Same-sex, whole-milk marriage: 50 Shades of Gay

[axordil]

California cases establish that a person’s religion is a suspect classification for equal protection purposes (see, e.g., Owens v. City of Signal Hill (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 123, 128; Williams v. Kapilow & Son, Inc. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 156, 161-162), and one’s religion, of course, is not immutable but is a matter over which an individual has control. (See also Raffaelli v. Committee of Bar Examiners (1972) 7 Cal.3d 288, 292 [alienage treated as a suspect classification notwithstanding circumstance that alien can become a citizen].) Because a person’s sexual orientation is so integral an aspect of one’s identity, it is not appropriate to require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment.

Glad to see they agree with the argument I was making here (quietly) a year ago

[Cerin]

One of the best analyses ever of the "civil unions/domestic partnerships are equal" fallacy:

It isn't my intention to be offensive, but that reasoning seems so silly to me on principle (not regarding the feelings and desires of same-sex couples, but regarding language). For example, would anyone suggest that pomegranates in the produce section of a supermarket that has just begun to feature pomegranates, should be designated as apples, since people are less familiar with pomegranates and they would therefore not have the same appeal (not be regarded with the same 'respect') as apples? It's a crazy idea to me, to think that you have to call two different things by the same name (a name being something that conveys its essence), because one is more familiar (and therefore presumably more accepted and respected) than the other. It's PC taken to an absurd level, in my view.

I do understand how much it means to many people and again I wish to assure everyone that I don't mean to be offensive, but this to me is troubling in its Orwellianism, regardless that it is attributable to the best intentions.

(And no, I don't mean to initiate that 'other' discussion yet again, but I did feel a need to express my opinion.)

This is really great news for anyone who cares about civil rights or human rights, let alone gay rights.

I have to object to the implication that anyone who doesn't regard this as great news doesn't care about civil rights, human rights or gay rights.

I care about civil rights and human rights and gay rights. I also care about truth (as I see it) and the nature of things (as I perceive them) and the importance of language in representing reality, and its because of my perceptions in that regard that I do not regard this as great news.

I would like to clearly and carefully suggest that it is indicative of the same kind of bigotry routinely charged, to dismiss as not caring about civil rights, human rights and gay rights, everyone who does not agree that same-sex unions should be called marriage .

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Cerin, you are absolutely right, and I apologize. I let myself get carried away by my surprise and excitement over what I consider to be a landmark decision, but your perspective about this absolutely valid, and I know without a shadow of a doubt that you are a strong supporter of civil rights.

[Cerin]

Thank you, Voronwë.

[vison]

Cerin, that train has left the station.

Marriage means different things in different times and different places. In the US, in the State of Texas, "marriage" meant something quite strange and different in the FLDS compound than it does in the church down the road from your house. In some places, "marriage" means an economic union between two families, and that union does not consider "love" as a factor at all.

In my case, and probably yours, it meant 2 young people of opposite genders "fell in love" and then got married.

Now it can include 2 people of the same gender and how this hurts your marriage or mine I don't quite see.

If the importance of language representing reality is so important to you, allow me to suggest that there are many, many, many more, much more, much worse and more important, flagrant abuses of language and meaning blasting in your face and mine every single day.

[yovargas]

1 - Languages change. Deal with it.
2 - Legally, gay and straight marriages are NOT two different things, they are the EXACT same thing. There is (hopefully) zero legal difference and therefore zero reason to use different legal terminology.
3 - V-man was right the first time. If civil rights are important to you, this is great news.
4 - Hurray!

[Holbytla]

Teremia wrote:

Really, it should have been California BEFORE Massachusetts, but second's not so bad.

Oh listen to you. As if.
We all know you are Massachusetts wannabees.
In fact they shoulld rename the state Massachusetts West. Heck you are all transplants anyway. I mean nobody is actually from California right?

[Jnyusa]

3 - V-man was right the first time. If civil rights are important to you, this is great news.

I beg to differ with this interpretation, yov. I believe that what Voronwë was acknowledging was that we might differ in our preferences as to how the laws are subsequently worded without those differences arising from prejudice.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, that's right, Jn. Thank you.

