Newflash: Gay Marriage Ban Declared Unconstitutional in California

[Capernicus]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...=opinionsbox1#

Woooohooo! I wanna grab me a woman and get hitched!

But in all seriousness, I think that by tying the case to Brown vs. Board of Education, the gay rights supporters made a very strong argument that ultimately led to this outcome. It is the opinion of most of the population that this is a big step toward making gay marriage legal in the entire nation, but some argue that it only provides a target at which certain groups can attack. The people as a whole are leaning toward acceptance already, so was this really necessary? What are your thoughts? This thread isn't so much about what you think of gay marriage but more of what you think about the courts decision and how it will affect later policies.

I think it is a big win for my LGBT brothers and sisters. I can see where critics are coming from, but really such an event has to happen in order for things to be "official", so it was going to happen sooner or later. Whether my personal opinion is right I guess we'll have to see.



Edit: Oh damn, I meant to say "Newsflash" in the title but I can't edit the thing. I suck.

[Lola Granola]

Flawless victory.

[Wio]

I guess it's nothing new to see a government force propaganda on its citizens.

This ban contradicts the votes of the people, as the allowance of same sex marraige was already voted down by the ACTUAL people of California.

Note: The different between gay marriage and same sex marriage is that a homosexual man and homosexual woman's marriage is technically a "gay marriage" and is completely accepted.

Edit:
Source

In 2000, California voters approved Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, with 61.4 percent of the vote.

Attitudes toward same-sex marriage in California have changed sinc then, although there is still not a majority of support for gay marriages. A 2007 poll found that 49 percent of the state’s voters opposed “allowing gay and lesbian couples to be legally married,” with 45 percent saying they were in favor.

[ChibiNaruto]

I think it's a big step towards the LBGT community. States that allow gay couples to be seen as "lawful partners" only do so through changing last name or allowing them to file as a couple in taxes -- things tied to the government. However, for the fact that they can actually "marry", that's a big difference, because it infringes on the whole "church laws" thing.

I didn't know they tied it to the Brown vs. Board of Education. I thought it violated against separation of church and state, since it's considered to be "unlawful" under state laws and NOT under church laws.

Kudos to them. They deserve it.

[Capernicus]

I guess it's nothing new to see a government force propaganda on its citizens.

This ban contradicts the votes of the people, as the allowance of same sex marraige was already voted down by the ACTUAL people of California.

Clearly you missed the part of the article that stated, "In our system, legislatures enact the majority's will and courts protect the minority's rights. At times, by forcefully upholding minority rights, the courts can affect the majority's will."

That's not to say that you are necessarily wrong in talking about "propaganda", but we are talking about here the very ideals that the country was founded on. Unalienable rights for every man [and woman], the voice of the minority is just as important as the majority, and other such things. Remember, we live in a republic, not a democracy.

[Wio]

That's not to say that you are necessarily wrong in talking about "propaganda", but we are talking about here the very ideals that the country was founded on. Unalienable rights for every man [and woman], the voice of the minority is just as important as the majority, and other such things. Remember, we live in a republic, not a democracy.

I don't recall the ideals being about equality between minority and majority groups, nor does that make a valid point in my opinion.

If these Judges really wanted to respect the minority, they would completley withdraw the state's acknowledgment of marriage. If they merely allow same and opposite sex marriage, yet limit it (e.g. only two people), they're discriminating.

Personally, I think that the majority should decide what happens. Remember that while blacks where a minority, those who supported the abolition of slavery where a majority. It was actually appeasing to a minority that kept this country emancipation before the civil war.

[Capernicus]

I don't recall the ideals being about equality between minority and majority groups, nor does that make a valid point in my opinion.

If these Judges really wanted to respect the minority, they would completley withdraw the state's acknowledgment of marriage. If they merely allow same and opposite sex marriage, yet limit it (e.g. only two people), they're discriminating.

Personally, I think that the majority should decide what happens. Remember that while blacks where a minority, those who supported the abolition of slavery where a majority. It was actually appeasing to a minority that kept this country emancipation before the civil war.

I have no idea what point you're even trying to make here but guess that you're bringing it up as an allusion to the Brown vs. Board of Education case. However, I don't believe for a second that those in favor of slavery represented a minority in the mid 1800's, and I would appreciate a valid source on that statement.

