Toad in the Hole

1 | By: kathy a. on May 15, 2008 at 01:28 PM

i want everyone to remember, this is NOT a liberal court.  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/BA3G10N325.DTL&tsp=1

but still, it decided that decided that same-sex marriages do not violate the California Constitution.

We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the
fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California
Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to
all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well
as to opposite-sex couples.

2 | By: VS on May 15, 2008 at 03:50 PM

Anyone else remember “Reverend Al”, a man I was prepared to hate, shocking the other Democratic candidates speechless by asking if they considered homosexuals to be people?  If so, he asked, why didn’t they have the same rights as other people?  He went on to point out that, not so long ago, black people didn’t have the right to marry.

I still won’t vote for a preacher, as I believe in the separation of church and state.  Most likely, I’d hate his stance on just about everything else, too.  Still, he was the only candidate who actually said something that couldn’t be weaseled out of later.  Tip of the hat to Rev Al from me, that day.

3 | By: Ron Sullivan on May 15, 2008 at 03:51 PM

Oh yeah—it’s not even the Ninth CCA. There’s interesting chat going on about it over on Pharyngula.

Hey, Judge Jones who wrote the Dover decision is a Bush-appointed conservative Republican. Tiny little rays of hope.

4 | By: kathy a. on May 15, 2008 at 04:26 PM

this decision is all about the state constitution, which can be broader than the US constitution—and the 9th circuit has no say about the breadth of the state constitution.

BUT, how states interpret their corollary provisions has been very important in the development of US supreme court interpretations.  so—this won’t be overturned by another court, because NO other court has authority.  it could help in the long run, nationally.

the big challenge now is the ballot initiative to put a ban on gay marriage in the california constitution.  that sucker needs a lot of attention.

5 | By: kathy a. on May 16, 2008 at 08:13 AM

heh.  according to the sacbee, opponents of gay marriage wanted ahnold to tell county officials not to issue marriage certificates.  and our governator said he respects and will uphold the court’s ruling, and opposes a consitutional amendment to overturn it.  http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/943593.html

6 | By: Ron Sullivan on May 17, 2008 at 08:30 AM

Just once, I’d like to hear one of these opponamatronic talking heads explain HOW gays’ getting married threatens “the sanctity of marriage” and why, if it’s about sanctity, the secular state is even involved.

Actually, just one of the two would help. I was fascinated by a dissenting judge’s mention of, hmm, something like “modern notions of equality.” I wonder if he (IIRC it was a he) has a similar take on the modern notion of his own rights. Oh wait, maybe he thinks those are “traditional.”

7 | By: VS on May 17, 2008 at 03:57 PM

I thought that was obvious.  It threatens two of their most cherished incorrect assumptions:

1. their mistaken belief that their ideas on marriage are the only “right” way (Does even the King James version of the new testament claim that marriage is only one man and one woman?  Have most bible thumpers read the thing?)

2. their mistaken belief that this is a “Xtian nation” (Separation of church and state, anyone?)

8 | By: kathy a. on May 18, 2008 at 12:37 PM

being no biblical scholar, i have no idea where they got the notion that heterosexual is the only holy way to go.  you don’t like it, don’t do it.  [also my theory on the other bible-thumpin’ issue, abortion—and/or contraception, and/or masturbation, depending on the breadth of one’s beliefs.]

the extra-religious tend to forget this country built in separation of church and state FOR A REASON—so nobody else’s religious beliefs would be crammed down their throats by the government. 

when inter-racial marriage was struck down, that legal opinion defied all the racists who felt the bible supported their views.  [dog knows why, but they felt that way.] the basic issue is fairness, treating people equally unless there is a VERY strong reason not to. 

and legal marriage is fundamentally a civil contract, with rights and obligations, that is recognized by the state—kind of like a corporation. except marital partners are expected to be good to each other.

the right to marriage is considered fundamental.  prisoners are allowed to marry, even though they have lost most of their freedom and many of their rights.  people are allowed to run off and marry inappropriate others in las vegas, while drunk.  can anyone tell me why it is worse for our society to let responsible, loving partners who have matching gender chromosomes enter into a legal contract?

9 | By: VS on May 18, 2008 at 01:26 PM

Maybe because “they” “need” someone to look down on?  Some people can only feel good about themselves at the expense of others, even others they don’t know and will never even meet.  Sad, really.

My cynical side (yes, that DOES imply some of my sides aren’t cynical—surprise!) says that allowing gay marriage has very little to do with enlightened thinking and everything to do with the economy.  Married couples pay more taxes than two single people.  Weddings stimulate the economy.

NEWS FLASH: Gay marriage saves California!

In the words of Judy Tenuda:  “It could happen!”

10 | By: kathy a. on May 18, 2008 at 04:03 PM

oh, puh-leeze!  i’ve heard some gay folks complain that now they’ll have to buy like tons of wedding presents, but really, i don’t think that was top of the minds of this court.  balancing the budget is the governator’s problem.

11 | By: VS on May 18, 2008 at 04:51 PM

Hmmmm… you think conservatives making a liberal choice is more likely than sheer money-grubbing?  I dunno… As long as they did it, though, that’s what counts.  IMO, anyway.

12 | By: Ron Sullivan on May 19, 2008 at 08:04 AM

Heh. It would be one of those cosmic jokes if the newborn gay-wedding industry threw the state economy a lifeline. Think of the tourist traffic!

Geez, if we play it right, gays could achieve the respectability straights have vis-a-vis marriage, and we could recruit a few Elvis-impersonator Marryin’ Sams from over the border in Las Vegas for them.

V, d’you think Brian and Stephen would like a secular re-run? I know Joe would make a pie if they called a potluck. Maybe they could get the same rabbi as last time.

13 | By: VS on May 21, 2008 at 08:27 AM

The one with the doily on her head?  If they do, I wanna send a picture to one of the Israeli papers.  The combination of 1) a female rabbi 2) marrying a Jew to a non-Jew 3) both of whom are male should cause a few of the fundies over there to kick off.

Theocracies are vile.  (I grew out of the Israel = Judaism thing around age 9.)

14 | By: Ron Sullivan on May 21, 2008 at 09:43 AM

Heh. If I recall correctly, they had a harder time finding a rabbi who’d do a mixed* marriage than one who’d do an unmixed one, so to speak.

She had a nice singing voice, though, didn’t she?

*One’s Jewish; the other, Quaker.