I think it will be close, and the initiative could well fail, because (I think) not everyone who is 'opposed' to gay marriage will vote yes. It's a lot easier to get support for an initiative to head off some scary hypothetical than it is to get the votes to reverse what already exists. Marriage equality will be a fait accompli, and a lot of people will know married couples; that'll change some minds, and soften resistance in others.

Maybe I'm being crazily optimistic, but that's how it developed in Massachusetts--yes, a liberal state, but also a heavily Catholic state.

The problem is that the media, and you sweetie constantly bark that this is somehow discrimination against gays when in fact GAYS, AND STRAIGHT MEN CANNOT MARRY OTHER MEN, PERIOD. So where exactly is the legal discriination?

If a straight guy can't do it either, then it is equal justice. The courts will soon learn that when you open mariage up beyond what is legally necessary, then the whole definition of marriage goes out the window.

If you want to wrap your brain around it, try to write a law that includes gay marriage but forbids three people marrying and tell me the Constitutional argument you would use to allow the state to forbid3, or 4 people marrying, or any other combination.

The problem with that theory is that the initiative is on the ballot *this November* - less than six months from now - so the existence of gay marriage won't really have registered much.

In Massachusetts, the movement for an amendment didn't start until *after* the court ruling, and the process in Massachusetts takes a minimum of *two years* before the voters get to vote. Two years gives people time to see that gay marriages haven't brought down civilization. Six months just isn't enough time.

I don't think MA is a good comparison. In that case, there were some higher obstacles to amending their constitution. The legislature had to approve the amendment in two separate sessions. The anti-gay marriage amendment sailed through the first time, but enough legislators changed their mind in the next session that the amendment ended up failing. In California's case, there is no such buffer, and as such I'm rather pessimistic about the odds of the court's decision sticking.

The problem is that the media, and you sweetie constantly bark that this is somehow discrimination against gays when in fact GAYS, AND STRAIGHT MEN CANNOT MARRY OTHER MEN, PERIOD. So where exactly is the legal discriination?

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

With an agressive ad campaign, and enough knocking on doors...it just might happen. I cried with joy when my friends were able to marry here in Massachusetts. I pray the same thing will be possible in California after November.

And I hope that Massachusetts's and California's sisters follow suit. They'll come around eventually.

/have some more wedding cake? Yum.

The problem is that the media, and you sweetie constantly bark that this is somehow discrimination against gays when in fact GAYS, AND STRAIGHT MEN CANNOT MARRY OTHER MEN, PERIOD. So where exactly is the legal discriination?

Oh, please tell me this is satire.

The law was once entirely non-discriminatory in saying that a white woman couldn't marry a black man. Since I, as a white woman, married a white man, I guess that was fair. I mean, after all, black women couldn't marry white men either. And it wouldn't have affected my ability to live with my chosen partner. All good.

Where exactly is the legal discrimination? No, some things really are too stupid to reply properly to. Congratulations for catapulting yourself past that line.

Also...

We'll never know until we try. I understand that there is the danger that this ct. ruling will be obliterated by a CA constitutional amendment, but it might also fail. In politics, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. I would rather the gay community be brave and try forn equality now, instead of wringing our hands, clutching our pearls, and worrying about what might happen if we ventured out of the Castro and West Hollywood.

This is not some pedantic discussion of an obscure legal oddity. This will effect real, everyday people's lives. So let CA residents go on the record once and for all to determine whether they truly support or do not support gay marriage. I just do not believe they will turn it down, considering Schwartzeneger won't do anything to stop it, and that the legislature has already spoken twice in support. There are more gay people in California, and they are a powerful political force in many regions of the state.

Gays were brave in Massachusetts. Let them be brave in California.

BostonSatyr: I agree. Besides, since it's so easy to change the constitution in CA, at least if the ban does pass this year, it won't be too difficult to undo a few years after.

Let's be honest. Most homosexuals don't care one way or the other. It's the activists that are pushing homo marriage for accpetance. That is the real goal and no change in the law will grant them that. Right to marry or no, they're still just as queer as they were before.
The victory would be hollow, indeed.

But the Republicans and those who support a federal marriage protection amendment thank the CA court.

Arrrrrghhhh.....
Make that "acceptance"

Eh.
Acceptance is nice.

Health benefits, inheritance rights, and medical decision-making are better.

El Viajero - I could care less about acceptance. Light a bonfire in your front yard and dance around with glee while you sing about your hatred, or distaste, or lack of support, or whatever, of gay people and their relationships. Have a ball.

I see equality under the law. That is something very different than societal acceptance, just as a civil marriage lisence is very different than religious wedding vows. This is not an effrt to force churches to wed gay people, nor an effort to force people to attend gay weddings, nor an effort to make people say they support gay marriage when they do not. This is a fight for legal recognition of gay marriage, a fundamental freedom, guaranteed to us by our creator, channeled through the federal and state constitutions, and recognized by both the California and U.S. Supreme Courts.

To argue otherwise is quite simply intellectually dishonest.

"Right to marry or no, they're still just as queer as they were before.
The victory would be hollow, indeed."

Actually, with the legalization of gay marriage, we'll be even more fabulously queer than we were before!
And getting closer to your very neighborhood every day.

I suspect there will be a massive campaign against it, funded by a wide range of gay and lesbian groups, unions, woment's groups and human right's organizations.

I know there will be a lot of very intelligent and well-done ads against it.

And the younger voters, who Obama has brought in and will continue to bring in, are overwhelmingly much more tolerent then the over 65 crowd...

IT WILL GO DOWN TO DEFEAT EASILY!

bread and roses:

Gay couples already have domestic partner benefits in CA. The only thing left to decide is whether we call it "marriage". So, yeah, that means acceptance, not material benefits, are at stake.

I'm tempted to vote for the amendment; not because I oppose gay marriages, but because proponents insist that anyone who disagrees is bigoted, w/o themselves being familiar with the legal issues at stake.

"w/o themselves being familiar with the legal issues at stake."

What issues?
Once the word "marriage" is quarantined to the religious realm only, all will be right with the world.

Although everyone seems to assume that this Prop will overturn the CSC, is that really true? Someone on Volokh posted that the Prop is written in such a manner as to be moot upon ratification (if it happens). That the CSC discussed this and their decision relies on language older than the Prop (which doesn't change that language in the Ca. Constituition), thus the Prop cannot overturn the decision.

At least, as currently worded. But they would have to get a new one on their with another million signatures or whatever.

"""Health benefits, inheritance rights, and medical decision-making are better"""

Sweetie...I don't recall those in the marriage ceremony. These are all things that can be done legally without marriage.

The states only REAL interest in 'marriage' is the baring and raising of off-spring since the state has a interest in the children in its care. The only means of offspring is through male/female interaction...all other means can be covered by legal documents that the state gets a copy of to track offspring.

Those benefits are offered not so spouses can benefit, but because on the whole, it was a benefit to people with children where a spouse stayed hom to raise the kids and thus had no outside benefits.

If your marrying to get health benefits, then that really is the end of real marriage..and marriage becomes a means to extract property from others. When that happens, those handing out those benefits will get wise and stop offering them.

WagonJak,,,or shall I call your Sweetie?

"""And the younger voters, who Obama has brought in and will continue to bring in, are overwhelmingly much more tolerent then the over 65 crowd"""

One mans tolerance, is another mans tyranny.

Some tolerate gay marriage, until they are forced by the state to rent their apartment to a gay couple.
Or forced to perform gay marriages, or are forced to have their children learn about gay sodomy in 2nd grade.

Some tolerate homeless, until they are sleeping on their stoop or peeing in front of their children at the park.

Some tolerate illegal aliens, until their son is killed by a drunk illegal who had been arrested five times and never deported.

Some tolerate drug use, until their daughter is raped by a drug addict.

Tolerance is a double edge sword. Careful which side you fall on....

Anon: ""The law was once entirely non-discriminatory in saying that a white woman couldn't marry a black man. Since I, as a white woman, married a white man, I guess that was fair. I mean, after all, black women couldn't marry white men either. And it wouldn't have affected my ability to live with my chosen partner. All good."""

No, your making no sense. The black women could marry a black man and you couldn't, so that was discrimination. Either way, I don't see how that affected your ability to 'live with my chosen partner'. Marriage and living together are not the same thing.

Funny that the antimiscegenation were pushed and supported by the Democrat party ehh??

Democrats successively demonized the desegregation as the harbinger of black domination, both political and sexual. Warning that black men were poised not only to seize the reins of government, but also to take white women from white men, Democrats insisted that only segregation of the races would restore white male honor and protect white female purity.

Love those Democrats....

Two years gives people time to see that gay marriages haven't brought down civilization. Six months just isn't enough time.

Yes, we have less time--but even if it's not enough time for as dramatic a shift as that in Massachusetts, I'm confident that there will be some shift in favor of marriage equality. Maybe it's enough; maybe not.

try to write a law that includes gay marriage but forbids three people marrying and tell me the Constitutional argument you would use to allow the state to forbid3, or 4 people marrying, or any other combination

Actually, there already is one. It's the California constitution, which, as of this finding, affirms the fundamental right of any two persons to marry one another.

Why gay marriage opponents are so convinced that there's a secret groundswell of people waiting to marry entire Indian tribes, or blenders, or whatever, is beyond me. At any rate, gay marriage does not obligate any court in this land to accept any other kind of marriage, any more than white-man-on-white-woman marriage guaranteed the right to interracial marriage, or interracial marriage guaranteed the right to gay marriage. Those rights were defined as society evolved toward an understanding that the persons and combinations involved were entitled to equal rights under the law as full citizens.

"If a man and a woman can marry, how can you prevent a boy dog and a girl dog from doing the same? Who's to stop the donuts and the crullers from eloping en masse and leaving the local Dunkin Donuts denuded? Holy crap, I think my asshole just proposed to my finger!"

If that's the quality of your counterargument, I suggest you find a new constitutional right to object to.

"What issues"?

Well, El Santorum, regardless of the merits of confining the term "marriage" to the religious field, the legal issues at stake are 1) whether there is an individual right to marriage under CA law and 2) whether the state could classify same sex partnerships differently than opposite sex partnerships under California's Equal Protection Clause.

The proposed amendment would, as you know, define "marriage" for the purposes of California state law, which would overturn the first issue and render the second issue moot.

So when people talk about benefits, which are already granted under California law, that misses the point of the case and the point of the proposed amendment. The case and amendment are both defining legal marriage (whether marriage should be legal or religious is beside the point); i.e., the prospect of putting same sex couples on par with opposite sex couples in form, not just substance (the benefits).

If it were just about benefits, same sex couples already have 'em. But it isn't; it's about, well, acceptance of this by the majority as being entitled to go by the same name as heterosexual relationships.

No, same sex coupls DON'T "already have them." Not at all. A marriage confers all manner of automatic benefits on the couple so contracted. it takes tons of money to duplicate that for same-sex couples in anyhting that isn't marriage.

Here's what I wrote a few years back.

As Ezra isn't available I proposed to my lover of 38 years. He said "sure." In about a month we shoudl be able to get legally married -- as will Ellen and Portia.

This is a Big Win.

We're Here. We're Queer. And We've Called the Caterer!

Actually Sweetie your argument has several flaws.

1st. Marriage is not exclusively, or evan majorly about children. Just because you choose carry on the child obsessive traits of our current culture it doesnt mean everyone else should as well. This cult of the child is a recent phenomenon that must be cured. Not every piece of the adult world orbits the children, nor should they.

cases in point.. why do sterile couples marry? why do old people marry? why do couples marry and decide not to have children?

2. marriage as such a has no meaning consitutionally. There is no argument either for it or against it in the US constitution. It has now been held up as being illegal to discriminate in this manner by the Ca supreme court, which means that it is unconstitutional in CA. There is no argument there, it has been decided by those who were put in place to make those decisions, it is the law.

