marriage equality in California

[Irvine511]

so, here's the gist of it:


[q]The court's extraordinary hearing regarding In re Marriage Cases, S14799, is the culmination of a long legal fight that began when San Francisco issued marriage licenses to nearly 4,000 same-sex couples in February and March 2004. San Francisco's extraordinary move came at a time of intensifying national debate over same-sex marriages after Massachusetts, as result of a historic 2003 court decision, became the only state to legalize same-sex unions.

The court is deciding four lawsuits brought on behalf of nearly two dozen same-sex couples. A trial judge here ruled in favor of same-sex marriages, but a Court of Appeal rejected that decision on a 2-1 vote. Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger argued in favor of keeping marriage an opposite-sex union, and Christian-affiliated groups joined them.

The California high court invalidated the San Francisco marriage licenses in August 2004, but will decide within 90 days whether gay men and lesbians should be permitted to marry in the future.

The hearing attracted an overflow crowd in the courtroom and protesters outside who carried signs, including one that read "Sodomy Is Sin." Hundreds watched the televised hearing from various venues across San Francisco and at City Hall in West Hollywood, with many cheering the lawyers for same-sex couples and booing justices who asked critical questions.

Justice Marvin R. Baxter reminded lawyers that the initiative limiting marriage to unions between a man and a woman was ratified by the voters, and that the state Legislature has given same-sex couples "virtually equal rights except the title" of marriage.

San Francisco Chief Deputy City Atty. Therese M. Stewart told the court that "the name 'marriage' matters." But Justice Ming W. Chin chided: "Doesn't that place rhetoric over reality?"

Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Justice Carlos R. Moreno suggested that the state might have a rational basis for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages.

"Doesn't this just boil down to the use of the 'M-word' -- marriage?" Moreno asked.

"That symbol," Stewart replied, "has deep meaning."

George seemed skeptical of the argument that a ban on same-sex marriages amounted to sex discrimination because the ban "seems to treat males and females equally." But he also peppered the opponents of same-sex marriages with skeptical questions and stressed that the court had the authority to overturn long-established laws and voter initiatives.

Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, one of the more liberal members of the court, asked Stewart if the concept of equal protection under the law evolves. Stewart replied that it did.

"Why is this the moment of truth as opposed to 10 years from now?" Werdegar asked.

"We're here today," Stewart told her.[/q]



and, today, a poll was released showing that 49% of Californians support marriage equality, and 46% against. more significantly, a full 64% support at least civil union rights.

this is now a mainstream political position. there is nothing radical about incorporating committed gay relationships into the larger framework of society.

it remains to be see what the Court will do. but it's quite a moment, nonetheless.

 

[Abomb-baby]

Would you be opposed to a law allowing civil unions which would give gay couples the same legal rights as hetero couples but it not be called marriage? Just curious.

 

[martha]

I would.

 

[Irvine511]

Would you be opposed to a law allowing civil unions which would give gay couples the same legal rights as hetero couples but it not be called marriage? Just curious.

it's hard to say.

practically, it is about rights.

but ideologically, it's about respect.

and i can't think of a more "separate but equal" institution than civil unions.

i also am baffled as to the fierce territorialness some have with the M-word. why?

 

[Angela Harlem]

Somehow what we all do individually on a domestic front impinges/impacts on others/society at large/the sanctity of one's own domestic arrangement.

It's all nothing but illogical.

 

[verte76]

I'm for gay marriage...........

 

[CTU2fan]

Would you be opposed to a law allowing civil unions which would give gay couples the same legal rights as hetero couples but it not be called marriage? Just curious.

I might support that if it came to that, but as a straight man I don't really think I'm qualified to say (if I would or wouldn't support that). From a practical perspective I suppose why not, if the rights & privileges are the same as marriage why wouldn't people just call it marriage? I mean, if I'm entering a civil union with a guy, and legally it's the same as getting married except the government doesn't call it marriage, wouldn't we/people we know/our families etc call us "married"?

