The Court in this case decided that sexual orientation is a suspect classification because, among other parts of the anlysis, sexual orientation is an immutable trait.
Ahh... that is a major difference. I agree wholeheartedly with that distinction.
To be considered a suspect classification in the U.S. a group must meet all of the following criteria:
The groups' characteristics are immutable. (Race, national origin) - Check The group shares a history of discrimination. - Check The group is politically impotent. - I tend to disagree on this point. The group is a discrete and insular minority. - Not sure I properly understand the meaning of this.
Of course, although the Domestic Partner Act generally affords registered domestic partners the same substantive benefits and privileges and imposes upon them the same responsibilities and duties that California law affords to and imposes upon married spouses, the act does not purport to (and lawfully could not) modify the applicable provisions of federal law, which currently do not provide for domestic partnerships and which define marriage, for purposes of federal law, as the union of a man and a woman. (See 1 U.S.C. § 7.)25 In light of the current provisions of federal law, the many federal benefits (and the amount of those benefits) granted to a married person or to a married couple on the basis of their married status are not available to registered domestic partners. Included within this category are significant benefits such as those relating to Social Security, Medicare, federal housing, food stamps, federal military and veterans’ programs, federal employment programs, and filing status for federal income tax purposes. All of these important federal benefits, however, also would be denied to same-sex couples even if California designated the official union of such couples a marriage rather than a domestic partnership, because, as noted, federal law defines marriage for purposes of federal law as “only a legal union between one man and one woman.†(1 U.S.C. § 7.)26
This is one of the big reasons why I support what these judges have done. Even though the domestic partner laws do provide for equality in CA they do not apply to any laws outside of the state.
Further, it is far easier to rename the Civil Union to a marriage and thereby gain ALL the rights of marriage allowed for within the USA.
Same-sex marriage is good for the state and the citizens. With that said I have no doubt there are some in the gay community who are not happy about this. Just as with heterosexual couples there are people who are scared of commitment. Up until now a partner in a same-sex relationship could shrug off the commitment step by saying it is not allowed by law, that excuse is now gone.
I still want to know what would happen if the current anti- same-sex marriage amendment gets passed.
On page 51 my argument arises:
Although all parties in this proceeding agree that the right to marry constitutes a fundamental right protected by the state Constitution, there is considerable disagreement as to the scope and content of this fundamental state constitutional right. The Court of Appeal concluded that because marriage in California (and elsewhere) historically has been limited to opposite-sex couples, the constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution properly should be interpreted to afford only a right to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that the constitutional right that plaintiffs actually are asking the court to recognize is a constitutional “right to same-sex marriage.†In the absence of any historical or precedential support for such a right in this state, the Court of Appeal determined that plaintiffs’ claim of the denial of a fundamental right under the California Constitution must be rejected.
and the answer:
Plaintiffs challenge the Court of Appeal’s characterization of the constitutional right they seek to invoke as the right to same-sex marriage, and on this point we agree with plaintiffs’ position. In Perez v. Sharp, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711 — this court’s 1948 decision holding that the California statutory provisions prohibiting interracial marriage were unconstitutional — the court did not characterize the constitutional right that the plaintiffs in that case sought to obtain as “a right to interracial marriage†and did not dismiss the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge on the ground that such marriages never had been permitted in California.32 Instead, the Perez decision focused on the substance of the constitutional right at issue — that is, the importance to an individual of the freedom “to join in marriage with the person of one’s choice†— in determining whether the statute impinged upon the plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional right.
That is the clincher. “to join in marriage with the person of one’s choiceâ€Â. When you look right there same-sex marriage has been legal in California since 1948!!!
I still want to know what would happen if the current anti- same-sex marriage amendment gets passed.
My understanding is that it would be an amendment to the CA Constitution enshrining the one man/one woman deal. That would make a ban like the one that was just struck down "constitutional" again. The interested parties would then make fast work putting a similar ban back into place.
I still want to know what would happen if the current anti- same-sex marriage amendment gets passed.
My understanding is that it would be an amendment to the CA Constitution enshrining the one man/one woman deal. That would make a ban like the one that was just struck down "constitutional" again. The interested parties would then make fast work putting a similar ban back into place.
Passage of the amendment would not put a ban in place by default?
Would passage of the amendment also mean that only another constitutional amendment passed by the voters could be used to counter it?
Ummm, aren't judges party neutral? Maybe you mean they were appointed by Republican officials.
Perhaps I readthis article about the courtincorrectly, but it does identify the various judges by party affiliation.
When the article refers to the judges "Party Affiliation", they really mean was the party of the governor who appointed them. After looking at the article and comparing them to the governors who appointed them, I am correct in this assumption.
When the article refers to the judges "Party Affiliation", they really mean was the party of the governor who appointed them.
I don't understand exactly what hair you are attempting to split here. A quote from the article I cited: Chief Justice Ronald George, 68, a moderate Republican appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson in 1991. Seems like pretty plain prose to me. Any obvious reading of that sentence would suggest that Justice George is a moderate Republican who was also appointed by a Republican governor. Since the article in question was written by a major newspaper headquartered in the same town that the CA Supreme Court is located in, I figure that they know the subject matter. A Republican Judge appointed by a Republican governor. In other news, water is wet.
