world

California's top court legalizes gay marriage

87 Comments

California's Supreme Court ruled that a ban on gay marriage was unlawful Thursday, effectively leaving same-sex couples in America's most populous state free to tie the knot in a landmark ruling.

In an opinion that analysts say could have nationwide implications for the issue, the seven-member panel voted 4-3 in favor of plaintiffs who argued that restricting marriage to men and women was discriminatory.

"Limiting the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute," California Chief Justice Ron George said in the written opinion.

The ruling added that all California couples had a "basic civil right" to marry "without regard to their sexual orientation."

Before Thursday only one state -- Massachusetts -- allowed gay marriage, although California, New Jersey and Vermont have legislation which grants same-sex partners many of the same legal rights as married couples.

Plaintiffs in the court case exploded with joy after their victory.

"It's the best day of my life, quite honestly I'm thrilled for all of us," Diane Olson said.

Phyllis Lyon, 80, said she had waited more than 50 years for the opportunity to marry her partner Del Martin, 84.

The couple had been together 55 years and married in San Francisco on Feb 12, 2004, only to see their union later declared void. "We are thrilled that this day has finally come."

Thursday's ruling came after a long-running legal battle that erupted in 2000 when California voters approved a law declaring that only marriages between men and women could be legally recognized.

In February 2004, the City of San Francisco defied state law by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, arguing that existing laws were illegal because they violated equal rights legislation.

A court later halted the issuance of licenses and declared that same-sex marriages that took place during this period were void.

However, San Francisco and civil rights activists waged a legal case arguing that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples was unconstitutional and that the law should be struck down.

In 2005, the San Francisco Superior Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that there was no justification for refusing to allow marriages.

But the decision was overturned in 2006 by the California Court of Appeal, which ruled in a 2-1 decision that the state's desire to "carry out the expressed wishes of a majority" was sufficient to preserve the existing law.

California lawmakers have also voted in favor of gay marriage but the bill was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has said that the matter is for the state's court system to decide on.

Legal analysts say Thursday's court ruling could have wide-ranging implications for other US states, noting the California Supreme Court's history of landmark rulings.

"The California Supreme Court's example is often emulated and it often is sort of a groundbreaker," said David Cruz, a law professor at the University of Southern California and an expert in constitutional law.

"In the 20th century California was the first state to strike down laws against inter-racial marriage. They did that 19 years before the U.S. Supreme Court got around to it."

New York-based rights watchdog Human Rights Watch said the California ruling "affirmed that equality does not come with exceptions."

"This historic decision should push the U.S. government to stop obstructing equal treatment of relationships and families," said Scott Long, director of HRW's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender program.

But Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, reacted with dismay, insisting "marriage is naturally for a man and a woman."

"If the institution of marriage is redefined and therefore destroyed in the law, the wellbeing of children is threatened, both emotionally, socially, even physically," Thomasson added.

© Wire reports

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

87 Comments
Login to comment

California and Massachusettes get it, the rest of America don't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

rjr jr : "California and Massachusettes get it, the rest of America don't."

They get screwed is what they get, by judicial activists whose rulings, like this one, are proof that "liberals" can't get exponents of their views elected but that won't stop them from imposing their beliefs and practices on others.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

California and Massachusettes get it, the rest of America don't." Why? Why is it so important to allow gays to be married to each other? What's next cousins, brothers and sisters, and what about polygamy?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Same sex, sex same blood Skipthesong.

What do you personally see wrong with it? Will they force you to change "your" life?

I personnally see nothing wrong with the polygamist lifestyle. Man wants more than one wife, it's their business; but that's not the subject.

I see nothing wrong with same sex marriage.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I see nothing wrong with same sex marriage" for the most part, I could careless. I lived in the biggest cities of America, so I have had my fair share of gay friends.

But, forcing your way is where I draw the line. I believe in allowing things to take their time and eventuality. If being allowed to get married, it also includes being allowed to adopt children which I do have a problem with.

Man wants more than one wife is fine with you? Ok, please show me where that is legal and the women have any say so in the fact? Goes back to the adopted children of gay parents, they don't have the choice to choose who is adopting them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skipthesong,

You see nothing wrong with gay marriage, but you're against it. How are they forcing their way? Maybe this is the time, but the courts and bigots want to stop it.

I never said it was legal, I just said I see nothing wrong with it. Do you believe every single polygomist marriage happens in Utah or Texas? You don't believe that there are neighbors in your neighborhood that have taken on the lifestyle of a polymist family? Please, not all polygmist aren't FLDS.

But back to gays. Are you saying that gay couples can't raise stable children? Are you saying that children raised by gays are abused? Are you saying that children raised by gays will be gays? I guess that children raised by gays would be molested?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

aday: "You see nothing wrong with gay marriage, but you're against it." No, I see nothing wrong with being gay and I am not totally against gay marriage in the sense you are implying.

How are they forcing their way?" Ok, my ex-girlfriend has two elementary school age kids (at that time) I remember her bringing home a kids book that was about a girl having two daddys and the teacher was reading it to the kids. Why? Why at that age? Do you know now how much power NAMBLA wields?"