It still sounds like "separate but equal" all over agian though. If I did support that I'd probably have to hold my nose to do it.

But getting back on topic...I'm thinking Cali will eventually allow same-sex marriage; how long can a state deny something that the majority of its citizens support? Maybe Arnold should get busy making Last Action Hero 2 and let somebody with a 21st century mentality be Governor.

 

[martha]

Maybe Arnold should get busy making Last Action Hero 2 and let somebody with a 21st century mentality be Governor.

 

[Liesje]

Would you be opposed to a law allowing civil unions which would give gay couples the same legal rights as hetero couples but it not be called marriage? Just curious.

To me that depends. Many people think of "marriage" only in the religious sense, in which case it cannot be mandated by law anyway.

I support two people of any gender being espoused and all espoused peoples having the SAME rights....whatever term an individual wants to use is fine with me.

 

[nathan1977]

I have a hard time believing that marriage is a "right". A privilege, certainly, but a right...not sure on that one.

IMHO, marriage laws across the country should be tightened, not loosened. Given the rate of divorce, it seems like people need more education about healthy marriages and healthy relationships in general.

If, let's say, you applied for a marriage license, but then had to take a six-week class on "Life and Choices", for example -- a class or small group that talks about things like finances, sexuality, family-planning, children etc -- designed to get you and your potential mate/spouse/partner/etc talking about core issues involved in marriage, I think that would go a long way towards making sure that people who have hooked up in a moment of passion don't wind up making a decision they'll regret while walking back up the aisle.

I don't think it's crazy to do that. We have sex ed classes and driver's ed classes, and while you can't equate marriage with a five-thousand pound automobile, the financial and emotional cost of a divorce is oftentimes higher and longer-lasting than that of a car accident.

If we were willing to do that, I would probably be more in favor of gay marriage outright, and certainly civil unions. There are some couples (like my former boss and former theater owner) who have been together for 30 years -- they've taken advantage of legal means to protect themselves and don't need the "M" word to validate their relationship. So there's different ways to look at this on all sides.

But right now, civil unions only opens the door for couples (regardless of sexual orientation) to equate a three-month relationship with something more, shack up, and then regret it later on -- a picture that grows only more complicated with cohabitation, children, etc.

The divorce rate is high enough; I don't think we need to come up with new ways for people to split up.

 

[deep]

It still sounds like "separate but equal" all over agian though. If I did support that I'd probably have to hold my nose to do it.

separate but equal

usually comes after

separate and not equal

and before

not separate and equal

 

[martha]

I have a hard time believing that marriage is a "right". A privilege, certainly, but a right...not sure on that one.

IMHO, marriage laws across the country should be tightened, not loosened. Given the rate of divorce, it seems like people need more education about healthy marriages and healthy relationships in general.

If, let's say, you applied for a marriage license, but then had to take a six-week class on "Life and Choices", for example -- a class or small group that talks about things like finances, sexuality, family-planning, children etc -- designed to get you and your potential mate/spouse/partner/etc talking about core issues involved in marriage, I think that would go a long way towards making sure that people who have hooked up in a moment of passion don't wind up making a decision they'll regret while walking back up the aisle.

I don't think it's crazy to do that. We have sex ed classes and driver's ed classes, and while you can't equate marriage with a five-thousand pound automobile, the financial and emotional cost of a divorce is oftentimes higher and longer-lasting than that of a car accident.

If we were willing to do that, I would probably be more in favor of gay marriage outright, and certainly civil unions. There are some couples (like my former boss and former theater owner) who have been together for 30 years -- they've taken advantage of legal means to protect themselves and don't need the "M" word to validate their relationship. So there's different ways to look at this on all sides.

But right now, civil unions only opens the door for couples (regardless of sexual orientation) to equate a three-month relationship with something more, shack up, and then regret it later on -- a picture that grows only more complicated with cohabitation, children, etc.

The divorce rate is high enough; I don't think we need to come up with new ways for people to split up.