For myself I dont see how the opposition can take this to the federal supreme court. That court may have an opinion on the subject, but it should still be illegal under the CA consitution.

So the federal ruling should only cover the other 49 states. But as I said the US Supreme court shouldnt even take up this issue because the plaintiffs have no standing. They are in no way consitutionally harmed by gays marring or not. The current court is so dominated by the religious zealouts however that they will like take this caseon anyway. *sigh*

Land of the free? ..hardly.

The states only REAL interest in 'marriage' is the baring and raising of off-spring since the state has a interest in the children in its care.

If that were true, then the state would be perfectly amenable to creating other legal institutions for the bearing and raising of children. What is actually going on is that marriage is a method by which a couple can designate each other immediate family members bound by common interests, legal and otherwise, to form a family unit. The marriage represents the formation of a family, not birth of children. Children, if they are born, are an outgrowth of the marriage. Marriage does not exist merely because of the existence of children.

What the courts are ruling is that "I don't like the word marriage used for gay unions" is not enough of a compelling state interest to deny them equal status under the law.

You're never going to convince sweetie. It's a bigot searching for an intellectual framework to justify and rationalize it's bigotry. That makes it impervious to reasoning and logic. Thats why it rambles like a mad-person when challenged, you're causing cognitive dissonance which is in turn causing distress.

Believe me, this moron is convinced it's making sense because if it didn't, it would be forced to face the fact that it is a bigot.

Marriage is about property rights. That's historically a fact. Much of what christo-conservatives claims are the unchanging laws of nature on marriage are in fact modern (as in the last century and half) constructs. Much of what you say is, of course, designed to manipulate emotions rather than speak the truth. It's constantly fascinating to watch christo-conservatives violate one part of the Bible that's an actual commandment (thou shalt not lie) to justify something that isn't as clearly defined as a sin. And, you are lying because I can't imagine many of you posting don't already know much of what other progressives feel the need to point out. You simply choose to willfully ignore it (ie, lie) in favor what you are doing here.

Your graph is very misleading because you used a line graph instead of an X-Y graph in Excel. The x-axis is completely non-linear as you have it.

In 2004 anti gay marriage referenda affected the Presidential and were a major factor. In 2008, the causation could go the other way. Obamania might bring lots of young people to the polls, while, as you note, Republicans are demoralized. I think that might ("might" makes right)* make the difference.

* an almost certainly false claim becomes true with the simple addition of the word "might". You admirably refrain from this dodge.

"The Democrats" didn't fight against civil rights, "Dixiecrats" did. The dixiecrats were southern democrats who stayed in the party until it became clear that their bigoted ways were no longer tolerated by the party. Then they were happily welcomed into the arms of the Republican party, where that sort of thing was more accepted.

Moving on, demanding equal status under the law is not the same as demanding social acceptance. There will be anti-gay people for at least a few generations, but that doesn't mean the government can define special designations to the exclusion of certain groups. The argument isn't so much comparable to the actual laws which barred interracial marriage. It's more like a law which would require that one person in any marriage be white. A couple of white people could marry, and a white person could marry a minority, but two minorities could not marry. Similarly, two straight people can marry and a gay person can marry a straight person, but two gays cannot marry. And yes, that's just ridiculous on its face.

@tyro
well and concisely said. :)

@akaison
I totally agree with what you say there.. and Ive heard that just a few times before. You strike me as someone that normally has a basis for what he says.. so can you point me to a resource for this information on this history? Ive looked but not really found anything authoritative, and its always nice to have reference points.

I won't ever get married, personally. Once people are married, they take each-other for granted. They no longer make any real attempt to make their mates happy. They just stop really caring. Personally, I'd favor relaxing the sort of privileges that come with marriage to include a more generalized group of people anyway.

I still think people should have the right to do this with anyone they choose, but you won't catch me doing it.

And I thought what Akaison said was fairly well known. Marriage has an ugly history, no matter what it's morphed into today. Wikipedia, for what little it's worth, bears him out.

El Vaj hates women as much as he hates gays, which means he must spend a lot of time jerking off.

We're Here. We're Queer. And We've Called the Caterer!

You know what turns a middle aged guy who isn't really comfortable about gays into someone who couldn't care less? The fantastic catering at a gay wedding.

It's something that's taught in the first year of property law to every law student in the country. or at least in a good law school. the first third to half is about the history of property law. marriage is one of the topics that comes up. ie, rights of inheritance, ownerhship of land, etc. it's understood as a bundle of rights-- with international, federal, interstate and intrastate impact. it's not taught due to political beliefs. much of is as i said just historical and incidental fodder so that we can understand how property law has evolved and where it is now without regard to the gay issue. it's only when it's placed into this context of the gay issue that the lie needs to be created. if the lie (that we aren't discussing a bundle of rights) didn't exist then the prejudice and religous doctrine would be laid bare as anti secular. oh, and least anyone argue otherwise, i was taught by some rather conservative professors. so my advice, if you are really curious, take a basic course in property law. don't take it for the purpose of the "gay rights" issue, but instead with an eye toward the evolution of laws. even amongst straights and white straights at that- marriage hasn't always meant the same thing it means now.

55-45, ruling stands. Lay your dollars down.

Oh, and btw, in the midst of wading through the especially disgusting discussion upthread (I thought this was supposed to be a enlightened, policy-driven blog), I had to single out this little gem:

Some tolerate gay marriage, until they are forced by the state to rent their apartment to a gay couple. Or forced to perform gay marriages, or are forced to have their children learn about gay sodomy in 2nd grade.

One of these things is not like the other...and that's why the ruling came down.

"""Actually Sweetie your argument has several flaws.

1st. Marriage is not exclusively, or evan majorly about children."""

I didn't say it was, I said that is what gives the state jurisdiction, The state has no reason to be involved if it has no possible interest.

Why doesn't the state give 'DATING' licenses? Or decide who you can be roommates with? Or have 'FRIEND' licenses?

Its because there is no state interest in those relationships. The state interest in a marital relationship is the bearing of offspring that the state would end up being responsible for without having knowledge of who's offspring they were.

Just because some marriages have no plans for children does not negate the fact that only a male/female relationship can bare offspring that aren't legally covered by other state documentation such as adoption.

MosBen | May 16, 2008 10:56 PM

You really don't know anything about the Democrat Party history of racism and you really should learn and not embarrass yourself.

And if this primary has taught the Democrats one thing..its that the racists are still in their Party and voting in their primaries.

I don't understand why this is called 'gay marriage'. gays have always been able to marry and in fact have for centuries.

Legally this is 'SAME SEX' marriage and there is no legal requirement to show proof of being gay. In fact, the court left the door wide open for any relationship to be called a marriage.

There are no longer any rules and no need even to consummate the relationship. Should make for great legal fodder in the future.

Would a gay couple having lived together for a long time be considered ripe for Palimony suits??

If it makes two bank robbers 'happy' as the court describes to be married; even if the happness is based on not having to testify against each other.

On wonders if the court was not inviting a ballot initiative.

The court has to know that given this ruling, they could not possibly strike down a 3 person marriage, or a five person marriage, or marriage between siblings, or even having more than one marriage at a time, etc. They are basically saying the state is required to accept anything the people claim is a 'marriage'.

What could the court say if a man married a women, and then also married another man because both marriages made him 'happy' and 'fulfilled'.

You guys are forgetting about much of the reason for this post-- while some of you may be engaging in a sound and fury about opposing gay marriage now, is there really any doubt that in 20 years, gay marriage/civil unions will be accepted as a basic part of the legal system?

Seriously, the end result of this debate is not even remotely up for grabs. Over time, attitudes are going to continue to shift against opposition to gay marriage, and it will be seen as the natural legal option availed of gay couples.

The black women could marry a black man and you couldn't, so that was discrimination.

I can marry a woman but a woman can't, so that's discrimination.

I think it's pointless to argue with someone like Sweetie who doesn't possess basic reasoning skills. Honestly, how many times does one have to point out to him or her or it what discrimination means? My advice is to tell him, her or it to use a damn dictionary and stop wasting our time. Oh, and yes, marriage for gay people is inevitable. There are no secular legal, historical, economic, sociological, psychological, biological etc arguments for banning it. It's pure animus based on religious belief. Just as for many century racism was enshrined in the Bible as law (the story of Hamm and the justification for why slavery was okay under the Bible) and the same for women, so will this discrimination against gays pass on as an embarrassing bit of history. For those who don't know it was considered a radical bit of religion to argue that blacks weren't marked by God as cursed. I suspect even as the law surpasses the religion- and people look on these made up prejudices religion will eventually follow the laws.

I keep on wondering how much this will cost the state. So long as people don't game the system and it doesn't cost money, I don't much care. But if the state will ultimately have to fork out a ton more in benefits and tax deductions, and employers have to pay more for spousal bennies, then it will cause trouble.

Clarification: When I speak at the end of religion following the laws, I mean that eventually the religious communities will decide on their own to change their own beliefs. Many denomations are already waging this battler internally right now. And it's not just the gays fighting the battle as christo-conservatives would like to believe. It's many of the people who are religious but don't believe the claims that the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin is true or question why its any greater than any other 'sin' we don't legislate against like divorce. But, until that time, secular laws will probably come to the right conclusion before the religions. This won't as people say force religions to support gay marriage, but it will mean one will influence the other such as in MA by forcing people to confront their fears. I think one of the great comparators is how far gays in the military have shifted. That's an older battle, and for all intents and a purposes that ban has a short shelf life. The same is true here. Tick, tick tick. Time is almost out for people like Sweetie.

And now we have a new variant of bullshit artist- Cal who is worried about the cost to the state. Let me suggest you fight all those benefits other married couples get Cal. If you argue that first, and then come pick on gays, then let's talk. Otherwise, who the hell do you think you are fooling here with this fake argument? Like I keep saying- if you have to rely on such lies to justify your thinking it says a lot.

Hey anony-mouse...take "your sweetie" and do something other with it then masturbating bigotry onto your keys...it makes them very sticky!

And I suspect your body stinks as much as your logic does...

Mommy's gonna take a bar of soap to your mind if you don't mend your ways!

Love those Democrats....
Posted by: Sweetie

those were dixiecrats. the one that didn't disappear into the world of the religious right in the early 70's switched parties and became republicans.
--------------------
And if this primary has taught the Democrats one thing..its that the racists are still in their Party and voting in their primaries.
Posted by: Anonymous |
------------------------
i'm afraid that's true. hillary's strong showing among older people and her appeal with poorer white people bares that out.

however, as congressmen go, the dixiecrats are long gone.
nobody in the party is legislating discrimination anymore.

and as the next generation coming up is very much gay tolerant, all the debate in this thread will be irrelevant
in a few decades anyway.

My favorite pic from 2004

Clarify for me--- do they only need 50% on a referendum to change the state constitution?

One can say that the mainstream white liberals in the Democrat party are for the most part pro-Isreal and oppose bigotry toward Jews.

That may all be true, but the Party has one major open wound that it hasn't even tried to heal.

A large portion of black Democrats and black leaders in the Democrat Party have shown antipathy for Jews; have shown contempt for Isreal and have bought into the racism of Louis Farrakhan and Reverend Wright.

From Jessie Jackson, to Al Sharpton to Cynthia McKinney, to John Conyers, etc. etc.

What's worse is white leaders have turned a blind eye to this since blacks make up such as large voting block. Unfortunately for them, much of Obamas power base is going to come from the black constituency and they are far more tuned into Sharpton, Farrakhan and Wright then the traditional party apparatus.