Back to the topic at hand, I think you are right to suggest that polygamy, if we completely followed the rules laid down, probably should be legal. However, marriage is, first and foremost, a government institution in this country (making it a religious one would violate separation of church and state), and used primarily for taxing purposes. There is no law prohibiting plural relationships, so long as they don't extend to such government institutions, so it is not so much done for the purpose of restriction of personal freedom as it is for keeping taxing information as simple as possible. You may protest and place the same argument over gay marriages, however gay marriage does not complicate taxing information any more than hetero marriages, so I really don't see the need to restrict them.

[Wio]

I have no idea what point you're even trying to make here but guess that you're bringing it up as an allusion to the Brown vs. Board of Education case. However, I don't believe for a second that those in favor of slavery represented a minority in the mid 1800's, and I would appreciate a valid source on that statement.

Abraham Lincoln, the pro-emancipation candidate, was elected president.
Why would the South even concede in the first place if there was majority favoring slavery?

The whole Brown vs. Board of Education was either coincidental or subconsciously inspired my point. I'd also like to remind you that it was your beloved supreme court that ruled on Plessy vs. Ferguson which STARTED segregation in the first place.

Back to the topic at hand, I think you are right to suggest that polygamy, if we completely followed the rules laid down, probably should be legal.

But even polygamy is only allowing the marriage of two individuals, but letting them do it numerous times. What about letting a person marry a group, or an organization.
What of the person who wants to publicly announce their love for their pet? Who dares stop them from doing such through marriage?

Marriage acknowledge by the state is absurd because the law has no legitimate reason to acknowledge such. Being married is the same thing as being a roommate in the short-term.

However, marriage is, first and foremost, a government institution in this country (making it a religious one would violate separation of church and state), and used primarily for taxing purposes. There is no law prohibiting plural relationships, so long as they don't extend to such government institutions, so it is not so much done for the purpose of restriction of personal freedom as it is for keeping taxing information as simple as possible. You may protest and place the same argument over gay marriages, however gay marriage does not complicate taxing information any more than hetero marriages, so I really don't see the need to restrict them.

The Constitution says that states can regulate marriage all they want, it never says that they have to acknowledge it. Thus, it's still the optimal way of ridding legal discrimination.

Also, letting the church regulate marriage is NOT a violation of separation of church and state if the state doesn't regulate marriage in the first place. I don't see how you came up with that.

By the way, what you said implies that the whole same sex marriage movement is centered on making taxes easier for same sex couples. If that were truely the case, this topic would be anything but controversial.



Edit:
I still believe that the majority should decide where this country goes.
The reason why having a republic was necessary was due to the fact that we could never afford to have direct democracy decide every issue, nor would the people have the time for such.

I'd all just like to add that I see the purpose of the judicial branch was to separate power more, and enforce legislation/the constitution, rather than to come up with silly controversial precedents.
Let the legislative branch, which conveniently is closest to the people, make the law.

[Pix the Skull Kid]

I don't see why it was banned in the first place. So what if some religions hate it? Who cares.

Since I live in cali this is neato news ^_^ Heard about it a few days ago on myspace then the next day in Government class.

[Sagat]

About time - at least some states in America are trying to be progressive and catch up with the rest of the civilized world.

[Eris]

I would have worded the title 'Newsflash: A sudden outbreak of common sense in California'.

[Wio]

I don't see why it was banned in the first place. So what if some religions hate it? Who cares.

Same sex marriage in itself wasn't banned. Rather marriage was defined as being between one man and one woman, making things like same sex marriage illegitimate.

No, this wasn't some religions hating it, this was the result of THE PEOPLE MAKING A DECISION VIA DIRECT DEMOCRACY.

About time - at least some states in America are trying to be progressive and catch up with the rest of the civilized world.

Once again, this was not the decision of the people of California, but some egotistical judges who want to be in the spotlight.

Progress, would be the people directly voting to change the definition or marriage. This is simply an abuse of power.



Edit: Now that I think about it, what part of the California/US constitutions says that banning gay marriage is actually unconstitutional. The US constitutions simply says that the state have the right to regulate it.

@Eris: My bias title would be: Typical Rino Judges abuse power in California.

[Sagat]

Heh, you can't trust the general populous to make the right decisions anyhow. Left to them this likely would have gone in circles. People need decisions made for them, so good work on the Judges part.

