California gay marriage decision

[VLinvictus]

The California Supreme Court ruled today to overturn the state's ban on same-sex marriage. In 30 days, gay men and lesbians will be able to marry in California just as we can in Massachusetts.

I'm not thrilled.

No, this is only partially related to my distaste for marriage in general, an institution that serves no purpose but to perpetuate bourgeois morality, patriarchal male right, and capitalist property relations while keeping social parasites like lawyers and pencil-pushing bureaucrats employed.

This is also not based on my conviction that of all the issues that face our country, gay marriage is hardly the most significant.

No, this is based on my disgust of how vile the Presidential election has been so far and my dread of how much more vicious it will become. It is inconceivable that this decision will not become a major campaign issue, and one can expect the acrimony over the next sixth months to increase a thousand fold.

I pray to God that Obama does not come out (as it were) in support of this decision. The best thing for him to do would be dodge it completely on the grounds of states' rights. However, he would then legitimately be questioned how he would respond to a revived Federal Marriage Amendment. There is the fear that this will give the social conservatives enough ammunition to swing the election in favor of McCain and GOP candidates for Congress. The disaster of a McCain victory cannot be overstated.

I just can't understand the desire to get married -- it's like joining the army only more dangerous. To hell with the conservative claptrap about gays wanting special rights: by being protected from being sent to God-forsaken Third World countries to shot at and blown up and from condemning ourselves to a lifetime of legally binding soul-killing misery, some might say we've been enjoying special rights all along! I don't begrudge two men the right to form a lasting partnership with each other, no matter how much I disagree with the premise -- I just don't see why approval from the state is needed. I also don't think the state has any right whatsoever to interfere in any way with the private domestic and sexual relations of consenting adults.

But none of that really matters so much as the fact that we're in the middle of a Presidential election. At stake is the destiny of our country for the next four years and the composition of the Supreme Court for decades. Why could this decision not have been rendered in December? Mark my words: this will only add fuel to fire that is already threatening to burn out of control.

Reading several gay blogs today I see universal celebration: "Hooray! Huzzah! Whoop-de-doo!"

Do none of them see the black thunderclouds of doom looming above? It's going to be a long, brutal summer.

[Thorolf]

I agree... excellent point.

To further that point - one of the fears for this election season is that the more conservative voters who really don't care for John McCain would stay home.

If this is made into a big issue, particularly by the Democrats, I expect that it would not make a lick of difference to the turnout of Democrats - but it WILL mobilize the so-called "religious right" and the more hardline conservatives.

The Democrats would be smart to downplay it - at least until after the election.

Don't hold your breath on that one, though.

[VLinvictus]

Ultimately, in the long run, I don't believe this election will be all that significant. The Republic is already doomed and just don't think anything can be done right now to save it. Neither party actually cares about the people or the Constitution. All they care about is power and getting more of it. That's why we have an imperial presidency -- it is not an overstatement to say that the President of the United States is an Emperor with term limits (almost like how Vladimir Putin is like a Tsar but apparently without term limits).

None of the candidates -- McCain, Obama, or Clinton -- have the right mentality and character to reverse this trend. The accumulation of power into the executive branch at the expense of the other two and the vast expansion of the power of the federal government at the expense of the states and the people will continue. Then. when oil production peaks and the global economy begins to totter and fall, the fun will really begin. I hope everyone is putting their savings into gold.

Anyhow, in that sense who wins in November doesn't make much a of a difference in the long run. What is bothering me is that we're all going to be subjected to six months more of ads, pundits, 24-hour news cycles, manufactured controversies, and enough bile to drown a herd of elephants, and this idiotic gay marriage decision is only going to make it worse.

It's enough to make a person want to put himself into a coma until November.

[WorldWarrior]

VL--hi.

I have a thread on this on the "News" board. "Great minds" I guess.

You say--

"Do none of them see the black thunderclouds of doom looming above? It's going to be a long, brutal summer."

I'm wondering if you think that something worth fighting for should be given up just becaus the fight may be difficult?

Would you have said this to the people in the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s?

[Thorolf]

VL--hi.

I have a thread on this on the "News" board. "Great minds" I guess.

You say--

"Do none of them see the black thunderclouds of doom looming above? It's going to be a long, brutal summer."

I'm wondering if you think that something worth fighting for should be given up just becaus the fight may be difficult?

Would you have said this to the people in the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s?

 

You should read his whole post. He's not talking about difficulty of getting something "worth fighting for" accomplished.

[VLinvictus]

WorldWarrior:

I don't believe gay marriage is worth fighting for. If anything is worth fighting for, IMO, it's getting rid of civil marriage altogether and getting the government's nose out of citizen's private domestic and sexual affairs. For most religions, marriage is a sacred sacramental act -- why should the State profane it?

