...which is, in my view, that “society” never had and has not now any “right” to deny two competent adults from becoming joined in a domestic unit.

The rest is semantics… call this union what you will, the fact remains that the two are, in fact, a couple. Rant and rave all you want - it doesn’t matter.

I just don’t understand how so many people ASSUME they have the right to determine for others who they are to love and couple up with. I’ve lived with my partner, in full cohabitation, for nearly 30 years… and it doesn’t matter to us whether “society” approves or disapproves. It simply doesn’t matter. Couldn’t care less. Get it?

Aren’t those opposed to same sex marriage really just scared that gays and lesbians who marry will set a better record than the heteros’ 50% success rate;-)?

But seriously, folks, what part of “equal protection under the laws” do those opposed not understand?  Nobody’s getting any special treatment here, and giving a different name and status “for the official family relationship of same-sex couples . . . raises constitutional concerns not only under the state constitutional right to marry, but also under the state constitutional equal protection clause . . . ” as the ruling states on page 9.

For the California Supreme Court to withhold its determination, once made, out of concern that it might in some unfathomable way jeopardize various other states’ attempts at accommodation would be to prolong the denial of basic civil rights to California citizens.  That is obviously something the Court did not wish to do, and it raises the hope that, since the court was aware of the likelihood the opposing ballot measure would be on the November ballot, it will not be entertaining a stay of its action to further prolong denial of those rights, either.

By the way, there is not necessarily a more feminine member of a gay relationship nor a more masculine member of a lesbian one.  So, it is most likely that same sex partners who marry will use the gender neutral term “spouse” to refer to one another after they are married, instead of “husband” or “wife,” which terms of endearment will still be available for opposite sex couples to use.  See, nothing is taken away from the current institution of marriage by this decision. 

As the court found on page 11 of its ruling, “[P]ermitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples.”  As one analysis put it, “Why should same-sex partners be denied the same right to be miserable as the rest of us.”

Oh, by the way, “equal protection under the laws” is also embodied in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Also, one of the principal defining elements of that Constitution is the “full faith and credit” clause, which brought us out of the chaos of the Articles of Confederation into our federal system and which has been used to enforce the recognition of the laws and statutes of other states.  That takes precedence over state laws denying, for instance, recognition of interracial marriages performed in other states.

California, unlike Massachusetts, has no law preventing those from outside the state from getting married if their marriage would not be legal in their home state.  I suspect that constitutional provision is going to get a workout when those folks come here, bringing fistfuls of cash, incidentally, get married and return to their home states seeking that legal recognition.  Stand back!

I don’t think marriage is a religious issue at all, notwithstanding religion trying to make it so. 

Being “married” gives you and your “spouse” certain rights not ordinarily accorded by states to unmarried couples.  That’s the rub.  Has nothing to do with the church.  In fact, I don’t even understand why, after a couple gets the license, a parson even becomes involved.  It has nothing to do with him/her.  You go to the municipal clerk, apply for a license, get your required blood tests and, after you pay the fee, you’re legally “married.”  If you want a ceremony, fine. If you don’t, none needed. 

As for committment, that’s BS.  Gay/lesbian couples are probably no more or less committed than heteros. Get married, put up with each other’s s**t for 50 or 60 years and then you can say you were committed.  Committment transcends gender.

I have noticed that some contributors believe that the fundamental issue here is that the word “marriage” is erroneously applied to the union of gays. That is utterly laughable nonsense. The fundamental issue is why a state can deny to issue a MARRIAGE LICENSE to gay couples which gives them the legal right to get “married” or, if you prefer, “tie the knot”! It is none of the state’s business whether the gay couples call themselves “married” or “civilized united”, or whatever else after the legal marriage ceremony. I am a heterosexual. I am married. I welcome gay couples with open arms to my rich world.

