Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

CA Supreme Court refuses gay-marriage stop request

California CA Supreme Court Gay Marriage 2004

  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 27 February 2004 - 09:54 PM

The BBC reports.

Quote

California's Supreme Court has refused a request from the state's attorney general to halt gay weddings. More than 3,400 same-sex couples have married, since San Francisco's mayor began issuing licences two weeks ago.

The court told conservative groups who oppose the weddings, which contravene state law, to file new legal briefs in one week's time.

On Friday, 21 gay and lesbian couples exchanged vows at a village hall in New Paltz, New York. The Mayor of New Paltz, 26-year-old Jason West, said he decided to perform same sex wedding ceremonies as a matter of equal rights.

The same argument has been against by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose spokesman says he is only following "the state constitution, which explicitly outlaws discrimination of any kind".

But after Mayor West started holding ceremonies, the Governor of New York State, George Pataki, said it was in clear breach of state law which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#2 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 27 February 2004 - 10:19 PM

Well........we are living in interesting times are we not?

Color me FLABBERGASTED that the increasingly conservative CASC didn't stop the weddings outright.   :eek2:

Pleased mind you, but freakin' flabbergasted!
Posted Image

#3 Kimmer

Kimmer
  • Islander
  • 6,388 posts

Posted 27 February 2004 - 10:39 PM

I'm stumped as to why the judges did this? The article doesn't explain any further other than "file new briefs". How about the AG's brief? Was it filed and did they take action on it?

Like Lil, I'm flabbergasted ... but that's as far as we agree. ;)

#4 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 27 February 2004 - 11:09 PM

^ There was no reason given in the article that I could see.

Who knows.

:cool:
Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#5 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 27 February 2004 - 11:10 PM

Can I say how pleased I am!!!!!!!
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#6 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 27 February 2004 - 11:10 PM

The times they are a changin'... :ninja:

#7 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 27 February 2004 - 11:22 PM

kimmer my feeling (and that's all it is) is that the justices asked for briefs to protect against due process arguments on appeal to the supreme court. Regardless of which way they go.  Seems to me they are viewing this as a challenge to the California law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.  As such they are likely making sure to give everyone a chance to have their say before ruling.

Edited to add that this is more than just about the issue of same sex marriage.  This is about judicial v. legislative power as well.

As I said, we are living in interesting times.

Lil

Edited by Una Salus Lillius, 27 February 2004 - 11:23 PM.

Posted Image

#8 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,651 posts

Posted 27 February 2004 - 11:31 PM

I've got a feeling the big Supremes may eventually rule that all these "defense of marriage" bills are unconstitutional, which means we'll be battling over the Constitutional Amendment for years to come.  :(

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#9 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 28 February 2004 - 12:10 AM

edited

Edited by G1223, 28 February 2004 - 12:15 AM.


#10 Zoxesyr

Zoxesyr
  • Islander
  • 1,490 posts

Posted 28 February 2004 - 01:42 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Feb 28 2004, 03:17 AM, said:

Well........we are living in interesting times are we not?

Color me FLABBERGASTED that the increasingly conservative CASC didn't stop the weddings outright.   :eek2:

Pleased mind you, but freakin' flabbergasted!
There was a great article on the SJ Mercury's website about the CASC.  In reading between the lines, it sounds like the court will try to dodge this one as much as possible.  I.e. they are going to let it go through the lower courts first.  

In the article the reporter pointed out just how conservative the court is, but also how cautious they are in taking cases.  Unlike the UCSC, these people have to be voted on every 12 years, and a bad decision will definitely come back to haunt them.  (Remember Rose Byrd?)
www.zoxesyrbautie.com

#11 Raina

Raina

    Cpt. Raina 'Starlee'

  • Validation Team
  • 6,009 posts

Posted 28 February 2004 - 03:52 AM

Sometimes I just don't get why some people just won't allow gay couples to marry. I mean there's religious reasons and all, but I doubt that a gay couple is gonna split up and become straight just because they won't get married. They'll just stay together anyways, so why are some people so against it?

politics and religion... *sigh* bad combination imho

"First thing they tell you is to assume you're already dead... dead men don't get scared or freeze up under fire. Me, I'm just worried that hell's gonna be a lonely place. And I'm gonna fill it up with every toaster son of a bitch I find." -Racetrack

"I believe what goes around comes around and if I am the instrument of 'coming round' then I'll do it happily. " -Shal


Viper Squadron CAG
Roman Warrior
Browncoat

#12 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 28 February 2004 - 03:44 PM

Quote

Cardie: I've got a feeling the big Supremes may eventually rule that all these "defense of marriage" bills are unconstitutional, which means we'll be battling over the Constitutional Amendment for years to come.

