Today, the California Supreme Court determined that under California's constitution, same sex couples have the right to marry.
CALIFORNIA ROCKS!
I am proud to live in California today, and proud to work for the Judicial Branch which made this happen.
Today, I stood on the steps of the Supreme Court, with Jon Lewis and Stuart Gaffney, two of the plaintiffs in the case and two friends, and Molly McKay was there, one of the driving forces behind the marriage equality movement, and Kate Kendell of NCLR and many others and ... wow. WOW. I am so happy I am in tears. Yay!
California ROCKS! Same Sex Marriage Legal!
-
Mikayla
- Valsharess of ALFA
- Posts: 3707
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 5:37 pm
- Location: Qu'ellar Faen Tlabbar, Noble Room 7, Menzoberranzan, NorthUnderdark
California ROCKS! Same Sex Marriage Legal!
ALFA1-NWN1: Sheyreiza Valakahsa
NWN2: Layla (aka Aliyah, Amira, Snake and others) and Vellya
NWN1-WD: Shein'n Valakasha
NWN2: Layla (aka Aliyah, Amira, Snake and others) and Vellya
NWN1-WD: Shein'n Valakasha
-
JaydeMoon
- Fionn In Disguise
- Posts: 3164
- Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 11:03 pm
- Location: Paradise
- Contact:
Babylon, I tell you!!!
Hah, kidding.
This is totally another step in the right direction. I'm happy for each and every person this affects positively, and I'm glad you could be there, Mik.
Congratz to everyone in California on being able to marry whomever they love, be it a man or woman, be they a man or woman.
Hah, kidding.
This is totally another step in the right direction. I'm happy for each and every person this affects positively, and I'm glad you could be there, Mik.
Congratz to everyone in California on being able to marry whomever they love, be it a man or woman, be they a man or woman.
-
Grand Fromage
- Goon Spy
- Posts: 1838
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 9:04 am
- Location: Chengdu, Sichuan, China
-
HATEFACE
- Dr. Horrible
- Posts: 1068
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 3:17 am
- Location: A seething caldron of passive aggressive rage.
meh, one of the reasons we have states. Congrats Mikayla.
“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” - Open Message to the Executive Branch.
-
ç i p h é r
- Retired
- Posts: 2904
- Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: US Central (GMT - 6)
-
fluffmonster
- Haste Bear
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:54 pm
- Location: Wisconsin, USA
'Marriage' a legal status cipher, and this decision strikes down discriminatory treatment under the law. Really no different from laws forbidding inter-racial marriage. If the state stopped recognizing marriage for *anybody* and called all such partnerships civil unions or some such, that too would remove the discrimination. Having both though is essentially an apartheid system, and "separate but equal" is usually never equal as the law has recognized in a racial context.
What I am curious about is the rationale behind the dissenting opinion.
What I am curious about is the rationale behind the dissenting opinion.
Built: TSM (nwn2) Shining Scroll and Map House (proof anyone can build!)
-
Brokenbone
- Chosen of Forumamus, God of Forums
- Posts: 5771
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 1:07 am
- Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Babylon! LOL. In my mind's ear (?) I can hear a heavy Jamaican accent warning me dat Babylon coming.
Back on topic, that is good stuff... gov't doesn't belong in the bedroom, let any union call itself whatever it wants, with all the rights and obligations tied to same.
(Canada there awhile I guess, forget if it's... under or over 5 years now?)
Back on topic, that is good stuff... gov't doesn't belong in the bedroom, let any union call itself whatever it wants, with all the rights and obligations tied to same.
(Canada there awhile I guess, forget if it's... under or over 5 years now?)
