Judge: California marriage laws unconstitutional

http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=3074967&nav=5D7lXT07

BCN) -- A San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled today that California laws requiring marriage to be between a man and a woman violate the California constitution.

Judge Richard Kramer said the laws "fail to meet constitutional muster."

San Francisco Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart said while waiting for the ruling today that "it will be appealed no matter what."

Stewart estimated that it would take between a year and 18 months for the case to move through the state Court of Appeal and the state Supreme Court.

before Bush and the Senate get a chance to stack the courts with right-wing extremists! This is why it's crucial for Democrats to fight to save the filibuster and save the Supreme Court! We also need to let the more moderate Justices (Ginsburg, Souter, O'Connor, Kennedy, Stevens, and Breyer) know that we need them now more than ever. If they can all hang on until 2006 or 2008, and we can get a Democratic majority and/or Democratic President, we may very well save the Court from the right wing! This website has contact information for the Supreme Court:

http://congress.org

This was a California Superior Court Judge ruling on a matter of State Law.

This will be fought out in the California Courts.

The people who are against me and mine from getting married- legally recognized, I mean; we have no interest in holding a service in a place traditionally hostile to us- simply will not stop. I've been dealing with people like this my whole life- they're the ones who went around in gradeschool calling everyone who didn't fit in with their idea of "boy behavior" as a 'faggot'. Now they're the ones going around telling everyone how evil and dirty we are, and why we thus need to be legislated against.

The sad part is, in their sick reality, they have a right to be completely and totally free 100% of the time from anything at all they believe is offensive or harms their children (even if they don't actually have any, and using a very broad definition of 'harm'). The illogic is endless.

While it is possible to teach them on an individual basis that gay people really aren't bad or evil or all that different, even, it is not possible to teach them this as a group. They will never be won over in the press or from the TV, and seeing us "acting gay" in public only makes them as a group all the more hostile.

What needs to happen- and I've experienced this a time or two myself- is for gay people to voluntarily enter into the activities these people opposed to any gay rights at all themselves engage in. Hey- some gay people actually do like to fish, or hunt, and some really do go to church, even if they hide their 'gayness' from the congregation.

There's more. We need to get to know them, personally, on a one-on-one basis. We need them to see us as people first, and to them this means "people like them". Then we can shatter their illusions the most effectively, for they will have personal experience that will show them it was an illusion to begin with.

Some of them will always hate us, and that's just a fact of life, the same as how even now some people hate blacks for being black, or Jews for being Jewish. We even have hostile divisions within Christianity itself, an irony that is apparently completely lost on them.

But I do think some of them can be shown that we're people, too. People just like them, only with one small difference.

WHOO-HOO

"Activist judges must be stopped," etc. I've gotten to the point where I rue the court decisions favoring gay marriage as much as I do the ones that oppose it.

It will just be another excuse for conservatives to demonize gays.

When a petitioner comes before a court of competent jurisdiction, I suppose it should check first with some anonymous poster on an obscure website to see whether it's truly in society's best interests to issue a ruling.

Or, we could go another way, and let the courts review laws and see whether they pass constitutional muster. If a law is in violation of the constitution, then it is the function and duty of a court to strike down that law regardless of who is inconvenienced or who can score political points off of the court decision.

If people decide they still like the law, then they have two choices: Re-craft the law so that is passes constitutional muster, or amend the constitution. Sheesh, isn't a basic civics course required in the schools anymore?

sometimes I think the righties would like to do away with the judicial branch all-together.

Apparently they think we're just a few Westlaw upgrades away from being able to do away with human judges completely.

They want to severely dilute the power of the Courts.

There are people at work in this country who don't want GLBT couples to have ANY rights/protection under the law (state or federal). If the Republicans build enough momentum to pass their amendment, that will be the end of the gay marriage debate in the US. Whatever this judge or the people filing suit have to say at that point will be entierely moot. Even Byrd supported the amendment when it was brought to a vote. It's become an incredibly complex debate that could very well have cost us the election. There are religious lobbying groups and activists who are almost holding politicians at gunpoint to support the amendment.

Each one of these "victories" for gay marriage has produced fallout that has stalled the gay-rights movement in various parts of the country. In GA, for example, hard-won domestic partnership laws in Atlanta are now being targeted by the legislature, and I believe they will also end up outlawing gay adoption. State after state has passed their own "marriage amendment" that ban civil unions as well, and also threaten domestic partnerships. In Michigan, Detroit had to discontinue its benefits programs to same-sex couples because of the new amendment. I view all of these gains that are being targeted (in the heartland) as more important than what one judge has to say (which will certainly be overturned if it reaches the Supreme Court), so forgive me if I don't greet this decision with much enthusiasm.

That if a law is unconstitutional, a judge should just let it stand?

Just because laws, policies, and benefits are "targeted" by the reactionaries doesn't mean they're going to go away. It's just possible that people will fight to keep what they've earned, and it doesn't hurt to do so from time to time.

I'm not willing to give up my rights or my freedom just because it inconveniences some narrow-minded dingbat or even a group of them. If they want to advance their argument, I'm all in favor of it. But they won't prevail, and their stance denying segments of society the full rights and benefits of the constitution based on nothing more than their own personal prejudice is doomed to failure in the long run.

And if that's the case -- and I firmly believe it is -- then decisions like the one that started this thread move us closer to the day this "debate" is ended about whether the society can be ordered to benefit everyone or just the "acceptables."

Sorry, but I'm not willing to cower under the bed just because some unnamed someone somewhere might object to a society that functions better for more citizens. They can't make their case in fact, in law, under the constitution, or in my mind or heart. I'm not willing to cede an inch to them, and I'm prepared to fight this battle wherever it pops up. You're welcome to sit back and fret, but at the very least don't interfere with progress as it's made (if I may make so bold).

for those of us who aren't fortunate enough to live in San Francisco or Seattle, we have to settle for the scraps that are thrown to us, and hope that gays are allowed to continue living as they do.

The Civil Rights activists of the 60s had a friendly federal legislature and Preisdent(s) who were willing to help out and demand society accept change.

Today's fight has neither, and it seems that even the Democrats are often just as hostile as the other side.

I'm glad you are not willing "to cede an inch to them," but those are just words, and until you have enough lobbying power or influence to sway diverse legislatures who will never even talk about homosexuality, good intentions are simply moot.

We're winning battles at the cost of losing the war. The lack of pragmatism is astounding.

"The Civil Rights activists of the 60s had a friendly federal legislature and Preisdent(s) who were willing to help out and demand society accept change.
"

The Civil Rights movement didn't start in the 60's, that is where it reached its peak. Were the 50's as friendly to the civil rights movement? No they weren't, but the momentum built in the 50's, which saw a ton of backlash, carried into the 60's where the momentum swung in the direction of civil rights.

You CAN'T sacrifice the rights of some because it is politically advantageous to you at this moment.

You can only stand for what you believe is right and if you lose battles along the way, it doesn't matter.

If this election was lost because of gay marriage, then that is great. We all know the devestating effects this presidency is having on the economy and when people find themselves in deep financial trouble in 3 years they will wonder why they cared so much about gay marriage to vote against their financial interests.

You can ONLY stand for what is right and hope that being right will ultiamtely attact a majority of people to your side.

:yourock:

"You CAN'T sacrifice the rights of some because it is politically advantageous to you at this moment."

Well said!

These people too... were told to wait.

"We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we stiff creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you no forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience."

And...

"I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

From: http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html

No more 'waiting', please.

"You CAN'T sacrifice the rights of some because it is politically advantageous to you at this moment."

You have me convinced. Now there's only about two thousand legislators, judges, and adminstrators who must also agree before equality for gays becomes reality, and they won't even talk about the subject. Why should they support equality when it will damage them politically?

"You can only stand for what you believe is right and if you lose battles along the way, it doesn't matter."

If the Federal Marriage Amendment is ratified, it will matter. Big time.

Additionally, if gay couples in Atlanta, Detroit, etc. lose their health plans and job protection, it will also matter. Not every GLBT citizen is an activist. Some just want to live and work without being harrassed or targeted by religous organzations.

"If this election was lost because of gay marriage, then that is great. We all know the devestating effects this presidency is having on the economy and when people find themselves in deep financial trouble in 3 years they will wonder why they cared so much about gay marriage to vote against their financial interests."

