Susan's Place Logo

News:

Please be sure to review The Site terms of service, and rules to live by

Main Menu

California Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

Started by Julie Marie, May 26, 2009, 01:59:47 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lisagurl

QuoteThe last thing that HUMAN rights need is religion.

The problem is that many will take the rights without the responsibilities. Nothing is free. Marriage also has many responsibilities. It is a contract not a religion. The religions do not want to change the contract and its value to them. There by denying others who do not believe the same responsibilities attached to the rights.
  •  

Lori

Score 1 for the god fearing bigots. Funny how they bring in lawyers and not God when it comes time for a divorce. And where is their god when they are out cheating on each other.

Don't 50% or more of marriages end up in divorce? With a 50/50 chance of it not surviving I guess "god" isn't blessing the straight marriages either.

"In my world, everybody is a pony and they all eat rainbows and poop butterflies!"


If the shoe fits, buy it in every color.
  •  

lisagurl

QuoteScore 1 for the god fearing bigots.

They did not score anything. The marriages are still valid. California is no longer a leader in social reform. Many other states are ahead of them and are more physically responsible.
  •  

Lori

Quote from: lisagurl on May 26, 2009, 08:40:33 PM
They did not score anything. The marriages are still valid. California is no longer a leader in social reform. Many other states are ahead of them and are more physically responsible.

Sounds like they got to keep the term "marriage" and the others have to use the words "Domestic partnership".

I'd call it a win, even if it is a bitter stupid one.
"In my world, everybody is a pony and they all eat rainbows and poop butterflies!"


If the shoe fits, buy it in every color.
  •  

tekla

Pretty much they are going to sign the same papers, its just that one will say 'marriage' on the top, the other will say 'domestic partnership' on the top - the SC said specifically that they are to be treated under the law in exactly the same way.  Which is a failure for the Xian Right.  They also said that the actions of the State were legal, so they can not pass some ex post facto law that would have reneged on prior good faith agreements -  i.e. the previous marriages, including the ones done in SF, stand.  Another defeat for the Right.

And we're going to do this again next year.  Bet on it. 
FIGHT APATHY!, or don't...
  •  

Janet_Girl

Quote from: lisagurl on May 26, 2009, 08:37:07 PM
The problem is that many will take the rights without the responsibilities. Nothing is free. Marriage also has many responsibilities. It is a contract not a religion. The religions do not want to change the contract and its value to them. There by denying others who do not believe the same responsibilities attached to the rights.

But if two people who love each other, regardless of their birth sex, have to jump thru BS to have the same rights?  When I married my ex, a bio woman , in Reno, Nev., we just sign a piece of paper that said we were Husband and Wife.  Why can't a same sex couple do the same thing.  Yes Marriage is a contract, but because it is sanction by the church, it is legal.

BULL.  If it is legal for a man and woman to enter said contract just by saying "I do". Why can't Joe1 and Joe2 do the same thing..  The reason is because the Immoral Majority has their head up their.....  It is because it is their way or the Highway.  And try to get a same-sex 'marriage' to be observed in another state that is anti-same sex.  It is just a load of religious crap.  If same-sex couple have to jump thru hoops, so do everyones else.

Janet
  •  

Michelle.

Janet Lynn I have to BS on you, "Nazi Germany.  Supported by the the Catholic Church."

Extraordinary claims call for extraodinary proof.

Now heres what I think is going to happen in the long run.

Civil Unions for all "couples." State.

The "State" stays out of the "Marriage" Biz. Church.

This will probably take some 5 years, give or take 2 years.

  •  

tekla



Many ordinary Catholics objected to attacks on their church, but there was simply no opposition to Nazism tout ensemble. ... In fact, there were key points at which Nazi and Catholic attitudes intersected and created a basis for mutual support. Both groups hated the Weimar Republic. The Nazis opposed Weimar because it was allegedly too Jewish and led by the "November Criminals" who sold out the country after the First World War; Catholics objected to it because it smacked of liberalism, sexual degeneracy, and an irreligious spirit.

Cardinal Faulhaber, for example, gave a speech in May 1933 in which he expressed thanks for the Volksgemeinschaft, or spirit of community, which Hitler had fostered, and rejected "liberal individualism." Moreover, Catholics shared with Nazis an instinctive fear of the Bolsheviks.

Finally, there was a form of anti-Jewish sentiment that was openly accepted among Catholics, based in part on the theological argument that the Jews sinned by rejecting Christ and in part on the historical fact that many Jews had played leading roles in the Kulturkampf. As early as 1925, a Franciscan priest named Erhard Schuland wrote a book called "Katholizismus und Vaterland" (Catholicism and Fatherland) that called on Germans to fight "the destructive influence of the Jews in religion, morality, literature and art, and political and social life." Schuland expressed what was very much the consensus in German Catholicism of the day...