Posted by: Stuart Staniford | May 16, 2008 10:26 PM:
Your graph is very misleading because you used a line graph instead of an X-Y graph in Excel. The x-axis is completely non-linear as you have it.

Quite right ... the increments are 8 years, 12 years, 6 years, 1 year, 2 years.

In what seems to be the "smooth rise" at the first three steps, there could well have been several plateaus four years long in the 1985 to 1997 span.

Poor "Anonymous," did you get lost?

This thread is for the homophobic trolls. The racists are two doors down on your left.

Let's all stand up for the conservative principles of big government not micromanaging our personal lives, and all go out and make sure that those damned fags can't get married!

Statement By The California Catholic Conference Of Bishops' Regarding The California Supreme Court Decision On Gay Marriage
SACRAMENTO – Ned Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, released the following statement on behalf of California’s Bishops and the California Catholic Conference, following the California Supreme Court’s decision declaring the state’s Defense of Marriage Act (Proposition 22) unconstitutional, thus allowing same-sex marriages to take place in California:

“The California Catholic Conference of Bishops must express its disappointment in the California Supreme Court decision to declare Proposition 22 unconstitutional.

“Proposition 22, which states, ‘Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid and recognized in California,’ passed eight years ago by a vote of 61.2 to 38.8 percent. That statute reflected the wisdom of the voters of California in retaining the traditional definition of marriage as a biological reality and a societal good. Unfortunately, today, the Court saw fit to disregard the will of the majority of people of California.

“Catholic teaching maintains that marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman joined in an intimate partnership of life and love—a union instituted by God for the mutual fulfillment of the husband and wife as well as for the
procreation and education of children.

“Partnerships of committed same-sex individuals are already legal in California. Our state has also granted domestic partners spousal-type rights and responsibilities which facilitate their relationships with each other and any children they bring to the partnership. Every person involved in the family of domestic partners is a child of God and deserves respect in the eyes of the law and their community. However, those partnerships are not marriage—and can never be
marriage—as it has been understood since the founding of the United States. Today’s decision of California’s high court opens the door for policymakers to deconstruct traditional marriage and create another institution under the guise of equal protection.

“Although we strongly disagree with the ruling, we ask our Catholic people, as well as all the people of California, to continue to uphold the dignity of every person, to acknowledge individual rights and responsibilities, and to maintain support for the unique and irreplaceable role of traditional marriage as an institution which is fundamental to society.”

Sweetie, sure the government has an interest in marriage beyond children, as marriage ALWAYS HAS BEEN about contracts and property! The government also has an interest in contract law in general, be they in the form of a marriage, or a family business, or a C-Corp.

Your ignorance of the topic, doesn't establish you as an expert on marriage, law, or reason - in fact it demonstrates your complete lack of ability to have a reasoned and knowledgeable debate on the topic in any form.

I suggest you do more reading, more learning, and try to keep quiet like a good little boy until you're better able to participate as an informed adult in the discussion. Ok, 'Sweetie'?

Anonymous, when either a female or minority candidate in YOUR PARTY can obtain more than 2% of the vote in a presidential primary - you'll have a basis to lecture the Democrats on being racists. Until then, your shallow, tinny hypocrisy is amusing at best, and pathetic in reality...

Why don't you stick to blustering up your homophobia, bigotry, sexism and general hatred in your 'Church/Synagogue' tomorrow, and STFU about matters you clearly are unqualified and incapable of discussing?

Novena, the catholic church actually married gay people until the 12th century when a couple of crazy pedophiles decided gay people were the evil ones and started their first real witch hunts and homophobia... Gays even had their own specific ceremony sanctifying the union. Their current squawking is pathetic in light of the sexual abuse, corruption, and general depravity that IS the catholic church. When they put their OWN HOUSE in order, they'll be in a better position to lecture others who simply want a quiet domestic life for their families as to what is 'immoral'. Now, their screams are hollow projections, of their own immoral hate, and nothing more!

Oh and Novena, by your OWN religious traditions, TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE would have a GIRL like yourself sold off as CATTLE against her own will in a PROPERTY TRANSACTION! If you don't believe it, re-read and re-consult your BOOK again?

That rabid, anti-feminine tradition of the sand religions are the most hateful, and misogynistic traditions, and why women are so often brutalized, and homophobia is 'excused', because the sacred feminine is 'evil'... Religious people really need to clean up their OWN CLOSETS before they start lecturing others on MORALITY.

I admit that I don't know about the early church marrying gays, but I do know that it wasn't until 1000 years into Catholism that there was the rise of anti gay constructs. It was as I remember at the same time as the rise of the doctrines regarding Judaism. however it's been al ong time since I've studied religious history so I may remember this wrong.

The numbers moved greatly (and very quickly) after the Ontario court of appeals decision that first legalized equal marriage here in Canada.

"Or forced to perform gay marriages, or are forced to have their children learn about gay sodomy in 2nd grade."

I'm not going to respond to this particular montage of racial, sexual, and class bigotry, but I like the fact that the poster specified his or her objection to kids learning about "gay sodomy." Nice touch.

Has anyone noticed that the sheltered and/or homophobic never miss an opportunity to throw in gay as a gratuitous modifier when it is already clear from the context. As in, "those two men are gay lovers with each other" or "that guy is totally a gay homosexual."

Of course, "sodomy" can be practiced (albeit, perhaps, with lesser degrees of competence) by heterosexual couples as well as gay ones, but I doubt the poster was complaining that the schools were failing to teach about the joys of heterosexual anal sex.

Hey wtf-- do you have a cite or link about the Catholic church marrying gay folks until the 12th century? This will be very useful in my continuing quest to rationalize my Catholicism.

"I can marry a woman but a woman can't, so that's discrimination."

Silly Consumatopia, first rule of debating an opponent of gay rights is that they get to pick your argument for you. Therefore, in order to evaluate the absence of discrimination, we will only consider whether it discriminates between gay and straight men as respects their ability to marry women. If you want to make another argument, you will have to make it in front of someone that gives a shit about making a little bit of sense sometimes.

wtf: ""Anonymous, when either a female or minority candidate in YOUR PARTY can obtain more than 2% of the vote in a presidential primary - you'll have a basis to lecture the Democrats on being racists.""

Wow, is that an odd standard or what? My Party is the Democrat party and if you knew your own history, voting in a primary for a minority or a women doesn't wipe away 200 years of racism and bigotry.

I voted for Obama in the primary but that was not the Obama we have learned so much more about in the last few months.

wtf, us poor minorities would love to thank you for voting for a minority, it makes up for all the decades of slavery, lynchings, the KKK, segregation, and fighting against equal rights. Can we kiss your ring now? Thanks for being so nice to poor little us and not being condescending at all......

RW,
Before you actually explode from your superior intellect, you may want to undertand that discrimination is not in of itself unconstitutional.

The question is the discrimination equal to all
and is their a governmental reason. We don't let kids marry, is that discrimination? Sure...is it unconstitutional discrimination?

""but two gays cannot marry""

Yes they can...any gay man can marry any gay women, period. It is the law today throughout the 50 states.

Is it the dreaded 'discrimination' everyone fears??

Why yes..and the Democrat party has always embraced discrimination.

The question is, is it UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION.

The CA court says they found it soemwhere in the CA constuitution but they can actually find us those words.

The chief justice flat out admitted he wasn't deciding the case based on what the actual words in the law or in the Constitution actually say. He decided the case bad on his memory of 'No Colored' signs he saw in the South in the 1950s.

That is quite a strong legal argument...NOT!
The voters have every right to tell this judge he's simply lost his friggin' mind when he decides cases based on vacations he took with his parents when he was a kid.

RW: I'm not going to respond to this particular montage of racial, sexual, and class bigotry, but I like the fact that the poster specified his or her objection to kids learning about "gay sodomy." Nice touch"""

It was in fact NOT a 'nice touch' but was a legal question left open by the court. The law has always recognized a marriage as having occurred when it is 'Consummated'. The 'consummation' has always been defined as sexual intercourse.

This is not an attack on anyone, it is a simple question as to what courts will consider 'consummation' of two men or two women so-called marriages. Can one partner object to certain sex acts as being consummation? People want to know...

And in case you don't read the news. Radical gay groups are suing school districts to have them teach gay relationships starting in kindegarten. To include makings schools accept gay based literature for student instruction.

And before you get all hot and bothered...Once gay groups get into schools, which you may celebrate, they discriminate against groups that want to provide an alternative viewpoints by excluding EX-GAYS and EX-GAY groups from participation.

So why do gays discriminate against former gays?????

And in case you don't read the news. Radical gay groups are suing school districts to have them teach gay relationships starting in kindegarten. To include makings schools accept gay based literature for student instruction.
I read the news a lot and I missed that one, Sweetie. Do you have a citation?
And I'm a gay guy, with kids. I got them the old fashioned way, in a straight marriage to a woman I loved. After her untimely death, I fell in love with a guy. My kids are honor student, and my foster son is doing well after being raised by a meth head single mom, who we couldn't locate this last Mother's Day. They all seem to be heterosexual, and if not always happy (I mean, my daughter just broke up with her guy). And I'm in Rural Georgia.
And I think the "discrimination" 'ex-gays' face stems from the way the ones' I've run into condemn folks who don't share their view. If you don't think being gay is intrinsically bad or share their religious views, or the agenda ("I got over being gay, and you should too"), then you might be less than tolerant when those folks seem to be saying that gay folk shouldn't have equal protection under the law.

And I commend to anyone who is interested in the real legal basis for the California ruling to check out Glen Greenwald's analysis of it. It is, in fact, a conservative ruling made by conservative (I mean, 4 of the 6 justices were Republicans)judges following conservative principals, not reaching for the political result: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/15/california/index.html

And RW, here is a link to a (quite sceptical, but probably pretty fair) review of some of the medieval "gay marriage" claims http://cliopolitical.blogspot.com/2007/08/medieval-gay-marriage-not-quite.html
Humans being humans, some of the
'affrèrés' ('spiritual brothers' is a one possible translations)
were lovers.

MR Bill, you admit that no one stopped you from engaging in a marriage (marriage as always defined the union of a man and women). You admit opening that as a gay man noone even tried to stop you from entering into a marriage.

So I don't understand your equal protection for gays...are you demanding same sex marriage is reserved for gay people? And yet you as a gay man took advantage of man/female marriage but want same sex marriage to exclude heterosexuals...now who is denying equal protection??

Are you saying you oppose straight same sex marriage??

Do you want to deny non-gays the right to enter into a same sex marriage if it makes them happy and fulfilled??

As to the so-called real legal basis...read the chief justices interview..he admits no matter what the ruling says, he made up his mind based on his summer vacations and then made the ruling fit his personal views.

MR Bill, I have to ask.

Sorry about your wife, I am sure you loved her dearly.
But if she was alive, and you met the man of your dreams. Currently the state would make you divorce her to marry him. Thus destroying your equal protection of entering into a loving and fullfilling relationship.
Therefore, do you not agree that the states must also recognized a three person 'marriage' and thus a four or five person marriage.

If not, please tell me the legal, Constitutional basis for denying such relationships.

Why should you have to forego you marriage to your dear wife or your marriage to your gay partner simply because the state wants to set up stupid rules?

Uh. In answer to your questions.
No, I'm not demanding anything, personally. And me and my guy are not likely to get married.
I didn't know I was a gay guy (before we were married, I told my late wife "I think I'm bisexual" and she said "of course you are!") when I got married, and, like a lot of folks, my preferences developed over time.
I don't think the legal reasoning divides 'same-sex' marriage from 'straight' marriage.
I don't personally oppose 'straight same sex marriage' (indeed, it might be a celibate thing or a version of that wretched Adam Sandler movie), but I don't see the point. It's remarkably none of my business, as I cannot see why this sort of arrangement harms society.
I read the chief Justice's interview (this is the LA times one, right?) and that is not what he says. From the Times "He indicated he saw the fight for same-sex marriage as a civil rights case akin to the legal battle that ended laws banning interracial marriage. He noted that the California Supreme Court moved ahead of public sentiment 60 years ago when it became the first in the country to strike down the anti-miscegenation laws.
California's decision, in a case called Perez vs. Sharp, preceded the U.S. Supreme Court's action on the issue by 19 years. Even after that ruling, Californians passed an initiative that would permit racial discrimination in housing. The state high court again responded by overturning the law, George said.

