Pajamas Media

53 Comments

1. GayPatriot » Problems with the CA Supreme Court’s Gay Marriage Decision:

[...] that I’ve whet your appetite, click here to read the rest of the [...]

May 15, 2008 - 4:03 pm 2. Mekan:

As I posted on LGF

Marriage as a concept and a legally binding contract died in the 70’s. Currently the term only has meaning to those that hold to the religious contract. No-fault divorce and abortion without the consent of the father and the like have created a word that is but a shell. So what is the big deal? With the divorce rate above 50% and the number of single mothers who have never been married on the rise, does it really matter if two men or two women marry? For that matter, does it matter if one man to many women marry, one woman to many men, humans to animals, men to boy, woman to girl, or human to inanimate object marry?

For those with older parents that need insurance I would recommend that you simply marry them because it should be legal by the basis of this ruling and the logic behind the judicial opinion.

May 15, 2008 - 4:03 pm 3. Mary in LA:

Thank you for your very wise essay! I hope that, as a society, we can actually have a conversation about the meaning and function of marriage that doesn’t devolve into two factions shouting past each other…

May 15, 2008 - 4:08 pm 4. David Thomson:

I am adamantly support legal protection for gay couples. Nonetheless, I also strongly oppose gay marriage—and my views are premised entirely on secular grounds. Religious doctrines per se have next to nothing to do with my position. Marriage is primarily about raising children. Everything else is of secondary importance. The state has an obligation to protect the institution of marriage.

The California Supreme Court, as a practical matter, has done an enormous favor on behalf of John McCain and the Republicans Party. I am still not sure if McCain can capture California in November, but Obama will now have to spend considerable time and money in the state. He can no longer take it for granted.

May 15, 2008 - 4:16 pm 5. dre:

“we can actually have a conversation about the meaning and function of marriage”

ok

Marriage: heterosexual unions involved in the production of children.

Civil unions: Those not covered by the above.

May 15, 2008 - 4:20 pm 6. WJ:

Gay marriage, yes or now, should be a legislative decision, not a judicial one. I am sick and tired of judges making law from the bench.

Why don’t we just get rid of the legislatures and make it obvious that judges are our new “nobility”?

May 15, 2008 - 5:01 pm 7. NB:

Agreed WJ. You’re the only responder who seems to have gotten the point. The real issue here is not gay marriage. The real issue is that the Federal Courts acted in a way directly contrary to the voting public. They might as well have just come out and said, “Yes, the population, through the democratic process protected by the Constitution of the United States, made a decision by popular vote but we don’t care, we’re going to continue to use the judges bench to not just interpret law but create law that has no basis in the Constitution and does not serve the public interest but attempts to direct cultural attitudes while pandering to a comparatively tiny segment of citizens”.

It makes me sad that all of the argument on this topic will be about the legitamacy of same sex marriage and to be sure it’s a topic that is ready for discussion and responsible discourse but through all of it will anyone be screaming about the behavior of the judiciary. Supreme Court, America has died a little because of you. Again.

May 15, 2008 - 5:47 pm 8. Daily Pundit » Still Not the Right Definition of Marriage, Eh?:

[...] Still Not the Right Definition of Marriage, Eh? May 15th 2008 @ 3:53 pm Law, Culture Pajamas Media » Golden State Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down Going over the opinion, I appreciate the majority’s recognition that marriage is more than a [...]

May 15, 2008 - 5:48 pm 9. cthulhu:

I may be a bit of a romantic, but I’m all in favor of celebrating relationships. I generally support gay marriage as a concept.

The problem, as I see it, is that government has piggybacked all sorts of things onto the one word, “marriage”, and linked them exclusively. Everything from “married filing joint” tax status to “surviving spouse” pension benefits.

Taking that latter example a bit further, such benefits accrue over time, and are funded over years based on actuarial data that depend on the spouses being one of each gender. In 2005, male life expectancy at birth was 75 years in the US, while for females it was 80 — a substantial difference. So every pension that has been building up over the decades would have to have its funding recalculated if significant numbers of male-male and female-female pairs were to join the pool. Potentially, there could be millions of dollars of additional contributions needed.

So far as I know, there has not been a serious effort to inventory all of the places where marriage is referenced in our society. While it would make sense to take such an inventory, evaluate whether each item would change if gay marriage were recognized, and produce a transition plan balancing costs and benefits, this decision does none of those things.

