Okay, one more time.

[Pacifist Patriot]

Religious institutions have no legal authority to render a couple married in the eyes of the law. None. Nada. Bupkus.

In the United States, marriage has always been a civil contract under state statute, with the exception of that horrific piece of legislation passed by Congress in 1996. But even so, it still is a contract governed solely and exclusively by civil law.

This is one reason why I detest the idea of civil unions for everyone and then letting the religious institutions marry whomever they want.

No way!

Language is important and this distinction grants religious bodies authority over a powerful historical institution they do not currently have.

This is about equal protection under the law. Religious groups having the power to abridge civil rights should be anathema to every single American.

Say it with me again. The power and authority of religious institutions neither grows nor shrinks when marriage equality is granted. Their position in the role of marriage remains utterly unchanged.

Clergy are witnesses, nothing more and nothing less. If they don't want to be a witness to a particular marriage contract they don't have to be.

[joeybee12]

1. Someone needs to tell the nuts that there is separation of church and state...

the state can't tell a religion what to do...you're right...it's very simple.

[sandnsea]

2. Do you detest the legal rights granted today?

Or should no gay couples have those unless they are tagged to the word marriage?

[bluedawg12]

4. Separate is never equal. n/t

[sandnsea]

8. If everybody has the 100% same rights

and everybody gets them under the term "civil union" - how is that separate?

[bluedawg12]

9. If everyone had civil unions - but they don't. There are now three categories

Marriage for different sex couples, marriage for a portion of the population carved out of the whole, called previously married gay coupes and then, the remainder of non-heterosexual and not previously married gay couples have a third category.

>>everybody gets them under the term "civil union" <<

Everyone does not have civil unions. The majority have "marriage."

[sandnsea]

10. The decision specifically granted rights to everybody

Are you going to sit back and let them make a third category - or are you going to fight for ONE category for everybody from here on out?

[bluedawg12]

11. Except the right to be married. n/t

[sandnsea]

14. Yeah, I get that.

And once again, are you going to pass on the legal rights because you can't call it marriage? Or are you going to get busy and pass something so gay couples and families have the exact same protections as hetero couples and families?

[bluedawg12]

15. If you "get that" then you get the reason why it is an injustice.

Remember well this day. What goes around comes around.

Karma is a bitch. :grr:

[sandnsea]

19. So you're saying you don't want the rights?

Because that was my question to begin with.

[bluedawg12]

28. What is to be done is quite different from why we find this to be an injustice.

That's what I am talking about. Solutions will come later.

[sandnsea]

31. Later? Later??? Later when????

Why the hell would you dismiss real rights that were really won today?

Fight for a word later. Get your damn rights today.

[Starry Messenger]

12. What are you talking about?

What rights were granted? Prop 8 was to take away an existing right and the decision today was to uphold that. It WAS one category for everyone for a few months last year. Now it is back to marriages for men and women and really lousy domestic partnerships for same-sex partners.

[sandnsea]

16. The rights were upheld,

I've posted it so many times today, my fingers are sore. No it does not have to be back to domestic partnerships. Very clearly 100% of the rights are to be retained. Make sure and get a law passed that does exactly that, including the use of an equal word for all.

"Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases — that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage” (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 829). Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
By clarifying this essential point, we by no means diminish or minimize the significance that the official designation of “marriage” holds for both the proponents and opponents of Proposition 8; indeed, the importance of the marriage designation was a vital factor in the majority opinion’s ultimate holding in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757, 845-846, 855. Nonetheless, it is crucial that we accurately identify the actual effect of Proposition 8 on same-sex couples’ state constitutional rights, as those rights existed prior to adoption of the proposition, in order to be able to assess properly the constitutional challenges to the proposition advanced in the present proceeding. We emphasize only that among the various constitutional protections recognized in the Marriage Cases as 8 available to same-sex couples, it is only the designation of marriage — albeit significant — that has been removed by this initiative measure."

[bluedawg12]

18. You want gays to fight for CU's for everyone? No more civil marriage? n/t

[sandnsea]

20. That would be equal under the decision

Wouldn't it?

[Starry Messenger]

21. No.

That's not what this decision was about. You've got it by the wrong end somehow, or you've skipped to the end without showing how you got to that answer.

[sandnsea]

23. Did you read what I posted?

That's from the decision. They removed the word marriage, not the rights associated with marriage. There is going to have to be a law to implement a method to guarantee 100% of those rights. Why not push for it to be the same word for everybody?

[Starry Messenger]

25. We did. It's called "marriage" like in Iowa and other states.

And you can bet anything you like the fundies will fight like murder to retain their right to call their already existing marriage/civil union "marriage" to keep it defined to a man and woman pairing. It is not as easy as you make it sound at all. We've got Ken Starr in here like a disease. This isn't going to just go away. Making up entirely new laws and changing the whole system is silly when the framework already exists.

[bluedawg12]

30. They removed the word marriage ONLY for gays! You now that. n/t

[sandnsea]

34. But not the rights

So make the rights granted through some other word, and apply it equally to all.

[bluedawg12]

44. You need to get str8 folks behind that idea, of giving up "marriage."

It seems like a perfectly good word to me. :)

[sandnsea]

47. And again, I am talking about rights granted by the CA Supreme Court

If you don't want them, just say so.

[Starry Messenger]

And how is a passive aggressive tone like that supportive at all?

