pageok
pageok
pageok
Gay-marriage ban headed for California vote:

Today the California Supreme Court unanimously refused to hear the attempt by Equality California to challenge the appearance of the proposed state constitutional amendment on the November ballot.

Randy R. (mail):
Too bad. It could have saved both sides millions of dollars.

Funny how people don't want to raise millions for health care for the poor or elderly, or poverty programs, things religion is supposed to stand for. There are dozens of things that that money could be put to better use. But when it comes to stopping gays from marrying, then the pocket books fly open. Very sad.
7.16.2008 6:11pm
Lawyer-Wearing-Yarmulka (www):
Funny how people don't want to raise millions for health care for the poor or elderly, or poverty programs, things religion is supposed to stand for.


Really? Americans give hundreds of billions of dollars to charity every year. I'd guess that a decent amount of that goes to care for the poor or elderly and other things that religion stands for.

Or are you just upset that SSM in California will be decided democratically?
7.16.2008 6:28pm
calmom:
Spending money so that people can express their political will at the ballot box is not to be scorned.
7.16.2008 6:34pm
John (mail):
I believe the question is not whether a given court result will save somebody millions of dollars, but whether court result is consistent with applicable law.
7.16.2008 6:41pm
unhyphenatedconservative (mail):
"Spending money so that people can express their political will at the ballot box is not to be scorned."

They are if they're not enlightened enough to agree with Randy R. on redefining the basic family unit.
7.16.2008 6:53pm
John Howard (eggandsperm.org) (mail) (www):
Dale, if there were a law that said that married couples, and only married couples, were allowed to intentionally attempt to create children, using the couple's own genes, would that be Constitutional, in your opinion?

Ultimately, that, combined with stopping same-sex marriage, would be the best way to stop genetic engineering and the idea that labs can create human beings from whatever genetic source they want. But without that, there is no point in stopping same-sex marriage, since same-sex couples are not prohibited from intentionally trying to create children together (nor are any unmarried couples).

I think it will be easier to stop genetic engineering by prohibiting creating children that are not from a man and a woman's actual unadulterated gametes, and leave the question of unmarried intentional conception unaddressed. But doing that would mean that same-sex couples didn't have a right that each of them would have if they were in hetero-sexual couples, and it would mean that marriage would for the first time in history not mean that the couple was allowed to try to have children together, using their own genes. So we should not let that happen, we should acknowledge the difference in rights after GE is banned, and protect the rights of marriage by creating CU's for couples that do not have a right to create children together.

Response appreciated.
7.16.2008 7:01pm
Patrick216:

Or are you just upset that SSM in California will be decided democratically?


Of course. The country is not yet ready to accept gay marriage. The gay lobby has seriously erred by trying to force gay marriage on an unwilling public through judicial activism. The abortion lobby was successful only because the U.S. Supreme Court was very liberal back in the '70s, and Supreme Court decisions are nearly impossible to override by constitutional amendment. But the gay lobby doesn't have a liberal Court, so they had to settle for rights manufactured by state supreme courts -- which can be more easily overridden by constitutional amendment. So now they have dozens of state level constitutional amendments, a federal DOMA, and a Supreme Court that is still disinclined to manufacrure a federal right to gay marriage. In short, they overreached, and have now set their cause back at least 20 years.
7.16.2008 7:13pm
Emily:
I don't understand how gay marriage can be forced on anybody. Nobody can make me marry another woman.

"Or are you just upset that SSM in California will be decided democratically?"

I know I am. I wouldn't want the country voting to decide my right to marry the person I want to marry. And what if the amendment fails in the election?
7.16.2008 7:27pm
Lawyer-Wearing-Yarmulka (www):
And what if the amendment fails in the election?

Then the people have spoken, and that will probably be the end of the issue in California. And I'm quite fine with that.
7.16.2008 7:41pm
Casey Pick (mail):
Lawyer-Wearing-Yarmulka, I wish you were right... but given how low the threshold is in CA to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot, if the anti-gay groups lose this year, you can bet they'll keep coming back until, oh, one election after things become utterly hopeless for them - or until they win through exhausting gay rights advocates, whose straight allies tend to be much less enthusiastic than the hard core of anti-gay folks, who can be counted on to come out no matter what. Heck, that's how they won Prop 22, which was on the ballot for a primary election that nobody cared about. Look at the way the parental notification amendment keeps coming back. Much as I hate it, these folks just won't let gays live in peace anytime soon.
7.16.2008 7:47pm
Randy R. (mail):
"They are if they're not enlightened enough to agree with Randy R. on redefining the basic family unit."

