CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

[Kitalrez]

California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban.

I'm trying to think of something here that hasn't already been said on Family Guy or The Simpsons. Apparently I need to get out more. What do you guys think? Horrible crime? About frickin' time?


{Edit}Ok, backstory time. During the World Wars and immediately afterwards, San Fransisco was the US Military's main processing point for troops in the Pacific theater. All troops going through the west coast ended up somewhere near the Presidio. The Army paid the way of anyone coming to the bases, on the assumption that every single one of them was fit for duty. Those who were not fit for duty, whatever the case, were released. In some cases, such as physical impairment, provisions were occasionally made for return to wherever they started. This was not the case for anyone suffering from mental illness, or those released for psychological reasons, the two biggest being homosexuals and conscientious objectors. Which is why the Gay Rights and Hippie movements both started here. As you hit the 60s, the Military's "human refuse" was reaching middle age and decided to make a better life for themselves and the like-minded younger generations they were attracting to the city. So, for those who wonder "why's this always happen in California", there you go.

I guess the question this brings up, is whether gay marriage is in some way "atonement" for past injuries, sort of like the oft-suggested "slavery reparations". Does taking someone away from home, dropping them off in a new place, and making it virtually impossible for them to return home without having to expose themselves as an outcast mean that you now have some kind of responsibility to let this person create a "normal" life for themselves elsewhere? If you were in the closet in Kansas, for example, no one would ever know you were gay unless you decided to out yourself. If you had to miss the biggest war on the planet because of something the military found out, though, how would you explain that? You can't really hide anymore. Now, granted, the people currently pushing cases like this weren't even alive during WWII, but does that change anything? Do people like you and I owe some sort of debt to the gay rights movement because our parents, grandparents or great grandparents were straight and these people weren't. Does the fact that our family lines dodged that particular bullet make us indebted somehow to those who didn't?

I bring that up because while I consider myself a good, straight, single Presbyterian, I've never been able to reconcile the whole "sanctity of marriage" argument with that thought. I've never been married, so I guess I don't understand the concept well enough to decide whether gay people marrying somehow erodes the whole institution. On principle, however, I can't seem to justify banning it outright for someone, especially gays. I feel like I owe them somehow. What do you think?

[Jonastb]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

I really don't care about who gets married to whom. It doesn't effect me one bit. However, I do have 1 question.

Is marriage a right?

[Malevolent]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

Is marriage a right?

In the point of view of whom?

[DakAttack]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

They should have the same rights and privilages as any other group of people.

The church just said we can believe in aliens, so I think they're getting closer to believing homosexuality isn't a sin.

Or farther away, I don't know, but when a religious ceremoney has benefits recognized by the state then you must remove either the religion or the state.

[Jonastb]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

In the point of view of whom?

The law.

[Ameroth]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

but when a religious ceremoney has benefits recognized by the state then you must remove either the religion or the state.

So very, very true.

[Armando]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

I'm with Dak - gays should have the same right as any other group of people.

Whether X or Y religion considers it a sin should have no bearing on its legality. It doesn't do anyone any harm. Plus, the argument that it "erodes the sacred institution of marriage" has always been shallow at best; it's ridiculous to suggest that two gay people in love getting married somehow cheapens or lessens the concept of marriage, when straight people marry solely for money, political reasons, or legal benefits all the time.

[Mhurron]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

when a religious ceremoney has benefits recognized by the state then you must remove either the religion or the state.

"By the power vested in me by the State of X ..."

Marriage is not a religious union in the eyes of the Law. You can get married and not have a religious ceremony, just like you can get 'married' in a religious ceremony and not be legally man and wife. Not every minister can marry people, that is something granted by the state.

[DakAttack]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

"By the power vested in me by the State of X ..."

Marriage is not a religious union in the eyes of the Law. You can get married and not have a religious ceremony, just like you can get 'married' in a religious ceremony and not be legally man and wife. Not every minister can marry people, that is something granted by the state.