Every city that defies the law like SF or New Paltz makes it more likely that the amendment will breeze right in.

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 28 February 2004 - 03:47 PM.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#13 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 28 February 2004 - 04:19 PM

Raina, on Feb 28 2004, 04:50 AM, said:

Sometimes I just don't get why some people just won't allow gay couples to marry. I mean there's religious reasons and all, but I doubt that a gay couple is gonna split up and become straight just because they won't get married. They'll just stay together anyways, so why are some people so against it?

politics and religion... *sigh* bad combination imho
Well, lot's of reasons.  Let's begin with the fact that opposition to gay marriage is not solely founded on religious principles.  In fact, there are reasons to disallow it that have no religious bearing whatsoever.  

Second, if you insist on looking at people who do oppose it for religious reasons, the fact is that no one actually believes that preventing people from marrying will keep them from being gay.  However, at the same time, why would they materially support something that they don't think is right?  

People in many religions, particularly Christianity, are required to give witness to their beliefs.  That means speaking up for them and voting in line with their conscience.  And since the government belongs to them just as much as anyone else, simply allowing stuff to slide through that they consider to be wrong is similarly wrong.  The people who oppose this on a religious basis believe that they will be held accountable for their actions and their inactions later on.  Further, they believe that certain actions could actually make the *world* a worse place.  After all, God isn't trying to make living on Earth impossible.  

Depending on their view of that God sees as wrong and what He expects, you'll get a range all the way from complete apathy all the way to fierce opposition.  What kind of government for the people and by the people is one that substantially clashes with the values of those same people?  The answer: one that is in serious danger of being overthrown.  It's silly to believe otherwise.

What people fail to understand is that the current working of this country and the tolerance that it allows are in substantial compliance with Christian teaching.  The country could not have even started out unless that was the case.  Now, I'm not saying that the government is a Christian one, only that it is a system that a Christian could in good conscience allow themselves to be part of.  If that government becomes something other than something that a religious person could follow, then the religious person has a duty to oppose it.  It has nothing to do with trying to "cure" gays and everything to do with what you do with your own rights and vote.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#14 Gaiate

Gaiate

    Spirit Blade

  • Islander
  • 1,003 posts

Posted 28 February 2004 - 05:10 PM

Uncle Sid, on Feb 28 2004, 04:17 PM, said:

People in many religions, particularly Christianity, are required to give witness to their beliefs.  That means speaking up for them and voting in line with their conscience.  And since the government belongs to them just as much as anyone else, simply allowing stuff to slide through that they consider to be wrong is similarly wrong.

The problem with that argument is that it ignores the beliefs of people who don't agree with you (abstract "you", not you specifically).  With an issue like this, which has utterly no effect on anyone not gay, I would argue that it's more wrong to force such beliefs onto people who obviously don't share them.

In a secular government, decisions should be made for secular reasons.  There is nothing wrong with having religious motivations and morality, but for a government official they can't be enough.  Otherwise if everyone voted with their religiously motivated consciences, you very quickly have a theocracy in action if not in name.

--Te
"This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis--vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V." -- V, making an first impression

"Dude . . . that was cool." -- My first impression of V

#15 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 28 February 2004 - 07:49 PM

Again, thank you Te.  We are being pushed to find something that will work for everyone, because the partnership of same sex couples need to have equal protection under the law, period.  Anything else is descrimation no matter what laws about marry being for a man and women only.

This is truly what separation of church and state should be about.  Legally, we need to have a category for people of the same sex to have power of attorney and power to authorise surgery and other legal situations that are part of a legal domestic partnership.

