You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Culture Wars
Calif. Ruling Sets Up Gay Marriage Fight
2005-03-15
A judge has opened the way for the nation's most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to tie the knot, but both sides in the debate predicted a vigorous court fight first. San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled Monday that while withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians has been the status quo, it constitutes discrimination the state can no longer justify. "The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote. "Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."

Ushering out a social norm long considered sacred won't happen right away, however. Kramer's decision is stayed automatically for 60 days to allow time for appeals, and conservative groups that oppose same-sex marriages vowed to uphold California's one woman-one man marriage laws.
Posted by:Fred

#33  Aris - I belive the highest state court in MA ruled that homosexual marriages must be allowed but I don't believe that the state is issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples yet so I assume that there is more political wrangling going on there. I belive that popular opinion in MA also currently disfavors homosexual marriage.

Our federal Supreme Court won't touch this issue until they're forced to by a split in the Federal Circuit Courts and that deadlock is years away. So the strategy for homosexual marriage advocates right now is to force the capitulation of a single state, marry many couples from all over the country in that state, then litigate the validity of those marriages in each Federal Circuit when the newly married couples return home and are denied marital benefits under existing state & local laws. My guess is that most arguments (e.g., Equal Protection, etc.) will fail in most Circuits but that all will probably find the Full Faith & Credit arguments valid. If not the S.Ct. of the US will and at that point the entire nation will be forced to legally recognize homosexual marriage.
Posted by: AzCat   2005-03-15 10:29:06 PM  

#32  hey, Aris! That was one of your more temperate comments!
Posted by: Bobby   2005-03-15 10:09:06 PM  

#31  AzCat, hasn't Massachussets already fully recognized same-sex marriage? Or am I mistaken in this?

Thanks about telling me about the referendum -- didn't know that California was one of the states that held one on the issue.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-03-15 10:01:28 PM  

#30  Well thank Goodness I was only homophobic joking about it
Posted by: badanov   2005-03-15 10:00:02 PM  

#29  You're telling us it's wrong?

I *think* it's slightly wrong in regards to one specific country, namely Spain. Am not completely sure, but either way didn't want you accusing me of misleading you, if you later found the maps was flawed.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-03-15 9:58:30 PM  

#28  [I]t'd be very preferable if the people of California themselves decided on this one....

Ummm, the people of California have already decided this. The issue of defining marriage as being between one man and one woman was placed on the ballot via the referendum process and passed with, IIRC, 62% of the popular vote. Further the people of the United States spoke through their elected representatives nearly a decade ago when said representatives passed the federal Defense of Marriage Act which was signed into law by none other than Bill Clinton. What's happening now in California is a pure judicial fiat supporting a small minority view over the expressed wishes of a large majority.

There are really only a couple of ways to prevent homosexual marriage from becoming law in all 50 states:

1. Congress can exercise their Constitutional power to remove marriage from the jurisdiction of the federal courts. This would, in effect, allow each state to set its own policy without interference.

2. A federal Constitutional Amendment.

Without one of those two coming to pass it's only a matter of time until one state finally and completely recognizes homosexual marriage. At that point the Full Faith & Credit Clause will force legal recognition of marriages conducted in that state by all others and the federal government. That's why the state-level Constitutional Amendments are pointless, they'll be immediately trumped the (at least) the Full Faith & Credit Clause.
Posted by: AzCat   2005-03-15 9:57:59 PM  

#27  badanov> Nice homophobic remark,

You posted the map. You're telling us it's wrong? Isn't that the definition of trolling?
Posted by: badanov   2005-03-15 9:50:50 PM  

#26  Tom> Tell me, Tom the Troll, do you think that calling them "civil partnerships with benefits" instead of "marriage" (or indeed not having same-sex unions be legal at all) is going to affect birthrates?

If you don't think that, then you're bringing in an utterly unrelated issue into this, in further efforts to trollishly divert the thread.

badanov> Nice homophobic remark, but as a sidenote I think the map's wrong in regards to Spain. The Same-sex marriage bill is still in the Spanish parliament I believe -- though almost certain to pass, someone who updated the map jumped the gun a bit I think.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-03-15 9:48:47 PM  

#25  LOL! Bad Badanov, bad! ;-)
Posted by: Sobiesky   2005-03-15 9:45:44 PM  

#24  That map explains Spain's reaction to 311.
Posted by: badanov   2005-03-15 9:41:26 PM  

#23  Fine. Countries in which same-sex marriages are allowed:

* Denmark
* Norway
* Sweden
* Iceland
* The Netherlands
* France
* Germany
* Portugal
* Finland
* Belgium

The only thing that's going to spare Europe from the Islamic nukes is the European Muslim population and birthrate. Either way, you lose.
Posted by: Tom   2005-03-15 9:39:07 PM  

#22  Or to save you the trouble, just see this map for a synopsis of the situation in EU and Europe in general.

Mind you, AFAIK, all those were the result of parliamentary decisions, not judicial ones.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-03-15 9:35:11 PM  

#21  For some reason Aris feels entitled to rant about gay marriage in the U.S. but thinks that anything said about gay marriage in the EU is treading on his sacred turf.

I don't see you having said anything about gay marriage in the EU at all. Go google up some information on it and then come back.

And it turns out that he's the angry liberal in Greece too.

