  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 California Court Ends Gay Marriage BanPosted on May 15, 2008
The California Supreme Court has ruled that gays and lesbians have a right to marry. Chief Justice Ronald M. George aptly explained the landmark 4-3 decision: “Even the most familiar and generally accepted of social policies and traditions often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed.” Californians will vote in November on whether to amend the state’s constitution to ban gay marriage. That measure is opposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican. Only one of the seven justices on the court was appointed by a Democrat.
SHARE THIS TRUTHDIG ARTICLE:
|
|
Confronting the Terrorist Within
Email
Print
Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
TwitThis
YahooBuzz
Jump to Comments
By Nelson, July 2 at 11:20 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
One giant step down for mankind!
Report thisNothing to be proud about
By Thomas Billis, May 16 at 9:50 am #
Out of the toilets Republican men it is time to march into California and protest gay marriage.
Report thisBy Brian, May 16 at 8:39 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
“I dont understand why the word and ceremony are so damned important.”
I think the word is important. I think the best way to explain this is the report issued by the commission to study same sex civil unions in New Jersey in February. The commission agreed with gay rights orgs that civil unions, in practice, do not offer the legal protections that marriage does. There was talk of legal complications happening with gay couples who enter into civil unions rather than civil marriage such as companies not recognizing their unions and refusing to provide health insurance to partners of their employees and so on. Civil marriage is universally accepted. So it appears to be not just a word and ceremony that is the problem, but civil unions themselves.
Report thisBy Erik, May 16 at 5:23 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The aspect of these cases that I do not quite understand is why certain laws are not challenged on the basis that they are an establishment of religion. It is clear, for example, that if Maryland passed a law that made it illegal to eat meat on Fridays, the courts would have no problem striking that law down as an establishment of religion.
Well, many of the laws that enforce social mores are not much different. When you parse away all the unsupportable secular arguments for denying marriage to same-sex couples, you finally get to the nub of the issue: most states have passed these laws on the basis of religious beliefs. Texas, in a moment of (perhaps unintentional) honesty, admitted as much in the case that went to the Supremes regarding the state’s anti-sodomy law.
I see know difference between these types of laws and the Friday meat example.
Report thisBy jane, May 16 at 4:59 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The wedge issues never go away. They will not go away long past the nov. election. Let’s forget about the cost of the war, price of gasoline, loss of jobs. Ron Paul would have been proud of this.
Report thisBy Thomas Billis, May 15 at 8:00 pm #
I guess all the natural disasters before this ruling in California were the blame of heterosexual marriage because from know on to the Pat Robertson’s of the world it will be because of Gay marriage.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, May 15 at 6:27 pm #
Poor Callyfornians, uhh. A laid-back lifestyle is not quite real freedom........
Report thisBy Juan Pelicano, May 15 at 4:56 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Did you actually bother to read the California State Supreme Court’s 172-page ruling on the case? If you had, you would have seen a well-reasoned, exhaustively documented opinion that placed this issue squarely where it belongs, in the domain of personal liberty and individual rights under the State Constitution, which has historically been quite a bit more progressive and enlightened than those of other states and even the U.S. Constitution.
And don’t bother complaining about liberal bias, three of the four justices who found for the plaintiffs were Republican appointees who clearly take the Constitution more seriously than you do.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, May 15 at 4:47 pm #
This seems to be more about the courts’ self-assumed right to dictate peoples’ rights, to grant them only after great exertion and to remove them at the slightest whim.
Therefore, it is not about justice but conforming to an imperious system of poweer and privilege. What has come out of it is still yet another form of bondage. That should please the deviants who favor B+D and S+M anyway, ha ha.
But, to paraphrase, even the most familiar and generally accepted of court decisions and traditions “often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed”.
This will then damage child-rearing families in ways that gays and lesbians will deny and refuse to consider. The perceived rights of a minority and fringe group in society have been given precedence to make up for the courts’ own malicious prejudices and shortcomings in the past which the judge now pretentiously denies himself, uhh.
Marriage is about children, not about couples alone. The rest is the legality of property ownership and settlement issues. Again, the court has exceeded itself and pompously declared that whatever its view is must always be correct although it is always open to changing its mind if you pay enough to the lawyers.
Too bad about those gay/lezzo couples who were led up the garden path then to have their fanciful unions by the fiat of court decree. Today you have it..... but, oops, no you don’t! That is not justice and it is poor law. In the end, nobody’s rights are really being protected.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, May 15 at 4:26 pm #
Does this mean that gays now have a right to marry lesbians???
Report thisBy Aegrus, May 15 at 3:42 pm #
I honestly never understood the point of this issue. I believe gays should have a legal status which entitles them to the same benefits as straight unions, but as someone who doesn’t even believe marriage is even valid to begin with, I don’t understand why the word and ceremony are so damned important.
Seems like religious institutions should have the right to do anything the way they see fit, but maybe I don’t have a big understanding of the issue. I have attended a gay wedding, though. It was boring. };>
Report this