You have more faith in the electorate than I do. The Republicans will find another scape-goat for financial woes, just like they did this time with malpractice suits, and conservatives will lap it up. I imagine they'll target public schools and the Small Business Administration next, which is more that the progressive movement has to lose from these squabbles.

"You can ONLY stand for what is right and hope that being right will ultiamtely attact a majority of people to your side."

I agree, but there's more to Equality than the marriage issue. How much of what we've gained are we willing to put on the line for this one issue?

<How much of what we've gained are we willing to put on the line for this one issue?>

Until you experience harassment, threats, and utter disrespect just for being who you are...I don't even want to hear your DLC-esque points. HOW DARE YOU suggest we go sit in the back of the bus, just because it's politically inconvenient? It's attitudes like yours that are just as dangerous as the religious right's.

Change never comes easily. Many people will resist it, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. And just because something is tradition does not mean it's right. Pretty soon you'll be saying it's OK to burn gays and blacks and other minorities at the stake.

"Change never comes easily. Many people will resist it, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. And just because something is tradition does not mean it's right. Pretty soon you'll be saying it's OK to burn gays and blacks and other minorities at the stake."

Kerry opposed gay marriage. Did he get your vote? Equality organizations across the country have begun to focus on other issues outside of this one. The Democrats have dropped the issue from discussion. Do you accuse them of wanting "to burn gays and blacks and other minorities at the stake," too.

"Until you experience harassment, threats, and utter disrespect just for being who you are...I don't even want to hear your DLC-esque points. HOW DARE YOU suggest we go sit in the back of the bus, just because it's politically inconvenient? It's attitudes like yours that are just as dangerous as the religious right's."

I'm at a loss as to how my support for partner benefits and non-discrimination have been twisted into supporting "sitting in the back of the bus." If you don't think those and other issues deserve as much attention as the marriage issue, then what good are GLBT activists? If we can't legally wed, shall we just concede to be lesser members of society with no standing? Not everyone is fortunate enough to live in California or New England.

just bush cheated and got inaugurated... so people do want this and we do win elections by supporting equal rights.. we just dont have a fair vote counting system. Your premise is twisted just like bush wants, trying to figure out how we "lost"! well.. go to the 2004 election discussion room and see why and how bush stole the election! GET EDUCATED so you can at least base your arguments on reality!

Thanks for making that point.

Started in the 50s, too. Unfortunately, they - the forerunners of the Gay Rights Movement - have had to wait another 50 years to see the fruit of their labor.

The civil rights activists had toiled for 20 or 30 years by the time the 60s had rolled around and a "friendly" Congress and President had been called into being. Society had changed quite drastically before our "leaders" finally ran around to appear as if they were in the front of march.

Democrats who fail to support the rights of all citizens should be voted out of office, the same as Republicans who favor only the haves and the have mores.

Meet the opposition every time. Write letters, organize demonstrations, get people talking about the issue. Right now all the noise nationally comes from about five voices: James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Donald Wildmon, Rick Santorum and the odious Fred Phelps. And if we can't beat these garbanzos, well . . .

The situation surely isn't going to get any better closing our eyes and hoping that "activist" judges quit making perfectly reasonable rulings based on the constitution and its Equal Protection Clause. As an historical note, Brown v. Board of Education was decided by the Supreme Court in 1954, and the first civil rights legislation wasn't enacted for another 10 years. Surely in this day and age we can shorten that timeline a little bit.

And instead of looking at the half-empty end of the glass, our society is having serious discussions about civil rights for people who've broken no laws, haven't done anything wrong, and yet can't be assured that they can find a job or a place to live. They certainly aren't guaranteed the long list of rights and privileges that automatically attach to any two drunken gigglers who stumble into a Las Vegas wedding chapel in the wee hours of the morning (thinking Britney Spears and her 55-hours of wedded bliss with Jason Alexander). I'd hardly call the current treatment of the institution and sacrament of marriage by heteros "sacred" or "sanctified."

The judge ruled correctly on the facts and the law. It's up to us to decide whether we're going to honor the laws of our society or be cowed by the mob and settle for the scraps.

If forcing these "activist" judges to make decisions and issue rulings was really such a wonderful tactical, political and legislative maneuver for the forces of repression, then they'd be bringing these equal protection lawsuits themselves. The fact that they fight against these legal judgments as hard as they do indicates that they understand quite well the impact such rulings have on public opinion, particularly in their aggregate. Every time a court decides that there is no compelling legal constitutional reason to prohibit gay marriage, another fissure opens in their wall of bigotry, more minds are exposed to the concept, and more minds change against them.

If it was really a wise move to wait until "everyone" was on board with a progressive idea, we'd still be seeing slaves sold on the docks of America's harbors, women unable to hold property or vote, and persons born in the United States denied their citizenship for "choosing" the wrong ethnic background.

The stories I could tell, about the 'Sanctity of Marriage'!!!

But hey, if your into that kind of thing.

Marriage I mean...

:evilgrin:

"The Civil Rights activists of the 60s had a friendly federal legislature and Preisdent(s) who were willing to help out and demand society accept change."

Do you have any idea how utterly bullshit and opposite of reality this is? Do you really believe this bullshit?

Go back and read your history.

"friendly federal legislature and Preisdent(s)"

That's a good one!

The sit-ins, boycotts, marches, strikes, and so on.

Eisenhower sent the NATIONAL GUARD to Little Rock in 1958 to protect the newly admitted African American students from harm, after the Gov. of Arkansas refused to comply with integration, and was committed to enforcing Brown vs. Board from the beginning.

Kennedy committed efforts to desegregate the University of Mississippi and other hot-water spots from '61-'63.

Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of '64, which pretty much ended discrimination in restaurants, arenas, and theaters, full knowing the Democrats would lose the South in the long run as a consequence, and then there's the Voting Rights Act, the Const'l amendment prohibitng poll taxes, attorney's fees for individuals suing the gov't, etc.

If you don't think these efforts were helpful to the civil rights movement, you are simply mistaken.

If GLBT activists could get ANYTHING similar to the Civil Rights Act in the works, it would move mountains.

When you throw out allegations like this, and then offer nothing to back them up, I'm not going to take them seriously.

NOBODY excep the ususal one or two todies and apologists has taken your thoughts seriously.

NOBODY.

As many of us have posted, you only know what you want to know.

Look at the 1950's a bit more closely.

The last decade before the enactment of the civil rights act happened after a century of "not the right time", not to mention a few hundred years of slavery before that.

Birmingham.
Selma.

And what you cite is 2 exceptions to the norm. As if Eisenhower's action made it all better and ended it all.

Hogwash.

Nobody's buying what you're selling.

and keep voting for the same assholes that give basic civil rights for GLBTs nothing more than lip service

oddly, I think that trying to put a constitutional amendment together that will legalize gay marriage just doesn't seem very practical. Doing nothing at all is the most impractical, because society will eventually come to the conclusion that "it's tradition" to discriminate against gays.

Your statement "it could very well have cost us the election" is true in the sense that our own people didn't have the clarity of purpose to articulate that discrimination in all forms is immoral, and to demonize the other side for being AGAINST same sex marriage, rather than allowing democrats to be demonized for being
FOR it.

We lost the election because of a failure of leadership - we were indistinguishable from the status quo, and we didn't get people excited about our message because we were too busy responding to "flip flops" and other inane crap that some pollster thought was worth addressing rather than real issues.

We were too busy telling everyone that we agreed that states should have the right to discriminate and that we should continue to be in this war, even that we would do nothing different if we had to do it all over again. We were played, and we played right along with it. Responding to accusations of "Flip flops" and swift boat ads kept us in a permanent state of damage control rather than the state of attack required to win.

If we wanted to win, we should have said we understood what morality is, and we understand moral values are, and discrimination against our fellow Americans serving in the military, as lawyers, and doctors in emergency rooms and corporate officers and scientists and engineers, and yes, some hair dressers and waiters too IS NOT A MORAL VALUE.

We have lost some battles, true. At least we get to see how big the problem is and flush our enemies into the light, because when their fragile arguments for discrimination become codified into legislation, they can't help but be swept away later in the harsh light of judicial review, just as the sodomy law was struck down.