ALFA NWN2 PCs: Rhaggot of the Bruised-Eye, and Bamshogbo
ALFA NWN1 PC: Jacobim Foxmantle
ALFA NWN1 Dead PC: Jon Shieldjack
DMA Staff
ALFA NWN1 PC: Jacobim Foxmantle
ALFA NWN1 Dead PC: Jon Shieldjack
DMA Staff
Because it goes against the fundamental Judeo-Christian beliefs this country was founded upon, of course! Now please look away as we invade smaller countries based on nonexistent evidence and execute our own citizens.fluffmonster wrote:What I am curious about is the rationale behind the dissenting opinion.
-
Mikayla
- Valsharess of ALFA
- Posts: 3707
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 5:37 pm
- Location: Qu'ellar Faen Tlabbar, Noble Room 7, Menzoberranzan, NorthUnderdark
cipher:
Though the right to marry is important, perhaps the MOST important part of the 100+ page opinion was the Court's determination that statutes that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation are now subject to strict scrutiny - elevating sexual orientation into the list of "suspect classes" like Race and Religion. In short, it is now (in California) just as hard to legally discriminate against someone because they are gay as it is to legally discriminate against someone because they are black or Jewish. This will not make homophobes change their minds, or anything like that, but it will prevent discriminatory laws.
Yay!!!!!
This is not about marriage, its about equal treatment under the law. Just as the Rosa Parks case was not really about where someone sits on a bus, but about the larger issue of equality. It just so happens that instead of bus-seats and school segregation, the battle-ground for LGBT civil rights ended up being marriage.I'm curious about something. Why is marriage so important to gays?
p.s. Emphasis is on marriage. California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses.
Though the right to marry is important, perhaps the MOST important part of the 100+ page opinion was the Court's determination that statutes that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation are now subject to strict scrutiny - elevating sexual orientation into the list of "suspect classes" like Race and Religion. In short, it is now (in California) just as hard to legally discriminate against someone because they are gay as it is to legally discriminate against someone because they are black or Jewish. This will not make homophobes change their minds, or anything like that, but it will prevent discriminatory laws.
Yay!!!!!
ALFA1-NWN1: Sheyreiza Valakahsa
NWN2: Layla (aka Aliyah, Amira, Snake and others) and Vellya
NWN1-WD: Shein'n Valakasha
NWN2: Layla (aka Aliyah, Amira, Snake and others) and Vellya
NWN1-WD: Shein'n Valakasha
UnAmerican communist traitor! I'm starting a file on you....kevashna wrote:Because it goes against the fundamental Judeo-Christian beliefs this country was founded upon, of course! Now please look away as we invade smaller countries based on nonexistent evidence and execute our own citizens.fluffmonster wrote:What I am curious about is the rationale behind the dissenting opinion.
Neverwinter Connections Dungeon Master since 2002! 
Click for the best roleplaying!
On NWVault by me:
X-INV, X-COM, War of the Worlds, Lantan University.
Click for the best roleplaying!
On NWVault by me:
X-INV, X-COM, War of the Worlds, Lantan University.
-
ç i p h é r
- Retired
- Posts: 2904
- Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: US Central (GMT - 6)
Equal treatment under the law should be afforded to everyone, but we all know that "marriage" is a loaded word. It's not just legal status, it also has religious significance (a union between man, woman, and God essentially).
What I'm trying to understand is, what does marriage afford gays legally that a civil union/domestic partnership doesn't? Is there more to it than a different label? The latter seems decidedly easier to establish, and in many cases, the laws are already in the books. But unlike marriage, there doesn't appear to be any outcry over it because "equal treatment" in and of itself doesn't encroach upon religious beliefs.
On the broader issue of discriminating by sexual orientation, are you saying that sexual orientation should never matter in any decision? Obviously, I'm not gay so I don't know what sort of discrimination gays are often subjected to, but I don't think it's inappropriate to discriminate by sexual orientation in all cases. Admission into private or gender-based organizations (like boy or girl clubs/schools for instance), jails/prisons, child adoption are a few examples of situations in which I think sexual orientation is relevant, and in those instances appropriate to exclude or prioritize or categorize along those lines.