Rather than ignoring voters, "what you are doing is applying the Constitution, the ultimate expression of the people's will," George said."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay18-2008may18,0,4272300.story

1) The people who refuse to use pseudonyms make it really pointless to reply to them or keep track of who they are or make it worthwhile responding to them.

2) When quoting from others, learn to use HTML to put their statements in block quotes or italics.

3) This is the comments section of a blog, not open mike night at a poetry slam. (You know who you are!)

Currently the state would make you divorce her to marry him.

I think this is a sign that right-wingers are being indoctrinated into believe in another reality which makes it impossible for us to reason with them.

Similarly, someone making the statement "My party is the Democrat party" is clearly a person who is also isolated from reality and any other kind of media outside the right wing stuff he's being fed.

If the comments sections are going to be flooded with people who are completely unconnected with reality, things could get ugly.

I'll ignore the attempt at personal provocation in the previous (and need to cut this short to get my kid to church)(I'm a unitarian, natch), and note there is not much demand for legal sanction of polygamous (or in the hypothetical you raise, polyandrous) marriages. I'm not opposed to them in principle.
I think we can examine the 'rules' and see how they work.
And since I'm a construction guy and not a legal scholar, I can say your argument seems to be the 'slippery slope' one: "If we permit this, we will permit this next thing".
I can see how gay folks want equal protection of their relationship ('the basket' of rights/privileges that marriage entails) and getting the right to marry protects that. I just don't see much desire (outside of the fundamentalist Mormons) to have multiple marriage. If society demands it, it will happen.
y'all have a good day.

Mr Bill,

Clearly you can read that even if the CA Constitution speciifcally in clear language forbade any other marriage then a union between a man and a women, this judge simply didn't care what the law read or what the Constitution said. He wasn't using them to make his decision. He specifically mentions a whole bunch of reasons for his decision, NONE of which had anything to do with actually reading real words and interpreting clearly what they said.
Its like our judges are now no different them a King consulting a witch or an Oracle.

My point regarding changing what 'marriage' is, is not simply going to allow gays to marry each other, it is going to fundamentally change what marriage means in a LEGAL sense.

For all intents and purposes, there will be no Constitutional argument available to put limits on the definition of a marriage except for what a person claims makes them happy and fulfilled.

It may be a good thing. It may lead to society simply getting rid of all legislation and business getting rid of all perks that are derived from 'marriage'.

Locally here we have some navy guys being prosecuted because they got married to foriegn women under false pretenses. They did it to get more money, mov off base, etc. The girls did it so they could stay in the US and not be deported.

So, an argument could be made that their 'marriage' made both sides happy and fulfilled. The guys got a big paycheck, the girls got to stay in the US.

Some would say, GREAT! Everybody wins. Let them be married, who cares anyway.

"1) The people who refuse to use pseudonyms make it really pointless to reply to them or keep track of who they are or make it worthwhile responding to them.

2) When quoting from others, learn to use HTML to put their statements in block quotes or italics.

3) This is the comments section of a blog, not open mike night at a poetry slam. (You know who you are!)"

Agreed, with glee.

Once gay groups get into schools, which you may celebrate, they discriminate against groups that want to provide an alternative viewpoints by excluding EX-GAYS and EX-GAY groups from participation.

I love how you think we'll all drop our hankies and be shocked by that in this crowd.

Last I knew, second-graders weren't learning about any kind of sodomy, and I doubt gay marriage will change that. In fact I just learned the kids in my daughter's school aren't getting sex ed in sixth grade, so! You're safe!

How can people be so focused on a side issue like the genitalia of the couple getting legally married that they miss the important issue:
The line graph is misleading, it shows equal increments in a line graph for unequal periods of time

"The question is the discrimination equal to all
and is their a governmental reason. We don't let kids marry, is that discrimination? Sure...is it unconstitutional discrimination?"

You make two of what can be loosely described as "points," although you seem to think they are the same.

The first appears to be that the discrimination in the prohibition on same sex marriage is acceptable because it is "equal to all." This could mean that either 1)there is no inequality in the discrimination because while gays can't marry persons of the same sex, neither can straights, or 2) while men can't marry men, neither can women marry women.

Both parts of your "no unequal discrimination" run exactly parallel to the arguments made in favor of anti-miscegenation laws. As the Supreme Court recounted in striking those laws down:
"... the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race."
The states made the same argument in favor of segregated education: there is no unequal discrimination because while black kids cant go to white schools, neither can white kids go to black.
With miscegenation laws, the right of a black woman in love with a white man to marry a black man (or a black man in love with a white woman to marry a black woman,etc...) was not meaningful compensation for the deprivation of the right to marry the person they were in love with. Here, the right of a gay man to marry a woman is not meaningful compensation for the deprivation of the right to marry the person he is in love with. In fact, the case is stronger here, because while, say, a white guy in love with a black woman might not want to marry a white woman, most such men could nonetheless become attracted to or romatically involved with white women. Gay men, by contrast, cannot become attracted to or romantically involved with any woman at all.
Further, depriving straight people of the right to marry other people of the same sex does not "discriminate equally" because straight people dont want to marry people of their same sex. And even if it did, an "equal discrimination" can still be an irrational and needlessly hurtful one -- like the "equal discrimination" created by segregation and miscegenation laws. They had no good reason for telling people who wanted to marry people of other races that they couldnt and you have no good reason to tell people who want to marry people of the same sex that they can't.

I get to pick my argument -- and its this 1) it is irrational and hurtful to allow women to marry men, but not to let men do so, 2) it is irrational and hurtful to allow straight people to marry people of the sex to whom they are attracted and not let gay people marry people of the sex to whom they are attracted. There is no downside to allowing gay marriage, and the upside is that gay people will be happy. Very simple.

Which brings me to your second point -- this appears to be that some discrimination is justified, because, for instance we discriminate against kids by allowing adults to marry but not them. The missing piece of this "argument" is anything remotely resembling a reason to limit marriage to people of opposite sexes.

Your personal sense of ickiness doesn't count. Neither do the three thousand year old writings of Mesopotamian shepherds.

Thanks RW.
My only caveat is that there is a continuum of sexuality, and men like myself often don't come to terms with their sexuality or a gay identity until after they are married.
(Sorta like young soldiers coming to awareness of their sexuality during their hitch.)
And I just don't think there is anything like a groundswell of plural marriage that seems to be Sweetie's obsession.

And I should have said "men AND WOMEN"...

Mr. Bill--
Everybody who gets married is merely guessing about whether they will want to be with the same person as they age. Yours is merely a particular case.

Indeed RW. There just seem to be a lot of married folks who are having sex with members of the same sex, not their spouse. I don't really know about the women's side, but there are a number of websites for married guys on the down low to hook up.

People often confuse their personal opinion with what should be the law for everyone. You can see that with Sweetie. On the other side, I know gay men who say "I don't want to marry, so this isn't a real issue." Like with Sweetie, they miss the point. The question isn't whether one personally wants gay marriage. Indeed, as interesting as Mr Bill's story is- it is frankly irrelevant too. The closest thing here to understanding the job of the law is RW. Not everything is reducible to how you feel individually in the law. For example, the arguments for and against polygamy have nothing to do at all with the laws for and against gay marriage except that the writer who writes such things hasn't thought through the differences of the issues involved. Again, the best explanation is RW. In part, because at base, the gay marriage issue is really a gender issue.

"It was in fact NOT a 'nice touch' but was a legal question left open by the court. The law has always recognized a marriage as having occurred when it is 'Consummated'. The 'consummation' has always been defined as sexual intercourse."

Wow, you get "how will courts know when a marriage has been consummated?" from "schools are teaching second graders about 'gay sodomy.'"???

I'm afraid to say anything back, for fear that your decoder ring will turn what I say into a confession of mopery.

I guess I'll take that risk -- your contention that gay marriage should be outlawed because courts wont know how when it is consummated is preposterous. If courts want to enforce that archaic, intrusive, and offensive rule that marriages dont count until you have sex, they can designate a sexual act. Maybe there will be a case about whether oral sex counts. Whoop-dee-fucking doo. That certainly outweighs denying millions of people the right to get married (sigh, to the people they actually want to marry). Or better yet, they can dispense with this ridiculous standard -- which irrationally discriminates against impotent and asexual people who wish to form life-long partnershipts -- and simply hold that marriages are effective at the ceremony or public declaration. The consummation requirement adds (or added, is it really still enforced?) little protection against the risk of sham marriages, because few people create significant documentary evidence of their sex lives (chicka-chicka-bow-bow!). A more difficult standard to fleece would be "did they evidence an intent to maintain a permanent life-long partnership" because where you live, how you structure your finances, and how your families treat each other is a hell of a lot harder to lie about than "we once had sex."

Your hysteria about children learning "sodomy" does not present coherent argument against gay marriage. If including gay sex in sex education is not among your optimal collection of social policies, it does not follow that allowing adults to marry other adults of the same sex should also not be among that set of policies. In any case, I dont know what the appropriate age for sex ed. is, but whenever it is, I have yet to hear an argument against including the existence of gay sex in that curriculum. I suspect I am supposed to assume that it is awful because gay sex is icky. So is heterosexual sex.

Nor does the injustice suffered by "ex-gays" at the hands of "gay groups" (are they like "the gays" or "the blacks"?) does not constitute an argument against gay marriage. You can think that after school clubs shouldnt be able to exclude people likely to attack their message or purpose, and still think that gay people should be able to get married.

Upthread, you made what is almost an argument worth taking seriously, when you said that marriage is solely to create documentary evidence of paternity, and that other "benefits" associated with it are merely a means to "extract property." The first problem with this argument, however, is that many of the benefits associated with marriage are neither about extracting property nor about the psychological value of "acceptance." Marriage, for example, confers the presumptive right to hospital visitation, medical decision-making, equal divisions of property upon divorce, and inheritance. These material benefits of marriage extract nothing from third parties, yet these rights can hardly be denigrated as the right to be called married or accepted.

Secondly, assuming that you are right that marriage should not compel the ability to extract benefits from third parties in the form of disability or health insurance, this does not provide a reason to allow discrimination in the way they are bestowed. You might be of the opinion that employers should be able to provide benefits only to same-race couples -- if so, then you have a principled libertarian position (I disagree) and I dont think you are simply a bigot. But if you think that employers should be able to discriminate on the basis of the gender of one's partner alone, then it must be because you think there is some unique merit in that distinction. The distinction between gay and straight, however, is an irrational one, and there is no good reason to allow anyone to treat gay people, materially, as second class citizens.

If what you are really saying is that state sanctioned marriage should amount only to a contract that creates a presumption of paternity (no veterans benefits, no health insurance, no inheritance presumption, no hospital visitation, no joint tax returns, no right to equal divisions of property at divorce), very well then, I agree that a case could be made that it should be limited to heterosexuals and that that case can be made without reliance on bigotry. Let me know how the weather is in that universe.

RW,
You certainly are confused. I never claimed I personnally opposed gay unions, I am simply explaining a legal construct which has been held as the standard for centuries.
As the dissenters in the CA ruling said. There is nothing in the law or the Constitution that gives the court the ability to create gay 'marriage'.