Maybe this is the time, but the courts and bigots want to stop it." Ahhh, so not agreeing makes one a bigot? Ok, well Obama voted against it - did you know that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama isn't all knowing. I don't agree with everything that other democrats agree with or disagree with.

So gays are not supposed to have the same rights as straights? Only the conservative right and bible thumpers can dictate when it will be the right time? Must be safer to keep gays single, huh? What will happen if they are allowed to marry?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I personnally see nothing wrong with the polygamist lifestyle. Man wants more than one wife, it's their business; but that's not the subject."

Polygamy is a huge tax scam. Just look at the polygamist ranch that was raided in Texas recently. The average "family" consisted of one man, five wives, and twenty children. These are women who are classified as "single mothers" and receiving ample welfare, financial aid, and tax benefits. How else do you think all these women could be happy little polygamist homemakers? Meanwhile the sole "breadwinner" husband would list his multiple wives (and children) as "dependents." Oh, and let's not forget that the compound itself was considered a religious institution and therefore exempt from taxes!

As for this "not being the subject," it has everything to do with the subject. If the definition of marriage cannot descriminate against the sex of partners, then how can it descriminate against the number of partners? The polygamists have been arguing for their marriages to be recognized long before homosexuals, and long before California even became a state. They also have a stronger argument than homosexuals on the grounds that their "lifestyle" is a requirement of their religion (Islam, Mormonism, etc.).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream: there you go again. Calling people racists and bigots because they ain't down with you idea.. I ain't no bible thumper, I am the exact oppisite.

We are talking about a change in the way people have done things for eons and now some people not only want to do something that I personally believe should be left to your house and bedroom as I leave mine there to come out in the open but now you want school kids as young as kindergarten to learn about. NAMBLA has garnered so much power due to this and they want to lower the age of consent to as young as 14. I can't believe you are game for this.

YOu know what, there are people who are into incest, and I am talking adult aged people. Why shouldn't they be able to get married too? Oh, in Yehman a man can marry a girl as young as 9, immigrate to the US and still be allowed to be married to her - are you down with this too? No, why not?

I don't like the idea of controls, but sometimes I have to think twice when I criticize Islamic countries for their lifestyles, but then when I see rants such as yours, I think sometimes we may best be put under such a government where this would be a non-issue - YOU CAN'T DO IT!

You, the usual one to come to a certain religion's defense which is way over any bible thumper in the states' position are now here calling people like me a bigot because I don't agree with this at this point in time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream: were you a supporter of Woody Allen marrying his adopted daughter?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skip, your school example is more about a teacher reading an inappropriate book in class and not really much of anything to do with gay marriage. And polygamy and incest have nothing to do with gay marriage, either. You're basically linking gay marriage with crimes that won't suddenly become legal because of gay marriage.

What you haven't done is give a position that explains why gays should be denied the same legal rights as heterosexuals. If someone is in a car accident and their partner is not allowed to visit them in the hospital because they are not family, I think that's an injustice. Bringing up the crime of polygamy and incest, or talking about marrying minors in foreign countries doesn't address that problem at all. I think you need to be more realistic about the issues here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SL: If someone is in a car accident and their partner is not allowed to visit them in the hospital because they are not family, I think that's an injustice" Well, then what about people who have been going together for years? Same issue for them as well. But, ok, you are going to say that that couple has a right and a gay couple doesn't. So ok, where the issue gets bad for me mostly giving them the right to adopt. Where this is different than inter-racial marriages that were once illegal in many states and many countries, we are talking about a lifestyle and I don't think a lifestyle constitutes a person. They are not a different race, ethnic group, or religion but they are only different by the way they choose to have sex; like someone only liking black women, blonds, orientals,etc.. The school example was more than about one teacher, it was and still is a major issue in the NYC school system. Gay groups want to "start teaching children that gays are no different" and feel they should start them earlier than when the school system wants to teach children about sex...

But, am I really off by bringing into the conversation polygamy and incest (of consenting adults, not pedo)? Homosexuality was once illegal in the US and it still is in many countries. What happens if the couple decides to travel to say Iran? They would be breaking their laws so should they be imprisoned/fined? I also threw the other countries in there in defense that I never ever hear about them being bigoted from adaydream at all and they take it much further than we from the US do.

So, my main concern is giving them the right to adopt, and while I do know there are some loving gays out there that could give a kid all the love and parenting he needs, I do believe if we let this go through, we will need to open open to the other sexual orientations I mentioned above.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This whole issue can be boiled down to people who hold Judeo-Christian "values", whatever that's supposed to mean, get all butt-hurt when someone else wants to do something that may not line up with their bronze age sky God myths. It's not at all about the Gay population forcing their "beliefs and practices" on the rest of America, it's about the Gay population wanting to take part in the "practices" of the rest of America. Two grown, adult US citizens not being allowed marry is absurd. The more the Judeo-Christian lobby in America makes a stink out of this by not allowing a portion of the population the same civil liberties that they allow another, the longer this stays in the news, the longer it get's exposed to people's precious children. Be a responsible parent if you are so offended and explain to your child what homosexuality really is, and explain it in a way not tainted by religious view-points. There are certain norms in society and I agree with the earlier statement that they should be eased in. Incest, polygamy are in no way a social norm and should not be allowed. Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time; how long do we "ease" them in?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Two grown, adult US citizens not being allowed marry is absurd." So then a mother/father can marry her adult son/daughter?