What I believe is worth fighting for is preventing war with Iran and preventing a conservative majority on the Supreme Court that will be able to dictate constitutional policy for decades to come. I believe that this gay marriage decision, rendered now instead of say December, will hurt the Democratic chances of winning the White House in November.

Of course, a Democratic victory will not prevent the eventually collapse of our nation, but nothing at this point can stop that so it's moot.

[WorldWarrior]

T says--

"You should read his whole post. He's not talking about difficulty of getting something "worth fighting for" accomplished."



Of course I read his whole post--and asked a Q about what I was most interested in.


And VL was kind enough to answer.



Am I--by your criterion--supposed to ask Qs about ideas and issues I'm not at the moment inteested in?

[Faithfulee]

This definitely should be in Politics because it will be a major issue in the  November Election.

Personally,  I believe that heterosexual Marriage is worth fighting for, and most Americans are on my side on  this.

Obama’s position is the same as mine.  We endorse civil unions but oppose gay marriage.

The issue is whether America will be defined by the people or by  unelected judges.  The Republicans are solidly on the side of the people

Obama has the problem and it will be a challenge for him to address it.  The liberals who make up the bulk of the Democrat electorate  will favor the California decision.  Will Obama cow tow these forces in the party,  or take a firm position that  reflects his beliefs.

My bet is that he will hedge, avoid the issue, and just wish it would go away.

This is another issue that will bring out Americans who support family values to vote for McCain.

Thank you California Courts.

[Akiva]

I see where VL is going, and I see the dark road ahead especially considering that this decision is enough to swing the election in favor of the Republicans.  I also understand your objections to the idea of marriage-- which, in my opinion, should be completely governed either by the individual or the individual's religious institution.  When exactly We the People ceded such power to the Almighty State, I'm not sure. 

Having said all of this, however; I would be in a much worse mood had the CA judiciary decided it was illegal for gays to marry.  No, it is not the decision of the state.  But while we have apparently afforded the state this much power, I am pleased that the judiciary saw fit to take this course of action. 

And that being said-- the judiciary in this country is a joke; it is as if they have become groups of people who agree or disagree with laws, and have no power to do anything about it.  Within weeks, the executive office of California could overturn this decision, though Ahnold has said that he will not. 

When I took Civics in junior high, we learned about this thing called the Checks & Balances system.  I have not seen it since.

[WorldWarrior]

FFLee says--

"Personally,  I believe that heterosexual Marriage is worth fighting for, and most Americans are on my side on  this"


According to polls released yesterday mroe than 50% of Americans agree with the CA court.



BTW--what does GAY marriage have to do with having to"Fight for Heterosexual marriage"?  what is the connection between those two?

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

FFlee,

Fight for heterosexual marriage?  I don't understand.

all

[jacknky]

There are two issues at play here. One is whether all American citizens should receive the same legal and civil rights to marry the individual of their choice. They should.

The second issue worries me. Will this legal judgement harm the more progressive elements in the election, namely Obama? I think it could. I do think we Democrats should not try to make this an issue. That could mobilize more conservative elements who might not be all that thrilled with John McCain.

I think Obama, despite his strengths, is skating on thin ice. He's just too different. This is the country, after all, that elected George Bush for two terms. Can this same country then turn around and elect someone who is half black with a funny name? I wonder, especially when it comes time to go in the booth and pull the lever. It won't take much for many to justify not voting for Obama.

[Thorolf]

Akiva,

The Governor does not have the power to overturn a court decision.

Schwarzenegger has said that he will abide by the court ruling and not support a State Constitutional amendment... that's a very different animal.



BTW, I found something that I find very interesting as I read up a little on this situation.

The court said that marriage is a "fundamental constitutional right," and that denying it would require a compelling government interest.

*IF* it is a fundamental constitutional right, then it doesn't matter what interest the GOVERNMENT has in denying it. Isn't that sort of the point of the Constitution - to ensure that the government CAN'T legally deny a "fundamental constitutional right?"

[jacknky]

"I believe that heterosexual Marriage is worth fighting for, and most Americans are on my side on  this."

Me neither. I can't for the life of me see how the state recognizing committed homosexual marriages affects my heterosexual marriage. It's just not that fragile.

[jacknky]

Thorolf,
"*IF* it is a fundamental constitutional right, then it doesn't matter what interest the GOVERNMENT has in denying it. Isn't that sort of the point of the Constitution - to ensure that the government CAN'T legally deny a "fundamental constitutional right?""

I don't get your point. Are you saying you agree with the CA court?

[VLinvictus]

I add to the chorus of confusion on Faithfulee's response.