I still think having separate terms for the legally binding partnership and spirtual partnership is the first step.  No one should be forced to do something against their beliefs, so if a church is against same sex marriage they should not be forced to accept or acknowledge it as a spiritual binding.  On the other hand, if a religion is tolerant of it, they should not be forced to live according to another's spiritual beliefs.

But, bottomline, like it or not, children are being affected in these partnerships and if nothing else they need protection.
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#16 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 28 February 2004 - 08:52 PM

Quote

The problem with that argument is that it ignores the beliefs of people who don't agree with you (abstract "you", not you specifically).  With an issue like this, which has utterly no effect on anyone not gay, I would argue that it's more wrong to force such beliefs onto people who obviously don't share them.

Well, you see, it's not really an argument.  It's simply the reality of being religious.  No one is *ignoring* other people's beliefs, but if you don't assert your own beliefs, then the other person is asserting theirs.  And in terms of respecting other people's religions, it's one thing to say that everyone has the freedom to choose their own beliefs, but it's another thing entirely to have to act as though you thought those other beliefs are correct.  

In this country, I accept that there are people who believe differently than I do.  They have every bit the same right to vote for something as I do.  If they win, then they win and the government works that way, if they lose, then they lose.  Obviously, nothing keeps them or me from trying to get laws changed and etc, but voting and legislating how we steer our course.  

Now, sometimes, the majority is dead wrong.  In those cases, you may need to appeal to certain protections that are in something like the Constitution.  The question then becomes whether what is claimed is actually a right.  Then you have to play the delicate game of balancing minority wishes against majority wishes.  


Quote

In a secular government, decisions should be made for secular reasons.  There is nothing wrong with having religious motivations and morality, but for a government official they can't be enough.  Otherwise if everyone voted with their religiously motivated consciences, you very quickly have a theocracy in action if not in name.

That'd be fine if there was any way to fully and completely seperate "secular" from "religious".  Yes, you can seperate religious organization from secular organization, but do you tell people that their beliefs simply don't apply to government?  That's sort of silly.  

What a lot of people think of as thinking "secularly" is simply acting as though there was no religion at all, and that's simply not reality, whether you like it or not.  Yes, people came here to be able to practice their various religions in peace, but they didn't come here to vote against their conscience.  

And I think it's also bogus to assert that people who consider their religion in politics are automatically going to generate a theocracy.  This country was basically a Christian one when it was founded.  The idea of tolerance and respect for others is a very Christian one.   There is no reason that opposition on this one matter is going to cause the country to turn into Iran or the Kingdom of Falwell.  That's just as absurd as saying that allowing gay marriage is going to turn people into gays.  It confuses me more than a little that people who would laugh at the idea of marriage turning people gay take it completely seriously that suddenly we'll be living under the Inquistition is they fail to get gay marriage on the books.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#17 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 28 February 2004 - 10:12 PM

GiGi, on Feb 28 2004, 06:47 PM, said:

But, bottomline, like it or not, children are being affected in these partnerships and if nothing else they need protection.
Something just occured to me when you mentioned how children are affected. If gay people want the benefits of legal unions, then I hope they're ready to accept the downside. For example, the hell of divorce court--with the ensuing custody battles and the division of assets--should their unions dissolve. Be careful what you wish for, people. You might just get it.  :suspect:
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#18 Gaiate

Gaiate

    Spirit Blade

  • Islander
  • 1,003 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 04:41 AM

Uncle Sid, on Feb 28 2004, 08:50 PM, said:

Well, you see, it's not really an argument.  It's simply the reality of being religious.  No one is *ignoring* other people's beliefs, but if you don't assert your own beliefs, then the other person is asserting theirs.

I may have misinterpreted what you said, but I saw it as being presented as a reason why (some) Christians would vote against the legalization of gay marriage.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems like the only reason why you would say that.


Quote

And in terms of respecting other people's religions, it's one thing to say that everyone has the freedom to choose their own beliefs, but it's another thing entirely to have to act as though you thought those other beliefs are correct. 

