Ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional

From SF Chron this morning: " 'No rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners,' Kramer wrote in a decision that relied on rights guaranteed by the California Constitution. He cited as precedent another groundbreaking ruling, the state Supreme Court's 1948 decision striking down California's law against interracial marriage..."

This from a judge who is both Catholic and Republican. What is the world coming to?

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/15/MNG8VBPILS1.DTL

The opposition is predictably outraged. We have the usual irrational responses from some quoted in the Chron:

"If everyone in the world would follow the same-sex pattern, then there would be genocide..."

Yes, let's extrapolate from the minority of gays to the entire population of the earth in order to make the point??? For those of us who are straight, does this ruling suddenly change our sexual orientation? No. End of discussion.

"People say that if people are in love they should be able to get married. But what if they are brothers? Or a father and a daughter?"

Here we extrapolate into the bizarre. Yes, if we allow gay marriages, next we'll be allowing men to marry their dogs or their goldfish. Of course, the argument above (if you want to call it that) works just as well as an argument against heterosexual marriage. One has to already believe that gay marriage is wrong - it doesn't follow logically from his argument.

"We support marriage as between a man and a woman because it is a building block of our society that is designed to give children a mother and a father."

The judge correctly pointed out that if we follow this edict exactly, there would be no basis for allowing hetero couples who are either incapable of having children, or don't desire them, to marry. Further, gay marriage doesn't change the number of straight men and women who might want to marry and have children. There is the same number of "building blocks" as before.

And then there are the usual quotes from the Bible about homosexuality as an abomination etc. etc. The Bible does not hold up well as a legal document. There are a few, er uh, contradictory passages in it.

The judge's comparison to interracial marriages is an apt one. Fifty years ago the rants from the opposition sounded much the same. Thankfully, those who still oppose interracial marriage today are on the fringe. They keep their views to themselves for the most part, as society has moved on without them. This issue is heading for the same territory - eventually. I predict there will not be genocide.

 

*Clink* rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
"Ok, the can of worms is open"

 

I personally don't give a crap who marries who, so long as I get to stay married to my smart, lovely, beautiful, and sexy wife for as long as I live. Wish others had the same attitude....

I mean who really cares whether two men are shacking up and get a marriage certificate to get additional legal and tax/economic benefits as a couple? Is this about money or about human rights, or some twisted Bible passage?

As far as those Bible passages go, if we followed all of them (not just the ones proscribing homosexuality) we'd all be in a world of hurt. The stonings from eating pork alone would empty a quarry in an afternoon. And woe unto ye who wash your car on the Sabbath! Take them out to the stoning field immediately!!!!

 

I think marriage itself is unconstitutional -- cruel and unusual punishment.

 

ROTFLMAO!

 

Now, that IS funny!

I would have thought one of our many theologues would have posted this, so it was a pleasant surprise to see Tom start it off.

I am at home sick today, so I was tuning into Mornings on 2 and an interview with Mayor Gavin Newsom. He is probably one of the best-spoken and educated Mayors in the nation. I agree with Mayor Newsom, there are no logical reason why gay marriage should be illegal - none. All of the rhetoric by the CONS is just that - a page out of Karl Rove's playbook -- taken verbatim. And all of it is pure and simple "slippery-slope" logic. I guess the Pres forgot to take the class in logic while attending his frat parties at Yale.

It all boils down to this: Who give a crap who marries whom. Will gay marriage make anyone else who not gay become gay? What a joke! Will it dilute the institution of marriage in any way, shape or form? I think the church as already done that already - and with a 50% divorce rate, I would say that marriage is not as strong of an institution as most people think.

I say allow anyone who is over 18 to make their own choice. This is not about dog-cat marriage (another silly argument of the right) or pedophiles (a majority of pedophiles are straight Christians in this country anyway - so that shoots that argument) - it is about human rights at its core. Perhaps if we ban Christians from being married, or ban any taxpayer subsidized student loans for people going for Theology degrees, the right would understand what it means to be slapped down.

Just my two...

 

Well, what NO ONE seems to be talking about is what kind of evidence the trial court considered.

I really wish someone WOULD, you know. I have yet to see evidence that a homosexual orientation is an immutable, involuntary condition.

Personally, I think it is, but my observations are mere anecdotes and certainly not competent evidence.

