More from the 'dumb as dead cats' State of California -

[kyburg]

ass_ mentioned this morning that the judge that ruled on the gay marriage issue yesterday was a Catholic Republican appointee of Pete Wilson's - so much for the activist judge kludge, neh?

But I still have concerns on this issue stemming from the fact that in March 2000, this state voted for a ballot initiative to restrict gay marriage - and it passed. Here's the poop on it.

How are you going to get around that and still declare marriage other than a heterosexual union, legal?

Stay tuned, I guess.

Dumb as dead cats. At times.

Here we go again.

Comments

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

The purpose of government is to protect the populace from force or fraud against it by things larger than an individual, and to see to the punishment of individuals who perpetrate same. Notice I didn't say government should protect individuals from individuals... entirely different. It should protect individuals from things that no individual should be expected to protect herself from. Like half the state of California out of its gourd.

The whole idea of marriage is clearly a religious one. The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion. The Fourteenth says that the states are bound by that same stricture. Therefore, the entire concept of marriage is something that any government under the United States has no business even recognizing at all.

You want an entity that provides for right of survivorship? Fine. Form a domestic corporation. You could (as a government) even provide a short form, which looks very much like a retitled marriage license application, incorporating a standard set of terms by reference. But that also leaves open the possibility of domestic corporations not only with no restriction on gender, but none on number, either... although they may want to say that some largish number would have to go through regular incorporation...

But, yeah. The state has no damn business poking its nose around in religious issues.

my thoughts...

[n6vfp.livejournal.com]

Dumb as dead cats indeed. It seems that some people cannot accept that the constitution says that all men are created equal. It seems that some feel they have a special privilege just because they feel superior to others because of race, creed or sexual orientation.

I personally feel that marriage should remain within the realm of a religious institution, and as such should be recognized by the state as a legal and binding contract between tow parties, not as some say between a man and a woman.

There should be no marriage in the real of government. Civil unions and other forms of survivorship, such as trusts and other such forms of corporation, but not marriage.

Re: my thoughts...

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

Actually, neither the US Constitution nor the California state constitution says that all men are created equal. The Declaration of Independence says that, but it's not binding.

I agree that marriage doesn't belong in the realm of government, but why limit it to two parties? Why not arbitrarily many consenting adults?

[feyandstrange.livejournal.com]

gah. Can't we declare the Knight Initiative invalid because it, too, is discriminatory and that's unconstitutional? Then the anti folks can try another ballot round and put up more misleading and rotten propaganda.

[mdlbear]

I think that's basically what this ruling does.

[mdlbear]

"But I still have concerns on this issue stemming from the fact that in March 2000, this state voted for a ballot initiative to restrict gay marriage - and it passed."

First point: as far as I can tell, the effect of this latest decision is to rule that initiative unconstitutional.

Second point: it's five years later, and it would take more than a majority vote to ammend the state constitution. Not clear which way that would go, though.

Third point: Marriage in California, and for all I know in many other states as well, has always been defined in terms a civil contract -- religion has never had much to do with it beyond the name and setting the terms of that contract in the first place. You don't even need to be a registered minister in order to perform a marriage anymore; anyone can do it (and I have). Essentially all this ruling does is say that any two people can make such a contract, regardless of their genders.

-- of course, none of that is going to change the fact that the fundamentalists are going to push back as hard as they can, and probably put gay rights back 50 years in the process.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

And take every progressive with them.

That's sad. They don't want to go, and neither do I.

But what else can be done? As the old saw goes, right's right and wrong's wrong -

Stay tuned, I guess.

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

I thought Knight would be really hard to get around, "activist" judges or otherwise.