I must have missed it in the court's opinion where it said that the 'basic family unit' is being redefined. Care to point that one out?
7.16.2008 7:50pm
unhyphenatedconservative (mail):
Randy, redefining marriage from man and woman is the redefinition.
7.16.2008 7:55pm
Randy R. (mail):
Patrick: "In short, they overreached, and have now set their cause back at least 20 years."

You wish. The fact is that acceptance of SSM has been growing in the last few years, not decreasing. In CA, the supporters and opposers are about even, in fact, something few people would have predicted just a few years ago.

"Then the people have spoken, and that will probably be the end of the issue in California. And I'm quite fine with that."

Ah yes. Always easy to deny *someone* else their rights. Actually, it's fun to kick around people you don't like!
7.16.2008 7:56pm
Alex C:
How? And how is it going to effect my family?
7.16.2008 7:57pm
Alex C:
Uh, that was directed at unhyphenatedconservative not Randy. Curse my slow fingers!
7.16.2008 8:00pm
Perseus (mail):
things religion is supposed to stand for

How many other of your fatuous musings about religion must we endure?

I don't understand how gay marriage can be forced on anybody.

As has been pointed out numerous times before, the public must recognize such marriages as a legal matter in all sorts of situations and act accordingly.
7.16.2008 8:00pm
Alex C:
As has been pointed out numerous times before, the public must recognize such marriages as a legal matter in all sorts of situations and act accordingly.

So? Does some aspect of property law change with same sex marriages?
7.16.2008 8:19pm
jgshapiro (mail):
In a sense, the people have already spoken on this, as recently as this year.

The CA state legislature has twice in the last 2-3 years passed bills expressly legalizing SSM, only to have them vetoed by the governor, who previously said that the matter should be left up to the courts -- and now says that he supports the courts' decision.

So if a majority of state legislators supports a proposition (with an intervening election as icing on the cake) and the governor supports the proposition, even if only after the fact, how can it be that the courts are acting contrary to the popular will? Isn't the popular will normally expressed through the state legislature and the governor?
7.16.2008 8:25pm
John Howard (eggandsperm.org) (mail) (www):
The whole issue will come down to whether we allow same-sex conception. SSM supporters are assuming that we will. They claim to not really care, but they are more adamant about same-sex conception being legal than about getting equal protections through Civil Unions.

There is no need to wait to decide, the issue doesn't need any more research, we know that same-sex conception requires modifying the genes of one of the partners. It doesn't matter how unsafe or safe that might be, the question is, is it a good idea to allow modified genes or is a good idea to prohibit modified genes and enforce use of unmodified genes?

All other questions are a huge waste of time a resources, since the SSC question will make them all irrelevant.
7.16.2008 8:27pm
Randy R. (mail):
Persues: "How many other of your fatuous musings about religion must we endure?"

As long as religion continues its fatuous musings about me, I can continue mine about religion. Fair enough for you?
7.16.2008 8:35pm
KWC (mail):
Ah yes. Yet another opportunity for "social conservatives" to blather on about how their worlds are crumbling because of gay marriage. There really haven't been enough of these!

Newsflash, Perseus. You don't have to recognize the marriage, the state does. Must we, yet again, dispel the misconception that In re Marriages imposes non-discrimination requirements, when those requirements existed in California long before it?

Yawn.
7.16.2008 8:52pm
Perseus (mail):
So? Does some aspect of property law change with same sex marriages?

The laws themselves would not change, but SSM does affect relatives, religious organizations, taxpayers, businesses, hospitals, etc.

Isn't the popular will normally expressed through the state legislature and the governor?

Not in California where the state constitution was modified specifically to give priority to direct popular will (especially the initiative and referendum processes). That's the reason that Gov. Schwarzenegger gave for vetoing bills passed by the state legislature that would have overturned Prop. 22: initiatives may not be modified or overturned by the state legislature (unless provided for in the initiative).
7.16.2008 8:52pm
KWC (mail):
Perseus thinks that Randy's statement about religion is fatuous. But, Perseus, have you read the Bible? I'm pretty sure there's one or two things in there about caring for the poor and the sick.

