California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[JonoBN41]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

What about tax breaks, employee benefits for spouses and dependents, alimony, and other stuff that people think should be reserved for God's chosen few?

Interesting, but what about the chosen "few" themselves? Actually it's the majority, isn't it. Not once in my life have I heard anyone try to stop a marriage solely on the basis of the negative financial impact their marriage would have on those already married. Not once.

Alimony? Do you mean to say if the gay guys across the street get married and then divorced, I'll have to pay them alimony? I did not know that. Good point.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

Interesting, but what about the chosen "few" themselves? Actually it's the majority, isn't it. Not once in my life have I heard anyone try to stop a marriage solely on the basis of the negative financial impact their marriage would have on those already married. Not once.

Alimony? Do you mean to say if the gay guys across the street get married and then divorced, I'll have to pay them alimony? I did not know that. Good point.

What are you typing about?

[JonoBN41]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

What I still don't understand is how gay marriage somehow threatens traditional marriage. I mean, I can see how giving voting privileges to blacks and women threatened the power traditionally held by white men (although it was ultimately done), but what difference would it make to any happily married couple if two guys across the street were also married?

Anyone else care to try to answer my question?

[DSTCHAOS]

I'll answer your question.

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

It challenges people's notions of traditional family (as do all deviations from the two-parent, male and female, traditional gender norm family structure does), religious and moral stances, and of course there has to be $$$$ interest in there somewhere to keep all the protest worth it.

What about tax breaks, employee benefits for spouses and dependents, alimony, and other stuff that people think should be reserved for God's chosen few? People tend not to protest for years and years and years over something if there's no $$$$ at stake.

ETA: Particularly in times of economic downturn, people are more protective over their dwindling pot of gold.

If you don't understand my post, let me know your confusion in a clear manner.

[JonoBN41]

I understand your post.

"It challenges peoples' notions of traditional families." On any given night there's something on the news that challenges my notion of traditional family, be it politicians who cheat on their wives with prostitutes or have another wife and daughter in another state, or a married man in Austria who committed incest with his daughter for 24 years and fathered numerous children by her.

"What about tax breaks?" What about them?

I thank you for attempting to answer my question, but you simply have not.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

Anyone else care to try to answer my question?

If you are one of Earp's ilk...then no...not really...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

What I still don't understand is how gay marriage somehow threatens traditional marriage. I mean, I can see how giving voting privileges to blacks and women threatened the power traditionally held by white men (although it was ultimately done), but what difference would it make to any happily married couple if two guys across the street were also married?

I don't think it does. In fact, I can kind of buy the Massachusetts Supreme Court's view that bans on gay marriage can pass the rational basis test. What the California Supreme Court did was take that about a zillion (that's a legal term of art) times further by making laws against homosexuals "suspect classifications" which get strict scrutiny.

(I still don't know whether the wiki was right because the author didn't know that classifications regarding gender don't get strict scrutiny, but rather intermediate scrutiny).

[shinerbock]

Unfortunate, but not surprising.

This is what happens when judges decide what feels right and then seek to back that up with law.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

I understand your post.

"It challenges peoples' notions of traditional families." On any given night there's something on the news that challenges my notion of traditional family, be it politicians who cheat on their wives with prostitutes or have another wife and daughter in another state, or a married man in Austria who committed incest with his daughter for 24 years and fathered numerous children by her.

O.K. You asked the question and I told you why many people feel it challenges their notions of traditional families. Whether you or I agree with it is a different discussion as far as I'm concerned.

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

"What about tax breaks?" What about them?

I thank you for attempting to answer my question, but you simply have not.

I thought you understood my post.

I began my post with the moral foundation for not wanting gay marriage and I concluded with the material foundation. Every social conflict and social inequality has a material foundation. If not for material foundations, and the belief that there isn't enough pie to share with everyone, many people would've gotten bored with fighting over morality and moved on to something that really impacts their life chances.

