Calif. Ruling Shows Hurdles Remain for Gay MarriageWashington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved constitutional amendment Tuesday that bans same-sex marriage in the state.
The court said, however, that those couples who wed in the state under an earlier opinion from the court, will be considered married.
Now, if they would just get rid of heterosexual marriage maybe we will be approaching equality.
Some interesting comments from the Reasonids:
♪ May 26, 2009, 1:45pm #There was actually a brief filed at the time after the first ballot proposal was overturned that would have put a halt on marring same-sex couples until the second ballot proposal was voted on. This would have been prudent in a time when the question was in flux.
Also, "gay marriage" is a misnomer. Nobody asks for sexual preference when filling out a marriage license.
ellipsis May 26, 2009, 5:47pm #The Hef seems to be able to find multiple girlfriends. What if he wanted to marry all of them? The only thing that would change is the (now) wives ability to get tax deductions and estate matters.
Marriage used to be a license to have sex. That's why polygamy was banned, because the LDS was considered a freakshow. In modern times, marriage has nothing to do with sex. And yes I know I'm condensing, but bear with me. Polygamy wasn't even banned in the US until 1862, and only because of what amounted to religious persecution. The Merrill anti-Bigamy Act should have been overturned on first amendment grounds. But the majority is always willing to throw any odd practices under the bus for the morality of America.
I think polygamy should be legal - along with any other human marriage arrangement - but considering how hard it is to get same-sex marriage legalized, I doubt it'll happen any time soon.
Marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Anything else is NOT marriage. It may be a civil union, but it is not marriage.
I think the argument that the government should not issue marriage licenses is a valid one. Perhaps the government should issue "civil union" licenses and then if a man and woman want to get married, they may do so in whatever ceremony they wish. Then, everyone has equal rights and we don't redefine words.
For me, it's as much a logical argument as anything else. We might as well pass legislation that says day is night and night is day. That won't change the fact that the sun is visible at about the same time every day (oops, night) - we'll just change what that period of time is called.
For the record: I am against government involvement in marriage and that is one thing my fictional character of this name shares with me.
In other news, our crazy immigration policy was a factor in a friend of mine, who I used to date, getting married so that she does not have to keep going back to England for visa renewals.