I'm not sure I understand what your point is.

Relationships can be qualified in dozens of ways, but a marriage isn't a marriage unless it's recognized by the state. Being good friends, booty buddies, roommates, and 'spiritually married' can all mean the same thing if you ask the right person.

Marriage is both a religious and legal union, both of which have their benefits, and both of which are widely denied to same sex couples.

[Karinya]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

I really don't care about who gets married to whom. It doesn't effect me one bit. However, I do have 1 question.

Is marriage a right?

It is in California.

First, we must determine the nature and scope of the “right to marry” — a right that past cases establish as one of the fundamental constitutional rights embodied in the California Constitution.

Gotta love this part:

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.

I haven't read the whole thing yet, but this seems to be the foundation of the decision: equal protection, or in other words, basic fairness.

[Feba]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

Marriage is not a religious union in the eyes of the Law.

If this were the case, there would be no legal objection to gay marriage. The whole "the bible says marriage is a man and a woman, and gays are an abomination" thing doesn't really work when you take out the 'the bible' part. Marriage, as a law, is very clearly based on religious traditions.


Personally, while I can see how it would've been useful in the past as a social mechanism, no modern government should interfere in marriage, anymore than they should interfere with friendships, hookups, and any other personal relationship. If a couple wishes to be joined; let them do that, have whatever ceremony they wish, and call themselves what they like; but do not give them special benefits or proof that their relationship is held in some special way.

Marriage between any persons should not have any legal basis, be it positive (benefits for being married) or negative (penalties for being married, or disallowing marriage between parties); just the same as I shouldn't have to go to the county courthouse to have a promise 'recognized' by some government entity.

I really don't see why there is a debate with this. Married people can still be married, still get married, still enjoy their marriages. If anything, it would improve the situation, since marriages would be done purely out of love, and not for other gain (wealth, especially wealth gained by divorce; status; taxes; immigration) -- it's a win win.

[Icemage]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

I don't think people should care what other people do with each other as long as no one's harmed in the process. Seriously, the population of the planet is well over 6 billion. Gay people don't generally reproduce, so it boggles the mind why anyone finds themselves threatened by the concept of gay marriage. It's certainly no longer a survival-of-the-human-species issue (which was the original source of most religious bias against homosexuality).


Icemage

[Feba]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

I don't think people should care what other people do with each other as long as no one's harmed in the process

That's the bigger idea, of course. Quite honestly, I think that simple philosophy is the only law we need. From something that simple, pretty much anything that should be illegal could be decided on by a court. Of course, humanity as a whole will probably never reach that point; if we do, it will be a very, very long time.

[Kitalrez]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

Gonna have to disagree with you there, Feba. You're discounting the fact that large portions of the population are, in fact, asshats. If you assume that courts could adjudicate based solely on a single guiding principle, you naturally assume that every judge must work like a computer in terms of impartiality, and that someone won't just start complaining to the court about every little thing their neighbor does until one of them sticks. Having laws written out in encyclopedia edition volumes is annoying, yes, but the alternative isn't much better. You'd get rid of attorneys, at the cost of needing astronomically more judges.

[Feba]

Re: CA: Gay people to be miserable, too!

You're discounting the fact that large portions of the population are, in fact, asshats.

No, I'm not.

Of course, humanity as a whole will probably never reach that point; if we do, it will be a very, very long time.

Like I said, rather clearly, it would almost certainly not work with people as they are today.

someone won't just start complaining to the court about every little thing their neighbor does until one of them sticks.

That itself would be a clearly negative action. See Clameur de haro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for an idea of how it would work. Someone who makes a clearly false complaint, or numerous false complaints with a clear intent to harass, would obviously be punished as well. It wouldn't require more courtrooms than we have now. But again, it would be a completely different system, it's not like you can say "take X legal system and use Y principle for laws", it would require an entirely new legal system, and really, government.