I understand that there is to be a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on the November ballot. While I would count myself as a gay marriage supporter, I would also likely vote for the amendment — because I’d rather see a historic slight continued than have chaos by judicial fiat. Unfortunately, it seems, there is not going to be a third option of taking a reasonable, thoughtful approach.

May 15, 2008 - 5:55 pm 10. John Samford:

It’s really about money. Get rid of the IRS, income tax and the death tax and the entire issue becomes who is putting what in which hole, a subject very few care about, so long as both (all?) parties are consenting human adults.
IIRC it was Lady Astor who remarked; ‘Who cares what they do in private? Just so long as it isn’t in public where it frightens the horses’. Or something like that.
From the POV of society, blatant homosexuality ALWAYS denotes the end of Civilization, Be it Assyrian, Roman, or English. My theory is that the men are to busy making eyes at each other to defend the families they don’t have or want.
Islamic civilization has a stronger will then western civilization. Most westerners think that because the west if more technologically advancd then Islamic civilization, they are no threat to us.
That is wrong. If the west won’t use that technology to defend itself from Islam, it might as well not exist. Islam has been waging war against the west for the last 1400+years. It waxes and wanes according to how much effort the west is putting into fighting back. Since 1979, the West has been trying to appease Islam, which is what led to 9-11. Now the west is split, with a small percentage wanting to fight, the rest to surrender.
So the Calif SC ruling is just another sign that Western civilization is on the ropes.
Islam will cure that, they hang homosexuals.

“Our Country won’t go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won’t
be any AMERICA because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our
women and breed a hardier race!”
-Lt. Gen. Lewis B. “Chesty” Puller, USMC

“To sin by silence, when they should protest, makes cowards of men”
- Attributed to Abraham Lincoln

May 15, 2008 - 6:07 pm 11. David:

This is one of those weird questions that baffles much of society and causes arguments that are far beyond reason. You often hear that the advent of gay marriage is just the latest sign of the apocalypse, or something to that effect. Many bad things–a rise in the divorce rate, further deterioration of the morality of our society, etc., are thought to be right behind gay marriage.

Of course, the problem is that none of these things is likely to happen as a result of gay marriage being legalized. Lesbian couples especially are legendary for their fidelity to one another; I’ve never seen any statistics, but most of the lesbians *I* know would probably *raise* the average length of marriage if they were allowed into the statistical pool along with the straight couples. While many gay men “play the field” so to speak, many don’t, also, and frankly what they do isn’t the business of the rest of us anyway, is it?

The strangest part of this political debate, however, is the way it’s handled by the two political parties. Republicans have absolutely nothing to gain by moving one inch to the left (Schwarzenegger’s opposition to the proposed state Constitutional Amendment notwithstanding) because the gay political leadership tends to be scornful of anyone to the right of them on a myriad of issues, gay marriage only being one. Democrats are happy to have gays vote for them in large numbers, and need to do *nothing* to keep them happy. Here in California, they can even occasionally quietly voice opposition to gay marriage themselves: gays have nowhere else to turn. As a result, the Democrats will be happy if the proposed Constitutional amendment passes, and will spend most of their time in the gay community doing their best to tar every Republican (Schwarzenegger included) with the homophobic brush in order to generate support for themselves.

The real solution to this problem (if the gay community wished to actually have the right to marry, as opposed to being a victimized righteous minority) would be to launch their own referendum campaign, and finance it well. It’s not as if there aren’t any wealthy gay people here in California. If they ran the campaign properly, didn’t call anyone a homophobe, were respectful of other opinions, and tackled issues such as child molesting, possible quotas, and the like head-on, they’d probably win handily. Unfortunately, the chances of something like this happening are nil.

May 15, 2008 - 6:20 pm 12. Dan:

It’s HILARIOUSLY ironic to this whole thread that, on at least one occasion, the popularly elected representatives of the people, in the form of the California State Legislature, passed a gay marriage bill, only to have it vetoed by the Governator.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702020.html

Those damned judges, disobeying the will of the… person?

May 15, 2008 - 6:53 pm 13. Gay marriage and the churches | The Anchoress:

[...] coverage: B. Daniel Blatt at Pajamas Media – I’m surprised there is no round-up. Glenn wonders, did CA just hand the [...]

May 15, 2008 - 7:20 pm 14. Casey Tompkins:

Mr. Blatt, you have written a well-balanced and judicious essay.

David Thomson seems to have missed a major point: why can’t gay couple raise children? dre also misses the boat. In reply I must point out the example of one of my local friends in a lesbian “marriage” (quotes used because Ohio explicilty prohibits even civil unions) recently bore a lovely daughter. She was artificially inseminated. Any gay woman can do the same. Any gay/lesbian couple can also adopt a child, or children.