You just sound mean and defensive when your rights and your state are not at all an issue for you. Perhaps you need to acquaint yourself with the word "tact" and the phrase "too soon".

[sandnsea]

50. Here, Kossacks get it

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/26/735571/-Read-page-36.-They-just-cut-Prop-8-to-the-bone.

[Starry Messenger]

55. Well, good for them.

This is family here. Family doesn't tread all over the corns of people they care for.

[sandnsea]

58. You didn't even read an activist lawyer's analysis

Because you're more interested in fighting with ME than looking at what the decision might have actually said. That's SICK.

[hulklogan]

60. Why are you calling LGBT people "SICK"?

:shrug: A poor choice of words, I hope.

[sandnsea]

62. No, I used the word SICK, jesus christ

You're going to twist it into an bigoted attack, rather than discuss the legal analysis I posted?

[Starry Messenger]

61. No, sick is coming in here and crying victim amongst people here.

I'm fighting your appalling lack of grace. This has been explained to you over and over. The fundies did not spend 100 million dollars to see their victory just go down the drain like that. You sound just like the same people who were smugly asserting back in August that "Prop 8 is going down in flames, dude. Don't worry, be happy". Sorry if I'm skeptical. I also live here in CA, which you do not.

[sandnsea]

64. Can you address the legal analysis I posted?

Do you think you can stick to that?

[Starry Messenger]

69. No.

I've already told you what I think. You are condescending and poorly socialized and not worth my time. Your first post in this thread was hostile and spoke like everyone in here was a tiny little baby instead of full adults.

[Toasterlad]

5. No Doubt You're Afraid That If Gays Are Allowed to Get Married

...that all weddings will need to be held in bathroom stalls.

[Pacifist Patriot]

6. Would you please explain in more detail? I'd like to have a discussion with you...

but I'm not sure what your frame of reference is. To which legal rights granted today do you refer?

[sandnsea]

7. 100% rights granted with marriage

The decision specifically said that the only thing Prop 8 precluded was the word marriage, that's it. All Rights are still in force to everybody - provided somebody get their shit together and pass a law putting a legal procedure in place to grant them. People are trying to get that message out, at Kos too. It doesn't have to be a permanent answer, but it is can provide a lot of families real solutions.

If you took the ruling and decided to give everybody equal rights to meet its standard, then you'd grant everybody an equal civil union and dismiss the word marriage from California legal partnerships. That's a separate decision for the people to make.

[Starry Messenger]

13. That's what Prop 8 was.

That's how they outlawed same-sex marriage. They defined the word marriage to a religious meaning in our legislature specifically to outlaw same-sex marriage. They threatened religious people that their civil and religious unions were at risk if the word was not defined in the state legislature. It's a huge fucking scam. They don't want civil unions--at all, even though that is really what the state grants.

[hulklogan]

17. "Why are you complaining about sitting in the back of the bus, Ms. Parks?"

You're still on the same bus, it's still taking you where you need to go. Does it really matter where you sit?

And what is different about using that other drinking fountain? Water still comes out of it, it will still quench your thirst. What is the problem here?

[sandnsea]

22. No, it's not at the back of the bus

Everybody is on the vehicle, all riding where they want, when they want, how they want, with who they want. It just can't be called a bus anymore. It's a transporter, a carrier, a vehicle, a ride monster, a go go machine, - just not a bus.

Stupid? Sure. But don't lose sight of the fact that this decision granted 100% rights, that's all I'm saying. Make sure and get busy and get something passed, pronto, to guarantee ALL the rights.

[hulklogan]

24. Are you going to give up your marriage, since it doesn't really matter?

And the decision doesn't guarantee all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage, just a core set of rights.

Gay couples who are only domestic partnered or civil unioned or whatever still have to fight for family benefits at health clubs, health benefits at work, family library cards, and a whole host of other tiny chunks of benefits that come with the word marriage.

In your analogy, domestic partnerships are a "ride monster" that looks like any other bus but is missing padded seats, the bike rack on the front, windows that open, air conditioning, and the rope that you pull to tell the driver that you want to exit at the next stop.

:patriot:

[sandnsea]

29. Oh fuck, YES, I've said it repeatedly

I don't care what you call this 28 year quagmire I'm in. But I'm talking about the rights protected in today's decision.

The decision said 100% legal rights.

You Do Not Have To Fight in California anymore, this decision just made that clear.

"family benefits at health clubs, health benefits at work, family library cards, and a whole host of other tiny chunks of benefits" Do Not Come With The Word Marriage Anymore.

Do you get that? That's what today's decision said. That's been my entire quest for the afternoon, to get attacked by gay people, so that gay couples and families in California know there is still an avenue for them to have all their rights.

And I am the terrible one. Ack. Why do I put up with the abuse.

[bluedawg12]

33. Honey, if you're in a 28 year quagmire - you still have a right to that quamire.

Where as gay people don't.

Our position is simple - we want the same laws and same words to be applied to all people.

As the OP said so well, words matter. I don't think we can get the dominant majority to give up their right to the word marriage, hell, they just spent $70 million and months and months in keeping that word all to themselves.

[sandnsea]

36. You won't if you don't claim the right given today

Somebody else will figure it out and introduce the Equal Partner Protection Act, or some such, and then you'll get it. And you won't come back and apologize to me either.

