can we please, please call this argument settled?

[Irvine511]

"In this context, the existence of marriage-like rights without marriage actually cuts against the existence of a rational government interest for denying marriage to same-sex couples. California's enactment of rights for same-sex couples belies any argument that the State would have a legitimate interest in denying marriage in order to preclude same-sex couples from acquiring some marital right that might somehow be inappropriate for them to have. No party has argued the existence of such an inappropriate right, and the court cannot think of one. Thus, the state's position that California has granted marriage-like rights to same-sex couples points to the conclusion that there is no rational state interest in denying them the rites of marriage as well." - San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer, in a ruling yesterday.

the logic of equality is so over-powering, and the arguments against it so fragile, that judges like Kramer are simply affirming the thuddingly obvious and the intellecutally honest.

can we agree that there is no argument to continue to keep a minority disenfranchised?

tradition? let's talk about the ban on inter-racial marriage.

procreation? let's talk about how non-procreative straight couples can get civil licenses.

non-procreative sex is immoral? let's talk about how non-procreative sex is the norm in traditional heterosexual civil marriage

the potential collapse of civilization?

can we once and for all accept that there is no moral difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality? it is ALL simple-minded fear and prejudice and religious conviction that have NO place in our courts.

there is no argument against same-sex marriage.

none.

the debate should end here.

 

[U2democrat]

i'm with you, irvine. fight on!!!!!

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

You won't get any argument from me, Irvine. Anti-gay marriage people are still entitled to their opinions, but it just amazes me we even have to have debates over the legalization of this to begin with. Equal rights-that pretty much says it all.

Angela

 

[melon]

Anti-gay marriage people are still entitled to their opinions

They do. And so do racists and misogynists, but none of their opinion has any place in law, as far as I'm concerned.

Melon

 

[joyfulgirl]

 

[melon]

And all those wanting to label the judge an "activist judge" will just be making a fool of themselves. The judge not only has a strong record of dealing with the facts, but was appointed by a Republican.

Judge In SF Gay Marriage Ruling No 'Liberal Activist Judge'
by David Kravets, Associated Press

(San Francisco, California) Supporters of same-sex marriage found an ally Monday in San Francisco Judge Richard Kramer a Catholic Republican appointed to the bench by a former GOP governor.

"We're certainly feeling the judge's decision is right," said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose city's lawsuit prompted Kramer's ruling that gays and lesbians have the right to marry in California, despite a law and a voter-approved measure declaring marriage to be the exclusive realm of heterosexuals.

Opponents of same-sex marriage immediately declared that 57-year-old Kramer is a judicial activist whose decision was "ludicrous" and "nonsense."

"We knew Judge Kramer was under tremendous political pressure to redefine marriage, but we were hopeful he would recognize the limited role of the judiciary," said Robert Tyler, an Alliance Defense Fund attorney trying to uphold California's traditional marriage laws. "We do not believe it is appropriate for judges in this setting to overturn the will of the people."

With a 27-page stroke of the pen, Kramer did just that.

"The parade of horrible social ills envisioned by the opponents of same-sex marriage is not a necessary result from recognizing that there is a fundamental right to choose who one wants to marry," he wrote in the decision, which won't be enforced for 60 days, to give opponents time to appeal.

Lawyers who have practiced before Kramer said the 1972 graduate of the University of Southern California Law Center is among the top judges in San Francisco, and is unswayed by public opinion.

"I think he does what he thinks is right," said Robert Stumpf Jr., who settled a class-action lawsuit for $6.7 million before Kramer last year while representing Wells Fargo.

The bank was accused of illegally selling customers' financial information. Stumpf said Kramer steered negotiations between the bank and plaintiffs attorneys for a year. "His proposal was legally sound and practical," he said.

Gov. Pete Wilson appointed Kramer in December 1996, when Kramer was specializing in bank litigation.

Kramer had made a name for himself in the legal world in 1992, when he successfully defended Bank of America in a class-action lawsuit in which the bank was accused of illegally freezing credit-card interest rates around 20 percent between 1982 and 1986. First Interstate and Wells Fargo, also plaintiffs in that case, had settled for a combined $55 million, but Kramer the lawyer took the case to trial and prevailed.

