while the store's interior remains off-limits. 

I mean this story was also published here yesterday. https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,60413.0/topicseen.html

[Genevieve Swann]

There actually is a gentleman in Hawaii who married his horse.

[Julie Marie]

We are talking about a California Supreme Court decision here, one that would have no bering on Federal law at all.  Only California, only for California and Californians.

Read what the SC said, Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships are equal in every way, in the State of California, and only for the State of California, and only for Californians, to marriage. 

While domestic partners receive most of the benefits of marriage, several differences remain. These differences include, in part:

    * Couples seeking domestic partnership must already share a residence, married couples may be married without living together.
    * Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older, minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.
    * California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage, there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.
    * Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan, domestic partners are not.
    * There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships.

Why can't opposite sex couples become domestic partners unless one is 62 or older?  That was made part of the California Domestic Partnership law because it is NOT the same as marriage.  It is "mostly" the same.  If it was 100% identical why not just call all legal unions civil unions or marriages or domestic partnerships?  They have different names for each because they are not identical.

The California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8 because they said it did not create a substantial change in the state constitution.  That's debatable if you consider the issue of equal rights.  In math equal means exactly, as in no difference.  Domestic partnerships in California are not equal to marriage.

What I said about domestic partnerships and civil unions, in general, was said because too often people think domestic partnerships really are the same and, if it doesn't affect them directly, take a "what's all the crying about?" attitude.  I've heard it many times by those who are not affected by this.  It's important the public knows there is a difference.  Trans rights follow gay rights.  We have to stay involved if we ever expect to gain our rights.

Julie

[Dawn D.]

Julie, I think Tekla may have a good point in her opinion. That being that if there is this decision from the SC that same sex couples who are bonded together through Domestic partnerships in their eyes do in fact have equal protection in legal status then any attempt to deny them access to the same rights and privileges as those enjoined through a Marriage" certificate would amount to discrimination and opens the door to huge law suits!

That being said, as I stated in another thread, why doesn't our CA legislature enact a law that prohibits the use of the term "Marriage" from the certificates since the SC's decision says that same sex partners can and do have this "equal" bond but just can't use the word "Marriage" in it. This way we kill two birds with one stone, so to speak, by giving the phobes their ownership to the term "Marriage" and not violating the intent of prop 8, then still allowing for full and equal protection of the very issues you cited. A side benefit is we remove the religious aspect to the issue that the state should not be a part of in any case. Another benefit: we don't have to return to the ballot box or waste a whole lot of time and money, only to have something far worse than this decision handed back to us.


Dawn   

[tekla]

  * Couples seeking domestic partnership must already share a residence, married couples may be married without living together.

Hey, now that's a unique method for a happy marriage, don't live together. Hell, why didn't I think of that?  I'd still be married.

    * Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older, minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.

Any parent who lets someone below the age of 18 get married ought to be taken to court on child abuse charges.   Since DP is a contract, it makes sense, as no minors are allowed to sign contracts for anything.

    * California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage, there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.

What the hell is this?  I thought that by definition marriage was a public act on the public record.  What's the thinking here.

    * Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan, domestic partners are not.

That may change now.  Besides, at the rate we're going, there aren't going to be any state employees real soon.

   

[Witch of Hope]

There actually is a gentleman in Hawaii who married his horse.

if it is possible, can I ride their kids?
Post Merge: May 30, 2009, 03:36:23 AM
Tekla, is it true, that DP must not be be accepted by and in churches, a marriage licence must be accepted? maybe this is one of the reasons, why churches dont want to have gay marriage?

[Just Kate]

We need to get this same sex marriage thing passed so we can move on to marriages to multiple partners.  I really don't like being told I can only marry one person.

Actually if you ask my wife, she says my best friend and I (of 20+ years) act like an old married couple.

[tekla]

Being LDS, and from Utah, I thought that you already did the multiple partners deal.

[Just Kate]

Being LDS, and from Utah, I thought that you already did the multiple partners deal.

I haven't PERSONALLY gotten a chance to do it.   Naw, I wouldn't want that anyhow.  My first post was was in jest because I AM LDS, however, I'm not from Utah - that's a scary place.

[Julie Marie]

We need to get this same sex marriage thing passed so we can move on to marriages to multiple partners. 

Some minister said that gay marriage would lead to multiple partner marriages and then onto marrying animals.  So be careful if you marry more than one person because you may want to marry your dog next.

Julie

[Witch of Hope]

Some minister said that gay marriage would lead to multiple partner marriages and then onto marrying animals.  So be careful if you marry more than one person because you may want to marry your dog next.

Julie

I guess this "minister" can't remember that for example, the LDS had polygamy in their history, and that it was okay if one not LDS white man "married" a lot of Native-American women or Afro-American "Slaves". And what was with "Lavender-Marriages" or "Boston Marriages"? Isn't that hypocritical if this was okay, but not to be gay and married?

[Just Kate]

Some minister said that gay marriage would lead to multiple partner marriages and then onto marrying animals.  So be careful if you marry more than one person because you may want to marry your dog next.

Julie

I actually know of people who would want this.  And why should we be denying them?  Aren't the animals their property?  I know, it is absurd, but I am aware that there are a group of people seeking this type of change.

[Julie Marie]

I actually know of people who would want this.  And why should we be denying them?  Aren't the animals their property?  I know, it is absurd, but I am aware that there are a group of people seeking this type of change.

Marriage should be between two consenting adults.  Animals and children don't fall into that category.  As for the people you know who want to marry an animal...   well, I'll just leave that alone for now.   

[joannatsf]

Now to say something that will be really unpopular; I'm sick of hearing about gay marriage and Prop. 8.  Once again the LGBT community managed to snatch defeat out of the hands of victory for the reasons previously stated so well by Nichole and Tekla.  For all the posters and ads we saw in the SF Bay Area you'd think there it had a chance of passing.  All those TV ads in one of the most expensive media markets in the country went to waste.  A few more votes out of Kern and Fresno counties and they probably could have pulled it off.  But then we wouldn't be able to sip Cosmos at Harvey's and cruise.

I suspect I'm not the only one that is tired of it.  I've seen news about a drive to put it back on the ballot ASAP.  But if it couldn't be done riding Obama's coat tails, it's going to have real problems in gubernatorial primary.

Because of my own laziness I'm in a position where I can marry anyone I want regardless of gender.  But what's the point of being queer if you're just going to mime straight people?