Be a responsible parent if you are so offended and explain to your child what homosexuality really is" Right, show a major city in the US that will allow you to do this. Tell you children in the slightest way the people on the left feel is bigoted and they will petition to have you kids taken away, even if your conversation with your kids is not biased.

why do hit Judeo-Christian values? Why not other religious values?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have one question... Who is this hurting?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have one question... Who is this hurting?" you will say I am wrong, but I think it would hurt kids who adopted.

but, since they legalized it, I won't go against the decision though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hodedo : "This whole issue can be boiled down to people who hold Judeo-Christian "values", whatever that's supposed to mean, get all butt-hurt when someone else wants to do something that may not line up with their bronze age sky God myths."

Perhaps you can point to a Hindu or Buddhist country that allows for gay marriage.

Even more remote a possibility - can you tell us of an Islamic country that even recognizes the right of homosexuals to live?

Is there an atheist utopia we in America have not heard of where gay couples can wed?

How is it where you come from?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nucular: I don't know about you, but I find it ironic how people who claim to be left use the following mantras: gay rights anti-death pro-abortion extended women's right minority rights trump majority christians and jews bad, athiest are ok if they are cool to Islam. muslims good - even though muslims use the following mantra No gays punishment by death anti-abortion no rights for women minority rights - ain't no minorities, you are either a muslim or you are out.

and here we are, debating whether gays can marry and the typicals come out saying how bigoted the US. did any of you ever thought to ponder that at least this has come this far?

<strong>Moderator: Stay on topic please. The other issues you refer to are not relevant to this discussion.</strong>

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mod: I am asking you to leave that up because posters are claiming the US is being bigoted. Yet, these same posters are constantly praising Islamic countries. I am just trying to point out the irony. I will, from this point do my best to stay completely on topic.

Here is something to notice: the following are countries where gays can get married. Canada Holland Belgim Spain US South Africa (but is going to be made illegal)

Why is it that the US has to be considered bigoted?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skip -I never ever mentioned or said anything that would alude to me approving of NAMBLA or anything incestial or not. I do not approve of sexual abuse of children. That being said...

So, my main concern is giving them the right to adopt,

Please tell me the last time you heard about a child being abused by their gay parents? Or would it be easier to find where children were starved to death by their straight parents, continually raped for years by their two parents, beat, sodomized or killed by their straight parents, teacher, scout leader or priests?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its about time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaycream: it does happen, don't kid yourself. If I put any evidence up it would be taken down. And, I am not debating that part. My main concern on that issue is not really gays' fault by that of society. How much abuse would children of same sex parent have to put with at school?

additionally, where does the line get drawn? Now that gays can marry, what is next? What if you won't support it? There is a case in Australia where an adult girl wants to marry her father - why don't you support that? What about Woody marring an adopted daughter - why would you support that? I clearly don't on either case. While you may call it conservative, I do believe some things really shouldn't be changed just to make a few happy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ok Skip, Nucular, Where am I from you ask? The US. Why do I not trash any other religions that I find equally absurd? Because none of our elected officials run around pandering to the anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion Islamic vote or Buddhist vote now do they. There simply isn't enough of them to make a difference. I liken this to the fictional Creationism Vs. Evolution debate that supposedly is raging away in the scientific community. It simply isn't. Abortion, Evolution, Gay marriage all pose a "threat" either real or percieved to the evangelical lobby in our countries politics and the Pat Robertsons of the world can't stand it. They constitute a powerful voting block so you can imagine what happens when they don't like something. It is simply a matter of, the state governments are not allowing a group of people to do the same "legal" activity that they allow others and the same aforementioned lobby is trying to get this banned on a federal level. It's nuts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Furthermore, don't bring incest and polygamy into the issue. Those are both illegal activities. Marriage is legal. As long as the two prospectives aren't related, what does anyone care?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

World's big enough for everyone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Grouchy, that was a very un-grouchy thing to say. Bravo!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HoDeDo, Your comments of

This whole issue can be boiled down to people who hold Judeo-Christian "values", whatever that's supposed to mean, get all butt-hurt when someone else wants to do something that may not line up with their bronze age sky God myths. It's not at all about the Gay population forcing their "beliefs and practices" on the rest of America, it's about the Gay population wanting to take part in the "practices" of the rest of America

is to me what defines this issue. Do I care what two adults want to do in their life, no I don't more power to them. But the underlying issue is that they want their "belief and practices" accepted as norm. If they want to take practices with the rest of America, then they realize that the rest of America finds that their practices are not normal. And instead of being seen as "abnormal" they want to try to make what they are doing the norm.

