quote:LOS ANGELES -- Two things are certain in California's mounting legal showdown over same-sex marriage: Gay couples will wed this month, and, come November, voters will decide whether the state's constitution should exclude them from such unions.
If the vote is yes, the only certainty will be confusion.
quote:The developments -- victories for both sides of the debate -- have engendered questions, most notably this: If California voters ban same-sex marriage in November, what happens to the thousands of couples expected to wed between the middle of this month and then?
It's a question no one can answer, say legal experts, who can only make predictions as California barrels down this untraveled legal path.
"If the November measure were to pass, we would be entering unprecedented territory," said David B. Cruz, an expert on constitutional law at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. "We have never seen a constitutional amendment like this in California that would take away rights that people had already exercised."
quote:Experts say that if the measure passes, the state may choose to recognize the marriages, creating a pocket of married same-sex couples. "It just means that people who didn't take advantage of that window can't get married until or unless that amendment was repealed down the road," said Vikram Amar, a law professor at the University of California at Davis.
Hence the hurry with which couples are booking appointments with wedding vendors and county clerks. San Francisco city officials expect as many as 500 couples to marry per day, for days on end. In Los Angeles County, the clerk's phone is ringing off the hook.
Alternatively, under the amendment, the state may be compelled to recognize married same-sex couples as domestic partners or even forcibly divorce them.
Voiding such marriages would create a slew of other headaches for couples who purchased property, signed contracts or took out insurance policies together, said Bill Araiza, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "These are problems that I'm foreseeing in just 10 seconds, so you can imagine that a court really thinking about this would be loath to open up this can of worms to interpret this initiative as retroactive," Araiza said.
Edited by Taz, : fixed dbcodes
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
It is also the right of citizens to move to other states that they feel cater their beliefs and demographics better than their home state.
This is a bullshit argument, and you know it. Many, if not most, people can't afford to simply move to another state for economic reasons. Based on your logic, the Lovings only had to move to another state to be able to live in peace.
Listening to your constituents as a Senator, Governor, or Representative is always prudent. So if the majority of Californians, Floridians, New Yorkers, etc want gay marriage, then it would be in the best interest of those in positions of authority to give the People in the majority what they want, again, so long as it is in compliance with the Constitution which cannot legally be usurped.
You completely dodged my point. Segregation and interracial marriage ban were particularly popular in the states that had them. In some states, more than 80-90% of the people voted overwhelmingly to have them.
So, again, are you trying to tell me that in such cases in the past the will of the majority was just and moral?
Nem, I am willing to drop the whole thing if you're willing to admit that if the people of a state decides to ban interracial marriage than it is ok for that state to ban interracial marriage. Are you ready to admit this? Please don't play the semantic game. Give me a frank answer.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
Besides, there are a lot of things that I don't personally like, but it may be legal as per SCOTUS. I simply have to deal with it, and fight it through legislature.
This is not a question of whether you or I like it or not. I don't particularly like the fact that christians are free to breathe the same air that I breathe, but does this mean I have the right (as a human being and not necessarily as a citizen) to go out and vote to put you christians on air tanks?
The constitution isn't there to entertain your likings, nem. It's there to protect you, me, and everyone else from the tyranny of the majority.
Someone once told me this, and I thought it was the most brilliant thing ever. People are alive. Laws are not. If a law conflicts with the rights or interests of people, then between choosing the people or law I'd rather choose the people. Legal arguments, no matter how valid, aren't always the answer.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
Since I find the argument for gays appreciable (that their sexual predilections shouldn't prohibit them from protection of the law) I see something very much like a marriage totally within reason. If homosexuals simply want the same rights as a marriage, the same devotions as a marriage, then civil unions would unanimously provide that for them.
You and I both know this is simply crock. Almost every bill in every state that have tried to introduce "civil union" into the picture has been struck down. Every referandum that wants to put "civil union" into the picture has also been struck down by the majority.
Somehow, I suspect that you're resorting to this civil union thing just to have something to fall back on. Let's admit it, nem. I find it hard to believe that a person like you would actually in reality support a civil union or anything remotely resemble marriage for gay people. Come on, let's be honest for once.
All I am saying is there are consequences to any action we make, regardless of the ultimate decision. And I honestly don't know what is more right or more wrong. That is just my honest opinion on the matter. I just think it could be avoided if we just allowed for civil unions. Everybody wins in the long run. That's cause for celebration, no?
RAZD and Holmes tried to convince me of this same bullshit. I didn't budge then and I'm not going to budge now.
Here, watch this video again.
I'm not gay, so I can't say this will personally affect me. But since it sure seems like it's affecting a lot of people, I find it immoral that you could sit there in your christian chair wearing your moral superior christian hat and want to deny these people happiness, especially when it's obvious that the issue is very important to them.
Like I said before, legal arguments aren't always right no matter how valid they can be. Marriage was defined as union between a man and a woman of the same race in the 1600's before this country was even founded. You want to talk tradition, talk about that. Even in the 60's, over 70% of Americans still wanted marriage to be between a man and a woman of the same race. If you want to talk majority rule, talk about that.
The simple fact is this is a moral issue regarding human right. Considering the fact that even if tomorrow gay marriage is legalized everywhere, I find it hard to believe that your life would actually change at all over it. Why concern yourself so much with the sex lives of consenting adults?
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
quote:
SAN FRANCISCO - Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon's nuptials at City Hall ignited the gay wedding spree that thrust San Francisco into the national spotlight in 2004.
Now the city plans a repeat of the ceremony when gay marriage becomes legal in California on June 16.
Mayor Gavin Newsom plans to officiate at the couple's wedding, just as he did for them in 2004. He said Monday that Martin and Lyon will be the only gay couple married at City Hall on June 16. The clerk's office will issue licenses for other couples beginning June 17.
Martin, 87, and Lyon, 84, are lesbian activists who have been together for more than five decades. They were plaintiffs in the California Supreme Court case that led to the state's legalization of gay marriage.
Hoot, I'm sure these two have been together for 5 decades just to piss you off. How many times have you been married?
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
™ Version 4.2