Therefore using child-rearing as a defense for conventional marriage is not a useful argument, unless one holds that gay parents are in some way inherently defective. Aside from being, well, gay. Some folks seem to find that defect enough.

Dan, with respect to your snark about Arnolds veto: perhaps he did so because the referenced bill was statue law, not a constitutional amendment. Big difference.

May 15, 2008 - 7:22 pm 15. yarrrr:

Marriage is a worthless institution. The rights and privileges given to family relations need to be contracted out where most people are able to use standard “creative commons” type licensing system.

May 15, 2008 - 7:27 pm 16. AJ:

“I am adamantly support legal protection for gay couples. Nonetheless, I also strongly oppose gay marriage.”

That’s where I stand as well, or close to it. If over 60% in CA oppose same-sex marriage, I am certain the numbers in most other states exceed that. In fact, every state but Ted Kennedy’s, have clearly have voted against this assault on the Constitution. Exactly where is there room or a need for amending the way our country was constructed? And why, if the people have “spoken,” need there be more appeals?

I am speechless. As someone not overly religious, nor from “small town America,” I have no agenda here. As they say, “I have gay friends,” and I do. But this is all about agenda. The fiscal benefits for Civil Unions are 100% equal to that of marriage, so again, why is this being pushed/forced upon us? Agenda. The “progressive” agenda in fact—which means anything and everything America stands for must be changed, especially if it attacks whites, men, heterosexuals, Christians, the military, Jews, patriotic folks, businessmen, etc.

VERY few who oppose gay marriage, much like VERY few who oppose Barack Obama or Hillary, are bigots. But they do know when they are being hoodwinked.

Marriage is a heterosexual, biblical, American institution. There’s no need for homosexuals to infringe upon it. And a lot of them realize that, but, like liberals on Islamic terrorism, remain silent.

May 15, 2008 - 7:36 pm 17. Dan:

Casey — we live in a representative democracy, not a direct one. If people want different laws, they need to vote in different people. That’s our system of government. Or do we now have a problem with that too, on top of the courts?

May 15, 2008 - 7:45 pm 18. Mekan:

At the risk of flying, rotten fruit, the question that was addressed, right or wrong, by the court was not about gay marriage at all, but the protected status of gay people. In this case the court decided that homosexuals belonged to the short list of protected classes that receive special treatment under the Constitution to thwart discrimination by the majority. This means that the ruling was that it did not matter what the will of the people was because it oppressed a protected group of people.

Do homosexuals belong in the protected class? I personally do not believe so, but the judges do. Do I believe that there should be a protected class under the Constitution? Ideologically I say no, but realistically it has been proven that there is a need in the US for such a provision. If those provisions did not exist blacks would still be facing segregation. Of course, the Bill of Rights is fairly explicit when it says that ‘all people’ are created equal, but we have shown that we will target groups as being less deserving of rights than other people. Special ‘laws’ keep popping up that state that group x can not do y or need to pay more for z.

Again, do homosexuals fall into this class? Does defining marriage as a union between male and female only constitute an oppression of male and male or female and female union? I don’t think so. The court did think so.

The bottom line though is what do we believe the legal value of marriage is in the US. As I stated before, the legal contract is no longer worth very much at all. The fight over who can and can not be ‘married’ by the state is overridden by the fact that marriage by the state means so very little.

The opposing sides of the issue are fighting an equality issue and not an issue about marriage at all. The group for homosexual marriage want homosexual unions to be viewed the same or equal to heterosexual marriage. They do not buy the different but equal notion of civil unions. The group against homosexual marriage does not want these unions to be of equal value. The anti-homosexual marriage group does not view a homosexual union/family as being valid but have sought a compromise through the civil union language. When I look at the argument in this perspective I think the homosexual group is being discriminated against as a group.

If our society view homosexuality as a normal condition of man through genetic makeup, as it has since the 70’s, then our society can not discriminate against them based on their homosexuality. This does fly against many of the religions in the US, including my own faith. But we must also remember that this does pave the way for polygamy, and every other union of peoples, animals, inanimate objects that you can imagine as long as the ‘rational, medical’ standing of those peoples as embracing a normal, genetic condition.

May 15, 2008 - 7:51 pm 19. Stargazer:

“Unless I missed it, the court did not cite the constitutional provision according such dignity.”