If states have legal partner rights, with the same rights as married couples in terms of hospital visitation and insurance, then I am for that. But, if they want to say that they live the "gay lifestyle" fine by me, but I want to live the "hetero lifestyle" and say that marriage is between a man and a woman.

One other thing that should be considered, the state of California voted this propostion into effect. So the majority of the people in the state, felt that they had a problem with people of the same sex being married. A disgruntled minority wants to impose their values on the majority. That is not how it is supposed to work.

I guess I am just one of the "unwashed and unenlightened" masses who would have voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman, and not between the same sex.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HoDeDo: You just fell right into it. Look at your post, I am not overly for gay marriage in the country where I am from and you put me with the racist Pat Robertsons....

Furthermore, don't bring incest and polygamy into the issue. Those are both illegal activities." Really, well so is gay marriage in many places in the US. and mind you, if you are in a Polygamist marriage, immigrate to the states, you marriages are legal... at least in most of the North East.

When I said incest, I mean about people like Woody Allen, who marries his adopted daughter - is it incest if they are both adults? What about adult children wishing to marry a parent? What about, and there are some cultures that allow brothers and sisters to get married. My point is when do we draw a line and say that's it? Gay marriage will eventually be approved in time in the US.. so what about the above points, what happens when we say No, you can't. Are you going to call everyone racist-bigots?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DanJT: You wanna bet?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skip - Mostly gay?

Most scout leaders are married and have children involved in scouting. Most teachers are men messing around with young girls and women abusing their young male students. Not gays.

Like I said before, gays aren't blood. There are direct genetic reasons to not allow incestial relationships. I don't agree with that, but you know I'm sure there is someone who would avidly debate me on their right to marry their mother or whatever. I don't agree with everything.

But your reason is a speculation that gays who might adopt and raise children will abuse those children. That any gay couples who adopt children will influence that child to be gay.

But I tell you what, >If I put any evidence up it would be taken down.

I'll take the links, you don't need to post the pages.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, no, no "But your reason is a speculation that gays who might adopt and raise children will abuse those children. That any gay couples who adopt children will influence that child to be gay." not at all.

What I meant was is how these children will be teased/bullied at school and worse, be accused of being gay and then the ultimate happens. I just think along the lines with Alpha that parenting should be man and woman.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream: . I don't agree with everything." Now, see. Why must I agree with you on gay marriage?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ship - This link is pretty good. This link shows kids of famous gays. You might even recognize a few names.

http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayparentingadoptio1/tp/famouskidsofgays.htm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skip - You don't have to. You may never agree with me. I'm just giving you my side of this debate. You are giving me your side.

I think what seems funny here, most of your fears are speculations, not substantiated by facts. They are myths spread by those who are against this life style.

If you say something long enough and loud enough some people will believe it. Doesn't have to be true. Just believed.

Was there WMD in Iraq? No!! But george bush and dick cheney screamed and yelled WMD all the way to Baghdad. There are some people that still believe there are WMD.

You don't have to believe anything or everything that I do. Thesea are just my opinions. <:-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream: man, you got me! First I was getting interested, but after reading, they are not showing children of gay parents, but children who had parents that were/are gay. And, I didn't notice any of them being adopted. Biased is another term I would label this site because it doesn't ask the children what they think about gay marriage.

Mind you, I am sure 50 is down with me on this issue. You ain't going to find any Hip Hop artist that is admitting to being gay and you ain't going to hear any hip hop songs advocating it either.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

again, I don't agree with everything." Now, see. Why must I agree with you on gay marriage?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You don't have to. Skipthesong and I disagree.

Happy now?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream: Here, Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions: Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage." same with me.

In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."" I am basically atheist or agnostic, but I am with Obama on this too..

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized." See, he is letting each state, so if a State says no, he is going to respect it... now I dare you to call him a bigot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I disagree with Barack Obama, also.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I know this isn't the topic, but Obama's non-support for gay marriages wouldn't stop me from voting for him if he gets the democratic nod.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ok skip I called no one a bigot or a racist. Race isn't even the issue, we're talking about sexual preference. Civil Unions/Marriage semantics. Same thing in a legal since. What you posted from Senator Obama's interview basically validates everything I said earlier about this whole thing being a religious issue. On another note, I secretly believe that Obama is an Athiest. Anyone else get that impression?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Barack Obama might support gay marriages someday. People change.

He is running on .......................

............................

.......................................Change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong The kids that are adopted.. That is baseless... Take into consideration adopted kids that are found in cages and beaten by their adopted parents... I very much disagree with your view on that.

Also if any wants to go strictly to the bible , then who has the right to judge another???

No one has the right to judge another and that goes with the basic gay issue itself. No one living by the bible has the right to judge anyone. We are all judged by the all mighty and it is a sin to past judgment upon another. So where are these peoples faith and practicing of religion.. I tell you where it is at, thrown out the window when one believes they can judge another.. Just pure hypocrites!!!!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I know this isn't the topic, but Obama's non-support for gay marriages wouldn't stop me from voting for him if he gets the democratic nod." there you go! that is good and more should vote for people they feel lead the populace instead of their pet issues.

tony, I could careless what the bible says.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have no problem with civil unions.

