Religions > Atheism > Judge strikes down California gay marriage ban Ruling says there is ‘no rational purpose’ for limiting unions
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"stoney" |
| Date: |
15 Mar 2005 12:03:13 AM |
| Object: |
Judge strikes down California gay marriage ban Ruling says there is ‘no rational purpose’ for limiting unions |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7182628/
Judge strikes down California gay marriage ban
Ruling says there is ‘no rational purpose’ for limiting unions
The Associated Press
Updated: 7:40 p.m. ET March 14, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO - A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay
marriage is unconstitutional — a legal milestone that, if upheld on
appeal, would open the way for the most populous state to follow
Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.
Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco County's trial-level Superior
Court likened the ban to laws requiring racial segregation in schools,
and said there appears to be "no rational purpose" for denying
marriage to gay couples.
The ruling came in response to lawsuits filed by the city of San
Francisco and a dozen gay couples a year ago after the California
Supreme Court halted a four-week same-sex marriage spree started by
Mayor Gavin Newsom.
The opinion had been eagerly awaited because of San Francisco's
historical role as a gay rights battleground.
Ruling hailed as ‘important step’
Gay marriage supporters hailed the ruling as a historic development
akin to the 1948 state Supreme Court decision that made California the
first state to legalize interracial marriage.
"Today's ruling is an important step toward a more fair and just
California that rejects discrimination and affirms family values for
all California families," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera
said.
Conservative leaders expressed outrage at the ruling and vowed to
appeal.
"For a single judge to rule there is no conceivable purpose for
preserving marriage as one man and one woman is mind-boggling," said
Mathew Staver, Liberty Counsel president. "This decision will be
gasoline on the fire of the pro-marriage movement in California as
well as the rest of the country.
Last winter, nearly 4,000 gay couples got married after Newsom
instructed the city to issue them licenses, in defiance of state law.
The California Supreme Court later declared those marriages void,
saying the mayor overstepped his authority. But the court did not
address the underlying issue of whether the law against gay marriage
violates the California Constitution.
Two laws at issue
At issue were a 1977 law that defined marriage as "a personal relation
arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman," and a
voter-approved measure in 2000 that amended the law to say more
explicitly: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California."
The state maintained that tradition dictates that marriage should be
limited to opposite-sex couples. Attorney General Bill Lockyer also
cited the state's domestic-partners law as evidence that California
does not discriminate against gays.
But Kramer rejected that argument, citing Brown v. Board of Education
— the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down segregated
schools.
"The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate
smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts — separate but equal,"
the judge wrote.
It could be months or years before the state actually sanctions
same-sex marriage, if ever.
Lockyer has said in the past that he expected the matter eventually
would have to be settled by the California Supreme Court.
Two bills up for debate
Two bills now before the California Legislature would put a
constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November
ballot. If California voters approve such an amendment, as those in 13
other states did last year, that would put the issue out of the
control of lawmakers and the courts.
The decision is the latest development in a national debate that has
been raging since 2003, when the highest court in Massachusetts
decided that denying gay couples the right to wed was
unconstitutional.
In the wake of the Massachusetts ruling, gay rights advocates filed
lawsuits seeking to strike down traditional marriage laws in several
other states. Opponents responded by proposing state and federal
constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.
Around the country, Kramer is the fourth trial court judge in recent
months to decide that the right to marry and its benefits must be
extended to same-sex couples.
Two Washington state judges, ruling last summer in separate cases,
held that prohibiting same-sex marriage violates that state's
constitution, and on Feb. 4, a New York City judge ruled in favor of
five gay couples who had been denied marriage licenses by the city.
Just as many judges have gone the other way in recent months, however,
refusing to accept the argument that keeping gays from marrying
violates their civil rights.
California has the highest percentage of same-sex partners in the
nation, and its Legislature has gone further than any other in
providing gay couples the benefits of marriage without being forced to
do so by court order.
Social vs. legal arguments
Since Jan. 1, same-sex couples registering as domestic partners in
California have been granted virtually all the rights and
responsibilities of marriage, including access to divorce courts, the
ability to collect child support and responsibility for a partner’s
debts.
So in California, the arguments for striking down the gay marriage ban
have centered as much on the social meaning of marriage as the
benefits it affords as a legal institution.
The couples, represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights,
the Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union, conceded that
California’s domestic partnership law may be the strongest in the
nation outside of Vermont’s civil unions. But they claimed it still
does not go far enough because it creates a separate and inherently
unequal marriage-like institution for same-sex couples.
