Court upholds same-sex marriage -- and love

Well written John Bogert.

Marriage was originally defined by religious organizations. Then governments got involved, co-opted the term, and are now re-defining the term. It’s a ruling denying the philosophy of all the major religions in the world (Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, and Buddha.

Bravo John Bogert! Marriage is just a word used by religion to discriminate.

So when is polygamy legal? Or do we deny civil rights to people just because three of them are in love?

I especially would like to hear the anti-religious types explain this.

Yep, it didn't take long. The pro-gay marriage types also want polygamy to be legal.

I wonder when John Bogert or "Torrance Mom" will admit the same?

The November vote is so important if we are going to keep our society sane.

When some opponents of gay marriage try to argue for their view, after they ritually condemn homosexuality they will claim that gay marriage “damages society” and “undermines marriage” in some unspecified way and end by postulating deplorable consequences of gay marriage: “If we allow gay marriage, then people will want to practice polygamy and marry their pets.” Well, when religious nutjobs are reduced to arguing that gay marriage is bad because it might lead to something else, they’ve lost the argument. When they have to change the subject, it means they do not have any good arguments against gay marriage itself. Nothing in the principles supporting gay marriage provides any support for the legalization of any other type of relationship, much less polygamy. Over the centuries, heterosexual marriage shifted from being a merger contract between families or an economic and sexual arrangement to assure creation of legal heirs and caretakers for one's old age, and came to be understood primarily as a companionate relationship of mutual caring between two people who love each other. But once the affectional bond became the central element of marriage, the rationale for limiting it to pairs who would procreate lost its force. Gays want nothing more than to participate in “traditional marriage” thus understood — marriage for the benefit of the marrying partners: meshing a person's life with someone they love. No one is arguing that people should be able to have whatever marital arrangement they want; only that everyone should have access to marriage as it is now commonly understood. Nor are gays arguing for any legal rights other people do not have. They argue that they are uniquely denied a right everyone else already has — the right to marry someone they love. By contrast, an advocate of legal polygamy cannot argue that he (or she) is seeking anything akin to traditional marriage — unless the Old Testament is considered “traditional.” Nor can he argue he is being denied a right that everyone else has. He would have to argue that he desires and deserves a new right that no one currently has. Perhaps that argument could be made but it has not been so far. In fact, we may say that just as same-sex marriage is good because it allows more people to enjoy the pleasures and benefits of marriage, polygamy is undesirable because it deprives some people of the pleasures and benefits of marriage. In short: None of the principles supporting gay marriage offers support for polygamy. Rather the opposite. And polygamy is not likely to be widely advocated because — unlike same-sex marriage — it answers no needs and removes no inequities in modern societies.

Polygamy has historical precedent in this country. Before Utah could join the union, the practice had to be outlawed. That is simple fact.

The proponents of gay marriage claim this is a matter of civil rights. Fine, if that is so, why do people lose their civil rights if they happen to love more than 1 person? Obviously they don't and any decision that includes gay marriage as a civil right must also include polygamy.

If the above writer would read the decision, he would see that the three disenting judges stated the same thing. Opening the door to gay marriage based on "civil rights" also opens the door to mulitple spouses or any other combination of people. They went farther even including parent-child marriage.

In the 1800s, this country demanded residents of Utah abandon polygamy because they thought it was the "right thing to do" for society. Sooner or later, the latest California ruling guarantees that decision will be re-considered.

It is outrageous to see and hear the news about one man outrunnig the voice of the voters. Where is democracy? Why do we go to polls? We are living in the last hour. We are now given reprobate minds where we have turned the use of women to something else, we are burning our own desires to man towards other man and woman to another woman. There is nothing in our brain. We are becoming like real animals now. Say whateever you want but this is deteriorating our morals and values. We are becoming UN-humans. There is no democracy... Voters spoke and someone who thinks he knows more than all overturn the voices of voters. he shot them down.... What a shame!!!

jambomama wrote:

It is outrageous to see and hear the news about one man outrunnig the voice of the voters. Where is democracy? Why do we go to polls? We are living in the last hour. We are now given reprobate minds where we have turned the use of women to something else, we are burning our own desires to man towards other man and woman to another woman. There is nothing in our brain. We are becoming like real animals now. Say whateever you want but this is deteriorating our morals and values. We are becoming UN-humans. There is no democracy... Voters spoke and someone who thinks he knows more than all overturn the voices of voters. he shot them down.... What a shame!!!

If you don't want to live in a society where a Constitution provides for judicial review of laws, whether enacted by legislatures or by voter initiative, then I guess the United States of America isn't for you. You might try relocating to somewhere like Iran where your religious views are the law of the land instead of a Constitution.

Madison wrote:

<quoted text>
If you don't want to live in a society where a Constitution provides for judicial review of laws, whether enacted by legislatures or by voter initiative, then I guess the United States of America isn't for you.

That, Madison, is exactly the problem with this decision. It is not WHAT the court decided, but HOW they got there that is now THE issue. To wit: the extent that judicial review can become extra-constitutional and therefore violate the doctrine of the separation of powers. In this decision, I believe that the California Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally.

I have no issue with the gay issue of marriage other than there are larger problems in California than what something is called. "A Rose by any other name is still a Rose" (Wm Shakespeare). The court should have reinforced its own powers by recognizing the limits of its own constitutional powers and deferring the issue to the legislature or the people of California. By this decision, some of these four judges signed their own "Pink Slips" come their next re-election. Too bad. The coulda' done it right.

NOT taking sides on the issue...

The Judicial Branch of the government, the highest being the Supreme Court, has the final say on "interpreting" the laws and Constitution of the State or Country. They have the power to decided if laws (statutes) are not in line with the Constitution, even if voted on by the people and/or the Legislature, which is what they were implying here.