But for the record - my chief objection to gay marriage is basically what I think is the Hayekian one - a great deal of knowledge (not to mention economic wisdom) is transmitted generation to generation by the institution of marriage. I see little benefit and tremendous risk in altering so dramatically one of the fundamental - some would say the most fundamental - institutions and customs in any society.

I also have questions and fears regarding the legal ramifications of this California ruling once immigration is added to the mix. With a few amendments to strenghten it, perhaps from a federal bench packed with "progressives" under Pres. Barack Hussein Obama, does it not open the door to a whole new type of bogus "green card" marriage?

Marriage is basically a "sacrament" in every culture. Your antipathy to religion makes your demand that marriage be made legal for gay couples seem pretty absurd.

Seems to me you haven't really thought out your position - or maybe you have another you are too timid to openly advance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now that gays can marry, what is next? What if you won't support it?

This question provides some food for thought. The question has been asked before, like, 'Now that we can't have our slaves anymore, now we are going to get women suffrage, now that there is going to be equality for all races, now that alcohol is (il)legal' The list goes on. Forget for a moment what you associate with marriage. Grant couples of equal gender a status of civil union giving them certain rights. Leave out the unnecessary questions in the style of 'Today it rains, maybe tomorrow it will thunder and next the world will come to an end'. Yeah, right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, there's nothing like a good old thread about gay marriage to get the latents in an uproar.

"Forcing their way of life on us" and "polygamy and incest" is the best these strange people can come out with in defense of denying other human beings basic rights? Good "god", it's time to move out of the dark ages.

"Phyllis Lyon, 80, said she had waited more than 50 years for the opportunity to marry her partner Del Martin, 84."

50 years? It's about damned time that these people can have the equal rights the rest of us take for granted.

As long as they don't force it on other people's religion, or force the child adoption issue, I'm behind them 100%.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As long as they don't force it on other people's religion, or force the child adoption issue, I'm behind them 100%." Now, that I am with too.!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As long as they don't force it on other people's religion, or force the child adoption issue, I'm behind them 100%." Now, that I am with too.!

As far as I understand it, the legislation isn't about forcing anything on anyone, unless one feels they have to accept the concept marriage/civil union is not restricted to heterosexuals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Heh, there's nothing like a good old thread about gay marriage to get the latents in an uproar."

Good point there, madverts.

I'm originally from a city with a large gay population. Had lotsa coworkers and even bosses who were gay - back in the Reagan era no less! Your observation reminded me of a chef I once worked with, an ex-jet mechanic and Vietnam vet. Explaining his orientation to a newcomer to the coast from one of the Rocky Mt states, surprised at the clout gays had in the city's business circles, he said he knew he was on the other team so to speak when he realized one day that for years he had been wondering if the guys around him, friend or stranger, were "latent."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nucular,

Then why on earth where you banging on earlier about liberals "imposing their beliefs and practices on others"?

Heh...you can imagine that hearing this from someone who supported invading a sovereign nation to force the American way onto a people that didn't want it sounds pretty damned hilarious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"As far as I understand it, the legislation isn't about forcing anything on anyone, unless one feels they have to accept the concept marriage/civil union is not restricted to heterosexuals."

You get it, but the latents do not. Why people who choose to live together but happen to be same sex couples should be denied the basic rights of civil unions is a mystery to me.

The people who do must clearly feel threatnened by homosexuals which says it all to me. And as soon as they are challenged what do they do?

They start shrieking about incest and polygamy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry madverts, but from a judicial point of view it is quite clear that these 4 judges are imposing their beliefs on the people of California, who voted only 7 years ago against any amendment recognizing marriage between anyone other than a man and a woman. And if I recall correctly it was a healthy 61 percent who said no to gay marriage.

IOW - 4 judicial activists have decided - in a ruling affecting more than 1/10th of the US population - what shall constitute marriage in the state of California.

I can understand if Cali were 2 states - a North and a South - that the northern half might be able to pass a referendum allowing gay couples to be recognized as married. I'd even argue that the rest of the country should, for educational reasons alone, respect the law, but no such scenario exists or is even in the cards.

I know, I know, you think you understand our system.

But you don't.

"Heh...you can imagine that hearing this from someone who supported invading a sovereign nation to force the American way onto a people that didn't want it sounds pretty damned hilarious."

Sorry. I really don't follow. Iraq has nothing to do with the coup these 4 judges pulled off.

Nice try though.

"It's all about dignity"

http://www.moonbattery.com/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's not a "nice try". On one hand you're bleating about the hated "liberals" who are "imposing their beliefs and practices on others" and yet you supported imposing your beliefs and practices on the people of Iraq for years here. I was actually talking about hypocrisy, your hypocrisy, not the war in Iraq old friend.

Talk about having homosexuals forcing their lifestyles on to you all you like. Bring in incest and polygamy as usual. Even mention the kiddy fiddlers as that always scores points...

