SF Gay Marriages Annulled

[The Muffin Man]

The CA courts made all of them void today. Tis a sad day. Gay marriage should SO be legal.

[Sayhey]

The CA courts made all of them void today. Tis a sad day. Gay marriage should SO be legal.

Yes, it is a sad day because the Court did not have to invalidate the marriages before they decided on the core issue. In doing so they have caused more pain to the 4,000 people who only want rights that are available to countless of their fellow citizens. It doesn't bode well for this Court's ultimate decision on the equal rights of gay and lesbian people.

[IJ Reilly]

I think this decision was widely anticipated. The main event is the Constitutional challenge, which is still wending its way through the court system. This entire fight in the end will come down to the issue of equal protection under the law. The courts, and everyone else really, will have to decide what they mean by equal protection.

[Leo Hubbard]

In California over 60% voted for a marriage being limited to a male and a woman only 38% voted against it. The law is law because of their voter referendum.

Because you do not agree with a law does not give you the right to disobey the law. That guy who handed out the marriage certificates technically was guilty of a felony. The illegally liscencing of something by a government official is a felony. Problem with a law, change it, don't simply think disobeying it is the answer.

Oh, a twist on equal protection under the law. A male homosexual is as free to marry a woman as a male hetrosexual is. *shrug* ok I admit its a stretch.

[Sayhey]

I think this decision was widely anticipated. The main event is the Constitutional challenge, which is still wending its way through the court system. This entire fight in the end will come down to the issue of equal protection under the law. The courts, and everyone else really, will have to decide what they mean by equal protection.

I don't know anyone who really thought this Court wouldn't overrule Newsom. Many hoped it wouldn't go to the voiding of the marriages. By doing so, the Court has signaled that it is not likely to overturn the areas of the family code that violate the equal protection clause of California's Constitution. What it means is when this is finally decided by the US Supreme Court it is very likely there will not be a decision by the California Supreme Court that is helpful for those arguing for equal protection.

[IJ Reilly]

I'm not so sure about that. I think it follows the logic of court's ruling from Newsom exceeding his authority as an elected official to voiding the effects of his actions. Deciding the former without doing the latter wouldn't make much sense, and I don't think it necessarily signals anything about how the court will decide the separate Constitutional issue. Also, at this point, I don't see the California case going to the US Supreme Court. If I understand it correctly, the challenge is based on the California Constitution. One of these same-sex marriage cases will make to the top, but not this one I believe.

[MacCoaster]

In California over 60% voted for a marriage being limited to a male and a woman only 38% voted against it. The law is law because of their voter referendum.

Because you do not agree with a law does not give you the right to disobey the law. That guy who handed out the marriage certificates technically was guilty of a felony. The illegally liscencing of something by a government official is a felony. Problem with a law, change it, don't simply think disobeying it is the answer.
There is a problem with this. Back in the 1960s, if it were simply a voter referendum, blacks would definitely NOT get their much-sought civil rights. Sometimes it takes a bold leader who'll go against popular opinion to make a change.
Oh, a twist on equal protection under the law. A male homosexual is as free to marry a woman as a male hetrosexual is. *shrug* ok I admit its a stretch.
That is ************. The problem there is a male homosexual won't be marrying one whom he truly loves. A male heterosexual will be. You also failed to address homosexual women. Marriage is something in which the government should not have business. Several churches approve of gay marriage; why favor a church who's against it? Don't want or support gay marriage? Don't have one.

[skunk]

Don't want or support gay marriage? Don't have one.
Absolutely.

[Waluigi]

Oh, a twist on equal protection under the law. A male homosexual is as free to marry a woman as a male hetrosexual is. *shrug* ok I admit its a stretch.

Actually this is not a stretch! I don't agree with a lot of your views, but this is a very logical way of viewing gay marriage. I tell this to friends of mine all the time when the topic of gay marriage comes up, and even though they support gay marriage, they can not refute this, and it makes them reconsider their view just a little bit.

--Waluigi

[Sneeper]

A battle may be lost, but the war isn't over yet. Sometimes people have to become aware of discrimination before it gets addressed, and often that awareness comes from Bad Things happening to Good People.