What an ass-backwards way to say you don't think men should be allowed to marry each other.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I don't think the rate of miserable marriages was all that different 50 years ago, or 100 years ago. It just wasn't accepted to get divorced, and especially not so if the woman took action. They were often excluded by the neighbourhood, and in rural areas that meant the whole village. Hence, many stayed in marriages though both would have loved to get out of that.
They also didn't necessarily get married out of sheer love and passion for each other, but rather because the parents thought it was a good match, and especially for women the pressure was high to get married. Otherwise they were "old spinsters" and had a hard standing in the community as well.
To get divorced became more accepted and you don't have to fear any great disadvantages anymore, and I think that contributed more to the rising divorce rate.
And might not the 1,000 plus legal incentives to get married might also contribute to a couple getting married prematurely? For many it's a financial question whether they just live together, or get married.

And there are some rights a married couple has that are even more important than the financial benefits gay or lesbian couples get barred from, like visiting the partner in the hospital and being with them in their last moments.

Marriage is much more than just validating the relationship.

 

[DrTeeth]

The thought of having to share my and my future wife's (hah!) personal lives with a complete stranger and then wait for the government to approve of our marriage makes my stomach turn.

 

[Irvine511]

I have a hard time believing that marriage is a "right". A privilege, certainly, but a right...not sure on that one.

IMHO, marriage laws across the country should be tightened, not loosened. Given the rate of divorce, it seems like people need more education about healthy marriages and healthy relationships in general.

If, let's say, you applied for a marriage license, but then had to take a six-week class on "Life and Choices", for example -- a class or small group that talks about things like finances, sexuality, family-planning, children etc -- designed to get you and your potential mate/spouse/partner/etc talking about core issues involved in marriage, I think that would go a long way towards making sure that people who have hooked up in a moment of passion don't wind up making a decision they'll regret while walking back up the aisle.

I don't think it's crazy to do that. We have sex ed classes and driver's ed classes, and while you can't equate marriage with a five-thousand pound automobile, the financial and emotional cost of a divorce is oftentimes higher and longer-lasting than that of a car accident.

If we were willing to do that, I would probably be more in favor of gay marriage outright, and certainly civil unions. There are some couples (like my former boss and former theater owner) who have been together for 30 years -- they've taken advantage of legal means to protect themselves and don't need the "M" word to validate their relationship. So there's different ways to look at this on all sides.

But right now, civil unions only opens the door for couples (regardless of sexual orientation) to equate a three-month relationship with something more, shack up, and then regret it later on -- a picture that grows only more complicated with cohabitation, children, etc.

The divorce rate is high enough; I don't think we need to come up with new ways for people to split up.

i think you've given a great reason why civil unions are truly a "marriage lite" option, and why gay people should be included in the institution of marriage. i see no reason why any of the "tightening" you described would be inapplicable for gay people, and certainly gay people benefit from stable, strong relationships as much as anyone else, especially the children of gay couples.



i'd also argue that the misty romance surrounding the idea of marriage has much to do with the divorce rate. marriage and weddings are as much an industry as anything else, and like any industry, they know they'll be able to increase their sales if they create a feeling of dissatisfaction within the minds of their potential customers, that you are less complete, that you are no one, if you aren't married.

 

[phillyfan26]

I have a hard time believing that marriage is a "right". A privilege, certainly, but a right...not sure on that one.

IMHO, marriage laws across the country should be tightened, not loosened. Given the rate of divorce, it seems like people need more education about healthy marriages and healthy relationships in general.

If, let's say, you applied for a marriage license, but then had to take a six-week class on "Life and Choices", for example -- a class or small group that talks about things like finances, sexuality, family-planning, children etc -- designed to get you and your potential mate/spouse/partner/etc talking about core issues involved in marriage, I think that would go a long way towards making sure that people who have hooked up in a moment of passion don't wind up making a decision they'll regret while walking back up the aisle.

I don't think it's crazy to do that. We have sex ed classes and driver's ed classes, and while you can't equate marriage with a five-thousand pound automobile, the financial and emotional cost of a divorce is oftentimes higher and longer-lasting than that of a car accident.

If we were willing to do that, I would probably be more in favor of gay marriage outright, and certainly civil unions. There are some couples (like my former boss and former theater owner) who have been together for 30 years -- they've taken advantage of legal means to protect themselves and don't need the "M" word to validate their relationship. So there's different ways to look at this on all sides.

But right now, civil unions only opens the door for couples (regardless of sexual orientation) to equate a three-month relationship with something more, shack up, and then regret it later on -- a picture that grows only more complicated with cohabitation, children, etc.

The divorce rate is high enough; I don't think we need to come up with new ways for people to split up.

So, wait, are you saying that because heterosexuals fuck up marriages frequently that homosexuals should be denied civil unions/marriage?

 

[Irvine511]

I have a hard time believing that marriage is a "right". A privilege, certainly, but a right...not sure on that one.

this is an interesting question, and i think reality falls in between. i do agree that marriage is a privilege -- it is a privilege one has when one is heterosexual. marriage is not a right, but when one is married, there are 1049 different "rights" in the form of tax breaks and incentives that one has the right to. there's also a strong amount of respect that tends to come with a relationship that is sealed through marriage, even if that relationships is a Britney-style 48 hour Vegas binge.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I would say the divorce rate is likely to decrease as the number of marriages is higher.



"The divorce rate is high enough; I don't think we need to come up with new ways for people to split up."

This sentence sounds as if marriage was only to get eventually divorced.

 

[deep in HELL]

What an ass-backwards way to say you don't think men should be allowed to marry each other.

gay men should not be allowed to marry straight men

I know it leaves an unfair burden on women

 

[Irvine511]

quite honestly, i'm not all that troubled by a high divorce rate. people often divorce for very, very good reasons. and there's little financial incentive for women to stay with men who are terrible to them, and so i think that the misty eyed nostalgia for different generations is misplaced -- women stayed because they couldn't leave. now, with women earning more than 55% of all college degrees, marriage is as much a choice, a voluntarily entered into institution as anything else.

if you look at divorce rates across the country, the marriages that tend to last are usually amongst the higher educated -- possibly because they aren't as subjected to financial pressures to the same extent as lower-educated couples -- and those who get married later in life. it really does seem as if Nathan is absolutely right -- marriage is not something to be entered into lightly. it takes perspective, maturity, and clear-headedness that isn't polluted by notions that a woman is an old maid by the time she's 25, or, quite frankly, that sexual intercourse belongs only in the confines of marriage.

i will simply compare my family and friends to Memphis's family and friends. where i come from in the northeast, while it's not exactly as if anyone is encouraging teenagers to have sex, there's none of this "NO SEX UNTIL MARRIAGE" mantras passed along. most kids i knew growing up assumed that they would eventually have sexual partners, maybe several sexual partners, and after an extended period of dating in their 20s, find someone who was compatible in all ways, including sexually, and then they'd settle down and make a life with that person. they use birth control, condoms, etc., and generally had an attitude towards intercourse that it was part of an adult relationship, and should be treated as a joyful means of physical affection, and, yes, even fun sometimes.

i contrast this -- anecdotally -- to people who grew up with a "NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE" mantra, and they tended to either get pregnant at 19 and then get married, or to rush into marriage in order to (finally!) have sex, or at least not feel badly about having sex.

i think it's the quarantining of sex to marriage that leads to an unhealthy "need" for marriage itself, as if that will fix things, that will make you an adult. and it does, and then you're divorced 5 years and 2 kids later.

just my humble experience.

 

[nathan1977]

So, wait, are you saying that because heterosexuals fuck up marriages frequently that homosexuals should be denied civil unions/marriage?

Not at all. Actually the opposite. I think if the government is going to be in the business of marrying people, the government can and should try to help those people, whatever their orientation be. Otherwise, seriously, why bother?

Irvine's assessment of my position is probably closer than he thinks it is.

 

[Irvine511]

Irvine's assessment of my position is probably closer than he thinks it is.

i think we're totally on the same page.

