Traditional marriage dealt a blow today in California

In a blow to traditional marriage, California's gay marriage ban has been overturned today by the state's top court.

So for all of you out there who still buy the argument that a Marriage Amendment in Indiana is redundant, there is no more room to hide.  Also note the quote at the end of the article (emphasis added).  Apparently, activists in California fully intend to use this decision to force other states to recognize gay marriages.

We told you so.  But this is one time I wish we would have been wrong.

But alas, some folks like Pat Bauer and Terri Austin will still try to make the case that our docile gay marriage proponents in Indiana would never think of trying (again) to overturn our laws.  Pat Bauer may trust them, but I don't.   This strategy is sure to be used in Indiana (again) to attempt to overturn our law through the only means available to gay marriage supporters- the courts.  Because we are without a marriage amendment, we may soon be hostage to the same court system that banned the word "Jesus" from the Statehouse.

California's Top Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision.

"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," the court wrote.

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march.

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco. (emphasis mine).

Comments

[Kenn Gividen]

You told us so.

If a legally bound gay couple move to Indiana from California, are they still married?

If they decide to get divorced, can they acquire a divorce in Indiana? Or must they file in California?

If California, does the California court or the Indiana court have jurisdiction over property disputes, alimony?

If they adopt children in California, is the adoption recognized in Indiana?

[Don Sherfick]

Kurt, I know of course that you and your colleagues will continue to play down the very substantial and controlling differences in the way the Indiana Supreme Court in the Collins versus Day precedent that was cited in the Indiana Court of Appeals decision in the Morrison case upolding existing indiana law. That is good spin riling up emotions along the cultural divide, but is simply not a reflection of what even "conservative" jurists have concluded concerning the state of Indiana jurisprudence. I truly wish that Veritas Rex would be true enough to its claimed reverence for the truth to acknowledge those differences and not simply denounce our courts as liberal "unelected activist judges", as you are prone to do. I honestly believe that you and your folks honestly believe that same-sex marriage or civil unions are bad public policy decisions for Indiana, and you are entitled, as are we all, to participate in the legislative process with respect to those issues. But I continue to be disappointed at your participation in what are simply patently false representations concerning established Indiana jurisprudence.

[Don Sherfick]

And by the way, Kurt, what's the nonsense concerning "the same court system that banned the word "Jesus" from the Statehouse." ???? The latter was a FEDERAL court decision. The justices of the INDIANA STATE COURT system were in no way involved. Ryan and Sue and Micah Clark have been very quick to chastize me for not appreciating their claimed (and just plain wrong) distinctions between state and federal jurisprudence in dealing with the language of SJR7 common to the Federal Marriage Amendment. You seem quite incapable of being accurate with respect to that matter yourself. I think they loan elementary constitutioal law books out at the library downtown. If you're by that way, it might be of benefit to crack one of them......even halfway.

[Fiat Lux]

I know the opinion is long, but go ahead and give it a read before you start suggesting Indiana courts would do the same...

The California Supreme Court did NOT say that a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional; it said that BECAUSE the state offers "Domestic Partnerships" with all the rights and priveleges of Marriage, just by another name, that the USE of a different name is what is unconstitutional.

In other words, the "white water fountain" next to the "black water fountain" is unconstitutional regardless of the fact that they both offer the same water.

[Kurt Luidhardt]

The fact is clear that gay marriage proponents want it both ways. They want (1) to challenge our assertion that gay marriage should be illegal using both the legislative process and in the courts and (2) suggest that we don't need a marriage amendment because our law will never be overturned. That's a dubious argument that relies on both a total suspension of logic- and naivety from traditional marriage supporters.

It's amazing how gay activists can both praise the California decision for delivering on their goals and chastise the pro-family movement for holding it up as a consequence of complacency.

As for Don's attempts to cast dispersions for dubious reasons... my point is still strong. It is that our courts have not been a friend to conservatives recently. I don't trust them with the fate of traditional marriage. Our elected officials who understand that they answer to a largely pro-family constituency are more likely to do what's right in this situation.

And Fiat Lux, your post is ridiculous. It doesn't matter why the court overturned marriage- just that it was overturned. The fact remains that in CA there is no difference now between marriage between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

[Don Sherfick]

Fiat Lux makes a valid point about the California Supreme Court is dealing with having both civil union laws as well as marriage laws, which of course is not true in Indiana. Even if Indiana did, the fact that its jurisprudence enshrines a low-level rational basis test instead of the opposite-level strict scrutiny California test would mean that, just as in the Morrison case, the court would bow to any kind of legislative determination that there was a good reason for having both marriages and civil unions.