Its not an explicit provision. Explicit enumerated provisions written in English are antiquated hetero-normative colonial vestiges. The “dignity clause” can be found if you deconstruct the penumbra of the aura that emanates from the California constitution which, unfortunately for you, can only be seen by the discerning apolitical eyes of the appointed, life-tenured, law-clerk jockeying members of the California Supreme Court.

May 15, 2008 - 8:48 pm 20. Chad:

I’ve been back and forth on this issue the whole day. Was fired up (in a bad way) at first, but now think it was probably a good call. The issue of the “courts going against the electorate” is a valid one, but only to a certain point.

Laws, even constitutional amendments, that are voted on and approved by the majority of the public can still be ruled un-constitutional. Just because most people want it, doesn’t mean it’s right.

That said, I think the larger issue here is not whether gays should or should not be allowed to marry, but how and why the gay community is seen the way it is. As with the ruling in MA, we should expect to see a fair amount of legislative backlash come November in California and other states. Instead of spending their time and money in the courts, gay-rights groups need to consider revamping our “image”.

We cannot possibly expect equality when we are constantly highlighting our differences.

May 15, 2008 - 9:09 pm 21. dirigible:

I always thought that the Separation of Powers was a particularly good political idea. Too bad it’s so out of fashion, and both the Judicial and Executive branches think they should be handling legislation, too.

May 15, 2008 - 9:33 pm 22. Ken Mitchell:

“Gay marriage” was prohibited in California BY A REFERENDUM – in 2000, the PEOPLE of California voted, by a 2-1 majority, that marriage was “between one man and one woman”. What the California State Supreme Court has done is to overturn an actual election. And not a close one, either.

Not that this is surprising; the CA Supremes have _often_ written their own laws in opposition to the will of the people. There is often a price to be paid, in a state where Supreme Court justices can be voted OUT of office, a la Rose Bird. It may take a while, but the four justices who voted for gay marriage will face the voters – and this WILL be an issue.

Further, there will be a new initiative on the November ballot to write the prohibition into the California Constitution – where the state supreme court CANNOT override it. And giving Left-Coast conservatives, FINALLY, some reason to go to the polls. Because I, for one, am not particularly enthusiastic about the prospect of voting for John McCain.

May 15, 2008 - 9:40 pm 23. Patrick Gryph:

“But this evolution should happen naturally and not be imposed by a court. Advocates need to defend the merits of the institution rather than focus on the rights they believe are their due. Unless these advocates make their case to the people, they will find the people blocking the evolution of marriage beyond its traditional definition.”

Court cases are also a part of the “evolution”. Sorry, Dan, but a civil rights movement is not the same thing as an advertising campaign. You are portraying this as a situation where a remote and untouchable aristocratic court over-ruled the will of the people. That is an incorrect and unfair. I would remind you that gay marriage has TWICE passed through the legislature until the Governor’s veto. The members of the legislature are duly elected representatives of people. As are the Judges on the Supreme court who also were re-elected -by the people. Multiple times! This is a case of checks and balances working correctly. In this instance by putting a check on the mob rule mentality that was Prop 22. Sorry, just because an idea might be the “will of the people” it does not automatically bestow ultimate moral and legal authority on that idea. Shall we reinstate slavery because its the “will of the people”?

“What it neglects to mention is that those laws were statutory creations, while the historical understanding of marriage as a union between one man and one woman goes back for millennia.”

Dan, you sound like Dr. Dobson. For the record, the “historical understanding” of marriage has been as a union between man and a group of women. In fact for the majority of human history marriage has been about the ownership of women as property by men, not any egalitarian union. That is relatively a very modern concept. You buy into and incorrectly continue the lie that marriage is some static institution. Its not, it changes continually. And usually in response to economics more than any morality movement.

“The real issue here is not gay marriage. The real issue is that the Federal Courts acted in a way directly contrary to the voting public. They might as well have just come out and said, “Yes, the population, through the democratic process protected by the Constitution of the United States, made a decision by popular vote but we don’t care, we’re going to continue to use the judges bench to not just interpret law but create law that has no basis in the Constitution and does not serve the public interest but attempts to direct cultural attitudes while pandering to a comparatively tiny segment of citizens”.”

Nonsense. The issue here is simple prejudice. If prop 22 had instead reinstated miscegenation laws would everybody be wringing their hands now about “Judicial Activism” because it had been struck down? I think not. Unless you are fond of wearing a white sheet on your head.

