marriage equality in California

[Irvine511]

Unfortunately it looks like we will be voting on a definition of marriage amendment in November, so it's not over yet.

and this is very interesting to me. it's reasonable to assume that thousands of people are going to get married between now and November.

are Californians really going to vote to forcibly divorce thousands of people?

 

[dsmith2904]

and this is very interesting to me. it's reasonable to assume that thousands of people are going to get married between now and November.

are Californians really going to vote to forcibly divorce thousands of people?

The original San Francisco marriages were invalidated so if this amendment passed, any new marriages done in accordance with the ruling would be invalidated as well.

I just don't understand how two men or two women who are in love getting married makes marriage any less special for man and woman who are in love getting married.

It'd be nice to think that one day we'll look back and think this as ridiculous as laws, rules and traditions preventing people of different ethnicities, religions or classes from marrying.

 

[deep]

are Californians really going to vote to forcibly divorce thousands of people?

a certain segment is mobilized to get that on the ballot

I think they may succeed.

it may pass, especially with the "equal status" domestic partnership laws on the books

this will no doubt fuel all those who claim that "activist courts" are making laws


I really wish the government would grant a "civil marriage" to any two adults that choose to get one

and that "religious marriages" be granted the same weight as these "civil marriages"

and that religions retain their right to "discriminate" and deny their "religious marriage" to any one they choose

 

[Irvine511]

a certain segment is mobilized to get that on the ballot

I think they may succeed.

it may pass, especially with the "equal status" domestic partnership laws on the books

this will no doubt fuel all those who claim that "activist courts" are making laws

what's interesting is that 6 of the 7 justices are Republican appointees, and that 3 of the 4 who voted to repeal the ban are, likewise, Republican appointees. and the Republican governor will let the ruling stand.

 

[dsmith2904]

I really wish the government would grant a "civil marriage" to any two adults that choose to get one

and that "religious marriages" be granted the same weight as these "civil marriages"

and that religions retain their right to "discriminate" and deny their "religious marriage" to any one they choose

I totally agree

 

[deep]

what's interesting is that 6 of the 7 justices are Republican appointees, and that 3 of the 4 who voted to repeal the ban are, likewise, Republican appointees. and the Republican governor will let the ruling stand.

republican appointees in CA, esp if they have to be confirmed by the Dem controlled Senate

are probably much more liberal than that new Dem Congressmen from Miss

 

[martha]

Aren't old-skool Republicans supposed to be all about less government and more freedom? Are they making a comeback?

 

[Irvine511]

republican appointees in CA, esp if they have to be confirmed by the Dem controlled Senate

are probably much more liberal than that new Dem Congressmen from Miss

agreed.

but it does blunt the political impact.

 

[Irvine511]

another thought: is this not more of a problem for McCain and the Republican "base"?

McCain voted against the FMA. how can he credibly demagogue?

 

[LemonMelon]

I really wish the government would grant a "civil marriage" to any two adults that choose to get one

and that "religious marriages" be granted the same weight as these "civil marriages"

and that religions retain their right to "discriminate" and deny their "religious marriage" to any one they choose

Good job keeping the condescension on the down-low, yet still present.


In any case, I'm rather pleased that the ban was overturned. It will have little to no effect on (as namkcuR put it) "the fabric of one of society's oldest establishments" and, furthermore, it keeps the majority happy, which is difficult to argue with. Those who honestly fear gay marriage will comprise the moral stability of this country will be in for a surprise 5 years from now when hardly a thing has changed, for better or worse, probably for the better if anything.

 

[Irvine511]

this op-ed is too fun not to share:



[q]Court approves evil gay agenda
Satan's plan to make uptight straight people "really uncomfortable" working out "fabulously," say Bay Area gays

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Friday, May 16, 2008

We are all going to die. Very, very soon. Did you know?