People who feel that any tax benefits (joint filer or dependents claims, for instance) should be reserved for a certain type of family would be opposed to people in same sex unions (for example) being able to file joint taxes, claim dependents, or get certain benefits.

While we don't pay the alimony, it doesn't stop people from feeling that any monetary exchange (and legal costs associated with separations and divorces) should only occur within a certain type of marriage because this money ultimately comes from somewhere (the belief that we're all economically connected and your paycheck isn't just about you and yours).

These are a couple of the financial reasons for the claim that same sex marriage threatens the traditional family (and its economic incentives/benefits). Again, as with every other social conflict, the battle over gay marriage has a financial foundation. You can find homosexuals who want their partner to be included in employee/spousal benefits/etc. and you can find heterosexuals who do not want this to happen (partly because they feel there simply aren't enough benefits for everyone).

You don't have to agree to understand the moral and material roots of the conflict.

[Dionysus]

Woo hoo! Hoo-rays for gays!

[JonoBN41]

DSTCHAOS, I appreciate your answering, but you seem to focus heavily on the financial aspect and I simply have never heard anyone state those reasons for opposing gay marriage. Maybe some people do. Something else to think about. Thanks.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

Something else to think about. Thanks.

Yep. You're welcome.

[DeltAlum]

I understand the concept of checks and balances, and that some think court decisions these days may infringe on what should be a legislative process.

All that aside, my opinion is that if that's going to happen, this is a good decision.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Unfortunate, but not surprising.

This is what happens when judges decide what feels right and then seek to back that up with law.

Originally Posted by SECdomination

California courts would pull a stunt like this. Civil unions aren't enough? Why do gays (and all their supporters) feel the need to change the definition of marriage?
Not to be a complete prick, but I don't know any gay people and I prefer not to engage them in morality debates. Could someone please explain the need for this? I honestly thought that civil unions accomplished the same thing.




You would be.
I won't disappoint though. In fact, I'm not sure how much I can participate in this thread for the sheer amount of nausea it's already causing me.
So where are the rest of you anti gay marriage folk?

"The decision was a bold surprise from a moderately conservative, Republican-dominated court that legal scholars have long dubbed "cautious," and experts said it was likely to influence other courts around the country."
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,6169783.story

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

So far, our definition of marriage has only included as between a man and a woman. This court decision alters that distinction. I think such definitions are solely the province of legislatures and I agree with many that this is about as "activist" a decision as I've ever seen.

I agree that this kind of question belongs in the legislature.

Here's the opinion, BTW.

Originally Posted by Kevin

[A voter initiative overturning the decision will] be tough to do. . . . I'd be interested to know whether the California Supreme Court found that the protection here was in the U.S. Constitution or the California Constitution.

The Court relied on the California Constitution, not the United States Constitution. The voter initiative will be to amend the Constitution; according to the news this morning, supporters of the constitutional amendment to limit marriage to a man and woman already have enough signatures to get it on the ballot in November. That being so, they may ask the California Supreme Court to stay its decision until then.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with it, since in this case the court was considering a 2000 voter initiative that by statute limited marriage to a man and woman. Accordining to the Wiki, it passed with 61% voting in favor. I wonder if that might mean that this initiative also has a decent chance of passing.

Originally Posted by jon1856

"The decision was a bold surprise from a moderately conservative, Republican-dominated court that legal scholars have long dubbed "cautious," and experts said it was likely to influence other courts around the country."
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,6169783.story

I really don't mean this to sound as flippant as it's going to sound, but my experience is that California courts are not likely to influence courts around the country very often. I recall one law professor describing California court decisions as "what did we eat for breakfast this morning" decisions. The reality is that in many parts of the country, as far as I have seen, citation of a California decision will be met with "yeah, well that's California."

That aside, this is a decision interpreting the California Constitution. Given that about half the states already have provisions in their state constitutions forbidding same-sex marriage (and I wonder if that number will rise now), the decision will be irrelevant in those states. In the remaining states, whether it is influential can turn not only on the predilictions of the judges but on how similar the language and jurisprudence of other's states constitutional provisions are to California's.