|
|
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Um hooray! (Although I imagine many here do not agree with me.) While I celebrate that the Supreme Court of California recognizes that I have the right to marry, the decision makes for some interesting reading in light of polygamy. One paragraph stands out for me in particular as being related to some of the issues we discuss here. (I've put it below if you want to read it- the whole decision exceeds 120 pages, and I haven't read the whole thing.) Basically, it says that the government does not have the right to prevent a family from calling itself a family, regardless of how the family is structured.
Discuss! (While I go put the bottle of wine from the day of our civil union in the fridge to chill in celebration!)
"One very important aspect of the substantive protection afforded by the California constitutional right to marry is, of course, an individual?s right to be free from undue governmental intrusion into (or interference with) integral features of this relationship ? that is, the right of marital or familial privacy. (See, e.g., In re Marriage of Wellman (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 992, 996 [manner of raising one?s child]; accord, e.g., Griswold, supra, 381 U.S. 479 [use of contraception]; Moore v. City of East Cleveland, supra, 431 U.S. 494 [cohabitation with extended family].) The substantive protection embodied in the constitutional right to marry, however, goes beyond what is sometimes characterized as simply a ?negative? right insulating the couple?s relationship from overreaching governmental intrusion or interference, and includes a ?positive? right to have the state take at least some affirmative action to acknowledge and support the family unit. "
--
You know me... I have a naturally cheerful countenance.
--
Edited by readereader at 05/15/2008 4:03 PM PDT
|
Posts:
74
Registered:
9/18/07
|
|
(23 of 23)
Re: California Supreme Court Decision
May 29, 2008 12:44 PM
|
Mar - I am in California, actually, but I have lived in CT, MA, MD, VA, FL and NC, so I get excited in general because who knows where I'll live next?
--
You know me... I have a naturally cheerful countenance.
|
|
|
Posts:
10,818
Registered:
11/17/03
|
|
(22 of 23)
Re: California Supreme Court Decision
May 29, 2008 12:06 PM
|
Readereader, you're in New York state, aren't you?
You must be happy at Governor Patterson's announcement that NY will recognize gay marriages from other states. I imagine Christopher Street is celebrating today!
--
Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. - Goethe
|
|
|
Posts:
74
Registered:
9/18/07
|
|
(21 of 23)
Re: California Supreme Court Decision
May 20, 2008 12:37 PM
|
>
> Since I did not see the previous comment in what I
> have read, I can only assume it is a Wurks quote;
> especially since it contains the word
> "hyperbole"....one of his favs.
> My advice? Don't try to make sense of what he says or
> expect him to answer your questions directly. He's
> just not capable and it will only frustrate and anger
> you.
That's excellent advice. Good point.
> Enjoy being able to be truly married.
> Congratulations, again.
Thanks, W, and to everyone else who's sent good wishes.
>
> --
> I believe that heroes are the people who do what has
> to be done, when it needs to be done, regardless of
> the consequences.
>
> --
> Edited by withay at 05/19/2008 9:13 PM PDT
--
You know me... I have a naturally cheerful countenance.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,438
Registered:
4/17/06
|
|
(20 of 23)
Re: California Supreme Court Decision
May 20, 2008 12:12 AM
|
> I've been going back and forth about whether to
> respond to this one. The right-wing jingo catch
> phrase of "activist judges" gets thrown around every
> time someone brings up the subject of gay marriage,
> and for the life of me I cannot figure out what it
> means. I defy anyone concerned about "judicial
> activism" to read the CA Supreme Court opinion, which
> is firmly entrenched in conservative ideals about
> family and the rights of individuals (which I find
> pretty ironic from my place in the cheap seats).
Since I did not see the previous comment in what I have read, I can only assume it is a Wurks quote; especially since it contains the word "hyperbole"....one of his favs.
My advice? Don't try to make sense of what he says or expect him to answer your questions directly. He's just not capable and it will only frustrate and anger you.
Enjoy being able to be truly married. Congratulations, again.
--
I believe that heroes are the people who do what has to be done, when it needs to be done, regardless of the consequences.
--
Edited by withay at 05/19/2008 9:13 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
74
Registered:
9/18/07
|
|
(19 of 23)
Re: California Supreme Court Decision
May 19, 2008 7:10 PM
|
> Judicial activism like this will not necessarily have
> any consistency to it. They could just as easily
> rule against polygamy in the next case when judges
> like this start making laws like this. People will
> go into all kinds of hyperbole about what's next ...
> lowering the age of consent for the gays etc? (I
> didn't make that up, I heard some of it already) but
> no they could just as easily raise it, and rule
> e against polygamy.
I've been going back and forth about whether to respond to this one. The right-wing jingo catch phrase of "activist judges" gets thrown around every time someone brings up the subject of gay marriage, and for the life of me I cannot figure out what it means. I defy anyone concerned about "judicial activism" to read the CA Supreme Court opinion, which is firmly entrenched in conservative ideals about family and the rights of individuals (which I find pretty ironic from my place in the cheap seats).
It has nothing to do with what
> is constitutional law, or even indiscriminate
> enforceable law and everything to do with legislating
> from the bench. This is exactly how Politically
> Correct is created.
I fail to see this connection. Could you explain what you mean?
--
You know me... I have a naturally cheerful countenance.
--
Edited by readereader at 05/19/2008 4:10 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
74
Registered:
9/18/07
|
|
(18 of 23)
Re: California Supreme Court Decision
May 19, 2008 12:26 PM
|
Golly, TG, I didn't think your response was rude -- I think a lot of people see the legal issue that way. But thanks for the apology; that was thoughtful.
I agree that it's bizarre to have two types of civil marriage, and frankly, since marriage tends to be religious, probably it should be left to religions and civil unions should be the only choice for everyone.
But if you don't believe that civil unions cause second-class citizenship, try this on for size: I've been "civilly united" for nearly two years now, and I've got to tell you, it's awkward. If I say I'm married and people know I'm gay, they invariably respond with, "Yeah, but you can't really get married, right?" If I tell people I have a civil union, they say, "Oh... which state has those?" It's like they are all trying to reassure themselves that it's not a legitimate marriage... and I get tired of that. So at the very least I would like to see civil unions recognized everywhere. But what I really want is marriage, marriage, marriage.
--
You know me... I have a naturally cheerful countenance.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,438
Registered:
4/17/06
|
|
(17 of 23)
Re: California Supreme Court Decision
May 17, 2008 11:53 PM
|
> &
> >
> > I don't think polygamists are asking to have the
> laws
> > defining marriage changed. It is just a fact
> that to
> > incorporate plural marriage within the laws
> about
> > marriage in this country would be problematic
> and
> > would require more changes to family law than
> > extending the right to marry to homosexual
> couples.
> >
> &
>
> withay
>
> You are probably right, but I would bet that some
> enterprising attorneys would see it as an opportunity
> if the laws against polygamy were abolished.
Oh, I am sure it would eventually be a whole new specialty.
But it would take years and law suits and appeals etc. It just wouldn't fit as easily into family law as same sex marriage would.
--
I believe that heroes are the people who do what has to be done, when it needs to be done, regardless of the consequences.
|
|
|
Posts:
758
Registered:
6/6/06
|
|
(16 of 23)
Re: California Supreme Court Decision
May 17, 2008 11:36 PM
|
&
>
> I don't think polygamists are asking to have the laws
> defining marriage changed. It is just a fact that to
> incorporate plural marriage within the laws about
> marriage in this country would be problematic and
> would require more changes to family law than
> extending the right to marry to homosexual couples.
>
&
withay
You are probably right, but I would bet that some enterprising attorneys would see it as an opportunity if the laws against polygamy were abolished.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,438
Registered:
4/17/06
|
|
(15 of 23)
Re: California Supreme Court Decision
May 17, 2008 9:18 PM
|
> TG, withay,
>
> Very good points about the difference between poly
> and same sex marriage.
>
> One is a lot more easy to handle paperwork for than
> the other. Also, gays aren't asking for special
> treatment--they're just asking to abide by the exact
> same marriage laws as the majority of people in this
> country. for it to apply to them. While polygamists
> are asking to change the law to redifine marriage
> altogether.
>
> --
> "And, finally, New Rule: If America's richest
> one-percent are now so rich that even a five-star
> hotel isn't good enough, it's time to bring back the
> guillotine."
I don't think polygamists are asking to have the laws defining marriage changed. It is just a fact that to incorporate plural marriage within the laws about marriage in this country would be problematic and would require more changes to family law than extending the right to marry to homosexual couples.