Frankly the whole “Judicial Activism” line stinks like a dead fish. One sides “Judicial Activism” is another side’s “Judicial Restraint”. It only depends on whose ox is getting gored. The opponents of gay marriage never complain about “Judicial Activism” so long as the judges are beating up on homosexuals. You never here any complaints about “Judicial Activism” when family court judges take the children of gays and lesbians away from their parents for no other reason than their sexual orientation. Where is Focus on the Family and the GOP then? They are the ones cheering the judges on. It disgusting.

May 16, 2008 - 12:05 am 24. cthulhu:

Thinking about this further, I’d go so far as to state that the courts could (and should) allow gay couples to marry just as soon as interested parties under the old regime waive any distinctions or depart this vale.

The deal-killer for me is that society has initiated a variety of actions under one set of rules, and the judiciary has presumptively declared that the rules should change — without any adjustment of the actions. It’s as if you had previously agreed to sell your kid brother something at 1/10 its real value, and the courts declared that you now had to sell everything you owned at the same discount to anyone who asked.

It’s not that gay relationships don’t deserve consideration. It’s not that the government shouldn’t recognize two persons’ commitment to each other. It isn’t that there haven’t been injustices and that things couldn’t be better. It’s that a bunch of incompetent jurists have decided to wave a magic wand over a state where millions of transactions make sense under one set of facts and change the facts into something else without regard to consequences.

I’d support a reasoned program to identify laws or contracts relating to marriage; determine whether they should be linked to civil marriage, mutual pledging, contract law, some other factor, or even exist in the first place; determine a cost/benefit analysis for re-implementing them in the preferred manner; create an implementation plan; and rationalize these laws or contracts to ensure that social goals are furthered. And I would assert that a social goal is the fostering of long-term, caring relationships between individuals capable of creating a household and supporting such dependents as are appropriate.

But when the alternatives at hand are judicial interference to millions of “deals” already in progress or carving the existing inequities into granite, I’m afraid that I’d be voting for permanence.

May 16, 2008 - 12:25 am 25. Rob van Stee:

…in all cultures (up until the present day) that recognize marriage, sexual difference has been “the defining aspect of the institution.”

Two words: The Netherlands.

May 16, 2008 - 12:29 am 26. Kim Zigfeld:

DAN:

Sure would be nice if you practiced the type of accurate analysis you call for in others.

It’s HILARIOUSLY ironic that you don’t acknowledge either the fact that (a) a HUGE number of California legislators OPPOSED passage of the bill and (b) and EVEN HUGER segment, the vast majority, of the actual voters opposed the bill and (c) ONLY ONE JUDGE made the difference in the California court’s 4-3 decision.

Your arrogance and condescension is a really good illustration of why progress isn’t made on this issue. As the Wall Street Journal points out, the decision will not result in gay unions earning the respect they long for in society, but will only be cause for bitterness and resentment the same as Roe v. Wade has engendered.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121089440635197017.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

May 16, 2008 - 1:41 am 27. submandave:

If marriage is “a substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own” then I guess I’d better inform my Indian friends who went home, married the bride their family selected and returned to America to start a family that they really aren’t married at all since they didn’t start in a “loving relationship.” As Tina said, what’s love got to do with it? And since when has it been any business of the government if a relationship between two adults is loving, caring, manipulative, traditional or simply mutually beneficial?

I guess it’s only a natural conclusion that those who care so adamently in enacting “hate crime” legislation will find a love penumbra within their constitution. As for me, I would rather have a government care more about the law and outcome than my emotions.

May 16, 2008 - 7:14 am 28. Wicked:

The issue of Gay Marriage it not a social issue, its a financial one. Proponents aren’t concerned with the “recognition of two loving adults sharing a relationship” they are concerned with the ability to file a MARRIED status tax return, the ability to insure a SPOUSE through company sponsored insurance programs, and the legal recognition as a SURVIVING SPOUSE when one partner dies. As far as the tax issue, tax incentives are provide to re-enforce behavior that is considered “good” for the country. Incentives are historically provided to same sex Married couples under the assumption that these couples will procreate and thereby create new little tax payers. While it can be argued that gay couples can adopt, artificial inseminate, etc, it can also be argued that the lack of a balanced “traditional” household is not in the best interest of creating productive little tax payers. With the divorce rate this is becoming a fairly thin argument, if it had any basis in fact to begin with. For the company sponsored insurance issue the spousal insurance is offered under the assumption that spouses do not work, or have jobs that do not offer insurance. While this is not normally the case in Male gay marriages, and may be a bit more prevalent in Female gay marriages, it is becoming less and less the norm in opposite sex marriages with duel income homes, and most companies are recognizing this and requiring addition insurance payments by employees who have spouses that do have access to other insurance but decline it. In short this is becoming less and less of a “perk” for married couples. The big issue here is surviving spouse benefits. Without the designation of a marriage, two same sex cohabitants have no rights or recourse in the case of a “mate” who becomes incapacitated or dies. A surviving gay partner can find themselves loosing all accumulated wealth and living on the street when the major wage earner dies. You can argue the social issues all you want. You just need to be aware what the ramifications of gay marriage truly are and why it is so important to the proponents of gay marriage not to have Legal Union or some other designation assigned to their relationship, but to have it designated as a Marriage…..its the money