The court just decided to do it. Which is great if you are on that side of the issue and don't care about tyranny.

Would you also have no problem with the court just making up that gays must have their foreheads tatooed with a rainbow. I mean whatever the judge wants, who cares if there is any legal basis for what this tyrant wants to do, we'll just make it up later.

Maybe if you have a grandfather interned by FDR simply because he was different, you might be a little more wary of judges bearing gifts.

Your problem is that you simply disagree that the English language means what it says and 'marriage' has been defined for centuries as a union between a man and a women and the definition itself doesn't discriminate because definitions are incapable of having feelings.

What good are the laws of any nation if one can simply redefine the words to complete change the historical meaning.

And the idea that marriage is a constituitional right is complete bull. No Constitution has every made marriage a fundamental right of the individual, period.

I will reiterate once again, because you don't seem to get that you are not being treated a sa second class citizen simply because you don't fit the definition.

If a 50 year old, male millionaire applies for Women, Infant and Children (WIC) welfare and the government denies it based on the fact the guy doesn't meet the definitions of a women, an infant or a child, doesn't mean that he's a second class citizen or that he was unconstitutionally discriminated against.

Or how about being black as a definition for affirmative action? If a white person wants to recieve the same benefit and claims he wants the definition of black to include all white and asain people...because he feels like a second class citizen for not recieving AA benefits.
WOULD YOU SUPPORT CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF BLACK SO US OTHER PEOPLE AREN'T SECOND CLASS CITIZENS??

The fact remains that slavery and Jim Crow were the standard for centuries, and were based on Biblical doctrine every bit as much as the bans on gay marriage are. The fact is that women as chattel was the standard for centuries under marriage laws, including rights of inheritance and the issues raised by RW, including by the way divorce. What has been true for centuries isn't the standard by which we judge equal protection under the law. Nor does it, for that matter address the specific bit of law here- namely , the California Constitution. As Greenwald puts it- you can judge who is the activist here by who refuses to understand the rudimentary elements of the question addressed and answered.

By the way, there is more Biblical justification for slavery than there is for prohibitions on gay marriage.

And legal doctrines- especially equal protection set up tests to determine whether a class , in this case sexual orientation, is a suspect class for a reason. The idea wasn't to create a rule that was only to be applied to one group, and never looking at what's happened in society since that time. Again, if it were, the rules protecting women under equal protection would never have arisen if this were the standard.

One final point- if you are going to argue a postion- the starting point isn't to recite what is only one basic dictionary definition of marriage It's to look at legal doctrine, including the govnermental institution we call marriage, and apply that with an eye toward understanding whether there is animus toward the class being examined, whether that class has been discriminated againt (and not through your manipulation of language such that it no longer has meaning) and whether there is a way to redress those issue of governmental actions. These are some parts of the test that is typically used in Equal protection analysis. Whatever you are doing Sweetie- it has nothing to do with legal analysis. You are engaged in a kind of sophistry. first, you stated that marriage has never changed, and , but that itself is patently false. Not just for centuries, but even as late as the late 60s. The fact is you use one determinate as if its the only unchangeable one but do not admit that other terms in fact have changed, and in fact, when they changed conservative racists such as yourself argued vigoriously that the change wasn't possible.

Just for historical example here is one when back in the 1910s it was argued there should be a federal constitutional amendment to prevent marriage between the sexes.

"In December of 1912, an amendment to the Constitution was introduced to abolish racial intermarriage:

Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians . . . within the United States . . . is forever prohibited.
This history of the amendment is rather interesting as described here: The Socio-Political Context of the Integration of Sport in America:

Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight champion, he held the heavyweight title for seven years before losing it Jess Willard in Cuba in 1915. [The famous James Earl Jones' movie "The Great White Hope" was based on Johnson's life.] Johnson had a profound effect on race relations. His flamboyant personality and his incessant appetite for confrontation and white women ultimately led to his demise. Johnson married three white women and had numerous affairs with others. He was fearless and had little respect for the conventions of the day (Wiggins, 1993, p.27).
It was this behavior that earned him the name “Bad Nigger.” A Bad Nigger, in black folklore, was a black man who did not play by the rules of convention; they dressed well and had unquenchable sex drives. They lived hedonistic lifestyles with a blatant disregard for death or danger. The term was used a badge of reverence among blacks (Roberts, 1983, p69).
In December of 1908, Johnson beat Tommy Burns in Sydney, Australia for the heavy weigh title. In 1910, he beat former heavyweight champion, Jim Jeffries so badly that it humiliated whites. Not only did he beat him, but he taunted him and rubbed in the face of white Americans. Race riots ensued all over America as a result of this event (Rust and Rust, 1985, p.147).
Because of Johnson's arrogance and love for white women, many whites considered him a serious threat to racial order. After Johnson married Lucille Cameron (a white woman), two ministers in the South recommended lynching him (Gilmore, 1975, p.107). In a reaction to the Johnson-Cameron marriage, in 1911 Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia introduced a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriages. In his appeal to congress, Roddenberry stated that
"Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery to black beasts will bring this nation to a fatal conflict" (Gilmore, 1975, p.108).
Influenced by Roddenberry and others, miscegenation bills were introduced in 1913 in half of the twenty states where this law did not exist.
The historical similarities are obvious."

What's so striking is that your arguments and those of the racists are practically identical if one knows these arguments. From 'it will destroy marriage" to any number of other outlandish unsubstantiated claims. The conservative always uses "it will destroy society" to justify their prejudice. What you really mena is that you can't accept pluralism.

Ohhh.... Your concern is judicial authority. For a minute there I thought you were against gay marriage. Turns out you are unwilling to defend the notion that prohibiting gay marriage is good policy rather than bigotry, just concerned that judges will intern asian americans because, um, judges misinterpreted the equal protection clause when they allowed this internment, and um, they, um are again talking about equal protection, so you know, there you go. Causal chain.

How much thought did you put into this argument? Korematsu is an argument against judicial deference to the policy branches on matters of equal protection. In Korematsu, the executive interned Japanese Americans, and they appealed to the Supreme Court for relief on equal protection grounds. The Supreme Court exercised restraint, not activism, and allowed the policy branches to round them up.They found this action to advance a compelling state interest. Here, you want the California Supreme Court to repeat that mistake, and defer to the policy branches' assertion of a right to discriminate. In other words, internment happened not because the Court was activist, but because it did nothing.

Now, lets bracket for the moment whether there is an individual constitutional right to marry. As I said before, if you want to take the libertarian position that the state should have nothing to do with marriage, be my guest. But that's not what was at issue in Californnia or anywhere else that this issue has been debated. Whats at issue here is whether, given that the state has in one form or another chosen to recognize and sanction marriage, it may or should do so only among opposite sex couples. The textual basis for this decision -- the State (or for that matter federal) equal protection clause is quite a bit clearer than the textual basis for a personal right to marry.

You describe this as merely the application of a "definition" and I assume by this you might mean to advance one of the following two points, both of which are bankrupt:

1. You might mean that gay marriage has never yet been considered "marriage" and consequently the framers of the state or federal equal protection clauses couldnt have intended to ban it -- any attempt to "re-write the definition of marriage" is accordingly law-making rather than proper judicial activity.

This argument runs head-long into Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board of Education. I'd be surprised if the historical evidence clearly demonstrated that Congress intended to legitimize inter-racial marriage when they passed the federal equal protection amendment. Accordingly, you have to do one of two things: a) accept the state's right to prohibit inter-racial marriage, or b) accept a more flexsible view of the equal protection clauses that allows judges to determine whether the broadly stated value of eqaulity permits a particular state action. (If you choose option one, we dont have a lot to say to each other).

Equal protection, moreover, presents an especially compelling case for a flexible reading of the text for two reasons -- one, it is stated at an intentionally broad terms -- a judge deciding whether someone is being treated "equally" necessarily makes a more value-laden decision than one interpreting, say, the age requirements for the presidency -- and two, it is intentionally placed in the constitution(s) as a check on the majority -- the american constitutional scheme commits certain kinds of disputes to the judiciary precisely because the majority cant be trusted to treat the minority equally, eschew cruel and unusual punishment of those that break its law, etc...

2. Your references to the pre-existing "definition" of marriage might also be trying to express that the State is not discriminating against anyone because it is simply applying a definition that already existed. This is as much sense as I can make of your statement that "definitions dont have feelings." The problem with this contention is that it misidentifies the state action -- the discrimination arises from the combination of a definition that doesnt include same sex marriage and the state's decision to recognize only the relationships that fall within that definition. If your complaint is that the Cali. court should have instead offered the state an opportunity to cease its recognition of all marriages rather than call same sex relationships "marriage" then I suppose you have a defensible position.

With that as background, the answers to your questions should be clear.

"Would you also have no problem with the court just making up that gays must have their foreheads tatooed with a rainbow[?]"

Yes, I would have a problem with judges saying that gays had to get a rainbow tatoo. That action would itself be prohibited by the equal protection clause, because it would irrationally discriminate against gay people, and would certainly not be compelled by it. Accordingly, the judiciary would lack the power to do this. By contrast, the court could plausibly construe the equal protection clause to compel recognition of gay marriage because the failure to recognize same sex marriages is not "equal." What on earth is the stretch here, linguistically? I would also oppose mandatory tatooing of my gay brothers and sisters even if it were lawful as reminiscent of internment and the holocaust, which also makes it different than recognizing gay marriage. Thanks for asking.

"Maybe if you have a grandfather interned by FDR simply because he was different, you might be a little more wary of judges bearing gifts."

No, I'd be a little more wary of people attacking the right of the judiciary to use the equal protection clause to restrain attacks on disfavored minorities.

"Your problem is that you simply disagree that the English language means what it says and 'marriage' has been defined for centuries as a union between a man and a women ..."

No, my problem is that the state shouldn't be allowed to apply this centuries old definition because it doesnt include gay people. Just like it shouldnt be able to sanction ownership of people because the "definition" of "slavery" always includes the ownership of people. The question is not the definition, but what the state does with it. They can change the definition or quit using it. Up to them.

"And the idea that marriage is a constituitional right is complete bull. No Constitution has every made marriage a fundamental right of the individual, period."

Assuming this is right (I suspect I could find a substantive due process right you agree with somewhere), the state still cannot (or should not be able to) discriminate between groups of people without a good reason if that discrimination affects their lives. The equal protection clauses say exactly that, and have done so since Korematsu.

"I will reiterate once again, because you don't seem to get that you are not being treated a sa second class citizen simply because you don't fit the definition."

This is not an argument. If the state treats people differently without a good reason, it treats them as second class citizens. If they choose to embrace a "definition" that excludes gay people and the state embraces it, the combination of the definition and their choice to embrace it creates two classes of people.

"If a 50 year old, male millionaire applies for Women, Infant and Children (WIC) welfare and the government denies it based on the fact the guy doesn't meet the definitions of a women, an infant or a child, doesn't mean that he's a second class citizen or that he was unconstitutionally discriminated against."

The difference is that in that case, the state's decision to embrace a definition that discriminates between the wealthhy and impoverished has a rational basis -- poor people need food and wealthy people can buy it for themselves. The combination of definition and state action discriminate, but not without purpose. You can disagree with this claim, but this is a disagreement about the merits and fairness of welfare policy, and I am not going to engage you on any other issue.

"WOULD YOU SUPPORT CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF BLACK SO US OTHER PEOPLE AREN'T SECOND CLASS CITIZENS??"

Hard to argue with your mighty caps lock of reason (turn of phrase pilfered) but I'll try. If you regard affirmative action as illegitimate racial classification, you would not have to redefine "black" (or, as we like to say here in the 21st century, "african american") to eliminate this discrimination, but could instead simply say that schools and employers could not consider race. The question is not the accuracy of the definition of black, but whether that definition, when combined with a policy that says that schools may attempt to create a diverse school population (etc.) results in irrational discrimination.