[Amray]

They should not have banned it anyway. Idiots, its up to an individual what they want to do with their life and how they want to live it. They probably thought that banning it would stop people from being gay. Ha! as if! If they're gay then who should care? If they are straight then buckaroo. Whats the problem?

[Sanosuke23]

You know, the only thing I ever agree with Wio on is that marriages shouldn't be under governmental control.

Marriage, as I understand it, is a religious/spiritual/you get the point ceremony. The legal equivalent, for tax purposes, etc., regardless of genders involved, would be a civil union or something like it, ideally.

As for this ruling, I understand and agree with the intent behind it, but since I don't think marriage should be legal/political domain I can't say I agree with the ruling itself.

[iRevo]

Well it seems that " one small step for a homosexual, one giant leap for a gay community."

Homosexuals, rejoice!

[Overlord Darth Fluffles]

I don't see why it was banned in the first place. So what if some religions hate it? Who cares.

I second these words.

Anywho, WOO YEAH! One part of America has it done, let's see how the others fair! Come on not-stupidity!

[Akihiko Yamamoto Hozagaki]

Dear San Francisco,

YOU GOT PWNED! HAHAHHAHAH

But in all of seriousness, I just think that gay marriage is just unnatural. Like the old quote once said," God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve." Capische?

So all of us should just follow the rules of religions? Then let's all stop eating pork and worship cows.

And how did SF get pwned? What can you do to SF? SF would corrupt a kid like you in seconds. You wouldn't last a day in my city.

YUSH. I'm so happy about this! It's about god damned time! I agree with you on that Capernicus! Big win for the LGBT community ^_^!

[Yujiro Hanma]

So all of us should just follow the rules of religions? Then let's all stop eating pork and worship cows.

What? What religion do you know that worships cows? And pork is only bad for orthodox/hassidic jews.

I don't have anything against gay people, but I also feel it is unnatural. It is a birth defect, their bodies either didn't fully develop into a boys or developed too far for a girls. This makes sense if you understand birth.

[kaori_tenshi]

Hopefully this is a sign that the government sees that gays and lesbians are just as normal as the average striaght couple. Though even the thought of gays and lesbians together is going to take much of the general public time to see that also, since most of the world is close-minded. Well from what I see at least.


All in all, this is a huge step to victory for everyone supporting gay rights/marriage.

[LittleMomo]

All I can say is that it doesn't matter who loves what, let them decide what to do. I gov't shouldn't be even involved with this. I mean I live at California and I know that "what comes at California, doesn't stay at California" but it's too late for that. Hopefully, the votes will get through and see what will happen? O.O

By the way govt, gay people are people as well. it's kind of like taking everyone's right away if you know what I mean.

(I'm straight, but I still support them ^^)

[Yugure's Goddess]

W00T! SCORE! GAYS WIN!! WHAT THEN?

So what if the judge is going a little beyond his bounds? What he did was a good thing and the points argued were very valid. After all, some one must eventually take a stand and decide when this prejudicial junk needs to come to an end, at least with its rediculous role in the law. I mean to really challenge this decision, you should ask yourself: Which is really stepping the furthest beyond the bounds of the law? A law that bans something that it really should have no authority or business banning? or the law that bans that law whilst stretching its hand a little further than you (wio!) think it should? Frankly, I'm saying the former. <33

love
dani
dude

[Overlord Darth Fluffles]

What? What religion do you know that worships cows? And pork is only bad for orthodox/hassidic jews.

I think he was reffering to how in Hinduism the Cow is Sacred and a symbol of unselfish giving and all that fun stuff.

[Akihiko Yamamoto Hozagaki]

What? What religion do you know that worships cows? And pork is only bad for orthodox/hassidic jews.

I don't have anything against gay people, but I also feel it is unnatural. It is a birth defect, their bodies either didn't fully develop into a boys or developed too far for a girls. This makes sense if you understand birth.

Hinduism. What have you learned in your years? Also, most Jews don't eat pork.

I think you do have something against them. Honestly, read your post! You're the one who doesn't understand. I don't even know how to reply that incredibly idiotic statement. I guess as they say, ignorance is bliss.

[Light Buster]

Flawless victory.

Flawless victory indeed.