Nancy Hersh, a San Francisco-based class-action lawyer, said Judge Kramer "listens carefully to both sides. His reasoning is excellent and he has great attention to detail."

"He's not irrational or unreasonable," added Hersh, whose plaintiffs sued Imperial Premium Finance. The Sherman Oaks insurer agreed to provide 30,000 customers with $35 coupons to be used to pay their premiums after Kramer ruled the company was illegally holding onto customer refunds.

Kramer declined to be interviewed for this story. But he gave a sense of how dedicated he is as a jurist in a 1999 interview with the San Francisco Daily Journal, a legal trade publication.

While he said he sought out a judgeship so that he could spend more time with his wife and daughter, he said he spent his first months as a criminal court judge reading the Penal Code cover to cover and driving through crime-ridden neighborhoods in San Francisco to get a sense of what was happening in the community.

"It's all fascinating to me," he told the Daily Journal. "What you have to do is figure out what the person did and what to do about it. And most of these cases require common sense and humanity."

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

And all those wanting to label the judge an "activist judge" will just be making a fool of themselves. The judge not only has a strong record of dealing with the facts, but was appointed by a Republican.

you've got to wonder how Fox News is going to spin this one ... what Karl Rove-approved labels are they going to be able to slap on this judge?

 

[melon]

you've got to wonder how Fox News is going to spin this one ... what Karl Rove-approved labels are they going to be able to slap on this judge?

They'll ignore the facts and call him an "activist judge" anyway. Fundie groups already have called him one.

It's no wonder criminal suspects are killing judges now. The Bush Administration has pretty much defined an "activist judge" as anyone who disagrees with them. This President is destroying the judiciary just to play politics.

Melon

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

They do. And so do racists and misogynists, but none of their opinion has any place in law, as far as I'm concerned.

Melon

As with Irvine, no argument here, either.

Angela

 

[indra]

you've got to wonder how Fox News is going to spin this one ... what Karl Rove-approved labels are they going to be able to slap on this judge?

Why don't you know...it's "those people" and their "homosexual agenda." They've corrupted the man!!! Ahhhhhh.... Watch out folks, YOU could be next!!!

 

[Do Miss America]

the debate should end here.

Well the truth is, there never was a debate. It was people trying to enstill THEIR religious beliefs, upholding tradition, or just plain hate. None of which should hold up in court, unless of course...well I won't get into it.

The fact is no one had anything that would hold up in court.

 

[speedracer]

I wonder if the state has any particular reason to deny additional tax breaks and other benefits to singles, polygamous families, or incestuous couples. If not, then following Kramer's logic, the state must celebrate singlehood, polygamy and incest. Or it could just eliminate marriage altogether, leaving private organizations to perform ceremonies and print licenses which carry symbolic but not legal meaning.

If the state wishes to evaluate marriage solely as a list of rights and benefits and not as a popularly determined model for the nuclear family, then I believe the two options above make the most sense.

 

[melon]

I wonder if the state has any particular reason to deny additional tax breaks and other benefits to singles, polygamous families, or incestuous couples.

Blah blah blah. The Canadian Justice minister made a good point about this ridiculous argument. Incestuous marriages and polygamy are denied across the board to everyone, while marriage is solely limited to heterosexuals. That's where the discrimination is, folks.

If people are genuinely afraid of a "domino effect," then write an amendment that bans incest, polygamy, bestiality, etc. But that won't happen, because the argument is generally a thinly veiled veneer to cover up contempt for homosexuals. Period.

Utah's "Defense of Marriage" act actually made polygamy impossible to prosecute, because they were using common law statutes to define polygamy, as most of these men were legally married to one of their wives and not the rest. Most of these amendments successfully void the idea of "common-law marriages." Like I said, it's about homophobia, not "protecting" a damn thing.

Melon

 

[speedracer]

Blah blah blah. The Canadian Justice minister made a good point about this ridiculous argument. Incestuous marriages and polygamy are denied across the board to everyone, while marriage is solely limited to heterosexuals. That's where the discrimination is, folks.