What it will take is discrimination that arises against heterosexuals as a result of anti-homosexual legislature, including openly denying mortgages or housing or a job to someone because they are heterosexual. That's what happened with enforcement of the sodomy laws - it started to affect people who cared more about what was going on in other people's beds than their own. And when the sodomy laws were applied unequally, it became self contradictory and an enforcement of biblical morality by the judiciary.

Losing those battles is a necessary step in the evolution of these issues; it would have been nice without some losses, but the reality is you don't go into a fight without expecting to take some damage.

It's obvious that Equality and Rights lobbyists in many parts of the country are turning to other fights that are winnable and not likely to stigmatize them (AIDS awareness, gay-straight alliances, gays in the military, etc.). The fact is that lobbying for gay-marriage in most parts of the country is a losing issue. Kucinich is the only high-profile representative who supports it, and he's constantly ridiculed. Why not work to build on what we already have?

I hope the groups that are struggling for equality and encouraging couples to file suit will have the sense to know when to fight and what issues to bring to the table.

During the 1930's, 1940's and 1950's.

The early struggles were incremental. Desegregate the armed forces, desegregate federally regulated interstate transit, etc.

Early support from the Communist Party helped the movement along with skilled organizers, but also left it vulnerable to red-baiting.

Only after a critical mass of change had built did we see large scale demostrations and landmark laws.

In hindsight, one could criticize some early civil rights pioneers as being too conservative, as being too willing to compromise for small victories. I'd rather believe that these brave folks knew full well what they were doing.

The opposition has declared open warfare after a long period of 'mere' thuggery, and they will pick most of the battlefields.

You'd like to believe that the accommodations that were given up to now were somehow permanent and the resentment over even such small things was somehow just given up out of pure generosity and fairmindedness...by people you otherwise know perfectly well to be unregenerate bigots. It's not an illusion anyone wants broken, but neither is it right to persist in denial when reality makes serious demands.

The problem in all struggles for social equality is always that the reactionaries sense the sufficient change in crucial power balances first and act first. That always discourages the minority of people demanding change, which it is intended to above all else, and greatly increases the advantage of the reactionaries.

Georgia is not the battleground where gay equality is going to be won. Unfortunately, you will suffer disproportionately for it if you stay there. But whatever you think of 'activist' judges, some set of them is going to extend the withered and stunted and maimed set of 14th Amendment protections fully and properly to gay people in the foreseeable future. Ironically enough, the Constitution is not in favor of conservatives, and their protest against 'activism' is a protest against integrity. Even passage and ratification of the FMA- which is meaningfully impossible- means creation of an unsustainable contradiction with the 14th Amendment, and thus fails to settle any issue.

And while no developments will ever convert the present bigots- they really only die out, because their theory of homosexuality is one of demonic possession- it will defang them in public life.

"The opposition has declared open warfare after a long period of 'mere' thuggery, and they will pick most of the battlefields."

This battle was not picked by "the opposition." Gay couples in SF saw an opportunity to file suit and rock the boat in California. The couples who take this route don't seem too concerned with the effects on gay couples elsewhere.

"You'd like to believe that the accommodations that were given up to now were somehow permanent and the resentment over even such small things was somehow just given up out of pure generosity and fairmindedness..."

If the marriage debate had not erupted last year, partnership benefits and employment protection would not have been targeted by conservatives. The marriage-phobia gave them the perfect excuse.

"Even passage and ratification of the FMA- which is meaningfully impossible- means creation of an unsustainable contradiction with the 14th Amendment, and thus fails to settle any issue."

The FMA is alive and well. It currently has 20 sponsors in the Senate and will certainly make it to a vote this year and next year. Republicans gained four seats in the Senate and 20 something seats in the House. FMA could very well pass in the next 10 years. The 14th amendment will be moot on the subject of marriage if the constitution is changed accordingly, just like the prohibition amendment is now moot. As far as gay-marriage goes, that will be the end of the debate.

"And while no developments will ever convert the present bigots- they really only die out, because their theory of homosexuality is one of demonic possession- it will defang them in public life."

Yes, you are right. However, state laws and constitutional amendments will outlive them all and ensure the separate treatment of GLBT citizens for the forseeable future.

Let's stick to winnable battles.

This battle was not picked by "the opposition." Gay couples in SF saw an opportunity to file suit and rock the boat in California. The couples who take this route don't seem too concerned with the effects on gay couples elsewhere.

If gay couples everywhere had been sufficiently thoughtful, they would all have stopped having sex a long time ago in order not to offend anyone, and all these problems would never have occurred. There wouldn't even be any homophobia! And Rosa Parks should have gone to the back of the bus, which would have led to a truly ideal world in which no one would ever have acted up against segregation, and all our problems of racism and affirmative action would not exist either. Yeah right. All we have to do is prevent all lightning and ban all smoking and shoot all campers, and there would be no more forest fires either.

You're blaming the victims as well as pretending that an association is a causative relationship, i.e. a propter hoc fallacy. Yes, the timing was troubling, and yet it simply distracted media attention from its endless faux coverage of dry institutional machinations in Massachusetts to actual weddings. Personally, it was perfectly predictable that actual weddings and certificates were going to lead to the highest level of emotional behavior on both sides. It made no difference- March and April in San Francisco, May and June in Boston. The kindling was there. What made the SF stuff notable and somewhat problematic was the civil disobedience aspect.

If the marriage debate had not erupted last year, partnership benefits and employment protection would not have been targeted by conservatives. The marriage-phobia gave them the perfect excuse.

The key word there is 'excuse'. You imagine that wasn't on the list already? That it wasn't going to be addressed under some pretext? Any gay man being promoted over any jealous Southern white Republican 'Christian' (a couple of those adjectives are redundant, in my experience) by any large company means it got on the list.

You obviously haven't seen the studies that conclude that the Christian Right is focussing on scapegoating gays and feminist women because patriarchal 'family values' is imploding in the Bible Belt. Do you really think there are any scapegoats other than gays and feminist women for them to go after, under the circumstances?

The FMA is alive and well. It currently has 20 sponsors in the Senate and will certainly make it to a vote this year and next year. Republicans gained four seats in the Senate and 20 something seats in the House. FMA could very well pass in the next 10 years.

The only connection between these four sentences is emotional, and the first and the last are either unlikely or untrue. You don't get out of Limbaugh/USA Today/Fox News Channel propaganda range much, apparently.

The 14th amendment will be moot on the subject of marriage if the constitution is changed accordingly, just like the prohibition amendment is now moot. As far as gay-marriage goes, that will be the end of the debate.

You don't actually believe that, do you, or that that social and jurisprudential reality actually matches up to that? Why not come up North sometime to find out how the other half lives?

However, state laws and constitutional amendments will outlive them all

They can't survive scrutiny, technically. There are 10th Amendment, Privileges and Immunities Clause, and Equal Protection constitutional violations unmasked when even one state fully legalizes gay marriage. The state right that may remain is that states may not actually be forced into legalizing the contracting of gay marriages in-state even though they will have to accept ones formed out of state. That's absurd, but it may be the last straw that that crowd clings to.

"You're blaming the victims as well as pretending that an association is a causative relationship, i.e. a propter hoc fallacy"

Not "blaming" anyone, just pointing out that gay couples who sue in blue states for equality do not take into account the consequences of these cases on gays elsewhere. Fundamentally, I wholeheartedly agree with the judge. If this decision is not overturned (though I believe it will be) then good for him.

"Rosa Parks should have gone to the back of the bus, which would have led to a truly ideal world in which no one would ever have acted up against segregation, and all our problems of racism and affirmative action would not exist either. Yeah right. All we have to do is prevent all lightning and ban all smoking and shoot all campers, and there would be no more forest fires either."

Nice. Anyone who thinks the GLBT community should approach the marriage argument prudently and cautiously is a racist who also advocates a police-state and mass murder. Real nice.

"You don't get out of Limbaugh/USA Today/Fox News Channel propaganda range much, apparently."

If you don't perceive the FMA as the threat it is, you are very naive. The Republicans have made it a part of their platform. Social conservatives came to the polls for that reason and that reason alone. I don't require "Fox News Channel propaganda" to recognize what's blatantly obvious. If we continue losing seats to "red state" senators, congressman, the FMA can and will pass.