Support for the Nazis, their social policies, and their anti-Semitism was not limited to ordinary Catholics and a few random priests:

    Archbishop Konrad Gröber of Freiburg was known as the "Brown Bishop" because he was such an enthusiastic supporter of the Nazis. In 1933, he became a "sponsoring member" of the SS. After the war, however, he claimed to have been such an opponent of the Nazis that they had planned to crucify him on the door for the Freiburg Cathedral.

    Bishop Wilhlem Berning of Osnabrück sat with the Deutsche Christen Reichsbishop in the Prussian State Council from 1933 to 1945, a clear signal of support for the Nazi regime.

    Cardinal Bertram also had some affinity for the Nazis. In 1933, for example, he refused to intervene on behalf of Jewish merchants who were the targets of Nazi boycotts, saying that they were a group "which has no very close bond with the church."

    Bishop Buchberger of Regensburg called Nazi racism directed at Jews "justified self-defense" in the face of "overly powerful Jewish capital."

    Bishop Hilfrich of Limburg said that they true Christian religion "made its way not from the Jews but in spite of them."

Because the Catholic leadership did not consistently oppose the Nazi policies, it was relatively easy for the Nazis to co-opt the Catholic churches in their effort to round up and exterminate the Jews. A large number of Jews converted to Christianity in order to avoid persecution and the only way the Nazis found them out was because of the help of Catholic authorities:

    After April 7, 1933, civil servants in Germany were required to prove that they were not Jews. Because births had been registered by the state only since 1874, the church was called upon to provide many records. The Catholic church cooperated right up to the end of the war. Likewise, after the 1935 Nüremberg laws that forbade marriage between Aryans and non-Aryans, most Catholic priests did not perform such ceremonies, even though the number of Jewish conversions to Catholicism was accelerating because of the persecution.

Yes, right up until the end of the war, Catholic clergy were actively assisting the Nazi program of racial purification. They provided detailed records of who converted and who didn't, who married and Jew and who didn't. When two people wanted to marry, Catholic priests enforced Nazi race laws against Aryans being allowed to marry non-Aryans. The Nazis' agenda of racial discrimination and purification would not have worked without the active, willing, and eager cooperation of Christian churches.

After the war, the Allies tried to rely on Catholic clergy to help them in their program of de-Nazification of the government. That was a mistake — Catholic assistance to the Nazis hadn't ended when the Nazis surrendered. Catholic bishops realized that eliminating all Nazis would leave Communists and Social Democrats in charge and they concluded that that would be worse than having the Nazis in power — so they basically lied to the Allies. Unrepentant Nazis were returned to positions of authority over the German people because Catholic clergy gave them a clean bill of political and ideological health.

Eventually the Allies grew wise to the Catholic duplicity and stopped relying on the word of priests about whether someone had been a Nazi. That is the legacy of the Catholic Church from Nazi Germany: not resistance, but cooperation; not the defense of principle but the defense of social power.

From:
Pope Benedict XVI: A Biography of Joseph Ratzinger, John L. Allen Jr., Reviewed by: Austin Cline at his web site.
FIGHT APATHY!, or don't...
  •  

Hazumu

[Karen raises had to Tekla]

I read it, I get it, the SC ruling says that both forms of long-term partnership in California are completely legally identical (as far as rights and benefits attainable in the State of California.)  Identical.  Both 'Marriage'-between-one-man-and-one-woman, and 'Civil Union'-between-two-men-or-two-women.  Identical. Legally. Identical. But only as pertains to California-granted rights and benefits.

Only the word is different.  'Civil Union'=same sex partners, 'Marriage'=traditional partners.

But even having the word 'Marriage' does not get the federal rights and bennies.  Because of the Defense of Marriage Act.

My landlady (she's Japanese,) said she'd been told that civil unions are identical to marriage, except for the word.  I explained how it was only identical - on paper - in California, about how couples became un-married if the traveled to another state, and how - even if the civil union was legally identical (on paper) to 'Marriage', - it would be treated as different, lesser or non-existent both in other states and right here in California.

I predict there will be some major court battles from same-sex couples - both Married and CivilUnioned - whose rights were not recognized.  There's already the case in Florida of the spouse who was denied access, along with their children, to her wife who was dying in the Miami hospital's ICU.

Even if we won marriage, there's still years of such battles.

But, Tekla, I understand.

Now let's qualify a ballot measure to convert all marriages to civil unions...

Karen
  •  

Michelle.

Thank you Tekla.

I still wouldn't lump the Catholic Church with the Nazis to the extent that they both are equally responsible for the 80 million or so deaths caused by WW2, however that reference does lend credence to a certain amount of collusion between the two.

Karen... "There's already the case in Florida of the spouse who was denied access, along with their children, to her wife who was dying in the Miami hospital's ICU." This wont be received well here when it makes it to the courts.

and "Now let's qualify a ballot measure to convert all marriages to civil unions..."

Though not in the same words the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and the other so called "wing nuts" are more or less moving towards this position.