...at the end of the day, people like you wishing to deny other human beings basic rights becuase their sexuality clearly poses questions you don't like are heading for the history books.

Et adieu!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

madverts : "...at the end of the day, people like you wishing to deny other human beings basic rights becuase their sexuality clearly poses questions you don't like are heading for the history books."

Read what I posted. If the people of California want to legalize gay marriage well then their state deals with the consequences.

You sanctimonious Euros make me laugh. At least posters like smithinjapan can say, with Canadian pride, I guess, that they are so broad-minded they even let gay people marry.

But then again, like much of what comes out of Canada it is more of a reaction against what we in the States are doing than it is what ordinary Canadians really want.

France and UK allow for gay marriage?

No.

Garsh - are they shtoopid, ignorant "fundies" or are they "latent", or both?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As John McClane would say, "( expletive ) California!"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nucular,

Let's not avoid the point in contention. You mention France and the UK but they have nothing to do with this discussion - despite that I know fine well why you mention them old friend.

You can't on one hand berate people for "imposing their beliefs and practices on others" when you yourself have supported exactly the same thing in the middle east.

Straight ot even latent's are petrified about the gay question becuase they are so worried that they'll be taken for being homosexual for vocalizing their support of the rights of gay couples to pension or inheritance rights etc...

I don't care what figure you've found or which countries do not support gay unions - the fact is we cannot continue to deny these people basic rights because of their sexuality. It's neanderthal. And thankfully, it's on its' way out.

FYI, Noël Mamere married a gay couple not so long ago, only for it to anulled. The French are on the same path, though I'm pretty sure civil unions are possible in the UK and perhaps even France. Look on the bright side - the US is ahead of the game here!

The most important thing to do here I think is to stop using the word "marriage". Clearly the religious can't take it so it needs to be called gay unions and be done with. Heh, unless my favourite pastor Teg Haggard is going to finally come clean and finally chuck his love spuds on the religious end of the barbeque.

My problem, as already stated, is not with the people who object to gays being married as part of a religion...it's the people that make stupid claims about having other people's lifestyles forced upon them or the people who feel the need to mention polygamy or incest or worse, as if it wasn't something that those passing themselves as "straight" get up to....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nucular: "Read what I posted. If the people of California want to legalize gay marriage well then their state deals with the consequences."

And fortunately the 'consequences' are an advancement from a state of neanderthal to upright, decent human beings.

"Phyllis Lyon, 80, said she had waited more than 50 years for the opportunity to marry her partner Del Martin, 84."

That beats the time most (often religious) nutters who have been married, by a LONG shot! And I didn't hear about any wife-beatings, child molestation, or anything else that makes ultra-right people who believe 'marriage' should be limited to a man and woman look plain stupid. If two people love each other, regardless of gender, the idea of them wanting to be united is the only thing that is important. If a bunch of dying old cronies want the word marriage 'under GAWD' to be kept the way it 'always has been' (haha!), let them have the word; as Madverts said it's time to update the nomenclature anyway.

Congratulations, California! it'll send bush and the like into a foaming frenzy of fear, but you have succeeded in setting a proud example of progress in a country which lacks it in so many other respects. Good on you!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"that makes ultra-right people who believe 'marriage' should be limited to a man and woman"

Heh, and as we've seen, some of that lot turn out to be secret meth snorting, gay swingers when they're not preaching against gay union.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts: "Heh, and as we've seen, some of that lot turn out to be secret meth snorting, gay swingers when they're not preaching against gay union."

Indeed.... and some even Republican senators who admit it, apologize, admit to resign, then pretend they never said it and rail even harder against gays.... hahahaha.

Silence from the Right...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is up there with giving people of color the right to vote in America. I'd like to think the "righties" have no regrets about the times when a couple of judges ruled in favor of a (non)contentious issue in the States. But some folks here seem to think differently.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How queer this is since 36 million Californians voted to keep marriage defined as a man and a woman. Activist judges overturned this as they know better. It doesn't matter what the public thinks or votes for.

Why can't 14-year-olds get married?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Note: Gays can marry as long as it is within the confines of the law, just like all people in all countries.

I cannot marry my brother, nor would I want to.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How queer this is since 36 million Californians voted to keep marriage defined as a man and a woman.

Let's go back to West Virginia and check out how the white voters feel about having to deal with affirmative action. I bet they'd vote against it and it took an act of congress to protect the minority.

It took an act of congress to allow women the right to vote, even though women were looked at as just women who know knothing about politics.

Minorities need protections and rights that are afforded others, even if you don't agree.

Let's have a vote to see how many people agree with interracial marriages. Against the will of the people, people were given the right to marry a different race.

Minorities need to be protected and given rights as afforded to others.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The Republican-dominated court's decision, which cited a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that overturned a ban on interracial marriages, swept away decades of tradition and said there was no legally justifiable reason why the state should withhold the institution of marriage because of a couple's sexual orientation."

