California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

[collegestudent22]

I still don't see the right to marriage defined in the Constitution. There are references to marriage, but no right defined as such. As such, it is not a civil liberties issue. It is an issue of the legal definition. And I don't think there should be a legal definition. I think all marriages should be civil unions in the court of law, on equal footing with all sexual orientations, and a marriage is something that is a special religious ceremony. Why is that not an acceptable comprimise? Changing the word is not good now? Oh hell no, we have to have it called a marriage.... ?

[Hirschof]

and a marriage is something that is a special religious ceremony.

Buzzer. Wrong again. Marriages are sanctioned with religious, government, or social recognition.

What you want sounds almost like the separate but equal bullshit. "Oh sure, they can get together but they can't call it a marriage. That is for us."

[collegestudent22]

No, I just want something that differentiates between the religious ceremony and the legal one if they are not following the same guidelines anymore. Since it was a religious ceremony first, I changed the legal wording. There isn't anything wrong with that. Especially because it isn't "separate but equal" bull. That would require the legal definition to be different for each group. I just want the distinction there.

[The Cid]

CS22 sees everything on the basis of religion. So let me assure him something:

Under freedom of religion, it is a church's right to choose which weddings they wish to preside over. Marriage in the religious sense is NOT THE SAME THING as marriage in a government sense. Words can have more than one meaning. For example: "Mean." The "mean" in "what do you mean" is different from the mean in "stop being mean you jerk" and entirely different from "find the mean in this set of numbers." Nobody clamors to create new words for two of the three definitions of "mean." So why do we need to make up a new term to define the government interpretation of marriage?

Freedom of religions to operate as they please will not be affected one bit by allowing gay marriage. A pastor could simply say "I'm sorry, but our church cannot perform this ceremony" to any couple they wish. Like restaurants or any other private entity, churches are free to reserve the right to refuse service to anybody they wish.

[Hirschof]

No, I just want something that differentiates between the religious ceremony and the legal one if they are not following the same guidelines anymore. Since it was a religious ceremony first, I changed the legal wording. There isn't anything wrong with that. Especially because it isn't "separate but equal" bull. That would require the legal definition to be different for each group. I just want the distinction there.

Find, let it be in the paperwork but don't take the word.

[StruckingFuggle]

Under freedom of religion, it is a church's right to choose which weddings they wish to preside over. Marriage in the religious sense is NOT THE SAME THING as marriage in a government sense. Words can have more than one meaning. For example: "Mean." The "mean" in "what do you mean" is different from the mean in "stop being mean you jerk" and entirely different from "find the mean in this set of numbers." Nobody clamors to create new words for two of the three definitions of "mean." So why do we need to make up a new term to define the government interpretation of marriage?

My name is Ze Fuggle, and I endorse this message's contents.

(Even though, while I wouldn't clamor, I would be happier if all three of those concepts had different words for them... )

[Hirschof]

Find Fine, let it be in the paperwork but don't take the word.

Thank you, Cid.

[Martin Blank]

I still don't see the right to marriage defined in the Constitution. There are references to marriage, but no right defined as such.

Are you referring to the state or federal constitution here? If it's the former, there is case law going back at least 30 years with the understanding that there is a right to marry implicit in the state constitution under the right to privacy, which explicitly exists in Article I, Section 1 ("All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are ... pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy"). For the latter, Griswold v. Connecticut made clear in 1965 the existence of an implicit right to marry under the right to privacy implicit in the federal constitution.

As such, it is not a civil liberties issue. It is an issue of the legal definition.

In that case, your logic would suggest that as you have no problem feeling that all couples joined should be by civil unions, then all heterosexual couples would be joined by civil union. And as you feel that 'marriage' should not be a legal word, then homosexual couples should be free to use it. Hence, both should be allowed to use the word 'marriage' to describe the legal situation in which they join to create a family. As the word is therefore of common agreement in usage, and everyone wants to be able to marry, it therefore follows that it becomes a practical synonym for a civil union. The practical application of this synonym is that everyone knows what is meant by married, and therefore the term is acceptable in a legal sense.