The Attorney General’s Office also cited the domestic partners law as
evidence that California does not discriminate against gays, and
maintained that tradition dictates that marriage should be restricted
to opposite-sex couples.
Two groups opposed to gay marriage rights, The Campaign for California
Families and the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund,
argued that the state has a legitimate interest in restricting
marriage to opposite-sex couples as a way of encouraging procreation.
© 2005 The Associated Press
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge strikes down California gay marriage ban Ruling says there is ‘no rational purpose’ for limiting unions |
15 Mar 2005 11:11:26 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:03:13 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
SAN FRANCISCO - A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay
marriage is unconstitutional — a legal milestone that, if upheld on
appeal, would open the way for the most populous state to follow
Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.
The best part of this? The judge in question is a Catholic who was
appointed by a Republican governor.
It's actually funny, hearing the anti-rights people try to spin this
guy into some sort of liberal activist.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge strikes down California gay marriage ban Ruling says there is=?iso-8859-1?Q?=91no?= rational =?iso-8859-1?Q?purpose=92?= for limitingunions |
15 Mar 2005 12:25:18 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:03:13 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
SAN FRANCISCO - A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay
marriage is unconstitutional — a legal milestone that, if upheld on
appeal, would open the way for the most populous state to follow
Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.
The best part of this? The judge in question is a Catholic who was
appointed by a Republican governor.
It's actually funny, hearing the anti-rights people try to spin this
guy into some sort of liberal activist.
OBVIOUSLY, the judge is a stealth liberal, and a heretic, too, planted
many years ago just so he could utterly and single-handedly destroy
marriage the moment he got the chance.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge strikes down California gay marriage ban Ruling says there is ‘no rational purpose’ for limiting unions |
15 Mar 2005 12:44:00 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in news:4237288E.778BE78@serv.net:
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:03:13 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
SAN FRANCISCO - A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay
marriage is unconstitutional — a legal milestone that, if upheld on
appeal, would open the way for the most populous state to follow
Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.
The best part of this? The judge in question is a Catholic who was
appointed by a Republican governor.
It's actually funny, hearing the anti-rights people try to spin this
guy into some sort of liberal activist.
OBVIOUSLY, the judge is a stealth liberal, and a heretic, too, planted
many years ago just so he could utterly and single-handedly destroy
marriage the moment he got the chance.
Satan works in mysterious ways.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge strikes down California gay marriage ban Ruling says there is=?iso-8859-1?Q?=91no?= rational =?iso-8859-1?Q?purpose=92?= for limitingunions |
15 Mar 2005 03:08:49 PM |
|
|
No 33 Secretary wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in news:4237288E.778BE78@serv.net:
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:03:13 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
SAN FRANCISCO - A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay
marriage is unconstitutional — a legal milestone that, if upheld on
appeal, would open the way for the most populous state to follow
Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.
The best part of this? The judge in question is a Catholic who was
appointed by a Republican governor.
It's actually funny, hearing the anti-rights people try to spin this
guy into some sort of liberal activist.
OBVIOUSLY, the judge is a stealth liberal, and a heretic, too, planted
many years ago just so he could utterly and single-handedly destroy
marriage the moment he got the chance.
Satan works in mysterious ways.
And not only does God let Satan work, He has actually allowed the devil to
talk Him in to letting it happen (according to the Bible, that is. I refer you
to the Book of Job.)
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge strikes down California gay marriage ban Ruling says there is ‘no rational purpose’ for limiting unions |
15 Mar 2005 03:18:18 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:42374EE1.2770A37D@serv.net:
No 33 Secretary wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:4237288E.778BE78@serv.net:
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:03:13 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and
drunkenly proclaimed the following
SAN FRANCISCO - A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay
marriage is unconstitutional — a legal milestone that, if upheld
on appeal, would open the way for the most populous state to
follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.
The best part of this? The judge in question is a Catholic who
was appointed by a Republican governor.
It's actually funny, hearing the anti-rights people try to spin
this guy into some sort of liberal activist.
OBVIOUSLY, the judge is a stealth liberal, and a heretic, too,
planted many years ago just so he could utterly and single-handedly
destroy marriage the moment he got the chance.
Satan works in mysterious ways.
And not only does God let Satan work, He has actually allowed the
devil to talk Him in to letting it happen (according to the Bible,
that is. I refer you to the Book of Job.)
If Satan didn't win once in a while, we wouldn't have much need for God,
now would we?