I detest people trying to hide their true motives behind emotional issues. While prevalent through history, I find it dishonest and insulting. Tell me what you want, we’ll discuss it and come to a reasonable resolution. Don’t play on my fears, my emotions, or my religion.

May 16, 2008 - 7:46 am 29. Mary in LA:

Kim said,
“(b) and EVEN HUGER segment, the vast majority, of the actual voters opposed the bill ”

Sorry, Kim, this can’t be true, because the measure actually passed by a significant margin. (Ken, above, says 2-1 — that sounds about like what I remember at the time.) If it had not passed, there wouldn’t have been a need for the State Supreme Court to rule on it, and we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

May 16, 2008 - 10:23 am 30. esgeness:

Marriage should stop being a legal term altogether. If the issue is whether or not people can file joint tax returns and procure hospital visitation rights, then everyone should be happy if legislation simply replaced the term “marriage” with “civil union.” The very fact that there are so many definitions of marriage floating about this controversy just shows that the issue should be considered beyond the scope of governmental jurisdiction.

A side note: I completely agree with the argument that gay people should be able to marry because of the dignity the act affords them. An anecdote: I know two men who have been monogamously committed to one another for over two decades. Whether or not they are granted the legal rights of a heterosexual couple, as long as they are forced to refer to one another as each other’s “boyfriends,” their relationship will be viewed as ephemeral, and less serious than that of a “husband and wife.” That said, gay marriages, like straight marriages should be considered a union based on personal and/or religious values.

May 16, 2008 - 10:39 am 31. esgeness:

As for the constitutional issue, since when is the constitutionality of a law left up to the populous to decide? Isn’t that why we have judges? Personally, I think the authority to overturn laws should at least require a legal degree.

May 16, 2008 - 10:44 am 32. GayPatriot » Blogging, Gay Marriage & that necessary conversation:

[...] in the manner that these two individuals have. Yesterday, I didn’t like having to write my Pajamas piece in haste because I wanted to take the time to think seriously about the [...]

May 16, 2008 - 11:36 am 33. Alex:

What I find most amusing is the argument that homosexuals were discriminated against. They had every right to marry a member of the opposite sex that a heterosexual had. So it wasn’t that they were not permitted something that heterosexuals were, it was just that what was available to them was not something they wanted. Now the Supreme Court has decreed that being unhappy with the same rights as everyone else is sufficient grounds to overturn the will of the people and ‘interpret’ constitutional law to add special rights in defiance of the electorate.

May 16, 2008 - 11:48 am 34. James Nightshade:

Wicked: “The issue of Gay Marriage it not a social issue, its a financial one.”

The California Supreme Court decision was entirely a social issue, as the text of the decision itself was careful to point out. Since 1999 there has been a Domestic Partnership status in California that conveys all of the legal and financial benefits of marriage (so far as the State of California can grant).

What the Court ruled was that, under the standards of strict scrutiny, the State could not really have legitimate interest in denying the name “marriage” while at the same time granting all of its other benefits.

May 16, 2008 - 12:25 pm 35. Cobb:

The court overstepped its bounds. They did so in precise alignment with what advocates for gay marriage want. They want the label ‘marriage’ applied to the legal status of same-sex civil unions. In California, as the ruling states, there exists a functional equality between marriage and same-sex civil unions. Essentially the only difference between the two is the name. Advocates for the gay cause want the name, but they are not satisfied to allow society to grant it, instead they want to politically force the issue. Not because they are lacking any enforceable rights, but because they want the political victory.

There is essentially no legal gap, but there is a significant social gap, and the act of a state redefinition of the term will force a constitutional showdown on the social issue. So this ruling has set the stage for the worse case scenario, a constitutional fight over the social merits – meaning the content of marriage, and this will be material to the debate. The safest way to have it is with a minimal ‘defensive’ statement. “Marriage is between a man and a woman.”