Religious conservatives are funny. They can't even understand the text they claim to revere.
7.16.2008 8:56pm
Robert West (mail) (www):
Patrick216: the latest FIeld Poll on the subject shows a slim majority of Californians support gay marriage. So while the country may not be ready, California may be.

Casey Pick: You say but given how low the threshold is in CA to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot, if the anti-gay groups lose this year, you can bet they'll keep coming back until, oh, one election after things become utterly hopeless for them. I suspect that support for such an amendment will fall precipitously once (a) it fails at the ballot once, and (b) the number of openly gay couples increases. Support for a ban in Massachussets has fallen over time. Eventually it will become like the attempts to repeal domestic partnerships: petitions are constantly circulating byt never qualifying.
7.16.2008 8:56pm
KWC (mail):
And voting against SSM will will affect endangered species in the Amazon; lions, tigers, and bears; and will cause worldwide famine.

It's fun to make blanketed statements and expouse platitudes unbacked by fact or reason. Thanks, Perseus, for showing us this fun new trick!
7.16.2008 8:59pm
Scipio79:
Exactly where in the Christian Bible is the government ordered to provide health care for the masses and care for the poor. Taking money from people forcefully through taxation and using those dollars to provide for others is antithetical to God given freewill and the individual responsibility professing Christians have to care for the poor and downtrodden. Christians are not to outsource that responsibility to an uncaring bureaucratic entity.
7.16.2008 9:11pm
Perseus (mail):
Religious conservatives are funny. They can't even understand the text they claim to revere.

You would be foolish to assume that I'm a religious conservative. I was mocking Randy's reducing religion to a NGO social welfare agency.

And voting against SSM will will affect endangered species in the Amazon; lions, tigers, and bears; and will cause worldwide famine. It's fun to make blanketed statements and expouse platitudes unbacked by fact or reason.

You deny that SSM will affect how people and organizations must treat such relationships as a legal matter? I thought that all of the legal goodies attached to SSM was a major reason for why the advocates of SSM support it.

Must we, yet again, dispel the misconception that In re Marriages imposes non-discrimination requirements, when those requirements existed in California long before it?

Yes, non-discrimination requirements existed before SSM, but SSM adds a series of legal benefits that are distinct to marriage. See link above.
7.16.2008 9:24pm
Alex C:
The laws themselves would not change, but SSM does affect relatives, religious organizations, taxpayers, businesses, hospitals, etc

Why would the state care if some family has to have a potentially awkward conversations at the next family reunion? And if there is such a reason shouldn't it ban gays and lesbians from coming out of the closet too?

What procedures would have to change for hospitals and businesses when it comes to dealing with a same sex married couple versus an opposite sex married couple?
7.16.2008 9:34pm
KWC (mail):
Perseus:

FYI, your link is about federal benefits that come from marriage.

I guess the problem is that you use "we" so loosely. You don't have to give me anything, the government does. Most of the benefits don't cost anything (e.g., hospital visitation rights). This is a complete red herring.

Even the tax-derived benefits (which you name none of in the state context) shouldn't matter. Gay people have to pay to subsidize straight married couples "against their will," just as childless people pay to subsidize primary schools they don't use and we all pay to subsidize local universities that we don't necessarily attend.
7.16.2008 9:40pm
Perseus (mail):
FYI, your link is about federal benefits that come from marriage.

Scroll down to the middle of the page. There's probably a better list somewhere. But this is what's listed on that webpage:

"Here are a few of the state level benefits within the United States:

Assumption of Spouse's Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim's Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner's Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner's Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits "
7.16.2008 10:02pm
Alex C:
So, Perseus, are you suggesting that the state or federal government withhold peoples' civil rights based on how much it would cost to give them such rights?
7.16.2008 10:13pm
Randy R. (mail):
"I was mocking Randy's reducing religion to a NGO social welfare agency. "

Moi? My contention is that caring for the poor and the ill is one of the central tenents of any Christian religion, though certianly not the only one. And no, the gov't shouldn't do this -- rather, people should.

But again, some people think that the major purpose of religion is to put down all those who don't belong to any one person's sect, which is exactly what I often see around here. Which is more important -- caring for the sick and poor, or making sure gays are 'put in their place'? I think I know where most religions *should* stand, even if they don't in fact.
7.16.2008 10:54pm
Randy R. (mail):
Perseus: ""Here are a few of the state level benefits within the United States"

Exactly. That's one of the reasons we are fighting for SSM, so that we have the same rights as you.