No one has ever provided a coherent explanation of how gay marriage harms heterosexual marriage.

The notion that gay marriage is contrary to family values is even more bizarre, since one would think that a stable committed monogamous relationship would actually be conducive to family values.

I just want to add also that I'm amazed and proud of the maturity on this site so far. I posted the exact same thing above on another forum I frequent and was viciously savaged by a flame deluge for the extermity of my language. I hope it's clear that I used such language for rhetorical effect.

You all rock.

[Akiva]

I hope it's clear that I used such language for rhetorical effect.

You all rock.

LOL.  You're the best.

[Akiva]

VL,

After thinking it over-- your critique belongs in the gay community.  I say this because many of my gay friends are currently rejoicing at this event.  Some are already talking about going to CA as there are no resident requirements there, as apparently there are in MA.  I agree, for the most part, with what you have said.  The State has no right to determine actions such as these in our lives.  However; I do not personally feel as if I am in a position to take the other side.  Yes, I recognize the myriad of complexities that will result from this in the presidential election.  Yes, I firmly believe that the State should not be able to dictate (and the people should not let them) ideas such as marriage, union, etc.  However; the current legal situation is, in my opinion, inhumane and does not afford one group of people the same rights as the other.  Therefore, I do not believe it is in my power to make this critique-- and though I recognize the stormclouds on the horizon, I also firmly agree with the California courts decision, and the first gay couple I know to go there and return married will get the nicest toaster I can afford.

[Faithfulee]

I see where VL is going, and I see the dark road ahead especially considering that this decision is enough to swing the election in favor of the Republicans.  I also understand your objections to the idea of marriage-- which, in my opinion, should be completely governed either by the individual or the individual's religious institution.  When exactly We the People ceded such power to the Almighty State, I'm not sure. 

Having said all of this, however; I would be in a much worse mood had the CA judiciary decided it was illegal for gays to marry.  No, it is not the decision of the state.  But while we have apparently afforded the state this much power, I am pleased that the judiciary saw fit to take this course of action. 

Most States have laws saying the it IS illegal for gays to marry, and there is nothing wrong with that because that is what the people of these states want.  

The issue is Marriage and it is well within the states right to define who may marry and the rights and obligations of the marrieds.  I would oppose a law allowing one to marry a cat as vigorously as I do oppose homosexual marriage.

But there is a way that is acceptable to a growing number of Americans and that are civil unions.  These can specifically assign the rights and obligations of the partnerships without disturbing the definition of marriage.

The California Decision said that this was not adequate.  They were wrong and the decision will be eventually repealled.  Thankfully for this conservative REpublican, it will not be done before November.  We have another winning issue.

FFlee,

Fight for heterosexual marriage?  I don't understand.

all

Marriage between a man and a woman is what I meant.  There are biological differences that are reflected in our definition of marriage.

There are two issues at play here. One is whether all American citizens should receive the same legal and civil rights to marry the individual of their choice. They should.

The second issue worries me. Will this legal judgement harm the more progressive elements in the election, namely Obama? I think it could. I do think we Democrats should not try to make this an issue. That could mobilize more conservative elements who might not be all that thrilled with John McCain.

I think Obama, despite his strengths, is skating on thin ice. He's just too different. This is the country, after all, that elected George Bush for two terms. Can this same country then turn around and elect someone who is half black with a funny name? I wonder, especially when it comes time to go in the booth and pull the lever. It won't take much for many to justify not voting for Obama.

Men and wmen are not the same and they have different rights and obligations in our definition of marriage.

Civil unions are a fair and acceptable way of assigning rights between homosexuals.  Sadly the CA court is not in tune with the people.

And I love the issue.  Another one to defeat Obama.  Do you think he will stand up to his reported position that opposes gay marriage and supports Civil Unions. '

Thorolf,
"*IF* it is a fundamental constitutional right, then it doesn't matter what interest the GOVERNMENT has in denying it. Isn't that sort of the point of the Constitution - to ensure that the government CAN'T legally deny a "fundamental constitutional right?""

I don't get your point. Are you saying you agree with the CA court?

Marriage is a convention that was set up to deal with the legal and psychological, et al, differences between men and woman when they decide to join in a firm legal relationship.  

Homosexual marriages are different than heterosexual ones and there need to be different rights and responsibilities that stem from the union.  

[Thorolf]

Thorolf,
"*IF* it is a fundamental constitutional right, then it doesn't matter what interest the GOVERNMENT has in denying it. Isn't that sort of the point of the Constitution - to ensure that the government CAN'T legally deny a "fundamental constitutional right?""

I don't get your point. Are you saying you agree with the CA court?

No... I'm saying that the CA court made an error both of law and logic.