California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

[adciv]

The better question is why government uses marriage for anything at all.

[Accer]

It passed with a 5% gap, a quarter of how the law passed last time. Interestingly enough, it seems that about 70% of black voters cast in favor of it even as they voted for Obama in the 90%+ range.

So about 20% of black Obama supporters don't follow at least one peice of Obama's platform? This seems pretty typical to me, not really high or low.

[adciv]

Actually, it would be at least 60%, not 20%.

[ShahinVahdat]

I'm sick of all this. Why just create a new word for marriage that only applies to homosexual couples. The rest of this is a waste of tax payers money

They already do, it's called a domestic partnership. Granted, domestic partnerships don't give all the same rights as marriage, but still. The gay community doesn't want exclusive labels applied to them just b/c of their sexuality, as I'm sure most people wouldn't for whatever group they fall into.

[adciv]

rights or financial bonuses? *sigh* We could eliminate so many troubles if we only eliminated all forms of income taxes.

[ShahinVahdat]

Jeez, save it for the "Rants" thread :-p

[Deacon]

about 70% of black voters cast in favor of it even as they voted for Obama in the 90%+ range.

So about 20% of black Obama supporters don't follow at least one peice of Obama's platform? This seems pretty typical to me, not really high or low.

No, it means that the significant majority of black voters (70%) cast their vote against gay marriage.

[Accer]

Actually, it would be at least 60%, not 20%.

No, it means that the significant majority of black voters (70%) cast their vote against gay marriage.

Obama is against gay marriage, even though he kind-of just barely spoke out against constitutional amendments to ban them. The beliefs of his voters is no surprise.

[collegestudent22]

Obama is against gay marriage, even though he kind-of just barely spoke out against constitutional amendments to ban them. The beliefs of his voters is no surprise.

When did he state his stance on this? I can't seem to find anything about his stance on gay marriage at all. Even on his website....

[Deacon]

The point is that black people are homophobes.

[Arc Orion]

When did he state his stance on this? I can't seem to find anything about his stance on gay marriage at all. Even on his website....

They have this awesome new thing called Google out now. It searches the web for things so you don't have to.

He seems to support civil unions, but claims that marriage as a recognized union should be determined by individual religious denominations.

[adciv]

He seems to support civil unions, but claims that marriage as a recognized union should be determined by individual religious denominations.

Initial thoughts: Finally, some sanity!
Second thoughts: Now lets look at the details some more.
Third thoughts: So when can we eliminate this from the tax code entirely?

[Martin Blank]

if the original court ruling found exclusions of homosexuals to marry violated the equal protection clause of the state constitution, wouldn't defining marriage in the constitution (by essence excluding homosexuals from marrying) violate the equal protection clause.

My understanding is that the prevailing logic is that a constitution cannot violate itself. There may be nuances -- gag orders can in certain limited circumstances be implemented on participants in a trial, limiting their free speech in favor of a fair trial for the defendant -- but it's a lot more difficult to find nuances in concrete applications such as Prop 8.

I'm sick of all this. Why just create a new word for marriage that only applies to homosexual couples.

You are then setting it off as a separate (but possibly equal) institution. The case that led to this thread covered that point, and the concept is found to be incompatible with the federal Constitution.

The better question is why government uses marriage for anything at all.

Covered already in this thread. From a legal perspective, it has to do with inheritance. The courts have also recognized that promoting marriage as a way of strengthening society is an interest of the state.

[adciv]

For the inheritance part, it's why I say so many things could be solved by eliminating all forms of income taxes.

As to "strengthening society", I don't see how marriage does that. Particularly, but not only because, we have so many unwed heterosexual couples living together. Although, it would be interesting to see what that "strengthening society" defense could be used to justify. I can see it being used to limit 'marriage' to a to two people only, man and a woman, to same race people only... For what reason can it be used to bar marriages of more than two?

[Martin Blank]

Inheritance involves the transfer of ownership of property from the deceased to descendants (or those of the decedent's choosing, if a will is involved). It has little to do with the tax code. That the tax code references inheritance for certain taxes does not matter here, as the tax code follows the inheritance.