Unconstitutional!!! YEEEAAA!!!
I SO have wanted to discuss this but assumed it was verboten here.
Now, what's really interesting about this is that the decision was made in a FEDERAL court. So, what happens to the
federal DoMA (Defense of Marriage Act)? It, too, is unconstitutional, but no one has challenged it, at least not successfully to this point. Perhaps
this will be the impetus.
Did you read any of the judge's opinions in the ruling? 136 pages, wow!
Not hatred, don't really care about gays, straights or anyone else for a matter of fact. Apples to oranges to whom? So if people whine like selfish children their voices should be heard over the majority? The point being is that the California state constitution allows the public to vote on these measures for approval or denial. Is was voted on and denied. It will be interesting to see how the supreme court votes on this measure because it may say that state rights are no longer acknowledged by the federal government. I'm not sure if the 14th amendment protects marriage, guess we will find out. I'm more concerned about the constitutional legality of the situation than some group wanting to be put in a lower tax bracket and benefit from additional entitlement programs. There are four states I think that voted with majority to recognize gay marriage and that is great.
This is indeed in part a states' rights issue. However, once we begin to allow any state to infringe upon the basic human rights of any group that has done nothing wrong, the door is opened for more rights to go by the wayside. The ability and right to name one's next of kin is a very basic right, named in the Bill of Rights as one of the pursuits of happiness (marriage isn't named, the pursuit of happiness is).
If you wish to boil this down to money, that's your prerogative. But before you do so, may I suggest you try to put yourself in the shoes of so many who have lost a loved one, someone they would have named next of kin. Ask what happens in hospitals when you tell them, "We're married." Man & woman saying that they don't bat an eyelash or ask a second question. Same-sex couples..? Uh uh, you've got to be ready with your documentation saying you're legally 'civilly unified'. No one else, no other group is forced to say this.
Proposition 8 is EXACTLY like this country's past anti-miscegenation laws (laws that prevented intermarriage between races). Those needed striking down, even if they were in a state's constitution. By the way, California was the first state to strike its anti-miscegenation laws. And then we voted in Prop 8, ugh.
In any event, in my opinion we
must have the balance of law or 'democracy' can become 'mob rule', and mob rules don't give a flying fuck about anybody's rights.
I understand the judge's opinion on the law, but marriage has never been defined as a right previously. I see your point though. I guess the advantage given to those by the government because of marriage makes it unfair, such as tax breaks. If the government at a local and federal levels wants to grant special privileges for being married, then they should not discriminate. I can agree with that. I guess my real issue is underlying, that marriage should be a private contract between two parties and given no special governmental privileges, but that is another issue. I think I have changed my position.
Support that assertion, that is bolded.
The rest of it, well, we are not going to get the option to put marriage back into the exclusive realm of religion, it is now a state contract. As such, ALL have a right to entertain entering into such a contract, even convicted criminals! And those are people who have done wrong.
There's no way that genie is going to be stuffed back into the bottle. At least, not until the US government has gone the way of the Romans.
So will churches be forced to marry people against there religions or lose there tax exempt statis or worse?
Were they forced to marry anyone previously? No, I don't think so. Why would it change now?
I think many churches, especially the mega-churches, should lose tax exempt status.