Well, I could rephrase your statement in the following (ridiculous, demeaning, but logically sound) manner: nonincestuous, nonpolygamous, heterosexual marriage is open to everyone. Homosexual marriage is denied to everyone, as are incestuous marriages and polygamy.

I'd bet that there is at least one man in America who wants to marry his sister, and only his sister. I imagine he is not happy to be told that there are people besides his sister that he can marry, just as gay men are not happy to be told that there are people besides men that they can marry.

My point is that the legal rights of marriage do not just apply to certain categories of relationships; they apply to individual relationships as well. If marriage is nothing more than a set of extra rights, it seems discriminatory to deny the protections of marriage to any relationship.

If, on the other hand, marriage is some ideal of society, then it is best to argue that gay marriage is good for society, and that it should be placed on an equal footing with heterosexual marriage for precisely this reason. If I understand Judge Kramer's ruling correctly (I'm reading the entire text of the decision right now), it seems to me like fool's gold.

 

[BVS]

Marriage = two consenting adults who are not related.

It's not that fucking hard people.

 

[melon]

If someone wants to marry their sibling, I really don't give a rat's ass. Why should I care? Just think about it: someone's probably banging their sister right now. And now. And wait.................now. The world hasn't crumbled and they can deal with it. If someone wants to marry 10 people, I don't care either. It already happens in most of the world and is described in the Old Testament with no formal revocation.

But, as I've said, the "domino effect" argument is ridiculous. If people are really genuinely afraid of people marrying their immediate family (telling someone they can't marry a handful of people versus an entire gender of people is a big difference), if people are afraid of polygamy (forcing people to choose one person isn't that big of a demand, I'd like to think, and if you're tired of that person, we have divorce and extramarital affairs), if people are afraid of animals and inanimate objects (they can't consent anyway, so how can you marry them?), then write an amendment that bans that. Again, this is not about "defending marriage." It's about blatant homophobia.

I'm tired of fucking heteros telling me what I can and can't do. It's none of your business, and now I know why black people became militant. I'd resent a bunch of stupid white folk telling me what I can and can't do as well.

Melon

 

[deep]

marriage ..... as a popularly determined model for the nuclear family,

nuclear family

A type of family made up only of parents and their children

speedracer

all childless hetero couples do not fit your definition of "marriage"

and the state should not recognize their unions.

If you are an honest person?
.

 

[speedracer]

If someone wants to marry their sibling, I really don't give a rat's ass. Why should I care? Just think about it: someone's probably banging their sister right now. And now. And wait.................now. The world hasn't crumbled and they can deal with it. If someone wants to marry 10 people, I don't care either. It already happens in most of the world and is described in the Old Testament with no formal revocation.

But, as I've said, the "domino effect" argument is ridiculous. If people are really genuinely afraid of people marrying their immediate family (telling someone they can't marry a handful of people versus an entire gender of people is a big difference)

My argument was that as long as the set of people I am forbidden to marry contains the set of people I desire to marry, it's too big. It doesn't matter if the set of people I desire to marry consists of one sister or 3 billion men. If marriage is completely about individual rights, you are correct to assert that incest and polygamy should be accorded equal footing with two-person nonincestuous marriage.

 

[Judah]

My point is that the legal rights of marriage do not just apply to certain categories of relationships; they apply to individual relationships as well. If marriage is nothing more than a set of extra rights, it seems discriminatory to deny the protections of marriage to any relationship.

If, on the other hand, marriage is some ideal of society, then it is best to argue that gay marriage is good for society, and that it should be placed on an equal footing with heterosexual marriage for precisely this reason. If I understand Judge Kramer's ruling correctly (I'm reading the entire text of the decision right now), it seems to me like fool's gold.

Sorry, i haven't read this ruling yet (just the news reports), but shouldn't the judge's judgement be, uh, judged on how he answers the questions posed to him...the case in front of him? And it seems the question was the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage in California, not to decide whether gay marriage is good or bad for society. (I guess the point the Judge made was that living up to the ultimate rule of law -- the constitution -- is good for society.)