States legally discriminate groups of citizens all the time. Example: here in Texas you must be 16 before you can obtain a driver license. That is discrimination as defined in my encyclopedia and dictionary. It took many decades before the principle that a state must have an overriding interest to discriminate, usually interpreted as ‘protecting all residents of the state against demonstrably probable harm’, became firmly embedded in jurisprudence. The case of the driver license is clear-cut. Imagine that a 15-year old would bring suit in the U.S. Supreme Court that he is being discriminated. Fat chance! However, when it comes to gay marriage, against what are states that forbid this ‘protecting all their residents’? “Rejection of Traditional Marriage”? That is laughable because “Traditional Marriage” once meant one man and several women. Traditions have the nasty habit of changing in time as Tevye of “Fiddler on the Roof” painfully discovered. Moreover, “Traditional Marriage” is not a person hence a state cannot protect it. There is absolutely no rational justification for the state to deny gay couples a marriage license unless the state is convinced that gays are depraved and dangerous “Untermenschen”. Let’s face an unpleasant truth, there was a time in Nazi Germany when Jews were not allowed to marry Aryans. Recently our President urged us not to emulate Hitler. Amen!

Adopting a word won’t change the reality.  Change the reality, then you can use whatever word you want, preferably something new and creative.

Civil unions have not legally accomplished parity with marriage.  It really is more than a word. 

http://www.equalitymaryland.org/pdfs/cu_fact_sheet.pdf

http://www.civilunionsdontwork.com/

You make an excellent point, Cyrena, as is your habit.

When the kids were very little, I used to despair for my son because of the little girl down the street.  She really had his number.  She would pick up an object of absolutely no interest to my Danny and announce to him that, in effect, “I have this and you CAN’T have it!”  Well, he’d go into paroxysms of sudden dire need for that very object; immediately it had become the most important thing in the world and he’d cry his eyes out for lack of it.  God, the way she messed with his mind drove me nuts.  (They’re both 20 now, both well-adjusted young adults and good friends.)

That dynamic is like what you describe, and as with my Danny it’s a shame that gays can’t see how they’re being manipulated.  Given the tattered state of the institution of marriage, wouldn’t it be brave and creative of gays to come up with a new term that defines a hopefully new level of commitment, honesty and fidelity?  But no, they won’t feel “equal” until they stuff a their unique biological reality into a word that’s so laden down with baggage it barely means anything anymore. 

So, Muckraker, go for it.  You’re right, it changes nothing whatsoever in my life.  You’ve been duped into thinking you need to use someone else’s word in order to feel whole and equal, so go for it.  Please notice that my original post fully acknowledged your right to equal status under the law and in the eyes of the community; I simply couldn’t figure out why all the fuss about hijacking someone else’s word. 

And I still don’t get: does there have to be a husband and a wife?

What i don’t understand is the desire/need to be recognized by the state.  This goes for hetero and homosexual couples.

Were i to get “married”, i wouldn’t want it to be official.  What is more important, the emotional commitment to another human being or the contract?

As far as i’m concerned, gay people should be able to marry each other if they want to.  I simply don’t understand why they would want to…but then again, there are a lot of things i don’t understand.

Note: i hardly think that marriage qualifies as a “human right”; to suggest that it is only cheapens issues like torture.

“Sorry.  I know I’m gonna get jumped for this. But like I said, I just don’t get it.”

No need for apologies JimBob, since your confusion seems reasonable enough to me. It’s all about the semantics in my opinion. Everything always boils down to language, and that is especially the case in the law.

My own opinion is that I really don’t know how important it is to be in a ‘marriage’ as opposed to a ‘civil union’. The need for legislation on “Civil Unions” was (in my opinion at least) very much necessary, because it boils down to the money and other benefits that ‘single people’ (homo or hetero sexual) never have had an opportunity to take advantage of, in the reality of the bureaucracy. That goes to anyone who may be in a committed relationship, who is unable to obtain benefits for the other person, if they aren’t married to them. The “Civil Union” legislation corrected that.

So, I’m not entirely sure myself, why that wasn’t enough, and the word ‘marriage’ had to become such a big deal. BUT, ONE of the reasons (and probably the main one) was due to the fact that the far right religios decided that they needed to BAN something that wasn’t on the books to begin with.