"You don't actually believe that, do you, or that that social and jurisprudential reality actually matches up to that? Why not come up North sometime to find out how the other half lives?"

I'm not sure what this statement is supposed to mean. A marriage amendment will end the debate until it is repealed, which will not be in our lifetimes. It doesn't matter how "the other half lives," they can't have what the constitution will not allow them.

YOU'RE NOT LISTENING TO WHAT IS BEING SAID HERE!

Please, Please!

Sit down and shut up!

Go away!

You are bringing NOTHING to this debate.

ALL OF US HAVE PROVEN WHY YOUR PREMISE IS FAULTY - AND YOU KEEP GOING!

GO AWAY!

LEAVE!

YOU ARE NOT WANTED HERE OR WELCOME HERE!

How's the food at the KKK?

Not "blaming" anyone, just pointing out that gay couples who sue in blue states for equality do not take into account the consequences of these cases on gays elsewhere. Fundamentally, I wholeheartedly agree with the judge. If this decision is not overturned (though I believe it will be) then good for him.

Wasn't it that Georgian Martin Luther King Jr. who said "Now is always the time to do what is right" and "if you're right, you can never be too radical; if you are wrong, you can never be too conservative"? And just how much blackmail, and for how long, do you want the rest of us to submit to? And there's that oldest advice of the Christian saints, Viriliter agite.

Nice. Anyone who thinks the GLBT community should approach the marriage argument prudently and cautiously is a racist who also advocates a police-state and mass murder. Real nice.

You know, this particular cheap rhetorical trick is why I really despise some things about Southerners. You don't want to know how many times this one has been tried on me- by whites, mostly, and a few blacks, even women- but invariably Southern men try it when they're desperate. And it's a rural trick- it only works when you have actual violence to back it up. I just don't even countenance it. Face to face, when it gets pulled out I usually then inquire whether they have a spare $5,000. Then whether they think a dental surgeon could replace all their front teeth for about that amount. Because, I then say, those facts could become rather important to them personally within a few minutes if the conversation gets degraded further, if they continue to insult my intelligence with such blatant falsehoods and assertions. In our case, there is my previous post for all to read and judge what I said in context.

Online, I rely on pointing out that the Eighth Commandent isn't a prohibition against saying things that are not factually true, it's a prohibition on 'false witness', i.e. claiming something to be true that is personally known not to be true.

If you don't perceive the FMA as the threat it is, you are very naive. The Republicans have made it a part of their platform. Social conservatives came to the polls for that reason and that reason alone. I don't require "Fox News Channel propaganda" to recognize what's blatantly obvious. If we continue losing seats to "red state" senators, congressman, the FMA can and will pass.

You don't know Blue States, apparently. Or even notice the replacement pattern of Old Democrat > Republican > modern Democrat. There is not that majority of conservatives in the country that you imagine, and nowhere near enough to get liberal Democrats down to 142 seats in the House and 32 in the Senate. I really question your ability to discern causation and correlation and real numbers - I'd guess you're not employed in business or science or teaching. Anti-marriage anti-Modernites diminish in number and percentage every year- basically, as the old die the young replace very few of them. In my state, pro-marriage support has grown at least 15% in the past year and anti-marriage has fallen 16%: it's over as a 'debate', really.

I'm not sure what this statement is supposed to mean. A marriage amendment will end the debate until it is repealed, which will not be in our lifetimes. It doesn't matter how "the other half lives," they can't have what the constitution will not allow them.

Hmmm, Prohibition. And yes, no matter your true politics and actual level of moral courage, do come to our Northern cities more often. They're colder, sure, but human dignity isn't merely a theoretical concept here.

"There is not that majority of conservatives in the country that you imagine, and nowhere near enough to get liberal Democrats down to 142 seats in the House and 32 in the Senate. I really question your ability to discern causation and correlation and real numbers - I'd guess you're not employed in business or science or teaching."

Our country just reelected a man who blatantly lied to start a war in which thousands have died for no purpose. He adopted the marriage amendment as part of his platform, and many voted for him on that issue alone. Did you believe this would happen prior to the election?

"Anti-marriage anti-Modernites diminish in number and percentage every year."

If this were true, there would have been gay marriage in this country twenty years ago. The anti-marriage crowd are perfectly capable of forming new coalitions and attracting young members, just like progressives. Am I imagining all the mass marches and demonstrations for "traditional marriage" across the country (in such conservative strong-holds as Seattle, Minnesota, and Maryland.

Your logic sounds similar to the number crunchers who deduce the number of insurgents who have been killed until that number exceeds the entire population.


"Hmmm, Prohibition. And yes, no matter your true politics and actual level of moral courage, do come to our Northern cities more often. They're colder, sure, but human dignity isn't merely a theoretical concept here."

Unless I'm mistaken, Oregon and Michigan both voted by large majorities to ban gay marriage. A state judge in NY recently voted to uphold the status quo on marriage. What "human dignity" is there in that? Are there any inroads to legalizing gay marriage outside of MA that I've missed?

By the way, I'm a pacifist. If you struck me it would be a waste of effort.

just bush was illegally inaugurated, just ask the house judiciary committee member John Conyers and millions of others that know the scale of the fraud. SO.. if your whole arugment is based on the idea that we should back off gay rights because it costs us elections you are spouting rightwing propaganda! and I must say at this point that you might be, since we know now that so republicans and freepers have been in DU for awhile acting like .. well.. acting like you.. sorry, I just get a bad feeling from your posts, I see you making no attempt to listen to others.. you may be a strong dem with good moral values of equal human rights, but if so you are being horribly misled into whats happening and what we need to do. We MUST fight for ALL human rights, ALWAYS!

...will you please get your facts right?

Newsom's ruling in SF was made AFTER the repukes introduced their first FMA in both houses.

And today's ruling comes as a result of what happened in SF last year.

So looking at the big picture, today's ruling is the result of moves the republican party actually made, not the other way around.

and that was the initial dominoe that propelled the issue nationally (hard to see why, as it was a state decision).

Again, I'm pleased with the decision, I just don't see much good coming from it.

I guess I should just crawl off and die, then? Apparently that's how much use I am to society....

How long until I can lose my federal employment for being homosexual?

Deleted.

when our opposition believes that gays are child molestors and perverts, who don't even deserve hate crime protection or the right to hold a job?

No thank you, I'd rather fight for everything--up to and including marriage--against these bigots. If you knew what it was like to grow up gay in this country, you'd understand.

I am a bisexual man who grew up in a conservative church that was very hostile to progress and the GLBT movment. I know.

Since when should any citizen continue to roll over because someone has CHOSEN to embrace the LIFESTYLE of the 700 Club? I honestly could give a crap about Pat and his ilk, or James Dobson's sorry-butt life making money off of hating people. . .since neither of them are likely to marry a member of the same-sex, their "opinion" frankly means very little. Marriage is a highly PERSONAL institution involving the parties declaring vows and entering into a practical contract with the state over personal effects and economic benefits, NOT a moral quest to adhere to some denominational nonsense spewed forth by a televangelista.

This wouldn't be an issue at all if heteros would just scrap all the damned statutes and register themselves without any special rights. And the televangelistas need to get a grip on themselves and realize that their tired, "chosen homosexual lifestyle" argument means nothing, since their right to CHOOSE their own religious beliefs is the FIRST thing our Constitution provided. . .so there is ample precedent for equal protection for highly personal choices. Frankly, I'd like to see a Supreme Court just scrap all the practical statutes - if heteros actually marry just to secure "special rights" for themselves, and then do it again and again and again, then they already know they never deserved them.

Every gay person who has ever watched a same-sex couple suffer when there was no protection knows how property can be stolen, partners denied access to funerals, and yes, in some cases, bodies be exhumed. Their fault in this whole debate is not bringing these stories forward and shoving them right in the face of every Republican legislator and religious fanatic.

and it's been costly. Perhaps you should do some reading on the history of the gay marriage issue. You don't seem very informed. It didn't just come up recently, it's a battle that has been going on for more than a decade.

It's the battle to secure the right to marry that has educated a huge segment of society that otherwise would no nothing of the struggle for equal rights for gays and as long as the battle continues so will the enlightenment of the masses on the issue.