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge strikes down California gay marriage ban Ruling says there is=?iso-8859-1?Q?=91no?= rational =?iso-8859-1?Q?purpose=92?= forlimiting unions |
15 Mar 2005 04:49:54 PM |
|
|
No 33 Secretary wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:42374EE1.2770A37D@serv.net:
No 33 Secretary wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:4237288E.778BE78@serv.net:
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:03:13 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and
drunkenly proclaimed the following
SAN FRANCISCO - A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay
marriage is unconstitutional — a legal milestone that, if upheld
on appeal, would open the way for the most populous state to
follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.
The best part of this? The judge in question is a Catholic who
was appointed by a Republican governor.
It's actually funny, hearing the anti-rights people try to spin
this guy into some sort of liberal activist.
OBVIOUSLY, the judge is a stealth liberal, and a heretic, too,
planted many years ago just so he could utterly and single-handedly
destroy marriage the moment he got the chance.
Satan works in mysterious ways.
And not only does God let Satan work, He has actually allowed the
devil to talk Him in to letting it happen (according to the Bible,
that is. I refer you to the Book of Job.)
If Satan didn't win once in a while, we wouldn't have much need for God,
now would we?
Ooo, and folks say that *I* am cynical ;-b
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge strikes down California gay marriage ban Ruling says there is ‘no rational =?iso-8859-1?Q?purpose=92?= for limiting unions |
15 Mar 2005 04:57:15 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in news:42376692.69F78E7A@serv.net:
No 33 Secretary wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:42374EE1.2770A37D@serv.net:
No 33 Secretary wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:4237288E.778BE78@serv.net:
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:03:13 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and
drunkenly proclaimed the following
SAN FRANCISCO - A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay
marriage is unconstitutional — a legal milestone that, if upheld
on appeal, would open the way for the most populous state to
follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.
The best part of this? The judge in question is a Catholic who
was appointed by a Republican governor.
It's actually funny, hearing the anti-rights people try to spin
this guy into some sort of liberal activist.
OBVIOUSLY, the judge is a stealth liberal, and a heretic, too,
planted many years ago just so he could utterly and single-handedly
destroy marriage the moment he got the chance.
Satan works in mysterious ways.
And not only does God let Satan work, He has actually allowed the
devil to talk Him in to letting it happen (according to the Bible,
that is. I refer you to the Book of Job.)
If Satan didn't win once in a while, we wouldn't have much need for God,
now would we?
Ooo, and folks say that *I* am cynical ;-b
Oh, you have *no* idea.
A careful reading of the Bible leads me to the inescapable conclusion that
when Satan made war on God, the bad guys won.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge strikes down California gay marriage ban Ruling says there is ‘no rational purpose’ for limiting unions |
16 Mar 2005 08:13:29 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:57:15 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
A careful reading of the Bible leads me to the inescapable conclusion that
when Satan made war on God, the bad guys won.
Don't worry. If the xtians are right, Satan will get a rematch, and set things
aright.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
January 27th
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge strikes down California gay marriage ban Ruling says there is ‘no rational purpose’ for limiting unions |
16 Mar 2005 10:38:27 AM |
|
|
Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in
news:mkfg319tshrkv5ntl8s201dg9t1j96cq9i@4ax.com:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:57:15 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
A careful reading of the Bible leads me to the inescapable conclusion
that when Satan made war on God, the bad guys won.
Don't worry. If the xtians are right, Satan will get a rematch, and
set things aright.
If the Christians are right, and God is the biggest ***** in creation,
I'd rather spend eternity in Hell.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Judge strikes down California gay marriage ban Ruling says there is ‘no rational purpose’ for limiting unions |
15 Mar 2005 07:56:02 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:25:18 -0800, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:03:13 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
SAN FRANCISCO - A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay
marriage is unconstitutional — a legal milestone that, if upheld on
appeal, would open the way for the most populous state to follow
Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.
The best part of this? The judge in question is a Catholic who was
appointed by a Republican governor.
It's actually funny, hearing the anti-rights people try to spin this
guy into some sort of liberal activist.
OBVIOUSLY, the judge is a stealth liberal, and a heretic, too, planted
many years ago just so he could utterly and single-handedly destroy
marriage the moment he got the chance.
The California Constitution is pretty clear on that point. There was
no way that law was ever legal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge strikes down California gay marriage ban Ruling says there is=?iso-8859-1?Q?=91no?= rational =?iso-8859-1?Q?purpose=92?= for limitingunions |
16 Mar 2005 08:40:16 AM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:25:18 -0800, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:03:13 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
SAN FRANCISCO - A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay
marriage is unconstitutional — a legal milestone that, if upheld on
appeal, would open the way for the most populous state to follow
Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.
The best part of this? The judge in question is a Catholic who was
appointed by a Republican governor.
It's actually funny, hearing the anti-rights people try to spin this
guy into some sort of liberal activist.
OBVIOUSLY, the judge is a stealth liberal, and a heretic, too, planted
many years ago just so he could utterly and single-handedly destroy
marriage the moment he got the chance.
The California Constitution is pretty clear on that point. There was
no way that law was ever legal.
Oh, but that only proves that the liberals have been planning their
"corruption" of "normal, God given marriage" for a very long time ;-P
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge strikes down California gay marriage ban Ruling says there is ‘no rational purpose’ for limiting unions |
16 Mar 2005 11:49:11 AM |
|
|
On 15 Mar 2005 19:56:02 -0600, (Kate ) drained his
beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed
the following
The California Constitution is pretty clear on that point. There was
no way that law was ever legal.
Caught a bit on CBN last night with one of their talking heads saying
that the judge had "no basis for the ruling in California law."
Except the Constitutional cites in the decision, but I guess that
doesn't count.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Heretic" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge strikes down California gay marriage ban Ruling says there is ‘no rational purpose’ for limiting unions |
15 Mar 2005 09:26:31 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:25:18 -0800, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
OBVIOUSLY, the judge is a stealth liberal, and a heretic, too, planted
many years ago just so he could utterly and single-handedly destroy
marriage the moment he got the chance.
Planted by Satan, right?
==============================
Our greatest Americans were not Christian! Our flag has never flown a
crucifix!
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." -Benjamin
Franklin
"We discover in the gospels a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of
things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication."
-Thomas Jefferson
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no
religion in it." -John Adams
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for
every noble enterprise." -James Madison
"That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." -Ethan
Allen
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on
the Christian religion" -Passed unanimously, US Senate, 1797
EVIGILARE PECUA!
http://unrealitycheck.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge strikes down California gay marriage ban Ruling says there is=?iso-8859-1?Q?=91no?= rational =?iso-8859-1?Q?purpose=92?= for limitingunions |
16 Mar 2005 08:42:16 AM |
|
|
Heretic wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:25:18 -0800, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
OBVIOUSLY, the judge is a stealth liberal, and a heretic, too, planted
many years ago just so he could utterly and single-handedly destroy
marriage the moment he got the chance.
Planted by Satan, right?
Well, duh! ;-b
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phillip Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge strikes down California gay marriage ban Ruling says there is =?iso-8859-1?b?kW5v?= rational =?iso-8859-1?q?purpose=92?= for limiting unions |
16 Mar 2005 12:50:16 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:03:13 -0800, stoney wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7182628/
Judge strikes down California gay marriage ban
Ruling says there is ‘no rational purpose’ for limiting unions
The Associated Press
Updated: 7:40 p.m. ET March 14, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO - A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay
marriage is unconstitutional — a legal milestone that, if upheld on
appeal, would open the way for the most populous state to follow
Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.
<snip>
Social vs. legal arguments
Since Jan. 1, same-sex couples registering as domestic partners in
California have been granted virtually all the rights and
responsibilities of marriage, including access to divorce courts, the
ability to collect child support and responsibility for a partner’s
debts.
So in California, the arguments for striking down the gay marriage ban
have centered as much on the social meaning of marriage as the
benefits it affords as a legal institution.
The couples, represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights,
the Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union, conceded that
California’s domestic partnership law may be the strongest in the
nation outside of Vermont’s civil unions. But they claimed it still
does not go far enough because it creates a separate and inherently
unequal marriage-like institution for same-sex couples.
The Attorney General’s Office also cited the domestic partners law as
evidence that California does not discriminate against gays, and
maintained that tradition dictates that marriage should be restricted
to opposite-sex couples.
So hows about they just drop all the legal stuff around marriage. If
couples want all the legal protection, they can just register as 'domestic
partners', be they gay or hetero. Then if people want to be 'married'
(whatever that means) that is purely a social or religious choice, but it
would not carry any legal weight. Only registered domestic partnerships
would count.
Two groups opposed to gay marriage rights, The Campaign for California
Families and the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, argued
that the state has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to
opposite-sex couples as a way of encouraging procreation.
....because if it weren't for marriage, people wouldn't have any children.
Funny though, I don't remember getting anything special with my marriage
certificate that made me fertile.