 

I don't know either. I can say with two first cousins who are homosexual, I can say that few would choose this lifestyle. Lets face it, there are too many rightous out there (shrills) who have nothing better to do than to belittle others who are different than they are.

 

As a divorcee I can certainly relate!

 

There have been several very well researched papers, mostly from Europe on the subject. If you do a search you can probably find a couple. I'll see what my husband can track down, he was there when at least one was presented at a medical conference.

While I believe it is genetic, does it really make a difference? If two men are in a stable relationship, contributing to society (taxes, homeowning, etc.) then shouldn't they share in the society's benefits?

I have yet to see anyone offer a sane, unexaggerated, non-"slippery slope", non-religious reason against same-sex marriage.

 

I agree

I have to agree. I also am a happily married man who can't imagine life without his lovely wife. Why should it be any different for two men or two women? Why should people care?

I personally believe those most outraged are secretly afraid they themselves are gay.

Take care, Abner

 

I don't doubt that the evidence is out there, but these trial Court decisions are arriving so quickly as to make me wonder whether any evidence is actually being adduced or if both sides are stipulating or WHAT. Is there a "sexual orientation" anti discrimination statute or constitutional provision in California? That might explain the unseemly haste.

 

Cruel, perhaps in some cases. (I am a divorcee.) Unusual, no. Ergo, not unconstitutional.

 

This brings up something I haven't thought of until now. What's to stop two hetero men, or women, from claiming they are a "couple" in order to "share in society's benefits"?

If gay marriage passes, will one have to "prove" he or she is gay in order to marry someone of the same sex. And if so, how?

Will it be illegal for two hetero people of the same sex to marry each other?

Will it be possible for a couple of college buddies to "pull a fast one"?

???

 

Do you honestly think that two hetero guys are gonig to risk being labeled fags just to get benefits? They could just as easily "pull a fast one" with a female as with a male.

Again, why would it matter? Older people marry all the time to share benefits, collect social security. Do they have to prove they are a couple? Do heterosexual couples have to prove they are a couple?

People have married for thousands of years to take advantage of one thing or another. How many people marry for green cards?

Any two, consenting adults, should be able to marry without having to prove anything. If they are willing to be married, just as with couples now, why would the rest matter to anyone outside of their relationship?

 

I was considering those things years ago when the company I worked for began extending benefits to Significant Others.

Why couldn't I, as a straight man, not claim cohabitation with a male friend so as to extend to him my company benefits? If I did that then would I and my employer have for all times an obligation to that friend? Would he have dibs on my pension, for instance?

What if I had a series of cohabiting (Significant Others, marrieds, whatever) male friends or girlfriends? To further complicate matters, what if a number of employers are in the mix?

In any of the above, what legal obligations would be incurred by me, my employers and government programs like Social Security?

I'm not against gay marriage per se but I do have questions concerning the legal Pandora's box that may be opened with any court-ordered acceptance of gay marriage.

What I would do first is get government out of the business of "accrediting" marriage.

 

Marrriage is a legal contract. Making gay marriage legal would actually clear up a lot of questions. Married would be married - no question about who is sharing a house or who is in a relationship. Companies would just extend their benefits to anyone married. The reason companies have a problem now is exactly as you mentioned, how to define significant others. The companies are trying to be fair.

 

That's not as big a deal as it used to be. Even when it used to be it wasn't as big a deal as it used to be when it involved a scam. A guy takes on an effeminate look to boost his hairdressing business. A young guy does the same to rip off middle-aged gay men with money to spend. It happened.

Under the new deal, perhaps. The old deal required a comprehensive legal commitment on the part of the male and female when they married.

 

People get labeled all the time, and many people will do anything for a buck. I don't think being labeled one thing or another is the issue here.

I honestly do not come down on either side of this issue. I think both sides have valid points. I agree with you that a man and woman could pull the same trick. But in this case, I can see the point of the anti-gay marriage crowd. Allowing anyone to marry anyone else, like two male friends who wish to receive tax benefits or health insurance coverage, in my opinion would dilute the sanctity of marriage.

 

The current "significant other" deal does, AFAIK, account for the possibilities of transient relationships. Marriage is a whole other thing and a thing that will impose on employers much increased legal obligations.