California Lifts Gay Marriage Ban....for Now

[phogendpf]

First off I just want to say that I am not gay and this is the first time ive posted in the rainbow diapers forum. The California state supreme court ruled 4-3 to overturn the ban on Gay marriage in california. It seems like people who are opposed are going to get it put on the Nov Ballot so it may be overturned. Anyway, just wanted to let anyone know who didnt and start a discussion.

[PampersPete]

It's about fucking time. Too bad it'll get"overturned" in November. For how long is anyone's guess.

[SoCalAB]

WE the public in California did vote on this. Voters showed up to the polls and voted on Proposition 22 in 2000?

61 percent of the voters voted believing that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The Supreme Court in San Francisco usurped the power of the people and democracy is now dead in California thanks to agenda driven judges.

Personally, I don't really care about the issue. I am really pissed off at judges who think that they are more powerful then our democratic process and the voter. They have slapped the California voters in the face and efforts should be made to recall them.

[babyrach868]

This is the only thing I will say on the matter. Matters of love belong to the two individuals not to the government. I thought the US was founded on the belief of, "By the People, For the People, Of the People."

[PampersPete]

WE the public in California did vote on this. Voters showed up to the polls and voted on Proposition 22 in 2000?

61 percent of the voters voted believing that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The Supreme Court in San Francisco usurped the power of the people and democracy is now dead in California thanks to agenda driven judges.

Personally, I don't really care about the issue. I am really pissed off at judges who think that they are more powerful then our democratic process and the voter. They have slapped the California voters in the face and efforts should be made to recall them.

The problem with your logic is that it is flawed. I'll explain:

Peter wants a law passed saying it's illegal to wear diapers if you're not incontinent.

Peter get's the 20,000 or so signatures to put the issue on the ballot.(California proposition process)

Peter's issue is put on the ballot and is passed as law by the people.

SoCalAB decides that Peter has violated federal law(civil rights)and takes the issue to the California Supreme courts for review.

The judges reviewing the case determine that federal law has been broken and reverses the decision.

Note:State law cannot supercede federal law. The gay marriage in California issue is not a good example because federal law has not made a decision regarding homosexual marriage. Unfortunetely,the federal government has taken the stance"It's your problem,not ours". In other words,homosexual marriage in California is pretty much fucked for right now.

[SoCalAB]

Sorry Mr. Spock but I think your logic is flawed.

The United States of America is a republic with a democratic process. This means "We the people" freely make political decisions by majority rule. We do have a system of checks and ballance to prevent 51% from oppressing the minority 49%.

Why did they write proposition 22 and put in on the ballot in the first place? To define marriage either as a union between a man and a woman or not. 61% VOTED that it be considered a union between a man and a woman. I understand there is a fine line between Majority rule and Minority rights here but California has a domestic partners registry and civil unions are performed all over the state. Considering the domestic partners registry I really don't see any oppression in this matter and the vote should stand as it is. The people of California decided that the state should honor marriage as the time honored tradition as it is, between a man and a woman.

I think the 4 judges who ruled otherwise usurped the vote of the people.

Also we have a catch 22 in this matter. The federal stand on this is to let the states decide.

live long and stay Pampered

SoCalAB

[PampersPete]

Sorry Mr. Spock but I think your logic is flawed.

The United States of America is a republic with a democratic process. This means "We the people" freely make political decisions by majority rule. We do have a system of checks and ballance to prevent 51% from oppressing the minority 49%.

Why did they write proposition 22 and put in on the ballot in the first place? To define marriage either as a union between a man and a woman or not. 61% VOTED that it be considered a union between a man and a woman. I understand there is a fine line between Majority rule and Minority rights here but California has a domestic partners registry and civil unions are performed all over the state. Considering the domestic partners registry I really don't see any oppression in this matter and the vote should stand as it is. The people of California decided that the state should honor marriage as the time honored tradition as it is, between a man and a woman.

I think the 4 judges who ruled otherwise usurped the vote of the people.

Also we have a catch 22 in this matter. The federal stand on this is to let the states decide.

live long and stay Pampered

SoCalAB

You do realize that the domestic partnership not only is a fucking joke but creates second-class citizens?

[db70db70]

despite the apparent religious connection, marriage exists for reasons around having a child, and in the past various bonuses existed for being married, whether it's tax breaks, health coverage benefits or in the past being able to have sex were all to promote the production of children, historically to continue a growing society the population must continue to expand, sorry but no 2 lesbians or gays will ever create a kid naturally, yes they can adopt and go to other measures but it's not the typical man+woman=baby

yes gays should be allowed to love who they choose, but there is no economic reason to give the benefits of marriage to them.

it's like going into a store and asking for a military discount, but you were never in the military.

marriage is an economic tool not a right.