You may be comfortable with the closet but most gays, many straights, the courts, and the constitution are not.

This battle is the best thing that ever happened for gay civil rights. 20 years ago the police were still raiding gay clubs in major metropolitian cities.

Constitutional amendments can be reversed.

Silence = Death

Was gay marriage legal anywhere in the US prior to 2003? I can't recall any successful efforts to legalize gay marriage in this country at all. I remember the squabbles over the Hawaii Supreme Court decision that led to DOMA, and the legalization of Civil Unions in Vermont. Were there any inroads to legalizing gay marriage in California, or wherever, prior to all of this? What am I not "informed" of?

The big battles I'm familiar with, beginning with Berkeley in 1984, are domestic benift packages and the fight for non-discrimination laws in employment. The fact that only a handful of states have non-discrimination laws is testament to the limited achievements of the GLBT movement. Why not focus on these issues before declaring war on the social conservatives with the marriage issue. I am the sole poster who has mentioned these other issues on this thread, and, frankly, I find that disturbing. Are the marriage activists willing to push the GLBT mvmt back a whole century for a single issue?

"It's the battle to secure the right to marry that has educated a huge segment of society that otherwise would no nothing of the struggle for equal rights for gays and as long as the battle continues so will the enlightenment of the masses on the issue."

"A huge segment of society?" You need to look at the election results from Oregon, Michigan, and Ohio (all "moderate" states). The marriage amendments passed in those states with large majorities, and that doesn't even come close to the pluralities in GA, LA, and MS which endorsed the amendments.

If the battle is over educating constituents and drawing your base to the polls, the conservatives are certainly winning that battle.

"You may be comfortable with the closet but most gays, many straights, the courts, and the constitution are not."

I fully support gay-marriage. I also want to live in a state where gays can live, work, adopt, and be open about who they are. The constitution only means what the SC says it does. If a gay marriage case makes it up there, they will uphold the status quo, and will give more fuel for the right to chip away at the other gains of GLBT activists. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. Why force a battle we're not going to win?

"This battle is the best thing that ever happened for gay civil rights."

They have constitutional amendments in Oregon, Ohio, and Michigan, three states with sizable GLBT populations, prohibiting gay marriage. More are on the way in Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, Maryland, etc. These amendments will not be repealed until all of us here are long dead. The federal government will do nothing. This is good for civil rights?

"Constitutional amendments can be reversed."

We can't even ratify an Equal Rights Amendment for women, and you think the states will accept one for GLBT citizens? Dream on. If the FMA is ratified, it will probably be a hundred years or more before it is repealed. If ratified, the amendment will effectively end the debate on gay marriage.

"Silence = Death"

Not advocating silence, just strategy and tactics.

This issue accelerated because of the first wave of the AIDS epidemic, in which it became more and more obvious that there were real damages done due to the state next-of-kin laws basically locking our life partners out of existence. So you think if we had just avoided this issue altogether and. . .say. . .concentrated on slowly moving toward..gosh...state non-discrimination in employment laws..things would be much nicer? I don't think so. For one thing, the overwhelming majority of the American population has repeatedly said that gays should not be discriminated in employment - and we have only 15 states that have coded this into law? And a federal government where the bill languishes year after year because the SAME people who are freaking over gay marriage ALSO don't want us to have security in employment rights?

We are talking about something as basic and as fundamental as the right to LOVE - and the right to protect those LOVED ones in the same manner as the rest of the population. Why is this so difficult for the Right? Well, because they make a nice killing when they are distant relatives who can easily steal the property of gay relatives who pass on and who they haven't spoken to for years. Other than that, it is nothing but pandering to an image that was never reality.
These states (and the federal government, for that matter) have had 25 years to do something about changing some of those marriage statutes to accommodate our situation - instead, it was much more fun for them to remind us that we can't marry, so we can't make a health decision for a partner. It wasn't gay Americans who wrote those ridiculous statute into the books, nor gay Americans who demanded that they remain the exclusive special rights of "married" heterosexuals. The fact of the matter is that we all live, we all hope that we get the chance to love someone and build a life together, and we all eventually die. And in that respect, neither the State NOR the ridiculous rantings of some religious impersonater has, in my opinion, any practical interest in denying our right to protect our families.

As for dealing with their backlash. . .if these nice little domestic registry laws are that easy to remove (and, if you look at your press history, you'll see that the Right has NO problem using "activist" judges to attempt to negate a popular decision at the polls - Cleveland Heights, Ohio) they never had much weight to begin with. . .
Why can't we look at this as an opportunity to shove their attitude that "They have all the rights any other American has" right down their throats? They KNOW we don't have those rights - they KNOW it because THEY have been the ones insisting that we not have access to them for decades.

And it doesn't matter if it is a non-discrimination law for employment, the right to live where we choose, the right to raise a child, or the right to marry, these same people are gonna scream.
As for looking at the numbers in those ridiculous amendment referendums, we should be feeling heartened that over 30% in some states voted AGAINST those travesties of justice. How hard, honestly, do you think it is for ME to vote for something that is only going to hurt someone else? What do you think the popular vote would have been if slavery would have been put before the public in an amendment? Or interracial marriage?

I'm sorry, but I can't see where any of those state statutes providing government benefits are required to be limited to heterosexual marriages, especially with no provision requiring the couples to adhere to their vows. These are mostly statutes involving practical and personal matters in which relationships are recognized to streamline processes at important times of life - meaning highly personal experiences that are really just nobody's business. What we should be MOST concerned about is how the religious crazies use these amendments as arguments for state interference in our private relationships. . .and how they can be used as precedent to declare a higher state right within everyone's relationship.

We aren't dealing with a segment of a population that just hasn't been marrying here - many have had ceremonies in accepting churches for years. Telling them that they should wait another 100 years until MAYBE the descendents of James Dobson think it's okay is ridiculous. If our strategy is to just let them pretend we don't live down the street, that we don't pay taxes, that we don't show up at the block party bringing a nice covered dish, that we really are just friendly "roommates" who always keep the yard neat, then who is suffering any real damages here? i'm sorry - I'm not willing to let some distant cousin exhume the body of a life partner simply to preserve some ditzy attitude of a busybody church down the lane.

If Democrats can prevent a right-wing takeover of the Courts, and the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality, we progressives won't have to worry about appeasing the right wing on this issue! If the more moderate Justices can hang on for a few more years, and Democrats can win Congress and/or the Presidency, we may very well be able to save America from a fascist takeover! The Supreme Court is pretty conservative, but nowhere near as right wing as what Bush and the Republicans want it to become!

...you need to research more prior to making such absurd statements as this one: I think the GLBT mvmt should "choose their battles" carefully

Let me give you a little history lesson so next time you will know; the LGBTIQQ community didn't actually choose this battle, the repukes did that for us. When this battle was thrown at us, what were we meant to do, keep sitting on the back of the bus to make people like you happy and forget about our own happiness? Sorry mate, it doesn't work like that.

The entire LGBTIQQ community (barring the LCR) has made too many sacrifices already in order to help advance the democratic party. My partner and I are living 8,000 miles apart because we continuously make those sacrifices, well not any more mate. We are getting older with each passing year, and after living three years apart, with seeing each other for only 28 days out of each year, I am not about to move to the back of the bus again.

to the Supreme Court's ruling on sodomy laws was the "straw that broke the camel's back" as far as I was concerned. The right wing exposed themselves when they expressed outrage that the government couldn't throw consenting adults in jail for what kind of sex they have. So much for "limited government"! I had always leaned to the left politically, but that is when I decided that the religious right had to destroyed!

I think you've made a lot of valid points. There is a grave danger of winning the battle and losing the war.

But the war is already underway. Retreating won't prevent them from advancing on the issue. They've got momentum, and won't be stopped by us going away.

I think you've actually made a good argument for why we must dig in our heels and fight the issue.

We have to organize and finance a TRUE opposition. There was virtually no money spend in the states that passed anti-gay amendments last fall.

d lesbians, not a reason to sell them out for political profit, and shame on those who would do so. Gays and lesbians' time has come.

