California high court expected to rule on same-sex marriage
The California Supreme Court is expected to determine the fate of same-sex marriage in the state today as well as the validity of about 18,000 same-sex marriages.
The court will rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the controversial measure banning same-sex marriage that voters approved in November.
Its opponents want the amendment nullified. They say the proposition alters California's Constitution and, therefore, under state law, is a revision that requires a constitutional convention.
Attorneys for the opponents also say the proposition, which removed the "marriage" label from same-sex unions, effectively deprives same-sex couples of a fundamental right guaranteed them under the equal-protection clause in the U.S. Constitution.
Proposition 8 passed with about 52.5 percent of the vote, making California one of several states to ban same-sex marriage in the November 4 elections. But unlike others, California had been issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples since the state Supreme Court ruled in May 2008 that the unions were legal.
Along with determining the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the court will determine whether about 18,000 same-sex marriages conducted before the ban are still valid.
Updates posted as soon as they're available.
(Via CNN)
Comments
What if there is a man who cannot produce sperm, and therefore cannot procreate, or a woman who has had a hysterectomy? What about them, is there someone telling those people that they cannot be married? No. How will it affect you, if two loving individuals want to show their commitment to each other by marrying one another? There can never be too much love in the world. You need to open your mind, go meet some GLBT individuals, and find out the heartache laws like this cause! It's not right, if 2 people are in love, why can't they get married? It's not going to make YOUR marriage any different! -Cindy
Well then, revoke the marriages of people who don't have children, can't have children, or don't want children. Deny old people the right to marry.
I'm so sick of religious bigots having the right to DICTATE what is allowed in this country. You know what you can do with your religion!!
It's a sick day in this country when bigotry and homophobia is declared LEGAL!!
Historically law tends to be based on "the norm", not the exceptions. What you cite regarding procreation falls on the side of exceptions. As does homosexuality - it is the exception, rather than the norm. Laws should be based on the norm, not exceptions.
You make a good point about love. Love is good and there is no problem with any one person loving another. At the root of this debate is "a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex" [e.g. the definition of homsexuality]. Numerous (not all) supporters of homosexuality want full acceptance of a behavior they feel/know the larger public doesn't approve of. Hence, this issue is clouded with claims of homosexuality == love. Not true. Homosexuality == sex with someone of the same sex. Period.
There is more at stake than just whether any one couple can be married. The issue goes much deeper into changing fundamental laws and observances that _can_ impact those of us concerned. Especially children who rely on the rest of us. Research it. Not enough space here.
To Anonymous @ May 26, 1'41 PM. - I'm glad you are happy. Acting as you are doesn't and will not will you any supporters from the opposing side. It actually demonstates just how immature you really are regarding this debate. The same goes for anyone who crows over opposition to homosexuality
~Rodney
"Numerous (not all) supporters of homosexuality want full acceptance of a behavior they feel/know the larger public doesn't approve of."
Really? People want their rights PERIOD!!
You don't have a right to APPROVE of what anyone else does. I'm heterosexual and quite frankly, you make me sick!!
So in this context, I would like to propose that marriages between the same sexes and between opposite sexes must be recognized and given equal rights. Just the way the minorities such as colored people and women were given equal rights, so should they be given the rights enjoyed by any married couple. However, the term marriage should be associated between a man and a woman and we should come up with some new word for gay marriage like garriage or larriage for lesbians. This is just an example. This way marriage, garriage and larriage will be parallel in terms of rights but different in its meaning.
I agree Tenzin!! Same sex marriage and "opposite sex" marriage should be treated equally. If same sex marriages aren't legal, then all marriages should be declared illegal!!
I find it interesting that you are so quick to lump me into the large group of people you don't like by labling me "Bigot"...without even knowing who I am or what I stand for. Perhaps you should review the definition of "bigot": prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.
You lashing out at me for my comments labels you more a bigot than I. Apparently my arguements upset you. Rather than coherently counter argue you label me. Seems pretty intolerant, doesn't it. Who is the larger bigot? Who is prejudging who, ParisL0ve2?
Instead of name calling, why don't you offer a decent counter-point to how allowing homosexual marraige does/does not harm children. Can you think of one without resorting to name calling?
Here is an idea for you - put your emotions aside and present a rational arguement FOR homosexual marriage. Do you have rational reasons? Why does the "children" arguement sicken you so? What part of a parent wanting to raise his children in a manner he deems appropriate makes you so red with rage? You are very much for demanding equal rights, priveledges and benefits for homosexuals. Why does it bother you that there are those of us who wish to do the same with out childrem?
Who is denying whose rights now? Who is being so biggoted no, ParisL0ve2?
Please, spares us your raging and try to prove that you are intelligent with cohesive arguements to prove your point.
~Rodney
Good point, but I don't know if the homosexual (supporting) groups will go for anything less than full-blown equality all lumped under "marriage". Many of them were not content with civil unions, even though they gained nearly all, if not all the same rights as marriage in those states that grant civil unions.
There are those of us who are concerned because it seems like (many of) the homoosexual groups don't just want the rights and priviledges, but full blown acceptance from everyone as well. and they seem to be willing to go to great lengths to force it on everyone.
- Civil unions were created to address the issue of marital "rights". many groups were not satisfied becuase even though the rights were near identical, the labels were different.
- Homosexual supporters aren't content with letting the public decide. I canot recall a single public vote that the homosexual groups have not tried to challenge in court.
- Those same groups are trying to equate sexual acts & behaviors with skin color, gender and (in some cases) Hitler. They are quite good at avoiding the fact that sexual acts are CHOICES that everyone makes, not pre-destined physical traits.
How long will it be before homosexual groups (not all, just some) start forcing everyone to accept their behavior by the point of a stick (law)? It hasn't happened yet, but so far there doesn't seem to be any slowing down and being content with getting what they originally wanted...
Your idea has merit, but I predict that the homosexual groups in general will reject it as not going far enough.
Now I'll sit back and wait for ParisL0ve2 to weigh in on my beliefs, affiliations, attitudes and other personal traits he/she seems to know so much about.
~Rodney