My my my... so interracial marriages also used to be banned, eh? Damn! I wonder if nucular will also cite the bible and say that that never should have been done, either...... would be funny to see for a foreigner in Japan to say on JT. Just goes to show, old laws are old laws, and meant to change for the better in many cases; this being one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan : "And fortunately the 'consequences' are an advancement from a state of neanderthal to upright, decent human beings."

And yet France, the guiding light to which Canada slavishly looks to in all matters political - still denies gay couples the right to wed.

And how were things up in Canada back then , eh? No racial discrimination up there, eh smith?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"How queer this is"

Har!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why isn't anyone answering jambon's questions? Why can't someone marry a 14 year old in the US? they can in other countries... why can't he marry his brother, they do in other countries...

Because democracy works for majority rule with minority rights implied. But, I would hardly call someone a minority because of the way they have sex, which their first experience most likely takes place around 14/15 years of age. As a person within a minority group, I take great offense to them being termed as such.

Again, if voters go for it, then it is to be respected. If voters don't go for it that too should be respected. Don't come back and throw race, gender, age - all the physical aspects that makes someone a minority in your argument. It just proves how weak you are.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I just don't understand why gay marriage suddenly turns into conversations about marrying minors, family members, and polygamy. Just because I support two legal adults getting the same legal rights as heterosexuals I'm somehow supporting Billy Bob marrying his 9-year old twin sisters? If anything, allowing marriage between a man and a woman would promote those things to a much greater extent, no?

Stopping people from getting the same legal rights as others isn't imposing their will on you. It's you imposing your will on them. Gay marriage will in no way impact your life. But denying gay marriage will impact their lives.

And being in a gay relationship isn't against the law (not in the US at least). Being in a relationship with a minor is. Being married to more than one person is. Being married to a family member is. I don't believe that allowing gay marriage is a "gateway" that will suddenly embolden people to want to marry their sister and use gay marriage as a precedent.

Skip, if gay couple were allowed to get married but not adopt, would you support gay marriage?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sl: "Skip, if gay couple were allowed to get married but not adopt, would you support gay marriage?" again, I still think it depends on the people. I don't look at gays as though they are of a minority group where discrimination was setup by the government.

Why are we bringing the other issues up is because they are relevent. Think about it, its ok to for gays to marry here, so it should be here too is the usual thought, so so is marrying someone so young and so is polygammy. These points beg the question: where is a line drawn? Of course I don't want any of those things, but if I am going to be considered a bigot because I ain't down with this issue, who can say people won't be calling you a bigot when those issue I stated come up? Guess what, they have. NAMBLA wants to lower the age of consent, large immigrant communities, right there in NYC and Chicago are pushing to accept families where the mothers are both in a polygamous marriage and are not only young, but very young. The back lash has been just that - you don't agree with our culture, you are a bigot and that is the mantra to get that rep out.

Where does it end? You say you are down with this issue, therefore you would considered yourself enlightened, but when the other issues come up and you say no, there will be people calling you a bigot. Again, where is the line drawn.

In truth, if two people of the same sex love each other and want to get married I really have no hate for them but we are talking about a change that I personally feel is being pushed that is going to require work in the way in which you teach your kids about sex, the way schools will teach families (notice "Little Miss Sunshine" where she laughs at his telling her about his boyfriend and she say you made a mistake you must mean your girlfriend).

If they can marry, and not be able to adopt, and if they already have kids from a previous relationship they support the idea that a family, should be, made from a man and a woman...

Until men can start having babies, naturally of course, then I need to go with the status quo.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skip .. maybe there needs to be a change in teaching kids about all that you mention since this is reality of life. Interracial marriages and all. Kids see this from birth, don't they? So should it be just ignored and keep kids dumbfounded until they learn for themselves? Why a kid with a black Mom and White Dad still are black or even why they have two parents of different race?? Do not teach them that this is the real world?? I do not see the change being pushed, but only the truth acknoledged.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It seems some people here think that the role of the judiciary is to reflect public opinion. If that were the case, the disenfranchisement of women and segregation would probably still be on the books since the majority were comfortable with those restrictions and fearful of where social change might lead.

The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law from the perspective of citizens' rights. Not one person who opposed this decision here came up with a legally compelling reason as to why same-sex couples should be denied the legal benefits of marriage. It doesn't mean a minister is now required to marry a gay couple, or any couple, but city hall shouldn't be able to turn them away. And now it won't; at least in the Golden and Bay States.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law from the perspective of citizens' rights. Not one person who opposed this decision here came up with a legally compelling reason as to why same-sex couples should be denied the legal benefits of marriage."

So if the same 4 judges declared - also against the wishes of California citizens - that the age of consent in their state shall henceforth be 14 for girls and 16 for boys you'd have no problem with that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Judges decide the age of consent?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do you understand how the law works? A gay couple must have filed suit claiming discrimination under existing laws. Just as the a black girl in Kansas claimed "separate was not equal" with respect to schooling. And the judges decided, after reviewing the law, they were right.

These were not among the legal considerations in the current case (pasted in from above):

[T]he underlying issue is that they want their "belief and practices" accepted as norm. If they want to take practices with the rest of America, then they realize that the rest of America finds that their practices are not normal. And instead of being seen as "abnormal" they want to try to make what they are doing the norm...