The fact that he backed the amendment doesn't surprise me.

by these decisions. This is a fight that has to be faced sooner or later, so it might as well be faced now. These reactionary scum need to be smashed, on this issue, on every issue - but that isn't going to happen while liberals worry about not alienating the middle. Fuck the middle - alienate them, force them to make up their minds, shame them into seeing what they are voting for. The republicans have the best dogfighting team in the business at the moment, and if they are allowed to intimidate progressives into retreating from issue after issue, they will win without ever really having to try. They have already managed to convert 52%-48% and a few senate seats into a "MANDATE"... for fucks sake Rove and co. managed to turn Kerry's Vietnam record into a liability, and the more Democrats keep turning the base and far-left of the party off, the easier it will be to beat you. Force this scum to come out and say they want gays in camps, force them to say they want blacks in jails, force them to say they want to ban abortion alltogether. Take them to the brink and you will break them, because for all that the world likes to laugh at 'Dumb Americans' your country isn't that frigging dumb.

than I do. I lived in the south for too long and I know that it is made up of an awful lot of 'Bubbas' and a few intelligent folks scattered through. With some notable exceptions, we are who we seem to be............

BTW, since I jumped into this one without stating my opinion on the discussion at hand, here's my POV. We should nail these fascist/racist/homophobic fake-ass 'Christians' to the wall on this and every other nasty, petty little spew they issue. Maybe, eventually, they will crawl back under the rock they had the audacity to strut out from under.

Just sit down and shut up because our fighting for equal rights might upset some bigots to do even more damage and pass even more discriminatory legislation in all sorts of other possible areas? Do we have your "concern" right?

How about this: We fight and fight some more and don't ever give up!
No matter how long it takes, no matter what the outcome.

You think all sorts of things might pass to eventually outlaw gay persons? If the courst and the rest of the american nazi people do this, then we fight them even more!

Ever hear of the civil rights movement? Do you even know a miniscule portion of the length and breadth and depth of the fight that had to be endured? The deaths?

This fight is no less justified. And the price "WE" have to pay may be even higher in lives lost. But it is worth it.

But aparently, you wish to wait and sit out this fight, due to some imagined future losses or harm.

BULLSHIT!

Afraid not.

My professor (who spends half of class time complaining about how they don't make those being executed suffer enough after the recent SCOTUS ruling re: minors) spent the last class bitching about judges that "weren't elected by the people". I told him the president, which in theory we all elect, and your senators who you also elect approve judges. He said "Yes well what if they keep doing it?" (doing "it" = ruling in a way he doesn't like). I told him perhaps if he didn't like the courts functions, or he felt judges were acting oh so improperly, he should work to have the constitution amended or impeach them.

Republicans seem to think the courts job is to be elected by them AND to sit around doing what they desire of they regardless of whatever else their job may be.

Republican in-ability to understand the courts is truly frightening.

Very, Very good reply Gratuitous!

secular humanists, etc, etc, etc

Then they get you where they want you. Don't blame those on the right side of this because bigots will use it for all it's worth.

Those fighting bigotry are fighting the good fight, no matter how much it helps the bigots in the short-run. They know they're going to lose this in the long run.

Does the hypocrisy ever stop with the right-wing nutters?

Any judge that rules out of step with their fascist social agenda is, "An activist judge that must be stopped!"

Helloooo. These are the same people who are trying to load the Supreme Court with pro-life ACTIVISTS. This is the same crowd who is pulling for Bush's judicial nominees who are all pro-life ACTIVISTS and ACTIVISTS for the conservative agenda.

But, oh no! Conservative judges are not "activists." They're robe-wearing disseminators of justice, truth and decency, as they fight to stop the libruls from destroying morality in God's country.

Please.

They use it to whine about anything that doesn't go their way.

this needs to be done. Society does not move forward without struggle. This recent law school graduate (and retired social worker) believes that we must confront this issue head-on, and have people confront their prejudice head-on. It is my firm belief that fair-minded people will prevail here - ultimately; but, I cannot let my GLBT friends belief anything but that this will result in growth after some struggle.

But they will use ANYTHING in their battle to put us back in the closet. I am in Kansas and fighting against our proposed anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment which is being voted on April 5. The two shit heads leading Kansas' amendment fight, Terry Fox and Joe Wright, will definitely use this to their advantage. We will lose the vote anyway and this may increase the margin. But I don't care.

This California decision is a reason to celebrate. Every victory in our fight for equal rights creates a counter balance to all of the negative crap. I don't wish to hold up California's gay rights battle until I can convince enough of our local mouth breathers to see things my way. I do see a reason to tread carefully in the federal suits which are filed because I believe this will be won nationwide by a favorable SCOTUS decision.

Here in Kansas, we are fighting a super DOMA amendment which also has a "Part B" which limits even contractual rights. But we will not convince enough people to vote against it on that level. I mean, this IS Kansas. So I wish we could go for broke and argue that there should be no constitutional definition of marriage as one man, one woman. Explain that very soon, gay marriage will become acceptable and they might as well get used to that thought sooner than later.

BTW, the Rev. Terry Fox here has been quoted as saying that regarding the vote, he will pass the plate at his church if necessary in order to provide the resources for passage. Is this legal? I dream of suing his ass and winning his church in a judgment. Then I would rip down the god-awful enormous white cross they have towering overhead.

Sometimes I wonder if these judges aren't plants for the right wing making decisions just to rankle the wingnuts and bring them out to the polls.

Sorry - if I'm going to be demonized I'd better god damn get something out of it.

It is because of words similar to yours that I feared coming to DU today.

My partner woke me up via IM's not 30 minutes ago to tell me the good news about this about this historical ruling by a Catholic-REPUBLICAN appointed judge.

I sat here for a further 20 minutes debating whether or not I should come to DU knowing full well that there would be the naysayers hell bent on raining on our parade.

The only reason I decided to come was because I realized that like always, when something good happens to the LGBTIQQ community, the debate between the DU naysayers and DU queers will be going on a lot longer than just today.

So well done, for being the first (of what I am sure is going to be many) naysayer for the day.

On edit: You say that this ruling will only work to demonize the queer community further? What demonizes us is heterosexual people on the left who do not stand with us to help bring more positive change to the discrimination we face every single day.

And the more couples who get married and show the bigoted bastards who are against us that the bloody sky isn't going to fall for this ruling, the better it will work in our favor in the long run.

With good always comes pain. It happened with the civil rights movement as well. If we listen to people like you and just stop, then no good will ever come, because no one will do the work for us.

We both want the same thing. Full equality for LGBTIQQ under the law. Some people here are cheering an undoubtedly temporary victory that might reduce equality in other parts of the nation. I don't see why I should feel enthusiasm.

"My partner woke me up via IM's not 30 minutes ago to tell me the good news about this about this historical ruling by a Catholic-REPUBLICAN appointed judge."

I'm happy for you, but you may be setting yourself up for a dissapointment. The California Supreme Court will probably overturn the deciison.

"With good always comes pain. It happened with the civil rights movement as well. If we listen to people like you and just stop, then no good will ever come, because no one will do the work for us."

Kindly point out where I said we should "just stop." If you read my posts, you'll notice I say we should focus on what we already have, and build on them. That's hardly the unconditional surrender you're making it out to be.

oops

OK. Another good thing today.

I am glad to see it, in the end equality for all must win.

:kick:

Step by step, we're dragging this nation into the Year of the Fruitbat (Prachett reference...)

I'm moving back!

I'm betting he is going to receive unbelievably foul and massive hate mail, it's one thing the freepers know how to do and relish. We need to send support and encouragement. This decision is not only right, it took real courage. Judge Kramer will be made to pay for this, count on it. I just hope no one is hurt - the RW nutjobs are capable of anything and this is a trigger issue for them...maybe literally. It's happened before

So we need to send emails, letters, all forms of support and thanks for upholding our battered Constitution. People like this are what are keeping our democracy alive.

I assume that this means that gay marriages can go forward in the State of California until and unless a judgement reversing this one is rendered in the appeal. Is this true?

Recommended.

Yee haw!

(rubs hands in glee)

Maybe things have changed, or there's something I don't understand, but I thought the Constitution had something about equal protection.

Some years back California passed something misnamed the "Spousal Protection Act" that said that if a health professional knew that someone with AIDS was deliberately infecting others, the professional could notify those others UNLESS it was a spouse.