It seems to me that if this is not resolved with that kind of amendment, then it’s going to come to question about who can claim to be a man or a woman. As far as I’m concerned, if advocates for the gay cause are willing to muck with the social definition of marriage, they have fallen to the same level of absurdity as changing the social definition of ‘man’ and ‘woman’. In which case it’s actually reasonable for them to declare by that same license one partner to be a ‘man’ and another to be a ‘woman’.

May 16, 2008 - 5:23 pm 36. Shef Rogers:

I can think offhand of about 500 other issues that are more urgently in need of attention right now. When somebody wants to argue about the phone bill while the house is burning down, you have to wonder about their sanity.

May 16, 2008 - 5:55 pm 37. Adam Villani:

Patrick Gryph — thank you, finally someone with some sanity posting here. From reading these comments, I’m not sure conservatives even know what judicial review is for anymore. The courts decide whether a law is constitutional or not. This is just about the only check and balance on the initiative system we have in California. If the legislature or the people pass a law that’s unconstitutional, it’s not “judicial activism” to overturn it, it’s doing their jobs.

A couple of other brief points:

1. Six of the seven CA Supreme Court justices were Republican appointees.

2. The statement “the historical understanding of marriage as a union between one man and one woman goes back for millennia” is demonstrably false. Polygamy has a long history around the world and is still practiced legally in some places.

3. Commenter NB: This was not a Federal court. It was the California Supreme Court.

4. Commenter dre: So heterosexual unions that don’t produce children aren’t valid? Now *that’s* making up new laws.

5. Commenter Stargazer: The CA Supreme Court justices are not “life-tenured.” They’re appointed, but then the voters get to vote to retain them or not. Occasionally they do get booted.

So, between now and November, many California couple will marry, and on November, the so-called pro-family faction will have a measure on the ballot that will directly break up families. I hope they’re proud of themselves. I’m going to relish seeing conservatives try to contain themselves if their ballot measure fails; they won’t have any legal arguments left.

May 16, 2008 - 11:12 pm 38. schnargley:

I applaud the California Supreme Court for its courageous decision to go against, not just the majority opinion of the State of California, but against the oppresive and backwards six millenia of human wisdom, religion, tradition and precedent. It takes exceptional people to toss our so much historical-cultural-religious baggage with such aplomb and style! As California boldly leads us into marvellously new understandings about “marriage” let us not be so pathetically conservative and reactionary to stop at gay marriage. Multiple partner discrimination, not to speak of ageism, speciesism should also be taken into consideration.

And there is no reason not only why multiple partners should be prohibited, but for those of us who are in a deep committed relationship to ourselves (thanks again to California and the self-esteem movement) why not ego-marriages? I love myself and would like to formalize it before law. We egosexuals are out of the closet and we are proud of our sexual orientation.

I heard that Alec Baldwin has just come out of the closet.

May 17, 2008 - 9:38 am 39. Beth:

Re marriage as for raising children:

1. Does this mean that no infertile person or woman past childbearing age can have a valid reason to marry? Should I dissolve my 20 year marriage once the kids leave?

2. Does being gay keep people from procreating? Last time I checked, lots of same-sex couples were raising kids.

May 17, 2008 - 1:21 pm 40. free patriot:

slavery was pretty popular in several States at one time

keeping people of African decent in bondage would probably pass electoral muster in a few States today

does that mean we should toss out the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the constitution ???

after all, if a majority of the people in a State want to allow Slavery to exist, why should we prevent them from exercising their will ???

Kinda destroys all your stupid arguments, don’t it

you got good ideas, until the concept of human decency is added to the equation

May 17, 2008 - 1:49 pm 41. free patriot:

and if you don’t like the slavery comparison, let’s talk about the “Jim Crow” laws and such

cuz we don’t wanna stop the majority from doing whatever the hell the majority decides is right

so put your “stupid” on stun and answer me that one

May 17, 2008 - 1:52 pm 42. OLDPUPPYMAX:

Homosexuals will spend millions in an attempt to make certain that the ballot initiative coming this Nov. to change the Cal. constitution is not successful. They will undoubtedly do their best to prevent it from appearing on the ballot at all. So much for the radical left and its undying belief in freedom of speech and individual rights! But when the ludicrous activism of these Supreme court vermin is finally overthrown, the American people will once again have shown their respect for the United States, its culture and its history. We prevented McCains amnesty disaster and will say no to the judicial empire as well.

