CA Supreme Court upholds Prop 8, but says existing marriages remain valid
By David Neiwert Tuesday May 26, 2009 9:50am
A lot of people saw this coming:
SAN FRANCISCO -- California voters legally outlawed same-sex marriage when they approved Proposition 8 in November, but the constitutional amendment did not dissolve the unions of 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who wed before the measure took effect, the state Supreme Court ruled today.
The 6-1 decision was issued by the same court that declared a year ago that a state law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman violated the right to choose one's spouse and discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation.
Prop. 8 undid that ruling. The author of last year's 4-3 decision, Chief Justice Ronald George, said today that the voters were within their rights to approve a constitutional amendment redefining marriage to include only male-female couples.
Justice Carlos Moreno, in a lone dissent, said a majority should not be allowed to deprive a minority of fundamental rights by passing an initiative.
The justices ruled unanimously that Prop. 8 was not retroactive and that gay and lesbian couples who relied on the court's May 2008 ruling to get married before the Nov. 4 election will remain legally wed.
Prop. 8, which declared that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, passed with a 52 percent majority after an intense and expensive campaign. Sponsors, mainly affiliated with Christian conservative groups, raised nearly $40 million for the measure and opponents more than $45 million - combined, a record for a ballot measure on a social issue anywhere in the nation.
And here's the important part:
The ruling, the court's third major decision on same-sex marriage in five years, may be the last word from the state's legal system on the issue. But the matter is far from settled in the political arena. Gay-rights advocates, anticipating the decision, have discussed putting another constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2010 or 2012 to try to repeal Prop. 8.
Indeed. The Courage Campaign has a petition for you to sign calling for the repeal of Prop 8. I think we can count on it being on the next major ballot.
Login or Register to post comments.
Son of bitches. I include the CA supremes and all the people who supported this vile piece of trash.
c&l is always dissing fox news - and they should - why then do they link to their show for information?
...I will never watch a video from or click a link to that site.
I don't watch many of them either, but I do read about them. You have to know what the enemy is saying so you can fight back.
So we can diss 'em.
I agree. It's insane to think that a majority can overrule the rights of another minority.
So what if it was Prop 9 "Blacks cannot own land."
Or Say... Prop 10 "Jews must wear a star on their shirt to signify them as such."
How about Prop 11 "Hispanics are to be shipped to internment camps for reeducation."?
Its the same bloody thing. Removing rights form another minority.
Why not "Whites are not allowed to breed."??
My god the inhumanity that california has sunk too is sickening.
Our state is broke and on the edge of dragging the rest of the country down. But at least gays can't get married!
Its the sexual preference stupid. Not the economy.
the whole referendum method of government was and is totally fucked.
It is why your State is broke and why it wastes countless millions on things like this.
I believe firmly in representative government, but the California referendum process is totally fucked.
We won't be broken for long! Now that we put a stop to the gay people breeding, we have God on our side and he is a great economist and politician!
California...where the governor's mansion is like a halfway house for retired actors.
Not working out very well. He fell off the wagon with The Expendables .
The referendum process is the direct cause of CA's unending budget woes. When you pre-commit 2/3rd of the budget and make sane tax policy effectively impossible, of course the result is chaos. CA needs a constitutional convention, stat.
Thanks to almost a decade of Republican rule, the country is already drug down.
Get your terms right. Stop buying into the meme.
My apologies, the remark was tongue-in-cheek.
I thought California was 'too big to fail'. Isn't that what Arnie thought?
a) While a setback, it's only a matter of time before enough bigots die off and this is all put behind us
b) California is a beautiful example of why direct democracy is a bad idea
c) Will all the coast-dwellers now finally stop pretending that they're so much more enlightened and progressive than "middle america"?
c) Will all the coast-dwellers now finally stop pretending that they're so much more enlightened and progressive than "middle america"?
What does this have to do with anything? The 48 percent of Californians who you probably consider "coast dwellers" (a stupid stereotype) voted against Prop 8 and hate this ruling.