--
I believe that heroes are the people who do what has to be done, when it needs to be done, regardless of the consequences.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,026
Registered:
2/10/08
|
|
(14 of 23)
Re: California Supreme Court Decision
May 17, 2008 7:39 PM
|
California shift in the last 10 years has been significant.
The San Joaquin Valley rich with CA agriculture has been the seat of old attitudes, red necks and militia, but no more.
The age for admitting and embracing sexuality has dropped as well from mid-twenties to 16 year olds with coming out parties.
Another ten years it will be a back burner discussion, bout time!
|
|
|
Posts:
17,840
Registered:
4/21/03
|
|
(13 of 23)
Re: California Supreme Court Decision
May 17, 2008 6:38 PM
|
TG, withay,
Very good points about the difference between poly and same sex marriage.
One is a lot more easy to handle paperwork for than the other. Also, gays aren't asking for special treatment--they're just asking to abide by the exact same marriage laws as the majority of people in this country. for it to apply to them. While polygamists are asking to change the law to redifine marriage altogether.
--
"And, finally, New Rule: If America's richest one-percent are now so rich that even a five-star hotel isn't good enough, it's time to bring back the guillotine."
|
|
|
Posts:
2,438
Registered:
4/17/06
|
|
(12 of 23)
Re: California Supreme Court Decision
May 17, 2008 5:07 PM
|
TG,
I think there is a big difference in legalizing gay marriage vs legalizing polygamous marriage. As you have pointed out previously, gay marriage would still be between two individuals and so dissolution would follow the same guidelines as heterosexual marriage. When dissolving a polygamous marriage, there could be any number of differences. Do all of the spouses want to dissolve the marriage? Do all parents have equal rights and responsibilities to all of the children or only to the ones you have a biological relationship to? How do you divide access to SSA and pension benefits? And I could go on for hours. This does not mean that I am against plural marriage; just that it would be extremely difficult to legislate.
--
I believe that heroes are the people who do what has to be done, when it needs to be done, regardless of the consequences.
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
(11 of 23)
Re: California Supreme Court Decision
May 17, 2008 8:04 AM
|
Reader,
Upon reflection, I think my post was rather rude and I apologize. As a married person, I take for granted that I was able to marry the person I love and receive the rights and protections that married people get under state and federal law.
I don't wish to minimize how truly monumental this must be for you and other same sex couples. I do not share the viewpoint that the world as we know it is going to end same sex couples can marry. "Civil unions" is a cop out for those who just can't bring themselves to use the word "marriage."
But when people use the courts to address social change or achieve what should be the perogative of the legislature, it rarely works out the way it is intended. There are examples of times when that has worked, such as the Supreme Courts striking down Jim Crow laws and laws against interracial marriage. If proponents of same sex marriages continue to litigate this matter in federal courts or litigate it in state court on both state AND federal grounds, this may result in the US Supreme Court finding that same sex couples do not have a constitutional right to marry and/or upholding state laws/state decisions that reach the same conclusion.
I suppose it's quite easy for heterosexuals to say to same sex couples that they should just wait for attitudes to change so they can achieve the legal recognition of same sex marriages through the legislature.
A question I do have, though, is whether proponents of same marriage want to be associated with proponents of polygamous marriages?
Toolgirl
--
"This is Ohio. If you don't have a brewskie in your hand you might as well be wearing a dress." JD, Heathers
|
|
|
Posts:
590
Registered:
9/12/06
|
|
(10 of 23)
Re: California Supreme Court Decision
May 16, 2008 3:35 PM
|
> Suppose a group of polygamists decided to move to
> Massachusetts or to California. Could those two
> states forbid the polygamists from practicing their
> form of marriage when they now allow gays to get
> married? If States keep legalizing gay marriages the
> ban on polygamy will crumble.
I agree Zoar! Particularly given the way this particular decision has been worded.
And congrats RR! 
--
"I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." ~ Voltaire
|
|
|
Posts:
406
Registered:
4/8/08
|
|
(9 of 23)
Re: California Supreme Court Decision
May 16, 2008 2:07 PM
|
Congratulations!
And I think the US will soon have legal same sex marriages all over. Maybe after the election something will happen? Up in Canada, we haven't experienced any fall out from same sex marriages!
|
|
|
|
|