Again, if your preferred method to deal with the discrimination that occurs is to stop recognizing marriage, then I supposed you have stated a valid doctrinal objection to the California court decision, but not a very meaningful one because no state in this universe will ever cease to reconize marriage.

Now, why dont you answer the burning question that has been posed to you from every commenter on the board in every possible way they could think of -- maybe the problem was that the caps lock wasnt on ---

WHAT POSSIBLE HARM COULD IT TO DO ANYBODY IN THE FUCKING WORLD TO CALL COMMITTED SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS MARRIAGE?

Jews were stoning gays for thousands of years and Catholics were burning them for almost as long. These irrational, bigoted, heteronormative ideologies have NOTHING to say on gay marriage. The deluded freaks who still adhere to these "faiths" should consider themselves lucky that their snake oil ideologies are still permitted in a civilized society. For the time being.

And the idea that marriage is a constituitional right is complete bull. No Constitution has every made marriage a fundamental right of the individual, period.

Sigh. Sweetie, I have to grant you a grudging kind of respect for hanging in there after so many people have so thoroughly demonstrated that your "arguments" against gay marriage don't amount to much more than "because I said so."

But I also resent it, because many of us have actually spent time and energy examining facts and considering cause and effect, and you're not showing us the same respect. While it's clear that you've read at least one short news article in which the CA chief justice anecdotally relayed his thoughts on arriving at the decision, it's just as clear that you haven't gotten within a country mile of the decision itself. It's actually a pretty tight piece of legal reasoning, full of references to the actual words of the actual constitution, and it's based entirely upon the premise that the CA state constitution makes marriage a fundamental individual right. I understand that you disagree with that, but George's opinion cites more than a half century of case law pretty convincingly, while all you've got is "TEH DICTIONARY!!1!"

Same-sex marriage will lead neither to legalized polygamy (though I'm not sure how that's supposed to be the end of the world) nor to affirmative action for whites, because the former has absolutely no relevance to legal precedent and the latter has already been firmly in place for quite a few centuries now. But if you dispute those points, how about offering a rational argument about why those things might happen rather than challenging everyone else to prove to you that the sky's not falling. I live in Massachusetts, and while New England weather is as mercurial as ever, with 4 years of same-sex marriage under our belts I've yet to see any fire and brimstone raining down upon us. I'd say that puts the burden of proof on you.

I think the decision (all 172 pages of "just making things up") is available at the link on my name.

Maybe.

Shoot, I was just going to post that link myself. But instead I'll settle for apologizing for that last "anonymous" (fire and brimstone) who is, in fact, me.

Prof--
The donuts and cruller shit might well have been the single funniest internet content I have ever seen. Have you considered your own blog?

"WHAT POSSIBLE HARM COULD IT TO DO ANYBODY IN THE FUCKING WORLD TO CALL COMMITTED SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS MARRIAGE"

Because the definition of marriage excludes same sex by its very definition.

Its no different then saying white African Americans or adult male Women Infants and Children.

If you redefine Affirmative Action to include everyone, does it not change the definition and basically end Affirmative Action?

Yet, even though many Americans are treated worse, as second class, since they don't fit the definition of the affirmative action class of people.

Perhaps we can fix the problem by redefining female to include people with penises.

Who knows maybe we can even redeine the DNC as a organization that likes gay people ...you never know.

Proffesordarkheart posing as anonymous.

Great, but totally off base argument. My point is not that the sky is falling, my point is that government has thousands of laws that discriminate between people and groups, it classifies people by definitions and changing the definition can in fact totally change the legal basis.

Your rationale that judges can and should impose their will, no matter how good intentioned, as long as they can conceivably make a half ass legal explanation falls a little flat.

Any judge that justifies it based on 'well the sky isn't falling' so therefore it is OK shouldn't be on the bench.

If you have read George's opinion, you would see that he even wants to claim that if the people of Californina change the Constitution, he still finds a right to gay marriage, without a single words or sentence on point.
He claims that 'The State' actually meaning the people through referendum or through the legislature, aren't the final say, that he can find rights anywhere if he looks hard enough.

He tries to explain away the actual effect of opening the door to any relationship being defined as a marriage by saying "our nation’s culture has considered [those] relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry.” He's refering to incestual and poligamist unions. Funny, you could say the same about gay marriage and that would seem to explain why voters haven’t redefined marriage to incorporate same-sex couples.

RW: "I think the decision (all 172 pages of ""

That should tell you alot right there. Why did it take 172 pages to explain a fundamental right in the CA Constitution that noone had discovered before.

It should have barely required one half page. "The fundamental right to same sex marriage is on page 36, paragraph 12".

There, didn't take 172 pages to point that out.

Although some other judges did point out the obvious:

“Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage … is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means."

The CA Constitution makes it easy because it actually has a section on rights and gay marriage is not listed, period.

What if we took a different route to gay marriage, rather then changing the definition of 'marriage', there are other terms that we can change under the law which get you the same thing.

Why doesn't a gay group sue the state for the right to call yourself female, even though you are by definition male.

Once you have yourself legally recognized as female, then you can entered into a 'marriage' with a legally recognized male.

So you go to the CA Supreme court and the head judge says, 'Why yes, I do see how the state, classifying you as male and not as female discriminates against you in all kinds of ways. Thus, we shall find a fundamental right to be female and the state will not be allowed to use the mere definition of female as a bar from men being female.

Being declared female has all kinds of other marriage benefits when it comes to rights such as child custody.

So how about it? I'm all for it. It makes much more legal sense then redefining marriage because it would allow gays to have the choice to enter into a marriage or remain in a civil union.

It would be as simple as declaring your sex female on your drivers license and thus the state recognizes you as in fact, and under the law, to be female.

This changing definitions stuff is really fun.

Sorry to go on, but one final point. To say the 'sky isn't falling' based on what happened in Mass. is not entirely accurate. All you have to do is Google gay divorces and see that Virgina, maryland, Pennsylvania, New York etc. have had to deal with new legal issues due to gay people having gotten married in Mass. now divorcing in other states.

This includes the major problem of child custody.

There are alot of sky's falling out there, you simply don't read about it.

Some like Rev Wright would say the chickens are coming home to roost.

But, not to brag, but if Mass had simply had one of the gay partners declared the other sex, then courts would not be having these problems because you would legally have a man and a women.

So if Mass simply said you can declare yourself male if you're a girl and thus enter into a lesbian marriage, the courts would already know who is the male and who is legally the female.

I might add that if this happened 4 years ago, the sky would not have fallen and thus my legal reasoning has to be declared sound according to the Professor.

Sorry to go on, but one final point. To say the 'sky isn't falling' based on what happened in Mass. is not entirely accurate. All you have to do is Google gay divorces and see that Virgina, maryland, Pennsylvania, New York etc. have had to deal with new legal issues due to gay people having gotten married in Mass. now divorcing in other states.

This includes the major problem of child custody.

There are alot of sky's falling out there, you simply don't read about it.

So now legal issues involving differences between state statute constitutes an apocalypse? It is true that gay couples seeking to divorce in a state that doesn't recognize their marriage are in a legal bind right now. Unfortunately, that creates a lot more trouble for them than it does for anyone else. For now, they're forced to stay married unless one of them re-establishes residency in the original state. That sucks for them, but it's no different from the deal with civil unions, and state courts are going to have to figure out what to do about it. That's their job; the law is an evolving thing and there are always new challenges and conflicts between states. Gay parents who are married continue to share equal custody of their kids, which is arguably a better problem than that facing unmarried ones: one parent (the biological parent or the sole adoptive parent in states that don't allow joint adoption) can deny the other parent any custody or visitation rights at all no matter how involved the second parent has been in the kids' lives for how long. The states are working out what to do about those cases, too...as we become ever more mobile and family structures get ever more complex, family courts have a lot of work to do. At any rate, if "it's complicated" were an argument against new legal arrangements, there'd be a pretty serious obstacle to legislating anything.

If you have read George's opinion, you would see that he even wants to claim that if the people of Californina change the Constitution, he still finds a right to gay marriage, without a single words or sentence on point.
He claims that 'The State' actually meaning the people through referendum or through the legislature, aren't the final say, that he can find rights anywhere if he looks hard enough.

Um...not the one I read. Help me out with a page number? The people certainly don't have the final say, since their legislature has already voted twice for gay marriage and it's been vetoed. In the ensuing conflict between majority preferences (the statute redefining marriage to mean only hetero marriage) and minority rights, the legislature and the courts have found in favor of the latter. But as far as I understand it, if the voters approve a constitutional amendment, same-sex marriage is off the table again. That's why they're trying to do that in the fall; I can only hope they'll fail, though I'll certainly miss the back-and-forth with you if it happens.

One last word about "redefining marriage": people like to say that it's "always" been defined as a union between one man and one woman, and while this is far from the absolute truth, it is true that that definition has a lot of historical weight behind it. But a more restricted definition is that marriage has always been defined as an exclusive sexual relationship between two people which forms the basis of a legal family. As our concepts of "family" have changed, we've raised and lowered the age of consent, we've excluded polygamous unions from legal sanction and included interracial ones, and tinkered a lot with the legal rights and obligations of the contract. Justice George has taken a minimalist approach to the marriage right, which is to say that he has found it applicable to everyone not specifically excluded from it (and those exclusions must meet either a rational or compelling interest standard depending on the category of people they exclude). That minimalist standard is in line with the intent with the US and California constitutions, which seek to protect rights, and not to limit them to those specifically spelled out in the law, or to those people traditionally thought eligible for such rights. Their guiding logic is that if it's not in violation of the constitution, it's constitutional; yours seems to be that if it's not protected in the constitution already, it's unconstitutional (that's the only way in which you can see same-sex marriage as a "new right" as opposed to the inclusion of a new category of people in an old right). We can all find perfectly acceptable definitions of marriage that support one side or the other; the fact is that the courts don't rule by dictionary or even by cultural tradition, they rule on constitutional protections. If they didn't, the Boy Scouts would have to allow gay troop leaders and the Ten Commandments would have been removed from the Austin State House lawn. Constitutions protect stuff I don't like as well as stuff I like; it's because of the former that I can tell they're working.

As for affirmative action, it does apply to everyone. Everyone who has suffered historic discrimination is included in its remedies to address historical injustice. To argue that it's discrimination to exclude classes of people who haven't suffered those injustices is like arguing that it's unfair that people aren't protected by animal welfare laws, or that the childless don't get child tax credits. The law isn't excluding anyone; it just isn't relevant to white men. It's also, importantly, a law and not a fundamental individual right located in constitutional protections.

When you're not being absurd, you're arguing from a common-sense idea about how the law operates in the US. It's a democracy, right? So the people should decide. That's a misunderstanding of constitutional democracy, which is as concerned with safeguarding liberty as it is with empowering the people to legislate, and provides strong protections against legislation that interferes with liberty. That's the very clear logic on which the Court's decision rests, and it's entirely in keeping with the theory and practice of constitutional democracy that if the people want to take away a right that's not limited by the constitution, they have to change the constitution to do it.

The good news is that language evolves. As more and more gays marry, so will more of the general populace include these couples in their definition of the word "marriage."

It's merely a question of whether the law will lead or lag behind.