[nerdanel]

Cerin, you and I have long ago passed the "agree to disagree" point on this one (and I believe regard each other's reasoning as equally silly and fallacious). Of course you're entitled to express your opinion in this thread, but in a previous discussion on same-sex marriage in California, I told you that ultimately it was neither your view or mine (of what constituted "equality") that would matter in practical terms, but the view of the justices charged with deciding this case. I take a great deal of satisfaction in reiterating that point today. (Of course, my view and the view of all other Californians, including many who feel as you do, will likely have great weight in a few short months. But as for today, the California Supreme Court has had the final word on what the highest form of our state law requires.)

This is really great news for anyone who cares about civil rights or human rights, let alone gay rights.

I have to object to the implication that anyone who doesn't regard this as great news doesn't care about civil rights, human rights or gay rights.

I object to your objection, and join yov in endorsing Voronwë's statement as it was originally expressed (even if not intentional) (and disagree with his subsequent clarification.) My opinion is that this decision is a great victory for all those who truly believe in civil rights, human rights, gay rights, and support the concept of equality for all under the law (and states' rights, as Ax correctly noted.) I believe you have the constitutional right to disagree.

As for the specific use of the word "bigotry," you and I have extensively discussed this topic, and in the interest of saving space, I shall "incorporate by reference" my previously stated views on that matter.

[yovargas]

3 - V-man was right the first time. If civil rights are important to you, this is great news.

I beg to differ with this interpretation, yov. I believe that what Voronwë was acknowledging was that we might differ in our preferences as to how the laws are subsequently worded without those differences arising from prejudice.

I know that. And I'm saying he was right the first time.

[nerdanel]

Today, I stood at San Francisco City Hall as a throng of joyous San Franciscans - including many of the couples married during the 2004 "winter of love" - laughed and clapped and cheered and celebrated the California Supreme Court's affirmation of equality of gays and lesbians, single or coupled. We couldn't stop smiling...couldn't stop rejoicing at the Court's affirmation that each Californian has the right to choose who we will spend our lives with, and the right to be treated with equal dignity and affirmation by our government. Before the press conference, city officials invited the plaintiff couples, 2004 married couples, and each of us who wished to be a part of this moment in history to stand on the steps of City Hall, behind Mayor Newsom and the others who spoke. I ended up standing on the third row, directly behind Mayor Newsom (and thus, with only my forehead visible in the pictures I've seen so far ), looking out on a mass of jubilant people. I do not remember another time in my life when I was in so large a group of euphoric people.

What an incredible day to be a San Franciscan - to be a part of this city whose leaders took a stand for what they believed was right when it would have been politically expedient to say and do nothing - and when told they had exceeded their authority, successfully sued the state to gain the legal authority to do what is right. As our elected leaders said today, "These are our San Francisco values" - and indeed they are.

For those wondering when same-sex marriages will commence, SF is projecting that it will begin conducting same-sex weddings (for real this time!) in roughly 30 days. I don't know if smaller towns will be able to move more quickly. Although many people are frustrated that they'll have to wait that long, it means the mass of weddings will start in the middle of gay pride month - and just before SF Pride. What a celebration it will be this year.

And of course, as we repeatedly said this afternoon, "As California goes, so goes the nation." (eventually) The next frontiers are the New Jersey legislature, as Governor Corzine has promised to sign a same-sex marriage bill in 2009, and the Connecticut Supreme Court, which is mulling a similar case (it can only help for them to have two major rulings in favor of marriage equality, one from the nation's most populous state, rather than one.) For the first time since 2004, this thing really seems possible again. I think after our day of jubilee, everyone's focus (in California) will turn to fundraising effectively for November, and I'm looking forward to being a part of that effort.

[Primula Baggins]

It's so logical, so right—it just feels like the way life ought to work. You fall in love, you decide to build a life together, you get married. I hope things begin to move faster now nationwide.

My kids were shocked to learn that interracial marriages had once been illegal. Maybe my grandkids will be as shocked to learn that gay couples were ever prohibited from marrying.

Also, maybe getting married will come seriously back in style, to the benefit of hovering parents everywhere.

I am wondering, though—presumably this will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. What are the chances of a ruling there that advances gay marriage nationwide? Would they be likely to refuse to hear the case, just letting it stand as is? If they heard it, would they be likely to overturn today's decision?

I apologize to our attorneys for not knowing the correct words.

[nerdanel]

Prim - this case was deliberately brought only under California state law, so that it could not be appealed to the Supreme Court (the state high court is the arbiter of the state constitution - NOT the Supreme Court.) Nonetheless, idiot (from a legal perspective) opponents of same-sex marriage tried to pull this move in Massachusetts (to get the case to the 1st Circuit or SCOTUS, and the federal courts rejected the case, as they had to do - there was no issue over which they had jurisdiction.)