But please -- do explain how granting those rights to us harms you in any way. If we were straight, we would have those same rights, woudln't we? And you wouldn't be complaining then, right?
7.16.2008 10:56pm
nutbump (mail):

Randy R. But please -- do explain how granting those rights to us harms you in any way

Explanation is good only for rational people, it looks like gays as a party are not very rational.
What gays want does not make sense for the society, they want to equalize homosexual couples with heterosexual, they want to get rid of concept of husband and wife, they want get rid of the of mother and father depriving childred their basic rights. They want to deny a procreation rights for heterosexual couples. The list is endless.
Gay marriage is clear violation of 9-th amendemenet of U.S. Constitution.
If gays do not understand concept of marriag how dare they ask for explanation.
7.16.2008 11:06pm
Perseus (mail):
You don't have to give me anything, the government does.

But the government represents, we, the people.

So, Perseus, are you suggesting that the state or federal government withhold peoples' civil rights based on how much it would cost to give them such rights?

Since, contrary to court precedent, I do not regard marriage as a fundamental civil/legal right that government is obliged to make special contractual provisions for (so the government could get out of the marriage business altogether), I view the issue from the cold, unromantic eye of public policy--and the proper role of the judiciary (judicial philosophy)--little different from say, subsidizing farms or universities (though as someone who works for a university, I would point out that government failure to support them violates the natural order of things and will lead to the annihilation of humanity!).
7.16.2008 11:14pm
stunned:
@nutbump: "They want to deny a procreation rights for heterosexual couples." Haha. Care to provide a link?
7.16.2008 11:16pm
nutbump (mail):

stunned:
@nutbump: "They want to deny a procreation rights for heterosexual couples." Haha. Care to provide a link

What kind of link? The laws are not written in details they are interpreted by activist judges . Don't you know that?
Equalization of homo and hetero effectively means the same rights i.e. either procreation rights are revoked from heterosexual couples or gays going to have procreation rights that is currently violates federal human cloning law.

If you doubt that procreation right exists for married heterosexual couples, than explain please why close relatives are not allowed to get married. Good example is Illioins where cousins are allowed to get married if they prove their infertility. That means marriage is unconditional authorisation for couple to have children. Gays want to revoke right for procreation.
7.16.2008 11:31pm
stunned:
@nutbump

Haha. By that logic, though, the existence of infertile married couples also must result in the "revocation" of the "right for procreation" since it is only through cloning that such couples could reproduce (in violation of federal cloning restrictions).

Of course, what you said actually contains no logic whatsoever. The right to procreate is a fundamental one under the US Constitution (and likely many state constitutions as well). However, it has never been interpreted to mean a right to procreate with your spouse's DNA. That would, of course, be ludicrous.

I understand that the arguments against SSM aren't particularly compelling, but making up insane new ones isn't going to do anybody any good.

Anyway, care to explain how the gays are going to accomplish this? Are they going to sue people individually to enjoin them from having sex? Or will they require forced sterilization?
7.16.2008 11:41pm
Libertarian1 (mail):
Randy

I personally am a strong believer in abortion rights. As a physician I think that should solely be a decision between a patient and her physician. Nevertheless, I understand millions think it is murder. Nobody is forcing a pro-life expectant mother to have an unwanted abortion but very deep emotions have become expressed. I would think if we were to have a statewide plebescite on the right, it would decrease the frustration of those who feel they were deprived of their Democratic rights. We all understand the concept of voting and losing. I firmly believe the pro-choice position would easily win at the ballot box.

Similarly, SSM is a highly emotional subject. If people are allowed to actually vote on the proposal, I would think, after voters acceptance of SSM, even staunch opponents would realize that they were being unfair. The only way to finally lay this divisiveness to rest is at the ballot box.
7.16.2008 11:47pm
DaveR:

Similarly, SSM is a highly emotional subject. If people are allowed to actually vote on the proposal, I would think, after voters acceptance of SSM, even staunch opponents would realize that they were being unfair. The only way to finally lay this divisiveness to rest is at the ballot box.


I think this is right on the ball. What is always frustrating to me is that all these interest groups have tons of money, which they could use to make their case to the public. If their POV is correct, they should have no problem getting the majority of people to come on board and lobby their legislators and executives to support their cause.