Fifty-two percent of the population can deny 48% their basic rights? Wow! Good thing it wasn't cloer like 50.1% to 49.9%, or this would be a classic example of the failure of direct democracy.
The only good that can come from this, is that it will harden the resolve of people even more. That 52% number is a max-out, and will quickly shrink with the newer generations who don't suffer from baby boomer homophobia.
I expect the religious bigots and imbeciles to lose this battle in the very near future. Even though it doesn't lessen the sting right now for gays, I think the light is now entering the tunnel.
Oh give me a break. How many "Jesusland" comments have there been, how many suggestions that America would be better off if all the red states seceded, as if the blue states were the enlightened centers of freedom and progress?
CA is only blue in the big metro areas and the northern coast. Otherwise, it's redder than the devil's ass.
I understand that this Supreme Court ruling was purely based on whether Prop 8 represented a major change to their constitution, and thus could not be done by a ballot initiative.
But isn't their some sort of fail-safe mechanism in place for amendments to the California constitution that are clearly unlawful? What if 51% of California citizens got together and decided that interracial marriage should be illegal too. Isn't the ballot initiative just a way for the majority to enact laws disenfranchising the minority?
Yeah, pretty much. California has created a system where the constitution is no protection for the minority.
I figure we'll be restoring the 'traditional' status of blacks to 3/5 of a person any day now.
Ok, this is pure pedantry.
But the constitution did not say that blacks were 3/5 of a person.
They said that All Other Persons had 3/5 representation.
There were three kinds of people, Free Persons, Indians, and All Other Persons.
But at the time All Other Persons was 99+% black, so in effect, yeah...
...is there something that is preventing the challengers to Prop 8 from taking this to federal appeals court or the US Supreme Court? Seems to me that that Prop 8 is unConstitutional on several grounds, such that it would be trashed in federal court.
Yes. This whole thing is entirely a matter of CA law. No federal law is implicated in any way, so there's no federal issue to hang a federal court challenge on.
Isn't it great? That the majority can take your rights away? Ah, democracy.
Very sad, and also very angry too. It's hard to think right now, but I think my break from Christianity is complete now, no more "liberal" Christian even, and that I am very angry with evangelicals, Mormons, etc. because they're probably very happy right now that their "religious freedom" to trample all over my civil rights has been upheld.
I also think, as a bisexual woman, I ought to get more involved in GLBT activism, even if it means I will no longer be just "partially" out of the closet in a town that's not that tolerant. Ugh. :(
Also, I am Californian born and bred, but I think it's time to leave Cali to rot in its own bigotted hell and move to Massachusetts...
You (and other closeted/partially closeted gays/bis/t's) do need to come out all the way no matter where you live. Otherwise, you have no right to complain about the bigots - they win when you hide.
Maybe move down here to the Bay Area, no one will bother you about being less than straight!
Leaving CA means one less vote when we repeal this peice of shit amendment.
You're right, keeping things partially quiet is not a way to live. I've already started to come out a bit more.
You're right about the Bay Area too, it has a lot of things that make Massachusetts appealing, including the tolerance.
You're right, I think I should stay and do my part to fight this thing...
Glad you're staying here, Annaleigh. We need folks to fight the fight here , so we can stand as a precedent for other, less enlightened, states where many GLBT folks have less hope.
Valley, how much harder must it be in Wyoming, or Alabama, etc...
Where they overwhelmingly elect republicans who are all in the closet.
Something just doesn't seem right here?
In beautiful Oakland.
I hope I didn't sound too harsh, you just weren't sounding like the feisty and strong Annaleigh we know and love.
I was just stunned by the whole thing at that moment, just feeling sort of glum about it period. I just got back from the gym, so I've physically worked out some of that negative energy.
There's got to be some productive stuff to do about this issue and for GLBT rights in general.
