California Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban
Posted on May 16, 2008 by thestateofblog
“Limiting the designation of marriage to a union ‘between a man and a woman’ is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute,” California Chief Justice Ron George said in the written opinion.”
TheStateOf . . . Marriage. My question is this: can a woman marry two men at the same time? How can polygamy be illegal but gay marriage legal? Can I marry my dog, or a rock in my backyard? What is the limit?
If your constitution allows it, then it can happen. The limit is in the constitution my dear friend. That’s what the Cali Supremes interpret, you know that. If you guys really want to ban it, then pass the constitutional amendment. Then the state supreme court can’t touch it. Don’t get mad, J, vote.
It does seem pretty mixed up (and unnatural) that a man can have a husband…but a man can’t have two wives.
I got lost as to the legal nuances of this issue a long time ago. I plan to reading the highlights this weekend.
Sidenote: Is the pic on the main page of the new mock courtroom at Loyola Law School?
Marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution.
Why is it that liberals scream bloody murder about the separation of church and state when a judge puts the Ten Commandments in a courtroom, but say nothing when the state interjects itself in one of the holiest of sacraments?
The state deciding who can marry is like the state deciding who can get baptized.
Dina - True. But one can only be “Married” within the nature of the law. Being baptized does not require the law.
If people do not wish to be recoginized as a union in the eyes of the law, then they can simply live together and the state will stay out of it - until, of course, you do it so long that you intermingle earnings, have kids, break up, and try to divide property. At which time “common law” comes into play for fairness sake…but there is a way around it.
If one assumes the tenants of evolution to be true, there is no legitimate reason one should not permit interspecies marriage. It could perhaps be seen as a service to ‘civilize’ the lesser-developed species, a colonialization if you will, to assist in the progression of mankind.
Marriage to objects such as rocks, though also bound by the restrictions of naturalism, should not be permitted since those objects are not actually human ancestors.
To repeat…I’m blown away that folks argue for a man’s right to marry a MAN…but that many of those same folks argue against a man’s right to marry two wives.
Any thoughts?
I think some people are missing the point -
Marriage is a legality state that is seeking to grant specific rights to the “man” and “woman” involved. Just as adoption grants specific legal rights to a “parent” and “child.”
The law is not saying that someone can not raise another person’s offspring, but if you want to have certain rights (such as another family member making a custody claim of a stepchild after a spouses death) then one should go through the adoption process.
Just as the law is not saying that you can’t love someone of the opposite sex or have as many girlfriends (or boyfriends) as you like - you just can’t call it “Marriage” in the law. It’s not how the forefathers set it up.
Don’t confuse this position with believing I am anti-gay. I have an aunt that is “committed” to another woman - had a ceremony with a ring and everything. And that’s good for them - I don’t knock it. Maybe there can be a law to recognize them, but we just call it something else.
Let’s be honest, one of the main reasons gay people want to be “Married” is because of the rights that are granted - health insurance, right to property survivorship after death, etc. Otherwise, they can have their own private committment ceremonies (even at a church if they like) and call it a day. F^ck the Law.
And as an aside: to the insurance companies that are providing insurance to homosexuals that live together, they should be giving hetorsexuals that live together that same privilege.
I think some people are missing the point -
Marriage is a legality state that is seeking to grant specific rights to the “man” and “woman” involved. Just as adoption grants specific legal rights to a “parent” and “child.”
The law is not saying that someone can not raise another person’s offspring, but if you want to have certain rights (such as another family member making a custody claim of a stepchild after a spouses death) then one should go through the adoption process.
Just as the law is not saying that you can’t love someone of the opposite sex or have as many girlfriends (or boyfriends) as you like - you just can’t call it “Marriage” in the law. It’s not how the forefathers set it up.
Don’t confuse this position with believing I am anti-gay. I have an aunt that is “committed” to another woman - had a ceremony with a ring and everything. And that’s good for them - I don’t knock it. Maybe there can be a law to recognize them, but we just call it something else.
Let’s be honest, one of the main reasons gay people want to be “Married” is because of the rights that are granted - health insurance, right to property survivorship after death, etc. Otherwise, they can have their own private committment ceremonies (even at a church if they like) and call it a day. F^ck the Law.
And as an aside: to the insurance companies that are providing insurance to homosexuals that live together, they should be giving hetorsexuals that live together that same privilege.
Sorry about the repeat post
But one can only be “Married” within the nature of the law. Being baptized does not require the law.
Sunny, I don’t understand this point. Can you explain?
When people are baptized, christened, etc, they are expressing their committment to their religon/faith generally for themselves, their family, friends, or congregation. They are not seeking to obtain any type of confirmation from the law - therefore no state involvement.
One can have the same ceremony to express their committment to another person and still not seek confirmation from the law. But when you do, the law identifies this confirmation as “Married.” And that’s the term our society uses, too.
Example: US citizens get “married” in other parts of the world that are not confirmed in the US. So they then have to go through the legal marriage process in the US in order to be recognized and have the priviledges that are granted “Married” people under our law.
If someone has not gone through the legal process, we say they are together, boyfriend/girlfriend, partners, lovers, shacking up, baby mommy/daddy’s…we do not refer to them as “Married.”
Although l agree with the union the timing really sux. Obama and the rest of the Democrats are so screwed by this decision.
I bet the four justices who voted in favor were Republican appointees.
Maceo: l’m blown away that folks argue for a man’s right to marry a MAN…but that many of those same folks argue against a man’s right to marry two wives.
The difference is the one man/multiple wives is an unbalanced relationship in numbers. Someone is going to be left out.
But l don’t have a problem with polyogomy as long as everyone is of legal age unlike the cult that was raided in Texas a couple of months ago where the girls weren’t of the age of consent and were being exploited by dirty old men.
That makes sense.
One must wonder, however, how we got to this point. Marriage used to be exactly what you describe with regard to baptism. Marriage was an expression of commitment to God, religion, etc.
At some point the state stepped in and messed with it, passing laws about who could marry whom, requiring licenses, providing benefits to those who did it, etc.
Imagine, though, if the state did the same thing with baptism or other sacraments. We’d have homosexuals lined up to take communion, so they’d get a tax credit next year. LOL!
I’m glad everyone stayed on focus and didn’t get mad.
Roderick,
On the polygamy issue, I’m not feeling your justification that “The difference is the one man/multiple wives is an unbalanced relationship in numbers. Someone is going to be left out.”
A man could provide for his wives to receive a 50/50 split upon his death.
But l don’t have a problem with polyogomy as long as everyone is of legal age unlike the cult that was raided in Texas a couple of months ago where the girls weren’t of the age of consent and were being exploited by dirty old men.
What’s remarkable Roderick is that you think it’s wrong for a girl under 18 to get married to a polygamist, but ok for her to receive HPV vaccines and birth control pills from her school so she can have sex with the secular version of polygamists who we euphemistically call “players”.
Big J, Roderick,
A man could provide for his wives to receive a 50/50 split upon his death.
J, I am talking about how is he a man going to spend quality time with two or more wives while he is alive not how he is going to evenly divide his time among three or four or five women and the their multiple offspring?
Hell most of these polygamists are on welfare because they can’t support multiple wives and all of their unskilled wives.
This is stupid. Marriage is DEFINED as between a man and a wmoan.
Call it ‘Gay Marriage’ and keep on truckin’.
Dina,
Maybe marriage became a state issue because the religious authorities in Europe used to also be the political authorities? I’m thinking specifically about the Catholic Church, of course.
Rod,
How the man spends is time is HIS problem, not a legal problem, right?