I don't have anything against gay people, but I think marriage should mean something

[PampersPete]

My GF's married. What does that say about the "sanctity" of marriage?.......

[db70db70]

My GF's married. What does that say about the "sanctity" of marriage?.......

so you are knowingly engaging in a relationship with someone else's wife?

all that says it that you have poor ethics

not trying to start a fight here, but how would you feel if you found out your spouse was cheating?

[Pipsqueak]

I don't have anything against gay people, but I think marriage should mean something

I suspect it means quite a lot indeed to the gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry.

Whatever the reasons for getting married were at some point in the past, all things change as society changes and evolves. At one point in history wives were classed as chattel like the livestock and other possessions of their husbands. Should we have left it that way just because that was once how it was? And should we ban heterosexual couples from marrying if they decide they don't want to have children? Should they only be allowed "civil unions"? Should folks in their fifties and sixties not be allowed to marry because they're past their childbearing years? How can we say that a homosexual couple who wishes to raise a family together shouldn't be allowed to marry but a heterosexual couple unable or unwilling to raise a family should?

[Codymoogle]

I'm not gay either, but what really ticks me off is where the hell people get off saying who can or cannot marry someone?? And we the public have to VOTE on something that in reality is a personal issue???????!!!!

W*T*F??? is this world coming too?? WHO cares??? if you have two people who love and care about each other then whats the big deal???

I'll tell you what its all about....MONEY! gay couples don't produce children, and going back to the middle ages when a lot of this crap started, if you didn't have children to bring to church and have them grow up in the community and produce children, it would wreck the power base that the church was built on and governments to follow. Its all about money, power and control.

And its about time people grew up and accepted something as simple as 2 people who care about each other and love each other. If people REALLY wanted to follow the tenants and teachings of the Bible and 'word of GOD' they would realize a very very simple idea...

That if we are truely GOD's children, which makes GOD our father/mother figure and parent, then what is it that each and every parent wants for their children???

For them to live and grow and be happy and love each other and make the world a better place for everyone, regardless of race creed sex or what ever.

If you have couples (people) who love each other.....who cares about gender? why is it so damn important??

Grow up and vote FOR the legalization of same sex marriage, or better yet, ignore the item completely, and write your state representative and tell him/her to pull their collective heads outta their rears and get about doing something really productive like immigration or tax reform or ACTUALLY using the California lotto money for what it was ORIGINALLY intended! and stay the hell out of peoples personal lives and their bedrooms!

qwack

I suspect it means quite a lot indeed to the gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry.

Whatever the reasons for getting married were at some point in the past, all things change as society changes and evolves. At one point in history wives were classed as chattel like the livestock and other possessions of their husbands. Should we have left it that way just because that was once how it was? And should we ban heterosexual couples from marrying if they decide they don't want to have children? Should they only be allowed "civil unions"? Should folks in their fifties and sixties not be allowed to marry because they're past their childbearing years? How can we say that a homosexual couple who wishes to raise a family together shouldn't be allowed to marry but a heterosexual couple unable or unwilling to raise a family should?

Bravo, duckie and pipsqueak. Well said.

~ Moogle

[Saschadzg]

Hi,

The government should abolish the judical sex. Afterwards, there would be only a partnership between two people. Financial benefits should go to people raising children, regardless of status.

Kvetinka, being an utopist

[jeremy12312]

The United States of America is a republic with a democratic process. This means "We the people" freely make political decisions by majority rule. We do have a system of checks and ballance to prevent 51% from oppressing the minority 49%.

The mass lack of understanding of the basic principles of our government, these days, is astonishing. The Constitution of the United States and each of the Constitutions for the various States in the Union are the supreme law of their respective land. The only body that is tasked to interpret the Constitution is the judiciary. Any number of "popular" laws can be passed, but they have to stay within the bounds of the Constitution. And according to the Supreme Court of California, this law was unconstitutional. This is EXACTLY the check and balance to which you refer.

Now, I'm sure the issue of amending the Constitution is going to come up. And since I just moved to California this week, I'm not up to snuff on the requirements for that. Maybe your 61% will be good enough, I don't know for sure. But luckily, amending the Constitution is usually very difficult, so as not to bend to the whims of a weak majority.

I'd be willing to bet that after 7 years, and with the voting demographic expected this November, you wouldn't break 42%.

Maybe, just maybe, it's time we had a Constitutional Lawyer as a President.