[Starry Messenger]

42. Why should she?

She's an adult who deserves the same rights as everyone else as her birthright as a citizen.

[bluedawg12]

43. You mean there are no laws in place yet? they have to be passed?

[sandnsea]

45. That's what happened in many states

after Supreme Court decisions. MA comes to mind. The state looked at the decision and then created the law.

The decision clearly says gay couples and families must have 100% of the same rights hetero couples and families have. I don't think that exists in CA today.

[bluedawg12]

That's what ws lost, SnS, had marriage remained as a law for gays

there was already a frame work in place. You are suggesting cobbling together bits and pieces of laws to approximate something that does not need to be reinvented - marriage rights.

[sandnsea]

53. No. That's exactly what the ruling said doesn't have to happen

Here. The Kossacks get it. Or at least most of them.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/26/735571/-Read-page-36.-They-just-cut-Prop-8-to-the-bone.

[hulklogan]

71. And how will these rights really be granted? Piece by piece after years and years

of lawsuits and people demanding proof of relationships that could be, if not for the bigoted 52% of california, called marriage.

[Starry Messenger]

35. Abuse??

How totally offensive. I can't believe you had the unmitigated gall to post that. I am straight and I can't believe what people get away with on this website. Honey, Matthew Shepherd's death was "abuse". You are ticked off at people being offended at your pedantic tone, hectoring them on a day of loss. Big fucking diff.

[Pacifist Patriot]

37. I recently cleared my Ignore list.

I'm finding today to be a good day to start a fresh one.

[sandnsea]

39. The abuse was in a different thread, my apologies n/t

[hulklogan]

38. You're no martyr, you just like playing this devil's advocate game.

I don't think you're really interested in being sympathetic to LGBT Americans. You've been hovering around LGBT issues for the past 18 months pretending that you're being attacked for arguing with LGBT posters about our issues.

You're not a bad person, I'm sure. I just think you enjoy argument for argument's sake.

[sandnsea]

41. I try to point out the clear set of rights in this decision

knowing the grief I'm going to get, but I'm not interested in LGBT rights? There IS an opportunity in this decision and I believe it is being overlooked. I shouldn't say something?

[bluedawg12]

46. You mention no rights lost, then you say we have to pass laws?

I am confused.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluedawg12]

51. All right you just crossed the line from conversation to abuse.

If you can't explain yourself you seem to fly into abusive mode right quick.

[sandnsea]

54. I explained myself fine

You prefer to play assinine games. So be it.

[bluedawg12]

63. You explained nothing

you demonstrated your inability to carry on a civil conversation and misrepresent facts.

[sandnsea]

65. Can you address the legal analysis I posted?

Anybody?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/26/735571/-Read-page-36.-They-just-cut-Prop-8-to-the-bone.

[bluedawg12]

73. Look below.

[Starry Messenger]

52. I'm sure John Kerry would be so proud to know you are wearing that avatar.

:sarcasm:

[hulklogan]

56. What "clear set of rights" are in the decision.

We already know from the examples in New Jersey that unless the word "marriage" is attached, there will be countless little social benefits that opposite married people are able to enjoy that same sex domestic partnered civil unionized couples are not. These are not as vital as the core constitutional rights that referred to in the decision, but they can simply be denied to domestic partners or civil unionized couples because they are not in the institution called marriage.

For example: health club family membership rates; family library cards; health insurance from private businesses; bridal registries; assumption of family status when dealing with day cares, hospitals, and schools; spousal car insurance discounts; obvious and uncontested inheritance rights; and any other private or public benefit that is granted only to married couples.

It just isn't good enough to suggest that we should be happy with the basics when everyone else gets the luxuries. The denial of the word marriage to same-sex couples gives bigots, fundies, and greedy bastards an easy excuse to deny these luxuries and force same-sex couples to constantly produce documentation supporting the legal status of their union.

When married couples have to start carrying copies of their marriage licenses in purses and wallets so they can produce them on demand to anyone who asks, then maybe we'll have two truly separate but equal statuses.

[sandnsea]

59. Here, read a lawyer's analysis

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/26/735571/-Read-page-36.-They-just-cut-Prop-8-to-the-bone.

[hulklogan]

68. And the problem is that it falls on LGBT people to seek legal redress every time they are denied

these advantages. Every single time. And the impingement of these rights will always have to be redressed after the fact.

So it will take years of lawsuits and court decisions to bring about true equality of status under this decision, when the word marriage would provide it right now, and will provide it to the lucky 18,000.

[Pacifist Patriot]

74. That 18,000 does more to highlight the absurdity of marriage inequality...

than anything else I can think of today.

[sandnsea]

75. That's still true for women and minorities

The word marriage is not going to guarantee you rights that any other document wouldn't guarantee, or do a better job at preventing discrimination. Gay couples with marriage licenses will still be disciminated against. Look how many years it took Lily Ledbetter to figure it out.

The court upheld 100% rights for gay couples and families. The question is how it will be implemented, with equality or a third tier. I'm just saying to fight for the equality.

[hulklogan]

101. Please spare me the spin.

Minority couples will still get assumed hospital visitation rights and women will still be able to pick up their kids at day care without having to prove how they're related to them.

And same sex couples will have to carry a ream of documents around with them at all times just in case they need to prove the status of their supposedly equal relationship.

I hope I'm proven wrong on this point, but as of today I'm convinced that "separate but equal" is a complete bullshit lie.

[bluedawg12]

72. It's in praise of civil unions - what you've been shilling here and not too well.

[Pacifist Patriot]

78. I realize I have a blind spot when it comes to this issue, but I really...

cannot understand how people can truly believe civil union = marriage. By sheer virtue of calling it something else you render it something else. I have never had to produce my marriage license to get a family pass to the zoo, a family membership at my gym or visit my husband in the hospital. The things we heterosexual couples take for granted.

Good grief, heterosexual couples can lie with impunity about their marital status when it comes to the situations I listed above and the likelihood of being challenged is remarkably low.

[sandnsea]

82. Today's ruling specifically grants ALL rights, 100%

Everything except the word marriage. Why is that incomprehensible to some? None of the things you mention will be legal. Or is being liked more important than having your facts straight?

[Sapphocrat]

85. You are WRONG.

See my reply to you downthread.

[sandnsea]

88. No. I'm rigt

"Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases — that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage” (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 829). Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
By clarifying this essential point, we by no means diminish or minimize the significance that the official designation of “marriage” holds for both the proponents and opponents of Proposition 8; indeed, the importance of the marriage designation was a vital factor in the majority opinion’s ultimate holding in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757, 845-846, 855. Nonetheless, it is crucial that we accurately identify the actual effect of Proposition 8 on same-sex couples’ state constitutional rights, as those rights existed prior to adoption of the proposition, in order to be able to assess properly the constitutional challenges to the proposition advanced in the present proceeding. We emphasize only that among the various constitutional protections recognized in the Marriage Cases as 8 available to same-sex couples, it is only the designation of marriage — albeit significant — that has been removed by this initiative measure.

[bluedawg12]

116. You are rigt except when you're rung. Another strong gay ally.

:rofl:

[bluedawg12]

83. It's the party

line being parotted.

Here is another sample of the seriousness which that legal analysis sees marriage and the fight for marriage equality.

>>"It doesn't say that the participants in "marrijezz" can't call each other "husband" or each other "wife" -- or that they can't legally demand to be able to call themselves husbands and wives. This was, in the eyes of the California Supreme Court, entirely about cutting a particular tag off a dress before allowing same-sex couples to buy it. Do you think that the "this is called a marriage" tag is the same as the "I can call this man my husband or this woman my wife" tag?" << said legal analysis.

har dee har! marrijezz!

[Pacifist Patriot]

87. Evidence I shouldn't have second guessed myself.

I took the person off ignore briefly.

I'm willing to have an earnest discussion, but this individual is combative, insulting and generally hard to follow as a writer.

[sandnsea]

91. Can you follow the Supreme Court of California??

"Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases — that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage” (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 829). Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
By clarifying this essential point, we by no means diminish or minimize the significance that the official designation of “marriage” holds for both the proponents and opponents of Proposition 8; indeed, the importance of the marriage designation was a vital factor in the majority opinion’s ultimate holding in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757, 845-846, 855. Nonetheless, it is crucial that we accurately identify the actual effect of Proposition 8 on same-sex couples’ state constitutional rights, as those rights existed prior to adoption of the proposition, in order to be able to assess properly the constitutional challenges to the proposition advanced in the present proceeding. We emphasize only that among the various constitutional protections recognized in the Marriage Cases as 8 available to same-sex couples, it is only the designation of marriage — albeit significant — that has been removed by this initiative measure."

[bluedawg12]

104. Very true and your intentions were good and honest

there is that saying about one door closing and another opening, even if one has to endure abuse to get there, my thinking is that while this may not have gone in the general direction you had hoped, there may be a chance for all of us to dig into this issue deeper, only in so far as the legal aspects.

Sadly, what I am missing is your take on the human and spiritual aspects vs. legal, that only someone with your knowledge could share and teach us.

[Pacifist Patriot]

134. Unfortunately, I live in a state that will be dragged kicking and screaming into the light.

So I have officiated commitment ceremonies that from the state's perspective is a pointless exercise. I cannot tell you how heartbreaking it is to stand in front of a couple on what should be one of the happiest days of their lives, celebrating the gift they are to one another and knowing there will be no paperwork to fill out at the end. While their commitment to one another and the loving support of their families (sometimes) and friends (always) contains the identical emotional energy of a heterosexual wedding, there remains a pervasive sense of incompleteness to the event that mars the joy if just in subtle ways at the time.

Marriage is an honored estate that humans have held in high regard for centuries. Regardless of other clan, tribe, familial structures, etc. the marriage bond was and is the cornerstorn of human relations. Whether the marriage began in capture, purchase or by mutual choice, we have always respected its integrity and shamed or punished those who violated it. Humans invest a great deal of meaning into the idea of marriage so I am not surprised by the vigor with which the misguided "defend" it. Frankly, I do not think they have much grasp over the history of the institution. Myopic might be a good word. But they are correct concerning how integral it is to our lives as social beings.

It's no accident that marriage law is contract law. Commitment is hard work and sometimes the benefits of leaving look far more attractive than the cost of staying. Marriage reverses the equation providing an impetus to working things out and staying together.

Marriage is a key relationship to pursuing spiritual maturity. It is the most intimate relationship there is. At least it should be if it's being done right. We have someone who has pledged commitment in good times and in bad. Who will support us when we are right and help us course correct when we are wrong in an atmosphere of non-judgmental trust. Yes, of course this kind of relationship can be attained without a piece of paper, but that's usually said by people who are not barred from obtaining that piece of paper if they should choose to do so. And ignores that cost-benefit reversal that comes with the piece of paper I mentioned above.

Not only does marriage impact our legal standing in our communitiy, there is a fundamental change in our social status and personal identity. While technically I am not supposed to pronounce a same gender couple to be married I do it anyway. If someone wants to sue me over it later I'm prepared for the consequences.

At its most basic level, marriage is a contract between two individuals. For marriage to exist in different cultures through many centuries, it had to be flexible. Marriage changes as society changes. Our views of marriage must keep up with the times if marriage is to continue.

In short, when I am performing a same gender commitment ceremony I am internally screaming, "It's not fair!" and when I am performing a licensed marriage ceremony I am internally screaming, "It's not fair!"

[sandnsea]

81. It's in praise of 100% rights

which were upheld today, which is a good thing by any measure. Unless my name is in the vicinity. :crazy:

[bluedawg12]

86. It's civil unions! "homosexual marriages have to be called something else."

>>But underlying that is this idea, in which I paraphrase the Court:

We now have two kinds of marriage in the state: those conducted up until the day Prop 8 passed and those conducted starting the day after it passed. For the former marriages, those conducted by both heterosexual and homosexual couples can be called marriage. For the latter marriages, heterosexual marriages can be officially called marriages and homosexual marriages -- which are still marriages in fact -- have to be called something else. So don't bother us about retroactivity; this difference between pre- and post-Prop 8 marriages is no big deal. <<


Of course marriage is no big deal just a word that went twice to the CSSC and over $100 milion dollars were spent on it.

[sandnsea]

90. Legal Rights - what is it about LEGAL RIGHTS that you refuse to acknowledge

Since my very first post I have addressed the LEGAL RIGHTS. I have repeatedly said, if you don't want the legal rights granted today, fine. Don't have them. It doesn't change the fact that they were upheld.


"Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases — that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage” (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 829). Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
By clarifying this essential point, we by no means diminish or minimize the significance that the official designation of “marriage” holds for both the proponents and opponents of Proposition 8; indeed, the importance of the marriage designation was a vital factor in the majority opinion’s ultimate holding in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757, 845-846, 855. Nonetheless, it is crucial that we accurately identify the actual effect of Proposition 8 on same-sex couples’ state constitutional rights, as those rights existed prior to adoption of the proposition, in order to be able to assess properly the constitutional challenges to the proposition advanced in the present proceeding. We emphasize only that among the various constitutional protections recognized in the Marriage Cases as 8 available to same-sex couples, it is only the designation of marriage — albeit significant — that has been removed by this initiative measure.

[bluedawg12]

95. No where does it say that there is protection of marriage benefits. NO where.

[sandnsea]

99. Wow.

That's what that entire paragraph says, most clearly in the comments bolded. You just want to be argumentative because you hate me.

[bluedawg12]

105. No sandnsea, it says nothing about marital benefits. Sit and relax.

You seem over wrought.

Here is your paragraph from today's Court opinion:

"Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases — that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage” (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 829).

--->Yes, that would be legal rights. Not benefits.

Notice the words: does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right of privacy and due process. Gee, unlike virginia perphaps?

--->Tell us what the Constitutionally based incidents of marriage are?

Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

--->That's DP they are talking about.


By clarifying this essential point, we by no means diminish or minimize the significance that the official designation of “marriage” holds for both the proponents and opponents of Proposition 8; indeed, the importance of the marriage designation was a vital factor in the majority opinion’s ultimate holding in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757, 845-846, 855.

-->Ah...marriage is important, so saith the Court.


Nonetheless, it is crucial that we accurately identify the actual effect of Proposition 8 on same-sex couples’ state constitutional rights, as those rights existed prior to adoption of the proposition, in order to be able to assess properly the constitutional challenges to the proposition advanced in the present proceeding.

We emphasize only that among the various constitutional protections recognized in the Marriage Cases as 8 available to same-sex couples, it is only the designation of marriage — albeit significant — that has been removed by this initiative measure.

--->That's what it says, they did not remove Constitutional protections.

---->NO where do they grant any benefits. No where do they or the OP in the other internet site with the"legal analysis" you cited does it mention, what I will take the liberty of reposting from sapph.

Sapphocrat (1000+ posts) Wed May-27-09 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #7
80. CU's/DP's do not grant 100% rights afforded by marriage.
I'm too exhausted and emotionally spent to go 'round and 'round on this, so don't expect a follow-up reply.

First, California has domestic partnerships, not civil unions.

What's the difference? It all depends on the state. There is no standardization. No two CU's/DP's are the same. (Also compare state income tax regulations for states with DP's/CU's. For example, until 2007, California DP's could not file jointly {now they must}, could not count earned income as common property, etc., etc.)

Second, California domestic partnership do NOT grant 100% of the rights and benefits afforded by marriage. Off the top of my head:

DP'd partners must live together; married couples are not required to;

DP's are public records, while marriage certificates may be public or private (no witnesses required, license not public record);

DP'd partners must both be over 18; minors can get married parent/guardian consent;

Married spouses of state employees are eligible for CalPERS (state long-term care insurance); DP'd partners are not;

No equivalent of "putative marriage" for DP's;

Most important in my mind:

DP's are not PORTABLE; i.e., I know my marriage is recognized by eight (yes, eight) other states & several countries (but not my own country!); a DP might or might not be recognized in another state with (or without) DP's/CU's (e.g., NY state and DC recognize SSM, even though neither offers SSM yet).