May 18, 2008 - 7:16 am 43. Misanthropicus:

Channeling Monty Python RE California Supreme Court decision:
1) The Supreme Court majority (4-3) trumps the California people majority (60+%).
2) Ronald George should call Rose Bird for advice regarding how to fill out unemployment papers – two years is just there.

May 18, 2008 - 7:05 pm 44. Will Becker:

Anything goes in California thats why I wouldn’t live there.

May 19, 2008 - 1:03 pm 45. Eric:

How exactly did the court overstep its bounds in giving people like me the right to marry?

Anyone who says that the law should universally reflect the ‘will of the people’ doesn’t know that much about American history. In fact, the framers of the United States Constitution knew that a legislature was a necessary tool to delay or block the whims of the popular majority. That is, they realized that direct popular lawmaking is a terrible idea. They also created an independent judiciary so that the values prescribed in the Constitution would be properly reflected in the law. In this case, the California Supreme Court decided that the legal status of marriage in the state was contrary to the values on which the state was founded.

So who gives a shit if the ‘public’ is ready? If you object to my marriage to another man, that’s your problem. I don’t have the time to deal with that. Get a life.

May 21, 2008 - 11:41 am 46. John M:

Despite what any onr thinks. Read Rom I
and find out who is going to hell including the Judges
of California and those
of Roe vs Wade. And Gays should not be allowed any privileges
especially raising children

May 22, 2008 - 9:09 am 47. Errol Smythe:

A house has a frontside and the backside
it is sad when a man don’t know which side of the house he belongs to and thinks that his plumbing is all wrong.
Sodom and Gomorrah had that problem. They got burnt to ashes. Repent from your wicked ways or perish. Errol Smythe

Jun 18, 2008 - 5:53 am 48. Sadly, No! » New Wingnut of the Week: GayPatriotWest:

[...] that this will provoke a chorus of incredulous gasps from any of you SadlyNauts, but Dan is also opposed to the California Supreme Court decision on gay marriage, likening gay marriage to incestuous [...]

Jul 13, 2008 - 7:42 am 49. Errol Smythe:

The State Supreme Courts should read their law books. Their law books recognise that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.Marriage certificates by the millions attest to that.
Marriage is defined as “….. the institution under which a man and a woman become legally united under a permanent basis…..”( Webster’s Dictionary ).
The State Supreme Court may be guilty of proverbially putting “…..lipstick on a pig…”. Literally speaking, a pig is a pig with or without lipstick.The lipstick doesnot change it’s nature or it’s character. Pinning the label of “marriage” on two people of the same sex makes a mockery of law books , judicial precedent, traditional christian values and traditional moral values that regard marriage as between a man and a women.A man marries a woman. The woman becomes the wife to the man who becomes her husband.
For the courts to try and equate a man and a woman getting married in holy matrimony in the eyes of God to any same sex union under the definition of “…marriage …” is to go against legal certainty and to introduce absurdity in the law.
Right now there is a debate of changing marriage licence forms . What a legal mess ! Errol Smythe

Oct 16, 2008 - 11:42 pm 50. GayPatriot » Legitimate Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage:

[...] (I have addressed this issue before, notably here and here.) [...]

Oct 31, 2008 - 12:07 pm 51. Pajamas Media » Making the Case for Gay Marriage:

[...] the day that decision was handed down, I wrote: Advocates of the traditional definition of marriage have gathered enough signatures to place a [...]

Nov 8, 2008 - 12:22 am 52. Pajamas Media » Gay Marriage Advocates in California Face Another Setback:

[...] bleak for gay people. The court upheld the marriages of same-sex couples performed after it struck down state statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples “but prior to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid.” Moreover, in its [...]

May 27, 2009 - 12:16 am 53. Kendall Davis:

Marriages of the same-sex is insanity at best. Nothing in the creation of life supports that concept. In all facets of life it’s always the opoosites that create life and life benefits best from it. Same sex marriages will destroy all that is pure and natural. No one is born Gay as advertised by demented minded people pushing this agenda.It’s really appaulling to me that we as an society give them this kind of power to change and comform to thier desires.There is no basis for same-sex marriage to ever exist in any society. I’d like to add just a twist to how we have got to this horrible time in our society. The full blame of all that is bad in our society with it’s divorce,crime of any kind and the abomation of sin’s fall at the door-step of the minister’s.If they were not not so corrupt and greedy in their lust to keep the masses ignorant we could not be bother with the madness we are fighting today,the madness of same-sex marriage.

Sep 11, 2009 - 8:23 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: