Did California Supreme Court actually help the cause of equal marriage rights?

Marriage rights and prison

A salient comment from dKos:

Our society so favors marriage over all other rights that when you are imprisoned, you can still get married.  Think about it.  When all your other rights have been taken from you, when all your ties to the outside world have been severed, even then the State cannot trample on your right to marry.

Unless you're gay of course.

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 18:06:26 PM CDT

We even had a Supreme Court case on prison marriage

The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. Many important attributes of marriage remain, however, after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life. First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment. These elements are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship. In addition, many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance; for some inmates and their spouses, therefore, the commitment of marriage may be an exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication. Third, most inmates eventually will be released by parole or commutation, and therefore most inmate marriages are formed in the expectation that they ultimately will be fully consummated. Finally, marital status often is a precondition to the receipt of government benefits (e. g., Social Security benefits), property rights (e. g., tenancy by the entirety, inheritance rights), and other, less tangible benefits (e. g., legitimation of children born out of wedlock). These incidents of marriage, like the religious and personal aspects of the marriage commitment, are unaffected by the fact of confinement or the pursuit of legitimate corrections goals.

Taken together, we conclude that these remaining elements are sufficient to form a constitutionally protected marital relationship in the prison context.--Turner v Safely, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)

These attributes are no less important to same sex relationships than to the opposite sex relationships of those in prison.

---

by: craigkg @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 18:18:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I disagree with that reading of the decision

In Re Marriage Cases was explicitly about the word marriage. California had already given same sex couples all the rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage under a different name, so the decision boiled down to whether it was permissible to have a different name and the Court said it wasn't. We knew all along that the ability of same sex couples to have marriage-by-another-name in California wasn't threatened by Prop 8 since Prop 8 unto itself was all semantics on the use of the word.  

And I think the word is important. Think about it. Would it have been acceptable if Virginia and the 16 other states that still had anti-miscegenation laws when the Lovings brought their case before the Supreme Court had instead of bestowing interracial marriage on mixed race couples instead created "mongrel unions"? I view the notion of "civil unions" to be just as vulgar as it is an attempt to distill marriage into nothing more than a collection of rights, benefits and responsibilities. Just as with our Union is more than simply a collection of 50 states, so too is marriage more than just a piece of paper, or a set of rights, benefits and responsibilities.

Moreover, the separation of the terms also plays into a long help religious conception of homosexuality: Opposite sex couples love each other, therefore they get marriage, but same sex couples, they just have sex, so they have to be under a different system. I'm not willing to allow the right wing to devolve our relationships into nothing more than two people "playing house"... having sex with each other while getting similar rights, benefits and responsibilities to married couples.  

---

by: craigkg @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 18:14:48 PM CDT

I don't get it either.

Our DP is already marriage-in-all-but-name (which is, of course, to say it isn't marriage).  Which means nothing's changed, except we just lost.  Which means I have no idea what this blogger is blogging about.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 19:13:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

if CA's domestic partnerships

are "supposed"  to bestow all the same rights and responsibilities on same-sex couples as marriage does on opposite-sex couples, then can anyone explain to me why in CA a same-sex couple must provide "proof" of their relationship before registering as a domestic partnership?  Why must they prove that they both live together and have comingled finances in order to qualify for domestic partnership?  Is there any such requirement made on opposite-sex couples before they ar issues a marriage license?

---

by: timNC @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 19:51:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What would the decision have been...

If proposition 8 would have defined "marriage" as being between a white man and a white woman, only?

The court's rationale would have allowed that.

I don't think most people would see that as being of little consequence though.  

There is no situation so complex it can't get even worse

---

by: ZoeB @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 20:54:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is dumb. We lost, and it hurts.

Great, so we can have civil unions that carry all the rights of state-granted marriage. Guess what? We had that before the Supreme Court gave us the right to marry in the first place.

The only way this helped the cause of equal marriage rights is by putting us in the headlines and cable news cycle again. The decision was a loss.

The one possible saving grace was that the 18,000 preexisting marriages can stand. That will arguably sow the seeds for a later challenge. But frankly I'm not interested in a vague strategy that may or may not bear fruit in ten years. This country is moving. We're going to win at the ballot box in 2010, or 2012 at the latest. Many other states are going to get marriage equality by then. California is going to be a latecomer relative to its liberal reputation.

---

by: Pender @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 18:19:40 PM CDT

What about genderqueers?

If there's one term for male-female unions, and another for female-female/male-male unions, what about genderqueer-male, genderqueer-female, or genderqueer-genderqueer unions? They're neither gay nor straight, but something different. The only solution is to have a single word covering the lot. Anything else will end up isolating someone.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 18:19:49 PM CDT

Let me see

If I go to the justice of the peace and ask for a marriage but call it marijezz license, I'd still be rejected. For a civil marriage license.

It's separate and unequal and more importantly, even if it wasn't; even if we lived in a land where civil unions were treated in every single way as exactly equivalent to marriages, it would be abhorrent. Civil marriage has its own long tradition and inch by blistering inch, it has scratched out a place for a secular social recognition of love and desire for commitment. It was long fought, but this right has completely become our social pasttime.

I will not cede it nor the word and all that carefully built connotation to whiny Christian Fundamentalists who are scared that their wives will learn about this secular world the rest of us live in wherein people marry for love, not out of obligation or because it's the only way you're allowed sex. Just like I will not cede back Christmas after we turned it back into the pagan celebration of family, food, and giving it used to be.

These Christianists want to steal the secular words and claim that they are the only ones with claim over them because they want to steal the connotation to prop up their pathetic cults and reinforce their ideas that they along follow the values ascribed to them. They want Christmas back so they can claim that Christians are the only ones who love their families and practice charity and the spirit of giving. They want marriage back so they can sneer at the atheists and muslims and jews with their loving ceremonies and claim they are the only ones to practice love and lifelong commitment.

Well frankly, they can't have them. The words are gone and they can't try and use them to buoy their rotting carcass of a theology another 50 years on borrowed time. It's civil, it's secular and the religious can be the ones to invent their own words if they want to be extra-special. I'm going to get married to my same gender partner in the future, the fundies can suck on that and choke.

---

by: Cerberus @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 18:20:56 PM CDT

You had me at "inch by blistering inch"...

You have put your finger on it exactly. Brilliantly written!

---

by: aethersaplings @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 21:58:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

*sigh*

Is an accurate reading, but, well, no one is going to care for a while.

Emotions are too high, and apparently people really have been fighting over a word, instead of an ideal.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 18:23:20 PM CDT

Amen

Amen, dyssonance. People are venting now. when tempers come down (and i hope they do soon), folks will begin to give this ruling some complete thought.

---

by: Alvin McEwen @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 18:38:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The one problem...

... though, Author, is that if they really are just fighting for a word, instead of the idea, the principle, the ideal and real genuine meaning behind it, then they lose my support.

Its not about the word for me -- the word doesn't help me, doens't make my life easier, doesn't make my life harder.

and if it is for just a word, then they've already lost.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 14:04:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If any NCers want to vent, theres a protest soon

http://www.facebook.com/event....

Not much, but its something.

---

by: Jake Gellar-Goad @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 18:39:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pictures from NC

Standing by the road in front of the Chapel Hill Courthouse in protest of the court ruling upholding Prop 8's ban on marriage equality.

Holding up the sign & passing out brochures (I'm on the far right)

---

by: Jake Gellar-Goad @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 21:10:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, people are venting, but they have a point

Prop. 8 is about the word, and whether the same one applied to all couples. It always was. Nothing in the language inserted into the constitution or the propaganda used to pass it said anything about a separate domestic partnership institution, or what legal rights could or could not accompany that. The only effect, which this court allowed, was to separate the legal institutions.

Separate, however, is not equal. The difference, though it is only partly functional — it will take a concerted and unneeded effort to keep the legal effect of the two institutions the same — and mostly about the use of a common and respected term, is terribly important. If you doubt that, go back and look at the Prop. 8 fundraising again: loads people collectively contributed tens of millions of dollars to both sides on this fight precisely because of this difference.

---

by: pgraydon @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 20:09:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

what are you smoking? dKos blogger also?

Are Cerberus and I the only reality based here?  As Cerberus points out....M or not, I and my partner can't go to the county clerk and get a marriage license from the state anymore.
I can tell you that 4 years latter (post 2005 FULL DP legal relationship here in CA) that most forms still do not have a DP ck off.  
What's in a word?  Give me a break.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 18:37:29 PM CDT

Lately, a strain called "cheese"

Hey, don't shoot the messenger!  Read any of my myriad posts on marriage equality and you'll realize I'm fully on the "no separate but equal" side of marriage rights.  I even call out news media that say "recognize gay marriage" instead of "recognize the right of gay people to marry" (the right to marriage is inalienable - the gov't can't grant it, it can only recognize it).

I'm just bringing over an analysis I found interesting.  No need to resort to a cannabiphobic remark.

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 14:13:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No they didn't - and tht article was crap

If you want to see someone who helped the cause, look at the dissenting opinion.

---

by: tiponeill @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 19:10:42 PM CDT

this is bizare

why are people bending over backwards to make a bad decision a good one. It's not even good law much less whether it impacts gays well or not.

---

by: bruhrabbit3 @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 19:18:16 PM CDT

because it could have been much much worse

In almost every other state in which these amendments have become law, they've created a penumbra of legal discrimination that has been applied to a wide spectrum of court cases involving LGBT people, including domestic partnerships and private legal powers of attorney.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that some form of marriage equality is a constitutional mandate. Furthermore, they have very clearly said that Proposition 8 cannot be used to challenge any existing right currently granted by statutory or case law.

Would it have been better for Prop8 to be rejected entirely? Yes. But I'll certainly take the mandates established as precedent in this trojan horse of a decision.  

---

by: CBrachyrhynchos @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 19:46:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

okay but don't distort what it is

and the decision is bad for more people than not.  

---

by: bruhrabbit3 @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 19:59:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

here is an example

In Florida, a hospital argues that the state marriage amendment obligates them to not recognize visitation rights for persons with same-sex powers of attorney, because that would be validating a same-sex partnership as equal to marriage.

It California with this decision as precedent, that hospital would be clearly violating the constitutional rights of patient and partner. And the Supreme Court has affirmed that the equal protection clause and not Proposition 8 would be the defining standard under which those rights are protected.  

---

by: CBrachyrhynchos @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 20:19:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Huh? That was never at issue!

Prop 8 was about the word marriage. Nothing in the language of Prop 8 would have overturned the rights culled together under California's Domestic Partnership law. The Court didn't have to rule Prop 8 didn't affect those rights because even Prop 8's text didn't purport to affect those rights. Prop 8 was not a No-anything-even-remotely-like-marriage amendment like the ones that some states have passed. Why? If the pro-Prop 8 forces had tried that, they would have lost. As written they could claim it was only about protecting marriage. This ruling is not as pro-gay as some are making it out to be. Simply saying the Court could have sua sponte ruled the CA Domestic Partnership law invalid is about as cogent as saying African Americans in Plessy v Ferguson that the Supreme Court didn't overrule the Thirteenth Amendment and re-enslave blacks.  

---

by: craigkg @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 20:29:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the core problem is california's struture of governance

as I said- this decision does not help the direct democracy destruction of the state. THe only good that may come of this is that it may build the constitutional covention movement.

---

by: bruhrabbit3 @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 20:46:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

actually, it was an issue

I'm not as sanguine about the inherent limitations of the language used. I don't think the anything-like-marriage clauses are strictly necessary to support challenges. And the argument was presented to the court that Proposition 8 should be considered in regards to the intent of voters rather than a strict reading of the language. This was, in my opinion an argument that the court needed to address and demolish.  

Of course, there is nothing within Florida Amendment 2 that explicitly applies to hospital visitation either. Rather, the hospital feels entitled to use Amendment 2 in legal arguments undermining a lesbian's power of attorney. And in my opinion, that's exactly the kind of leverage that conservatives wanted when they tried to crack open the door for "intent" and "plain language" interpretations.  

---

by: CBrachyrhynchos @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 22:21:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Two steps back, one step forward

Well look. The worst case scenario is that the Supreme Court of California could have just affirmed Proposition 8 on procedural grounds leaving its meaning and scope undecided. Instead, the court did some excellent damage control. The court found:

* Since Proposition 8 explicitly did not discuss marriages preformed prior to election day, it has nothing to say about them. The Court explicitly refused to consider "plain language" or "intent" in examining Proposition 8.

* Since Proposition 8 explicitly did not address rights given under the equal protection clause and the privacy clause, Proposition 8 has nothing to say about them. The government is required to provide equal status and recognition to same-sex couples.

* Proposition 8 cannot be applied to any other context beyond the definition of marriage.

The court explicitly denied conservatives what they want and need from Proposition 8, a foot in the door that allows them to force a reconsideration of existing statutory and case law in their favor. By explicitly addressing and limiting the scope of Proposition 8, and reaffirming that it changes little in regards to existing case law, the court has greatly limited the damage that could potentially come from this amendment.  

---

by: CBrachyrhynchos @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 19:26:52 PM CDT

WE LOST YOU KOS-AC IDIOT!

AND HERE'S WHY!!!!!!

I have no patience with these morons anymore. They think they can turn chicken shit into chicken salad. Well it's STILL SHIT!!!

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 19:32:35 PM CDT

Not buying it. Still separate and still not equal.

Until every form that has two checkboxes - Married and Single - is re-written to have three checkboxes - Married, Civil Union/Domestic Partner/whatever, and Single - and the new box is given the same rights and benefits as the Married box every single time, then separate is still not equal.  This applies to everything from your tax form to a gym membership.

---

by: ArizonaDave @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 19:50:06 PM CDT

what if..."marriage" went back to the church altogether?

I agree to the "every form" statement, but even then, 3 boxes would always feel separate and thus unequal.  The government needs one box for the "un-single" category, period.  If the church won't recognize the legitimacy of homosexual relationships and be more accepting with the word marriage -- and the government isn't ready to fight them -- then the government should consider replacing ALL 'checkbox' references of "marriage" with "civil union", and eliminate "marriage" from governmental verbiage.  Husband and wife, wife and wife, or husband and husband would still apply.  I still feel that if marriage was an exclusive religious reference, the church should have made a relentless political stink about non-religious hetero marriages.  If they insist on fighting this human right based on semantics, then let those in religions "marry", but in the eyes of government it would be a universal civil union.  Likewise, all secular gay AND hetero relationships should henceforth require the term "civil union". Then if any of us wish to enter into marriage, we can proceed to find a church accepting of our desire.  There will always be churches both willing and unwilling to marry homosexuals, yet the Mormons and the Catholics seem to control the market on morality defined and political bullying.  

---

by: johnwes @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 23:00:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Marriage cannot "go back to" the Church.

Marriage was a civil institution before it was a religious one -- definitely before it was an institution in either Catholicism or Mormonism adopted it as a sacrament.  If any given church wants a special institution to themselves, they can damn well invent their own and stop trying to steal ours -- and they shouldn't expect the state to help them.

---

by: M @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 23:51:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

...make that

"definitely before either Catholicism or Mormonism adopted it as a sacrament".  I'm well into my evening of "fuck this shit" drinking.

---

by: M @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 23:52:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's not over yet

I think what folks who are trying to find something good out of this ruling (and I am one of them) are saying is that while the court did not overturn Prop 8 (and that had mostly to do with the issue of people voting on what goes in their state constitutions), the fact that the 18,000 marriages werent invalidated is a big deal. Marriage equality has come to California and its not going away.

It's not over yet. Evan Wolfson said it best:

"It is now going to be up to the people of California to undo Prop 8's discriminatory misstep through a ballot-measure in 2012 or sooner. The Prop 8 campaign is over; the campaign to restore the freedom to marry and remove this blemish on the constitution and cruel hardship on California's gay couples and their families is now underway."

---

by: Alvin McEwen @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 20:06:06 PM CDT

It's a huge deal

Among other things, it deprives our opponents of one of their favorite rallying cries: "Marriage is only between one man and one woman."  As a result of the court's unanimous conclusion, there are now--and will be, for decades--thousands of counter-examples to that.  To be sure, the court's decision allows opponents to claim "NEW marriage is only between..." but that is quite a different situation and, as we know, will ultimately prove temporary.

The other side wanted to deny the legal existence of gay marriage in California altogether.  In this, they lost.  They will continue to say, "I BELIEVE that marriage is only..." but that's like me saying "I believe in Santa Claus."  It doesn't change what's real.
 

---

by: Gianpiero @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 09:50:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What's in a name?

A sink is a (often) porcelain bowl with water running to it. So is a toilet.

watashi no yomeiri wa doko desu ka

---

by: belfrieboi @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 20:19:35 PM CDT

There's another problem...

http://www.advocate.com/news_d...

Who told these idiots to file a federal suit?!  

---

by: Kokas @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 20:25:38 PM CDT

I swear, if those IMBECILES

give us the gay version of Dredd Scott, they better have damn good security.

I am the lizard queen!

---

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 20:27:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually this is a good move

It'll be years before the case reaches the Supreme Court level as it'll take a year to 18 months for the District Court case to be heard, another six month to a year for the Court of Appeals to weigh in, possibly another 6 months if the Circuit rehears the case en banc and another 6 months to a year to get to the Supreme Court. IOW, Obama could be 1) in his second term or 2) out of office by the time this case is heard on the national level. Having the case decided in a California district court and the more liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals can help us to get favorable lower court decisions on the case for us and the fact that an arch conservative and an arch liberal are the two lawyers spearheading this gives if a bi-partisan if not non-partisan push. Moreover, DOMA is also currently being challenged in Federal Court in Massachusetts as part of GLAD and Lambda Legal's strategy of securing federal recognition of marriage equality. These aren't cases of bat-shit crazy egotistical, narcissistic lawyers from a third rate law school trying to get their names in the papers.  

---

by: craigkg @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 20:38:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's still risky.

With the current makeup of the court, we're almost guaranteed to be handed our asses. Factor in that Obama is unlikely to be able to shift the courts political ideology even if he gets two terms. Also factor in that Obama is a centrist, and is likely to appoint similar judges to the court. Then consider his nebulous position on marriage equality. Even with the amount of time it will actually take to get to the SCOTUS, this is a BIG risk. Of course, if I'm wrong, I'll happily eat my words.

I am the lizard queen!

---

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 20:47:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I just hope our leadership

stops these assholes before it's too late. The damage would be 5x worse than today's ruling.

---

by: Kokas @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 21:00:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Life is a risk

I'm tired of seeing liberals cowering in the corner and not suiting up for the fight. As the saying goes, victory favors the bold. Now is the time to be bold, especially if Obama is going to be the coward on GLBT rights he has been. I will agree that Obama centrists aren't necessarily good for us generally because like him they are cowards. We've had better success on the marriage front on Republican majority courts than Democratic majority courts because Democrats are spineless, immoral hypocrites and some moderate Republicans at least have some principles and are willing to rule as they should on our rights. Say no to cowardice. Say no to retreat. This is the point we ought be bugling for a full charge at the enemy.

---

by: craigkg @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 21:24:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's not cowering.

It's attention to timing. If this gets to SCOTUS and we lose, it will set us back decades. However, if we can time it so that a more liberal president gets in office when the conservative justices start retiring, we'll have a much better chance. Remember that discretion is the better part of valor.

I am the lizard queen!

---

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 21:32:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Disagree

We will be no worse than we are now. Let's not forget, Bowers led to Lawrence. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Moreover, what if they ruled that we were entitled to all the benefits - both federal and state - regardless of the name used. On a national basis, that would be a huge victory. What is a loss in California would be a big step forward if it was done at the national level. People in states with no hope of domestic partnerships or civil unions would suddenly get state benefits and all of us would get federal benefits.

Or we could win full marriage equality at the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court could refuse to hear the case, leaving marriage equality in effect in the states under the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction.

The one thing I love about the LGBT community is our independence. You can't tell us what to do. It's like herding cats. Less we forget, most of the national legal and political groups were not happy with the Hawaiian couples who brought the original marriage equality suit. They thought the time was not right. Luckily those couples didn't listen to those leaders or I wouldn't be married today.  

---

by: claudew @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 23:54:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bowers was a legal precedent

that took almost thirty years to undo. During which time it was used as a weapon against us. If the SCOTUS rules that the fourteenth amendment doesn't even require all the rights if under a different name, which I think is likely with the current makeup, (don't think Scalia won't jump at the chance), it will create a similar precedent that will be repeatedly thrown back at us at every opportunity. If you think Obama's opposition is damaging, that will be nothing next the damage we'll take from the opposition of our highest court.

I am the lizard queen!

---

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:44:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would prefer if we could get rid of one of the conservatives

its rumored that clarence thomas is itching to leave. If we can get him off the court, then we might have a shot of at least heighten scrutiny which would end all of the bans of marriage acorss the country in one swoop, but right now, I am really concerend  that this is a big risk.
]
Also, DOMA, is being challenged under the the 5th Amendment regarding federal rights rather than among states. I believe there is a better shot with that case becuase it only challneges the part of the statute addressing federal rights.

Prop 8 would challenge under the 14th which would apply to the various states. The hope that I have is that Roberts would side with a majority for gay rights.

---

by: bruhrabbit3 @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 20:51:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks craigkg...for opinion.

I forwarded to two guys I know working on the DOMA Case.

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 21:26:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What's in a word?

Well, let's start with a few hundred years of legal precedent. Then we can move on to societal recognition. We can top it off with federal (once DOMA is gone) recognition for it.

Queeriage, or marrijezz, or whatever other word you want to pull out of your ass, has none of those.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 21:33:56 PM CDT

why the court's decision is important

Debate about the word "marriage" is just a bait and switch. The first anti-marriage laws and amendments hit the statehouses long before same-sex couples were even considering marriage. They were aimed at private legal partnership, employer-offered domestic partnerships, and a growing willingness of the courts to consider LGBT interests in family law.

These amendments are really about getting a legal wedge that conservatives can use to challenge LGBT interests across the court system. The Supreme Court drew a line in the sand and said to conservatives, you wanted to define the term. You got to define the term. That's all you get. The same legal priorities that led to Marriage Cases will be used in any challenge you bring to this court.

And that's what Starr didn't want with all of his arguments about "plain language" and "intent." He wanted an opening to challenge 20 years of progress, he got a door slammed in his face. The court, in a slap-down dripping with contempt, announced that it was going to interpret Proposition 8 in a severely restricted context that leaves most existing case law unaffected. It effectively limits the kinds of challenges we saw in Michigan, Ohio, and Florida where such measures are being broadly interpreted.

Yeah, it's a small victory and damage control. But it's a critical one that we couldn't afford to lose.  

---

by: CBrachyrhynchos @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 21:35:34 PM CDT

I agree

Starr is crowing in the press about his victory, but he can't deny that he got far less than he was hoping for.  Although I strongly disagree with the court's conclusion on Prop 8, the justices were not stupid and their wording was carefully considered.  The decision telegraphs quite clearly that our opponents should not even think about going after rights granted under domestic partnerships or after the existing marriages.

 

---

by: Gianpiero @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 09:38:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

RM Interviews our Sen Boxer tonight... primarily about Sotomayor..

But then about Prop H8.  Boxer says she wrote a stining piece, pleased and agreeing with the May 2008 ruling. Saying that this is a setback only and "Marriage Equality" will eventually be cofirmed as the only way not to be separate but equal.

Many, many more are teaching themselves to use Marriage Equality.

(CREDO is pushing a scam where they will send you stickers that say I support GAY MARRIAGE...(HOOOO! Then they get your ADDRESS!) Avoid CREDO like the plague folks.  I complained about the wording, but they are headquartered in London and could care less.  

PS. I can't believe Courage Campaign is working with them, I will never give or sign anything for them again.... or you will be SPAM central..as they are just an email Phish scam.)

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 21:39:04 PM CDT