(Oh and thanks! :) )
I'm out, gay, vocal and FABULOUS Hon. You should be too. It's such a weight off your shoulders. Be free!!!!! Fuck the rest. Who really cares what they think? Not me!! :-)
to learn to ignore the gossipmongers... I'm some people in this town would have a field day with it, but I shouldn't let that stop me! :)
It's only talk. Yoi'll find out who your real friends are, too; the keepers.
It's beautiful here! (Pittsfield)
Of course, I am finding out why the locals call this state Taxachusetts....
For someone moving from CA, MA taxes will be a breath of fresh air. They're quite a bit lower in terms of overall burden.
day! :) It's gorgeous, with so much history, and then there's the whole appeal of Salem. I'll have to go! ;)
This sickens me.
The worst part of it is that Prop8 was supported by fake Christians claiming to have the "moral high ground" as they vote for discrimination.
that's what I hate about Religion is that it supports discrimination and then they tell me I have to respect their faith, to them I say: FUCK YOU and YOUR INVISIBLE FRIEND!
As an American we should all be shamed by this ruling.
"go" atheist, but I have had it with Christianity. Christians are showing not much else right now other than hate. I think I am going to be an "eclectic" in Unitarian Universalism. But I can't stand behind Christianity as I know it right now...
I never was Christian (even though my parents sent me there until I was 8) ...(at which point I laid down the law and quit: no more propaganda, m'kay folks?!) I have migrated toward Eastern thought. Buddhism, Taoism and yoga (although yoga is NOT religion, it's sutras are based on Hindu/Buddhist ideas.) The Universe is my higher being.
The best part is, no church required. Churches are political organizations: you have to fit in (and, perhaps, obey.)
pretty great to apply to specific areas in my life right now, whereas, the teachings I learned in my Christian church, trying to apply them to this same area only caused more anxiety and distress.
I hear you about the whole structure of churches... I think though that the UU church is best if I do want to try another one, at least they are progressive and not regressive. I saw some UU congregation member signs at some of the footage of the court's decision today. All pro-gay marriage, of course.
AHIMSA
Yamas are moral principles.
A= Not
Himsa= violence
Ahimsa= the practice of Non-violence
Yoga is synonymous to non-violence. Non-violence is important for relaxation.
We do a wish/vow of non-violence and from that moment on we TRY to practice non-violence. Be mild with yourself, do your best and that‘s all you can do. Success lies within the efforts you make, not in trying to be perfect.
Asana means standing still. That‘s what we pursue in the yoga poses.
The 1st. principle to stand still: To be soft (actively), non-violent
Ahimsa is one of the five yamas:
Ahimsa – Non-violence
Satya – Truthfulness
Asteya - Honesty
Brahmacharya - Chastity
Aparigraha – Non-covetting
We need these principles in order to obtain peace of mind and to improve the quality and the results of our meditation and of our daily life in general. They are moral principles and are actually expressions of natural laws: We intuitively know/feel that they are right even without ever being made aware of them.
In the case of Ahimsa we simply refuse to take part in the agression that surrounds us in our daily lives and we try to avoid being the cause of any. Such attitude will cause us to feel better and will add to our happiness and well-being. In yoga-terms it comes down to avoinding to make new Karma (the law of action and reaction) and in the process, to get rid of Karma, which we gathered unconsiously throughout our lives so far.
(PS you don't have to be chaste, just don't be reckless.)
I'm saving this in WordPad, it seems like something I should learn more of. Coincidentally I was reading a newsletter I got from the library today that is mostly written by a yoga instructor from the community. Intriguing stuff.
I'm a certified teacher, with experience, so you can tap my brain.
this is why the "let the states decide" argument is such a POS lame-ass, cop-out argument.
As we see, even the "states" can't decide.
NO...I disagree.
California can't decide. Plenty of other states that are very clear on where they stand.
whatever happened to "Full Faith and Credit?"
It's a slam-dunk on BOTH the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses of the 14th amendment.
Prohibitions should be overturned on 1st Amendment 'separation' grounds, because the only arguments offered against it have clearly and unarguably sectarian bases.