But what does that have to do with the topic at hand?  No one's forcing anyone into a gay marriage, so what does it matter what those who *wouldn't* think?  You (again, abstract "you") can believe gay marriage is a cardinal sin, but still allow those who would committ that "sin" to do so "at their own risk."

In other (and perhaps clearer) words, if the reason to vote against it is a matter of faith, how can you morally prohibit it for those *not* of that faith?

Quote

In this country, I accept that there are people who believe differently than I do.  They have every bit the same right to vote for something as I do.  If they win, then they win and the government works that way, if they lose, then they lose.  Obviously, nothing keeps them or me from trying to get laws changed and etc, but voting and legislating how we steer our course. 

Now, sometimes, the majority is dead wrong.  In those cases, you may need to appeal to certain protections that are in something like the Constitution.  The question then becomes whether what is claimed is actually a right.  Then you have to play the delicate game of balancing minority wishes against majority wishes. 

Agreed, but again I would bring up that gay marriage has utterly no bearing on anyone *not gay.*  So, why deny them that right?


Quote

That'd be fine if there was any way to fully and completely seperate "secular" from "religious".  Yes, you can seperate religious organization from secular organization, but do you tell people that their beliefs simply don't apply to government?  That's sort of silly. 

That's exactly what I didn't say.  I specifically said that having religious motivations and morality was perfectly fine, just not enough for a secular decision.  You can argue your point as long as you wish, but there should be secular reasoning to support your religious motivations.  If there isn't, the issue should be constrained to religious organizations.

Quote

And I think it's also bogus to assert that people who consider their religion in politics are automatically going to generate a theocracy.  This country was basically a Christian one when it was founded.  The idea of tolerance and respect for others is a very Christian one.   There is no reason that opposition on this one matter is going to cause the country to turn into Iran or the Kingdom of Falwell.  That's just as absurd as saying that allowing gay marriage is going to turn people into gays.  It confuses me more than a little that people who would laugh at the idea of marriage turning people gay take it completely seriously that suddenly we'll be living under the Inquistition is they fail to get gay marriage on the books.

I never said that would happen.  There are far too many safeguards in place for the US to become that (although people like John Ashcroft still scare the bejeesus out of me regardless).  All I'm saying is that according to the argument you presented, that's the inevitable conclusion.  If everyone votes solely based on religious motivations, the only possible outcome is a theocracy.

--Te
"This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis--vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V." -- V, making an first impression

"Dude . . . that was cool." -- My first impression of V

#19 Gaiate

Gaiate

    Spirit Blade

  • Islander
  • 1,003 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 04:44 AM

Drew, on Feb 28 2004, 10:10 PM, said:

GiGi, on Feb 28 2004, 06:47 PM, said:

But, bottomline, like it or not, children are being affected in these partnerships and if nothing else they need protection.
Something just occured to me when you mentioned how children are affected. If gay people want the benefits of legal unions, then I hope they're ready to accept the downside. For example, the hell of divorce court--with the ensuing custody battles and the division of assets--should their unions dissolve. Be careful what you wish for, people. You might just get it.  :suspect:

No one has ever said that gays want only the "good parts" of marriage.  They want the whole deal.  In fact, I've noticed in every press conference and interview with Mayor Newsom (sp?), he's specifically said "rights, privledges, and *obligations*."

--Te
"This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis--vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V." -- V, making an first impression

"Dude . . . that was cool." -- My first impression of V

#20 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 01:56 PM

Drew, on Feb 28 2004, 07:10 PM, said:

Something just occured to me when you mentioned how children are affected. If gay people want the benefits of legal unions, then I hope they're ready to accept the downside. For example, the hell of divorce court--with the ensuing custody battles and the division of assets--should their unions dissolve. Be careful what you wish for, people. You might just get it.  :suspect:
If gays are awarded rights to a legal domestic contract, then yes, that all comes with the territory of the legal contract.  I have yet to see one divorce be an easy transition and when children are involved it is even more intense emotionally, and financially.  It seems that it is the legal bit that is tricky no matter what, who has custody, how much, how much child support etc.  That is the purpose for the contract and that is the part I think same sex couples should have access to, for both the privileges and responsibilities.
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: California, CA Supreme Court, Gay Marriage, 2004

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users