You've probably all read the news today, but here are the results...

Wondering what will happen next.

just a theory, but with the court leaving the 18,000 marriages valid, did they purposefully set this up for a federal 14th amendment challenge?

Excuse me? Not agreeing with gay marriage = "relegating gays to second class citizens"? Strawman, much?

No. They were just following legal precedent. And gay rights advocates would be dumb to take the case to SCOTUS atm, as they're setting themselves up for an almost assured defeat given DOMA and the current make-up of the court. And a defeat there would be worse than a simple defeat in a state court as any decision SCOTUS reaches is legally binding on all state courts.

But it still leaves open 14th Amendment (and other legal) challenges.

which precedent? That there is now no 'equal protection' for the numerous other gay couples that didn't get to marry? or that 18,000 marriages are recognized because they happened to slide in before the lock? I see a 14th Amendment challenge coming.

Laws have never been applied retroactively unless they were stated to be applied retroactively beforehand. Prop 8 never stated this, in part because it was drafted before any same-sex marriages had been performed. As a result, the courts simply decided that Prop 8 couldn't be used to invalidate every same-sex marriage performed in California-- Just those occurring after Prop 8 was passed.

But, like I said, good luck with the 14th Amendment challenge. I don't see that going very far, especially with DOMA in the way. And then there's the fact that Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas will almost certainly vote against any such arguments brought forth by gay rights advocates, which would mean that gay rights advocates would have to get the other five justices to vote in their favor. They'd most likely get Ginsberg, Stevens and Breyer. I don't know anything about the new lady, so I can't comment. I don't see Kennedy siding with the more liberal wing, as while he's generally supportive of gay rights, he's always stopped short of insinuating that the government should have to legally recognize any relationship that gays enter into. So, at best, I'd see a 5 - 4 split against gay advocates, at worst a 6 - 3 split.

I'm pretty sure gay rights advocates know this, so they won't try to press the issue in a Federal court. Sure, they could win, but they probably wouldn't and losing there would be a major blow to their cause.

Giving rights to some people and not other people based on immutable characteristics is the very definition of relegating someone to a second class citizen. You not liking what you are doesn't change it.

---------- Post added at 08:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:37 PM ----------

Unfortunately, a 14th Amendment challenge will go nowhere. It's language has been read on numerous occasions to exclude sexuality (homosexuality, transsexualism, etc.) and the current courts do not have the proper make up to change that-assuming that it'd even be a good idea for them to do so. Even being a staunch advocate for gay marriage, I think constitutional amendments are the way to grant them rights, just as we did with sex and gender. Unfortunately, that just means it's going to take some time.

And I agree. Too bad for you marriage isn't a right.

a con-con?

Isn't that the one with Frank Sinatra and Shirley MacLaine?

Ring-a-Ding, Ding, Ding.

right, privilege, Happy Meal Toy.....whatever you want to call it, it's being granted carte blanche to some (heterosexuals) and denied to others (homosexuals). You can play the semantics game all day, but the facts remain the facts

in the end, this is obviously a numbers game. i would hope that another initiative is mounted, and soon, and that this time people who do not support the relegation of people who happen to be gay to a second-class status will find themselves defeated in california as they have been in state after state.

i look forward to that day.


there is no argument, no belief, no system of beliefs that enables folk to arrogate to themselves the prerogative to tell people who are not them who they can and cannot choose to love.

That sounds about right.

well this is totally false. All one needs to do is look up cases that were affected by the Lautenberg amendment.


They'd have to be fools if they do, unless they can come up with a very convincing opinion laying out why equal protection doesn't apply in this particular instance....other than the standard 'we disagree' sentence. Doing so would basically render the USSC irrelevant and people and states would tell the feds to finally fuck off.

---------- Post added at 08:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 PM ----------

con-con is short for constitutional convention.

---------- Post added at 08:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 PM ----------

say what? and you can prove that it isn't? for instance, you can show in any state constitution that it says you can only marry who the state says you can?

Wait. What states are those? Because I must have missed them.

And, for the love of God man, disagreeing with gay marriage does not equal "relegating gays to second class citizenry".

You can love whom you wish. No one's ever debated that.

Well, I have to say that's news to me because the U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits retroactive laws.

Not really. You're assuming that sexuality is a suspect class offered full protection under the 14th Amendment.

Huh? 20-something states, I believe, have passed constitutional amendments which limit marriage to one man and one woman.

What facts? What argument? Gays are not specifically prohibited from marrying nor are they specifically targeted by any measure. Your problem is that you assume the latter two statements to be true whilst simultaneously ignoring the fact that there is no fundamental difference in limiting marriages based on the genders of the persons looking to be wed and limiting marriages based on age, consanguinity or even number of persons looking to be wed. Yes, I went there.

Passing it off as semantics doesn't make it semantics. It means that you don't fully understand what it is you're arguing about/for. You can argue for same-sex marriages all you want, but to insinuate denying people the ability to enter into same-sex marriages is discriminatory is simply inane.

One would think that, especially since it says right in the constitution that there shall be no ex-post facto laws, but you'd be wrong. I was shocked also, as were lots of other gun owners.

and if this country actually had a supreme court that ruled via the constitution and the rule of law, there wouldn't need to be. We are, however, lorded over by a federal government that makes up rulings on the fly as it wants or needs to.

and for those states, great. They actually went through the process of amending their constitution. It's sad to see that they were goaded in to giving their state governments the power to discriminate though. But that's what happens when we have a nation of cowards.

states where gay folk can marry:

* Connecticut
* District of Columbia
* New Hampshire
* New Jersey
* New York
* Maine
* Massachusetts
* Vermont
* Iowa
* Oregon
* Washington

Well, now I know, though I'm not so sure how that's constitutional, much less legal.

If that were to happen then there would be an awful lot of SCOTUS rulings over the past 40 years that would have been thrown out, which is part great, part not-so-great.

Wait. How were they "goaded" into anything? You don't have to like the process by which they did it, but it's a right allowed to them by their respective constitutions unless the U.S. Constitution, or SCOTUS, says otherwise.

This isn't totally true.

Only four, five in September, allow SSM to be performed within their borders: NH, NJ, Iowa, Maine and Massachutes. The others provide some sort of recognition for same-sex marriages performed out of state but do not perform them themselves. And, even then, I was asking you what state has legalized SSM by popular vote? The answer is none of them. So I don't understand your whole "move out of the way and be defeated as they have in state after state" quip.

You've said this before, and it's still wrong. Gays have insisted on being permitted to marry, and they have been denied.

Because they're gay. That is discriminatory.

The ONLY reason they aren't allowed to marry is because they're gay. They can't marry because they're gay. Gay couples cannot be married because they're the same sex. There is nothing else out of the ordinary. John and Tony cannot get married because they'd need to deny their sexuality and find women to do that. Beth and Tammy have the same problem, except they'd need to break up and find men.

How many other ways can I put this?

Leave minors, consanguinity, and polygamy out of this. Gays aren't going for any of those things any more or less than heterosexuals.

If a member of the clergy is willing to marry gays, what right does the state have in denying that?

Denying same-sex marriage in a way is a refusal to accept gays as "legitimate" couples. It sends a statement to all gay couples: You are not a real relationship.

That's not quite true, though. As this one exchange between you and IL goes, he's right and you're wrong. Gays are allowed to marry under the same conditions that others are allowed marriage. There's really no way around that fact. They're denied - wrongly, of course - their preferred version of marriage, but heterosexuals are denied the same.

A better tact is to question why the government bestows special privileged upon one type of committed union and not this other type. Why do certain heterosexual couples get to file jointly but not any homosexual couples? Why can't homosexuals with kids get the same tax breaks that heterosexuals with kids do? Why can't homosexuals arrange for hospital visitation rights as heterosexuals can?

Or alternately, for those who have a partial deal, why is it that heterosexuals get all these perks in one easy package while homosexuals have to jump through hoops?

It's my suspicion that the anti-gay marriage position is ultimately just plain indefensible without resorting to some theocratic perspective (however veiled), but myspaceish mischaracterizations like "how can you deny people the right to love who they love??!?" really help to muddy questions of each side's relative credibility.

..

my my timalkin, what a noxious little sentence.

since when in NY? We attended a wonderful commitment ceremony of a lovely gay lesbian couple and it was a commitment ceremony beause they couldn't get married in the traditional sense.

or better yet, how.

..

this is a meme that the anti-gay marriage people like to cling to. the options aren't "draw a line here or erase the line entirely". one can choose to move the line. I dont' for a second buy the argument that allowing same-sex marriages opens the floodgates for people marrying their moms, sisters and dogs.

You realize that your exact same argument was made by those who opposed interracial marriage. In fact, you can replace the phrase "same-sex" with "interracial" in nearly every current argument and you'd have a carbon copy of the argument that was made a few decades ago....

^^^^^ Exactly.

Okay, then give us you reasons for denying them the option to marry so we can understand better. Explain how you justify it in a way that doesn't draw the line between two groups of citizens

Children and animals cannot properly consent to sexual relationships.

I've always found this confusing.

Gays shouldn't be able to marry in the same way that people shouldn't be able to marry horses and toddlers.

WTF?

Wait a minute! We should ABOLISH marriage, because there is always the RISK that one day ALL of this will be permitted! Marriage at its essence is too dangerous! Heterosexual marriage can only lead to the marriage to the devil!

Let's abandon this marriage experiment.

I don't understand why folks who aren't involved in a marriage think that it is any less valid than any other. "Because that's the way it's always been" seems like a particularly lazy excuse since slavery, facial hair requirements and unreversable sworn loyalty to a superior (regardless of their competency) all have died out in Western society, and they're all examples of "the way it is." Of course, those against gay marriage also tend to be those who want to keep folks from buying sex toys or alcohol at random times or making sure that none of their precisious snowflakes ever learn to think for themselves.

Then again, my kids have at least 4 friends being raised by same-sex couples, and they're all great parents.

You do know that some of the first mentions of marriage in the bible actually refer to polygamy, right? David, Solomon, Abraham were all polygamists... So the concept of marriage has changed, without necessarily meaning that anything goes.

timalkin: i'll use caps so you follow this one, ok?

The backwater meme you repeated above: it's fucking idiotic.
There's nothing to discuss because it's not worth taking seriously.

Motion seconded.

I'm fine with a complete separation of church and state on marriage. Let church's "marry" who they want, but strip them of any legal rights (priests/pastors can no longer sign marriage certificates, etc.) Make any civil unions be a purely government/paperwork exercise, and don't discriminate based on sexual orientation.

-- Sure. As soon as you tell me where the line is.

Remember, I am not calling for Gays not to be able to marry.
I feel the individual states should make the call.

That way when the next group says, "If marraige isn't between a man and a woman, why is it restricted to just two people?" and the battle starts again, individual states can find their own solutions.

So tell me, how are you going to respond to polygomists who say, "My civil rights are being violated because I can't be married to more than one person at once."

Or the 60 year old lady who wants to marry her sister, not out of love but so she will be covered by her health benefits.

Both of those examples come from Anderson Cooper from CNN. Those people at the protests gave CNN those reasons for supporting Gay marraige.

They, by their own admission, don't care about gays. They just want the definition of marraige to change so they can then sue to have it cover them, as well.

I have no say in the matter, so they wouldn't be pleading their cases to me. I would, however, like to hear the arguments.

-- I am not sure if the interviews are on YouTube or not.
Their argument is basically this:

If marraige is no longer defined as just between a man and a woman, then it can no longer be defined as just between two people.

They state that there is no argument for removing just the gender restrictions. If they can remove that, there is no way they can argue against removing the number restrictions.

What argument would they use against expanding the definition further? Tradition? Societal norms? etc. etc. If those arguments wouldn't wash for gays, it wouldn't/shouldn't wash for polygamists.

Same with WHO you marry. Why can't sisters marry if the reason is simply to ensure one has medical coverage or right to life insurance benefits?

They also brought up NAMBLA. Why can't there be a 'marraige' between a man and a boy? Their argument is based on the fact that in some states, a minor can leave school without parent's knowledge to get an abortion. If a child can be thought mature enough to choose to have a surgical procedure, they are mature enough to be married. The way around it would be a promise for it to be a 'plutonic' relationship until age of consent.

So I ask, where woul the line be? And more to the point...how would you justify it?
Apparently 'the will of the people' in a legal vote isn't enough to satisfy.

I don't think labeling over half the population of CA as homophobes is going to fly in the next round.

you move the line one case at a time. The line will never move to incest (even if it's a non-sexual, monetary/benefit based partnership), and the NAMBLA argument is moot because minors can't enter a legal contract.

And again, look at this slightly modified version of your post:

Those who opposed interracial marriage found that slope was nowhere close to being as slippery as they had forecast....

The line for me is consent. Homosexual couples can give knowing consent, heterosexual couples can give knowing consent, polygamous couples (or triples or quadruples, etc.) can give knowing consent and incestuous couples can give knowing consent. I know a lot of people will have trouble wrapping their heads around those last two, but no one is forcing you into those relationships so it's really none of your business. Even if the people next door are in a polygamous homosexual incestuous relationship, it's none of your business just like a heterosexual couple is none of your business.

Children cannot give consent, animals cannot give consent, and non-living objects cannot give consent. Also, some mentally disabled people cannot give consent, which might also cause some head-wrapping troubles.

For the record, Willravel is against the sybian, dildos, vibrators, blow-up dolls, strap-ons, sex swings, anal beads, various fruits and vegetables, the Fleshlight, vibrating panties and any other sex toy that I've forgotten.