The United States of America is a Republic.
"State's rights" cuts both ways...so I am perfectly ok with 50 different definitions of marriage.
The only way that homosexuals will get equal protection under the law is if we fight the political equivalent of the Civil War to get it.
Let conservatives understand what "state's rights" REALLY means. Let the people see the backwardness of their particular state. Intellectual and moral arguments seem to have little effect...perhaps embarrassment will make them see the err of their ways.
People tend to support states' rights when it suits their cause and then be against it when it doesn't.
I say people need to be consistent and speak up for states' rights (even though that is a misnomer) whether they agree with what the state might do or not.
It's equivalent to saying "I don't agree with your lifestyle, but I will defend your right to enjoy it."
Now, the problem comes in when states' "rights" interfere with individual rights (the only kind there is). Does the right a state claim create victims? IOW, does it violate individual rights? Well, then that must mean that the state actually doesn't have the right to do it.
Do people have a right to marry whom they choose? Of course.
Does the state have a right to interfere with that? Of course not.
But then, when you start thinking about it like that, then there are all sorts of things that most Democrats and people who call themselves liberals start to realize.
Oh, maybe the state doesn't have a right to inspect my house or make me pay for some permit to sell things or put a lien on my house, etc etc...
Most other states are no full of liberals with conservatism jammed up their ass!
As a California I say we should do better then this, but we have so many plastic people it's not hard to see why they have no sense of right and wrong.
Arnold Schwarzenegger recall that might help get the State back to some resemblance of liberal values.
but I would hope that it wouldn't be the debacle that the recall that voted him into power was.
that's no secret. I'm beginning to think California needs a major "housecleaning" no matter how you size it up the State isn't what it used to be.
*
brazen Republican Coup attempt. It's a damn shame it worked.
Of all the potential candidates to chose from Arnold Schwarzenegger?
Whatever happened to the California that elected Ronald Reagan?
They're dead.
CA needs a constitutional convention because its constitution has become an unworkable mess.
let's have another time- and mone-wasting special election!
saying Republicans can no longer vote. Or that women can no longer vote. Or that blacks and whites can no longer intermarry.
... an initiative to remove the tax-free status of churches.
You wanna play politics, let's play politics. Pay your fucking taxes like the rest of us.
we subsidise "religion" by having to pay more in taxes for the share these bigot-breeding institutions don't pay and their members get to deduct from income for donations.
Talk about "state-sponsored religion"... WE ALL SPONSOR IT!
This country will never know liberty until the last banker is strangled with the intestines of the last preacher...
Wow. Violent and gruesome. I like it.
Amen!!
I'm all for that. Churches have become hot beds of political activity.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Let's fight back with a constitutional amendment that bans heterosexual divorce!
change the parameters of the debate.
THAT is smart political thinking.
Can I get a "Praise Jeebus?"
That's why I love this site :-)
Too much effort spent passing initiatives--gay marriage ban, smoking in bars or in public, talking on cellphones while driving, etc-- by people whom most of these do not even impact; they just "sounded like a good idea." Not to mention the continued funding of law enforcement to keep the boot on the throats of citizens to enforce them at the expense of other, far more important issues.
Fuck all the CA goody-two-shoes assholes. Give me South Florida (yeah, not perfect) over SoCal any day.
CA gets better in the North.
Less initiative, more pot.
that pot removes my initiative...
Pot helps you save your initiative for later.
my initiative dry
Pot inspires me to be better. (Wish I could get some here in Korea.)
tend to be that way... :)
Fake Christians who legislate puritanical morality while killing Moslems in the guise of "democratizing" them. Nothing is worse than these hypocrites.
Faux is not a legitimate news source. It would be nice if my favorite liberal blog did not use them to highlight important news.
Agreed. It's been on CNN (as imperfect as they are) all morning.
I've stopped watching all TV news.
Both the "substantive due process" and the "equal protection" clauses of the 14th Amendment are offended by such bans.
... the Bush Administration hadn't amply demonstrated their ability to ignore the Constitution to suit their own needs.
And this whole 'America is a Christian Nation' horseshit is leading to a sectarian war. I'm sure Jesus will be impressed.
If you simply try to repeal Proposition 8 on the 2010 or 2012 ballot, even if you are successful, they will just attempt to reinstate it again, creating an endless cycle of propositions granting and then denying marriage.
The best way to stop this madness is to break the whole proposition process once and for all. For the 2010 ballot, there should be hundreds of ridiculous propositions, each banning marriage for some minority. Get creative, for instance, marriage is only between a man who raises chickens and a woman who knits sweaters.
If you have hundreds of long-worded, complicated propositions, one of them will undoubtedly pass, just because it was skipped by enough people. Perhaps then the embarrassment, which is the proposition/recall process of California will create enough political will to narrow the scope of questions, which can be directly decided by the people.
The initiative process.
The only way to fix it is to call a constitutional convention and fix CA's absurd constitution and the initiative process right along with it.
I’m done with all of it. Obama could have shown leadership on this issue and others affecting the LGBT community like DOMA and DADT but he hasn’t. He’s been totally silent on all of it. Maybe Clinton would have thrown us under the bus as well but then maybe she wouldn’t have. I served my country honorably. I gave to Obama, I volunteered for his campaign. I’ve participated in the system more often than more than 99% of the population has done. I’m done with it. It doesn’t work when the majority can strip the rights from a minority. I’m done giving. I’m done volunteering. I’m done voting and since I can’t get the full benefits of society, I refuse to take on the same responsibilities so I’m done paying taxes. Yes, I’ll go to jail but WTF difference can that make? It’s not like I’m free now. I hope all of the bigoted assholes in California who talk shit about equal rights and then get into the booth and vote others’ rights away are happy. Please, feel free to pass any laws you want because I. Am. Done.
I understand your disappointment with Obama's failure of leadership on this issue. But, I would give an appeal process time. This proposition seems unconstitutional on multiple grounds including, bills of attainder, denial of due process, the constitutional prohibition against states writing laws or crafting provisions that deny specific populations rights that are enjoyed by all others, you could even make a prior restraint argument, plus the recent case law/precedents of other states striking down laws on grounds that they are unconstitutional. I really don't think that the proposition can survive scrutiny in the federal courts. And, when the federal courts shoot it down as unConstitutional, that premempts all future attempts to sneak something similar into state laws.
In the meantime, Obama has shown a bit of what he's really about. Talk is easy, but when he could have made a difference in defense of justice, he did nothing. IT simplifies things somewhat for those who are still trying to get the measure of the man.
Before it's over, this is going to be decided in your favor. No thanks to most of the politicians.
Boy, talk about overreacting
would be cool as a frickin' cutcumber. Ha.
the position of a gay person who cannot marry, because I am in that position...as a matter of fact, a bill to legalize it in my state is dying a slow death in the State Senate at the moment, my Senator supports it, but a new poll shows 50% of people in my BOROUGH of New York City do not.
But the last thing I'm going to say is that I'm done...because that's what they want...us to give up. It's so much easier that way.
So. Once again we see that Christianity is just as evil, jhust as hate filled, just as oppressive ad their Islamic colleagues.
Isn't Christianity just lovely?
Is that I think Jesus was GAY!!!
If you mention this to "Christians" they totally wig out!
He went around preaching love with 12 guys and never married a woman (according to the "official" story).
He seemed like a very typical gay guy to me. And I was raised Evangelical United Brethren!! I had the whole Jesus thing crammed into me from the time I was, well...BAPTIZED!!!
Some Christians like me are anti-war, pro-peace, very tolerant of individual freedoms and try to be intellectually honest. Homosexuality is NORMAL if you happen to be homosexual. Duh.
In my opinion, the Christians who are homophobic are not Christians at all. Screw The Old Testament! That's why they call The New Testament, The NEW Covenant. And I don't believe there is anything in The New Testament that is homophobic.