Apparently, the signs are all in place and the plague is clearly nigh and Armageddon is fast upon us because, oh my angry heterosexual god, the announcement has now been handed down: Couples who deeply love one another may now get married in California. It's true.

Wait, there's more. The couple in question might both have penises. Or they both might not. This is the crazy, terrifying new thing: It is totally up to them. Can you imagine?

Put another way: If you are a loving couple in this fine and baffled state, your particular combination of genitalia has officially been deemed irrelevant as far as whether or not you may hold a lovely little ceremony and enjoy a year or three of wedded bliss and buy a tiny condo you can't really afford, and then fight about money and who gets to name the dog as you lose that once-omnipotent romantic spark and rarely have sex anymore and eat your meals in silence as half of you get divorced in about 5.3 years and end up back on the dating scene, wondering whatever happened to your dreams. You know, just like everyone else!

Isn't that wonderful? Isn't that absolutely terrifying? Isn't that both? You're damn right it is.

Here's the problem: despite the tears of joy flooding through the gay community and despite the soothing gobs of liberal bliss pouring like warm honey over tens of thousands -- nay, millions -- of progressive humans worldwide, all of whom are cheering this landmark groundbreaking rainbow-colored California Supreme Court decision, seeing it as one of the most positive, hopeful shifts to occur in decades, the armies of right-wing darkness are screaming their dread, scraping their nails on the chalkboard of fear, rallying the bitterly faithful.

Oh yes they are. This is the bad news. As you read these very words, shrill cultural conservatives from Orange County to Fresno to Stockton are holding meetings in all sorts of grungy subbasements and moldy rec rooms and sterile Holiday Inn conference rooms, sipping watery Sanka and sweating profusely in their armpits and scowling like angry cats as they work to put a quick and painful stop to all this gay-loving God-hating nonsense, by way of an initiative on the November ballot outlawing icky and confusing gay marriage, by constitutional decree, once and for all.

See? Same as it ever was: One beautiful step forward, one giant jackboot back.

Or is it? This is the big question now facing the intelligent and sex-positive world: Can they succeed? Will the forces of religious righteousness and repressed sexuality and violent Biblical misunderstanding be able to pull one last Rove-like maneuver out of the hat of conservative hate? Put more simply: Are the farm-belt minions still sufficiently scared of happy gay people in love?

It might not be such an easy trick this time. This is the good news. It is the twilight of the Bush Endtimes and the right wing hate machine is no longer the nasty Hummer of bloviated pain it once was. What's more, there's this pesky thing known as a $3 trillion war. There is brutal economic recession. There is environmental collapse. Really, who cares about happy gay people getting married when it costs 4 bucks a gallon to get to Wal-Mart? Priorities, people.

What's more, it was one thing for an uppity and slick San Francisco mayor to try and make a name for himself and enter the gay history books by allowing all those happy gay people to stand in the rain back in 2004 and get married in City Hall, only to have it all annuled by the courts.

But it is quite another when a powerhouse seven-member Supreme Court -- six of whom are moderate Repubicans -- of the largest and most potent state in the union says, hey, you know what? It appears we've had it wrong all along. It appears there is actually nothing the slightest bit wrong or unlawful or even dangerous about allowing people of the same gender to buy overpriced formalwear and drink way too much champagne and dance to crappy '80s power ballads in the Chardonnay Room of a low-rent winery up in Napa, and call it a wedding.

Who can argue with that? Hell, to this very day, cultural conservatives still have no idea exactly why they hate gay marriage. There is still zero articulation. There is a complete lack of fact or understanding and I have yet to meet a single person of any political stripe who can adequately explain exactly why gay marriage is so dangerous, or who's threatened, or how. Same as it ever was? Yes. Only now, their misunderstanding feels quite a bit less dangerous, and far more pathetic.

