On balance, I actually see it as a plus.
The court didn't rule on the substance of marriage equality (other than we can have all the rights of marriage, just not the word marriage. While I think we have to claim the marriage word, and wonder if this is consistent with the court's previous ruling, I'll leave this one be for now).
And the reason I'll leave it be is that the court left the 18,000 couples who married while they could stay married. Their existence and daily lives among their neighbors and coworkers will help defuse this issue. They will help make gay marriage seem normal to those who find it alien. It helps set the stage for repealing Prop 8 at the ballot box, as surely it must be.
A victory at the ballot box is a stronger victory for us, it will have more positive implications nationally and robs the right of one of it's most relied upon crutches, the specter of "activist judges."
While a short-term disappointment, I think the stage was set for a long-term and stronger victory.
Showing posts with label california supreme court decision on same sex marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label california supreme court decision on same sex marriage. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Same Sex Marriage: The Slide to Man on Dog
It's starting.
Opponents to same sex marriage have warned that recognition of same sex marriage was flouting God's law.
I'm already seeing the consequences in my aquarium.
This morning, I witnessed an unnatural crab-on-snail encounter. My hermit crab, Obi-Wan, had mounted one of the snails. "Uh-oh," I thought. "There goes the natural order of things." I watched in horror as Obi-Wan went for some hot slimy snail sex.
Actually, on second thought, I think he was just eating algae off the snail's shell.
Whew! A close call for the universe! But if the California Supreme Court overturns Prop 8 today, I'll be rushing back to my aquarium with great trepidation.
And if I get a hit on this page because someone googles "hot slimy snail sex" I am going to be very frightened.
Opponents to same sex marriage have warned that recognition of same sex marriage was flouting God's law.
I'm already seeing the consequences in my aquarium.
This morning, I witnessed an unnatural crab-on-snail encounter. My hermit crab, Obi-Wan, had mounted one of the snails. "Uh-oh," I thought. "There goes the natural order of things." I watched in horror as Obi-Wan went for some hot slimy snail sex.
Actually, on second thought, I think he was just eating algae off the snail's shell.
Whew! A close call for the universe! But if the California Supreme Court overturns Prop 8 today, I'll be rushing back to my aquarium with great trepidation.
And if I get a hit on this page because someone googles "hot slimy snail sex" I am going to be very frightened.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Washington Post's Gay Distinctions
The WashPo editorializes today that the California Supreme Court "meddled" in the gay marriage debate in California.
Yes, how troublesome that the California Supremes made a ruling about the California state constitution. Interlopers.
Before I get to the substance of the Post Editorial, let me say this about the "activist judges" nonsense. I could see that term applying if the Court, bored one day said, hey, let's make gay marriage legal! The Gays will be dancing in the streets!
No, what happened here and in other cases, a minority pressed for a legal decision about whether their constitutional rights were being infringed. And the court made a decision in response to the minority. That's their job.
To the editorial -- the Post says that the California supremes:
And so the California court ruled that the government did not meet that burden. And the Post wants to second guess -- i.e., "meddle" -- that decision. The Post makes an odd distinction, saying the U.S. Supreme Court acted correctly in finding that separate was not equal when it comes to school segregation (Brown v. Brd of Education) but that rationale can't apply to gay folk wanting to get married:
Emphasis added. The key words here are "near" and "virtually" the same rights. We gay folk are supposed to be grateful we're granted nearly and virtually the same rights as straight people. How dare we question whether or not that's okay in a society supposedly based on the notion of equal protection under the laws.
The California Court looked at the California state constitution and agreed separate is not equal. All three branches of California's government are now on record supporting the rights of gay people not to be discriminated against by marriage.
It's too bad the Post thinks that "virtually" equal is just fine for gay Americans.
Yes, how troublesome that the California Supremes made a ruling about the California state constitution. Interlopers.
Before I get to the substance of the Post Editorial, let me say this about the "activist judges" nonsense. I could see that term applying if the Court, bored one day said, hey, let's make gay marriage legal! The Gays will be dancing in the streets!
No, what happened here and in other cases, a minority pressed for a legal decision about whether their constitutional rights were being infringed. And the court made a decision in response to the minority. That's their job.
To the editorial -- the Post says that the California supremes:
correctly recognized that government bears the highest burden if it decides to treat differently the relationships between opposite-sex and same-sex couples.
And so the California court ruled that the government did not meet that burden. And the Post wants to second guess -- i.e., "meddle" -- that decision. The Post makes an odd distinction, saying the U.S. Supreme Court acted correctly in finding that separate was not equal when it comes to school segregation (Brown v. Brd of Education) but that rationale can't apply to gay folk wanting to get married:
This is a far cry from the California experience with the rights of same-sex couples. The state's elected representatives passed sweeping legislation in 1999 that gave same-sex couples near legal parity with their opposite-sex counterparts; that landmark legislation has been amended over the years to expand the rights of gay couples. Before the court ruling, same-sex couples in California had virtually the same -- not separate, but the same -- legal rights as heterosexual couples, insofar as state law can grant that.
Emphasis added. The key words here are "near" and "virtually" the same rights. We gay folk are supposed to be grateful we're granted nearly and virtually the same rights as straight people. How dare we question whether or not that's okay in a society supposedly based on the notion of equal protection under the laws.
The California Court looked at the California state constitution and agreed separate is not equal. All three branches of California's government are now on record supporting the rights of gay people not to be discriminated against by marriage.
It's too bad the Post thinks that "virtually" equal is just fine for gay Americans.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
California Supreme Court Decision on Same Sex Marriage
The right is making predictable noises on the California Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage, about activist judges and the will of the legislature being overturned.
The CA legislature has twice voted in FAVOR of same sex marriage.
The elected governor of CA, Ah-nold, supports the CA Supremes' decision.
Now the right will strike back with a ballot initiative to make same sex marriage unconstitutional. Which is their right to try and do.
And we must stop them. And the polls are moving in our direction. Winning in CA on this issue should become the number one gay civil rights issue in the nation. More important than Hillary. Or Obama.
Do you get it, HRC?
The CA legislature has twice voted in FAVOR of same sex marriage.
The elected governor of CA, Ah-nold, supports the CA Supremes' decision.
Now the right will strike back with a ballot initiative to make same sex marriage unconstitutional. Which is their right to try and do.
And we must stop them. And the polls are moving in our direction. Winning in CA on this issue should become the number one gay civil rights issue in the nation. More important than Hillary. Or Obama.
Do you get it, HRC?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)