Sarah Palin is the classic example of a "Christian" who, IMHO, is NOT a true Christian in any sense of the word.
to be a radically progressive/populist tool when it was proposed.
The "idealists" failed to foresee that the anti-democratic interests would corrupt it in short order with the injection of huge amounts of cash into the system.
Unfortunately, the initiative system is embedded in the California Constitution. There's NO fuukin' way to get it out again...
It's called a constitutional convention. It's the only way to fix the disaster.
For the problems with the Articles of Confederation. The problem though is that the people we have today that would had a say in such a convention are not of the same stock as those men back then. Today we have sniveling, selfish, sorry excuses for human beings as politicians, and Christian totalitarians.
I fear that such a constitutional convention would only make matters worse and the only true solution is a violent upheaval of the status quo.
Almost all of the New England states recognize marriage equality-
When righties slam me as a 'Massachusetts liberal', i take it as a compliment...
We have had marriage equality in MA for years, and the sky hasn't fallen. Know what HAS happened? The numbers of hateful right wingers has gotten smaller and smaller..
When people say "your a liberal," I say, "your a conservative? Why? name me anything the damn conservatives have ever done to benefit anyone but themselves and their business cronies?"
I then go on to list about 10 things in short order that liberals have done for the American people. Funny, they never call me a "liberal" to my face again.
In the form of cutting AIDS funding.
stealing from vulnerable communities to try and fix the budget rather than that those who have the money.
But there's a special place in hell for him I think if he gets his greedy mitts on AIDS funding!
I don't take any comfort in your view that he is Hell bound. This is making me physically ill.
*
I'm just not comforted by the thought of him roasting in hell.
It's hard to find comfort anywhere with this crap happening all around right now.
Tax the rich? That would be unfair, and cruel!
Have you ever tried to make ends meat on a $300,000,000 Trust Fund? I didn't think so. They need those tax cuts. And besides, the money they spend will trickle down to the rest of us, and create like a totally awesome utopia - right here on earth!
*clutches pearls*
The real problem is that rich people are mobile. Raise their taxes too much and they'll relocate their primary residence to a state with lower taxes. CA isn't *THAT* nice.
CA's budget is unfixable under current parameters because of the initiative process. Initiatives now in force have pre-committed somewhere around 2/3rd of the budget and made sane tax policy impossible. I don't blame Arnold for that because most of it happened while he was still shooting steroids and smoking pot.
Many on the right still thing AIDS is 'the queer disease'
If only Superman had not thwarted Lex Luther. *sigh*
take.
And since I am an Etsy seller/buyer, I'm going to buy a GLBT pride necklace from a seller I know who makes them and I'll wear it all about town. I'll join the GLBT sellers team on Etsy too. I am fucking declaring myself.
After all, the radical right seems to think the only reason straight couples marry is to reproduce- and since gays can't reproduce, then they say gay marriages are invalid. Using that logic, I submit straight marriages that do not produece children are also invalid.
I am married and have no children (I was working nights/weekends at the time and chose not to be an absentee father).
So you're going to punish ME for the antics of a bunch of Christianist goons?
I'm not saying it's right, quite the opposite but now there is precedent for the majority to strip the rights of the minority. Pretty fucked up when you're on the receiving end isn't it? Not going to happen though. This isn't about children, it's about hate.
I'm standing with THEM?
I'm Asian, my wife is Caucasian. I've already got concerns that the next trick out of the bag is to bar interracial marriage, or some other Christian wackaloonity, so I fully understand the injustice being done here.
I said now there is precedent and that it sucks to be on the receiving end of bigotry. Why the thin skin?
No worries, Margaret. Most of us here got what you are saying (and I'm married w/o children as well.)
... the same kind of behavior as the Proposition 8 crowd.
I have been on the receiving end of bigotry throughout my life. I don't like it. Are you suggesting that I have less of a reason to be upset than someone from the GLBT community right now?