It seems to bely a lack of belief in your own view, that you count on a few judges who you calculate share your views instead of the public at large. And then, seemingly in a contest to see if they can get lightning to strike them, they claim that "the majority of the public support our view". Well, if that's true, why did you have to run to court? It's so silly. And this applies to same sex marriage, abortion, gun rights, etc, etc.

Put the time and effort into persuading the people. That's how the system works the best. Sure, it may take a little longer, but it will be lasting and permanent. Even those who disagree may come around when they had their say and they fairly lost. But when people feel like it was never in a position where they could seriously cast their vote for it, they may well fight against it a LOT harder than they otherwise would. And if you win it at the court, you will spend a lot of time watching over your shoulder for someone to come take it from you.
7.17.2008 12:10am
Randy R. (mail):
"Similarly, SSM is a highly emotional subject. If people are allowed to actually vote on the proposal, I would think, after voters acceptance of SSM, even staunch opponents would realize that they were being unfair. The only way to finally lay this divisiveness to rest is at the ballot box."

For some reaons, opponents of SSM fail to realize that SSM already exists in America -- specifically, Massachusetts. They have had SSM for several years now. What damage has occured there to the family unit? Has marriage disintergrated there?

The fact is, no harm has been shown to anyone there. This is why Nutbump, Perseus et al fail to even mention Mass.

now, there was a Supreme Court decision there to allow SSM, and opponents tried to amend the constitution. They failed to do so. As a result, support for SSM is now a majority of people. The people have spoken there, and they are happy and ready for SSM.

So, folks, please show me how ANY of your fears have materialized in Mass. If you can't, then you have lost the argument. And this is why people are realizing more and more that SSM is no big deal. And to spend millions of dollars to come to that conclusion is, in my opinion, a waste, and the money could be spend on better things.

But I guess Jesus was "fatuous" to have concern for the poor and the sick.
7.17.2008 12:11am
Randy R. (mail):
Dave: "It seems to bely a lack of belief in your own view, that you count on a few judges who you calculate share your views instead of the public at large."

You make many good points. Of course, the best way to secure our rights is to get all the voters in all 50 states to support SSM. But again, we should look to the past for guidance. In 1945, interracial marriage against the law in all states. Slowly, state Supreme courts started striking down those laws. There were no voter initiatives, and if there were any, they would have clearly lost. The vast majority of Americans were against interracial marriage.

Finally, by the late 60s, most states repealed or had the laws struck down. Virginia did not, and their supreme court actually upheld the law. So SCOTUS over threw the ban. Immediately afterwards, a poll showed that 80% of Americans opposed interracial marriage.

So, if we waited until Americans were ready, how much longer should Mildred Loving have waited? It probably wasn't until the 80s at the least that interracial marriage became acceptable.

If the supreme court in Mass had never ruled on the matter, we would likely have few people in that state supporting SSM. However, as a result of that ruling, we now have majority. (similar things happened in Vermont, but they only went so far as civil unions) What we have learned is that court rulings actually force the issue and show people that their fears are unfounded.

I believe the same thing will happen in CA.
7.17.2008 12:20am
AnneS:
Well, if that's true, why did you have to run to court? It's so silly. And this applies to same sex marriage, abortion, gun rights, etc, etc.


And to segregation, interracial marriage, religious discrimination, voting rights, birth control . . .

Tell me, how long should an oppressed class wait for the majority to generously decide to stop oppressing them before going to court to vindicate their constitutional rights? Ten years? Twenty? 100? Would you rather just do without a right for whatever the "gradual change" period is, or spend a few years "looking over your shoulder" while enjoying that right? And what the hell is the point of having a constitution that protects the minority's civil rights and liberties if the protection of those rights is subject to the whim of the majority?
7.17.2008 12:21am
Alex C:
Since, contrary to court precedent, I do not regard marriage as a fundamental civil/legal right that government is obliged to make special contractual provisions for [...]

That's awesome Perseus. Those of us here in reality are always happy to hear from the inhabitants of hypothetical-but-not-really-going-to-happen-ville. Even though it isn't ever going to be all that relevant we sure appreciate you checking in with us from time to time!

The only way to finally lay this divisiveness to rest is at the ballot box.

That's very authoritarian for someone who claims to be a Libertarian. Or is your user name supposed to be ironic?
7.17.2008 12:35am
nutbump (mail):

stunned:
@nutbump

Haha. By that logic, though, the existence of infertile married couples also must result in the "revocation" of the "right for procreation" since it is only through cloning that such couples could reproduce (in violation of federal cloning restrictions).