The theory was that you could tell someone that they had probably been exposed to AIDS and ought to get tested, without violating the privacy of the person who infected them, so long as they are not married. In other words, a person might have been infected from unsafe sex or dirty needles, etc., but wouldn't necessarily know the individual who infected them. But a spouse (usually a female spouse) might be monogamous and non-drug-using, and would immediately know that the only possible source of the infection was the husband, which would violate his privacy.

The intent of the law was to protect such spouses so that they could get tested and demand safe sex if not yet infected, or seek early treatment if already infected. But as the law was debated, it got changed so that it ended up protecting the privacy of the deliberate wife-murderers instead of protecting their wives as intended.

If this is still the case, marriage between a man and a woman in California means that a wife gives up the right to life in marriage, but the husband does not even give up any privacy whatsoever. That sure doesn't sound like equal protection to me.

Given that (if this is still the case--I have a copy of the original law as enacted, but don't know if it has been changed or amended) California law gives men the right to kill their wives, how can marriage between a man and a woman in California be Constitutional?

An extra $35 K would come in handy.

Don't know the law, hadn't heard of the really scary implications you raise, but I suspect that it wouldn't be interpreted as giving "ment the right to kill their wives."

Of course, weirder things have happened.

:thumbsup: what's the next step .

will you marry me?

You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than the California Supreme Court.

LOL.

Thank you Gavin Newsom!

San Francisco was my adopted home town for many years. Often the City's government was awful beyond imagining, but now Gavin's started a Very Big Ball rolling and we'll just have to see what walls it smashes down.

Slow-motion Constitutional train wrecks are always fun to watch!

:party:

Goin' to the chapel and we're gonna get married!

It demonstrates why pure Democracy would be a very bad form of government. We can't have the majority dictating policy for everyone. That's how people get represssed.

;)

California judge backs gay unions

Monday, 14 March, 2005, 20:41 GMT

"Breaking News"

A judge in California has ruled that the state's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

The ruling came after litigation stemming from the city's decision last year to allow gays to marry.

Those marriages were ruled invalid by the state's Supreme Court but it then referred the issue to a lower court.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4349201.stm>

I imagine the fundies will be appealing.

But until a stay is issued by a higher court, can all people marry in the City/county?

Not that I'll be traveling there to get married, I'm in Massachusetts.

Congrats, SF!!!!!

Since my city (West Hollywood) can only issue Domestic Partnerships, we are gonna haul ass to SF!!!

His points are those that many of my gay friends agree with....they could care less about getting "married" in the legal sense, but they are concerned with the other issues Mr. Brown listed. I often argue with them, and feel very stupid for trying to push my views on my gay friends who do not want, nor seem to need a choice to marry if they so wish. Sometime they laugh at their straight friend who gets so indignant on their behalf!

However, I am reminded of the Civil Rights struggle in the 60s and 70s...three steps forward, two steps back....a long, hurtful, slow process. Like all Processes, it must reach its inevitible conclusion, equality for every person in this country. (Or as close to it as we can get) This court decision is in the natural progression of the attainment of equality, altho it may necessitate some hurtful steps backwards...steps which I sincerely hope will be advanced again.

As one poster above suggested, as long as one group in this country is discriminated against, it devalues us all. Discrimination against one person is a discrimination and threat against every other person. I try to urge my friends to see that it is about CHOICE....even if they do not feel the need to "marry," they should still have the CHOICE to do so, as does every other American.

Take care!

Ma'at in California (Proud Californian right now).

I have run into the same thing and I agree wholeheartedly. It is about choice and giving all human beings the same opportunity for decision making.

at some point, race and gender discrimination was put to a vote. It is those areas, where there was a enacting a statute, that are the least controversial because they were put to a vote.

I think that any judicial decision is only as permanent as the electorate. There's no substitute for a statute, amendment, or referendum.

Which were not put up to a vote.

Nor was Rosa Parks' case.

He is certainly not part of the solution.
He should just get out of the way.
He is a hindrance.
A roadblock.
We've all demolished his premises. He brings NOTHING to the table.
He should leave.
Now.
Seriously.

Now to your post.

"WE" did not bring this up. To remind everyone, it was the repuke fundy christian right wing that INTRODUCED the "FMA". "WE" did not "introduce" a "demand to be married" ammendment. It was an "outlaw all gay marriages and civil unions and contracts, etc". ammendment.

Oh shit! here we go! The right wing homophobes are gearing up with their "outrage" machine... this ought to be fun!!!! Falwell must be shitting himself to get in front of a microphone on CNN or MSGOP...

Throw that back in the conservatives faces!

with a man...feel good grooming overtaking me...

Help me, Bush!

Welcome to DU.

Once you've past those there is no turning back! Chiraz anyone?

Cheers!

Sorry! Dupe!

The last few months have been brutal for those of us who support equal rights for all people. The disgusting government-sanctioned homophobia has gotten on my last nerve, and news like this is a good start for going the opposite way.

This one's going to get ugly.

:evilgrin:

Let them wail and gnash their teeth! Perhaps we can expose more of their hate while gaining rights for all Americans. Let them continue to be distracted and be enveloped by their own hate.

if a state passes an amendment to its constitution to ban gay marriages, how does such an amendment get challenged in court? Or does it need to be repealed by the voters?

and told that they cannot apply for a marriage license because of their gender.

it can be challenged at the federal level as violating the equal protection clause of the US Constitution, which trumps the individual state constitution.

demanding proposed constitutional amendments be limited to one issue, each voted on separately. The challenges in Louisiana and Georgia were on those grounds, as the amendments had a whole host of provisions that banned unions, family litigation, etc.

The Louisiana Supreme Court decided the amendment was all "inducive to the same subject of defending marriage," in one of the most laughable decisions I've ever read.

The GA challenge is still pending.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRHHHHHHHH! WOOOHOOO! I am so happy for all the couples out there who now can get married! :) :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

He's gotta be -- dare I say -- SMIRKING, as he thinks "Toldja so!!!!"

As he said in his presser "What's the big deal??"

One of the primary reasons Newsom did what he did was to give the gay community a shot at a court challenge to the anti-gay-marriage proposition. If not for Newsom, today's ruling wouldn't have happened.

This is just an early step in what'll still be a long process, but it's great news so far.

I'm thinking they're gonna AVOID it, and play the State's Rights card. That's the same card they ignored in the FL case in 00...

But hey, anything can happen!

I'm happy about California. I'm actually surprised that they haven't legalized gay marriage before, I mean, California includes SAN FRANCISCO!!!!

Now all we have to do is get rid of the terminator.

who will clamor once again that we need to 'protect" marriage. But we aren't as shocked as we were a year ago - gay Americans have brought some specific grievances to the table, and simply attempting to orchestrate a backlash to "put the fags in their place" isn't going to cut it for very long. I've already sensed a growing level of anger among gays (and I live in a rural area that is very conservative)...and it will be translated in many ways during the next few years.

For one thing, when Connecticut considers a civil unions law and reports that the state could lose $1 million a year in inheritance taxes (which we might as well just call "the GAY tax"), it indicates a practical, reasonable problem. And when a state refuses to address issues such as hospital visitation rights or funeral arrangement rights because the religious loonies frame it as "marriage", then they ARE going to lose in the end. Michigan is already having issues concerning the reassurances of Republicans who claimed,during state Senate committee hearings, that their amendment would not alter existing health benefit programs for same-sex partners. As soon as it was passed, a wingnut religious group filed suit with Ann Arbor to negate those very benefits. And why isn't someone crawling those Republicans senators on the carpet about this issue?

On another note, in my opinion Democrats have been very smart in Arizona, where Republicans have hysterically pushed for a constitutional amendment. Democrats there introduced a bill providing some basic partner benefits in relation to death and health issues, and the immediate response from religious fanatics has been "sounds like marriage to me." This only underscores how little they really believe in the bogus "sanctity" argument - this is about basic, practical benefits and it's about time the media AND the public start addressing this issue instead of pandering to the drama of religious crazies.

Should those relationships be recognized? Obviously, they are real and they are being denied basic access to important benefits, especially pertaining to laws that only exist to make practical personal decisions about property, health and disposal of bodies and possessions at death. That's what the state's basic interest in marriage statutes is really all about, no matter how many wingnuts crow about religious doctine.