[Primula Baggins]

Ah, OK, thanks. One of the very early stories on CNN.com mentioned an appeal, but I see that now they say what you say: this is the end of it.

Cool.

[halplm]

If "marriage" was simply a legal term, and defined purely in a legal sense, subject to both legal and ethical sentiments of equality, then I would agree with Nel, and Yov, who I believe think that is the case.

If "marriage" is rather a term that goes beyond law, and touches on deeply held beliefs that it is a union shared between a man and woman, then this is not, in fact, good news in any way, and I agree with Cerin that it is a gross mistake to claim people who don't think this is good care any less about civil rights.

Personally, I don't think who gets married to each other should be a legal question at all... but I think differently than most.

[Faramond]

It isn't my intention to be offensive, but that reasoning seems so silly to me on principle (not regarding the feelings and desires of same-sex couples, but regarding language). For example, would anyone suggest that pomegranates in the produce section of a supermarket that has just begun to feature pomegranates, should be designated as apples, since people are less familiar with pomegranates and they would therefore not have the same appeal (not be regarded with the same 'respect') as apples? It's a crazy idea to me, to think that you have to call two different things by the same name (a name being something that conveys its essence), because one is more familiar (and therefore presumably more accepted and respected) than the other. It's PC taken to an absurd level, in my view.

It is because a name may convey the essence of something that the union between two men or two women should also be called a marriage. It is like objecting to calling a Granny Smith an apple because it is not red. What makes a thing what it is? An apple may be thought of most often as red, but redness is not essential. A marriage may be thought most often as between a man and a woman, but that is not essential either. When you get into what marriage really is ( which is a very complicated subject ) gender ends up being irrelevant. Not irrelevant to the individuals involved, perhaps, but irrelevant to what is universally true about marriage.

[yovargas]

If "marriage" was simply a legal term, and defined purely in a legal sense, subject to both legal and ethical sentiments of equality, then I would agree with Nel, and Yov, who I believe think that is the case.

If "marriage" is rather a term that goes beyond law, and touches on deeply held beliefs that it is a union shared between a man and woman, then this is not, in fact, good news in any way, and I agree with Cerin that it is a gross mistake to claim people who don't think this is good care any less about civil rights.

It can be both - legal language is not the same as common language. You and Cerin are still free to use the term in your personal lives however you wish and will always be free to do so, regardless of how the term is viewed legally.

[nerdanel]

If "marriage" was simply a legal term, and defined purely in a legal sense, subject to both legal and ethical sentiments of equality, then I would agree with Nel, and Yov, who I believe think that is the case.

No, I don't think this is the case; I think this is the only aspect in which the government can be involved, however, and thus the only aspect which today's ruling can touch.

If "marriage" is rather a term that goes beyond law, and touches on deeply held beliefs that it is a union shared between a man and woman, then this is not, in fact, good news in any way, and I agree with Cerin that it is a gross mistake to claim people who don't think this is good care any less about civil rights.

Well, politics makes strange bedfellows. But yes, I think it is a term that goes beyond law, and touches on my deeply held belief that it is a union of a committed, loving couple. You are free to hold your belief deeply, and to act on it in your personal life - but you are not free to use the law to exclude me or anyone else from the "legal institution" aspect of it, OR from acting according to our own deeply held beliefs re: what marriage means to us.

Personally, I don't think who gets married to each other should be a legal question at all... but I think differently than most.

Yes, you do. Which is fine - but the reality is that the legal institution called marriage is so deeply enmeshed in our legal code that it's not going anywhere regardless of what you or I might think of it. Face it: there is virtually no likelihood that in our lifetime, any state will abolish its legal institution of marriage. So the question becomes how to treat people equally under the law, and the California Supreme Court has today provided an exemplary answer for this.

[Primula Baggins]

I liked this, Faramond:

When you get into what marriage really is ( which is a very complicated subject ) gender ends up being irrelevant. Not irrelevant to the individuals involved, perhaps, but irrelevant to what is universally true about marriage.

Speaking as someone who's been married almost 28 years, I completely agree.

As for the other issue, who can be married in a religious ceremony will continue to be up to the churches to decide. That will probably be the last wall to fall, and some will never fall (at least, I can't imagine it).

But this is about legal rights.