Perhaps more importantly, the proponents of SJR7 insisted that the Indiana legislature could enact even "full" civil unions if it so desired, and Sue Swazee and others have continued to echo that, while still saying (as is their right) that civil unions are not good public policy and they would be against such legislation. I commend Sue for at least bucking some of her colleagues in wanting to make sure that the legislative process would still be CAPABLE of producing even things she disagreed with, and trust that she won't now abandon those democratic principles. When and if (as I strongly suspect will happen) IFI and others bring back some form of the defeated amendment, it should be an easy task, if the California situation still is bothersome, to plainly state that having both civil unions and marriage would remain within the power of the General Assembly.

Hopefully the day of offering language first, before clearly developing and articulating what the underlying policy is, is now past. All are served when words used in any law, and especially constitutional provisions touching the contours of Article I's Bill of Rights, are crystal clear, so that ultimately legislators, voters, and judges don't have to guess. But I ought not to have to point that out. "Let Me Vote" is a hollow slogan indeed unless the Truth pervades the process. And the sorry specticle in Michigan where some of your ideological colleagues insisted their amendment meant one thing in order to sell it to the public, and then going 180 degrees in "bait and switch" maneuver when they got to court after passage, is something that I trust IFI would have no part in.

[Chris Douglas]

Look, I don't care what the courts say or don't say.

You folks have no business telling the rest of us who can and can't marry.

Kenn, you ask provocative questions.. by which I mean questions that will provoke the ugly responses we are accustomed to seeing here. You've made your own position clear now.. that the government needs to get out of the business of deciding who can and cannot marry. So long as both are consenting adults, it's nobody else's business. I agree.

So, now, according to a poll by Pew in 2007, do 53% of Americans under the age of 30 who support legalizing same sex marriage, compared to 38% who oppose. Even among Republicans, less than a majority favor a marriage amendment. And 75% of Americans under the age of 34 think homosexuality should be an accepted alternative lifestyle, as do 1 out of 3 Republicans and 2 out of 3 independents. (Thats doesn't mean more homosexuals... it means more acceptance.)

In his meeting with the Indianapolis Star in 2004, Senator Lugar called the push for a constitutional amendment the product of a "narrow constituency with a strong agenda."

By the way, 77% of Republicans according to a poll in 2007 by Republican Fabrizio believe employers should have no right to fire someone based on their sexual orientation, a view shared by 89% of Americans.

In my opinion, it is time for the Indiana Family Institute to gays alone. Enough with your crusade against your fellow citizens. It is profoundly damaging, and I believe directly responsible for the spike in suicide rates in 2004.

This is great news. An even better day will be when republicans finally kick the loser idea of an amendment to the constitution to the curb and get back to their roots of limited government.

[Kenn Gividen]

Chris,

My position is that government should not license families, marriages, parents, etc. (Next thing you know they'll be requiring us to carry around GPS trackable Real ID cards. Grin.)

The questions are raised due to the recent ruling by Rhode Island's top court (December 2007) that a same-sex couples married in Massachusetts could not legally divorce in Rhode Island.

The questions need to be answered and, without legal precedent, I don't know if they can be answered.

[Kenn Gividen]

Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, issued a response today to the court's decision:

http://www.alaskareport.com/news58/x61243_barr_marriage.htm

Hysteria alert, hysteria alert! LOL.

[bilerico]

This is why I stopped reading Veritas Rex - false advertising. The truth is never King; spin is King here. I'm very disappointed that Kurt would claim to follow God's footsteps while treading (most dangerously) on the path of the Great Deceiver.

For example, you pulled a quote out of context to highlight in the post. If you'd stopped your knee-jerk reaction, you'd realize that the City Attorney is referencing the fact that anyone worldwide can come to California to be married. Somehow you've twisted "Anyone can come here for equal treatment under the law" into "We'll take over the WORLD!" *cue sinister Snively Whippersnit laugh*

And why is it wrong for LGBT people "to challenge our assertion that gay marriage should be illegal using both the legislative process and in the courts"? Are we not due the same American principles that you are? Are we to be denied access to the legislature and the courts? Should we just sit down and learn our place? Perhaps you'd like to count each of us as 3/4 of a person? I hear voting is highly over-rated too; after all, if you denied us access to the ballot box too, you'd win a lot more elections! Because your side, of course, should have access to the legislature and courts. (Or this blog and organization wouldn't exist!)