[jsw]

Oh, a twist on equal protection under the law. A male homosexual is as free to marry a woman as a male hetrosexual is. *shrug* ok I admit its a stretch.
Look at it this way: all men are allowed to marry women. No women have this right (outside some states for now). And similarly for the other way around. Seems like major sex bias/discrimination.

[katchow]

Originally Posted by Leo Hubbard

Oh, a twist on equal protection under the law. A male homosexual is as free to marry a woman as a male hetrosexual is. *shrug* ok I admit its a stretch.

By the same token, during segregation, all black people had the right to eat food in a restaraunt...just not the ones w/ white people.

[Waluigi]

Look at it this way: all men are allowed to marry women. No women have this right (outside some states for now). And similarly for the other way around. Seems like major sex bias/discrimination.

But, men and women are biologically different! I'm not just talking differences in hair, skin color, or facial features. Discriminating against those things are wrong, but you can't treat men and women equal, because they have fundimental differences such as reproduction roles.

Is it sexist that women aren't allowed to go topless in public, while men are? Men have some rights that women do not. Also, women can't go into a public men's restroom, but men can. Is that sexist? Is it sexist that in some states a 14 year old boy can be charged with raping a 16 year old girl, even if it is completely consensual sex all the way on both parties just because the girl isn't of legal age to consent?

What is sexist our almost intangible presumptions about people due to their gender, race, etc. that create an unfair social, economic, and political disproportion in our population.

Giving gay people civil unions is fair in my opinion, but marriage, I'm not sure about. Although on the other hand I don't think legalizing gay marriage it will in anyway ruin our society, or ruin the scantity of marriage, or infringe upon my own [future] marriage.

--Waluigi

[mac_gal]

Truth be told, I voted for the California proposition that defined marriage as something between a man and a woman. I’ve since changed my views dramatically.

First, let’s examine the current state of homosexual relationships in the U.S.:

1. They are allowed to walk down the street and hold hands -> yes

2. They are allowed to adopt children (not together, but separately) -> yes

3. They are allowed to live together in a house for as many years as they want -> yes

4. They are allowed to be intimate in the privacy of their home -> yes, for the most part

So then you start to think, hmm, how is gay marriage really some huge revolutionary thing? Isn’t it an extension of things we already have?

Answer: yes.

So, quite honestly, I don’t know how people can reasonably object. Yes, you can object on religious grounds, but not on much else.

There is no “sanctity of marriage,” we straight people shot that to hell with a 50% divorce rate. Giving all couples the right to a marriage license will truly make people happy and states will get money off the marriage license fees.

I see way too many positives in this to bar it from happening.

[katchow]

Is it sexist that women aren't allowed to go topless in public, while men are? Men have some rights that women do not. Also, women can't go into a public men's restroom, but men can. Is that sexist? Is it sexist that in some states a 14 year old boy can be charged with raping a 16 year old girl, even if it is completely consensual sex all the way on both parties just because the girl isn't of legal age to consent?


actually, why can't women go topless if they wanted? is it because riots would ensue? Because men could not be trusted to control themselves? it sounds like the problem would lie more w/ the men's bad behaviour instead of the topless girl. Or it could just be that a bare breast is so taboo, and considered by most to be naughty bits...i think it is actually sexist.

the 14 yr old boy story, i find that to be sexist too. do you think its fair?

the bathroom thing...hmmm, i guess there is a point there. men cannot go in women's restrooms and women cannot go in men's restrooms. i have seen some gender-free bathrooms (though very few). My guess is that its kind of a mutual agreement. Though if someone were to challenge it, i don't know what the arguments would be.

anyway, i dont know why i'm rambling like this...

the original post:

Look at it this way: all men are allowed to marry women. No women have this right (outside some states for now). And similarly for the other way around. Seems like major sex bias/discrimination.

when they say sex bias i'm guessing they mean sexual preference and not gender? If its discrimination for both men and women, how could it be sexism?

[Neserk]

By the same token, during segregation, all black people had the right to eat food in a restaraunt...just not the ones w/ white people.