Wrong, (learn the subject) they have their opposite sex cells, so they can reproduce and it is legal. Gay couples have one-gender cell and they can't reproduce.


Of course, what you said actually contains no logic whatsoever.

Only for those who has perverted mind.


The right to procreate is a fundamental one under the US Constitution (and likely many state constitutions as well). However, it has never been interpreted to mean a right to procreate with your spouse's DNA. That would, of course, be ludicrous

Yep, you have clearly demonstrated your ignorance. We are talking about couples here not individuals. Fundamental right to procreate is only for married couple. That is exactly why incestous couple are prohibited from marriage. Because once couple is married there is no law to prohibt procreation.


I understand that the arguments against SSM aren't particularly compelling, but making up insane new ones isn't going to do anybody any good.

What can be compelling for the individuals that have set a goals to destroy the concept of marriage.
7.17.2008 1:14am
Perseus (mail):
But please -- do explain how granting those rights to us harms you in any way.

The issue for me is not whether it harms me as an individual, but whether there are compelling benefits to the public as a whole to extending marriage to same sex couples (and whether the judiciary may require it on equal protection grounds). As for MA, I was not one to claim that the sky would fall the instant that SSM was allowed, but the state is a good example of a culture "slouching towards Gomorrah" of which SSM is but the latest manifestation.
7.17.2008 1:41am
stunned:
@nutbump

It takes a very strained reading of Skinner and its progeny to find the fundamental right to procreate limited to married couples. cf. Eisenstadt v. Baird (access to contraception cannot be limited to married couples).

Moreover, you cannot produce a single documentary or logical reason that the fundamental right to procreate means there is a fundamental right to procreate using one's own genes. Even if we lived in some Bizarro-world where that right did exist, the MOST it could ever mean is that the anti-cloning laws are unconstitutional. It is, to repeat myself, absurd to think that any court anywhere would declare procreation off-limits to everyone until homosexual couples could produce offspring with both parents' DNA. (This isn't even touching the question of who the scary gays would sue to produce this outcome.)

If a woman has had a hysterectomy and did not freeze any of her eggs, she cannot reproduce using her own DNA without running afoul of federal prohibitions on cloning (this is assuming that human cloning is possible, which it currently isn't). More generally, IVF requires a sperm cell and an egg cell; not all married couples can come up with both. So, we do indeed already live in a society where a married couple cannot reproduce with their own DNA without resort to cloning.

Finally, just because something is a fundamental right doesn't mean it can NEVER be abrogated. While it is rare that a law stands up to strict scrutiny, it really does happen. (Indeed, that's why laws prohibiting relatives from marrying can survive at all, since the right to marry is, itself, fundamental.)

I really hope you're kidding about this.
7.17.2008 2:32am
Jiffy:
Perseus, the issue in California is most certainly not extending rights of marriage to same sex couples. As the Cal Supreme Court said in the marriage cases, the legislature has already done that through California's domestic partnership statutes. Rather, the issue is merely whether the state may have different names for two functionally equivalent legal relationships, "marriage" for opposite-sex couples and "domestic partnership" for same-sex couples. The court essentially held that the stigmatizing effect of a "separate but equal" status for same-sex couples violates California's Equal Protection clause and unconstitutionally compromised the fundamental right to marry.

The marriage initiative apparently will do no more than deny the name "marriage" to same-sex relationships. (Other initiatives that did not make the ballot would have gone farther.) So, given that the elected representatives of the people have already made the state-granted rights and responsibilities of marriage available to same-sex couples, what is the problem with allowing their relationships to be recognized by the name "marriage?"
7.17.2008 3:14am
Fub:
Perseus wrote at 7.17.2008 12:41am:
As for MA, I was not one to claim that the sky would fall the instant that SSM was allowed, but the state is a good example of a culture "slouching towards Gomorrah" of which SSM is but the latest manifestation.
I've never understood why Bork chose the title phrase "Slouching Towards Gomorrah". It relieves Yeats' original ironic metaphor of its evocative power. It substitutes the cheap thrill of a comic book bogeyman for the cosmic horror in Yeats' vision of mankind's capacity for self-deception:
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
It's like stealing a '37 Bugatti to sell for scrap metal.
7.17.2008 3:25am
Perseus (mail):
given that the elected representatives of the people have already made the state-granted rights and responsibilities of marriage available to same-sex couples

