Yeah... Ellen and Porcia get to stay married.The recent ruling of the California Supreme Court let stand the voter approved measure to deny the civil right of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.
But this is all that the courts could have done.
In re Marriage Cases deemed the California law preventing the recognition of marriage between same-sex couples unconstitutional.
But the anti-GLBT lobbyist thought that the courts had overstepped their limit of power and the measure went before the public in the hotly contested and controversial Prop.8.
After the voters decided to overturn the courts (as per the California constitution - Remember... Lex Rex (The law is king)), same-sex marriage again became illegal in the state.
The recent decision to let the couples who were married during the time it was legal, but to prevent any more marriages, is all the courts could have done.
Really, it's all the courts should have done.
So, according to the California Supreme Court, these lesbians can't get married in the state... for now.Is that Bad?
(Okay, it's a gratuitous use of a lesbians photo here).
Nope.
If the courts would have ruled against Prop.8 - The time needed to sort through all of the legal wranglings would have taken up years of the process to recognize a civil right.
A civil right?
Yep - just not a Civil Right.
(IMO - The biggest problem with the marketing team at GLBT Central is in trying to make the case of same-sex marriage the same as the Civil Rights Movement of the '60s.)
Canada, Sweden, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Spain and even South Africa recognize same-sex marriage.
Afghanistan has no need - there are no gays in that country.
The states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont (as of Sept. 1 '09), Maine (mid Sept. '09) and New Hampshire (with protection for religious institutions) all recognize same-sex marriage.
And New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
California won't be far behind.
It's just that people don't like being told how they must think.
The people would rebel.
The courts made the right decision.
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"...fundamental to our very existence and survival..." (Ruling in Loving v.)
IMO - The biggest problem with the marketing team at GLBT Central is in trying to make the case of same-sex marriage the same as the Civil Rights Movement of the '60s.) in which I would agree. If they would just argue for having their interests protected under their American citizenship they would get 95% and once they have that much it won't be so hard to give them the final 5%.
ReplyDeleteIt's the OJ case all over to me! We all know he probably did it but since Mofos are trying to put him under the jail they will lose for going after too much.
na wa o. so let me get this straight, those lesbians that are already married are legal and those that are not yet cannot be married in that state???
ReplyDeletelol@ there being no lesbian in Afghanistan.
Yes, it is a basic civil right - it is not the same as The Civil Rights movement (took me a minute to notice the capitalization), but (to me) it is the same as the Loving case, where two people who simply loved each other had to fight to be able to marry inter-racially.
ReplyDeleteIt's crazy to me that for all we've learned, we still deny particular classifications of people their basic rights. And frankly it makes me very angry.
but I too lol'd at the lesbian pic straight out of the 90's, lol.
I reject any comparison to the Civil Rights movement and LBGT rights issues.
ReplyDeleteI favor civil unions, commit yourself to whomever you please, but marriage has till very recently meant a man and woman, no further definition needed. Under that definition gay people have the right to marry, they just may not want to and are free to not marry.
So to say gay people are not allowed to marry is dishonest. What it is really about is expanding what marriage is, to allow the word to include homosexual couples.
We are not talking equal rights, those exist. We are talking about new rights.
Whether you are born with same sex attraction or not, you have a choice how to act or carry out those attractions.
You do not choose your skin, you cannot choose what to do about your skin, there is no further action required.
It is not the same.
(sigh)... I'm gonna catch some heat for this I'm sure. Yes there is discrimination against homosexual individuals and groups, that should be stamped out. But to compare that to black history is innacurate and misleading.
Being that 50 or 60 years ago you wouldn't have been able to legally marry your wife, I'm surprised by your position.
ReplyDeleteYou could basically say the same thing about that. "We're not saying that black people and white people can't get married" they can." If they choose not to marry someone that looks like them, that's a choice, but they could get married if they wanted to. (just not to each other)
You do not choose your sexuality any more than you choose your skin. If that's the case, how about tomorrow you choose to try and be sexually attracted to men and let us know how that works out for you. It's just a simple choice right?
Marriage is a union of two adults who love each other regardless of religion, race, ability, disability, ethnicity or gender. Equal rights.
Sure Running Mom, you are right.
ReplyDeleteI suppose the only real differance, and to me it is a deal breaker, is one deals with gender and the other malanin.
I think gender does make a differance. I don't think melanin does.
I can accept that one does not choose orientation. I am also a Christian who believes some rules are divinely dictated. The rule about race, not from God. The one about no sex with the same gender... from God.
I do believe that the atonement of Christ and the "higher law" brought forth by Jesus, eliminating things like animal sacrifice and corporal punishment for religious missconduct, does teach compassion and condemns misstreatment, but not condoning.
Yes I know that many used religion to excuse thier laws regarding racial mixing. I just think they were wrong on their religious understanding.
lol @ "I just think they were wrong on their religious understanding."
ReplyDeleteSuddenly I feel the same way....
I'm so NOT Same Sex Marriage that it's ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteBut I'd have to abide the the rules set forth by Loving v. .
RunningMom, I figured you would catch that, and to your credit, you were much "nicer" here than some would have been.