Of course. Did you think I'd not be consistent?
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-03-15 9:31:35 PM  

#20  For some reason Aris feels entitled to rant about gay marriage in the U.S. but thinks that anything said about gay marriage in the EU is treading on his sacred turf. After enough goading, he has finally told us something about gay marriage in his country (#17). And it turns out that he's the angry liberal in Greece too.
Posted by: Tom   2005-03-15 9:27:04 PM  

#19  "I was going to make a reasoned comment"

Then please, make it. It's in your hand to correct a thread, even it was in Tom's trollery's hand to destroy it.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-03-15 9:17:43 PM  

#18  I was going to make a reasoned comment, but why bother? The thread's been shot to hell.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2005-03-15 9:15:41 PM  

#17  Actually the latest sermon I've heard against same-sex marriage came not from Muslims but from the Archbishop of the Greek Orthodox church, who (being somewhat stricter on the issue that even FrankG) sees people supporting civil partnerships between homosexuals as having in mind to attack Greek Orthodoxy, since they are obviously western conspiracists that hate the Orthodox Church because it stands in the way of globalization, etc, etc, blah, blah...

So no Saudi influence is needed, Tom the Troll.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-03-15 9:00:35 PM  

#16  I just thought you should know what you are up against since gay marriage and the EU are your two favorite topics, Aris. The Saudis are probably spreading their influence in Athens as we speak.
Posted by: Tom   2005-03-15 8:37:18 PM  

#15  There has been a large outbreak of "Hearing Aids" in California.

It is contracted and spread by listening to assholes.
Posted by: SR-71   2005-03-15 8:36:29 PM  

#14  Tom, you are being intentionally an irrelevant troll. This issue has nothing to do with the EU, nor with Muslims, and I won't help you divert the thread.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-03-15 8:33:23 PM  

#13  Your jerkdom, I read what you wrote quite carefully, and I responded accordingly.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-03-15 8:31:52 PM  

#12  Be as gay as you want in the EU, Aris, but let me warn you: Muslim birthrates and immigration in the EU will be your undoing, as will the EU's general lack of support for serious cultural change in the Middle East.
http://www.equality.org.za/news/2005/03/14saudimurder.php
Posted by: Tom   2005-03-15 8:28:56 PM  

#11  Your Ignorance - read what I wrote - nuff said
Posted by: Frank G   2005-03-15 8:20:21 PM  

#10  If gays can marry... why can't I have more than one wife?

I have nothing against polyamory, but it comes in so many varieties that a legal recognition thereof becomes much trickier. The established legal benefits of marriage like the idea of next-of-kin, pension rights, raising children, visitation rights and so forth, become meaningless when they can be extended to a infinite amount of people.

You'd also need a whole new set of laws (both divorce and otherwise) for each variation of polyamory relationships (imagine one of your wives wanting to divorce you, but *not* divorce your other wife, etc, etc). At which time it just becomes simpler to have people make their own marital contracts defining their own rights and responsibilities.

On the other hand extending marital rights to gay people is as easy as a stroke of the pen, removing the gender restrictions of the current laws.

let em have civil partnerships with the benefits...If they insist on watering down "marriage", crush em

Creating a institution which is exactly like marriage but doesn't call itself that *wouldn't* be watering down "marriage", but rewarding the concepts of fidelity and mutual succour until death doth them part by actually allowing adult people to marry if they want to, would "water down marriage". Yeah, right.

If you want to prevent the watering down of marriage, make divorces more difficult instead.

Come on over here Fido!

Comparing the consentual relationships between adult gay people to bestiality ain't helping your cause either.

One thing I'll agree however with all of you, that it'd be very preferable if the people of California themselves decided on this one, instead of having a judge decide it.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-03-15 8:04:24 PM  

#9  Anonymoose, that is the next step up. There is a woman in Caliphornicate that would like to marry her horse. Bid you time.
Posted by: Sobiesky   2005-03-15 7:31:44 PM  

#8  If gays can marry... why can't I have more than one wife?

For that matter, it's patently unfair that I can't marry my true love:

"Come on over here Fido! That's a good girl!"
Posted by: Anonymoose   2005-03-15 6:41:03 PM  

#7  let em have civil partnerships with the benefits...If they insist on watering down "marriage", crush em
Posted by: Frank G   2005-03-15 6:03:08 PM  

#6  After the last Judge 'upheld' the ammendment passed by the PEOPLE I kind of lost track of this fight. Befor all the butt pirates and carpet munchers book flight to California, this has already been appealed and will be struck down at the next level. I would hope that the Supreme court would step in and settle this one way or the other since the idiot lawyers are burdening the lower courts with wave after wave of gay cases.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2005-03-15 5:34:17 PM  

#5  D'oh!

Bwaaahahahahahaa!!!
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2005-03-15 5:22:34 PM  

#4  If using IE, here's your new Best Friend...

If not, well, life's a bear, sometimes.
Posted by: .com   2005-03-15 4:27:05 PM  

#3  D'oh! ;)
Posted by: AzCat   2005-03-15 4:24:58 PM  

#2  LOL! Is pubic eye a genetic disorder? ;-)
Posted by: Sobiesky   2005-03-15 4:21:34 PM  

#1  Assemblyman Ray Haynes, a Republican, predicted the judge's ruling would spur efforts to amend the state Constitution to ban gay nuptials, as was done in 13 other states last year.

Absolutely pointless except as platforms to keep the debate in the pubic eye.

Posted by: AzCat   2005-03-15 4:19:09 PM  

00:00