[PampersPete]

so you are knowingly engaging in a relationship with someone else's wife?

all that says it that you have poor ethics

not trying to start a fight here, but how would you feel if you found out your spouse was cheating?

If I found out my spouse was cheating I'd probably have a frank discussion with him or her asking why they didn't communicate with me about the problem that led them to stray.

In the case of my GF's hubby,they've been married for 17 years. They do not have any children. He works his ass off and only cares about $$$. The last time they had sex was 6 years ago. He's 56. She's 52. I'm 32. His dick don't work. Instead of going to the doctor and saying"Hey doc I've got this problem with my pecker not getting hard..." he ignores it because of his Mexican,male,macho pride and her sex life with him suffers. If he wasn't a selfish prick,she never would've found me. My ethics may be poor but as long as there are no children involved,who's cheating who? And by the way,they got married because they were best friends and it was a marriage of convienence. Again,sanctimony of marriage?

[babyrach868]

Note:State law cannot supercede federal law. The gay marriage in California issue is not a good example because federal law has not made a decision regarding homosexual marriage. Unfortunetely,the federal government has taken the stance"It's your problem,not ours". In other words,homosexual marriage in California is pretty much fucked for right now.

Incorrect the US has passed a law about gay marriage and its called "Defense of Marriage Act," which states, "Marriage is only between a man and woman."

[PampersPete]

Incorrect the US has passed a law about gay marriage and its called "Defense of Marriage Act," which states, "Marriage is only between a man and woman."

I stand corrected. One question though.....If the U.S. states that gay marriage is illegal,how in the fuck did Massachusetts pass their gay marriage law? I guess that's kind of a rhetorical question.

All I know is that I feel it's a civil rights issue.

[Baby Bethany]

despite the apparent religious connection, marriage exists for reasons around having a child, and in the past various bonuses existed for being married, whether it's tax breaks, health coverage benefits or in the past being able to have sex were all to promote the production of children, historically to continue a growing society the population must continue to expand, sorry but no 2 lesbians or gays will ever create a kid naturally, yes they can adopt and go to other measures but it's not the typical man+woman=baby

yes gays should be allowed to love who they choose, but there is no economic reason to give the benefits of marriage to them.

it's like going into a store and asking for a military discount, but you were never in the military.

marriage is an economic tool not a right.

I don't have anything against gay people, but I think marriage should mean something

Me and my wife didn't get married to have kids, we decided we didn't want any kids long before we got married. We got married because we love each other and wanted to make a commitment. My wife is also my best friend, not just a baby incubator.

We don't care about the religious connection, because we didn't get married in a church anyway. We give nothing to the church and ask for nothing in return.

We also don't care about making money out of it, tax breaks etc. Everything we own, we paid for by working, not by producing kids for the sole purpose of scrounging money from tax payers........as many couples do.

So like the gays and lesbians you mention (I thought lesbians were gay?) we won't be joining in the production of the Brady Bunch anytime soon, but hey, I wouldn't worry about the population continuing to expand, because the world's population is already expanding far too quickly.

"Marriage is an economic tool not a right"? That sounds like something written by Stalin.

Beth

[WallaWalla]

We should just abolish legal recognition of marriage entirely. It would solve the whole problem; marriage should be a religious/personal ceremony, not a civil one. People who wish to share resources can simply sign a contract involving power of attorney.

Nothing prevents anybody from going to a church and having a ceremony, and it shouldn't be up to the government to decide who's paired with who.

[DiaperBoyKR]

The problem here is that we talk about marriage in two lights, the civil light and the religious light. We use the same word for both terms, so there is clearly alot of resistance to this concept.

In the civil light, marriage is legal recognition that two people have decided to live together and be partners in the struggle of life. It recognizes that they have pooled their resources, in some cases at expense to one of the parties or another. Since they are essentially a single unit as far as the government is concerned (as opposed to two individuals) they receive breaks, because IMHO, it lessens the paperwork the government has to do. Yes, there are the benefits that come with child rearing, but those are usually IN ADDITION to the ones for being married. Also, please note that the discussion was held about gay couples adopting children. In many locales you CANT do that unless you are part of a married couple. Which essentially means that gay couples cannot adopt. Period.

In the religious light, marriage is often viewed to be a sacred bonding between a man and a woman, this is true. But there are many people, especially in the modern United States who do not prescribe to these religions. Or if they do, they feel that the bond is one of love rather than sex for procreation. Sex IMO is a byproduct of the bond of love in a true relationship rather than the driving need for a relationship in the first place. However, that said, many religions do find the concept of two men or two women living together abhorrent.