 

[melon]

My argument was that as long as the set of people I am forbidden to marry contains the set of people I desire to marry, it's too big. It doesn't matter if the set of people I desire to marry consists of one sister or 3 billion men. If marriage is completely about individual rights, you are correct to assert that incest and polygamy should be accorded equal footing with two-person nonincestuous marriage.

Sounds good to me, as long as all is consentual. And truly consentual.

Why I don't imagine that there would be too many instances of incestuous marriages (although, really, they already happen, since it is legal to marry one's first cousin in some states and, hypocritically, these marriages are recognized even in states that don't allow it) is that most all siblings genuinely don't want each other mutually. Most instances we hear about involves either sexual abuse (father molesting daughter) or an obsessed sibling with the other completely repulsed by it. In short: no mutuality.

The same goes with polygamy. The ones in Utah are generally abusive, with the man taking on minors as "wives."

But hey...whatever. There's abusive heterosexual marriages too, and we don't see the government intervening to stop them from even being performed, now do we?

Melon

 

[Judah]

Good "slippery slope" or "domino effect" story here...from last year if anyone's interested (especially the last quarter of the article):

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100824/

 

[speedracer]

speedracer

all childless hetero couples do not fit your definition of "marriage"

and the state should not recognize their unions.

Come on. Lots of couples don't "plan" to have kids, they just happen. Childless couples keep their benefits because it's generally expected that they'll eventually have kids.

Yeah, I know this reply is horribly incomplete, but I want to get to the next statement:

If you are an honest person?
.

No, I am not an honest person. Depending on what the phase of the moon is at the time you ask me, I support either civil unions or gay marriage. I just think that the issue is often argued very poorly. This thread in particular had turned into an echo chamber that desperately needed a gong.

Edit: This previous paragraph seems quite condescending. I apologize. I do maintain that these sorts of arguments often descend into demeaning caricaturizing (is that a word?) that obscure the salient issues and arguments.

 

[melon]

No, I am not an honest person. Depending on what the phase of the moon is at the time you ask me, I support either civil unions or gay marriage. I just think that the issue is often argued very poorly. This thread in particular had turned into an echo chamber that desperately needed a gong.

I pretty much assumed this was your position from the start, so I tried to stick to the issues (although this issue above all makes me start becoming a bit more irrationally angry).

I think, as a society, we need to stop passing laws based on the "ick" factor and according to religious precepts. After all, we're trying to foster secular democracies in the Middle East supposedly, and, yet, we're hardly setting an example. Whatever happened to "freedom of religion"?

Melon

 

[speedracer]

Sorry, i haven't read this ruling yet (just the news reports), but shouldn't the judge's judgement be, uh, judged on how he answers the questions posed to him...the case in front of him? And it seems the question was the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage in California, not to decide whether gay marriage is good or bad for society. (I guess the point the Judge made was that living up to the ultimate rule of law -- the constitution -- is good for society.)

Well, yes, the judge answered the question about the constitutionality of the ban on gay marriage. However, he defined it in a way that will have all the legal repercussions I have talked about if it is to be taken as a serious precedent.

My meta-argument that it is best to argue for gay marriage on its merits and not on an equal-protection footing is a separate matter.

 

[BVS]

Childless couples keep their benefits because it's generally expected that they'll eventually have kids.

So my grandmother who remarried at 60 is expected that she'll have kids? I better tell her, she's 83 now, and has had any yet.

The shit's getting thick in here.

If this is your plan than why not only give benefits to those who actually have kids?

It's all bullshit.

 

[speedracer]

Back to devil's advocate mode.

So my grandmother who remarried at 60 is expected that she'll have kids? I better tell her, she's 83 now, and has had any yet.

I think you glossed over the word "generally". Anyway, your grandmother theoretically still relates to the children from her first marriage.

If one takes the standpoint that marriage is supposed to reward the creation of families, then awarding marriage to childless couples isn't an injustice; it just means that couples who do not have children are getting some fringe benefits.