And poor Conservatives. The Court hasn't been kind to them lately. *sobs* It can't be the actual Court being talked about - the CA Supreme Court; we're not in California! So Kurt must be talking about recent rulings lately. Let's see what Rep Jackie Walorski has to say about court cases lately on her blog...

"Does anybody else see a pattern here? In just a few short months, the ACLU & their Democratic friends have filed several suits including, "Prayer" at the Statehouse, the "In God We Trust" license plate, and now the "Voter ID" law...ALL of which were ruled in OUR favor!!" http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/blogspot/PDmC/~3/279672266/common-sense-prevails.html

Apparently Kurt thinks Ms. Walorski is a liar.

And then we turn to Kurt's complete rejection of the facts. He tells one commenter, "It doesn't matter why the court overturned marriage- just that it was overturned." I'd hate to see that big word "why" startle Kurt into a mindless automaton, so I'll help him out:

The "why" is important to these things called judges, Kurt. If something is against the law at Point A but not at Point B, someone can't charge someone from B with breaking A's laws. WHY? Because that's how the law works, Kurt. Indiana activists won't be able to use CA's ruling to overturn IN's. WHY? Because that's how the law works, Kurt. It's hard to base an Indiana decision on a domestic partnership law that CA has.

At least when Ryan debates the issue he tries to stick with these things called "facts." While he might twist them to fit his purpose, at least he doesn't blatantly say, "I don't care about these things called laws or facts or reasons. My opinion should be EVERYONE'S laws and facts and reasons! Truth? Who needs it. Kurt is King."

[Kenn Gividen]

Gay agenda:

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law..."

[J.D.]

Well,if all goes as predicted, California will be cease to exist once "global warming" has finally taken its toll.

The question on my mind is whether we can hold out?

[Chris Douglas]

Borrowing on your quote, Kenn, calling the following the "gay agenda."

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law..."

One would think that would be the agenda of every American.

[Kenn Gividen]

We're back to licensing alternative families including polygamous and group marriages.

There's a religious cult in New Mexico known as Strong City where the leader, apparently, has seven wives. (By coincidence all seven appear young and attractive. What are the chances?) It parallels the Davidians in that it is a splinter from the Seventh Day Adventists and predicts a doomsday. It wouldn't surprise me if they group winds up in a Heaven's Gate-style group suicide pact.

Should this arrangement have equal access under the law?

A more logical avenue to achieve equality would be to end licensing.

Link: http://strongcity.info/LOR/sc/post/experiencing_the_finished_work/P50/

[Chris Douglas]

Either way, Kenn. Every American everywhere in the U.S. should enjoy the equal protections of the law. It is our Constitutional right, a human right.

[Kenn Gividen]

One of the errors made by many conservative-evangelicals is the notion that bad behavior (or "sinful" in their view) should be outlawed. They have a difficult time grasping the concept that outlawed behavior is outside the law where it cannot be regulated.

Most common example is drugs legalization.

When some people first learn that I subscribe to libertarian views, they immediately began lecturing me on the evils and dire consequences of drug abuse. (When I ran for governor four years ago, I was the only candidate who never used marijuana or alcohol.)

However, when drugs are outlawed they are consigned outside the law where there is no regulation. (Oddly, they are called "controlled" substances.) In reality the only law is "don't get caught."

Dangerous non-subscription drugs need to be regulated but they CAN'T be regulated because they are outside the law where there is no regulation.

That's a round about way of explaining the folly of government over-stepping its authority to protect us from ourselves. No licensing would be in the best interest of all of us.

Will that said, consider SJR-7 is an effort to prohibit licensure. Would that not fit the libertarian paradigm?

[Don Sherfick]

Kenn: How in the world could SJR7 as it was written have been "an effort to prohibit licensure"? What words in there do you see that lead you to that conclusion? You're seeing something that that certainly doesn't catch my eye. I don't see how the issuance of marriage licenses to opposite sex couples would have been impacted one bit. But I'm willing to listen to your explanation.

[Kenn Gividen]

"I don't see how the issuance of marriage licenses to opposite sex couples would have been impacted one bit."

It would not impact marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples on bit.

It would prohibit licenses to same-sex couples.

Suppose there was an SRJ-8, a constitutional ammendment that prohibited taxation on same-gender couples? It would be unfair to "normal" couples. Is SJR-7 also unfair to "normal" couples by forcing them to acquire licenses?

Yeah, I know, forced licensure has it's privileges. But it also has it's faults.

Corporations are offering verbal-contracted domestic partners the same benefits as licensed couples. Individuals are granted the right to adopt children.