--
phillip brown
"***** doesn't just happen. there is always an *****-hole involved"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge strikes down California gay marriage ban Ruling says there is=?iso-8859-1?Q?=91no?= rational =?iso-8859-1?Q?purpose=92?= for limitingunions |
16 Mar 2005 08:50:58 AM |
|
|
Phillip Brown wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:03:13 -0800, stoney wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7182628/
Judge strikes down California gay marriage ban
Ruling says there is ‘no rational purpose’ for limiting unions
The Associated Press
Updated: 7:40 p.m. ET March 14, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO - A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay
marriage is unconstitutional — a legal milestone that, if upheld on
appeal, would open the way for the most populous state to follow
Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.
<snip>
Social vs. legal arguments
Since Jan. 1, same-sex couples registering as domestic partners in
California have been granted virtually all the rights and
responsibilities of marriage, including access to divorce courts, the
ability to collect child support and responsibility for a partner’s
debts.
So in California, the arguments for striking down the gay marriage ban
have centered as much on the social meaning of marriage as the
benefits it affords as a legal institution.
The couples, represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights,
the Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union, conceded that
California’s domestic partnership law may be the strongest in the
nation outside of Vermont’s civil unions. But they claimed it still
does not go far enough because it creates a separate and inherently
unequal marriage-like institution for same-sex couples.
The Attorney General’s Office also cited the domestic partners law as
evidence that California does not discriminate against gays, and
maintained that tradition dictates that marriage should be restricted
to opposite-sex couples.
So hows about they just drop all the legal stuff around marriage. If
couples want all the legal protection, they can just register as 'domestic
partners', be they gay or hetero. Then if people want to be 'married'
(whatever that means) that is purely a social or religious choice, but it
would not carry any legal weight. Only registered domestic partnerships
would count.
Two problems immediately pop up.
1) No state other than California (that I'm aware of) recognizes domestic
partnerships. (Vermont has civil unions.) A different name means a different
legal category, and as such, no other state would be required to recognize
California's domestic partnership as valid. (That is why Vermont's civil
unions are valid only in Vermont.)
2) Being in a different legal category means that all of the rights,
responsibilities and privileges granted to marriage through common law do not
apply to civil unions, hetero or otherwise. Legal battles fought decades ago
would have to be fought again, with no guarantee that rights established for
marriage would be established for domestic partnerships.
A nice elegant solution, but one that causes far more problems than it solves.
Two groups opposed to gay marriage rights, The Campaign for California
Families and the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, argued
that the state has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to
opposite-sex couples as a way of encouraging procreation.
...because if it weren't for marriage, people wouldn't have any children.
Funny though, I don't remember getting anything special with my marriage
certificate that made me fertile.
That might change in Washington State, if the state Supreme Court rules
against equal marriage. I don't want to run afoul of public disclosure laws,
but let's just say that something to enact the one and only non-religious
argument being made by opponents of equal marriage is being prepared for the
voters ;-P
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge strikes down California gay marriage ban Ruling says there is =?iso-8859-1?b?kW5v?= rational =?iso-8859-1?q?purpose=92?= for limiting unions |
16 Mar 2005 07:10:18 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <423847D2.57EC6366@serv.net>, Gregory Gadow pirouetted
gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
2) Being in a different legal category means that all of the rights,
responsibilities and privileges granted to marriage through common law do
not apply to civil unions, hetero or otherwise.
Actually, in a law that went into effect the first of this year,
California modified its family code to make DP and marriage essentially
the same thing. Ironically enough, CA already *has gay marriage. Just not
by the same *name...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Group website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge strikes down California gay marriage ban Ruling says there is ‘no rational =?iso-8859-1?q?purpose=92?= for limiting unions |
16 Mar 2005 07:56:39 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in
news:0YudnSqN9vRnRaXfRVn-3A@megapath.net:
In our last episode <423847D2.57EC6366@serv.net>, Gregory Gadow
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
2) Being in a different legal category means that all of the rights,
responsibilities and privileges granted to marriage through common
law do not apply to civil unions, hetero or otherwise.
Actually, in a law that went into effect the first of this year,
California modified its family code to make DP and marriage
essentially the same thing. Ironically enough, CA already *has gay
marriage. Just not by the same *name...
Just out of curiosity . . .
. . . how many of us know a gay couple who are in a committed family
arrangement, raising children, caring for elderly parents, etc., acting
in every way like a traditional family?
I do. Good people, too.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplin and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing.
-- Bertrand Russell
Now playing: Earth Story 06
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
