I’m not sure about the rest of you, but I have very close friends and family that were affected by the State of California finally allowing the marriage of a same sex couple.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of California has decided to not delay gay marriage! That, by my understanding, makes it 1 step closer.
The court’s action means the marriage ruling becomes effective at 5 p.m. on June 16. Counties and cities are expected to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples the following day.
Next step will be in November when it’s put to the voters.
This is one of those weird laws that never made sense to me. How does it harm anyone if 2 people of the same sex are married? It doesn’t bother me or any of my friends. Not even the Rush Limbaugh conservatives (of which there aren’t many), so I don’t see this as not passing in November.
But really, should it be left up to me? If two people are happy and want to get married then what else is there? I actually heard the excitement in my friends voice when I found out. And happiness. And excitement. And relief. Made especially more cool by the fact that it happened right before their 20th anniversary (congrats again!).
Once it on the ballot, I’ll vote to allow gay marriage. I think the world needs more happy people.
12 Responses to “This is good news”
Leave a Reply
Comment moderation in full effect!
All comments at donburnside.com are moderated by my first rate team of robot warriors, ready to do battle with all the nare-do-wells that stalk the interwebs!
Besides, it's only your first comment (per IP address if you are commenting from work and home) that the robot warriors have to approve. After that it should be clear saling! If not, contact db and I'm sure he'll hook you up.
Finally, for those of you in the know, Markdown is available as it a very small set of HTML tags. If you are scratching your head, don't worry, it's just geek stuff. You can still comment!
Thanks for stopping by!
June 5th, 2008 at 9:57 am
I’ve always thought that the world needs less violence and more nudity, but that might just be what America needs.
More love, less lawyers — yeah, that’s the ticket.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Less violence and more nudity gets my vote!
So… I’m in full support of gay couples having every right (insurance, divorce, joint property etc) as straight ones… but the word marriage is defined how it’s defined, and largely it seems the main reason some gay people want to be ‘married’ is simply to piss off the religious nuts. And I’m not saying they don’t deserve it but can’t we all have what we want without having to upset people unnecessarily in the process?
Not sure how I will vote in November, a civil union == marriage deal would be easy, but I like words to mean what they mean.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Sorry, but (IMHO) if I’m “Married” to my wife, even though we’ve never been before a priest, then the church doesn’t have any right to claim or define the institution. After all, that’s the whole point, isn’t it? The church is against homosexuality so all they can do is argue semantics. I say that if 2, consenting adults want to go before a Justice of the Peace (or whoever) and get married in the eyes of the LAW (not God) then they should have every right to.
Also, a quick search for the etymology of marriage; (Markdown eludes me for some reason so cut and paste, lol)
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marriage
…shows: 1297, from O.Fr. mariage (12c.), from V.L. *maritaticum, from L. maritatus, pp. of maritatre “to wed, marry, give in marriage” (see marry).
When you look for “Marry” you see that in this context it is derived from the Oath itself. Gender does not enter the equation until religion does.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
very interesting Drill…very interesting
June 5th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Oh, I just re-read my post and thought that it might look a bit aggressive towards Paul and I just wanted to say that that is definitely NOT the case
June 5th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Interesting about the etymology of marriage, I’ll have to look into that some more…. but at the risk of making Drill even angrier at me
I’ve always thought that marriage came out of religion, before governments decided to make a law out of it and give rights to couples. At that point the should have called it, let’s say, snoogling and then the religious folks could say they got snoogled by marriage and the civil union folk would say they got snoogled by a clerk, or a friend etc. Bottom line is that everyone is snoogled and happy, same rights etc. The religious nuts can harp on about gays snoogling but they can go jump because gays have every right to be snoogled. But if the church wants to stop them “marrying” then that’s their deal and we can continue to condemn them for it, but basically let them get on with it.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:24 am
See, I look at it in more of a Trademark or Copyright way. Take Xerox for example… at first, they were the only ones with the photocopy machine, then, more and more competitors released their own copy machines but people kept using the term “Xerox” in a generic sense. Since Xerox (the company) couldn’t successfully defend their copyright, they lost rights to the term (in that context). As soon as the Gov’t began granting secular “marriages” the church should have made an issue of it. Since they did not, the term became generic and the church therefore lost any rights to it.
I did a quick search on trademark law and found the following under US Code: Title 15, Chapter 22, Subchapter III, paragraph 1127;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001127—-000-.html
“A mark shall be deemed to be “abandoned†if either of the following occurs:
…
(2) When any course of conduct of the owner, including acts of omission as well as commission, causes the mark to become the generic name for the goods or services on or in connection with which it is used or otherwise to lose its significance as a mark.”
Just food for thought, now I’ve got to get ready for work
June 6th, 2008 at 6:48 am
thanks, DB. I’ll have more later re: why the court ruled the way it did…
But, the gist of the decision is that by not allowing gay couples to marry, the State was discriminating against gay couples for a number of reasons.
Honestly, I think you caught just about every emotion I was feeling at the time I called you.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I’ve read the decision & viewed the video of the arguments before the Supreme Court. The court ruled that there is a fundamental right to marry the person of your choice guaranteed by the California constitution. This goes back to prior legislative acts and court decisions made over the life of the US Constitution and back into the common law that predates it. The Court then compared marriage to domestic partnership, and found them to be substantially the same, and nearly equal to each other. However, given the historical stature given to the institution of civil marriage, the court decided that, in effect, the establishment of domestic partnerships constitutes the establishment of a lower status (second class) marriage. The court then held that , when it comes to fundamental rights, a “second class” institution isn’t good enough and does not pass constitutional muster.
The court then further held that granting marriage rights to same sex couples does not impinge on the marriage rights of heterosexual couples–primarily because same-sex couples would be enjoying exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples, no more & no less. This holding thus made it clear that the State of California does not have a compelling interest that would allow it to deny the rights, privileges & benefits of marriage to same sex couples. Note that a “compelling interest” is the only tool that allows a State to intercede in fundamental constitutional rights.
One of the dissenters to the decision clearly stated that she believed that same-sex couples should have access to full marriage rights, but that same sex couples should wait until the “will of the people” moved in that direction, as it has already begun to move. The majority disagreed with that notion, stating that what is Constitutionally correct does not have a “waiting period.” The constitution, is the ultimate expression of the will of the people, and overrides any interest that the electorate or the legislature might have in delaying changes or granting rights to individuals. So what is officially a 4/3 split decision is, in effect, more of 5/2 decision.
DB wrote:
Yep, that just about covers it. The decision came down on 5/15/08, our 20th was 5/23/08. I lost a husband the day of the decision, but I gained a fiancé. So, rather than mourning, we’re celebrating. Relief doesn’t begin to describe the feeling. My sister is a resident of Massachusetts, and has been married to her partner for 4 years now. At the time, we considered heading over there, but it wouldn’t have been real at home. Same thing when San Francisco started granting marriage licenses. We wanted it to be real. It will be on October 12th. Finally. And, yes, we’re excited & happy. Who wouldn’t be, when one of their dearest & deepest dreams has come true?
June 7th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Thanks for the info on the decision and…. Congrats!!
June 9th, 2008 at 4:56 am
I’m glad to see that our country is finally making a LITTLE progress. Sad that it’s taken this long… Also, this definitely is the most intellectual comment thread I’ve read on wtf to date
June 11th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Sorry. I’ll try to tone it down in the future.