As for places like Atlanta, and the movement to prevent "gay" adoption, these have been very meager progressions anyway. Just because the greater society in these locations has found ways to intimidate their own citizens into subjugation doesn't mean they shouldn't learn to stand on their feet and go after these crazies. And even if you feel powerless in those states, the first step should be demanding "marital status" non-discrimination laws, and then start marching on that stupid Georgia state capitol demanding a gay-exemption tax. Make the heteros pay for supporting their own da*ned abandoned children, or pay for maintaining a higher number of them in orphanages and foster homes. Or work toward legislation that targets those whiny tax-exempt churches about paying for their upkeep...

I absolutely disagree that the court system should run over individual rights because the Republicans have somehow embraced "marriage" as something up for popular vote. . .as if we have a da*ned list of everyone's intended weddings to look over every two months in a local referendum for approval. If they gave a rat's butt about popular participation in important issues, they would be screaming for a referendum over social security reform. Gee. . .why do I notice they aren't?

I do blame the MSM a LOT for the way this "national discussion" took place last year. The media paid little attention to real damages and spent lots of space and time interviewing churches that wouldn't be marrying a gay person anyway. Their comments were about as relevant as interviewing the Vatican each time a Catholic files for divorce at the county courthouse.

This is going to be interesting to watch what happens now. Keep your eyes open.

Many Americans forget that one of the judiciary's role in this country is too protect minority rights against the unbridled passion of the majority. Besides, those of us, students of constitutional law, knew it was a matter of time before anti-same sex laws would be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

otherwise, you have this mob mentality thinking that there are a select few "activist judges".

Look at the Freeper reaction:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1362637/posts?q=1&&page=51

To: EdReform; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; stage left; Yakboy; I_Love_My_Husband; ...

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

Just to wake you all up. Interesting comments on the thread.

I don't know about you, but I'm ready for some serious civil disobedience if the black robed wicked fools keep this up.

Let me and DirtyHarryY2K know if you want on/off this pinglist.

58 posted on 03/14/2005 12:45:44 PM PST by little jeremiah (Resisting evil is our duty or we are as responsible as those promoting it)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

This may come back to bite us in the ass, but even so it's both the legally and morally correct thing to do. I salute Mr Kramer...

assigned to Judge Kramer, whom they regarded as a non-activist and a good Republican.

so...does this mean equal rights in the whole state of Cali for 12-18 months?

oh you gotta love the last part of that article: "The Campaign for California Families and the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, argued that the state has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples as a way of encouraging procreation."

yup, California really needs more procreation...:eyes:

There's not enough procreation going on in California. It should be 50 million.

:crazy:

"The idea that marriage-like righs without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal. In Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al. (1952) 347 U.S. 483, 494, the Court recognized that the provision of separate but equal educational opportunities to racial minorities "generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone." Such logic is equally applicable to the State's structure granting substantial marriage rights but no marriage and is thus a further indication that there is no rational basis for denying marriage to the same-sex couples."

Complete decision here:

http://www.sftc.org/Docs/marriage.pdf

but at least it's a step forward in the right direction of the respect of liberties of individual.

I'm sure this will be able to go all the way to the supreme court and that the Bush Junta will fight it so tooth and nail that the progress will go forward in spite of thier fighting it.

Great News, FYI, ACLU comments.
March 14, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@aclu.org

Statement of ACLU Attorney Christine Sun

SAN FRANCISCO -- Today's decision is a landmark for the law, and an important development for the entire nation. With plain but compelling logic, the court has shown us all why in a nation committed to fairness, same-sex couples must not be shut out of marriage. But this decision is most important to the thousands upon thousands of same-sex couples who desperately need the protection that marriage gives, and who deserve the dignity it brings. Gay people are firefighters, teachers, doctors and neighbors; we deserve the same rights and protections as other Americans. Our constitution promises liberty to all; this decision takes us a step closer to that promise.

The case, Woo v. Lockyer, is being brought by the National Center for Lesbian Rights along with the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal.

http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=17714&c=101

:)

<snip>

To: Dont Mention the War

This is terrible. But it's not suprising.

The world's just going to get worse and worse. We need to just win as many people to Christ as we can.

17 posted on 03/14/2005 12:22:24 PM PST by wk4bush2004

<snip>

Link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1362637/posts

Oy...

:shrug:

never fails to astound me. But I shouldn't be surprised. Freepers are the scum of the earth.

that their heads will do worse than explode, seeing as how this is one of the most important issues in their agenda.

Hopefully this will lead to us gaining some progress in our efforts to stop bigotry.

how he came to this decision.

by American Stranger, I think...

:headbang:
rocknation

My wife and I have been great supporters of GLBT issues and of the SF AIDS foundation. I have seen good friends with their partners in joyous celebration and in somber rememberance.

Damn the naysayers and the fearful, damn those that would accomodate the hateful for the sake of an election.

This is right for my friends, their partners and the country. To the rest of you who think otherwise, here is a hearty "FUCK YOU"!!!

Could this actually mean that someone in the judiciary acknowledges that the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is applicable to EVERYone?

What's next?

Liberty and Justice for All?

Be still, my heart!

:wow:

On the one hand, I want gay marrige now. On the other, the civil rights era of the 1870's, resulting in the election and representation of many black people and former slaves, evolved into Plessy v. Ferguson, poll taxes, literacy tests, and jim crow. It was almost 100 years before blacks were able to overcome the backlash.

I'm not so sure that the gay marrige push won't result in the same thing.

we've been living with "backlash" for centuries. A key difference is that unless laws become specifically "anti gay" there is no test for gayness. Without such a test or declaration, plus an indicator on your driver's license and passport, it becomes really difficult to institutionalize discrimination. The flip side is that as a property and business owner, without protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation, I can fire everyone at work merely because they happen to be heterosexual. I can evict my tenants for being straight. I can keep heterosexuals from coming into my place of business. I can refuse to treat them at the hospital and pharmacy because they are immoral. I'll give you backlash.

We are ourselves attorneys and doctors and engineers and professors and financiers and politicians and policemen and soldiers and generals and CEO's and parents and brothers and sisters and children.

We can deliver backlash too.

The reThugs want to push us backward, so it's up to the rest us to keep looking forward. The need for progressives to stand up in support of equality for EVERYONE - regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation -- is more urgent now than ever. We must insist on absolute equal rights for all and allow no exceptions.

If we stop looking ahead and pushing forward towards an equal and just society because we fear a "backlash," we're showing fear of the bigots -- and there's nothing they thrive on more.

How is the GOP smear machine going to handle the Republican judge actually ruling on the LAW!!!

which argued against gay marriage in this suit. They, augured "California has a legitimate interesting in restricting marriage to opposite sex couples as a means of encouraging procreation." Oh, man talk about killing two birds with one stone: no gay marriage, no abortion and no birth control. You have a DUTY to make babies for the State?

Judge Kramer disagreed saying, "one does not have to be married to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married. Thus, no legitimate state reason can be be found to justify the preclusion of same sex marriage can be found."

Well, I guess they couldn't agree sin and the Bible in a court of law, so they went with the stupid procreation argument. Hello, can't these people SEE how stupid that one is? Or maybe they just want to legalize ALL of their agenda in one fell swoop.

same sex couples can procreate too.

Us gents have to get a surrogate Mom, and double Moms just have to get busy with a proverbial turkey baster. And there are plenty of children who just need to be adopted, regardless, since the people who procreated them for whatever reason couldn't parent them.

For one thing, these judges are not ruling on the "sanctity" of marriage as defined by right wingnuts who have suddenly discovered how sacred a 700 Club wedding is, but on the discriminatory practice of statutes governing personal property and next-of-kin laws that restrict same-sex couples from being anything but "single." Since we ALL know that these couples are NOT single persons, and many have families, the Right should be having a very hard time coming up with reasons why gay families deserve less protection for their children and each other than straight ones.

I always laugh when I hear the Right screaming "YOU HAVE RIGHTS - you can just get a contract and a power of attorney." Because if that is really the case, the judicial choice also means that California could SCRAP most of their marriage laws and tell heterosexual families to get a power of attorney and a written contract for themselves. Actually, if the Right was really serious about this claim that everyone already has the same "rights," then maybe we should just present this as the alternative and watch their heads redden until they explode.