If this is your plan than why not only give benefits to those who actually have kids?

One could do that, yes.

It's all bullshit.

The existence of some legal inconsistencies doesn't negate the fact that lots of people see marriage as a family-building institution.

 

[deep]

Come on. Lots of couples don't "plan" to have kids, they just happen. Childless couples keep their benefits because it's generally expected that they'll eventually have kids.

Yeah, I know this reply is horribly incomplete, but I want to get to the next statement:



No, I am not an honest person. Depending on what the phase of the moon is at the time you ask me, I support either civil unions or gay marriage. I just think that the issue is often argued very poorly. This thread in particular had turned into an echo chamber that desperately needed a gong.

sorry,


I could have phrased that better.

I should have asked
if you would be consistent in your argument

 

[BVS]

I think you glossed over the word "generally". Anyway, your grandmother theoretically still relates to the children from her first marriage.

You don't make laws on "generally"

If you use then theory. Then she shouldn't be allowed to remarry.

If one takes the standpoint that marriage is supposed to reward the creation of families, then awarding marriage to childless couples isn't an injustice; it just means that couples who do not have children are getting some fringe benefits.

How does this make sense?

Why doesn't this expand to homosexuals? Your logic is extremely flawed and I think you see that hence the "devils advocate" disclaimer.

 

[dazzledbylight]

speedracer

all childless hetero couples do not fit your definition of "marriage"

and the state should not recognize their unions.

If you are an honest person?
.

Deep,

I was making the same question/point to A Wander in DMA's "ask the..." thread. Where he was talking about gay marriages not fullfill the marriage model.

And at the point in my life when I still had the stronger thought about being married, but at the same time i knew from a quite young age that I didn't ant to have children....I could have ended up in the 'married without chidren willingly hetero-couple' catagory.

And if I still had practiced Christianity then, I would have wanted the sanctification of a religious marriage.

And I [unlike when i was in my early teens] see no reason to prevent loving gay,or lesbian couples {for those who would treasure it} from experiencing/being enveloped in that kind of deeply satisfying/centering sanctifying ritual.

Just to be clear, I'm not 'knocking' the Christian marriage ritual- should anyone think I am [this all such sensitive issues]. If i ever do get married, I'd ant to have some manner of spiritual acknowldgement/sanctification of it. It just wouldn't be a Christian ceremony.

Everyone has rituals. It's just that when you are so steeped in your own culture's , they are as breathing the air itself, so often anyting difference can be unsettling or worse to some people observing the differences.

which slides into[was it you Melon]the other quite big obsticles to more equality in Humankind-- about [besides homophobia] rascism & mysogynism.

DMA - consider that since traditional christianity is the faith of at least till more reccent years the dominant faith in AMerica.....that tradition as ayou mentioned...it IS like breathing. So they weren't coming from 'outside' to imopse their beleifs. It's the "WAY things ARE'/ have been from "thre inside" for so long.

That unfortuanety can take time to change. That change varies from person to person, institutions to institution. Which at least if laws can be put on the books, then Enforced and properly Funded to BE enforced- then things start to move, qhile e try to change m more peoples minds so that those 'isms' have less & less power over time.

Unfortunaely these 'isms' are still 'like breathing' - it 'just IS' for a lot of people. It's hard to begin to understand it as a social construction that can be changed......if you truely believe in a much more, equitable society. At least my not-so-humble opinion.

good stuff irvine, melon, DMA & deep.

 

[speedracer]

You don't make laws on "generally"

I can think of several other examples, but I wish to stick to the argument at hand.

How does this make sense?

Why doesn't this expand to homosexuals? Your logic is extremely flawed and I think you see that hence the "devils advocate" disclaimer.

Homosexual couples aren't capable of having their own children.
Heterosexual couples are capable of having their own children, and it's more trouble than it's worth to weed out the couples who aren't able to have kids/don't plan to have kids/shouldn't have kids because their reproductive cells are horribly mutated/etc.

Going back to what I really believe, I realize that there are other benefits to marriage that center around the couple itself. Therefore, I support civil unions at a minimum.