California Supreme Court overturns same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional

[Minestra di pomodoro]

The court ruled that

• The right to marry is a fundamental constitutional right.
  
• Retaining the traditional definition of marriage cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.
  
• Retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite- sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex
  couples.

Read the summary here and the full judgement here. 172 pages, many questions of constitutionality addressed. With this, California becomes the second state after Massachusetts to allow same-sex marriages.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Time to separate marriage from the state and return it to ecclesiastical law.

 

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Time to separate marriage from the state and return it to ecclesiastical law.

Why do you say that? Are we all not in agreeance that the more liberty, the better? Freedom of association?

 

[UnReconstructed]

I'm not really sure what the argument is against it.

 

[Minestra di pomodoro]

I'm not really sure what the argument is against it.

There aren't many rational arguments. It's a gut revulsion at gay men & lesbians, not dissimilar to the gut revulsion people had for black people back in the day and Mexicans now. People feel that their traditions and culture are being attacked, so they lash back. The antidote is liberty; to allow cultural conservatives to mingle, dissolve stereotypes, and learn tolerance for different people.

 

[pcosmar]

Time to separate marriage from the state and return it to ecclesiastical law.

I agree, I could care less about gay marriage one way or the other (I am both Hetro and Married), but I don't think that a private contract is any business of the government.
The state should have NO power to deny or endorse any marriage contract.
There should not even be a "license". It is none of their business.

 

[Kludge]

Marriage is for The Church to decide on.... Government has no right to grant a married status nor do they have rights to grant benefits to "married" people.

 

[spudea]

+1 for liberty!

 

[RSLudlum]

Time to separate marriage from the state and return it to ecclesiastical law.

We just had a discussion on this subject at work today and everybody agreed that there is absolutely no reason for gov't to be involved in marriage, which is a vow/promise between two consenting people that no gov't piece of paper can solidify, ie marriage license. The only problem some had were property rights in the event of annulment/divorce.

How exactly would that one problem of property be solved? Take the case to court in the event that the 2 parties couldn't come to a compromise privately?

 

[dvdrink]

I'm gay and live in California.

But still not dumb enough to get married.

 

[asgardshill]

Marriage is for The Church to decide on.... Government has no right to grant a married status nor do they have rights to grant benefits to "married" people.

Applause. (And why don't we have a little clapping hands smilie yet?)

 

[Kludge]

Applause. (And why don't we have a little clapping hands smilie yet?)

 

[LibertiORDeth]

We just had a discussion on this subject at work today and everybody agreed that there is absolutely no reason for gov't to be involved in marriage, which is a vow/promise between two consenting people that no gov't piece of paper can solidify, ie marriage license. The only problem some had were property rights in the event of annulment/divorce.

How exactly would that one problem of property be solved? Take the case to court in the event that the 2 parties couldn't come to a compromise privately?

How is that a problem? You bought it, you own it. Not your spouse.

 

[yongrel]

Time to separate marriage from the state and return it to ecclesiastical law.

Precisely.

I want the gubberment outta my bedroom and outta my chapel.

 

[familydog]

I'm not really sure what the argument is against it.

The people who argue against homosexual marriage cite certain Western European countries who legalized it, and soon after saw the decline of the institution of marriage, and rise of single parent homes and births out of wedlock. They attribute this as hurting society in general. I can't say that I disagree with their assesment. I don't agree with the need to ban it though. Get the government out of it. Marriage started as a spiritual and religious ceremony, let's keep it that way.

 

[Meatwasp]

Didn't some group get married by jumping over a fire and if one got burned they shouldn't marry.

 

[Kludge]

Didn't some group get married by jumping over a fire and if one got burned they shouldn't marry.

And so it was said "The Great Pyre will Purge the nonbelievers!"

 

[Minestra di pomodoro]

The people who argue against homosexual marriage cite certain Western European countries who legalized it, and soon after saw the decline of the institution of marriage, and rise of single parent homes and births out of wedlock. They attribute this as hurting society in general. I can't say that I disagree with their assesment.

Could you cite your sources after making such a bold claim? I've never heard anyone argue that before - sure, that society collapses but not because legalizing same-sex marriage led to... less marriage.

Get the government out of it. Marriage started as a spiritual and religious ceremony, let's keep it that way.

Incorrect, Marriage started out as a civil ceremony for property reasons. The only type of marriage the government can hand out are civil marriages and civil divorces. Any church ceremony performed is Constitutionally separate from the civil marriage. The government is not "in" your church.

 

[Minestra di pomodoro]

How is that a problem? You bought it, you own it. Not your spouse.

Except if you bought it together, and you both own it, and then you split up. A marriage is just like a business partnership in this respect. There needs to be a contract.

 

[Minestra di pomodoro]

The state should have NO power to deny or endorse any marriage contract. There should not even be a "license". It is none of their business

What do you mean by endorse? Marriage is the state recognition of two (limited by the tax code) people as a couple, so they can file a joint tax return, open up a joint bank account, sue for one another's death, and so forth. This is like registering a copyright, the state needs to know so it can protect you.