[F]or the record - my chief objection to gay marriage is basically what I think is the Hayekian one - a great deal of knowledge (not to mention economic wisdom) is transmitted generation to generation by the institution of marriage. I see little benefit and tremendous risk in altering so dramatically one of the fundamental - some would say the most fundamental - institutions and customs in any society...

Nucular needs to explain why childless marriages should be legal, nevermind many gay people have children (such as Dick Cheney's younger daughter who has been in a long-time relationship).

As for the court lowering the age of consent, they could only do so if a 14-year old brought a case claiming discrimination because she had to wait until the age of 18 (or 16 with parental consent). Does that sound like an issue of discrimination to you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If I can have two daddys then why not three daddys?

Ever wonder why the kibbutz failed?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"California citizens"

Incorrect designation. One is a citizen of a country and resident of a state. This court ruling will pump up tourism, which levies hefty taxes on things such as hotel rooms and rental cars, as gays flock to the Golden State to get married (considering the current state budget shortfall nobody will be complaining on that score). Massachusetts only performs marriages for state residents so their ruling had little national impact.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Jambon, you obviously know nothing about Kibbutzm whatsoever. It's a an agricultural/service cooperative, not the Appalachians in the states or Waco (and no one really knows the story about the latter). Betzee, your posts are sound, but as for gay marriage posing a threat to society in terms of what is passed on to children etc., Respect, but I beg to differ. Aside from what the cons would have us believe, gays don't live as straights first, have kids, and only then decide to enter into same-sex unions and then confuse their kids.

Sure it's probably happened, but that's because of the taboo (the religious-political taboo) that prevented them from entering same-sex unions in the first place. Folks usually know pretty early on whether they are straight or not. It's usually not an epiphany that hits them when their kids are formative. My views, Darwinian in this case, is that the majority of same-unions would result in no kids, hence no perpetuation the morals you perceive as being intrinsically negative to society. It's ends with the couple being happy. If they wanted to adopt kids ... then I see where you're coming from.

Society in general is not affected by this law. Gay society is only one that is affected here. It's basically an acknowledgment of a people's right to freedom of association acknowledged as such by the state (and it already is in other ways). It's progressive (see the right bristle at the "P"-word) and the legislators should be commended for forward thinking in the land that we all grew up thinking as the land of the free.

The real issue here, and I'm surprised it hasn't come up, is that same-sex unions don't produce kids. No kids = no taxpayer-of-tomorrow. All governments want the taxpayer-of-tomorrow because someone has to pay the bill. Gay people are probably not concerned about the taxpayer-of-tomorrow and that doesn't sit well with any government, particularly one based on a veneer of Christian values. ergo: no deal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Muruku, You're right; gays who've conceived children the old-fashioned way are of an older generation when coming out of the closet was not an option. So they married someone of the opposite sex, had a family and then things broke down and they found someone of their own persuasion with whom they are very happy. I work with a woman like this, her 40-something female partner is a divorcee and a grandmother. They share at least one "Hi Babe!" phone call a day which makes another person we work with uncomfortable but it's less about the fact they are gay than that he feels it's not proper office etiquette.

As for gays producing children, people who become parents by unnatural means have generally thought it over carefully and understand the responsibilites they are taking on. They also tend to be older and financially secure as well. The marriage law won't have any effect on reproductive rates among gays; they either will want to become parents, like Mary Cheney, or not. Those who do become parents, however, will disproportionately line up for a marriage license, so their kids can enjoy all the benefits of stable family life.

I know a lesbian couple who have two boys (each one gave birth to one son). It's a terrible hassle for them to travel, for example, since they are not recognized as a legal family. Parental permission slips have to be presented to the airline authorizing the non-biological mother to take the other one's son on a plane trip. Same-sex marriage will open the door for them to become adoptive parents and end these types of hassles (which will be good for their kids as well).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A no-nonsense response to the public hysteria over "activist judges and abnormal behavior":

The ruling by the California Supreme Court needs to be put into perspective. The ruling allows same-sex couples to marry, just as state laws allow opposite-sex couples to marry now. It does not require anyone to enter into a same-sex marriage. This ruling has absolutely no effect on anyone not interested in marrying someone of the same sex. We can continue our lives just as before. For those wishing to marry someone of the same sex, this ruling is a life-changing moment. I wish them all the same happiness enjoyed by the opposite-sex couples who marry (and divorce) daily.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9301145?nclick_check=1

0 ( +0 / -0 )

California copies Canada and Europe. Welcome California. Being gay is whatever. Who cares.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

best wishes!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

marriage should be available to any couple who want it, including the financial benefits. marriage and the bible should have nothing to do with each other in this day and age

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here's some good news for Mr. Sulu.

http://georgetakei.com/news.asp

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A spouse has legal rights and responsibilities that a friend or lover do not. The same-sex couples want equal access to that status. Nothing wrong with that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ren_doi & lipscombe.

I agree, only seems the "insecure" people that are against gay/lesbian marriage.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites