According to the AFP, the California Supreme Court today overturned the ban on same-sex marriage, calling domestic partnerships a poor substitute for marriage: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.
There's a precedent for California starting a domino effect. David Cruz, a law professor at the University of Southern California and an expert in constitutional law, says in the AFP article:
"In the 20th century California was the first state to strike down laws against inter-racial marriage. They did that 19 years before the US Supreme Court got around to it."
So, soon (er, in 19 years) we could be a nation that grants gay couples the same rights as straight ones. How does it feel?
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 9)
31. Thomas Jefferson, at the time serving as Ambassador to France, wrote to Madison advocating a Bill of Rights: "Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can."
Further, in 1774, Jefferson wrote a "A Summary View of the Rights of British America", his first published work. The pamphlet helped provide the theoretical framework for American independence.
Two years later, Jefferson served as a delegate to the Second Continental Congress beginning in June 1775, soon after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. When Congress began considering a resolution of independence in June 1776, Jefferson was appointed to a five-man committee to prepare a declaration to accompany the resolution.
The committee selected Jefferson to write the first draft because of his reputation as a writer, and because no one else thought the task important enough to want the job. Jefferson completed a draft in consultation with other committee members, drawing heavily on George Mason's draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, state and local calls for independence, his own proposed draft of the Virginia Constitution, and other sources.
Jefferson presented a draft to the committee, which made some final revisions, and then presented it to Congress on June 28, 1776. After voting in favor of the resolution of independence on July 2, Congress turned its attention to the declaration. Over several days of debate, Congress made a few changes in wording and deleted nearly a fourth of the text, most notably a passage critical of the slave trade, changes that Jefferson resented. On July 4, 1776, the wording of the Declaration of Independence was approved. The Declaration would eventually become Jefferson's major claim to fame, and his eloquent preamble became an enduring statement of human rights.
So to address the "holier than thou" lies and obfuscation we continue to see in this forum, I repeat our founding father's question:
"How is the right of a minority to have equality
(marriage equality between two consenting adults) harmful or injurious to others?"
No one could bring a compelling argument to the CA Supreme Court that NONheterosexual marriage was harmful nor injurious to their marriage or to anyone else. So the Sumpreme court favored EQUALITY FOR ALL in terms of marriage between two consenting adults.
Religious bigotry and hypocrisy wants to do away with that fair-minded decision, and many here attempt to do so by of all things, lying and "baring false witness".
Friendster214 at 11:29PM on May 15th 2008
32. Although Thomas Jefferson was in France serving as United States minister when the Federal Constitution was written in 1787, he was able to influence the development of the federal government through his correspondence with many founding fathers, including John Adams who visited with him in France.
Thomas Jefferson's December 20, 1787, letter to James Madison contains objections to key parts of the new Federal Constitution. Primarily, Jefferson noted the absence of a bill of rights and the failure to provide for rotation in office or term limits, particularly for the chief executive. During the writing and ratification of the constitution, in an effort to influence the formation of the new governmental structure, Jefferson wrote many similar letters to friends and political acquaintances in America.
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
December 20, 1787.
Manuscript letter.
Page 2
Manuscript Division (106)
Later Jefferson's actions as the first secretary of state, vice president, leader of the first political opposition party, and third president of the United States were crucial in shaping the look of the nation's capital and defining the powers of the Constitution.
Friendster214 at 11:50PM on May 15th 2008
33.
My husband and I have been together for almost 22 years and married for 9.
And not even with a daughter to raise does gay marriage threaten me one iota.
She asked me what "gay" meant when it comes to sex a year or so ago. I told her that "Well, most guys like women and most women like guys, but some guys like guys and some women like women."
She said "Oh," shrugged and went on her way.
She wasn't surprised or concerned in any way.
FL Chick at 12:29AM on May 16th 2008
34. I'm glad to see that this minority group is getting the freedom they deserve.
Despite the objections of those who would throw bible verses in the faces of others or who desperately cling to the "slippery slope" arguments of pedophilia or bestality which don't hold water.
maria at 12:54AM on May 16th 2008
35. "Of course you need kids to solidify a marriage. The entire concept of entering a contract that binds adults together for life is derived entirely from the life-long project of child rearing/family. Why else would adults legally bind to each other for life???"
I don't know about you, but I married for love.
maria at 3:28AM on May 16th 2008
36.
You're right, maria.
Marriage is about love.
It is also a declaration of trust in your love. Trusting the other person and your love for each other enough to bind your lives together legally, as well as physically and spiritually. (Please note: spirituality does NOT equal religion.)
The people who are truly perverted are those who think that this legally binding declaration of love should only be the privilege of heterosexuals.
FL Chick at 3:31AM on May 16th 2008
37. think about it like this. for everyone who is against it. your children or your childrens children may be come gay. what are you going to do then?
Liz at 4:17AM on May 16th 2008
38. NO HUMAN BEING CAN KNOW "HOW GOD THINK" and these fanatics and ignorant uncultured church goers who believes the BIBLE BEEN THE "WORD OF GOD" are blind people following another blind.
THE FACT REMAINS THAT IF "THERE EXISTED ONLY ADAM AND ADAM, MANKIND DID NOT EXISTED TODAY.
OUR WORLD ARE FOLLOWING THE TRAGEDIE THAT FINISHED THE ATLANTIS CONTINENT----OUR TECNOLOGIE IS A FANTASTIC ONE, BUT THE "TINKING" IS QUITE BARBERIC AND LITTLE BY LITTLE WE ALL WILL BE VICTMES OF OURSELFS.
Italo Babini at 6:25AM on May 16th 2008
39. So...Only Breeders should marry...because you all are doing such a great job of it...most marraiges end in what, 5 years, most due to adultery? Oh...and reproduce, so your neglected child can BEG for attention in the public school system by acting out and misbehaving because all they get at home is ignored. (That's what happens when you make generalizations)
I am gay, that makes me the spawn of Satan?? If I am to be punished by God, that is what I choose to face in my end of days. I am not to be judged by the hypocrate that lives down the street for what happens in my personal life between me and my partner. WOO-HOO for equal rights...woo hoo for partner benefits. Maybe the divorce rate in the country will drop...lol.
Patch at 7:25AM on May 16th 2008
40. To Friendster214, there is no question that 99.9% of marriages throughout history have produced children. We know this because we know that regular sexual activity produces children and infertility is a rare, rare defect. Moreover, it is this project of child-rearing that obligates adult sexual partners to enter a life-long contractual partnership punishable by law. Raising 2-6 children requires a lifetime of commitment by the adult sex partners. Next, nature itself has made all male-female couples "baby factories," and the state has always recognized that this "factory" is what creates and nurtures its citizenry--thus the state's special recognition of it.
To FL Chick, what did your daughter say when you told her that some guys and girls like sex with horses and dogs and others like sex with their siblings? Did she just say "Oh," and shrug and go on her way? C'mon, use your head here. The unique marriage contract exists because humans have a long-term obligation to raise the children they reproduce via their sexual activity.
To Maria and FL Chick, if "marriage" is a love contract, can you marry your mom and dad? Can you marry your pets? And what happens when love disappears after a few years? Does that end the contract? Of course not. The contract exists primarily because of the long-term project of child rearing. Sex produces kids; kids have a right to long-range nurture and education; thus the adult partners that produced them are contractually obligated to fulfill that project under penalty of law. The state has no interest whatsoever in contractualizing mere affections and loving friendships.
To Patch, of course marriage is all about breeders. The state doesn't have any interest in legislating mere love and friendship--it has an interest in legislating the machine that produces and educates its citizenry. Moreover, the long-term project of children creates the necessity of a life-long legally binding contract between adults. Remove that long-term project and you have no need for any contractual partnership enforceable by law.
preteristvision at 8:35AM on May 16th 2008
41. And another one bites the dust...
You are right, Strados, marriage is a LEGAL action that requires a marriage license. You can marry a dozen times in a religious ceremony but, if you don't have a license, it's not a legal marriage. So much for the RELIGIOUS aspect of marriage.
48 states and counting...
Austin at 8:50AM on May 16th 2008
42. preteristvision wrote: "what did your daughter say when you told her that some guys and girls like sex with horses and dogs and others like sex with their siblings?"
Also: "if "marriage" is a love contract, can you marry your mom and dad? Can you marry your pets?"
You equate such things with two non-related adult humans who love each other?
Yep. You're one of the perverted ones.
FL Chick at 9:05AM on May 16th 2008
43. preteristvision wrote: "And what happens when love disappears after a few years? Does that end the contract?"
Hmmm.... I don't know. Could it be... just maybe... The same damn thing would happen when heterosexuals stop loving each other? You know... divorce?
Why, yes; yes, I think that is what would happen.
FL Chick at 9:08AM on May 16th 2008
44. preteristvision wrote: "The state has no interest whatsoever in contractualizing mere affections and loving friendships."
Well, that's just fine and dandy. 'Cause when two adults want to marry, there is more to it than merely "affection" and a "loving relationship."
Or at least there should be. I would rather see two homosexuals who love each other get married than to see two people get married just because of an accidental pregnancy. Or to have an excuse to move away from home. Or for money. Or any of the other crappy reasons why people who don't love each other marry.
FL Chick at 9:16AM on May 16th 2008
45. Heya FL Chick, why do you think sex siblings and children and pets is "perverted" but sex between two men is not? Congratulations, you're now a bigot, for you are discriminating against some forms of sexual attraction but not others. Didn't think you were a bigot, did you? Hey, a lot of people like those forms of sex, and who do you think you are to knock them?
You see, FL Chick, you have no idea what marriage is to begin with. Let me educate you. Male-female couples, faced with the fact that their sex produces children, became obligated to nurture and educate those children for a very long time. Presto! Marriage. That's what marriage is and always has been.
Next, you asked if it could be that the loss of love ends the contract? For you, the answer was "yes." But the real answer is "no," for lovvvvveeeee was never the basis of entering a life-long contract to begin with. The long-term project of raising children was the basis of the contract.
Marriage and family are the same thing, and the contract of marriage is to create and educate the citizenry. That's what the marriage contract always has been about.
preteristvision at 9:28AM on May 16th 2008