Meanwhile, the chocolate, whipped cream, ice sculpture, engraved invitation, lace, taffeta, silk, wedding chapel, tux rental, Elvis impersonator, wedding cake, folding lawn chair, large party tent, catering, floral arrangement, prenuptial attorney, divorce attorney, surrogate parent, and cutesy wedding shower gift bag industries are all simultaneously rejoicing at the prospect.

Think of it. Thousands of new weddings, a million new rehearsal dinner reservations, countless fresh registrations at regional Pottery Barns and Crate and Barrels, endless DJs replaying old Elton John and Celine Dion and Shrek soundtrack tunes. The sagging and desperate California economy is positively grinning at the idea, a grin which is right now going beautifully with the thousands of people already signing up for their ceremonies at city halls across the state.

Which means the only ones left still scowling, still bitter and miserable and unhappy about it all, are the ones who never understood much about love and progress in the first place. What a shame. They're gonna miss one hell of a reception. [/q]

 

[martha]

That is awesome!

 

[A_Wanderer]

Sorry to rain on your parade but the 80 year old virgin needs to lay down some truth

Pope Benedict, speaking a day after a California court ruled in favour of same-sex marriage, firmly restated on Friday the Roman Catholic Church's position that only unions between a man and a woman are moral.

Benedict made no mention of the California decision in his speech to family groups from throughout Europe, but stressed the Church's position several times.

"The union of love, based on matrimony between a man and a woman, which makes up the family, represents a good for all society that can not be substituted by, confused with, or compared to other types of unions," he said.

The pope also spoke of the inalienable rights of the traditional family, "founded on matrimony between a man and a woman, to be the natural cradle of human life".

On Thursday, the California Supreme Court overturned a ban on same-sex marriages in a major victory for gay rights advocates that will allow homosexual couples to marry in the most populous U.S. state.

Last year, Italy's powerful Catholic Church successfully campaigned against a law proposed by the previous centre-left government that would have given more rights to gay and unmarried couples.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is not sinful but homosexual acts are, and is opposed to gays being allowed to adopt children.

The California court found laws limiting marriage to heterosexual couples are at odds with rights guaranteed by the state's constitution.

U.S. President George W. Bush, who is opposed to gay marriage, prayed "for the family" with the pope at the White House last month during the pontiff's visit there.

Last year, Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, the head of the Italian Bishops Conference, made headlines with comments that critics said equated homosexuality with incest and paedophilia.

After he made the comments -- which Bagnasco said were misunderstood -- graffiti reading "Shame" and "Watch Out Bagnasco" appeared on the door of the cathedral in northern Genoa, where Bagnasco is archbishop.

The pope, who backed Bagnasco, will visit Genoa his weekend.

Opponents of gay marriage in the United States vowed to contest the ruling with a state-wide ballot measure for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKL1627550020080516

Who would have suspected that a religious leader would be a reactionary bigot.

 

[Irvine511]

Who would have suspected that a religious leader would be a reactionary bigot.

maybe if he just clicks those fetching red Prada shoes he simply adores three times and starts repeating, "there's no place like California, there's no place like California ..."

 

[A_Wanderer]

At least somebody took the time

 

[LemonMelon]

Put another way: If you are a loving couple in this fine and baffled state, your particular combination of genitalia has officially been deemed irrelevant as far as whether or not you may hold a lovely little ceremony and enjoy a year or three of wedded bliss and buy a tiny condo you can't really afford, and then fight about money and who gets to name the dog as you lose that once-omnipotent romantic spark and rarely have sex anymore and eat your meals in silence as half of you get divorced in about 5.3 years and end up back on the dating scene, wondering whatever happened to your dreams. You know, just like everyone else!

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

At least somebody took the time

All that time that must've taken and it's worthless because he misspelled BenedicT.

 

[Irvine511]

another step:

[q]New York to recognize out-of-state gay marriage

By MICHAEL GORMLEY – 12 hours ago

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Same-sex marriages legally performed elsewhere will be recognized in New York in response to a state court ruling this year, Gov. David Paterson's spokeswoman said Wednesday.

State agencies, including those governing insurance and health care, must immediately change policies and regulations to make sure "spouse," "husband" and "wife" are clearly understood to include gay couples, according to a memo sent earlier this month from the governor's counsel.

Gay marriage is not legal in New York, and the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, has said it can only be legalized by the Legislature. But the memo, based on a Feb. 1 New York Appellate Division court ruling, would recognize the marriages of New Yorkers who are legally wed elsewhere.

The appellate judges determined that there is no legal impediment in New York to the recognition of a same-sex marriage. The state Legislature "may decide to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages solemnized abroad," the ruling said. "Until it does so, however, such marriages are entitled to recognition in New York."

Massachusetts is currently the only U.S. state that recognizes same-sex marriage, but its residency requirements would bar New Yorkers from marrying there.

New York residents could instead flock to California, where gay couples will be able to wed beginning June 17 — unless that state's Supreme Court decides to stay its own ruling. Upon their return home, in the eyes of the state, their unions would be no different from those of their heterosexual neighbors.

Gay couples could also travel outside the country to marry in Canada, for example.

Paterson spokeswoman Erin Duggan said the May 14 memo is intended to guide the actions of state agencies. Agencies have until June 30 to report back to the governor's counsel on how, specifically, the directive will change existing state benefits and services for gay couples.

The memo states that failure to include gay marriages in the dispensing of state services such as health care benefits could violate state human rights law. The agencies could face sanctions for any violations, the memo warns.

The agency changes can be instituted through internal memos or changes in regulations and would not require legislative action, Paterson counsel David Nocenti said in the memo, which was first reported by The New York Times.

The February appellate decision involved the case of a woman whose female partner was denied health benefits by her employer even though she had been legally married in Canada.

Gay rights advocates have sought recognition for gay marriages so couples could share family health care plans, receive tax breaks by filing jointly, enjoy stronger adoption rights, and inherit property. Most of these advocates rejected civil unions, thought to be a compromise, because the unions lacked the legal protections of marriage.
[/q]

 

[martha]

It's the end of the world as we know it!

Yesterday, Macy's ran a full-page ad in the LA Times telling how now that all couples can get married, they should consider Macy's for their wedding registry.

 

[Carek1230]

Anything to make a buck, eh?

 

[Irvine511]

Anything to make a buck, eh?

hey, i'd register at Macy's for that reason alone. whenever we can, we support gay-friendly businesses (like, say, orbitz).

 

[deep]

I did a search for this thread last night:

I typed in "marriage" and chose forum: fym (I could not find it)

anyways, I am glad it is back up,

Times Poll: Californians narrowly reject gay marriage
Voters also back a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions, a new Times/KTLA survey shows.

By Cathleen Decker
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

May 23, 2008

By bare majorities, Californians reject the state Supreme Court's decision to allow same-sex marriages and back a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at the November ballot that would outlaw such unions, a Los Angeles Times/KTLA Poll has found.

But the survey also suggested that the state is moving closer to accepting nontraditional marriages, which could create openings for supporters of same-sex marriage as the campaign unfolds.

More than half of Californians said gay relationships were not morally wrong, that they would not degrade heterosexual marriages and that all that mattered was that a relationship be loving and committed, regardless of gender.

Overall, the proportion of Californians who back either gay marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples has remained fairly constant over the years. But the generational schism is pronounced. Those under 45 were less likely to favor a constitutional amendment than their elders and were more supportive of the court's decision to overturn the state's current ban on gay marriage. They also disagreed more strongly than their elders with the notion that gay relationships threatened traditional marriage.

The results of the survey set up an intriguing question for the fall campaign: Will the younger, more live-and-let-live voters mobilized by likely Democratic nominee Barack Obama doom the gay marriage ban? Or will conservatives drawn to the polls by the amendment boost the odds for the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain?

we have this from May 23

and there will be an initiative on the CA ballot in Nov, that will have different language than what this court threw out

my concerns, are that it may pass in the low 50s





and then I saw this poll last night \/

Californians support gay marriage: poll
Wed May 28, 2008 9:23am EDT

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A majority of registered Californian voters oppose changing the constitution of the most populous U.S. state to bar gays from marrying, according to poll released on Wednesday.

The Field Poll survey found 51 percent against approving a possible November ballot measure to prohibit gay marriage, with 43 percent in favor. A slightly differently worded question on the same issue found 54 percent opposed and 40 percent in favor.

The poll follows a state Supreme Court decision this month that barring homosexuals from marrying violated the California Constitution. Opponents of same-sex marriage have intensified efforts to put a state constitutional amendment on the ballot in November.

The poll found a strong generational gap on the issue, with those aged 18-29 approving of gay marriage by 68 percent and those 65 or older disapproving by 55 percent.

The poll found that in recent decades a growing number of Californians have approved allowing same-sex couples to marry, with 51 percent of those polled now approving, up from 44 percent in 2006 and 30 percent in 1985.

This is good news, a change is comin'

and it can't come too soon.

 

[Irvine511]

my concerns, are that it may pass in the low 50s

if history is any guide, most initiatives like this need to have close to 60% support to pass when the actual voting occurs -- support starts high, and then dwindles.

this will be quite a boost to the CA economy, no? lots of destination weddings and a certain governor telling us all that, "you'll be bahck."

 

[deep]

that was only the first poll


the second poll I posted
has 51 %
saying they do not believe there should be an amendment banning gay marriage

so it
looks like within a week
support for the ban is fading

 

[Irvine511]

it's often brought up, by some of our more conservative posters, about the lower support in the african-american community for marriage equality, and about how some believe the parallels made between some elements of the Civil Rights Movement and the Gay Rights Movement are offensive when made.

so, from The Root (a superb african-american political blog), a very thoughtful article:

[q]Mixed-Up on Gay Marriage
Black people, better than most, should understand the importance of being able to choose who to love and who to marry.
TheRoot.com
Updated: 3:41 PM ET May 27, 2008

"As to mixed marriages, the most delicate question of all, it is to be noted that 29 states - all those of the South and many in the Southwest - forbid it. In the North, such marriages are frowned upon, and represent an almost insignificant percent."

--The American Negroes, special bulletin published by the U.S. Information Agency, an adjunct of the State Department, 1957

May 29, 2008--So, you wanna get married?

After years of playing (or getting played by) the field, you've found that special someone you consider irreplaceable. You agree to be together happily ever after, or for as long as you can stand each other. You tell family, friends, perhaps even former significant others. But don't forget the most important phone call of all: to your state or local government.

Five decades ago, if you and your spouse-to-be were of different races, most state governments not only would have nixed the proposed marriage, but your marriage would have been voided, your children by any previous marriage taken from you by the state, and you could have been fined and/or imprisoned for up to 10 years. Many of us (rightly) recall the case of Richard and Mildred Loving, the interracial couple who took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court and got laws against interracial marriage banned. The 41stanniversary of the June 12 Supreme Court ruling will be especially poignant this year after the recent passing of Mrs. Loving.

But it obviously wasn't just the Lovings who had to fight for the right to choose a spouse without government interference. A year after the marriage police in Virginia arrested the Lovings, Stetson Kennedy published the satirical book Jim Crow Guide. In chapter five, "Who May Marry Whom," he discussed the many ways that interracial marriage was limited by government.

In 1949, Clark Hamilton was a 20-year-old black veteran sentenced to serve three years in the Virginia penitentiary for marrying Florence Hammond, a white woman. As Kennedy wrote: "The couple had moved to Maryland, and his sentence was suspended after he pleaded guilty. But while awaiting trial he served 82 days in a Virginia jail, and his marriage was declared void."

