05/21/2008
Cute Cartoon of the Day
(via NY bear joe.my.god)
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 5:45 PM EST by Andy in Bears, California, Gay Marriage, News | Permalink
Comments
Too cute.
Although this is probably not a good time to point out that the California Grizzly Bear has been extinct since 1911.
I suppose we can just think of them as regular bears though.
Posted by: John | May 21, 2008 5:57:15 PM
I know this is a stupid question, but does this mean that I can go to California today and get married? Or do I have to wait for it to be official?
Posted by: MT | May 21, 2008 6:04:08 PM
How are the people of CA going to stop a constitutional amendment is what I want to know? The fundie wingnuts are going to be out in force.
Why ya'll let the public dictate amendments anyway? Ya'll crazy? Bet ya'll wishing you really were a Republic now, instead of Democracy. Now you know what your Civics teacher meant when he shocked you in 9th grade by telling you true democratic governments (i.e. tyranny of the majority) sucked. Moving a tad rightward are we?
Posted by: Vi Agara | May 21, 2008 6:08:54 PM
VI
It depends on the Ca state legislating body FIRST
They must propose it and with a majority approve it before it even gets on a voting ballot for the people.
A group can't just get it on the ballot no matter how many petitions they have signed.
Is there anybody from CA that can tell us more about the current make up of the CA legislature?
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 21, 2008 7:08:09 PM
Jimmy,
The Democrats control the Assembly 49-32 and the Senate 26-15. These numbers include the Speaker and Lt. Governor (who are both Democrats). But traditionally, they only vote to break a tie.
Unfortunately, this doesn't help us at all. You don't need the legislature to amend the constitution in California. You only need signatures from 8% of the registered voters to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot.
And the religious right appears to have the required number of signatures.
Posted by: John | May 21, 2008 8:00:38 PM
John
Most states require the legislature to approve any amendments first.
CA doesn't?
Wow
Buzz kill. damn, I thought it would be harder for the nuts to do something about it
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 21, 2008 8:53:30 PM
MT, it's not entirely clear, but it's believed that marriages will start 30 days after the ruling---so, June 14, just in time for Pride, which this year actually gives us something to celebrate.
Posted by: Paul R | May 21, 2008 8:53:42 PM
One thing not being discussed here is the most important aspect of this broad ruling.
No matter how the amendment goes in November it will not negate the Supreme Court's ruling. Contrary to popular misconception, the Supreme Court DID NOT say that gay and lesbian couples had to have access to marriage. The ruling said that the public could call relationship recognition whatever they want to but whatever it is and whatever it's called gays have to have equal access to it.
If the amendment passes in November the Supreme Court will just come back and say "OK, you've defined "Marriage" as restricted to a man and a woman and bars gays access" so, with that definition "Marriage" itself becomes unconstitutional and illegal in the state.
This could result in a backfire against the anti-gay marriage brigaids. They may end up with Civil Unions for EVERYBODY and Civil "Marriage" for no one. Marriage will rightly be left to the churches.
I personally would have NO problem with such a conclusion because I think that this is the way it should be anyway. Separation of Church and State.
Posted by: Zeke | May 21, 2008 11:51:31 PM
Zeke has it correct. Forget the word marriage unless you want a church involved. Anyone can get a civil union, yet only churches grant marriage licenses.
Posted by: carter | May 22, 2008 1:33:52 AM
The argument that Zeke has correctly analyzed and Carter has succinctly summarized may be the path to the separation of civil and religious marriages in the US, as is the custom and law in most European (western) countries. To be legally wed, a couple MUST obtain a license from the civil authorities. If the couple then wants to have the marriage "blessed," they MAY have a subsequent church, synagogue, or other religious ceremony officiated by their clergy, minister, rabbi, etc. The first part--a civil recordation--is mandatory; the second part--a religious ceremony--is optional.
Interestingly, most priests I know (as distinct from The Church hierarchy) agree with this legal/theological separation. Personally, I do not care whether The Church considers my marriage a sacrament; however, I will continue to fight its efforts do preclude my union from being legally valid and equivalent in all aspects to a heterosexual marriage.
This is the essence of the current debate and why the term 'marriage' is seemingly controversial. The California Supremes dissected this rationale and cleaved the debate beyond rhetorical argumentation in favor (indeed mandating) equivalent staus, rights, and responsibilities, whatever term is applied.
Although their decision is based entirely upon the California state Constitution, and therefore beyond federal juridical review, I believe it will prove as precedentially valid and strong as was the Perez decision, which found and held miscegenation laws Constitutionally infirm and, therefore, invalid. Perez was the state precursor to the US Supremes' decision in Loving.
The California decision has advanced the debate and the legal standing of gay marriage immeasurably. We all must redouble our efforts to prevent those who would try to reverse it, by any means, from doing so.
Posted by: rudy | May 22, 2008 7:44:44 AM
I want to clarify my statement above because it seems that people may possibly have misunderstood what I said.
The Supreme Court of CA declared that gay couples had to have the same access to the SAME civil relationship recognition AND NAME as the civil relationship recognition AND NAME as straight couples. This is opposed to access to "equivalent" status, rights, responsibilities and benefits under “another term”. This is exactly what gay people already had under Domestic Partnerships that the Supreme Court found unconstitutional.
With this very specific ruling, even if CA voters pass the marriage amendment by 90% in November, the ruling and its requirements will remain unchanged in any way. If the people define "Marriage" as "only between one man and one woman" then the court, because of their ruling and the precedent it set, will be obligated to declare "marriage" as it pertains to the State, ALL CIVIL “MARRIAGE”, unconstitutional in CA because of its discriminatory definition. Therefore ALL couples, gay AND STRAIGHT, will have to seek a civil recognition status that is not BY DEFINITION discriminatory. That would most likely be Civil Unions.
Again, I believe this should be the way things are done everywhere in the country from a CIVIL/LEGAL perspective.
Gay AND STRAIGHT couples should get civil unions from the State and then, if they choose, have their union blessed with a marriage ceremony at the church, mosque or temple of their choice that supports such unions.
I DO NOT support this as being the case ONLY for gay people while straight people continue to receive civil "marriages" from the State.
I'm a practical person and as such I grudgingly support "separate but equal" legal statuses like civil unions as a step in the direction toward full equality but I do not support them as being the FINAL goal. I would not be happy if gay Americans became comfortable and satisfied with a "separate but equal" second-class citizen status the way gays in countries like England and Germany (where it's separate and not even equal) have become with "civil partnerships" (aka "legal roommates" or "contract between people who live together") or "registered partnerships" respectively, though I would be THRILLED TO BITS if the US as a country was anywhere near as far along in the road to equality as either of these countries.
Posted by: Zeke | May 22, 2008 11:13:21 AM
Recent Comments