Even Connecticut ruled at one point that it did not have to recognize CU's issued in Vermont, because CT didn't have that category of CU itself. (This may still be true in CT, even though CT has marriage now; I do not know.)

Also: Just try to convince an out-of-state insurance company your "domestic partnership" or "civil union" is the same thing as a marriage when trying to get your partner on your employer's health insurance, when the insurance company limits coverage to your "spouse" and your "spouse" only. (Don't take my word for it -- ask CU'd partners in New Jersey about that.)

Also: I believe that even if DoMA were struck down, no state would have to recognize a DP/CU performed in another state; I believe DoMA concerns itself only with marriage. (Someone should double-check that.)

Bottom line: Rights & benefits granted by DP's/CU's are guaranteed valid only within the state of origin.

Finally, please READ the court's In Re Marriages opinion, which boils down to: "Words do matter." In fact, those three little words are in the decision; if you read the opinion, you will understand -- even if you ignore everything else I listed above -- why the word "marriage" does matter.

Here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070104224231/http://www.co...

Pardon my brusqueness. I have been through this discussion more times than I can count, and it infuriates me that anyone with even a casual interest in this matter can still say: "It's the same thing, except for one little word -- what are you complaining about?"

Everyone else, please bookmark this post so you can expand on it later when you face this discussion again -- which you will, repeatedly and endlessly.

For the record:

Marriage: MA, CT, IA, VT, ME

CU's (rights/benefits vary): NJ, CT, NH (last soon to change to marriage, we hope); also VT still has

DP's (rights/benefits vary): CA, OR, WA, HI, DC; also ME still has

No marriage, but marriage recognized: NY, RI, DC

Married August 9, 2008. Official Second-Class Citizen, November 4, 2008

[Sapphocrat]

80. CU's/DP's do not grant 100% rights afforded by marriage.

I'm too exhausted and emotionally spent to go 'round and 'round on this, so don't expect a follow-up reply.

First, California has domestic partnerships, not civil unions.

What's the difference? It all depends on the state. There is no standardization. No two CU's/DP's are the same. (Also compare state income tax regulations for states with DP's/CU's. For example, until 2007, California DP's could not file jointly {now they must}, could not count earned income as common property, etc., etc.)

Second, California domestic partnership do NOT grant 100% of the rights and benefits afforded by marriage. Off the top of my head:

DP'd partners must live together; married couples are not required to;

DP's are public records, while marriage certificates may be public or private (no witnesses required, license not public record);

DP'd partners must both be over 18; minors can get married parent/guardian consent;

Married spouses of state employees are eligible for CalPERS (state long-term care insurance); DP'd partners are not;

No equivalent of "putative marriage" for DP's;

Most important in my mind:

DP's are not PORTABLE; i.e., I know my marriage is recognized by eight (yes, eight) other states & several countries (but not my own country!); a DP might or might not be recognized in another state with (or without) DP's/CU's (e.g., NY state and DC recognize SSM, even though neither offers SSM yet).

Even Connecticut ruled at one point that it did not have to recognize CU's issued in Vermont, because CT didn't have that category of CU itself. (This may still be true in CT, even though CT has marriage now; I do not know.)

Also: Just try to convince an out-of-state insurance company your "domestic partnership" or "civil union" is the same thing as a marriage when trying to get your partner on your employer's health insurance, when the insurance company limits coverage to your "spouse" and your "spouse" only. (Don't take my word for it -- ask CU'd partners in New Jersey about that.)

Also: I believe that even if DoMA were struck down, no state would have to recognize a DP/CU performed in another state; I believe DoMA concerns itself only with marriage. (Someone should double-check that.)

Bottom line: Rights & benefits granted by DP's/CU's are guaranteed valid only within the state of origin.

Finally, please READ the court's In Re Marriages opinion, which boils down to: "Words do matter." In fact, those three little words are in the decision; if you read the opinion, you will understand -- even if you ignore everything else I listed above -- why the word "marriage" does matter.

Here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070104224231/http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A110449.PDF

Pardon my brusqueness. I have been through this discussion more times than I can count, and it infuriates me that anyone with even a casual interest in this matter can still say: "It's the same thing, except for one little word -- what are you complaining about?"

Everyone else, please bookmark this post so you can expand on it later when you face this discussion again -- which you will, repeatedly and endlessly.

For the record:

Marriage: MA, CT, IA, VT, ME

CU's (rights/benefits vary): NJ, CT, NH (last soon to change to marriage, we hope); also VT still has

DP's (rights/benefits vary): CA, OR, WA, HI, DC; also ME still has

No marriage, but marriage recognized: NY, RI, DC

[sandnsea]

84. You didn't read today's decision than either

Because it very cleary overturned everthing you said. Gay couples are granted all the rights, just not the word.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/26/735571/-Read-page-36.-They-just-cut-Prop-8-to-the-bone.

[bluedawg12]

92. Show us where and stop posting a link to a page, show us where

in that text you see that.

[sandnsea]

94. How damn many times?

"Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases — that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage” (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 829). Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
By clarifying this essential point, we by no means diminish or minimize the significance that the official designation of “marriage” holds for both the proponents and opponents of Proposition 8; indeed, the importance of the marriage designation was a vital factor in the majority opinion’s ultimate holding in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757, 845-846, 855. Nonetheless, it is crucial that we accurately identify the actual effect of Proposition 8 on same-sex couples’ state constitutional rights, as those rights existed prior to adoption of the proposition, in order to be able to assess properly the constitutional challenges to the proposition advanced in the present proceeding. We emphasize only that among the various constitutional protections recognized in the Marriage Cases as 8 available to same-sex couples, it is only the designation of marriage — albeit significant — that has been removed by this initiative measure/b].

[bluedawg12]

97. OMG! They didn't strip Constitutional rights that's all that says.

It says nothing about marital benefits.

[sandnsea]

100. The Constitutional rights granted through marriage

Which I know you are not so stupid as to not understand. So petty, apparently, but not so stupid.

[bluedawg12]

103. Benefits - again Benefits as explained to you in great detail by Sapphocrat.

Listen, sandnsea, I think you are in over your head and you are selling something you don't even comprehend.

While you are a bit slow, there may be some usefullness to this whole conversation in that people can get a better idea of the issues.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluedawg12]

107. Your Consitutional rights are not the same as getting your spouses Soc Security benefits.

"...and also what an ass you are.- sandnsea "

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluedawg12]

110. It's an example of a benefit you were given many, many for California.

"...which further indicates the lengths you will go to be an ass.-sandnsea." :rofl:

[sandnsea]

111. Did gay couples have it as a benefit last year? n/t

[Sapphocrat]

114. Personal attacks.

A common last resort.

But then, I'm not surprised. You and I have gone 'round and 'round like this for years.

[sandnsea]

117. So,do you have social security benefits?

Because if you do, gay couple will still get them in California. And if you don't, you still won't. Either way it was an irrelevant point brought up in order to confuse the issues, something an ass would do.

It'll soon be settled since Debois and Olson are going to challenge gay marriage at the federal level. In order for it to go to the federal courts, the State Supreme Court will have to clarify the rights it upheld today. So we'll soon see.

[bluedawg12]

120. But civil unions are not the ultimate goal.

Equality is the goal, and we expect everyone here to support that goal. Equality means marriage for gays and straights.

[sandnsea]

121. Who said civil unions are the goal?

Time after time after time, I'm referring to LEGAL RIGHTS. Are you married in California? That was the question.

[bluedawg12]

125. Equality means marriage for gays and straights. n/t

[Sapphocrat]

122. What in the bloody hell are you talking about?

No same-sex, married couple has Social Security benefits in this country. Social Security benefits are federal.

I never brought up SS benefits.

And you're calling me intellectually dishonest, and an ass?

You'd best stop now -- you've already proved you are way out of your league.

And rather than let you destroy my evening, which is following a completely fucked-up day, I will sign off. You are wasting my time with your red herrings.

[sandnsea]

126. BlueDawg12 brought up social security benefits

And I said the exact same thing you just did, red herring, and only an ass would confuse the subject by bringing it up.

So who is intellectually dishonest? Oh yeah, BlueDawg12, and she's also an ass.

Have a nice evening with all of your marital rights intact. Hopefully by morning you will see how important it is to safe those rights immediately, while letting Olson fight for the word.

[bluedawg12]

129. Having explained for the 100th time the difference between legal rights and benefits

I used the following as an example.

No one said, sandnsea, the soc security was a State benefit and you do know that.

bluedawg12 (1000+ posts) Wed May-27-09 02:05 AM
Response to Reply #106
107. Your Consitutional rights are not the same as getting your spouses Soc Security benefits.

[sandnsea]

131. Tell it to The Atlantic

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5727094

I'm done with you.

[bluedawg12]

132. What you have been shilling all along: while upholding gay civil union rights.

No surprise there.

[NMMNG]

123. Oh FFS

GLBT people, who are in a much better position to know what their rights are and are not, are repeatedly telling you that Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions are not the same thing as Marriage no matter how anybody tries to spin it. Why the hell can't you just listen instead of trying to rub salt into our wounds on this, of all days?

[sandnsea]

128. Because that is NOT what California just decided

FFS. They decided the rights granted by marriage MUST be given to everybody equally. I've posted the exact quote, repeatedly.

[bluedawg12]

130. Rights are not the same as benefits. To be clear "legal rights."

[Sapphocrat]

93. I read it.

And nowhere do I see any of the above issues addressed -- particularly the issue of portability.

[sandnsea]

96. Between states?

In California, any couple coming into the state has the rights granted by marriage.

[bluedawg12]

109. Obviously you don't give a damn about insurance matters for us gays do you?

>>Just try to convince an out-of-state insurance company your "domestic partnership" or "civil union" is the same thing as a marriage when trying to get your partner on your employer's health insurance, when the insurance company limits coverage to your "spouse" and your "spouse" only. (Don't take my word for it -- ask CU'd partners in New Jersey about that.) sapphocrat<<

Instead, you chose to play possum, "oh any couple coming into the state has the rights granted by marriage."

BTW- It seems, she meant leaving Cailfornia and say moving to Mass. not married with your second class citizen status of DP's, worth nothing.

[sandnsea]

112. That's what the State Insurance Commission is for

It's quite common to have to argue with insurance companies to get them to cover things mandated by your state that are not mandated in the state where the insurance company is chartered. No difference here.

[bluedawg12]

115. No difference at all for str8 married people like you. Privilege has it's perks.

[bluedawg12]

98. Of course not- she confuses legal rights with marriage benefits!

What a waste of time.

[Creideiki]

113. There's one more

Designated Beneficiary (no, I did not make that shit up): CO

Extremely limited benefits, mostly in transitioning property in case of death.

There was a CU bill last election cycle, but the good "Christians" voted it down and then put an amendment into the CO Constitution that no "marriage but the name" is allowed in Colorado.

[bluedawg12]

118. You mean "marriage" has legal status as if it were a special right?

Must be reserved for very special people and not Teh Gays.

[Creideiki]

124. Very special straight people only--

especially if they get drunk on a weekend in Las Vegas and wake up with a ring on their fingers. Yup.

[RufusH]

89. Were you raised in a barn?

You should remove your muddy shoes before treading that shit on your soles all over this forum.

It's astounding that gay people can't get one little day free from the condescension.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

119. Please, tell me what legal rights were granted today

[bluedawg12]

3. Thank you, excellent and you know what your are talking about.

This is your area of expertise.

It never was marriage, a choice between civil and religious. Separate tracks.

They took away the right of a certain class of citizens to be "married." While at the same time stating that the word marriage had importance. Of course it does. It is a lost legal right now, as of today, in California.

It matters.

Because the word marriage is significant in our society:

"By clarifying this essential point, we by no means diminish or minimize the significance that the official designation of "marriage" holds for both the proponents and opponents of Proposition 8; indeed, the importance of the marriage designation was a vital factor in the majority opinion's ultimate holding in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757, 845-846, 855."

Remember well this day. What goes around comes around.

Karma is a bitch. :grr:

[AntiFascist]

26. That part of the ruling is schizophrenic....

it's like they are throwing their hands in the air and saying "we don't want to deal with this". They are begging for us to take it back to the ballot box and get it passed next time.

[bluedawg12]

40. AF- It's a total contradiction having 3 classes of couples

but this just came out a few hours ago and I suspect there will be plenty for us to read and discuss as we get our hands on the full ruling because I agree, they punted and their ruling is schizophrenic.

besides, I understand that the RRW has plans to appeal the 18,000 married gay coupes to annul them!

[Midlodemocrat]

49. +1

[Mike 03]

27. Excellent post, and I agree and don't understand how any judicial body can see this

any differently.

It is just hard to even comprehend.

[sandnsea]

32. It was the assinine way it was argued

It was argued on procedures, not civil rights. I don't understand why they chose to argue the validity of the initiative process, but that's what they did. They didn't argue it on the basis of voting for civil rights.

[Mike 03]

57. Thank you for the help in understanding this. I appreciate it. NT

[bluedawg12]

66. Because the Court stipulated what was to be brought before them, that's why.

[sandnsea]

67. Maybe because the civil rights were never in question?

Since they so very clearly upheld them?

[Pacifist Patriot]

70. I agree the arguments were procedural with the exception of...

Jerry Brown's, but if you believe civil rights were never in question you woefully misunderstand the essence of what has happened because of this procedural ruling. And yes, I've read legal arguments on all sides today. They are available in abundance.

[sandnsea]

77. I believe people thought civil rights were in question

I believe the CA Supreme Court stepped right around that and upheld the rights while allowing an amendment on a word.

[bluedawg12]

102. People weren't confused in DU GLBT - we discussed this days ago.

The court issued an order to show cause in Strauss, Tyler, and City and County of San Francisco directing the parties to brief and argue the following issues:

(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (See Cal. Const., art. XVIII, §§ 1–4.)

(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?

(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?


http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/SF052609.PDF
............

Posting my reply:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=132734&mesg_id=132791

bluedawg12 (1000+ posts) Sun May-24-09 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #12
22. True, they limited it in focus since they already ruled on this matter.
Funny, however, that I heard bits of arguments go far beyond whether the form of PropHate8 was correct or not.

I hope and pray for a "nay" vote, as well.

..........

[bluedawg12]

79. The much vaunted "legal analysis" dismisses the point of the fight for marriage

and pushes the separate but equal idea. Funny that.

>>" It does not say that any provision of California law that invokes the label marriage does not also apply to these "civil unions" or whatever we call them -- how about "marrijezz"? -- that same-sex couples will henceforth undertake." yuk yuk "marrijezz"? << daily kos

Not an institution with meaning, just a set of legal rights. yuk yuk.

>>"It does not even say that these legal relationship aren't marriages. It just says that the voters decided that in California, if they occurred after a certain date, we aren't going to call them that."<< daily kos
har har--

[bluedawg12]

76. Go back to the OP - marriage is not "marrijezz" yuk, yuk.

The word means something. You're shilling CU's.

[LostinVA]

127. For the record: Paciifist Patriot officiated at my and Haruka's wedding

She asked if she could do it, and did it gratis. We are honored to have her signature on our license. She is a Unitarian minister for a Welcoming Congregation, and is a fierce advocate of gay rights, in a state where many people aren't. She is intelligent, funny, kind, and a shining example of what a straight ally should be.

[bluedawg12]

133. If it were 101% the same rights AND benefits - separate is not equal.

It never will be.