SF Gay Marriages Annulled

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by The Muffin Man, Aug 13, 2004.

  1. The Muffin Man macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    #1
    The CA courts made all of them void today. Tis a sad day. Gay marriage should SO be legal.
     
  2. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #2
    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.
     
  3. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #3
    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.
     
  4. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #4
    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.
     
  5. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #5
    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.
     
  6. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #6
    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.
     
  7. MacCoaster macrumors 6502a

    MacCoaster

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Location:
    Washington, DC / Rochester, NY / Lexington, NC
    #7
    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.
    That is bull****. 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.
     
  8. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    Absolutely.
     
  9. Waluigi macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #9
    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
     
  10. Sneeper macrumors regular

    Sneeper

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #10
    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.
     
  11. jsw Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #11
    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.
     
  12. katchow macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #12
    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.
     
  13. Waluigi macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #13
    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
     
  14. mac_gal macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    #14
    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.
     
  15. katchow macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #15
    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:

    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?
     
  16. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #16

    Excellent example!
     
  17. The Muffin Man thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    #17
    lol look at the ads at the bottom of the page.
     
  18. The Muffin Man thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    #18
    Damn they keep changin! They said "Catholic anulment" and all this stuff but now its Mac stuff.
     
  19. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #19
    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
     
  20. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #20
    IT will happen! Sooner than later. But not soon enough, imo.
     
  21. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #21
    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.
     
  22. The Muffin Man thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    #22
    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.
     
  23. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #23
    Or that it is the first step on a long road of changes that the general population isn't ready for.
     
  24. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #24

    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.
     
  25. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #25

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

Share This Page