Excellent example!

[The Muffin Man]

lol look at the ads at the bottom of the page.

[The Muffin Man]

Damn they keep changin! They said "Catholic anulment" and all this stuff but now its Mac stuff.

[rainman::|:|]

Yes, CA does have a law banning same-sex marriage, however that law is unconstitutional, because the constitution does not provide for denying this civil right. Laws MUST comply with the constitution. So, in order for the law to be correct, they would have to get a constitutional amendment, which I believe more than 60% of voters would need to approve. Either way, it hasn't been done, so voiding these marriages was enforcing an illegal (unconstitutional) law. HOWEVER, it is indeed up to the judicial branch to weigh the constitutionality, not the executive branch, which was done to prevent the enforcers (like the mayor) from having the burden of weighting issues of constitutionality. So, while i'm disappointed that they voided the marriages without ruling on the constitutionality, i can understand why they did it. I'm very sad for those 4,000 couples.

Hopefully the courts will overturn the law and legalize gay marriage, pending an amendment (if conservatives can get one).

paul

[Neserk]

Hopefully the courts will overturn the law and legalize gay marriage, pending an amendment (if conservatives can get one).

paul

IT will happen! Sooner than later. But not soon enough, imo.

[Leo Hubbard]

Hopefully the courts will overturn the law and legalize gay marriage, pending an amendment (if conservatives can get one).

paul
However, considering 68% of the voters voted for the law it is logically assumed that they would also vote for the constitutional amendment. So the pathway will be probably first the court strikes down the law. Then some rich dude with too much time on his hand will iniciate a new voter referendum that involves a constitutional admendment this time.

I'm not going to place any bets on this one.

[The Muffin Man]

I think a lot of people who oppose gay marriage don't even think they have valid reasons. They simply oppose it to spite gay people.

[Leo Hubbard]

I think a lot of people who oppose gay marriage don't even think they have valid reasons. They simply oppose it to spite gay people.
Or that it is the first step on a long road of changes that the general population isn't ready for.

[Neserk]

I think a lot of people who oppose gay marriage don't even think they have valid reasons. They simply oppose it to spite gay people.


Homophobia is certainly one reason. I've met a *few* people who are truly not homophobic but for religious reasons think that gay people should remain celibate.

[Neserk]

Or that it is the first step on a long road of changes that the general population isn't ready for.


That is likely. Heaven forbid we become more concerned about who a person is instead of obsessed with their sexual oreintation :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

Homophobia is certainly one reason. I've met a *few* people who are truly not homophobic but for religious reasons think that gay people should remain celibate.

Why, so they don't reproduce? I'm finding it difficult to paste a :) on homophobia, which ultimately is what we're talking about no matter how it's couched.

Equal protection under the law will prevail, it's only a matter of time. And when it does, the people who found "good reasons" to oppose it will be left trying to explain their bigotry. We've seen it all before.

[Neserk]

Why, so they don't reproduce? I'm finding it difficult to paste a :) on homophobia, which ultimately is what we're talking about no matter how it's couched.


No. These people are well aware that being gay is not a choice of deviance. They are quite comfortable with people who are gay and even good friends with siblings to, etc. They simply can't get over "what the bible says" so they make a middle ground of recognizing the science of reality with what they believe about the bible, hence not actually acting on the sexual desire.
You can't label everyone homophobic because of their religious beliefs. Are most people who are against gay marriage,etc. homophobic? Probably. But always and never are very rare ;)


I'm not defending their beliefs nor do I agree with them. Just explaining the view point. I think they are being 2-dimensional when interpreting the bible.
But that is my opinion.


Equal protection under the law will prevail, it's only a matter of time. And when it does, the people who found "good reasons" to oppose it will be left trying to explain their bigotry. We've seen it all before.

I agree and have stated here and elsewhere that history will judge those who are against gay marriages as harshly as we judge those who were in favor of slavery and against desegregation.

[Sneeper]

I think the biggest danger to Gay Marriage is not conservatives or narrow mindedness.. but Civil Unions!