And, how much time and ink has been spilled or wasted on “BANNING” Gay marriage, before it could ever be considered? Too much. It’s like what the regime has decided to do to Iran. Let’s punish them in advance, for something they aren’t even doing, or planning to do…acquire a nuclear weapon.

Now, is there a possibility that they might DECIDE to do exactly that, just because we’re already accusing AND punishing them for it? I dunno. Maybe. It could easily be a ‘well if YOU have them, and you’re telling me that I can’t’, just because, then maybe that’s what I’ll do anyway, even if I hadn’t been planning on it to begin with.

Just a thought.

Meantime, I DO believe that all people should be able to have their relationships recognized by law. I don’t see a real big difference between Civil Union or Marriage, just like I never cared much what my ‘title’ was as an employee. I only cared about the job responsibilities and how much I got paid. But obviously, the LANGUAGE is important to most folks.

“Nothing the California court majority said should deter these states from recognizing that gays and lesbians, no less than heterosexuals, have a right to the community’s recognition of the seriousness of their commitments.”

ABSOLUTELY true. But in a language as rich, as full of subtlety and shadings as English, why do we need to cram two somewhat different expressions of the concept of serious commitment into one vocabulary word?  The fact that “marriage” carries with it the sub-terms “husband” and “wife” should alone be enough to disqualify it for use in homosexual unions, since there is an inherent obligation to identify one partner as the wife and the other as the husband.  Do all gay relationships divide up this neatly?  Not in my experience, they don’t.

I do not understand the gay community’s insistence that the only way their unions can be deemed to enjoy equal status and value is if by hijacking a word that clearly has a historical and colloquial usage that describes something that is different in substantial ways than what they share.  To me, it’s as if the feminist movement demanded that the medical procedure heretofore called “tubal ligation” must be hereafter called “vasectomy” so as not to create yet another “difference” between the sexes. 

Sorry.  I know I’m gonna get jumped for this. But like I said, I just don’t get it.

Maybe it about time to declare heterosexual marriages illegal. I still fail to see how by letting gay couples marry, that it is a threat to heterosexual marriages as they claim. Gay marriage does not threaten a heterosexual marriage unless one of the heteros has been hiding a large part of themselves from their partner. It is no concern of total strangers to dictate whom you can love and want to build a relationship with. After all they would resent strangers coming into their relationship and trying to destroy it, and in most of those cases it is another heterosexual who does the destroying.

Just like those who oppose abortion, yet want to force their personal views onto others who may not feel the same way, so are the gay couples another group of people(victims) whom the so called majority or conservatives or whatever they choose to call themselves feel it is their God given right to tell them how they have to live their lives. It is time for all those busy-bodies to tend to their own problems they fail to see. Then they would not have enough time to interfere with the lives of total strangers, whom they will never meet.

It always makes me a little crazy when people, pontificate about the needs of others, to me it seems like common sense and without question, Gay marriage is here to stay.

But, that being said, the problem is not getting married, the problem is what happens after that, with divorce.

The divorce industry, in the United States has become a way to permanently extract wealth from once married couples, creating life long financial bondage and crippeling debt. The courts and legal profession make millions, if not billons in the process. Few marriages are forever, but the financial burdens it creates can be.

And since the marriage rate for others has gotten so low, I wonder if there isn’t some element of this that wants a new cash infusion from those that do not as yet fully understand what is about to happen to them.

If society really want’s to encourage marriage and responsibility, then it should stop using marraige as a cash cow.

Despite his claim to support the gay marriage movement,  Dionne’s ambivalence to the issue appears to be unresolved.  The title of the piece, though purportedly referring to the conflict of judicial activism and the democratic process, echoes the conservative notion that homosexuality and marriage are oppositional. 

Mr Dionne’s pathetic concern over whether this long over-due court decision is good for the movement is laughable in my opinion.  Backlash is always a potential consequence of any political momentum.  To frame the inevitable backlash as the spirit of democracy is to extend uncritical political credence to homophobia.