I don't understand exactly what hair you are attempting to split here. A quote from the article I cited:Chief Justice Ronald George, 68, a moderate Republican appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson in 1991. Seems like pretty plain prose to me. Any obvious reading of that sentence would suggest that Justice George is a moderate Republican who was also appointed by a Republican governor. Since the article in question was written by a major newspaper headquartered in the same town that the CA Supreme Court is located in, I figure that they know the subject matter. A Republican Judge appointed by a Republican governor. In other news, water is wet.
Hmmm. I could be wrong, I was just under the impression that Judges were party neutral (ostensibly). Maybe someone else could provide some insight into the matter.
That is the clincher.“to join in marriage with the person of one’s choiceâ€Â. When you look right there same-sex marriage has been legal in California since 1948!!!
Sigh. No. It's still the suspect class analysis. If they weren't a suspect class, then the law banning homosexual marriage would still be constitutional.
I can't say I agree with this action; that being said I also don't care what other people do in their bedroom. Marriage is a religious word for civil union. Some of my friends are bi-sexual and were all happy about this decision. I was raised a Christian, so I feel that this is an injustice(if you will) and slanderous to the term 'marriage' but that just makes me one of the super-Christian rights, huh?
That is the clincher.“to join in marriage with the person of one’s choiceâ€Â. When you look right there same-sex marriage has been legal in California since 1948!!!
Sigh. No. It's still the suspect class analysis. If they weren't a suspect class, then the law banning homosexual marriage would still be constitutional.
A few hours after I posted I realized the error. I just didn't go back and edit the post.
I can't say I agree with this action; that being said I also don't care what other people do in their bedroom. Marriage is a religious word for civil union. Some of my friends are bi-sexual and were all happy about this decision. I was raised a Christian, so I feel that this is an injustice(if you will) and slanderous to the term 'marriage' but that just makes me one of the super-Christian rights, huh?
If you don't care about what they do, why do you care about it "slandering" marriage? Can you even prove that it does slander this arbitrary concept?
In my view, I think marriage is unconstitutional due to the First Amendment's requirement that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Therefore, since it is fundamentally religious, we should require a civil union in order for a marriage to be recognized. If this were to occur, it would mean that 1) all unions are on an equal footing, 2) churches could have different regulations for a marriage (albeit with a few homophobes getting their way) , and 3) it would move us one step closer to a secular society.
It isn't the best solution, but it's the best I could think of.
Now, I may have misheard on my ride into work today, but didn't the "Govenator" say that he would veto any changes to the CA Constitution? I was only half listening, so anyone that might have the specifics would be helpful.
It should be obvious that any legal offering of a union between individuals should be available to all. I don't have a problem with the specific word "marriage", but this much is evident: if the religious insist on holding onto the term for dear life, then the concept of marriage should be entirely replaced with the "civil union". I guess since the association between religion and marriage is far too strong, replacing them entirely with civil unions is a necessity.
I see the point they are trying to make (wrongly) and I have heard the same point being made by the anti-war movement (it's an illegal war, don't follow illegal orders) but... How can following an order that leads to people being murdered be compared to following an order that leads to people being happy?
The Huffington Post had published a recording of Hagee saying that Adolf Hitler had been fulfilling God's will by hastening the desire of Jews to return to Israel in accordance with biblical prophecy.
The Huffington Post had published a recording of Hagee saying that Adolf Hitler had been fulfilling God's will by hastening the desire of Jews to return to Israel in accordance with biblical prophecy.
Comments
The groups' characteristics are immutable. (Race, national origin) - Check
The group shares a history of discrimination. - Check
The group is politically impotent. - I tend to disagree on this point.
The group is a discrete and insular minority. - Not sure I properly understand the meaning of this.
@kilarney : Joe beat me to it. What he said.
This is one of the big reasons why I support what these judges have done. Even though the domestic partner laws do provide for equality in CA they do not apply to any laws outside of the state.
Further, it is far easier to rename the Civil Union to a marriage and thereby gain ALL the rights of marriage allowed for within the USA.
Same-sex marriage is good for the state and the citizens. With that said I have no doubt there are some in the gay community who are not happy about this. Just as with heterosexual couples there are people who are scared of commitment. Up until now a partner in a same-sex relationship could shrug off the commitment step by saying it is not allowed by law, that excuse is now gone.
I still want to know what would happen if the current anti- same-sex marriage amendment gets passed.
On page 51 my argument arises: and the answer: That is the clincher. “to join in marriage with the person of one’s choiceâ€Â. When you look right there same-sex marriage has been legal in California since 1948!!!
Would passage of the amendment also mean that only another constitutional amendment passed by the voters could be used to counter it?
In my view, I think marriage is unconstitutional due to the First Amendment's requirement that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Therefore, since it is fundamentally religious, we should require a civil union in order for a marriage to be recognized. If this were to occur, it would mean that 1) all unions are on an equal footing, 2) churches could have different regulations for a marriage (albeit with a few homophobes getting their way) , and 3) it would move us one step closer to a secular society.
It isn't the best solution, but it's the best I could think of.
I don't have a problem with the specific word "marriage", but this much is evident: if the religious insist on holding onto the term for dear life, then the concept of marriage should be entirely replaced with the "civil union".
I guess since the association between religion and marriage is far too strong, replacing them entirely with civil unions is a necessity.
Of course, there are more amusing explanations.
I see the point they are trying to make (wrongly) and I have heard the same point being made by the anti-war movement (it's an illegal war, don't follow illegal orders) but... How can following an order that leads to people being murdered be compared to following an order that leads to people being happy?