California already had other laws that protected sexual orientation.
http://www.harriskaufman.com/sexual-orientation-issues.htm





I don't think it's a great leap of logic to go from laws specifically protecting employment based on sexual orientation to laws protecting marriage based on sexual orientation. When you have other laws that specifically protect it, then it is obviously a special class on equal footing with race and gender. Not that it matters in this case, but it's also protected under the hate crimes law at a federal level.

Do the domestic partnerships also protect you from testifying against your partner in the court system? Is it equal in every way? Even if it is equal in every way, why would you want duplicate laws on your books? It only creates potential for additional loop holes as the language is different or laws are passed in the future for one and not the other.

Just call everything the state grants a civil union. Call what your church gives you, marriage. One law for everyone.

 

-----signature-----

I think it's obvious that I disagree with your position that the California Supreme Court overstepped it's authority when it ruled that a statutory ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. When laws created by voters and legislators systematically discriminate against a specific group, as to exlude them from what was previously determined by that same court to be "a basic civil right", it is the job of the court to uphold the constitution which treats (or used to) each citizen as equal.


I also disagree with your position that instead of the court striking down laws that create social injustice, the victims of such injustice should wait for a vote. Or "it would have been prudent to wait"...


There are people in this country that were alive when there were seperate drinking fountains for whites and "coloreds". Would you say the same to them in regards to Brown v. Board of Eductation that instead of ending Segregation in Public Schools in 1954, when it was against popular opinion in many states, that "it would have been prudent to wait"? Would you say that in every instance the popular vote is sufficient to deny a right from a specific and definable group?


Should the Majority always be allowed to deny by vote the rights of the Minority?


Finally, I disagree in your position that this discussion is not worthy of researching facts. I also disagree that answers have to be long winded, and full of filler and no facts, to support a staunchly held opinion however wrong it may be.

 

-----signature-----

Benja, in looking at the modifications to the Unruh Civil Rights Act that California made in 2005 (or maybe 2006, it is not very clear) which added "sexual orientation" to the list I am going to have to agree that the overturning of Proposition 22 was not a fiat ruling. Though the explicit intent in making that modification was for employment and housing concerns, I believe that is enough to consider this to be a settled law that can be used in reaching the conclusion that sexual orientation was a protected class from that point forward. So in 2008 when the California Supreme Court made their ruling they had what they needed to base their ruling on law. Others may have differing views on what a settled law means, but for me existence is enough.

I'm glad to have this tangent resolved, though I hate that I missed the occurrence of that modification since I was actually living there at the time.

As to the already existent domesticate partnerships in California, I'm not sure about your specific questions but the answers would be easy enough to find. I already mentioned that I did not think of them as an ideal solution (obviously I prefer mine much more). I think if the same-sex marriage advocates had pursued further modifications to the domesticate partnership in the legislature they would have come to the conclusion that a distinction should be made between civil marriage and religious marriage, but instead they took the focus off legislative action and sought a judiciary solution.

 

-----signature-----

"I think it's obvious that I disagree with your position that the California Supreme Court overstepped it's authority when it ruled that a statutory ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. When laws created by voters and legislators systematically discriminate against a specific group, as to exlude them from what was previously determined by that same court to be 'a basic civil right', it is the job of the court to uphold the constitution which treats (or used to) each citizen as equal."

Since now that Benja has found the lynch-pin law on the books in California that made such a ruling possible without fiat decision-making, I would suppose that you can be happy now. However, I get the distinct impression that fiat rulings are okay in your mind and the end justifies the means as long as your concept of social justice wins.

"I also disagree with your position that instead of the court striking down laws that create social injustice, the victims of such injustice should wait for a vote. Or 'it would have been prudent to wait'..."

I would consider this confirmation of my previous sentence.

"There are people in this country that were alive when there were seperate drinking fountains for whites and 'coloreds'. Would you say the same to them in regards to Brown v. Board of Eductation that instead of ending Segregation in Public Schools in 1954, when it was against popular opinion in many states, that 'it would have been prudent to wait'? Would you say that in every instance the popular vote is sufficient to deny a right from a specific and definable group?"

If that ruling was not based on settled law, it would not have been prudent to create social policy from the judicial branch. Since there was existing federal laws from which that ruling could be rendered I do not see a conflict here.

"Should the Majority always be allowed to deny by vote the rights of the Minority?"

This is a tricky but interesting topic that we could discuss, but it would take a lot more than a quick retort in this message to cover. There is no thought-out answer that is short, but I could just say 'No, tyranny by the majority or the minority is not a good thing' and let you fill in whatever ideas that you think that answer means.

"Finally, I disagree in your position that this discussion is not worthy of researching facts. I also disagree that answers have to be long winded, and full of filler and no facts, to support a staunchly held opinion however wrong it may be."

Since those are not my positions, you must be disagreeing with someone else.

 

-----signature-----

You can now add Nevada to the list of states that passed laws through their legislature for domestic partnerships.
event:http://tinyurl.com/knner9

 

-----signature-----

Yes, they seem to be going down the same path that California did in the '90's. Hopefully they will avoid the pitfalls that California has had to endure and simply reach the conclusion in short order that without a distinction between civil and religious marriage all of this will end up in the hands of the judiciary.

 

-----signature-----

Now we just need someone to challenge domestic partnership and marriage under separate but equal clause like they did in Brown V Board of Education.

 

-----signature-----

Or just skip the judiciary entirely and simply do what is right in the legislature: remove the religious argument from the equation.

 

-----signature-----

QFT.

As long as a marriage must be recorded by the State to be valid, all citizens of that state should have access to it as it is a CIVIL contract.

 

-----signature-----

I agree. Unfortunately, we are led by people who can't learn from prior mistakes. This is especially sad, since there are still many people alive today that endured the same prejudice during the civil rights movement.

 

-----signature-----