I'm not quite as sure of that as you apparently are. See, for example, this excerpt from an editorial, "Civil unions aren't marriage," by the LA Times (which supports full SSM):


...In 2006, New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled that "committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes." The Legislature then passed a civil union law. Last month, a commission assigned to evaluate that law found that civil union status wasn't recognized by employers and was "not clear to the general public, which creates a second-class status." Some of the problems identified in the report can be traced to federal law; others reflect the fact that employers are forced "to try to fit a square peg, civil union, into a round hole, systems relating to marriage." California's domestic partnership law is subject to the same objections.
7.17.2008 4:07am
Alice vamp (mail):
Judges are not suppose to make the laws, but here in California the judges make the laws, enforce the laws and run the state like they are god. Why do we not have checks and balances of a executive,legislative and judicial system? Instead the judge do it all, and their rulings are horrible for this country.The state judges in LA are the worst. They only believe in big business and do not support the family. Something really needs to be done differently with the state judges and higher courts. They are the worst.There is no justice in the Court in LA. The Supreme Court needs to understand there is more than San Fransisco.
7.17.2008 5:07am
Joey Tranchina (mail):
It is sad that, in the last patch of US history, the ugliest, most ignorant, most backward form of Fundamentalist Christianity has assumed the mantle of "religion" and presumes to speak for all people of faith. The idea the every word of one book could be the "Absolute Literal Truth" making all other truths false, is obvious fraud. The Fundamentalist is fundamentally illiterate. They bring that special quality into politics.

All they know about democracy is that if you can get 51% of the votes you can impose your opinion on the entire populace. That is called: "the tyranny of the majority." The genius of our constitution is the system of checks and balances designed specifically to protect us from them. Mr. &Mrs. Bigot, you don't get to vote on whether or not a Black man is free. When you had that vote, people like you with full-blown Biblical justification, voted for his enslavement. Finally, the courts stood up to your divinely inspired ignorance and said separate was not equal. You didn't like that either. You don't get to vote on my liberty, why should ignorant twits who believe preposterous nonsense and can't match socks get to vote on my gay neighbor's right to live free of Bible-based insanity.

On a corollary matter, what you believe is none of my business, but the next time you teach a child that your Bible, composed of Jewish History and parables written for illiterate shepherds is the book of "science;" that data does not mater and that virtually all scientists are liars, you should be arrested for child abuse. Teaching lies to children; cheating them out of a place in a world that works; slandering hundreds of thousands of decent, dedicated and honest data-gatherers then replacing the cumulative effect of the centuries of their sweat with pseudo-Biblical fantasies about a diminished little universe fit for a pathetic little god who comes when you call like a pet puppy-dog --- that is child abuse. You are free; you can tall all the lies that you can get away with, as religion. You should not be allowed to teach lies to children as science. If you had any integrity you'd know that.

As a practical matter, this is a great election cycle to introduce the backward bigotry that would deny liberty to so many Americans. I guess, we'll all see how well it works. We'll see how well bringing bigots out in flocks will energize the moribund McCain campaign. Too bad he's not really one of you. But, you've had your guy, Bush, in the White House for eight years. How much more damage do you really need to do to America?

By the way, these Republicans, who you vote for to constrict the liberty of other citizens, are sending your jobs to India and to China. Why? Because they can do math and they can do science. What can you do?
7.17.2008 7:40am
smitty1e:
@RandyR:
2 + 2 != 3.
Form follows function.
Marriage is an ancient symbol, with an unambiguous meaning, and quite a large number of people within the country are viscerally opposed to its redefinition.
7.17.2008 8:22am
Happyshooter:
Funny how people don't want to raise millions for health care for the poor or elderly, or poverty programs, things religion is supposed to stand for. There are dozens of things that that money could be put to better use. But when it comes to stopping gays from marrying, then the pocket books fly open. Very sad.

Yes, I agree, the people with religion do give billions for those things and it is sad that the gays only give money for gay rights and do not help their fellow man.
7.17.2008 9:34am
JK:
Nice post Joey, did you write that just for this thread?
7.17.2008 10:02am
Alex C:
Fundamental right to procreate is only for married couple.

Whoa! Single parents don't have the right to be single parents? I didn't know that! What happens to these illegal kids? Are they seized by the state? Do the unmarried parents get arrested or just fined?
7.17.2008 10:04am