There is a sure fire way to ensure that the Courts interpret the Constitution the reflect the preference of the majority of the people: the people and the Legislature can amend the Constitution.

Until then, it is up to the Judges to interpret it the way they deem appropriate...

Isn't it more outrageous that the people voted for something that discriminated against other citizens? Why don't we just go back to segregation then? You know, we can have a gay drinking fountains and straight drinking fountains. That's democracy, right? Denying people the right to pursue happiness when it REALLY doesn't affect anyone's lives? Oh yeah, it's outrageous oh and un-human. It's definately un-human to "allow" everyone equal treatment. Certainly outrageous.

jambomama wrote:

It is outrageous to see and hear the news about one man outrunnig the voice of the voters. Where is democracy? Why do we go to polls? We are living in the last hour. We are now given reprobate minds where we have turned the use of women to something else, we are burning our own desires to man towards other man and woman to another woman. There is nothing in our brain. We are becoming like real animals now. Say whateever you want but this is deteriorating our morals and values. We are becoming UN-humans. There is no democracy... Voters spoke and someone who thinks he knows more than all overturn the voices of voters. he shot them down.... What a shame!!!

Dear Huh, Madison, Jimmy, Go, et al:

Precisely... for those who believe that the passage of Proposition 22 (the so-called Knight Initiative... this, despite Mr. Knight having a gay son) by a 61% majority of CA voters in 2000 was just and right, or even appropriate or fair - for me it was the single most devastating event of my life.

Worse, even, than being hurled insults and violent attacks on my person. To have an awareness that your fellow citizens felt obligated to approve legislation denying you something so basic as choosing your partner and having that union recognized and worthy of protection was enough to send me into a despair it literally took weeks to recover from - it didn't help that people I know and love disregarded their own experience of my life and my relationship and voted for such a mean-spirited law based solely on speculative fear.

The reversal this week was nothing short of jubilation for my community. Not even the possibility of the passage of a referendum in November can take that away. No one would suggest that this is identically comparable to the Civil Rights battles of yore, but there are absolutely some parallels to be drawn - undeniably. I think John illustrated them beautifully, and I want to believe reasonable people will someday see that and look back on this decision as a fair and righteous righting of a previous wrong, not unlike the US Supreme Court overturning Bowers v. Harwick (sp?).

When people scream about these so-called 'activist judges,' as ridiculous as it seems, I have to smile in disbelief since they seem incapable of appreciating the irony of activist judges handing over the 2000 presidential election, or activist judges halting the Schiavo case against the wishes of her spouse (and legal guardian), but I guess what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander, and activist judges are only really a problem when they are apparently setting in motion the destruction of civilization as we know it!

In all truth, most of our most current societal debates boil down to a sense of whether or not we believe in and should fully uphold a real distinction of separation between church and state.

Many blessings and my unending thanks upon the four CA Supremes who ruled with foresight and mercy to right the wrong.

And thanks to each of you, as well, for airing your support in a time where people feel the need to speak from a place of misinformation and ignorance rather than logic, reason, and basic human respect!

namaste,
Rosalee FoxWood

I'm so glad I'm a liberal atheist.

As a (as my one of my gay friends calls me) "Straight But Not Narrow," woman, I just want to say how much I admire Rosalee's courage and dignity in not only living an authentic life, but in being so open about it to be included in John Bogert's column considering how active she is in her community and how (as evidenced by some of these comments) bigoted and judgmental some residents of Torrance can be.
I am ashamed to say that there have been many issues I have wanted to speak out about but the fear of retribution has prevented me. You have given me the inspiration to stop being so afraid and I just wanted to thank you for that.

Since 6 of the 7 Justices are Republican appointees, trying to make an argument that they practiced "judicial activism" is ludicrous. The simply applied the the equal protection clause of the state Constitution, pure and simple. If you don't like that and it doesn't jive with your conservative agenda, then fine. But don't call it "judicial activism." This makes me very leery of Republican candidates who says they'll appoint judges who aren't "judicial activists" -- in reality we now know that that is code for "judges with a right-wing agenda."

Torrance Mom wrote:

Bravo John Bogert! Marriage is just a word used by religion to discriminate.

YES! Churches do "discriminate" who can get married. That is why marriages held in churches have a higher success rate.

Obomination wrote:

<quoted text>
YES! Churches do "discriminate" who can get married. That is why marriages held in churches have a higher success rate.

Higher success rate? I'd like you to cite your source on that one, or did you pull it from your ass?

Chef wrote:

<quoted text>
Higher success rate? I'd like you to cite your source on that one, or did you pull it from your ass?

(George Barna not my ASS.... funny how we dip into ourselves to paint portraits of others)

Barna report: Variation in divorce rates among Christian faith groups:
Denomination (in order of decreasing divorce rate)

% who have been divorced
Non-denominational ** 34%
Baptists 29%
Mainline Protestants 25%
Mormons 24%
Catholics 21%
Lutherans 21%

This is lower than the reported national average between 40-50%. In the Catholic Church, to be married one must attend pre marriage counseling and a marriage retreat. This is a lot more work than going to the court house and tends to weed out those whom should not be married.

Obomination wrote:

<quoted text>
(George Barna not my ASS.... funny how we dip into ourselves to paint portraits of others)
Barna report: Variation in divorce rates among Christian faith groups:
Denomination (in order of decreasing divorce rate)
% who have been divorced
Non-denominational ** 34%
Baptists 29%
Mainline Protestants 25%
Mormons 24%
Catholics 21%
Lutherans 21%
This is lower than the reported national average between 40-50%. In the Catholic Church, to be married one must attend pre marriage counseling and a marriage retreat. This is a lot more work than going to the court house and tends to weed out those whom should not be married.

Yeah, I see some huge differences there. Sarcasm is great.