Whenever I read something like the SF Marriages being voided, I don't think it's a set back. In fact, I think it's the next step in the progression toward gay marriages. The liberals move, the conservatives move, anger and sympathies arise, and ultimately things move forward. By having the marriages struck down and seeing the anger and sorrow it causes, I think we win more people in favor of gay marriage in the long run even though it's at a high cost.

But what really scares me is Civil Unions put forth by the moderate left as a 'solution' to the gay marriage issue. Kerry is for Civil Unions, and it bothers me (although I'll still vote for him to get Dubya out of office). Civil Unions are bad because they remove the legal need for Gay Marriage almost completely. I think if we had national Civil unions for gays, that'll keep us from having Gay Marriages for another 100 years.

But Civil Unions are *not* Gay Marriages. It reduces gay unions to second-class couplings.. and even though they might have all the same rights as marriage as far as the government is concerned, they will be treated differently everywhere outside of the government. Not to mention by the mere fact of calling it something different cheapens it in the minds of the people.

A million things recognize marriages. Let's say something so simple as a discount for your spouse when taking Kayaking lessons. Singles = $20. Married couples = $30. With gay marriages, in order to discriminate they would have to explicitely state "Marriaged couples (except gays) = $30". But with Civil Unions, they would have to explicitely state "Married couples and civil unions = $30" in order to *not* discriminate. When Civil unions are inacted, I don't see millions of business owners changing their policies to include civil unions. And if gay marriage is inacted, I also don't see people scrambling to change policies in order to exclude the gays (although I'm sure some will).

But my point is that civil union makes discrimination the default on all the levels of society that recognize marriage for anything where gay marriage makes descrimination the harder part. Marriage is everywhere. Not allowing gays to marry each other, even with Civil Unions, is leaving them out in the cold.

Okay.. I'm done. my 2 cents about civil unions. :)

[IJ Reilly]

I think you're missing the point of the civil union solution. Marriage should have nothing to do with the State, which should not be deciding who can call themselves married. That should an entirely private arrangement between two people and whatever religious institution that they happen to join. The "union" part is the civil contract, the conferring of legal rights and protections, which should be available to everyone and protected equally by the State.

Get the State out of the marriage business entirely, and the problem is solved. The only people left complaining will be the churches that don't want to bless same-sex marriages, and believe that nobody else should either. They can complain all they want, but under the civil union solution they'll be powerless to hold sway over anyone outside of their own congregations. And that is entirely as it should be.

[Leo Hubbard]

Anything having to do with Marriages or spouse crap should be struck out of the National laws. Our National government should not be in the business of regulating marriages. Whether we are or are not married should not be a factor in any Federal regulation. If individual states want to regulate marriages in their own states let them, but I think even they shouldn't.

[Neserk]

I used to photograph weddings as part of how I made a living. The best wedding ceremony, most meaningful wedding ceremony I ever photographed? One done by a judge. Why? Not a cookie cutter. All the rest which were either in a church or done by a minister you could have just changed the bodies, everything else was almost identical. The one done by the JP was tailored to the couple.

When my husband and I got married we had a planned elopement. It was an elopment in the sense that no one was there but the two of us. It was planned in the sense that I made my own dress, we rented him a tux, had a photogrpaher, etc. My husband wrote the vows (I helped, but he is the writer in the family). And she sent us some readings she wanted at the ceremony to approve. Nothing was said at my wedding that I didn't truly belielve. I've seen this happen to a number of friends: the minister goes off on his own personal beliefs and they can't believe this crap is a part of their big day.

[Neserk]

How much you want to be that when Gay Marriages are approved that the rightwing religious macademias come up with a new word to call straight marriages!

[IJ Reilly]

Eloped, huh? I didn't know people did that anymore. :)

I see civil unions as being handled as freestanding contractual agreements, like any other partnership. Call it a "domestic partnership" if you prefer. Then, the couple can "get married" in whatever church they like or will have them -- or not at all. Makes me no never-mind. The State stands beside the contract, and the church of your choice, if any, blesses the union.