 

[nathan1977]

when one is married, there are 1049 different "rights" in the form of tax breaks and incentives that one has the right to.

This is a line I've heard since Queer Alliance meetings in college, and I don't buy it. Tax incentives don't kick in when you get married -- you get penalized, in actuality, by being kicked into a higher tax bracket. Significant tax breaks don't kick in until you own a home.

 

[Irvine511]

Irvine's assessment of my position is probably closer than he thinks it is.

i think we're totally on the same page.

but i don't see how letting Memphis and i get married somehow "loosens" up the institution.

how does it? or does it?

 

[nathan1977]

i contrast this -- anecdotally -- to people who grew up with a "NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE" mantra, and they tended to either get pregnant at 19 and then get married, or to rush into marriage in order to (finally!) have sex, or at least not feel badly about having sex.

Then, anecdotally, that wasn't my experience. After an emotionally bruising and sexually active relationship in college, I came to the realization that if sex is the big deal people say it is, it's probably worth waiting to experience with someone whom you're not wondering will leave you one day on a whim. (That still happens in some marriages, but walking away from a marriage is much different from walking away from a boyfriend or girlfriend.)

i think it's the quarantining of sex to marriage that leads to an unhealthy "need" for marriage itself, as if that will fix things, that will make you an adult.

Tell that to my friend who had his father bring him to a prostitute when he turned 16. (The kid turned out gay, in the ultimate case of irony.) Plenty of people are told that sex outside of marriage is healthy -- particularly (but, these days, not exclusively) guys, who are encouraged to play the field.

If you replace the phrase "unhealthy 'need' for marriage itself" with "unhealthy 'need' for sex itself," I think we are closer on our viewpoint. In an increasingly sexualized culture, people -- particularly young people, if any of the stories of "blow job parties" in junior high are to be believed -- are realizing that you don't need to be married to have sex. Sex is promoted increasingly as the way to intimacy, as the way to maturity. There's a reason we are growing increasingly emotionally stunted as a culture. Nobody has any clue how to communicate or relate to each other outside of the bedroom, and it's everything outside the bedroom that makes a relationship work...whatever your orientation may be.

 

[nathan1977]

i think we're totally on the same page.

but i don't see how letting Memphis and i get married somehow "loosens" up the institution.

how does it? or does it?

I think you and Memphis wanting to get married opens up a much broader national conversation, which I am very happy with, about marriage in general, its role in public life, its place as an institution, and whether it should continue to be treated as casually as it does. (Your Britney example is perfect.)

 

[Irvine511]

This is a line I've heard since Queer Alliance meetings in college, and I don't buy it. Tax incentives don't kick in when you get married -- you get penalized, in actuality, by being kicked into a higher tax bracket. Significant tax breaks don't kick in until you own a home.

[q]Good benefits add to wedded bliss
For most middle- and upper-income people, though, there are plenty of financial benefits to marriage, regardless of their income tax situation. Among them:

* Workplace health and pension benefits coverage. While some companies offer health coverage to domestic partners, this benefit is typically taxable as income. When spouses are covered, the benefit is tax-free.
* Social Security retirement and survivor benefits. A husband or wife is entitled to one-half of the spouses Social Security benefits and to additional benefits in the event of death.
* Lower insurance rates. Married people usually get a discount on auto insurance and may pay less for other types of insurance.
* Automatic inheritance rights. Die without a will, and your spouse gets your stuff. In many states, the surviving spouse has a legal right to at least one-third to one-half of your estate.
* Preferential estate tax treatment. The $1 million estate tax limitation doesnt apply to married people: you can leave an unlimited amount to a spouse without owing one penny of estate tax. In certain states, this benefit is multiplied by special capital-gains tax treatment for homes and other assets held by married couples as community property.

These benefits will persist, even if Congress marriage-related tax changes dont. (All the marriage-related changes are scheduled to expire at the end of next year, although Congress will face tremendous pressure to renew them.)