There was the case of David Knight, a 23-year-old white Navy veteran who in 1940 was sentenced to five years in the Mississippi penitentiary for marrying Junie Scradney, a white woman, after it was revealed in testimony that he was the great-grandson of a black woman. In 1953, Judge Wakefield Taylor of Oakland, Calif., took away the two young children of Barbara Smith Taylor after she divorced her husband and married a black man.

Given this history, it might be reasonable to conclude that black people in particular would be opposed to laws limiting marital choices among adults. Unfortunately, there are many black people who are not only critical of interracial marriage, but also support banning gay or same-sex marriage today. According to a Pew Research Poll taken after the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld same-sex marriage, far more blacks than whites disagreed with the court's decision. And that doesn't even include what is said at black barbershops.

As columnist Earl Ofari Hutchinson notes, many blacks "seethe" at the comparison. As the argument goes, interracial marriage should not be compared to gay marriage because of the oppression blacks have suffered. Hutchinson dismisses that as being "self-serving." It is also myopic, a case of a former slave putting on his former master's clothing and wanting others to be treated as slaves.

The way to view this issue is to understand that government prohibition against marriages between consenting adults is a form of government oppression and a denial of individual liberty. In 1948, when the Supreme Court of California became the first state to strike down a ban on interracial marriage, Justice Roger Traynor wrote on behalf of individual liberty: "A member of any of these races may find himself barred by law from marrying the person of his choice and that person to him may be irreplaceable." [Emphasis added]

If you do find that someone special whom you consider irreplaceable, why would you want or need the government to give you permission to marry? At most, government should, in this case, fulfill the role of a clerk who takes down your basic information and files it away. For citizens making marital plans, we should give the government the equivalent of name, rank and serial number.

My former Cato Institute colleague David Boaz suggests that privatization is a "simple solution" to the battle over marriage in its various forms. "Make it a private contract between two individuals. Marriage contracts could be as individually tailored as other contracts are in our diverse capitalist world. This would "allow gay people to marry the way other people do: individually, privately, contractually, with whatever ceremony they might choose in the presence of family, friends or God."

When it comes to our voluntary, consensual associations with other adults, we may need to give the government notification, but that should not be confused with seeking permission. If there was ever an issue in which government and other third parties should butt out, it is the choice of a spouse. My conservative friends who say "you can't legislate morality" nevertheless want to do so when it comes to gay marriage.

Gay people are now fighting for the right to marry the person they choose, someone they consider irreplaceable. I hope they get what they want. I would also advise that they try to find a client with a surname like Liberty or Freedom to be a plaintiff. It worked out for the Lovings.

[/q]

 

[martha]

Steve was pointing something out the other day about states not recognizing gay marriages from other states and countries. He asked if a 16-year-old is legally married in State A, and moves to State B, where 16-year-old aren't allowed to get married, doesn't State B still recognize the marriage?

Then what the hell is going on with gay marriages?


I my Steve.

 

[Carek1230]

Steve's got an excellent point, Martha! I vote Steve for President! Seriously though, what would happen to the 16 year olds if they actually did just that from State to State. Some of these laws are just so retarded!

 

[martha]

We could use the pic in my avatar as a campaign photo.

 

[martha]

Gay marriage may be a gift to California's economy - Los Angeles Times


This is exactly what my smart little Steve was saying as well. A crappy economy makes people think a little...straighter.

Citing pent-up demand, one UCLA study projects that same-sex unions could provide a $370-million shot in the arm to the state economy over the next three years.

 

[U2isthebest]

Gay marriage may be a gift to California's economy - Los Angeles Times


This is exactly what my smart little Steve was saying as well. A crappy economy makes people think a little...straighter.

So, I'm guessing this news means that Conservatives are going to be changing their tune on gay marriage Why stop there? If we tell the rich right-wingers that gay marriages will give them more tax cuts, they'll be rioting in the streets to legalize it. Maybe, those of us for gay rights have just been using the wrong strategy the whole time.