Posted by
Playful Walrus on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 3:59:31 PM
I'll keep on it as long as they do.
Tony Perry and Tami Abdollah, staff writers, report.
Dozens of couples lined up outside Los Angeles County's main marriage license office in Norwalk early today, taking advantage of the first opportunity that most gays had to marry in California.
Sloppy language again. Gays have always had the same opportunity to marry as straights, just as straights now have the same opportunity to get marriage licenses with someone of the same sex.
In a scene playing out across the state, there was also a voice of protest amid the celebratory mood. Karen Wilson, 51, from Bellflower, arrived about 7:20 a.m. with a Bible and a poster board reading: "Marriage is to be held in honor. Heb 3:4."
"I want to say something to these people before they go in there," Wilson said, looking over to a white tent where services were being held. Marriage "has been going on for thousands of years. Why destroy it? The family is already in jeopardy now. What we need to do is strengthen the family."
That sounds like a reasonable demonstration.
The California Supreme Court on May 15 struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage in a broadly worded decision that would invalidate virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.
This is sloppy. Behavior is not orientation. And if we can’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, than the County Department of Public Health should not be able to target gay men with programs or outreach campaigns. Regardless, there was no "ban on same-sex marriage". Such couples could have ceremonies and make commitments and live together without fear of authorities breaking them up. What there was, was an affirmation that the state should only issue marriage licenses to a bride and groom.
The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples.
Such a bad precedent – a right to a marriage license?
The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation is now constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state's high court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard.
Which is a good argument for keeping “sexual orientation” out of the law. It is being misused.
The initiative would amend the state Constitution to prohibit same-sex unions.
WRONG. It would reverse the court’s overreach that neutered marriage licenses. Same-sex unions could still take place and be recognized by the state.
Marc D. Stern, general counsel of the American Jewish Congress and a contributor to a forthcoming book, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty, has this commentary in today’s Los Angeles Times about “gay rights” and religious freedom. Either the paper should be commended for running something that goes against its agenda, or perhaps they think it is a good thing that religious freedom is threatened?
In the same-sex marriage decision, the state Supreme Court suggests that all will be well and good as long as the "official" activities of the clergy aren't affected. But that excludes religion entirely from a broad range of social welfare and other activities, despite the fact that the California Constitution declares: "Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed."
Evidence from previous and pending cases indicates that the court tends to take an extremely narrow view of people's "free exercise and enjoyment of religion" when they clash with another group's need for equal protection.
He then lists examples, which I’m sure respondents will ignore, including the case I already discussed here about the fertility doctor being sued for refusing to artificially inseminate a woman without a husband, the Catholic Charities in Boston and San Francisco having to get out of adoption services, and others.
Scary stuff.
Of course, the paper ran an editorial supporting the neutering of marriage licensing.
With the sanction of the state Supreme Court, these couples stand together as full citizens at last.
How ridiculous. They were already full citizens. So now unmarried people are not full citizens?
If mutual affection and appreciation were enough to sustain relationships across the years, there would be no need for solemn vows of fidelity.
There is absolutely no reason why gay people can’t make those same vows to same-sex partners without a marriage license. In fact, many have done so for many years. We do not prosecute people for infidelity in California. We have no-fault divorce. If people were not monogamous before, they will not be now.
How does marriage of one type threaten others?
Counterfeits devalue and mock the authentic. No longer can people even get marriage licenses that recognize them as bride and groom.
Why do many heterosexuals feel that the beauty of their own marriage vows is in no way changed by today's weddings, while others feel theirs have somehow been diminished?
Because there is a widespread ambivalence and ignorance towards the purpose of marriage.
Those bonds can only be good for society -- children gain from being raised by married parents,
Yes, in large part because that means a mother and a father!
and communities are stronger when residents are legally committed to one another. As more and more Californians marry, society will grow stronger, not weaker.
Not if we’re like Europe.
That's no doubt why opponents sought a stay of the court's ruling until after the election. They know that as same-sex marriages become commonplace, the fears about them will fade, and eventually we will wonder what all the fuss was about.
Actually, it is because government is much less willing to “take away” something once it has been issued, regardless of how it was issued, or what a bad idea it was.
In the meantime, opponents will resort to hyperbole and fear.
And you haven’t and won’t? Please.
Same-sex couples are not upending the institution of marriage; nor are their supporters. Rather, they are engaged in a profoundly conservative act: They ask not to abolish marriage but to uphold it.
Uh, yeah… when you artificially impose, against the will of the people, a fundamental change of the very nature of something, that isn’t upholding it.
Some religious organizations won't perform these marriages or recognize these unions -- that's their constitutional right.
Can we quote you on that?
As long as it bestows the privileges of marriage on some couples, it must bestow them on all.
That is such a stupid statement. And you wonder why we say this could lead to siblings marrying each other? What about couples not living together - they are a "couple", right?
Put another way: Many Californians undoubtedly object to unwed couples who have and raise children together, but no constitutional amendment prevents that, whatever the moral calculus.
That’s because a man and a woman can make babies without any outside assistance. Did you not know that? A constitutional amendment would be an intrusion on their natural body functions. This constitutional amendment overturns a judicial intrusion into the voting booth.
To those who insist that an unevolving morality undergirds our state and federal constitutions, we remind them that not so long ago, many Americans believed with passionate conviction that it was a sin, a threat to families and a violation of the law for people of different races to marry.
Again with the false analogy.
How can the state's blessing on these acts of love in any way diminish us?
It does diminish us. It says men and women are not important. No need for a husband. No need for a wife. Marriage can’t be about children. All considered, children should have no expectation of having both a mother and a father. Also, our votes were diminished. It says that there is no difference from the kind of relationship and behavior that has propagated society and is how we all got here and the kind that only spreads disease and injures.
I'm still waiting for a compelling reason to neuter marriage licenses. "I want one" is not a compelling reason, especially when you could have gotten one all along but you didn't want to.