This is the mixed world we live in. As a result there will be conflict. That said, I dont believe the government has any right to allow any religious group to color the way the state views marriage. More and more people in this country are coming out and want to live the lifestyle they were born to. The current laws on the books are a joke. Speaking from experience, the domestic partnership laws are ridiculous. Its very difficult to have a domestic partner added to your medical insurance, or declared to be the decision maker in a legal document etc. Alot of the rights that are taken for granted by married couples are unheard of for domestic partners. In addition, yes, a person can be written into a will to receive part of an estate as a domestic partner, or even just a friend, but if "family" chooses to challenge that portion of the will, given the lack of marriage or some such further tie, the courts could override that portion of the will.

Everyone must have the same rights under the law for the rule of law to continue to exist. Marriage IS a right. It is not an economic tool, it is not a recognition of love, it is not a recognition of a special bonding etc in the eyes of the government. It is merely the tool by which two individuals become a single tax-paying unit. Period.

As far as the SC override goes on this Proposition, this is exactly what Judicial Review was designed for! Especially in states that allow their populaces to make their own laws. There are laws passed by our legislature that are not constitutional, so it stands to reason that there will be laws that are passed by proposition that will be unconstitutional. The Constitution, whether State or Federal is the supreme law of the land, and it cannot be overridden by mere popular opinion. If we were to allow the constitution to be overridden in such form, we would descend into what our Founders called the Rule of Faction (Please direct your attention to Federalist Paper No. 10 for further information). Although the SC's have come much further than their original intention, I do believe that the function they serve to some degree is necessary. I think we need to institute a check on their actions which currently doesnt exist, but it is not through recall elections. Justices need to be able to vote without knowing that an unpopular opinion will cost them their jobs. They need to rule on the law and apply the existing law without fear that their interpretation will cost them their livelihood. If they fear for their livelihood, then they are no longer a neutral party to a dispute, and they cease to be a judge.

In closing, why should any citizen have less avenues open to him or her than any other citizen? It makes no sense to me, period. If someone wants a formal recognition of his or her bond to another person regardless of the gender mix, why cant it happen? The government cant force a minister to marry a gay couple in their church, that would be wrong, and would violate the freedom of religion. However, it can enable those ministers who would be willing to do so to marry gay couples, and allow the Justices of the Peace to join two men or two women in marriage.

[justindiapers]

Incorrect the US has passed a law about gay marriage and its called "Defense of Marriage Act," which states, "Marriage is only between a man and woman."

You might want to actually read the DOMA. The DOMA only does the following two things:

First, it says that states are not required to recognize other state's gay marriage laws. So if a gay couple gets married in Massachusetts, then moves to Texas, Texas has no obligation to recognize the marriage of that couple.

Second, it does define marriage as between a man and a woman, but this only applies to the federal government. DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay marriage, but it does not prohibit the states from recognizing gay marriage. For instance, a gay couple who are married in Massachusetts cannot file jointly for federal income tax purposes because the federal government does not recognize gay marriage.

The thing is, if states didn't have the right to allow gay marriage, then the first provision of the DOMA would be pointless. Therefore, Congress seems to be recognizing that states do have the right to allow gay marriage. In effect, the federal government did tell the states "it's your problem, not ours" when they passed the DOMA.

...and I agree with Walla Walla, I don't think the government should be involved in marriage. We should have a standardized "civil partnership" form that allows for power of attorney type stuff, but marriage itself should be left up to the religious institutions.

[petalmani]

Brady Bunch

The guy who played the dad on that show is gay.

[Saschadzg]

The problem here is that we talk about marriage in two lights, the civil light and the religious light. We use the same word for both terms, so there is clearly alot of resistance to this concept.

Hello,

This is the point. The US was founded as a secular country with strict separation between church and state. This laid forth the principles of the French Revolution. Napoleon introduced civil marriage, which was formerly recorded by the church. Prussia kept that principle and it evolved into modern day Germany

Babygirl Kvetinka

[Lost_Little_Sarah]

WE the public in California did vote on this. Voters showed up to the polls and voted on Proposition 22 in 2000?

61 percent of the voters voted believing that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The Supreme Court in San Francisco usurped the power of the people and democracy is now dead in California thanks to agenda driven judges.

Personally, I don't really care about the issue. I am really pissed off at judges who think that they are more powerful then our democratic process and the voter. They have slapped the California voters in the face and efforts should be made to recall them.

well good the voters needed slapped in the face on that issue in fact if it gets over turned innovember they need not a slap but a mini sledge hammer to the face

[Guest]

Seeing as how straight marriages are NOT impacted AT ALL....

I think only gays and bisexuals should be allowed to vote.