We're getting hung up on terminology, when the real issue is equal protection under the law. The situation we've got now is intolerable to anyone who cares about this Constitutional principle. It will change, eventually, and I hope we can see the end of this form of discrimination in an orderly and sensible fashion.

[Sneeper]

Get the State out of the marriage business entirely, and the problem is solved. The only people left complaining will be the churches that don't want to bless same-sex marriages, and believe that nobody else should either. They can complain all they want, but under the civil union solution they'll be powerless to hold sway over anyone outside of their own congregations. And that is entirely as it should be.

I disagree. Even if you took marriage out of the hands of the state, people would still get married in churches. All levels of society except the government would still honor those marriages (from anything from insurance benefits to romantic dinner discounts). People are not going to change their definition of marriage just because it's no longer a legal thing. It's too ingrained in our society.

[IJ Reilly]

I disagree. Even if you took marriage out of the hands of the state, people would still get married in churches. All levels of society except the government would still honor those marriages (from anything from insurance benefits to romantic dinner discounts). People are not going to change their definition of marriage just because it's no longer a legal thing. It's too ingrained in our society.

I think you misunderstand my point. If you take marriage out of the hands of the State, people could get married wherever the heck they wanted to get married -- church, wherever. But that status would be meaningless for civil and legal purposes. The legal-contractual issue is the only legitimate concern of the State.

Discrimination against same-sex couples will not be changed by calling them married, whether the definition of marriage separates out or includes the legal issues. In order for it to be prevented, discrimination has to be against the law in either case.

[Neserk]

The legal-contractual issue is the only legitimate concern of the State.




Agreed. That is why many propose a Civil Union for ALL and the same legal protection for ALL.

If you want your religious organization to have something to do with it go to church etc. and have a separate ceremony.

Not a bad idea!

[Neserk]

Eloped, huh? I didn't know people did that anymore. :)
.


Yep :D I've met others too. It is easier than dealing with the hassel of a family who stick their noses where they don't belong ;)

We had a reception with them later. The wedding/honeymoon was for *us!*

[trebblekicked]

Agreed. That is why many propose a Civil Union for ALL and the same legal protection for ALL.

If you want your religious organization to have something to do with it go to church etc. and have a separate ceremony.

Not a bad idea!

so long as the government no longer sanctions marriages, i propose opening a church (call it the international church of equality) and ordaining ministers who can marry hetero and homosexual couples.

there. we've legalized "gay marriage," and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

[IJ Reilly]

No need to create a new church. I'm sure the Universalist Unitarian church would be delighted to start performing same-sex marriages the moment the government got out of the matrimonial control business.

[drMinky]

..A slight detraction from the topic if I may..

As important as this topic is, (especially to the people whose lives are directly affected by this debate) does anyone else get the feeling that this topic is getting hyped and sensationalised in the media as an effective way of avoiding scrutiny of other issues in this election year (I wouldn't dare say more important,..but perhaps more 'life and death' issues). WMD's anyone? Sending kids to go fighting and dying in a foreign land on false pretences? (where's the presidential impeachment hearings now!) The threat of conscriptions next year for going after Iran next perhaps? (on the same false pretences as Iraq! - the media spin machine is already gearing this one up as we speak!)

Seems to me like a typical 'divide and conquer' tactic. Split the electorate down the middle on (relatively) nominal morality/religous issues, confuse and muddle the debate, and most importantly AVOID SCRUTINY of ones past actions and future plans AT ALL COSTS!!

..my 2c for what its worth..

[Neserk]

No need to create a new church. I'm sure the Universalist Unitarian church would be delighted to start performing same-sex marriages the moment the government got out of the matrimonial control business.


Baptist, Presbytarian and United Methodist churches will too ;) It is just a matter of finding the right church.

[IJ Reilly]

down the middle on (relatively) nominal morality/religous issues, confuse and muddle the debate, and most importantly AVOID SCRUTINY of ones past actions and future plans AT ALL COSTS!!

Sure, the Republicans would like to use this as a wedge issue, but I think it's backfiring, or at least, not working. Notice, the President doesn't mention his Constitutional amendment anymore after it went down in flames in the Senate.