On a more general side note, that a decision by the courts overruled the will of the voters in California seems decidedly undemocratic to me, regardless of how strongly people feel about the particular issue at stake. To take the decision out of the hands of the electorate after the fact on the basis of who argued the best in court is like permitting referees to decide the outcome of a ball game rather than the players, which frankly IS unAmerican.
Anywho, I'm not looking to stoke a flame fest here (touchy subject and all), just a little honest to goodness straightforward debate about what all this means.
What I'm trying to understand is, what does marriage afford gays legally that a civil union/domestic partnership doesn't? Is there more to it than a different label? The latter seems decidedly easier to establish, and in many cases, the laws are already in the books. But unlike marriage, there doesn't appear to be any outcry over it because "equal treatment" in and of itself doesn't encroach upon religious beliefs.
On the broader issue of discriminating by sexual orientation, are you saying that sexual orientation should never matter in any decision? Obviously, I'm not gay so I don't know what sort of discrimination gays are often subjected to, but I don't think it's inappropriate to discriminate by sexual orientation in all cases. Admission into private or gender-based organizations (like boy or girl clubs/schools for instance), jails/prisons, child adoption are a few examples of situations in which I think sexual orientation is relevant, and in those instances appropriate to exclude or prioritize or categorize along those lines.
On a more general side note, that a decision by the courts overruled the will of the voters in California seems decidedly undemocratic to me, regardless of how strongly people feel about the particular issue at stake. To take the decision out of the hands of the electorate after the fact on the basis of who argued the best in court is like permitting referees to decide the outcome of a ball game rather than the players, which frankly IS unAmerican.
Anywho, I'm not looking to stoke a flame fest here (touchy subject and all), just a little honest to goodness straightforward debate about what all this means.
-
JaydeMoon
- Fionn In Disguise
- Posts: 3164
- Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 11:03 pm
- Location: Paradise
- Contact:
Well, in my religion, which indulges in the worship of an Aerial Pasta Beast (some denominations refer to him as the Flying Spaghetti Monster), marriage is the union as an outward and public display of love for any two consenting adults.
The Christians should stop discriminating against my religion by imposing their religious views and definitions as a trump to mine.
Also, I don't think that 'Civil Unions' provide you exactly the same rights as marriage and in some cases are easier to contest in certain unfortunate circumstances.
Religious institutions don't own words.
As for areas where it may be appropriate to discriminate based on sexual preference, I think it depends on the purpose of the gender based exclusion.
If you have a gender based organization for the sake of brother/sisterhood, or you run a boy's/girl's school so that you don't have to deal with the other gender's issues etc, then there is no reason to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. You have divided by GENDER.
If you are worried about someone 'sexin' you up in an environment where you felt you were reasonably safe from such treatment, then separate 'facilities' for those inclined to receive any potential sexual gratification if they were to use those 'facilities' together.
I'm talking showers and changing rooms. Not bathrooms or the like. A homosexual male is not turned on at the urinal. If he is, he's got other things going on than mere homosexuality.
The Christians should stop discriminating against my religion by imposing their religious views and definitions as a trump to mine.
Also, I don't think that 'Civil Unions' provide you exactly the same rights as marriage and in some cases are easier to contest in certain unfortunate circumstances.
Religious institutions don't own words.
As for areas where it may be appropriate to discriminate based on sexual preference, I think it depends on the purpose of the gender based exclusion.
If you have a gender based organization for the sake of brother/sisterhood, or you run a boy's/girl's school so that you don't have to deal with the other gender's issues etc, then there is no reason to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. You have divided by GENDER.
If you are worried about someone 'sexin' you up in an environment where you felt you were reasonably safe from such treatment, then separate 'facilities' for those inclined to receive any potential sexual gratification if they were to use those 'facilities' together.
I'm talking showers and changing rooms. Not bathrooms or the like. A homosexual male is not turned on at the urinal. If he is, he's got other things going on than mere homosexuality.