ReplyDeleteI agree with UBJ and Brohammas, but before I explain why here is a disclaimer:
ReplyDelete*(In my best B. Obama impression) I believe that marriage is a covenant between a Man and a Woman, though I do believe that domestic partnerships (civil unions)between same-sex couples in this country (and under our Constitution) should not be excluded from enjoying the same rights that heterosexual couples enjoy.*
The LGBT community seems to be (from my perspective) trying to shame blacks and other minorities into supporting their cause by framing their civil rights movement as a continuation of the Civil Rights movement. The thought process here being perhaps, "How could you support the fight against one injustice and not support the fight against the other, which is really the same thing as the former?” You can sense such sentiment with terms like "separate but equal" and "Loving v. Virginia" when supporters of gay rights explain their reasoning for doing so. The sentiment was made even clearer when gay rights activists were dismayed and essentially blaming blacks for the passage of prop 8, exclaiming that the historic election of this nation’s first black president was marred by the passage of the new amendment. This tends to have the opposite effect in a large black community (not sure about how it plays out in other minority communities) which believe it or not is pretty conservative when it comes to social issues. Why is this so? Well, it might have to do with the feeling that being gay is not the same as being black. Indeed, many of my black friends (not a scientific poll I know, but bear with me) resent gay rights activists “piggy backing off of the blood, sweat, and tears shed in the Civil Right’s movement” of the 1960’s. You said it best UBJ, this is a type of fight for civil rights, but it is not and should only be loosely connected to the Civil Rights movement.
I’ll give you an example of the difference. The biggest difference between Loving v. Virginia and the battle for same-sex marriage today is that in the time of the Lovings interracial marriages were illegal. I mean illegal in the sense that it was considered a criminal act and treated as such. Same-sex marriages are deemed illegal in the sense that they are just not recognized by a certain state (like California for now). The following is an excerpt from the facts of the Loving case (via Wikipedia):
They were caught sleeping in their bed by a group of police officers who had invaded their home in the hopes of finding them in the act of sex (another crime). In their defense, Ms. Loving had pointed to a marriage certificate on the wall in their bedroom. That, instead of defending them, became the evidence the police needed for a criminal charge since it showed they had been married in another state. Specifically, they were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified "miscegenation" as a felony punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years.
I have yet to hear about any same-sex couple that risked incarceration simply by getting married. The whole term “ban on gay marriages) is a misnomer IMHO and I believe that fact is not lost on a lot of people (especially in the black community). Thus, I feel that the comparison between the “Loving v” and the battle for same-sex marriages is not an appropriate one. This holds true for a lot of comparisons made between the Gay Rights movement and the Civil Right’s movement.
Oh dear, I went on a rant in the comments section! My apologies…
P.S. I am well aware that same-sex marriage proponents have a new case being brought before federal court (in response to the California Supreme Court’s upholding of prop 8), cites “Loving v. Virginia” as precedent, I’m just not sure that they will prevail on that point (meaning that the court may distinguish this new case from “Loving”).
@ Mr NoFace - But using the wording in the ruling (quoted above) - GLBT Central could avoid the moral argument altogether and focus on the interpretation of Loving v. .
ReplyDeleteThe wording is quite clear in mentioning that "men" have a right to be married, women would be implied.
A gay couple probably saw the same reasoning (as many people do today in the current debate) when they applied for a marriage license for in Minnesota a few years after the "Loving" decision. They were denied the license per Minnesota law, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the denial, and upon appeal the US Supreme Court dismissed the case for want of a substantial federal question (which is essentially saying that they didn't see any constitutional issue in the actions taken by the state of Minnesota).
ReplyDeleteThis case, "Baker v Nelson", will most likely be the precedent that the Court uses to decide same-sex marriage instead of "Loving”. It was the first time that discrimination against same-sex couples was distinguished from discrimination against interracial couples. The reasoning was that two people could have their marriage legally recognized (no matter what their race, religion, class, or creed was) so long as one was a man and the other was a woman. Many state and federal courts have since used the “Baker” in their reasoning for upholding state laws/actions that don’t grant and/or recognize same-sex marriages.
Most people are not aware that most laws/actions (both state and federal) discriminate in some way or another. That discrimination is usually allowed constitutionally if it passes minimal scrutiny (there is a rational basis for the law or action) so long as the discrimination is not based upon the race (ethnicity, color, national origin) and religion (which warrants strict scrutiny and usually a ruling that the law/action is unconstitutional). Sexual orientation has not (yet?) been granted the status of a “suspect class” and a strict level of scrutiny (under the 14th amendment) by the federal courts. This is why I believe co-opting the Civil Rights is not a good move for the gay rights movement. Gay rights proponents make their arguments based on the belief that homosexuals are recognized as a constitutionally protected class (in terms of discrimination). This is not the case and they don’t understand it when they get unfavorable rulings in federal (and some state) courts, because those courts make their decisions (specifically in regards to gay marriage) based upon the understanding that homosexuals are not a suspect class like racial minorities or religious groups, and therefore not granted the same treatment in discrimination cases.
I’m not saying that it is impossible for same-sex marriage proponents to succeed at the federal level, just that it’s not likely with the current classifications and the current makeup of the Supreme Court (especially if homosexuality is pushed as the new black). Perhaps the legislative branch is the better branch to hang on (as a opposed to the judicial branch).