[Don Sherfick]

Kenn, all I said was that your comment said SJR7 "prohibited licensure", period. You made no distinction between licenses for heterosexuals and same-sex couples. My friend, you are playing cutesy word games again in your response rather that being logical. You can do better than that.

[Kenn Gividen]

Suppose there were an SJR-8, a constitutional amendment that prohibits taxation on same-gender couples? It would be unfair to "normal" couples. Is SJR-7 also unfair to "normal" couples by forcing them to acquire marriage licenses?

The point: SJR-7 proposes an amendment that would limit licensure. Traditionally, libertarians oppose licensure. It would follow that libertarians would support SJR-7 as a limitation on government.

Obviously, most libertarians will bristle at that conclusion, but it has merit nonetheless.

Ideally?

Government intrusion into families is simply wrong. Conservative (self included) rail at the prospect of requiring parents to be licensed to have children. Why, then, do we not rail at the prospect of requiring men to be licensed to have wives; or wives to be licensed to have husbands?

Proposal: SJR-9 - An extension of SJR-7 that would prohibit government licensure of any marriages.

Your thoughts?

[Don Sherfick]

Kenn: I first apologize for my too quick-on-the-draw and overly flip "cutsey word games" response above. I sometimes tend to forget that you add an extra dimension to the debate concerning the public policy issues surrounding SJR7 (which I think has become a generic term for "Indiana Marriage Protection Amendment", whether or not it is the exact text of the defeated measure or some differently appearing reincarnation....ooops...I used a bad word on this site, but you know what I mean. That extra dimension is your Libertarian view concerning reducing the the very minimum the interference of government into the lives of its citizens.

In general, I would say that the licensure requriement, be it for marriage, civil unions, gun carrying, or to practice the art of plumbing ought not to discriminate on the basis of whether one's preference for the same or opposite gender.

You seem to suggest that equality under the law could just as well be achieved if neither opposite sex nor same sex couples were required to have licenses to enter into a legally sanctioned "union" (hopefully we won't have to argue over what a "union" is......before I retired I was a management guy....I think the term also applies to what plumbers use to connect two pipes). Oooops, Sorry Kurt, I'll stay on topic.)

I guess I have mixed or at least incompletely formed views as to whether or not the state ought to be completely out of the "union" recognition/licensing business. I find myself agreeing with that the thought of requiring one to have a license to have a child is abhorrant and reminiscent of the "one child" limitation which I understand is still in effect in China, although I can see the government saying that it will not recognize tax exemptions for an unlimited number of dependents. Licensing connotes government "permission" to join in marriage or otherwise, and that does seem to interfere with the "right to marry", however expansive as to one might define it.

I would find it an interesting discussion to pursue, not necessarily as it relates to SJR7, on your own site rather than clutter up this VR thread. I think there may be a difference between the concept of "licensing" and concepts of how one confirms one's status for purposes of the administration of such things as intestate succession laws, and a number of other things that involve (rightly or wrongly as we might agree or disagree) government benefits, imposition of obligations, and the like. My head hurts a bit thinking about the scope of that.

I propose we postpone SJR10 and above for another day.

[Kenn Gividen]

"I guess I have mixed or at least incompletely formed views as to whether or not the state ought to be completely out of the "union" recognition/licensing business."

I prefer the George-and-Martha marriage: Two people enter into a verbal contract. End of story.

The opted to invite guests as witnesses that would validate the contract. The church may have granted recognition; the church's prerogative. Others who wish to consider the couple married may do so; those who don't may do the same as none were party to the agreement.

The government's role is judicial.

If two same-gendered individuals wish to enter into a contract, they may do so. I should not be required by law to recognize that agreement as I was not party to it; nor should my business.

BTW - Most libertarians I know oppose SJR-7, if, for no other reason, they haven't thought it through.

Cluttering VR is a favorite pasttime.

[Don Sherfick]

Kenn: "The government's role is judicial", which I read as "only role". Two questions:

1. I assume that means that it's there as a forum for the parties to enforce whatever contract they may have governing the relationship. Would it still provide a form of "model default contract", such as the intestate or spousal support laws?

2. I also assume that means the government would not be in the benefit granting business stemming from the relatsionship. For example, no such thing as filing jointly or separately. (I guess that would mean no "marriage penalty.)

It almost sounds as if there would be no "legal incidents of marriage" other than those flowing between he parties and governed by their contract.

"Cluttering VR is a favorite pasttime"

I won't go there. Cluttering is in the eye of the clutterer.