It's hard to have "equal protection under the law," "separation of Church and State," and a "constructionist" view of the Constitution w/o taking a version of your position.

If y'all haven't been to www.fivethirtyeight.com I highly recommend Nate Silvers blog on polling and the stats underlying politics. The last detailed post he had on gay marriage shows a national trend to approve at +2% a year. That adds up quick, hence my idea that this issue will have resolved itself in 3-7 years.


  •  

Kimberly

Quote from: Karen on May 26, 2009, 09:45:08 PM
Now let's qualify a ballot measure to convert all marriages to civil unions...
A get "marriage" to be the domain of religion and civil union or domestic partnership to be the domain of state. Like, er it seems to me like it should be. Heh.

As far as couples go, well, what about those of us whom have more than one? At least the 'couple' unions (by whatever name) have some hope. *shrug*
  •  

Shana A

just convert all opposite sex marriages to civil unions... since they have the same rights, nobody will mind  >:-)

Z
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken." Oscar Wilde


  •  

Michelle.

The "convert" idea could be problematic however. That would be in effect an "ex post facto" issue. I get the idea though, so lets just set aside the semantics of the situation.

A small personal rant. Da#n you guys... I'm contemplating law school. :P
  •  

Witch of Hope

Quote from: Lori on May 26, 2009, 08:37:27 PM
I guess "god" isn't blessing the straight marriages either.

For a lot of women it is a blessing to see their husbands NO MORE!  >:-)
  •  

tekla

For a lot of women it is a blessing to see their husbands NO MORE!

Yeah, and my guy friends say "You know why divorces are so expensive?  Because they are worth it!"
FIGHT APATHY!, or don't...
  •  

Witch of Hope

Tekla, in Nazi germany wasn't only the catholic church who act wrong. Even the protestant church (except the "Bekennende Kirche" (confessional church) by Dietrich Bonhoeffer and others), also JW and LDS. They are all to blame for that what they have had done in that time!!!

And, bye the way,in Germany a domenstic partnership isn't the same as a marriage (tax law; pension law; other laws). The right by a married couple isn#t the same right as a DP has.And this is so in most European Countries.

Post Merge: May 26, 2009, 10:45:16 PM

Quote from: tekla on May 26, 2009, 11:34:55 PM
For a lot of women it is a blessing to see their husbands NO MORE!

Yeah, and my guy friends say "You know why divorces are so expensive?  Because they are worth it!"

For your female friends an advice (joke): She can make it cheaper: Just one Bullet!  ;D ;) >:-)
That's the little she-devil in me.
  •  

tekla

Either way she gets the house, is that it?

And you didn't ask about the other churches, I can only answer what was asked, plenty of blame to go around there.
FIGHT APATHY!, or don't...
  •  

Julie Marie

Quote from: tekla on May 26, 2009, 08:31:23 PM
They did not really ban anything except the use of the word "marriage" in a legal sense.  People can still go down to the courthouse and do the Domestic Partnership deal that is 100% the same in terms of obligations, rights, benefits as a marriage contract. 

Not at all true! There are over 1100 benefits opposite sex couples get that same sex couples do not.  The federal government does not recognize same sex marriages.  You can get married in one state and move to another and your marriage is invalid.  If a same sex spouse dies the surviving spouse will have to pay taxes opposite sex couples do not.  If a woman in a lesbian relationship bears a child her spouse often is not considered the other parent and might have no recourse to custody in the event of a divorce.  And the list goes on and on.

Civil unions, domestic partnerships are just something created to throw same sex couples a bone.  They mean almost nothing.  If you want to test it, just ask all the married couples to accept only the same benefits offered by a civil union and watch the screaming begin.  There's no way opposite sex couples would accept what same sex couples are being offered.

Make all marriages civil unions with EXACTLY the same benefits at the state and federal level (IRS included) as what marriage offers.  Leave the word marriage to the religious world and let them decide if they will honor the union of same sex couples.  For the rest, they can go to the courthouse or an accepting church and enjoy all the same benefits as the rest of the married world.  Then we would achieve real equality.

Don't believe the BS that civil unions or domestic partnerships are the same as marriage because they are absolutely not!

Julie
When you judge others, you do not define them, you define yourself.
  •  

tekla

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.  That's the very fine line they drew, and why I say the right wing really lost this.

So yes, for us - and only for us, and NOT at a Federal Level, and a California Supreme Court decision would never change Federal Law - it is now, de facto, the same thing.
FIGHT APATHY!, or don't...
  •  

Kaelin

Is the ban immoral and against human rights?  Yes.

That said, it's hard for a court to rule that a constitutional amendment (Prop 8 ) is unconstitutional.  Unless one could successfully argue that the Prop 8 vote failed to follow appropriate procedures, there is no case.

As tekla says, this issue is important enough to keep returning to the ballot, and it's going to flip the other way eventually (as public sentiment grows more tolerant on this issue).  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.
  •