Shadow, I think Margaret's example was merely pointing out how a majority can deny civil rights to a minority - no matter how the minority is defined (hence, the childless married couple thought.) She could have used any example, as someone else did upthread (male sheepherders couldn't marry female accountants, or something like that.)
No one was suggesting that non-GLBT folks have less to be upset about; the point was that discrimination like this affects us ALL. -
...and it wasn't even my example. I knew I should have stayed in bed today...
Woo hoo! Hey now.......
I would let evangelical bigots and mormons get married only if they signed an affidavit swearing not to produce any offspring.
Otherwise - NO DEAL!
That still leaves the door open for them to adopt and continue to poison the minds of the young and impressionable.
Evangelicals... the poisoner of nations.
No, I'm saying that you have completely misunderstood my point. Now you've done it twice.
"I have been on the receiving end of bigotry throughout my life."
Me too. First as a gay man, now as a white minority in an Asian nation. I'm in an inter-racial homosexual relatonship in a country that thinks homosexuality is a DISEASE to be obliterated. I just don't let it bother me.
No one here is attacking you. Relax.
so true, but double standards define the right..
shadowgm, you seemed to miss my point...
invalid, Tom's just saying that's one direction the religious right's logic goes in since they are so focused on reproduction.
And Margaret is just saying that this puts the stripping of GLBT rights into perspective for childless/childfree couples, and goes to show how any vulnerable minority in this state could lose civil rights.
Is slippery slope.
Tom's example is something we shouldn't follow. Call it concern trolling if you want.
Margaret's choice of words, 'pretty fucked up to be on the receiving end' suggest that I've never been there, and should shut up and enjoy the lesson.
Both are imitating the Proposition 8 sponsors more than arguing against it.
I take back everything I've ever said in my life since the first word I ever uttered.
Happy?
Shadow -
To quote the Seargent in "Stripes" -
"Lighten up, Francis."
Sheesh!
Don't call me Francis!
Darn! Can't get youtube videos here at work. :(
*
... maybe a severe lack of reading and comprehension?
... or maybe lack of a sense of humor?
Lighten up dude, you are trying to twist other people's words and intentions to make yourself the victim. And I personally have no clue why...
Every time I see some woman saying we should protect traditional marriage. I agree, traditional marriage is good, it would make life much more simpler when wives were property.
"The author of last year's 4-3 decision, Chief Justice Ronald George, said today that the voters were within their rights to approve a constitutional amendment redefining marriage to include only male-female couples."
So voters *are* within their rights to "redefine marriage"? I thought the whole (dishonest) conservative argument was that America was NOT free to "redefine marriage"! (Everybody knows marriage is based on traditional principles, where divorce is illegal, adultery is a capital offense, and women can't vote, own property or work! Come on, people! Back to traditional values!)
Marriage is a private spiritual bond between two people. If we're going to have inheritance laws and visitation rights laws and stuff like that, then let's have nothing BUT civil unions. It's really simple, folks!
this opinion is in keeping with the first tenet of modern conservatism...
Never let the facts get in the way.
That's an interesting idea - let's have a referendum stating that all "marriages" will now be void in CA. Only civil unions will be recognized. Threfore, hetero "married" couples will have to register as a civil union couple - just as gay couples will have to.
That way, "marriage" can continue to be a religious thing - and all couples will have the same civil rights.
The religious right-wingers would have nothing to bleat about.
Well, other than this would open a door into blatant discrimination against people that aren't "married".
Right, but hopefully you see my point in trying to take "marriage" out of our legislative and legal process. I certainly agree that couples who are not "married" should have the same civil rights as those who are.
Marriage is nothing but a legaling binding contract between two consenting adults that may or may not accompany a religious ceremony. Marriage contract are what people should have. And then any ceremony you wish to have can be done on your own personal time. I get your point. But I would not use separate terms ie. civil union vs marriage. That just invites disaster.
Login or Register to post comments.