I'd like to point out that all civil liberties hinge on the legal definitions provided for them. Whether race, religion, ethnic background, age, or sexual orientation, there exists a legal definition for each of these. Without a legal definition, implicit or explicit, laws mean nothing.

[collegestudent22]

In that case, your logic would suggest that as you have no problem feeling that all couples joined should be by civil unions, then all heterosexual couples would be joined by civil union. And as you feel that 'marriage' should not be a legal word, then homosexual couples should be free to use it. Hence, both should be allowed to use the word 'marriage' to describe the legal situation in which they join to create a family. As the word is therefore of common agreement in usage, and everyone wants to be able to marry, it therefore follows that it becomes a practical synonym for a civil union. The practical application of this synonym is that everyone knows what is meant by married, and therefore the term is acceptable in a legal sense.

And that was the best argument for that I have seen in a long time. You have definitely changed my mind on the issue. If someone had just used that argument before.... but all the arguments before that were based on me somehow denying some "right" (if it really is a right, you shouldn't need a license...) when I really just didn't make that jump in the logic that you just showed me.

[Thorsman]

CS22, why does anyone NEED to make an argument for two CONSENTING ADULTS to be joined in marriage, regardless of sexual orientation? As was said before, Christianity isn't the only religion out there with marriage rites, you know. YOU might be personally offended by the idea of gays getting married, but in the end, what harm is it doing to you? None. They're not trying to take the rights of heterosexuals away, they just want to show their commitment to one another the way heterosexual couples do.

Get over your fundamentalist bigotry. Seriously.

[Deacon]

The only issue I have with this is that to do it properly, you must be able to define exactly the reasoning by which you're making this decision, and that reasoning must be such that you can either allow or disallow additional types of marriage. For instance, if the question is purely one of consenting adults not directly harming another party, then why wouldn't you allow for three such adults to show their commitment to each other?

[BtEO]

For instance, if the question is purely one of consenting adults not directly harming another party, then why wouldn't you allow for three such adults to show their commitment to each other?

Any legal recognition of marriage transfers certain roles from the next of kin to the spouse, notably in matters of inheritance when no will exists and decision making in medical emergencies. The rules covering a marriage of 2 adults cannot be applied in the same way to marriages covering 3+ people, or marriages with animals, or marriages involving children etc...

There is no reason I can see why the existing rules for one adult male and one adult female marriages cannot be applied without change to any other combination of two adults you might be able to dream up.

[Deacon]

It's not that difficult. You could simply require that a will or even just a simple and appropriate form be completed and filed before the a marriage certificate is issued.

[BtEO]

I'm not saying making a new set of rules for other types of marriage is impossible. Just that it would require a new set of rules.

But even then you're taking a very simplistic view of things, it would require far more than simply a will and or a simple form to cover all eventualities. Taking the three-way marriage example. How do things change if you add another person? Can you even do that, or would you have to dissolve the marriage and create a new one with all parties? Can one person divorce the other two, how would assets be shared in such a case. If one of the parties died would your simple will/form cope with the changes? Or if they ended up on life-support, who of those remaining in the marriage would decide if it should be turned off — there's enough trouble in this area with spouse vs. family already?

Those are just the obvious questions that spring to mind, I don't know nearly enough about the legal matters of marriage to know how many more major issues would require changes from the procedures set down for a two person marriage. Not to mention there'd probably still be a massive number of little issues that probably wouldn't even be thought of until some real life example came up and a judge had to decide how to proceed.

Letting homosexuals marry on the other hand, only requires (that I can see) the removal of restrictions.

[Deacon]

Those are all purely procedural questions for lawyers, most of which must be decided regardless (remember the Terri Schiavo case, where the decision regarding whether to pull the plug was a fight between the parents and the husband). The point is, why not? If we're going to change things, it needs to be for a good, definable reason, and providing a protection under the law for some unions but not others because it takes a little more work and thought isn't really a good enough reason to scrap the 14th Amendment.