I am tired of this conversation since you are ignoring what people are saying anyway. Here's the deal. Yes we have google, and yes we have dictionaries. We have all of that, and understand some of the legal and historical arguments for marriage. We also can tell when someone is offerring specious arguments such as gay divorce, and "how hard it will be." It's being made hard because those states discriminate against gays. This is again like arguing that the states that said black and whites couldn't marry were harmed because California ended the race based discrimination in marriage. It sounds good to a three year old who isn't capable of realizing you are using the prejudice as an excuse to say that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. And, thus the line of thought of you all your arguments along this thread. The same twisting of ideas to reflect what are at based the same arguements as I've shown that the racists use. Bigots never think they are bigots. At least not today. Today they shrod themselves in logic that's not very logical (hence the sophistry) of saying no to gay marriage because we are bigots (ie, again the gay divorce issue of Va- I mean seriously that's really fucked up). I will end with that note because that sums up the major waste of time you are.

And a last thing about constitutional law: when you argue, Sweetie, that the court should have given more weight the the traditional definition of marriage, you're not wrong, you're just arguing for a different judicial philosophy. In some states, the court has done so; in others, not, because they're guided by different principles. Both the culturally conservative approach of deference to traditional definitions and the judicially conservative approach of not intuiting limitations on equal rights that aren't specifically permitted by the constitution fall well within the normal range of contemporary jurisprudence. In the CA case, it wasn't just philosophy but precedent that led them to this approach. That's the importance of Perez in 1948 here. It's not that same-sex marriage and interracial marriage are the same, it's that the decision in that case considered the question of "traditional definitions" (in this case backed up by statutes that had been on the books since the founding of the state) and decided that, while relevant, those traditions didn't outweigh equal protection. The George court followed the Perez court's lead. Were there other reasonable conclusions they could have come to? Sure. But you do no service to your argument when you talk as if the court has done something CRAZY and UNPRECEDENTED. I can imagine an outcome with which I'd disagree but that I still saw operating on accepted principles of interpretation. If you can't do the same, you really need to grapple with the principle operating in this decision until you can specifically address its faults as you see them. Otherwise, you're not presenting a case against the decision, you're just finding a bunch of different ways to say you don't like it.

The donuts and cruller shit might well have been the single funniest internet content I have ever seen. Have you considered your own blog?

Aw, thanks, RW. I started one once, but then I found out I was too lazy. Unless I'm, like, really worked up and also avoiding something else I really need to be doing.

I asked:

WHAT POSSIBLE HARM COULD IT TO DO ANYBODY IN THE FUCKING WORLD TO CALL COMMITTED SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS MARRIAGE"

Sweetie answered:

"Because the definition of marriage excludes same sex by its very definition"

This is not a harm. Its not even a noun. A harm is a bad event that happens to a person.

And while we're at it, we still dont know what you would do with the court decisions striking down the activist prohibitions on interracial marriage or segregation. Few if any states recognized such marriages at the time the equal protection clause was enacted, so by your logic, when "equal" always means the same thing, I guess those clauses cant be inconsistent with anti-miscegenation laws.

Actually, Sweetie definition of harm is more like "I suffered harm because I hurt my foot by kicking you in the groin." It's the kind of twisted logic that makes the majority oppression of the minority seem like a harm. It's exactly the same language used by racists from slavery to Jim Crow.

Should read: "And while we're at it, we still dont know what you would do with the activist court decisions striking down the prohibitions on interracial marriage or segregation."

Liberals are all for "the will of the people" as long as certain items are off the table for voters to decide.
Apparently, the queer marriage issue is simply too important to let the "little people" decide.

yes el, we do live in a liberal democracy in which we balance the will of the people with the rights of minority groups. That's what our founders wanted. Apparently, only conservatives think democracy equals mobs. More than this issue, and more than anything else, the most destructive aspect of present conservative hack speak is how little it understands our constitutional structure, and how much it dumbs down most Americans about what that structure means. It doesn't mean majoritarian rule. I am not talking elitism here. I am wondering why you never learned that in a basic course in American civics. I mean I was taught this by a Republican in 9th grade.

"More than this issue, and more than anything else, the most destructive aspect of present conservative hack speak is how little it understands our constitutional structure, and how much it dumbs down most Americans about what that structure means."

Bingo.

I was taught that both the CA and the US Constitutions INCLUDE processes to modify those documents and thus change the Constitutional structure.

I am aware that 'the people' have done this on many occasions.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in either Constitution that cannot be modified by the people following the proscibed process.

But I could be wrong...I wasn't aware of the judicial concept of..."well, the sky hasn't fallen yet" either.

RW: ""WHAT POSSIBLE HARM COULD IT TO DO ANYBODY IN THE FUCKING WORLD TO CALL COMMITTED SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS MARRIAGE"""

Sorry, I wasn't really clear and thought you were joking.

I have a committed relationship with my son, we are very close, but I wouldn't want to call it a marriage. My wife has a committed relationship with her suster, again, she doesn't want people refering to them as married.

You can see the confusion you would cause in the courts if same sex relationships were marriages??

Akaison is committed to his therapist..again, I wouldn't term it a marriage....

the reason why you are bigot sweetie is that your arguments shift as it suits you. the discussion was about this court case that just happened. Sure, people can admend the constitution to enshrine their bigotry. that's not the discussion. The discussion was up until this moving target post o fyours about whether the decision was the correct one, what is equal protection analysis, what is a liberal democracy as the founders meant it, what was meant by the decision, etc. it was not whether people such as you being in the majority can not still fuck over the minority. of course, you can. that's hardly the point. and the judicial point of the sky hasn't falled yet is precisely how the courts work. it's basic to again our structure of jurisprudence. if you can't show an injury has a occured or harm, then you have no basis for a claim. that's again what judicial restraint is about. not getting what sweetie wants when sweetie wants it. that's called dictatorship by the majority. as i said before, you are sophist. you make up arguments that you dont mean simply to get what you want. my equal protection analysis doesn't change with the wind like your arguments do.

the reason why you are bigot sweetie is that your arguments shift as it suits you. the discussion was about this court case that just happened. Sure, people can admend the constitution to enshrine their bigotry. that's not the discussion. The discussion was up until this moving target post o fyours about whether the decision was the correct one, what is equal protection analysis, what is a liberal democracy as the founders meant it, what was meant by the decision, etc. it was not whether people such as you being in the majority can not still fuck over the minority. of course, you can. that's hardly the point. and the judicial point of the sky hasn't falled yet is precisely how the courts work. it's basic to again our structure of jurisprudence. if you can't show an injury has a occured or harm, then you have no basis for a claim. that's again what judicial restraint is about. not getting what sweetie wants when sweetie wants it. that's called dictatorship by the majority. as i said before, you are sophist. you make up arguments that you dont mean simply to get what you want. my equal protection analysis doesn't change with the wind like your arguments do.

...we do live in a liberal democracy in which we balance the will of the people with the rights of minority groups. That's what our founders wanted.

And what would make anyone believe that homosexuals are a 'minority'?

1) Identity not based upon immutable characteristic
2) Not politically powerless
3) Not economically disadvantaged.

So, I take you think religious minorities are also not a minority by your definition. See, the problem you face here is that I know the law, and I know the arguments well. You can certainly argue what was argued in Bowers v Hardwick, but don't confuse me for someone who doesn't know what you are doing. And, if you don't know why I brought that up- it was OConnor who asked although she later ignored it in her opinion - about the difference between being gay and Jewish because after all one is not genetically Jewish, and yet Judaism is protected under equal protection analysis.

By the way- economic disavantage is also not an immutable quality. Would think that obvious, but give you are loony maybe you don't know that.

...being gay and Jewish...

Also known as a Heblew

"Sorry, I wasn't really clear and thought you were joking."

You must have also thought I was joking when I asked you to explain why a court undertaking your analysis would allow judges to strike down prohibitions on interracial marriage and segregation.

You may want to ask yourself, why is the state in the marriage business to begin with? Because apparently these judges did not. It is fine and dandy to say that because someone is in a committed, loving, caring, smootchie, fulfilling, special, cutsey, dedicated (insert your warm words here) relationship that somehow there is a state interest in recognizing the union.

I don't run down to the state house and say, gee, I want you to recognize my relationship because it is sooo darn special and fulfilling.

THERE IS ONLY ONE STATE INTEREST IN MARRIAGE AND THAT IS THE CREATION OF MORE CHILDREN and the welfare and support of person caring for children.

There is no other reason for the state to be involved.

Whoever told you that the state has some interest in rocognizing your loooovvvveeee is full of BS, The state as an institution couldn't care less.

For a judge to say that the state needs to recognize a relationship as a marriage because you get butterflies in your stomach and go all wobbly in the knees is no reason for the state to bother with you.

We have all kinds iof relationships that the state doesn't have an interest in recognizing. But I guess in todays society, it is the state and the judges job to make you feel better instead of telling you to stop beothering me until you can find a compelling state interest why I should care about your relationship.

Now of course there are going to be marriages that don't include offspring..a big duhhh. But the point of the recognition of marriage it that the union of a man and a women was the common denominator of relationships for the purpose of raising offspring.

And in case you didn't realize it, an interracial marriage can and does produce its own offspring.

RW

my advice is to not waste your time with sweetie. he or she has issues.

The equal protection analysis is a sham from the start because it requires the judge to redefine what the definition of marriage is before he even begins his anaysis.

Sure the judge can decide out of nowhere that sexual preferences are now the same as race or sex, even though noone modified the Constitution to say so, but then the judge d=goes further and says...wooooww, not so fast I didn't mean to include all possible sexual orientation, I am just going to decide this one sexual orietation no deserves a higher scrutiny. he even goes further and explains why he decided that only gay oritation counts and not others because he thinks society isn't yet ready for those other relationships.

So the entire equal protection analysis is based on one false step after the next to get where the judge wanted to end up - as he has already admitted.

First he has to redefine the legal definition which the people refused to do, then he has to find a strict scruting for gay orientation based on, well, nothing, then he has to exclude all others in a footnote explaining he thinks society is ready for gay marriage but not the rest of them....yet.

Lets face it, sweetie...

The Propoents of homosexual marriage want to open the door, just a bit, to include homo marriage, but then slam the door when those who want other combinations.
And, they can't really give you any real reason why society should accept the homos and not those who want other combinations.

Akaison,

How would the judge have ruled using equal protection if the case was about a polygamist?

Using your equal protection analysis, the judge would have to find a right for polygamist marriage.

equal protection analysis isn't "my" analysis.

"And in case you didn't realize it, an interracial marriage can and does produce its own offspring."

Thats not even close to an answer. My question is not whether interracial marriages are better than gay marriages. Rather its whether Judges can tell the majority that they may not prohibit interracial under your species of constitutional analysis. Because your constitutional in one in which the meaning of the constitution doesnt change and cant compel or prohibit anything that wasnt compelled or prohibited at the time it was enacted, in which the right to marry may be limited to one group or another because its not a constitutional right, and in which judges have no right to limit the whims of the majority regarding its "Definitions of marriage." In that world, how could you possibly say not merely that people of different races should be able to marry, but that a JUDGE may tell the majority that it may not prohibit interracial marriage.

Also havent heard a peep out of you about your preposterously backfiring analogy to Korematsu.

The equal protection analysis does not require the judge to redefine marriage before he begins his analysis, it requires him to evaluate whether the state's reliance on that definition, while it still reaches only opposite sex couples, defeats "equal protection." The objection is not to the word, its to the state's reliance thereon.

You reiterate again what is your only remotely meritorious point about the limited purposes that should surround (not "do surround", "should surround") marriage. I have dealt with this above (6:35, final three periods), and, predictably, you have chosen to ignore that response.

See you on another thread.

No matter which argument you make. All such rulings effectively open marriage up to being any relationship two or more people decides they want to call a marriage and have the state recognize it as such.

Once a judge decides that the state and the people cannot define a marriage, then there will no longer be any point to a state recognized marriage.

it is not hard to recognize that an interracial marriage includes two things a gay marriage does not.

ONE: The state interest in procreation and rearing of children.

TWO: The fact that being a different race does not change the definition of marriage under the law.