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/taxes/p48908.asp

[/q]

 

[Vincent Vega]

* Automatic inheritance rights. Die without a will, and your spouse gets your stuff. In many states, the surviving spouse has a legal right to at least one-third to one-half of your estate.

In Zoo Confessionals you can see how this makes a tremendous difference in some cases.

 

[Irvine511]

Then, anecdotally, that wasn't my experience. After an emotionally bruising and sexually active relationship in college, I came to the realization that if sex is the big deal people say it is, it's probably worth waiting to experience with someone whom you're not wondering will leave you one day on a whim. (That still happens in some marriages, but walking away from a marriage is much different from walking away from a boyfriend or girlfriend.)

it sounds like it was quite a learning experience for you. as difficult relationships always wind up being. i support your conclusion, and in no way do i think that there's a one-size fits all approach to sexuality. in fact, i am resisting just that -- the notion that sex belongs only in marriage. i'm sure that works for some, not for others. my problem is when it's handed down as an imperative by parents, pastors, etc., and most people find themselves unable to live up to this ideal, and i'm not sure that it's such a good ideal to have in the first place.

i think we can agree that maturity is an imperative in adult relationships. and maturity also means being able to walk away when something isn't healthy, when something is destructive, instead of a sense of having failed because a marriage didn't work our.

i deal a lot with crime in my field. i am stunned at the amount of women who wind up killing their husbands because they don't want to suffer the embarrassment of having gone through a divorce. and these crimes tend to happen in areas where marriage/family are held up as god-ordained ideals. it must be tremendous pressure.





[q]Tell that to my friend who had his father bring him to a prostitute when he turned 16. (The kid turned out gay, in the ultimate case of irony.) Plenty of people are told that sex outside of marriage is healthy -- particularly (but, these days, not exclusively) guys, who are encouraged to play the field.[/q]

i think that's a pretty extreme example, and it's hardly something i'm recommending, let alone condoning. in fact, i've seen lots of damage done when someone has had sex too early. what i am advocating is giving yourself the freedom to enter into adult relationships in your 20s and truly seek out a good mate for life. and to delay marriage until one is emotionally ready for it. of course this will vary person to person, but in general, in my experience, getting married at the age of 20 seems to be as foolish a decision as having sex at the age of 14, and the consequences can be far, far worse.

i think that sex is healthy or it's not, marital status hasn't all that much to do with it. people can have unhealthy sex in the midst of a marriage, or fulfilling, happy sex in the midst of a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship.

If you replace the phrase "unhealthy 'need' for marriage itself" with "unhealthy 'need' for sex itself," I think we are closer on our viewpoint. In an increasingly sexualized culture, people -- particularly young people, if any of the stories of "blow job parties" in junior high are to be believed -- are realizing that you don't need to be married to have sex. Sex is promoted increasingly as the way to intimacy, as the way to maturity. There's a reason we are growing increasingly emotionally stunted as a culture. Nobody has any clue how to communicate or relate to each other outside of the bedroom, and it's everything outside the bedroom that makes a relationship work...whatever your orientation may be.

i'd argue that the sexualization of culture comes from corporations wanting to sell. it's capitalism at it's purest form. this has nothing to do with morals or values. unless you want to say that the ultimate value in a capitalist system is improving hte bottom line. i find stories about "blow job parties" pretty sensationalistic, but i'm sure it happens, though we tend to hear about these things more now than we did in the past due to things like the internets.

i'd argue that our emotional stunting as a culture comes from our bipolar attitude towards sexuality, where you have some talking about it as sacred and Godly and only for marriage, and yet it's used to sell Diet Pepsi.

this is where i think we'd have much to learn from our European friends who have a much more mature attitude twoards seuxality. in my opinion.

 

[Irvine511]

I think you and Memphis wanting to get married opens up a much broader national conversation, which I am very happy with, about marriage in general, its role in public life, its place as an institution, and whether it should continue to be treated as casually as it does. (Your Britney example is perfect.)

i appreciate the constructive approach, but this does feel like a bit of a dodge.