Equal protection falls apart once you get beyond the simplicty of this judge because he didn't complete his argument.

RW can marry my sister but I cannot...where is my equal protection?

RW can marry the person he loves, I happen to love three people...I have one huge heart...but I am forbid from marrying those I love..where's my equal protection?

Fred

I provided those reasons to you last year in your previous incarnation. They are:

1. Polygamy should be prohibited or at least not recognized because 1) as it is currently practiced it is highly correllated with coercion and abusive relationships, 2) to the extent that it is utilized to acquire partner benefits, it creates an unfair advantage to its practitioners. Further, the harm to practitiioners of depriving them of the right engage in such marriages is not comparable to that of denying the right to gay marriage, because they are still entitled to marry someone to whom they may be attracted, where as denying gay marriage denies (most) gay people of the right to marry anyone to whom they are attracted.

2) Child marriage entails, promotes, or facilitates child sexual activity, which is psychologically and sometimes physically damaging. There probably are people attracted only to children, but the damage (to people) associated with the behavior justifies depriving them of all sexual activity to which they might care to engage.

3) Incestuous marriages deprive children of the opportunity to grow up in a setting where they can trust that no one is grooming them for life-long romantic attachment. Further, depriving those who would engage in incest of the right to do so does not present a comparable burden because most such people can become biologically attracted
to someone else. Not so for gay people derpived of the right to enter a same sex marriage.

There might be some others in the parade of horribles, but I think those are the grand masters.

incidentally- there's a reason why the US S Ct has failed to apply equal protection analysis in the Lawrence case. Part of it is that they could strike down their bad decision in Bowers without resorting to the broader implications of equal proection. They know as most lawyers do that the minute equal proection analysis is ever found with regard to the class of being gay- the whole house of cards that allwos discrimination falls. Oconnor telegraphed her understanding of this when she brought up the issue of Judaism. She realized that in fact gays would pass the test. It's not my test. It's the courts attempt to address the requires charged to them by the constitution to protect the minority from the whims of the majority. to require something more than makng shit up like sweetie and el have done along t his thread.

How can I, in good conscience grant you the right to marry, but then deny it to my Muslim brothers who want 3, 4 or even 5 wives?

"""denying the right to gay marriage, because they are still entitled to marry someone to whom they may be attracted, where as denying gay marriage denies (most) gay people of the right to marry anyone to whom they are attracted."""

Come now RW, you have already admitted to having married a girl so as a homosexual you took advantage of heterosexual marriage. And to say that our Muslim brothers marriages are coercive smacks of some very disturbing bigotry toward our fellow Muslims who choose to practice their religion. In Islam, we are taught that all wives are to be treated equally and if you have to use a stick on them, it is to be smaller than your toothbrush (Allah be praised), to bad the state doesn't recognize the same.

Hey this might sound like shameless self promotion but if anyone wants to tie the knot at sea, we're here to help. California has always been a melting pot of cultures and ideas. Now this one if finally coming to fruition. This is great news - summer and surfs up. See you on the Sea.

RW:

Thought you might find this interesting--

"You mention in a post today, "Haste on Marriage?" that you were conflicted about the California ruling, that perhaps the court should have exercised judicial restraint. On the other hand, you point out that the same could have been said 60 years ago about Perez. On the other hand--in your best Tevye impression--you say it will be argued that Perez was based on racial discrimination which has a clear jurisprudential lineage.

Those who would argue the latter are possibly forgetting when Perez was decided. Perez was decided in 1948 before Brown v. Board at a time when "separate but equal" was still the law of the land. There was jurisprudential lineage, but it was all in the opposite direction. Plessy v. Ferguson was good law at the time and stood for the proposition that it was constitutional to enforce racial segregation. Pace v. Alabama was also good law at the time. That was a case that said a law giving far harsher penalties for interracial fornication was constitutional since the law applied equally to both races. As the dissent in Perez noted every single court in the country that had looked at the issue of anti-miscegenation laws had declared them valid (many of the opinions going to say that they were in fact a good thing). The idea of "strict scrutiny" for racial discrimination did exist but was very new being established by the Supreme Court of the US only four years earlier in Korematsu v. US (dealing with internment of Japanese-Americans). But even that only applied to laws which curtailed the rights of a single race.

The unanimous view until this time was that of Pace which said these laws didn't single out a race and so were valid. In fact the 10th circuit had decided four years earlier (coincidentally the same day as Korematsu came down) in Stevens v. US that Oklahoma's laws banning interracial marriage did not violate the 14th amendment. And unlike in this week's case, the court in Perez was applying Federal law and thus was bound by US Supreme Court decisions including Plessy and Pace (although not bound by the 10th circuit decision).

The key to California's decision in both 1948 and 2008 was to look more closely at an issue that had often before been rejected out of hand. In 1948 the court said that yes "separate but equal" was the law but looked at from the point of view of the individual there was no equal substitute for one's chosen marital partner. In 2008 they said yes the "right to marry" had been stated before with the idea of a marriage being the union of a man and a woman, but if one looked at the reasons for why marriage was a fundamental right it was clear that they would apply equally to unions of the same sex. In both cases it was the careful examination that led to what I believe was the correct decision on the law. Even if you believe one or both cases were incorrectly decided, though, when it comes down to fundamental rights and minorities that have not always been treated justly, it is no virtue for a court to ignore the issue in deference to the wishes of a majority. They should strive instead strive in good faith to apply the constitution regardless of the popularity of the decision. Those that disagree should argue on against the reasoning used and the legal principles applied and not rely on overstated cries of judicial activism."

interesting and effective survey of the law before Perez. where is that from?

Can I just say one last thing about this inane "polygamy" dodge?

Desiring more than one wife, or desiring to be a co-wife, is not an immutable characteristic. Neither is being a Muslim, at least in the eyes of the law. The majority of the CA court, like all people in touch enough with reality to have negotiated in life as far as a Supreme Court judgeship, believe that being gay is an immutable characteristic, not "out of nowhere" but because that's come to be the consensus of most non-hysterical people. That makes gay people a protected minority that to discriminate against requires a compelling state interest and not just a rational purpose. Putting aside the fact that the fundamental right granted by the CA constitution is the right of any two persons to marry, and that there's no protection for any other arrangement in the law, a denial of polygamous marriage rights requires only a rational purpose, such as, say, those arrangements tend to be abusive to women. That probably wouldn't stand up to strict scrutiny, but it's almost certainly enough to meet the lower standard. If polygamists wanted legal sanction, they would actually have to argue for a new legal definition of marriage, which despite protests to the contrary gay marriage doesn't require, and that's not going to happen (at least until such hypothetical point as we decide as a society that we're OK with polygamy, at which point it should, via constitutional amendment).

As for incest, can't you see that it's a scenario that discredits your argument? Before last week, the CA constitution protected a fundamental individual right to marry, though possibly only for men and women to marry each other. And yet last week, I couldn't marry my brother! How can that be?

Because we draw a fucking line. We draw a line between first cousins and second cousins. We draw a line between 15-year-olds and 16-year-olds. We draw a line between humans and the rest of the natural world. I expect that gay incest will also be banned, and that any challenge to that ban will be struck down, for the exact same reason that it's already banned for hetero couples: because the state sees enough wrong with it to find a compelling interest to ban it. That's all it takes.

And that seems to be the part of the decision that Sweetie and the rest of the hysterics can't wrap their heads around. The court's legal reasoning that the gay-marriage ban doesn't live up to strict scrutiny is sound, but to get there you have to acknowledge a reality that seems not to have sunk in in some quarters. There's no compelling state interest to ban gay marriage because from the state's (nonreligious, prejudice-blind) point of view, there's just nothing wrong with it.

...and, once again in the heat of debate I forgot my name. The previous post is mine.

In of all places I found it on Andrew Sullivan's site. I posted it because it was succint, but honestly there are several legal commentators, including conservative ones, who are saying the legal basis of this decision isn't in question.

Perhaps , the best to me is the one by Greenwald. This comment by here sums up why I don't see the point of arguing with Sweetie:

"Just to clarify in response to a couple of comments here and elsewhere: nothing in what I wrote states or suggests that one needs to be a "legal scholar," an "expert" or even a lawyer to form a reasoned opinion about the court's ruling. I don't believe that to be true, and have made that point before:
This doesn't mean that only lawyers or constitutional law experts can form opinions about the court's actions. Anyone can read the judicial opinion, then go read the precedents on this provision, and inform themselves about what the [California] State Constitution does or does not guarantee. But -- as is true for any other topic -- a basic understanding of the relevant issues, so plainly lacking in all of these overnight experts, is required to be capable of anything more than baseless demagoguery.

The point is that whoever wants to make a reasoned argument about the court's ruling must -- by definition -- familiarize themselves with the relevant issues, and there is only one relevant issue here: does the California State Constitution bar the law in question? The way our government and system of laws were created, judges have no discretion if the answer to that question is "yes." They're required to strike down the law. As Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist No. 78, regarding the duties of the federal judiciary: "wherever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former."
It's self-evident that there's no way rationally to assess whether the Court acted correctly if one doesn't bother to find out anything about the California State Constitution and the precedent interpreting and applying it.

Anyone who seeks to opine about the propriety of the court's ruling without doing that basic work is simply expressing an opinion about whether they like the outcome as a policy matter, i.e., is being guided by the defining attribute of so-called "judicial activism" (ignoring relevant law in favor of outcome preferences)."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/15/california/

this quote explains well why Sweetie and Fred are sophists. They talk about judicial activism, but indeed, they are the exact thing they proclaim they are against. It's very Rovian. They could care less what the actual laws of California say or the jurisprudence. Has either posted one legal argument based on anything regarding equal protection analysis? I can see why some think when I discuss equal protection it's "my analysis" rather than "the analysis." It's because they have been taught for a long time that everything is mere opinion. Their posts are animus masquerading as arguments against legal analysis.

Indeed, much of the country will face this in the coming years. This is why I said earlier that the reality is that if equal protection becomes the basis of reviewing gay rights cases- the house cards the conservatives have built about judicial activism will fall because the activism will be theirs in trying to pretend gays aren't a class subject to equal protection of the law.

Scalia, the biggot, realized this- So do other conservatives like Bill Bennet. It's not just that the public opinion is shifting. It's that in the shifting the analysis that should have happened back with Bowers v Hardwick will start to happen. Under that legal analysis- under equal protection rather than due process- the bigots lose.

Three days later and this thread is still going on?

this judge simply didn't care what the law read or what the Constitution said. He wasn't using them to make his decision. He specifically mentions a whole bunch of reasons for his decision, NONE of which had anything to do with actually reading real words and interpreting clearly what they said.
Its like our judges are now no different them a King consulting a witch or an Oracle.

I've officially changed my mind. This thread is AWESOME. Sweetie, will you gay-marry me? I'm a lifelong member of the Democrat party, if it helps...

I think it was sweetie that said it best when he iterated that when the people have no say in defining marriage, then anything and everything is possible.

Is this really what the citizens want, or do you think they might want to govern themselves?

The people wanted by a majority Jim Crow. We live in a liberal democracy. Therefore, the majority's "wants" were weighed against the harm to the minority. The same is happening here. Until you stop staying shit that indicates you don't understand your own democracy (again the sad part of many of your post is that you talk about America, but don't understand it at all) , I will not waste anymore time with you. Especilly, since you are just bigots who could care less about whether the people "speak" or not. If they passed it by popular vote, which they have, you would be making the same arguements. You know this. I know this.

You might have an arguement if you could demonstrate why homosexuals should be classified as a bona fide minority.

Are millionaires a 'minority'?

Sorry, but I don't argue with stupid people. Maybe someone else will accept your challenge by wasting away yet more of their day with someone who asks questions with obvious answers.